Some states

[DigitalBuddha]

I am an atheist loud and proud. You're telling me I have no moral code?

That was my point also. I know a lot of people who are atheists and they are very decent and moral people. To say that an atheist cannot have grounds for being decent and moral is absurd and has no basis in fact. Atheists and deists alike can have a strong morel sense.

LOL, this aggression against atheist dudes will not stand man!!

[Caesar dude]

We Brits have a command of the English language that we hide from colonials!

It's in our DNA and is not taught in schools.

I see no irony in Boston's statement. None at all. Hence my post.

He's not a troll, he's just a very naughty boy.

Good use of some work by some very ironic icons of British comedy btw!

Keep watching and you will get there!!

Peace dude.

[BikerDude]

He's not a troll, he's just a very naughty boy.

I know him well. He wrote a very nice article about Dudeism: http://www.kindredspirit.co.uk/articles/article-detail/960

It is a good article.

[Caesar dude]

Here's a typical example of British humour.

On Sunday at work I was told to fuck off by a member of public at 09:35. I'd been at work for precisely 35 minutes! No worries.

Next day I mentioned to a colleague... "hey, it's 11 o clock and I haven't been told to fuck off yet, I'm doing well"

His response. "Fuck off"

[forumdude]

Here's a typical example of British humour.

On Sunday at work I was told to fuck off by a member of public at 09:35. I'd been at work for precisely 35 minutes! No worries.

Next day I mentioned to a colleague... "hey, it's 11 o clock and I haven't been told to fuck off yet, I'm doing well"

His response. "Fuck off"

That's comedy gold. Even murkans can appreciate that exchange.

Hey Caes, maybe when we get Abide University up and running you can teach a class on British humor?

[DigitalBuddha]

History of the word "fuck," seemed appropriate here ...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scQbVUmLMow

[Caesar dude]

Hey Caes, maybe when we get Abide University up and running you can teach a class on British humor?

That's a tough gig! Sort of like teaching the secrets of the magic circle....

I may get thrown out of Britain!

[Hominid]

I'll end my contribution to this thread with this:



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Boston Rockbury]

I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office  -  kinda makes sense.

Surely this is you being ironic, Boston?

I never know with you Brits. One minute things mean what they're supposed to and the next they mean the opposite. How is a poor yank like me supposed to know when which is which?

By the way, I don't know if the stereotype has been brought up, but to the many British fellows on the forum: It's not that Americans don't understand irony, it's just that we don't expect it so much in everyday conversation. And we tend to use it only with people we know really really well. Just my two pence.

As you were.

My argument is soteriological (in the buddhist sense).
I don't provoke to gain personal attention from people's reactions (trolling). I put in heat to bring things to the surface.

People get pretty offended when their belief system is attacked, whether they are a muslim or an atheist.

It is a valid question whether a fixed and codefied moral system provides a better basis for good governance than a changeable set of secular morals derived from the latest theories in sociobiology or what have you.

I'm not pushing a religious agenda. I'm just talking through an interesting and important issue with a few friends.

[DigitalBuddha]

People get pretty offended when their belief system is attacked, whether they are a muslim or an atheist.

When mine are offended, I drink beer.

[Hominid]

I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office  -  kinda makes sense.

Surely this is you being ironic, Boston?

I never know with you Brits. One minute things mean what they're supposed to and the next they mean the opposite. How is a poor yank like me supposed to know when which is which?

By the way, I don't know if the stereotype has been brought up, but to the many British fellows on the forum: It's not that Americans don't understand irony, it's just that we don't expect it so much in everyday conversation. And we tend to use it only with people we know really really well. Just my two pence.

As you were.

My argument is soteriological (in the buddhist sense).
I don't provoke to gain personal attention from people's reactions (trolling). I put in heat to bring things to the surface.

People get pretty offended when their belief system is attacked, whether they are a muslim or an atheist.

It is a valid question whether a fixed and codefied moral system provides a better basis for good governance than a changeable set of secular morals derived from the latest theories in sociobiology or what have you.

I'm not pushing a religious agenda. I'm just talking through an interesting and important issue with a few friends.

It's unfair to lump both sides together like that, stating that the only difference between the two is what they believe. You're placing yourself on a moral pedestal because you feign neutrality on the subject, pitting one side against the other. But, you apparently have less respect for those with "a changeable set of secular morals derived from the latest theories in sociobiology" that those with a "fixed and codefied moral system".  The two descriptions reveal your neo-religious (Christian?) prejudice, as well as your hypocritical judgementalism.

I call'em as I see'm.

Bazinga.

[Boston Rockbury]

you apparently have less respect for those with "a changeable set of secular morals derived from the latest theories in sociobiology" that those with a "fixed and codefied moral system".

No

[Hominid]

you apparently have less respect for those with "a changeable set of secular morals derived from the latest theories in sociobiology" that those with a "fixed and codefied moral system".

No

Well, you certainly prefer one over the other. For someone who is a thinking, articulate person, your choice of words tell all. 

[Boston Rockbury]

Well, you certainly prefer one over the other. For someone who is a thinking, articulate person, your choice of words tell all. 

Given that I was oppressed by catholicism and then chose to study sociobiology at university perhaps a truer interpretation is that I prefer not to think from a fixed position. In that sense I am 'feeling and disarticulate'.

But hey don't get me started on my favourite topic - I could talk about myself for hours. Maybe I'll be re-incarnated a woman?

[Hominid]

Well, you certainly prefer one over the other. For someone who is a thinking, articulate person, your choice of words tell all.  

Given that I was oppressed by catholicism and then chose to study sociobiology at university perhaps a truer interpretation is that I prefer not to think from a fixed position. In that sense I am 'feeling and disarticulate'.

But hey don't get me started on my favourite topic - I could talk about myself for hours. Maybe I'll be re-incarnated a woman?

Fair enough.  But it's still inaccurate and unfair to lump atheists and theists into the same category in your statement, quote: "People get pretty offended when their belief system is attacked, whether they are a muslim or an atheist."

I differentiate the two by pragmatic observation: the theist whackos are the ones that are *SO* strident, (to the point of murder) with a belief system based on ancient texts that have little relevance; the atheists continually add to mankind's knowledge by scientific discovery, basing everything on evidence.  The latter is not a belief system, it's just the facts. Having studied it, you know exactly what I mean.