Ten Commandment challenges spread

[Andonyx]

Psst. Above you.

 

[Upchurch]

Psst. Above you.

Great minds post alike, I guess.

 

[Andonyx]

Gee Yahweh, our lists of the commandments seem to differ in some seriously significant ways. In fact after doing a serach I can't find any two lists that agree completely.

You'd really think this moral religious majority could get their act together and provide some sort of unified and coherent moral statment.

 

[hammegk]

I'm sorry, "I am the lord thy god thou shalt have no other gods before me" is not a moral statment, it is a religious statment.

'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' Is not a moral statement on any civic or public level, it is religious.

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' Is not moral, it is religious.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' Is not moral it is religious.

Agreed. My bad. Sometimes I think before I type.

The government is engaging in some awfully immoral behavior.

Yeah, we agree on that.

 

[JAR]

[snip]
slavery was not moral
[snip]

I'm glad you think slavery is immoral. I think it's immoral too.

See, hammegk's not that bad.

 

[Random]

Gee Yahweh, our lists of the commandments seem to differ in some seriously significant ways. In fact after doing a serach I can't find any two lists that agree completely.

You'd really think this moral religious majority could get their act together and provide some sort of unified and coherent moral statment.

The religous right sometimes runs into this problem when they try to have the Ten Commandments posted in schools. Somebody will ask the question "Which Ten Commadments?"

 

[hammegk]

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest.

 

[Upchurch]

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

I'm curious, then, hammegk. What higher authority can/do you turn to? And how do you know that authority exists, if the only think you know for sure is that you think?

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't a description of an atheist, be it pc'lib or otherwise, actually contain a description of atheism somewhere in it?

 

[Grammatron]

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml



What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest.

I am an atheist and can answer questions of right/wrong with ease, I just need a topic and from what I read in Bible, Torah, Koran and other religious texts their definition of right/wrong may not be that good for humanity.

 

[Scorpy]

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml

What a load of smug, self-indulgent, self-serving crap!

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

See again thread on incest.

How do you know this "higher authority" exists? Faith? But what's faith except the egotistical belief in the infallibility of one's own intuition or instinct?

 

[DavidJames]

"What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos."

yeah, kinda like those priests, who while believing in a "higher authority", still seem to have some trouble with the same questions

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, having shown that this isn't representative of atheism in... well, in anyway at all since it has nothing to do with atheism.

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.[/b]

Although not strictly liberal myself, I feel the need to defend liberalism, at least from an atheistic point of view. The above line first assumes that absolute Good (big "G") exists and that people can be it on a basic level. The concept of absolute Good (or Evil) is not usually a part of an atheist's world view, from my experience, and thus already the author's concept of a liberal is dependent on an assumption.

As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.

I find this to be a contradiction. How can one put blame on parents, capitalists or racists and not be blaming the individual parents, capitalists or racists? This claim doesn't even make sense on its surface.

A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them.

Again, this assumes Good and Evil. (In this case I'll take "evil" to mean "something we don't approve of") However, I find it curious that this author seems to be advocating violence as the only solution for conflict.

Isn't this what civilization was formed to prevent? Didn't we generate a system of laws and justice to provide an alternative to resolving issues through violence? Ultimately, isn't it always more moral not to fight or kill?

On a personal note, hammegk, I find it interesting that you are accusing atheists of a principle that is commonly held in reverence by many religions.

"Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.

This is mostly just a straw man.

We did negotiate with the Soviets and the Cold War (which wasn't a "war" in the sense that violence was used by either side) was won through the use of negotiation, economics, and other non-violent means.

On the other side, if I may take the same liberties as the author, the conservative mind is also filled with naive cliches like "Nuke 'em till they glow so we can shoot them in the dark" and "Bring it on."

Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals.

In my case, this is true. Not because it "shakes up my child-like views of the world" as the author claims but because it is a concept that can be used to rationalize actions that those same people who use the concept of "evil" might otherwise consider evil themselves. Good and Evil are intellectual crutches used to simplify and pigeon hole a complex and complicated world.

That's why "evil" greatly disturbs me personally.

It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.

Which, ironically enough, is the same view held by conservative fundamentalist Christians (or various other religions) who fear the Devil.

In conclusion, the author makes a great deal of assumptions in his depcition of a liberal, advocates actions that are the antithesis of civilization, and in many cases describes traits that are common to both liberals and conservatives. Frankly, this is a poorly thought out piece.

 

[hgc]

...

Frankly, this is a poorly thought out piece.

As are hammy's arguments.

Let's review:

hammy:

Agreed. My bad. Sometimes I think before I type.

... in reference to the claim that the "10 commandments" are strictly moral, and not religious, statements.

So, now do you want to retreat from your position that the "10 commandments" should be allowed to be placed on government buildings?

hammy:

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

... to which you got this question:

Upchurch:

I'm curious, then, hammegk. What higher authority can/do you turn to? And how do you know that authority exists, if the only think you know for sure is that you think?

Let's have an answer, hammy, or perhaps another retraction instead.

 

[Upchurch]

Yikes. stupid typo. the last bit of that quote should be "if the only thing you know for sure is that you think?"

Didn't notice it until it was quoted and in bold.

 

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by hammegk
[...] moral anarchists [...]

Sounds great! Where do I sign up?

Originally posted by hammegk

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good

Although this quote has a reductionism which smells of straw, I wonder how Mr Prager arrives at this conclusion? I'm unaware of any liberal consensus on the state of human nature, and the nearest explicit mention I've found is Adam Smith's suggestion that people are essentially selfish, but that's classical liberalism, not the modern variety. Hmmm...

 

[hammegk]

So, now do you want to retreat from your position that the "10 commandments" should be allowed to be placed on government buildings?

Nope.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hammegk:

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... to which you got this question:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upchurch:

I'm curious, then, hammegk. What higher authority can/do you turn to? And how do you know that authority exists, if the only thing you know for sure is that you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's have an answer, hammegk, or perhaps another retraction instead.

I'm getting closer to retracting my previous retraction. The 'god=higher power' aspect is what provides the ammo to sell a particular moral system to enough people to provide a viable & lasting society. It's what materialists/atheists will try to supplant with math & science -- scientists being the priesthood I'd suppose -- when you have your replacement manual (Mathematical Morality For The Society We Are Founding). Unless you actually do believe destroying current societal morality without providing a better -- broadly accepted -- version is a "good thing"? Do you?

BTW, my higher power is in part the morality of the society I'm a member of (even if all I know is that *I* think).


BillyTK: I think you already have signed up; or I should say the persona you project here has.

Also -- Adam Smith a liberal? Was Machiavelli also a liberal (by your thinking)?

 

[BillyTK]

Also -- Adam Smith a liberal? Was Machiavelli also a liberal (by your thinking)?

Machiavelli strikes me as an archetype for neo-conservativism. But I don't see that many similarities between Machiavelli and Smith (male? European? wrote books?).

 

[a_unique_person]

Good description of pc'lib atheists:


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030812.shtml

At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good.

I think you will find this is one of the major teachings of Jesus.

 

[hammegk]

I think you will find this is one of the major teachings of Jesus.

Umm. Not the way I interpret what I read.

Irrelevant anyway; the question is do you (and you, and you) believe it? If so, why?

 

[Upchurch]

What is even more disturbing to atheists is the fact that they cannot answer questions of right/wrong (that is, good/evil) since they have no higher authority to turn to than their egos.

BTW, my higher power is in part the morality of the society I'm a member of (even if all I know is that *I* think).

And why do you think that atheists don't also conform to the morality of their societies? Even if you want to define "society" as a "higher power", why would that exclude atheists?

The 'god=higher power' aspect is what provides the ammo to sell a particular moral system to enough people to provide a viable & lasting society. It's what materialists/atheists will try to supplant with math & science -- scientists being the priesthood I'd suppose -- when you have your replacement manual (Mathematical Morality For The Society We Are Founding). Unless you actually do believe destroying current societal morality without providing a better -- broadly accepted -- version is a "good thing"? Do you?

Your staw man asside (and this is truely a clumsy "No, you're the religious zealot!" strawman), how exactly do you imagine that "materialists/atheists" would supplant the current societal morality system if whatever it is supplanted with wasn't broadly accpeted?

Also, how do compare morality systems (to determine the "better" one) if there is no absolute morality system to judge it against? Morality systems carry their own definitions of "good" and "bad" and are therefore relative to the morality system against which it is compared.

I don't think you've thought your position all the way through rationally.