Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Atheism & Religion

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 7:04:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One of the common jibes of the faithful to the atheists is too parapharse Dostoyevskys claim, if there is no God, everything is permitted. The point here been that without God at least at the end to meet out punishment for wrong doing why not do what you want ? Further to that, why not kill, rape, steal etc.

Now I would like to look at this from a slightly different angle. Lets say there is no God. So here is the question, why is it wrong for the people to use religion to further their own interests ?. You can get quite rich & powerful on the back of religion as history shows.

Why shouldn't the crafty use religion to take advantage of the gulliable ?

Why shouldn't the intelligent use religion to take advantage of those without developed critical thinking skills ?

Why shouldn't the cunning use religion to take advantage of the simple ?

Its gets better, as I understand it, religion has a big advantage in the USA. Income is tax free plus your have alot more free regin legally speaking. If a drug company claims there pill cures cancer but it doesn't they are liable to get sued. If a christian preacher claims praying to God will heal you and nothing happens there are no legal repercussions (even if you gave them money).The courts don't want to get involved here. In other words you can just claim what ever you want. Why not use this structure and employ all the tactics of frauds ? Make the untestable claims, appeal to fear, use logical fallacies, appeal to wishful thinking, etc etc KA CHING $$$

The system is set up to take advantage of, so why not do it ?

From an evolutionary stand point, isn't the preacher or preachers or religious leaders just doing what they ought to do ? by gaining wealth and power it allows them better chance to have and raise off spring.

The rulers of the earth with a wink wink look the other way, as long as it doesn't get in the way of their interests. Sure preach gays are going to hell, preach pray in schools, just don't talk to much about wealth distributions and ownership. As long as what you preach isn't against the interest of the king, or the interest of the landowners or the interests of the rich and powerful you will be fine, they won't bother you, hell they might even help you, quid pro qou. Keep the masses in line, help further their interests and they will help you..........KA CHING $$$

So lets say religious preacher or group is a fraud (not that a fraud would ever admit it) what can the atheist say to such a person or group or even entire religious institution ?

The atheist can't say, you shouldn't do that cause God will punish you, well God doesn't exist. So God isn't going to punish you in this life or the next.

The atheist can't say, you shouldn't do that because its against your interests, I think the wealth and power they have would suggest other wise. The future presidents that come to us to seek our blessing would suggest otherwise.

So what can the atheist say ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 7:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 7:04:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
One of the common jibes of the faithful to the atheists is too parapharse Dostoyevskys claim, if there is no God, everything is permitted. The point here been that without God at least at the end to meet out punishment for wrong doing why not do what you want ? Further to that, why not kill, rape, steal etc.

Now I would like to look at this from a slightly different angle. Lets say there is no God. So here is the question, why is it wrong for the people to use religion to further their own interests ?. You can get quite rich & powerful on the back of religion as history shows.

Why shouldn't the crafty use religion to take advantage of the gulliable ?

Why shouldn't the intelligent use religion to take advantage of those without developed critical thinking skills ?

Why shouldn't the cunning use religion to take advantage of the simple ?

Its gets better, as I understand it, religion has a big advantage in the USA. Income is tax free plus your have alot more free regin legally speaking. If a drug company claims there pill cures cancer but it doesn't they are liable to get sued. If a christian preacher claims praying to God will heal you and nothing happens there are no legal repercussions (even if you gave them money).The courts don't want to get involved here. In other words you can just claim what ever you want. Why not use this structure and employ all the tactics of frauds ? Make the untestable claims, appeal to fear, use logical fallacies, appeal to wishful thinking, etc etc KA CHING $$$

The system is set up to take advantage of, so why not do it ?

From an evolutionary stand point, isn't the preacher or preachers or religious leaders just doing what they ought to do ? by gaining wealth and power it allows them better chance to have and raise off spring.

The rulers of the earth with a wink wink look the other way, as long as it doesn't get in the way of their interests. Sure preach gays are going to hell, preach pray in schools, just don't talk to much about wealth distributions and ownership. As long as what you preach isn't against the interest of the king, or the interest of the landowners or the interests of the rich and powerful you will be fine, they won't bother you, hell they might even help you, quid pro qou. Keep the masses in line, help further their interests and they will help you..........KA CHING $$$

So lets say religious preacher or group is a fraud (not that a fraud would ever admit it) what can the atheist say to such a person or group or even entire religious institution ?

The atheist can't say, you shouldn't do that cause God will punish you, well God doesn't exist. So God isn't going to punish you in this life or the next.

The atheist can't say, you shouldn't do that because its against your interests, I think the wealth and power they have would suggest other wise. The future presidents that come to us to seek our blessing would suggest otherwise.

So what can the atheist say ?

...

Just to be clear, you are claiming complete and utter ignorance of any and all moral systems that do not define their root in divinity?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:02:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 7:04:59 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
One of the common jibes of the faithful to the atheists is too parapharse Dostoyevskys claim, if there is no God, everything is permitted. The point here been that without God at least at the end to meet out punishment for wrong doing why not do what you want ? Further to that, why not kill, rape, steal etc.

Now I would like to look at this from a slightly different angle. Lets say there is no God. So here is the question, why is it wrong for the people to use religion to further their own interests ?. You can get quite rich & powerful on the back of religion as history shows.

Why shouldn't the crafty use religion to take advantage of the gulliable ?

Why shouldn't the intelligent use religion to take advantage of those without developed critical thinking skills ?

Why shouldn't the cunning use religion to take advantage of the simple ?

Its gets better, as I understand it, religion has a big advantage in the USA. Income is tax free plus your have alot more free regin legally speaking. If a drug company claims there pill cures cancer but it doesn't they are liable to get sued. If a christian preacher claims praying to God will heal you and nothing happens there are no legal repercussions (even if you gave them money).The courts don't want to get involved here. In other words you can just claim what ever you want. Why not use this structure and employ all the tactics of frauds ? Make the untestable claims, appeal to fear, use logical fallacies, appeal to wishful thinking, etc etc KA CHING $$$

The system is set up to take advantage of, so why not do it ?

From an evolutionary stand point, isn't the preacher or preachers or religious leaders just doing what they ought to do ? by gaining wealth and power it allows them better chance to have and raise off spring.

The rulers of the earth with a wink wink look the other way, as long as it doesn't get in the way of their interests. Sure preach gays are going to hell, preach pray in schools, just don't talk to much about wealth distributions and ownership. As long as what you preach isn't against the interest of the king, or the interest of the landowners or the interests of the rich and powerful you will be fine, they won't bother you, hell they might even help you, quid pro qou. Keep the masses in line, help further their interests and they will help you..........KA CHING $$$

So lets say religious preacher or group is a fraud (not that a fraud would ever admit it) what can the atheist say to such a person or group or even entire religious institution ?

The atheist can't say, you shouldn't do that cause God will punish you, well God doesn't exist. So God isn't going to punish you in this life or the next.

The atheist can't say, you shouldn't do that because its against your interests, I think the wealth and power they have would suggest other wise. The future presidents that come to us to seek our blessing would suggest otherwise.

So what can the atheist say ?

Human solidarity.

For an individual to gain wealth and power does not make them the fittest in an evolutionary sense. While it increases the rate of their own survival, gaining wealth and power does not increase their chances of raising offspring. Hell, if someone is selfish enough to gain power by such underhanded means, what is their motivation to have many, if any, children?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:11:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

So what can the atheist say ?

Human solidarity.

For an individual to gain wealth and power does not make them the fittest in an evolutionary sense. While it increases the rate of their own survival, gaining wealth and power does not increase their chances of raising offspring. Hell, if someone is selfish enough to gain power by such underhanded means, what is their motivation to have many, if any, children?

Their motivation would be the more basic primal urge to pro create. I would have to dis agree having wealth and power is advantageous in the production and survival of such off spring.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:12:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 7:53:45 PM, drafterman wrote:

Just to be clear, you are claiming complete and utter ignorance of any and all moral systems that do not define their root in divinity?

For the purpose of this thread, sure I am utterly ignorant if that is what you want.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:17:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:11:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

So what can the atheist say ?

Human solidarity.

For an individual to gain wealth and power does not make them the fittest in an evolutionary sense. While it increases the rate of their own survival, gaining wealth and power does not increase their chances of raising offspring. Hell, if someone is selfish enough to gain power by such underhanded means, what is their motivation to have many, if any, children?

Their motivation would be the more basic primal urge to pro create. I would have to dis agree having wealth and power is advantageous in the production and survival of such off spring.

Well, our basic primal urge is to help our common man. And you can hardly bring lust into the argument when so many forms of contraceptive are wide spread and readily available.

If they are enough of a sociopath to have gained wealth through the means you described, what is their motivation or desire to raise children? And if they did happen to have a love child, where is there motivation to acknowledge it.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:25:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:17:32 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:11:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

So what can the atheist say ?

Human solidarity.

For an individual to gain wealth and power does not make them the fittest in an evolutionary sense. While it increases the rate of their own survival, gaining wealth and power does not increase their chances of raising offspring. Hell, if someone is selfish enough to gain power by such underhanded means, what is their motivation to have many, if any, children?

Their motivation would be the more basic primal urge to pro create. I would have to dis agree having wealth and power is advantageous in the production and survival of such off spring.

Well, our basic primal urge is to help our common man. And you can hardly bring lust into the argument when so many forms of contraceptive are wide spread and readily available.

Oh contray, the most basic of all urges is the urge to survive. Sometimes this comes at the cost of your fellow primates.

If they are enough of a sociopath to have gained wealth through the means you described, what is their motivation or desire to raise children? And if they did happen to have a love child, where is there motivation to acknowledge it.

Just because they rip off other people, doesn't mean they can't love their own. You don't think nazi's didn't love their own children ? (Again thanks to primal urges)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:51:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:12:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 7:53:45 PM, drafterman wrote:

Just to be clear, you are claiming complete and utter ignorance of any and all moral systems that do not define their root in divinity?

For the purpose of this thread, sure I am utterly ignorant if that is what you want.

What I want is to know if you are actually ignorant of secular moral systems.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:56:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:25:15 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:17:32 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:11:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

So what can the atheist say ?

Human solidarity.

For an individual to gain wealth and power does not make them the fittest in an evolutionary sense. While it increases the rate of their own survival, gaining wealth and power does not increase their chances of raising offspring. Hell, if someone is selfish enough to gain power by such underhanded means, what is their motivation to have many, if any, children?

Their motivation would be the more basic primal urge to pro create. I would have to dis agree having wealth and power is advantageous in the production and survival of such off spring.

Well, our basic primal urge is to help our common man. And you can hardly bring lust into the argument when so many forms of contraceptive are wide spread and readily available.

Oh contray, the most basic of all urges is the urge to survive. Sometimes this comes at the cost of your fellow primates.

If your walking down the street, and you see two men beating up a woman, your reaction is (hopefully) revulsion. If you happen to be able to stop them yourself, your probably going to do it. If not, your going to call for help. The obvious exception to this is of course if your a psychopath.

And come to think of it, the only added ability to survive would come from prime healthcare, wealth and power don't grant immortality. But without any added reason to procreate, that doesn't make them the 'fittest'.

If they are enough of a sociopath to have gained wealth through the means you described, what is their motivation or desire to raise children? And if they did happen to have a love child, where is there motivation to acknowledge it.

Just because they rip off other people, doesn't mean they can't love their own. You don't think nazi's didn't love their own children? (Again thanks to primal urges)

Hitler didn't have any children, neither did many other Nazi party members. I'm not saying they're incapable of loving their children, but where is the advantage over someone who feels empathy for others? Where is the assertion of that person being the 'fittest'?

I think we're getting away from the main topic though. You asked why an Atheist can't exploit the system in this way. The answer is nothing is stopping them except human solidarity, which some people do lack.

I'd also point out that the threat of judgement by god doesn't stop some religious people from doing equally heinous (and sometimes identical) things.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 8:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't understand the point you're trying to make. That religion can be used to take advantage of others? To further push ones own agenda? Because that's exactly what people do.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:03:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:51:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:12:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 7:53:45 PM, drafterman wrote:

Just to be clear, you are claiming complete and utter ignorance of any and all moral systems that do not define their root in divinity?

For the purpose of this thread, sure I am utterly ignorant if that is what you want.

What I want is to know if you are actually ignorant of secular moral systems.

No I am not. But I would still like to know what you say to these people.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:07:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:03:06 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:51:32 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:12:24 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 7:53:45 PM, drafterman wrote:

Just to be clear, you are claiming complete and utter ignorance of any and all moral systems that do not define their root in divinity?

For the purpose of this thread, sure I am utterly ignorant if that is what you want.

What I want is to know if you are actually ignorant of secular moral systems.

No I am not. But I would still like to know what you say to these people.

Then, with regards to your question about what the atheist can say, they can say anything based on a non-secular morality. Or simply admit that there is no right or wrong.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:13:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 8:56:01 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:25:15 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:17:32 PM, Physik wrote:
At 12/31/2011 8:11:05 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

So what can the atheist say ?

Human solidarity.

For an individual to gain wealth and power does not make them the fittest in an evolutionary sense. While it increases the rate of their own survival, gaining wealth and power does not increase their chances of raising offspring. Hell, if someone is selfish enough to gain power by such underhanded means, what is their motivation to have many, if any, children?

Their motivation would be the more basic primal urge to pro create. I would have to dis agree having wealth and power is advantageous in the production and survival of such off spring.

Well, our basic primal urge is to help our common man. And you can hardly bring lust into the argument when so many forms of contraceptive are wide spread and readily available.

Oh contray, the most basic of all urges is the urge to survive. Sometimes this comes at the cost of your fellow primates.

If your walking down the street, and you see two men beating up a woman, your reaction is (hopefully) revulsion. If you happen to be able to stop them yourself, your probably going to do it. If not, your going to call for help. The obvious exception to this is of course if your a psychopath.

Okey I think I see the problem here. It already a given that YOU would find the religion abuse revulsion. In this scenario the people who are doing such things don't suffer from such revulsion, or at least enough to stop doing it. So what do you say to them ?

And come to think of it, the only added ability to survive would come from prime healthcare, wealth and power don't grant immortality. But without any added reason to procreate, that doesn't make them the 'fittest'.

They have the urge to pro-crate. Never said they were the fittest, just from their point of view they have a good thing going.

If they are enough of a sociopath to have gained wealth through the means you described, what is their motivation or desire to raise children? And if they did happen to have a love child, where is there motivation to acknowledge it.

Just because they rip off other people, doesn't mean they can't love their own. You don't think nazi's didn't love their own children? (Again thanks to primal urges)

Hitler didn't have any children, neither did many other Nazi party members. I'm not saying they're incapable of loving their children, but where is the advantage over someone who feels empathy for others? Where is the assertion of that person being the 'fittest'?

Again, wealth & power is more of an advantage than not having wealth and power. Again maybe not the fittest, but they got a good thing going from their point of view.



I think we're getting away from the main topic though. You asked why an Atheist can't exploit the system in this way. The answer is nothing is stopping them except human solidarity, which some people do lack.

These people may have solidarity, just not enough to make them stop what they are doing, so again what do you say to them ?

I'd also point out that the threat of judgement by god doesn't stop some religious people from doing equally heinous (and sometimes identical) things.

Granted, the point here was just that the atheist can't appeal to the threat of consequences the same way a theist can. The atheist is at a great disadvantage here, hence my question.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:17:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
even if they think they are getting an advantage from doing so, it doesn't follow that they are. people who opening and callously manipulate people are likely to alienate potential mates and thus be gradually eliminated, their genes along with them. now, if they can be sneaky about it, that complicates things, but you seem to be implying that there is an absolute evolutionary advantage to being a cheater, which is definitely not true. a lot depends on how many other cheaters there are in your environment and how good everyone else is at detecting cheating.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:34:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:17:22 PM, belle wrote:
even if they think they are getting an advantage from doing so, it doesn't follow that they are. people who opening and callously manipulate people are likely to alienate potential mates and thus be gradually eliminated, their genes along with them. now, if they can be sneaky about it, that complicates things, but you seem to be implying that there is an absolute evolutionary advantage to being a cheater, which is definitely not true. a lot depends on how many other cheaters there are in your environment and how good everyone else is at detecting cheating.

There are ways to disguise the "cheating". Religion/pseudo science being one of them.

I haven't even got into where some one and a group can convince them self enough of their own lies. Cognitive dissonance for the win.

But I just don't think this matters, cause in the end its working for them, or working for their group and that's all they really need.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 9:34:11 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 9:17:22 PM, belle wrote:
even if they think they are getting an advantage from doing so, it doesn't follow that they are. people who opening and callously manipulate people are likely to alienate potential mates and thus be gradually eliminated, their genes along with them. now, if they can be sneaky about it, that complicates things, but you seem to be implying that there is an absolute evolutionary advantage to being a cheater, which is definitely not true. a lot depends on how many other cheaters there are in your environment and how good everyone else is at detecting cheating.

There are ways to disguise the "cheating". Religion/pseudo science being one of them.

I haven't even got into where some one and a group can convince them self enough of their own lies. Cognitive dissonance for the win.

But I just don't think this matters, cause in the end its working for them, or working for their group and that's all they really need.

is it though? if anything religion is on the decline... a few hundred years ago we probably could have been imprisoned or put to death for having this conversation...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 10:18:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okey I think I see the problem here. It already a given that YOU would find the religion abuse revulsion. In this scenario the people who are doing such things don't suffer from such revulsion, or at least enough to stop doing it. So what do you say to them ?

Religion abuse? I didn't say if they were being beaten for some religious reason, just that they were being beaten. The reason why they are doing it is also irrelevant, these people lack empathy, as they are beating a defenseless woman.

What would I say to them? Stop!

Are you going to answer the question?

They have the urge to pro-crate. Never said they were the fittest, just from their point of view they have a good thing going.

You did say they were the fittest, as you cited that they had an evolutionary advantage.

Again, wealth & power is more of an advantage than not having wealth and power. Again maybe not the fittest, but they got a good thing going from their point of view.

Of course someone would prefer to have wealth and power, but the question is taking into account how they got it. By lying and exploiting people. Of course they have a good thing going from their point of view, they're sociopathic.

These people may have solidarity, just not enough to make them stop what they are doing, so again what do you say to them ?

Ducking a question by asking a question, classy. I would still say stop! The question isn't whether or not the people assaulting her have empathy; it's whether or not humans have the innate instinct to help each other, which they do.

Granted, the point here was just that the atheist can't appeal to the threat of consequences the same way a theist can. The atheist is at a great disadvantage here, hence my question.

Human solidarity is still my answer.

You don't seem to understand that the only people that would do such a thing are sociopaths and psychopaths; people that lack human solidarity.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 10:29:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 10:18:42 PM, Physik wrote:
Okey I think I see the problem here. It already a given that YOU would find the religion abuse revulsion. In this scenario the people who are doing such things don't suffer from such revulsion, or at least enough to stop doing it. So what do you say to them ?

Religion abuse? I didn't say if they were being beaten for some religious reason, just that they were being beaten. The reason why they are doing it is also irrelevant, these people lack empathy, as they are beating a defenseless woman.

What would I say to them? Stop!

Are you going to answer the question?

What was the question again.

They have the urge to pro-crate. Never said they were the fittest, just from their point of view they have a good thing going.

You did say they were the fittest, as you cited that they had an evolutionary advantage.

Does having an evolutionary advantage in one area count as been the fittest overall ? if so fair enough, but I am not 100% sure on that.




Again, wealth & power is more of an advantage than not having wealth and power. Again maybe not the fittest, but they got a good thing going from their point of view.

Of course someone would prefer to have wealth and power, but the question is taking into account how they got it. By lying and exploiting people. Of course they have a good thing going from their point of view, they're sociopathic.


These people may have solidarity, just not enough to make them stop what they are doing, so again what do you say to them ?

Ducking a question by asking a question, classy. I would still say stop! The question isn't whether or not the people assaulting her have empathy; it's whether or not humans have the innate instinct to help each other, which they do.

Yeah I get that you say stop. And from their point of view they have no reason to stop, cause of all the advantages I have mentioned.


Granted, the point here was just that the atheist can't appeal to the threat of consequences the same way a theist can. The atheist is at a great disadvantage here, hence my question.

Human solidarity is still my answer.

You don't seem to understand that the only people that would do such a thing are sociopaths and psychopaths; people that lack human solidarity.

Sorry, I think that just factually incorrect. I propose that there are people who do such things but wouldn't come under the psychiatric criteria of been psychopaths or sociopaths. This is why I alluded to indoctrination, cognitive dissonance, then their is confirmation bias, wishful thinking etc etc.

But as I said, before this may be a mute point, as at least for some people its working for them. You say stop, they don't stop, now what ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 11:19:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/31/2011 10:29:47 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/31/2011 10:18:42 PM, Physik wrote:
Okey I think I see the problem here. It already a given that YOU would find the religion abuse revulsion. In this scenario the people who are doing such things don't suffer from such revulsion, or at least enough to stop doing it. So what do you say to them ?

Religion abuse? I didn't say if they were being beaten for some religious reason, just that they were being beaten. The reason why they are doing it is also irrelevant, these people lack empathy, as they are beating a defenseless woman.

What would I say to them? Stop!

Are you going to answer the question?

What was the question again.

It was a rhetorical "Would you do something to stop it?" whether directly or indirectly. I just kind of thought that after deflecting the whole thing by asking what I would do, you would at least provide a definitive answer.

They have the urge to pro-crate. Never said they were the fittest, just from their point of view they have a good thing going.

You did say they were the fittest, as you cited that they had an evolutionary advantage.

Does having an evolutionary advantage in one area count as been the fittest overall ? if so fair enough, but I am not 100% sure on that.

The fittest is the one that has the greatest ability to survive and reproduce equally fit offspring. Since those psychological traits aren't really genetic, it's pretty irrelevant.

Again, wealth & power is more of an advantage than not having wealth and power. Again maybe not the fittest, but they got a good thing going from their point of view.

Of course someone would prefer to have wealth and power, but the question is taking into account how they got it. By lying and exploiting people. Of course they have a good thing going from their point of view, they're sociopathic.


These people may have solidarity, just not enough to make them stop what they are doing, so again what do you say to them ?

Ducking a question by asking a question, classy. I would still say stop! The question isn't whether or not the people assaulting her have empathy; it's whether or not humans have the innate instinct to help each other, which they do.

Yeah I get that you say stop. And from their point of view they have no reason to stop, cause of all the advantages I have mentioned.

I assume we're not talking about the woman? If we are, then I hardly see what advantages you mentioned; and if we're not, then there's an absence of human solidarity or it's impaired by some mental issue, so no, they themselves have nothing to stop for.

Granted, the point here was just that the atheist can't appeal to the threat of consequences the same way a theist can. The atheist is at a great disadvantage here, hence my question.

Human solidarity is still my answer. You don't seem to understand that the only people that would do such a thing are sociopaths and psychopaths; people that lack human solidarity.

Sorry, I think that just factually incorrect. I propose that there are people who do such things but wouldn't come under the psychiatric criteria of been psychopaths or sociopaths. This is why I alluded to indoctrination, cognitive dissonance, then their is confirmation bias, wishful thinking etc etc.

I suppose your right on that. But even with those added criteria, their human solidarity is in someway being majorly impaired. If human solidarity is absent, my answer is there's nothing stopping them but the solidarity of others.

But as I said, before this may be a mute point, as at least for some people its working for them. You say stop, they don't stop, now what ?

If they don't stop, I forcibly stop them my self or call for help.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico