GarthP2000

Lindyhopper, I think your post is one of the best explanations of how an unbeliever can be just as absolutely moral as I have seen yet. Besides, there are plenty of religious-based morals that are a lot more 'situational' or 'utilitarian' than people realize. And I love this line: If one unverifiable concept may be true, an infinite number of other unverifiable concepts could also be true. That alone upends the premise of the Pascal's Wager without a doubt. Now as to your Question of The Ages: and why does this emoticon say "spy" and not "pot head?" ... I dunno. :shrugs smiley:

From what I've been taught in TWI, its where the 'demon' (or 'devil spirit' if you prefer) enters, and then occupies the brain/mind of the possessed. And (supposedly) is difficult as hell to get out or made to leave, depending on the size/viciousness of said spirit. Ie., boils down to an ignorant, and often abusive, attempt to explain mental illness.

Tis true, tis true! :unsure: How about taking it further? As in how many skeptics are ministers themselves but especially dare not bring it up, hmmmm? Particularly since you read various polls where a good number of ministers themselves have doubts/disbelieve some, or even most of what they learned from their doctrine. :o But alas, they are talking about letting the good Pat Robertson back into the theme park project. Apparently the $$moolah$$ from his supporters are speaking loudly to them too.

Hehehe. Yeah Sudo, you KNOW that when that $50 mill was cut OFF, he started singing a different tune pronto! Money talks alright, even in the 'spurchal' world.

Coffee? You reproved somebody for having a cup of CAW-FEE??? Why ... why ... why, in many church circles, both orthodox and heretical, *coffee* is regarded as pert near the Nectar of the God(s), almost even one of The Most Holiest of Sacraments! (Do I hear an Amen! from the peanut gallery?) 3 Hail Marys, 5 Our Fathers, and 20, count 'em, 20 decaffinated cups, _without_ cream OR sugar, for you, sinner!

gggrrrrrrrrrrr ...... (Now I know what to get Raf for Christmas next year: Pizza w/ pineapple, and a Starbuck's vente size cappuccino w/ cream, sweet-N-low, cinnamon, and chocolate mixed in.) Expand your world, man.

I finally figured it all out. Smikeol isn't a person at all. Smikeol a rapidly expanding and malevolent virus, against which even some of the most potent anti-virus packages are ineffectual. ... I mean, there is no person who could be this stupidly persistant and unreal! ... There can't be! :ph34r:

Addicted? Moi?? ..... Nahhhh. I can leave any time I want. Anytime. .... that's if I want to leave, that is. Nope. No problem whatsoever. ....... ...... So what am I still doing here? .... Well, uhh, .... cuz, ... just cuz ..... Not that I have a problem, mind you. Nope, .... not me ............

... and of course, Robertson just has to wade in and offer his 'spurchal' take on the situation. Thus Sayeth Pat Robertson! His ratings must be pretty damn low for him to get this desperate.

And why not 'look for the wires' as it were? Or 'pay attention to the man behind the curtain'? You know and I know that there are *millions* of charlatans and scam artists out there who make all kinds of 'spurchal' claims ranging from A to Z. As well as people who make the claim out of innocent, yet unsubstantiated claims. Could it be that that is but one big reason to be the skeptics that we are? And yet how many times has that process been discounted as the 'unbelief of a sinner'? If the 'wires' aren't there, then it'll prove itself thusly. When we don't 'find the man behind the curtain', then we can move on from there. So far what I see (conclusively) is that belief in God (or gods) is still in the realm of what people decide to believe for various reasons. As is the rejection of same entities. ..... And it goes no farther than that. Cheers!

... the selfsame 'TWI-Wars' that you seem to be stuck in as well, What The Hey. For if you think all this such a waste of time, ....... why are you still here? Face it, chief. The well hidden but abusive crap from your precioussss leader VPW has risen to the surface, and there is nothing you can do to hide it again. Or to effectively deny it.

Saying that you are wasting your time for theism is one thing, and that isn't fear mongering. Perhaps it isn't something that you wish to hear, and you're entitled to that, but there is no fear attached to it. Saying that there will be an Eternal Judgement (and of course, the Damnation that inveriably goes with it) for not believing is another, and IS fear mongering, as it appeals to the fear of what happens at the Damnation. ... you know ... Fire, Brimstone, and Eternal Torture, that sort of thing. ... The kind of thing that you don't get from someone that tells you that you are wasting your time for believing in God, hmmm?

Seems to me, especially after seeing Smikeol go literally ape-s**t on this thread, that the only thing that's 'tattered' is his ..... preciouusssss. "Myyyyyy pprreecciiioooouuuusssssss!! ..... Nnnnooooooooo!!!"

Excellent post and very clearly put, JumpinJive. Oh, and I keep seeing Pascal's Wager illustrated here. Well, recently I read where that might not be such a reliable test to consider/prove God's existance as much as many people think. Suppose, in using that wager's model, that instead of the decision between simply God or no god, we have the decision between the Christian God, the Muslim one, the Hindu selection of deities, the Shinto ones, etc. The usage of the Pascal's Wager in this sense is just as valid, since you can't accept one god and not reject another, since just about all religious beliefs require that you believe in their god exclusively, to the rejection of all others. Heck even between some denominations of certain religions, you have to accept denomination A, to the exclusion of denomination B. So, applying Pascal's Wager to this now more complicated set of selections, it no longer is a simple 50-50, 'either there is a god or not' choice, but now the odds are highly against you selecting the right one. An inverse Russian roulette, as it were. :blink: And yet there is not any more evidence for the theistic choices being more valid than the non-theistic choice. ... So why, when many people are looking beyond the doctrine for proof of God's existance, is there the need for this fear mongering suggestion of "Well, if there really is a God, and you choose that there isn't, ..... " Why cannot we have irrefutable proof of His existance? Why is that a sign of immoral sin and rebellion?

So speaking of 'tattered remnants', what are you doing adding to the frey, ... hmmmm?

I don't know what's gonna be on mine yet, but I can sure bet what's gonna be on Raf's: "There ain't no pineapple on this Tombstone!"

Mark, Interesting. I read that his signing up for the military wasn't so reactional as that, and had a more transcendant reason to sign up that to exact revenge for his ego being bruised. Perhaps you can provide sources which can confirm your point? Actually, based upon what I read about Tillman and why he signed up, I believe that he's a very good example for me to use. Now if you can confirm what you say about the man, maybe that would change, altho' I don't believe that it may be by much. Now you might believe that one's atheism has no bearing on the loyalty and faithfulness in serving ones country, but, as you undoubtedly know, there are those to whom atheism does matter as regards to patriotism, not the least being George Bush Sr., who once stated "…I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God… I'm just not very high on atheists." So you can see more reason for my skepticism in this area. Please don't read more into what I said than what I actually said. My main point was that atheists are no more and no less moral than Christians/other theists. Thank you. Very good question! :) Basically, I know for myself, I pretty much now use the 'intrinsic value' model for determining the moral value of a decision, rather than the 'this is what the Authority says' model. In TWI, that was shown by the 'It is Written' approach. Ie., what does the Bible say, and then base everything around that. (Yeah, yeah, I know. Wierwille and TWI were rabidly poor and twisted examples of that kind of reasoning, and I agree with that. But I hope it helps to illustrate my point.) Quite a few of the atheists I know operate very similarly to the standpoint I do, or have different variations of it. Some are more utilitarian, or even situational, perhaps, but they prefer those over the "This is what THE Authority Says, now Shut Up and Do as You Are Told!" fundamentalist routine, particularly if that routine doesn't allow for any questioning/analysis/scrutiny of what The Morals are. And then you do have some atheists (Tom Leykis, the Seattle talk show host comes to mind) who are more or less the 'hedonist', as it were, and while I might enjoy his show from time to time, I don't go for that selfsame 'hedonist' behavior. One thing you will find out about atheists. They are VERY independent minded, often to the disadvantage, organizationally speaking. It is said that trying to organize atheists is like trying to herd cats. That's one big reason why trying to label atheists politically or economically is a venture in foolishness, particularly when regards the desperate attempt by some to tie in atheism with communism. (Actually, there are more atheist Libertarians than even atheist moderate Socialists.) Anywho, hope this helps give you a clearer, and more accurate picture of where atheists are at (all over the map, as it were :) ). The only real thing that deliniates atheists, is that they (we? I'm still trying to figure myself out in that area, believe it or not) just don't believe in a deity.

Too Old Now, then I stand corrected as to why the newsmedia no longer carry the story of why he is no longer hailed as a hero. My apologies if it came across in an insensitive way. I used that as an example that atheists/unbelievers too are/can be just as patriotic/moral as any theist. Mark, I do wish to point out to you that you are mistaken in that such morals in this patriotic context is not just 'utilitarian', and thus has nothing to do with any sense of absolute morality. Going to fight for defending freedom for those here at home and abroad transcends 'utilitarian morality', regardless what you might state otherwise. And a Happy New Year to you (and you Too Old Now) too.

Moony, But do you use Puppy Wax to wax them with? :o

Dang!! That gun flew out of that guy's hand almost as fast as the bullet went. So how in the dickens can someone use the damn thing if it has that powerful of a recoil?

This folks, is what is known as a 'hit and run' insult. 'Drive by posting' is another term for it. <_<

Clay, Now read that again, .... slowly if you have to. There is a lot os ASSumption and oversimplified mistatements, w/o *ONE* fact to back that up. Here, allow me be more direct. ... In that statement you made to me, you are a liar! Yes, now I'm ticked off, and I have good right to be. All I'm doing is openly and verbally challenging various points that I don't believe to be true. Others (like Mark, in a very civil manner I might add) are responding with what they believe to be true and challenging me. So far, no hate. ... YOU barrel in with your rant about me hating, for no better reason than because of my remarks stating such challenges, and now you tell me that you are resisting the temptation "to rip my head off and shove it up my foot." ... Again, for no better reason than the challenging statements that I make. Or for like others like George Aar makes for that matter. See, this is one reason why various unbelievers walk away from your religion and others like it. Ie., you can slam and damn atheists, infidels, unbelievers, etc. with pert near impunity, and Hey! no problemo! That's life in the big city, pal! ... BUT, one of us goes off on you and your beliefs, folks like you act like 9-11 has just hit! Ie., you can (and often DO) dish it out, but you don't have the brass ones to take it. Can't have it both ways. Besides, if your belief is so strong, you ought to welcome the verbal challenges, hmmmm? Then you can show the whole freekin' world how strong your truth is. So, like I said, ... Bite me!

Too Gray Now, You must have posted before my latest post which has this: That quote by Einstein is no 'mistake' or 'confusion'. He actually said that, and did believe it. Also keep in mind, that to many people, 'relgion' and 'God' are synonymous, altho you are correct that there is a distinction between the two. ... But not enough of a distinction to dismantle my point. Sorry.

Mark, 1) First off, you presume at least much as you accuse me of, as your post did not 'through (sp? ;)) me into such a rage', altho' I can see how such an image would seemingly enhance the view of non-believers as being 'base animals' and nothing beyond that, yadayada. Your post did amuse and puzzle me tho'. 2) Regarding the utilitarian vs. the absolute comparison. You see, my 'utilitarian' POV does indeed include, and is based upon an absolute standard. And so does Einstein's. And it's in plain view for all to see. Ie., "sympathy, education, and social ties", and what enhances all concerned in those areas; ie., the betterment of humanity in all people do. No doubt there are other areas to keep in mind when determining such absolutes, but note that it isn't simply because aomeone in authority determines what those absolutes are for everybody, but are things that are tested and learned over time. For example, stealing. Not only has it been established that stealing is wrong because you can get arrested and put in jail for stealing, but people of good reason, be they theistic or atheistic, have seen that stealing from another robs and hurts not only the individual being stolen from, but ultimately from society, and even from the thief himself, as he doesn't see the benefit of working and earning his way thru society. That is but one example of what I'm talking about. Ie., instead of some High Superior Being stating what morals are, and we but obediently w/o question accept that as right or wrong, one can see through personal experience and learning from actual proof what right and wrong is. And yes, I realize that is far easier said than done. I took your post as conveying the idea that w/o believing in the concept of god, one didn't have morals. After reading your explanation of what you posted, I withdraw the 'not having any morals' part, but still challenge the utilitarian vs. the absolute morals part of your argument, seeing that they both endeavor to get to what is right and wrong. They apparently use different standards/means of arriving at the same or similar answers. There are those however, that still maintain that atheists cannot have morals for the simple reason that they don't believe in God -- period. Allan, I don't know if that quote you give of Einstein is correct or not (I tend to doubt it), but to keep a clear viewpoint of where he stood on this matter of believing in God, this is what he said in addressing what a lot of people said in trying to pigeonhole him in believing in God: Now, you take those two quotes and compare them, and I'm sorry chief, but they hardly look compatible to each other to me, and I have some reliable sources to give a lot of creedance to the latter, and none to the former.Here is another statement from Albert that gives further creedance to what I say here about him: Note how that also addresses several of the points that are raised in this thread. Overall, this is a really good thread. :) P.S., Clay, no more than you hate atheists and other non-believers, pal. As a matter of fact, I would dare to say that my level of 'hate' is a helluva lot less. But seriously, I have given no indication of hate, or anything that can be rationally be regarded as hate, towards those who believe in religion. That I dare challenge various of its concepts is what I think you mistake as hate. And its a mistake based purely upon emotion and arrogance. And a good deal upon bigotry, I might add. So bite me. (And no Mark, I am not 'afflicted' with an evangelist's zeal either. Any more than others who post with as much 'zeal' as I do.)

To Mark's remark of: I say thusly a comment by Albert Einstein: Think about it. Do you mean to tell me that, without the concept of God, you cannot have a concept of right or wrong? Or of what hurts other people? That morality and ethics shown to other people just cannot be practiced w/o a God in your life? Remember Pat Tillman, that guy who used to be a star college football player who forsook going to professional football with the potential 6-7 figure salary, who instead joined up with the Army and went and fought in Afghanistan for his country? The guy died there even (by 'friendly' fire, no doubt). Ie., he had the selfless morals to believe to fight for his country in what he regarded was right. Ie., he thought outside of himself and his selfish desires. (I mean, fer crying out loud, pretty selfless to turn down a 7 figure salary and a posh life, doncha think?) You do know that he was an atheist, don't you? And he always was. His brother stated so plainly at his funeral, and I see no reason to doubt his brother's testimony. And ya know, its funny, but it seems that ever since that tidbit came out about him being an atheist, his praise coming from all around the country ... stopped. ..... Make ya wanna go "Hhmmmmm ..."