Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Seeing as we've had a few religious debates in the last week I figured I'd touch on a subject I've wanted to discuss for a while.

Question: Can a society without religious guidance or a religious "code of Ethics" lead a moral life? In other words, if religion was gone would society be able to stay together?

To be honest I'm not sure. Atheists are able to lead perfectly good lives. The only law I've broken in my adult is a traffic law but, who doesn't have at least one speeding ticket? I don't cheat, steal, lie (on purpose),etc which I'm sure other Atheists are pretty "good" people as well. So as a society could we still keep things together or would those who can't follow their own moral compass degrade to less than civility?

It would look a bit odd if we looked the same on Theocracies and Dictatorships or even false Democracies in the same way we look at Democracies or Republics. Plus, its a mental state that any government who denies freedom or rights to it citizens or even commits acts of human rights violations such as North Korea is somehow our equal? Why should a dictator like Hugo Chavez or Castro,etc,etc be looked at as an equal to us? While the Jingoism is a bit of a problem but, really the explanation comes at depending on which aspect or incident you are referring too.

I think some of the Patriotism comes from the fact that we are/were a superpower and had sheer dominance over everything. Then we got complacent and the thought pattern didn't follow the bulging guts and sweat pants. We're like the Evander Holyfield of super powers. It's time to hit the gym so our mental state and physical state match up again.

Edit; I apologize for this mess of a post. Not really all here ATM. Points still here though...somewhere in that mess.

I used my rep to fix your mistake(wasn't going to use it anyways). You can give them the +rep you intended tomorrow.

It's called big brother. The "It can't happen here" idea is flawed. Censorship is more like a river it whittles away at whatever. A government with enough power can do anything which includes take away anything.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Gerald Ford

Too much power in the hands of the government will lead to this sort of abuse. One idiot, fanatic,etc can bring the building down around you ears.

Yes, Fox is a little biased but, it is no where near as biased as MSNBC. People on MSNBC have shown their cult like following of Obama. One commentator or reporter (I forget which) actually compared Obama to God. Even I felt sympathetic (and offended) for Christians or any religion that refers to a single "God".

I watch/listen just about every news channel from NPR (national Public Radio) BBC, CBC (when I'm close enough to get a signal), Fox News, CNN, CNN-HLN (Headline News). I figured if I take in as much information as possible then I can filter out the lies from the truth (like sifting Gold from silt in a river bed). A lot of people who hate Fox News never actually watch the channel for more than one minute. I disagree with O'Reilly some times but, the man does speak the truth on a lot of issues. He's one of the main reasons that Jessica's law was passed and that child molesters are punished for their crime and not just given a slap on the wrist for damaging a girls life forever. Neil Cavuto talks about economics and his discussions are intelligent. Brings facts about the economy and predictions such as "reports indicate that Oil may rise to $xxx a barrel come this summer". Other times he'll talk about what the private sector is doing and how that will effect the economy, Wall street, main street, etc.

Then you have Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck,etc These men are commentators, not journalists, reporters or anything related to those jobs. These men are paid to get in front of a Camera and give their opinions. They can use facts, jokes, whatever. These people are just giving their opinions and people love them and that is why Fox news keeps them, because they are popular and people agree with what they are saying.

Then lastly you have the Geraldo Rivera types. The guys who bleed and sweat for every story. Even beating a dead horse years after the rest of the media has forgotten about it.

Fox News gets a bad rap because they are more centrists in the political spectrum when compared to the likes of msnbc, cbs, abc, New York times. Liberals hate Fox news so much because it is more popular with the average citizen than the other channels. When your station does nothing but, damn conservatives as lunatics and racists (Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann,etc) but, in the same breath turn around and praise people like Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy,etc as saviors of man kind...you can't call yourself unbiased. Watch the channel with an open mind sometime. You may learn a thing or two.

I’ll leave you with this: When asked what cable news network was unbiased in 2008, one thousand Americans in an October 16, 2008 RasmussenReports.com Poll found that 42% believed Fox News was unbiased, 33% believed CNN was unbiased, and 28% said MSNBC was unbiased.


Anyways, we're derailing the topic at hand.

Its almost a fad to hate on Fox News despite the fact that they are just fair as any other news channel...with the exception of MSNBC because those guys are obviously biased.

On topic; These groups have the same rights as anybody else. Any person who truly believes in the freedom of speech or religion should protect the rights of everybody especially those you disagree with. Despite being a hard line Atheist, I would still protect their rights...no matter how much I disagreed with them or how unbelievably disgusting I find their rhetoric.

It is up to the person who makes a claim to prove that claim. Simply, "make a claim, provide proof". Theists have yet to provide tangible proof that their deity exists so by scientific thought. That claim is either false or just unsupported by the current evidence. This is how a scientists thinks and once proof of a claim is brought to light then the perception shifts to match the current information. This is why we have hypothesis, theories,etc



Science isn't about proving that God does/doesn't exist but, about supporting claims and gathering information on the surrounding environment. Just because science (A.k.a. Humans) haven't discovered the answer to everything doesn't mean we have discovered nothing.



Two words, Russell's Teapot. The burden of proof does not rest on the skeptic but, rather on the person making the claim. Religious people can not provide scientific or materialistic proof that their God Exists. Until they do, their God does not exist in the eyes of the scientific community. Is it really that absurd to demand proof of a persons claim? The rest of society does this and yet, when we apply this to religion somehow it makes the entire system irrelevant.



The "I can't prove I exist, therefore I don't" sounds like convoluted, existential nonsense.

G-Money I'm surprised that you think "rebounding" is a too good to be true. In the simplest description it is the emotional trashcan but, when are emotional issues ever 'simple"? They're not, they are complex, irrational and illogical.

Rebounds are never meant to work they are done solely to block out the painful feelings of the original break up

http://www.thesite.org/sexandrelationships/singles/onthepull/ontherebound

You people are trying to give a universal definition of something that in itself has no set definition.

The community is a rather intelligent one so the likely-hood of such a schism developing is a decimal so small or perhaps large that we haven't even developed a method to record it. An example of the understanding people have is Whitelion and myself. Politically (and apparently religiously) we are polar opposites. Yet, we are rather friendly rivals almost brothers but, when we agree the argument is over in a sense.

Anyways, the point of the matter is that this is highly unlikely considering what the community has been through in the past.

That's a God I can get behind, under, on top of or any manner of positions

Why did I get the one that says

"this is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun"

I believe we have a winner.

Wait, what...?

Okay I edit what I said in the "respect beliefs thread" Whitelion is the exception (If he is a "believer") other than that, the statement stands. Anyways +rep

Okay for my argument let me start off with this question and I want everybody to think about this:

Why do we not teach alchemy, phrenology, flat earth or other "truths" of the past?

The reason is because we have gathered evidence that proved that these "truths" were in fact entinrely wrong or not wholly correct.

Atheist as a whole generally believe in the gathering of evidence to support a claim. If I claimed I could move a box with my mind then people would expect evidence or even a demonstration of this claim.

The mistake that religious people make is that they claim there is a God (non specific God) but, refuse to bring evidence of it's existence to the table. I can prove a penguin exist by taking you to a penguin either in a zoo or in the wild but, the only "proof" religious people (I'll use Christianity for this example) have to their claim is a book that was written over two thousand years ago. This is the adult form of a kids argument of "Air is invisible,etc how do you know its there" or "My imaginary friend exist but, only I can see or talk to them. So you'll just have to accept that it does."

Why do we not accept "Faith" as a reason that God exists? Lets take a look at Dictionary.com's definition of "faith" (As I continue my argument I'll be using definition number two as the base.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Faith

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I'll go ahead and ask every Christian on these boards. How is your religion any better than the religions of the past? These include but, aren't limited to Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, Sikh, Baha'i, Jain, Zoroastrianism, Rastafarian, Scientology, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, Neo-Pagan, etc. While some of these don't really fit the discussion but, it does prove my point. Nearly every religion since the beginning of society has claimed that their god watches over us, rewards/punishes us based on our actions. Some have disappeared entirely while some are fading yours is no different. In an era where science and reason are the rules of the day Faith has no place anywhere but, within your own heart to guide your own actions of your own life. I do not push my beliefs on others but, if you want me to believe your claim that a God exists then you must bring me tangible evidence. We use evidence in our scientific pursuits, in our laws and courts and yet, we are quested when we demand evidence of a God.

I'll change gears here and change subjects. I personally am an Atheist and I am proud of that. When I was younger I was a Sunday School going, bright eyed little boy until I started developing my desire to know the why's and how's behind the already existing "why's and hows". Religion couldn't provide those answers but science and logic did.

In conclusion I'll answer "Why do Atheist scrutinize Religion"? The answer is because Theist want to play baseball with the Atheists but, want to make the rules up as they go along.

Two words. Information & Technology. I'll use the Christian Church in Europe as my example.

The church controlled nearly ALL information within Western Europe. Only the Clergy could read or write. They had the information and when the people wanted answers they went to the church which didn't have every single answer but, instead a single answer to everything. This happened with every religion since the beginnings of society. Everyone from the tribes of Africa to the tribes of North America the "Holy Men" had the answers. As technology improved and information began to flow more fluidly we began to move away from religion as a whole.

i don't really know how relavent this is but, I'll point to maslow's hierarchy of needs (google it). People are reaching self-actualization because our society is giving us the opportunity. in areas where religion is still the center of society the basic needs are not being met somewhere on the pyramid which prevents their "growth".

I watched both DN and GL and personally I have to go with Death Note. The eccentric methods of "L" intrigued me and if there is anybody I would wish to become in anime it would be "L".

I enjoyed the cat/mouse games of Kira/L. As Kira is trying to avoid capture by "L" while simultaneously working beside him trying to gain his trust so he can kill him. While scenes like the potato chip are stupid they shouldn't be used to judge an entire anime.

While I watched GL I was interested in it up until...the moon incident than I just threw my hands up and said "This show has officially jumped the shark". A few episodes after wards I quit. I never finished the series but, I loved up until what I will call the middle before one of the good guys went all..personality change on simon. (I'm being vague so those who watch the show know what I am talking about while those who haven't will still be in the dark).

It'd play out like this

"Hey! mini me"

"Uh, wait, who are you and what the hell do you want?"

'Who I am isn't important, as I don't want the space time continuum to cave in on itself. I'm here to give you advice. First, you'll meet a dark haired girl when your 15. You'll think about it but, don't date her. It's about as smart as shaving with a belt sander. Go with the nerdy blond girl who likes star trek after you even out your anger issues. I know hormones and shit are strong and you feel like a bomb about to explode but, if you manage that. You'll score yourself a nice girlfriend who won't play you for a fool. Also, when you graduate head straight to college. Go with political science. Don't put it off because you'll just fuck everything up. In 2006, join a website called 'Fakku' and name yourself Fiery_penguin_of_Doom

Oh I almost forgot, put this on"

*hands lil FPoD a helmet*

"Whats this for?"

"life is going to suck so put this on and keep your head down."

"Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns"

Here in America, only a small percent of legally bought guns are ever used to commit a crime either through acts of desperation of impulse. So should those few people who break the law with their guns spoil it for everybody? Why should a law abiding citizen have to pay for the actions of somebody else who made a poor choice? The formula is

Subject (A) harms Subject (B) so by the actions of Subject (A) we should punish Subjects C,D,E,F,etc. Another example of this is what RBZ gave, If somebody killed somebody with an object anything from a paperclip to a chainsaw then by the same formula you would have to ban the use of that item for everybody else.

On the topic of gang violence and other peoples uses of the weapon. Even if you somehow managed to ban every single firearm from the hands of citizens, close down gun and bullet manufacturers have tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. Then the gangs and drug cartels will still have guns and bullets. They will have better stuff than the police departments and still almost on part with the military when it comes to small arms. The correct (and most intelligent) solution is these people are breaking the law by themselves. You punish them for misuse of firearms not the average citizen who purchased a gun in order to feel safe, to hunt for food or whatever legal reason they have for deciding to own a firearm.

Regardless of your philosophy The Bill of rights says clearly that we have a right to own a gun to protect themselves. There is no argument to be had on this line of thought. The founding fathers knew what oppression meant and gave us the right to protect ourselves from threats outside the country and from within.

Yes, a gun is designed to wound or kill something but, sometimes you have to wound or kill something to feed or protect yourself or your family.

In the end, we have many regulations and controls on who purchases a gun to the ire of many anti-gun control people. Stores that skip or dismiss or otherwise ignore those regulations should be closed for breaking the law.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/323557_guns13.html