Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 rational positions

[Boss]

You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

There is nothing "magical" about what I believe.

 

[miketx]

Incidentally, Spare_change , the one thing you got right is that the 10 Rational positions are suggestions. After all, #8: There is no right way to live. That position, alone, dictates that no one has the moral authority to dictate to anyone else how they have to live. The fact that they are suggestions, alone, makes them light years better than the 10 commandments, which presumes that anyone has the authority to dictate a set personal morality to anyone else.

Relativism is now your goal??? Interesting ... it all depends on who is doing what to who, right?

To some degree, sure. If I shoot you in the face, I have committed murder, and an "evil act", right? But, If you are in the process of raping my sister, when I shoot you in the face, that rather changes the moral calculation a bit, now doesn't it?

Why is it OK to kill a man in the act of rape, but not execute him after he's convicted of it? What is wrong with rape anyway? If some men wrote the 10 Commandments way back when, wouldn't you imagine that they would make raping women OK? I mean, everyone in Hollywood seems to have done it to one degree or another. And the recent movies all seem to show women wanting to be fondled... Yet the Bible clearly names rape a capital offence with very few exceptions. And it seems to be truly Christians who are rather prudish with regard to sex (though marriage is another issue ---- 8 kids is a lot don't you think?).

Okay, first. Rape. Is. Not. A. Sexual. Act. It is an act of control, and violence. So, if a woman forced you to the ground, ripped off your clothes, and forcibly fucked you up the ass with a strap-on, you wouldn't feel violated, or angry? Unless you're a sociopath, of course you would. Well?!?!? What makes you think it is any different for women? So, why would you think that it is perfectly okay to do something to a woman that you would not want done to you?

As to the execution question, I understand that I was not being exact enough in my example. Executing a criminal is, for me, a grey area. I personally think that the burden of proof for execution should be required to be higher than for any other punishment. Because with every other punishment, if we get it wrong, we can release you, pay you fuck-tons of money as recompense for our error, and send you on to the rest of your life. Once you're executed, if we were wrong, well...you're still kinda executed. Sucks to be you. So, in my mind, the death penalty should require not "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it should require "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If you cannot prove to that level of certainty that an accused person did that of which they are accused, then you should not be able to execute them.

That being said, execution is a matter of meting out justice, and should be performed by an uninvolved party. When an aggrieved party does the executing, it is no longer about justice; it has become an act of vengeance. And vengeance is an unhealthy pursuit.

You can't have rape with all those periods.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

This life is what we have, nothing more.

the former does not conclude the latter especially not knowing what you claim to have.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, where is your proof that all there is to what makes you is atoms? I

I don't claim to have incontrovertible proof of that. I just think the evidence supports it, so it's a determination I made. Where is your proof that unicorns dont make ice cream in the 4th dimension? Then clearly you believe unicorns make ice cream in the 4th dimension, by your own terrible logic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the former does not conclude the latter

I'm not claimimg it does. Feel free to toss your bucket of magical bullshit all over it, like you always do. It has no effect on anything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you made a definitive statement as if it were fact

It is my opinion. You are free to believe otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

There is nothing "magical" about what I believe.

Yes there is...it's all magical bullshit, the truth of which could never be tested and which can be made to be anything anyone wants it to be.

 

[Boss]

Again, where is your proof that all there is to what makes you is atoms? I

I don't claim to have incontrovertible proof of that. I just think the evidence supports it, so it's a determination I made. Where is your proof that unicorns dont make ice cream in the 4th dimension? Then clearly you believe unicorns make ice cream in the 4th dimension, by your own terrible logic.

If you don't have incontrovertible proof you should avoid definitive statements which indicate you do. The scientific evidence does not support your opinion because 96% of the universe is not comprised of atoms, it is mostly dark matter and dark energy. You're right that I don't have evidence of unicorns making ice cream in the 4th dimension but I'm not making a definitive statement in that regard, nor would I, unless I had proof.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you don't have incontrovertible proof you should avoid definitive statements which indicate you do.

Hmm, no, I think I will continue to assert my determinations. For instance, i will assert that my car will start tomorrow morning. Might it not? Sure, things happen. But I am not really in the habit of catering my statements to sensitive people.


And, coming from the guy who is an endless source of all manner of authoritative bullshit declarations, this is pretty rich.

 

[Boss]

You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

There is nothing "magical" about what I believe.

Yes there is...it's all magical bullshit, the truth of which could never be tested and which can be made to be anything anyone wants it to be.

But it can be tested. You first have to rationalize that a spiritual nature exists and that you can connect with it through intensive meditation. Once you are willing to take that step, you can test it and prove it to yourself very easily, as billions of humans have done.

The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual nature can or does exist. In that paradigm, it is impossible to understand it as anything other than what you perceive as "magic" and that's why you are referring to it as such. From a physical-only perspective, spiritual nature seems "magical" to you. But "magic" is nothing more than an illusion.

In short, it requires you to open your mind to the possibility of something beyond the physical. Your inability to test something doesn't mean it cannot possibly exist. Jupiter existed long before anyone discovered it. Nuclear fission was possible when cave men were learning to control fire and chisel wheels from rock. The fact they didn't yet have knowledge of it, doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Once you are willing to take that step, you can test it and prove it to yourself very easily

That is not testing, and it certaibnly is not empirical. Boss, i have warned you to stop trying to equate your magical bullshit with the empirical process. You don't seem to have learned. that is nothing but an anecdote... an authoritative declaration. "My houseplants talk! I know, because they talked to me!".... circular nonsense, not evidence.

"The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual nature can or does exist. "

Oh yeah? Okay, let's test that. Define, VERY specifically, "spiritual nature". Now, we both know this definition will be different than the other 100 times you changed it, but we'll go with what you post this time.

be VERY specific. We shall put your grand preaching to the test.

 

[Czernobog]

You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

There is nothing "magical" about what I believe.

Yes there is...it's all magical bullshit, the truth of which could never be tested and which can be made to be anything anyone wants it to be.

But it can be tested. You first have to rationalize that a spiritual nature exists and that you can connect with it through intensive meditation. Once you are willing to take that step, you can test it and prove it to yourself very easily, as billions of humans have done.

The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual nature can or does exist. In that paradigm, it is impossible to understand it as anything other than what you perceive as "magic" and that's why you are referring to it as such. From a physical-only perspective, spiritual nature seems "magical" to you. But "magic" is nothing more than an illusion.

In short, it requires you to open your mind to the possibility of something beyond the physical. Your inability to test something doesn't mean it cannot possibly exist. Jupiter existed long before anyone discovered it. Nuclear fission was possible when cave men were learning to control fire and chisel wheels from rock. The fact they didn't yet have knowledge of it, doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

And you insist that your postion is rational?!?!

"in order to prove that 'the spiritual realm' exist, you first have to decide, without any evidence whatsoever, that the 'spiritual realm' exists, then think about the spiritual realm really hard, and you will, eventually, convince yourself that you have reached this realm for which there is no evidence, and this will be the evidence,"

That's not rational, and it isn't how scientific research works. Guess what? You take a bunch of LSD, and you'll convince yourself that flying unicorns, and purple dragons exist too, because you see them. That doesn't make them real, and it doesn't make your conclusions rational.

 

[Boss]

You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

There is nothing "magical" about what I believe.

Yes there is...it's all magical bullshit, the truth of which could never be tested and which can be made to be anything anyone wants it to be.

But it can be tested. You first have to rationalize that a spiritual nature exists and that you can connect with it through intensive meditation. Once you are willing to take that step, you can test it and prove it to yourself very easily, as billions of humans have done.

The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual nature can or does exist. In that paradigm, it is impossible to understand it as anything other than what you perceive as "magic" and that's why you are referring to it as such. From a physical-only perspective, spiritual nature seems "magical" to you. But "magic" is nothing more than an illusion.

In short, it requires you to open your mind to the possibility of something beyond the physical. Your inability to test something doesn't mean it cannot possibly exist. Jupiter existed long before anyone discovered it. Nuclear fission was possible when cave men were learning to control fire and chisel wheels from rock. The fact they didn't yet have knowledge of it, doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

And you insist that your postion is rational?!?!

"in order to prove that 'the spiritual realm' exist, you first have to decide, without any evidence whatsoever, that the 'spiritual realm' exists, then think about the spiritual realm really hard, and you will, eventually, convince yourself that you have reached this realm for which there is no evidence, and this will be the evidence,"

That's not rational, and it isn't how scientific research works. Guess what? You take a bunch of LSD, and you'll convince yourself that flying unicorns, and purple dragons exist too, because you see them. That doesn't make them real, and it doesn't make your conclusions rational.

I reject the terminology of a "realm" ...I've said nothing about a "realm" anywhere. A "realm" indicates a kingdom, a field or domain. Spiritual nature resides in the same realm as physical nature, it's not in it's own realm.

And again, there is plenty of evidence and billions of humans can testify to that. The fact that you don't comprehend it doesn't mean it's non-existent. Like I said, nuclear fission existed as a physical possibility when dinosaurs roamed the planet. It didn't suddenly become a physical possibility when man discovered it. The fact that prehistoric man couldn't comprehend it doesn't mean it didn't exist as a possibility.

It's not about "deciding" or "thinking real hard" as much as it's about the rationalization of a possibility. From there, you can test it to confirm if it exists. But until you can rationalize the existence of anything, you have to first believe it's possible. That's your problem in a nutshell.

 

[Boss]

Once you are willing to take that step, you can test it and prove it to yourself very easily

That is not testing, and it certaibnly is not empirical. Boss, i have warned you to stop trying to equate your magical bullshit with the empirical process. You don't seem to have learned. that is nothing but an anecdote... an authoritative declaration. "My houseplants talk! I know, because they talked to me!".... circular nonsense, not evidence.

"The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual nature can or does exist. "

Oh yeah? Okay, let's test that. Define, VERY specifically, "spiritual nature". Now, we both know this definition will be different than the other 100 times you changed it, but we'll go with what you post this time.

be VERY specific. We shall put your grand preaching to the test.

Well, I have never changed anything about my position or definition. I've tried numerous ways to explain it to you, perhaps you perceive that as me changing something?

Spiritual nature is simply that which is beyond the physical. We have numerous examples of things that fall into this category which you should be able to understand. Love, for example. You surely understand what love is, right? Can you show me physical evidence for the material weight of the love you have for your mother? Can you define in physical terms, the amount of difference in the love you have for your mother as opposed to the love you have for a household pet or a nice cheesecake? The fact that you cannot quantify the material value of your love in physical terms doesn't mean it can't exist or that it's "magical."

And on "testing" ....let's imagine we can get into a time machine and go back to Isaac Newton's lab and posit the physics for nuclear fission. Newton would simply look at you as if you were crazy because he doesn't comprehend strong and weak nuclear forces yet. He wouldn't understand how you can test your theories because he wouldn't comprehend the variables or parameters. You can't possibly test anything until you understand the parameters and variables of what you're planning to test... and that's where you are with spiritual nature. You simply aren't aware yet.

 

[Czernobog]

You are welcome to your magical nonsense.

There is nothing "magical" about what I believe.

Yes there is...it's all magical bullshit, the truth of which could never be tested and which can be made to be anything anyone wants it to be.

But it can be tested. You first have to rationalize that a spiritual nature exists and that you can connect with it through intensive meditation. Once you are willing to take that step, you can test it and prove it to yourself very easily, as billions of humans have done.

The problem is, you refuse to acknowledge a spiritual nature can or does exist. In that paradigm, it is impossible to understand it as anything other than what you perceive as "magic" and that's why you are referring to it as such. From a physical-only perspective, spiritual nature seems "magical" to you. But "magic" is nothing more than an illusion.

In short, it requires you to open your mind to the possibility of something beyond the physical. Your inability to test something doesn't mean it cannot possibly exist. Jupiter existed long before anyone discovered it. Nuclear fission was possible when cave men were learning to control fire and chisel wheels from rock. The fact they didn't yet have knowledge of it, doesn't mean it wasn't possible.

And you insist that your postion is rational?!?!

"in order to prove that 'the spiritual realm' exist, you first have to decide, without any evidence whatsoever, that the 'spiritual realm' exists, then think about the spiritual realm really hard, and you will, eventually, convince yourself that you have reached this realm for which there is no evidence, and this will be the evidence,"

That's not rational, and it isn't how scientific research works. Guess what? You take a bunch of LSD, and you'll convince yourself that flying unicorns, and purple dragons exist too, because you see them. That doesn't make them real, and it doesn't make your conclusions rational.

I reject the terminology of a "realm" ...I've said nothing about a "realm" anywhere. A "realm" indicates a kingdom, a field or domain. Spiritual nature resides in the same realm as physical nature, it's not in it's own realm.

And again, there is plenty of evidence and billions of humans can testify to that. The fact that you don't comprehend it doesn't mean it's non-existent. Like I said, nuclear fission existed as a physical possibility when dinosaurs roamed the planet. It didn't suddenly become a physical possibility when man discovered it. The fact that prehistoric man couldn't comprehend it doesn't mean it didn't exist as a possibility.

It's not about "deciding" or "thinking real hard" as much as it's about the rationalization of a possibility. From there, you can test it to confirm if it exists. But until you can rationalize the existence of anything, you have to first believe it's possible. That's your problem in a nutshell.

Yeah..."...rationalization of a possibility..." Translation: "Just tell yourself it's real, even though there's no evidence,"

 

[Boss]

Yeah..."...rationalization of a possibility..." Translation: "Just tell yourself it's real, even though there's no evidence,"

Again, I go to my example... there was no evidence for nuclear fission in the days of Newton... doesn't mean it wasn't possible. And it's not "telling yourself it's real" as much as rationalizing the possibility and searching for evidence from that perspective. You refuse to rationalize the possibility and so you can't rationalize any evidence.

 

[Boss]

One thing I would genuinely like to know from you Atheist types... it's always been intriguing to me... what exactly is your objective and purpose? I understand a religious or spiritual person has the objective or purpose to argue in favor of a specific belief or tenet, but Atheists don't believe in anything... so what is your objective and purpose in arguing?

You see... I don't believe in the Easter Bunny but I have no compulsion to come here and relentlessly post non-stop about my disbelief in said critter. I simply live my life as if there is no Easter Bunny. There would be no ultimate objective or purpose to spend my valuable time arguing against something I don't believe exists. So what is the goal?

 

[Czernobog]

One thing I would genuinely like to know from you Atheist types... it's always been intriguing to me... what exactly is your objective and purpose? I understand a religious or spiritual person has the objective or purpose to argue in favor of a specific belief or tenet, but Atheists don't believe in anything... so what is your objective and purpose in arguing?

You see... I don't believe in the Easter Bunny but I have no compulsion to come here and relentlessly post non-stop about my disbelief in said critter. I simply live my life as if there is no Easter Bunny. There would be no ultimate objective or purpose to spend my valuable time arguing against something I don't believe exists. So what is the goal?

I can only speak for myself, but I have, numerous times, stated that my goal is the advancement of knowledge, and reason over faith. All you are attempting to do is advance a different kind of faith-based belief.

 

[Czernobog]

Yeah..."...rationalization of a possibility..." Translation: "Just tell yourself it's real, even though there's no evidence,"

Again, I go to my example... there was no evidence for nuclear fission in the days of Newton... doesn't mean it wasn't possible. And it's not "telling yourself it's real" as much as rationalizing the possibility and searching for evidence from that perspective. You refuse to rationalize the possibility and so you can't rationalize any evidence.

The thing is I don't "refuse" to do anything. I did what you suggested. It's not like I left the Christian religion, and just went straight to atheism. I still wanted to believe that there was "something more", and that Christians just were not the proper path to reach it. I studied, and practised several Eastern meditative traditions, I attempted Native American spirit walks, shamanism, even paganism. And I attained... nothing.

Now, of course, you are going to insist that this was because I "did it wrong". Which is exactly how belief without objective evidence works. Those who convince themselves that they have "found enlightenment" can never be convinced of anything other than their own certainty, and anyone who does not experience what the "enlightened" do, clearly did it wrong.

 

[Boss]

I can only speak for myself, but I have, numerous times, stated that my goal is the advancement of knowledge, and reason over faith. All you are attempting to do is advance a different kind of faith-based belief.

But reasoning that something doesn't and can't exist is not advancing knowledge. If anything, it's the opposite of that. And I've said that what myself and others who have a specific belief are doing is arguing in favor of what we believe. Atheists have no belief... so what are you arguing in favor of?