Aggressive Atheism

[Blowtus]

I have presented my case that faith and force are corollaries. But so far, the only arguments that I have heard against it have been harsh name calling, ad hominem attacks, deliberate twisting and misinterpretations of my points, out-of-left-field tangents that amount to nothing, and vague statements based on the relative that I am somehow, wrong. But not one of you have actually argued against any of my main, central points that I have quite competently backed up; only whined and wailed against them, with no teeth.

When you construct an argument based on a pyramid of misconceptions, starting at the basic 'out of left field' ones is really the only way to topple it, as the fundamental flawed assumptions support the explicit 'main' views at the top of the hierarchy. It's no wonder you don't want to engage with them of course

 

[Blowtus]

It isn't talking about wanting A wife, or wanting a nicer house, it's about specifically wanting the thing in someone else's possession, because the only way to satisfy the want ourside of legal purchase is to use one of the aforementioned illegal means to procure it. This is the reason for forbidding that thought process.

Problem is you can't easily stop the thought process, you can only make people feel guilty about it. We're wired up to want lots of things that do not serve our long term interests in this modern life, learning to leave it at the wanting stage and not put it into action is a pretty fundamental aspect of personal development...
I know there have been various theologians (Aquinas focused on it in the Christian context I think?) that specifically wanted to reduce / negate their desires, but that's a pretty focused endeavour beyond the reach of most, imho.

 

[razoredge]

you have got to be FUCKING KIDDING ME !

Insult me?

This fucking shit is so fucking simple

I mention the commanmdment and it turns into a tool to bash me personally with fuck the fuck off you pompus fucking douchbag

 

[Dak]

It is quite revealing when people say that they will automatically act on what they covet; and thus need archaic written rules of morality and restrictions on thought to squash these bubbling evil desires from ever seeing the light of day.
I am very glad that this discussion is over a message board; because I don't think I would wanna be anywhere near you guys; let alone let any one of you watch over a child(if I were dumb enough to have one).

I was referring to human nature, not myself. History shows the flaws in mankind on a repeated basis so I don't feel the need to explain this further.

Your selfish-rooted comment about being dumb to have kids shows you are the one who should never be allowed the greatest gifts on earth.

Coveting is nowhere near the same thing as taking. Taking=acting.

But thoughts lead to actions. The best way to prevent an action is to not dwell on the thoughts about it. Why is this beyond your comprehension?

dakryn: I currently live in the "bible belt" where people are far more outwardly vocal both about their devout faith and not sparing the rod to their offspring. Just the other day, the lady cutting my hair boasted about how she paddled her son til' he bled and what a good lil' Christian she was. Wow...Bible....BELT. I just got it. *doh!*

I lived in Eastern NC for 20 years. I am well aware of how it is there.

I do not agree with you guys; that man is just a seething, bubbling cauldron of vicious human desires that constantly need to be curbed, contained, and constantly watched lest they run over and all of us turn into serial killing heethens.

This is the real root of the disagreements so far.

Sure, there ARE some truly evil people(and I've encountered them), but by my calculations; most people are good. And thought crime is just completely unnecessary; not to mention utterly evil. And what's more; like I said before, any law against coveting would be impossible to obey. However, if someone does try to take your life, liberty, or property from you; then you DO have the right to defend your rights and destroy the aggressor(s). Force is wrong(lest it be in the defense of your individual rights).

How is it impossible not to covet? Acknowledging someone else has something nice doesn't require you to wish you could take it from them.

I have presented my case that faith and force are corollaries. But so far, the only arguments that I have heard against it have been harsh name calling, ad hominem attacks, deliberate twisting and misinterpretations of my points, out-of-left-field tangents that amount to nothing, and vague statements based on the relative that I am somehow, wrong. But not one of you have actually argued against any of my main, central points that I have quite competently backed up; only whined and wailed against them, with no teeth.

You haven't backed your opinions up with anything other than more of your opinions.

Now if I am wrong, I would be glad to hear any one of you argue the only real opposing argument that there can be here; that faith and freedom are corollaries. Or that FAITH IS FREEDOM. (Though I suppose insanity is pretty liberating).
For that really can be the only true argument that will counter all I have said, isn't it? There clearly can be no middle ground in this matter and I'd be amazed(but not surprised) if there are those who think there can. But are any of you really going to argue my case point-by-point to proclaim this utterly inane point of view(especially when you have agreed with some of the things I have said)???

I so very highly doubt it.

So with that, I will conclude by reiterating that faith and force ARE indeed corollaries and are actually very deeply immersed in one another. And that faith is infinitely much closer to the central basic tenets of totalitarianism than to the more enlightened view that individual man is an end in himself; a distinct separate entity whose rights are intrinsic to him and not beholden to any god, government, community, voting body, or any other authority.

Now I rest my case and I leave you with a quote:

There are no evil thoughts, except one: the refusal to think.

If "faith" requires force it is not faith. /arguement

 

[razoredge]

covet means to desire that which belongs to another person. I dont think its uncommon to look at another mans woman thats worth a hoot and not wonder what she would be like but we all know action on this would not be a positive thing in the end. GOing by what so many want to claim is imbedded ideals pounded into our heads by christian moral culture, I suspect if we erased that we would be back to a very barbaric world in which the more thoughtful would come to the same conclusion even without a tool such as "religion". To me its just more common sense, dont fuck with others and you might live to see another day.

faith and force was a weird arguement, I have a hard time connecting the two, perhaps because I really understand the meaning of force as well as so many various applications of faith. I have faith that if I get any body part too close to something that has alot of force I might get hurt. I have faith that the US will continue to strive to be the most powerful military force in the world. I have faith that they will continue to force our economy into the dumpster or debt to o\ther great forces such as China and Russia to do so. However no one is forcing me to believe these things they come from my faith in my own ability to clearly see.

such a tangled web we weave

 

[Silver Incubus]

I noticed some terms being flung around here and I would just like to clear a few things up.
Faith is a Belief without any justification based on actual observable phenomena.
A belief is really a construction of your reality, for whatever reason, you hold to be true. You could belief in God but that takes Faith because God is non existent and can have no evidence.
For example, I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow simple for the fact that it has for every day of my life and many others lives. Because it is observable by anyone with eyes or feeling in their skin can tell when the sun is up.

I also want to add an important note about reality in general.

It would be a good think to remember that we actually don't perceive the world around us as much as our brains create representations of what our senses pick up. That is to say what you see isn't actually there as you see it, but only how your brain has interpreted those photons hitting your eye.

A great example I'll steal for this is a map vs the actual place. Now the map is very useful for getting around but it doesn't actually have the physical properties of place themselves.

So think of your beliefs as your map of the world. Its been refined many times, even some bits are distorted or even deleted. If one goes to another person with there map and tries to explain a certain area to someone who doesn't have the same Distortions and Deletions and Generalizations as others then they are bound to disagree with the actual place's physical properties because one person says their are maple tree's at 23 long. and 45 lat. because that is what he was always told is there and on his map that is what is shown, but someone who lives in 34,45 tells him that there are only pinetrees there. They are bound to disagree.

In closing I just wanted to say that when it comes to any argument on reality, none is the 'truth' in the ultimate sense, there is only what is supported by the most evidence that can be measured and observed by mostly anyone. So if you have no real proofs or real evidence(real as in concrete, undeniable) then you should shut the fuck up about your belief or your faith, because It really means fuck all.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

And for those of you who still don't get it and think I am just spouting piss and pulling this stuff all out of my ass, let me ask you this:


Where are any of the hardcore atheist political candidates???

It's somehow acceptable to lambast Sarah Palin for all her insane religious beliefs; but at the same time acceptable to turn a blind eye and condone Nancy Pelosi's wacky and flaky behavior in mentioning of the greatest word of all time being, "the word"(Jesus) in her own mutated devotion to Catholicism; and at the same time acceptable to excuse Barack Obama for seeing the softer side of Jesus.

I think that we all can be(and have) agreed that government IS force, yes? It is force by definition, is it not? I'm not going to bother belaboring this point any further because at this point anyone disagreeing with it would just be doing so out of pure antagonism, which would really be sad.
Just to briefly clarify though, I will simply say that any government edict, directive, act is backed with the threat of fines and/or imprisonment; which is all ultimately backed by the barrel of a gun.

So if government IS force; and faith ISN'T force- what are only the faithful doing in positions of power??? Can you really chalk it up to some kind of wildly bizarre coincidence? If so, then god bless you.

But again, where are the hardcore atheist politicians???

The fact is you won't see them anytime soon. And because there are no outspoken atheists in government, this only perpetuates the vicious cycle of many people not rethinking their positions on faith and the damage it does in allowing the erosion of their own power over their lives to slip away from them faster and farther. And if faith and force weren't corollaries; there would definitely be some visible dissent.

I know that some of you will say that most voters believe in god and that is why the politicians mollycoddle to them for their votes; but the vast majority of American voters aren't the small nugget of fundamentalist zealots who could only be dealt with by simple placation because they are certifiably insane. They only believe loosely, like some of you here do.

So if faith didn't give them some kind of a power advantage, why would they all stick to it???

Sorry folks, but frankly either get it or get fucked.

 

[razoredge]

Oh you get fucked dummy

as you said those leaders that proclaim belief in a supreme being is a vote getter, it would be so highly unacceptable to state ones stance against believe in God and get elected, plain and simple, same as something so common as an affair or a blowjob by somone other than your "wife" will totally detour and distract the entire country and political system from makeing any sure footed advancement, entire terms of office go to waste as the country dramatizes over petti bullshit that has no more bearing on leadership or improvement than picking your friggin nose.

Why do you think no one in office will make a solid stance for or against anything ? They will lose the ability to charm their way into votes. Everybody should know its not popular to tell the blantent truth, to not sugar coat everything, to stand firmly on ones principles, to not be sympathetic, to not have compassion for for everyone even when you know they are fucking something all to hell. If you go up for governmental leadership with anything but a claim to religion you will be seen as the next Hitler or Stalin, plain and simple. If you totally oppose immigration and globalism you will not capture a vote majority, you simply have to say "I dont think thats the right course of action" sit on your thumbs for 4 years and hope a "majority" gives you another shot at 4 more years of thumb sitting because you didnt step on any particular groups toes enough to "hurt their sensitive side". The whole religious thing melds into this because it is a indication of compassion.

ALL these are ploys to get elected and staying elected. Elections should be closer to the way a jury system works were a decision needs to be anonomous (excuse my spelling). So yes indeed that would never work, well lets go for a 75% vote and garantees via contract to the people you SERVE that X items WILL be accomplished within ONE year or we chop your fucking head clear the FUCK OFF.... Now with that clearly non compasionate, non religious statement how many votes do you think I would get ? 10-15, so I stand up there and claim, I feel for everyone, I believe in the words of the bible, we are all in this together and presto I got me an office.

Political pursuit has far less to do with improving the quality of life for your people as it is about a career choice. Its much more about another innate human characteristic called power trippin. It gives one braggin rights, something to inflate their ego and gob the knob with the shakers and rollers.

 

[Dak]

And for those of you who still don't get it and think I am just spouting piss and pulling this stuff all out of my ass, let me ask you this:


Where are any of the hardcore atheist political candidates???

It's somehow acceptable to lambast Sarah Palin for all her insane religious beliefs; but at the same time acceptable to turn a blind eye and condone Nancy Pelosi's wacky and flaky behavior in mentioning of the greatest word of all time being, "the word"(Jesus) in her own mutated devotion to Catholicism; and at the same time acceptable to excuse Barack Obama for seeing the softer side of Jesus.

I think that we all can be(and have) agreed that government IS force, yes? It is force by definition, is it not? I'm not going to bother belaboring this point any further because at this point anyone disagreeing with it would just be doing so out of pure antagonism, which would really be sad.
Just to briefly clarify though, I will simply say that any government edict, directive, act is backed with the threat of fines and/or imprisonment; which is all ultimately backed by the barrel of a gun.

So if government IS force; and faith ISN'T force- what are only the faithful doing in positions of power??? Can you really chalk it up to some kind of wildly bizarre coincidence? If so, then god bless you.

But again, where are the hardcore atheist politicians???

The fact is you won't see them anytime soon. And because there are no outspoken atheists in government, this only perpetuates the vicious cycle of many people not rethinking their positions on faith and the damage it does in allowing the erosion of their own power over their lives to slip away from them faster and farther. And if faith and force weren't corollaries; there would definitely be some visible dissent.

I know that some of you will say that most voters believe in god and that is why the politicians mollycoddle to them for their votes; but the vast majority of American voters aren't the small nugget of fundamentalist zealots who could only be dealt with by simple placation because they are certifiably insane. They only believe loosely, like some of you here do.

So if faith didn't give them some kind of a power advantage, why would they all stick to it???

Sorry folks, but frankly either get it or get fucked.

The real question is who are the hardcore Satanists, and the answer is most successful politicians, but they can't tell that to the public. So they claim whatever is an "accepted" religion.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExAw4hIhRIU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[razoredge]

 

[Blowtus]

I think that we all can be(and have) agreed that government IS force, yes? It is force by definition, is it not? I'm not going to bother belaboring this point any further because at this point anyone disagreeing with it would just be doing so out of pure antagonism, which would really be sad.

I don't mind a good meal of bait, so here we go again

Who has agreed with you that 'government is force'? Yes, government can be described as involving force / power, but just because terms have some vague connection doesn't make them synonyms. If you want to apply your generalising tendency more generally then you can arrive at even more profoundly useless textual farts such as 'everything is force'.

Australia now has an atheist leader, does your brilliant faith=power=government hypothesis only apply to the US?

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Who has agreed with you that 'government is force'? Yes, government can be described as involving force / power, but just because terms have some vague connection doesn't make them synonyms. If you want to apply your generalising tendency more generally then you can arrive at even more profoundly useless textual farts such as 'everything is force'.

And that would be just, absurd.

Ask yourself this: has government ever really subsidized anything without controlling it?

There's nothing "vague" about it.

Find me an exception to this and then we'll talk.

Australia now has an atheist leader, does your brilliant faith=power=government hypothesis only apply to the US?

Depends on what that power purports to be. I wouldn't go and declare Australia a 'free country'. Just look at some of their absolutely inane legislation. Start with the recent pornography laws. You'll be in for a good laugh.

I really think at this point; you are just playing obtuse to try and get a rise out of me. Because I have faith that you aren't this dense.

 

[Blowtus]

I have never lived without breathing, it does not follow that myself and breathing are interchangeable terms.

Dunno what relevance the 'free country' shit has. Freedom needs to be grounded as 'freedom from x' or it just becomes baseless abstract fodder for retarded discussion such as this.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I have never lived without breathing, it does not follow that myself and breathing are interchangeable terms.

Yeah, this knocks down my entire thesis.

In your example, only one necessitates the other. You require breathing. Breathing doesn't require you. Faith and force both require some form of each other(see above examples[such as that man does not think]).

Dunno what relevance the 'free country' shit has. Freedom needs to be grounded as 'freedom from x' or it just becomes baseless abstract fodder

LIBERTY is defined as freedom from government restriction and control.

for retarded discussion such as this.

I love it when people make my conclusions for me.

Maybe you should try aiming that sixth degree black belt logic of yours at your faith and your premises instead of me. You may find a surprise or two.

 

[razoredge]

reading those two posts is time I will never get back

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Well if time were dependent on you making a real contribution to this thread, I'd be eating pudding in a nursing home somewhere.

 

[Dak]

LIBERTY is defined as freedom from government tyranny and control.

Pretty narrow and shortsighted personal definition of liberty.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Pretty narrow and shortsighted personal definition of liberty.

I wish I could take credit for that but it isn't mine.

 

[razoredge]

k smart ass beside the fact that I blew your your nonsense out of the water with simple basic common knowledge and history... sapozz you give examples of what is not power and then what is not empowering