Attack a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2013, 06:23 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
You're still here? Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 06:39 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Any debate/discussion is not going to let you know the entire structure of reference a person has. It would take quite a while to verbalize a world image completely.

I think Mjoch is a critical thinker within the confines of his religion, and I appreciate that and I think most all of us enjoy talking with such a person.

I hope he has the stamina and we have the general human respect for these conversations to continue. It must be quite difficult to try to stay on top of all these views we put forth, and I hope Mjoch will continue to try. It is a rare occurrence that we get a religious person here who is not a drive-by shooter and actually wants to discuss things on a real level.

So I would suggest we try and deal with one topic at a time and perhaps over time we will touch on a lot of them. I for one enjoy the exercise in thought, and the process of rethinking issues that we already formed firm opinions about. It's called growth and helps everyone involved to better formulate one's world view.

It is refreshing to talk to a theist who is not trying to convert people, and I think that is why KC gets along well with us also.

So let's try not to overwhelm Mjoch. There is lots of time to cover all kinds of topics.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
22-05-2013, 07:09 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
First, to everyone, thanks for the interest in discussing. I apologize for ignoring many of the questions directed at me but, as you can understand, I must limit my responses. However, I have attempted to briefly address each of you below. Due to length and time constraints (I have to actually make money arguing as well), I do not edit this for grammar etc.

***To CJS: I too find our discussion interesting. Could you elaborate on why you believe arguments about theism and atheism should not be conducted from an ideal perspective? For example, if I have a theory that attempts to explain some phenomenon, I do not reject that theory because it doesn't work when conditions are not ideal. Instead, a design an experiment necessary to create the ideal conditions and then I test the truth or falsity of my theory. Why should religion, which is at its core a theory of the entirety of human experience, be any different?

***To Dom: I think debating kingschosen might be interesting at some point. However, I have yet to even meet him.

1. Certainly.

2. Yes, but I would argue that this sexual energy can be controlled with proper training.

3. I admitted my position may lead to a contradiction. However, I would like to see you lead me there because I am not certain that it does and the exploration is beneficial. And, yes, I agree that, assuming they have not done something to relinquish their freedom to do so, "all humans deserve to be allowed to live with a loving, caring partner." However, living with someone is not the same thing as having sex with them.

***To Full Circle: I'm holding up fine. My biggest problem right now is not letting the forum eat too much time.

Your post is well-reasoned and long. Due to my arguing on multiple fronts at this time, I will respond only to the portion I find most interesting. Apologies. I would like to point out that your point about consenting adults was exactly what I was trying to get CJS to admit. People DO have an interest in each other's sex lives and the blatant statement that "my sex life is no one's business but my own" is demonstrably false and must be qualified with the phrase "up to a point".

Moving on, you stated that "It would be a great act of humanity and kindness if the very organizations that so strenuously oppose contraception and sex education would throw themselves wholeheartedly in support of both." YES! The refusal of certain religious groups to admit this is horrific and the consequences have been devastating. However, I would qualify the atheist position by stating that the effort should be dual. We should teach youth that, if you can make it, abstinence is the best policy. If you can't, then these are the methods and facts you need to know.

Finally, to address your argument about the US Constitution. You are exactly correct but you assume that I would seek to impose my Christian sexual morality through the legal system. I would never dream to do this. For example, I support gay marriage, not because I agree that homosexuality is not wrong, but because I believe that our legal system rightly removes that question from religious consideration by demanding equal protection. It is perfectly logically consistent for me to insist that homosexuality is wrong while at the same time agreeing with your argument regarding the legal system.

***Amyb: I address your points, briefly, in the order you stated them.

1. "Why is uncontrolled procreation "moral"? I'd say it is immoral to have children you can't take care of, or more children than you can handle."
You twisted my words. Please review what I actually wrote. I stated that "The propagation of the human species is moral." Nowhere in this statement did I say "uncontrolled" procreation is moral. You commit the strawman fallacy by arguing against a position I did not take.

2. "Heterosexuals can have diseases, too." Yes, they can. But the point of my argument is that in heterosexual relationships this risk is offset by one of two things: (1) the moral good of propagation OR (2) the moral good of strengthening a familial bond likely to result in the eventual support of children. (The observant reader will note that it is premise two of this argument that I believe might lead to the contradiction when gay adoption is considered.)

3. "I reject the idea that homosexuality has any negative impact. Also, I'd say tolerance of homosexuality has positive impacts, because otherwise you would causing unhappiness (not letting gays marry, have sex, etc.)" I agree that tolerance has many positive impacts. However, do NOT confuse tolerance and acceptance with a requirement that I accept the gay worldview. It is not logically inconsistent to say that I believe homosexuality is wrong and yet that homosexuals should have all the freedoms that heterosexuals do under our legal system. See my post to FC above.

4. "Are you one of those people who think all gay people have the HIV, or something?"
No.

5."Also, I just want to let you know that homosexuals are able to have children. Being gay is not the same thing as being infertile. They can use surrogates, artificial insemination, etc. Polyamorous bisexuals in a homosexual relationship might even have heterosexual intercourse."

We are talking about the morality of traditional homosexual sex. Gays cannot produce kids in this manner. It might interest you to know that I have NO problem with a gay couple creating a child through either of the procedures you mentioned and raising it. Such a process does not implicate the social harms I have been discussing and thus would not be sinful.

6. "I know we're talking about gays, but I think anyone in a homosexual relationship probably falls into your definition of sin."

Actually, no they don't. We could discuss this further if you wish.

***To Starcrash: The success or failure of Biblical sexuality as a moral precept is relevant to the God question. I chose the topic to be get things off to a different type of start. If you check my last post to Dr. Mark, you will see that I actually suggested we move on to a more directly related "existence of God" question.

***To ReadandConsider: Interesting but I reject this approach to truth finding as logically unsound. If and when I have less on my plate with others, we can discuss this at length, perhaps even in the Boxing Arena.

***To HouseofCantor: You bet I am! If anything, I am here TOO MUCH. Curse you interesting atheists and your intellectually stimulating arguments against my religion. CURSE...YOU!!!

***To Dom (Again): Just...wow. Thanks! I am trying to get to everyone as quickly as I can without sacrificing too much clarity and reason.

Sincerely,

Mojch

*Edit for clarity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(22-05-2013 07:09 AM)Mojch Wrote:  And, yes, I agree that, assuming they have not done something to relinquish their freedom to do so, "all humans deserve to be allowed to live with a loving, caring partner." However, living with someone is not the same thing as having sex with them.
Um... let me understand you. Do you oppose a gay man's right to have sex ? Or... you just feel that if that's what he wants to do that's fine but at some abstract level it's "wrong" ?

Quote:We should teach youth that, if you can make it, abstinence is the best policy. If you can't, then these are the methods and facts you need to know.
I thought that the case was well made by a previous poster that abstinence is not proven to be the best policy. So I wouldn't bother teaching that to kids.

Quote:I support gay marriage, not because I agree that homosexuality is not wrong, but because I believe that our legal system rightly removes that question from religious consideration by demanding equal protection.
Good man.

Quote:It is perfectly logically consistent for me to insist that homosexuality is wrong while at the same time agreeing with your argument regarding the legal system.
I agree that it's consistent but... on what basis are you claiming that it's wrong ? It's icky ? The Bible ?

Quote:2. "Heterosexuals can have diseases, too." Yes, they can. But the point of my argument is that in heterosexual relationships this risk is offset by one of two things: (1) the moral good of propagation OR (2) the moral good of strengthening a familial bond likely to result in the eventual support of children. (The observant reader will note that it is premise two of this argument that I believe might lead to the contradiction when gay adoption is considered.)
Weak dude. Moral good. WTF ? It's like saying... I don't know what it's like saying. It's a ridiculous argument. You shouldn't wear a t-shirt. For the moral good. People who wear t-shirts are more likely to be casual about everything else in their lives. Therefore wearing t-shirts is sinful. Look it says so right here in Ezekiel 2:21.

Quote:We are talking about the morality of traditional homosexual sex. Gays cannot produce kids in this manner. It might interest you to know that I have NO problem with a gay couple creating a child through either of the procedures you mentioned and raising it. Such a process does not implicate the social harms I have been discussing and thus would not be sinful.
*Why* is it of interest to you guys where a man sticketh his pole ? It's "immoral" to have gay sex ??? And normal sex is "moral" ? So God's there watching and he sees a guy stick it in a woman and he's like, "Ok Good, that boy got it right." And he marks a big tick in his book of correct things that this guy has done ?

I dunno guy, it's like you're from a different planet. Morality is not an argument which holds water with any of us. Morality represents the worst of religion from my stand point. It's the last refuge to which any argument is consigned. In the end something is wrong simply because it's wrong. That's all "morality" is a code word for.

Irreverently

Dog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-05-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Morondog,

As you indicated at the end of your last post, our disagreements seem to stem, fundamentally, from a disagreement over morality. You stated...

"Morality is not an argument which holds water with any of us. Morality represents the worst of religion from my stand point. It's the last refuge to which any argument is consigned. In the end something is wrong simply because it's wrong. That's all "morality" is a code word for."

This literally blew my mind. Most atheists I know are adamant that morality (as in the idea that some actions are objectively right / wrong in certain circumstances) DOES exist and that it is independent of any religion. Some claim that it is a result of evolution selecting for those social traits that are most likely to propagate the species. (You might notice that this sounds surprisingly like what I suggested above as the definition of morality.) A simple Google search for the terms "the evolution of morality" will bring you to several scientific articles (check Google Scholar) that, at the very least, show that the existence of morality apart from religion is still very much an open scientific and philosophical question.

Are you seriously claiming to reject all arguments based on morality? Do you assert that morality of some kind, whether secular or religious, does not exist? If not, then why reject all arguments based on it? If so, what principles should humanity use to order society?

Sincerely,

Mojch
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
Morality is chemical intelligence. "The last bastion of morality" is a question of identity, like me and my Gwynnies. Heart

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
22-05-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(22-05-2013 10:14 AM)Mojch Wrote:  Morondog,

As you indicated at the end of your last post, our disagreements seem to stem, fundamentally, from a disagreement over morality. You stated...

"Morality is not an argument which holds water with any of us. Morality represents the worst of religion from my stand point. It's the last refuge to which any argument is consigned. In the end something is wrong simply because it's wrong. That's all "morality" is a code word for."

This literally blew my mind. Most atheists I know are adamant that morality (as in the idea that some actions are objectively right / wrong in certain circumstances) DOES exist and that it is independent of any religion. Some claim that it is a result of evolution selecting for those social traits that are most likely to propagate the species. (You might notice that this sounds surprisingly like what I suggested above as the definition of morality.) A simple Google search for the terms "the evolution of morality" will bring you to several scientific articles (check Google Scholar) that, at the very least, show that the existence of morality apart from religion is still very much an open scientific and philosophical question.

Are you seriously claiming to reject all arguments based on morality? Do you assert that morality of some kind, whether secular or religious, does not exist? If not, then why reject all arguments based on it? If so, what principles should humanity use to order society?

Sincerely,

Mojch

Hi, welcome to the forum. I must say you are an interesting one and I hope you stick around long enough for us to get to know you. I've been following your posts since you arrived but saw you were being overwhelmed so I hung back and waited til things settled down a bit. You seem to be a rational intelligent person that is worth having a discussion with.

So now on to the heart of why I am now responding to you. Above Morondog made a statement about morality that left you somewhat confused. I do not speak for him for various reasons (I am not him and cannot know his mind) but for me morality is not absolute. The difference between the religious and the atheist (well most of us, we're like cats ya see can never agree on anything except the god thing) is that the theist believes that his morals were spoken by a bit of scrub that had ignited to a goat herder that had just bested the Pharaoh in a game of parlor tricks and thus are Absolute and Unquestionable! Now for me Morality is based off of a simple precept the hippocratic oath "First do no harm" which of course run counter to a great deal of biblical morality that is based on the precept of "Obey".

I could continue but will leave this short as you are no doubt going to have to reply to 7 or 8 other people as well.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
22-05-2013, 11:21 AM
RE: Attack a Theist
(22-05-2013 07:09 AM)Mojch Wrote:  I agree that tolerance has many positive impacts. However, do NOT confuse tolerance and acceptance with a requirement that I accept the gay worldview. I

When you have a moment, would you kindly enlighten us as to what exactly the *gay worldview* is, how you know what it is, and where you validated that the *is* THE one, and how exactly *they* all get indoctrinated into THE ONE "gay worldview" ? Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-05-2013, 12:15 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
(22-05-2013 11:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When you have a moment, would you kindly enlighten us as to what exactly the *gay worldview* is, how you know what it is, and where you validated that the *is* THE one, and how exactly *they* all get indoctrinated into THE ONE "gay worldview" ? Weeping

We know you guys already have gaydar. Who knows what other nefarious tech you're coming up with ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-05-2013, 12:20 PM
RE: Attack a Theist
Mojhc

Do you feel that asking a theist questions is the equivalent of attacking one? ( I also realize you initially named the thread "Ask a theist")

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: