Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
I see. So atheism teaches you can have sex in public places and private places that do not belong to you. It’s your right! (if it pisses of believers – that’s the caveat, I suppose.)
The parishioners of this church need to go and hold their Sunday worship in these people’s homes and use the same lame excuse they use for having sex in the confessional.
“We’re Christians and for us, worshipping in your home is like worshipping any other place.”
I guess being an atheist means having zero respect for everyone else.
NotCoach on June 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Well, in that case, I hope the atheists won’t mind if I have sex in their mother’s bedroom.
On reflection, maybe I should alter my view on this. After all, who can forget Condi’s famous words – ‘Because I grew up in the South, I can understand and respect atheists needs to get it on in churches.’
Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple’s behavior was “an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor.”
You just don’t see terms like “unutterable squalor” thrown around much these days. Kudos to Bishop Antonio for having a diverse vocabulary.
Just thrill seekers. Seeing as how I missed that part of Atheist Indoctrination, I have no idea where they get that they can use atheism to forward a personal lifestyle of public indecency.
Also, no pictures. This thread is useless without pictures.
Athiesm doesn’t teach indecency. These people were just indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
You are absolutely correct. I shouldn’t judge by association, but I did jump to it because they used as a justification for their behavior. Point taken.
He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.
I’m thinking Holy Hand Grenade. Or flamethrower.
TexasDan on June 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Allahpundit, although the page says “updated 4 hours 23 minutes ago” (as I view it), there’s no indication as to when it was first posted. However, I remember this story from many months ago.
“We are atheists and for us, having sex in church is like doing it any other place”
OK, I’m single, and for me having sex in your girlfriend is just like doing it any other place.
Logical extensionmania!
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Up front I want it known that I am a Christian and have a good deal of respect for the church in Rome. That said:
He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.
I’m not sure buggering a young boy in the same space can be considered a rite of purification.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Rather, atheism suggests that the concept of “decency” doesn’t exist.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
What is the underlying logic for that conclusion?
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
OK, I’m single, and for me having sex in your girlfriend is just like doing it any other place.
“In” her, huh? That’s a bit graphic. haha
brak on June 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
However, Bishop Antonio Lanfranchi of Cesena-Sarsina took said the couple’s behavior was “an outrage of notable proportions which bespeaks unutterable squalor.”
Then he transferred them to another diocese and expunged the records, per policy.
RightOFLeft on June 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
I’m not sure buggering a young boy in the same space can be considered a rite of purification.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
So is trolling at HotAir the same as any other place?
darclon on June 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I’m thinking Holy Hand Grenade.
TexasDan on June 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The number of the counting shall be Three.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
What is the underlying logic for that conclusion?
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
It was mostly a casual flaming, but if there must be logic in everything consider it as the pervasive sense that decency is an artificial construct by the faithful, usually created for nefarious purposes in controlling the more logic-driven atheist populations.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
“In” her, huh? That’s a bit graphic. haha
brak on June 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Hey, it’s just a location.
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Here’s my own lil red meat retort:
“I’m a homeless drunkard, and, for me, defecating onto your goth music collection and projectile vomiting across your neck tats is just like anyplace else for me.”
relativistic body fluids is relativistic body fluids, man.
So maybe it wasn’t funny, but I’m not sure it rises to the level of trolling.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM
No, it doesn’t. And yes it was.
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Right, right. I forgot during all the times I argue on the side of religion, how few people mock religion here. So clearly it’s trolling.
Lighten up frances.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:57 PM
But I’d be interested in seeing an atheist’s rationale for enforcing some kind of “decency” code.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM
I don’t see how an atheist’s rationale would be any different from the rationale used by a believer for enforcing rules and laws that are legitimate by way of agreement by the majority of the governed, and codified for their fair and just application.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Lighten up frances.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Hmm…’wasn’t’ doesn’t go with ‘doesn’t’ and ‘rises’ doesn’t go with ‘was.’
I hope you can figure that out.
James on June 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Atheism sucks.
cjs1943 on June 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM
So maybe it wasn’t funny, but I’m not sure it rises to the level of trolling.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM
There’s a fine line when tone can so easily be misunderstood.
I think priest jokes are tired, but that doesn’t mean you were being malicious.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM
By the way, lots of good one-liners here, and Tanya, you nailed it. Even to atheists there’s something “special” about doing it in a church.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM
The woman was a “teacher.” It didn’t say what kind of teacher. If she’s a school teacher she should be fired.
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM
May I add my .02 here?
Rather, atheism suggests that the concept of “decency” doesn’t exist.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
You are correct in one sense and incorrect in another.
The “correctness” of your view hinges on the answer to the question of, “what version of Atheism are you referring to?”
If Jailbones is referring to the reductivistic version of Atheism (also known as the unscientific label of “scientific naturalism”), then you are indeed correct.
How can a physical brain access immaterial concepts like the laws of logic?
How can non-material concepts and immaterial propositions such as “decency” even exist in an atheistic worldview that is defined by its atheistic proponents as reductivistic? The answer is that it cannot exist.
How can non-material concepts like “Truth” or “knowledge” exist in a Reductionistic Atheistic Naturalism (RAN) view of the world that denies the existence of concepts, propositions, etc? Instead, the RAN folks attempt to “reduce” everything to atoms, biology, or energy. On this atheist view, “truth” and “knowledge” and “decency” do not exist in ultimate reality. Rather, they are just said to be helpful human creations that are really just figments of the fictional imagination.
Reductivistic atheist naturalists hold that everything, in principle, can be “reduced to” or “eliminated” down to the bare particulars of biology or physics or energy.
But we as thinkers know that immaterial propositions and concepts exist in ultimate reality. Therefore, all forms of reductivistic naturalism are false.
There are many other arguments that are used to show the falsehoods inherent in the reductivistic naturalist view of the world.
For example, as thinkers, we know that:
—the immaterial laws of logic cannot be “reduced” to laws of biology
—laws of logic cannot be “reduced” to laws of sociology or laws of psychology or even to cultural traits.
—we know that the laws of logic are a priori conditions of intelligibility and are required to begin a discussion involving rational reflection
—it has already been shown that the laws of logic are independent of and separate from biology and evolution. Thus, all attempts to trace or “reduce to” the evolutionary development of the immaterial laws of logic ultimately fail on the horns of the a priori nature of these logical laws
—we know that the immaterial laws of logic cannot be “reduced to” linguistic convention, human empirical generalizations, or to anything derived or supported by the natural sciences.
These reasons are some of the reasons why most have rejected the “Reductivistic Naturalism” of some atheists.
The reasons I have given above are readily accessible and are found in most philosophy journals.
There are too many problems for reductivistic atheistic naturalism, and no solutions.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Athiesm doesn’t teach indecency. These people were just indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
A second version of naturalism, called “pluralistic naturalism”, holds to some version of non-reductivism. This version holds to a pluralistic ontology of abstract entities, laws of logic, moral properties, etc. This version disagrees that “Nature is all there is.” This version is a lot more broader than the earlier, flawed version known in circles as “scientific naturalism”, though it is not scientific at all.
If our friend Rush Baby subscribes to pluralistic naturalism, then he is indeed correct. This is because pluralistic naturalists are non-reductivists. They believe the world is populated with a-causal, non-temporal, immaterial entities known as laws of logic, abstract entities, propositions, or concepts. Pluralistic naturalists strongly disagree with scientific naturalists over epistemology, metaphysics, etc. Pluralistic naturalists do not believe “Science reigns” or that it is even theoretically possible to posit a unified theory resting on physics or biology or evolution.
But there are reasons why pluralistic naturalism is false.
How the mind accesses non-causal, atemporal laws of logic is a serious problem affecting all versions of pluralistic naturalism.
This is seen upon reflection of the laws of logic.
The laws of logic, example: law of non-contradiction, has the following characteristics:
—it is independent of time and space, and geography, and even “outer space” on other planets
—the laws of logic are a feature of reality, and they determine the preconditions of rational discourse
—the laws of logic are a-causal: the laws of logic do “not cause anything”. The laws of logic do not cause the building of a city, nor do they cause neutron firings or C-fibers going off, in a sense, the laws of logic are inert. They exist, but they do not cause anything.
This leads to the traditional philosophical question of:
how in the world does our human brain access things like immaterial propositions, concepts, laws of logic that exist OUT THERE in reality, and are not just a figment of our own imagination?
We are made in God’s image. So metaphysically, we have “the tools” needed to get the job done.
Epistemologically, God makes us aware of these non-causal, immaterial, abstract entities.
God is the solution to the problem of how finite humans can have knowledge of immaterial, abstract entities such as the laws of logic.
Now this answer is not original with me. It is the same one that Alvin Plantinga gave in his presidential commencement speech to the American Philosophical Association general meeting in 1982 concerning the problem of the realism/anti-realism debate in the theory of knowledge.
Thank you for reading this post.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I’m a non-believer (atheist has such a negative image to it now), and I would never, ever have sex in a church. I wouldn’t even kiss in one, save for the kiss on my wedding day. Being an atheist should not be a blanket excuse for unacceptable behaviour. I don’t believe, but I still respect that other people do. These idiots were in a church just for the thrill of disrespect.
Another point – was anybody else surprised they were not teenagers? I cannot believe that adults would stoop to such immature behaviour.
I don’t see how an atheist’s rationale would be any different from the rationale used by a believer for enforcing rules and laws that are legitimate by way of agreement by the majority of the governed, and codified for their fair and just application.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I’m more interested in why an Atheist would push the issue at all, not how they’d get the laws enforced. After all, why agitate for a law when you lack a rational reason to do so beyond some sort of visceral gut reaction?
Isn’t the whole concept of “indecency” an irrational leftover of the puritan cultural baggage atheists should strive to rise above?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Isn’t the whole concept of “indecency” an irrational leftover of the puritan cultural baggage atheists should strive to rise above?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I agree.
But the atheist Nietzsche was very quick to point out that over time, this “baggage” will be revealed for what it truly is—assuming atheist’s presuppositions, for a moment here.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Another point – was anybody else surprised they were not teenagers?
Anna on June 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Yes. I didn’t expect them to be in their 30s. Early 20s maybe…
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Thanks for the post Colts. I really enjoy reading your stuff.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Athiesm doesn’t teach indecency. These people were just indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Indeed. Decency is not the property of any religion, or lack thereof.
Rather, atheism suggests that the concept of “decency” doesn’t exist.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
You are way more logical than this.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Thanks for the post Colts. I really enjoy reading your stuff.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Thank you for putting up with the excessive wordiness, the lack of clarity often….
I wish I could write with more clarity and brevity the way the “Big A” does.
I also meant to add that I believe Nietszche was a Reductive Atheist Naturalist.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Thank you.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Decency is not the property of any religion, or lack thereof.
I’m more interested in why an Atheist would push the issue at all, not how they’d get the laws enforced. After all, why agitate for a law when you lack a rational reason to do so beyond some sort of visceral gut reaction?
The complication with your question is that you referred to both “an Athiest” and “They”.
An individual is capable of a visceral gut reaction, but a group of two or more people will always seek to establish rules. The individual is a barbarian. The group must seek to civilize the barbarian impulses of the individual.
Isn’t the whole concept of “indecency” an irrational leftover of the puritan cultural baggage atheists should strive to rise above?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM
The literal content of your question is hyperbolic and somewhat bellicose. I cannot speak for athiests as a group, because I deplore and shun organized atheism. I can only say that I have pretty clear judgment as to what is decent and what is indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Of course. Atheism doesn’t teach much of anything beyond the idea that there is no god of any kind.
But I’d be interested in seeing an atheist’s rationale for enforcing some kind of “decency” code.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Define decency first. As to the matter at hand – the sex in public taboo is nearly universally observed across cultures, so I don’t see how it needs a religious justification. We have a powerful emotional reaction, however it got there, and it’s in the public interest to respect that reaction.
RightOFLeft on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
An individual is capable of a visceral gut reaction, but a group of two or more people will always seek to establish rules. The individual is a barbarian. The group must seek to civilize the barbarian impulses of the individual.
I don’t agree. Decency is rooted in consideration for other people. re: group – I think in two or more people someone will seek dominance. The second part of your argument implies the state elevates the man, which I think it completely faulty.
Why is it some people say they don’t believe in something and then set about antagonizing those that do?
What is the percentage of mean arseholes among atheists versus believers?
EJDolbow on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
…not the exclusive property…
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Indeed, our great Spirit. Thank you.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
What is the percentage of mean arseholes among atheists versus believers?
EJDolbow on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Don’t know, but there are lies, damned lies, and statistics to everything, really.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I also meant to add that I believe Nietszche was a Reductive Atheist Naturalist.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Or just a cranky old fart.
ronsfi on June 4, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Thank you.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
And I thank you, RushBaby, and I will continue to read your posts with interest.
What is the percentage of mean arseholes among atheists versus believers?
EJDolbow on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I do not know.
But I do believe that, sadly, the church has too many among us.
I have read that a common refrain among some atheists is that they have been turned off by some ugly, mean-spirited Christians who were skilled in their un-Christlike behavior.
Kinda makes one think of that song…
“The greatest cause of atheism in the world is Christians:
who acknowledge Jesus Christ with their lips and walk outside the church door and deny Him by their lifestyle…That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I do not know.
But I do believe that, sadly, the church has too many among us.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
ColtsFan, you already know how much I like your comments, but it never hurts to reinforce a good.
To the quote, above, all groups have their angels and devils, to be sure. My grandma said so and she was a very wise owl. She was religious, but in her own way. She could tell a lot about the “street angels” and “house devils”. No group has an exclusive domain on perfection.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Kinda makes one think of that song…
“The greatest cause of atheism in the world is Christians:
who acknowledge Jesus Christ with their lips and walk outside the church door and deny Him by their lifestyle…That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
I’ve quoted that here before. Some people didn’t take too kindly to it as though the idea itself is laughable, but I’ve seen it often myself. If Christians would act like Christians, the world would be a much better place.
Good song too, pointing out how easy it is to fall.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I don’t agree. Decency is rooted in consideration for other people. re: group – I think in two or more people someone will seek dominance. The second part of your argument implies the state elevates the man, which I think it completely faulty.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I would never argue that the state elevates the man. Oh far from it. I was thinking on the micro level, not the macro:
Imagine two children arguing over a toy. Each will cry, “it’s mine!” (seek dominance). It does not occur to them to share, they must be taught. This is a lesson in decency.
Imagine two villages disputing over a creek. The upstream village crosses back and forth with their livestock, thus fouling the water for the downstream folk. They can go to war (seek dominance), or they can craft an agreement that the livestock only crosses at certain times during the day, so the downstream people simply stay out of the water until it’s clean again. This is an agreement rooted in decency.
I hope that clarifies where I was coming from, because I agree with your definition of decency.
Individuals who feel contempt for organized religion take it too far when they give themselves permission to perform an act of sacrilege. They are an abomination to me, because they violate something which is decent, in this case, a church.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:49 PM
ColtsFan, you already know how much I like your comments, but it never hurts to reinforce a good.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I have had the priviledge of many, good discussions with you and MB4 in the past. Always good, rational discussion. Thanks.
No group has an exclusive domain on perfection.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I strongly agree.
I call that view, “total depravity.” And it is a fundamental reason why I possess the conservative-libertarian view of politics that I have.
If Christians would act like Christians, the world would be a much better place.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Excellent point.
And isn’t that what our Lord Jesus Christ actually commands?
Good song too, pointing out how easy it is to fall.
Thanks for explaining. What keeps the micro from expressing itself in the macro though? Human nature would be the same, either way, no?
If people need rules from man, ie need the adult says to the children, “you have to share”, then the state would elevate the man. [I should note that I have known kids that will walk up and offer their toys, etc - ie share without motivation other than affection, that seems natural, not learned to me]
If people need rules, and the state doesn’t elevate the man, then the rules must come from above. Which has ramifications if one doesn’t believe in “above”.
If people don’t need rules, then the point is moot.
As an aside, in reference to your village comment (no snark) where has this ever happened when it wasn’t between pieces of a larger group (for example the states within the union, or villages within a larger tribe, etc)?
The complication with your question is that you referred to both “an Athiest” and “They”.
An individual is capable of a visceral gut reaction, but a group of two or more people will always seek to establish rules. The individual is a barbarian. The group must seek to civilize the barbarian impulses of the individual.
And yet so often groups tend to do the precise opposite. They are often, on the whole, more barbaric than the individual. Bystander apathy, mob rule … there are many examples.
The literal content of your question is hyperbolic and somewhat bellicose. I cannot speak for athiests as a group, because I deplore and shun organized atheism. I can only say that I have pretty clear judgment as to what is decent and what is indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Heh, only hyperbolic for some (if not most) atheists I’d wager. After all, I wouldn’t know to say it if I hadn’t heard it in a classroom first.
And dude, bellicose? Great word. Must remember to use that more. Yes, it was – but the point was to engage the attention of reader and get a discussion going. In my experience, most of the atheists I’ve dealt with have been intelligent, decent folk by my reckoning. They have, as you say, a sense of what is and is not “decent.” They believe very strongly in that sense. Some of them even believe that their sense of “decency” if you will, should extend to other people.
The question I would pose then, is why? Why make that jump? Don’t individuals have a right to keep their own sense of decency? By what right does one enforce one’s own code on another? If that sense of decency is based on group norms, why should individuals be required to accept the norms of the group? Even then, are norms not in constant flux? How can we judge what is right from moment to moment?
We have a powerful emotional reaction, however it got there, and it’s in the public interest to respect that reaction.
What precisely is the public interest? Is it always in the public interest? How do we define when?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Thank you, CF.
I call that view, “total depravity.” And it is a fundamental reason why I possess the conservative-libertarian view of politics that I have.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Indeed. Same here. Voted yesterday in Calif. Prop. 98 lost to the more liberal one, 99, on domain. 98 would have restricted the government even more, and would have eliminated rent control in time. Just an example.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Here is the link for that song.
I was a DC Talk fan for awhile.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I was afraid of this. Someone has referenced DC Talk on Hot Air. This is a sign of the end of all things. Christianity’s own version of the Backstreet Boys. /sob
They did have some decent stuff, but some of it is … embarrassing. What’re ya gonna do? They mean well.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
The most disturbing part of this story:
a 31-year-old laborer and a 32-year-old teacher
goth-rock couple
lol
30 something and goth, thats pathetic.
Ars Moriendi on June 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM
I was afraid of this. Someone has referenced DC Talk on Hot Air. This is a sign of the end of all things. Christianity’s own version of the Backstreet Boys. /sob
They did have some decent stuff, but some of it is … embarrassing. What’re ya gonna do? They mean well.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Hahaha.
Hehe.
I liked that.
Yeah, I take the bad with the good….
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM
I was a DC Talk fan for awhile.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I had two tapes from their earliest days, bad hair, bad rapping and all.
They’ve gone on to make decent solo careers, but I’m still disappointed that they’re no longer together.
Christianity’s own version of the Backstreet Boys. /sob
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Their early work was bad, but they had some good songs on their last two albums.
And no, Christianity’s Backstreet Boys is “Plus One,” though even they had a great song out a couple years ago that was not at all boy bandish. Though I really mean one song. The rest of that CD was pretty bad.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM
If people need rules, and the state doesn’t elevate the man, then the rules must come from above. Which has ramifications if one doesn’t believe in “above”.
If people don’t need rules, then the point is moot.
As it turns out that I live in a secular country founded with explicit Judeo-Christian principles, I see the merit in the warning you give of ramifications. I would argue that people do need rules, and naturally establish rules for themselves with or without a belief in an external spirit.
As an aside, in reference to your village comment (no snark) where has this ever happened when it wasn’t between pieces of a larger group (for example the states within the union, or villages within a larger tribe, etc)?
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM
In my mind I try to reduce it to the simplest example possible. For example, the villages might be two remote settlements of primitive cavemen, or western frontiersmen.
What keeps the micro from expressing itself in the macro though? Human nature would be the same, either way, no?
Out of order, but I wanted to answer this one last. The human nature is the same either way. The micro (barbarian) is suppressed in the macro (civilization) by laws, rules, customs, etc.
In the case of the jerks who had sex in a church, they have exempted themselves of the constraints of decency taught by religion, but they should be fully accountable to consequences agreed to by the larger macro: collective society. If they committed a crime, they would be subject to the macro of the state.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The question I would pose then, is why? Why make that jump? Don’t individuals have a right to keep their own sense of decency? By what right does one enforce one’s own code on another? If that sense of decency is based on group norms, why should individuals be required to accept the norms of the group? Even then, are norms not in constant flux? How can we judge what is right from moment to moment?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
The “Why” is for the survival, health, prosperity, and security of the group. Individuals have a right to their judgements, which are thoughts. Thoughts are fair game for persuasion, but must be protected from coercion. Behaviour that defies the rules set up to benefit the group is subject to consequences.
I don’t agree that norms are in constant flux. It takes a long time to shift norms. We can judge what is right from moment to moment because these norms have been in place long enough that it is reasonable to expect individuals to have learned them.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM
I would argue that people do need rules, and naturally establish rules for themselves with or without a belief in an external spirit.
Sure, but where do they naturally come from? If you say natural, you say pre-existing tendency. Where you believe that it comes have an effect.
In my mind I try to reduce it to the simplest example possible. For example, the villages might be two remote settlements of primitive cavemen, or western frontiersmen.
I can’t think of anytime when people came together collectively to work out a solution based on decency unless they have a pre-existing relationship. Frontiers of different people looking to secure their own needs lead to the Great Wall, the Hadrian Wall, the Maginot line, etc. Even our movement into the continent (US I mean) was not pretty and mutually agreed upon.
Out of order, but I wanted to answer this one last. The human nature is the same either way. The micro (barbarian) is suppressed in the macro (civilization) by laws, rules, customs, etc.
I’m glad we had this discussion because I wanted to think about it, but I don’t agree. I don’t think the individual is more barbaric then a group. Groups have license to steal by their size and momentum. Gov’t is a good enough example of that.
Lincoln said that government was subject to the will of the individual and thus it was up to the citizenry to support the government (which I use for macro here). I mention that because it seems to me that the macros reflect the will of the barbarian. Governments almost always are an extension of the man. At the best, this is the power of one individual over macro consent. At worse, it’s power without consent by force.
Sure, but where do they naturally come from? If you say natural, you say pre-existing tendency. Where you believe that it comes have an effect.
Language would be at the root of it. Now I know you’re going to ask me, where did language come from!
I can’t think of anytime when people came together collectively to work out a solution based on decency unless they have a pre-existing relationship. Frontiers of different people looking to secure their own needs lead to the Great Wall, the Hadrian Wall, the Maginot line, etc. Even our movement into the continent (US I mean) was not pretty and mutually agreed upon.
I see your point, but how would religion have ameliorated these situations?
I’m glad we had this discussion because I wanted to think about it, but I don’t agree. I don’t think the individual is more barbaric then a group.
Than how do you explain what these two people did in a church?
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Than how do you explain what these two people did in a church?
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:01 PM
To be fair, a group of two is still a group, which isn’t to say that I disagree with your point. I can see the argument working on both sides. The mob mentality has created some horrible things, but so have individuals acting alone.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Language would be at the root of it. Now I know you’re going to ask me, where did language come from!
No, because I would say that rules predate language because language exists by rules But I don’t want to complicate the subject.
I see your point, but how would religion have ameliorated these situations?
I can’t say that it would because your initial criticism was correct. Bad apples are bad apples. One could argue that religion might, but there’s not been a particularly good example of that, so it would be spin.
Than how do you explain what these two people did in a church?
They see themselves as a group (it’s in their “excuse”). Group – believers vs group – atheists. What they did, they didn’t do as individuals. They did it as two members of a larger group in an act of what appears to be passive aggression.
To be fair, a group of two is still a group, which isn’t to say that I disagree with your point. I can see the argument working on both sides. The mob mentality has created some horrible things, but so have individuals acting alone.
Yes, exactly on the “group of two” point. And I would contend that individuals who commit crimes against humanity have an us vs. them attitude with the us just a me, ie they see everyone else as a group vs. majority of one.
Excellent point; I myself characterized two individuals as a group upthread.
Maybe I can express myself better. The individual is barbaric by nature, and is civilized by assimilation into the group. One person driving in a car might be tempted to throw trash out the window. Having a passenger in the car might suppress that impulse.
The group’s tendency to devolve into a mob is also indisputable.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:30 PM
The individual is barbaric by nature, and is civilized by assimilation into the group. One person driving in a car might be tempted to throw trash out the window. Having a passenger in the car might suppress that impulse.
Or conversely the passenger might be more willing to litter if the driver does. Going down instead of up.
Let me answer this way. At some point the human species came out of one or two people. Everything about humanity then derives from that. Therefore anything in the future down the chain must have existed as a possibility in the past. In other words, all power of the group and group morals was contained in the original carrier of humanity. OR it was input into the system. An external force on the system input values. That’s a belief in a higher power.
Therefore the only way that the group could civilize the barbarian is if the barbarian was given values from external intelligence. Otherwise by forming a group and establishing values, the barbarian is merely expressing in action what was latent in his mind. Which is what Lincoln was saying about governments bending to the will of the individual.
So I can’t agree with the chain of logic that leads to belief in a higher power.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:45 PM
So I can’t agree with the chain of logic that leads to belief in a higher power.
I’m not trying to argue that it leads to a belief in a higher power. I’m trying to say that whatever manifests in the lineage of the chain is either present in the points of origin or they are added externally.
I meant, go on and explain more than 1 or 2. Because that would absolutely change my logic. I had just assumed that was a given. So, please elaborate, what other options are there? Evolutionary transition of multiple members of an inferior species?
Individuals, or groups – it’s all mostly a matter of those first 7 or so years of how they were brought up. Depending on that, mostly, they build, or destruct, later. Yes, some can change, for good/bad, outside of those 7 years, no doubt, all based on good/bad experiences, and what they choose to do with…
It’s a matter of decency, manners and mores, more than religion, evolution, and other topics.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I don’t think that belief in a higher power is indecent. I don’t go out of my way to criticize people who do believe (although I do indulge in the occasional snark). However, I do go out of my way to shun atheists like these two, and especially go out of my way to decry organized atheism for being political in nature and aimed at harming the larger group.
For this, I consider myself decent. And all of it originated in my thoughts, but was influenced deeply by feedback from others in society.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:54 PM
RushBaby, that you are decent, is an unconditional absolute.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Too late, but “unconditional” wasn’t necessary. An absolute is an absolute.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM
So, please elaborate, what other options are there? Evolutionary transition of multiple members of an inferior species?
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Yes. The theory of evolutionary transition make more sense to me. And is one of the reasons that the examples I think of tend to be primitive in nature.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM
RushBaby, that you are decent, is an unconditional absolute.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM
{{{E}}}
Then help me figure out how I got that way!
{{{Spirit}}}
Seriously, I have loved this thread, but I have been playing hookey for far too long. I need to log off and get some work done.
With affection, your
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Yes. The theory of evolutionary transition make more sense to me. And is one of the reasons that the examples I think of tend to be primitive in nature.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM
I was mistakenly under the impression that evolution was dependent on one or two original mutations…I never consider it as a general species shift. I didn’t know that. In my education evolution was covered mostly in context of natural selection and what was observable, we didn’t get into a lot of prehistoric theory and I’ve not really read about it myself in the years before or after.
But by walking through this, I’m now convinced me that a belief in a creator via poof 2 people would logically lead to a belief in individual > collective. And that a belief in a creator via evolution that allows multiple units doesn’t make that logic hold up, as consciousness would have to somehow evolve also – so I can see how people can have such different opinions. I’m glad we had this conversation because I don’t think I would have thought much about it otherwise!
You probably had two decent parents, who cared much about you, and how you were to turn out. Then, you probably built upon what you learned from their love, devotion, examples, happiness and sorrows, and built some more from all your life experiences, both good and not so good.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Seriously, I have loved this thread, but I have been playing hookey for far too long. I need to log off and get some work done.
Cheers to you (and you too E if you are still about!)
And no, Christianity’s Backstreet Boys is “Plus One,” though even they had a great song out a couple years ago that was not at all boy bandish. Though I really mean one song. The rest of that CD was pretty bad.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM
ZOMG Plus One … hahahahaha! Brings back memories. I went to elementary school with Nate Cole.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 7:11 PM
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Sorry, all. I was at work and had to tend to it, so I missed all the fun and games.
CF – just … wow. I will spend some hours at Dictionary.com and Google trying to bring myself up to speed. Well done!
RB – you know I was just pulling your pigtails, right? My atheist friends are, with few exceptions, as good and decent as most of my Christian brothers and sisters, if not always as outwardly caring. I mean no harm.
E – thanks, as always.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Atheist means never having to be considerate of anyone else.
drjohn on June 4, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I’d agree with the obvious take her, it was outrageous behavior for this couple.
But it tickles me that they’ll have a “special ceremony to purify the confessional box
But
He added that a special ceremony would be held to purify the confession box.
makes me laugh. How very Catholic!
Of course, Baptists don’t have any special purification ceremonies. We’d probably just have to settle for a lot of bleach.
Oh, wait! We don’t have confessional boxes, either.
So much for a comparison….
theregoestheneighborhood on June 4, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Please. If these “people” didn’t think it was wrong & that everyone should lighten up because this is what they believe–blah, blah, blah–then why were they hiding in a confessional? Why not the altar, the holiest place in a church? It’s the same as every place else, right? It was all about the thrill so they could brag to their friends. They didn’t want to get caught. Disgusting behavior by any civilized standard.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I see. So atheism teaches you can have sex in public places and private places that do not belong to you. It’s your right! (if it pisses of believers – that’s the caveat, I suppose.)
Atheists have the worst PR campaign evah.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 12:55 PM
The parishioners of this church need to go and hold their Sunday worship in these people’s homes and use the same lame excuse they use for having sex in the confessional.
“We’re Christians and for us, worshipping in your home is like worshipping any other place.”
I guess being an atheist means having zero respect for everyone else.
NotCoach on June 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Well, in that case, I hope the atheists won’t mind if I have sex in their mother’s bedroom.
zzzzzziiiiiiinnnnggggg!
HitNRun on June 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM
So atheism has now devolved to God is not Great, but Sex is.
Seriously, your side needs to have a caucus or something. The old guard of mistaken-but-polite atheism seems to be gone.
emailnuevo on June 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
They need to pray to St. Fiacre.
I’m sure Bill Clinton has lit a candle or two…
trubble on June 4, 2008 at 1:02 PM
On reflection, maybe I should alter my view on this. After all, who can forget Condi’s famous words – ‘Because I grew up in the South, I can understand and respect atheists needs to get it on in churches.’
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
You just don’t see terms like “unutterable squalor” thrown around much these days. Kudos to Bishop Antonio for having a diverse vocabulary.
ReubenJCogburn on June 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Just thrill seekers. Seeing as how I missed that part of Atheist Indoctrination, I have no idea where they get that they can use atheism to forward a personal lifestyle of public indecency.
Also, no pictures. This thread is useless without pictures.
Krydor on June 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM
The culture of narcissism is reaching its inevitable conclusion.
darclon on June 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
A couple of solipsists who couldn’t care less about the cherished beliefs of others; cue G.K Chesterton:
“When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing. They. start believing in anything.”
Richard Romano on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Athiesm doesn’t teach indecency. These people were just indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:08 PM
If one cannot appreciate the beauty of language, then the terrorists have already won.
They have such a ceremony in San Francisco, but I’m certain the Italians have their own.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Rather, atheism suggests that the concept of “decency” doesn’t exist.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Lie. They wouldn’t be doing it in a church if there wasn’t some rebellious, “kinky” motive.
I’m sure there was a perfectly serviceable bathroom stall nearby that would have done just as well, and wouldn’t have risked interruption.
But it wouldn’t have that weird, musty, confessional smell. *shudder*
Tanya on June 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
You are absolutely correct. I shouldn’t judge by association, but I did jump to it because they used as a justification for their behavior. Point taken.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I’m thinking Holy Hand Grenade. Or flamethrower.
TexasDan on June 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Allahpundit, although the page says “updated 4 hours 23 minutes ago” (as I view it), there’s no indication as to when it was first posted. However, I remember this story from many months ago.
I hope this helps.
Kralizec on June 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Bad memories of confession, Tanya?
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM
OK, I’m single, and for me having sex in your girlfriend is just like doing it any other place.
Logical extensionmania!
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Up front I want it known that I am a Christian and have a good deal of respect for the church in Rome. That said:
I’m not sure buggering a young boy in the same space can be considered a rite of purification.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
What is the underlying logic for that conclusion?
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM
OK, I’m single, and for me having sex in your girlfriend is just like doing it any other place.
“In” her, huh? That’s a bit graphic. haha
brak on June 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Then he transferred them to another diocese and expunged the records, per policy.
RightOFLeft on June 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
So is trolling at HotAir the same as any other place?
darclon on June 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
The number of the counting shall be Three.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:19 PM
It was mostly a casual flaming, but if there must be logic in everything consider it as the pervasive sense that decency is an artificial construct by the faithful, usually created for nefarious purposes in controlling the more logic-driven atheist populations.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Hey, it’s just a location.
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Here’s my own lil red meat retort:
relativistic body fluids is relativistic body fluids, man.
locomotivebreath1901 on June 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Up front I want it know that I am a Catholic and have a good deal of respect for Defense Guy. That said, he can go to hell.
boko fittleworth on June 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM
You got them up to relativistic speeds? I’m impressed.
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Ah yes. The Sacrament of Saint Lysol.
Anyway. Atheists or not, this falls under the “don’t be a jerk” guidelines for behavior I like to promote.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
If you want to have sex in the church, rent the freakin’ church out, have sex, and for the love of GOD, clean up after yourselves.
bridgetown on June 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM
So maybe it wasn’t funny, but I’m not sure it rises to the level of trolling.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Of course. Atheism doesn’t teach much of anything beyond the idea that there is no god of any kind.
But I’d be interested in seeing an atheist’s rationale for enforcing some kind of “decency” code.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 1:38 PM
OK, fine then. But as a secular society they should receive the maximum penalty for having sex in a public place.
awake on June 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Heh.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 1:40 PM
No, it doesn’t. And yes it was.
James on June 4, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Right, right. I forgot during all the times I argue on the side of religion, how few people mock religion here. So clearly it’s trolling.
Lighten up frances.
Defense Guy on June 4, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I don’t see how an atheist’s rationale would be any different from the rationale used by a believer for enforcing rules and laws that are legitimate by way of agreement by the majority of the governed, and codified for their fair and just application.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Hmm…’wasn’t’ doesn’t go with ‘doesn’t’ and ‘rises’ doesn’t go with ‘was.’
I hope you can figure that out.
James on June 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Atheism sucks.
cjs1943 on June 4, 2008 at 2:08 PM
There’s a fine line when tone can so easily be misunderstood.
I think priest jokes are tired, but that doesn’t mean you were being malicious.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 2:18 PM
By the way, lots of good one-liners here, and Tanya, you nailed it. Even to atheists there’s something “special” about doing it in a church.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM
The woman was a “teacher.” It didn’t say what kind of teacher. If she’s a school teacher she should be fired.
Maxx on June 4, 2008 at 2:22 PM
May I add my .02 here?
You are correct in one sense and incorrect in another.
The “correctness” of your view hinges on the answer to the question of, “what version of Atheism are you referring to?”
If Jailbones is referring to the reductivistic version of Atheism (also known as the unscientific label of “scientific naturalism”), then you are indeed correct.
How can a physical brain access immaterial concepts like the laws of logic?
How can non-material concepts and immaterial propositions such as “decency” even exist in an atheistic worldview that is defined by its atheistic proponents as reductivistic? The answer is that it cannot exist.
How can non-material concepts like “Truth” or “knowledge” exist in a Reductionistic Atheistic Naturalism (RAN) view of the world that denies the existence of concepts, propositions, etc? Instead, the RAN folks attempt to “reduce” everything to atoms, biology, or energy. On this atheist view, “truth” and “knowledge” and “decency” do not exist in ultimate reality. Rather, they are just said to be helpful human creations that are really just figments of the fictional imagination.
Reductivistic atheist naturalists hold that everything, in principle, can be “reduced to” or “eliminated” down to the bare particulars of biology or physics or energy.
But we as thinkers know that immaterial propositions and concepts exist in ultimate reality. Therefore, all forms of reductivistic naturalism are false.
There are many other arguments that are used to show the falsehoods inherent in the reductivistic naturalist view of the world.
For example, as thinkers, we know that:
—the immaterial laws of logic cannot be “reduced” to laws of biology
—laws of logic cannot be “reduced” to laws of sociology or laws of psychology or even to cultural traits.
—we know that the laws of logic are a priori conditions of intelligibility and are required to begin a discussion involving rational reflection
—it has already been shown that the laws of logic are independent of and separate from biology and evolution. Thus, all attempts to trace or “reduce to” the evolutionary development of the immaterial laws of logic ultimately fail on the horns of the a priori nature of these logical laws
—we know that the immaterial laws of logic cannot be “reduced to” linguistic convention, human empirical generalizations, or to anything derived or supported by the natural sciences.
These reasons are some of the reasons why most have rejected the “Reductivistic Naturalism” of some atheists.
The reasons I have given above are readily accessible and are found in most philosophy journals.
There are too many problems for reductivistic atheistic naturalism, and no solutions.
A second version of naturalism, called “pluralistic naturalism”, holds to some version of non-reductivism. This version holds to a pluralistic ontology of abstract entities, laws of logic, moral properties, etc. This version disagrees that “Nature is all there is.” This version is a lot more broader than the earlier, flawed version known in circles as “scientific naturalism”, though it is not scientific at all.
If our friend Rush Baby subscribes to pluralistic naturalism, then he is indeed correct. This is because pluralistic naturalists are non-reductivists. They believe the world is populated with a-causal, non-temporal, immaterial entities known as laws of logic, abstract entities, propositions, or concepts. Pluralistic naturalists strongly disagree with scientific naturalists over epistemology, metaphysics, etc. Pluralistic naturalists do not believe “Science reigns” or that it is even theoretically possible to posit a unified theory resting on physics or biology or evolution.
But there are reasons why pluralistic naturalism is false.
How the mind accesses non-causal, atemporal laws of logic is a serious problem affecting all versions of pluralistic naturalism.
This is seen upon reflection of the laws of logic.
The laws of logic, example: law of non-contradiction, has the following characteristics:
—it is independent of time and space, and geography, and even “outer space” on other planets
—the laws of logic are a feature of reality, and they determine the preconditions of rational discourse
—the laws of logic are a-causal: the laws of logic do “not cause anything”. The laws of logic do not cause the building of a city, nor do they cause neutron firings or C-fibers going off, in a sense, the laws of logic are inert. They exist, but they do not cause anything.
This leads to the traditional philosophical question of:
how in the world does our human brain access things like immaterial propositions, concepts, laws of logic that exist OUT THERE in reality, and are not just a figment of our own imagination?
And one answer given in the past is that God makes us aware of these abstract, immaterial entities .
We are made in God’s image. So metaphysically, we have “the tools” needed to get the job done.
Epistemologically, God makes us aware of these non-causal, immaterial, abstract entities.
God is the solution to the problem of how finite humans can have knowledge of immaterial, abstract entities such as the laws of logic.
Now this answer is not original with me. It is the same one that Alvin Plantinga gave in his presidential commencement speech to the American Philosophical Association general meeting in 1982 concerning the problem of the realism/anti-realism debate in the theory of knowledge.
Thank you for reading this post.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I’m a non-believer (atheist has such a negative image to it now), and I would never, ever have sex in a church. I wouldn’t even kiss in one, save for the kiss on my wedding day. Being an atheist should not be a blanket excuse for unacceptable behaviour. I don’t believe, but I still respect that other people do. These idiots were in a church just for the thrill of disrespect.
Another point – was anybody else surprised they were not teenagers? I cannot believe that adults would stoop to such immature behaviour.
Anna on June 4, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I’m more interested in why an Atheist would push the issue at all, not how they’d get the laws enforced. After all, why agitate for a law when you lack a rational reason to do so beyond some sort of visceral gut reaction?
Isn’t the whole concept of “indecency” an irrational leftover of the puritan cultural baggage atheists should strive to rise above?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I agree.
But the atheist Nietzsche was very quick to point out that over time, this “baggage” will be revealed for what it truly is—assuming atheist’s presuppositions, for a moment here.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Yes. I didn’t expect them to be in their 30s. Early 20s maybe…
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Thanks for the post Colts. I really enjoy reading your stuff.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Indeed. Decency is not the property of any religion, or lack thereof.
You are way more logical than this.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Thank you for putting up with the excessive wordiness, the lack of clarity often….
I wish I could write with more clarity and brevity the way the “Big A” does.
I also meant to add that I believe Nietszche was a Reductive Atheist Naturalist.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Thank you.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
…not the exclusive property…
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
The complication with your question is that you referred to both “an Athiest” and “They”.
An individual is capable of a visceral gut reaction, but a group of two or more people will always seek to establish rules. The individual is a barbarian. The group must seek to civilize the barbarian impulses of the individual.
The literal content of your question is hyperbolic and somewhat bellicose. I cannot speak for athiests as a group, because I deplore and shun organized atheism. I can only say that I have pretty clear judgment as to what is decent and what is indecent.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Define decency first. As to the matter at hand – the sex in public taboo is nearly universally observed across cultures, so I don’t see how it needs a religious justification. We have a powerful emotional reaction, however it got there, and it’s in the public interest to respect that reaction.
RightOFLeft on June 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I don’t agree. Decency is rooted in consideration for other people. re: group – I think in two or more people someone will seek dominance. The second part of your argument implies the state elevates the man, which I think it completely faulty.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 3:18 PM
They are trying to piss off religious people.
Why is it some people say they don’t believe in something and then set about antagonizing those that do?
What is the percentage of mean arseholes among atheists versus believers?
EJDolbow on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Indeed, our great Spirit. Thank you.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Don’t know, but there are lies, damned lies, and statistics to everything, really.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Or just a cranky old fart.
ronsfi on June 4, 2008 at 3:33 PM
And I thank you, RushBaby, and I will continue to read your posts with interest.
I do not know.
But I do believe that, sadly, the church has too many among us.
I have read that a common refrain among some atheists is that they have been turned off by some ugly, mean-spirited Christians who were skilled in their un-Christlike behavior.
Kinda makes one think of that song…
“The greatest cause of atheism in the world is Christians:
who acknowledge Jesus Christ with their lips and walk outside the church door and deny Him by their lifestyle…That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
ColtsFan, you already know how much I like your comments, but it never hurts to reinforce a good.
To the quote, above, all groups have their angels and devils, to be sure. My grandma said so and she was a very wise owl. She was religious, but in her own way. She could tell a lot about the “street angels” and “house devils”. No group has an exclusive domain on perfection.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I’ve quoted that here before. Some people didn’t take too kindly to it as though the idea itself is laughable, but I’ve seen it often myself. If Christians would act like Christians, the world would be a much better place.
Good song too, pointing out how easy it is to fall.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
I would never argue that the state elevates the man. Oh far from it. I was thinking on the micro level, not the macro:
Imagine two children arguing over a toy. Each will cry, “it’s mine!” (seek dominance). It does not occur to them to share, they must be taught. This is a lesson in decency.
Imagine two villages disputing over a creek. The upstream village crosses back and forth with their livestock, thus fouling the water for the downstream folk. They can go to war (seek dominance), or they can craft an agreement that the livestock only crosses at certain times during the day, so the downstream people simply stay out of the water until it’s clean again. This is an agreement rooted in decency.
I hope that clarifies where I was coming from, because I agree with your definition of decency.
Individuals who feel contempt for organized religion take it too far when they give themselves permission to perform an act of sacrilege. They are an abomination to me, because they violate something which is decent, in this case, a church.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 3:49 PM
I have had the priviledge of many, good discussions with you and MB4 in the past. Always good, rational discussion. Thanks.
I strongly agree.
I call that view, “total depravity.” And it is a fundamental reason why I possess the conservative-libertarian view of politics that I have.
Excellent point.
And isn’t that what our Lord Jesus Christ actually commands?
Here is the link for that song.
I was a DC Talk fan for awhile.
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 3:53 PM
Thanks for explaining. What keeps the micro from expressing itself in the macro though? Human nature would be the same, either way, no?
If people need rules from man, ie need the adult says to the children, “you have to share”, then the state would elevate the man. [I should note that I have known kids that will walk up and offer their toys, etc - ie share without motivation other than affection, that seems natural, not learned to me]
If people need rules, and the state doesn’t elevate the man, then the rules must come from above. Which has ramifications if one doesn’t believe in “above”.
If people don’t need rules, then the point is moot.
As an aside, in reference to your village comment (no snark) where has this ever happened when it wasn’t between pieces of a larger group (for example the states within the union, or villages within a larger tribe, etc)?
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 4:03 PM
And yet so often groups tend to do the precise opposite. They are often, on the whole, more barbaric than the individual. Bystander apathy, mob rule … there are many examples.
Heh, only hyperbolic for some (if not most) atheists I’d wager. After all, I wouldn’t know to say it if I hadn’t heard it in a classroom first.
And dude, bellicose? Great word. Must remember to use that more. Yes, it was – but the point was to engage the attention of reader and get a discussion going. In my experience, most of the atheists I’ve dealt with have been intelligent, decent folk by my reckoning. They have, as you say, a sense of what is and is not “decent.” They believe very strongly in that sense. Some of them even believe that their sense of “decency” if you will, should extend to other people.
The question I would pose then, is why? Why make that jump? Don’t individuals have a right to keep their own sense of decency? By what right does one enforce one’s own code on another? If that sense of decency is based on group norms, why should individuals be required to accept the norms of the group? Even then, are norms not in constant flux? How can we judge what is right from moment to moment?
What precisely is the public interest? Is it always in the public interest? How do we define when?
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Thank you, CF.
Indeed. Same here. Voted yesterday in Calif. Prop. 98 lost to the more liberal one, 99, on domain. 98 would have restricted the government even more, and would have eliminated rent control in time. Just an example.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
I was afraid of this. Someone has referenced DC Talk on Hot Air. This is a sign of the end of all things. Christianity’s own version of the Backstreet Boys. /sob
They did have some decent stuff, but some of it is … embarrassing.
What’re ya gonna do? They mean well.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 4:09 PM
The most disturbing part of this story:
lol
30 something and goth, thats pathetic.
Ars Moriendi on June 4, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Hahaha.
Hehe.
I liked that.
Yeah, I take the bad with the good….
ColtsFan on June 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM
I had two tapes from their earliest days, bad hair, bad rapping and all.
They’ve gone on to make decent solo careers, but I’m still disappointed that they’re no longer together.
Their early work was bad, but they had some good songs on their last two albums.
And no, Christianity’s Backstreet Boys is “Plus One,” though even they had a great song out a couple years ago that was not at all boy bandish. Though I really mean one song. The rest of that CD was pretty bad.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 4:18 PM
As it turns out that I live in a secular country founded with explicit Judeo-Christian principles, I see the merit in the warning you give of ramifications. I would argue that people do need rules, and naturally establish rules for themselves with or without a belief in an external spirit.
In my mind I try to reduce it to the simplest example possible. For example, the villages might be two remote settlements of primitive cavemen, or western frontiersmen.
Out of order, but I wanted to answer this one last. The human nature is the same either way. The micro (barbarian) is suppressed in the macro (civilization) by laws, rules, customs, etc.
In the case of the jerks who had sex in a church, they have exempted themselves of the constraints of decency taught by religion, but they should be fully accountable to consequences agreed to by the larger macro: collective society. If they committed a crime, they would be subject to the macro of the state.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 4:27 PM
The “Why” is for the survival, health, prosperity, and security of the group. Individuals have a right to their judgements, which are thoughts. Thoughts are fair game for persuasion, but must be protected from coercion. Behaviour that defies the rules set up to benefit the group is subject to consequences.
I don’t agree that norms are in constant flux. It takes a long time to shift norms. We can judge what is right from moment to moment because these norms have been in place long enough that it is reasonable to expect individuals to have learned them.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Sure, but where do they naturally come from? If you say natural, you say pre-existing tendency. Where you believe that it comes have an effect.
I can’t think of anytime when people came together collectively to work out a solution based on decency unless they have a pre-existing relationship. Frontiers of different people looking to secure their own needs lead to the Great Wall, the Hadrian Wall, the Maginot line, etc. Even our movement into the continent (US I mean) was not pretty and mutually agreed upon.
I’m glad we had this discussion because I wanted to think about it, but I don’t agree. I don’t think the individual is more barbaric then a group. Groups have license to steal by their size and momentum. Gov’t is a good enough example of that.
Lincoln said that government was subject to the will of the individual and thus it was up to the citizenry to support the government (which I use for macro here). I mention that because it seems to me that the macros reflect the will of the barbarian. Governments almost always are an extension of the man. At the best, this is the power of one individual over macro consent. At worse, it’s power without consent by force.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Language would be at the root of it. Now I know you’re going to ask me, where did language come from!
I see your point, but how would religion have ameliorated these situations?
Than how do you explain what these two people did in a church?
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:01 PM
To be fair, a group of two is still a group, which isn’t to say that I disagree with your point. I can see the argument working on both sides. The mob mentality has created some horrible things, but so have individuals acting alone.
Esthier on June 4, 2008 at 5:20 PM
No, because I would say that rules predate language because language exists by rules
But I don’t want to complicate the subject.
I can’t say that it would because your initial criticism was correct. Bad apples are bad apples. One could argue that religion might, but there’s not been a particularly good example of that, so it would be spin.
They see themselves as a group (it’s in their “excuse”). Group – believers vs group – atheists. What they did, they didn’t do as individuals. They did it as two members of a larger group in an act of what appears to be passive aggression.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Yes, exactly on the “group of two” point. And I would contend that individuals who commit crimes against humanity have an us vs. them attitude with the us just a me, ie they see everyone else as a group vs. majority of one.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Excellent point; I myself characterized two individuals as a group upthread.
Maybe I can express myself better. The individual is barbaric by nature, and is civilized by assimilation into the group. One person driving in a car might be tempted to throw trash out the window. Having a passenger in the car might suppress that impulse.
The group’s tendency to devolve into a mob is also indisputable.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Or conversely the passenger might be more willing to litter if the driver does. Going down instead of up.
Let me answer this way. At some point the human species came out of one or two people. Everything about humanity then derives from that. Therefore anything in the future down the chain must have existed as a possibility in the past. In other words, all power of the group and group morals was contained in the original carrier of humanity. OR it was input into the system. An external force on the system input values. That’s a belief in a higher power.
Therefore the only way that the group could civilize the barbarian is if the barbarian was given values from external intelligence. Otherwise by forming a group and establishing values, the barbarian is merely expressing in action what was latent in his mind. Which is what Lincoln was saying about governments bending to the will of the individual.
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I don’t agree with the premise that the human species came out of one or two people.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:42 PM
Okay, go on….
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 5:43 PM
So I can’t agree with the chain of logic that leads to belief in a higher power.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I’m not trying to argue that it leads to a belief in a higher power. I’m trying to say that whatever manifests in the lineage of the chain is either present in the points of origin or they are added externally.
I meant, go on and explain more than 1 or 2. Because that would absolutely change my logic. I had just assumed that was a given. So, please elaborate, what other options are there? Evolutionary transition of multiple members of an inferior species?
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Individuals, or groups – it’s all mostly a matter of those first 7 or so years of how they were brought up. Depending on that, mostly, they build, or destruct, later. Yes, some can change, for good/bad, outside of those 7 years, no doubt, all based on good/bad experiences, and what they choose to do with…
It’s a matter of decency, manners and mores, more than religion, evolution, and other topics.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:54 PM
I don’t think that belief in a higher power is indecent. I don’t go out of my way to criticize people who do believe (although I do indulge in the occasional snark). However, I do go out of my way to shun atheists like these two, and especially go out of my way to decry organized atheism for being political in nature and aimed at harming the larger group.
For this, I consider myself decent. And all of it originated in my thoughts, but was influenced deeply by feedback from others in society.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:54 PM
RushBaby, that you are decent, is an unconditional absolute.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Too late, but “unconditional” wasn’t necessary. An absolute is an absolute.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Yes. The theory of evolutionary transition make more sense to me. And is one of the reasons that the examples I think of tend to be primitive in nature.
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM
{{{E}}}
Then help me figure out how I got that way!
{{{Spirit}}}
Seriously, I have loved this thread, but I have been playing hookey for far too long. I need to log off and get some work done.
With affection, your
RushBaby on June 4, 2008 at 6:00 PM
I was mistakenly under the impression that evolution was dependent on one or two original mutations…I never consider it as a general species shift. I didn’t know that. In my education evolution was covered mostly in context of natural selection and what was observable, we didn’t get into a lot of prehistoric theory and I’ve not really read about it myself in the years before or after.
But by walking through this, I’m now convinced me that a belief in a creator via poof 2 people would logically lead to a belief in individual > collective. And that a belief in a creator via evolution that allows multiple units doesn’t make that logic hold up, as consciousness would have to somehow evolve also – so I can see how people can have such different opinions. I’m glad we had this conversation because I don’t think I would have thought much about it otherwise!
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 6:08 PM
You probably had two decent parents, who cared much about you, and how you were to turn out. Then, you probably built upon what you learned from their love, devotion, examples, happiness and sorrows, and built some more from all your life experiences, both good and not so good.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Cheers to you (and you too E if you are still about!)
Spirit of 1776 on June 4, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Cheers Spirit, and RB – love you both, a lot.
Entelechy on June 4, 2008 at 6:12 PM
ZOMG Plus One … hahahahaha! Brings back memories. I went to elementary school with Nate Cole.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 4, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Sorry, all. I was at work and had to tend to it, so I missed all the fun and games.
CF – just … wow. I will spend some hours at Dictionary.com and Google trying to bring myself up to speed. Well done!
RB – you know I was just pulling your pigtails, right? My atheist friends are, with few exceptions, as good and decent as most of my Christian brothers and sisters, if not always as outwardly caring. I mean no harm.
E – thanks, as always.
Jaibones on June 4, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Atheist means never having to be considerate of anyone else.
drjohn on June 4, 2008 at 9:35 PM
I’d agree with the obvious take her, it was outrageous behavior for this couple.
But it tickles me that they’ll have a “special ceremony to purify the confessional box
But
makes me laugh. How very Catholic!
Of course, Baptists don’t have any special purification ceremonies. We’d probably just have to settle for a lot of bleach.
Oh, wait! We don’t have confessional boxes, either.
So much for a comparison….
theregoestheneighborhood on June 4, 2008 at 9:41 PM
Please. If these “people” didn’t think it was wrong & that everyone should lighten up because this is what they believe–blah, blah, blah–then why were they hiding in a confessional? Why not the altar, the holiest place in a church? It’s the same as every place else, right? It was all about the thrill so they could brag to their friends. They didn’t want to get caught. Disgusting behavior by any civilized standard.
artlover on June 5, 2008 at 9:49 AM