Religious Rationality

I suggest you referrence the numerous publications about the benefits of monogamy vs. phlandering. Its conclusions are, repeatedly, quite clear. As are the benefits of a loving house hold with two parents.

So if you think that you will be proving that being a man whore makes you better or more rational than anyone .... please be aware that both sceince AND accpeted moral codes claim starkly the opposite.

All you are doing is rationalizing.

And last time I challenged you about that, you very logically utterly lost your mind.

BTW - we aren't insects. There are species that are mongamous, and species that are not.

Our reason, not our genetic code, is what drives us - correct? So we should do what is best for a children right?

Sceince is indeed a wonderful tool.

This stuff hard? Shouldn't be, the majority of humanity has it figured out.

 

Arguments from obviousness do not suffice; provide these publications and show how their results are relevant to my point, which was that human beings are sexual creatures... which includes patterns of monogamous partnerships as well as polyamorous play, deeply felt instincts mediated through diverse cultural conventions.

This clearly was not my position...

... which makes me wonder about the state of your faculties.

And species that tend towards a mixture of both... like ours.

No... as our reason and our instincts are one in the same material system.

 

Google, try it.

Demanding that other people conduct a serch for you means you clearly arrived at a conclusion BEFORE you bothered to conduct research and, basicaly, that your conclusion is totally without support.

It's merely an opinion.

You are argueing that our sexuality is controlled by our genetics - lets see you prove it. Because, quite frankly, as a rational adult, I realize that I am fully responsible for my actions.

Love to see you actually support, with sceince, the conclusion that whoring is actually a good thing.

The empty sexual relationships are good things? I mean STD's, unwanted pregnancies, that result in negleted children are, of course, logically, the best possible solution to raising children.

I am sure the pain of a google search may provide some interesting insight into your observations.

 

Backing up your position, try it. Addressing what I actually stated rather than a straw man, try that too.

No... this is not my position. Our sexualities are comprised of "deeply felt instincts mediated through diverse cultural conventions."

Now read it again. Got it yet? We have various interlocking biological functions/instinct/drives that differ somewhat from person to person due to genes and physical development; however, these are then expressed through material conditions and cultural conventions to become what we consider our sexualities.

More claims, more irrelevancies.

Again, that was not the position I stated... are you deaf?

 

1. Monogamous couples reproduce. In fact, based on science, the monogamous pairing of parents who are interested in the rearing of offspring has tangible benefits.

I am glad you watched the wild kigdom growing up - not relevant. You case involves promiscuity - and science HAS studied that issue.

2. If you want others to back up a claim, then do so yourself. The science is well known on this one. Will pointing out the numerous results of a google search in any way convince your totally unevidenced, even deliberately misleading, arguementation? You are not responsible for the decision to sleep with someone? It is your insticts fault? You are a slave to your sexual instincts? Really?

WTF to insects have to do with human sexuality or morality? Nothing.

3. Personal responsibility. The fact that you can sleep with a crazy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) does not mean that you should sleep with a crazy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). And when you do, and you realize too late that she is a crazy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) ... and you now have at LEAST an 18 year commitment to a crazy (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) ...

Wow, wouldn't it have been good to engage with you head rather than your penis? Like a rationalist.

Really, lets see ANOTHER self styled rationalists make a case that promiscuity is better than monogamy and actual mate selection.

BTW - there are plenty of species, many of them higher mammals like ourselves, that have a VERY deliberate mate selection process.

So, that raises an interetsing question: are man whores dumber than goats?


BTW - just so you are tracking, deaf people can still read. Logic.

 

Again: 'doctrine' pertains to beliefs that are held, in the first instance, on the basis of authority. A doctrine is promulgated by the authority figure, and it is the duty of the devotees to respond with obedience. That is how religion works. It is not how secular atheists think (in contrast to atheist worldviews which are ersatz religions, like Communism).

Yes, I don't doubt they do. But such kinds of works by confirmed atheists, merely attest to the reactive character of much atheism. Again: atheism presupposes theism.

Science does directly threaten religion. Science undercuts superstition, as well as claims to arbitrary authority. Those results are implicit in scientific method itself. Inasmuch as superstition and arbitrary authority are bad things, science should threaten them. What's doctrinal - or even controversial - about this?

No, look: I'm not saying that atheism logically follows from theism. I'm saying that atheism logically presupposes theism. Atheism is dissent from the thesis of faith in unseen powers. You can't have the dissent, before the thesis.

I don't "actively hate" the religious. I do, however, repudiate their belief system.

"Doctrinal atheism," like Communism, is the only sort of atheism that cannot peacefully co-exist with religion. Secular atheists believe in freedom of conscience, and corollary to that, the disestablishment of religion. I'm okay with others persisting in their illousions, as long as it doesn't have any material impact on me.

Yup... True to type. Gearing up for a crusade, are we?

You really think that having lustful thoughts means not having control over sexual urges? Hoo-boy.

What makes you say that?

I never said it didn't need to be dealt with. Condemning individuals because they fail to attain to some standard of moral perfection, on the other hand, is an outrageous and deeply inadequate means of dealing with imperfection.

So which is it: Is the criticism of the thesis "inaccurate," wrong on the merits, or is the criticism mere ad hominem? If the former, then you're gonna have to show how the criticism is "inaccurate." Merely saying yourself that the criticism is "effed up" won't cut it.

Leave aside the morality of sexual attitudes for the moment: when he tells people to deny their family, reduce themselves to poverty and follow him, he's sounding like a megalomaniacal cult leader - which is actually probably not too far from the truth.

The total misunderstandings of the world, and by extension of human nature, propogated by religious worldviews, are legion. Secular atheism serves as a kind of universal solvent against such elaborate and stubborn illousions.

Atheism is not a faith. It is an inference consequent on the failure of theism to provide adequate evidence for the thesis of God's existence.

I think people have led their lives in ways which they would not have, if they had been convinced that this was the only life. Suicide-bombers, for starters.

Sounds like you would do well to heed your own advice.

I have been; taking extensive notes, too. There are plenty of times when I find myself getting angry at what I read.

You have been lucky. Other people worthier than you, have suffered much more. Why be grateful to a power which treats you good or bad, simply on a whim? Craven sycophancy is not gonna save you, at least not in this life.

I find there to be a strong correlation between a culture's faith in gods, and that culture's material prosperity. To put it another way: America is not great because it keeps the faith; instead, American military prowess is a key source of our pride that our god must be a great god. Don't think that that's the impression that foreign countries are left with, when they have to put up with the foreign occupier.

 

Let me see if I can run another word by you: consensus.

YOUR view of religion is that it is forced, compunctional servitude. At some points in history that has no doubt been the case. The idea that this remains the case, in the era of REAL secularism (not atheist secularism, whic pre-disposes the opposite, the religion should be forced out/ and apparently atheism in?) is simply farcicle.

Consensus. Why is it absent from YOUR world view?

That would be caled rationalization.

There are plenty of atheists who could care less about religion. And, as they do not believe there is any God, why bother wasting time? That seems the NATURAL reaction.

Atheism has been around a long time, but the recent spark in militancy and anti-religious fervor have the markings of normal militancy. The only thing it breeds is a backlash.

Why do you think atheists are the least tolerated people on Earth? It might have something to do with they themselves being least tolerant of other people views.

Once again, you attack your own strawman rather than the reality of religion.

The thesis question would be: Is there a God or some type of Creator?

An atheist simply has to answer that question, as do theists.

The idea that the negative side pre-disposes someone to hate and attack the side is simply silly. It is no different than asking theists, who is the real prophet? There can be rigorous discussions about that, but, for some reason I have look at and admire a Muslims reasoning, and he can look at and admire my reasoning and it leads to mutual affirmation.

This militancy that pre-disposes, indeed justifies acerbic attacks is about the attacker and his character - nothing else.

And this of course manifests itself in highly accurate criticism?

Doctrinal atheism apparently does not exist.

Communism, the economic principles, CAN co-exist with religion. Its only the adoption of your kind atheism that turned the situation regarding religion violent.

Once again, I see no concern whatsoever for the arbitrary use of force that followed the adoption of YOUR worldview.

I think you have no problem with arbritary authority, so long as it supports your views.

Nope, just to resist one.

Yes.

If you walk around fantasizing about ex with every woman you meet, what do YOU think YOU are missing? You really think viewing half of humanity as nothing but a recepticle for your penis is a good thing?

Maybe you should ask the former head of the IMF about lustful thoughts.

Because the only time atheists talk about it is when they are directly confronted with it BY SOMEONE ELSE. It is certainly not a characteristic of your world view is it?

Well, you just answered the abve question about Love and Forgiveness and confirmed its abscence from the atheist world view.

Now, when you are done presenting strawmen of our doctrine concerning sin, perhaps you can referrence the Bible and tell us what it says about deaing with it? Maybe then you will see the words so absent from your confrontational world view: compassion, understanding, empathy, Love, forgiveness .... context and wisdom.

If you are deiberately misrepresenting something in order to critcize it, that would be a strawman. See above for a demonstration.

You continually present Christianity as you see it, without evidence or poorly evidenced, and ignore all the evidnece to the contrary.

Like ALL critical atheists, you avoid Jesus entirely despite a dozen attempts to refer you to that CENTRAL section .... nothing. But you portrayal of our faith is accurate?

It kind of like trying to disprove 2+2=4 by referring to cosmological views.

Context.

If you family told you to give up your atheism or else, what would you do?

Additionally, how much money do you need? At some point, money is best on others rather than oneself.

Now why is this a command for all adherents, rather than contextual guidance? What does the rest of that chapter say?

Non-contextual quotations. ANOTHER tactic tht rational people usually avoid.

So, even as you have the same human failings, you are somehow the solution?

And what solutions do you offer? You don;t, do you?

You believe there is no God without a lick of evidnece to support it. The definition of faith is belief without evidence.

You do the math.

The modern suicide bomber was introduced by the Tamil Tigers. That was a nationalistic struggle not a religious one. Japanese use of kamakazies? Religious was it?

You contention is wrong. Not only are there clearly cases on suicide bombing absent religious influence, but you clearly do not understand assymetric/guerilla warfare. So long as there is power imbalance between combatants but thw will to fight - we will have suicide bombers - that is Clausewitz.

Your worldview is causing you to deliberately exclude evidence. You do realize that don't you?

Oh, as a former atheist, I think I have a pretty good understanding of atheism. Not too metion, I am the one who refers CONTEXTUALLY to atheist documentation.

It is the forums atheists who pretend that these works do not exist.

What do you expect? You wander in and take pot shots at people's faith, and you expect what?

So your lack of objectivity and discerning ability now makes God's actions merely a whim?

Why do you need to knock other people down? You really think happines, self worth, anything good comes from constantly putting down and attacking other people in an open attempt to deprive them of their faith?

Then you world view again clouds yoru judgement.

America should be less religious than Europe - that is NOT the case is it?

Religion should be getting LESS important in Russia and CHINA, that is NOT the case!

And in the places where arbitrary rule holds sway, Islam is weakening, while it is getting stronger in secular Turkey.

Your view is simply factually wrong.

Yet it is not faith that guides you? Interesting.

 

As does extended networks of families and friends. But again...

... this was not what I was talking about; in response to your bifurcation of sexuality from human nature and your straw man concerning my views on instinct, I wrote:

"Our sexualities are comprised of "deeply felt instincts mediated through diverse cultural conventions."

"...We have various interlocking biological functions/instinct/drives that differ somewhat from person to person due to genes and physical development; however, these are then expressed through material conditions and cultural conventions to become what we consider our sexualities."

You then proceeded to go off on more straw-men, as you do here:

Setting your implicit misogyny aside, what in the blue blazes does your 'personal responsibility' fetish have to do with anything I said?

Paternity uncertainty does prove advantageous for female primates in terms of social cohesion... but again, this is beside the larger point.

But not necessarily for long-term partnerships.

What is your obsession with regulating other people's sexualities?

BTW... I used the word metaphorically; do you know what 'metaphorically' means?

 

Generl question: s it a requirement to be arrogant in order to be an atheist?Does this happen BEFORE or AFTER one becomes an atheist?

I ask this, because I continuously see nothing but derision and victimization from atheist.

I mean really, how arrogant does someone have to to be to assume others are fundamentally illogical and that other people are SO effing stupid that they don't know what a metaphore is?

Seriously, what is the basis of this near continuous stream of dersion from atheists, who, upon examination, as we will see AGAIN shortly, are anything but logical themselves.

For example, the criticism is that religions views on morality concerening HUMAN sexuality are out of place.

And apparently they are out of place because of insect sexuality? They are apparently out of place because man is hardwired to desire sex .... and therefore we should but should not (as religion says) surrender ourselves to it?

Indeed, if we look further than the rationalization of our sexual desires and inability to control them, do modern professions think it is OK to undress women with our eyes? Or is that grounds for a lawsuit for inappropriate behavior? Is overt sexuality something that produces efficiency, professionalism, mutual respect and professioanl relationships?

S I guess we can add business to the list of irrational things that atheists detest for their prudish values.

Then there is promiscuity, science itself has long documented the down side to promiscuity, particularly in women. So, rational men and women alike would not seek tp pray upon particularly vulnerable women simply to sate their 'hard wired' genetic desires. Furthermore, couples that are married and loving relationships are far more likely to have children and those children are FAR MORE likely to be successful statistically.

Prudish Jesus pointed this out 2,000 years ago.

Now, atheists are resisting this by screaming strawman, genetics, and accussing other of being to stupid to understand that their attempted insults were actually a joke .... merely a metaphore - so you know what that is?

So what do we really have as opposition to nominal sexual moores? Tempers.

Another well played hand atheists.

 

Basic observation: why are you continuing to fling invective when you have been specifically instructed not to do so?

And... who has claimed this? Skipping over more tangents...

Linky? Relevance?

Well, at least his followers and standard-bearers have.

You are misrepresenting my position and arguing against something that I have not claimed; that would be a straw man.

 

That is also how the secular law system works. Many doctrines have been promulgated by Judges, lawyers and legislators, and it has become the duty (not only of the devotees but of all that are subject to those doctrine) to respond with obedience.

Regardless of whether the secular atheist 'thinks', that/those secular atheists are still subject to the secular law doctrines in and within the jurisdiction where that/those atheists reside. Are you suggesting that there is a need to abandon the secular law system because it also contains 'doctrine' [ doctrine which was "promulgated by the authority figure"] which you are required to adhere to? Who is the 'authority figure' in and within secular atheism? What ? No Authority figure? There must be some 'authority figure' on the subject of 'Atheism'. Who might that be?

 

Si pointing out that it is extremely arrogant to be wondering aloud whether people, in a supposedly civilized debate, are capable of reading when they are deaf and wondering acerbically whether people are intelligent enough to know what a metaphor is, taught in six grade in most states?

No, it becomes invective and unacceptable when someone points out that it is nothing more than a derisive insult, and demonstartes an attitude that is rife through out the atheist community?

Now, it is not criticism of atheism, that many atheists are indeed highly derisive and arrogant, it is NOW crossed the pale of unacceptable invective?

Wa.

You may be pleased to note that there is nothing in the Bible that says that Christians have to stand there and repeatedly endure abuse from someone simply because they are atheists. We only have two cheeks. Bear that in mind.

But if you hurl insults, and then think you are victim when someone fires back?

Again, wa.

Try actually debating instead of attempting to instigate.

Why don;t you spell out what you are claiming, because I directly repsonded to the word you use, and now you are using that time honored tactic of militant atheists - which is to us the doctrinal atheist position of being whatever is best to disagree with someone with an actual code, and then the opposite when it suits you.

You spell it out. What do you think is the 'proper' sexual morality, and without projective tangents about best practices being undue and enforced intrusions into your sex life.

It is you that are offering it up for debate.

Google.

As opposed to?

Sure we are. All us Christians are too stupid to read what your are saying, and too stupid to have read and understood moiralistic principles like lust which have thousands of years of exploration and support to document its down side.

And your position is .... what?

Because everytime we rebut, you didn't say what you just said.

 

No. Those authority figures are authority figures under law. When you obey the law, you are not exhibiting any sort of personal obedience to legislators, policemen or judges. You obey the law - a law which has as its ultimate source, the consensus of the governed.

Doctrine is distinctly different. Its authority comes from outside the group to whom it applies. It is not amendable by that group. You can vote on law; you can't vote on doctrine. You obey doctrine, not because doctrine acquits itself to our reason, but because it is what you are told.

Secular atheists do not believe there is any such thing as legitimate doctrinal authority. That is why it is facile to speak of atheism as a religion, proper.

The impersonal law is the authority. The law cannot be legitimately defied, but it can be amended. Law is amended by the general consensus of all the archetypal moral actors in the community (typically, this means all adult citizens). In republics, certain authoritiy figures are deputized to make these decisions, with the proviso that no such authority figure combines in their person executive, legislative, and judicial powers. For once that happens, you no longer have a republic, but a tyranny.

 

Wanna bet?

As a military officer, I am imbued with very legal authority, and obedience on a battlefield is very much suseptable to the leader who wields the authority.

Good and Toxic leaders are everywhere Modus. And you can just as easily choose to follow the law as reject it. Now, why when we read the Bible and think, "This is good (*)(*)(*)(*)," are we coerced rather than convinced?

Why when you smoke a joint and guys like bust through the door and toss you on the ground, are you not coerced?

The law is effective partly because it represents the consensus of the MAJORITY of the community, but because there is an enforcement arm to ensure that you follow the law.

Just so we are tracking Modus, I have been a part of standing up police forces and governance to establish the rule of law - there is quite bit of cohersion involved in getting people to comply - its why we carry guns while doing it.

Doctrine is written by people who embody the organization. Most doctrine passes through several channels for approval and there is intense debate. And the thing about doctrine, in direct rebuttal to your claim, when eth doctrine stops reflecting the views of the community it represents, it changes.

Are we still using Napoleonic tactics? Is the Catholic Churches doctrine fundamentall unaltered? Or simply slowly changed due to the enormity and diversity of its community?

No engineering manuals? Well, I will not be crossing an bridges designed by atheists without referrence to a doctrinal manual of requirements and compliance for engineering then.

Just saying'.

Unalienable rights. There is a reason that religions, with moral stipulations, agree on more than they disagree on. Even atheism - or do you believe that murder is moral?

So why do you essentially agree with the dictates of religion and yet hate it so much?

Because it flows from God, and it reasoned through and voluntarily accepted?

I see yo overtly worried about cohersion through religion, but making very pointed excuses for cases of over cohersion in other areas. You tell me what is wrong with North Korea? You tell me why people like me had to carry guns into places like Ka'la to establish the rule of law over people who overwhelmingly wanted that rule of objective law rather than the previous rule of AQI?

Cohersion is bad when it is done to the innocent to exploit them. Cohersion is necessary to remove those who would exploit the innocent in the abscence of cohersion.

God tells me that defending the innocent, the poor, etc. is a good thing, not that all cohersion is bad. It is wisdom, not rules, that holds sway.

 

Consensus is constitutively impossible with monotheism. Ultimately, God says "jump," and we say "how high?"

I don't think so. Among other things, religion is about politics: who can make who do what? There are plenty of unreflective atheists who don't think through the deeper implications of their views, just as there are plenty of people who are more interested in reality T.V. than politics. Maybe it is more "natural," in the sense of more common, to not be interested in such issues. But politics matters. The truth matters.

What that is evidence of, is the rise for the first time in history, of popular atheism. It is the anti-thesis of religious belief, and many people still take religious belief seriously, so you can expect there to be confrontations going on. This board being a case in point.

Atheists are subject to intolerance, because we have been the target of calumny by the religious for thousands of years. There's a lot of inertia to attitudes on this subject. But things are changing fast - and that's in part because of the assertiveness of part of the atheist community.

You resort to this baileywick too often.

No... Look. A thesis is not a question. It is an assertion. By the very structure of the terms, atheism presupposes theism. You must first posit the term, before you posit its negation.

What's silly about it? This is serious business. Theism is inextricably bound up with political considerations. In most of the world, for most of history, what you believed on these subjects was not a matter of individual conscience; you either had the right sort of beliefs, or you were taking a physical risk. Historically, the religious worldview blends together sacerdotal and state authorities. It is a natural human propensity, and it is always a direct threat to individual liberty. Even in parts of the world where religion has been domesticated by secularism, the threat remains. Religious authority is doctrinal authority and fundamentally illiberal.

The irony of all this is, is that your enlightened ecumenical attitude here, was made possible by the rise of secular ideals. Without it, you and your Muslim friends would still be at each others' throats.

Why do you keep retailing such lies? All the time I am talking about the ideas, and their political implications, not relying on casting aspersions or second-guessing the motives of my interlocutors. Not *ahem* like some people.

No, I would call the offical state atheism of Soviet Russia a doctrinal atheism. In my view, this atheism is a counterfeit atheism. Real atheism always champions freedom of conscience (which is not to say that we agree with just anything a person comes to believe by the exercise of their conscience). Doctrinal atheism does not allow for this. In many ways, you can see Soviet Communism as an ersatz religion - complete with prophets, scripture, holy days, and a sacred hierarchy.

On the contrary. Communism is fundamentally illiberal, hence spurning the freedom of conscience which atheism entails. The violence we saw under Communism, was a result of people taking secular atheism and trying to turn in into a religion.

Then you know precious little about the ideals on which the United States was founded. The First Amendment has been referred to as the first 'Article of Peace,' the Constitutional provision intended to avert religious wars.

Without an argument to support it, that charge is uncalled for.

Of course. An aggressor is always acting in self-defense. Sorry pal, you're the first one in this exchange to make a threat; you might as well own it.

Hah. Now this, for your information, is an excellent example of a strawman attack. Your point here is so silly I won't bother countering it. Come up with something better, or I'll trust I made my case about some of the moral teaching of the Bible being unsound.

Again: What makes you say that?

I'll be the first to acknowledge that Christian moral teaching has some insight to impart. But you don't need to be Christian to attain to such insights; you do not even need to be religious. Christianity therefore has no special moral authority, and should not pretend that it does.

Man, you really have no sense of irony, do you?

Who was Jesus? We can say that Jesus was a good man who died for no reason. He had many valuable lessons to impart. But did he have a monopoly on moral truth? Were his basic insights even really original ones? Nay.

How is Jesus' advice here any different from a David Koresh?

Well, if that isn't sugar-coating the point. Jesus, by calling on those who would follow him, truly follow him, to forsake completely their material possessions, is simply echoing the same gnostic anti-worldly extremism that insists that if you are not morally perfect, you are somehow unworthy of the godhead. It's perverse, but it's also an excellent instrument for control of the faith community. Place proper fulfillment of a moral ideal beyond practical reach, and religious authorities will always have a whip on the regular devotee. It's politics - for those with eyes to see.

 

Sorry, but you are simply uncomprehending of the issues in play. First of all, the belief that god exists is where this whole controversy kicks off. Utterly moot to deny god exists, if no one is asserting it in the first place. And since you're the one making the claim, the onus is on you to defend it, not me to attack it.

But the thesis can nevertheless be seriously attacked, from all sorts of angles. The Problem of Evil. The Problem of Predestination. The incoherence of vicarious salvation. The unintelligibility of God as a mind solus ipse. You theists have had centuries to address these problems - and you haven't even begun to.

That is immaterial.

Also immaterial. The point is that religion prompts people to make choices with their lives that they would not make, if they thought that there was nothing beyond the grave but void. Just because people can have other motives for the same acts, does not mean that religion does not itself function in this way!

Don't know what the point is you're trying to make here.

Explain it for me, then. We cannot, on our own resources, become worthy of eternal fellowship with God. God must add something to us that is not our own, not us - viz., his grace - in order to be able to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of him. Grace, being of God, is evidently 'irresistable' - hence, the only explanation for why some do not live lives worthy enough for god, is that they did not receive this gift in the first place. Hence, God effectively pre-determines, from all eternity, who will suffer and who will not. And the criterion God employs to decide this, in the case of any given individual - ? So far as we can tell, there is none - which justifies us in saying that it is based on God's fiat whim.

This is orthodox Calvinism. It may not be fashionable today, but it is the most consistent rendering of the relationship between God and man that you will come across in Christianity. Any other characterization of the relationship, places our salvation entirely within our own hands - in which case, God would be effectively irrelevant, simply rubber-stamping our entrance to felicity, once we have checked enough items off the list.

I'm talking about the career and ultimate destination of an idea. I don't doubt that religion has been very helpful to many; but an illousion is an illousion, and I won't refrain from calling it as such, merely because there are many people who are happily deceived. I have too much respect for human values for that.

Why less? In my way of looking at it, Western modernity acts as a universal solvent on superstition; in those parts of the world were the solvent has been working the longest - like in Europe - nonbelief has advanced the farthest.

Hope, yes; faith, no.

 

Before I even attempt to address any of the other points within your above message, I must first examine the one that is most important. Authority. You specify that "The impersonal law is the authority." Where can a copy of that law be found, so that it can be analyzed? Who is the author of such a "impersonal law"?

 

Ok then... so are you admitting that you were deliberately misrepresenting my statement rather than misunderstanding it?

It's just this sort of specious justification that excuses the right-wing evangelical preemptive tactics of 'riposte'; knowing that religious debate with non-believers tends towards the spreading of skepticism, evangelicals have as of the last decade turned increasingly towards troll-like attacks while accusing their opponents of the same... anything to avoid a level discourse.

I repeat:

"Our sexualities are comprised of "deeply felt instincts mediated through diverse cultural conventions."

"...We have various interlocking biological functions/instinct/drives that differ somewhat from person to person due to genes and physical development; however, these are then expressed through material conditions and cultural conventions to become what we consider our sexualities."

Refer back to my 'riposte' comment above.

Ok... so without justification, I'm obligated to adopt your terms and framing of this discussion? Fat chance.

I'm not doing the work for you; until you do, your claims to relevant evidence are vacuous.

What this specific man actually said or believed... which given a near total lack of reliable verification of such claims is a pipe dream; and considering the lack of any justified verificational frame for his suppose divinity... well, tis best to chuck that messiah in the trash where he belongs.

Argument from tradition. Note still that my original position dealt with a narrow matter concerning sexuality, instinct, and cultural construction.

And then you just 'ed all over the board. What gives?

 

Nothing is going to make you immune to the fact that your faith can be absent for no reason at all, is it?

 

Its certainly a term that has multiple meanings. The orthodox religion can continue to use it, for example, to attack the new offerings. I've seen many rabid Xians, for example, who go with that premise with particular grunt. I've used it, however, to refer to the sociological analysis that bases its understanding of religion in terms of a lack of free will. Religion should be viewed, despite many of the enfeebled attitudes of the religious in this thread, in a positive light consistent with rational maximisation behaviour

 

How can faith be absent? Does 'faith' occupy a particular space in the temproal world where it normally resides and has for some unknown reason vacated that known position?

 

Not when you run around (*)(*)(*)(*)ting on people, routinely calling them irrational, delusional, and commanded by God to be horrific people.

SOmething caused that, and, as usual, when called on it, there is the same kinds of excuses I get when I find 19 year year old soldiers attempting to skip out on PT.

Do you guys really think this stuff is not patently obvious? That you have bamboozeled people into thinking that you are swell guys that like to rip into people for no other reason than their faith choice?

 

There is no deliberate misrepresentation on calling you out on a DELIBERATE insult.

Stop being a victim and own up to your own actions.

Is that supposed toi be anything other than an ideological rant? You know my politics, my knowledge, everything, just on the basis of my faith?

Why do you think these kinds of bigoted demonstrations are acceptable?

So, in other words, we are programed to want sex (no (*)(*)(*)(*)), now what does that have to do with your disagreement about whether it is GOOD to control sexual desire as religion(s) state?

You are merely rationalizing promiscuity, which you claim not be doing, even as you attack the institution of monogamous relationships.

Really, you were once again a victim because someone understood NOT JUST your arguement, but the logical inferrences that arise for your statements?

Perhaps you shoudl stop believeing you are smarter than everyone based solely on your faith and realize that I was three steps ahead of you.

Refer back to an actual rebuttal.

And actual thesis statement.

Logically, if you wnat to be treated logically, you follow the rules of logic.

All you have doen above is given yourself an out to use changing goal posts and avoid defending an established position.

In other words, you are not attempting to debate, but to simply disagree for disagreements sake.

Really, once again, how stupid do you think other people are? You really think you are folling anyone?

See above, clearly no intent to debate. Just (*)(*)(*)(*) on people.

Its your anger, you deal with it.

Being lazy is not a reliable defense. Making a claim without evidence or listing the investigative processes used to reach a conclusion is neither logical nor sceintific.

You are just a dude with an opinion. Thanks, but given your avoidance of evidence and demonstarted behavior above, its pretty clear you are not looking with an open objective mind nor with any real desire to change anyone's mind - including yours.

.

Oh, scientific study and current legal codes and teh rational begind them are just logical fallacies because you say so?

And the rest of your opinion, as you offer up ZERO support, is actually science is it?

I believe it is called an arguement from ignorance.

Oh look, the old ad hominem.

Time to put you back on ignore, I gave you second chance, but it is clear you are just another angry kid with an enormous chip on his shoulder.

 

Well, you're wrong coming and going, then. First of all, as a military officer, you have authority that is accorded to you, by legal means, by your home country (as you say, you are imbued with that authority, it is not something that you have personally arrogated). Second, once you introduce the venue of the battlefield, you are no longer talking about a place where there is a commonly acknowledged sovereign; case in point, though you have legal authority under U.S. law, you do not by local standards, hence you have to constantly assert yourself by force. In the first instance, your personal authority is dependent upon law; in the second, you are acting as an occupier, directly undermining local lawful sovereign authority. In neither case can legitimate authority be identified with your person. Unless, of course, you are obeying doctrine rather than law. For unlike law, doctrine is always at the service of the potentate who decrees it; and its writ lasts as far and as long as he can enforce it.

Well, you really ought to know better than that. Whether authority is held under the law, or by decree, it is usually difficult and risky to resist. It is possible to legitimately object to, or even resist, a law; but it is impossible, in the very nature of the thing, to legitimately resist doctrinal authority. That authority can never be held to account by any regular means.

Because it is constantly referenced as "the word of the Lord." That is wherein its authority is derived - in the personal, above-the-law authority of the potentate; not its rational merits.

If the law is not recognized as legitimate, it will be impossible to enforce. Law is legitimate, ultimately, because it is grounded in consent by the governed. Doctrine does not work this way, and never did.

Sure. And? History is replete with minorities being able to arrogate the mantle of sacred authority for themselves. Does competition for power cease within this group? Hardly. But the doctrines they come up with are imposed upon the broader population, and so cannot properly be spoken of as law (at least not in the sense of the term which I have been using it - viz., as rules developed by consensus and prevailing over any given single individual in their jurisdiction).

The points you're making here don't rebut mine, they reinforce them! All moral authority is man-made. The fact that the divine's 'eternal decrees' - represented by doctrine hammered out by the self-serving few - can change at all, makes it plain that they do not have a truly transcendent, immutable origin!

If monotheism is true, we have no unalienable rights. All the rights we have, are held at the pleasure of the Tyrant.

Hold on - ! There's a ton of cr*p moral teaching found in the great world religions. Just because there's a fair amount of gold mixed in with all the dross, I'm powerfully inclined to say that that wisdom is all of human origin. We wrote the d*mn books - we don't have to bend the knee to anyone, for the lessons contained therein!

That is a non sequitur.

Better quote me if you're gonna make a claim like that.

You won't find me disagreeing with you there. And your point is?

Why not think for yourself, man!? If God told you it was alright to slaughter the innocent (after all, there's precedent for it), would you count that as "wisdom," too?

 

We do that for good leaders, not because we are compelled to, but because we trust them implicitely.

There are people in my life that I can go to and ask them to jump, and without question, they will ask, "How High?" and do it. There are few that can ask me the same thing, and, without question, I will ask them, "How High?" and then immediately do so.

That does not happen often, it is the result of implicit trust. Trust that without knowing the totality of the situation and, though the current task may seem trivial and unimportant, when it is asked it fits in to the larger picture and is necessary. Only the best leaders, the wisest leaders instill that kind of trust.

I am sorry that this trust, which I account as one of the best things in my life, does not allow itself to be present in your world view.

There are certainly politics in religion, but you are once again attempting to pain someone else faith with your own hang ups. The center of religion is not politics, but a relationship with God.

You do not need religion to have politics, it is really that simple. If you have politics and religion, and economics, etc. politics is necessary for teh community to debate and enact appropriate laws and guidelines to keep these competing interests in balance and harmony.

Politics is necssary. Not sure why you are attempting to fault religion for the reality of governance?

I suggest you read your history. The deism of the French Revolution, Marxism, Communist Revolutions, etc. have all had strong atheistic aspects. We have conversely had Great Awakenings during the same period. Things ebb and flow.

However, the rise of atheism you cheer should come with a strong caitionary tale. The rise is the result of emotional criticism and hyperbole. People may be angry with the present manner of things, and criticism draws people in - but they expect solutions at some point.

What happens when people push back behind the criticism of atheism and find that essentially, it is a bunch of callow Glenn Beck's who just want to complain and offer nothing in terms of real solutions?

Religion is quite safe from these temporary rallies of militant emotionalism. Its not the first time its happened in history and not the last time.

I am living proof that the rebuttal of atheism should be allowed, because, like me, people will at some point ask, "What is point of running around telling people how stupid they are, and why does being an atheist in and of itself make me smarter then friend who is religious but I am being told to hate?"

The funny thing about skepticism is that it makes you question things. I have no fear of the 'rebuttal' of atheism.

You are subjected to what bigotry? Are you denied education? Jobs? Economic freedom? Are you not allowed to travel? You cannot vote? Run for office? No doubt the master is coming to whip you soundly and return you to the planatation?

You are subjected to nothing more than natural reaction to the derision of the modern atheism's militancy you hail.

If you were treated as you treat others, "Oh, you are atheist? What a moron," I am sure you would avoid such influences every bit as much as we do.

It's quite logical.

That is not a rebuttal is it?

A thesis can be either a statement of a question. The QUESTION about God is whether he exists or not. Both sides make a statement in support of whether they think it is yes or no.

This is not hard.

Yep, because it involves humans.

So, you are saying the church being involved in politics is bad. What about coporations? What about non-profit atheist groups? What about foreign embassies? Lobbiests? BAR associations? Professional organizations? and the myriad other number of participants in politics.

You cannot keep religion totally out of politics. Government is driven not to favor any of them, but it is also duty bound to protect it. And religion does represent the same thing as politicians - constituents. If you try to exclude religion from the debate that is politics all you are doing is disenfranchising someone based on their faith.

That is not a good thing.

Saint Francis.

Atheists did not create secularism. Religiously tolerant people like me did. It is guys like Al-Sistani (who is very much religiously empowered) who are advocating in places where Islam holds sway. Atheists in Iraq?

Not even on the radar.

Oh, disagreeing with the rational for your attacks on religion is a lie? Interesting way to rebt while claiming that it is others who casting aspertions.

Good to know you think I am fundamentally dishonest.

I believe you just spelled out a doctrinal position.

Agh, no, they tried to eliminate religion. And then they still had to figure out how to deal with all those intangible aspects of life that hard data does not solve. And the more they tried to destroy religion the more ingrained it became.

But you think that modern atheism is the death of religion do you? Study your history.

Yawn.

The Peace of Westphalia.

The people who wrote the constitution knew their history, both the intoleranec that drove them out of Europe in many cases, and the solutions that were laid. Its not like the USA invented secularism.

We simply put it into good practice. And you will notice that secularism is as much about protecting religion as it is about keeping its influence in check.

Religion has to win adherents not through compulsion, but through rationalism - and it is flourishing as a result.