A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Tiassa]

This and That

Really? Do you not interact with him elsewhere? Somehow, this is your wakeup call?

Oh, heavens, no. Rather, it would seem people need to be reminded, every once in a while, of the associations they choose. Whatever real issues this community faces will never be addressed if we allow self-serving pedantry as a substitute for reality.

There's a story I sometimes tell; I've repeated it recently. It's about a pastor from a megachurch in the Seattle area apparently getting arrested after allegedly attempting to molest a young boy at Disney World. As the story developed, the local paper was inundated with protestations against how they were hounding a good and decent man for nothing. And, of course, as the story developed, it turned out that the allegations appeared true; he was arrested, and the paperwork was buried so that he didn't have to face prosecution. Nobody knows why; that question was never answered. But by this time, the angry voices in the corpus Christi were committed, so it eventually became an argument of leaving an alleged child molester in charge of a church to deal with his own demons in private.

I can assure you that plenty who call themselves Christian in this area would resent the idea that "Christians defended an alleged child molester simply because he was a Christian", but that is exactly what happened on a fairly impressive scale.

Those letter writers and editorial voices were all profoundly discredited, and not specifically because any one individual among them is inherently evil. Rather, they hopped on a bandwagon for the sake of a label and landed themselves in a mess.

It would be astounding to think that rational creatures could not understand the point of such a tale, but we're talking about human beings, here.

Whatever legitimate issues trouble this community, we will find no progress toward solutions as long as we continue to follow labels for the sake of convenience, comfort, and ego gratification.

So why should we take such people seriously at all? Well, in the first place, because they seem to insist, and certainly don't think their inherent assertions of self-interest are in any way conflicting with the idea of a broader, diverse community. And, in the second, there are plenty of bandwagoners who will share the perception of offense if we don't take such crackpottery seriously.

And, so, people attempt to address their concerns, find themselves trolled by people who are either playing stupid and "going full retard", or in the sights of some bandwagoner who wants the empowerment of taking the swing, but refuses to acknowledge his or her own responsibility in following the false prophet.

And, besides, there always could be an aspect worth addressing in its own right, regardless of what silly frame one tries to put on it; also, such stupid responses as we got from our "clueluss" neighbor only make the point. Well, except for the bandwagon. They make their own point. And none of those points speak well of them.

• • •​

Atheism can’t be forced. It’s a journey of personal discovery.

Atheism as a personal experience is as subjective as any similar religious experience.

However, what the new atheist movement does offer is a source of experts, people who know about physics, biology, atheism, religious history, and religious apologetics.

I would take issue with that sentence, especially the part about religious history and apologetics.

The new atheist movement is political.

Rather than relying on our own ability to persuade others, we can point to what many others are already doing. Am I right, Tiassa?

Rather quite irrational, actually.

The lack of pathos exhibited consistently throughout this thread hinders persuasion. That is to say, the movement is not about persuasion, but ego gratification. As I noted last monbth:

One common behavior among atheists in the public discussion of atheism is that they have worked very hard to rhetorically seal themselves off from any real accountability as political or philosophical players; this is generally accidental, but it is a striking result. For instance, in the past I have inquired about what happens when a religionist converts to atheism; the inability of atheists to answer a central question—the resolution of which would actually help them communicate the problems of theism—often ends up in what looks very much like a refusal. This refusal is problematic for diverse reasons.

In the first place is the superficial arrogance. In the second, such a refusal really does appear to support that stupid religionistic assertion that there is no morality without God; or, at least, it makes the question of right and wrong seem very, very arbitrary. And in the third, it does nothing to facilitate understanding among theists.

The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance. I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.​

Honestly, what about that situation do you find persuasive?

No, really.

Let's try a different phrasing:

We know that religious faith is an intricate mess of mind and brain. The big fuck you that comes from common atheistic regard for the vacuum created in a person's psychomoral outlook by abandoning God is certainly suggestive. The atheistic argument generally prefers things simple, straightforward, and unattached to any other reality. Progress is hard. Ego gratification is easy.​

There is nothing persuasive about this common atheistic detachment from their fellow human beings. All anyone accomplishes by that is the reinforcement of the very superstitions and behaviors they otherwise object to. At some point, it seems as if some want some sort of religious bogeyman to swing at.

But this detachment and belligerence is not persuasive. And it doesn't really matter that "they started it" if the point is persuasion. But if that's not the point, and this is all about self-gratification, then "atheism" becomes a hate identity, and that's fine with me, and I'll happily maintain my distance from the movement that doesn't exist, or whatever the hell we might call it.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The mods defend each other.
Even when they know what the other one did was wrong.
Is that the meaning of the story?

 

[Kittamaru]

Hah, hardly Cap... you should see some of us go at it in the back room... and more than once, we have been tasked with a public apology... though such things tend to slip through the cracks when people are bound and determined to paint the moderation team as a bunch of power-hungry ebilgnocs

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Bells would find an argument in an empty room.

 

[quinnsong]

We know that religious faith is an intricate mess of mind and brain. The big fuck you that comes from common atheistic regard for the vacuum created in a person's psychomoral outlook by abandoning God is certainly suggestive. The atheistic argument generally prefers things simple, straightforward, and unattached to any other reality. Progress is hard. Ego gratification is easy.​

There is nothing persuasive about this common atheistic detachment from their fellow human beings. All anyone accomplishes by that is the reinforcement of the very superstitions and behaviors they otherwise object to. At some point, it seems as if some want some sort of religious bogeyman to swing at.

But this detachment and belligerence is not persuasive. And it doesn't really matter that "they started it" if the point is persuasion. But if that's not the point, and this is all about self-gratification, then "atheism" becomes a hate identity, and that's fine with me, and I'll happily maintain my distance from the movement that doesn't exist, or whatever the hell we might call it.

There is a lack of empathy from even those that have made the same journey from believer to non believer. Was this journey not painful for them? Did the ex believer feel they had lost their best friend or a loved one? For those atheists that lack empathy, I can only assume that their religious bonds were superficial anyway.

 

[Trooper]

In the first place is the superficial arrogance. In the second, such a refusal really does appear to support that stupid religionistic assertion that there is no morality without God; or, at least, it makes the question of right and wrong seem very, very arbitrary. And in the third, it does nothing to facilitate understanding among theists.

You’re exaggerating, and when I read what you write, I’m reminded of Ecclesiastes.

"For who knoweth what is good for man in this life, all the days of his vain life which he spendeth as a shadow?"

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."

I sort of agree with Nietzsche. It's very difficult to face this logical conclusion, but necessary. Only then, without the fog of religion, can we discover the value of our values.

"For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals--because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had. We require, sometimes, new values."-Nietzsche

The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance. I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.

That’s simply not true, Tiassa. You don’t lose your sense of right and wrong. Besides, we still have potentialities to deal with.

"Thus, the transitoriness of our existence in no way makes it meaningless. But it does constitute our responsibleness. Man constantly makes his choice concerning the mass of present potentialities; which of these will be condemned to nonbeing and which will be actualized? Which choice will be made an actuality one and forever, an immortal "footprint in the sands of time"? -Victor Frankl

You're wrong. There's a great deal of support out there. It's not all about self-gratification. Some of us care, Tiassa. We really do.

 

[Write4U]

Oh, heavens, no. Rather, it would seem people need to be reminded, every once in a while, of the associations they choose. Whatever real issues this community faces will never be addressed if we allow self-serving pedantry as a substitute for reality.

There's a story I sometimes tell; I've repeated it recently. It's about a pastor from a megachurch in the Seattle area apparently getting arrested after allegedly attempting to molest a young boy at Disney World. As the story developed, the local paper was inundated with protestations against how they were hounding a good and decent man for nothing. And, of course, as the story developed, it turned out that the allegations appeared true; he was arrested, and the paperwork was buried so that he didn't have to face prosecution. Nobody knows why; that question was never answered. But by this time, the angry voices in the corpus Christi were committed, so it eventually became an argument of leaving an alleged child molester in charge of a church to deal with his own demons in private.

The question here becomes: who left a child molester in charge of a church to deal with his own demons in private?

I can assure you that plenty who call themselves Christian in this area would resent the idea that "Christians defended an alleged child molester simply because he was a Christian", but that is exactly what happened on a fairly impressive scale.

For shame!

Those letter writers and editorial voices were all profoundly discredited, and not specifically because any one individual among them is inherently evil. Rather, they hopped on a bandwagon for the sake of a label and landed themselves in a mess.

It would be astounding to think that rational creatures could not understand the point of such a tale, but we're talking about human beings, here.

Human beings blinded by an irrational belief that a Christian criminal has the opportunity to make amends and become "restored" in the eyes of God.

Whatever legitimate issues trouble this community, we will find no progress toward solutions as long as we continue to follow labels for the sake of convenience, comfort, and ego gratification.

Talk about ego gratification, "God loves me and when I die I will go to heaven and sit at His side for eternity"

So why should we take such people seriously at all? Well, in the first place, because they seem to insist, and certainly don't think their inherent assertions of self-interest are in any way conflicting with the idea of a broader, diverse community. And, in the second, there are plenty of bandwagoners who will share the perception of offense if we don't take such crackpottery seriously.

And, so, people attempt to address their concerns, find themselves trolled by people who are either playing stupid and "going full retard", or in the sights of some bandwagoner who wants the empowerment of taking the swing, but refuses to acknowledge his or her own responsibility in following the false prophet.

Thank god atheists never follow "false gods" or false prophets who wil condone heinous crimes. Atheists are bound by the Laws of Nature. Cause and Effect, not Cause and Forgiveness.

Atheism as a personal experience is as subjective as any similar religious experience.

That is a meaningless and misleading statement

The lack of pathos exhibited consistently throughout this thread hinders persuasion. That is to say, the movement is not about persuasion, but ego gratification. As I noted last monbth:

One common behavior among atheists in the public discussion of atheism is that they have worked very hard to rhetorically seal themselves off from any real accountability as political or philosophical players; this is generally accidental, but it is a striking result. For instance, in the past I have inquired about what happens when a religionist converts to atheism; the inability of atheists to answer a central question—the resolution of which would actually help them communicate the problems of theism—often ends up in what looks very much like a refusal. This refusal is problematic for diverse reasons.

In the first place is the superficial arrogance. In the second, such a refusal really does appear to support that stupid religionistic assertion that there is no morality without God; or, at least, it makes the question of right and wrong seem very, very arbitrary. And in the third, it does nothing to facilitate understanding among theists.​

Superficial arrogance? IOW, proposing that due to the lack of any reliable evidence , no case can be made for the existence of God, is superficially arrogant? Is a parent, informing a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist, being superficially arrogant?
Facilitate understanding among theists? Religion has not facilitated anything except 2000+_ years of religious strife and blood baths.

The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance.

Yes that's why all those countries built on the firm structure of the house of a god are so happy and intellectually prosperous.

I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.

​

And that is a correct answer. What problem do you have with that answer?

Honestly, what about that situation do you find persuasive?
No, really.

What do you find persuasive about the ideology of the existence of a supernatural entity that loves mankind as long as they put on brightly colored robes, bow and worship Him.

Let's try a different phrasing:

We know that religious faith is an intricate mess of mind and brain. The big fuck you that comes from common atheistic regard for the vacuum created in a person's psychomoral outlook by abandoning God is certainly suggestive. The atheistic argument generally prefers things simple, straightforward, and unattached to any other reality. Progress is hard. Ego gratification is easy.​

That is just plain wrong. The atheist argument generally refers to finding answers to the physical existence of the universe. It is the theist who indulges in ego gratification and apologetics. The theist has made theism so duplicitous and confusing that all behavior is allowed as long as it was done in the name of God or, in the case you'r just a plain straightforward criminal, a few Holy Marys and we are restored to rightenousness.

There is nothing persuasive about this common atheistic detachment from their fellow human beings. All anyone accomplishes by that is the reinforcement of the very superstitions and behaviors they otherwise object to. At some point, it seems as if some want some sort of religious bogeyman to swing at.

But this detachment and belligerence is not persuasive. And it doesn't really matter that "they started it" if the point is persuasion. But if that's not the point, and this is all about self-gratification, then "atheism" becomes a hate identity, and that's fine with me, and I'll happily maintain my distance from the movement that doesn't exist, or whatever the hell we might call it.

Who is the belligerent party in this post? I love the company of atheists because they live in the real world and I am happy when self gratifying religious people leave me the hell alone.

That last sentence was the only true and sane statement that theists should not prostletize for their religious movement or whatever the hell we might call it.

Stop conflating the issue. You have nothing to fear from atheists except acquisition of knowledge and enlightenment.

Atheist do not torture people to convert theists to a "movement that doesn't exist"

 

[Bells]

@ Bells

Do you want discussions here at Sciforums to be civil... an this civility woud aply to posters AN mods.???

Certainly cluelusshusbund.

However, as you have demonstrated hypocritically and repeatedly, you are incapable of civility but you expect it from others and then whine about it through various means when you don't get it. I don't think you'd know what civility was if it came and bit you on your "azz".

Atheism can’t be forced. It’s a journey of personal discovery. However, what the new atheist movement does offer is a source of experts, people who know about physics, biology, atheism, religious history, and religious apologetics. Rather than relying on our own ability to persuade others, we can point to what many others are already doing. Am I right, Tiassa?

I don't think I'd want to point anyone towards some of the certain and particular 'New Atheists' for guidance. Not without arming them with a bazooka and tank first.

 

[Bells]

The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance. I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.

Why would you assume that we lose our morality or our ability to tell right from wrong when we abandon God?

I would argue that many theists who do 'right' things out of fear of going to hell are somewhat selfish in that they are not doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but because they do not wish to be punished in the afterlife if they do not do the right thing.

Then of course there is the fact that God is not the one who taught us right from wrong. But society and our parents, family, community and and experience in general does. Such guidelines are passed down, from their parents and so on. And each generation it is built upon and enriched as each individual's experiences and changing society forces it to evolve in its own way. I also think anyone who sees God as the linchpin of their moral structure will probably not stop believing in God. Not unless they come to recognise that it is the very people around them and themselves who form that particular linchpin.

I wouldn't argue that atheism is about ideology. We leave "ideology" behind when we leave religion behind. I would argue that atheism is about self awareness. Which is why it is such a personal journey. And can never be forced on anyone.

 

[Balerion]

Indeed, I imagine one of the epiphanies, if you will, of becoming an atheist is the realization that your moral compass has never required a religious lodestone.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
@ Bells

Do you want discussions here at Sciforums to be civil... an this civility woud aply to posters AN mods.???

Certainly cluelusshusbund.

Ok... an id like to work wit you to acheive that gole.!!!

I suggest that we come up wit a thred title such as SCAP (Sciforums Civility Action Plan)... start the thred an get to work.!!!

How about it.???

 

[Bells]

Ok... an id like to work wit you to acheive that gole.!!!

I suggest that we come up wit a thred title such as SCAP (Sciforums Civility Action Plan)... start the thred an get to work.!!!

How about it.???

I prefer to not work with dishonest and disingenuous people, thanks.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I prefer to not work with dishonest and disingenuous people, thanks.

Id like to put the sillyness of our past in the past... an move forward together toward a common gole of Sciforums bein a beter experience for all.!!!

How about it.???

 

[spidergoat]

The lack of pathos is striking. When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance.

I'm empathize. The transition to atheism can be difficult. But no moral structure disappears apart from the stupid rules their religion told them to internalize. Without religion they now have a personal responsibility, some might call it freedom, to decide difficult moral decisions on their own. Like a child that finally has to grow up and learn to wipe their own ass, I'm sympathetic, but I feel no need to take up that burden on their behalf. You may say I'm harsh, but you are the one calling them emotionally immature and too stupid to use their own brains.

 

[Bells]

Id like to put the sillyness of our past in the past... an move forward together toward a common gole of Sciforums bein a beter experience for all.!!!

How about it.???

Cluelusshusbund, please refer to my previous response to you.

I do not want to have anything to do with you.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The transition to atheism can be difficult. But no moral structure disappears apart from the stupid rules their religion told them to internalize. Without religion they now have a personal responsibility, some might call it freedom, to decide difficult moral decisions on their own.

The girl i started datin an later married was a saved/baptized go to church twice a week Jesus-belevin-Christan... thats all she knew... O... an that non-believers was goin to hell... an then came along Tim (me) an helped her to get truly saved.!!!

She was a sweet girl at the time wit quite a structured moral system... an now over 40 years later she is still sweet an has even beter morals... in that she dont thank thers anythang moral about the notion of "hell"... for instance.!!!

She loved the freedom of gettin the Jesus-monkey off her back... an she did express a regret tho... that she didnt get away from it sooner... LOL.!!!

She knew she had an excelent suport system she coud count on (me) who woud have backed her 100% if it had ever been needed... like one time when i went to church wit her an the Preecher told everybody to get on ther knees an pray... an by the 3 rd time he said that lookin right at us... i asked if she wanted to leave an she said yes... an leave we did never to come back... Hallelujah

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
@ Bells

Do you want discussions here at Sciforums to be civil... an this civility woud aply to posters AN mods.???

Originally Posted by Bells
Certainly cluelusshusbund.

Id like to put the sillyness of our past in the past... an move forward together toward a common gole of Sciforums bein a beter experience for all.!!!

How about it.???

I do not want to have anything to do with you.

So be it... an i wish you well in you'r quest to make Sciforums a place whare posters an mods are all civil to each other

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

Why would you assume that we lose our morality or our ability to tell right from wrong when we abandon God?

We don't.

To reiterate:

When a theist abandons God, the linchpin of their moral structure disappears, leaving their sense of right and wrong a house of cards susceptible to the slightest disturbance. I've asked identifying atheists before to describe what they would offer that theist in order to help him through this transition. And the answer is always the same, that atheism isn't about ideology.​

I would argue that many theists who do 'right' things out of fear of going to hell are somewhat selfish in that they are not doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do, but because they do not wish to be punished in the afterlife if they do not do the right thing.

Indeed, I would agree.

Then of course there is the fact that God is not the one who taught us right from wrong. But society and our parents, family, community and and experience in general does. Such guidelines are passed down, from their parents and so on. And each generation it is built upon and enriched as each individual's experiences and changing society forces it to evolve in its own way. I also think anyone who sees God as the linchpin of their moral structure will probably not stop believing in God. Not unless they come to recognise that it is the very people around them and themselves who form that particular linchpin.

Again, I'm right there with you. But here's the problem:

I wouldn't argue that atheism is about ideology. We leave "ideology" behind when we leave religion behind. I would argue that atheism is about self awareness. Which is why it is such a personal journey. And can never be forced on anyone.

So as Bob Religious wrestles with his doubts, and says, "But without God there is no morality," you as an atheist might reply that such an outlook is erroneous. So Bob asks, "How do you, as an atheist, determine morality?"

Now, do you give him a helpful answer? Or do you simply repeat the talking point that such a question has nothing to do with atheism?

We need not doubt that over the years you have seen people drowning in psychological troubles stemming from any number of sources.

Is the fact that someone has or had religion somehow disqualifying? I wouldn't ask the question because I'm pretty sure I know the answer: No, you didn't tell them their neuroses had nothing to do with the work at hand.

It's one of those things I don't have a nifty, prefab metaphor to accommodate, and many of the usable ones are a bit strong. However, what it comes down to is akin to saying, "You shouldn't be down there. You're supposed to come up here." And when they ask how to get up there, you say, "Not my problem, as it has nothing to do with where I am or where you're supposed to be."

It's condescending. It's cheap. It's nasty. And it does nothing to help the situation.

• • •​

You're wrong. There's a great deal of support out there. It's not all about self-gratification. Some of us care, Tiassa. We really do.

Preach on, preach on.

• • •​

The question here becomes: who left a child molester in charge of a church to deal with his own demons in private?

I would agree in the context of your changing of subjects. Then again, as I recall, the accusation was something that would have fallen under Dawkins' regard for "mild" pedophilia, so, you know, maybe rational people are making too big a deal of what happened.

Human beings blinded by an irrational belief that a Christian criminal has the opportunity to make amends and become "restored" in the eyes of God.

To reiterate:

It would be astounding to think that rational creatures could not understand the point of such a tale, but we're talking about human beings, here.​

Talk about ego gratification, "God loves me and when I die I will go to heaven and sit at His side for eternity"

Presuming, of course, that you realize what the discussion you've entered is about, the attempt to change the subject is only a dubiously appreciated affirmation of my point.

Thank god atheists never follow "false gods" or false prophets who wil condone heinous crimes. Atheists are bound by the Laws of Nature. Cause and Effect, not Cause and Forgiveness.

Actually, no, they're not. At least, not according to our community. Take a look around; the commitment to rational thought ends at the assertion that there is no God.

Laws of nature? Cause and effect? I'll leave it to you to reconcile with your fellow atheists who think such notions are persecutory.

That is a meaningless and misleading statement

So make the meaningful counterpoint. Show us how an atheist's personal experience is any more objectively verifiable than anyone else's.

Easy enough, right? Laws of Nature? Cause and Effect? Capital letters? Come on, you have logic and reality on your side, right? So making the meaningful counterpoint that an atheist's personal experience is more objectively verifiable than an theist's ought to be easy.

Superficial arrogance? IOW, proposing that due to the lack of any reliable evidence , no case can be made for the existence of God, is superficially arrogant? Is a parent, informing a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist, being superficially arrogant?

Ah, yes, changing the subject again. Very logical. Very reliable.

Facilitate understanding among theists? Religion has not facilitated anything except 2000+_ years of religious strife and blood baths.

Take it up with Trooper and Spidergoat.

Of course, perhaps if you had taken a moment to comprehend what you were respondign to, perhaps you might have avoided embarrassing yourself like this.

Yes that's why all those countries built on the firm structure of the house of a god are so happy and intellectually prosperous.

No, really, you do realize, do you not, that Trooper and I were discussing "persuasion"? Much like Spidergoat's notion of converting the religious to the rational?

And yet, when faced with the challenges of this process, all you can manage is to go back to whining about how awful religious people are?

Then again, there's no surprise in that.

And that is a correct answer. What problem do you have with that answer?

Had you paid even a modicum of attention to the issue of persuasion, you wouldn't ask. As such, to repeat myself as an act of reasonable accommodation:

• In the past I have inquired about what happens when a religionist converts to atheism; the inability of atheists to answer a central question—the resolution of which would actually help them communicate the problems of theism—often ends up in what looks very much like a refusal. This refusal is problematic for diverse reasons.

• There is nothing persuasive about this common atheistic detachment from their fellow human beings. All anyone accomplishes by that is the reinforcement of the very superstitions and behaviors they otherwise object to. At some point, it seems as if some want some sort of religious bogeyman to swing at.​

Perhaps had you actually respected the question of persuasion, you wouldn't have gone off complaining about religious people, or whining rubber-glue.

That is just plain wrong. The atheist argument generally refers to finding answers to the physical existence of the universe. It is the theist who indulges in ego gratification and apologetics. The theist has made theism so duplicitous and confusing that all behavior is allowed as long as it was done in the name of God or, in the case you'r just a plain straightforward criminal, a few Holy Marys and we are restored to rightenousness.

Again, because persuasion, conversion to rationality, and other such human interactions are apparently irrelevant to your outlook, all you can come up with is whining about religious people?

Who is the belligerent party in this post? I love the company of atheists because they live in the real world and I am happy when self gratifying religious people leave me the hell alone.

You see? Rubber-glue. And all because you chose to not attend the subject of persuasion.

Stop conflating the issue. You have nothing to fear from atheists except acquisition of knowledge and enlightenment.

You ought to try living up to that boast, instead of screwing your reading comprehension into guttermuck for the sake of puffing your bigotry.

• • •​

The transition to atheism can be difficult. But no moral structure disappears apart from the stupid rules their religion told them to internalize. Without religion they now have a personal responsibility, some might call it freedom, to decide difficult moral decisions on their own. Like a child that finally has to grow up and learn to wipe their own ass, I'm sympathetic, but I feel no need to take up that burden on their behalf. You may say I'm harsh, but you are the one calling them emotionally immature and too stupid to use their own brains.

This is one of those things about which we're simply going to disagree. While I tend to see no use in abandoning one set of irrational principles for another, your argument suggests otherwise of your own outlook: But no moral structure disappears apart from the stupid rules their religion told them to internalize.

That is to say, you are to a degree correct. But what happens is that the justification for right and wrong becomes, "Because I say so", which tends to hew close to an atheistic outlook widely expressed here at Sciforums dismissing rational obligation beyond the assertion that there is no God.

To wit, would would you object to grooming female children to be subordinate wives for their male husbands, or is that only problematic when the justification is ostensibly religious?

 

[spidergoat]

I do think that an objective moral structure can be determined through reason. The religious don't think morality can be determined through reason, but only by decree. Which means that anything can be moral as long as it is ordained by the messengers of divinity, even the murdering of one's own children. How can such a scheme be anything but ridiculous and arbitrary? It should be quite easy to abandon this pitiful excuse for reasonableness.

I think feminism is reasonable, and I wouldn't impose sex roles upon children uniformly, there is too much diversity in our species and culture for that. Life is about more than being wives or husbands. The religious right emphasizes family values because few other cultural structures can be so theocratic, authoritarian, and conformist.

 

[Bells]

So be it... an i wish you well in you'r quest to make Sciforums a place whare posters an mods are all civil to each other

You left out portions of what you quoted from me to make sure you direct the narrative of context in the way you want it to be portrayed. Tell me, is this civil? This is why I think you are a hypocrite and dishonest.