And Nothing Heard My Scream [Archive]

Jeff Corkern

18th April 2006, 09:00 PM

AND NOTHING HEARD MY SCREAM
by Jeffrey A. Corkern

I walked along the bank of the Mississippi River in dense, confusing fog, rage at the emptiness of existence stabbing in my guts like a red-hot knife.

I picked my way through a formless, surreal landscape of slippery, shifting, shattered rocks, of all shapes and sizes, that rocked and tilted in sudden surprising directions when I stepped on them. Nothing was solid. All was chaotic and fluid. A broken ankle was a random stroke of chance away.

I was alone, as I had always been, always would be, my only security the heavy solidity of the forty-five in my pocket, banging against my hip.

I came upon a dark form, a stranger rendered faceless by the fog.

"Hello," he said. "Who are you?"

"I am Michael Stone. And you?"

"I am," the stranger replied, "Genius Skeptic. Did you know there are no souls?"

"Really?" I asked. "How do we know this?"

"The greatest scientific geniuses in all of history have assured us souls don’t exist."

"I have long suspected as much," I said. "Hmm. If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."

Genius Skeptic smiled, a streak of white smeared against the blur.

"Such a silly woo," he said.

I looked around carefully. We were utterly alone. I raised my arm and pointed behind Genius Skeptic.

"Look," I said, "behind you. It is the great genius Dawkins himself."

Genius Skeptic turned his back to me to look. I drew the forty-five silent as a ghost, brought the muzzle to the side of his head, and squeezed the trigger. The crack of the round in the fog was flat and lifeless. Red and gray brains pattered like gentle raindrops over the Mississippi's surface. Genius Skeptic pitched forward onto the rocks.

I picked up the spent shell. I looted Genius Skeptic's body and eased him into the river.

A gator rose and drew him under, and Genius Skeptic disappeared, gone, wiped out, vanished, zeroed, ERASED, like he had never been.

I continued on my journey. The knife in my guts twisted and burned. Another faceless stranger rose in the fog.

"Hello," he said, "I am Sternly Rational."

"Hello," I said. "I am Michael Stone. Did you know there are no souls?"

"I do indeed," he said. "All smart and strong people know this. One must pity those who lack the strength to face it, who must take refuge from the Great Emptiness in the delusions of religion."

"My actions are free and unrestricted," I said, and drew my forty-five. "Since I have no immortal soul, I can escape the consequences of my actions."

"What?" Sternly Rational asked in a confused tone. "I don't understand."

"I may do as I wish," I said. "Without an immortal soul, the Universe began when I was born and will end when I die. I am therefore absolutely alone, a Universe of One." I aimed and fired. "Any feeling of connection I might have to the rest of humanity is strictly false and an illusion."

I missed my shot. Instead of smashing his head, I tore Sternly Rational's throat out, a red raw-meat wound like a great gaping mouth slashed open underneath his chin.

Sternly Rational put his hand to his throat and made a gargling sound of terrible surprise. He folded over onto the rocks making wet, bloody sounds.

It wasn't safe to approach. I backed away and sat down to wait while Sternly Rational twitched and jerked. I brooded over the implications and watched a red stream flow into a brown one, bloom out into the water, and fade away. When the flowing stopped, I rose, picked up the spent shell and looted Sternly Rational's body.

I rolled Sternly Rational's flaccid body to the river, tumbling it over the rocks. He went in without a splash.

Another gator rose and pulled him down in a swirl of water and Sternly Rational disappeared, gone, wiped out, vanished, zeroed, ERASED, like he had never been.

I continued my journey, the rage, the fire, building in my guts. The gators followed. Around me, the confusing fog began to lift.

Another faceless stranger appeared in my path. The gators sank out of sight to safety, like the perfect sociopaths they were, to await my gift.

"I am Michael Stone," I said, gripping the forty-five in my pocket. "There are no souls."

"I am Naïve Skeptic," the stranger replied. "Of course there are not. Such a transparently foolish, impossible notion, clearly born out of desperation and fear of death."

"People will soon finally realize what that means," I said. "Killing is smart. A rational thing to do to get what you want."

"Oh, fudge," Naïve Skeptic said. "People would never do such a horrible thing. People are nice."

"People are not nice," I said, and fired. Naïve Skeptic dropped with a little round hole in the front of his head and a big round hole in the back. "People are smart. 'Homo nice' is not what people are. People are Homo sapiens, Homo smart. That's what people are."

I looted Naïve Skeptic's body and dragged him to the river. The gators surfaced like ancient gray submarines, sank their teeth into Naïve Skeptic, and Naïve Skeptic disappeared, gone, wiped out, vanished, zeroed, ERASED, like he had never been.

The gators and I continued our journey. Hot-lava anger coursed through my bones. The fog continued to lift, patches of clear sunlight moving along the rocks.

The gators saw him before I did, submerging beneath the surface, leaving only a ripple behind to betray their presence.

This time, I could see his face, but did not wish to. There was nothing there of value to me.

"I am Michael Stone," I said. "There are no souls, and soon society will dissolve from within, in an overwhelming wave of slaughter, as the realization spreads this means killing is smart."

The stranger smiled in a superior fashion.

"I am Orange Skeptic," he said. "Oh, my friend, no, such an awful thing could never happen, because it would destroy the gene pool."

"The gene pool?" I asked. "Please explain."

"You are suffering from the delusion of free will," Orange Skeptic said. "What you think is consciousness and free will are actually only emergent properties of the non-linear, hypercomplex interactions between your brain cells, which themselves are controlled by the structure of their genetic makeup."

"And this means?"

"It is not what we want that controls our actions, my friend, but what our genes want," Orange Skeptic said. "We are only zombies, controlled by our genes!"

I squeezed the trigger, and Orange Skeptic became Blood-Red Skeptic.

"I had a gene I didn't like once," I said to the corpse, "so I changed it. If I can change my genes, I am controlling my genes. They surely are not controlling me. How incredibly stupid, my friend."

I looted Orange Skeptic's body and gave him to the river. The gators accepted my benison with open mouths. They pulled him under, and Orange Skeptic disappeared, gone, wiped out, vanished, zeroed, ERASED, like he had never been.

I knew I was close to the end of my journey. I and the gators continued on. The fire inside me bubbled and burned in anticipation. The fog lifted. All confusion was gone.

Another stranger, standing balanced on a rock contemplating the river.

"I am Michael Stone," I said. "I have no immortal soul, so the only rational thing I can be is a sociopath."

The stranger turned to face me. The Great Emptiness filled his eyes, like nothing I had ever seen.

"I am Brain-Filled Skeptic," he said. "Precisely true. I have understood that for a very long time now."

"You understand already? I’m not the first?"

"Not even the ten-thousand-and-first," Brain-Filled Skeptic said. "There are many of us who understand, hidden in the shadows and the darkness."

"Check my reasoning, so I can be sure it is right," I said. "Tell me the rest of it."

"Individuals will begin to kill, and kill, and kill as understanding spreads," Brain-Filled Skeptic said. "But that will only be the beginning. Your turn. Can you tell me what comes next, and why?"

"All of society’s members will become sociopaths," I said. "The smarter they are, the quicker they will turn. But sociopaths hate society by definition. A society of sociopaths is a contradiction in terms. Society is going to collapse, violently."

"Yes, we truly understand, you and I," Brain-Filled Skeptic said. "Technology has made it very, very easy to kill. A man can kill with the twitch of a finger on a trigger now. There will be nothing that can stop it. It will be every man for himself. The smart will survive only if they prepare and strike first."

"Tell me," I said, "why are you here?"

"Hunting," Brain-Filled Skeptic said, and moved, but I fired first, and turned Brain-Filled Skeptic into Brain-Less Skeptic, lying at the edge of the river with muddy water lapping into his empty skull.

The gators undulated to the river's edge to get him. I barely had time to loot Brain-Filled Skeptic's body and put the forty-five in his hand. It was a rich haul. He had been having a long, successful hunt. His experience had apparently been exactly like mine. There were many, many fools who couldn’t or wouldn’t understand.

I stepped back and let the gators have him. They yanked him down, and Brain-Filled Skeptic disappeared, gone, wiped out, vanished, zeroed, ERASED, like he had never been.

I tossed the spent shells into the river, severing all connection to the events here, to the past. I exhaled a long breath and took stock of my hour’s journey in the light of my new understanding.

The value gained: Three thousand, five hundred ninety-eight dollars.

The value lost: One forty-five, five shells.

The value of the humans killed: Zero.

I had shown a profit.

That was smart.

"If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath," I whispered to the empty, empty air. "How strange that this is so difficult to see."

But of course, the empty, empty air made no reply.

The anger boiled and erupted inside me with a volcano’s force, rose up through my guts and out my mouth in a primal scream of rage so crystalline and pure it threw my mind reeling and shaking into horror.

And nothing, nothing at all, heard my scream or felt my horror.

I came back from horror knowing what I had to do. I picked myself up and headed away from the river. I fingered the money in my hand. I knew what was coming.

I was going to need another forty-five.

END

BenK

18th April 2006, 09:25 PM

Ever read Johnny The Homicidal Maniac?

hailslaanesh

18th April 2006, 10:13 PM

Is this based on your feelings or is it tongue in cheek?

Roboramma

18th April 2006, 10:42 PM

END

But not quite.

Two hours later, Micheal Stone was picked up by the police. In the interogation room he was heard to shout, "I have no immortal soul, the only rational thing to do is become a sociopath!" over and over again.

In the end they gave him the chair.

What a smart guy.

LostAngeles

18th April 2006, 10:59 PM

Except that there really is no escape from the consequences of one's action. Each individual person is guided by a moral code that stems from any number of things. Not having religion or a belief in an afterlife or a judging power, I still aim to be a good person because I want to see the world that way. I would rather help than harm.

Even outside of that, there are still consequences to my actions. If I hurt someone, I will at the least face moral consequences in the form of conscience. Someone somewhere around here had a link to an essay by Penn Jillette that clearly states my stance on this. If I hurt someone, it's that person I have to face, that person I have to ask forgiveness from. I can't simply put off until the end of my life to face up to my actions and I can't give myself an out by saying that the judging power has absolved me. The debt is not to that, but to whom you've hurt.

So souls are irrelevant to a discussion of morality. What is the moral code that an individual/community lives by.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

18th April 2006, 11:15 PM

I'm going to repeat what I said in another thread started by Jeff to which I never received a response:

There is nothing remotely rational about being a sociopath. And simply having a soul doesn't change the consequences of anything unless you also add an element of automatic post-death justice/punishment to that idea.

People choose to not be sociopaths, soul or not, because we value the very RATIONAL and LOGICAL notion of stability and order. Most laws are not based on whether or not a person has a soul, but on maintaining public order. Order and stability allow us to: grow enough food to feed everyone, live without fear of someone killing/stealing/assaulting us, cure diseases, make products, research technology, educate our children, etc. It is a simple matter of the extent to which the well-being of the collective influences the well-being of the indivual. All governments and laws are a give and take between the rights and desires of the people versus the overall well-being of society.

Moreover, not having a soul does not mean people cannot or should not empathize with each other. Rationally speaking. Empathy is a two-way street, hopefully.

In short, the logic that "not having a soul means everyone should be selfish and not care about anyone other than themself" is incorrect.

LTC8K6

18th April 2006, 11:33 PM

I heard your shots as I walked along in the fog and pulled my Beretta's trigger first.

digithead

19th April 2006, 12:50 AM

Mashuna

19th April 2006, 02:50 AM

Surely if I have an immortal soul, that cannot be destroyed by any means, that would be incentive to do whatever I liked without fear of any consequence. If I can't be killed, why worry about societal norms and laws?

Unless this is going to turn into an enternal hellfire discussion.

The whole argument seems based on a beginners guide to game theory book.

LotusMegami

19th April 2006, 03:34 AM

And yet atheists are not sociopaths. Many are very ethical. And many woos are sociopaths, especially those who believe that God wants them to
kill.

How do you explain that?

And why are they letting max security prisoners on the Internet?

If you are in fact in an asylum, then I apologize for implying that you are in prison.

Religion can really mess people up.

The Painter

19th April 2006, 03:49 AM

Sociopaths, Psychopaths, we all have our own path to take.

Beleth

19th April 2006, 06:27 AM

I've always wanted to write a story about the Christian who came to the inevitable conclusion Christianity leads to, and travelled from church to church killing infants who had just been baptized.

Walk The Line

19th April 2006, 07:14 AM

Actually, sociopaths can be quite rational since sociopathy is only an inability to feel empathy...

And not all sociopaths commit murder or crime for that matter, what happens to a sociopath that believes in God?

Sociopathy is also known in DSM-IV parlance as part of antisocial personality disorder, do all of the following things result from not believing in a supreme being?

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
2. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
3. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
4. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others
5. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
6. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

I'm gonna have to update all of the research into all the structural theories of crime - if they only believed in God, there'd be no crime!

No, wait, that won't work. We've got Muslim extremists, Catholic church sex scandals, abortion clinic bombers - all believe in God yet all still kill or rape...

I guess if only I believed, then it would be all so simple

Unfortunately, I've had a number of unpleasant experiences with a person who fits the description of a sociopath. This person was deceitful and manipulative, once told me that someone could kill his entire family and he wouldn’t care, and showed no remorse for a counterfeiting scheme he was involved in (and was subsequently put on probation for, or has he said, a slap on the wrist).

I learned that he was using hidden identities to manipulate and hurt people, and set about gathering evidence that he was behind it. I did so, and posted this information to the people he was manipulating. He did not take this kindly, and has since threatened me with revenge, going so far as to spoof my e-mail address (spoofing is when you use a program to make it look like the e-mail came from another e-mail address). The way he did it made it look like he had had gained entry into my, my girlfriend, and another friend’s account. I have since filed a complaint with my local authorities and with the FBI, and am doing my best to cut off contact with this individual. Heck, I’ve even thought about getting a gun to protect myself.

The person I mentioned above happens to believe (or so I’ve been to) that he is the hands of God. This suggests to me that a person can be a sociopath and still believe in God. And, if that is the case, then that pretty much blows that short story out of the water.

My suggestion- don’t associate with sociopaths period (regardless of whether they are atheist or theists).

Thanz

19th April 2006, 07:18 AM

I've always wanted to write a story about the Christian who came to the inevitable conclusion Christianity leads to, and travelled from church to church killing infants who had just been baptized.
And how is that the "inevitiable conclusion Christianity leads to"?

Sleepy

19th April 2006, 07:54 AM

Meanwhile, across the river, lived a far more intelligent species which understood the benefits of society and cooperation, people who treated each other with kindness and respect.

Having run out of victims on the moron side of the river, occasionally a sociopath would make it past the crocodiles in an attempt to prey on humans instead. However, thanks to the division of labor made possible by society, the humans had a force of full-time mlitia who patrolled their bank of their river, shooting swimmers on sight.

The humans prospered and spread to cover the whole earth. Some believed in souls, some didn't, but enough believed in civil society that somehow, they made it work.

The Michael Stones of the world just couldn't compete, and soon became extinct.

THE END.

The_Fire

19th April 2006, 08:01 AM

Charles Manson was also in the belief that he was "The One" choosen by God.
Or did he believe that he WAS God?:confused: Can never remember that one.
He did, however, have a facination with the book of Revelations and were a christian. Conclusion: Faith does not equal rational, lawabiding and moral behaviour.

Hellbound

19th April 2006, 08:08 AM

And how is that the "inevitiable conclusion Christianity leads to"?

What he means is, that if you apply the same logic used here to the Christian ideaology, then you should kill everyone as soon as they reach the "saved" point (i.e.-as children or right after baptism/repentence/whatever), in order to insure they reach heaven. Sure, you'll burn in Hell forever, but you're making the ultimate sacrifice (your eternal soul) to insure the ultimate good (eternal life) for everyone else. Since this life, we're told repeatedly in Christianity, is not important (except to the extent that you earn your reward), there's no reason to stay on this earth any longer than absolutely necessary.

And, as offensive as Christians would find this idea, that's how atheists feel when presented with the sophmoric argument of the OP. Both arguments ignore many of the other factors and ideas invovled, and use a twisted logic to reach a completely inane conclusion. IMO, both arguments are simply a long, drawn out combination of ad hominems and strawmen.

Darat

19th April 2006, 08:12 AM

And how is that the "inevitiable conclusion Christianity leads to"?

Some Christians believe that infants are innocents and that if you die innocent you are ensured a place in heaven. Therefore since there is nothing more important (for a Christian) then being with their God it would be better to ensure all infants are killed whilst they are still innocent so that there is no chance they will not go to heaven.

It's rather an old silly but fun argument .

(There is an extension to the argument that the person doing the killing would also go to heaven - since they are "Doing the Lord's work".)

Odin

19th April 2006, 08:14 AM

AND NOTHING HEARD MY SCREAM

by Jeffrey A. Corkern, edited by Odin

I walked along the bank of the Mississippi River in dense, confusing fog, rage at the emptiness of existence stabbing in my guts like a red-hot knife.

I picked my way through a formless, surreal landscape of slippery, shifting, shattered rocks, of all shapes and sizes, that rocked and tilted in sudden surprising directions when I stepped on them. Nothing was solid. All was chaotic and fluid. A broken ankle was a random stroke of chance away.

I was alone, as I had always been, always would be, my only security the heavy solidity of the forty-five in my pocket, banging against my hip.

I came upon a dark form, a stranger rendered faceless by the fog.

"Hello," he said. "Who are you?"

"I am Michael Stone. And you?"

"I am," the stranger replied, "Genius Skeptic. Did you know there are no souls?"

"Really?" I asked. "How do we know this?"

"The greatest scientific geniuses in all of history have assured us souls don’t exist."

"I have long suspected as much," I said. "Hmm. If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."

Genius Skeptic smiled, a streak of white smeared against the blur.

"Such a silly woo," he said.

I looked around carefully. We were utterly alone. I raised my arm and pointed behind Genius Skeptic.

"Look," I said, "behind you. It is the great genius Dawkins himself."

Genius Skeptic turned his back to me to look. I drew the forty-five silent as a ghost, brought the muzzle to the side of his head, and squeezed the trigger. The crack of the round in the fog was flat and lifeless. The bullet sailed through Genus Skeptic and carried on, leaving nothing to mark it's passing except for a few strands of straw, floating slowly downwards.

The great genius Dawkins reached out, plucking the bullet from the air with the aid of his evil atheist powers.

"Is this yours?" he asked.

END

Also, even if thinking you have a soul prevents you being a sociopath, thats a reason why the belief in a soul should exist, not necessarily why the soul itself should.

Ripley Twenty-Nine

19th April 2006, 08:20 AM

This story truly frightens me.

It frightens me to think that there are actually people who believe that the only thing stopping everyone from killing each other is a fear of punishment.

Those who only do good things because of the promise of an eternal reward, and refrain from doing bad things because of a fear of an eternal punishment are intellectual cowards.

Is the OP saying that if he didn't believe in an 'immortal soul', he could justify murder?

Scary.

Roboramma

19th April 2006, 08:48 AM

Not only that he could justify it, but that he would commit serial murder.

Which is the stupid thing about it to me. If he thought about it for a minute, he'd realise he wouldn't.

aggle-rithm

19th April 2006, 09:01 AM

The anger boiled and erupted inside me with a volcano’s force, rose up through my guts and out my mouth in a primal scream of rage so crystalline and pure it threw my mind reeling and shaking into horror.

I'm familiar with this feeling. It's called "existential angst". It's brought about by trying to reconcile incompatible belief systems.

Get some help, Jeff!

Jekyll

19th April 2006, 09:10 AM

"I had a gene I didn't like once," I said to the corpse, "so I changed it. If I can change my genes, I am controlling my genes. They surely are not controlling me. How incredibly stupid, my friend."

What fresh woo is this?

tkingdoll

19th April 2006, 09:15 AM

And to think there are some people here who still don't understand why it's important that members of this forum give their real name and birthdates upon joining...

Tirdun

19th April 2006, 09:52 AM

Ah, the argument that atheism leads to inhumanity in a disgusting new form! How are you my tired old friend? Oh, I am so sorry. Dredged up and shoved into a new suit, paraded about with your tattered and rotten innards showing. Such abuse you must be forced to endure.

El_Spectre

19th April 2006, 09:54 AM

It frightens me to think that there are actually people who believe that the only thing stopping everyone from killing each other is a fear of punishment.

Well... I'm a fairly decent person who doesn't believe there is any kind of supernatural punishment for killing someone. I have no desire to kill, but can't think of any particular logical reason why it is wrong... am I scary?

Actually, I think that most of my "morals" are derived from a decidedly emotional perspective. I don't rob, kill, cheat, etc. because I empathize with the pain such actions may cause. I suspect that others here may have a similar POV... am I right?

Alternately, I may just have a naive belief in "fairness" that is unjustifiable :)

bjb

19th April 2006, 09:54 AM

El_Spectre

19th April 2006, 09:58 AM

And to think there are some people here who still don't understand why it's important that members of this forum give their real name and birthdates upon joining...

Only reason I can think is to protect the JREF legally (and I'm cool with that). What do you mean by this, tk? That people who make bad arguments need to be easily identifiable?

El_Spectre

19th April 2006, 10:00 AM

tkingdoll

19th April 2006, 10:02 AM

Only reason I can think is to protect the JREF legally (and I'm cool with that). What do you mean by this, tk? That people who make bad arguments need to be easily identifiable?

No, I was suggesting that the writer sounds like a nutter and if I were the JREF I'd rather know who he was. He's talking about killing skeptics. He's talking about shooting Dawkins. I might even forward his story and name to the police if I thought it was sufficiently alarming.

The_Fire

19th April 2006, 10:03 AM

I think its more a case of having the name if the OP should show signs of pulling a "kill everything!" stunt of some sort.

ETA: See? I'm paranormal: I can read Tkingdolls mind...sort of....

Luke T.

19th April 2006, 10:06 AM

Hey, Jeff. Ever hear of "Don't shoot the messenger"?

Steven Howard

19th April 2006, 10:07 AM

I walked across the page in a fog of dense, confusing prose. Run-on sentences and trite metaphors pounded my face like a luke-warm spoon. I picked my way through the rocks of twisted and spurious logic, looking for one that was strong enough to support an argument. More awkwardly-structured sentences were only a paragraph break away.

I was alone, as I always had been. Maybe if I didn't kill everybody I met -- but, no. Mustn't blame myself. The gun is my friend. The only friend I need.

I came across a dark form, a stranger rendered faceless by the author's lack of skill in characterization. "Hello," he said. "Who are you?"

"I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical serial killer. Are you the Easter Bunny? Have you brought me candy?"

"Alas, no. I am the First Straw Man, and I must tell you that there is no Easter Bunny."

"No Easter Bunny? If there's no Easter Bunny, then no one will bring me candy. And if I can't have candy, the only rational thing is to become a diabetic." And so I shot him.

"Wait, why did you shoot me?" he asked, as bits of straw floated through the air.

"I told you I was a serial killer."

"You're right. It was foolish of me to keep talking to you like that. But here," he reached into his pocket and handed me a small bottle. "If you're diabetic now, you'll need this insulin."

Then an alligator ate him. I forget what the alligators represent, but I'm sure they're important.

I walked on, and soon met another stranger, no more interesting than the first. "I am the Second Straw Man," he said.

"And I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic serial killer."

"That's nice. Oh, did you know there's no such thing as Santa Claus?"

"No such thing as Santa Claus? But then I won't get any Christmas presents. And if I can't have any Christmas presents, the only rational thing is to become Jewish." And so I shot him, too.

"Wait, before I'm eaten by alligators, you'll need this." As he died, he handed me a dreidl. Then he was eaten by alligators.

I walked on, and -- what are the odds? -- I met another mysterious, undescribed stranger. "I am the Ghost of Christmas Past," he began.

"Wrong story", I whispered.

"Oh, sorry. I am the Third Straw Man."

"Pleased to meet you. I'm Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic Jewish serial killer."

"If I tell you something, will you promise not to kill me?"

"Okay."

"Cool. Polygraph machines don't really show if you're lying or not."

"Really? But if lie detectors don't work, the only rational thing is to become a pathological liar." So I shot him.

"No fair! You became a pathological liar *after* you promised not to shoot me."

"Yeah, but I was already a serial killer and I'm kind of on a roll right now." And then an alligator ate him.

As I walked on, I thought that maybe instead of being eaten by alligators, the straw men should be carried away by flying monkeys, but I was too lazy to go back and change it. I was so wrapped up in my thoughts of alligators and flying monkeys that I almost bumped into the next mysterious stranger.

"Oops," I said. "Sorry. I'm Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer. You must be the Fourth Straw Man."

"I am."

"What can you tell me that will make me want to kill you?"

"Anything at all, apparently."

"Come on, be a sport. Tell me something doesn't exist."

"Okay, ... um, there's no such thing as leprechauns."

"But if there are no leprechauns, then there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And if there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that means rainbows are a lie. Since rainbows are a lie, the only rational thing is to become a homophobe." So I called him a queer and then I shot him.

Alligators or flying monkeys or something took the body away and I walked on until I met my next victim. You guessed it, another mysterious stranger.

"I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer. Are you the Fifth Straw Man?"

"I am."

"And are you going to tell me that something doesn't exist?"

"I am."

"Well, get with it. This is a message board post, not a Stephen King novel."

"Very well. There's no such thing as Bigfoot."

I was stumped. "Bigfoot ... Bigfoot. If Bigfoot doesn't exist, then ... um. Then the Six Million Dollar Man -- no, that's no good."

The Fifth Straw Man smirked at me. "Well? What's the 'only rational thing' to do if there's no Bigfoot?"

"Give me a minute here. It's not easy being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, having to constantly redefine your lifestyle and personality every time you learn something doesn't exist."

"Can I go, then?"

"No. I think I still get to kill you." And so I shot him. But as I picked him up to throw him in the river, I noticed something odd. There were five bullet holes in his straw body. I'd been killing the same straw man, over and over, all night long!

I did the only rational thing. I quit being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, and became a Presbyterian dentist with an allergy to string beans.

JM85

19th April 2006, 10:07 AM

No, I was suggesting that the writer sounds like a nutter and if I were the JREF I'd rather know who he was. He's talking about killing skeptics. He's talking about shooting Dawkins. I might even forward his story and name to the police if I thought it was sufficiently alarming.

Although I don't agree with the message of this story I don't think you should do that. The police wouldn't take you seriously, and they might say it's free speech so he's doing nothing illegal. Yeah I'm guessing this guy has some emotional problems.

tkingdoll

19th April 2006, 10:09 AM

Although I don't agree with the message of this story I don't think you should do that. The police wouldn't take you seriously, and they might say it's free speech so he's doing nothing illegal. Yeah I'm guessing this guy has some emotional problems.

I can't do that, I'm not the JREF. I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying "if I was the JREF". In fact, that is indicated by the sentence starting "if I was the JREF".

aggle-rithm

19th April 2006, 10:11 AM

Overall, I like the story. You can over-analyze it and it will mean whatever you want it to mean. I have to say that it is too long and repetetive, which leads to it being predictable. Cut it down to three kills and the story will be greatly improved.

It reads like something C.S. Lewis would come up with after suffering a severe head injury.

JM85

19th April 2006, 10:15 AM

I can't do that, I'm not the JREF. I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying "if I was the JREF". In fact, that is indicated by the sentence starting "if I was the JREF".

oh right sorry misread. my point still stands that the police wouldn't take seriously.

Tirdun

19th April 2006, 10:18 AM

I walked across the page in a fog of dense, confusing prose. [...]

I did the only rational thing. I quit being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, and became a Presbyterian dentist with an allergy to string beans.

:D :D :D :D :) 4.5 out of 5 supersmilies

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. A funny gentleman and diabetic scholar. Good show.

El_Spectre

19th April 2006, 10:19 AM

No, I was suggesting that the writer sounds like a nutter and if I were the JREF I'd rather know who he was. He's talking about killing skeptics. He's talking about shooting Dawkins. I might even forward his story and name to the police if I thought it was sufficiently alarming.

Ah. I tend to rank "I'd rather" lower than privacy concerns. Also, the information the JREF has (for COPA reasons) isn't particularly useful for tracking someone down (grandstanding notwithstanding).

Besides, even creepy speech is ok... if the dude declared he was going to do something, that might be different, but there are better ways of tracking than name and state/province.

Doubt

19th April 2006, 10:24 AM

What an interesting universe. In the world that the story is set in, concepts like empathy, compassion and love do not exist. Good thing we don’t live in that universe.

A soul is not required to care about other people. Many animals care for there young without the need of any promise of life after death. Sociopathic behavior is not a good long-term survival strategy. It is not even a good short term one considering the advantages of group action compared one nut with a gun.

I less than three logic

19th April 2006, 10:25 AM

The value of the humans killed: Zero.
How exactly is this statement true if people do not have souls? Would seem to be the opposite to me, if people have a soul then no value would be lost. The person would still exist somewhere, nothing lost only changed. Without a soul however, that person is lost, forever. They no longer exist, except within memories, in which the person has now been delegated to the past tense.

This is why, as an atheist, I consider murder such a despicable crime. The value lost is not zero, but the entire value of that person has been destroyed by someone else with no justification for doing so.:mad:

Roboramma

19th April 2006, 10:41 AM

This is why, as an atheist, I consider murder such a despicable crime. The value lost is not zero, but the entire value of that person has been destroyed by someone else with no justification for doing so.:mad:

He seems to be one of those who argue that things are worthless if they aren't eternal.

Which is just moronic. If something that lasts for a day or a year or ten years is without value, why does it suddenly become valueable if it lasts forever?
There's a similar falacy present in the recent thread: "Story About the Meaning of Life" or something along those lines. (sorry too lazy to do a search for it, I doubt anyone wants to bother reading through it now anyway). I don't know where this strange value of eternity comes from, if it wasn't present all along. Nor, I suspect, does Jeff.

To Jeff:
You know why I buy chocolate bars? I'll give you a hint. It isn't because they are good for my teeth. I put value on the transitory pleasure they give me.

Ipecac

19th April 2006, 11:55 AM

As others have so ably pointed out, the opening post is a load of bullocks. Some people don't deserve the brain they were born with.

So do we have a post and run here? Sure looks like it.

uruk

19th April 2006, 12:07 PM

I have to agree. Another hit and trollster. No courage to rebut any criticisim.

Not only is it bad in logic and rational, the writting style is trite and hamfisted.

JamesM

19th April 2006, 12:22 PM

Looking on the bright side, I have a name for my new emo band.

HarryKeogh

19th April 2006, 12:38 PM

Cynric

19th April 2006, 12:41 PM

I walked across the page in a fog of dense, confusing prose. Run-on sentences and trite metaphors pounded my face like a luke-warm spoon.

Your story is better.

The_Fire

19th April 2006, 12:42 PM

[totally ot]
HarryKeogh, have you by any chance read the
Necroscope series?

[/totally ot]

Hagrok

19th April 2006, 12:55 PM

Damn, Darat beat me to nominating Steven Howard...

tkingdoll

19th April 2006, 01:05 PM

Damn, Darat beat me to nominating Steven Howard...
And I beat Darat!

Do I get a prize?

HarryKeogh

19th April 2006, 01:08 PM

[totally ot]
HarryKeogh, have you by any chance read the
Necroscope series?

[/totally ot]

yep...and I'm such a geek I'm looking forward to meeting Brian Lumley when he does a reading at a NYC Barnes and Noble next week.

Hagrok

19th April 2006, 01:10 PM

And I beat Darat!

Do I get a prize?
And the fastest nomination award goes too.... **drumroll**

tkingdoll!

**The crowd goes wild!**

tkingdoll

19th April 2006, 01:29 PM

And the fastest nomination award goes too.... **drumroll**

tkingdoll!

**The crowd goes wild!**

yay!

I won something!

I accept. I want a sash, though, and perhaps a tiara.

Steven Howard

19th April 2006, 01:31 PM

What fresh woo is this?

He said the same thing in his other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1579255&highlight=genes#post1579255). Didn't explain it there, either.

chance

19th April 2006, 01:35 PM

bjb

19th April 2006, 01:47 PM

OK, that other thread is scary. I thought the original story was meant to be satirical towards woo-believers, but this guys is 100% serious. If people don't have an eternal soul, we are all worthless and it's ok for us to do whatever we want as long as we don't get caught. It's a false dichotomy where morality only exists to protect our immortal soul. No soul = no morality. What a crock.

I still say the story has merit, but for being an example of the garbage some people honestly believe. Thanks to Jeff for a look into his twisted mind. The lesson for the rest of us is that he is not alone in his beliefs.

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 07:26 PM

Is this based on your feelings or is it tongue in cheek?

This is an allegory, intended to illustrate a point of logic.

If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath.

Without an immortal soul, how what Michael does affects other people is of no rational concern to him.

Because he can escape the consequences of his actions, you see.

If Michael is certain no human will find out at all, or until AFTER he is dead----a situation I was careful to make certain was clear---it is entirely rational to do WHATEVER he wants to get whatever it is he wants, up to and including killing, as many people as necessary. There will be NO physical repercussions to him, none.

To state it in abstract theoretical terms, without an immortal soul, Michael's emotional state is NOT PHYSICALLY LINKED to anyone else's emotional state.

But having an immortal soul changes this equation radically.

Let me make this as clear as I can. Suppose you have five dollars, somebody shoots you in the back under circumstances under which he knows he will never be caught, and takes your five dollars.

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

But suppose you DO have an immortal soul, an existence that cannot be terminated by any means. Both of you do.

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

To state it in abstract theoretical terms, immortal souls have the effect of PHYSICALLY interconnecting everyone's emotional state.

He made YOU unhappy----you made HIM unhappy.

Now everything balances.

Elsewhere in this forum, I have asked people to speculate on how having a soul would affect human behavior.

It is now possible to predict one such effect.

If people have souls, the assumption that YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS willl be deeply buried in their society.

Do me a favor, hailslaanesh. Look around at the society you live in. Can you find anything where this assumption appears?

---Are there any TV shows that revolve around the assumption that you cannot escape the consequences of your actions?

---Are there any societal institutions that revolve around this assumption?

--Do you know of any incidents in your own life where somebody was not allowed to get away with what he had done wrong, even after many years?

Anything else?

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 07:33 PM

How exactly is this statement true if people do not have souls?

Their deaths have had ZERO effect on Michael's emotional state. They're nothing to him.

Michael is a Universe of One, remember. His only concern with everything around him is how it affects him personally.

WildCat

19th April 2006, 07:45 PM

This is an allegory, intended to illustrate a point of logic.

If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath.
This is why religious nutters scare me, the only thing keeping some of them from becoming mass murdering lunatics is the fear of going to hell.

hailslaanesh

19th April 2006, 08:07 PM

Jeff, I agree that society does try to make you believe that your actions will have consequences. Society would not have been the success (and humans for that matter) if people did not conform. I drew similar conclusions to you when I was about 18 or 19 and thought as a lot of young people thought: that it was ridiculous to live by society's rules.

But now I am a husband and father and regardless of whether anyone has soul's or not, I appreciate the fact that 99% of people are happy to live by society's rules. It is good to know I can wake up and go to work and when I get home to see that no sociopath has done anything to my love ones.

Another way I like to think of it is: Life is a game. Society has made life a safer game for people. The sooner you know the rules, the better you get at the game and then before you know it you have mastered the game ie. being happy, having loved ones and being financially secure.

The fact that you think the lack of a soul means you have to be a sociopath, is proof that you are an angry young person more than anything. Been there, done that. :D

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 08:11 PM

OK, that other thread is scary. I thought the original story was meant to be satirical towards woo-believers, but this guys is 100% serious.

Yup, 100%.

If people don't have an eternal soul, we are all worthless and it's ok for us to do whatever we want as long as we don't get caught. It's a false dichotomy where morality only exists to protect our immortal soul. No soul = no morality. What a crock.

BINGO! Finally, somebody understands!

Bjb, man, you have made my day. You see what I'm saying with that story!

There really ARE some critical thinkers in here!

Bjb, man, I am applying the scientific process to human behavior.

In precisely the same sense that analysis of particles in motion leads to Newton's Equations, analysis of human behavior leads to the existence of immortal souls.

If rocks roll downhill, it can only be because gravity exists.

You think it's a crock? Why? State your reasons, please.

I would be more than happy to discuss this with you, if you will agree to one rule.

I will extend to you the courtesy of an open mind, intellectual honesty, and I will expect you to do the same.

OK?

[/QUOTE]I still say the story has merit, but for being an example of the garbage some people honestly believe. Thanks to Jeff for a look into his twisted mind. The lesson for the rest of us is that he is not alone in his beliefs.[/QUOTE]

You are quite correct, bjb. "Michael Stone" lives and breathes, walks and talks. I have met and seen "Michael Stone", more than once. I used to work in a community of scientists. Some of the things I saw there are part of what generated Michael.

I am not "Michael Stone." But I do understand Michael, thoroughly, why he is the way he is.

chocolatepossum

19th April 2006, 08:16 PM

To state it in abstract theoretical terms, without an immortal soul, Michael's emotional state is NOT PHYSICALLY LINKED to anyone else's emotional state.

This is assuming that Michael does not give a rat's arse about anyone else's emotional state. If he was a human being then the chances are that he would care, at least to some extent . People who do not care are what are called, I believe, sociopaths. They do go round killing people if it suits them, but normal people don't, by and large, because we have the ability to empathise and sympathise with others.

Are you seriously saying you would be a mass murderer/mugger if you knew you could get away with it and that you had no soul?

Why is it more rational to not care about others than to care about others?

Edited to add: IF you only cared about yourself, and your sole aim in life was the accumulation of, say, money, then if person A had money, and if you knew you could kill and rob them without risking any negative consequences, THEN it would be rational to kill and rob them.

Roboramma

19th April 2006, 08:19 PM

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY.

What makes you believe that? There are a lot of people who wouldn't find joy in killing someone else. And you've given (neither in this thread nor the other) no reason why they should be happy about killing other people.
Let me make this explicit. Our brains are wired a certain way. How this wiring comes about isn't important here. What is important is that because of the way our brains work, we want certain things.
That's it. You can't call those desires (like the desire for happiness, or the desire to be a good person) rational or irrational.
They're just what we want.

To say that the only thing that matters to anyone is their own happiness is not only wrong, but demonstrably so. And because your entire argument is built on that assumption, it falls on it as well.

No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

Basically this says, people without an immortal soul should live their lives they way they want to live them. Well, duh.
Guess what, some of us actually don't want to be sociopaths. Some of us don't aspire to kill everyone around us, and some of us don't sit back thinking, damn, I wish I could kill this guy, if only his dead clan-brothers wouldn't kill me in the afterlife (an old goblin curse, sorry).

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?
Maybe, that depends on what happens after. For all I know I end up in paradise, in which case I'll be quite grateful to the guy.

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.
Or, during the years after my death, and before his, I might just forget all about it. After all, it's not like he really killed me, is it? I'm still around, fine, maybe even liking the change of scenery. Why would I hold an eternal grudge about that?

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.
This assumes quite a lot:
1. That everyone will hold a grudge that they'll spend as much time as necessary to avenge.
2. That souls are capable of doing each other injury. For all I know non-corporeal souls can't affect each other at all.
3. That my soul and his end up in the same place.
3. b) that I'm able to find his soul.
4. That if and when I do find his soul I'll have the power to do him harm - maybe some souls are stronger than others. In which case, if your soul is stronger, why not be a bully (under your logic)?

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.
As I pointed out above, that's not a necessary conclusion.

If people have souls, the assumption that YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS willl be deeply buried in their society.

Well, no. If people have souls. And if they know it. And if they also know that their souls will have the opportunity for vengence. And if they also think that everyone will want to carry out that vengence. And if they have enough forsight to care about such vengence (people do discount the future, you know).

Now, let me ask you this, how many people really beleive that they cannot escape the consequences of their actions?
There are plenty of people who cheat lie and take advantage of others. Why do they do this, under your system?
It makes complete sense under my view of the world. People want certain things, but different people want different things. Their desire to be "good people" differs from person to person. As do the chances of being caught at what they're doing.
Under your system, everyone should be the same, because they all have the same reason not to want to hurt each other, and the same chances of being found out if they do.

---Are there any TV shows that revolve around the assumption that you cannot escape the consequences of your actions?

---Are there any societal institutions that revolve around this assumption?

--Do you know of any incidents in your own life where somebody was not allowed to get away with what he had done wrong, even after many years?

Anything else?

Huh? Wait, you're saying that because people believe in reciprocity now they obviously believe that there are immortal souls which will also carry out reciprocity?
That doesn't make any sense at all.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

19th April 2006, 08:30 PM

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

Once again, you seem to be completely ignoring two very obvious points:

If we all have that attitude, then there is just as good of a chance of someone shooting him in the back and walking off with his money. As such, as a society, we have all agreed to not shoot each other in the back and take each other's money, and to punish those who we catch doing the same. Please readand consider the next sentence: All moral considerations aside, we all agree to certain social norms and laws because it is in everybody's best interest to have a stable society. For that reason it is not rational for people to run around and shoot each other in the back. People do not exist in a vacume.

The other point is that you have not shown that having an immortal soul means that someone is inevitably going to be punished for anything. You have not shown how one soul could make another soul pay for their crimes. Your definition of a soul in your other thread did not address that at all. If a soul inherently cannot be destroyed, then how exactly would one soul make another soul pay? If a soul doesn't have a body, I would assume it can't feel physical pain. Presumably as disembodied souls, we don't have physical possessions like cars, houses, money, etc. for another soul to confiscate. What exactly is entailed in "making someone pay" in the afterlife?

You are making gigantic assumptions and leaps in logic here to arrive at your conclusions.

Roboramma

19th April 2006, 08:31 PM

And by the way Jeff, even if your argument did make sense, all you'd have shown regarding the existence of souls would be that people believe they exist.

Well, a poll would probably tell you that, and far more reliably than your twisted logic and failed premises.

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 08:34 PM

Jeff, I agree that society does try to make you believe that your actions will have consequences.

Thank you for that much.

no sociopath has done anything to my love ones.

I am happy for that, too.

I am trying to stop them from ever doing so.

hailslaanesh, you guys are going around trying to convince society souls don't exist.

If you guys ever succeed at that, you won't like what happens next, you really, seriously won't. "Michael Stone" will just come crawling out of the walls, he really will.

For the sake of your kids, you might consider my arguments.

The choice of whether or not they are correct is entirely yours, of course. But you might consider them.

The fact that you think the lack of a soul means you have to be a sociopath, is proof that you are an angry young person more than anything. Been there, done that. :D

That story really made an impact, didn't it?:)
I am not an angry young person. Although I wish that last part was wrong.:D
I am not Michael Stone. But I have met Michael Stone, I surely have. That's why I was able to write him like that.

Gr8wight

19th April 2006, 08:35 PM

Wait. I very firmly believe that there is no God, and that I do not have an immortal soul. Yet, I do not behave like your Two dimensional caricature "Michael Stone." Why do you suppose that is?

Nex

19th April 2006, 08:36 PM

...BINGO! Finally, somebody understands!... Hate to break it to you, but it wasn't all that complex. It's a commonly made fallacy. Nothing special or unique.

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 08:38 PM

[QUOTE=Mashuna;1584297]Surely if I have an immortal soul, that cannot be destroyed by any means, that would be incentive to do whatever I liked without fear of any consequence. If I can't be killed, why worry about societal norms and laws?/QUOTE]

Because the people you killed also have immortal souls too, AND ARE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU FOR KILLING THEM.

You made THEM unhappy----now they're going to make YOU unhappy.

Make sense?

Gr8wight

19th April 2006, 08:43 PM

Surely if I have an immortal soul, that cannot be destroyed by any means, that would be incentive to do whatever I liked without fear of any consequence. If I can't be killed, why worry about societal norms and laws?

Because the people you killed also have immortal souls too, AND ARE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU FOR KILLING THEM.

You made THEM unhappy----now they're going to make YOU unhappy.

Make sense?

You are a very confused young man.

LostAngeles

19th April 2006, 08:44 PM

Only a sociopath with no soul would make such a well-done and obvious language award bid! :p

I walked across the page in a fog of dense, confusing prose. Run-on sentences and trite metaphors pounded my face like a luke-warm spoon. I picked my way through the rocks of twisted and spurious logic, looking for one that was strong enough to support an argument. More awkwardly-structured sentences were only a paragraph break away.

I was alone, as I always had been. Maybe if I didn't kill everybody I met -- but, no. Mustn't blame myself. The gun is my friend. The only friend I need.

I came across a dark form, a stranger rendered faceless by the author's lack of skill in characterization. "Hello," he said. "Who are you?"

"I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical serial killer. Are you the Easter Bunny? Have you brought me candy?"

"Alas, no. I am the First Straw Man, and I must tell you that there is no Easter Bunny."

"No Easter Bunny? If there's no Easter Bunny, then no one will bring me candy. And if I can't have candy, the only rational thing is to become a diabetic." And so I shot him.

"Wait, why did you shoot me?" he asked, as bits of straw floated through the air.

"I told you I was a serial killer."

"You're right. It was foolish of me to keep talking to you like that. But here," he reached into his pocket and handed me a small bottle. "If you're diabetic now, you'll need this insulin."

Then an alligator ate him. I forget what the alligators represent, but I'm sure they're important.

I walked on, and soon met another stranger, no more interesting than the first. "I am the Second Straw Man," he said.

"And I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic serial killer."

"That's nice. Oh, did you know there's no such thing as Santa Claus?"

"No such thing as Santa Claus? But then I won't get any Christmas presents. And if I can't have any Christmas presents, the only rational thing is to become Jewish." And so I shot him, too.

"Wait, before I'm eaten by alligators, you'll need this." As he died, he handed me a dreidl. Then he was eaten by alligators.

I walked on, and -- what are the odds? -- I met another mysterious, undescribed stranger. "I am the Ghost of Christmas Past," he began.

"Wrong story", I whispered.

"Oh, sorry. I am the Third Straw Man."

"Pleased to meet you. I'm Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic Jewish serial killer."

"If I tell you something, will you promise not to kill me?"

"Okay."

"Cool. Polygraph machines don't really show if you're lying or not."

"Really? But if lie detectors don't work, the only rational thing is to become a pathological liar." So I shot him.

"No fair! You became a pathological liar *after* you promised not to shoot me."

"Yeah, but I was already a serial killer and I'm kind of on a roll right now." And then an alligator ate him.

As I walked on, I thought that maybe instead of being eaten by alligators, the straw men should be carried away by flying monkeys, but I was too lazy to go back and change it. I was so wrapped up in my thoughts of alligators and flying monkeys that I almost bumped into the next mysterious stranger.

"Oops," I said. "Sorry. I'm Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer. You must be the Fourth Straw Man."

"I am."

"What can you tell me that will make me want to kill you?"

"Anything at all, apparently."

"Come on, be a sport. Tell me something doesn't exist."

"Okay, ... um, there's no such thing as leprechauns."

"But if there are no leprechauns, then there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And if there's no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that means rainbows are a lie. Since rainbows are a lie, the only rational thing is to become a homophobe." So I called him a queer and then I shot him.

Alligators or flying monkeys or something took the body away and I walked on until I met my next victim. You guessed it, another mysterious stranger.

"I am Jake Nonsequitur, the illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer. Are you the Fifth Straw Man?"

"I am."

"And are you going to tell me that something doesn't exist?"

"I am."

"Well, get with it. This is a message board post, not a Stephen King novel."

"Very well. There's no such thing as Bigfoot."

I was stumped. "Bigfoot ... Bigfoot. If Bigfoot doesn't exist, then ... um. Then the Six Million Dollar Man -- no, that's no good."

The Fifth Straw Man smirked at me. "Well? What's the 'only rational thing' to do if there's no Bigfoot?"

"Give me a minute here. It's not easy being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, having to constantly redefine your lifestyle and personality every time you learn something doesn't exist."

"Can I go, then?"

"No. I think I still get to kill you." And so I shot him. But as I picked him up to throw him in the river, I noticed something odd. There were five bullet holes in his straw body. I'd been killing the same straw man, over and over, all night long!

I did the only rational thing. I quit being an illogical homophobic diabetic Jewish pathological liar and serial killer, and became a Presbyterian dentist with an allergy to string beans.

hailslaanesh

19th April 2006, 08:47 PM

Fear of eternal retribution is not enough alone to make sociopaths behave. I understand your point but I don't think educating the rest of society so they know there are no souls will cause any more sociopaths.

If, as you say, they are worried about retribution they can still get enough of it in their lifetime after committing crimes.

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 08:49 PM

The person I mentioned above happens to believe (or so I’ve been to) that he is the hands of God. This suggests to me that a person can be a sociopath and still believe in God. And, if that is the case, then that pretty much blows that short story out of the water.

C'mon, man, read the story. There's not a word in there about believing in God, or anything that even suggests the concept.

I empathize with your sociopath story. I've been on the other end, too, but I didn't have it as bad as you did.

It's quite a stunning thing, isn't it, to be treated as NOTHING.

LotusMegami

19th April 2006, 08:54 PM

This shows why religion is important in society.

I don't need the threat of hell to keep them in line, because I'm a good person. I have heard many Christians say that if they did not fear hell, they would have no conscience and no moral compulsions whatsoever.

I believe that true morality can only exist without the threat of punishment. Doing the right thing out of fear doesn't make you a good person - but your actions are still right. Religion can protect good people from those who don't actually place any value on human life - people filled with hate.

The problem is that people who are full of hate will believe in a God who is full of hate. That's how we get suicide bombers. So I guess religion is a dangerous tool. It can control people, but what they believe is right might have no connection to what rational, ethical people believe is right.

If killing a good person sends that person to heaven, then killing is a good thing. Likewise a person who deserves hell deserves to die. So kill them all. God will know his own.

Damn. If I ever become dictator I will have a serious dilemma on my hands.
I can't just outlaw religion, because so many fundy woos are actually sociopaths. If they believe God wants them to kill, they will. Because human life has no value when you believe in an afterlife.

You can't kill something that won't die.

On the other hand, I would want to let the smart ones be free of religion.
They can contribute more to science and learning that way.

Maybe I could just teach the children to value human life for its own sake. If I were dictator, after all, I could prevent whackjobs from creating other whackjobs.

People who respond to this post will be considered as advisors. Even dictators have to delegate responsibilities.

Jeff Corkern

19th April 2006, 09:23 PM

Once again, you seem to be completely ignoring two very obvious points:

If we all have that attitude, then there is just as good of a chance of someone shooting him in the back and walking off with his money.

Yup. You're starting to understand.

As such, as a society, we have all agreed to not shoot each other in the back and take each other's money, and to punish those who we catch doing the same.

So we have. The question is why.

Please readand consider the next sentence: All moral considerations aside, we all agree to certain social norms and laws because it is in everybody's best interest to have a stable society.

Done.

Sure. We all want to have a stable society.

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable.

That is one of the points of my story. Souls are absolutely critical for the existence of society, because souls absolutely guarantee that stability. Without souls, society is not stable, because that makes being a sociopath---somebody who lacks a feeling of connection to everybody else---rational.

Now you don't have to agree with that, but that was the idea.

The other point is that you have not shown that having an immortal soul means that someone is inevitably going to be punished for anything. You have not shown how one soul could make another soul pay for their crimes. Your definition of a soul in your other thread did not address that at all. If a soul inherently cannot be destroyed, then how exactly would one soul make another soul pay? If a soul doesn't have a body, I would assume it can't feel physical pain. Presumably as disembodied souls, we don't have physical possessions like cars, houses, money, etc. for another soul to confiscate. What exactly is entailed in "making someone pay" in the afterlife?

This is an excellent question. What's the PRECISE mechanism of payment?

And the answer is: I don't know. All I can say is that, if you're an immortal soul in the afterlife who got there by being shot in the back, you will be bound and determined to find a way to make that jerk who shot you pay.

I don't know the rules for the afterlife.

You are making gigantic assumptions and leaps in logic here to arrive at your conclusions.

It's entirely your call, your own judgement to make.

Now I disagree. I think my arguments are based entirely on reason and logic.

But this is a critical-thinker's forum----supposed to be anyway, despite all the name-calling---so reason and logic are what it's all about.

So you get to make that call for yourself.

Sorry I can't reply to everybody's post, but my time is severely limited by work and other things. I tried to hit all the major points.

Rasmus

19th April 2006, 09:29 PM

Because the people you killed also have immortal souls too, AND ARE GOING TO COME AFTER YOU FOR KILLING THEM.

Again: No, why should they?

Will they be re-born? If yes, I didn't really deprive them of much; just a little part of a life that will be just lilke many other lifes they lived and will live. The loss of a single life ceases to be tragic if i can have as many as I like.

Was it my only life? GRanted, I might be a bit bummed. But for how long? That would depend on the quality of my after-life. I might win something, lose something or stay pretty much the same compared to my life now. Suppose I win: Why should I waste time in my after-life to seek revenge of the person that got me to a good place sooner? Maybe I might wait for that poor soul that killed me and sincerely thank them?

You made THEM unhappy----now they're going to make YOU unhappy.

How utterly, utterly primitive.

I guess this is where I could repeat the questions others have posed wrt to the exact rules that these eternal souls follow?

How could the soul of those that I killed make my soul miserable? Will they caume and haunt me whilst I live? wait until I die and the nget back at me? What does revenge look like in the afterlife? Will your soul tie my soul#s shoelaces together for the next 500 years or what?

Make sense?

No.

Rasmus.

hailslaanesh

19th April 2006, 09:32 PM

Damn. If I ever become dictator I will have a serious dilemma on my hands.
I can't just outlaw religion, because so many fundy woos are actually sociopaths. If they believe God wants them to kill, they will. Because human life has no value when you believe in an afterlife.

Well I don't know about being a dictator because you could do some really bad things. But maybe I could be a televangelist (sp?) and make some money off people who will really feel better once they give it to me. Let's face it, if I don't do it, some other scam artist will. It would be a great way to get rich, but damn, I would get sick of being around so many dumb people. :p

No, mental note: we are here to educate people against the scam artists, not to learn how to scam the silly buggers ourselves.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

19th April 2006, 10:17 PM

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable.

That is one of the points of my story. Souls are absolutely critical for the existence of society, because souls absolutely guarantee that stability. Without souls, society is not stable, because that makes being a sociopath---somebody who lacks a feeling of connection to everybody else---rational.

Now you don't have to agree with that, but that was the idea.

I understand your idea. Basically, you seem to be arguing that without souls, there will be complete chaos because everyone will be sociopaths who will be concerned only with themselves and will therefore feel no qualms about killing other people. And therefore, stability is only guarenteed if people have (or believe they have) souls.

What I am saying is that your argument is false. You are introducing the concept of a soul as a necessity for stability when that need has not been substaniated. People do not need a soul to want to live in a society where they don't have to be afraid of being shot and robbed. Stability and order, in and of themselves, are rational concepts. Moreover, you are begging the question by saying that being a sociopath is rational. You have not shown that. Stability is a rastional desire, and acting toward social stability is also perfectly rational. Being a sociopath -- and thus acting in a way that creates instability and chaos -- is irrational.

And this leads to your notion that having a soul will GUARENTEE stability. Why? In spite of stability being a rational desire, many people do things to cause chaos. It is rational to stay out of prison, but people do things to end up in prison. It is rational to not fly an airplane into a building but people do that. Oh, and those were people who believed very strongly that they have souls. So even if people believed they had souls, and even if other people could dole out revenge in the afterlife against them, what makes you think that is a guarentee that they would always do the rational thing and not hurt anyone? There are plenty of people in the world who not only believe they have souls, but who even believe that they will go to an eternal hell if they do certain things. Yet some of those very people have done the things that they believe would send them to hell. People do not always act rationally, soul or not. Having a soul guarentees nothing.

Bottom line: real world experience simply does not support your idea that having a soul would guarantee that people would not do bad things, or that not having a soul means people will run around shooting each other.

And the answer is: I don't know. All I can say is that, if you're an immortal soul in the afterlife who got there by being shot in the back, you will be bound and determined to find a way to make that jerk who shot you pay.

I don't know the rules for the afterlife.

This seems an odd thing to say since you recently defined a soul and what would happen in the afterlife to people who were wronged on Earth. If a soul cannot be hurt, then your entire argument is out the window.

Now I disagree. I think my arguments are based entirely on reason and logic.

But this is a critical-thinker's forum----supposed to be anyway, despite all the name-calling---so reason and logic are what it's all about.

So you get to make that call for yourself.

I'm trying to avoid name calling, but I will call a spade a spade. Your theory begs the question on a number of points.

Jess

19th April 2006, 10:18 PM

Jeff seems to believe in that a mechanism called the "soul" enables humans to make moral decisions. Without this soul, humans would do heinously evil things. Soulless individuals (according to Jeff's bit of creative writing) seem to do evil things because they no longer fear punishment. Jeff's soulless individuals still seem to retain the ability to think, since he hasn't depicted "Michael Stone" as a gibbering idiot, only as a murderous psychopath.

How can you truly consider yourself a moral person if you believe that some portion of you, separate from thought, dictates right from wrong? Is your soul out for repairs on days you make bad choices and do bad things? Are you truly a moral person if the only reason you don't go out and murder someone is because your soul induces a fear of jail? Do people who do bad things not have souls? Can they be held accountable for what they do if they don't? Can they be held accountable for what they do if they do have one?

Basically, Jeff has argued that the existence of souls eliminates the possibility of free will. I can't bring myself to believe that.

Dr Adequate

19th April 2006, 10:36 PM

Sure. We all want to have a stable society.

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable. The fact that we all want it to be stable.

Sheesh.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

19th April 2006, 10:47 PM

The fact that we all want it to be stable.

Sheesh.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Except you did it in about 2.9 paragraphs less than it took me. Hrmph.

Hellbound

20th April 2006, 06:23 AM

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

Except you did it in about 2.9 paragraphs less than it took me. Hrmph.

Don't feel bad. Those 5700 posts he's got? About 5000 of them come form his diving directly into ground-zero of several woo claims.

You can't compete with that kind of experience :) He's our own W-O-D team (Woo Ordinance Disposal).

pmckean

20th April 2006, 07:02 AM

The concept of a soul is a religious belief, and is inseparable from faith.

I don't belong to any religious faith, and have no evidence that I possess a soul. I strongly suspect I'm a biological machine, one of many billions on this planet.

Despite this, I have no wish to harm or persecute anyone else for my personal gain, monetary or otherwise. I feel compelled to interact with other people in a well-behaved way, as I can visualise how little I would like it if they were nasty to me. I believe that my attitudes toward other people have been formed through a combination of nature (behavioural predispositions in my genes) and nurture (the ingrained lessons of childhood and the examples set by my parents).

As I don't believe in God, or souls, or heaven, my personal morality differs from that of the believer. My views on the morality of abortion or Euthanasia would most likely be different, for instance, if I believed in souls.

However, people WITH faith have openly expressed to me that without their religion they imagine that they would do BAD THINGS. A close female friend with a history of depressive illness has also told me that without her belief in an afterlife, she would have killed herself many times. Only the knowledge that there is a better place for her to go to gives her the strength to carry on in this one.

So, I've concluded that although many people do not require a religious worldview to be good people, or to function effectively, some do. I've read that many sociologists consider faith to be an evolutionary response to anarchy - a collection of genes that when switched to the ON position (sorry if I'm getting too technical, here!) make an individual strongly suggestible to the concept of divinity. Religious followers will often form a strong social cohesion, and strong communities are more likely to survive and grow than anarchic ones. Ironic that faith denies evolution, when evolution may well be the inevitable creator of faith.

In a world, though, where belief motivates people to carry out violent and senseless (from a secular perspective) acts of terror, I'm no longer so sure that society gets a net gain from religion - or whether it's become a serious impediment to social and moral momentum.

I less than three logic

20th April 2006, 07:03 AM

"I have long suspected as much," I said. "Hmm. If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath."

[snip]

"People will soon finally realize what that means," I said. "Killing is smart. A rational thing to do to get what you want."

[snip]

Stone," I said. "I have no immortal soul, so the only rational thing I can be is a sociopath."
[snip]

"If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath," I whispered to the empty, empty air. "How strange that this is so difficult to see."
If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath.

[snip]

Without an immortal soul, how what Michael does affects other people is of no rational concern to him.

[snip]

If Michael is certain no human will find out at all, or until AFTER he is dead----a situation I was careful to make certain was clear---it is entirely rational to do WHATEVER he wants to get whatever it is he wants, up to and including killing, as many people as necessary. There will be NO physical repercussions to him, none.

[snip]

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.
That is one of the points of my story. Souls are absolutely critical for the existence of society, because souls absolutely guarantee that stability. Without souls, society is not stable, because that makes being a sociopath---somebody who lacks a feeling of connection to everybody else---rational.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Tormac

20th April 2006, 09:10 AM

I may be missing something here Jeff Corken, but I don’t understand why it follows that having a soul means that there are negative consequence for all hurtful actions.

Many religious beliefs allow for people to escape the consequences of their actions, assuming that they follow the prescribed dogma of their faith.

According to many Christian faiths, all it takes to escape the consequences of one’s actions here on earth is to accept that Jesus died for your sins. The vilest of people can go to heaven, if they accept Jesus as their personal savior. They can even backslide in a moment of weakness, and still commit crimes, and be forgiven.

Sociopathic behavior seems to have been common in medieval Europe for example, during a time when the Catholic Church had the legal power to enforce religious conformity, among those conformities the belief in a soul. All it takes is a religious doctrine that prescribes that it is ok with God if you torture and murder heathens (be they Jews, Moslems, Pagans, or heretics of other Christian faiths) and you have a society that rewards sociopathic behavior, while clinging to the notion of an immortal soul. (And of course the notion of a “unbeliever” that is not protected by the social norms of a society seems common in most religious, not to sound like I’m just picking on Christianity or the Catholic Church in particular.)

It does not follow logically JC that the belief in a soul discourages sociopathic behavior, and the lack of belief in a soul makes sociopathic behavior logical. Through out history, religious dogma that revolves around the belief in a soul, and reward in the afterlife for following prescribed dogma, seems to have frequently encouraged sociopathic behavior.

Tormac

20th April 2006, 09:36 AM

. . .

But having an immortal soul changes this equation radically.

Let me make this as clear as I can. Suppose you have five dollars, somebody shoots you in the back under circumstances under which he knows he will never be caught, and takes your five dollars.

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

But suppose you DO have an immortal soul, an existence that cannot be terminated by any means. Both of you do.

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS.

. . .

I guess this is the point where I loose you JC.

I've never heard of an after life that sounded like the Wild West, where it was up to individuals to punish those who had wronged them in the "real" world.

Most religions that I'm familiar with give the right of eternal punishment to supernatural beings, or supernatural laws, and do not prescribe that in the after life, individuals have the right to persecute those who wronged them. Are you really proposing that I keep a list of everyone who wronged me in this life, so that I can get even with them in the next world?

I may not understand the concept of the after life that you are proposing, but I can't imagine a more ferocious hell than one where everyone is eternally trying to get even with everyone else for every crime committed here on earth.

slingblade

20th April 2006, 09:43 AM

And not all sociopaths commit murder or crime for that matter, what happens to a sociopath that believes in God?

I marry him, he beats hell out of me with a Bible, cheats on me, drinks and drugs and lies, and then I divorce him 13 years later.

He goes on to buy himself a title on the internet, becomes pastor of a church, gets incredibly rich, and never once apologizes to me for his brutality, because God has forgiven him and it's all in the past, now.

No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Meffy

20th April 2006, 11:26 AM

I've never heard of an after life that sounded like the Wild West, where it was up to individuals to punish those who had wronged them in the "real" world.
The Pearly Gates slammed open like a pair o' saloon doors. I moseyed on in, chewin' on a toothpick Eastwood-style and twitchin' my big striped tail, and squinted around. My right hand hovered over my six-shooter. On my left hand was what looked like a tartan skirt for a Barbie doll. I hadn't put it there, but I was gonna find who done that, and we were a-gonna have a reckoning.

My steely gaze searching the near-infinite ranks of souls around me, I cleared my throat and announced:

"I'm lookin' for the man who kilt my paw."

Hagrok

20th April 2006, 11:43 AM

The Pearly Gates slammed open like a pair o' saloon doors. I moseyed on in, chewin' on a toothpick Eastwood-style and twitchin' my big striped tail, and squinted around. My right hand hovered over my six-shooter. On my left hand was what looked like a tartan skirt for a Barbie doll. I hadn't put it there, but I was gonna find who done that, and we were a-gonna have a reckoning.

My steely gaze searching the near-infinite ranks of souls around me, I cleared my throat and announced:

"I'm lookin' for the man who kilt my paw."
That was truely awful :)

Meffy

20th April 2006, 11:51 AM

Yes, it was. And the worst of it is... nobody can hear our screams. =@.@=

I less than three logic

20th April 2006, 11:55 AM

The first time I read it I misread “squinted” as “squirted” which kind of made sense in a twisted humor sort of way. I was thinking, “that’s probably not the best way for a giant skunk to make a good first impression.” :D

Meffy

20th April 2006, 11:57 AM

Heeee... No, we try to be very careful about that. =^_^=

Mrs. Hmmphries

20th April 2006, 12:05 PM

A bunch of pointless philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

The fact is, one's beliefs about whether or not there is a soul have nothing to do with being a sociopath. You can't just decide to be a sociopath. You either are or you aren't.

ObscureReferenceMan

20th April 2006, 01:21 PM

chance

20th April 2006, 01:44 PM

Without an immortal soul, how what Michael does affects other people is of no rational concern to him.

Because he can escape the consequences of his actions, you see.

Woops, he can only escape the consequences if:

a. The people he meets don’t fight back,
b. Society lets it happen, i.e. no police force or laws etc.
c. Michael is not concerned with getting caught or punished, i.e. he is ill.

Dr Adequate

20th April 2006, 02:28 PM

If you don't have a soul, you blink right out and disappear, and the guy who shot you goes off fat and HAPPY. No bad consequences to him. HE WILL ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS, and that makes what he's done rational.

But suppose you DO have an immortal soul, an existence that cannot be terminated by any means. Both of you do.

You're going to be a bit, ahem, STEAMED about getting shot in the back. Right?

Even if nobody else ever finds out, YOU KNOW. And somewhere, somehow, you're going to find that jerk and MAKE HIM PAY.

If you have an immortal soul, THAT JERK WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. You're not about to let that happen.

This is the primary effect of immortal souls. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS. There are a few hidden assumptions here.

You assume that if someone hurts me, I'm going to want to hunt him down and have my revenge in the afterlife. What if I'm not that mean-spirited, and just want to sit on a cloud feeling happy?

You place great stress on an eternal afterlife. Does that require me to punish, eternally, some person who has hurt me? 'Cos that would be an eternal hell for me too.

You assume that if there is an afterlife, and I meet the person who hurt me, I will win. Why? Is there any reason why he shouldn't successfully wrong me in the next life as in this?

Is there any reason why my afterlife shouldn't be filled with endless pain and injustice and wrong however I behave?

In summary: your idea connecting an eternal soul with ethics relies not only on the immortality of the soul but also on specific propositions about the afterlife which you have in no way demonstrated.

Jeff Corkern

20th April 2006, 05:26 PM

Overall, I like the story. You can over-analyze it and it will mean whatever you want it to mean. I have to say that it is too long and repetetive, which leads to it being predictable. Cut it down to three kills and the story will be greatly improved.

Thank you.

Point taken about the three kills. I did have a problem with trying to make each scene different so each scene would stick out in the readers mind.

It wound up being more than three because there were more than three attitudes I wanted to symbolize. Although perhaps "Genius Skeptic" and "Naive Skeptic" could've been combined.

But I only worked on it for five days in and amongst vacation time. So I wound up with five secondary characters, and there was a problem with repetitiveness.

But the goal wasn't a polished piece, just something that made a point.

Jeff Corkern

20th April 2006, 05:52 PM

Ah. I tend to rank "I'd rather" lower than privacy concerns. Also, the information the JREF has (for COPA reasons) isn't particularly useful for tracking someone down (grandstanding notwithstanding).

Besides, even creepy speech is ok... if the dude declared he was going to do something, that might be different, but there are better ways of tracking than name and state/province.

That's my real name, and my real location.

Look me up in the Baton Rouge phone book. That number doesn't work because it's a modem line, but the address is good.

So if the JREF---or anybody else---wants to get in touch with me, I am but a letter away.

So go ahead and call the cops.

In fact, I'll help you out.
Here is the number for the Louisiana State Police, heaquartered right here in good ole Baton Rouge: (225)925-6157

Call'em up. Let the cops investigate. We'll see who gets hauled off for being a nutcase.

Beleth

20th April 2006, 06:08 PM

What [Beleth] means is, that if you apply the same logic used here to the Christian ideaology, then you should kill everyone as soon as they reach the "saved" point (i.e.-as children or right after baptism/repentence/whatever), in order to insure they reach heaven. Sure, you'll burn in Hell forever, but you're making the ultimate sacrifice (your eternal soul) to insure the ultimate good (eternal life) for everyone else. Since this life, we're told repeatedly in Christianity, is not important (except to the extent that you earn your reward), there's no reason to stay on this earth any longer than absolutely necessary.

And, as offensive as Christians would find this idea, that's how atheists feel when presented with the sophmoric argument of the OP. Both arguments ignore many of the other factors and ideas invovled, and use a twisted logic to reach a completely inane conclusion. IMO, both arguments are simply a long, drawn out combination of ad hominems and strawmen. There's more to it than that, though... they both lead to a reductio ad absurdum that shows that somewhere along the line, the reasoning is faulty.

In the Christians-killing-baptisees scenario, it's that the Bible says nothing about what one should do to save the souls of others; it's only about what one should do to save oneself. Let others save themselves; it's not your responsibility. Now, people evangelizing may sound like a counterargument, but it isn't, since evangelists are spreading the word of God because God asks them to, not because it will save the people the evangelize to. You can lead a horse to water.

In the sociopath-killing-everyone scenario, it's that one can never be absolutely sure that one will not get caught, even if it's a dark foggy night. And I can't speak for everyone else here, but when I do something good for someone, I get an instant reward. I feel really happy for about half an hour afterwards. I was able to do something for someone else, and some chemical reaction or other kicks off inside me that makes me feel really, really good. Likewise, when I do something bad, I know it. I feel crappy for about a week. I don't believe I have a soul, but I can guess how awful I'd feel after I murdered someone, so it is therefore rational for me not to murder anyone.

Roadtoad

20th April 2006, 06:31 PM

I marry him, he beats hell out of me with a Bible, cheats on me, drinks and drugs and lies, and then I divorce him 13 years later.

He goes on to buy himself a title on the internet, becomes pastor of a church, gets incredibly rich, and never once apologizes to me for his brutality, because God has forgiven him and it's all in the past, now.

No, I'm not bitter. Why do you ask?

Because any one of the rest of us would be.

(I hated the OP. Sorry. I never did groove on slander.)

Admiral

20th April 2006, 07:22 PM

Sure. We all want to have a stable society.

The question is, what does it take to GUARANTEE that society is stable.

Well, there's law enforcement, for one. It's not rational to go on a killing spree if it ends in a lethal injection.

There's society's pressure, which sort of takes the form of the social contract that Locke talked about, as well as Rousseau (the philosophers, not the characters from Lost). Basically, it boils down to the fact that sociopaths usually don't make many friends. Take a look at the lives of serial killers. In order to function well within society, the vast majority of people follow its rules.

There's also personal guilt. I don't believe that if I killed someone, he'd come back from the dead to stab me in the back. It doesn't matter- I know that if I killed someone, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. That's not a rational choice.

More important than this is that you state that belief in immortal souls is the only reason to connect with other humans. You say this is because it is fear of revenge that causes us to empathize with other humans. This is a ridiculous notion- have you ever considered that emotions besides fear exist? What about love, as an easy example? People don't marry the person they love and raise a family because they fear what will happen if they don't. They do so because they love the person they're with, as well as their children.

The idea that emotions have no place in rational thought is wrong. It is rational to do what makes you feel the best. For 99% of humans, as many others on this thread have noted, this is a moral and empathetic life.

Hellbound

20th April 2006, 08:31 PM

In the sociopath-killing-everyone scenario, it's that one can never be absolutely sure that one will not get caught, even if it's a dark foggy night. And I can't speak for everyone else here, but when I do something good for someone, I get an instant reward. I feel really happy for about half an hour afterwards. I was able to do something for someone else, and some chemical reaction or other kicks off inside me that makes me feel really, really good. Likewise, when I do something bad, I know it. I feel crappy for about a week. I don't believe I have a soul, but I can guess how awful I'd feel after I murdered someone, so it is therefore rational for me not to murder anyone.

To expand on this thought, it's not even worrying about getting caught, or feeling bad for murder. Two people working together can accomplish more than two people working individually. There's advantage to be had in cooperation, and this is the basis of society. Working together allows people to specialize in tasks, instead of having to do everything themselves. Even in primative cultures, having just one friend or partner means you have someone who can watch your back for you.

The story in th OP ignores pretty much everything, and narrows the entire worldview down to the point of irrationality. It simply makes no sense.

Dr Adequate

20th April 2006, 11:56 PM

To expand on this thought, it's not even worrying about getting caught, or feeling bad for murder. Two people working together can accomplish more than two people working individually. There's advantage to be had in cooperation, and this is the basis of society. Working together allows people to specialize in tasks, instead of having to do everything themselves. Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

(Hobbes, Leviathan)

Roboramma

21st April 2006, 02:13 AM

Jeff, would you mind taking a look at post #63?

You haven't addressed any of the points I raised there, and if left unaddressed, I'd suggest that your whole argument falls upon them.

Take this point from that post, for instance:
There are a lot of people who wouldn't find joy in killing someone else. And you've given (neither in this thread nor the other) no reason why they should be happy about killing other people.
Let me make this explicit. Our brains are wired a certain way. How this wiring comes about isn't important here. What is important is that because of the way our brains work, we want certain things.
That's it. You can't call those desires (like the desire for happiness, or the desire to be a good person) rational or irrational.
They're just what we want.

To say that the only thing that matters to anyone is their own happiness is not only wrong, but demonstrably so. And because your entire argument is built on that assumption, it falls on it as well.

(If you're going to respond to this, please go back and respond to post #63. Thanks. :)

aargh57

21st April 2006, 03:30 AM

Jeff,

Why do the countries that have very large percentages of atheists and agnostics not have huge numbers of Michael's? Here's just a few numbers:

Sweden: between 46-85%
Vietnam: 81%
Denmark: 43-80%
Norway:31-72%
Japan:64-65%

(source: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)
Even in the U.S. we have between 3 and 9% of the population atheist/agnostic. This is a minimum of 8.7 million of our population. Why aren't more of them sociopathic? Here's a few reason's that I can come up with:

1. They're not thinking "rationally" as "Michael" did in your story.
2. They just don't have the opportunity because the rest of society won't let them. (But wait, I thought if enough people were atheists then society would disintegrate into a world of "Michaels".)
3. Atheists value life just as much (or more so) than theists and your argument is fallacious.

aggle-rithm

21st April 2006, 05:58 AM

Call'em up. Let the cops investigate. We'll see who gets hauled off for being a nutcase.

!!!!!

Is being mentally ill a crime in Louisiana?!?

No wonder God smote you guys!! ;)

Tormac

21st April 2006, 01:56 PM

Meffy

21st April 2006, 02:27 PM

I'm mean, yup yup. Thoroughly dangerous, more so than the average descendant of fluffy, stripedy woodland creatures. Uprooting trees, biting off mountaintops, leaving pawprint-shaped craters the size of ponds, all that stuff. Well... would you believe uprooting honeysuckle vines?

And I certainly believe in soles. Seen whole stacks of 'em in a shoe repair shop once, discarnate as it were. Someone told me they catch the darned things in the sea, but I can't bring myself to believe that without solid scientific evidence.

AgingYoung

21st April 2006, 05:37 PM

I think that Jeff Corkern's point is something like...
If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him. Voltaire

One problem with an eternally persistent personality is that unless the great beyond is a wild, wild west scenario what could you do? Unless you could hunt down the dirty vermin that killed your paw it wouldn't matter.

The biggest problem with that idea though is that hate feeds on hate. It's a never ending cycle. The only way to break it is with forgiveness.

Gene

Roadtoad

21st April 2006, 07:24 PM

TjW

21st April 2006, 08:16 PM

Jeff:
Granted that there are souls, and that they can exact retribution upon wrong-doers in a later existence, how can you tell in your current existence whether a seemingly horrendous crime is, in fact, a horrendous crime, or justice being applied for a soul's action in a previous life, such as writing very long sentences?

Mrs. Hmmphries

21st April 2006, 08:21 PM

All right, I've had some time to think about this one.

First, this story is painfully infantile. I mean, geez, the main character wanders around popping people in the head because he feels like it. The reason I disciplined my children was because I did NOT want them acting like this when they were adults. There are rules by which we govern our societies, and the last thing we need is to glorify this selfish, cowardly behavior.

Second, I don't accept the idea that without the concept of perpetual punishment for the damnable that we'll have a degredation of society into the sort of utter filth in which the lead character wallows. Decency is inculcated by parents, and it's reinforced by good people within a community, in general. It happens whether or not we agree with the idea of God.

The story is ultimately slanderous. I don't buy it.

Agreed.

Look, my four year old has a better developed sense of common decency than the main character of that story. I'm growing tired of the entire, what's to stop you from killing and raping and stealing if you haven't got a god to tell you it's wrong and punish you argument, anyway. It's nonsense and offensive to anyone who isn't inclined toward the kind of psychotic acts of random violence depicted in the story.

By which I mean pretty much everyone.

LotusMegami

21st April 2006, 08:54 PM

Roadtoad

21st April 2006, 09:04 PM

So what does this loon have to gain from killing people? The story doesn't even mention stealing from them.

I can only guess that the woo in question would enjoy killing people. That is not a survival trait, so something in his brain must have short-circuited.

The "short circuit" is the idea that without a God to demand retribution, this sort of thing would be the norm. It is not. And I find it damned insulting.

AgingYoung

21st April 2006, 11:19 PM

LotusMegami,
So what does this loon have to gain from killing people? The story doesn't even mention stealing from them.

The value gained: Three thousand, five hundred ninety-eight dollars.
The value lost: One forty-five, five shells.
The value of the humans killed: Zero.

Reward and punishment are common in society. Work hard and get a raise/promotion or see a cop and hit the brakes. Different people have different ideas of what is right or wrong. That puts the matter on the level of opinion. Homicidal bombers call it suicide.

A personality that persists after death isn't a solution to or (the lack of) the cause of the world's problems.

Gene

HopperUK

22nd April 2006, 03:56 AM

This attitude has come to deeply trouble me since I finally made the obvious leap and became an agnostic. Some people clearly believe that without the fear of punishment, everyone would do horrible, evil things. Is that more insulting to atheists and agnostics, or to themselves? Are they serious in saying that without the fear of God's judgment they would murder and rape and, I don't know, eat babies or whatever? Don't they see the utter moral bankruptcy of that?

It's horrifying to me that so many people believe they only co-exist peacefully with others because if they don't, God will smack them. To me it seems that if there's no final judgment, our immediate actions actually matter more than they would have otherwise, because they are essentially all there is. It's a bit like how spelling and grammar matter more on the internet, not less. I have a friend who tells me I've become an existentialist.

I hope some of that makes sense.:cool:

Meffy

22nd April 2006, 05:29 AM

Hopper: It makes perfect sense.

The kind of dreck the OP posted is not only severely insulting to all of us who try to live decent, ethical lives without having to be bullied into it by imaginary cloud-dwellers, IMO it's also not very well thought out and doesn't represent the situation anything like honestly. Or maybe the distortions and misrepresentations were thought out carefully to achieve maximum impact on those who accept the OP's contentions without thinking anything through. I can't read minds and couldn't say which is so.

Whichever. The sad little squib speaks volumes about its author while having absolutely nothing to say about those it purports to target.

Backfire.

Roadtoad

22nd April 2006, 10:50 AM

Here's my counter to the OP:

An Offer You Can't Refuse.

I was making a delivery stop in a small office park, when I noticed that to get backed into where I could get unloaded, I would need to swing the truck wide and left, then hook it back into the loading area. Problem was, someone had parked their car right where I needed to pull in. This was going to make things tough.

I asked around, located where I could find the owner, and walked across the street to another office building, one with white marble on the front, but lacking a name to indicate which business I was dealing with. I walked in, and mentioned to the receptionist I needed to see someone about moving a car.

There was a man standing behind her, who simply said, “Yes, we’ve been expecting you.”

“If you were expecting me, why didn’t you move the car in the first place?”

“Go up the stairs and down the hall to the office at the end.”

I shrugged, and headed up the stairs and down the hall, passing motivational posters that declared the advantages to be found in what the rest of us would call “Evil.” It was an odd place.

I got to the end of the hall, and was facing a dark heavy wooden door that read, “LUCIFER MEPHISTOPHELES, CEO.” I knocked, heard a pleasant “Come in,” and entered.

He was dressed in a dark blue suit, Italian, unless I missed my guess, and the room, while sparsely furnished for its size, was elegant, and quiet. He sat behind a dark mahogany desk, and was seated in a black leather chair. His dark hair was styled elegantly, and for the most part, he looked more like Tom Cruise than the Prince of Darkness.

“Welcome, welcome,” he said, extending a hand, which I ignored. “I have been expecting you.”

“If you were expecting me, why didn’t you park in a better spot?”

“Ah, but I had to get your attention.”

“You did. Now, about your car…”

“You are known, if I’m not mistaken, as ‘Roadtoad’?”

That stopped me for a moment. “Well, yes, but what does that have to do with the price of doughnuts in Modesto?”

Mr. Mephistopheles stood up, clapping his hands and rubbing them together. “I am prepared to make you an offer, sir, which I think you’ll find quite interesting.”

“Do tell.”

“I am willing to offer you unlimited wealth, power, and prestige. Whatever it is that you want, it shall be yours. Whatever you ask, it shall be. All that I request from you is your eternal soul.”

“I’ll pass.”

He paused, staring at me as though I were some sort of nut. “Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.”

“No, you made yourself perfectly clear. I’m simply not interested.”

For a moment, he stood staring at me. “You do realize, don’t you, that by denying me, I can make your life a living hell?”

“Given where I worked in the past, and the fact I’ve been divorced. Been there, done that.”

He nodded. “Oh, yes, of course,” he sighed, “I should have realized.”

“Now, about the car…”

“I can offer you any kind you want.”

“Got a couple of them. Insurance is killing me as it is.”

“Ummm, yes. Perhaps you’d appreciate more money…”

“Ditto the income tax…”

“Right. Perhaps the possibilities of your heart’s desire…”

“How do you think I wound up divorced? Look, all this is interesting, but the reality is that I don’t have time for this kind of nonsense. I know what kind of a person I am, and what happens when I find myself getting my way any and all of the time. Sometimes, what I want is simply not good for me, and sometimes, it’s not good for the people I love and respect. I’m better off with only having that which I have earned.

“Power? My judgment hasn’t always been the best. I’d rather have Authority, where someone else can double check what I’m doing, and tell whether I’m getting it right, or perhaps tell me a better way to do it.”

“I can offer you that.”

“Can you deliver? I worked for a particular trucking firm that was big on promises, but short on follow-through. Thanks, but no thanks. To be honest, your track record sucks, Dude.”

“Do you have any idea who I am?” Mephistopheles asked.

“Sure. If the Bible is true, in the end, you’ll be stewing in your own juices for eternity in a lake of fire. Frankly, if I were to follow someone who’d be roasting alive forever in flaming liquid, I’d be a first rate boob, because if the head honcho were being cooked like that, it seems to me someone like me would be getting far worse.

“If the Bible isn’t true, you’re a first rate psychopath who’s convinced himself he’s the physical embodiment of human moral stupidity, which tells me you’re headed for a room with mattress wallpaper in the laughing academy, and your next fashion accessory will include sleeves that tie up in the back.

“In either case, what you’re offering me isn’t worth much. I can read the morning paper in any major city, and come face to face with evidence of just how worthless your offer is. I mean, Michael Milken may have money, power, and prestige, but the folks who invested their money with Drexel Burnham are still short on pocket change, and a hell of a lot more. Same thing goes for creeps like Ken Lay, Ivan Boesky, Bernie Ebbers… I mean, really, who needs that kind of baggage in their life? I already have enough.”

“So, you don’t want all the money you could ever want?”

“I’m still trying to manage what I have.”

“Power beyond your wildest imagination?”

“A 550 Cat and a RoadRanger 18 speed would be enough.”

“Your name on the lips of millions of women around the world…?”

“Over twenty years of marriage, and I’m happy with the one I’ve got.”

“Well, what do you want?”

“Some genius parked his Bentley in what’s clearly marked as a ‘No Parking’ zone. It needs to be moved, because my insurance won’t cover the body modifications a Class 8 rig will do to a car that’s parked where it shouldn’t be.”

Lucifer stiffened slightly. “You’re not impressed with me, are you?”

“Is that your Bentley?”

“Errr… Yes.”

“No.”

Lucifer nodded. “Would you be impressed if I told you I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Geico?”

Beleth

22nd April 2006, 10:57 AM

BlackCat

22nd April 2006, 12:13 PM

I think the problem with the author is that he's still stuck in the Pre-conventional stage of Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development). From the article (emphasis mine):

Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development, and are purely concerned with the self (egocentric).

In stage one, individuals focus on the direct consequences that their actions will have for themselves. For example, an action is perceived as morally wrong if the person who commits it gets punished. In addition, there is no recognition that others' points of view are any different from one's own view. This stage may be viewed as a kind of authoritarianism.

Since the OP basically says that because there are no souls, there will be no punishment; therefore, the action is not morally wrong. Unfortunately, stage one is the most basic form of morality.

BlackCat

delphi_ote

22nd April 2006, 12:33 PM

To be honest, if some people have such a warped sense or morals and ethics that they need to believe in the delusion of an after-death punishment to keep them in line with society, then I say let them stay deluded.

If a man waves a gun in my face and says, "The only thing keeping me from killing you is the fact that these bullets contain cyanide gas and I'd breathe it in and die too," I'm more likely to reply "Well, then you better not shoot me" than I am to reply "Don't be absurd, bullets don't contain cyanide gas."
What's the harm in a little white lie to keep the morally infantile in line?
My grandmother used to tell me that if I didn't eat my vegetables, I'd get scurvy. Then she moved on to milk. If I didn't drink milk, scurvy. If I didn't eat my vegetables, scurvy. If I didn't take my flintstones vitamins, scurvy. To hear her talk, scurvy lurked in the wings at every moment, waiting to drop on the unsuspecting grandchild with the force of a thousand toothless sailors.

I suppose I could blame all of my vast range of oddities on the trauma of being threatened with scurvy, and bemoan the terrible betrayal of trust--the fraud! the scurvy fraud! O woe! it burns like lime juice in my braaaain!--but looking back, I think it mostly just made me roll my eyes and go "Grandmaaaaaa!" and eventually read up on scurvy just to make sure.
Scurvy, Santa Claus, the bogey man, souls... it's all the same basic idea.

Roadtoad

22nd April 2006, 12:35 PM

Scurvy, Santa Claus, the bogey man, souls... it's all the same basic idea.

Yes, but Tacos are real.

AgingYoung

22nd April 2006, 12:48 PM

The points that some people won't do what is 'right' only if there is a God or ultimate authority seem to over look the social experiments where the premise was tested. Stalin and communism comes to mind. A few powerful people that believe there is no God can make everyone's life very miserable.

I've heard it argued that Hitler was a good christian boy and look at what you got. Judging by what he did I'd believe he were a purple invisible dragon in my garage as much as I'd believe he was a christian. I don't see any evidence of the life of Jesus in his life.

Everyone has their own opinion about what is right and wrong. I think that's what is at the heart of this issue. You can argue with the soundest logic that it isn't right to murder but if you are the only thing standing between your property and someone they might not agree that it's wrong to murder you.

The often quoted Patrick Henry explains more of what a person is able to do if they believe in an after life.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Life is precious to a christian but in spite of that love of life there are times when we would be willing to give it up. If what I believe is true I'll be fine. If what I believe isn't true then it doesn't matter. I agree with Mr. Henry.

Gene

AgingYoung

22nd April 2006, 01:25 PM

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god(s) than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -Stephen Roberts
I've understood for a long time why, Mr. Roberts. I dismiss the idea that there can be more than one God with all power. The moment there were two Gods with all power that power is shared and neither have all power.

Your prediction, Mr. Roberts, (that I'd understand your position) isn't correct. You might consider reformatting your hypothesis also.

Gene

Suezoled

22nd April 2006, 05:10 PM

I saved money by switching to Geico, so you'd all best be impressed.

Roadtoad

22nd April 2006, 05:26 PM

I saved money by switching to Geico, so you'd all best be impressed.

Naughty girl. I suppose the next thing you'll tell us is that you've lowered your cholesterol.

Suezoled

22nd April 2006, 05:57 PM

Naughty girl. I suppose the next thing you'll tell us is that you've lowered your cholesterol.

By 20 points!
Actually, my bad cholesterol is at 101, and it should be at 100.
Which means I need to eat more bacon in my life. Because bacon is fun, and crispy, and has no soul. And yet it lacks that blatent atheist flavour.

Meffy

22nd April 2006, 06:02 PM

Bacon is wickedness incarnate! It divideth not the cud, nor does it spin. The smokier, the better, says I. =^_^=

kittynh

22nd April 2006, 06:45 PM

sooo... lemme tell ya sumthing.....

people with no souls...are the John Edwards and the Sylvia Brownes

the Muslim leaders that refuse to allow children to be vaccinated saying they should "trust in Allah"

The fundies that wink and nudge at people that blow up planned parenthood offices.

You want to see evil? See the video of a psychic "speaking" to a dead child in front of the grieving parents. That's no soul, that's evil.

Give me a good moral atheist anyday.

You know, someone that tell you up front that he/she is an atheist is the most trustworthy person in the world. Because they aren't lying. It's those REAL souless b@stards that lie and hide behind religion that we have to be afraid of.

A real atheist is like, "this is who I am, this is what I believe"

A real person without a soul wil lie and lie and lie. They would never admit to have no beliefs. Because it isn't lack of belief that is going to cause someone to act evil, it is lack of character, lack of ethics, lack of self control and taking responsibility for ones actions - that causes one to act evil.

I've heard more than one Xian say, "Xians aren't perfect, only forgiven". Usually when they say that they have commited some act that is so awful, any atheist would feel shame and dishonor. But the Xian, hey God loves me no matter what!

So I can be an @ss.

This is from a Xian. And a darn hard time I have staying one at times!

I less than three logic

22nd April 2006, 07:03 PM

Pup

22nd April 2006, 08:36 PM

I've understood for a long time why, Mr. Roberts. I dismiss the idea that there can be more than one God with all power. The moment there were two Gods with all power that power is shared and neither have all power.

There's more to the question than why you choose to believe in one god rather than in a multitude of them. It also requires an answer to why you choose *your* god as the one to believe in, instead of choosing another god as the only one.

AgingYoung

22nd April 2006, 10:02 PM

Pup,

There's more to the question...
Good eyes. I might have missed the question because there was no question mark. It seemed more like an assertion to me.

Since you asked I'll answer. The short answer is that I believe in the historical accuracy and veracity of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the prophesied Messiah. Now if there is a God that is omnipotent there can be only one. We could look at a textual criticism (hebrew idioms in the greek, etc.) or the archaeological evidences (written by someone that had a keen knowledge of the area and culture at that specific time) etc. but that's a little off topic.

The point I'm trying to address is the idea of a moral atheist. From what I gather you can arrive at what's right and wrong by using your intelligence and logic. I've heard some atheists say unequivocally that there is no ultimate truth (with the implied exception of the one they just stated). It goes without saying that different people come to different conclusions as to what's right or wrong. stalin had his ideas as you do. I am not even beginning to compare you with stalin; I'm only noting that there are some extreme differences of opinion.

My question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is superior to anyone else's conclusion? edit: Or put another way what gives you that right?

Gene

Roboramma

22nd April 2006, 11:05 PM

Since you asked I'll answer. The short answer is that I believe in the historical accuracy and veracity of the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus the prophesied Messiah.

That's fine, you choose to believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God, and is God, etc. Okay, that's your choise. But why did you choose christianity and not Islam?
If there is only one god, how did you decide that it's a christian god and not Allah, or Krishna, or Zeus?
Is the evidence better? Do you prefer that belief? Or were you just born to it?

I have no problem with you being christian because you want to be, or because it seems like a nicer religion to you. But Robert's point is that you discard all other religions, yet those other religions have as firm a base as yours.
If you have no previous belief, how would you distinguish between them?

Because your current position is that you are Christian, and chrisitanity doesn't allow other religions therefore they are wrong. In other words, you've assumed your conclusion.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but let me get to this last point before I have to run off:

My question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is superior to anyone else's conclusion? edit: Or put another way what gives you that right?

Let me ask you this: How does a religious person come to the conclusion that something is right or wrong?
Is it just because God says so? Is a thing only right because God said it is? Or is there some other standard?
If one of God's laws was that all third borns should be kept alive only to be tortured by their older siblings (you can think of any of the many barbarous tortures that human beings have invented throughout the ages here) would it be wrong not to do that?

If God is defined as being Good, then Good must exist outside of God, and we don't need god to have morality. If Good is defined as "what God wishes" then that could be anything, and it would still be good.

Suezoled

22nd April 2006, 11:56 PM

Oh dear. It appears that since we're all individuals and don't all agree on the same thing all the time, it's creating a conflict. Conflict, of course, is bad, since I'm right about everything so therefore all of you are wrong. So therefore, if you're wrong, you should be treated with contempt.

The veracity of belief is of course a reliable indicator of what happened... trust me, the fish was *this big* when I caught him, and that's why he got away. I swear it.

Most of all, God said bacon was okay.
And my deity trumps yours. Neener neener.

AgingYoung

23rd April 2006, 03:04 AM

Roboramma,

I believe this is true although I'd put it a little differently:
If God is defined as being Good, then Good must exist outside of God, and we don't need god to have morality.I would say that an attribute of God is that of goodness but both are about the same.

My question is considering different people have varying degrees of intellect, reasoning, resources and motivation what makes one person's understanding of right and wrong more right than an others?

When I think about resources and reasoning in light of your questions I stop at the very beginning of it when you said...
That's fine, you choose to believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the son of God, and is God, etc. Okay, that's your choose.I don't believe that at all. You didn't consider it at the time but would you consider that I might have come to the same conclusion Newton did about the matter or as argued in the Racovian Catechism (latin version 1609)? I believe that there's one mediator between God and man, that is the man, Christ Jesus. A lot of thought has gone in to this heretical position I share with Newton but as you mentioned that's my choice.

Then you conclude this about what I think:
Because your current position is that you are Christian, and chrisitanity doesn't allow other religions therefore they are wrong. In other words, you've assumed your conclusion.not having the resources to know what I think or citing any basis that is what a christian should think. If you want to tell me what my position is on something could you do me a favor and make it a little stronger position than that?

Even if you had unlimited intellect, resources and reasoning there is the matter of motivation. From stalin's perspective it was no problem to murder his perceived enemies. By instilling fear in the population it made them easier to control and helped him maintain his power.

So I'll repeat the question:

How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right or wrong?

Gene

Roboramma

23rd April 2006, 04:00 AM

To Suez - Anyone I disagree with is clearly wrong in the worst possible sense and must be stopped!
There is no other course of action! Live and let live? bah!
I say bigotry and intolerance is the only way! And in that spirt... ;)

My question is considering different people have varying degrees of intellect, reasoning, resources and motivation what makes one person's understanding of right and wrong more right than an others?
Well... being right about it, of course.
But seriously, I can't contend that this such a thing as "right". I can't prove it. What I can say is that there are things that I intuitively consider right and wrong, and I live my life based on that. I try to make my moral system as simple as possible - that is I try to have least unsupported beliefs that I can. This means I start with a set of axioms and try my best to go from there. These axioms will tend to be things that most people can agree with.
Such as: "suffering is bad". Not only do I think this is true, but so do most people. And no, this does not suggest that there are no circumstances where causing suffering is not a good thing, just that the suffering itself is bad, and must be weighed against other things (like the greater suffering of others) to be justified.

But you're right, maybe I'm wrong. If someone can show me why I am, I'm happy to change my viewpoint, until then, I continue on.

I don't believe that at all.
My bad, I made an assumption that I shouldn't have and it turned out to be false. Mea culpa.

Then you conclude this about what I think:
not having the resources to know what I think or citing any basis that is what a Christian should think. If you want to tell me what my position is on something could you do me a favor and make it a little stronger position than that?
I based that on what you wrote. It seemed to be your argument. If I misread you, please show where I did so, or explain your position better. I grant that I very well could have, but I don't see it yet, so I'd appreciate you spelling out for my what about what I said doesn't apply to your belief, and maybe making your argument more clear. Thanks.

Before asking you to do so, though, I'll try to make my point more clear. From what I read, you said that because there can be only one omnipotent god, you are justified in dismissing all but the one god you believe in - obviously if your god exists, the others cannot.
But that isn't the point of the quote. My point is that if assume the Christian god to exist, then of course you can dismiss all other gods. But until you make that assumption, it's as easy to dismiss the Christian god and choose any other. What do you use to distinguish them? That's basically what the quote is saying - your god is on as firm a foundation as any other. If you find them ridiculous, then yours is too.
If they are all plausible, then how did you choose the one you believe in over the others?

Here's an analogy. Say I have three cups turned opening down on a table. One of them may or may not have a ball under it, but no more than one ball exists. This is all I know.
Is there anything I can conclude? It doesn't seem to me that I can conclude that cup A has a ball under it.

But again, this is how I'm reading what you're saying. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. What the quote suggests is that there is no way to distinguish between your god and any other, yet you believe in your god and no other. Is there a way to make that distinction? How?

Even if you had unlimited intellect, resources and reasoning there is the matter of motivation. From stalin's perspective it was no problem to murder his perceived enemies. By instilling fear in the population it made them easier to control and helped him maintain his power.
Okay, so? I don't see what you're getting at here. Yeah, there are bad people who do bad things. What's that got to do with me?
Do some of them think they are doing good? Sure. Many of those are religious, many are not.

So I'll repeat the question:

How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right or wrong?

Very simply, I don't. I explained above how I reach those conclusions, and why I tentatively view them as reasonable conclusions. But I don't claim to have access to some "high truth" about the universe or morality. So I could be wrong. In many ways there is no morality. However, I choose to do what I think is right because I want to.
There is one thing that I feel is more important than anything else, though, in a system of morality, and that is logical consistency. I'm not sure that I've achieved that, or even that it's possible (though I believe it is), but I do try very hard to work toward it.
If say "it's wrong to hurt person X" and I can't show any moral difference between person X and person Y, then I must also say "it's wrong to hurt person Y" - please understand this is a gross simplification for the purpose of making an easy explanation.

How about you? How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right and wrong?

I think it's only fair you answer, as I've put some effort into giving you one.

That said, Gene, I harbour you no ill will. I'm responding because I disagree with what you're saying, not because I have anything against Christians or theists or bacon. :)

Edited for spelling

Piggy

23rd April 2006, 04:03 AM

I don't know how soul-theory accounts for empathy, altruism, cooperation, kindness, and aversion to murder. Maybe a soul-theorist can explain the connection.

But evolutionary biology is coming up with some wonderful insights. The development of all of the above creates positive survival pressures for social species.

In fact, complex social cooperation behavior has been observed in certain species of bats, who recall individuals who share with them, and tend to reciprocate with them (and to share with others who have no record, so to speak, with them) but to cut off the freeloaders.

Do bats have souls?

Piggy

23rd April 2006, 04:05 AM

Oops... I got to the end of page 1 and thought I was at the end of the thread. I'm probably repeating some other post -- if it matters anymore.

BATS GOT SOULS!

Roboramma

23rd April 2006, 04:18 AM

Oops... I got to the end of page 1 and thought I was at the end of the thread. I'm probably repeating some other post -- if it matters anymore.

BATS GOT SOULS!

Glad you said it. I think the point was implicit in a lot of what's been said, but never said outright.

Long live the altruistic vampire bat!

AgingYoung

23rd April 2006, 04:23 AM

Roboramma

23rd April 2006, 04:51 AM

I think all pigs should be fed to vampire bats in a massive bat-breeding program so we could have more of them.
Because pigs are stupid if cute but vampire bats are awesome!

Darwin and his donkey hated them, though.

chocolatepossum

23rd April 2006, 05:48 AM

How do you justify your conclusions as to what is right or wrong?

My conclusions as to right or wrong are based on my feelings of empathy with and sympathy for other beings, an idea of "fairness" or reciprocity, and my desire to live in a stable society.

I might just as well ask you how God justified his conclusions as to what is wrong and what is right. If God revealed himself tomorrow and told the people of the earth that they should start killing each other, would it be wrong not to do so? Would there, in fact , be anythingabout such a command that would make it morally different from the command not to kill?

Pup

23rd April 2006, 06:19 AM

My question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is superior to anyone else's conclusion? edit: Or put another way what gives you that right?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to about what god to believe in is superior to anyone else's conclusion? Or put another way, what gives you the right to believe someone else is going to hell (or whatever outcome nonbelievers of your religion face)?

There are any number of ways, combined, that an atheist can come to a conclusion about what's right and wrong, and they may even feel that it's not necessarily superior to anyone else's, but seems to be what works best for them--just as there are varying degrees of ecumenical cooperation among similar religions who nonetheless can argue endlessly about smaller differences.

And I'd suggest that the ways in which atheists come to conclusions about right and wrong, are similar to how religious people choose their religions.

--Observation of others' behavior, following role models, avoiding others' mistakes, discovering what motivates the behavior of people they admire

--Thinking to themselves about the logical outcome of different behavior, observing "how the world works" and trying to make sense of it, forming their own theories that they can defend against others' objections

--Responding to a lifetime of societal pressure, either praise for following cultural traditions or a lack of punishment for doing something that would be considered unethical/sacreligious in another culture.

--A gut feeling. "It just seems like the right thing to do." "I don't know how I know, but I know it's true." "When I first heard it, I knew from that moment...." One can get into neutransmitters, evolution, etc. to explain it, but subjectively that's how most people express that aspect of belief.

Human nature being what it is, once some combination of all those things set a person along a certain course, they may consciously have to change the way they feel about some things, but if their overall chosen course has too many illogical, indefensible, "just doesn't feel right" aspects, they'll probably pick a different course, rather than stick rigidly to their original choice.

As an exaggerated example, the average person who wants to convert to a religion that otherwise seems to fit, but requires them to quit smoking, will probably go to the effort of quitting smoking, even if they wouldn't otherwise. However, if it requires them to sacrifice their first-born, they'd probably say, "no thanks," and pick another religion. Same way, an atheist whose logic requires them to do no harm to any humans or animals might give up eating meat, but probably wouldn't stand by while a rabid dog attacks their child; instead they'd rethink their logic about circumstances when the rights of one creature do take precedence over another.

Mrs. Hmmphries

23rd April 2006, 06:33 AM

Oops... I got to the end of page 1 and thought I was at the end of the thread. I'm probably repeating some other post -- if it matters anymore.

BATS GOT SOULS!

Vampire bats will act as blood doners to each other to keep other vampire bats from dying of starvation. Do undead vampire bats have souls? :wink:

Piggy

23rd April 2006, 07:09 AM

My question is how do you decide that the conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is superior to anyone else's conclusion? edit: Or put another way what gives you that right?
Once again, if we stop imposing our ideas on reality, which reality does not support, then the problems caused by our attempt to impose our imaginings on the world vanish with them.

I don't see any "right" here at all. <*Poof* Problem of determining what gives anyone a right vanishes>

Each of us must decide how to act in this world. No one else can do that for us. We can choose to follow a code of conduct that has been established before we were born. We can choose to select from many. We can choose to go it alone. That's just the natural state of things. I don't see any rights involved.

Personally, I also don't see the things "right" and "wrong" in the world, either. <*Poof* Problem of deciding "right" and "wrong" vanishes>

There are only actions and consequences. That's how I decide what to do -- I ask myself what the result will be. And being human, a member of a social species which has altruistic as well as selfish urges, and having to face the consequences every day of my choices in society, I try to do what I think will have the best outcome for myself, my family, my country, my species, and my planet. (Sadly, however, it so far has proven impossible for me to consistently do all that at once.)

Other folks will come to their own conclusions and do what they will. The Powers of the Earth will shift and change, and laws and punishments along with them. Talk of "rights" is only so much jabber, unless we're talking about rights in a legal sense.

But if someone calls the shots differently from the way I call them, where does this talk of moral rights get me? Nowhere.

The question of what gives someone the right <*Poof*> to say their idea of right and wrong <*Poof* *Poof*> is superior is a non-question. My concern is with the non-theoretical, non-abstract, very mundane and very real power structures that allow one group to impose its code of conduct on another.

Roboramma

23rd April 2006, 07:26 AM

Personally, I also don't see the things "right" and "wrong" in the world, either. <*Poof* Problem of deciding "right" and "wrong" vanishes>

Hmm... maybe I should convert. If orange skepticism gives you magic powers, I want in.

Suezoled

23rd April 2006, 09:37 AM

Roboramma,

Thanks for your answer. If you don't mind I'll have to consider it a little more before I respond.

Bacon has been mentioned a few times. I do like bacon but I really like barbaqued spare ribs. I do a pretty good job on the grill. Pork though is one of the hardest meats to digest and pigs are scavengers. The idea of unclean is a health issue. People that have reverted to a strict levitical diet have had amazing changes in their health.

I think bats have souls.

Gene

Pigs might be scavengers, but they're still used in things like organ transplants in humans... domestic pigs are given a diet that is probably better than the school lunches I got in grammer school (except on cheese pizza day). People who revert to a strict levitical diet are missing out on the joys of cold beer and hot barbecue.

Ladewig

23rd April 2006, 11:09 AM

Roadtoad

23rd April 2006, 12:37 PM

Mr. Corkern, I'd love to hear your reply to the questions raised in post #63 by Roboramma (and by others in later posts).

I am also curious as to why you posted this stuff on a skeptic board. You have a seemingly unshakable belief that atheists, when acting rationally, will murder people at the drop of a hat. Given that belief, why would you tell a collection of hundreds of atheists that if they were to truly act rationally, they would murder people by the dozens. Bringing it up on a skeptics' board seems a tad immoral. What if we were to adopt your philosphy and started killing people?

And why do you think he would answer any question? He owes us answers, that's a certainty, but given the utter contempt with which he's treated people here, do you think he'd deign to even try? Frankly, he's reminding me more and more of Kurious Kathy and 1inChrist.

No, wait. Scratch that. KK and 1in could actually be entertaining. This guy's just a pain in the @$$.

Piggy

23rd April 2006, 06:48 PM

Hmm... maybe I should convert. If orange skepticism gives you magic powers, I want in.
Making non-existent things cease to exist is our specialty. :D

Ladewig

23rd April 2006, 07:30 PM

And why do you think he would answer any question? He owes us answers, that's a certainty, but given the utter contempt with which he's treated people here, do you think he'd deign to even try? Frankly, he's reminding me more and more of Kurious Kathy and 1inChrist.

No, wait. Scratch that. KK and 1in could actually be entertaining. This guy's just a pain in the @$$.

You called it right.

From the other thread:

I am sorry I cannot reply to all posts, or explain in greater detail. There are two reasons for this.

---I flat don't have time. Sorry.

---I have discovered that when people resort to insults instead of calm discussion, it's because they are unable or unwilling to refute the argument. I have furthered discovered that people who resort to insults are people who's minds cannot be changed by any means whatsoever, and it is a pure waste of time to argue. Such people lack the capacity for intellectual honesty.

[snip]

Another random thought:

Somewhere in all these insults somebody actually, finally hit upon what would settle this argument for good and all. It was quite a startling thing to see. (A lot of the people in here really do have minds, but they're certainly untrained.)
.

To me he seems less like KK and 1inChrist than that other poster we had several months ago who went on about "I have an important secret insight into philosophy but I won't share it with you because you were mean to me." I forget the name (thankfully).

Piggy

23rd April 2006, 08:23 PM

I can't help but see shades of JustGeoff (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54403) and mslxl (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55003).

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 01:11 AM

Roboramma,

I was looking at this thread earlier and then I looked away from that computer then back and the screen was blank. After checking what I suspected I found out that the power supply of the computer I just built gave up the ghost. <moment of silence> I hate to talk about the dearly departed but it was a piece of junk. Someone needs to design a decent power supply.

I can't disagree with your impression that if a person is a christian they discount any other religion. Here is a distinction though between christianity and islam. Although I think the muslim is going to burn in hell I'm not willing to send them there today. I don't see it as my job to hasten the process. They on the other hand will cut your head off and send you to judgment, ready or not. In christianity Jesus explains that there is no way to the father except thru him (belief in him). So a christian naturally dismisses any other way to God. There is some confusion as to what is judgment. Although I believe that if you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah you're destined for hell I don't think it's my job to remove all possibilities for you. You still have the right to think and do what you please until you wear out your body. Judgment is final and it's not my job.

In your three cup analogy you don't give the possibility that someone could pick up a cup and see if there is a ball. I think I've done that.

When I consider the lives and the teachings of the founders of christianity and islam I see the moral superiority of christianity. I'm not interested in detailing all the differences but that's the conclusion I've come to. When I think about the contradiction of the zen I think it is ok for prose or poetry but it falls way short of a viable philosophy that you could base significant life decisions on. When I consider judaism I think that Jesus is a jew yet no ordinary jew. I consider him on the level of Abraham; a friend of God.

You might think I'm being superficial and I can't disagree. In spite of that I've given the matter quite a bit of thought. I'm sure you have also. I apologize for not giving more of an explaination. I don't disagree that you deserve more of an expaination.

It's 3:08am houston time and I'm exhausted. Night.

Gene

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 01:31 AM

Piggy,
Once again, if we stop imposing our ideas on reality, which reality does not support, then the problems caused by our attempt to impose our imaginings on the world vanish with them.

It's kind of late and I'm a little tired but I didn't want you to think that I've ignored your thoughts. I think that you're really shallow; about like the atlantic. I'm a little slow, Piggy. I need a little time to think about what you've said.

Gene

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 02:09 AM

Pup,

I'd love to disagree with you but you haven't given me any room to. You've pointed out:

vicariously knowing something
thinking a matter out
peer pressure
intuition

These are forces that an atheist or a christian deals with. From my own personal experience I've consiered the diety of Jesus and dismissed it. There is not sufficient evidence to believe such a thing. That's not too significant an idea if you're an atheist but from a christian perspective I'm quite an outcast. The reasoning is that I believe in a different Jesus than what actually is and I'm as damned to hell as you are.

As I see it the truth is what it is and no one can change it. I do think that God can say something is true and it will be but there are some truths that are true and even God can change them. That's about what I believe.

Gene

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 02:19 AM

Vampire bats will act as blood doners to each other to keep other vampire bats from dying of starvation. Do undead vampire bats have souls? :wink:
I think undead vampire bats have souls but when they become dead they're souls are earased. How are those bunny slopes in the poconos? Also you've got very good looking eyes. Do they see as well as they look?

Gene

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 02:39 AM

My conclusions as to right or wrong are based on my feelings of empathy with and sympathy for other beings, an idea of "fairness" or reciprocity, and my desire to live in a stable society.

I might just as well ask you how God justified his conclusions as to what is wrong and what is right.

I think that given your intelllect, resources, reasoning and motivation that you've arrived at the truth. I trust your judgement more than I would lenin's. My point is that given those variables that some don't manage as well as you do. In most things I think you've come to the same conclusions that God has but you've taken a little longer to do it. I don't think you've had these same ideals when you were 2.

I also think that God can define some truths yet not to the extent that the ideals that you find true would change.

Gene

Roboramma

24th April 2006, 05:56 AM

Hey AgingYoung... I'll come back to this thread later, but I just wanted to say I really appreciate your posts. :)

kieran

24th April 2006, 06:09 AM

Roboramma,

I can't disagree with your impression that if a person is a christian they discount any other religion. Here is a distinction though between christianity and islam. Although I think the muslim is going to burn in hell I'm not willing to send them there today. I don't see it as my job to hasten the process. They on the other hand will cut your head off and send you to judgment, ready or not. In christianity Jesus explains that there is no way to the father except thru him (belief in him). So a christian naturally dismisses any other way to God. There is some confusion as to what is judgment. Although I believe that if you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah you're destined for hell I don't think it's my job to remove all possibilities for you.
...
Gene

Gene,

I think you need to face the following questions and think carefully about them.

1) You condemn the Muslim fundamentalists for decapitation - yet Chrsitianity, and most other religions, have been used as an excuse for similar atrocities for the majority of the the past two thousand years. How is their behaviour so different to that of a crusading Christian of the middle or dark ages? Does the fact that these crusaders stole, raped and pillaged in the name of their (Christian!) God, and in the name of Jesus, make it ok? Don't forget that if you want to go down the "we, as Christians, are all much more enlightened now" route then you'll have to come up with a new reason why enlightened Muslims are "damned to hell".

2) Imagine this scenario: You (personally) happened to have been born a hundred years ago, long before mass communication, in a country where a different religon was taught and practised (e.g. Hindu, Taoism) and you were never exposed to any other faiths or teachings, and so you knew nothing of Jesus as a concept. But you lived a good life, effectively conforming (unknowingly) to the teachings of Jesus ... why would you be any less deserving of a place in the kingdom of heaven than someone who led the exact same life but happened to be born in a Christian country? That is the crux of the "when you understand why" quote from earlier in this thread. Why has the Christian God put many millions of people on this planet for the past two thousand years, and only allowed a small fraction of them to earn eternal life by the sheer luck of where and when they were born? Indeed, what made you so deserving that you got pre-selected to be in the group that (includes me and) is "in with a chance".

Interested to hear your thoughts on these questions.

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 08:38 AM

kieran,

You condemn the Muslim fundamentalists for decapitation - yet Chrsitianity, and most other religions, have been used as an excuse for similar atrocities for the majority of the the past two thousand years. How is their behaviour so different to that of a crusading Christian of the middle or dark ages?
The christians weren't wrong to repell islamic invasion into euorpe.

Does the fact that these crusaders stole, raped and pillaged in the name of their (Christian!) God, and in the name of Jesus, make it ok? [I]Don't forget that if you want to go down the "we, as Christians, are all much more enlightened now" route then you'll have to come up with a new reason why enlightened Muslims are "damned to hell".I'm aware of the nature of the atrocities of the christians. They were wrong. There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim. When a christian rapes they're very wrong. When a muslim rapes a slave they have that quranic right.

You can't steal, rape and pillage (but you repeat yourself) in the name of God. If you want to do that you're a liar. Liars don't have a place in the kingdom of God and it's no matter that at that time they seem to be running christianity.

A christian is someone that follows the example and teachings of Jesus. When Jesus was kicked back and relaxed he taught some very interesting things. One of those things was to love your enemies. That was an easy thing to teach when you're relaxing in the hills of Judea. It's not such an easy thing to believe though when your enemies are ripping your back off. With Jesus there was no hypocrisy. He acted as if it were the truth no matter what the circumstance. That's a tough act to follow. Just because someone is a christian doesn't make me responsible for what they do. I have enough problems being responsible for my life.

Gene

edit

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 09:25 AM

2) Imagine this scenario: You (personally) happened to have been born a hundred years ago, long before mass communication, in a country where a different religon was taught and practised (e.g. Hindu, Taoism) and you were never exposed to any other faiths or teachings, and so you knew nothing of Jesus as a concept. But you lived a good life, effectively conforming (unknowingly) to the teachings of Jesus ... why would you be any less deserving of a place in the kingdom of heaven than someone who led the exact same life but happened to be born in a Christian country?

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

People outside of the gospel will be judged by the standard they have. They will be held up to that standard. If they were wise that standard will have a provision of mercy in it.

Gene

Roboramma

24th April 2006, 09:41 AM

The christians weren't wrong to repell islamic invasion into euorpe.
Woah, hold on there Nessie!

What Islamic invasion of Europe?

I'll admit to not knowing that much about the crusades, and that my main source is an old one (written in 1841!) but if you can show where he's wrong, I'd be happy to look at your evidence (it is of course quite probable that he's wrong about some of his statements, made 150 years ago, after all. But I'd be surprised if the gist of what he said is false.).

I get this from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay.

The Crusades were not an attempt to stop an Islamic invasion of Europe. They were a response to the ill-treatment of pilgrims hoarding into Jerusalem. Not surprising when a large number of European pilgrims were making their way to the "holy land" that eventually the locals would get annoyed.

But it was the oration of the Pope that was the most important. As he lifted up his hands to ensure attention, every voice immediately became still. He began by detailing the miseries endured by their brethren in the Holy Land; how the plains of Palestine were desolated by the outrageous heathen, who with the sword and the firebrand carried wailing into the dwellings and flames into the possessions of the faithful' how Christian wives and daughters were defiled by pagan lust; how the altars of the true God were desecrated, and the relics of the saints trodden under foot. "You," continued the eloquent pontiff (and Urban II was one of the most eloquent men of the day), "you, who hear me, and who have received the true faith, and been endowed by God with power, and strength, and greatness of soul, - whose ancestors have been the prop of Christendom, and whose kings have put a barrier against the progress of the infidel, - I call upon you to wipe off these impurities from the face of the earth, and lift your oppressed fellow Christians from the depths into which they have been trampled. The sepulchre of Christ is possessed by the heathen, the sacred places dishonoured by their vileness. Oh, brave knights and faithful people! offspring of invincible fathers! ye will not degenerate from your ancient renown. Ye will not be restrained from embarking in this great cause by the tender ties of wife or little ones, but will remember the words of the Savior of the world himself, "Whosoever loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me. Whosoever shall abandon for my name's sake his house, or his brethren, or his sisters, or his father, or his mother, or his wife, or his children, or his lands, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.'"*

It doesn't seem to me that if he wanted them to go to Palestine to fight off an invading army that he would be making this argument. Rather he'd probably be suggesting that by doing this they would be protecting their families, etc.

But I could be wrong. I don't know enough. I've searching the web to see if I could find any reason to believe that you're right (because again I'm no expert and admit you could be right), but haven't found it.
So, I have to ask, where's your evidence that there was an invading Islamic force behind the first crusade?

*Mods, I assume it's okay to post that long paragraph as this was written over 150 years ago?

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 09:46 AM

The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic Holy Wars to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades. The Fourth Crusade was originally intended to reach the Holy Land, but was re-directed by the Venetians against Constantinople.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Nessie

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 09:52 AM

The 'crusades' were a series of military battles fought all over the place and over 200 years for various reasons. For the reason of recapturing the holy land or Jerusalem they were very wrong. The papacy had the money to buy the land but they preferred to steal it with war. They were wrong there.

Nessie

Roboramma

24th April 2006, 09:54 AM

Wikipedia is blocked in China, so I can't use that link... (I was able to get through to it once in a while maybe a year ago, but they seem to have gotten better, and I haven't been able open Wiki at all for a long time.) :(

I know most of what you posted above, but it didn't address the question about the Crusades being an attempt to stop an Islamic invasion of Europe.

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 10:06 AM

Roboramma,

So they shanghaied your internet access?! :eye-poppi That's not right! I'll research it and post what I find.

Gene

I less than three logic

24th April 2006, 10:18 AM

There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim.
This makes it look like you’re painting with an unnecessarily wide brush. It also seems to be a very negative comparison that implies that every Muslim is a rapist.

When a christian rapes they're very wrong. When a muslim rapes a slave they have that quranic right.
Are you able to back this assertion with evidence?

Is this explicitly announced as a right within the Quran (Koran?), or implied?

Does this right come from contorting the writing, not unlike using the Bible to provide the right to keep slaves?

Do all Muslims assert they have this right, just the extremists, perhaps none at all and this is false assumption of their faith?

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 10:31 AM

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 11:23 AM

I less than three logic,

4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.

One of mohommed's wives was his slave or a woman that his right arm possessed. You can decide for yourself if the writing is contorted. If what you call an extremist or what I'd call a fundamental wants to ignore the teachings and practice of mohommed that's between them and .... who ever.

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed but I'm not interested. I've come to the conclusion based on quite a bit of looking into the matter that Jesus knew what the truth was, taught it and lived it.

33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

I find that truth morally superior to what mohommed taught and lived. You might have a different conclusion.

Gene

I less than three logic

24th April 2006, 12:43 PM

I see nothing here that implies the right to rape slaves. Do all religious conclusions include irrational leaps of logic? Let’s say you’re forbidden to eat chocolate, save for white chocolate. Does that imply that you should be allowed to steal white chocolate bars from a store? It seems to be saying that they are not forbidden, how does not forbidden translate into take by force.

I’m not necessarily defending Muslims, attempting to convey their superiority to Christians, or visa versa. I’m an Atheist through and through and, to put it frankly, find both a little silly. I just find amusement in how the religious express their moral superiority yet seem completely oblivious to their bigotry.

Here is a subtle example within your post. Notice how you capitalized the name Jesus, yet didn’t for Mohammad. Multiple times even. Mohammad is a name, and as such should be capitalized according to basic grammar. Although, you didn’t use formal grammar within the post, you still took the effort to capitalize Jesus when you typed it.

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 12:52 PM

As I see it the truth is what it is and no one can change it. I do think that God can say something is true and it will be but there are some truths that are true and even God can't (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1595157&postcount=155)
change them. That's about what I believe.

edit

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 01:16 PM

Here is a subtle example within your post.
I didn't think it was at all subtle. As I noted everyone is entitled to their own conclusions. I've come to mine based on the history and teachings of the two founders. Also if you noticed I've mentioned several times I didn't want to derail the topic of this thread along these lines. I'm sure there can't be much agreement.

Islam means submission. The very idea of forced submission is as oxymoronic as my screen name (AgingYoung; A. Gene Young). Your right hand didn't possess the white chocolate. Different people have different abilities to reason. You imagine mine is flawed. That brings me back to an earlier point. Given that not everyone has the same ability to arrive at what the truth of a matter is, how could one person reason that their version is superior to another's?

Gene

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 02:45 PM

Jeff Corkern,

This makes a lot of sense to me. I'd ask how could having a soul and knowing you have a soul change behavior. I'd even take it a step further. I think there are people that know they have a soul and even a soul that is going to be judged after they leave the earth yet you couldn't tell it by the way they live. One person has already made that point but it was a good one and I'm repeating it. Several people are waiting for some sort of response from you, Jeff Corkern. I'm very curious to hear your explanation.

Gene

I don't know how soul-theory accounts for empathy, altruism, cooperation, kindness, and aversion to murder. Maybe a soul-theorist can explain the connection.

But evolutionary biology is coming up with some wonderful insights. The development of all of the above creates positive survival pressures for social species.

In fact, complex social cooperation behavior has been observed in certain species of bats, who recall individuals who share with them, and tend to reciprocate with them (and to share with others who have no record, so to speak, with them) but to cut off the freeloaders.

Do bats have souls?

I less than three logic

24th April 2006, 06:02 PM

I didn't think it was at all subtle.
All right, so it was intended bigotry, which doesn’t makes it any more right.

Islam means submission. The very idea of forced submission is as oxymoronic as my screen name (AgingYoung; A. Gene Young).
Submission is a synonym for surrender. I would assume most submissions come by way of force. I don’t see the oxymoron here.

Your right hand didn't possess the white chocolate.
You’re right. Once they are slaves you can make them do anything. If it is not forbidden to sleep with them, then you could make them sleep with you as well. This, however, is a problem inherent to slavery in general. Not necessarily a right to rape granted by the Quran. I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is the case.

Given that not everyone has the same ability to arrive at what the truth of a matter is, how could one person reason that their version is superior to another's?

Gene
What is with everyone’s obsession with spouting the superiority of his or her morality? Why must one be superior to all others? It is not my responsibility to convince everyone that my way of thinking is correct or better than theirs. I follow my own ethics, and while they may differ from those of others, I see no reason to conclude mine superior or feel the need to force them upon everyone. They are rather simple, and include but are not limited to:

I place value in the life of others, even if I can’t see it myself. I realize there are many other people that might view the person differently then I do. I have no reason to conclude my life is more valuable then theirs, so I have no right to take it. (Unless a dire situation requires otherwise, self-defense or defense of others, etc.) This one alone is enough to rule out the sociopathic murder spree I should be going on I guess.

I’m generally polite and mind my manners. I use sir and madam (mama?) when appropriate. Don’t interrupt people when they are speaking, or raise my voice unnecessarily. Although, I must admit, these are increasingly more difficult to adhere to when upset.

Here is one that might seem contradictory to the last one, and can sometimes become entangled in an interesting sort of way. Profanity. I have no problem with it. My friends use it, my family uses it, and I use it. I just don’t find it offensive at all, its just words. However, I cease using it if I know it offends someone else. I think that falls upon the manners mentioned above.

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on whether or not you believe your morals are superior. The true test of the validity of your morals is how those around you perceive them. If everyone thinks you’re an [rule 8] then your standard of ethics is probably too low. However, if they only reason they dislike you are because your beliefs differ from theirs, then it is not your morals that need to be examined.

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 06:54 PM

Jess

24th April 2006, 07:04 PM

Jeff Corkern,
Several people are waiting for some sort of response from you, Jeff Corkern. I'm very curious to hear your explanation.

I honestly wouldn't expect to hear from Jeff today. If you check the forum birthday function, you'll see that it's his birthday. I would think that he's celebrating rather than checking the JREF forum. :)

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 07:07 PM

Jess,

I did notice that but when he's ready I'm all ears. I expect it to be a learning experience.

Gene

Suezoled

24th April 2006, 07:31 PM

I less than three logic,

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed but I'm not interested. I've come to the conclusion based on quite a bit of looking into the matter that Jesus knew what the truth was, taught it and lived it.

I find that truth morally superior to what mohommed taught and lived. You might have a different conclusion.

Gene

But Josh's dad said it was okay for his chosen people to keep slaves, sell their daughters, and put to death any kid who curses out his parents, or any guy who sleeps with his wife's mom (mom, wife, and guy all get put to death). Joshua himself thought it was cool when men left their wives and famlies to traipse around the countryside with him. Paul, one of Josh's buddies, said that the natural use of women was for sex.

If that's the truth and the life, ... yeah.

AgingYoung

24th April 2006, 07:45 PM

kieran

25th April 2006, 12:20 AM

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves

People outside of the gospel will be judged by the standard they have. They will be held up to that standard. If they were wise that standard will have a provision of mercy in it.

Gene

Gene,

Feel free to continue to select your quotes from the Bible/Torah/Koran for your own purposes - but don't expect me to see that as the be-all and end-all of the answer. As you well know, each of those books has sensible parts, idiotic parts, and much inconsistency inbetween. They have also been the subject of much translation, interpretation and mis-representation throughout the ages. For many biblical quotes, there is a contradictory passage. Why are you allowed the luxury of cherry picking and interpretation?

But a full scriptural debate is beyond both my wits and patience.

However, I find quoting you more interesting. At least it is possible to ask for clarification/explanation of glaring inconsistencies. For instance, how does your text above stack up against your text below (with my emphasis added) from text #153 in this thread?

Here is a distinction though between christianity and islam. Although I think the muslim is going to burn in hell I'm not willing to send them there today. I don't see it as my job to hasten the process. They on the other hand will cut your head off and send you to judgment, ready or not. In christianity Jesus explains that there is no way to the father except thru him (belief in him). So a christian naturally dismisses any other way to God. There is some confusion as to what is judgment. Although I believe that if you don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah you're destined for hell I don't think it's my job to remove all possibilities for you.

... are you just making this all up as you go along? :con2:

kieran

25th April 2006, 12:30 AM

I could detail quite a difference between the fundamental teachings of Jesus and mohommed

I'm not prepared to argue levitical law. As I understand it there are 613 different commandments and more commentary than you could get your mind around if you spent a lifetime with it. I think one of the greatest torah scholars was Jesus and he summed up the law like this:

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Gene
There are many personal "rules" by which I live my life. My own ethics, standards etc resonate well with v39 "love thy neighbour as thyself". (Gene, we've had this dicussion on another of Jeff Corkern's threads.)

However, I don't think you need God or his messenger to convey the wisdom of that idea (although you might need a poet to convey it any more succinctly).

Also, this second law/commandment (v39) is not bound to the first (v37). It is completely independent. I think that you and me will have to disagree on the importance of the first one.

Roboramma

25th April 2006, 01:38 AM

From the close of the thirteenth century a band of Ottoman Turks (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm#VIII), driven out of Central Asia by Mongol invasions, had founded a military state in Asia Minor and now threatened to invade Europe. They captured Ephesus in 1308, and in 1326 Othman, their sultan, established his residence at Broussa (Prusa) in Bithynia under Ourkhan, moreover, they organized the regular foot-guards of janizaries against whom the undisciplined troops of Western knights could not hold out. The Turks entered Nicomedia in 1328 and Nicæa in 1330; when they threatened the Emperors of Constantinople, the latter renewed negotiations with the popes with a view towards the reconciliation of the Greek and Roman Churches, for which purpose Barlaam was sent as ambassador to Avignon, in 1339.

Gene

I'm sorry. I was aware of that little episode. I didn't realise that was what you were referring to because the context of your remark suggested that the main reason that the crusades happened was to prevent an Islamic invasion of Europe - rather than one particular crusade being in part motived by that.

Because of this, I assumed you meant the first crusade -without which the others might not have happened - or that there was a constant threat.
Sorry for misinterpreting you in that regard.

On the other hand, how do you justify the context of your remark, that seems to apologise for all of the Crusades with that statement?

AgingYoung

25th April 2006, 05:43 AM

kieran,
Feel free to continue to select your quotes
from the Bible/Torah/Koran for your own
purposesYou are too kind. I can't think of
any other way to compare the lives and thoughts of the
two founders than to cite from the text that we have.

They have also been the subject of much
translation, interpretation and mis-representation
throughout the ages. For many biblical quotes, there
is a contradictory passage. Why are you allowed the
luxury of cherry picking and
interpretation?
The volume of manuscripts we have of the new testament
are greater than any other work of antiquity and
although there are differences in many of those
manuscripts there isn't a single fundamental doctrine
(teaching) of the christian faith that rests on any
discrepancy. To the point of the above text in bold;
you're going to have to be specific before I can address
it. I can't read your mind. If I could I'd enter the Randi.

I have never argued that right and wrong don't exist.
I do think that they can be discovered using your
intellect and reasoning.

There are many personal "rules" by which I live my
life. My own ethics, standards etc resonate well with
v39 "love thy neighbour as thyself".

I think that most people would agree with that yet I
don't think you understand the level to which you'll
be held to those standards. That level is absolute
prefection. You judge if you've hit that mark. My
guess is that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions.

I didn't mention all the possibilities and there's one
you might consider. You can dismiss judgement and if
it doesn't happen you're fine. If on the other hand
you find yourself in judgement there's the smack down.
God has that offer out there to any takers and you
can read about it here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Job&chapter=40&verse=14&version=kjv).

Other than that the only way to make it thru judgment
is with righteousness. Whether it's your own or it is
the righteousness of Christ that a christian has Jesus
will inspect it. Either way you have to go thru him
to enter into life.

Gene

kieran

25th April 2006, 06:49 AM

kieran,
You are too kind. I can't think of any other way to compare the lives and thoughts of the two founders than to cite from the text that we have.

They have also been the subject of much translation, interpretation and mis-representation throughout the ages. For many biblical quotes, there
is a contradictory passage. Why are you allowed the luxury of cherry picking and interpretation?
The volume of manuscripts we have of the new testament are greater than any other work of antiquity and although there are differences in many of those manuscripts there isn't a single fundamental doctrine (teaching) of the christian faith that rests on any discrepancy. To the point of the above text in bold; you're going to have to be specific before I can address it. I can't read your mind. If I could I'd enter the Randi.

Well not being a biblical scholar I'm going to have to resort to obvious an example ... why is the following biblical text not to adhered to literally: (Mat 5:29) And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (KJV)

I'd also be interested to here your opinion of Genesis compared to current scientific theory. If Genesis is a figurative description, then how do you decide what else is literal and what else is figurative?

I have never argued that right and wrong don't exist.
I do think that they can be discovered using your intellect and reasoning.

There are many personal "rules" by which I live my life. My own ethics, standards etc resonate well with v39 "love thy neighbour as thyself".

I think that most people would agree with that yet I don't think you understand the level to which you'll be held to those standards. That level is absolute prefection. You judge if you've hit that mark. My guess is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I think you missed a couple of words there ... "I don't think you understand the level to which I believe you'll be held to those standards" ... we are only talking about your (unproveable) belief here ... aren't we?

I didn't mention all the possibilities and there's one you might consider. You can dismiss judgement and if it doesn't happen you're fine. If on the other hand you find yourself in judgement there's the smack down. God has that offer out there to any takers and you
can read about it here (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Job&chapter=40&verse=14&version=kjv).
Are you saying that you believe in God as a gamble? Or that others should. I'd like to see the actuarial tables on that one! Also, what happens to you if you backed the wrong horse - maybe the Vikings were right all along! You'd look silly in the halls of Valhalla, quaking unders Odin's judgement, but looking for Jesus - why don't you back that one as well just to make sure? (Oh but we've been here before - you've already made your choice - which happened to be based on where and when you were born.)

Other than that the only way to make it thru judgment is with righteousness. Whether it's your own or it is the righteousness of Christ that a christian has, Jesus will inspect it. Either way you have to go thru him to enter into life.
Gene
Please start putting the necessary "I believe"s in your text. You keep stating things as though they are fact - they are not - they are your beliefs. As pointed out before, these are unproveable. Stating them as fact does not make them fact.

OK - I've tried to address each of your points. Now play fair. Why did you omit my main question from my previous posts ... namely your own inconsistency in the necessity of the belief in Jesus as the only path to salvation. Care to address this?

AgingYoung

25th April 2006, 08:10 AM

OK - I've tried to address each of your points.
Now play fair. Why did you omit my main question from
my previous posts ... namely your own inconsistency in
the necessity of the belief in Jesus as the only path
to salvation. Care to address this?

Other than that the only way to make it thru judgment
is with righteousness. Whether it's your own or it is
the righteousness of Christ that a christian has Jesus
will inspect it. Either way you have to go thru
him to enter into life.

Specifically Jesus said:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the
truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father,
but by me.

Jesus is that perfect judge that will judge your
righteousness. I did address your question but you
missed it.

I think you missed a couple of words there ...
"I don't think you understand the level to which (I
believe) you'll be held to those standards" ... we are
only talking about your (unproveable) belief
here ... aren't we?
That depends on how you want to define proof. In the
legal sense the gospel account is admissible (rules of
evidence) in a court of law. Now I could do the leg
work to support that point but let's pause a moment.
Often thru all of this I mentioned it was off topic.
I fully understand you won't be persuaded and have
felt that from the very beginning.

We could discuss the mythical nature of the norse gods
or those of the greeks and compare that with the
evidence of an historical Jesus and his teachings yet
the very idea that you'd suggest it tells me you
either aren't serious or haven't seriously considered
the matter. It's sometimes claimed that Jesus is a
myth yet the evidence doesn't support that idea. Most
modern scholars consider an historical Jesus a fact
but if you'd like to offer a differing opinion I'd
consider looking at it and the reasoning for it.

In all I said I've detailed not my belief or opinion
about judgment but the actual possibilities. It
either is or isn't. I've given you the point that if
there is no judgment you're fine. On the other hand
if there is, there are only so many options. As God
mentions in Job if you can whip his butt you're good to
go. Other than that if you can get by with your own
righteousness you're fine. That is given the point
that there is a judgment.

I've made the point that there is right and wrong and
with the intellect and reasoning you can find it.
It's no wonder to me that people come to about the
same conclusions about a sense of fairness with
others. The truth is that's the right thing to do.
Now if the only thing that is true is that most
reasonable people come to the same conclusion
(eventually) as to what is right or wrong then it's
strictly a matter of opinion. When you tell me it's
wrong for someone to smack you down and rob you you're
explaining to me your opinion or your belief.

If on the other hand there is a judgment and you are
accountable for what you've done with your life then
the right and wrong that reasonable people tend to
conclude exists becomes more than opinion. It becomes
a truth. Is the idea 'testable'? As the song says
'only our dying will tell.' There is an other option.
You can study the evidence that exists for one that
has claimed to have been there and done that. There's
no need for you to explain again that you've
considered the evidence and dismiss it. I got that
point and actually I suspected all along that was the
case. I would like to make the point that in my
opinion (or it is my belief) you've taken a very
shallow look at the matter.

Gene

AgingYoung

25th April 2006, 08:36 AM

Now for the sake of argument I'll give anyone the
point that there is no judgment. How is it that right
and wrong can be anything but opinion. It has been
mentioned that most reasonable people conclude that
it's the truth. I'll give you that point also:
right and wrong is a popular opinion

Is it possible that it can be anything else?

Gene

I less than three logic

25th April 2006, 08:46 AM

All right, so it was intended bigotry, which doesn’t makes it any more right.
What is with everyone’s obsession with spouting the superiority of his or her morality?

I need to think more about what you said.

Gene
Well, aren’t you a clever fellow. Sure caught me on that one. It is no wonder you continue to express such nonsense. When you take words out of context you can make them mean anything you like. While you’re thinking more about it, why don’t you include the rest of what I said. Like this:

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on whether or not you believe your morals are superior. The true test of the validity of your morals is how those around you perceive them. If everyone thinks you’re an [rule 8] then your standard of ethics is probably too low.
I can’t think of a better way to form that impression than by expounding on your intolerance. I’m sure many others on here would agree. Also, since you seem so good at manipulating what people say, how about you try reversing the prospective view of this sentence.

However, if they only reason they dislike you are because your beliefs differ from theirs, then it is not your morals that need to be examined.
Now I’d like to quote some text. I’m sorry, but mine doesn’t include numbered passages. Hope that doesn’t render this invalid.

You will do me the justice to remember, that I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
That was taken from the introduction of the Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. I, by all means, afford you the right to hold such opinions of intolerance. Just don’t be surprised if my opinion and the opinions of others about the merit of your character are affected negatively by your expression of such opinions.

Actually, I think I’d like to share a few more paragraphs from that excellent piece of writing.

When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.

When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but we have not even this — for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said so — it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief upon such evidence.

It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was given to the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods. It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more, and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited the story.
If you haven’t read this, I would recommend you do. I happen to own a hard copy, but if you’re unwilling to pay for the book you can read it here (http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm)for free. Unless of course, reading something that speaks unfavorably of your religion is blasphemous. Wouldn’t want to be responsible for condemning you and such.

AgingYoung

25th April 2006, 10:32 AM

I less than three logic

25th April 2006, 11:15 AM

In all actuality, I don’t think it depends on
whether or not you believe your morals are superior.
The true test of the validity of your morals is how
those around you perceive them.
Now I think I understand what you're saying. If
you're around bikers and hells angels you have one
standard but if you're playing bingo with nuns you
have another. I think that kind of sort of makes
something that might be construed as sense. I'll give
you the point though.

right and wrong (or morality) is a popular opinion
of the crowd you're hanging out with. Everyone is
entitled to theirs.

Well, that’s not exactly what I was getting at, but given your history of making irrational leaps of logic I can see how you’ve come to this conclusion. I was thinking more about your family, friends, people that actually care about you, and the public in general. I should have articulated this a bit better. I don’t know about you, but I, and the majority of the public, would consider the way the Hell’s Angels act to be more consistent with a(n) [rule 8] or criminal than a gentleman.

Also, I wouldn’t want to make the nuns feel left out, so I’d better mention them as well. Although they do provide some valuable services towards the community, they have a problem, as many religious people do, with trying to force their opinions on others, and having enough arrogance to believe they are better people for doing so.

I will note that it seems like some people are more
entitled to their opinion than others.

Gene
I don’t see any reason one person should be more entitled to their opinions than anyone else. Can you elaborate on this for me?

Also, I would appreciate it if you addressed any points I’ve made in their entirety, instead of just my words out of context.

AgingYoung

25th April 2006, 12:15 PM

I less than three logic,

As you see it morality is the popular, majority
opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong yet nothing that
you've pointed to would make morality anything more
than an opinion. Essentially morality is a function
of the situation.

I'd like to consider this superfluous statement of
yours ....
Well, that’s not exactly what I was getting at,
but given your history of making irrational leaps
of logic I can see how you’ve come to this
conclusion.

in light of your logic in this understanding...
I see nothing here that implies the right to rape
slaves. Do all religious conclusions include
irrational leaps of logic? Let’s say you’re forbidden
to eat chocolate, save for white chocolate. Does that
imply that you should be allowed to steal white
chocolate bars from a store? It seems to be saying
that they are not forbidden, how does not forbidden
translate into take by force.

I think if you own the store you can steal all the
white chocolate you want. Yet if you own the store
(your right hand possesses it) how can you steal from
yourself? If it's your slave you own it. Slaves are
considered property. How would you interpret 'are not
forbidden from you'?

There is a quranic justification for a muslim that
owns a person (a slave) to not be forbidden that
slave, even if they are a married woman. Or if the
married woman would agree then the quran condones
adultery. I have no idea how you could leap to this
conclusion...

I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as
rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is
the case.

given the context of my point was the moral teachings
of the founders of the two faiths. Who knows what a
muslim would or wouldn't do with their property.

So to the point of the moral teachings Jesus; taught
that you should turn your other cheek while allah has
given mohommed ...

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy
wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and
those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom
Allah hath given thee as spoils of war
the moral authority to wage war and take booty.
What I imagine you term 'bigoted' is what I see as
clear moral difference.

Now if morality is only a matter of the popular majority
opinion it makes no difference.

Gene

Pup

25th April 2006, 02:18 PM

We could discuss the mythical nature of the norse gods
or those of the greeks and compare that with the
evidence of an historical Jesus and his teachings yet
the very idea that you'd suggest it tells me you
either aren't serious or haven't seriously considered
the matter. It's sometimes claimed that Jesus is a
myth yet the evidence doesn't support that idea. Most
modern scholars consider an historical Jesus a fact
but if you'd like to offer a differing opinion I'd
consider looking at it and the reasoning for it.

The historic existence of Jesus is as irrelevant as, say, the historic existence of Joseph Smith, who lived close enough to the modern era that his history is in no doubt. Over the centuries, there have been lots of people who claim to talk to god, bring messages from god, be half gods, etc. Some have been more successful than others in gaining followers. But just because they exist, it doesn't mean that what they say is true.

Jesus's god only seems more real to you, because that's what you believe, for whatever reasons. To someone who believed in the Norse gods, or any other god(s), the christian myths about the nature of god, would seems as unimportant to them as their myths seem to you.

AgingYoung

25th April 2006, 02:56 PM

Pup,

The historic existence of Jesus is as
irrelevant as, say, the historic existence of Joseph
Smith, who lived close enough to the modern era that
his history is in no doubt.

People dismiss the idea of Jesus for a number of
reasons one of them being that he was a myth or even
that he never existed. Myths take some time to
develop but there's a record of a first century
church. I do agree that just because there is an
historical Jesus that's no indication to accept
everything said about him at face value. That is a
good point. My point is that is no reason to dismiss
the entire matter. The greeks understood that
their myths were myths. There has never been that
understanding in christianity from the very beginning.

Mr. Paine has numerous opinions about it yet his
strongest reasonable argument is that it is hearsay.
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule if
it were a matter of bringing it into court to try the
evidence yet in Mr. Paine's opinion it doesn't merit
examination. Most of what he says is strictly opinion
and his opinion of hearsay is inaccurate.

You make a strong point.

Gene

drkitten

25th April 2006, 03:38 PM

People dismiss the idea of Jesus for a number of
reasons one of them being that he was a myth or even
that he never existed. Myths take some time to
develop but there's a record of a first century
church.

There's also a record of 19-th century misrepresentations of Joseph Smith, promulgated by Brigham Young and the other early Mormon followers.

There's also an extensive record of myths regarding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and that happened only forty years ago.

Hell, 'Kaz' is telling her followers myths about what she was doing on 9/11, less than five years ago. And people are believing her.

It's never too early to start spreading lies, especially ones that serve your own best interests. And sufficiently gullible people will take your word for it about what happened at lunchtime.

My point is that is no reason to dismiss
the entire matter.

No. But there's also no reason to accept any of the entire matter.

Pup

25th April 2006, 06:33 PM

It's never too early to start spreading lies, especially ones that serve your own best interests. And sufficiently gullible people will take your word for it about what happened at lunchtime.

A contemporary example that comes to mind is Bomjan, the "Buddha Boy." It took what, only a few months? for his handlers to get things underway. My personal opinion is that some people were taking advantage of a situation where a mixed-up kid was acting out in a bizarre way, but regardless, a public following developed almost immediately.

Whether he gains a permanent following that outlasts his lifetime, or history forgets him as just another religiously-obsessed person, I bet you could find folks today who honestly believe he has some special spark of divinity, and swear that he can live without food. And they'd be just as sincere as those in the early days of any church's founding.

I less than three logic

25th April 2006, 07:26 PM

So very, very much to address in this post, just don’t know where to begin.

As you see it morality is the popular, majority
opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong yet nothing that
you've pointed to would make morality anything more
than an opinion. Essentially morality is a function
of the situation.

As I see it, yes morality is based on the popular, majority opinion. A good judge of popular, majority opinions on morals are laws, but I now realize a mistake in my logic. I’m taking for granted the area in which I live and how this influences the observation I made. The laws within my area are required to conform to a constitution based on many ideas consistent with ethical philosophy of humanism.

Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on our ability to determine what is right using the qualities innate to humanity, particularly rationality. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought.

Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on our capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to our social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

Humanism – Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism)
American Humanist Association (http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html)
British Humanist Association (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/)
Humanist International (http://www.humanist-international.org/)
The Philosophy of Humanism (http://www.corliss-lamont.org/philos8.pdf) (PDF file)

I'd like to consider this superfluous statement of
yours ....
Well, that’s not exactly what I was getting at,
but given your history of making irrational leaps
of logic I can see how you’ve come to this
conclusion.

in light of your logic in this understanding...
I see nothing here that implies the right to rape
slaves. Do all religious conclusions include
irrational leaps of logic? Let’s say you’re forbidden
to eat chocolate, save for white chocolate. Does that
imply that you should be allowed to steal white
chocolate bars from a store? It seems to be saying
that they are not forbidden, how does not forbidden
translate into take by force.

I think if you own the store you can steal all the
white chocolate you want. Yet if you own the store
(your right hand possesses it) how can you steal from
yourself? If it's your slave you own it. Slaves are
considered property. How would you interpret 'are not
forbidden from you'?

There is a quranic justification for a muslim that
owns a person (a slave) to not be forbidden that
slave, even if they are a married woman. Or if the
married woman would agree then the quran condones
adultery. I have no idea how you could leap to this
conclusion...

I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as
rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is
the case.

given the context of my point was the moral teachings
of the founders of the two faiths. Who knows what a
muslim would or wouldn't do with their property.
I’ve already addressed this; did you not read all of the post?

You’re right. Once they are slaves you can make them do anything. If it is not forbidden to sleep with them, then you could make them sleep with you as well. This, however, is a problem inherent to slavery in general. Not necessarily a right to rape granted by the Quran. I still don’t see the need to paint all Muslims as rapists, as you have offered no evidence that this is the case.
I still don’t see how “not forbidden” translates into “take by force”. I don’t even see how something not forbidden must be taken at all. I’ll assume it is not a sin (not forbidden) for you to drink milk; does that mean you must or even should drink milk? (This question assumes you own some milk.) This doesn’t follow any logic I’m familiar with.

The passage you quoted does not explicitly state nor imply the right to rape. It says you are forbidden to sleep with married women, except those that are your slaves. The problem here is with the idea of slavery, which already includes everything necessary for rape. I’d also point out that Christianity isn’t free from the taint of slavery either. Making it illegal according to our laws abolished slavery, not the doctrines of Christianity, and you could probably find quite a few Christians that would adamantly disagree with these particular laws.

The main difference I see here is the Christian’s genophobia-like attitude towards sex in general, where the Muslim’s have a far less restrictive stance, even allowing adultery. I guess if everything was consensual, the practice is socially acceptable, and it doesn’t upset anyone then it wouldn’t be considered immoral. From my own ethical perspective, I wouldn’t consider adultery moral since forming a relationship with someone includes a promise of monogamy.

So to the point of the moral teachings Jesus; taught
that you should turn your other cheek while allah has
given mohommed ...

O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy
wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and
those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom
Allah hath given thee as spoils of war
the moral authority to wage war and take booty.
Yet, that hasn’t prevented Christians from doing just that for centuries.:confused:

What I imagine you term 'bigoted' is what I see as
clear moral difference.
No, what I consider bigoted are statements like these:

There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim.
This statement implies that every Muslim is a rapist, or at least no better than one. To assign such a negative view to millions, perhaps billions (more then Christians if I recall correctly), of people using merely your opinions about their belief system and providing no evidence to support such a claim is bigotry.

Also, I see you’ve made another post.

Mr. Paine has numerous opinions about it yet his
strongest reasonable argument is that it is hearsay.
There are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule if
it were a matter of bringing it into court to try the
evidence yet in Mr. Paine's opinion it doesn't merit
examination. Most of what he says is strictly opinion
and his opinion of hearsay is inaccurate.
Hope you don’t mind, but I’ll consider this statement evidence that you didn’t actually read Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason any more than what I supplied you with here.

Roboramma

25th April 2006, 10:14 PM

AgingYoung, is slavery forbidden by Christianity?

I don't see it anywhere...

Is it forbidden to Christians to rape their slaves?

If not, Christians must be rapists, right?

Do you see the problem with that logic? It's the same logic you're applying to Muslims.

kieran

26th April 2006, 01:28 AM

Jesus is that perfect judge that will judge your righteousness. I did address your question but you missed it.

Sorry - I must have got confused when you stated (post #153 of this thread) that anyone that did not "believe that Jesus is the Messiah" is "destined for hell". :confused: Please read that post again - that is what I have been asking you about.

Now you seem to be saying that Jesus has a bit of wiggle room based on "righteousness". Your post (#153) sounds very much like you are claiming to already know Jesus' perfect judgement ... and you have not allowed any wiggle room there.

So it seems to me like you never did answer my question - just phaffed around making it up as you went along. Please answer my (now twice repeated) question and try to resolve your personal contradictions. :boggled:

kieran

26th April 2006, 01:38 AM

There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim.

This statement implies that every Muslim is a rapist, or at least no better than one. To assign such a negative view to millions, perhaps billions (more then Christians if I recall correctly), of people using merely your opinions about their belief system and providing no evidence to support such a claim is bigotry.

Hold on ILT3L ... I would be extremely surprised if Gene did not actually mean "There is a little difference between a christian that rapes and a muslim that rapes."

(Gene, feel free to correct me if this misrepresents you.)

AgingYoung

26th April 2006, 03:11 AM

kieran,
In one way there is little difference in that
regardless of the moral authority of the quran to own
people or slaves and to do with them as you please
that's wrong.

* 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden
unto you) save those (captives) whom your right
hands possess.

Quibbling over the idea of what 'are forbidden unto
you' doesn't address the quranic basis for married
women not being forbidden unto you if you own them.
I'll admit the term is vague yet there's no vagueness
in the foundational teaching of the quran and the
explanation of mohommed to

* 33:50 ... Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy
wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and
those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom
Allah hath given thee as spoils of war

wage war and take booty. Dancing around the point by
stating a conclusion of a sweeping generalization for
me and further changing the point to me and further
moving from a reasoned manner to an emotional one by
name calling doesn't address that clear moral basis
the muslim has based on the teaching of the quran and
the life example of their founder.

In another respect there is huge difference (not a
little) in that there is no moral basis for a
christian to do that. To make the point that in spite
of that lack of moral basis from the teachings and
example of Jesus that didn't prevent the papacy from
waging war is moot. Clearly they were wrong if you
judge them by that standard.

There are people that have been in remote parts of the
world with no interference with the rest of
civilization and have a moral code. They'll be judged
by that same code. If they've lived their life
flawlessly by that code and are perfect they'll enter
the kingdom of God. If what I suspect about human
nature is true there is no one that has lived a
perfect life. You could look at your own life and see
if that's the case. I know from personal experience
I've lied. I've stolen. I've missed the mark. I've
also told the truth knowing that the consequences
weren't going to be good for me. Even though that was
after I became a christian my whole life is judged.

If you were in court for drinking while driving and
every once in a while the judge would turn a way and
pull a pint out of his back pocket and take a swig you
might get a little indignant. Here is someone judging
you for driving while impaired and he himself is
impaired and working on getting even more impaired.
It would be very hard to take to be judged by someone
that didn't live up to the same standard they were
holding you up to. You might not believe the gospel
account yet the record is that after they ripped his
back off and nailed him to the cross Jesus asked God
to forgive them because they didn't' know what they
were doing. There's more to it yet he lived the truth
that he taught to his death. There is no record of
sin in his life.

Gene

AgingYoung

26th April 2006, 03:24 AM

Rob,

AgingYoung, is slavery forbidden by
Christianity?
I don't see it anywhere...
Is it forbidden to Christians to rape their slaves?
If not, Christians must be rapists, right?
Do you see the problem with that logic? It's the same
logic you're applying to Muslims.

The point is the foundational teachings and the life
example of the founder. Jesus didn't own slaves.
mohommed did. Jesus didn't wage war. mohommed did.
There is a moral prohibition in christianity to be
adulterous. There is the explicit teaching in the
quran that

4:24 And all married women (are forbidden
unto you) save those (captives) whom your right
hands possess.

If you own them or they're your slave it's a different
matter. It's clear also that a married free woman has
different rights than a slave. By all means draw your
own conclusions. Slavery is prevalent today in the
sudan. Now if it's a matter of you're right I'm wrong
and arguing over the meaning of 'are forbidden unto
you' then it's a game. For some in the world it's
more than that. It's quite real.

Gene

AgingYoung

26th April 2006, 03:35 AM

Once again, if we stop imposing our ideas on reality, which reality does not support, then the problems caused by our attempt to impose our imaginings on the world vanish with them.

I don't see any "right" here at all. <*Poof* Problem of determining what gives anyone a right vanishes>

Each of us must decide how to act in this world. No one else can do that for us. We can choose to follow a code of conduct that has been established before we were born. We can choose to select from many. We can choose to go it alone. That's just the natural state of things. I don't see any rights involved.

Personally, I also don't see the things "right" and "wrong" in the world, either. <*Poof* Problem of deciding "right" and "wrong" vanishes>

There are only actions and consequences. That's how I decide what to do -- I ask myself what the result will be. And being human, a member of a social species which has altruistic as well as selfish urges, and having to face the consequences every day of my choices in society, I try to do what I think will have the best outcome for myself, my family, my country, my species, and my planet. (Sadly, however, it so far has proven impossible for me to consistently do all that at once.)

Other folks will come to their own conclusions and do what they will. The Powers of the Earth will shift and change, and laws and punishments along with them. Talk of "rights" is only so much jabber, unless we're talking about rights in a legal sense.

But if someone calls the shots differently from the way I call them, where does this talk of moral rights get me? Nowhere.

The question of what gives someone the right <*Poof*> to say their idea of right and wrong <*Poof* *Poof*> is superior is a non-question. My concern is with the non-theoretical, non-abstract, very mundane and very real power structures that allow one group to impose its code of conduct on another.

I'm still thinking but I took the time to read this again. No doubt it's a thoughtful piece. I'm still trying to figure out how you do that <*Poof* *Poof*>.

Gene

kieran

26th April 2006, 04:28 AM

kieran, In one way there is little difference in that regardless of the moral authority of the quran to own people or slaves and to do with them as you please that's wrong.

* 4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.

Quibbling over the idea of what 'are forbidden unto you' doesn't address the quranic basis for married women not being forbidden unto you if you own them. I'll admit the term is vague yet there's no vagueness in the foundational teaching of the quran and the explanation of mohommed to

* 33:50 ... Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war

wage war and take booty. Dancing around the point by stating a conclusion of a sweeping generalization for me and further changing the point to me and further moving from a reasoned manner to an emotional one by name calling doesn't address that clear moral basis the muslim has based on the teaching of the quran and the life example of their founder.

Gene, I am now genuinely, completely and utterly, confused. :confused:

Name calling? Have you got me confused with another poster? :confused: Please clarify this.

As I said in my previous text, if I misrepresented you - just say so. I was making a genuine attempt at clarification. Hint: before you spout off again ... a suitable text for such a statement would be: "Kieran - you have misrepresented me." :(

However, just to clarify things, as I think the alternative deserves a :jaw-dropp , ... are you really saying that you think there is little difference between a christian who rapes and a muslim who has never raped? A simple "Yes" or "No" answer will suffice. :confused:

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer on who gets to make the "perfect judgement" call ... is it Gene or Jesus? :confused: Lots of words in the last message about perfect lives. All pointless. All you are saying is that Jesus is the only person to have lived a perfect life ... so everyone else has led an imperfect life ... so given identical degrees of imperfection, is belief in Jesus necessary? Reminder, you stated that it is in post #153 of this thread. Do you still stand by that statement? Sorry to repeat the question but you seem to be avoiding it. I don't need an essay in response. Just an answer.

AgingYoung

26th April 2006, 05:44 AM

kieran,

Have you got me confused with another poster?

An iranian friend taught me that. It's called talking
to the walls so the rats can hear. Just to keep
things simple, yes, I had you confused with someone
else.

are you really saying that you think there is
little difference between a christian who rapes and a
muslim who has never raped?

no, if I think I understand what you think that I
thought when I said that you said that... there could
still be a problem here.

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer on who gets
to make the "perfect judgment" call ... is it Gene or
Jesus?

Jesus is the righteous judge; I'm not qualified. I'm
the judge taking a few swigs.

so given identical degrees of imperfection, is
belief in Jesus necessary?

Yes. I think your point of that question was the
fairness of it; that being born in a christian
environment gives me an edge vs. someone that never
heard of Jesus. I honestly don't know why or how
that's fair. As that passage I mentioned (romans
I think) they are a law unto themselves and will
be judged by that law. I believe the standard is prefection.
Now if I were judging I'd have to include some mercy.

Gene

kieran

26th April 2006, 06:03 AM

Gene, thanks for your answers. My confusion has abated. As you already know, I can't say I agree with the belief in Jesus bit, but at least we know where we both stand on things. As for debating over religon, I don't think either of us will make a dent in the others position, it is a question of belief and ours are different.:o However, having said that, I am enjoying your (on-line) company and I look forward to reading your future posts.:)

Regards, Kieran

I less than three logic

26th April 2006, 08:15 AM

Have you got me confused with another poster?

An iranian friend taught me that. It's called talking
to the walls so the rats can hear. Just to keep
things simple, yes, I had you confused with someone
else.

are you really saying that you think there is
little difference between a christian who rapes and a
muslim who has never raped?

no, if I think I understand what you think that I
thought when I said that you said that...
I can assure you that no emotion was involved, nor any name calling, I merely labeled your statement as I saw it. It seems, however, that I owe you an apology as it now appears that I may have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I would still offer the advice of painting with a thinner brush.

there could
still be a problem here.
I’m not sure what this part is trying to say. Perhaps you could clear up any lingering confusion by amending your previous statement to mean exactly what you were trying to say.

As to the differences between the life of Jesus and Mohammad, given the examples you’ve provided here and my general knowledge on the topic, I’d conclude that the stories about the life of Jesus portray him as a more moral person than the stories of Mohammad portray him, according to my own ethical perspective. Does this make a Christian inherently superior to a Muslim? No, I think people should be evaluated according to their own actions as an individual, not based on opinions held against a group they happen to belong to. Along that line of thought, I wouldn’t be surprised if numerous Muslims behave in a more ethical manner than many Christians.

Again, I’d like to point out that I’m not defending Muslims, expressing their superiority over Christianity, or visa versa. I consider many of their practices to be immoral according to my ethical perspective. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to; slavery, oppression of women, torture, and unjustified killing (including both executions and wars for religious reasons). However, many of these practices exist within Christianity as well. You can argue about the extent to which each extend the practice, but then you’re just arguing for the lesser of two evils. Also note that while I consider these practices pertaining to each religion immoral, I do not consider every member of each religion an immoral person, nor do I express my superiority over those that belong to either religion.

I hope you can accept my apology for any misinterpretations on my part, and for the less than pleasant discussion we’ve had as a result. I also hope you take the time to review the course of this discussion, and perhaps, realize how one could interpret what you said the way that I did.

Roboramma

26th April 2006, 08:40 AM

The point is the foundational teachings and the life example of the founder. Jesus didn't own slaves. mohommed did. Jesus didn't wage war. mohommed did.

Okay, let me try to make what I'm saying clear. I'm not saying "Islam is better than Christianity" or "Christianity and Islam are equal" because I simply don't have the knowledge to make that claim.
My previous post was a query, though I admit, one I thought I knew the answer to, and it seems I was correct.

Anyway, we know very little about the life example of Jesus, but as you accept what the bible says about that, I can accept that you consider that to be the heart of Christianity. Fair enough.
However, you can't suggest that Jesus frowns on all things that he didn't do in his life, can you? Does he have something against owning cars, for instance? (Note, I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to illustrate a point of logic the best way I know how).
Since we can't assume that he was against everything he didn't do in his life, we can't assume he was against slavery. A better assumption would be that if he thought it was morally abhorrent he would have said something about it! I mean, if he didn't want us to keep slaves, don't you think he'd have mentioned that?

I know that if I was the son of god, and I could influence the moral philosophy of my people for thousands of years to come I would have mentioned it.

If you own them or they're your slave it's a different
matter. It's clear also that a married free woman has
different rights than a slave. By all means draw your
own conclusions. Slavery is prevalent today in the
sudan.
Which sucks, but you can't blame that on Islam exclusively. By that logic we could blame slavery in America in the 18th century on Christianity, and I would not make that suggestion.

Now if it's a matter of you're right I'm wrong and arguing over the meaning of 'are forbidden unto you' then it's a game. For some in the world it's more than that. It's quite real.

Gene, let me say that I agree that Islam has a very bad influence on many people in the world today, and I find that horrible. I also happen to think that Christianity has a bad influence on a lot of people in the world as well but I'd rather not get into that because I don't want to insult you, and am happy for the moment to agree to disagree about the influence of your religion.

In general I'm not very happy with what religion does to people in the field of politics.

You say that arguing about the meaning of "are forbidden unto you' is a game, but that's because you've already accepted what it means to you. If you accept that you could be wrong, then it's no longer "just a game" because maybe it is meaningful to say that Islam doesn't promote rape. On the other hand, if you are certain you're right, and that it's obvious that you are, then it's clearly meaningless to argue about it, and I must be doing so only because I'm looking for an excuse to say that you're wrong about this.

But that's not why I'm making the argument. I genuinely think that you're misinterpreting it, and that you're misinterpreting Christianity based on modern morality that isn't contained in the bible. I know you disagree with that. That's why we're having this discussion after all.

(and sorry I'm not keeping up very well with it. I get easily distracted... :P)

JLam

26th April 2006, 03:19 PM

AgingYoung

26th April 2006, 03:36 PM

Rob,

Anyway, we know very little about the life example
of Jesus, but as you accept what the bible says about
that, I can accept that you consider that to be the
heart of Christianity. Fair enough.

I agree we don't know all that could be known. The
witness John said, 'And there are also many other
things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be
written every one, I suppose that even the world
itself could not contain the books that should be
written. Amen.' I can give you that point. Not only
do I consider the gospel accounts to be the heart of
christianity but all of christondom does. Now if
you'll give me the point of using the gospel accounts
to humor me or for the sake of argument I'd ask first
that you consider it on it's own evidentiary merits as
proof of the fundamental teachings of Jesus and his
life. I agree it's a scant record yet it's all we
have to go on.

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or
Identification
General provision.
(a) The requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to
admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what
its proponent claims.

(b) Illustrations.
By way of illustration only, and not by way of
limitation, the following are examples of
authentication or identification conforming with the
requirements of this rule:

8. Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence
that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A)
is in such condition as to create no suspicion
concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where
it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in
existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.

There was a certain scallywag from the past with a
rabble rousing and unstable lifestyle who submitted
that the gospel accounts should be dismissed because
they were 'hearsay upon hearsay'.

Rule 805. Hearsay Within Hearsay
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded
under the hearsay rule if each part of the
combined statements conforms with an exception
to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.

Now some of the gospel accounts might be considered
hearsay yet that's questionable. There is one though
that can't be as readily dismissed as hearsay. The
eyewitness John testifies, 'This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.'

If in the court of your opinion you can see a rational
basis for accepting the accounts concerning Jesus I
will proceed with your several questions. If on the
other hand you can't I'll have to think about it some
more.

Gene

I less than three logic

26th April 2006, 08:58 PM

I couldn’t help but notice your reference of a “certain scallywag from the past with a rabble rousing and unstable lifestyle who submitted that the gospel accounts should be dismissed because they were 'hearsay upon hearsay'.” I believe you were implying this scallywag is Thomas Paine, considering your previous comments in this thread. Again, I contend that if you believe that hearsay was the strongest argument Paine used to discredit the Bible within his writing the Age of Reason, then I can only assume you have not actually read what he had wrote.

Also, you’ve gone through the trouble of finding and quote some rule of evidence for us, including Rule 805 – Hearsay Within Hearsay. You even bolded some parts you considered important for us, yet I don’t believe you understand what that particular rule means. The rule you’ve quoted does not exempt any hearsay in and of itself; this rule is dependent upon other exemptions to the hearsay rule. The rule states that hearsay offered within another example of hearsay is still admissible in court if both forms of hearsay are exempted by another rule. So in order for you to assert that the “hearsay upon hearsay”, or any hearsay for that matter, is admissible, you must point out which exemption allows the hearsay to be admissible in the first place.

Furthermore, I’d like to address your mention of John 21:24 to provide an example that John’s accounts within the Bible are not hearsay. Now, I’d like to point out the other rule you’ve quoted for us, Rule 901 – Requirement of Authentication or Identification. Selecting example 8 was a good call since this is the closest one you could use to allow for the admissibility of the Bible in court. However, notice that it must conform to all three requirements. Yet, since the very thing we are debating, in the court in our minds, is the authenticity of the Bible, this document cannot even pass the first condition. The very act of debating the authenticity of something would consequently create at least a little suspicion concerning its authenticity. To do otherwise, one would be guilty of circular logic.

Come to think of it, the whole idea of using the Bible to prove the authority of the Bible in regards to providing an accurate account of the life of Jesus consists entirely of circular logic. I would think the notion would be dismissed from evidence on account of Rule 403 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule403). For surely there are grounds for prejudice in using statements taken from the Bible to provide for the authenticity of the Bible.

So far, the court of my opinion concerning the Bible as an accurate account concerning Jesus, things are not exactly going in the “Holy One’s” favor. :jaw-dropp

AgingYoung

27th April 2006, 05:22 PM

Rob,

Aren't you interested?

Gene

Roboramma

27th April 2006, 05:49 PM

Rob,

Aren't you interested?

Sort of, yeah. I'll try to respond.

The thing about your response, Gene, is not that I disagree with you, it's that you only responded to one minor point in my post. The point that you responded to was one that I already said I would conceed for the sake of argument: ie. that since we were talking (for now) about the affects of your beliefs rather than their veracity, that I was willing to let go of the question of whether or not they have anything to do with Jesus, per se.

That said, I still have to point out that I don't accept that just because the bible says something it can be taken as evidence that it's true. I accept that Jesus probably lived as the most likely thing - it's easier to beleive that a religion was created by his followers than he was made up.
But that's about all that I'll take from the bible. Someone saying that someone else was a virgin when she gave birth, or that Jesus made water into wine, etc. is an extraordinary claim and requires more than just their say-so.
But, again, I'm willing to say, "You and other Christians believe these things, therefore they are what Christianity is about" and leave Jesus out of it for now. Basically I'm saying that I can't accept that Jesus necessarily taught those things (though I concider it likely that he taught something like some of them), but it doesn't really matter to the discussion we're having whether he did or not.

The main reason I'm not responding much right now, though, Gene, is that I'm not really sure what we are talking about anymore...

Anyway, if you want to continue the conversation, could you go back and address the main points I made in my last post? Particularly this one:

However, you can't suggest that Jesus frowns on all things that he didn't do in his life, can you? Does he have something against owning cars, for instance? (Note, I'm not being condescending, I'm trying to illustrate a point of logic the best way I know how).
Since we can't assume that he was against everything he didn't do in his life, we can't assume he was against slavery. A better assumption would be that if he thought it was morally abhorrent he would have said something about it! I mean, if he didn't want us to keep slaves, don't you think he'd have mentioned that?

AgingYoung

2nd May 2006, 09:28 AM

Rob,
That said, I still have to point out that I
don't accept that just because the bible says
something it can be taken as evidence that it's
true.
A similar case of this is when a testator states in a
will they are of sound mind and body. If you would
want to impeach the testimony of the testator you need
some evidence. The idea that people lie so it's
possible they were lying isn't substantial enough to
impeach the testimony. Sweeping generalizations
aren't adequate; you need something specific.

If you object to the evidence (yet don't deny it's
relevance) because it would be a waste of time
considering it because there is sufficient evidence
already available I'd ask 'what evidence are you
talking about?' I know the new testament can be
reconstructed practically in it's entirety from the
writings of the church fathers but it would make more
sense to look at the source they used.

There is no other event from the ancient world with
more documentary evidence than the life and death of
Jesus. There is also an amazing amount of
archaeological evidence. That evidence puts the
writings of the new testament in the era that it's
claimed to be written. I saw an exhibit at the
smithsonian that displayed the bone box of Caiaphas.
My faith isn't just in God or in Jesus but in the
ability of the historian to, in a forensic manner,
piece together the details of our past. I believe
that John's righteousness exceed the high moral
standard of a politician. I would hope most
people have a higher standard.

It's out of the realm of sense to say that the
historical record would prejudice or mislead or
confuse. One of the implications in that is that
people aren't smart enough to sort out matters for themselves.

A better assumption would be that if he thought
it was morally abhorrent he would have said something
about it! I mean, if he didn't want us to keep slaves,
don't you think he'd have mentioned that?

You can give people general guidelines or you can give
them detailed descriptions on how to breath. When
Jesus said, 'do unto others' and 'love your neighbor
as yourself' I think those ideas preclude the concept
of slavery.

I understand the tactic of not taking someone's
position seriously or giving them a point. If you can
reduce the christian's position to, 'it's true, it
willie willie is!' or make it appear that it's a
belief in a purple invisible dragon you don't have to
think about the matter too much. Earlier in the
thread someone suggested that my faith was a gamble
and asked why not odin or thor. My belief in God has
never been on that level. I wouldn't even suggest
that a person believe in God 'just in case, you never
know there could be a hell.' I would suggest that you
take a better look at the evidence and make up your
mind from there. That's a more reasoned approach than
to just dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Gene

Pup

2nd May 2006, 12:04 PM

There is no other event from the ancient world with
more documentary evidence than the life and death of
Jesus. There is also an amazing amount of
archaeological evidence. That evidence puts the
writings of the new testament in the era that it's
claimed to be written. I saw an exhibit at the
smithsonian that displayed the bone box of Caiaphas.
My faith isn't just in God or in Jesus but in the
ability of the historian to, in a forensic manner,
piece together the details of our past.

What I'm still not understanding, is how one can go from "There is evidence that the historic events in the New Testament were reported accurately" to "There is evidence that god exists and Jesus is his son and spoke for him."

Observers can be fooled or be mistaken. People can be deceptive.

It's even simpler to prove the basic facts about any number of currently living psychics, magicians, cult leaders, etc. by using witnesses, data, videotapes, etc.

But the fact that an honest person said, "I saw Uri Geller bend a spoon with his mind and it looked real to me," is NOT the same as "Uri Geller has paranormal powers that allow him to bend spoons with his mind," anymore than "I saw him turn water into wine" is the same as "he can magically turn water into wine through divine power."

Otherwise, there are thousands of people who've made claims similar to Jesus's, all of whom can be documented as well if not better, some of whom are living today. Why believe that Jesus was the son of god, just because he said so, when Joe Schmoe in the psychiatric ward is making the same claim, and you can investigate for yourself to prove that he's a real person?

I less than three logic

2nd May 2006, 02:01 PM

Well, you probably have me on ignore by now, but I’d like to respond to some of your claims in this post, too.

A similar case of this is when a testator states in a
will they are of sound mind and body. If you would
want to impeach the testimony of the testator you need
some evidence. The idea that people lie so it's
possible they were lying isn't substantial enough to
impeach the testimony. Sweeping generalizations
aren't adequate; you need something specific.
How is this similar? Wills are signed and notarized to provide for authenticity, what provides for the authenticity of the statements within the Bible, aside from one’s belief in it?

There is no other event from the ancient world with
more documentary evidence than the life and death of
Jesus. There is also an amazing amount of
archaeological evidence. That evidence puts the
writings of the new testament in the era that it's
claimed to be written.
I’m sorry, but so far you’ve offered no evidence. You’ve only presented anecdotal reports at best. Anecdotes may be sufficient to support that a person name Jesus lived at that time, was a good person, and could even be sufficient to show he was crucified by the Romans. However, none of this would make Jesus special and is, therefore, irrelevant. Thousands of people were crucified by the Romans, many of which, I would assume, were good people too. In order for Jesus to stand out and be considered the son of God, you really need the stories of, at least, the miraculous birth and resurrection. Stories which reek of mythology and didn’t surface until centuries after all this supposedly took place. Anecdotes are not sufficient to support either of these stories.

Also, what of Achilles, do you accept the accounts of his life from the Iliad? The son of a king named Peleus, and Thetis, a sea nymph. There is archaeological evidence to support a war in the ancient city of Troy as told in the Iliad. So why not accept the rest of the Iliad when it has similar support of its credibility as the Bible?

http://www.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html/

You can give people general guidelines or you can give
them detailed descriptions on how to breath. When
Jesus said, 'do unto others' and 'love your neighbor
as yourself' I think those ideas preclude the concept
of slavery.

Too bad you weren’t around to inform everyone of this when Christians were exercising their perceived right to have slaves.

Christianity and History: Bible, Race, and Slavery (http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm)

How about these taken from Titus 2:

“9 Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

10 Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.”

This, along with several others, seems to be saying slaves were part of Christian culture, but perhaps I’m not interpreting it correctly. However, I picked this one on purpose. Please them well in all things? Why does this not include sexual ways, are they not part of all things? Shall we conclude that Christians have a biblical right to rape slaves because one could interpret this in such a way? That was the logic you attempted to use earlier I believe.

Really, it is futile to attempt to rationally support religion, any religion. Thus, why we apply the term faith to them, because there is no other way to conclude they are true then by relying on faith.

AgingYoung

3rd May 2006, 09:51 AM

Pup,

My point from the beginning was the moral authority of
the christian vs. the muslim based on the life and
teachings of the founders of the two religions. The
question is 'what is your moral basis for doing what
you do?' In order to prove the point I asked that the
book of John be considered as an account of the life
and teachings of Jesus. The quran in its entirety
could be considered for the muslim. mohommed's claim
was that an angel gave him the teachings in it.

I think people impose their beliefs on others based on
belief of superiority; either moral, intellectual or
physical. Whether they have a 'right' to or not, it
is a fact of life. Whether there is a right or wrong
people act as if there is. Since the majority of
people imagine that they have the right to impose
their idea of right and wrong on others at all levels
the idea that it's theoretical is now *un poofed*. On
a practical level these are the facts.

Observers can be fooled or be mistaken. People
can be deceptive.
That is a possibility yet as a matter of jurisprudence
possibilities don't rise to the level of evidence or
admissibility. Analogies don't either. For instance
if this 'psychic' can be disproved then every
supernatural idea is categorically disproved.

What I'm still not understanding, is how one
can go from "There is evidence that the historic
events in the New Testament were reported accurately"
to "There is evidence that god exists and Jesus is his
son and spoke for him."
If you accept the evidence that is the conclusion. I
understand it's not that simple. I was brought up a
methodist then became agnostic then I became a
christian. As an agnostic I wasn't going to say I
believed something if I didn't. I think the truth is
that a lie is wrong. On a practical level I've had
slimey, stinking lawyers create a reality for me and
make me answer to their contrived existence. Now if
it's ok for them to lie it must be ok for me to.
That's how wars start. On a very real and practical
level if you let them slap you until they're happy you
can walk away with 1/2 your wallet. If you want to
fight they'll take you for everything your worth.

Idealistically the courts have a role to find the
truth. On a practical level that's not the case. A
good lawyer knows the law and procedure but an
excellent lawyer knows the judge. An excellent lawyer
with mediocre ability will beat a good lawyer every
time. It would be good if you could get politics out
of the courts but that's impossible. On the matter of
procedure I've had times where the truth of the matter
(that I witnessed) was deemed irrelevant. That's
enough to make a sane person scream. You try every
angle yet the court won't hear it.

Your question is a very personal one. I admitted at
the beginning that I had no desire to be anything but
superficial. What persuades me might not persuade
you. There is also the point that some people aren't
willing to be persuaded. As Jesus put it (in a
parable) some won't believe even if one were raised
from the dead.

Gene

AgingYoung

3rd May 2006, 12:50 PM

criminal insanity (http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/D0330F5D-8018-4E8D-8C487C2F09A501E6):

A mental defect or disease that makes it impossible for a person to understand the wrongfulness of his acts or, even if he understands them, to ditinguish right from wrong.

Gene

Roboramma

5th May 2006, 02:04 AM

Gene, I don't understand what you're talking about.

First off, when we speak of evidence we're not talking about courts of law. We're talking about a reason to believe one thing or another. The concept is better taken as a scientific one than a legal one.

If I asked you for evidence that of body Thetans, showing me evidence of the existence of L. Ron Hubbard wouldn't help much.
Do you see that?

To make myself clear: how do you go from "Jesus was a man who lived 2000 year ago and was crucified" to, "Jesus was the son of God"?
If I told you that I am the son of God, would that be valid evidence of it?

Would it convince you? And if not, why does the word of Jesus convince you?

Please try to answer without giving meaningless legalistic definitions. So far, I have not seen how they have any bearing on what we're talking about. Thanks.

Roboramma

5th May 2006, 02:10 AM

You can give people general guidelines or you can give
them detailed descriptions on how to breath. When
Jesus said, 'do unto others' and 'love your neighbor
as yourself' I think those ideas preclude the concept
of slavery.

Concidering how long it took before anyone made that connection, I think that if Jesus had any intelligence at all, and any compassion for the generations of slaves, not to mention the generations of sinners who would take slaves not realising their error, he might have made things a little more clear.
He knew who he was talking to. He should have known that they would not make that connection, so why not spell it out?
After all, a physics teacher could skip the first two weeks of a course, and suddenly everything would be lost on his students, but he could just say, "well, it's all there, you just have to figure it out".
Telling people something that they don't understand is no better than not telling it to them at all. If no one was going to make the connection between his teachings and slavery (and it is an ambigous connection) then we can't say that Jesus taught anything about slavery. If he had a problem with it, he should have said so.
He didn't say so. So, I assume he didn't have a problem with it. That or he just didn't care about the generations of people who would suffer because he didn't bother to mention that slavery is wrong.

I would suggest that you
take a better look at the evidence and make up your
mind from there. That's a more reasoned approach than
to just dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Give me some evidence and I'll look at it.

AgingYoung

7th May 2006, 09:45 PM

Rob,

Probably the best place to start would either be in
the middle.
If I told you that I am the son of God, would
that be valid evidence of it?
It doesn't make much sense when right before that you
dismissed the idea of reasoning to facts based on testimony
preferring , 'The concept is better taken as a
scientific one than a legal one.' I would think that
if you were the son of God that you'd have better
sense to think that history could be measured in a
graduated cylinder or weighed out on a triple beam or
destructively tested by maybe putting it in a pipe and
smoking it. Claims are subject to legal review;
legal review isn't null and void based on poorly
conceived claims. There is a slight amount of
hypocrisy in starting off asking for scientific
evidence of history then attempting to dismiss the
evidence with logic. Your claim or any claim is very
irrelevant to the evidence presented in the gospel of
John. L. Ron Hubbard's claims are (in addition to
being irrelevant) hearsay, unless you give him the
point that he witnessed these murdered space-aliens
that were once part of the local galactic
confederation of 75 million years ago, ruled over by
the evil galactic overlord Xenu (sometimes said as
Xemu). I don't think he's saying he saw that.

Give me some evidence and I'll look at it.
Denying the evidence doesn't cause it not to be evidence.
You have a lot of faith calling things that aren't as though
they were. The rules of evidence are a well thought out
logical system. Using logic to dismiss the use of logic
isn't reasonable.

Gene

edit: poorly conceived claims aren't evidence that all claims
are poorly conceived.

Roboramma

7th May 2006, 09:56 PM

Denying the evidence doesn't cause it not to be evidence.
You have a lot of faith calling things that aren't as though
they were. The rules of evidence are a well thought out
logical system. Using logic to dismiss the use of logic
isn't reasonable.

Of course it doesn't. So tell me, what is the evidence? This isn't a court of law, the truth isn't determined by the same means as people are put in prison, so I'm not interested in legal definitions. They aren't adding to this discussion.

Just tell me, what evidence do you have that Jesus was the son of god? I get the impression that your only evidence is that someone else said that he said so. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
If I'm right, please tell me, would you accept anyone's claim to being the son of god? If not, why not?

AgingYoung

7th May 2006, 10:23 PM

Rob,
.....
Now some of the gospel accounts might be considered
hearsay yet that's questionable. There is one though
that can't be as readily dismissed as hearsay. The
eyewitness John testifies, 'This is the disciple which
testifieth of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.'
.....
Gene

If John was deceived you have to give Jesus props
for that act. Actually an invisible purple dragon
in your garage would be more believable than to think
that Jesus hoaxed the world as John describes.

Gene

I less than three logic

7th May 2006, 10:36 PM

You have no evidence that what is written in the book called John was by him. Anyone could write “This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” Also, with all the inconstancies within the collection of stories called the Gospels, I’d, personally, conclude that the books were authored some time later, and not by people that had any actually contact with Jesus.

AgingYoung

10th May 2006, 09:55 AM

Well, this has been interesting. Jeff Corkern started
a topic but I don't think he had a well thought out
position. I'd point out that the popes that promoted
the crusades thought they had souls. That didn't
hinder them from losing their moral compasses and
striking out on their own. It's hard to justify
waging war from the teaching 'turn your other cheek'.
I think they might have thought Jesus said, 'do unto
others before they do unto you.'

Piggy, if you're still reading this I have a lot of
respect for you. You gave the most reasonable answer
to the question, 'how do you decide that the
conclusion you come to as to what's right or wrong is
superior to anyone else's conclusion? Or put another
way what gives you that right?' Most dodged the
question with questions. I appreciate your candid
admission of being criminally insane.

Most judicial systems can trace their origin to mosaic
law (do no murder, don't steal, don't lie, forgive
debts every 7 years, etc.) and those same ideas can be
reasoned to. A problem with reasoning to the truth is
motivation. People with a self-centered motivation
will reason differently than someone honestly looking
for truth regardless of where it leads. I think
stalin is a good example of that.

Rob, the dating of the gospel of John has been quite a
topic of discussion between skeptics and theologians
for some time. Books have been written supporting
both views. When I consider the arguments on both
sides I think there's a compelling reason to believe
the author. From a legal perspective the burden of
proof would be on the one hoping to impeach the
testimony. For example when Dan Rather had a document
about President Bush's national guard record and it
was later found out that the document was produced
with microsoft word it was obviously a forgery.
Something on that order would be sound grounds to
dismiss John.

Gene

Yahzi

11th May 2006, 02:36 AM

I was going to need another forty-five.
I object to your straw-man characterizations of rationalism. No society of rational people would sell you a gun in the first place.

I will forbear to point out that throughout history, people who believed firmly in souls committed the most astonishing atrocities from torture to genocide, often even allowing their belief in souls to justify their murders ("God will know his own"), desirous as I am to not contaminate your pure wisdom with dross facts.

Roboramma

11th May 2006, 08:14 AM

Rob, the dating of the gospel of John has been quite a
topic of discussion between skeptics and theologians
for some time. Books have been written supporting
both views. When I consider the arguments on both
sides I think there's a compelling reason to believe
the author. From a legal perspective the burden of
proof would be on the one hoping to impeach the
testimony. For example when Dan Rather had a document
about President Bush's national guard record and it
was later found out that the document was produced
with microsoft word it was obviously a forgery.
Something on that order would be sound grounds to
dismiss John.

Gene you're still not giving us any evidence. And your above example makes no sense. By the same logic, if anyone makes any claim, it's up to us to prove them wrong, rather than up to them to support that claim.

If I claim that my dog is an angel sent by god, it's up to you to prove otherwise.
If not, please explain why that logic is any different from yours.

AgingYoung

11th May 2006, 11:58 AM

Rob,
Gene you're still not giving us any evidence.
And your above example makes no sense. By the same
logic, if anyone makes any claim, it's up to us to
prove them wrong, rather than up to them to support
that claim.

That is the case when it comes to evidence. In the
case of Dan Rather and his allegations if no one
noticed the obvious forgery he would have been able to
use that forgery as 'evidence' concerning President
Bush to make the points he wanted to. When you
consider that matter you have to wonder why Mr. Rather
didn't do his homework. Some have gone so far as to
say he was complicit.

I'll reiterate some points...

The fact that false claims exist is not proof that
all claims are false.
Of all the gospels the one clearly not able to be
dismissed based on hearsay is the Gospel of John.
The evidence you are constantly asking for and I am
constantly stating is the book of John.
The bold in your quote is very true; as was the
case of Mr. Rather.

If you would agree that the Gospel of John is relevant
as described by Rule 901. (Requirement of
Authentication or Identification)

8. Ancient documents or data compilation. Evidence
that a document or data compilation, in any form, (A)
is in such condition as to create no suspicion
concerning its authenticity, (B) was in a place where
it, if authentic, would likely be, and (C) has been in
existence 20 years or more at the time it is offered.

then you have to consider the evidence.

If you don't agree then your disagreement is with the
forensic manner courts use to reconstruct past events
in an attempt to find the facts. A little while ago
you mentioned...
This isn't a court of law, the truth isn't
determined by the same means as people are put in
prison, so I'm not interested in legal definitions.
They aren't adding to this discussion.
I fully agree this isn't a court. The point is that
if the Gospel of John can rise to the level of being
relevant in a court by the rules of evidence then it
might be worth more than a cursory examination.
People (idealistically) are tried and judged on the
facts of the matter. That isn't always the case yet
that's the objective of the legal process.

For the longest time there was a new testament theory
that put the writing of it in the third century. I'm
not aware of any skeptic scholar that holds that view
today. If it were true then the gospel of John would
obviously be a forgery and wouldn't merit
consideration as an historical document. If your
objection to accepting John is based on a
predisposition as to what is or isn't possible (ie the
miraculous) I'm not in a position to change your mind.

You might consider the impossibility of your request.
It's not possible to provide a video or a notarized
document from the ancient world. History is
reconstructed based on the documentary evidence and
archeology. Presenting examples of various claims (ie
homer, your claim to be the son of God, L. Ron
Hubbard, etc. aren't relevant to a look at John; they
are separate matters and diversions.

At a higher level of debate the scholar would point to
the theology of John being rather evolved for the
primitive church (ie In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God...etc.). At that level the evidence is accepted
and an attempt is made to dismiss it based on more
points than you can shake a stick at. That's one
reason I explained I would prefer to be superficial
about the matter. At this level you still can't
decide if you want to accept the evidence or not. I'm
not interested at this level either.

Gene

Hellbound

11th May 2006, 01:45 PM

The Gospel of John:
The early church father, Irenaeus, recorded the church tradition that this gospel was written by John, son of Zebedee. Others claimed that the author was an Elder John from Ephesus. Still others, attributed it to John, the "beloved disciple." Throughout most of the history of the church, the Gospel of John was believed to have been written by Jesus' disciple. Most liberal scholars today believe that it was written by a group of authors. 6,7,10,19 There is speculation that much of the gospel was written by a single, unknown writer, and that a second, later individual reworked the text in order to make it conform to contemporary church teaching. "John" contains a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment. It holds the Jews and their descendants responsible for the execution of Jesus. It has largely responsible for inspiring Christians to violent anti-Semitic acts in the centuries since it was written.

Because of its theological principles and the emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God, it rapidly became the favorite gospel. It has remained the favorite today, particularly among conservative Christians. It was probably written between 85 and 100 CE, after believers in Jesus were expelled from Jewish synagogues. Chapter 20 appears to be the original ending of the gospel. Chapter 21 describes the miraculous catch of fish, and the reinstatement of Peter, appears to be a later addition.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ntb1.htm#john

85 to 100 CE.

Long after Christ was gone.

It's still heresy. Second-hand, at best, as well as suspect of being modified by later writers.

Ladewig

11th May 2006, 02:03 PM

Most judicial systems can trace their origin to mosaic
law (do no murder, don't steal, don't lie, forgive
debts every 7 years, etc.) and those same ideas can be
reasoned to.

Could you either be more precise as to what you mean by most judicial systems or provide some evidence as to the claim?

Hellbound

11th May 2006, 05:33 PM

Could you either be more precise as to what you mean by most judicial systems or provide some evidence as to the claim?

Just an addition to this, Mosaic law was derived from Hammurabi's Code, followed by the Babylonians. Additionally (and interestingly), the story of Adam and Eve in th Garden is very similar to the Babylonian myth concerning Gilgamesh, and the Noah story is almost a direct plagarism of Untapishtim's tale. The Babylonian mythology predates the first writings of the Old Testament by quite a while...the Old Testament was written after the Babylonian Captivity.

AgingYoung

12th May 2006, 10:42 AM

Huntsman,

Could you either be more precise as to what you
mean by most judicial systems or provide some evidence
as to the claim?Christianity spread throughout
the known world from it's beginning. Eventually
moving to Rome in the 3rd century then thru Europe.
Minds like Martin Luther translated the bible into the
common language spreading the ideas of natural law and
offenses against the divine. As the British empire
grew they spread the ideas of judeo-christian law.
That legal basis remained even after they lost control
of their empire.

Specifically in America the constitutional convention
cited the bible more than any other document as
precedent for law. Levitical law rears it's ugly head
in American law in the form of forgiveness of debt in
a sabbatical year (every 7 years) and in the ideas of
restitution. When I consider the words of the
founders I don't think that these ideas came about by
independent reasoning; rather they are straight from
Mosaic law.

As the aforementioned scallywag said everyone's
entitled to their opinion. That's mine.

Gene

Yahzi

12th May 2006, 10:47 AM

Specifically in America the constitutional convention cited the bible more than any other document as precedent for law.
They may have cited it by name, but they did not cite it by spirit. The Constituition violates Biblical law on at least half the Ten Commandments.

Greek democracy had more to do with our government than the Bible.

AgingYoung

12th May 2006, 10:47 AM

Ladewig,

Just an addition to this, Mosaic law was
derived from Hammurabi's Code, followed by the
Babylonians.
I've never taken the time to read Hammurabi's code
until recently. In the brief look I've had of it I
can't say I see any resemblance to Mosaic law. Could
you point to any similarities between the two?

Gene

AgingYoung

12th May 2006, 10:54 AM

The Constituition violates Biblical law on at least
half the Ten Commandments.

Nine out out of 10 statistical facts are made up on the spot.

Gene

AgingYoung

13th May 2006, 12:22 PM

Huntsman,
85 to 100 CE.

Long after Christ was gone.

It's still heresy. Second-hand, at best, as well as
suspect of being modified by later writers.
What leads you to believe that the Gospel of John is
hearsay? How is it that it wasn't written by John
when he was 85 years old?

There are elements of this debate that are as old as
time.

Gene

edit: 85 years old if he was born in the same year
as Jesus; or 75 years old if he were born 10 years
after Jesus?

AgingYoung

13th May 2006, 12:35 PM

Huntsman,

I've never taken the time to read Hammurabi's code
until recently. In the brief look I've had of it I
can't say I see any resemblance to Mosaic law. Could
you point to any similarities between the two?

Gene

Edit: I see this was your point, Huntsman. :)

Yahzi

13th May 2006, 01:55 PM

The Constituition violates Biblical law on at least
half the Ten Commandments.

Nine out out of 10 statistical facts are made up on the spot.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me.

Specifically refuted by the Bill of Rights, article 1.

2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness...

Sculpture and painting are constiutionally protected forms of free speech.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain...

The Constituition expressely provides for freedom of speech.

4. Remember the Sabbath day...

The Constituition expressely provides for freedom of assembly. You have a constituitional right to do whatever you want on whatever day you want with whoever you want. Including laboring on your farm, if you want.

5. Honor your father and mother...

Not in there.

6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Hey, look... four in a row! Well, except that the adultery isn't actually a federal crime. It's just cause for divorce.

10. You shall not covet...

Not in there.

So, even being generous, we come up with 4/10, which is less than half, which means my statistics are not made up. So let me reply with a pithy quote of my own:

Nine out out of 10 ********ters make up ******** on the spot if it sounds good.

AgingYoung

14th May 2006, 12:10 PM

Yahzi,
Thanks for the explanation although I did have to
challenge your logic to get you to make the point. I
was very curious why you'd want to steer the point
away from
Most judicial systems can trace their origin to
mosaic law
to the legal framework that founded America.

We the People of the United States, in Order to
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

Your reasoning and motivation is rife with
speciousness yet your main point of wanting to move
from reason to passion isn't lost on me. Since you
you seem disinterested in reason and want to make
things up I have to be honest; I'm not interested in
this Yahzi.

Gene

Ladewig

14th May 2006, 12:30 PM

I'm really confused at this point.

Your reasoning and motivation is rife with
speciousness yet your main point of wanting to move
from reason to passion isn't lost on me. Since you
you seem disinterested in reason and want to make
things up I have to be honest; I'm not interested in
this Yahzi.

AgingYoung, you made the claim that:
Most judicial systems can trace their origin to mosaic
law (do no murder, don't steal, don't lie, forgive
debts every 7 years, etc.) and those same ideas can be
reasoned to./

you then went further and actually brought up the U.S. Constitutional Convention.

Specifically in America the constitutional convention cited the bible more than any other document as
precedent for law. Levitical law rears it's ugly head
in American law in the form of forgiveness of debt in
a sabbatical year (every 7 years) and in the ideas of
restitution. When I consider the words of the
founders I don't think that these ideas came about by
independent reasoning; rather they are straight from
Mosaic law.

Yahzi may have been a little off by narrowing the scope from Levitical law to the Decalogue, but I don't understand why you accuse Yahzi of being uninterested in reason.

Ladewig

14th May 2006, 12:44 PM

As for the topic of Mosaic Law appearing in various judical systems, I have some questions.

(1) Would you like to open a new thread to discuss this topic?

(2) You pointed out that many of these laws "can be reasoned to." With that in mind, it seems to me that the only ways we can then be certain of most judical systems relying on Mosaic Law would be to either look for claims from the people constructing those systems (and you have provided a claim supporting your view) or to look for obscure laws or parts of laws that probably would not be precisely reasoned to (again, you give an example of the 7 years appearing in both the Old Testament and early American law). Do you have other examples to support your claim?

(3) You imply that the idea of restitution originates in Mosaic Law. Do you have a citation for that?

AgingYoung

14th May 2006, 01:07 PM

Ladewig,
I've found that if you have to point out the obvious
then there's not much point yet since you asked I'll
give it a go. The entire reason that Yahzi took the
time to make the point was what they termed as their
reply....

So let me reply with a pithy quote of my
own:
Nine out out of 10 ********ters make up ******** on
the spot if it sounds good.

I challenged Yahzi's logic to see if they would make
their point and they wanted to imply that I'm a
********ters. But they didn't even have sufficient
hair on their backside to come out and say what they
really thought; they hide behind some *****'s. They
can't even be honest about an insult.

I have no problem with heated and passionate debate
but I have little interest in reasoning that is mostly
heat and passion. They're mutually exclusive and a
political tool.

Gene

cliff notes: Yahzi's entire point was to insult and
used specious reasoning to get to the point.

AgingYoung

14th May 2006, 01:16 PM

Ladewig,

Would you like to open a new thread to discuss this
topic?

No, it's a very time consuming project.

You imply that the idea of restitution originates
in Mosaic Law. Do you have a citation for that?

There was no implication; I flatly stated it. The
founders were educated with the bible. Considering
the ideals that these men claimed to have acted on I
see no reason to think that they reasoned to the ideas
of justice or that they used any source other than the
bible they often quoted to come to the conclusions
they did.

Gene

Pup

14th May 2006, 01:29 PM

I don't get it.

Yahzi made a statement: "The Constituition violates Biblical law on at least half the Ten Commandments."

AgingYoung called him/her on it with a snide remark, "Nine out out of 10 statistical facts are made up on the spot," implying that Yahzi just made up the number.

Yahzi posted an itemized list of the ten commandments, comparing them with the constitution, to back up his/her statement, concluding, "So, even being generous, we come up with 4/10, which is less than half, which means my statistics are not made up."

Sounds to me like Yahzi is arguing from logic, and willing to back up his/her claims with facts. If you don't want little snide remarks tacked onto the end of posts, then challenge others with honest queries, not snide remarks, and you'll probably get the same in return.

Ladewig

14th May 2006, 02:15 PM

Ladewig,

Would you like to open a new thread to discuss this
topic?

No, it's a very time consuming project.

Fair enough. The original topic is so dead that changing the subject is not a distracting derail.

Ladewig,

You imply that the idea of restitution originates
in Mosaic Law. Do you have a citation for that?

There was no implication; I flatly stated it. The
founders were educated with the bible. Considering
the ideals that these men claimed to have acted on I
see no reason to think that they reasoned to the ideas
of justice or that they used any source other than the
bible they often quoted to come to the conclusions
they did.

Gene

O.K.
So, do you have a citation showing that the idea of restitution originates in Mosaic Law?

digithead

14th May 2006, 02:26 PM

There was no implication; I flatly stated it. The
founders were educated with the bible. Considering
the ideals that these men claimed to have acted on I
see no reason to think that they reasoned to the ideas
of justice or that they used any source other than the
bible they often quoted to come to the conclusions
they did.

Gene

They may have used the bible for some inspiration but you're wrong about the bible being their only source. Find any constitutional law testbook and you'll find that the Constitution is derived from both British common law and Roman civil law. Common law applied when there were no written laws, only custom that dictated it. Judges based their decisions on precedent. This is contrasted with civil law which is derived out of emperor's dictations to his subjects and judges based their decisions on interpretation of these dictations...

You'll also find that canon law, as subscribed by the Vatican, is also derived from Roman civil law...

As for mosaic law, it resembles much of the Code of Hammurabi which preceded it by about 600 years. Incidently, Hammurabi was a polytheistic Babylonian who came up with the idea that the accused are "innocent until proven guilty." Not bad for a heathen...

So while the bible may be a source of the Constitution, it is not its only source. Which goes to show you how truly educated our forefathers were. I especially appreciate their foresight to codify in the constitution the separation between church and state...

Piggy

15th May 2006, 04:34 AM

Considering
the ideals that these men claimed to have acted on I
see no reason to think that they reasoned to the ideas
of justice or that they used any source other than the
bible they often quoted to come to the conclusions
they did.
Perhaps you have been reading the bogus "quotations" being spread around the Internet lately by revisionist Xians.

I woudn't say that most of the founders quoted the Bible "often", beyond standard tropes of the day.

Certainly they were extensively educated in much more than the Bible.

And many of them held the Bible and Xianity in clear disregard.

Even if they had all been Xians, to merely assume therefore that they used no other source than the Bible when considering how to construct systems of law, justice, and governance would be utterly unjustified.

But of course, the record shows that most of them (with notable exceptions such as Jay) were not much concerned with Xian doctrine and generally not in favor of it, and certainly wanted it removed from influence in the government.

Some interesting quotations. (http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/)

Some others. (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html)

A few more. (http://monotheism.us/)

And a few more. (http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html)

I also recommend that you read Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli and Barbary (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html), unanimously approved by the Senate and signed by President Adams in 1797:

the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Hellbound

15th May 2006, 09:03 AM

Just to add, because I missed it, the idea of restitution is also clearly laid out in Hammurabi's Code...which pretty much shoots that part of your claims out of the water.

Yahzi

15th May 2006, 11:54 AM

Thanks for the explanation
You're welcome.

I was very curious why you'd want to steer the point
away from
I thought the Ten Commandments were a part of Mosaic law.

in Order to form a more perfect Union,
I cannot figure out why you highlighted that section.

Your reasoning and motivation is rife with
speciousness yet your main point of wanting to move
from reason to passion isn't lost on me. Since you
you seem disinterested in reason and want to make
things up I have to be honest; I'm not interested in
this Yahzi.
Quoting facts and numbers is not interested in reason?

AgingYoung

18th May 2006, 12:34 AM

So many points to choose from.... I think Piggy makes
a good one with the treaty of tripoli.

the Government of the United States of America is
not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
religion.....

Just enough from the context to make the point. When
I think about the idea of a nation that was founded on
the teachings and life of Jesus I think there's a real
test of faith. I have never made the point that
America was founded on the life and teachings of Jesus
but when you put a little more of the context in your
point, Piggy, it brings to light the historical
context of the treaty.

.....as it has in itself no character of enmity
against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of
Mussulmen

I see in that treaty (if you can call an agreement
between a nation and terrorist pirates) a similarity
to the pact of umar...

We shall not display our crosses or our books in
the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only
clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not
raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not
show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in
their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the
Muslims
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird
swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on
our- persons.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we
shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

After the American revolution we were no longer
afforded safe passage in the mediterranean by reason
of British treaties so we had to 'negotiate' our own.
It would seem a little kowtowing was in order.
Although the Jefferson administration refused to pay
tribute they were willing to pay ransom. I'm guessing
that the muslim pirates of the mediterranean weren't
concerned what the payments were called.

It didn't take a treaty to get western diplomats and
press to submit to islamic demands in the recent
Danish cartoons incident.

I'm thinking your point that
America isn't a christian nation
was a response to my point that our legal
system has a foundation in levitical law. I don't
think a nation could survive (at any time in history)
if they based their laws on the teachings and life of
Jesus. That isn't to say that the mercy and justice
found in levitical law isn't throughout the laws of
the various states that were joined together under the
framework of the constitution.

The complaints that some founders had with 'religion'
is based in their understanding of the history of the
papacy in addition to the treatment that unitarians
received throughout Europe at the hands of
trinitarians. I don't disagree with their assessment
of the political religious animal. A pure political
animal like satlin or nero is no different than a
religious one. The problem isn't 'religion'; it's the
politician. Religion is a pretext but the papacy
can't pretend to hide behind the 'religion' of Jesus
nor can the trinitarians.

Jesus had some interesting views of the religious
political animal of his day.
Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers,
how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being
evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of
the heart the mouth speaketh.

It might not have been too christian of Jesus to say
those things but I guess he was a little hot under the
prayer shawl.

Gene

AgingYoung

18th May 2006, 01:11 AM

As for mosaic law, it resembles much of the Code of
Hammurabi which preceded it by about 600 years.
Incidently, Hammurabi was a polytheistic Babylonian
who came up with the idea that the accused are
"innocent until proven guilty." Not bad for a
heathen...

So while the bible may be a source of the
Constitution, it is not its only source. Which goes to
show you how truly educated our forefathers were. I
especially appreciate their foresight to codify in the
constitution the separation between church and
state...

I do agree that the founders were educated men but I
think that common sense and the ability to reason
trump education every time. That same codification of
a separation of church/state (incidentally the wording
of that was taken from a later Jeffersonian letter to
unitarians) entitles the free exercise of religion.
You make the point that the founders were 'truly
educated' yet they didn't foresee the problems that
would be caused by stating there would be no state
religion yet people (who may be elected to public
office) would be religious.

The real objection the founders had to 'religion' is
found in the religious/political relationship in
england between the church and the crown. It's
further seen in the habits of the papacy thru history.
I don't think the founders had an objection to
religious people in government; many were. A key
reason for that opinion is found in the constitutions
of the several states that were joined with the
signing of the constitution. Most states had
requirements for the character of their elected
officials and one of them was the criteria that they
be christian. Now not christian in the sense of the
papacy or the anglican church but christian in the
sense that Jesus taught and lived.

Your point of
As for mosaic law, it resembles much of the Code of
Hammurabi

is very laughable. About the only similarity I see in
them are the fact that they are both written. What I find
incredibly histerical is the idea that the founders
(in spite of the fact that they were 'truly educated')
would even consider it.

I have no objection to heathens. Some of my best
friends are heathens. Heck, I used to be a heathen
myself.

Gene