I believe we were talking about an "ineffective car". Around here unwanted vehicles are usually taken to the "junk yard". There they will remove whatever parts can be resold, and all the metal parts will be recycled. I don't know if they recycle the glass and plastic parts though.
Yes - I believe all of that. Plastics are definitely tough to recycle, especially when impregnated in other materials, such as seats, linings, etc.
What is the government trying to win by beating those who do not believe in supernatural beings? Why would it bother the government? What facts about what?
There is one difference between an atheist and a person of faith. The atheist does not believe in supernatural beings watching over and governing us. The person of faith does. That's all. I would ask someone to point to something else.
I have never understood this obsession for some of religious faith to tag not have a religious faith.....religion. Atheism is a negative believe, it believes there are not supernatural beings that's all. Atheist believe in our common moral values just as those of religious faith. I often ask those of religious faith what moral values to you hold that you do not believe I, someone who does not believe in supernatural beings, hold and they can never come up with one.
If you can't grasp that 'God' exists solely in the abstract, as in 'in the mind', as a self - evident truth, then I can't help you. If your argument is 'throughout history' and numbers, not that throughout history mankind has believed in all sorts of crazy things. It may be true that believing in 'god' is the natural development of the primitive mind, which, as mankind evolves, eventually discards it similar to how a caterpillar eventually discards it's cocoon in order for it to be released from it's bondage as it metamorphoses into a butterfly though at one point in the development of the organism, it was necessary. So, for the aggregate development of the mind of mankind, perhaps it was necessary for a large sector of the population during primative stages. So, it's just a 'stage' in the mental makeup of mankind, necessary for some groups. How it manifests, specifically, varies according to cultural differences. However, that fact doesn't alter the principle that it was based in the imagination, all along. Perverting an imaginary belief doesn't buttress the argument. A perverted imaginary belief (that murder is religion) is still an act predicated on the imaginary belief. It doesn't alter the fact that it is imaginary. In other words, it's a strawman argument. Marriage is both an emotional, and a legal phenomenon. Gay marriage is marriage on both points, in America, whether you like it or not. Your philosophical sophomorisms are irrelevant to the above facts. Oh piffle. There is no requirement that morality requires religion. There is no offical arbiter of religion, that rests with the individual. Of course, if you want to argue there is an arbiter, for tax purposes, perhaps, but that only extends for purposes of religion. I mean, Scientology calls itself a religion, and most people would assert that it is not a religion, but the IRS recognizes them. If they declare they are religious people, it is not for me or you or anyone to assert otherwise. As for morals, more immoral acts have been exacted in the name of religion, perhaps, than in secularism. The term 'secular' is a term meaning 'sans religion'. There is such a thing as a moral secularism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality If that were not a thing, there would be no wikipedia entry on it. Are they the arbiter? There is no arbiter, but there is a 'thing' called moral secularism, which declares that you are full of ****. No in those words of course. There is no law, no concept, no point of logic to support your position that morality is not possible without religion Morality, is, indeed, possible without religion, and some might even argue that the odds are better without religion, but I won't go that far. It's a self evident truth, and if you can't accept that, ,then I can't help you. And no, it is not for you to assert who is, and who isn't, religious. That rests upon the individual. For tax purposes, then the IRS. But that extends only for taxes, not morality. So, your position is baseless, unless you are into tyranny, of course. Maybe you are. Well, I'm not. Moreover, there is no more that can be said. So, have the last word. But, you will be arguing to the wind, because the wind will be, at this juncture, the only thing that will pay attention to such an obviously ridiculous point of view.
In my recent response to the above, I wanted to make a correction which I was not allowed to do owing to the time out function. To wit: This: There is no law, no concept, no point of logic to support your position that morality is not possible without religion Was supposed to be: There is no law, no concept, no point of logic to support your position that morality is possible without religion Obviously, it wasn't your position that morality is possible without religion.
Well, here we agree on that point. @Kokomojojo was arguing that 'morality' is inherently a religious act. That's nonsense. The ONLY reason someone makes that dumb argument is they can't accept the notion that non religious people can be moral. Also, as a side note, I do not accept that 'atheism' is a religion. But, if they want to assert that it is, then I'll just take it one step further, and assert that well, then agnosticism is not a religion, either. To not even consider religion or be concerned with it whatsoever can't be a religion. Those who are in that category can certainly be moral, so his premise is absurd. He clings to that notion because he can't possibly conceive there is validity in being non religious. So, he finds it necessary to contort logic to support this silly and bogus idea.
What moral beliefs do you as one who believes in supernatural beings hold that I as a atheist who does not you believe I do not hold and be specific.
Its a synonym that more precisely demonstrates a pretentious attempt at the appearance of neutrality with the use if the word ineffective I never thought said or implied otherwise. A cycle of natural development is hardly classified as bondage. Your statement however is false because many highly intelligent academic types as in phds believe in God and take those beliefs to their graves Cultural differences are based on the religious differences between the cultures that different religions created. No such principle exists. You first need to prove it's based in imagination, and I see nothing from you but a naked statements stating your opinion. Using a naked claim to declare it's imaginary is most certainly a strawman and a more than one fallacy, unless and until you can back it up with the necessary set of argumentive proofs. Atheism is based as much in 'faith' as theism neither one of you are capable of proving your positions based in fact. That's right "I will not murder" is a moral premise which is of course at the core I'll literally every religion on the planet except maybe yours? How about stealing rape false accusations all the rest of those morals? Do they count too? While I'm sure you believe you posted facts you didn't you posted your opinions and beliefs nothing more. I'm sure everyone is still waiting for some bonafide 'facts' from you now that we have all your opinions and your premise is based on a fallacy well more than one actually. I suppose you think that's a counterargument? I am interpret that nonresponse as check and mate! Since I never claimed that morality 'requires religion' I have no idea why you would make such a statement attributing it to me in the first place? Well the most official Arbiter right now is the Supreme Court unless you believe that the Supreme Court and the irs is actually going to give people tax breaks under religion or special privileges as a religion when in reality they're not a religion, do you seriously believe that? You need to show why the government would even consider doing such a thing especially since they will lose plenty of money in the process. So feel free to cite your evidence, since the same determination was made for all religions recognized by the state. If the government is satisfied that something is a religion then it in fact is a religion unless of course you can cite otherwise. The fact of the matter is the Catholics lutherans Protestants Buddhist Quakers satanists secular humanists, etc are all recognized by the state for the very same purposes there's nothing unique or out of the norm about recognizing atheists as a religion unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Most people have no more than a high school education too. As I just said above, if the government recognizes them as a religion and they are in fact a religion like it or not. What are you talkin about the government has declared many peoples claims to religion not to be a religion, or a religious purpose or some activity, so how do you figure it's not for someone else to decide?
Well we don't know that unless we dig into each individual case to find out if religion was being blamed or if it was really with regard to the religion itself. We all know that the Jews declared a religious war against Germany prior to the start of World War II because of their hatred for Christianity and the massive success of Germany rebounding after World War 1 after hitler took over despite the massive sanctions and trade impositions placed upon Germany were intended to prevent, so the war was declared as a religious War while in my opinion it was actually an economic War because the Jewish religion includes economy, money changers. When a state makes a law against a recognized religion it is writing a religious law and overlaying their religious law over the targeted religion. oh, and of course they claim it's for secular purposes. Banning polygamy has no secular value and as far as Government Administration is concerned so yeah, they trampled over the mormons to inject and overlay their religion, based in a euphemistic metaphor, but I suppose you dont count that. Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens remarked on the program Uncommon Knowledge: "I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us. Religion gets its morality from humans. We know that we can't get along if we permit perjury, theft, murder, rape, all societies at all times, well before the advent of monarchies and certainly, have forbidden it... Socrates called his daemon, it was an inner voice that stopped him when he was trying to take advantage of someone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_morality Odd seems HItchens and I am on the same page with that regard, so where does that leave you? Friedrich Nietzsche famously declared God is Dead but also warned "When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident...Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole."[10] Again the Supreme Court declared secular humanism which has its foundations in Atheism a religion oh, sorry Of course not Hitchens just did! Yours is washed up bright from the start because yours is based on a fallacy as I stated earlier actually move more than one fallacy as I stated earlier. Like I said we start with beliefs first, morality next, then morality falls under 'your' religion as a core the category as soon as you act on your morality regardless of your source the morality, I don't care if your source is your pet rock. Just like beliefs morph to morality, morality morphs to religion. religion is NOT the same as diety, that is a common mistake. However morality consists of strongly held beliefs and is a core component of all religions. Anyone that has morals has religion based on those morals they have. Everybody is religious that has morals, once again as I said regardless of the source of the morals. Huh? Yeah the IRS deals with taxes which has special considerations for religions. And once again I suppose you think they're going to give somebody tax breaks when they really arent a religion, I mean like seriously? that's pretty non sequitur. There's plenty that can be said, just because it wont get said by you doesnt mean there isnt more, as in much more! What you just said is nonsense, I'm non-religious and I absolutely have a religion based upon my morals which are based upon my strongly held beliefs. Maybe there's more to those arguments than you know or care to admit. Atheism has strongly held beliefs, atheism itself is based upon faith and faith clearly indicates 'belief', as in NOT fact! Atheism and agnosticism each fulfill all the elements of a religion starting with faith why is it Faith, because you cannot prove God does not exist so it's nothing more than your belief and faith in your belief. Again as I said I'm an agnostic and I absolutely have a religion because I have morals that I exercise and exercising my morals is 100% outside the definition of ethics and philosophy and 100% within the definition of a religion. Huh? If that means just because you are not cognizant something is defined, like murder for instance, that if you murder someone it cant be murder because you never considered it murder that nuts! and since they can be moral this is why everyone has a religion because one of religions central core components is morals. You can be nondeity, sort of, but you cant be nonreligious unless you have zero strongly held beliefs, ie no morals, like born in a coma. There's no contortion logic whatsoever there's a lack of understanding on your part and people that conflate religion with deities which are entirely different. You all call deity worship religion, this is a false assumption, even made by academics sometimes. none, I'm not one who believes in supernatural beings
Hitchen's said: "I think our knowledge of right and wrong is innate in us." The very statement supports the view that religion is not required for morals, it's 'innate' within us. That he includes 'religion gets it's morality from humans' supports that, because he is saying religion gets its morality from what is INNATE IN HUMANS. Capiche? Clearly, you have misunderstood Hitchens, who is very much on my side of the fence. My gawd, I listen to many Hitchen's lectures, and you thought you could put one over on me by quoting Hitchens. Fail. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, but it is not the arbiter of truth. Word to the wise. SCOTUS is the arbiter of the constitution, but not the final word on philosophy. Word to the wise. Failure #2. See above. Didn't you agree with Hitchens, who said, 'morals are INNATE within us' ? Innate precedes just about everything. You misunderstood Hitchens, because I agree with HItchens, and you disagree with me. I repeat: Didn't you agree with Hitchens, who said, 'morals are INNATE within us' ? Innate precedes just about everything. You misunderstood Hitchens, because I agree with HItchens, and you disagree with me. In other words, you are talking nonsense. Man is innately moral. But, society, through learning about the world, becoming wordly, through learning about greed, envy, and the various sins one can acquire in life, one can aberrate from man's basic goodness. I agree with Hitchens. Innate, good word. Look it up. Means 'Inborn; natural'. No beliefs or learning required. You stated. "I'm non religious and I absolutely have a religion based upon my morals". That statement contradicts itself. You have a religion, you say, but you are non religious. That is a contradiction. I can see someone being religious, and not having a religion, (for example, a person who is into meditation) but not the other way around. they do not. Your premise is a logical fallacy. If you believe in God, the onus is on the believer to prove the existence of God, not someone who says 'I don't know". ( the agnostic). Everything you say is premised on the fact that morals is NOT innate. Why? Because everything you say requires a belief. To a true agnostic, there is no 'belief' there is only " I don't know and I can accept that I don't know". To the true agnostic his morals are INNATE. You disagree with Hitchens. I agree with him and disagree with you. No, morals, like Hitchens said, are 'innate'. No religion required. the sages say be innocent like a child. "Innocent' as in 'without all the baggage, without all your beliefs, knowledge, aberrations" Is a child in a coma? I think not. I think it was Bhudda who said: "Maintain beginner’s mind – no matter how much we know (or think we know)." That's another way of saying the same thing. No religion or beliefs required to be 'innocent'. I have no religion, and I am moral. You're just going to have to live with the fact that that is a moral statement.
thats what I said, so you should be agreeing with me, however if you have morals then you have religion by default. religion gets, not the other way around. yep 1/2 of it. I dont know that neither does he. Can you prove they are in fact innate? Nope you are missing the point, again, because you reversed my meaning. yeh speculation, not a fact, maybe, maybe not. I never said I was nonreligious. Cant be nonreligious and not have religion. meditation does not qualify as a religion. Not at all, premised on the fact that the source does not matter, the act does. not possible.
Is this your first day on Earth? Definition of religion 1a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion b(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices Or, according to religious fanatics: KJV Dictionary Definition: religion religion RELIGION, n. relij'on. L. religio, from religo, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind. This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans. 1. Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion. 2. Religion, as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law. James 1. 3. Religion, as distinct from virtue, or morality, consists in the performance of the duties we owe directly to God, from a principle of obedience to his will. Hence we often speak of religion and virtue, as different branches of one system, or the duties of the first and second tables of the law. Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. 4. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the Indians, &c. as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false religion, as well as of true religion. 5. The rites of religion; in the plural.
sounds just like strongly held beliefs! I am the embodiment of the spirit, and worship the spirit that resides in me. I have an oath to and am bound to the requirements of the spirit. I stand bound to my strongly held beliefs brought to me through the spirit that resides in me! Just like atheists are bound to their strongly held beliefs!
who says you need a G/god? prayer noun a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship. "I'll say a prayer for him"
I've been following Hitchens for a long time, and I assure you, you have misinterpreted his quote. There is no way in Hell Hitchens would ever say one must be religious in order to be moral. He spent the latter part of his life arguing the evils of religion, wrote a book entitled 'God Is Not Great" and you are trying to tell me that is what he meant? You are deluded IF you believe that. "Innate" means 'inborn' / 'natural' ( and therefore independent of anything else, including religion ) If you think he meant something different, you are misinterpreting his meaning. Self evident truths do not require proof. Only the capacity to see. Either you can see it, or you can't. Not much else can be done to help you. I am defining morals as the basic goodness in man, i think you are predicating the meaning on a creed, or something like that. we are arguing different things. One doesn't need religion or to be religious in order to be good towards others, and that to me is morality, that is Hitchen's meaning. If one wants' to make a distinction between 'morals' and 'essential goodness' fine, but I'm not making the distinction.
In other words, the RNC is the head of the church of Republicanism, espousing and worshiping the spirit so codified. LOL. You so badly want morals to be seen as requiring religion that you are ready to call absolutely ANYTHING a religion.
