"It points out the hypocrisy of certain religions." axeman _______________________________________ A broad brushstroke wouldn't you say? In nearly every religion there are people who can be right with God, you can't condemn everyone in a religion unless you condemn every religion.
In fact, it's such a well known fallacy, it has it's own name. "Poisoning the well". axeman ____________________________________ Pride, at least accordign to the definitions I gave from webster, is the poisoner of the well.
Are your ignoring the word CERTAIN on purpose, or what? How can you say this is a broad stroke? I also never claimed that we should condemn all catholics because some priests butt fucked some little kids But we can condemn the church for the cover up. peace axeman
No it is not, because my debate opponent is NOT the catholic church. Furthermore, I never claimed that catholic churches stance should be dismissed BECAUSE they have child raping priests among them. THAT would be poisoning the well. You on the other hand, are attacking ME and my motives in an attempt to discredit my position, INSTEAD of directly attacking my position. That *IS* poisoning the well, and therefore fallacious. peace axeman
Are your ignoring the word CERTAIN on purpose, or what? How can you say this is a broad stroke? I also never claimed that we should condemn all catholics because some priests butt fucked some little kids But we can condemn the church for the cover up. axeman ________________________________________ This is clearer. Condemning "certain religions" would sound like condemning them and everyone in them which now you are backing away from. Even clearer where "church" would mean hierarcy or leadership being seperate from individual parishioners. At least a narrower brush stroke. Good, maybe there are some moral parameters even in atheists.
You on the other hand, are attacking ME and my motives in an attempt to discredit my position, INSTEAD of directly attacking my position. That *IS* poisoning the well, and therefore fallacious. axeman _____________________________________ You may call it poisoning the well but I call it shooting an arrow at the big pride target in atheism and if you are standing near the target and blend in with it, don't complain if you get hit.
I did not utter the words let alone even suggest people have not "always sought a higher power".... so Let's see surfer, which part of this statement is inaccurate??? is it this one... "People had established moral values before 'gods' were invented" As there are moral standards set down before the invention of the Jesus God, before the Allah god etc came on the scene, how is that statement therefore not accurate? I said... people invented God{s} as nothing more than a convenience for having these values handed over to a 'greater power'." By doing so it attempts to give some 'greater meaning' to the values, yet the values remain the same. If anything my statement confirms that people in general (society) sought hierarchical structures to organize, control and hand over power to. My overall point is... the God Head one is superfluous. May I suggest surfer, it is more informative to ascertain what is really being said, than rush to a wild interpretation of it.
well ok...I don't mind... no cyber wedgies though !.... Before which 'gods' were invented TM ? The Jesus God and before that.. Jesus's daddy God and before that - Ceasar as God and before that - the Greek Gods and before that - the Sun Gods and the many living Gods of Egyptian times and before that - the God of Water and before that - the God of what the f*** is happening here God ..etc etc... You seem to like your novels. There is a little more to the invention of Gods than a 2000 year old story with Noah and "soddom" playing bit part characters. Lord of the Flies ? , sorry I don't see the connection. The assumption I got from the novel was that overall, humanity chooses to adopt and keep society in tact to avoid barbarism and anarchy. The evidence that it still does is obviously apparent today 4000 years after a substantial method of law and standards for morality was recorded..... I therefore more comfortably rely on the presumption that humanity naturally defers to civilisation at least for the reason of basic necessity. ...Or is it that you are saying ANY God will do... so long as there is a concept of God there is a concept of right? And what about a concept of right IS a concept of right. Doesn't that make any sense to you? I must admit I am rather surprised that you are still stuck on this. But now I see your team is the JETS (jeez TM the JETS !!) that explains a lot of things Right and wrong have to be given values. You have been offered strong and numerous reasons how and why morality is arrived at without the need for a God (if a God, which God - which values?). In fact it appears adding a God confuses the issue. Please show me how wrong or right is actually God or statutebefore wrong or right is defined. You said you don't go with the old testament, so where did right and wrong come from if it needed a God but Jesus hadn't been invented yet? If you don't need both (you say God or statutes) why do you need a God to get moral standard? Why not statute alone? If you agree only either one of them is needed you are half way there Now it's your turn...please "Prove to me" now that lying and cheating are wrong with using God or statutes ONLY. Please show me how wrong or right is actually God or statute before wrong or right is defined. Isn't it that morality is defined first, then handed over to Statute... then by some people to their God. ?
alfonso Are you saying it is not possible to simplify, or is it... simplification is not possible and/or unwlecome? Far, far more? I don't think so. There is nothing new here alfonso, you are talking about a personal belief in God(s). It is not that complicated. I think most people can grasp in quite simple terms what a belief in a God might be. But.. how do you KNOW I am an "atheist". How do you know I am not devil's advocate. How do you know I was not or still am devoutly religious. Where have I ever stated I am an atheist? How do you know these things if you don't check first? You didn't even bother to ask ! Why unnecessarily complicate the situation with assumption? ? Yes they do and they manifest it as an attempt to unnecessarily complicate the job ! Please explain what might be so "almost ineffable" about right and wrong. Why does right and wrong NEED to be so hard to define? Aren't you adding ineffability for the sake of it! Theism certainly does. So ok, according to your viewpoint we can confirm, there is no need for God(s) before morality can be known to man. Good Well pray tell what is the be all and end all if it isn't just more additional complication. What's wrong (ha) with reducing things down so you may understand better as to whether you're being sold a dud idea or not? Flowering up with fancies of invisible deities is complicating things. It might feel good but that is not enough reason to,.. is it? Isn't the idea that there is one God Head reductionist! How do you know it isnât just simply a âconsensus on emotional statesâ. What more is it alfonso?? Much much more⦠what? ....complication? Shouldn't you have thought of that before you labelled me atheist and decided in your view, I would not be qualified to even speak on the matter ?? I pointed out, to fully understand anything, unnecessary complication might well lead to misapprehending answers and causing a lot more complication than there need be. You say there are no simple answers so does that mean....letâs make things more complicated because of that??!! After all is said and done, whether things can be understood by humankind or not, may well depend to some degree , on how much unnecessary complications of any kind, especially ones we are talking about ....the extra metaphysical baggage..... is clouding issues. Especially if it brings it's own ineffable too sacred to be uttered, unknowable, unexplainable....... explanations, as you say it does.