It is a bad metaphor. The point goes over the heads of these guys completely. This is a good reflection of the Atheist vs. Christian debate -- Atheists see the big picture, Christians want to see what they want to see. The sheep metaphor is horrible merely for the fact that it contradicts the concept of free-will (as far as the contextual meaning of the metaphor is concerned). Being a mindless sheep takes very little faith. It is sad that Christians are missing out on what atheists have, which is freewill.
Monday, March 7, 2011
VenomFangX vs Thunderf00t (God is a Shepard?)
It is a bad metaphor. The point goes over the heads of these guys completely. This is a good reflection of the Atheist vs. Christian debate -- Atheists see the big picture, Christians want to see what they want to see. The sheep metaphor is horrible merely for the fact that it contradicts the concept of free-will (as far as the contextual meaning of the metaphor is concerned). Being a mindless sheep takes very little faith. It is sad that Christians are missing out on what atheists have, which is freewill.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Atheists Are Emotion-Deniers!
Okay, maybe not all atheists are emotion-deniers. However, it seems that many (if not most) atheists attempt to totally shut off their ability to think emotionally. Like with morality, many atheists cannot tell the difference between right and wrong (or wont admit it because an irrational belief in moral-relativism).
Humans are emotional beings by nature, and require emotion to function properly in society. I believe that suppressing the 'emotional reasoning' part of the mind causes people to behave sociopathically. Moral-reasoning asses both logical-thinking and emotional-thinking (emotional-thinking in a bigger way than normal). If one of those types of thinking (emotional or rational) is suppressed, then a poor view of morality is created.
Another type of thinking that requires some emotion is empathy. Even though many atheists deny emotion as being real—which it is, subjectively, and our subjectivity encompasses everything. With subjectivity properly understood, emotion is just as real as logic, and it should not be denied as existing. And while many atheists suppress emotional-thinking, that does not mean they can completely get rid of this faculty, but it can be weakened (harming empathetical-intelligence, etc.).
Sadly, being able to think with some emotional-intelligence is important—obviously this type of thinking should not be suppressed. Having a well-rounded mind is better than having a mind that leans towards one area by suppressing another. Obviously most atheists are able to think emotionally. But, I would argue that those that are moral-relativists are emotionally-unintellectual—which is why when discussing concepts like morality, they look a-little "slow" like this guy in the video below...
Humans are emotional beings by nature, and require emotion to function properly in society. I believe that suppressing the 'emotional reasoning' part of the mind causes people to behave sociopathically. Moral-reasoning asses both logical-thinking and emotional-thinking (emotional-thinking in a bigger way than normal). If one of those types of thinking (emotional or rational) is suppressed, then a poor view of morality is created.
Another type of thinking that requires some emotion is empathy. Even though many atheists deny emotion as being real—which it is, subjectively, and our subjectivity encompasses everything. With subjectivity properly understood, emotion is just as real as logic, and it should not be denied as existing. And while many atheists suppress emotional-thinking, that does not mean they can completely get rid of this faculty, but it can be weakened (harming empathetical-intelligence, etc.).
Sadly, being able to think with some emotional-intelligence is important—obviously this type of thinking should not be suppressed. Having a well-rounded mind is better than having a mind that leans towards one area by suppressing another. Obviously most atheists are able to think emotionally. But, I would argue that those that are moral-relativists are emotionally-unintellectual—which is why when discussing concepts like morality, they look a-little "slow" like this guy in the video below...
only moral because of God?
Many believers make the argument that morality would not exist if there wasn't for God (which implies that god must be real); this argument is very poor for many reasons.
For the sake of argument, let's say that God exist ('for the sake of argument' =/= concession that a god exists). Is it good to act morally only because someone is watching? If God is the reason we act morally, then it would seem that without God everyone would act immorally. This sort of mentality is why believers perceive atheists as being immoral, and completely goes against the concept of free-will. On the other hand believers see atheists arguing for moral-relativism, and view them as being moral-less blah blah, so on and so forth.
I would argue that those that are moral because of God are like those little-asshole-kids that are only good around Christmas an their birthday for the reward.
The religious are unable to escape their selfish motives for behaving well. Someone that behaves well only out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, is not moral. I would argue that by default atheists are more genuine because they don't believe someone is watching them like Big Brother, and don't believe in reward post-life.
Someone that behaves morally for the sake of others is genuinely behaving morally; i.e. motives are not out of self-interest, but out the interest of others. It seems that those who subscribe to the 'I'm only good because someone watching' view of morality are sociopaths, but what do you think?
Do believers have a sociopathic-view of morality?
Click the 'agree' button if you agree, or 'disagree' button if you don't agree (buttons are below the post).
For the sake of argument, let's say that God exist ('for the sake of argument' =/= concession that a god exists). Is it good to act morally only because someone is watching? If God is the reason we act morally, then it would seem that without God everyone would act immorally. This sort of mentality is why believers perceive atheists as being immoral, and completely goes against the concept of free-will. On the other hand believers see atheists arguing for moral-relativism, and view them as being moral-less blah blah, so on and so forth.
I would argue that those that are moral because of God are like those little-asshole-kids that are only good around Christmas an their birthday for the reward.
The religious are unable to escape their selfish motives for behaving well. Someone that behaves well only out of fear of punishment or hope of reward, is not moral. I would argue that by default atheists are more genuine because they don't believe someone is watching them like Big Brother, and don't believe in reward post-life.
Someone that behaves morally for the sake of others is genuinely behaving morally; i.e. motives are not out of self-interest, but out the interest of others. It seems that those who subscribe to the 'I'm only good because someone watching' view of morality are sociopaths, but what do you think?
Do believers have a sociopathic-view of morality?
Click the 'agree' button if you agree, or 'disagree' button if you don't agree (buttons are below the post).
Thursday, March 3, 2011
rape can be moral using utilitarianistic moral-reasoning.
If you don't know what utilitarianism is, read about it here.
Many atheists subscribe to this moral philosophy in part/whole. The basic idea behind this moral philosophy is that the ends justify the means, and that moral decisions should be based on the Greatest Happiness Principal (G. H. P). G.H.P is basically about how moral decisions should be based upon whichever outcome leads to the most happiness and least pain. Motives don't matter with this philosophy only the telos (end).
But, I don't want to get to much into the description of this philosophy (the basic idea is that moral decisions should be based upon what leads to the most pleasure/happiness and least pain). The point in this blog post that I'm looking to make is that there are many holes in this moral structure—that such moral reasoning is not moral at all.
Here is a good example that highlights the flaws of utilitarianism..
There is a guy named Bob. Bob considers himself to be a very moral individual, and he subscribes to the moral-philosophy of Mills (as briefly described above). Using this morality, Bob is able to morally justify in his mind the act of rape. In this example, it is assumed that while raping the individual, the individual is harmed in no way, and the person is unaware that it occurs. If Utilitarianism is used, then there is no harm caused at all, but there is pleasure (albeit disturbing). So by using the G.H.P Bob is not immoral by raping this person, in fact it is moral to rape, because raping someone in this way causes no harm, but does cause happiness (more total happiness than would exist otherwise).
While this may seem like a cheap-shot, it is in my opinion a good reflection for why this is no way to contemplate morality (people can use this type of moral-reasoning to justify immoral behavior).
I know I'm a broken record (brought this up many times), but morality should be based on something that doesn't seem to be brought up that much in discussion about morality (I personally don't hear it that much anyways); which is, moral-behavior should be judged based upon how that behavior influences the functionality of society (if it harms it, it is immoral, if it benefits it, it is moral, etc.). It seems this way of looking at morality should be obvious from a sociological context. I mean, that is the purpose of morality, it is cognition that leads to actions that are beneficial to society ("beneficial" can even mean behavior that supports existing useful moral behavior; i.e. the status quo is not necessarily immoral for not improving societies functionality, but merely maintaining it can be moral in itself). I can't seem to think of any moral contradiction with this view of morality; or in other words, it seems all-encompassing of morality as we know it, and leaves plenty of room for improvement.
It seems to me that atheists should be embracing this view of morality instead of utilitarianism and/or moral-relativism (both have similarities). A view of morality that looks at how morality influences society on all levels is way more logical than anything else out there.
Many atheists subscribe to this moral philosophy in part/whole. The basic idea behind this moral philosophy is that the ends justify the means, and that moral decisions should be based on the Greatest Happiness Principal (G. H. P). G.H.P is basically about how moral decisions should be based upon whichever outcome leads to the most happiness and least pain. Motives don't matter with this philosophy only the telos (end).
But, I don't want to get to much into the description of this philosophy (the basic idea is that moral decisions should be based upon what leads to the most pleasure/happiness and least pain). The point in this blog post that I'm looking to make is that there are many holes in this moral structure—that such moral reasoning is not moral at all.
Here is a good example that highlights the flaws of utilitarianism..
There is a guy named Bob. Bob considers himself to be a very moral individual, and he subscribes to the moral-philosophy of Mills (as briefly described above). Using this morality, Bob is able to morally justify in his mind the act of rape. In this example, it is assumed that while raping the individual, the individual is harmed in no way, and the person is unaware that it occurs. If Utilitarianism is used, then there is no harm caused at all, but there is pleasure (albeit disturbing). So by using the G.H.P Bob is not immoral by raping this person, in fact it is moral to rape, because raping someone in this way causes no harm, but does cause happiness (more total happiness than would exist otherwise).
While this may seem like a cheap-shot, it is in my opinion a good reflection for why this is no way to contemplate morality (people can use this type of moral-reasoning to justify immoral behavior).
I know I'm a broken record (brought this up many times), but morality should be based on something that doesn't seem to be brought up that much in discussion about morality (I personally don't hear it that much anyways); which is, moral-behavior should be judged based upon how that behavior influences the functionality of society (if it harms it, it is immoral, if it benefits it, it is moral, etc.). It seems this way of looking at morality should be obvious from a sociological context. I mean, that is the purpose of morality, it is cognition that leads to actions that are beneficial to society ("beneficial" can even mean behavior that supports existing useful moral behavior; i.e. the status quo is not necessarily immoral for not improving societies functionality, but merely maintaining it can be moral in itself). I can't seem to think of any moral contradiction with this view of morality; or in other words, it seems all-encompassing of morality as we know it, and leaves plenty of room for improvement.
It seems to me that atheists should be embracing this view of morality instead of utilitarianism and/or moral-relativism (both have similarities). A view of morality that looks at how morality influences society on all levels is way more logical than anything else out there.
Atheists Have A Self-Centered Morality?
Apparently behavior is only good if it is inspired by God, that makes sense (sarcasm). It is not that just atheists get their morality from themselves, we all do. Even a person that believes in God still gets their morality from themselves. There are better ways to debate morality than to have it determined based upon whether not their is a God (can't be proved at the moment). Many atheists are moral-relativists, and this causes a misconception that all atheists are like this, which is untrue.
"you want evidence of a god, look in a mirror"
That is no more evidence for a god than it is for cosmic gnomes.
The believers need to argue against moral-relativism, and they need to argue against it without God, because God is not a convincing argument to an atheist; for any person with an average intelligence this should be obvious.
"it's not about evidence buddy"
Evidence is a very important thing for determining the validity of the claims of the existence of a being (which should be obvious). Atheists are oftentimes lost when it comes to morality, but that does not mean believers are any better off. Morality is something which has been polluted with ideas like 'moral-relativism', etc. But, moral-relativism is not actually connected with atheism (i.e. not all atheists are moral-relativists). Beating a dead horse here, I know, but this morality debate is something that needs to be discussed, it seems in general, both sides (religious vs.. atheist) are wrong.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
A Douchey Moral-Reletivistic Atheist.
This is the perfect example for what is wrong with many atheists. Behaviors can be right and wrong, and there is no need to evoke religion to differentiate between right and wrong. With any sort of understanding of our species (how evolution formed our psychological/physiological needs) it should be incredibly obvious to even the most unintellectual humans (short of being mentally-handicapped) that there are behaviors that are productive and behaviors that are destructive to the self and society. This is the difference between right and wrong, and for any atheist (or anyone, but especially an atheist) to deny this is so mind-numbingly stupid mere words cannot give it justice. This is the one area that the religious are winning in general, because it seems most atheists are moral-relativists. The problem with many atheists is that they open their minds so much that their brains fall out. I cannot stress this point enough to atheists; moral-relativism is both wrong and incredibly unintellectual. Moral-relativism is a pseudo-morality.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Guy Claims Atheists are Pro-Rape.
"most brutal crime that humanity can think of" (talking about rape)
No, rape is not the most brutal crime humanity can think of. Let me find one that is worse, where to look for brutal crimes agaisnt humanity...
oh right!
The Bible!
Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy are those who pay you back for what you have done to us-- who take your babies and smash them against a rock. -Psalms 137:8-9
Well that wasn't very hard to find.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
"because I know that after this life I've got somewhere better to go"
Lying is a sin. Assuming this guy is a human, it seems that this must be a lie, because it doesn't seem humans know what happens to them after death because for the moment knowing such things are impossible. But, maybe I'm wrong, maybe this guy has super-amazing telepathic/perceptual abilities (or maybe he is just a douche).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I want to address part the description in this video which is your typical moronic anti-atheist propagada.
No, rape is not the most brutal crime humanity can think of. Let me find one that is worse, where to look for brutal crimes agaisnt humanity...
oh right!
The Bible!
Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy are those who pay you back for what you have done to us-- who take your babies and smash them against a rock. -Psalms 137:8-9
Well that wasn't very hard to find.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
"because I know that after this life I've got somewhere better to go"
Lying is a sin. Assuming this guy is a human, it seems that this must be a lie, because it doesn't seem humans know what happens to them after death because for the moment knowing such things are impossible. But, maybe I'm wrong, maybe this guy has super-amazing telepathic/perceptual abilities (or maybe he is just a douche).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I want to address part the description in this video which is your typical moronic anti-atheist propagada.
WARNING: This video contains atheistic beliefs that the vast majority of mature, intelligent human beings find shocking, moronic, irrational, and morally repugnant -- parental discretion is advised.
The atheist's animal-level view of "morality" is completely skewed by dint of its total subjectivity. In fact, the atheist makes up his own personal version of "morals" as he goes along, and this video provides an eye-opening example of this bizarre phenomenon of the atheist's crippled psyche:
The person responsible for putting this video up on YouTube claims that there are atheistic beliefs. It is stupid, nonsensical propaganda like this that is very frustrating. There are no atheistic beliefs! Atheism is the natural stance to take because belief in a god/gods is not innate. We know that a belief in God (which is the contextually relevant deity) is not innate because the majority of humans don't believe in that god.
Atheism is the standard/default position—it takes indoctrination, and a ranting pedophile to remove this natural skepticism (too mean?). There are no "atheist morals" because atheism is not a moral system. Anyone that claims atheism is a moral system is a complete idiot. It takes mind-bending stupidity to believe such a thing, which is why I can't be nice about this. Atheism is nothing more than a non-belief in a god and/or gods. Atheism is the default position, and it does not carry any other beliefs. While many atheists may share other common beliefs/stances, that does not mean they are connected. Utilitarianism has nothing to do with atheism, they are mutually exclusive. This is why I dislike atheists claiming moral positions under the banner of atheism—this causes simple-minded people to become confused and believe that atheism is a moral-system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)