Ethical question for our atheists

[Walker]

By the way, if you're not a Christian, what are you?

 

[Tiassa]

For ThatJerk

I'm finding that I'm almost alone here in supporting you, Tiassa.

I cannot express the magnitude of my appreciation for your support. Thank you very kindly.

You made a (sadly) brief appearence in my thread, and I found your post to be VERY intelligent and accurate

I do feel badly; I owe about seven people various responses. I'll try to get to them very soon.

I still had some issue with a couple of points, but it was largely because your points (while true) weren't quite what I was dealing with then and there.

Fair enough; I'll try to get back to it.

My ONLY criticism is that you can come off as being incredibly haughty and self-assured in your own humility, which I can tell rubs some people the wrong way even if they largely agree with you in principle.

Ain't it great? I rarely take full arrogant pleasure in what I'm doing, but since I'm already enjoying another topic more than I should, I'm happy to grin and rest on my laurels for a moment. It's a matter of being strong in one's humility. Being humble is one thing, but being apologetic about it is another. I've found the mix I engage is what works for me. Whether I'm purely humble to the point of shutting up or purely arrogant to compare with some of my fellow posters, certain points are failing to be perceived. It is possible that these perspectives are being refused site-unseen. Despite rubbing people the wrong way, at least they're thinking about it.

Part of it also is that I do follow my own and others' behavior over time. Most of the time when someone calls me out for being sharp, they're overlooking that I've already tried the more palatable route. After all, every once in a while, someone will wonder why I'm looking at months-old posts, and often it's just to remind myself that I was hearing equal vitriol from the same point 180° ago.

Enough with the Cheshire grin

Many atheists either simply don't understand the religious mindset, or do but don't really care or are tired of being nice about it (like me). I suspect that some have a hard time telling who's side you're on, or think you're trying to straddle the fence. To quote Curious George: "If you aren't with us you're against us."

I actually tend to agree. But it's demonstrably difficult for people to accept that assertion out of me.

Perhaps, they feel that you poo-poo them even in agreeing with them, and just can't STAND being talked down at (even if you aren't necessarily doing so).

True enough. I tend to think, though, about other principles and processes as well. Specifically, it would be dishonest to say that "Poster" is 100% wrong in the assertion; however, it is also dishonest to say that "Poster" is 100% correct. They're significant points in the sense that, where there is error, it will continue to affect considerations until it is identified and dealt with. I don't like people running around in circles, but they get really pissed at me if I ask them to stop chasing their tails and have a debate once in a while. I actually feel badly because for all that running, for all that thinking, they're going nowhere. I've made the principled assertion before that if one sees another's perspective as mental illness (as some atheists will say of religions, and as I'm starting to realize about many of our atheists) one has an obligation to not agitate the illness (worst), or to help alleviate the illness (best). If I am determined to insist on a certain degree of integrity, I must also show it.

To the untrained reader, you're posts seem ambiguous at best, as your sharp criticisms and generalisations don't particularly stick out at all times. See the C. G. quote above... I think that attitude sums up the typical American mindset quite nicely.

And here's the kicker. How many of us are critical of that mindset? According to the principle expressed above, have I not obliged myself to address the paradox (best) or hypocrisy (worst) of decrying what also happens to be one's own methodology? I'm reluctant to name a poster here, but I have been addressed by an atheist who has pointed out the problems of the news media in the US. Now, I agree with him on that count. But I really do feel like (A) several posters are asking me for the "CNN version", and (B) they object to this elsewhere in the country.

They either don't notice, or choose not to notice in favour of nailing you for being 'wishy-washy'.

I tend to think it's the latter, but I cannot afford to be presumptuous here. Of course, if a couple of 'em would give honest answers, there would be no cause toward presumption, for we would have those answers about which I cannot afford to presume.

Those that do notice how nasty you can be are smart enough to see a good arguement when it bites them in the ass, even if they don't necessarily like the manner in which it was presented

Thank you for noticing.

To be honest, I find it tragic that this is my most effective mode. Of course, as I also believe that it is the broadcaster's obligation to make sure communication is in a form that can be received and understood by the intended party. I find the efficacy of my sharp methodology quite puzzling in this aspect. Is it really the only method people understand?

.... But you knew that already.

Yes, and I should know better than to ping their integrity like that, but I cannot ethically leave them in their misery.

Except Xev. She's made a couple of specific requests. As I understand it, anything short of cruel exploitation of her weaknesses is a disservice to her. Don't feel right, but if that's what she wants ... who am I to take that away from her?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So is the concept of ignorance but I got a better answer out of you on that: For some it's bliss I suppose.

However, of man-made concepts: we are human.

Ignorance is not a man made concept. It is a condition (a state).
The only part man had was labeling this existing concept. Thats
why you got a 'better answer'. And yes, we're human, and we
make silly concepts ('Good' and 'Evil' for example).

Would you say in general, then that stupidity should be a protected condition, as it is apparently genetic? Think about it in terms of being American: the laws generally won't hold you responsible for what you don't understand.

Nope, someone's inability comprehend or profit from experience
gives advantages to his competition. Let natural selection handle
that one.

Sounds like a fallacy. Using pretense to suppress behaviors we are apparently, as you have noted, genetically predisposed to. No wonder it doesn't work.

So, should humans merely exist? Or should they learn and grow? What does objective consideration of the living phenomenon tell you about that?

I am sure it's working wonders for the law makers. Just because
society tries to control behavior, it doesn't mean that an
individual is doomed. The average human is adaptive enough to
live within the context of a variety societal regulations while
learning AND growing in various ways. But, regarding your
specific question, we 'should' be doing whatever keeps our
species healthy, prosperous, and dominant.

You mean the suppression of our genetically-coded behavior? Artificial suppression of our natural condition?

Incidentally, the article was hilarious.

However, you didn't answer the issue.

Do the facts that we are compelled to mate and that consent is a social convention license the "natural" cycle of sexuality?

I mean the control of our genetically-coded behavior. I don't
know about 'Artificial'... one very prominant behavior in humans
is to try and control things.

Regarding your specific question... the answer is no. What these
facts do are describe a 'state' of sexual rules in the majority of
the US. The 'natural' cycle's mere existence is why we have laws
against rape, and it's mere existence is why rape takes place (among other behaviors).

What something equals to people is subjective. What it actually is is a little more objective. For instance, cruelty and idiocy. We might opine what level of either is acceptable, but it doesn't change the fact that it is cruelty and idiocy.

Cruel idiots, technically, are quite dangerous to human perpetuity.

It was late and I was being cynically facetious with the statment
you responded to there... don't look too hard into that one.

There is a lack of evidence to suggest this is a good idea. You write what you have to. Some concepts are quick, others are not. How many posts and how much information would you like to go through to reach the same place? We can, theoretically, do it in ten pages, or we can spread it out over multiple posts and run the risk of the same content requiring 100 posts to transmit. Either way, there is a certain amount of information that must be accounted for in order to consider the issues in the appropriate context. If it takes ten pages, it takes ten pages. But here's my problem: While it's not intended as a condemnation, what am I supposed to think when people tell me they can't handle the information we're discussing? I do understand the weight of it, and while I do understand the mere condition of mortality, I'm particularly touchy about this point because of the number of people I've apparently insulted by presuming them intelligent. I mean, there are people at Sciforums who are angry at me because they want very badly to give me empty, smartassed responses but can't because they haven't the intellectual capacity, apparently, to consider the information in the topic. You'll notice them if you look; it's rather quite sick in its humorousness. However, I am trying to be understanding. It's mostly a matter of How bad can people around here screw it up? and trying to limit those digressions. I think it worked, judging by the number of silly posts people direct at me. So sorry for the length of this part of the post, but that's the way it goes this time. I tell people, with varying degrees of sincerity, to do their best. Beyond that, I don't know what to tell people. And, sadly, I'm sure that if I did, it would still confuse them because it's too long. I'll elaborate on that point elsewhere at some time in the near future, but I have to do a little more reading; I may have found my example.

If discussion topics grow, I understand that they can get large
before they split due to their own weight, but I get the impression
that your personal combination of assertiveness, arrogance,
extraversion, willingness to take on the world, etc... lead to a
higher volume of words on a post by post basis. I have seen you
pass this off with your catch phrase:

"because of the number of people I've apparently insulted by
presuming them intelligent"

but intelligence and stamina are 2 distinct traits. Eease up your
average a little. I bet you can still have an intelligent conversation
by doing so.

P.S. How old are you?

-CC

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Let's hear it for the tags!

Cool beans those quote tags worked.

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

Who gives a flying fuck then? So they blew up our towers. Who fucking cares?

Innocent people died. They attacked a nation that is bound to be pissed, and the Shrub finds that the "war on terror" has a use for his purposes.

That's who gives a fuck.

Life being what it is, can you promise yourself that you will always be in control of that?

Of course not. What's your point?

And we wonder why people don't like the West?

West is top dog, sweetie. Just human nature to attack whomever is at the top of the dominence hierarchy.

But considering that such stupid fucking selfishness is what got Americans into a War on Terrorism in the first place, please understand that I have an ethical dilemma here: whether to hold you in the esteem of a human being, or to hold you in the esteem you wish to be held. My ethics on the one hand point clearly toward the latter as a matter of respect, but to the other I really don't like thinking so little of anyone.

Oh, I don't give a rat's fuck for your esteem.

Now, onto your assertion that my position is selfish.

Firstly, I think selfishness has been maligned for no good reason. But not to get into master morality *AMA audience cheers at the thought of Xev ranting about master morality*, my position can hardly be called selfish.

How is it selfish, pray tell, for me to be willing to help another and yet expect nothing in return?

Like, duh, Tiassa.

All I ask from my fellow humans is that they continue to disappoint and oppose me.
What I offer my fellow humans is my protection of the weak from the weak.

Now, how is this selfish?

I don't want anyone to follow these values. I don't want followers. But I do note that the world would be a safer place if more people adopted them.

How is that selfish?

Except Xev. She's made a couple of specific requests. As I understand it, anything short of cruel exploitation of her weaknesses is a disservice to her.

Charity is a disservice. Respect is another thing entirely.

Try not to take things so literally, you look like a fool when you do.

Don't feel right, but if that's what she wants ... who am I to take that away from her?

Dunno. Apparently, I DO have a weakness for watching you wiggle and declare that a value that demands I expect nothing and yet give my own power to protect others, is selfish.

"So be it, I repent nothing, I shall never know the least remorse so long as my soul is pure."
--Marquis de Sade, 'Justine'

How is this selfish?

Enlighten me, Tiassa.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, Xev, should I respect your dishonesty?

Innocent people died. They attacked a nation that is bound to be pissed, and the Shrub finds that the "war on terror" has a use for his purposes.

Yes, and innocent people die daily for the benefit of Americans and their wealth. It's all the same thing. Perhaps we would have felt better if Al Qaeda had managed to starve 3,000 people to death?

That's who gives a fuck.

I expect selfish people to look for a reason.

Of course not. What's your point?

That your assertion is pretty stupid:

Tiassa's "K" didn't take care of herself. She was punished for this error.
Xev takes care of herself. She doesn't get too close to or depend on anyone, and only helps others when she's willing to accept the consequences.

Thus, Xev never deals with more pain than she can bear.

Pretty arrogant, pretty short-sighted, pretty damn stupid. What it comes down to is this: if I find you bleeding to death on the side of the road, as I understand it, my obligation is to leave you there. After all, to help you would be to respect the weakness that allowed your injury. I'm happy to respect that condition for someone who specifically asks for it, but I haven't the right to impose such a condition on anyone else.

Isn't it a little religious to declare on faith what you cannot guarantee?

West is top dog, sweetie. Just human nature to attack whomever is at the top of the dominence hierarchy.

You're right. Slave rebellions in the old south came about because the niggers wanted to be top dogs. It had nothing to do with dignity or living conditions, did it?

Oh, I don't give a rat's fuck for your esteem.

Then why do you bother responding to my posts? You're admitting that you don't care about a respectful debate.

Firstly, I think selfishness has been maligned for no good reason.

I can see how you would.

my position can hardly be called selfish

Why not? As you noted: Nobody in this world will help you besides yourself, unless they have something to gain from it or they are very close to you. That wouldn't be a big deal except that you carried on to advocate such a position: She was punished for this error.

Who punished her?

What "authority" makes that "punishment" something that is "right"?

How is it selfish, pray tell, for me to be willing to help another and yet expect nothing in return?

I find this question to be among the lowest points of your posting career at Sciforums.

I do not see this sentiment expressed anywhere else in your posts, and consider the question to be a cheap deception. You are a liar, Xev, and there's nothing that anybody can do about that except you.

So fix it.

What, am I supposed to respect that weakness of your character? Would you rather I do you a disservice? After all, nobody is willing to help anyone for no good reason. What would you like me to do? Respect your weakness and pretend you're not a liar?

Get over yourself.

All I ask from my fellow humans is that they continue to disappoint and oppose me.

Continue treating them like shite, Xev, and you shall have it in abundance.

What I offer my fellow humans is my protection of the weak from the weak

Would you ever protect them from yourself?

Now, how is this selfish?

On the one hand, you might consider this point in terms of the question I just asked: Would you ever protect people from yourself?

But I do note that the world would be a safer place if more people adopted them.

So the world would be a better place if people didn't help each other and hoped for the worst in each other?

How is that selfish?

Well, it seems license for you to act like an angry child.

But as you strive to justify your own lack of sympathy, justify your own behavior, the selfish aspect shows through as the dominant, and perhaps the only aspect.

Charity is a disservice. Respect is another thing entirely

Charity? Respect? What do those two concepts have to do with anything? After all, you wrote: There's really no place for weakness in this world, and the person who respects my weakness does me a disservice.

You really should keep track of your terms. If I help you, I respect your weakness. Nice attempt to shift the context of the word "respect", though. Unlike you, I pay attention to what you write when I'm discussing something with you.

Try not to take things so literally, you look like a fool when you do.

Perhaps you should work toward better expression. Would you rather I presume left and right what you actually mean, instead of what you actually wrote? Would you rather, then, that I respect the weakness of your communication skills?

Get it straight, Xev. Two possible pieces of advice:

• Pay attention to what you write
• Actually pause to think about the result of the values you express

Either one would be helpful.

Apparently, I DO have a weakness for watching you wiggle and declare that a value that demands I expect nothing and yet give my own power to protect others, is selfish.

Well, aside from the "protect the weak from the weak" talk you stuck into this topic, would you care to show that point anywhere else in this debate?

Go ahead and invent that justification for yourself, Xev. It doesn't change the fact of your most essential dishonesty.

How is this selfish?

Because it's pretending that you cannot wrong people.

Like Duh, Xev.

Enlighten me, Tiassa.

I'm trying. But one thing I'm not used to teaching is remedial enlightenment. Most people I encounter generally have a clue.

Three points I would like an answer on:

• What authority "punished" K?
• What authority justifies your determinations of weakness and your intervention against the weak?
• As I have accused you of lying, I would wonder if you're capable of refuting that statement?

On that last note, Xev, do you really expect me to not notice when you stick a principle into a discussion at random? You wrote: How is it selfish, pray tell, for me to be willing to help another and yet expect nothing in return? Well, it's nice to see that question, but it doesn't have much in common with your prior posts in this topic. For me to accept that as your position point-blank would be to respect and accommodate your weakness.

I don't mind idiotic hostility, Xev. I don't mind clashing values. But when you have to lie to create that conflict, I do find it problematic. You have every right to be a disrespectful, lying, selfish brat.

Just don't expect me to respect your weakness; you've asked that I not. If I won't accommodate your dishonesty and expressed cruel regard toward human beings, please understand that's how you've asked for it to be.

--Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

Pretty arrogant, pretty short-sighted, pretty damn stupid. What it comes down to is this: if I find you bleeding to death on the side of the road, as I understand it, my obligation is to leave you there. After all, to help you would be to respect the weakness that allowed your injury. I'm happy to respect that condition for someone who specifically asks for it, but I haven't the right to impose such a condition on anyone else.

I would stop. Most humans wouldn't. Given your vituperativeness regarding myself and other humans here, I find it likely that you wouldn't.

Therefore, to assume that one would be helped is to err. I presume you can google the case of Kitty Genovese.

This is what my value comes down to. Not an advocacy of callousness, as you wrongly and dishonestly impute, but a aknowledgment of the facts.

Why not? As you noted: Nobody in this world will help you besides yourself, unless they have something to gain from it or they are very close to you. That wouldn't be a big deal except that you carried on to advocate such a position: She was punished for this error.

Who punished her?

What "authority" makes that "punishment" something that is "right"?

Dude, put down the bong. Buy a copy of "Hooked on Phonics". Learn to read. Come back. Re-read my post.

Now, where did I say that her punishment was "right"?

My position is this:

Virtue (using either Xev's definition or the standard) is not rewarded in this life or in another life. Virtue is not even its own reward. Thus, if one is to be virtuous, one has to be willing to bear the consequences. However, it should be noted that the lack of reward for virtue in no way diminishes its value.

My own personal choice is too close to my heart for me to befoul it with the likes of you. You know nothing of my life, you know nothing of my past and you know nothing of my ideals. Thus you are unqualified to judge me....logically speaking. Your inability to make a rational criticism of my value and your relience on ad hominem attacks makes any personal judgement you may have about me less than worthless.

Now, you've called me a liar because I have yet to state how I would act. I admit that I did not mention this. In the future, I'll keep in mind the fact that you are a fucking moron.

However, I am somewhat interested in a VALID criticism of my value.

Perhaps you could respond to this with something valid, Tiassa?

And while you're at it, why don't you see a doctor about removing whatever stick is currently lodged in your anus?

 

[Chromatose]

OY!

These debates have come so far i can't make out who thinks what.

Nowhere to get a footing to begin a post.

 

[Tiassa]

Xev, less talk, more shock? What's up with that?

My goodness, Xev, do you ever use your intellect for anything other than your own embarrassment?

I would stop. Most humans wouldn't. Given your vituperativeness regarding myself and other humans here, I find it likely that you wouldn't.

Your dishonesty is beyond that of most politicians, Xev. Stop appealing to the public with your falsehoods, because everybody who has read this topic knows that what I'm objecting to is your selfishness. You can deny what you wrote all you want, but I would have much more respect for you if you retracted it in favor of your latest assertion.

This is what my value comes down to. Not an advocacy of callousness, as you wrongly and dishonestly impute, but a aknowledgment of the facts..

I acknowledge the fact that other human beings are as cruel as you like to portray yourself, but your judgmentalism shows how small your mind really is. Save the weak from the weak? Given your expressed perspectives on humanity, I don't trust you to do that; I don't think you're capable of making such judgments responsibly. With cheap slogans invented to romanticize stupidity, you've managed to undermine yourself terribly.

Now, where did I say that her punishment was "right"?

I thought you were a freaking atheist, Xev. Who the hell is punishing her?

Answer the question, if you have any integrity whatsoever.

Stop confusing your terms, stop seeking agents to "punish" people. At any rate:

Tiassa's "K" didn't take care of herself. She was punished for this error.
Xev takes care of herself. She doesn't get too close to or depend on anyone, and only helps others when she's willing to accept the consequences.

Thus, Xev never deals with more pain than she can bear.

This is life. There's really no place for weakness in this world, and the person who respects my weakness does me a disservice.

It seems to me that to assist "K" would be to respect her weaknesses, and thus do her a disservice, by your standards.

The world owes us one thing:

Give me what I can bear. Give me more than I can bear, and never show me any mercy.

You may think that the "I'm a tough girl, too!" routine is charming or cute or whatever. But several points conspire to reveal your perspective.

• Acknowledgment of apparent fact: Nobody in this world will help you besides yourself, unless they have something to gain from it or they are very close to you.
• Faith statement: Tiassa's "K" didn't take care of herself. She was punished for this error.
• Asserted alternative: Xev takes care of herself. She doesn't get too close to or depend on anyone, and only helps others when she's willing to accept the consequences.
• Faith statement 2: Thus, Xev never deals with more pain than she can bear.
• Endorsement of faith: This is life.
• Assertion of principle: There's really no place for weakness in this world, and the person who respects my weakness does me a disservice.
• Assertion of principle: The world owes us one thing: Give me what I can bear. Give me more than I can bear, and never show me any mercy

See, it really is a cool "tough-girlie" post of yours, but it doesn't speak much of your priorities, especially in the context of the story to which you were responding.

Really, Xev, if you want to be insulting, just post more honestly and the opportunities will present themselves. As long as you go out looking for fights, you'll continue to get them at the expense of your reputation. Now, we know that doesn't matter too much to you in the long run, but can you give me a reason in the world why I should continue to give you attention? I consider your dishonesty a disservice to this site along the lines of Muscleman's rantings.

Xev, have you ever been an asset to anyone other than yourself? Or is that just something that grates on your nerves? Maybe I'd believe you that you have compassion if you would express it sometimes instead of this stupid Tank Girl/Lexx/Madonna routine. When you insert it randomly into a conversation, the first thing to mind is that Xev is trying to find a dignified retreat when all you really had to do was be honest about it in the first place.

Virtue (using either Xev's definition or the standard) is not rewarded in this life or in another life. Virtue is not even its own reward. Thus, if one is to be virtuous, one has to be willing to bear the consequences. However, it should be noted that the lack of reward for virtue in no way diminishes its value.

Perhaps you don't understand that I can agree with concepts I don't hold. I agree with what you've said, however, the fundamental presumptions I must make about myself in order to make that true in my life are quite ridiculous, which is part of the reason I say you're a selfish, mouthy brat.

My own personal choice is too close to my heart for me to befoul it with the likes of you.

Oh, for fuck sake, Xev, can you ever get off your arrogant, melodramatic high-horse?

You know nothing of my life, you know nothing of my past and you know nothing of my ideals. Thus you are unqualified to judge me....logically speaking.

On the one hand, that's true. I can only judge you by what you put in front of me at this site. I find it interesting, though, how religious you're getting in your attack.

Your inability to make a rational criticism of my value and your relience on ad hominem attacks makes any personal judgement you may have about me less than worthless.

Keep hiding, Xev. Keep hiding behind your veil of stupid assertions. Continue to play Jesus freakin' Christ for all I care ([You can't judge me! You're irrational. I won't be honest with you because I won't befoul my ideas by expressing them honestly. He'p me! He'p me! All I can think of is "ad hominiem" and slapping at the air like an angry child!) Okay, I admit your routine is less elegant than Jesus Christ, but come on, I would think that in the face of accusations of chronic and perhaps terminal selfishness, you could do a little better than throw a selfish tantrum. No, Xev, nobody will he'p you here.

Now, you've called me a liar because I have yet to state how I would act. I admit that I did not mention this.

Specifically, I'm calling you a liar because you will sometimes make a wild, melodramatic assertion, such as you did, and then when the sum of that assertion becomes clear to you because others see the values behind the drama, you get pissy and say your position is something else.

While you're witty, and pithy and such, I'd much rather think you're intelligent. Whoops, sorry, I won't mention that again; I know how insulting it is to you if someone thinks of you as intelligent.

In the future, I'll keep in mind the fact that you are a fucking moron.

You're welcome to keep in mind what you want. In the meantime, please note that I'll be keeping in mind that you are a fundamentally dishonest, childish, selfish bitch. And I won't bother putting a smilie on it because we all know that in your heart you actually enjoy being thought of that way.

However, I am somewhat interested in a VALID criticism of my value.

It's fundamentally selfish, but as I understand it, you think selfishness has gotten a bad rap.

Perhaps you could respond to this with something valid, Tiassa?

I generally do. The rest is your own problem.

Perhaps you could respond to this with something valid, Tiassa?

Keep working on it, Xev. Pretty soon I'll conclude you're an idiot, instead of presuming you intelligent. And then you can get all angry and say I have nothing to base that conclusion on.

,
Tiassa

(PS to Chromatose: Just stick yourself in wherever you feel like it. When Xev doesn't like a topic she does, well, this to it. So you can ignore that part of the debate if you want. I think there's a couple of other substantive issues going on here, but by all means, break the rhythm if you can or must. I look forward to a new voice in this one.)

 

[Xev]

Tiassa, you're a moron.

 

[Tiassa]

As you wish

Well enough.

,
Tiassa

 

[Voodoo Child]

Tiassa:

Value for value, an atheist cannot provide any better objective justification for the value than a theist holding God as the justification.

Not better, but not worse. That assumes that your atheist thinks values are justifiable and that values have value.

Me:
Because they are unfair to christians as well. Besides, real unfairness only happens when oneself is the subject.

Tiassa: My point exactly. However I did miscalculate the effect that point would have. I had presumed the lack of human sympathy in that perspective to (A) be apparent, and (B) seem to be a bad thing.

My point is that this is a general trait of humanity, empathy with yourself is so much easier.

If atheism is worth asserting, it is worth examining. If you cannot do so with the same objectivity demanded of religion--e.g. proof of asserted derivatives of cause-

There are asserted derivatives of cause?

 

[spookz]

was that a flame war?
it was sick and cruel

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, Spookz, it was

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

thanx
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Voodoo Child

Not better, but not worse. That assumes that your atheist thinks values are justifiable and that values have value.

I won't argue the point. You are correct. However, if the atheist recognizes that values are not justifiable and have no inherent value, then why object to God? Specifically, why be vocal about atheism? Would the objection still be rooted in the lack of evidence for God?

And presuming the lack of necessity of integrity in an atheist does seem to get me into trouble.

My point is that this is a general trait of humanity, empathy with yourself is so much easier.

Agreed. This is a true statement. My counterpoint, of course, being that just because this is how life is does not mean that is how it must be. Generally speaking, if I point out that someone is taking the easy route, while I don't expect them to thank me, why should that observation upset them?

There are asserted derivatives of cause?

Whether taken from Nietzsche or Hawking or Robert Anton Wilson, Marquis de Sade, ad nauseam, people generally have a reason for believing what they believe. From whatever sources they draw, it's what they do with it that counts. Of course, arbitrary ethical systems are part of what landed the US in its current War on Terror, and part of what many people--not just fundamentalist Muslims--see as problematic in American culture. I find that important to mention. Why? Because when else will I get the chance while examining the very device?

thanx,
Tiassa