# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Continuation of: Sam Harris: The dangers of Atheism

## Mr Tansill

> This relates to comments I made in another thread about how many people are flocking under the banner of Atheism even if many are probably not as hardcore about it. They just know they find religion weird or annoying, so they join the Atheists kind of like how some people seeking change have to look for a political party that includes their views.
> 
> While Sam Harris frankly finds religion to be absurd, he also suggests here that the whole Atheism platform itself is flawed.
> 
> NOTE 2: I know we just went though a post with JohnGalt seeking like minded people, then finding his thread piled on dissent and argument. It's obvious this video is mainly aimed at the Atheists or Skeptics and I figure many Theists will just find this video annoying, though maybe a few will find it interesting. Anyway, if you're a Theist who watches this video anyway and you have to vent, maybe like the Pagan thread a separate rebuttal thread could be created.


The thread beginning asked no specific question. That's why I asked why it should have been closed. The initiator of the actual thread posted a bunch of statements - seen above - but no actual question, and then complained that the thread was "taken off topic." What topic?

Asking to shut down a discussion because it's not proceeding the way you like is cowardly.

I have posted many a thread that people chose to take down tangents and rant about their own agenda, purposefully. That thread was proceeding along the general lines of religion, etc. There was no issue.

----------


## TheTexan

> Asking to shut down a discussion because it's not proceeding the way you like is cowardly.


Yes, that thread belonged to all of us.  We should have taken the decision to a vote.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Really?  Does this this place have to be this contentious all the time?  

Besides there is already a super long thread on that very topic that could be continued.

Also, you guys were not even the intended audience.  I was interesting in more feedback from folks like Otherone, Cabal, or Crashland.

----------


## Mr Tansill

Is there a way to ask it be opened back up? I suspect that it got shut down so abruptly in fear that there was something inappropriate happening without someone taking an actual close look at what was going on...

----------


## Mr Tansill

> Really?  Does this this place have to be this contentious all the time?  
> 
> Besides there is already a super long thread on that very topic that could be continued.


Again, why do you care _where_ a discussion is happening?

And yes...especially when you silence people.

----------


## TheTexan

> Is there a way to ask it be opened back up? I suspect that it got shut down so abruptly in fear that there was something inappropriate happening without someone taking an actual close look at what was going on...


We can start a petition, and maybe send it to Bryan for consideration.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## Mr Tansill

> Also, you guys were not even the intended audience.  I was interesting in more feedback from folks like Otherone, Cabal, or Crashland.


Cool story - how bout next time you send them a personal message and ask them. You getting pissed and "taking your ball home" is just pathetic (esp. on the internet).

/out

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Really?  Does this this place have to be this contentious all the time?  
> 
> Besides there is already a super long thread on that very topic that could be continued.
> 
> Also, you guys were not even the intended audience.  I was interesting in more feedback from folks like Otherone, Cabal, or Crashland.


Well, sorry you can't control the audience you're preaching to.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Is there a way to ask it be opened back up? I suspect that it got shut down so abruptly in fear that there was something inappropriate happening without someone taking an actual close look at what was going on...


videodrome's thread was a product of this discussion... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5828304

You folks turned it into something else. Period.

----------


## Sola_Fide

That thread was closed?  


Ridiculous....  you might as well name this site Ayn**********.   Horrible....

----------


## VIDEODROME

So what do you guys think of the Ann Druyan video?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> videodrome's threas was a product of this discussion... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5828304
> 
> You folks turned it into something else. Period.


I don't believe in closing threads, period.  You can't control what people want to talk about.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> So what do you guys think of the Ann Druyan video?


I loved it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You can't control what people want to talk about.


It sure didn't stop you, did it, Mr. 50 questions? You just completely hijacked that thread. Now it is closed and you get to continue with your spew. So proceed. You win. Today...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't believe in closing threads, period.  You can't control what people want to talk about.


I agree.  Shame on the people who closed it, and shame on the people who wanted it closed.  I was enjoying reading it.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Okay what the hell, I'll suggest a compromise.  Do a full thread merge between my Sam Harris thread and Sola Fide's Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality thread.  Let his big thread just absorb mine and you guys keep it up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Okay what the hell, I'll suggest a compromise.  Do a full thread merge between my Sam Harris thread and Sola Fide's Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality thread.  Let his big thread just absorb mine and you guys keep it up.


I thank videodrome for being one of those people who like to expand discussion instead of shut it down.   +rep

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I thank videodrome for being one of those people who like to expand discussion instead of shut it down.   +rep


If you guys are petitioning the Mods on this, I guess I'll leave it up to them.  Though as I said, the _Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality_ thread is already here and the discussion you wanted to have is already well established.  Go for it.  No reason to wait for a Mod ruling.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you guys are petitioning the Mods on this, I guess I'll leave it up to them.  Though as I said, the _Atheistic Worldviews Cannot Determine Morality_ thread is already here and the discussion you wanted to have is already well established.  Go for it.  No reason to wait for a Mod ruling.


I'm not petitioning anyone.  I'm just respecting anyone who has courage enough to engage and the courage enough to promote freedom.

Why would other forms of expression have worth in the liberty movement but religious forms of expression not have any?

I am just about to leave the whole thing...

----------


## TheTexan

> So what do you guys think of the Ann Druyan video?


Please try to stay on topic.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Please try to stay on topic.


ok

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Please try to stay on topic.


Is this facetious?   I hope so...

----------


## Crashland

> Cool story - how bout next time you send them a personal message and ask them. You getting pissed and "taking your ball home" is just pathetic (esp. on the internet).
> 
> /out


Really? I suppose Christians who want to have a discussion with other Christians about the eucharist or about baptism should use PMs instead of creating threads then. People just need to use basic common sense and courtesy when posting. Which around here is severely lacking considering practically every thread seems to get hijacked.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Sola, what the hell was that neg rep for? I haven't even posted in the religion forum in over a week, and I propose using common sense and courtesy, so you call me an imbecile and tell me I "lost the race"? How is that not an insult?


Meh. Don't feel bad. He negged me too. Happens. Adds character... 


I'll plus rep you for balance.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Great argument on morality well underway here  ========>    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...orality/page19

----------


## Cabal

> Does this this place have to be this contentious all the time?


"Peace through Religion," mate. Lol.




> Besides there is already a super long thread on that very topic that could be continued.
> 
> Also, you guys were not even the intended audience.  I was interesting in more feedback from folks like Otherone, Cabal, or Crashland.


By the time I got there, the thread was already something of a mind-numbing cluster$#@! that only got worse and worse, and had quickly devolved into the usual suspects engaging in their typical behavior. 

I should clarify though, I don't personally consider myself an atheist, though I imagine many would tend to classify me as one. I suppose, in a sense, I'm a bit like Sam Harris in that regard and, I'm sure, other atheists as well. Maybe I am an atheist, but I've always considered myself agnostic, personally, not that I find this designation particularly necessary or useful. Anyway, I don't necessarily reject that some 'higher power' of some description may exist, or may have existed. I mean, depending on how one defines a 'higher power' I could see nature qualifying as such a thing under certain definitions--I know I've certainly witnessed some products of nature that are absolutely sublime in my estimation, and certainly much more indicative of a 'higher power,' per se, than what I've heard, read, or seen from any religion, theist, or deist. In any case, I have no idea if one 'god' (or several, or many) may or may not exist, or have ever existed, and I don't think anyone else can know such a thing, at least not so far, despite how some like to claim the contrary. So, while I don't believe in any god at the moment, I'm always open to the possibility that such a thing that might be called a god may exist, after all, I can't prove that some description of a god doesn't exist, or hasn't existed somewhere, just as no one has ever been able to prove the contrary. 

Though, I do absolutely disbelieve in the formal religions, or rather, as Sam points out, specific religious beliefs (and their various versions of gods) that have been created and sustained by humans--that's all imaginary, superstitious fiction as far as I'm concerned, as none of them seem capable of standing to even cursory amounts of scrutiny.

Despite all that, I do agree with Sam's point about the absurdity of needing to describe one's self as a non-believer, and I've heard this point made by others before, as well. To me, this applies to both the identity of atheism and agnosticism--they're both rather superfluous, to me. But perhaps this is just a consequence of how common religious faith still is. Similarly, I also think it's rather sad I tend to need to describe myself as an anti-statist, or a voluntaryist. It speaks to how fubar the world still is when people have to go out of their way to clarify that they don't believe in or accept mysticism, or the alleged legitimacy of the State, IMO.

I also agree that in identifying, or labeling as such, may also make it easier for those who disagree with these views (who are quite clearly the majority on both counts) to more effectively attack them. You can see this play out even on the relatively small scale of this very forum rather regularly. How many times have we heard it regurgitated that non-believers cannot be moral, or some similar such nonsense, for instance? 




> Well, I don't know how an atheist can be judged as "more moral" than professing Christians... If I see an atheist "acting more moral than a professing Christian," then, in a sense, he would be acting like a Christian. He would not be acting like "a moral atheist" because there is no such thing, philosophically speaking.


That's just one of the latest examples from your previous thread. Just think about that for a moment. 'There is no such thing as a moral atheist.' Superiority doesn't get much more self-righteous and toxic than that. To be moral is to be good, just, right, acceptable, and valid. This quote basically says that non-believers, or perhaps even non-Christians, cannot be these things--they will always be lesser. And this isn't some fringe idea either. It's actually fairly common, even here. 

Non-belief is regularly and freely marginalized even within what is at least ostensibly a 'libertarian' community, which only further validates the point being made. Once again, anti-statism tends to receive the same treatment, as well. The correlations are a bit curious. Then again, statism has always seemed fairly faith-based and rather religious, in a sense. 

I also think he makes a fairly good point with regard to "even-handedness." And again, this is something I've heard before. There's some really $#@!ed up $#@! that gets promoted or done in the name of religion out there, but atheism tends to get directed into contending with religion in general, rather than simply focusing on the more specific behaviors or beliefs that incite some of the more clearly terrible things done in the name of religion. I imagine consistency certainly does factor into this to some degree, but I also suspect that there are just so many bad things still, to this day, done under the banner of religion, that it's simply more convenient to oppose religion in general than have to bounce from objection to objection, difference to difference when there's an ever-present common denominator. 

Yet again, I can't help but link this back to anti-statism as well, as this can also apply to it. I'm certainly guilty of growing tired of making concessions about this brand of statism being a bit less disgraceful than that brand of statism, and just preferring to instead paint statism with a broad brush, and focus on the core cause of all of these various symptoms of statism, rather than direct my attention to specific facets of particular brands of statism. In truth, I think there's value to be found in both approaches, from the perspective of opposition. I think being able to raise objections both in general, and specifically is ideal, and useful, and I imagine this is also as true for atheism vs. theism as it is for anti-statism vs. statism.

Anyway, I've typed long enough, and don't want to go over every other point made in the speech. I think he makes several good points though, and I enjoyed the speech. In general, I tend to agree with his overarching point, but I'm not sure it's really something that can be avoided. Even if all atheists, for instance, collectively decided to forsake the label, the label would still be applied to them for contending with believers, and religion, and so on. As I mentioned before, I've never identified as an atheist, yet I know for a fact there are those who have nevertheless labeled me as one. So while I appreciate his recognition of these issues, I'm not sure there's a whole lot that can practically be done about it, even if all his alternative proposals were to be immediately and universally put into practice.

----------


## moostraks

> Really?  Does this this place have to be this contentious all the time?  
> 
> Besides there is already a super long thread on that very topic that could be continued.
> 
> Also, you guys were not even the intended audience.  I was interesting in more feedback from folks like Otherone, Cabal, or Crashland.


So sorry about what happened. There is no reason why when an OP lays out the rules for the intention of the thread that it shouldn't be respected. Every thread in this subforum has become one large pissing match and it appears only one topic is allowed to be discussed. I was astonished at how you were being shut out of your own thread, perplexed actually that that was indeed what was being said to you. There is no reason why people should have to hide in this subforum or be denied associating with other likeminded people.

FWIW I appreciate the video. I found it interesting and helpful as someone who can identify with the labeling argument.

----------


## orenbus

Sola_Fide temporary ban

----------


## VIDEODROME

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Cabal.  I feel like I relate a lot to what you're saying, especially in the context of my original topic.

----------


## lilymc

> How many times have we heard it regurgitated that non-believers cannot be moral, or some similar such nonsense, for instance? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Well, I don't know how an atheist can be judged as "more moral" than professing Christians... If I see an atheist "acting more moral than a professing Christian," then, in a sense, he would be acting like a Christian. He would not be acting like "a moral atheist" because there is no such thing, philosophically speaking.
> 			
> ...


I'm not sure who you quoted above.  I'm guessing it was Paul.   But I just wanted to chime in here, with a couple points.

I don't think anybody likes arrogance, pride or self-righteousness.   From a Christian perspective, those things are huge no-no's.    One of the biggest Christian teachings is humility.  In fact, I believe that a person can't get saved in the first place if they are prideful and arrogant, because those things are blinding, and the bible is clear that we must humble ourselves (Matthew 23:12)  and become like children (Matt 18:1-4).

That said, this goes both ways.   Have you ever read the comments on any popular atheist youtube videos?   Like JaclynGlenn's channel, or the 'Amazing Atheist' or really anywhere online where atheists congregate?  I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but let's get real. 

I can't even begin to describe how arrogant, prideful and hateful the comments are.... everything from painting believers as complete idiots, gullible,  deluded (describing theism as akin to belief in the easter bunny or tooth fairy... as someone on the previous thread did, btw) to liars.... or worse.  

They say those things while constantly portraying atheists as smarter, stronger, "free thinkers", better educated, etc.    

So, while you are right to be put off by what you perceived to be arrogance or self-righteousness.... I hope you will be fair and speak out to your fellow skeptics when they do the same thing, or even worse.   

Btw, I think that whoever you quoted worded his point poorly.... but I think what he was trying to say is not what you thought he was saying.

 One of the biggest misunderstandings that I see in these kinds of debates is the misunderstanding we are talking about here.  It's not that atheists can't be moral.  Of course they can be moral.  The assertion is that atheism cannot account for objective morality.

I think that Paul has gone over this numerous times (on the big thread on morality). 

It goes something like this:

*Christian*:   Atheism cannot account for objective morality.
*Atheist*:   What!?   How dare you say atheists can't be moral!  Most atheists are more moral than most Christians!

*Christian:*  I didn't say that atheists can't be moral.  We're saying that your worldview cannot account for objective morality.
*Atheist:*   But morals aren't objective.  Morality is subjective.  Everyone in different parts of the world has different moral beliefs.

*Christian:*  Ok.  So you say morals are subjective, but that atheists are more moral than Christians?   Do you not see the logical error there?   How can any one "morality" be better than any other, if morality is entirely subjective?   Have you thought this through?

*Atheist:*  Well, morality is subjective, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as true morality.

*Christian*:  Actually, yes it does.  If there is no true, objective moral standard, then morality is up to the individual, and no one person can be any more right than any other.  What that boils down to is that there is no such thing as a true right or wrong.    

*Atheist:* *mumbles something and the debate fizzles out.*

----------


## Crashland

> *
> Atheist:*  Well, morality is subjective, but that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as true morality.*
> 
> Christian*:  Actually, yes it does.  If there is no true, objective moral standard, then morality is up to the individual, and no one person can be any more right than any other.  What that boils down to is that there is no such thing as a true right or wrong.


So...if morality is subjective, then it is not objective. You are using the word "true" as = to "objective". Maybe so, but "subjective" does not = "meaningless"

----------


## VIDEODROME

Yeah I kind of hinted that since there is already an extensive thread on that topic the discussion could be continued there.  

Also, I think Cabal was suggesting he doesn't consider himself to be an Atheist

----------


## lilymc

Crashland, I'll copy/paste your post and put it on the other thread. Give me a couple minutes.

----------


## Cabal

> I'm not sure who you quoted above.  I'm guessing it was Paul.


Nope, it wasn't. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he had said something similar at some point as well. As I said, it's a fairly common idea that is often expressed around here, particularly in the religion boards.




> I don't think anybody likes arrogance, pride or self-righteousness.   From a Christian perspective, those things are huge no-no's.    One of the biggest Christian teachings is humility.  In fact, I believe that a person can't get saved in the first place if they are prideful and arrogant, because those things are blinding, and the bible is clear that we must humble ourselves (Matthew 23:12)  and become like children (Matt 18:1-4).


I was born and raised in Texas in a Christian family. I attended various churches rather regularly throughout the early half of my life, and needless to say, have known many Christians. Humility was often taught and preached. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that humility is as often put into practice. I find this to especially be true here, based on what I observe.

That being said, Christians also hold no exclusivity to arrogance, either. Anyone can be arrogant, or prideful, or self-righteous. But you have to admit, it is a special, particularly haughty kind of arrogance--when one's sense of self-righteousness is rooted in a divine, all-powerful, supreme being.




> That said, this goes both ways.   Have you ever read the comments on any popular atheist youtube videos?   Like JaclynGlenn's channel, or the 'Amazing Atheist' or really anywhere online where atheists congregate?  I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but let's get real. 
> 
> I can't even begin to describe how arrogant, prideful and hateful the comments are.... everything from painting believers as complete idiots, gullible,  deluded (describing theism as akin to belief in the easter bunny or tooth fairy... as someone on the previous thread did, btw) to liars.... or worse.
> 
> They say those things while constantly portraying atheists as smarter, stronger, "free thinkers", better educated, etc.


As mentioned above, Christians hold no exclusive claim to arrogance. But I wasn't necessarily speaking of Christians in general with my aforementioned quote and commentary. I was specifically commenting on common attitudes and behaviors within this community in particular, using that to draw a connection to the particular point Sam Harris was making in context.

Anyway, I tend to avoid YouTube comments in general, and don't usually go out of my way to engage in atheist vs. theist debates, especially in venues that I don't regularly participate in.




> Btw, I think that whoever you quoted worded his point poorly.... but I think what he was trying to say is not what you thought he was saying.


Given the source, I'm doubtful. This kind of mentality isn't out of the ordinary for them. And as previously stated, it's a mentality this is often reiterated by several here. It's not anomalous, but rather, the norm. That there has been a history of moderation actions and community disputes surrounding this topic is evidence to that. 




> One of the biggest misunderstandings that I see in these kinds of debates is the misunderstanding we are talking about here.  It's not that atheists can't be moral.  Of course they can be moral.  The assertion is that atheism cannot account for objective morality.


This is a mistake that has been consistently made by other Christians here before. I suppose it is a roundabout way of defending their faith in a supreme being since it is through that faith that they divine their theory of morality. As, if their god doesn't exist, then the theory of morality they've divined from that god is no longer valid. So, it seems like rather than trying to grapple with the impossible task of proving their god exists, they simply redirect the discussion to one of morality, leading them directly into false dilemmas and appeals to consequence (i.e. God must exist, otherwise there is no objective morality, and that can't be.)




> Atheism isn't a theory of morality... Atheism doesn't comment on good or bad, right or wrong. Atheism, very basically, is simply the disbelief in a higher power, supreme being, or god; or if you want to put it another way, the belief in no god. That's it. That's all. Atheism is nothing else beyond that. So, nothing about atheism--or the disbelief in a god--has anything to say about good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral, justice or injustice--it's not a theory or morality, or a theory of justice, or a theory of ethics. These things are entirely separate from atheism.
> 
> That atheists may ascribe to various secular theories of morality does not make those theories a part of atheism. Atheism is one thing, morality is another.


The mistake you, and other Christians, seem to make from here is that you make the claim that objective morality can only emerge from your god. And you also seem to suggest or otherwise imply that unless morality is objective, it doesn't have any applicable value. As far as I can tell, neither of these assertions have ever been validated. 




> Objective morality cannot exist without a transcendent source (ie, God) Sorry, atheists.





> Why not?
> 
> Objective truths exist regardless of peoples belief in one god or another. Thus, it stands to reason, objective moral truths may also exist regardless of peoples belief in one god or another.


And to the latter point, as Crashland points out...




> So...if morality is subjective, then it is not objective. You are using the word "true" as = to "objective". Maybe so, but "subjective" does not = "meaningless"


Very nearly every atheist vs. theist debate turns down this road. And the underlying implication is that atheists, as a necessity of their atheism, cannot ever possibly hope to have a theory of morality (and thus moral conduct) quite as valid as a Christian's. Why? Well this goes back to the topic of arrogance. Christians divine their theory of morality from a supreme being--there's that special, particularly haughty kind of arrogance. And it seems they must do this as their faith requires it of them. If their god is not the sole source of all that is good and righteous, then what does that say about their god? It's all rather circular, really. And since atheists have no supreme being to derive such things from, they must thus always fall short in the morality department (at least in the eyes of some Christians)--and this is ultimately an indirect (or very direct, in some cases) commentary on either their character and/or their mental capacity. In either case, it's not exactly a well-received implication, especially since it emerges from claims that are still unvalidated.

It seems to me that in order for Christians to prove that they have the monopoly on any kind of morality, objective or otherwise, they must first prove that their god is, in fact, real, which they have yet to be able to do. Following this, they must also prove that their interpretation of their god is the correct, most accurate one. And following this, they must be able to reconcile that interpretation, whatever it may be, with what else their holy text teaches, claims, and mandates that they do not affirm in their interpretation (for instance, there are a number of inconsistencies and brutal suggestions in the Bible that wouldn't seem to fit into most Christian's interpretation of morality, despite the fact that they are all included in their holy text from which they tend to derive their faith, at least where mainstream religion is concerned). So, to me, it seems Christians have quite a ways to go before they even begin to have a foot to stand on in the monopolization of morality department. 

But this is all a rather lengthy segue from the point of my post, which was simply to respond to certain topics Sam Harris was discussing in his speech.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I was born and raised in Texas in a Christian family. I attended various churches rather regularly throughout the early half of my life, and needless to say, have known many Christians. Humility was often taught and preached.


I was raised Catholic.  According to some people here, that doesn't count as being a true Christian anyway.

----------


## lilymc

> Nope, it wasn't. Though I wouldn't be surprised if he had said something similar at some point as well. As I said, it's a fairly common idea that is often expressed around here, particularly in the religion boards.


Ok, I just did a quick search to see who said that.     He will have to reply for himself. 




> I was born and raised in Texas in a Christian family. I attended various churches rather regularly throughout the early half of my life, and needless to say, have known many Christians. Humility was often taught and preached. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that humility is as often put into practice. I find this to especially be true here, based on what I observe. 
> 
> That being said, Christians also hold no exclusivity to arrogance, either. Anyone can be arrogant, or prideful, or self-righteous. But you have to admit, it is a special, particularly haughty kind of arrogance--when one's sense of self-righteousness is rooted in a divine, all-powerful, supreme being.


I understand where you're coming from.   The way I see it is, there's a difference between being _religious_ and being Godly or Christ-like.   

Religion (apart from God) does cause some people to be prideful or arrogant.  And yes, I have seen it too, in this forum.

I think that is probably why Jesus put so much emphasis on humility.  I'm sure He knew that religious people often do far more harm than they realize, in terms of scaring people away from God, because of their arrogance or hypocrisy.   I think the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector is a good example of just that.

Another thing to keep in mind is that even among those who are the real deal, there is a very wide range of spiritual maturity. But from the outside looking in, all Christians get lumped together. So if an extremely spiritually immature Christian acts a certain way.... some people will judge Christianity by that spiritually immature Christian, instead of by the teachings of Christ.

All that is to say... some of us still have along way to go.  I know I do. I'm definitely a work in progress.  




> As mentioned above, Christians hold no exclusive claim to arrogance. But I wasn't necessarily speaking of Christians in general with my aforementioned quote and commentary. I was specifically commenting on common attitudes and behaviors within this community in particular, using that to draw a connection to the particular point Sam Harris was making in context.
> 
> Anyway, I tend to avoid YouTube comments in general, and don't usually go out of my way to engage in atheist vs. theist debates, especially in venues that I don't regularly participate in.


Fair enough.    




> Given the source, I'm doubtful. This kind of mentality isn't out of the ordinary for them. And as previously stated, it's a mentality this is often reiterated by several here. It's not anomalous, but rather, the norm. That there has been a history of moderation actions and community disputes surrounding this topic is evidence to that.


Well... TBH, I think the state of affairs here in the RPF religious sub-forum is extremely sad...and shameful.    But I don't want to talk too much about that here and now.   I think what I went over in this post (about religion apart from God, and different levels of spiritual maturity) pretty much covers it.




> This is a mistake that has been consistently made by other Christians here before. I suppose it is a roundabout way of defending their faith in a supreme being since it is through that faith that they divine their theory of morality. As, if their god doesn't exist, then the theory of morality they've divined from that god is no longer valid. So, it seems like rather than trying to grapple with the impossible task of proving their god exists, they simply redirect the discussion to one of morality, leading them directly into false dilemmas and appeals to consequence (i.e. God must exist, otherwise there is no objective morality, and that can't be.)


You say it's a mistake, but you didn't actually address the assertion.




> The mistake you, and other Christians, seem to make from here is that you make the claim that objective morality can only emerge from your god. And you also seem to suggest or otherwise imply that unless morality is objective, it doesn't have any applicable value. As far as I can tell, neither of these assertions have ever been validated.


Actually, I don't think anyone has claimed that.  At least I haven't. What you're doing now is jumping ahead and assuming what is in our minds... while ignoring the assertion itself - that atheism cannot ground objective morality.




> And to the latter point, as Crashland points out...
> 
> 
> Very nearly every atheist vs. theist debate turns down this road. And the underlying implication is that atheists, as a necessity of their atheism, cannot ever possibly hope to have a theory of morality (and thus moral conduct) quite as valid as a Christian's. Why? Well this goes back to the topic of arrogance. Christians divine their theory of morality from a supreme being--there's that special, particularly haughty kind of arrogance. And it seems they must do this as their faith requires it of them. If their god is not the sole source of all that is good and righteous, then what does that say about their god? It's all rather circular, really. And since atheists have no supreme being to derive such things from, they must thus always fall short in the morality department (at least in the eyes of some Christians)--and this is ultimately an indirect (or very direct, in some cases) commentary on either their character and/or their mental capacity. In either case, it's not exactly a well-received implication, especially since it emerges from claims that are still unvalidated.


I think that there are a few logical fallacies there.   

The morality thread was about atheism,  it asserted that atheism cannot ground objective morality.     What you've been doing is repeatedly trying to steer the discussion to Christianity, and making claims that have no relevance to the actual point of the thread.

For example, your claim that the Christian position on morality is rooted in arrogance seems to be committing the genetic fallacy.    Even if what you said is true (which I don't believe it is, in most cases) it still is not relevant to whether or not the Christian position is true.

In other words, objective morality either comes from God, or it doesn't.   Whether or not it is arrogant to claim that has nothing to do with whether or not the position is true.

But that wasn't even the point of the thread.   The point of the thread was that atheism cannot ground objective morality.   I still haven't seen that refuted.  All I've been seeing is some attempts to put the ball back in the court of the Christians.




> It seems to me that in order for Christians to prove that they have the monopoly on any kind of morality, objective or otherwise, they must first prove that their god is, in fact, real, which they have yet to be able to do. Following this, they must also prove that their interpretation of their god is the correct, most accurate one. And following this, they must be able to reconcile that interpretation, whatever it may be, with what else their holy text teaches, claims, and mandates that they do not affirm in their interpretation (for instance, there are a number of inconsistencies and brutal suggestions in the Bible that wouldn't seem to fit into most Christian's interpretation of morality, despite the fact that they are all included in their holy text from which they tend to derive their faith, at least where mainstream religion is concerned). So, to me, it seems Christians have quite a ways to go before they even begin to have a foot to stand on in the monopolization of morality department. 
> 
> But this is all a rather lengthy segue from the point of my post, which was simply to respond to certain topics Sam Harris was discussing in his speech.



With all due respect, I think you're looking at this in the wrong way.   

Nobody (that I've seen) is trying to prove the Christian position on morality.   We're simply having a philosophical debate on the nature of morality itself.

Again, you're jumping way ahead here.    I see that a lot in these debates. 

I think we all need to debate this topic in a more detached way... not in an emotional way.  Not in a "our side against yours" kind of way.     

If you really believe that atheism (or whatever view you hold) is correct, then it should be able to stand up against scrutiny, right?

But if you don't want to debate the topic, it's totally fine.   I think that a lot of us are getting a bit tired of that topic...at least for now.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> But if you don't want to debate the topic, it's totally fine.   I think that a lot of us are getting a bit tired of that topic...at least for now.


I was tired of the topic a long time ago.

----------


## Terry1

> I was tired of the topic a long time ago.


Let's just take a nap.  Sweet dreams darlin.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Really?  Does this this place have to be this contentious all the time?  
> *
> Besides there is already a super long thread on that very topic that could be continued.
> 
> Also, you guys were not even the intended audience.  I was interesting in more feedback from folks like Otherone, Cabal, or Crashland.


Yes.  That's how RPFs rolls.

----------


## jmdrake

> videodrome's thread was a product of this discussion... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5828304
> 
> You folks turned it into something else. Period.


That discussion wasn't initially about atheism either.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That discussion wasn't initially about atheism either.


Well. That is exactly correct, jmdrake. And I thought that it was very courteous as well as intuitive of videodrome to continue the subject when it _did_ come up, however, by intitiating an alternative thread relative _to_, and picking up _from_, where we left the thought when it came up there. Of course, videodrome's thread wasn't about atheism either. It got spun into a discussion about atheism, though. Right? It absolutely did. And from there the discussion was hijacked one question mark at a time. One after the other after the other after the other until it became something completely controlled by the hijaker and back to the same old squabbles about morality lock step. 

The thread, as I understand, was premised upon the historic and systematic lumping of agnostics and indostics as well as others _into_ the "atheist" label in a way that those who do that are able to stay within bounds of the terms of controversy relative to historic social debate.  Those terms of controversy demand that everyone is, by default, atheist in order for their argument to have teeth whatsoever. And, of course, that phenomenon actually _did_ play out there by demonstration. 

Anyhoo...at the end of the day, there is a _very_ good lesson to be learned there. Every time I see that begin to happen, I'm interjecting. It was nothing less than the Hegelian dialectic 101 what happened in that thread. 

Now, I'm not upset by those who got into the discussion _afterward_. They fell for it too and ran with the alternative discussion that the person who actually hijacked the thread was trying (and managed) to change the topic into. I mean, we really _did_ see someone actually ask the topic starter what business the discussion was of his. Can you believe that? Hoooooly ssssmokes.That's how bad it got hijacked. That blew my mind right there. What someone should have done was start a new thread relative to the terms of the hijaker and everything would have just been the bees knees. Of course, that would have ruined the purpose for the hijack in the first place.

Hey, Happy Easter, btw. How was sunrise service? Do you go? I went. It was 40 degrees here. We had pancakes afterward, though, so that was good. Warmed the tummy....

----------


## jmdrake

> Well. That is exactly correct, jmdrake. And I thought that it was very courteous as well as intuitive of videodrome to continue the subject when it _did_ come up, however, by intitiating an alternative thread relative _to_, and picking up _from_, where we left the thought when it came up there. Of course, videodrome's thread wasn't about atheism either. It got spun into a discussion about atheism, though. Right? It absolutely did. And from there the discussion was hijacked one question mark at a time. One after the other after the other after the other until it became something completely controlled by the hijakee. The thread, as I understand, was premised upon the historic and systematic lumping of agnostics and indostics as well as others _into_ the "atheist" label in a way that those who do that are able to stay within bounds of the terms of controversy relative to historic social debate. And, of course, that phenomenon actually did play out there by demonstration. Anyhoo...at the end of the day, there is a _very_ good lesson to be learned there. Every time I see that begin to happen, I'm interjecting. It was nothing less than the Hegelian dialectic 101 what happened in that thread. 
> 
> Now, I'm not upset by those who got into the discussion _afterward_. They fell for it too and ran with the alternative discussion that the person who actually hijacked the thread was trying (and managed) to change the topic into. 
> 
> Hey, Happy Easter, btw. How was sunrise service? Do you go? I went. It was 40 degrees here. We had pancakes afterward, though, so that was good. Warmed the tummy....


I fully agree with your analysis on VIDEODROME's thread.  I think it became a "Christian vs Atheist" thread when Sola_Fide attacked the video presenter rather than discussing the ideas in the video itself.  I can understand that I guess because when I tried to watch the video the presenter started off talking about how terrible it is that there are people still believe in God.  I note that VIDEODROME did give a warning that theists would be irritated by it.  He was right.  It's the logic, or lack their of, of Sam Harris that had me stop watching less than 5 minutes in.  He states "We are living in a nation with 300 million people with more influence than anyone in the world but that influence is steadily waning and being corrupted because 200 million of them believe that Jesus is going to come and save the world with His magic powers."  Well.....America is clearly less Christian than it was 100 or even 50 years ago.  So if Christianity is waning, and it is, then how can Christianity be the reason America's influence is waning?  In fact if Christianity was the problem then how did America become so powerful and influential in the first place?  I never got to the part of the video that supposedly makes atheists uncomfortable.  I guess I wish someone could have told me where to start for that rather than just how far I needed to in to skip the introductory speech.  

Happy Easter/Resurrection day to you too!  SDAs don't universally do sunrise services.  We're not against them.  Some do, some don't.  But as we don't typically hold Sunday services it's just not part of the culture.  I have gone to sunrise services other churches have.  I did lead a great afternoon wildflower hike yesterday.  Well....I should say I organized it.  The park ranger led it.  And my organization left something to be desired because most of the group went to the wrong part of the park and I had to run back to the trail head to meet them.    But we had a great time.  We identified over 30 wildflowers and took pictures!  I learned a lot.  (I only knew about 5 of the ones already.)

----------


## Natural Citizen

S_F didn't hijack that thread, drake. He threw in the first ad hominem attack but he didn't hijack it. Although he, admittedly, enjoyed watching the hijack progress.

Hey, I edited my post right after you quoted me there, drake. There were a couple of things that I _really_ wanted to add to my thought there and so there is a bit more to what I had said beyond what you quoted there.

----------


## jmdrake

> Now, I'm not upset by those who got into the discussion _afterward_. They fell for it too and ran with the alternative discussion that the person who actually hijacked the thread was trying (and managed) to change the topic into. *I mean, we really did see someone actually ask the topic starter what business the discussion was of his. Can you believe that? Hoooooly ssssmokes.That's how bad it got hijacked. That blew my mind right there.* What someone should have done was start a new thread relative to the terms of the hijaker and everything would have just been the bees knees. Of course, that would have ruined the purpose for the hijack in the first place.


LOL.  I agree.  That is beyond ridiculous.  I need to get to work on that new forum software idea I keep kicking around that gives those who start threads mod powers over those threads.  If someone starts a thread he should be able to split off subthreads that are off topic and even ban people on a per thread basis.  A thread should be the "castle" of the person who starts it.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> LOL.  I agree.  That is beyond ridiculous.  I need to get to work on that new forum software idea I keep kicking around that gives those who start threads mod powers over those threads.  If someone starts a thread he should be able to split off subthreads that are off topic and even ban people on a per thread basis.  A thread should be the "castle" of the person who starts it.


Yeah, but then we'd have like 20 people starting the same topic. Everyone want to be right. And boss. Heh. That probably wouldn't work.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, but then we'd have like 20 people starting the same topic. Everyone want to be right. And boss. Heh. That probably wouldn't work.


We've got 20 people starting the same topic here anyway.    Sometimes mods merge threads, sometimes they don't.  In anarchy and/or self ownership can't work on a discussion forum then why the heck would anybody believe it can work in society in general?

----------


## VIDEODROME

> We've got 20 people starting the same topic here anyway.    Sometimes mods merge threads, sometimes they don't.  In anarchy and/or self ownership can't work on a discussion forum then why the heck would anybody believe it can work in society in general?


If people could Mod their own threads, would that be like adding more Self Ownership?

----------


## jmdrake

> If people could Mod their own threads, would that be like adding more Self Ownership?


Yeah.  You post a thread, you own it.  The idea is kind of like "shared blogging."  Others can comment but you have control.  The drawback to blogging is that sometimes it's lonely.  I'm thinking of a community where people are plugged into each other.  But not so messy like Facebook or Twitter.  Especially Facebook.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> We've got 20 people starting the same topic here anyway.    Sometimes mods merge threads, sometimes they don't.  In anarchy and/or self ownership can't work on a discussion forum then why the heck would anybody believe it can work in society in general?


Including this one, do we now really have 3 threads basically debating the same topic?

----------

