Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler*, Mao....

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not about to trawl two long biographies trying to find out what other people mean by THEIR statements. If they think there is a link between X and Y then it is up to them to adumbrate that link for further exploration, not for me to do it for them.

Do your own homework! We've already given you two adumbrations of atheists who were violent because they were in their own words atheists.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

What?

You said America has a world class education system. It doesn't. It has a poor education system. It has a pretty good 3rd level education system, but only 27% of the population ever finish that, and some excellent private 3rd level colleges which only a tiny proportion of the population ever go to and where atheism is found to be disproportionately higher than in the general population.

Education level correlates with industrial and social development. The US is a first world country woth first world health housing and education standards. YOUR point is that such countries should have higher levels of atheism and as people become more educated even higher levels. eventually an 2rnlightened" socisty would be totally atheist! But it doesnt correlate! There are not huge percentages of atheists in the US. hidgh levels of literacy in countries has not brought about hight levels of atheism! Care to show us some stats to support your contention that education = atheism?

Atheism in the general population is 7%.

Source?

And atheism is dis-proportionally found in these institutions.

Not because of education!

In professors in community colleges it is 15%. In professors in the elite colleges you praise so highly it is 37%. The more educationally elite the institution the higher the rate of atheism.

Source?
If true it is among the teachers! But they are a tiny amount of "educated people".
You cant refer to primary and secondary and pick that population and them also refer to the teacher s at fourth level and claim it for them. What about ALL the people in the universities? No way is there 37 percent atheist. And how do you show it as growing?

I only picked them because it shows the US has a high level of education. Your basis point is that iignorant people tend to be believers and as people get education they will become atheist. It does not stand up!


http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/AboutScience/does_science_lead_to_atheism.html
Does Science Lead to Atheism?
No.
That was the short answer.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html#ggu7Np5GAgBg
It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.
And atheism is dis-proportionally found in these institutions.

You can't appeal to the general population to say that atheism is tiny and then restrict your educational viewpoint to colleges like Harvard.

You defined educated as a literate overall population more to do with Primary and secondary.
I can restrict it to the people you think are educated such as those with degrees from college. The post dint just pick ivy league . It showed the top universities rankings in the world and they are mostly American. so take the students from the top 100 and see how many are atheist. You wont find a huge percentage. Even then the above research suggests if they are atheist it isn't because of education but because of social factors. And that is statistically valid in peer reviewed research!

Most people don't go to Harvard so the level of atheism in the general population is of no baring.

YOU picked Harvard not me! I picked the top 100 or so universities.



What does that have to do with anything?
Sinn Féin or the Communist Party have a Greater chance of getting into an overall majority government than atheists have of instututing any eliteist notions they might have comrade. All sorts of loopy elitist theories are advanced by fundamentalists. If fundamentalist atheistic university professors were put in charge I have no doubt their athistic edocratic scientism would create an unholy mess as we have see in the past from other atheistic regimes!

Again I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but given that there is nothing in atheism about how you should or should not react to theism (or react to anything for that matter) it is some what nonsensical to say anything was because of state atheism.

I assume you mean state anti-theism.

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism” ..Lenin

Who the feck is "fasgnadh" and why should I care what he says?

Read the references supplied. He is not a believer. But he is sick at the behaviour and ruminations of some atheists.

I don't think how "holy" a person is should have any bearing on whether you provide educational facilities to him. It is irrelevant.

But your thesis is that people become better as they become educated and atheist.

I really hope you aren't suggesting we don't provide education facilities to people because it will decrease the number of holy decent people are around.

No i am pointing out your eletist thesis that education = atheism= improvement of the goodness of a person isn't proven. Learning moer does not make you a better person. There are examples of very educated atheistic rulers who were responsible for the deaths of millions!

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never claimed it was. Once. Ever. Just once you might do me the service of replying to something I have actually said??

What you said:

a huge number of them [Catholics] think the earth is 6000 years old

The whole sentence emphasis added by me :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65609544&postcount=176
So as I said, you can not talk about the beliefs of "The Catholic" as they are completely divergent, and just because a huge number of them think the earth is 6000 years old, does not mean I lump you in with them and think that you think that too.


You were wrong in that claim! A huge number of Catholics don't believe it is 600 years old as you claimed. That is EXACTLY what you stated!

PDN

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As yet unanswered, by anyone on the thread, is my question: IS there any pathway to be shown that links “I see no reason to grant credence to the claim there is a god” and the atrocities being listed on this thread. Every single person is running away from that question and not one person has attempted an answer…

… actually one has, but the best they could come up with was not a logical pathway, but that having GOT to that place, atheism did nothing to STOP them perpetrating the actions. This was an attempt to answer my question but in fact is answering a question I never asked.

Your question has been answered, but your determination to split hairs in semantics stops you seeing it.

People like Ian Brady are the atheist mirror of professing Christians who commit atrocities in the name of God.

In each case you have people who want to hurt others for various reasons unrelated to religion. Those reasons are usually to do with power, sex, or money. Mental illness may welll be a factor as well.

There are religious people who justify committing such actions by selectively quoting some religious texts while studiously ignoring others. They use religion to evade the moral arguments against the actions that they want to commit anyway.

There are atheist people (such as Ian Brady or his hero de Sade) who equally use their atheism to avoid the moral arguments against their actions.

Now, I personally believe that these individuals that we are talking about will seize any opportunity to justify and further their own selfish actions. If Hitler had been born in St Petersburg in 1900 then he would probably have been an enthusiastic Bolshevik. If he had been born in Tehran in 1960 then he would be busily quoting the Koran to justify killing Sunnis and consolidate a power base in that way.

Opportunistic cruel bastards can pervert any philosophy or logic to get what they want and to justify their actions.

I certainly don't think atheism is any more open than other philosophies to being exploited in this way, but it is rather galling when atheists bang on about the Crusades or the Inquisition and then try to paint themselves as whiter than white given their own rather bloody track record.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ok. Luckily those tactics only exist in your head and have nothing to do with my actual tactics or anything I am actually espousing then isn’t it?

You clearly referred to fundamentalists in the US being Catholics and tried to redefine the already given and supported definition i supplied:

For example look at the HUGE % of people in the US who are young earth creationist. Are you factoring them into your calculation, because it seems to me their views are wholly divergent and incompatible with the vast majority of people on THIS forum. Yet they call themselves Christian and Catholic and so on and would considering YOU to be the heretic in this.

you are espousing that other "real" Catholics have as much a claim as I do!

1. I don't make any claims for myself. I supplied a definition of "mainstream christian" and I supported it! Personal heresy or not by me has nothing to do with the issue.

2. You DO espouse fringe sectional interests in Christianity as if their view is the mainstream. It ISN'T!

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

These people call THEMSELVES Catholics and Christian

So what? you have been given a definition of "mainstream" for the purpose of this debate. Please use it!

and if you have a problem with them being lumped in with those labels, then it is not me your disagreement lies with but the people themselves.

Your are trying to switch the debate from how a mainstream Christian behaves into whether fringe Christians are mainstream. You have been given a definition . work with it. Whether or not fringe Christians agree or disagree with the mainstream isn't the issue.

Which brings me back to the as yet unanswered question. Can you show any logical link starting from atheism and ending with the actions mentioned in this thread, other than "X did those actions, X was also an atheist".

Asked and answered but Ill give you another example. Ther are some atheists who believe atheism is the beeter way and science should be atheistic and people when they eventually become wise become atheist. They attack religious people because they believe in this atheism.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Do your own homework! We've already given you two adumbrations of atheists who were violent because they were in their own words atheists.

Again. You are playing name bingo. You have found people who are Atheist AND violent. You have NOT shown a link between the two.

I could find people who are violent AND are vegetarian. Does this say a single thing about vegetarianism? No clearly not.

So sorry, one or two anecdotes about two atheists who also happened to be awful just is not going to do it. What is the causal link between the two? How do you know there even is any? How do you know it even is in the direction you assume and that the violence did not come first and move the person to become atheist?

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

The whole sentence emphasis added by me :

This is what happens when you only quote half my sentence and then insert words into it that were not there before such as “[Catholic]”.

If you are going to change my words inside a quote at least do it right. It should not be [catholic] it should be [the group of people to whom I refer who are calling themselves catholic and who are young earth creationist]

nozzferrahhtoo

PDN wrote: »

Your question has been answered, but your determination to split hairs in semantics stops you seeing it.

Not to my knowledge it has not. I fit has please tell me the post #’s I have clearly missed.

PDN wrote: »

In each case you have people who want to hurt others for various reasons unrelated to religion. Those reasons are usually to do with power, sex, or money. Mental illness may welll be a factor as well.

My point exactly. There are demostratable links between ALL the things you just listed and violent actions. None of the things you listed are people being unconvinced that there is a god entity however.

PDN wrote: »

There are religious people who justify committing such actions by selectively quoting some religious texts while studiously ignoring others. They use religion to evade the moral arguments against the actions that they want to commit anyway.

Again my point exactly. I love when people disagree with me by actually agreeing with me. It shows theres a lot more common ground than we have each given credit for.

In retrospect they attempt to selectively use text to justify their actions. They can say, for example, “I kicked that homo around because homos are an abomination against god….” Etc etc etc.

Now we might not AGREE with that persons reading of the text, but the reading is there to be made and who says their reading is any more valid than yours or mine?

However I see NO link demonstratable that someone could say “I kicked that homo around because… well there is no god”. It is a complete non-sequitar and would make as much sense as “I kicked that homo around because…. I like green jam”.

There are atheist people (such as Ian Brady or his hero de Sade) who equally use their atheism to avoid the moral arguments against their actions.

Yet again my point exactly!!! They are using atheism to AVOID certain arguments. What they are not doing is using atheism to MAKE any arguments. The distinction here is highly important and I am glad you made it for me.

There is a world of different between "I did X because Christian text says Y" and "I did X, because Y, and nothing about atheism stopped me doing it".

but it is rather galling when atheists bang on about the Crusades or the Inquisition and then try to paint themselves as whiter than white given their own rather bloody track record.

Again I agree, this is great. That is what I am arguing for (and against) here. This playing of "name bingo" against beleifs or lack of beleifs gains us NOTHING. Saying "Hitler did bad... and he was an atheist", or "X was a member of the inquisition.... and he was a christian" gains us nothing and I attack Atheists and Christians alike for engaging in it.

What we have to do is step back from the WHO and ask the WHY and HOW. Is there a logical path way possible from Christianity to killing Jews, regardless of whether you agree with that path way or not? Yes there is. Is there a logical pathway from "I dont think there is a god" to doing that... no there is not.

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

you are espousing that other "real" Catholics have as much a claim as I do!

Not that I know of I am not, but it IS a valid question. What makes you saying you are a catholic any more valid than a young earth creationist saying they are a catholic? When you say "The Catholic" or "The Christian" who are you talking about and why is that definition the valid one?

ISAW wrote: »

So what? you have been given a definition of "mainstream" for the purpose of this debate. Please use it!

Just as soon as I understand why you think your definition is the valid one I will, and not theirs or someone elses. If you call yourself a Christian and Bill ODonoghue and Kent Hovind call themselves a Christian, then what is "A Christian"?

Maybe this is off topic and should be split into a thread called "What is a Christian and whos definition is right".

But fine, I will not argue this definition with you any further. Just be aware from now on that when you type "The Christian believe" I will be reading it as "I myself believe..."

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well I would start by answering that there is no logical link between atheism and those actions, and hence the source of your actions probably lies with the "hedonism" part of what you stated. Hedonism and Atheism being totally unrelated and all that.

Which brings me back to the as yet unanswered question. Can you show any logical link starting from atheism and ending with the actions mentioned in this thread, other than "X did those actions, X was also an atheist".

The question as asked has been answered.

Christianity does not support hedonism as a good.

Atheism does support hedonism as a good. Read de Sade, and read about him.
Read about Stalin and the history of the Soviet Union

While it is true that not all atheists are hedonistic or violent any more that it is not true that all Christians are not hedonistic or violent there is a difference in attitude between Christians and atheists.

For an atheist there is no barrier other than a self imposed barrier to hedonism
For an atheist there is no barrier other than a self imposed barrier to violence.

Christianity is a pacifist religion, you will find this in the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. You will see this in the records of how early Christians conducted themselves in the face of persecution by the atheists and pagans of the time. You will see this in the lives of the Saints.

Granted there are atheistic religions that are pacifist but we are not discussing these here. We are discussing the historical and current fact that atheistic regimes are violent.

A true Christian is neither hedonistic nor violent. A true atheist can do whatever he wants because he is an atheist. or she.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Atheism does support hedonism as a good. Read de Sade, and read about him.

No atheism does not. You have found an atheist who does. Big difference.

If you could learn the difference between.

“Atheism says…”

And

“This atheist has said….”

You would do a lot better here.

Nothing in atheism supports, promotes, or is relevant to “hedonism”. It is just the lack of ONE argument against "hedonism".

StealthRolex wrote: »

Christianity is a pacifist religion, you will find this in the teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

Your version of it may be, but not all.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How do you know it even is in the direction you assume and that the violence did not come first and move the person to become atheist?

Being human and having a human nature are functions of being human.

Living moral lives for most people on this planet is a function of agreeing out of freewill to live according to a particular code. In this forum it is the Christian code.

Who sets the moral code for atheists?

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Who sets the moral code for atheists?

We do. Each other.

In a world where we have to live with each other, I see no greater resource to finding a way to do so successfully THAN each other. What greater resource have we got?

Discourse, free inquiry and democracy are all you need.

There is not a single moral view important to the success of our societies that you can espouse based on the presupposition that there is a god, that I can not also espouse based on a simple application of a socio-democratic version of the golden rule.

Even if we were to pre-suppose the notion that there is a nonhuman intelligence responsible for the creation and subsequent maintainance of the universe, a concept no one has provided any evidence for, then we STILL are back where we started with "We do. Each other." as ourselves and "each other" is the only resource we have to interpret the text this Omniscient author and his publishers have left us with.

Society is only a human relationship at the end of the say. You would be just as valid to ask:

“Who sets the operational code in a loving couple”.

A loving couple are merely a human relationship. They decide together how to live, what rules to live by to make the relationship work, and even what compromises and sacrifices they will both be required to make to make the relationship a success.

Society is the same thing. It’s a human relationship with millions instead of just 2. The rules may have to scale, but the approach is the same. It is a relationship we have to work together to make work at all.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Discourse, free inquiry and democracy are all you need.

There is not a single moral view important to the success of our societies that you can espouse based on the presupposition that there is a god, that I can not also espouse based on a simple application of a socio-democratic version of the golden rule.

And what golden rule would that be and how do you prevent it being overturned by the democratic process?

Lets say your golden rule is " All human life is protected and respected from its beginning to its natural death".

Sound like a good rule. How long before democracy changes that to suit certain needs?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Society is only a human relationship at the end of the say. You would be just as valid to ask:

“Who sets the operational code in a loving couple”

A loving couple are merely a human relationship. They decide together how to live, what rules to live by to make the relationship work, and even what compromises and sacrifices they will both be required to make to make the relationship a success.

It is more than merely a human relationship. It also involves God, except for atheists.

God and Jesus set the moral code for a loving couple. Henry VIII changed it to suit himself and since then democracy has modified it based on human values.

Catholics will have one view on this, other Christians may agree or differ but we all agree that the code of marriage is better than a code than does not involve marriage.

Would an atheistic society have marriage? And if so what form of marriage? What guarantees it's success and what happens if it fails?

How many times would an atheistic society have to change its code until it got it right?

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Society is the same thing. It’s a human relationship with millions instead of just 2. The rules may have to scale, but the approach is the same. It is a relationship we have to work together to make work at all.

Atheists have no golden rules so I don't give any credence to the notion that a society without any super-natural guidance will be a success.

nozzferrahhtoo

Stealth,

As I said in the other thread I will be replying in one post as this „string“ replying to each other is unhelpful.

I do not claim that the democratic process would not overturn the “golden rule”. I am just espousing that I myself believe a socio democratic application of that rule is more than enough to get us on our way without assuming entities on insufficient (or entirely no) evidence to do so.

As for WHICH golden rule, I refer to the one that was espoused by many of our species before, during, and after the life of Jesus, which is that whatever moral code we work to should be one that recognises that what we do to others is likely to be visited upon ourselves or our loved ones in return, and often not to proportion. This is a “rule” no one needs to be taught. We all learn it very quickly when we, for example, at age 2 grab a toy off another child and try and make off with it.

If you really are interested to read more of my opinion on that you can find it my essay here:
http://www.atheist.ie/2009/02/the-immorality-of-claiming-morality/

As for what kind of marriage would be available in a religion free society, this is easy to ask. We already have secular marriage in Ireland. I would also suggest looking more into the Humanist Weddings they have in the UK. What makes you think it would be any different to that? Many of the questions you ask, such as this one on marriage, are answerable by simply looking at how it already is happening in the real world outside your computer room.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is what happens when you only quote half my sentence and then insert words into it that were not there before such as “[Catholic]”.

Nope! Wrong! That is what happens when i quote the whole sentence you made and embolden the point wher you actually refer to Catholica and THEN you cut out the actual verbatum sentence as you wrote it!

Here is the sentence again:
[your words]
So as I said, you can not talk about the beliefs of "The Catholic" as they are completely divergent, and just because a huge number of them think the earth is 6000 years old, does not mean I lump you in with them and think that you think that too.
[/end quote]

not e the words "Catholic"... "and " a huge number of them believe..."

I pointed out to you that a huge number of Catholics don't believe in Biblical creationism!
Almost none of the Catholics themselves believe in it and only a small number of Biblical fundamental fringe Christians believe it. In citing the example of a broad view for all Catholics you prove the opposite! In fact almost all Christians including even the fundamentalists would not consider these US Protestant Biblical fundamentalists as Catholic!

You were wrong. a huge number don't believe it and the ones that do are not Catholic and don't call themselves Catholic.

If you are going to change my words inside a quote at least do it right. It should not be [catholic] it should be [the group of people to whom I refer who are calling themselves catholic and who are young earth creationist]

They DON'T call themselves Catholic! YOU are the one doing that! You have been given a definition of "mainstream". work with it!

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Stealth,

As I said in the other thread I will be replying in one post as this „string“ replying to each other is unhelpful.

Nozzy, it is very helpful for me as I can dissect your arguments into their components and treat each with the respect it deserves.

Otherwise it gets fuzzy.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not that I know of I am not, but it IS a valid question. What makes you saying you are a catholic any more valid than a young earth creationist saying they are a catholic?

You have been given a definition of "mainstream". I don't have to justify it.

When you say "The Catholic" or "The Christian" who are you talking about and why is that definition the valid one?

This has been gone over before. Are you not aware of the demographics? go back through the thread and read the references. The vast majority of Christians subscribe to a belief stated at the council of Nicaea. A creed. They believe in the Magisterium and apostolic succession. They are "mainstream" . Most of them are Anglican, Roman or Orthodox.

Maybe this is off topic and should be split into a thread called "What is a Christian and whos definition is right".

That is the wortking definition. It is the one I supplied. If you want to start a thread on the definition feel free to do so but it is the one we have been using. Please work with it.

But fine, I will not argue this definition with you any further. Just be aware from now on that when you type "The Christian believe" I will be reading it as "I myself believe..."

No no no! it isn't a personal opinion. It matters not what I believe. It is the Church position! Or at least how I view the church position. "Mainstream" means as beleived by Anglicans Romans and Orthodox" or "as operated" by them. That is the whole point. Unlike the Atheist sidestep it is not a personal belief that changes like the weather. It is an evolving body of literature based on rational debate over thousands of years! You can't just make it up as you go along!

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW

Again you are taking my sentence out of the context in which it was written in order to change its meaning. It seems you find it easier to reply to something I do not say, rather than have to deal with what I do.

In that post and every one since it I am referring to the people who call THEMSELVES catholic. And of ALL the people who call THEMSELVES Catholics a huge number of these are young earth creationist.

Now would you like to reply to that, or keep replying to something I have NOT said? Or would you like to put some more ! marks after the word "wrong" to make yourself feel more right?

The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76% CIA Factbook)
Some polls place 45% of Americans as YEC (Gallup 2008)
The US has a population of 307,006,550

Even looking at america ALONE the number of people who identify themselves as Christian AND YEC is clearly "Huge" as I stated.

This is not me calling them Chrisitian. This is not me calling them YEC. This is the figures of people who identify themselves as both. Their opinion that your beleifs are the heretical ones appear to be just as valid to me as you claiming theirs are wrong.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Education level correlates with industrial and social development. The US is a first world country woth first world health housing and education standards. YOUR point is that such countries should have higher levels of atheism and as people become more educated even higher levels. eventually an 2rnlightened" socisty would be totally atheist! But it doesnt correlate! There are not huge percentages of atheists in the US.

Again the US does not have excellent education facilities. Yes they have better education facilities that third world countries but they also have higher rates of atheism than 3rd world countries. If you look at countries in Africa and America that have poor education levels compared to the US the rate of atheism hovers around 1% percent.

ISAW wrote: »

hidgh levels of literacy in countries has not brought about hight levels of atheism!

When did I ever say literacy was anything to do with atheism?

ISAW wrote: »

Source?

http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/07/faculty-faith.html

ISAW wrote: »

Not because of education!

If you say so.

ISAW wrote: »

Source?

Same, http://harvardmagazine.com/2007/07/faculty-faith.html

ISAW wrote: »

If true it is among the teachers! But they are a tiny amount of "educated people".

Yes, they are. I'm getting the distinct impression you are arguing against some point I never made, such as that in an educated (relatively speaking) country or group everyone should be an atheist.

ISAW wrote: »

You cant refer to primary and secondary and pick that population and them also refer to the teacher s at fourth level and claim it for them.

Why not? A 3rd level teacher is more educated than a 2nd level graduate, and some what unsurprising the amount of atheists rises in the former group.

ISAW wrote: »

What about ALL the people in the universities? No way is there 37 percent atheist.

Probably not given that in general the people at university are not as educated as the people teaching them at university.

Interestingly it is higher than the general population of which most only have 2nd level education.

ISAW wrote: »

I only picked them because it shows the US has a high level of education.

Compared to who?

If you look at the countries the US are better at in educational terms you find that most have an even lower percentage of atheists.

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/AboutScience/does_science_lead_to_atheism.html
Does Science Lead to Atheism?
No.
That was the short answer.

And the long answer:

The longer answer is that scientists are more likely to disbelieve in God than are nonscientists, and eminent scientists are more apt to be disbelievers than journeyman scientists. But does science lead them to atheism? Possibly, but it seems more likely that freethinkers or skeptics are attracted to science than that science creates atheists.

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html#ggu7Np5GAgBg
It is true that scientists believe less in the existence of God than the general population of the United States. However, the recent study by Ecklund, and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and not area of expertise.
And atheism is dis-proportionally found in these institutions.

How is this disputing my point exactly?

ISAW wrote: »

You defined educated as a literate overall population more to do with Primary and secondary.

No I didn't because I'm not stupid enough to think the only thing you do in primary and secondary level is learn to read :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

It showed the top universities rankings in the world and they are mostly American.

And I've shown that only a tiny percentage of Americans go to these elite colleges and in the ones that do the percentage of atheism is vastly larger than the general population.

Saying America only has a tiny percentage of atheists becomes irrelevant then, since elite 3rd level colleges don't only have a tiny percentage of atheists.

There are so many atheists at Harvard for example they have set up a Humanist "Chaplin" to offer chaplin like services to non-believers

http://harvardhumanist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=30

ISAW wrote: »

Even then the above research suggests if they are atheist it isn't because of education but because of social factors. And that is statistically valid in peer reviewed research!

I never said it was solely because of education.

A lot of people who end up in the elite colleges in the US are also stinking rich.

But ignoring the correlation between education levels and atheism because you think those pointing it out are calling you are dumb for being a believer is just silly.

Personally if I was going to be offended by anything I would be more offended by the idea in the article you linked to that freethinkers and skeptics are more likely to be atheist and more likely to advance further in education.

ISAW wrote: »

YOU picked Harvard not me! I picked the top 100 or so universities.

I know, you picked "America" and proceeded to tell me the level of atheism is tiny. What point you thought you were demonstrating with that I've no idea.

The fact that there are 7% of the general population in America are atheist means nothing to the number in Harvard unless you are suggesting their is a correlation.

ISAW wrote: »

If fundamentalist atheistic university professors were put in charge I have no doubt their athistic edocratic scientism would create an unholy mess as we have see in the past from other atheistic regimes!

Good for you, again I'm not seeing what this has to do with anything?

ISAW wrote: »

Read the references supplied. He is not a believer. But he is sick at the behaviour and ruminations of some atheists.

And I should care about that because ... ?

ISAW wrote: »

But your thesis is that people become better as they become educated and atheist.

It is? Well thank Dawkins you are here ISAW to tell me what I think because all this coming up with my own ideas and concepts was becoming awful troublesome.

If you like you can now proceed to argue with the version of me in your head while I nip out for a coffee.

ISAW wrote: »

No i am pointing out your eletist thesis that education = atheism= improvement of the goodness of a person isn't proven.

"Improvement of the goodness of a person" ... what are you talking about?

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

ISAW

Again you are taking my sentence out of the context in which it was written in order to change its meaning. It seems you find it easier to reply to something I do not say, rather than have to deal with what I do.

Wrong!
I posted your exact words in context and gave a direct ilink to wher you stated them!

In that post and every one since it I am referring to the people who call THEMSELVES catholic.

Which I pointed out isn't true!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Church_bodies_whose_official_position_is_YEC

* Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
* Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
* Protestant Reformed Churches in America
* Seventh-Day Adventist Church


Not Catholic - Protestant!
Not in communion with the Catholic Church

Small in numbers even in comparison with other Protestants in the US.

Please show where any of them calls themselves "Catholic"

And of ALL the people who call THEMSELVES Catholics a huge number of these are young earth creationist.

Where is your evidence they call themselves Catholic? they don't they call themselves Protestant!

Now would you like to reply to that, or keep replying to something I have NOT said? Or would you like to put some more ! marks after the word "wrong" to make yourself feel more right?

I posted what you siad. i didn't misquote you. You were wrong then and you are wrong now!

The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76% CIA Factbook)
Some polls place 45% of Americans as YEC (Gallup 2008)
The US has a population of 307,006,550

Even looking at america ALONE the number of people who identify themselves as Christian AND YEC is clearly "Huge" as I stated.

Wrong! No you didn't! you stated that that huge numbers of Catholics and that huge numbers of people who call themselves catholics were young Earth creationists!

1. Huge numbers of Catholics don't subscribe to YEC.
2. It is a fringe Protestant Biblical fundamentalist view and not a mainstream Catholic one.

45 per cent of 307 million people do not believe in YEC! Wher is your evidence?

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

See page 95

Now this is a different question but if you take ten of a group and ask then if they agree Evolution explains life on Earth

Seven Evangelical Protestants will not agree
Six Catholics will agree
Nine atheists will agree

You can't say that makes the fundies Catholic!

This is not me calling them Chrisitian. This is not me calling them YEC. This is the figures of people who identify themselves as both.

Catholic = mainstream christian

Their opinion that your beleifs are the heretical ones appear to be just as valid to me as you claiming theirs are wrong.

I didn't claim theirs is wrong! Nor did I claim mine is right. I pointed out what mainstream Orthodox Christians believe.

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW,

You are not working with me here. I am telling you what I mean by the words you misinterpreted. RAther than work with me on that to understand what I am saying, you keep returning to the words you misinterpreted and re-misinterpreting them. Which do you think is more likely, that I know what I mean by my own words and I am explaining it to you as best I can, or you know my mind better than I know it myself? Try and understand what I am saying and accept that it is not what you think, or want that, I am saying and we will get somewhere.

Also posting YECs who claim to be protestant does not in any way negate my claim that many of them claim to be catholic. Both exist. There are many that call themselves Protestant also. This does not change the fact that there are many that call themselves Catholic. I already gave you examples of 3 US big names and their numerous followers. I have also posted the % of people who call themselves such things in the US alone and the vast numbers of people that results in when you do the math.

Your argument would be analogous to saying “no one claims to be white, look at all the people I can list that claim to be black!” and me having to point out “errr but there still are people who claim to be white aren’t there?”

However this is irrelevant as this whole conversation tangent started, if you recall, by a post where someone spoke of what “The Christian” believes (post #128). Not “The Catholic”. It descended from there. Last time I checked they are Christians too. My original point therefore has just been supported by you! The point being that you can not validly talk about what “The Christian” believes as many of them believe things you simply do not and vice versa. Even between Catholics and Protestants you can not safely say what “The Christian believes”

Last time I checked this forum was called "Christianity" not "Catholicism".

ISAW

StealthRolex wrote: »

Atheists have no golden rules

so you therefore accept that a rule like "child abuse is always wrong" should not be always true? you accept that society at some time can change this rule and child abuse be acceptable?

so I don't give any credence to the notion that a society without any super-natural guidance will be a success.

"natural Law" does not require belief in a supernatural god. There can be secular natural law.

Allow me to outline two developing strands of debate

1. The "no natural law" strand of atheism i.e. that things like sex between adults and children is not always wrong.

2. The anarchist strand- that atheism implies no laws in the normal sense and that society adopt an anarchy model because based on your point "there are no golden rules"

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do. Each other.

So you are basically saying moral code is socially negotiated.

Let me take two examples one societal and one scientific.

First suppose atheists came together in an atheistic socisty and decided to allow child abuse. would it then be right? If wrong according to what would it be wrong?

Second suppose atheists came together and decided atoms do not exist. Would they cease to exist? If if like some Biblical fundamentalists they decided Pi is equal to three?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So you are basically saying moral code is socially negotiated.

Let me take two examples one societal and one scientific.

First suppose atheists came together in an atheistic socisty and decided to allow child abuse. would it then be right? If wrong according to what would it be wrong?

Why do you guys always do this?

We say there is no universal morality, and then you guys go "ok but what about ..." and come up with an example that appeals to universal morality?

If a bunch of atheists came together in an atheistic society and decided to allow child abuse that would be right according to them and wrong according to me

Morality is simply an opinion, even if you are talking about God's opinion.

The idea that I don't know which of these is or isn't matching the universal objective moral standard present in nature is irrelevant because no such standard exists, any more than the "Is Jim Carery funny" standard exists in nature independent to humans.

I don't care if you think it is moral to abuse a child. I don't, and given the ability I'm not going to let you.

Society works on either convincing or forcing your opinion on others. You either get the majority to agree to with your moral position, or you force it upon them, or you submit to their moral code or you break their moral code and suffer the consequences.

ISAW wrote: »

Second suppose atheists came together and decided atoms do not exist. Would they cease to exist?

Why would they cease to exist?

StealthRolex

ISAW wrote: »

so you therefore accept that a rule like "child abuse is always wrong" should not be always true? you accept that society at some time can change this rule and child abuse be acceptable?
"

Not society in general as in general we do not live in an atheistic society. Secular for some but not openly atheistic. Hence I was suggesting that a primarily atheistic society could if it chose to democratically. Or was dictated to depending on the type of democracy or political structure it employed.

However if it could also happen here through a referendum or change in European law, UN rights etc, I would campaign to protect the children.

StealthRolex

ISAW wrote: »

so you therefore accept that a rule like "child abuse is always wrong" should not be always true? you accept that society at some time can change this rule and child abuse be acceptable?



"natural Law" does not require belief in a supernatural god. There can be secular natural law.

Allow me to outline two developing strands of debate

1. The "no natural law" strand of atheism i.e. that things like sex between adults and children is not always wrong.

2. The anarchist strand- that atheism implies no laws in the normal sense and that society adopt an anarchy model because based on your point "there are no golden rules"

Now I think you have me confused with someone else.

In case there is any confusion I am a Catholic and do not hold to the atheistic belief structure or ideologies. The comments you quoted were my comments back to A.N. Other atheist in order to gain an understanding of the moral principles that underpin atheism.

I am of the opinion that most atheists are atheists so they can pick and choose their morals and I have yet to be proved wrong.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Last time I checked this forum was called "Christianity" not "Catholicism".

Are Catholics not Christians?

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW wrote: »

So you are basically saying moral code is socially negotiated.

Let me take two examples one societal and one scientific.

Yes, negotiated, you're getting it.

As I said, „right“ and „wrong“ are merely labels we assign in retrospect. I would not think the child abuse (why is it when reaching for an example in a religious context child abuse is almost ALWAYS the one you guys go for? Its like an obsession. There are so many atrocities to choose from) “right” or “wrong” because that is not an attribute that it contains in and of itself.

In such a society I have two choices. One I can leave and go to a society more in line with my views. Two I can educate, debate, argue, vote and otherwise move to have the general consensus on this changed.

This I do every day. To take another one important to people on this forum, abortion (for the most part, I am aware of the exceptions) is illegal in Ireland. I therefore stand by any move to incarcerate any person who engages in breaking that law. It is the law, and I support that.

However that does NOT mean I stop trying to have that law changed. I condemn the doctor that performs an illegal abortion in Ireland today, while simultaneously campaigning heavily to have that law changed.

The second example you give appears to me to be irrelevant. Morality to me is subjective. The existence of atoms is objective. Objective things do not change to true or false merely because people SAY they are true or false. If every person alive said cows were identical to horses, the cows would not magically acquire horse attributes.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Are Catholics not Christians?

I am not aware of ever saying otherwise?

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

ISAW,

You are not working with me here. I am telling you what I mean by the words you misinterpreted. RAther than work with me on that to understand what I am saying, you keep returning to the words you misinterpreted and re-misinterpreting them.

i didnt misrepresent anything. It is what YOU wrote! If you meant something different you should have written something different! If you want to withdraw what you stated and say "I didnt mean that " then withdraw it and clarify it! But instead you refuse to accept what you actually wrote was WRONG!

Which do you think is more likely, that I know what I mean by my own words and I am explaining it to you as best I can, or you know my mind better than I know it myself?

If you meant something different and want to climb down and admit you were wrong we will be quite happy to accept the clarification. As it is you seem to be saying "I meant something different but I will not admit what I wrote was wrong" It was WRONG! Factually wrong! Catholics are cleraly defined [ in this thread and in several others here. Mainstream Christians are defined. They are NOT Young Earth Creationists!

Try and understand what I am saying and accept that it is not what you think, or want that, I am saying and we will get somewhere.

Try actually stating what you mean instead of posting things which are factually wrong and then pretending you meant something else!

Also posting YECs who claim to be protestant does not in any way negate my claim that many of them claim to be catholic. Both exist.

There you go again! You reenter a claim that was shown to be WRONG! Mainstream Catholics do not subscribne to YEC! It is a fringe belief even among Protestants!You are well aware of what "mainstream" means. Catholics do believe God created the Universe but they don't believe he created the Earth 6000 years ago and it isn NOT part of their creed or Dogma. You are WRONG about that so please stop insisting YEC is a Catholic belief . it ISN'T!

There are many that call themselves Protestant also. This does not change the fact that there are many that call themselves Catholic.

You have been given the definition of "mainstream" and "Catholic". you are WRONG!
How many of the YEC movement call themselves Catholic? name a single congregation in any Church anywhere that does!

Are you seriously trying to claim many means "more than one" and then you can claim that if TWO Catholics believe the Earth must be 6000 years old because the Bible says so ( against the teachings of their own Magisterium) that it is a Catholic belief?
Preposterous!

I already gave you examples of 3 US big names and their numerous followers.

Whom you claim are Catholic?
Where do they say they are Catholic and where do they say the support YEC?
Not alone that they ARE NOT Catholic according tto the clear definition which you have already been given to work with!

I have also posted the % of people who call themselves such things in the US alone and the vast numbers of people that results in when you do the math.

no you haven't! You posted bulk figures from the CIA factbook. I dont dispute them. But where do they prove many Catholics are YToung Earth Creationists or that the teachings of the Catholic church subscribe to YEC?
YEC as I have shown is a fringe Protestant Biblical fundamentalist belief!
You are wrong if you claimn it is a mainstream christian or catholic belief!

Your argument would be analogous to saying “no one claims to be white, look at all the people I can list that claim to be black!” and me having to point out “errr but there still are people who claim to be white aren’t there?”

"race" can be argued to not exist.

But to go with the analogy and let us assume ther are black people and white people and noone can be both black and white. whether or not people claim to be white there are black people who are by definition black. You saying that "many black people claim to be white" does not make them white and you saying "many white people are in fact black" wont make it true especially if
1. many white people DON'T make such a claim and
2. even if they did it would not be true.

However this is irrelevant as this whole conversation tangent started, if you recall, by a post where someone spoke of what “The Christian” believes (post #128). Not “The Catholic”.

and you remember Catholic = mainstream christian which has been defined time and again to the people like YOU who keep trying to claim that mainstream Christians or Catholics are Young Earth Creationists. No doubt you are used to arguing with fundamental Christians and making a joke of their beliefs, but that isn't what we are about here so please don't try to change the subject to what fringe Protestant Biblical fundamentalists
believe and apply that to the mainstream!

It descended from there. Last time I checked they are Christians too.

There you go again! Back to the "I was right all along" when you have been shown what "mainstream" means. Now please don't force me to make you climb down again. You are clearly WRONG! By Mainstream Christian we are discussing those with creeds Apostolic succession and a magesterium. Go with it!

My original point therefore has just been supported by you! The point being that you can not validly talk about what “The Christian” believes as many of them believe things you simply do not and vice versa. Even between Catholics and Protestants you can not safely say what “The Christian believes”

I have told you several times now what I mean by "mainstream christian" and "Catholic."
Trying to ignore the definition won't get you anywhere!

Last time I checked this forum was called "Christianity" not "Catholicism".

Last time I checked you were given a definition you just are so keen to ignore so you can claim Biblical fundamentalists are representative of Christianity! they aren't! You are doing the same thing that is done on Muslims by calling them all terrorists or on Irish people in England in the 1970s. Please STOP and go with the definition I supplied.

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW,

I am aware of what I wrote thanks.

I am also aware of what I meant by it. I am further aware of what you think I mean by it. Rest assured that the two are NOT the same.

Now the choice is yours to either assume to know what I mean and presume to tell me what I mean by my own words… or take it from me that the meaning you are taking from it is not the meaning intended and work at trying to understand what I DO mean.

The choice is yours, I can not make it for you, but I fail to see how the former choice can allow discourse on any level between any people.

So for the record here is what I mean:

1) There are a huge number of people who identify themselves as “Christian”.
2) There is a huge variety of beliefs actually held by people who call themselves Christian, some of them even mutually incompatible.
3) We therefore can not presume to know what “The Christian” believes, merely by referring to the title “Christian”.

That was my point. No More, no less. And it is not going to change no matter how strong your apparent fetish for the word "wrong" appears to be.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you guys always do this?
If a bunch of atheists came together in an atheistic society and decided to allow child abuse that would be right according to them and wrong according to me

So you accept that given youre in the minority in the atheistic society their view should be allowed to be passed into law?
You accept the corollary that if today there is a person that believes child abuse is right according to him then it is right even if most people think it is wrong?

Morality is simply an opinion, even if you are talking about God's opinion.

So the idea that "child abuse is always wrong" is only an opinion and nothing more?

The idea that I don't know which of these is or isn't matching the universal objective moral standard present in nature is irrelevant because no such standard exists, any more than the "Is Jim Carery funny" standard exists in nature independent to humans.

So the idea that child abuse is wrong should be evaluated like Jim Carey and if people think it is acceptable then it should be allowed? Your moral relativism is leading you down a fairly dark alley.

I don't care if you think it is moral to abuse a child. I don't, and given the ability I'm not going to let you.

So you think you should be able to enforce you opinion over others? In your atheistic Utopia your opinion will be enforced by you. You will dictate what others can do? where have I heard that before? You began saying you negotiate but really what you mean is "I want MY opinion to hold sway and if given the opportunity I will force you to accept it"

Society works on either convincing or forcing your opinion on others. You either get the majority to agree to with your moral position, or you force it upon them, or you submit to their moral code or you break their moral code and suffer the consequences.

So if you cant get people to agree you will force atheism on them just as Stalin Pol Pot and Mao did? No surprises there then. Classic "atheistic society" rhetoric.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would they cease to exist?

They wouldn't! You can't socially negotiate something which is a fact like an atom. Actually I have elsewhere , Pi is a better example, but I think for the purposes of this discussion we both know what I mean.
do you claim that an adult having sex with a child is always wrong? That it is a fact?
So
Either you claim it can at least be sometimes right for some people
or
It is always wrong.

Which is it?

Readers watch how he may attempt to socially negotiate this FACT.

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

ISAW,

I am aware of what I wrote thanks.

I am also aware of what I meant by it. I am further aware of what you think I mean by it. Rest assured that the two are NOT the same.

Everyone knows what you wrote and that what you wrote is wrong! Catholics and mainstream Christians as clearly defined several times supported by statistics do not subscribe to the fringe fundy YEC view you are so used to criticising so your attempts to change the subject to a criticism of fringe fundamentalists is apparent.

Furthermore you may try to climb down but you attempts at backpeddling are additioonally hampered by yourself inf and when you later try to reenter the claim that mainstream Christians or Catholics as clearly and distinctively defined subscribe to YEC. They don't and your are WRONG!

Now the choice is yours to either assume to know what I mean and presume to tell me what I mean by my own words…

ANYONE can see what your own words say.
Need i quote you again.
Why are you trying to deny that you claimed


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65623403&postcount=197
I am not about to trawl two long biographies trying to find out what other people mean by THEIR statements. If they think there is a link between X and Y then it is up to them to adumbrate that link for further exploration, not for me to do it for them.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65623487&postcount=198
Again it is not ME that calls such people Christian or Catholic. It is those people who call themselves such things, like Bill ODonoghue and all his followers, Ken Ham and all his followers, the currently imprisoned for his crimes Kent Hovind and all his followers. I could go on at length. These people call THEMSELVES Catholics and Christian and if you have a problem with them being lumped in with those labels, then it is not me your disagreement lies with but the people themselves.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65610076&postcount=182
3) I am asserting that we can not therefore lump all "catholics" and "Christians" together into a statement like "The Christian believes....." because the belief of people who subscribe to these labels varies so wildly.

or take it from me that the meaning you are taking from it is not the meaning intended and work at trying to understand what I DO mean.

ONE CAN and i have lumped "mainstream Christians" together. they constitute 80-90 percent of all people claiming to be christian. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that Young Earth Creationists claim to subscribe to the Catholic church or mainstream Christian view of the world!

If you can't state what you actually mean please don't try to blame me for showing the meaning of what you actually stated!

So for the record here is what I mean:

1) There are a huge number of people who identify themselves as “Christian”.

Vague! Do you mean "About 2,100 Million"?

2) There is a huge variety of beliefs actually held by people who call themselves Christian, some of them even mutually incompatible.

Yes. So what? almost all christians subscribe to mainstrean christianity and a core set of beliefs.

Roman Catholics - over 1,000 million
Orthodox - about 400 million
Anglican - about 100 million

those three are about 75 per cent already!
I also pointed to apostolic succession and the Magesterium as part of the core belief.

3) We therefore can not presume to know what “The Christian” believes, merely by referring to the title “Christian”.

Are you really trying to claim that after being shown a definition for "Mainstream christian"
and "Catholic" by me several times now and being shown the statistics and the points about magesterium and apostolic succession that you are unaware of all this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesiastical_polity

That was my point. No More, no less. And it is not going to change no matter how strong your apparent fetish for the word "wrong" appears to be.

Your point is WRONG . You cant claim you were just ignorant because you have been shown the information above several times!

nozzferrahhtoo

Again for your convienience…

The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76% CIA Factbook)
Some polls place 45% of Americans as YEC (Gallup 2008)
The US has a population of 307,006,550

Do the math on that and you will find a huge number of people who call themselves Christians (not me calling them that) who are also calling themselves YEC.

So I am afraid my claim that a lot of YEC also call themselves Christian is entirely true, despite your fetish for the word “wrong”

If you want a little help with the maths...

If you want help with the math it goes like this:

At 76% XT that gives us 233,324,978.

Simple subtraction means that there is therefore NOT XT 73681572

At 45% this yeilds YEC of 138,152,948

Even if we make insanely the assumption that ALL the Not XT are YEC (even though they clearly are not) that still leaves 64 million people who identify THEMSELVES as both Christian and YEC.

If you do the math without such an assumption and assume that 45% of Christians are YEC and 45% of NOT christians are YEC then you get 104,996,240 people who identify themselves as both.

Between 64 and 104 million to me is a lot of people. Is it not to you? Both you and they call themselves "Christian"... yet clearly you believe wholly different things right?

StealthRolex

this semantic deconstructionist obfuscatorial rhetoric is not really getting us very far.

Atheists can be predisposed to amoral behaviour in a dictatorial regime that can lead to extreme violence. is this true?

nozzferrahhtoo

Only in that PEOPLE can be predisposed to amoral behaviour in a dictatorial regime that can lead to extreme violence.

My point is that there is no reason to think that Atheists or Theists will necessarily be any more or less predisposed towards violence than each other.

Atheists have however not got ONE of the possible reasons to predispose you AGAINST violence that theists do. That is they will never move away from violence while citing the reason that it is against gods plan or wishes.

However given that there are believers in god who can find reasons for themselves in gods wishes and plans to do violence, I do not see this as a problem for atheists.

Clearly the vast vast majority of us want to avoid violence and avoid committing it. We do not need to presuppose anything on insufficient (or in this case no) evidence in order to all come together and say “look guys, this is how we want to live, lets get on with it”.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Atheists have however not got ONE of the possible reasons to predispose you AGAINST violence that theists do. That is they will never move away from violence while citing the reason that it is against gods plan or wishes.

Do you mind if I paraphrase?

Atheists will never move away from violence while citing the reason that it is against the plan or wishes of something they do not believe in.

I trust the meaning is uncorrupted

nozzferrahhtoo

I do not see the point in changing my words from the ones I chose to use into something else I am afraid. If this is something you want to engage in then so be it, but I will only be talking about, and espousing the position of, the words I have used. Not someone elses.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not see the point in changing my words from the ones I chose to use into something else I am afraid. If this is something you want to engage in then so be it, but I will only be talking about, and espousing the position of, the words I have used. Not someone elses.

I put it to you then that you are not prepared to engage with anyone who does as you do

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

So you accept that given youre in the minority in the atheistic society their view should be allowed to be passed into law?

If there is a law that I disagree with (ie think is immoral) there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.

I can try and convince people it is wrong and hope to have the law changed

Or I can try and overthrow the government and install my own government, but that is rather difficult and involves a lot more moral issues.

Whether or not something is law though is some what irrelevant to whether I think it is moral or not.

ISAW wrote: »

You accept the corollary that if today there is a person that believes child abuse is right according to him then it is right even if most people think it is wrong?

Well yes, obviously. If he believes it is right then he believes it is right. If others believe it is wrong then they believe it is wrong.

Morality is opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

So the idea that "child abuse is always wrong" is only an opinion and nothing more?

"Only an opinion" as opposed to what exactly?

That is like evolution is "only" a theory, or the Mona Lisa is "only" a work of art.

ISAW wrote: »

So the idea that child abuse is wrong should be evaluated like Jim Carey and if people think it is acceptable then it should be allowed?

Show be allowed according to who?

The people who think it is acceptable are obviously going to allow it.

What I think you are getting at is if other people think it is morally acceptable but I think it is wrong should I allow them to do it anyway. The simply answer to that is no, since I don't think it is morally acceptable in my opinion.

Just because someone things it is morally acceptable doesn't necessarily have any bearing on whether I do.

ISAW wrote: »

So you accept that given youre in the minority in the atheistic society their view should be allowed to be passed into law?

If there is a law that I disagree with (ie think is immoral) there isn't a whole lot I can do about it.

I can try and convince people it is wrong and hope to have the law changed

Or I can try and overthrow the government and install my own government, but that is rather difficult and involves a lot more moral issues.

Whether or not something is law though is some what irrelevant to whether I think it is moral or not.

ISAW wrote: »

You accept the corollary that if today there is a person that believes child abuse is right according to him then it is right even if most people think it is wrong?

Well yes, obviously. If he believes it is right then he believes it is right. If others believe it is wrong then they believe it is wrong.

Morality is opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

So the idea that "child abuse is always wrong" is only an opinion and nothing more?

"Only an opinion" as opposed to what exactly?

That is like evolution is "only" a theory, or the Mona Lisa is "only" a work of art.

ISAW wrote: »

Your moral relativism is leading you down a fairly dark alley.

It is no different to your moral relativism.

There is no difference between "You shouldn't do that because I think it is wrong" or "You shouldn't do that because God thinks it is wrong" You are simply deferring to authority, after concluding the moral position that God has authority.

At the end of the day if the other person doesn't agree they don't agree, and you are left with accepting that or using force to stop them. God throws people into hell for doing things he thinks are morally wrong but he no more makes them agree with his moral view point than I could.

ISAW wrote: »

So you think you should be able to enforce you opinion over others?

"Should" is irrelevant. I do enforce my opinion over others.

I vote, and my opinion is majority held it becomes law which enforces a moral position over others (ie criminals). If a criminal doesn't like it there isn't a lot they can do other than convince the majority of their moral position or over throw the government.

ISAW wrote: »

In your atheistic Utopia your opinion will be enforced by you. You will dictate what others can do? where have I heard that before?

Er, probably in every single country in the world with a legal system and police force.

ISAW wrote: »

You began saying you negotiate but really what you mean is "I want MY opinion to hold sway and if given the opportunity I will force you to accept it"

Yup. Show me someone who doesn't want their opinion to hold sway and given the opportunity they wouldn't enforce it.

Imagine someone who said "I think killing people is wrong but I don't want that reflected in society and given the opportunity I'm not going to stop someone killing people, or enact laws that make it illegal"

And you complain about me going down a dark path ...

ISAW wrote: »

So if you cant get people to agree you will force atheism on them just as Stalin Pol Pot and Mao did?

I would if forcing atheism on people was my moral opinion. Its not though.

I want my moral opinions to hold sway but that doesn't mean you get to invent what my moral opinion is. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I put it to you then that you are not prepared to engage with anyone who does as you do

No idea whatsoever what you mean sorry.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

They wouldn't! You can't socially negotiate something which is a fact like an atom.

Who said you could?

Morality is not "a fact like an atom" ... it is opinion.

ISAW wrote: »

do you claim that an adult having sex with a child is always wrong?

Yes, it is my opinion that it is always wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

That it is a fact?

It is a fact that this is my opinion.

It is not a universal fact, a property of the universe like Pi, because morality is opinion. It is a conclusion of a human being, or if you want to introduce non-human intelligence like God, a conclusion of an intelligent being. It exists only as an abstract concept, like what is the best movie ever made or when is a sun set at its most beautiful.

ISAW wrote: »

Either you claim it can at least be sometimes right for some people
or
It is always wrong.

Which is it?

It is, in my opinion, always wrong. I can't think of an situation that could be presented to me where I could be of the opinion that it is morally right given that I don't know of any situation where sexual intercourse with a child doesn't risk physical and mental harm to the child's development

ISAW

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again for your convienience…

The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians (76% CIA Factbook)

Yes. so what?
The total population of the Us is abut FIVE PER CENT of the World population.
The 76 per cent saying they are christian are mostly (53) Protestant and NOT Catholic!
The Roman Catholic element of Americans are 23 per cent!
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches

The Mainstream element of US Christians are about 26.5 per cent of Christians there!
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#Pew_branches

Of the rest they are not young Earth creationists only a very few are and i wont repost the sources.

But the US itself is a disproportionate example of mainstream Christianiny as elsewhere where the other 90 per cent of christians live (2000 million as opposed to 200 million in the US) Catholic Anglican and Orthodox account for probably 90 per cent plus = MAINSTREAM Christianity subjcet to the definitions already given!

Some polls place 45% of Americans as YEC (Gallup 2008)
The US has a population of 307,006,550

WRONG!

Please actually read sources before you accept opinions on them.
What Gallup poll? this one?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

to which 44 percent replied "that is the most likely of the choises given" to:
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

It says nothing about when THE EARTH was created!

But the Sept 2005 poll (please go and look at it) might be more to your liking and is quite disturbing.

Do the math on that and you will find a huge number of people who call themselves Christians (not me calling them that) who are also calling themselves YEC.

Not mainstream Christians as defined already in this thread. And they do NOT call themselves Catholics as claimed by you!

So I am afraid my claim that a lot of YEC also call themselves Christian is entirely true, despite your fetish for the word “wrong”

You are now trying to backpeddle again and change the claim you made.
the claim was not about YEC claiming to be Christians! It stemmed from a discussion on what Christians believed and in that discussion MAINSTREAM Christianity was defined and their numbers given. The tiny percent of YEC are not representative of Christianity. Mainstream Christianity IS!

If you want a little help with the maths...

If you want help with the math it goes like this:

At 76% XT that gives us 233,324,978.

Simple subtraction means that there is therefore NOT XT 73681572

At 45% this yeilds YEC of 138,152,948

I have no idea what you mean by the above. The figures are there in adherents.org.
Your claims about mainstream Catholics are WRONG!

Christians who subscribe to mainstream Christianity they vast majority of Christians about 80 -90 per cent of them do NOT subscribe to YEC!

Even if we make insanely the assumption that ALL the Not XT are YEC (even though they clearly are not) that still leaves 64 million people who identify THEMSELVES as both Christian and YEC.

No it does not! Your stats are taken from a poll which does not ask anything at all about how or when the Earth was created! It asks about God creating man. that could be taken to mean god giving a conscience to mankind. the Earth could still be hundreds of millions of years old.


[qupte]
If you do the math without such an assumption and assume that 45% of Christians are YEC
[/quote]

Where do you get this preposterous claim! Based on a reply that God had a hand in creating mankind you assume that that means the same people are saying "God created Earth 10,000 years ago"! the question didn't ask this at all!


Not alone that but you take the BIASED sample of the US which is disproportionatley (over 50 per cent) Protestant and try to apply a tiny minority of these ten per cent (again already given in sources and even Lutherands Mrthodists etc. are not YEC ) to the rest of the population the other 90 per cent of christians!

Yo are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Between 64 and 104 million to me is a lot of people. Is it not to you? Both you and they call themselves "Christian"... yet clearly you believe wholly different things right?

64 million people DO NOT believe in YEC but even if they did 2,000 million other Christians still don't!

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no difference between "You shouldn't do that because I think it is wrong" or "You shouldn't do that because God thinks it is wrong" You are simply deferring to authority, after concluding the moral position that God has authority.

there is a difference between "God/nature/reason says child abuise is ALWAYS wrong FACT"
And "Child abuse isn't right or wrong it is just an opinion depending on the time and the person doing it"

Er, probably in every single country in the world with a legal system and police force.

WRONG! REpublics are majority rule reguated by law! we can't pass unjust laws.

Yup. Show me someone who doesn't want their opinion to hold sway and given the opportunity they wouldn't enforce it.

that call themselves Christian democrats! Their belief is that you should tolerate what you don't like. Obviously you don't believe in free speech and would gag anyone opposing you if you could.

Imagine someone who said "I think killing people is wrong but I don't want that reflected in society and given the opportunity I'm not going to stop someone killing people, or enact laws that make it illegal"

And you complain about me going down a dark path ...

I can imagine such a person. His name was Jesus.

I want my moral opinions to hold sway but that doesn't mean you get to invent what my moral opinion is. :rolleyes:

It is quite apparent you preach despotism and not tolerance. You said so yourself. AS did all the slaughtering intolerant atheistic regimes in history.

nozzferrahhtoo

ISAW

I am not sure what your obsession with Protestants are…

All my point was is that of all the people who call themselves Christian, a huge proportion of them have beliefs that you do not share AND in some cases are mutually incompatible with what you do believe.

I have shown you a minimum of 64millions examples of that. People who claim to be Christian who have beliefs you do not share and are in fact not compatible with what you do believe.

I fail to see how my point is not made despite your love of the word "wrong" which you appear to use in such a way that suggests you believe if you call something wrong often enough, it will suddenly become so.