Tuesday, November 30, 2010

If there is no God, why don't you shoot yourself in the foot?

I mean, it's not like anything would matter without God. Why not just pull out a gun and shoot yourself in the foot, it's not like it matters.

Somehow I think this is a delightful rephrasing of the old canard. It's not only well phrased by it provides it's own rebuttal. There's something delightful about presenting a valid variation of another's argument, in such a way that it's obviously self-refuting. The only thing better than an argument that can be refuted in one word, is an argument that is refuted in zero.

There was no good science between Aristotle and the Middle Ages! (an actual argument made by Stark and other people)
 -- Archimedes.

Faith is a beautiful thing and is good for it's own sake.
-- Jonestown.

If there's no God, why don't you just shoot yourself in the foot.
-- ...

22 comments:

The Apprentice said...

If there IS a god, why don't you shoot yourself in the foot?

Works just as well I think.

Tatarize said...

Silly girl. Your body is a temple, and you are commanded by the Bible to treat your body with respect. Shooting yourself in the foot would be obviously opposed to this. So Christians know not to shoot themselves in the foot, but where would atheists get this kind of moral reasoning from?

The Apprentice said...

I guess it's just me, but "that sounds like it would hurt" always sufficed.

Tatarize said...

Lol.

I remember when somebody came on some forum or other and proposed a few arguments for premarital sex which were things like 'you need to know if your partner is good at sex' etc, and I pointed out basic problems with all of them like 'it may well change' etc. And then in frustration and agreement that my counter-points were sound, he said that 'I guess there's no good reasons'. I pointed out that that was false and that just because his arguments were bad didn't imply that there were no good arguments. He asked if I knew a 'good reason', and I replied, "Because you want to."

Somehow throughout the years that has been one of my favorite answers ever. It even ranks above the time I advised a guy who asked whether he should break up with his girlfriend (of six years and two kids) who decided to deny him 'premarital sex' or cheat on her (his only other available option), to break up with her on the grounds that he was clearly a oblivious jackass and she likely could do better.

Ah, wit of yesteryear.

Theunis said...

Why bring someone else into the argument it is your decision, so if you want to dirty your pants with the pain shoot yourself in the foot, but don't try to shoot others they may shoot back.

Theunis said...

Hhmmmm. on second thought there is no moral reason so if you want to change yourself into a three legged something shoot yourself in the foot and then use a walking stick to hobble along. The pain, the pants-cough and the walking stick is a stopper for theist and atheist alike. In this case both are believers, they don't only believe it will hurt they know it will, unless they are duh duh and don't believe it hurts because they have not seen or felt it.

Tatarize said...

Just as it is true that both atheists and theists don't go around killing, raping and pillaging for the same modern humanistic ethics. The theists just suppose it has something to do with religion when really it has to do with basic secular morality. You don't do those things because they are stupid things to do.

To suppose that acting stupidly because there is no God is justified is one of the most inane arguments around.

Theunis said...

HeyHo looks like Harry Stack Sullivan was right when he said we live according to our learned experiences. Not that we have to experience the learning first hand.

Oh well different schools teach different things but the ouch experience prevails.
Darn you know a lot what's in the bible; more than I do. But there is a lot of psychology in it like "Your body is a temple" so don't mess around with it with abuse, drugs, alcohol or do yourself an injustice ("shoot yourself in the foot") because your walls will come crashing down, a brick or beam may fall on your head and the OUCH CONCEPT, with it's painful lesson, will rule supreme no matter what school of thought you follow.

Tatarize said...

"Darn you know a lot what's in the bible; more than I do."

I even know the most important thing about the Bible, a fact which many Christians fail to realize: it's fiction.


"OUCH CONCEPT, with it's painful lesson, will rule supreme no matter what school of thought you follow."

But, moreover, anybody can see how it's absolutely reasonable to not shoot yourself in the foot, or kill yourself, or go around raping, pillaging, and murdering. These are all activities which theist after theist seems to insist they'd do right off if there was no God.

Theunis said...

Bible - Fiction yes. Fact yes. But it does take an effort to separate the two.
Biblical theists and atheists - many were already following the witches creed, or the lessons of life before they were "converted".

Unless we get bogged down with irrelevant things then
The next step is: - "Evolve", as I said, this then means no more (biblical) theists and no more (anti-biblical) atheist, Just Magnificent.
Then the words of that song is the way to go "I can see clearly now the rain has gone.... there are no OBSTACLES in my way...etc"

I agree with what you say and can also agree with things theists say. (Naturally not all things)
Man Oh man let's start an open eyes club - to me theism and atheism are obstacles.
Morality is taught in life and the Bible, some need the bible others do not. Whatever be their comfortable coat, it is their's to wear.

Tatarize said...

>>Bible - Fiction yes. Fact yes.

You really can't be both. You could base fiction on some bits of reality but it wouldn't be anything other than fiction. As far as we can tell archeologically the bible is pretty much just fiction.


>>Man Oh man let's start an open eyes club - to me theism and atheism are obstacles.

Atheism has the benefit of being factually accurate. You can say a plague on both their houses, and in the case where they are a true dichotomy seem really bizarre, but it doesn't make mythology suddenly real.

>>Morality is taught in life and the Bible, some need the bible others do not.

Morality is not taught in the Bible at all. It's at best a couple rather run of the mill moral points along with a large set of utter crap that is patently immoral. I mean, what moral precept is best derived from the Bible? Treating women like property? Condoning slavery? Demanding genocide? Praytell, what moral lessons will we learn from the Bible.

Theunis said...

"Do unto others as you would them do unto you."
This is a moral teaching and the golden thread in the christian bible and it appears in all religions of the world. It is also incorporated in the witches creed.

You keep quoting the old Testament to justify your views yet we all know that much of it comes from primitive times and primitive thoughts trying to explain natural disasters and the world and that the fear of the dark and the unknown coloured all thought.
You also forget that Bible merely means a collection of writings. It was not edited to reflect one persons viewpoint, why even the RCC threw the books on a table and those which fell off the table were not included in the bible. A COLLECTION of books plainly means that some of those writings are fiction and others are factual.
Claims that it was inspired by God is akin to the American firm who said removal of their label from the pillow would result in dire consequences, which says even some modern day people are twits.

I would suggest you make yourself cognizant of the other passages where it says how to treat your wife, your children, your slaves and strangers. Those are very moral teachings which even you follow because they are morals taught by everyday life.

I tested many things in the bible while some failed the test others passed. I am not biased for or against theism or atheism. I am unblinkered and eclectic.

Funny you and archaelogy. A DVD was dropped into my mailbox the other day. Your contention about archaelogy and the bible is way off the mark.
The archaelogy is intriguing the rest I have not, nor wish to look at. The DVD is in Afrikaans so to give you the reference would not serve any purpose. However they do give the following website address: www.endtimeanswer.co.za

Tatarize said...

I said,
"Morality is not taught in the Bible at all. It's at best a couple rather run of the mill moral points along with a large set of utter crap that is patently immoral. I mean, what moral precept is best derived from the Bible?"

You replied, "'Do unto others as you would them do unto you.'
This is a moral teaching and the golden thread in the christian bible and it appears in all religions of the world. "


How, praytell, is this "best derived" from the Bible, and not a "run of the mill" moral point? You understand it appears in a lot of different rules that long predate Christianity and in Christianity is ascribed to the "Prophets" rather than ever claiming to be original. And the Wiccan Reed, is actually different.


>>You keep quoting the old Testament to justify your views yet we all know that much of it comes from primitive times

Ofcourse, and the New Testament comes from primitive times too. It also condones slavery and treats women like property. We are admonished to have slaves serve their masters well as their masters serve God and to not allow women to speak in church or have any power over men.



>>A COLLECTION of books plainly means that some of those writings are fiction and others are factual.

But, none of them really appear to be factual. The best of them never mentions God and is just a poem. One would be better off basing their religion on Aesope's fables.


>>I would suggest you make yourself cognizant of the other passages where it says how to treat your wife, your children, your slaves and strangers. Those are very moral teachings which even you follow because they are morals taught by everyday life.

The fact that it says you can have slaves is bad enough, but it doesn't suggest that they be treated well. It tells you how to beat them, how to make them your property forever, how to enslave their children forever. What they are worth. It's barbaric. And treating wife and children? It says that daughters are the property of their fathers until they are sold to their husbands.

I rebuke that statement. Do not ever accuse me of treating people as inhumanely as the Bible claims I should. Do not make such accusations against others, and you should avoid claiming ill of others. The Bible in these terms is barbaric. These aren't common placed values. I assure you, nobody treats others like the Bible says they should be treated. We don't go around abducting women as sex slaves for soldiers.

>>I tested many things in the bible while some failed the test others passed. I am not biased for or against theism or atheism. I am unblinkered and eclectic.

Do you believe in God? If yes, then you're a theist, anything else and you're an atheist. You only believe X or not believe X.

>>Funny you and archaelogy. A DVD was dropped into my mailbox the other day. Your contention about archaelogy and the bible is way off the mark.

LOL! I don't know if I should pity you or point out the errors.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1051895565/

Israel was largely a polytheistic and later monotheistic political movement. The bulk of the Bible up until at the very least Kings is entirely fiction. It's a self-aggrandizing etiology.

Theunis said...

>>"..is this "best derived" from the Bible and not a "run of the mill" moral point?
Even if borrowed it is in the bible and is thus a biblical moral teaching. How do you know others did not borrow it from the bible?
>>"The Wiccan Reed, is actually different."
The theme if not the exact words of the witches creed is. - Do whatever you please but make sure it does not harm others
>>"It also condones slavery and treats women like property.
Please tell me in what part of world do we find christians who have slaves and regard their wives as property?
>>"...and to not allow women to speak in church
Della Reese has a congregation and there are numerous females preaching in Christian churches.
>>"or have any power over men."
Margaret Thatcher had power over many men as does your American first lady.
>>"But, none of them really appear to be factual".
At least you are now admitting the possibility that they can be factual exists. For the Israelis whose history it is, the Old Testament is factual.

--- YOU ARE LIVING IN AND QUOTING THE PAST ---
Come back to the present and see for yourself that the Old Testament is what USED to be. It is NOT a blueprint for today, It is history, It is yesterday, It is dead. It is a lesson of how NOT to be.

>>"...you should avoid claiming ill of others."
This was not meant to be personal and I apologize. It was to point out that even in such circumstances they were taught a moral code, which you deny exists in the bible.
>>"We don't go around abducting women as sex slaves for soldiers."
But pray then tell me why are women and young children abducted everyday for the human trafficking market to become sex slaves. Are you trying to tell me that it is Christians and others doing this because I assume that when you say "we", you mean atheist and no one else. Well surprise surprise.
>>"You only believe X or not believe X."
According to your definition and the theists I do not exist for I am an impossibility and fall outside the scope of both your realities.
>>"LOL! I don't know if I should pity you or point out the errors".
Actually I cry for you.
I gave a reference and you came back with one. Intimating my reference is wrong and yours is correct. You make a sweeping statement which leads me to conclude that you did not check out the reference I gave, so first go take a look and then be more specific about the so called "errors"

Tatarize said...

>>How do you know others did not borrow it from the bible?

Because other versions of the same rule predate the Bible entirely. It's actually a pretty common rule in any supposed moral system. It is also taken likely out of the Q document and predates the Bible.

>>- Do whatever you please but make sure it does not harm others

That's not the reed. It's an it harm none, do what thou will. It only applies to those situations when it harms nobody. If it harms somebody then it's a different choice and you have to face the three-fold rule of return. It doesn't say don't do such things, just that if it is the case that it is harmless go ahead and make your own choice. This is a different point than either the golden or silver rule.

>>Della Reese has a congregation and there are numerous females preaching in Christian churches.

I never said that individuals were unable to disregard what the Bible says, they can and do and should. The Bible says some terrible things. And the more you ignore the stupid parts, the more moral you tend to be.


--- YOU ARE LIVING IN AND QUOTING THE PAST ---

No. I'm not. I completely disregard the Bible. I'm pointing out that even on the small criteria of day to day life that you insisted it was useful on, that it is not. It's a terrible book and you're better off throwing it out a window and building a moral system from scratch. Because frankly there are moral statements that far exceed all the kindness of the Bible.


>>It is NOT a blueprint for today,

You somehow claimed it was.

>>It is history,

Actually it's not. It gets history all wrong. Most of the events depicted never actually happened. It claims there were massive Jewish empires under David when at best he was the leader of a cow town. It claims there was an exodus out of Egypt but there wasn't. It says there was a global flood, but there wasn't. It's not remotely historical.


>>It is yesterday, It is dead. It is a lesson of how NOT to be.

Certainly. Chuck the Bible out and be a moral person. The Bible says barbaric things and people who give it credit tend towards barbarism.


>>It was to point out that even in such circumstances they were taught a moral code, which you deny exists in the bible.

No. The "moral" code in the Bible is barbaric as far as day to day life is. Claiming I follow the Bible because I'm moral is one of the dumbest and most insulting things I've heard. If I actually followed the Bible, I wouldn't be moral. You are giving "moral code" to the Bible even when said morals are far more moral than the Bible!

Tatarize said...

>>But pray then tell me why are women and young children abducted everyday for the human trafficking market to become sex slaves.

Perhaps somebody still follows the Bible.


>>Are you trying to tell me that it is Christians and others doing this

No. But I am telling you that such behavior is hardly condemned in the book. You're not suppose to man-steal but rather take those around you, and when you take a young girl as a spoil of war, you are suppose to give her a month before raping her, and then you and only you may keep her.


>>because I assume that when you say "we", you mean atheist and no one else.

When I say "we" I mean moral modern people who largely ignore the Bible. That's pretty much everybody.


>>I am an impossibility and fall outside the scope of both your realities.

No. You'd actually be an atheist of the very odd variety.

>>Intimating my reference is wrong and yours is correct.

Mine is based on actual archeology and evidence. Yours is produced by evangelicals who think revelations equals evidence. That they can just vaguely interpret bizarre ramblings and end up at the truth. So, no, I'm not intimating that my source is more correct than yours; I am telling you in no uncertain terms that it is.

There use to be a fellow who interpreted the song American Pie with words like "Drove the Chevy to the Levy, but the levy was dry" to foretell a coming apocalypse and the terrible things slated to happen. I can tell you that your source is about that stupid, and that mine is about as reasonable as digging up things and trying to find the best explanation for the evidence as possible.


>>You make a sweeping statement which leads me to conclude that you did not check out the reference I gave

Nearly none of it is even remotely archeology. In fact I can't find anything. It's all either preaching or last days eschatology.

Theunis said...

"I am" and what I am is not your school of thought nor that if your opposing school. I stand neutral to you both, for you are like children squabbling over nothing that enriches mankind.
You try to label me but fail since I am something not understood by you. I see the truth and the lies for what they are. You and your opposites see them through tainted glass and veils of smog and make of them what you wish them to be. You cling to them as your anchors in life even as they drag you under and you drown.

You cannot comprehend that when someone says there is a GOD, it is his comfort, nor do you understand when you say there is no God it is your comfort. Both concepts are merely scapegoats for refusal to accept responsibility. Atheist create their own Gods in human form and follow their teachings like sheep and the others create their imaginary God or Gods and do the same.

Your thoughts are stuck in "What was" no matter how you try to deny it. Do what the Jews do. Live one day at a time. Those wrongs done to you and others are in the past, they should be dead but you inject them with a horrible quasi-life to justify your present state of being, but you are not justifying it you are detracting from it. You are becoming the frog in the pot of water.

Your arguments no longer intrigue me for I have observed both the truth and the pityful in them.

Tatarize said...

>>You cannot comprehend that when someone says there is a GOD, it is his comfort, nor do you understand when you say there is no God it is your comfort.

I've no qualms with the idea that it could be comforting to think there's a God. Just as it could be comforting to think you're going to be rich, famous, and loved. But, it doesn't make it one jot closer to true.

I'm not an atheist because I can prove there is no God. I'm an atheist because I understand the evidence on the God question is on par with the evidence on the werewolf question.

Theunis said...

Nevertheless your views are your comfort be they true or false. Show some understanding of the psychological aspects of life. Stop adding things that were not said.

If you fail to see morals laws no matter where they appear then truly you are as they say - there are none as blind as those who do not wish to see. If you see a beautiful field of flowers you are inclined to say, under those flowers is a lot of crap and you fail to see the flowers.

There are many manifestations of many things which are not understood. If you only wish to live with what you can feel, again that is YOUR COMFORT, as seen from from a psychological viewpoint.

You cannot see your thoughts but you can print them on paper so who the blankety blank says you are not one of your computers that has been programmed with a faulty AI and that the world that exists for you is not fact but merely a virtual reality ?

Try all the arguments you will, the fact remains you cannot prove it otherwise.

Theunis said...

I don't know where you got your Wiccan (Witches) Creed from but this is an extract from the Wiccan Creed.

"Live ye must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give."

Can this be any closer than live and let live and "fairly take and fairly give" To me this is the essence of do unto others as you would do them unto you for if you treat them fairly they will do the same to you.
Whatever you do returns threefold is used by some witches but not by all. Although personally I am inclined to accept it. You say this is borrowed from older cultures, so what, if anything is incorporated into your culture from another it becomes part of your culture and it is to be found in your moral teachings.
Let us then face the facts: There are exceedingly crappy Christians, Muslims, Atheist, Jews etc. Name any nation race or society and you will find them. To single out some demented Christians who pissed you off, is to be regretted, for many from all walks of life have pissed me off but I still see them as the rotten apple in the barrel and only discard their ways and not them as unworthy. I learn from all. They have their facts and fiction alike.
I even accept some of their facts or fiction on face value, because they sound logical, until proven wrong.


I am aware of the bits and pieces from other witches

Tatarize said...

The rede not creed (though sometimes used interchangably). I'm referring specifically to the eight words, not the longer version written in the 70s. While some Wiccans do take the rede as commandment and in the negative sense as well "If it harms somebody (or something) don't do it." But that's not necessarily implied. If it doesn't hurt somebody, it doesn't matter. If it does, then there are choices to be made but if you do harm with magicks you face the threefold rule. -- It's a moot point I suppose and the religion is decades old. But, it's not necessarily a parallel to the golden rule.

And my point about the Golden rule is that it isn't part and parcel of the Bible. There are older versions that predate the Bible, and in the Bible it's attributed as the law of the prophets, rather than supposed as an original new Jesus saying. So one moral rule that isn't Christian in a sea of genocide, slavery, and women as chattel does not moral book make.




>>"To single out some demented Christians who pissed you off, is to be regretted,"

I never have done that. Some Christians have followed what the Bible said to do with regard to women and slavery and other topics and were immoral for it. The Bible condones slavery from Genesis to Revelation, it says women are property and commands genocide and has God get angry because the genocide wasn't genocidal enough. Most modern Christians are very moral and reasonable people despite their religion. Usually, thankfully, they don't have a clue what their religion says.

Sounding logical is very different from being logically sound.It isn't an accept them if you can't see the error quickly but rather that the claims should be more likely true than false. There are plenty of bits of completely false pseudoscience that sounds logical but is full of crap. If you take sounding logical as sufficient, you're going to believe complete crap in no time.

Tatarize said...

I accept my views as being the most reasonable given the evidence. Regardless how comforting they are. If they aren't the most reasonable, I change to whatever view is more reasonable. The fact that I'm comfortable believing the truth, doesn't mean that I only believe it because it's comforting. I've had to accept plenty of things I didn't much like at the time for the simple reason that they were more likely true. Getting comfortable with such things comes later.

>>Try all the arguments you will, the fact remains you cannot prove it otherwise.

The problem is it's not really my job to overturn notions accepted on the basis of bad reasons. It suffices to only show that these reasons are bad. Reasonable people would thus change their minds at such a point.