Formally prohibit atheists from office...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzVBF8B4ius&feature=related
I'm not a licensed/practicing attorney, so if you have any questions, consult an attorney with a bar license.
True, they can add it to their laws & regulations, but the case Torcaso v. Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), originally in Maryland, states that no matter what it says, that writing is useless.
The Supreme Court found that such requirements violate the First Amendment. As Justice Hugo Black said:
QuoteWe repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
Actually if you follow the reasoning in the video it gives the United States Constitution article six precedent. This stands above any case law.
You will also note that it is in contradiction of the Human Rights Act as well.
Of course it won't stand up.
But it is on the books and there was at least a passing attempt to use it to push the guy out of office.
And lets face it even if he fights it and wins I seriously doubt that he will ever get much traction.
It's just sad and pathetic.
One of the problems here is that the 10th Amendment MIGHT uphold Maryland's right to exclude an Atheist from public office. Basically, the 10th Amendment states that the Federal Government CANNOT do ANYTHING unless directly ordered to do so by the Constitution such as mint the coin of the realm and regulate the value thereof, build roads, maintain Federal courts, provide for the common defense, maintain a mail system, etc.; BUT, the States (and/or the people) CAN do what they want unless it is prohibited them in the Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
It might be argued that there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting North Carolina from excluding an Atheist from public office, and they may also argue that by doing so, they are not hindering a person from freely practicing their religion (or lack thereof) and rights as guaranteed in the 1st Amendment.
Though my argument would be that atheism is a religious belief, and a religious point of view, and that by prohibiting an Atheist from public office you are violating a person's right to their religions beliefs (atheism) and practicing them while in office. Also, by prohibiting an Atheist from office, you are disenfranchising such a person from the public service as an American. Also, it is a blatant act of discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. And might even violate federal law in regards to civil rights and voting rights.
So the question is, in my mind; does the US Constitution, IN FACT, prohibit North Carolina from excluding Atheists from public office?
I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office - kinda makes sense.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office - kinda makes sense.
Who says an atheist can't have a moral code? Sometimes referred to as "natural law," or, as the Declaration of Independence states; "self evident," a standard that is stated as "self evidence." One such moral standard could be "live and let live;" is that not a moral code and does it have to come from a deity? Clearly moral thinking can be secular.
Secular moral codes are subjective and mutable. They lack the solidity of an 'unmoved mover' backing them up. That is why the great leaders such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King always go for a 'higher power' moral code.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 03:12:44 AM
Secular moral codes are subjective and mutable. They lack the solidity of an 'unmoved mover' backing them up. That is why the great leaders such as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King always go for a 'higher power' moral code.
I disagree; when grappling with this very subject (the absoluteness and solidity of moral law), the founding fathers of the United States recognized solid moral law outside of religion and a deity when they expressed that such laws (example; the right to defend yourself, right to liberty, right to justice) to be "self evident" un-needing of a deity to derive such moral law from; these were referred to as "natural law," as natural as gravity.
That, however, does not mean that moral law and moral principles cannot be derived from a belief in a deity, surely they can; it simply states that such moral law can and does flow from logic also.
Are you saying that one MUST be religious in order to understand that it is wrong to kill innocent people, that this immoral act can only be understood and excepted via religious thinking? Surely not.
Problem is, the founding fathers also thought it was 'self-evident' that moral rules didn't apply equally to blacks or women.
Puts the 'self-evident' theory in a bit of a shit-hole.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 05:19:55 AM
Problem is, the founding fathers also thought it was 'self-evident' that moral rules didn't apply equally to blacks or women.
Puts the 'self-evident' theory in a bit of a shit-hole.
No, not really true; they did believe that moral rules applied equally to blacks or women, they didn't believe, however, that they could create a nation where moral rules applied equally to blacks or women, and at that time build a new nation with so many diverse views. They had to, in order to form the new nation, compromise, whether they wanted to or not. It was to be a "more perfect nation," NOT a perfect nation. It was just the beginning. They probably knew that issues such as equal rights would have to be fought over later, and it was...the US civil war, and beyond. Looks like they were right.
The whole point about Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela is that they weren't 'morally compromised' like the slave-owning founding father ass-wipes.
Morality without fundamentalism is like shit without stink - a nice idea until you really step into it.
Slavery is never a good thing, but in this country, as all over the world (with the possible exception of parts of islam), is gone.
Unfortunately sexual slavery is rampant and exists in America. It is real bad in Northern India and is not especially connected to Islam.
I have been trying to set up a charity (the little sisters of redemption) to try and give sex-slave chicks a route out. The idea was to take the dimensions from the original dude-gown (which I believe Olly owns) and get some second hand sewing machines to these young chicks so they can make copies. His Dudliness has offered free patches to officialise the merchandise. Then we would sell the robes on-line, all profits going to 'chick-aid' or whatever we call it.
Unfortunately my contact in India hasn't got back to me for months.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 06:29:17 AM
Unfortunately sexual slavery is rampant and exists in America.
Sources of your information on that?
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 24, 2012, 06:35:02 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 06:29:17 AM
Unfortunately sexual slavery is rampant and exists in America.
Sources of your information on that?
Come on dude - just google 'sexual slavery today' or what have you. It's not exactly a well kept secret.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office - kinda makes sense.
Are you just trolling?
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 05:35:51 AM
The whole point about Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela is that they weren't 'morally compromised' like the slave-owning founding father ass-wipes.
Morality without fundamentalism is like shit without stink - a nice idea until you really step into it.
Slave owning is specifically proscribed in the Bible.
The south continually justified their purpose by appealing to the Bible.
The slave trade for hundreds of years was nearly 100% Christian and likewise justified by the bible.
What we call moral today has little resemblance to anything in the texts.
The morality of civilized western societies did not happen thanks to the religion it happened in spite of it. The fact that we don't today keep slaves came about as a secular movement.
Anyone who followed the morality of bible literally would be a child abusing, slave keeping person who does things like murder his neighbor for not keeping the sabbath. The list goes on and on. Witch burning was a practice that was justified by passages from the bible.
The fact that the bible is littered with such things that we today find morally reprehensible is illustration that in FACT the moral compass of society is not christian.
The challenge in coming to anything that resembles a society based on reason and humanism has been an ongoing battle against the irrational "morality" of religion. It remains the same today.
What most people call moral today is impossible with Fundamentalism.
There simply are no Theistic religions that taken literally resemble anything that modern society could call moral.
From the bible:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Shall I continue???
Quote from: BikerDude on September 24, 2012, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
I guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office - kinda makes sense.
Are you just trolling?Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 05:35:51 AM
The whole point about Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela is that they weren't 'morally compromised' like the slave-owning founding father ass-wipes.
Morality without fundamentalism is like shit without stink - a nice idea until you really step into it.
Slave owning is specifically proscribed in the Bible.
The south continually justified their purpose by appealing to the Bible.
The slave trade for hundreds of years was nearly 100% Christian and likewise justified by the bible.
What we call moral today has little resemblance to anything in the texts.
The morality of civilized western societies did not happen thanks to the religion it happened in spite of it. The fact that we don't today keep slaves came about as a secular movement.
Anyone who followed the morality of bible literally would be a child abusing, slave keeping person who does things like murder his neighbor for not keeping the sabbath. The list goes on and on. Witch burning was a practice that was justified by passages from the bible.
The fact that the bible is littered with such things that we today find morally reprehensible is illustration that in FACT the moral compass of society is not christian.
The challenge in coming to anything that resembles a society based on reason and humanism has been an ongoing battle against the irrational "morality" of religion. It remains the same today.
What most people call moral today is impossible with Fundamentalism.
There simply are no Theistic religions that taken literally resemble anything that modern society could call moral.
Calmer than you are dude
But okay I did have one stroll down the street of troll.
I aint pro bible or anything. Just don't see the point attacking stuff the whole time.
What is this the anti-religion gestapo or something?
Just calling a spade a spade IMDO. We *do* chat about other things...
A very fair point.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 02:31:00 PM
What is this the anti-religion gestapo or something?
One wouldn't expect it to be pro organized religion at first glance.
You won't find many of the devout joining something like this.
In fact they would have a big problem with us.
Live and let live dude
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
Live and let live dude
You seem perfectly comfortable criticizing Atheism and accusing atheist of having no moral code.
Do that if you wish but make a case for it and don't suggest that others are being mean spirited.
Quote from: BikerDude on September 24, 2012, 03:47:24 PM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 03:42:05 PM
Live and let live dude
You seem perfectly comfortable criticizing Atheism and accusing atheist of having no moral code.
Do that if you wish but make a case for it and don't suggest that others are being mean spirited.
It's okay - I'm feeling less comfortable now.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 24, 2012, 06:35:02 AM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 06:29:17 AM
Unfortunately sexual slavery is rampant and exists in America.
Sources of your information on that?
Come on dude - just google 'sexual slavery today' or what have you. It's not exactly a well kept secret.
Google results yield articles like this.....
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41409991/ns/today-today_news/t/sex-slavery-america-one-girls-nightmare/#.UGDDQ1GLtyY
But that is hardly a situation of "sexual slavery is rampant" in the US. It's a crime, like any other crime. You might as well claim that "bank robbery is rampant in America" or that "liquor store robberies are rampant in America." They're crimes, dude, and when the human paraquats get nailed by the boys in the crime lab, we go Walter on their asses and it's mark it zero for the bunch of assholes involved. This is not a perfect country, but sexual slavery rampant? Not even close. You are falling prey to sensationalism and negative press, dude.
QuoteI guess that as atheists don't have a moral code they aren't really fit for public office - kinda makes sense.
This is a ridiculous statement!
I normally shy away from these debates because I have my own personal views and do not wish to inflame arguments... I normally sit on the fence and fume a bit with the things I see from both sides that I disagree with and go "YaaaaY" when either side agrees with my ethics.
You have crossed a line here dude.
I am an atheist loud and proud. You're telling me I have no moral code?
If I was a Catholic priest or maybe a Pope then by your interpretation I would have such a code.
Tell me. Why have the Catholic Church denied allegations of paedophilia for so many years? Tell me why an institution with such a strong moral code have covered this shit up for years. These strongly moral men have a code for sure. An evil one of deceit and intolerance and lies and complicity.
I will never be judged by your God Sir. Because he does not exist. I will be judged by my actions here on earth while I am alive.
So far so good!
Judged by my peers and fellow human beings my moral code seems to be pretty good so far!
You say
QuoteLive and let live dude
Then do exactly that you hypocrite. Stop judging others by your beliefs.
This sticks in my craw. But peace dude.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
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.
Methinks Boston dude is a troll.
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
Quote from: Caesar dude on September 24, 2012, 06:32:40 PM
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!! ;D
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.
QuoteHe'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.
Quote from: forumdude on September 24, 2012, 07:17:57 PM
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.
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"
:) :) :)
Quote from: Caesar dude on September 24, 2012, 07:40:03 PM
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?
History of the word "fuck," seemed appropriate here ;D ...........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scQbVUmLMow
QuoteHey 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! :)
I'll end my contribution to this thread with this:
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: forumdude on September 24, 2012, 07:02:59 PM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 01:47:06 AM
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. ;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/classic/images/post/thumbup.gif)
(http://thepintglass.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/beer-friend.gif)
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 01:47:06 AM
Quote from: forumdude on September 24, 2012, 07:02:59 PM
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 24, 2012, 01:21:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 07:18:46 AM
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
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 08:29:30 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 07:18:46 AM
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.
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 08:52:06 AM
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?
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 10:10:14 AM
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 08:52:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 10:33:11 AM
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.
There is a phenomenon known as 'scienceology' which is very much a belief system. It involves (amongst other things) the belief that knowledge is inherently value-positive whereas in truth the value of knowledge is purely contextual.
American marines videoing eachother pissing on the corpse of their enemy probably looks pretty whacko to most muslims.
However "pragmatic" ones observation may be, one always observes from a certain position. I'm just encouraging you to try a few new positions - a sort of intellectual karma sutra.
The point is that it is irrelevant that people become offended when their beliefs are criticized.
This is the typical religious "hurt card" that insulates religious beliefs from criticism.
Quote
[Daniel Denett] You know, they sort of play the hurt feelings card at every opportunity, and faced with a choice of, well, am I gonna be rude or am I going to articulate this criticism? I mean, am I going to articulate it, or am I just gonna button my lip?
[Sam Harris] Right, well, that?s what it is to trespass a taboo. I think we?re all encountering the fact that that religion is held off the table of rational criticism in some kind of formal way even by, we?re discovering, our fellow secularists and our fellow atheists. You know, just leave people to their own superstition, even if it?s abject and causing harm, and don?t look too closely at it.
Do not fall for this kind of special pleading. Religion is open game for criticism like anything else and the fact that someone's feelings might get hurt is irrelevant.
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:52:24 AM
Religion is open game for criticism like anything else and the fact that someone's feelings might get hurt is irrelevant.
Sure and by the same logic criticism of religion is fair game for criticism.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 25, 2012, 11:58:26 AM
Quote from: BikerDude on September 25, 2012, 11:52:24 AM
Religion is open game for criticism like anything else and the fact that someone's feelings might get hurt is irrelevant.
Sure and by the same logic criticism of religion is fair game for criticism.
Fucking nihilist!!!! ;-)
Kidding aside, there's some truth to that accusation though... claiming that "the value of knowledge is purely contextual" removes any importance one places on our very lives by making everything value-neutral. Such a claim is overshadowed by the inherent value of the morals you and I have agreed to live by. Like - don't kill me. I won't kill you. Nothing wrong with pragmatism. It's based on the biological imperatives of survival and thriving.
From the position of the virus that kills its host, it has completed its mission. But from an evolutionary perspective, that's a huge mistake. We're pretty well at the top of the food chain mainly because of successful adaptations that assist in our survival. THAT is the prime directive any human has... and any other "perspective" is counter productive, and likely considered immoral by most.
The science of knowing is a thought experiment, delving into philosophies that have little to do with helping us live better lives... The most sacred thing is truth.
If you ask "what is truth?" I'll shoot you.
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 12:21:47 PM
The most sacred thing is truth.
Truth is just an externalisation of understanding, awareness, wisdom. It isn't sacred, it's just a book on a shelf. Only the existential manifestation of truth within an individual is sacred - some people refer to the advanced state of which as 'enlightenment'.
I'm with Biker Dude.
You place yourself above everyone else with what you think is superior intellect. You're a nihilistic troll.
Okay, now I'm REALLY done...
Quote from: Hominid on September 25, 2012, 01:17:12 PM
I'm with Biker Dude.
You place yourself above everyone else with what you think is superior intellect. You're a nihilistic troll.
I empathise with your frustration dude. It must be tough for you coming up against an enlightened being like me.
I thought I would not get into this but it needs to be said:
If all the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) taught was to be nice and peaceful because we are all children of God, we would not even be in this pickle. Sure, atheists might still say " I don't believe there is a God, but, hey, these are good people and they are not hurting anyone so let's leave them be."
But the problem is that these three religions are laden with things that diminish self-worth, that urge to rise up against any perceived blasphemy and that command to destroy unbelievers.
That is not "moral", that's monstrous.
Not to mention that the notion of blasphemy against an all-powerful being is actually absolutely ridiculous. If there is a god and he created the universe...what could we do to harm him or even offend him? We're just a tiny dot on his map. Or do you get offended by ants?
A good example: A South Park episode showed Buddha doing coke. Now, a Buddhist who got all enraged at this would be one who did not get his own faith right.
But a Muslim, Jew or Christian who raged and threatened corporeal harm and even death upon the makers of similar satires about Jesus or Mohammed would get his faith literally right.
I do not like the condescending attitude of many atheists myself but people like Harris or Hitchens, who argue from a humanist perspective, do have a point.
I would be willing to discuss things with a Muslim or a Christian from a purely empathetic perspective, mindful of their identities and simply concerned about their well-being, trying to point out that their faith is simply damaging and not good for themselves. I did that with a Mormon once - he tried to convert me and I sat down with him and...ah, well, in the end he was pretty befuddled and I actually felt a little bad for him.
The problem is that adherents of these three faiths in particular and all their offshoots would not even be willing to listen.
Quote from: AspiringDude on September 25, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
I thought I would not get into this but it needs to be said:
If all the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) taught was to be nice and peaceful because we are all children of God, we would not even be in this pickle. Sure, atheists might still say " I don't believe there is a God, but, hey, these are good people and they are not hurting anyone so let's leave them be."
But the problem is that these three religions are laden with things that diminish self-worth, that urge to rise up against any perceived blasphemy and that command to destroy unbelievers.
That is not "moral", that's monstrous.
Not to mention that the notion of blasphemy against an all-powerful being is actually absolutely ridiculous. If there is a god and he created the universe...what could we do to harm him or even offend him? We're just a tiny dot on his map. Or do you get offended by ants?
A good example: A South Park episode showed Buddha doing coke. Now, a Buddhist who got all enraged at this would be one who did not get his own faith right.
But a Muslim, Jew or Christian who raged and threatened corporeal harm and even death upon the makers of similar satires about Jesus or Mohammed would get his faith literally right.
I do not like the condescending attitude of many atheists myself but people like Harris or Hitchens, who argue from a humanist perspective, do have a point.
I would be willing to discuss things with a Muslim or a Christian from a purely empathetic perspective, mindful of their identities and simply concerned about their well-being, trying to point out that their faith is simply damaging and not good for themselves. I did that with a Mormon once - he tried to convert me and I sat down with him and...ah, well, in the end he was pretty befuddled and I actually felt a little bad for him.
The problem is that adherents of these three faiths in particular and all their offshoots would not even be willing to listen.
Well said.
The offer nothing but intolerance while requiring total respect.
Otherwise the scriptures instruct them to kill the offender.
Quote from: AspiringDude on September 25, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
I thought I would not get into this but it needs to be said:
If all the Abrahamic Faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) taught was to be nice and peaceful because we are all children of God, we would not even be in this pickle. Sure, atheists might still say " I don't believe there is a God, but, hey, these are good people and they are not hurting anyone so let's leave them be."
But the problem is that these three religions are laden with things that diminish self-worth, that urge to rise up against any perceived blasphemy and that command to destroy unbelievers.
That is not "moral", that's monstrous.
Not to mention that the notion of blasphemy against an all-powerful being is actually absolutely ridiculous. If there is a god and he created the universe...what could we do to harm him or even offend him? We're just a tiny dot on his map. Or do you get offended by ants?
A good example: A South Park episode showed Buddha doing coke. Now, a Buddhist who got all enraged at this would be one who did not get his own faith right.
But a Muslim, Jew or Christian who raged and threatened corporeal harm and even death upon the makers of similar satires about Jesus or Mohammed would get his faith literally right.
I do not like the condescending attitude of many atheists myself but people like Harris or Hitchens, who argue from a humanist perspective, do have a point.
I would be willing to discuss things with a Muslim or a Christian from a purely empathetic perspective, mindful of their identities and simply concerned about their well-being, trying to point out that their faith is simply damaging and not good for themselves. I did that with a Mormon once - he tried to convert me and I sat down with him and...ah, well, in the end he was pretty befuddled and I actually felt a little bad for him.
The problem is that adherents of these three faiths in particular and all their offshoots would not even be willing to listen.
Nice that you sit down and talk with these people dude. Very happy to hear that. 'befuddled' is excellent. All thought is illusion of varying subtelty. You helped him get in touch with the illusory nature of his fixed thought patterns. You just can't do better than that - spreading enlightenment.
Boston. Sop being a Dick.
You're not being enlightening. You'r just showing yourself up to be a pseudo intellectual with a current hardon for self proclaiming grandising.
You've maybe passed or more likely are sitting through some philosophy course and are trying to project some of that course content onto us on the boards.
You are NOT being dudelike. You are acting like a cunt!
Start to take it easy mate.... You are so full of self importance and ego it's not funny....
Maybe take a look in the mirror for a minute and realise that you are not actually on the cover of Time magazine.
I'm not falling for your shit. You think you're a dude because why exactly?
Dudes in my experience don't antagonise and don't belittle (or try to) Real dudes stop caring...which is exactly what Hominid and Biker and now me have done.
Take it easy princess.
Um - what day is this...?
VAGINA!!!!
Quote from: Caesar dude on September 26, 2012, 08:21:47 PM
Boston. Sop being a Dick.
You're not being enlightening. You'r just showing yourself up to be a pseudo intellectual with a current hardon for self proclaiming grandising.
You've maybe passed or more likely are sitting through some philosophy course and are trying to project some of that course content onto us on the boards.
You are NOT being dudelike. You are acting like a cunt!
Start to take it easy mate.... You are so full of self importance and ego it's not funny....
Maybe take a look in the mirror for a minute and realise that you are not actually on the cover of Time magazine.
I'm not falling for your shit. You think you're a dude because why exactly?
Dudes in my experience don't antagonise and don't belittle (or try to) Real dudes stop caring...which is exactly what Hominid and Biker and now me have done.
Take it easy princess.
Some good points there dude. I certainly have a big ego. But the things I say about religion don't come from a will to antagonise
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 27, 2012, 03:09:03 AM
Quote from: Caesar dude on September 26, 2012, 08:21:47 PM
Boston. Sop being a Dick.
You're not being enlightening. You'r just showing yourself up to be a pseudo intellectual with a current hardon for self proclaiming grandising.
You've maybe passed or more likely are sitting through some philosophy course and are trying to project some of that course content onto us on the boards.
You are NOT being dudelike. You are acting like a cunt!
Start to take it easy mate.... You are so full of self importance and ego it's not funny....
Maybe take a look in the mirror for a minute and realise that you are not actually on the cover of Time magazine.
I'm not falling for your shit. You think you're a dude because why exactly?
Dudes in my experience don't antagonise and don't belittle (or try to) Real dudes stop caring...which is exactly what Hominid and Biker and now me have done.
Take it easy princess.
Some good points there dude. I certainly have a big ego. But the things I say about religion don't come from a will to antagonise
I think you have many good things to say, but I think you could slow up a bit and share what you have with a little more "laid-back-ness." One captures more ears by using ones own ears rather than always using ones mouth.
One thing great about this message room is that there are a lot of cool points of view and opinions, which are for sure, just like our opinion, man, but there is a lot of value here. Having said that; add your opinions, dude, but with perhaps less ferociousness?
....as always; IMHO
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 27, 2012, 03:41:34 AM
I think you have many good things to say, but I think you could slow up a bit and share what you have with a little more "laid-back-ness." One captures more ears by using ones own ears rather than always using ones mouth.
One thing great about this message room is that there are a lot of cool points of view and opinions, which are for sure, just like our opinion, man, but there is a lot of value here. Having said that; add your opinions, dude, but with perhaps less ferociousness?
....as always; IMHO
Sure dude - I was just working on the basis that the asshole is an essential part of the spiritual purification system. Thought I'd finally found my role in life.
Quote from: Boston Rockbury on September 27, 2012, 08:36:13 AM
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on September 27, 2012, 03:41:34 AM
I think you have many good things to say, but I think you could slow up a bit and share what you have with a little more "laid-back-ness." One captures more ears by using ones own ears rather than always using ones mouth.
One thing great about this message room is that there are a lot of cool points of view and opinions, which are for sure, just like our opinion, man, but there is a lot of value here. Having said that; add your opinions, dude, but with perhaps less ferociousness?
....as always; IMHO
Sure dude - I was just working on the basis that the asshole is an essential part of the spiritual purification system. Thought I'd finally found my role in life.
Dude, in my opinion, it takes everyone and their style to make up Dudeism, yours included. ;)
QuoteDid someone say "vagina?"
No I said cunt! ;)