The adherents of one crowd very often don’t care at all about the positions of the sibling crowds

Freelancer and baseless assumptions have become synonymous, haven’t they?

I grew up to be an expert liar, because I learned moral relativism

That speaks a lot more about you as a person than moral relativism. Other people are perfectly capable of controlling their own lives in a way where they don’t lie (like you) without the need of some external force telling them what to do.

When the only reason a parent can give for why you should do right is “Because I say so”, or “Because you’ll get in trouble otherwise”

Freelancer on July 10, 2007 at 5:23 AM

As opposed to The Bible saying “because I say so” or “because you’ll go to hell otherwise.” When you realize that every moral enforcer uses these exact same excuses you’ll really know “the Truth.”

By the way, MissAnthrope, I would be very interested to hear the personal story you mentioned.

mikeyboss on July 10, 2007 at 3:36 AM

you got it, mikeyboss.

i was fortunate to have been raised by 2 of the most moral & amazing people i’ve ever known. i try to be like them every day.

i lost my dad 1 year ago. july 4th.

by last july, i’d already had 2 major medical diagnoses & lost a close friend, who was in her early 50′s.

i spent the last 2 weeks of his life caring for him. it was the hardest thing to do, watching him die. i still hurt from that.

just as i was figuring out how to live without my hero, i had a third diagnosis, surgery, & 6 weeks out from work.

that should be enough for 1 year, right? wrong.

in january, my sister’s husband was murdered. he had just celebrated his birthday.

my sister & he had just separated, but i thought of him as my brother. he was my rock when my husband couldn’t be after dad passed away.

think that’s it? nope. less than 1 month after the murder, my sister moves some stupid 20-y-o into her house (yes, as her boyfriend).

i was outraged…i still am. everything else aside, she violated the sanctity of her marriage and her husband’s memory by doing that. i think it is selfish and stupid pull a stunt like that.

you can imagine, when the family needs to come closer together, how devastating her decision was to us. my siblings & i don’t talk to her (5 months), but my mom is trying to keep her out of total isolation, under the rule of discretion: see, hear, speak of no kid.

they both may be ‘technically’ adults, and she was separated at the time, but why do those excuses rationalize what she’s done?

because it doesn’t. i was more distraught at her husband’s murder, and i didn’t replace my husband. i’ve had marital difficulties, and i didn’t find someone before divorce proceedings or ask for a divorce…i worked with the hubby on the problems.

this is just so out of character for our family, and she knew better. she texts me just to bring up all my pain, but i don’t reply.

she’s lucky i don’t, ’cause i’d do what dad would’ve done – i’d rip her a new one for her juvenile behavior.

i know i’m not the only one who goes through this kinda stuff…i just could’ve used some time in between to breathe.

maybe this is not the best example now that i have it down.

Universal truth? Rule? good sense? and what day is the Sabbath? Friday? Saturday? Sunday?

Romeo13 on July 9, 2007 at 4:34 PM

Just to answer the easy one, the day we call Saturday is the original Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. The reason Christians worship on Sunday, the first day of the week, is in reverence for Resurrection day. Those two combined, through tradition, are responsible for why there has been a 5-day business week throughout most of the civilized world for a very long time. Holding onto the Old Testament consideration for the seventh day as a day of rest, and revering the first day for worship of Jesus the Christ.

As a side note, you will find that among all of Jesus’ words in the New Testament, he reaffirms each of the Ten Commandments with the exception of that regarding the first day of the week. Some speculate that this was in anticipation of the new tradition to worship on Sunday, while others ascribe no particular meaning to it at all.

I am a Deist and I think G. Gordon Liddy and Ted Nugent are moderates. :)

TheSitRep on July 9, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Heh. Youch. Don’t let Ted know, he’d have to turn it up a notch. And watch out for arrows.

csdeven, I think this is mostly (ahem), just one crowd.

Jaibones on July 9, 2007 at 10:47 AM

No, Jaibones, he’s right. There is an environmentalist crowd, a GLBT crowd, an anti-war crowd, a feminist crowd, an anti-life crowd, a strident minority-rights crowd, etc. Each operates on a stand-alone single-issue agenda. But they all show up for each other’s rallies, marches, protests, in order to grant the appearance of a greater volume of support.

The adherents of one crowd very often don’t care at all about the positions of the sibling crowds, but under the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, they all join together against the mean-spirited conservatives (and right-leaning libertarians). The only thing these groups share is a dedication to Stalinist non-choice (except for abortion, which is the only issue they are universally in agreement on). Every other issue is a “you must do it OUR WAY” crowd.

The reason I’m being this basic is because it’s important to note that religion and morals can go together, but are not automatically tied together. Did many of us get our morals through religious teachings? Absolutely. Does it mean that you HAVE to learn that way? Not necessarily, if you’re raised properly.

Miss_Anthrope on July 9, 2007 at 1:34 PM

I was raised by two parents who did not believe in religion. They both expressed a belief in God, but never lived it in the least. I grew up to be an expert liar, because I learned moral relativism, even though it was never explicitly called that. If the potential consequences of getting caught were worth the momentary satiation of a particular appetite, and the risk seems minimal, then anything goes. I didn’t, of course, reason it out that clearly then, but that’s what it was. When the only reason a parent can give for why you should do right is “Because I say so”, or “Because you’ll get in trouble otherwise”, with no appelation to a foundational moral standard, it leaves far too much gray area for rationalizing and justifying anything you ‘really want to do’. This is especially so once a child begins to recognize hypocrisy in the parents’ actions. If their words alone are your moral foundation, it crumbles when you find out how imperfect they are.

After I learned the Truth, and was faced with the enormity of my sins, realizing that before the Righteous Judge there are no rationalizations, no justifications, I discovered the real reason why one should do right:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

- Ephesians 2:10

My children know that I am not the source of their reasons for proper behavior, that I am inadequate to be such an anchor, but that there is One who is more than adequate.

On topic, I would suggest that Ellison’s reasons for engaging the atheist crowd are less about elevating Muslims, and more about attempting to diminish Christianity, and simultaneously less about granting any credibility to truthers, and more about beating on the President. And of course the atheists will call me paranoid, as if I really cared what Ellison does or why.

Miss I actually meant cliche as word play but also because the strawman, ad hominen rebuttals seemed to be used far to often of late. Most likely the result of the pc movenment. But Touche’
=D

frreal on July 9, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Believe it or not, I actually thought that was how you meant it the first time I read it. We think somewhat alike, though it seems we probably disagree on the subject at the heart of this thread.

I spent a while on an atheist website last summer. Most commenters there made the point that, by their definition, “atheist” simply means one without a belief in any god. This definition would include agnostics. I think the “stronger” definition, in the sense of one who affirmatively denies there is a god, is the one more commonly understood, but in my opinion it is more worthwhile to hear someone out about his/her beliefs than to pigeonhole them based on such a label.

I’ve been very heartened at the (generally) respectful tone of the debate on this and other similar threads here at HotAir.

I happen to be a believer who doesn’t think he has all the answers, and doesn’t expect to in this lifetime. I’ve learned a lot from atheists, and some (such as Hitchens, Dave Barry, and the late Douglas Adams) have been among my favorite writers. Adams and Barry, in particular, seem to have a warm feeling for their fellows, which I admire and enjoy very much.

To the atheists on this site, here is one Christian who does not feel superior to you, and appreciates the opportunity to discuss and learn from you.

Please, super genius, tell me the error of my syntax.

Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Look, I never said that being stupid was a “bad” thing, or that reading comprehension was a requirement to communicate on an Internet forum.

Yet you insist on taking all of this personally. Whatever dogma you want to preach, just go ahead and preach it. But quit blaming every religion in the world besides yours for the fact that people think you’re an a–hole.

What is it, the links or the length? Help a brother out, AP.

Well… Prima Nocte (sp?) was once condoned by the Church… ie a nobleman taking the wife of any of his peasents for her first wedded night.

No. I don’t know where you got that tidbit. It’s definitely not biblical either.

You’ll find racism all through the bible…
Right? Wrong?

Not really.

One forgets the racial aspects of the Good Samaritan story, obviously. It’d be like a Palestinian Arab aiding an injured Jewish Israeli after his Orthodox kin passed him by.

The boilerplate anti-theist website example is Jesus’ treatment of the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15: 22-28; Mark 7: 25-30) whose daughter was sick (“vexed by devil” or “unclean spirit”). They never tell you to read to the last verse I included, where Jesus actually heals the daughter. Nor do they think of how a Jew (Jesus) could simultaneously rid this Gentile woman and his fellow Jews of “racism” by using their groupthink against them.

Not to speak of Philip’s comforting and ministering to an Ethopian eunuch (Acts 8: 27-39).

Oh yeah, and that whole anti-slavery movement in America being driven primarily by Christians who believed Africans to be as much God’s children as Europeans. Very racist.

Is the commandment “Thou shall not kill” or is it “Thou shall not commit muder”? Those are two VERY different things. Thats a MAJOR change… which is the proper “moral” code?

Since God himself commanded the Israelites to kill, it’d be very difficult to interpret it as “Thou shalt not kill”, even if we didn’t read Hebrew.

My problem is that what many see as bedrock universal moral principals, are nothing more than aggreed upon standards of behaviour, which do change from society to society.

This is the exact problem being addressed when someone accuses atheists of having no moral foundation. It’s not that atheists can’t be moral. Morality is having a set of behavioral rules. The problem comes when somebody or something changes the rules.

It’s like building a house. You can build a perfectly fine house on the ground without need of a foundation. You can live in the house just like others live in their houses, no problem. When the ground becomes unstable and your house is not on a solid foundation though, it’s not going to last long.

You are an arrogant little fella. Where, in your definition, are atheists described in the manner you choose to describe them (and, oddly, me)? What? Nowhere? Golly!

That you have the gall to lecture me on syntax is rich. Without Gods is what the word means, which is translated into having no belief in gods. Please, super genius, tell me the error of my syntax.

You were the one who described atheists in a certain way, and went over to an online dictionary to “prove” it. What you did was pull up a definition that in no way supports your meaning. That you think it does beggars comprehension.

(Glad I’m an agnostic anti-Islamicist.)

[And enemy of all pedophile prophets.]

For their next image make-over, they bring in the “God Hates Fags” people to schmooze at an atheist “No-Meat Meatloaf” luncheon.

I see nothing about your personal definition of people running about doing all kinds of nasty things to religious people full of voids and whatnot.

Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Of course it’s not possible to explain the concept of syntax by typing slower. But, trust me, the people you don’t ever see running around telling everyone else that all beliefs are wrong are called AGNOSTICS. That word means that they lack belief.

That word has a very different meaning from the word ATHEISTS — who (as you typed, but apparently don’t comprehend) claim to have an affirmative belief in a Universal negation. Which is, of course, a logical impossibility.

As for the state of feeling that your belief in your own inherent “non-nastiness” somehow magically makes you a good person; the word used to describe that is “self-righteousness.” And, ironically, THAT term actually is pretty much synonymous with the word atheism.

As I said, an “agnostic” is someone who has little or no faith. They aren’t the ones who go around “evangelizing” a vacuum.

logis on July 9, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Sigh… there ya go…

Agnostic… A not…. Gnosis… knowledge or knowing….

Please, don’t categorize others beliefs with definitions from your own belief system…

I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man… that there is somthing out there… I have faith that we are here to question and figure it out…. but do not belive that we have it right yet. I don’t KNOW that a book written a couple of thousand years ago years after the facts, then rewritten, and rewritten, and edited, and translated, has any relation at all to what Jesus said… or taught… or believed…

A-Without
Theos-God(s)

It’s one of them there Greek words. You might, in the future, pick a definition more closely suited to your interpretation. The one you picked is mine. I see nothing about your personal definition of people running about doing all kinds of nasty things to religious people full of voids and whatnot.

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: ‘A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

Well played, dude. Do you wish to continue this? I find your screen name, due to the circumstances, highly ironic.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means. All it means, literally, is “without belief in god(s)”. Nothing more, nothing less.

Krydor on July 9, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Um, no.

When YOU use the word “atheist,” it means “someone who doesn’t understand the concept of a dictionary.”

When EVERYONE ELSE uses the word “atheist”, it means “One who believes that there IS NO deity.” http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=atheist

As I said, an “agnostic” is someone who has little or no faith. They aren’t the ones who go around “evangelizing” a vacuum.

I don’t think that word means what you think it means. All it means, literally, is “without belief in god(s)”. Nothing more, nothing less.

I can’t be lumped in to a specific atheist category, as all atheists share (all) is a non-beleif. Technically, we have “nothing” in common.

Wrap your head around that one.

Only to your mother.

logis on July 9, 2007 at 4:26 PM

And there went all your credibility. How unfortunate.

df4jc on July 9, 2007 at 3:47 PM

Well… Prima Nocte (sp?) was once condoned by the Church… ie a nobleman taking the wife of any of his peasents for her first wedded night.

You’ll find racism all through the bible…

Right? Wrong?

Is the commandment “Thou shall not kill” or is it “Thou shall not commit muder”? Those are two VERY different things. Thats a MAJOR change… which is the proper “moral” code?

My problem is that what many see as bedrock universal moral principals, are nothing more than aggreed upon standards of behaviour, which do change from society to society.

or… Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God, in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son….

Universal truth? Rule? good sense? and what day is the Sabbath? Friday? Saturday? Sunday?

Locke. Though I am hardly versed in either’s philosophy.

I believe in the US people impose consensus morality on themselves with the vehicle of the government. Fortunately here we can bring about slow change by winning in the “arena of ideas”. What would be nice is if we could debate in that arena without all the taboos created by the PC left. Eg.. being called a racist if you disagree with illegal immigration.

in spite of your accusation, i wasn’t attacking anyone or bragging. i was responding to a question put forth by df.

until today, i did keep my mouth shut. most of my life, in fact, because i was tired of hearing the exact response i just got from you.

i had no problem with you at all, until you became a hypocrite by doing what you’re telling me not to do.

sounds to me like only religious people can talk about their beliefs? i heard all kinds of prosletyzing the first, oh, 40 years of my life. are you saying you can shout to the rooftops but i must remain mute?

if i misread, i apologize. but i don’t see your statement to ‘keep your mouth shut’ and me (implied) ‘mindlessly attacking’ as misreading you.

as long as you have a voice, i’ll have mine. i’m not afraid of your opinions. why are you afraid of mine?

p.s. – please try reading all of my posts & see if i’m committing the ‘sins’ of which you accuse me. (‘logis, i think i agree with almost everything you say’ sound familiar?)

df, et al –

even though i don’t shut up on demand, this is an fyi that i’m done with the thread as of this post (unless, df, you want the personal example i offered up – i’ll give you that still).

thanks for asking the questions…i thought it was a great effort at understanding each other.