Ricky Gervais, "I do rape and murder as much as I want because I don't want to.
If the only reason you don't rape and murder is because you're afraid of going to hell does that make you a good person?"

https://youtu.be/5Szj5jJeUec

Good one. And I've been asked the same in debates. My reply to the "why don't-cha murder people" people question is straight forward: the number of homicides I wanted to commit as a theist and as an atheist is constant — zero. It is wrong, period. If nothing else, it is one of the basic building blocks of *not* being a piece of shit human. On the flip side, anyone who is holding back from doing something so horrible because (derp) Jebus is, well, a pile of excrement.

On a tangent, one of the many things I despise about Evangelicalism is that, within that belief system, one could be a total monster who hurt countless people (murder, rape, robbery, you name it), but if they say the "sinner's prayer" on their death bed, boom, they're in on the deal. Someone, however, who worked tirelessly for the betterment of humanity, but was of a non-Xian fundy faith (or none at all) is going to be roasted for all eternity. Just? Nope — bullshit!

Space Pineapple Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . one of the many things I despise
> about Evangelicalism is that, within that belief
> system, one could be a total monster who hurt
> countless people (murder, rape, robbery, you name
> it), but if they [have had the 2A], boom, they're in on the
> deal.

One small amendment and the parallel between born-again Christianity and Mormonism becomes apparent.


---------------
> Someone, however, who worked tirelessly for the
> betterment of humanity, but was of a [non-Mormon] faith (or none
> at all) is going to be
> roasted for all eternity. Just?

Yep. You've described Mormonism as well as much of Christianity. Both posit a higher morality, rendering the sort of behavior that helps people here and now amoral if not immoral.

Regarding the killing... I might respond, "Haven't you seen Dexter?"

Love Dexter!

Man, if anyone ever asked me that, my only comment would be, "Dude! If that's who you think you'd be if you left religion, then please never, ever leave it. You're scary!"

Yeah, if it's the only thing keeping people in line, then keep fearing hell.

Like, uh, have you ever checked the percentage of the incarcerated murderers, rapists, and thieves, who do indeed believe in God? It's kinda shockingly high.

Yes I have checked. Atheists are under represented in the prison population but an even better indication is look at all the countries that are far more secular than America, Northern Europe, most of Asia, do they have higher rates of crime than the US?
No.
They have much lower rates of crime, drug use, alcoholism.
Why is that?
Belief in God?

https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/pdf

RESULTS: US homicide rates were 7.0 times higher than in other high-income countries, driven by a gun homicide rate that was 25.2 times higher.

For 15- to 24-year-olds, the gun homicide rate in the United States was 49.0 times higher.

Firearm-related suicide rates were 8.0 times higher in the United States, but the overall suicide rates were average. Unintentional firearm deaths were 6.2 times higher in the United States.

The overall firearm death rate in the United States from all causes was 10.0 times higher. Ninety percent of women, 91% of children aged 0 to 14 years, 92% of youth aged 15 to 24 years, and 82% of all people killed by firearms were from the United States.

CONCLUSIONS: The United States has an enormous firearm problem compared with other high-income countries, with higher rates of homicide and firearm-related suicide. Compared with 2003 estimates, the US firearm death rate remains unchanged while firearm death rates in other countries decreased.

Thus, the already high relative rates of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, and unintentional firearm death in the United States compared with other high-income countries increased between 2003 and 2010.

The problem with pointing out correlations that agree with your hypothesis is that, even if your sample of cultures is statistically sound, correlation is not causation. We would have to examine confounding factors such as the relative socioeconomic levels of the compared cultures, as well as the variances in socioeconomic levels within each of the compared cultures.

Perhaps wealthier societies don't care as much about religious rituals, and wealthier individuals are less inclined to commit violent crimes.
Perhaps less variance in wealth within a society means that there is less jealousy and therefore less motivation to lash out at one's neighbors.
Perhaps religious individuals have a need to confess their "sins", while less-religious individuals are more likely to hide theirs, leading to a large sampling bias.
Perhaps less-religious individuals can get bad desires out of their system through minor acts, while self-denying religious types bottle things up until they explode by committing majors crimes.

What I'm getting at is that this is not a simple thing to analyze. It's easy to throw darts at those with whom you disagree, painting them as morally lower than you are, but it's not easy to rigorously defend such arguments.

CZ ("In God we trust. All others must bring data, especially atheists who refuse to acknowledge the previous case.")

All well and good, but what if he knows he's right?

Every explanation you offer is a significant piece of the puzzle, to be sure. But so too is the availability of guns. It is far more difficult to kill people with fists or knives or clubs than with rifles and pistols.

"The firearm homicide rate is 25 times higher and the firearm suicide rate is 8 times higher in the United States than in other high-income countries."

"Among all 23 Countries, with less than half the total population, the United States accounted for 82% of all firearms deaths."

That is some pretty impressive "data," and from them follows the conclusion that if most or all guns were removed from private hands, the rates of firearm and total homicides in the United States would decline considerably. So even if causality is imprecise, as always in sociology, it's inevitable that gun availability is a major problem.

Put differently, we shouldn't throw out the common-sense baby with the reductive and moralistic bathwater. In matters of public policy, the 80/20 rule is good enough for government work.

Amen.
God will you run for Congress?

I was just addressing the evil vs good atheist topic. I’m not going to discuss firearms and nobody else should be bringing up that debate on the board.

I’ve said before that we’re not going to debate guns at RfM. I mean it. Please avoid the topic.

Thanks,

CZ

The discussion about violent crime relative to belief is tough to separate from guns in a particular society 1/3 of whom believe political violence against the Government is sometimes necessary.

It may be tough, but that’s what you’ll have to do here. No gun debates, please.

I agree with you about the stentorian rhetoric. It is pretentious and counterproductive.

My point was simply that, as you know, the message doesn't become incorrect simply because it's poorly presented.

Because it is the wrong thing to do

I didn’t want to kill or rape anybody before, during or after being Mormon.
If you secretly want to go around committing violent crimes against other people we need to go talk to the authorities, not a fucking priest!

good people are basically good, bad people are basically bad. to get good people to do bad things takes religion.

I suspect that anyone who would ask such a question is a fool with ort without religion.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.

You don't need constant negative reinforcement and threats of eternal damnation from an invisible sky daddy to know the difference between right and wrong.


The questioner has a very poor idea of human nature.

The other point he made is that he is oppressed in America because Americans trust Atheists the least of anybody. They tied with rapists and murderers.
So to most Americans he is as bad as a rapist or a murderer, even though he’s a really funny likable guy who loves animals.

I think he is prone to exaggeration.

He’s a comedian.
Grow a sense of humor.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He’s a comedian.
> Grow a sense of humor.

Yeah but comedians aren't always funny. And not everybody finds humour in the same ways. Some offensive comments are offensive (by definition, obviously) and it's not the person offended who is at fault. Just as atheists don't appreciate people assuming that negative traits abound in them due to their lack of a god belief, so do believers find it tiresome, at least, when people impute all sorts of evil about them because of their religious belief.

Nobody enjoys being broad-brushed as brainless, thoughtless, stupid or evil for having different ideas and opinions. Far better to discuss and dispute ideas than to go personal and force everybody into their separate corners.

Thinking of an individual as part of an amorphous whole, such as "all Christians are ..." or "all atheists are ..." is bound to give rise to inaccurate assumptions and conclusions, obviously, as well as to give offence. I understand why we have such discussions and why people in either group have strong opinions. I tend to be more mellow, and nuanced, I guess. That is all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2022 03:40PM by Nightingale.

I think he’s a riot, but I’m not here to defend one of the most successful and hilarious comedians.
He doesn’t need me to defend him. He’s plenty capable.
Lately I appreciate his conversations with San Harris on Waking Up.
I probably wouldn’t like him if I were still a believer, but I was a pretty open minded believer and always accepted science/evolution, even as a Mormon.

People, especially Christians, think there’s no way you can have a moral code without the Bible.

Which to me sounds just like a Muslim saying there’s no way you can be a moral person without the Koran.

It’s as if they believe atheists are possessed by the Devil and anything they have to say is just evil so they plug their ears and sing lalala when an atheist is speaking.

Denialism is a widespread phenomenon, unfortunately.
And it’s one reason this non-living virus keeps out smarting us, with all of our technology, we are no match for a brainless zombie virus to spread like wildfire. The US just became 1st country to top 1 million cases in a day.

>
> The US just became 1st country
> to top 1 million cases in a day.
>


Yay!   The Christians are in 1st Place!

Take that, ya filthy everybody elses!

I think you are prone to exaggeration, too, or at least gross generalizing.

Can someone provide a reason why posts have been deleted? What rule has been broken or is just that some topics should not be disagreed with?

I think it is probably because calling someone an a****** is prohibited, and then all replies to that post disappear. The poster in question has been deleted multiple times for that offense.

I've gotten away with using the word apostle!!!

But I won't argue that it is distasteful to many individuals.

In this case my objection to the generalities in the original post is removed leaving it to stand without challenge.

I'm not sure what happened either. Your comments were polite, substantive, and accurate.

Also, the number of people who are influenced by the OP fit in a kiddie wading pool, and just love it there...

Goodly stated, my friend!

Too bad, kentish. Yes, it's just the way the replies work, I've found. If yours is a response to a post that is removed then it goes too - the offending post goes plus any post that is connected to it, literally, as in you hit 'reply' to a post and your reply appears underneath it and not under the OP in a direct line. Sometimes, if I note that a post is breaking a board rule and is likely to be removed then I respond to the OP (click on 'Reply' under the thread-opening post) and not the reply that may not live. Sometimes then your post is saved, if it is more general in nature and is directly responsive to the OP.

However, depending on the reason the offending post was removed, any responses to it will also be, wherever they are located in the thread. This is, I believe, to quell any discussion of whatever was in the removed post that may be way out of line such that any comments about it or referring to it are also not welcomed.

If your comments are acceptable but one particular post is not, as long as your post isn't "physically" connected to it, your post would likely stand.

That likely sounds really confusing. Best I can do.

What I do sometimes, if I feel strongly enough about something, is if I do respond directly to a post that seems as though it may not last, I keep a copy of my own post. If there's an opportunity to post it in a more general way I try that. It's not an attempt to bypass Admin but a way to perhaps save some thoughts that I'd like to express so I can try again.

What you cannot do is re-post a post that has been removed for cause (one that breaks a board rule). If yours is just a casualty due to another post then I believe it's OK to re-post those comments.

However, I could be wrong on any aspect of this tortured explanation. Basically, if a post is removed we have to be cautious, and courteous, about how we react (not dissing Admin or trying to bypass them by re-posting something that has been taken down for cause). It's too bad when a perfectly fine response is nuked due to being connected to an offending one.

In short, if the comments you were addressing are still on the thread, as you say, you could try again to post your own response. I don't think that would be against any board rule. But. I'm not the boss. :)

    There appears to be an ongoing attempt here to foster peace and harmony.  When an 'offending' post is removed, it takes with it all the posts that directly responded to it.  This makes good sense because without the naughty post, 'reprovements' lack context.  Not that anyone ever takes him seriously...

Grow a sense of humor.

    

What if it wasn't funny?

I said this further up thread.

And you did a much, much better job than did Sister Lot.   I hope she is able to learn from this experience.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you did a much, much better job than did
> Sister Lot.   

LOL, EOD. But unlikely.

Well, no matter what the judges determine, at least you're not a harridan.   Saints preserve us, begorrah!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> at least you're not a harridan.   

You could be surprised. :)

La Señora whole-Lot-a-shakin'-going-on would not allow such a challenge to go unmet.

Because neither religion, Christianity, teachings of Jebus, or atheism have anything at all to do with ethics and morals.

To me, it's quite simple. If I don't want someone to hit me, then maybe I shouldn't hit them either.

Human beings also have something called empathy. "Gee, if I hit that person, then it would hurt them and I wouldn't want to do that because I know what it would feel like if someone hit me."

Why would I want to hurt someone, physically or emotionally, knowing how awful it feels if someone does that to me?

There's no god needed in figuring that out.

I have no desire to hurt anyone whether or not I'm religious. I also think it's more genuine. I choose to try my best to be kind because that's who I want to be. If I'm only being "good" because I'm afraid of a vengeful, angry god, then I don't think that would say much for my character.

Greyfort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no desire to hurt anyone whether or not I'm
> religious. I also think it's more genuine. I
> choose to try my best to be kind because that's
> who I want to be. If I'm only being "good"
> because I'm afraid of a vengeful, angry god, then
> I don't think that would say much for my
> character.

I agree. I try to maintain this approach myself. It's the do unto others philosophy of life, which I adopted before I ever dived into anybody's dunk tank.

As PIMO, I've often thought while sleeping thru Sunday School or other meetings that if there really are three kingdoms of glory, maybe the distinction is as follows:

Telestial Kingdom (Lowest) - People who do bad things

Terrestrial Kingdom (Middle) - People who don't do bad things because either they are afraid of punishment or want to get a reward

Celestial (highest) - People who don't do bad things because they have no desire to do bad things

>
> Celestial (highest) - People who
> don't do bad things because they
> have no desire to do bad things
>

I perceive (through my dirtie-dirtie lens) that you don't have an intimate knowledge of the faithful mormon propensity to do bad things and to then pretend that either you didn't do them, or that Holy McGhost told you it was okay to do them.

PIMO, Physically In, Mentally out?

I used to call it New Order MORmON or NOM

But New grew old,
Same Old BS, Different Day

And became untenable when they threatened me with Excommunication if I breathed a word about Mormon abuse to other Mormons, especially my Wife and kids, when I made it clear I was aware of abuse happening to my kids friends, to kids in my TBM sister’s family, to Mormon kids I grew up with.
He told me that I couldn’t say anything about Joseph Smith’s sexual exploitation of his followers wives and teenage daughters.
And made no apologies for any of it after I resigned because I could no longer remain silent about the abusive CULT of Joseph’s Myth.

"Puma In Mane Only."

I find that "Puma in Maine only" would also work!

It's cougar everywhere else would be the reasoning behind it, and even though untrue, passes a certain test, in which 'belief' is all that's needed.

Christianity is just dog training. Do the trick. Get the reward. Do it well enough and you can perform in the circus.

It's the stupidest gotcha in the world because theists assume the conclusion "god is responsible for and the origin of all the good" is automatically true. So if an atheist admits they don't want to do bad things that hurt others, then it's a leading, "why is that?" to somehow get an atheist to admit that the assumed conclusion is the only possible answer.

But it's dumb because atheists don't believe god is real, so, theists haven't logically proven anything. It's a meaningless gotcha that emotionally feels right to them because they're so closed minded, they can't conceive of anyone thinking differently than they do. To them, god is obvious. He's so obvious, in fact, that deep down, they don't believe atheists truly don't believe in god. They think we're all hiding a secret belief that saying the right thing will get us to snap out of it and realize the "truth".

edited.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/06/2022 03:48PM by Dorothy.

Not everyone has the right skillset. It’s not just a job, it’s a calling…

https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2022/01/IMG_4328.jpg?w=1125&ssl=1

*Wrenched out of context for purpose of illustration.