A good example of why athiests suck

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

I believe morality is a human construct. I don't really believe in the idea of moral progress I guess.

However if we all realized morality was a human construct I believe that would be progress

So, and I'm serious here, what do you believe in? Are most atheists nihilists?

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by peter12

So, and I'm serious here, what do you believe in? Are most atheists nihilists?

What does believing that morality is societal/human construct have to do with nihilism?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

What does believing that morality is societal/human construct have to do with nihilism?

Nothing. I'm just interested.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The state of Virginia had a really good idea. I'd be in favor of something like this being adopted. Both for slain peace officers and civilians. It incorporates a positive message.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

So, and I'm serious here, what do you believe in? Are most atheists nihilists?

Well we all believe in thousands of little things, you're going to have to be a bit more specific. I believe life is worth living. I believe in trying and/or experiencing new things. I believe in working on your weaknesses. Those are a few of the many beliefs I have.

Are most atheists nihilists? No I don't believe so. It is a danger in a world where many have taken their meaning and value from a deity and that deity becomes suspect. Nietzsche certainly worried that nihilism might follow the death of God. I think the full effects of what he was predicting have yet to be felt though.

[Nuje]

This whole thing is simply nitpicking to a degree seen in the first Christmas special of South Park. They should be allowed to display them if that's how they choose to mourn, commemorate.

I'm an atheist, and I am not offended by religious symbology at all. Live and let live. The presence of a cross isn't going to magically turn someone Christian, taking away precious atheist population from us because god forbid (that's right, I said that without capitalizing it, because I'm atheist so I can do all that) we talk to someone about issues deeper than we understand with people who don't share our own view.

And definitely agree if one of the fallen were non-Christian, perhaps another symbol would be appropriate. Hell, I'd be fine with a cross myself, as it's what my parents would want.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

That's true. If I had been raised in a more liberal branch of Christianity rather than the word of faith evangelical movement I wouldn't have had the cognitive dissonance of inerrancy and reality and might have changed differently.. leaning more towards deism or something.

You don't have to be raised in a conservative sect/theology/denomination to come to your same conclusions. There will always be people who don't accept the status quo of what they are told to believe in and who will always try to research and learn for themselves. Usually they have a deep instinctual skepticism. If they can rationalize or reconcile contrary streams of information with with their instinctual feelings, to deal with their cognitive dissonance, they can live with a slightly altered and more accomodating view. If they can't, then there is nothing wrong with abandoning those beliefs completely if they cannot accept them from heuristic, ontological, or just plain emotional standpoint. You have to believe in what you can live with believing in. My church was pretty liberal and progressive in many ways but I knew, even before I was a teenager, that something wasn't right. Everything just felt off and wrong to me on a very basic level and I had to dig for years to find my own answers to live with myself.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

What does believing that morality is societal/human construct have to do with nihilism?

The connection is that a lot of people for a long time thought that our values, morals, and meaning were all given by God. If people no longer believe in God then where do our values, morals and meaning now come from?

Life having no meaning is one definition of nihilism.

Some would say we now create or choose our values, morals and meaning.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The connection is that a lot of people for a long time thought that our values, morals, and meaning were all given by God. If people no longer believe in God then where do our values, morals and meaning now come from?

Life having no meaning is one definition of nihilism.

Originally Posted by peter12

Nothing. I'm just interested.

I'm not the person that you directed your question at but my own opinion is that many atheists are not nihilists but rather mostly likely could be described more as secular humanists. It does not mean you negate important meaning in your life (nihilism). It means a rejection of religious dogma as an explanation of the meaning of existence.

[Calgaryborn]

I don't think the founding Fathers intended the separation of church and State to be one where there would be no expression of religion within government. If it was then they obviously failed early and often in adhering to separation of the two. The intent was that the Federal Government should have no authority over the free exercise of religion and conversely that the church(as an organization) should have no authority over the Federal Government. Basically the intent was to avoid the marriage of church and State as seen in Catholic nations as well as England and Germany.

It should also be noted that after the Constitution was adopted several States continued to maintain a church tax which went to whatever denomination started the colony. The provision within the Constitution was a limitation imposed on the Federal Government alone. Whereas the freedom to practice ones religion was granted to all citizens.

Rhode Island was the only colony to never have a State church. It was the only Baptist colony.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't think the founding Fathers intended the separation of church and State to be one where there would be no expression of religion within government. If it was then they obviously failed early and often in adhering to separation of the two. The intent was that the Federal Government should have no authority over the free exercise of religion and conversely that the church(as an organization) should have no authority over the Federal Government. Basically the intent was to avoid the marriage of church and State as seen in Catholic nations as well as England and Germany.

It should also be noted that after the Constitution was adopted several States continued to maintain a church tax which went to whatever denomination started the colony. The provision within the Constitution was a limitation imposed on the Federal Government alone. Whereas the freedom to practice ones religion was granted to all citizens.

Rhode Island was the only colony to never have a State church. It was the only Baptist colony.

Fortunately, we live in Canada and don't have to constantly debate "But what did John A. MacDonald REALLY mean?"

The appeal to "the founding" fathers as you often hear in the U.S. is a very intriguing yet eye-rolling notion to me...as if a group of fat 18th century men in powdered wigs are the infallible, be-all-end all arbiters of how society and laws should be defined for human society for all time.

The "founding fathers" were just a group of educated men (an 18th century education for that matter), who themselves appealed to another ancient authority that they valued (the classics, Greek philisophy, the Roman Republic, etc.) in framing the instruments of their government and state.

The human instinct to appeal to some ancient, centuries old authority in order to justify his current beliefs and motivations is a strong one. You see the exact same thing in religious movements who are constantly trying to reclaim the perfection that the first century church was supposedly supposed to be, "it was never meant to be this way", etc. Or even Mel Gibson and his traditionalist Catholic Church trying to go back to the way the "perfected" version of what they believe ancient Catholicism achieved.

In reality, things were probably much more chaotic and more ill-defined and even unjust in ancient history. Civilization has made progress. Our institutions can learn from but have to stop blindly appealing to a romantized past to justify our current actions.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure, but the question is is it actually correct to group a set of people in the first place to have the light cast on? Or is the grouping only in the eye of the person doing the grouping. Christians are a self professed group with common values and beliefs, and if one does something that goes against one of those beliefs it can cast a bad light on the rest.

Atheists aren't a self professed group though. So really the only action that could legitimately cast a bad light on atheists as a group would be to believe in god lol. Or do something bad in the name of not having a belief in god I guess. Otherwise if an atheist is being a jerk, it makes as much sense to group him to together with other atheists and say they're casting a bad light on atheists as it does to group everyone in a thread that doesn't have a beard and say they're casting a bad light on the beardless.

Well Christians primarily have the same common values and some similar beliefs but we both know that it varies hence the numerous denominations. With atheism yes there is the common belief in no existence of God but each Athiest's values can differ (ie: an Athiest who does not see inherent threat in someone who is religious versus someone who does perceive a threat which is the point I've tried to make previously).

[Cheese]

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Fortunately, we live in Canada and don't have to constantly debate "But what did John A. MacDonald REALLY mean?"

The appeal to "the founding" fathers as you often hear in the U.S. is a very intriguing yet eye-rolling notion to me...as if a group of fat 18th century men in powdered wigs are the infallible, be-all-end all arbiters of how society and laws should be defined for human society for all time.

The "founding fathers" were just a group of educated men, who themselves appealed to another ancient authority that they valued (the classics, Greek philisophy, the Roman Republic, etc.) in framing the instruments of their government and state.

The human instinct to appeal to some ancient, centuries old authority in order to justify his current beliefs and motivations is a strong one. You see the exact same thing in religious movements who are constantly trying to reclaim the perfection that the first century church was supposedly supposed to be, "it was never meant to be this way", etc. Or even Mel Gibson and his traditionalist Catholic Church trying to go back to the way the "perfected" version of what they believe ancient Catholicism achieved.

In reality, things were probably much more chaotic and more ill-defined and even unjust in ancient history. Civilization has made progress. Our institutions can learn from but have to stop blindly appealing to a romantized past to justify our current actions.

The notion isn't "what would Thomas Jefferson do?". The Idea of the constitution is to limit the Federal government so they don't eclipse the authority of the individual States and the people's individual rights. The Founders knew they weren't perfect so they offered a formula to change the Constitution as needed. In absence of any changes original intent should be considered and respected.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Since everyone is here what do you guys think about this?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Dutch+M...552/story.html

Free speech is free speech isnt it?

Apparently not if it involves putting up a cross.

Context is important, it's not as simple as free speech. Holland is a very liberal country, and values free speech. It also was occupied by the Nazis for over four years, through which my family endured difficult experiences. What happened to Jewish people was real. It isn't exaggerated. A cartoon like that is 1000x more offensive to the Dutch - even the non-Jewish ones - than any cross is to any atheist.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

Apparently not if it involves putting up a cross.

Context is important, it's not as simple as free speech. Holland is a very liberal country, and values free speech. It also was occupied by the Nazis for over four years, through which my family endured difficult experiences. What happened to Jewish people was real. It isn't exaggerated. A cartoon like that is 1000x more offensive to the Dutch - even the non-Jewish ones - than any cross is to any atheist.

I still believe that free speech is free speech. That said, those who make free speech that is discriminatory, hostile, and offensive, or harmful need to be countered by our own free speech telling those who believe in such things just how ignorant they are.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The notion isn't "what would Thomas Jefferson do?". The Idea of the constitution is to limit the Federal government so they don't eclipse the authority of the individual States and the people's individual rights. The Founders knew they weren't perfect so they offered a formula to change the Constitution as needed. In absence of any changes original intent should be considered and respected.

That's only one school of US Constutional thought although it has been one abided by the Supreme Court in most instances. It's not something that I personally agree with as we are three centuries separated from when it was written.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I still believe that free speech is free speech. That said, those who make free speech that is discriminatory, hostile, and offensive, or harmful need to be countered by our own free speech telling those who believe in such things just how ignorant they are.

But then CP Hostility Levels will skyrocket

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Finny61

But then CP Hostility Levels will skyrocket

At long as we don't go out and stab each other in real life over what is said on CP, all is good. I will just stab the lot of you in my imagination.

The CP hostility thing is a good example of what can happen if one group (ie: one poster) is told down or ostracized by the others. It's a natural function of society. It naturally inhibits them without resorting to violence. Now that is in many cases oppression of a minority view by the masses but sometimes that needs to happen if the minority view really is stupid or harmful.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I still believe that free speech is free speech. That said, those who make free speech that is discriminatory, hostile, and offensive, or harmful need to be countered by our own free speech telling those who believe in such things just how ignorant they are.

Except for Eklund threads.