Sad State Of Usa

[David_Nicoson 1]

Name a society where it is okay to steal, lie or disobey the government. None.

To be fair, the notion of stealing is relative to the rules of ownership in that society.Is it stealing for serfs to rise up and take the land from the nobles?In the US, it's okay for the government to take land and move it to commercial uses it prefers, either directly through eminent domain or indirectly through zoning and taxes.Wouldn't we consider the year of jubilee stealing in our society?

[Loismustdie 0]

But I suppose it's humble of Christians to claim that the God that they believe in truly exists (with no proof) and in addition is the ONLY true god and those who don't believe in it are going to hell.

Absolutely, especially if you actually live life like that statement is true.

[crowTrobot 2]

Absolutely, especially if you actually live life like that statement is true.

it's egocentric, not humble.

[jmkiser 0]

Good responses.Of course, I'm not so ignorant to say that there aren't plenty of atheists out there who do consider themselves on a "side". When discussing semantics of the term "atheist", all it means to me, personally, is lack of belief in a god. To others, it means something else. And to some crazy fundamentalists, it means "satan worshipper". Whatever... to each his own. I guess we'll just have to be more specific about the people we are referencing?What I would ask is, what part of the heinous acts of communism are relative to a lack of belief in god? I don't think that all atheists are all true and honorable people... that would be a silly assumption. I'm sure not taking a "side" on the issue. But to me, the reality of the situation is there. Religious vs. non-religous notions... when it comes to violence, religion tops the charts. That's not to say there aren't plenty of other reasons that people are violent. National pride, jealousy, delusions, etc. This is the religion thread, though, and the reality is that plenty of people have died "in the name of _______(fill the blank)". And to be fair, feel free to keep atheist's responsible for their actions. And again I ask, what is relevant to atheism that has been done of which the term/ideal is responsible for? To me, communism is a bad answer. Give some specifics. What is wrong with communism that the atheism is responsible for?Regarding the "side" or the "groups" of atheists, as I said... if there are some organizations out there that exist who use the word, that's fine. I'm not to gung-ho about organizations myself. When I call myself an atheist, all it means to me is no belief in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. Someone might ask me why I don't have a belief in a god, and I would say that I haven't found any good reason to. We could probably go down that road in another topic.But yeah, back to CrowT's original topic, I think there is something to be said about possible presidents who get looked over because they don't fit the WASP mold. It's sad that an atheist or a homosexual could never be president because it would have nothing to do with how good they would be at the job. Now if you say that an atheist shouldn't be president, what about an atheist would make him a bad president? Does it have to do with other countries perception of our leader? I, personally, think that is a weak argument due to the fact that there are many more important issues then that. Anyway, I'm rambling, but would love a response

[Balloon guy 158]

If I started this thread with, an athiest should never be president than your point is made, but this thread was started to try to make the point that the USA is in a sad state because the voters would not consider an athiest. The only way to make this point is to believe first that an athiest, buy being an athiest, would make a good president.Is it a sad state that the USA would not vote for a nazi sympathiser? or a skin head? or a slew of other distasteful people? Crow point's was illogical.As far as communism/ athiest, Communism is the largest form of government that makes a specific stand that there is no God, and that the state holds the position in society that God holds now. This is not a big reach to say that communism has more connection to atheism than any other form of government. You say you don't like it because you feel yours is a truer representation of athiesm, with a golden rule style of living, yet I notice that my side has to carry the crusades etc wherever we go. Whats good for the goose...As a form of belief, atheism brings nothing to the table, it's entire tenant is based on what's not true. It doesn't bring hope, nor structure, nor direction. It brings the opposite.You cannot prove to me that I should take things from weak people simply because I am stronger with an atheism argument. There is no inherent good or bad, there is just life, which will end and mean nothing. I would not use this arguement to prove that atheism is wrong, but I can use this arguement to prove that an athiest shouldn't be in power, and that the atheist model would be a poor one for government.

[David_Nicoson 1]

As far as communism/ athiest, Communism is the largest form of government that makes a specific stand that there is no God, and that the state holds the position in society that God holds now. This is not a big reach to say that communism has more connection to atheism than any other form of government. You say you don't like it because you feel yours is a truer representation of athiesm, with a golden rule style of living, yet I notice that my side has to carry the crusades etc wherever we go. Whats good for the goose...

In the context of a Tsar asserting his divine right to rule, a Communist distances himself most emphatically by claiming atheism. Atheism doesn't have the same political implications in the modern world.I don't think modern Christians should have to answer for the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. It seems like a good idea to think of what ideals or structures separate you from the instigators, though.

[crowTrobot 2]

If I started this thread with, an athiest should never be president than your point is made, but this thread was started to try to make the point that the USA is in a sad state because the voters would not consider an athiest.

no. for the third time my point was the usa is in a sad state because it values christian belief above all else when selecting candidates. insert whatever non-christian theology you want for atheist.

Is it a sad state that the USA would not vote for a nazi sympathiser? or a skin head? or a slew of other distasteful people?

As a form of belief, atheism brings nothing to the table, it's entire tenant is based on what's not true. It doesn't bring hope, nor structure, nor direction. It brings the opposite.

even better display of ignorant prejudice than you put on earlier in this thread. atheism is based on what is true for practical purposes, and it brings much more mutual/global hope and direction than any theology because the base assumption is that this life/world is all there is. that makes prolonging human life, reducing human suffering, and protecting the earth much more of a priority than you get with any theology. you obviously have a badly skewed, simplistic picture of what atheists are like - the result of long-standing cultural prejudice that is NO DIFFERENT than racism.

You cannot prove to me that I should take things from weak people simply because I am stronger with an atheism argument. There is no inherent good or bad, there is just life, which will end and mean nothing.

ignorant nonsense. atheists value life and morality as much if not more than most theists.

[Balloon guy 158]

no. for the third time my point was the usa is in a sad state because it values christian belief above all else when selecting candidates. insert whatever non-christian theology you want for atheist.even better display of ignorant prejudice than you put on earlier in this thread. atheism is based on what is true for practical purposes, and it brings much more mutual/global hope and direction than any theology because the base assumption is that this life/world is all there is. that makes prolonging human life, reducing human suffering, and protecting the earth much more of a priority than you get with any theology. you obviously have a badly skewed, simplistic picture of what atheists are like - the result of long-standing cultural prejudice that is NO DIFFERENT than racism.ignorant nonsense. atheists value life and morality as much if not more than most theists.

Atheism brings hope and direction? Because survival of the species makes us want to be good and moral?Atheist vaule life and morality as much if not more than theist?And this is based on what? You're opinion. Or you're deep wish to not be wrong.Atheism has no core value, it does not have any claim to goodness or morality. It is the core of nihilism though, and anarchy. Sorry if I am so racist and preducie not to just take at face value your decision that atheism is as moral without any foundational guidance as the belief that you will one day answer to a God that wants you to do good. Given the nature of man, I will say that you are fighting an uphill battle here. I get to point at all of human history, you get to point at your christmas wish list.I will win.You might as well say that all red headed people love go carts, because you have just as much factual data to point to to prove your point.

[crowTrobot 2]

Atheism brings hope and direction? Because survival of the species makes us want to be good and moral?

yes, survival of species and empathy for individuals.

Atheist vaule life and morality as much if not more than theist?And this is based on what?

common sense & years of paying attention.

Atheism has no core value, it does not have any claim to goodness or morality.

one of the foundations of atheism is the (for practical purposes) scientifically proven fact that morality is just an evolved trait in higher animals and not something specifically of religious origin.

[crowTrobot 2]

also the whole historical linking the failure of communism to atheism thing is pretty silly. the "immorality" of communism comes from denial of individual freedoms, something most theocracies and theologocially-influenced governments throughout history are equally guilty of.

[Balloon guy 158]

yes, survival of species and empathy for individuals.empathy? a natural occurance amongst humans?common sense & years of paying attention.So you are basically saying that you know it's true, and therefore you are right.one of the foundations of atheism is the (for practical purposes) scientifically proven fact that morality is just an evolved trait in higher animals and not something specifically of religious origin.

Science has proven morals comes from higher animals?Must have missed that in school. Tell me when science proves embarassment comes from ferns...I'd like to read that study

[crowTrobot 2]

Science has proven morals comes from higher animals?

no, morality is the result of both physical and social natural selection. behavior favoring group over individual and various levels of primitive empathatic behavior have been observed in numerous higher animal species, even birds.

[Loismustdie 0]

Atheism brings hope and direction? Because survival of the species makes us want to be good and moral?Atheist vaule life and morality as much if not more than theist?And this is based on what? You're opinion. Or you're deep wish to not be wrong.Atheism has no core value, it does not have any claim to goodness or morality. It is the core of nihilism though, and anarchy. Sorry if I am so racist and preducie not to just take at face value your decision that atheism is as moral without any foundational guidance as the belief that you will one day answer to a God that wants you to do good. Given the nature of man, I will say that you are fighting an uphill battle here. I get to point at all of human history, you get to point at your christmas wish list.I will win.You might as well say that all red headed people love go carts, because you have just as much factual data to point to to prove your point.

All red headed people love go carts. There, I said it. Balloon guy, a ton of good points. Now, one thing I will point out, and it is where you and Crow actually agree, is an emphasis on human life but the difference is the focus. Crows focus is on making it as good as possible for as long as possible for as many people as possible, because this is all there is. You have that same thought process but in terms of because it is the only chance you have to prove that you are worthy of more when you die. Outside of your family, offspring, friends, what and who come later are in some ways ultimately irrelevant, because we believe that not only is our time limited but time itself is limited as well. Which is why you will never see me going chicken little about Global warming, or pretty much anything, because I just don't think it is going to matter. I don't expect the world to be here in a 100 years anyway. Why? Because evil is ultimately winning.

[Flack_attack 0]

Science has proven morals comes from higher animals?

Lower animals, actually. And yes it absofrickinlutely has. One example is grief. How much you grieve over someone (close to you) dying is directly positively correlated to their reproductive potential. So, a 5 year old dying is sadder than a 1 month old, and a 13 year old sadder than a 5 year old, but a 30 year old not as sad as a 5 year old.

[Balloon guy 158]

Lower animals, actually. And yes it absofrickinlutely has. One example is grief. How much you grieve over someone (close to you) dying is directly positively correlated to their reproductive potential. So, a 5 year old dying is sadder than a 1 month old, and a 13 year old sadder than a 5 year old, but a 30 year old not as sad as a 5 year old.

Ding DongYou are WrongYou have an arguemet with crow though, he says it comes from higher animals.I'll let you two settle where morals evolved from. Good luck with explaining why toads grieve more than elephants though

[Balloon guy 158]

no, morality is the result of both physical and social natural selection. behavior favoring group over individual and various levels of primitive empathatic behavior have been observed in numerous higher animal species, even birds.

Oh so a monkey feels empathy, so therefore people are by nature good...which explains why the wars have been almost 100% non stop since recorded history.You want to know why communism fails everytime it's tried, because when you add the sin nature of man to the equation, it fails.On paper communism is the best form of government, pure equalityFails in life though, guess we should blame the Christianswould like to explore the social natural selection theory you are putting forth, but maybe another time

[jmkiser 0]

Oh so a monkey feels empathy, so therefore people are by nature good...which explains why the wars have been almost 100% non stop since recorded history.You want to know why communism fails everytime it's tried, because when you add the sin nature of man to the equation, it fails.On paper communism is the best form of government, pure equalityFails in life though, guess we should blame the Christianswould like to explore the social natural selection theory you are putting forth, but maybe another time

LOL this is one of the silliest things you've posted, balloon man.even you have to know that true communism was not practiced in the east.and how does the "sin nature of man" fit in your "equations"? What are these logical "equations" you speak of? What is this "sin of man" that is so terrible in the east that we do not experience in the west? Basically, explain your guerilla warfare commenting tactics now!!!! Because they make no sense! :Pand when did anyone claim "Oh so a monkey feels empathy, so therefore people are by nature good..." to be true? Also, people can be plenty good in nature and commit heinous acts. Just look at your beloved president (ooohhhh snap... see what I did there? Supporting my arguments, but appeasing you at the same time and then blasting everything you support? eh? yeah? )I hope you don't think we blame Christians for everything. Just the direction of humanity, civility, freedom, etc. in this country

[WrongWay 0]

Sorry dude, you have a twisted view of history. I checked and it is not my week to correct you. Good luck.

No, no, no.You said that lieing, cheating, stealing, obaying govt. were "christian values".So, name the society where these things are considered "okay".

[WrongWay 0]

A person that doesn't believe in God is not necessarily an athiest. An atheist is a person who actively believes there is no God. The first is more likely a lazy person that's put no thought into the issue. Not wrong or right, just are.

What a bunch of crap!!!!The dictionary may give this dictionary, but the dictionary just reports "popular usage". Since this county is 90% religious, it is not shocking that the "popular uage" of the word "atheist" is in complete contradiction to the way the people that call themseleves Atheists actually believe.Every atheist I've met believes that the Gods, as defined byu the major religions, do not exist, while leaving open the possibility of some unknowable higher reality.Us atheists like to put it into terms like this.....Since no one bleives in the existance of EVERY God defined by the worlds major religions, we're all atheists. Those that call themselves Atheists just disbelieve in one more God than those that call themselves theists.It is not wrong. It is not lazy. It is the ONLY answer supported by the evidence. Is the earth a flat disk covered by a sky dome? Does God a physical being that lives on top of the sky dome? Nope.... then the Bible is complete garbage, and the God it describes does not exist.The wrong and lazy conclusion is to "reinterprit" the Bible to make God into whatever you want it to be for you.Atheists face the cold hard reality that there is no imaginary friend making sure everything works of for the best. Theists wrap themselves in a comfortable lie.Who is wrong and lazy?

[WrongWay 0]

The Golden Rule is not "self-created...humanism", but rather is borne out of evolution by natural selection. Sociobiology, reciproical altruism, etc. Read up.

Yes, yes.... The emotion of "that isn't right" is a product of evolution. Unfortunatly, the long history of humanity shows that we are VERY capable of ignoring this "that isn't right" feeling if we're able to chop ourselves into groups of "us and them". Killing is okay, as long as it isn't happeing to someone that we consider "us". How much press time is devoted the the few thousand Americans killed in Iraq? Now compare to the press time given to the few hundred thousand Iraqis killed since we invaded. We allow living and working conditions in other countries that we would NEVER allow in this country.Even the Bible describes Moses telling his forces to commit rape, murder, plunder, genocide, etc... against "them".It goes on and on. This natural instinct is ESPECIALLY easy to ignore when there is some personal gain in it. We don't like to be cheated, and don't want to be cheated, but are much more accepting once we're getting a "cut".Humanism is a man-made attempt to extend the evolution developed "golden rule" to ALL humans, be they us or them, and to force us to see the immorality, even if we're getting a cut.

[WrongWay 0]

also the whole historical linking the failure of communism to atheism thing is pretty silly. the "immorality" of communism comes from denial of individual freedoms, something most theocracies and theologocially-influenced governments throughout history are equally guilty of.

The big failure of communism is that it ignores human flaws of gread and laziness. If I can get the same amount of reward from less effort, I'll do less effort. If I can get a lot more reward by working harder, I'll work harder. Not to mention that fear of true risk of starvation and homelessness is a GREAT motivator.The big problem of capitalism is that it relies too heavily on these human flaws. It allows the wealth to too easily become held by too few. In a true capitalist society, we'd live in the world of Scruge where the wealthy would be more than willing to allow the poor to starve, be jailed in work houses, etc. How better to motivate than risk of death or jail? China combines the worst of both. They use the military to provide the fear needed for motivation, while offering little if any reward.The ideal form of government is a highly regulated capitalism. Capitalism where there is little real fear of starving in the streets, and the wealth does not get too concentrated into too few hands.

[KramitDaToad 0]

Atheism has no core value, it does not have any claim to goodness or morality. It is the core of nihilism though, and anarchy.

Balloon guy, a ton of good points. ...Which is why you will never see me going chicken little about Global warming, or pretty much anything, because I just don't think it is going to matter. I don't expect the world to be here in a 100 years anyway. Why? Because evil is ultimately winning.

oops and for the record BG. Athiesm is not a group you can attribute values like a moral code to. It is not an organised common belief system.All any group, religious or otherwise can claim for core values is piece of paper that spells them out. How closely the groups members adhere to those values is a completely different matter.Christians without fail all fall short of Christianity's 'moral code'. Unless of course you can point to someone besides JC who is without sin.Thing is there is no evidence that any group, Christians, Hindu's, Boy Scouts or employees of Walmart are better at maintaining their code compared to othersAll you can do is run around, waving your piece of paper saying, "My list is better than yours."So when you put down Athiests, Christians or any other members of the human race, however you choose to group them, as having lower morals all you are doing is soap-boxing for your own benefit

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Christians without fail all fall short of Christianity's 'moral code'. Unless of course you can point to someone besides JC who is without sin.

You mean this guy?

[KramitDaToad 0]

You mean this guy?

No. This one

[BWToth 0]

not him?