Thank goodness the article is absent of ANY logic

"I am an atheist socialist+- heterosexual feminist liberal father musician man."

This short biography explains much of the fear, anger, and resentment that resonates like thick waves of molasses throughout the article.

"It's no picnic being an atheist."

Perhaps not, but it IS your choice to be an athiest.  No one (to my knowledge) is forcing you to be one.  Therefore, why even mention this?  It's immaterial to the discuss.  Truthfully, it sounds as though you are portraying yourself as... a martyr.  A quality found in many religions - ironic, isn't it?

"The intellectual and spiritual demands of developing and living your own moral philosophy are great. Trust me."

Hmmm...  In the first sentence, you admit that morality and ethics are supremely subjective and belong solely to the individual, however difficult they may be to master.  Yet, in the second sentence, you want me to trust your admittedly subjective approach to "living your... moral philosophy".  Why should I?  With your approach, what's good for the goose certainly does not mean it's good for the gander.  There is no moral objectivity or categorical imperative to which we both identify.  You might as well be speaking Greek, and we all know we should be wary of Greeks bearing gifts.

"...[T]he Christian God... blesses football contests and holy wars not to mention racism, bigotry and all manner of abuse and exploitation..."

Now, you're just showing your ignorance - again, not unlike a religious fanatic.  Guess where this text came from:

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."  John 15:12-13 (King James Version) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:12-13;&version=9; .

Call me crazy, but this sounds like harmony to me - to the point of sacrificing your desires for another.  Is this not the very definition of self-less?

"One should learn and know, through their own self-consciousness, self-discipline, and moral sense to do the right thing by his personal honor and merit."

What?!?  Whatever is the "moral sense to do the right thing"?  You told me it was personal and, therefore by default, subjective.  Using your approach to "moral philosophy", how could 6+ billion humans on this planet possibly arrive at the same conclusion?  As a practicing atheist, I'm certain you're aware of probability distributions.  What is the statistical likelihood that even 2,000 would arrive at the same conclusion as you...?

And as a feminist, your use of the pejorative "his" is somewhat offensive to other feminists, is it not?

If you use self-consciousness and self-discipline, you use moral relativism.  If it feels good, do it.  And what feels good to you may not feel good to another (e.g., BDSM or reading National Review).  You're sadly lacking an objectivity against which a common morality is benchmarked - regardless of your religious, societal, economic, or intellectual beliefs.

"People are frightened, stupid and superstitious; have been since thunder and lightening [sic] were invented. They are easily led."

I cannot disagree more with you on this point.  Your simplified evaluation of humanity firstly claims the inventions of thunder and lightning and secondly presumes the continued belief of such "inventions".  Your reliance upon self-consciousness and self-discipline reflect the epitomy of "easily led".  Where is the self-discipline in an addicitive personality?  Is it just a matter of will power?  Come, come...  Let us be adults and admit the silliness of your statement.

"Of course, the Americans losing to Islam is inevitable because history shows the only way for an invader to "win" against an indigenous population is to exterminate and genocide them."

Of course, the statement assumes that America's intent is to make Iraq its 51st state.  Similarly, we know what happens when one assumes.  I suggest you trash the silliness in this article, Mr. Sysyn, and start anew.  Almost anything else would be better.  Of course, that's just my opinion - not unlike my moral philosophy which disdains child-like logic, while yours appears to encourage it. 

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1551 comments) on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 10:41:26 PM
 

Tom Murphy

I appreciate you coming out of woodwork to criticize my essay. You made my point very clearly. Thanks.

I assume from your picture that you have been following orders, unquestioning, right or wrong, for years...perhaps most of your adult life? What do the words "blind patriotism" mean to you?

I can also perceive from your writings that you are part of the brainwashed religious herd that was the subject of my essay.

I will not address your silly comments about most of my article as I see it as a waste of time. 

But I will say this. You missed the entire point of the article, failing to address it at all in your lenghthy comment.

What I was saying is this:

Americans such as you are a lot more like the fanatic Muslim Jihadist religious extremist conservatives than you are like me. You share the same moral/political views and beliefs as Bin laden embraces....as I accounted in my essay. I oppose you both.

You see Tom, I don't care what you, or the Muslim Jihadists believe. If you want to get on your knees an pray to an imaginary God its OK with me.  I care if you kill, maim and torture people unjustly or not. I care if you mind other people's private lives and business, and mean them harm, or not. I care if you are aware of your own brainwashing and blind patriotism. I care if you believe in democracy and self-determination. I care if you respect treaties and diplomacy as a way of sorting out disagreement. Your God didn't appoint you to police the world and punish sinners, as the Christians and Muslims believe. I think in fact God, such as he is, specifically reserved that responsibility for himself.

Thanks again for you comment exhibiting sadly misplaced religious devotion and patiotism. Now I know I am right.

P.S. Iraq may not be the 51st state but they got tens times the money any of the 50 states got last year. They got a lot more aid than Katrina victims who are still without.

by Kevin Sysyn (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 9:43:06 AM
 

Kevin Sysyn

"I appreciate you coming out of woodwork to criticize my essay."

Coming out of the woodwork...? Ah, a nerve was struck or so it seems. In many respects, I am the woodwork. Try not to confuse the two.

"I assume from your picture that you have been following orders, unquestioning, right or wrong, for years...perhaps most of your adult life? What do the words 'blind patriotism' mean to you?"

I thought I made my point of "assuming" clear in the first comment, no? When you assume, you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". I would have thought that you'd have learned by now that you should never judge a book by its cover; however, you're never too old to learn.

"I can also perceive from your writings that you are part of the brainwashed religious herd that was the subject of my essay."

I can perceive in your writing this that you talk a fine game of "harmony" but feel yourself exempt from its practical application. Is this not the quintessential, "Do as I say; not as I do," that most moral relativists take? I'm part of the brainwashed religious herd, and your part of the free-thinking secular-centric enlighteners...?  I think it very much is this way and thank you for exemplifying the silliness of such a position.

"I will not address your silly comments about most of my article as I see it as a waste of time."

Naturally, you will not address them for it would require critical thinking that might force you to ask yourself some troubling questions.  Ignorance is bliss, is it not?

"But I will say this. You missed the entire point of the article, failing to address it at all in your lenghthy [sic] comment."

I didn't miss it; I dismissed it because of the flawed logic you displayed in your support of it. But just for the fun of it, let's look at your comment below, shall we?

"Americans such as you are a lot more like the fanatic Muslim Jihadist religious extremist conservatives than you are like me. You share the same moral/political views and beliefs as Bin laden embraces....as I accounted in my essay. I oppose you both."

I find it fascinating that I've been analyzed, classified, and discarded from just one comment. Your powers of perception are mighty indeed. But as I've tried to point out previously to you – now on two occasions – all is not gold that glitters. You place far too much trust in your easily-fooled senses – so much so that it drips arrogance.

You are clearly entitled to your opinions on the matter of "Americans such as I" and Muslim fanaticism, but you're also clearly misrepresenting both only to make you feel (not know) that your position – whatever that me be because you fail to practice that which you speak of – is (get this) morally superior. Your article would have been more convincing had you constructed it using an appeal to logic rather than emotion.

"I care if you kill, maim and torture people unjustly or not. I care if you mind other people's private lives and business, and mean them harm, or not. I care if you are aware of your own brainwashing and blind patriotism. I care if you believe in democracy and self-determination. I care if you respect treaties and diplomacy as a way of sorting out disagreement. Your God didn't appoint you to police the world and punish sinners, as the Christians and Muslims believe. I think in fact God, such as he is, specifically reserved that responsibility for himself."

Well, in addition to wanting harmony, you obviously want to show that you "care" when others violate your subjective "moral philosophy". Again, this is pandering to the emotion because all the caring in the world doesn't stop those intent upon inflicting harm upon another. In this flawed and quite human world of ours, actions have (and always will) speak louder than words. You may desire and wish for utopia here on earth but know, truly, that it will never happen.

It is within this context and not your Wally-world ideal that America is forced to operate. What you perceive to be an America acting independent of a higher power (and you can define that however you wish to include the UN), I regard as a nation committed to the ideals of its forefathers that place liberty and self-determination at the forefront. Unlike you, though, this nation not only cares but also acts when inequities (aka non-harmonies) exist.

I find it quite amusing that you are content to care but not act when some... thing threatens the harmony that you regard so highly. Do you think it will resolve itself? In its resolution, are you content with the known and continued harm that non-action will bring to others? If you answered yes to either, I'd say you're a person of... faith – then. Halleluiah and welcome to the parish, brother.

It's true that America was not appointed (or anointed) by God to be the world cop. But it's also true that God granted all of us free will with the ability to make our own choices. And while some choose to care in the face of wanton harm and destruction, others choose to act. And that action is what should be reviewed closely. Is the action designed to use others a s a means to an end (e.g., jihadism with their continued sacrifice of its own to Allah), or is it designed to promote humans as ends unto themselves (e.g., American reconstructive efforts in Iraq)...?

I believe I know the answer to this question. Those that care, though, let emotion run rampant and permit a false sense of "righteousness" to dictate non-action when a clear and present danger impacts their own or another.

"Now I know I am right."

Well, of course you are! Could it possibly have been anything else other than you being right?!? Hell, no!

"P.S. Iraq may not be the 51st state but they got tens times the money any of the 50 states got last year. They got a lot more aid than Katrina victims who are still without."

What an inane comment. They also got a secularism in Iraq that can kill you if you happen to side with those that favor inherited kinship over spiritual leadership. With Katrina, you have Ray Nagin – the man who places more importance on being a "vagina-friendly mayor" of "Chocolate City" instead of helping his people - and the state of Louisiana more interested in keeping you on the dole so that you can be used as a political tool - click here .

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1551 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 10:10:31 PM
 

Death not bleak for atheist

Atheists have a hard life because we have to deal with religious people all the time. Death is a relief in my opinion from having to deal with these nutjobs. Life is just life. There is no reward or punishment after death. How could there be when you cease to exist. Everything that makes up an individual is a product of the body doing what it does naturally. There is no separate soul from the mind and body. The soul is the mind and body as one. When you die your energy is returned to nature and who knows what happens then but it's not anything that man made up and then said it was from God. If anything death is bleak for religious people because they live in constant fear of going to hell along with the fear of having a painful death.

by Nfamous (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM
 

Nor is it bleak for those spiritual

Right, right...  Happy, happy, joy, joy.  Then... I should live life for me and me alone.  Screw everyone else because what we do here is nothing more than a bag of shells.  So simplistic and yet... so simplistic that it rejects critical thinking such as:  who am I, where am I going, and what am I doing?

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1551 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 10:40:38 PM
 

While a little interesting, this is also

Rapidly becoming futile. I have been part and parcel of these argumentative sessions on this website before, and they generally arrive at no conclusions and just leave both sides feeling angry and grossly disapponted that they didn"t "win". Of course, the elemental thought that keeps Christians and Muslims, believers and non, fundamentalists and their counterparts at one another's throats, is that they truly feel that one side must "win" out over the other. This forum is supposed to be a discourse and at least one hope held up here might be that the thinking of one side might color the thinking of the other just enough to create a little tolerance and forebearance. But usually this kind of qui-pro-quo just leads to people beating one another's linguistic heads in, for the sake of their position or their belief system. Hence, the Crusades, for instance. That was a useful endeavor. When everyone's feeling of superiority is self-bestowed, war is sure to follow.

Oddly, Kevin seems to be more the keeper of the faith, which is something he says he doesn't have. Tom, conversely, seems to be more the defender of mantra, and the faith is almost irrelevant to the dogma. In the end, we have two fenceposts, each trying to convince the other that they are not fenceposts and oblivious to that fact they need to hold the fence up together,  or they will die, arguing. You both may be ariculate fenceposts, but right now you are still acting like fenceposts. At the moment, I am almost certain that both of you are honing your retorts, in order to make sure that I, above all people, can be convinced that you are BOTH right. Please don't.

We all believe in something. How we define it and act upon it may vary, but I'd like to think we can all remember that we are human beings and of the same species. Ironclad, immoveable and impenetrable positons ultimately get us nowhere. There are many virtues to which to aspire, but being blind and  stubborn is not one of them. And Tom, if it matters at all in this conversation, being an atheist does not make you a non-person. And being a person of faith does not make you necessarily more of a person.  

My own position here is not important. It just seems a shame and a waste of time for two people to be so openly hostile and intolerant of one another. And for the record, far leftwingers disturb me just as much. Nobody has a divinely granted license to be myopically intolerant.

And nfamous, you didn't help anything: as is so often the case, you didn't hear the essential discord, but instead saw an opportunity to use the atheist platform to go on a disconnected ramble about death and dying. Presumably, you are on Kevin's side, but I'm not sure your input is doing much to aid his case. You have just joined the self-righteousness brigade through a different door.

One the other hand, whether you are in Kevin's camp or Toms, or off on your own, once we are all dead, the name calling won't matter much now, will it?

by Ivan Hentschel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 164 comments) on Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 10:37:52 PM
 

"Oddly, Kevin seems to be more the keeper of the faith"

The main reason I appear the keeper of the faith is because many of God's laws (which of course were written by man since there is no God) are obviously sound and right. The law against murder for example. I'm pretty sure the law against eating shell-fish made sense at the time. On the other hand rape and slavery are not sins at all, according to the Bible. Fortunately man has made laws against them, and quite a lot of other things like speeding and DUI that the scribes never dreamed of.

Another reason is that Jesus, as depicted, was a liberal open-hearted generous, forgiving person whose main attraction was that all men are equal before God. In fact, saying that God looks upon Caesar as no better than the lowest-life Jew is why the Romans executed him. The Romans were never in the habit of executing religious teachers and priests etc. All faiths were accepted in the empire. But you didn't bad-mouth Ceasar and get away with it.

The American Christians today who would stone Mary Magdeline for prostitution, were there not man's laws against doing so, are totally opposite of what Jesus was about. Indeed they want to change the law on abortion rights and make it murder....and I presume punish people accordingly.

As I said in the original essay, my point is that there is little difference philosophically between any of the religious fundamentalists who are zealously racist/bigot, exclusive rather than inclusive.

The world would be a better place if everyone just shook off this nonsense and started loving thier neighbor instead of wanting to kill or imprison him. 

by Kevin Sysyn (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 2:02:49 PM
 

Tom does not address the issue....again

Tom:

Where do yo stand on:

1. Abortion

2. Gay marriage

3.Gays in the military

4. Gun rights

5. God in the government

6. Prayer in school

7. The United Nations

8. Atheists in the Boy Scouts

I contend that Bin laden/Koran stand the same as you on these issues?

This is about right and wrong. It's about justice. 

This is not about atheism, it about the failure of religion as a moral and philosophical guide.  

I rest my case. 

by Kevin Sysyn (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 2:29:06 AM
 

Free your mind and the rest will follow

Mr. Hentschel raises some valid points. And yet, tolerating a quid pro quo situation typically leads to continued stagnation. Progress, then, appears to occur within moments of punctuated equilibrium.

For the record, I'm well aware that atheists are people too whose opinions are just as valid as my own. And I don't believe I ever claimed them to be anything else. What I did challenge was the focus on self-consciousness, an inherently subject concept, as a basis of morality and ethics. Relying on such an approach can and does easily result in confusion when you try to export your belief structure elsewhere for acceptance.

My belief, which is largely Aristotle/Aquinas/Descartes/Kant based, accepts the existence of absolutes (including moral absolutes) that are easily exported to others and promote the human as an end in and of itself and not a means to what is perceived as a greater good by some. As such, I find the atheist approach to morality and ethics lacking a categorical imperative.

I attempted to point out those areas in Mr. Sysyn's article where he states a belief in one process yet fails to practice it realty. Why? His subjective morality permits disparaging others who fail to believe that his approach is the correct one. That, by default, is intolerance. For myself, I never claimed such an ethical high ground. It's progress, not perfection but its against an objective benchmark that is clearly measurable.

And this ability to measure is what Mr. Sysyn is chiefly against in this religion/atheism debate. He does not acknowledge its existence and has chosen to narrow his perspective on morality and ethics, while claiming to represent the more better approach to living a "good" life. I find Mr. Sysyn's position quite ironic and agree with Mr. Hentschel in that it's a position that requires "faith" for its continued existence. An absolute, though, is not dependent upon human perception for its continued existence but needs faith from the perceiver to b e understood.

While it has no bearing on the discussion we have been having and is meant largely to deflect focus from him, I'll answer Mr. Sysyn's questions.

"Where do yo [sic] stand on:"

1. Abortion – I'm against abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened. If we usurp an inalienable Right to Life to another (viability is nothing more than a distraction), then we compromise our own Right to Life. This is a prime example of treating a human as a means and not an end.

2. Gay marriage – I have no problem with homosexuals wanting to marry. In essence, many such couples are already "married" and the secular recognition of the state is nothing more than a label.

3.Gays in the military – I have no problem with homosexuals serving in the military. I see, though, no need at this point to push the military into adopting inclusion and diversity principles. But if it is required to adopt them at some point in the future, so be it. My expectation, though, is that homosexual relationships in the military be treated similar to heterosexual relationships with no special accommodations being afforded.

4. Gun rights – I believe that Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that the People have the right to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed. Keep and bear are two separate actions that have slowly been eroded over the years by those with "good intentions". Such good intentions have emboldened the government to dismiss (on occasion) the People as a serious Force with which to be reckoned with while promulgating reform.

5. God in the government – I believe in the separate of church and state and that the government, in the interest of the People as detailed in the U.S. Constitution, should not promote one religion over another. This does not mean, though, that government must be strictly anti-religion. Such one-sidedness on the issue was never the intent of the Constitution, although many would like to see it enforced as such.

The litmus test that should be used to decide fringe instances of church/state interfacing is whether or not the government's tolerance results in an impermissible establishment of a state-sponsored religion. Within this realm lies tradition with a small "t" where some become offended by the mere mention of "God" in a government document or oath; this approach adopts that one-sidedness as the "norm" when truly it is a bookend.

6. Prayer in school – I believe a moment of silence should be used for whatever you want it to be used for – if prayer is your thing, go for it. But I don't believe that reciting religious prayers in public should be permitted because it transgresses the church/state divide.

7. The United Nations – I believe this is a noble ideal that continues to serve as a vehicle for nations to communicate. However, it falls far short of an institution that's capable of acting when action is needed. I'd lump this into the "caring and compassionate but not largely non-resolute" category detailed yesterday. Please note, though, that I would not advocate its dismissal.

8. Atheists in the Boy Scouts – The Boy Scouts represent an organization with well-established and professed beliefs. If you cannot commit to their stated beliefs, then why would you want to join them to begin with? It's like a male wanting to join a female gym because he likes lifting weights. There are other gyms out there that better fit your beliefs; so join that gym. If you object to the Boy Scouts receiving government monies because of the church/state divide, I'll reiterate my comments on Item 5 about tradition with a little "t".

"I contend that Bin laden/Koran stand the same as you on these issues?"

You can contend that, but you're probably wrong on a number of points.  However, you'd need to consult OBL with the same questions you gave me to make that determination.

"This is about right and wrong. It's about justice."

And is not right and wrong not the subject of ethics? And have we not been discussing ethics AND morality for the last couple of days? Am I missing something here with this statement?

"This is not about atheism, it about the failure of religion as a moral and philosophical guide."

This is VERY much about atheism because you claim it to be the better moral and ethical guide for humanity. Why do you claim it isn't about atheism?  In fact, it's this point that I continue to disagree with you, claiming that you have failed to present a compelling case – regardless of any quid pro quo be it real or perceived.

And I, too, rest my case.

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1551 comments) on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 8:40:28 AM