Hahaha, stop trying to find some reason that you're oppressed because you're a white male and you want to rebel.
That's not real oppression. It happened to a couple people and they weren't even mistreated or abused. Has anyone ever stood outside of your house and looked at you?
The hicks persecute everyone.
I'd say Disturbed's "oppression"(by your standards) was about ten times worse than theirs. You atheists are getting off easy.
I wasn't saying I was opressed. As well, that was Jp who mentioned opression. My purpose for posting this, as I have said, was "to make a point. That point being that atheists aren't worthless and evil people as so many make them out to be."
| |
I didn't start the whole oppression thing - World did, I think you'll find. ;)
Regardless, I'm not whining. As World has mentioned, I don't live in America. I don't have to deal with this shit. But I know people that do. And, y'know, stripping of rights? World, if you actually clicked those links, you would have noticed that several states actually have laws on the books prohibiting atheists from taking public office. Sounds like oppression to me. Oh, and World? Religion judges morality on biological moral standards. There's a reason pretty much all religions everywhere have the same basic morality - theft is bad, murder is bad, respect authority - because this morality is built into our genes. Read some Dawkins. | |
Jp wrote:
I didn't start the whole oppression thing - World did, I think you'll find. ;) No it was you guys(Jtgibson and YOU) who were reacting to the funny link Disturbed Puppy posted. And, y'know, stripping of rights? World, if you actually clicked those links, you would have noticed that several states actually have laws on the books prohibiting atheists from taking public office. Sounds like oppression to me. Um, those laws are unconstitutional and no one is going to act on them. I can find you laws that say it is illegal to have a banana in my back pocket on Sunday afternoons but no one is going to act upon it. I agree our laws need an overhaul, but citing laws from the 18th century doesn't help your argument. Oh, and World? Religion judges morality on biological moral standards. There's a reason pretty much all religions everywhere have the same basic morality - theft is bad, murder is bad, respect authority - because this morality is built into our genes. Read some Dawkins. Why don't you take a good look at our laws and then go read some instructions in the bible. I think you'll find some parallels. And I can find religions all around the world that have radically different philosophies, is it in our biological moral standards to sew a woman's vagina shut like they do in Africa? No, I'm calling bullshit on your claim. There is no such thing as biological moral standards. Biology is survival of the fittest, every man for himself. | |
And the basis of that biology are genes, genes that make us the way they are. If they can affect how all humans look similiar, why can't they make all humans think similiarly?
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
And the basis of that biology are genes, genes that make us the way they are. If they can affect how all humans look similiar, why can't they make all humans think similiarly? They can and humans are inherently evil.(Check out Lord of the Flies) There is no evolutionary advantage for noble behavior. There is evolutionary advantage for taking what you want and not caring if you murder some one for it. Structure and society comes from the noble human mind, not our genes. From people thinking about and making the best choice for the future. Not making the best choice for the immediate present, like our genes tell us to. | |
Oh, but there is use for not killing other people. You stand a better chance for survival in a group that by yourself. Referring to Lord of the Flies, they form two groups, and the one that's essentially evil (it's been more than a year since I read it, and that was one time through, so I forget their names), can stay together because they have a strong hierarchy. If they tried to kill themselves off, then they'd stand much worse of a chance.
Also, evil is relative. | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Oh, but there is use for not killing other people. You stand a better chance for survival in a group that by yourself. Referring to Lord of the Flies, they form two groups, and the one that's essentially evil (it's been more than a year since I read it, and that was one time through, so I forget their names), can stay together because they have a strong hierarchy. If they tried to kill themselves off, then they'd stand much worse of a chance. You stand a better chance for survival in a group that by yourself. Right, but that's not a noble act. That's using other people to help yourself. Nobility is selflessness, so if you get anything out of it(other than perhaps a good feeling) it's not true nobility. That's why nobility can't be hard coded into our genes. It just doesn't make evolutionary sense. can stay together because they have a strong hierarchy. Jack is really just a symbol for savagery. He and Roger(symbol for the devil) just use this power for their own self gratification. They concoct the story of the beasties to retain this power. | |
First use of the word 'oppressed' in the comments:
"Just because you go into a place where you're obviously hostile to their beliefs and they don't like it doesn't mean that you're oppressed. *In the forbidden city in China* "Hi I'm a American white male and I'm fervently capitalist and I think communism is completely stupid and anyone who practices or believes in it is an idiot." Yeah I might have some bodily harm done to me. BUT I'M NOT OPPRESSED. Wednesday, June 13, 2007 09:31AM " I posted something about it well after that. You lose. Um, those laws are unconstitutional And? no one is going to act on them. More because no (honest) atheist is ever going to be able to make a credible attempt at running for office in those states then anything else. I betcha that if one did, that law would come up, and the ACLU or similar group would have to step in and do the whole legal thing. I agree our laws need an overhaul, but citing laws from the 18th century doesn't help your argument. Another one taken from the article I quoted - anyone can open Tampa City Council meetings, except atheists, apparently. When one was going to, several council members tried to get it stopped, and then walked out. How about the approximately $65 billion the US government hands out via 'faith-based initiatives' to various religious groups? Without ensuring that the good social work (most) of these religious groups do is well-separated from their religious activities? Your government actively funds religion, and yet, they aren't discriminating against atheism? Churches and various other religious institutions may act tax-free, despite the fact that many of them really are just businesses in disguise. "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -Bush Sr. Why don't you take a good look at our laws and then go read some instructions in the bible. I think you'll find some parallels. Well, of course. Take the ten commandments, for instance: "(1) Do not worship any god other than Yahweh. (2) Do not make molten gods. (3) Keep the feast of unleavened bread. (4) The firstborn offspring of every cow and sheep is to be sacrificed to God. (5) The seventh day of each week is set aside to rest. (6) Observe the feast of weeks. (7) All male children must appear before God three times per year. (8) The blood of a sacrifice shall not be offered together with yeast, nor shall the sacrifice of the Passover feast be left until the next morning. (9) The "first of the firstfruits" of the land are to be brought before God. (10) Do not boil a baby goat in its mother's milk." I can see the parallels there. (Don't believe those are the ten commandments? Exodus 34. Look it up) But let's consider the 'normal' ten commandments, the set everyone knows about. Well, the protestant version - Jews and Catholics have a different one. Well, fully the first four are religious commandments about which god you should worship and how you should worship him - which are diametrically opposed to the US constitution, and the morality of pretty much every nation on Earth. Then we have the few obvious ones - Honour your father and mother. Certainly not enshrined in law, and rather against my morality, actually - I'll honour good parents, but that's more because they're good then because they're parents. Don't murder - well, yeah, that one's obvious. Of course, the Bible then goes on to talk about how the Israelites should genocide everybody living in their Promised Land so they could live there, but eh. Of course, every single religion in the history of history has had that rule. It was illegal to murder in ancient Greece. Don't commit adultery - well, yeah, it's not nice, but once again, pretty much everybody has this one. Ancient Greeks didn't much like adultery, either. Don't steal - See ancient Greeks. Don't lie - Too general. I can see several cases where lying is morally good - Schindler in Nazi Germany, for example. Don't covet stuff - Completely and utterly irrelevant to my morality. What's wrong with wanting stuff? It's not even something you can help. I also note that the ten commandments don't have laws against rape, or child abuse, or torture, or any of the other things I consider morally wrong. In other words, biblical morality has some obvious stuff everyone has, and then a healthy dose of random stuff unique to the religion. And I can find religions all around the world that have radically different philosophies, is it in our biological moral standards to sew a woman's vagina shut like they do in Africa? Is that religious? No it's not. Is it a random, quirky think like the Christian obligation not to want stuff? Yes it is. Do they also have problems with theft, murder, and adultery? You betcha. No, I'm calling bullshit on your claim. There is no such thing as biological moral standards. Biology is survival of the fittest, every man for himself. It is advantageous to behave in social groups. Some morality encourages that behaviour - like not stealing and not murdering. It has been selected for on this basis. Once again, read some Dawkins. He discusses this in more detail. | |
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -Bush Sr. If you're taking that from the video, you should've read the sidebar like I mentioned. It's been brought to his attention, and how he's unsure of whether or not that he really said it. | |
Actually, I got it from somewhere else. :P
| |
Worldweaver wrote:
Bootyboy wrote: Weaver, the US constitution was based mostly on Masonic code. This largely has nothing to do with theism. You may judge morality by some organized religious standard, but your initial statement was that there is a connection between morality and theism which is still patently false. | |
By "Masonic Code", are you referring to the Free Masons? It was also based off the ideals of the enlightment and the French philosophes.
| |
Jp wrote:
*insert about 30 minutes of needless typing here*, then Don't commit adultery - well, yeah, it's not nice, but once again, pretty much everybody has this one. Ancient Greeks didn't much like adultery, either.*more needless typing*, then I also note that the ten commandments don't have laws against rape, or child abuse, or torture, or any of the other things I consider morally wrong. Okay, Rape is right there, considering it's a form of adultery. And things we considered child abuse today were necessities to live back then(like working on a farm for endless hours). Also, torture's not always a bad thing(in most cases, yes, not all). now, take your school girl dress off, and clean the sand out of your vagina. | |
"S: (n) adultery, criminal conversation, fornication (extramarital sex that willfully and maliciously interferes with marriage relations) "adultery is often cited as grounds for divorce""
"S: (v) rape, ravish, violate, assault, dishonor, dishonour, outrage (force (someone) to have sex against their will) "The woman was raped on her way home at night"" No, they're different. As well, child abuse could be things such a sexual abuse, or beating the fuck out out of a child for something petty like spilling something. Those are definitely not a nescesity of life. Also, when is torture okay? If you try and interrogate somebody with torture, you've failed, because anyone will say anything given enough pain. Also, ad hominem arguments ruin your credibility. | |
What credibility? This is the internet. The credibility anyone has one here is worth less than the credibility that I can get by telling someone on the street that I like tacos. Besides, I thought this thread was about how all atheists aren't bad people, not that religion is a bad thing. Maybe that's just me though.
| |
Okay then. From here on out, your arguments are null and void, since you have no credibility. If you make an attempt at an argument, it will be deleted as soon as I stumble upon. Thank you for your input
Have a good day. :) | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
By "Masonic Code", are you referring to the Free Masons? It was also based off the ideals of the enlightment and the French philosophes. Yes it was. Freemasonry seems to be a great equalizer/neutralizer for all religions. Very all inclusive as long as there; but is strongly against fundamentalism. Seems like our forefathers really were ahead of their time. | |
Disturbed Puppy wrote:
What credibility? This is the internet. The credibility anyone has one here is worth less than the credibility that I can get by telling someone on the street that I like tacos. Besides, I thought this thread was about how all atheists aren't bad people, not that religion is a bad thing. Maybe that's just me though. I was arguing that religion is not necessarily connected to morality - morality and religion are distinct concepts, like morality and science. That is obviously relevant to a discussion of the morality of atheism. EDIT: Also, you type slowly. :P | |
S: (v) oppress, suppress, crush (come down on or keep down by unjust use of one's authority) "The government oppresses political activists"
S: (v) mistreat, maltreat, abuse, ill-use, step, ill-treat (treat badly) "This boss abuses his workers"; "She is always stepping on others to get ahead"