• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

<Rant>: Christians that advertise their Christianity

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< Hear me Mighty Nephrodite:

I'm not trying to say that atheists are horrible people. Most of them are intelligent people who aid their neighbor. I even thought of myself as a good person when I was an atheist. My point is that there have been many threads here about our nature as human beings. I remember one in perticular that was about aboslute morals. In it many atheists posted remarks like "there are no aboslute morals, only societal" and "we are not born with a sense of right and wrong." That is my point. Of course I understand that people don't want to kill because they wouldn't want to be killed. I only wanted to illistrate that atheists shouldn't believe in absolute morals, if they are staying true to their world-view. >>



I think I'll break ranks with the atheists/agnostics then. I believe that there are absolute morals, but that these absolute morals do not have any sort of faith as a pre-requisite. True, I will agree that many (most?) atheist/agnostics who believe in moral absolutes have fewer such absolutes than do persons of faith, but this does not mean that there are not moral absolutes. Even moral absolutes, such as "Thou shalt not kill" have exceptions, how many of you would not kill Hitler if you had the opportunity to travel back in time to 1933? I believe in a single moral absolute;

We are all obligated to do what we rationally feel will make the world a better place in which to live, so long as our action does not create undue risk for either ourselves or humanity as a whole.

From this single principle follow many of the moral beliefs which are typically classified as absolutes, such as;

Don't kill people unless it is in defense of an undefended person who has not provoked the attack.
Do not lie, cheat, or steal.
Honor one's word.
Do not consume (anything, food, clothing, material goods) to excess.
Be kind to others and help whenever you can without sacrificing something of greater worth (ie. don't help the little old lady cross the street if doing so would prevent you from pulling a rapist away from his victim).

I can go on, but I have some papers to do since I have not mastered the "Don't procrastinate" corollary of my moral absolute yet so I'll stop there. 😛

ZV
 
Zenmervolt. Thanks for your gentle attitude. I have my own ideas of what a "better place to live in" is, what are yours? Your definition of morality needs some definitions attatched to it. And what would an "undue risk" involve?
 
WOOHOO! MORE CHRISTIAN BASHING!!!

YAY!

See, we can't bash eachother without punishment, but we can BASH RELIGION! YEAH! WE GOTTA BASH SOMETHING, SO LETS BASH CHRISTIANS!!!

WOOHOO!!


:|
 
I believe that there are absolute morals, but that these absolute morals do not have any sort of faith as a pre-requisite.

Au contraire, mon cher ami. If you with to make the semantic distinction between faith and belief, then fine, I do not see quite a strident separation. However, belief in the absoluteness of morals requires faith in the belief. All have faith, although many misdirect it.


Cheers ! 🙂
 
Your definition of morality needs some definitions attatched to it.

Allow me to systematize.

We are all obligated to do what we rationally feel will make the world a better place in which to live, so long as our action does not create undue risk for either ourselves or humanity as a whole.

Human beings are naturally obligated to act. (DUTY implies deontological outlook)
Source of action: faculty of reason, or "rationally feel"
Source of reason: unknown
Source of unknown: null

Restrictions to duty (mixed deontology):
Risk created as a consequence of action.
To whom: self first, next humanity at large
source of risk: faulty action
source of faulty action: imperfect adherence to duty
source of imperfect adherence to duty: presumably malfunctioning reasoning faculty
source of malfunction: unknown
source of unknown: null


Alright, so I made that out to be really faulty. Now let me refute myself. By assuming a teleological cosmology, linuxboy has demonstrated the sheer lack of expertise in the subject area of ethics. The point of deontological worldviews is to allow for the possibility of non-teleological phenomenon and drivers of action and behavior. In failing to recognize the world/reality created by a purely inconsequential outlook, linuxboy has shown himself to be an ignoramus.

To this I object: In assuming a purely deontological assumption of an aforementioned assuming, the previous objection does not address linuxboy's original statement and assesment of original ethical position as one of mixed deontology. In recognizing the inability of pure inconsequentialism of explaining normal reality, with particular respect to an ethical outlook, the previous objection does not address linuxboy's original point that the realistic outlook possessed by Zenmervolt indeed brings us all no closer to understanding any sort of ethical absolutism, a point necessary for his worldview.

objections welcome 😀

Cheers ! 🙂
 
I'm sorry linuxboy; I am not a smart human being. (especially not as smart as you, since my attempted installation of RedHat failed last night). I love it when you speak, just use smaller words for me.
 


<< WOOHOO! MORE CHRISTIAN BASHING!!! >>

OK FFMColbalt, what is your view about this topic? If you can straighten us out maybe you can make us see the error of our ways.
 


<< WOOHOO! MORE CHRISTIAN BASHING!!!

YAY!

See, we can't bash eachother without punishment, but we can BASH RELIGION! YEAH! WE GOTTA BASH SOMETHING, SO LETS BASH CHRISTIANS!!!

WOOHOO!!


:| >>



they were the ones who said they're better then non christians, if people make claims like that they are definatly gonna hear eveidence to the contrary.
 


<< I'm sorry linuxboy; I am not a smart human being. (especially not as smart as you, since my attempted installation of RedHat failed last night). I love it when you speak, just use smaller words for me. >>



oh come on! he's not speakin latin! dont make him change his ways, i for one enjoy reading his posts.
 


<< they were the ones who said they're better then non christians, if people make claims like that they are definatly gonna hear eveidence to the contrary >>

Now you're stereotyping just like you're accusing them of doing. Nice job.





<< OK FFMCobalt, what is your view about this topic? If you can straighten us out maybe you can make us see the error of our ways. >>

Actually, Red, I learned my lesson about getting into these debaits long ago. My member status went from junior member, the day I joined, to senior member four days later. :Q 😱

I'm not complaining about either side being right or wrong. My point is that the only time you hear about Christians on this board, it's negative. I'm tired of it, and would like to see either 1) Christians not talked about or 2) something decent said instead of continual bashing. But, that being my opinion, I know that one person isn't going to change the boards in this case. I felt like saying something, so I did. I didn't continue it or bash certain people or groups. I know it's everyone's right on these boards to bash Christians and I'm happy that they have that right. It's just a little disheartening to see nothing but negativity to a people group. I neglect describing the people group because that whould show my bias and right now I wish to stay unbias by not defending or attacking anyone.

Sorry if I've stepped on your toes, Red.

Nik
 


<< oh come on! he's not speakin latin! dont make him change his ways, i for one enjoy reading his posts. >>



He is to me. Maybe I should read over it again with a more careful eye.
 
I would say the greatest factor for bashing is a lack of communication between aetheists and others. There is no aetheist Church. (Although it would be pretty funny to see one) Christians and other large groups have that community to share their views and rant about what pisses them off. Boards and other similar mediums are where we can most likely find others who see things from our point of view. I couldn't very well go up to some of my friends and say, "Those Christians who advertise their religion really piss me off!" without offending them. I'm not saying its right but how many times have you Christians heard in church basic bashings of non-believers. i know i have. That's my two cents.
 
AHHHHHH. I just tried to read linuxboy again, and now I have this searing pain in my head. I just need some terms defined for me. Better yet, can someone translate his entire piont for me? Assume I am twelve years old.
 


<< how many times have you Christians heard in church basic bashings of non-believers >>

Okay, I may as well break my unbias right here. The church I go to is fighting against that. "Basic bashings of Christianity" come from an non-understanding people group, just as the opposings come from a non-understanding people group. There are churches out there that don't bash "non-believers" at all. It's just a matter of finding them. And, even if you find one, you'll find something else that you don't agree with. My church makes it a point not to conform to the hypocritical, legalistic, sickly-fundamentalist style that many churches fall into. Still, I disagree with many things that the church teaches simply because of my own studies.

Ah crap. I just got into my first religious debait in a long, LONG time. Okay, seriously, I'm outta here.

Nik
P.S. Hi mom!
 
The Non-Believer bashing aside. You hear bashing here because the a major part of society treats aetheists basically as heathons. Maybe its more increased where i live but the point is that if you piss someone off because of your ideas here, there aren't really as many consequences. You don't have to see that person everyday or ever even meet them, you just move on. On another note, I find no problem with religion as long as it doesn't bother me and isn't critical of my beliefs. I have many friends of varying faiths and I make it a non-issue. What we believe is something we keep to ourselves as belief should be a personal matter. I have been criticized by many and personally attacked because of my thoughts. I've never said anything duragatory to anyone considering their religion but the same doesn't hold true. To get back to the topic, you hear bashing hear because it is a convenient medium. Christianity is socially acceptable, so it's easy to find someone who share's your view. That's why it's not difficult to find organizations such as Christian Clubs, Muslim Clubs, Christian Athletes Groups, etc.
 
<< << If you're atheist, you shouldn't have morals. Seriously. What are morals to an atheist? >>

yes this is the general conception it seems. which is why its so funny when christians think that they are the persecuted ones🙂 they like to play the victim, sometimes on this board at times. just think, if you want to get elected, saying your christian will make people more open to trusting you. of course at one time being a catholic was something near this. admitting your athiest is generally a mark against you. slightly less so if your agnostic again. being athiest is pretty much judged to be about one step higher then being satanic😛 people will say things like what will he fall back upon in hard times and other empty statements. you don't hear people saying that christian magority have no morals😛

<< so all atheists are like Hitler because he was an atheist, good call >>


heh yes he believed in a god.. so it doesn't mean much at all😛 ever wonder why he was so sure of the aryan peoples superiorty? he probably thought he was doing gods work😛


I will say that the vast majority of these people have not had any problem with my being an agnostic and that the idea that "Christianity = Good Person" seems to be more of a cultural norm than a willful act of stereotyping.

yup its probably more of a subconscious thing where some religious people don't quite trust athiests, and a lesser extent agnostics.

Hear me Mighty Nephrodite:

I'm not trying to say that atheists are horrible people. Most of them are intelligent people who aid their neighbor. I even thought of myself as a good person when I was an atheist. My point is that there have been many threads here about our nature as human beings. I remember one in perticular that was about aboslute morals. In it many atheists posted remarks like "there are no aboslute morals, only societal" and "we are not born with a sense of right and wrong." That is my point. Of course I understand that people don't want to kill because they wouldn't want to be killed. I only wanted to illistrate that atheists shouldn't believe in absolute morals, if they are staying true to their world-view.

edit: In all of our discussions I have treated you with respect, and I would hope to have earned more respect with you, Nephrodite, then the instant flare of "ignorant Christian".

sorry lebe0024, i don't even know who i'm replying to sometimes since i nef while watching dvds/tv sometimes😛 anyways if you were an athiest b4 you'd know how people percieve you. anyways.. the absolute morals in the 10 commandments are a tad iffy if you look at em. i know there are "versions" but lets not get into that.

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

ok... you'd think do not kill people would be #1😛 and it basically excludes many religions..not a moral absolute.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

probably should be something be nice to other humans.

3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

ok.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

ok.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.

yay number 5!

6. Thou shalt not kill.

yay again! but only number 6. a tad free to interpretation, i suppose i can kill in self defense. hmm what about if my wife sinned and commited adultery. i might be able to justify that.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

well yea, but how many wives can i have? 🙂

8. Thou shalt not steal.

sure.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

god doesn't like perjury🙂 yes yes i know it had something to do with the time at which it was written. still.🙂

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.


damn i have no manbitch .. i mean manservant anways. i'm not sure i'd covet his ass though. yes i'm kidding.


and other things like not eating beef or pork, or not eating meat one day of the week, or only certain parts of an animal are almost arbitrary. other things that some could view as moral absolutes such as homosexuality as being sin are debatable. moral absolutes aren't that absolute as zemmervolt already explained.

and oh yes, woody rulz!
 
I saw a Porsche Boxter the other day while getting gas, and the car had a HUGE gold xtian fish on the back of it. I mean the thing had to be at least a foot long! The bottled blonde pumping the gas was all pimped out in exercise gear, gold chains, and a Rolex.

I asked the woman pumping the gas if Jesus Christ, were he alive today, would wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche? She gave me a puzzled look. I flipped her off, cranked up Rob Zombie and zipped away, giving her a good look at my "Alien" fish.
 


<< asked the woman pumping the gas if Jesus Christ, were he alive today, would wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche? She gave me a puzzled look. I flipped her off, cranked up Rob Zombie and zipped away, giving her a good look at my "Alien" fish.

>>

Yeah like I'm going to believe that!
 


<<

Yeah like I'm going to believe that!
>>



Believe what? I have Rob Zombie's newest cd The Sinister Urge in my cd player of my car right now, the companion CD "Calling All Maniacs" is sitting on the front seat...and I flip off people in overpriced, underpowered pieces of eurotrash with wheels all the time.
 
<<I have my own ideas of what a "better place to live in" is, what are yours? Your definition of morality needs some definitions attatched to it. And what would an "undue risk" involve?>>

OK, first I'll address this, then I'll do my best to tackle Linuxboy's objections, though at this point his understanding of the field of Ethics is, quite admittedly, far beyond mine. The answers to your questions are not much easier than the answer to Linuxboy's, but at least they allow a more subjective approach. As far as making the world a better place, I believe the main thing is to encourage individuality while not losing the connection we have with other human beings; to help those who cannot help themselves by teaching them how to help themselves (as in, offering a hand-up and not a hand-out); to defend those who are weak from those who would abuse strength. Boiled down to it's most essential, I feel that we should each live in such a way that if everyone were to follow the same principles as we follow we would like the world that resulted. And now that I say this I am rather surprised to find myself sounding all too similar to Immanuel Kant. I believe that the time has come for me to re-examine my position, though not until after I have finished this quarter's exams. Undue risk is, now that I look at it, a qualifier that serves to remove the absoluteness from the thing I claim to be absolute. Undue risk is highly situationally dependant. For example, I am not willing to take the same amount of risk to save an animal as I am to save a human. I would far more likely to run into a burning house to save my sister than I would to save a cat. However, I am also more likely to run into a burning house to save my sister than I am to save some random person I have never met. Given that "undue risk" is so dependant upon the situation, I think it is safe to say that I am incorrect when I claimed to have an absolute. This is good though, as now I at least know that I need to re-examine this area. On to the hard part (oh boy).

Linuxboy, your assessment of the idea of "risk" is somewhat different than my own. I was not considering the risk as a result of faulty actions, but rather as an inherent part of any action, with the right action being the one that minimises the risk while maximizing the benefit. (Hey, look, now John Mill is along for the ride.) Unfortunately, this does not address the main issues of a deontological view, something which I am not alltogether comfortable with myself. There is some part of me that finds a purely consequentialist view to be distateful as well, however, and I cannot come up with a good reason for it. In any case, I do not think that I am currently capable of responding to your objections in any real sort of way, so I am forced to conclude that I must return to the drawing board, so to speak, and refine my view. Thank you for pointing out another thing that does not work, I am now one step closer to finding a view that does work. I'll close with a question, what is your view on problem of Ethics? I'm genuinely curious to hear your interpretation of the topic.

ZV
 
<<I flip off people in overpriced, underpowered pieces of eurotrash with wheels all the time.>>

<yoda voice>A lot of anger in you there is.</yoda voice>

So it's your position that if a person is successful and derives enjoyment from the finer things in life that the person in question is somehow inferior to you? Why do you find such a need to feel that you are morally superior to successful people? Is it because you resent the advantages they have earned? Money and Capitalism are not evil. Neither is success.

ZV
 


<< Believe what? >>

I don't believe that you


<< asked the woman pumping the gas if Jesus Christ, were he alive today, would wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche? >>


Not for an instance.
 
Red, if you were in public with me for 15 minutes, all doubt would go away. As Freud once said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
🙂




<< So it's your position that if a person is successful and derives enjoyment from the finer things in life that the person in question is somehow inferior to you? Why do you find such a need to feel that you are morally superior to successful people? Is it because you resent the advantages they have earned? Money and Capitalism are not evil. Neither is success. >>



My you can infer a lot, can't you? I never said any of that. All I said was, I flipped off a woman who advertised her wealth like she advertised her "love" for Jesus Christ. I flip off people driving u-r-peeing cars because I think they should buy American, and because I like to see the looks on their faces when I yell that at them from the front seat of my Honda.
 
<<I think they should buy American, and because I like to see the looks on their faces when I yell that at them from the front seat of my Honda.>>

You think they should buy American, and you drive a Honda? So it's OK for you not to buy American, but everyone else should? And don't start with that built in Ohio crap. We all know that the majority of the money goes back to Japan and does not stay in America. I am inclined to ask, what the hell business of yours is it what other people drive? The whole advertising wealth thing is BS too, and I think you know it. Regardless of your personal hang-ups, some people legitimately prefer to drive a European car. Has it ever occured to you that "advertising" their wealth may have never entered the person's mind and that they bought the Porsche because they liked the car and no other reason? Or do you think that everyone should drive around in Festivas no matter how much money they make because that way no-one would be able to advertise their wealth? I stand by my original inferances, your aversion to other people "advertising" their wealth impresses me as nothing more than resentment that they are able to afford the things that you want. Perhaps if you spent a little less time on your anti-capitalist, anti-industry soap box and a little more time at work, you'd be able to afford those things you resent others for having. But enough of this, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think. I'm tired and need sleep so I can concentrate on my classes tomorrow. That way nothing will be hanging over my head when I'm home over Christmas break fixing the fuel injection on my 1976 Porsche. (Before you ask, I bought it myself, paid cash with money I had earned, and I only bought it because I love driving it, and I wanted a car to work on.)

ZV

EDIT: OK, now it's not all in italics.
 
zenmervolt just earned a spot on my "short list" of posters who I try to read when I'm not busy spouting my mouth. The subscriber full-text search function is handy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top