Christmas Toy Drive Cancelled (Athiest Threatens Lawsuit)

#76
#76
therealUT said:
I'm making an analogy. I think the analogy holds. What part of the analogy do you take issue with?
Click to expand...

Why NAMBLA? Outside of certain priests in the Catholic church I am unaware of Christians advocating for molestation and rape of young boys. Now I know you're all for sex with children so you can just save that crap.

Why not choose the Annual Young Terrorist Toy Drive? You know, the ones your (I use "Your" since you're the resident Muslim-apologist) Muslims hold to honor your sacrificial children. They receive new targets for the range, the ones with pictures of young girls reading. New gadgets plush with the latest fashions and detonation devices are always a favorite. Another must-have of late have been custom-fitted suicide vests decked out with images of Spongebob and other American cartoons so an image of America will be destroyed no matter who you target.

Or.... You could have equated it with a toy drive that wants to be completely free of religion. That would have been the best comparison for your analogy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#77
#77
tumscalcium said:
Why NAMBLA? Outside of certain priests in the Catholic church I am unaware of Christians advocating for molestation and rape of young boys. Now I know you're all for sex with children so you can just save that crap.

Why not choose the Annual Young Terrorist Toy Drive? You know, the ones your (I use "Your" since you're the resident Muslim-apologist) Muslims hold to honor your sacrificial children. They receive new targets for the range, the ones with pictures of young girls reading. New gadgets plush with the latest fashions and detonation devices are always a favorite. Another must-have of late have been custom-fitted suicide vests decked out with images of Spongebob and other American cartoons so an image of America will be destroyed no matter who you target.

Or.... You could have equated it with a toy drive that wants to be completely free of religion. That would have been the best comparison for your analogy.
Click to expand...

What does any of this have to do with taking toys away from kids and punishing kids for the beliefs of the organization?

It is that latest sentiment which makes the analogies hold. Place any organization into the equation, then take toys away from kids (or, keep kids from getting toys), and you are, de facto, punishing the kids because you disagree with the aims, beliefs, history, etc. of the organization.

Your response leads me to believe that you would not take issue with a Christian group shutting down a NAMBLA toy drive. And, well, I'm curious as to see how your beliefs on this issue are consistent (plenty of NAMBLA members have committed crimes based on their beliefs; plenty of Christians have committed crimes based on their beliefs...is there an arbitrary line to be drawn, some threshold of criminal activity? Further, there is much to be said re: the psychological damage to children who are indoctrinated into superstition, and, well, there is much to be said re: the psychological damage to children who are molested.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#78
#78
therealUT said:
Food for thought:

Imagine a situation in which NAMBLA is staging a toy-drive and sending the toys to children. The toys will come wrapped, and a card will express, "Happy NAMBLA Day, from your friends at the North American Man Boy Love Association". Would you take issue with a Christian group shutting down this toy drive?
Click to expand...

You're not going to get a straight answer to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#82
#82
MG1968 said:
I would hope that even athiests would have a problem with NAMBLA handing out toys at Christmas
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's not the point. These guys view the churches doing toy drives as religious propaganda. It's the same reason why I'm against missionaries in impoverished nations handing out Bibles with food.
 
#83
#83
VOLatile said:
Yeah, but that's not the point. These guys view the churches doing toy drives as religious propaganda. It's the same reason why I'm against missionaries in impoverished nations handing out Bibles with food.
Click to expand...

do homeless atheists view a meal at a church affiliated mission as religious propaganda, or are they happy to have a hot meal and a dry safe place to eat in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#84
#84
therealUT said:
Love they neighbor, give to the poor, and all the other stuff being in non-theist writings for over 2,500 years? Yes. I suggest you read Plato's dialogues, some Aristotle, maybe go all the way back to the Presocratics (Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, etc.), read what Herodotus writes in his Histories, etc.

A plethora of non-theist (remember, theist implies the existence of a personal god, not just a supernatural force) ethical treatises exist in antiquity. And, plenty of these treatises speak of duties owed to neighbors and fellow citizens, duties owed to the poor, duties owed to widows and orphans, etc. Christianity did not bring much of anything new to the table; Christianity did a lot to incorporate a lot of Platonic ideals into Jewish theism (in fact, you can find much of that incorporation in Philo's writings, which were written about 30 years prior to the supposed crucifixion of Jesus).
Click to expand...

Amazing more people don't understand this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#85
#85
VOLatile said:
Yeah, but that's not the point. These guys view the churches doing toy drives as religious propaganda. It's the same reason why I'm against missionaries in impoverished nations handing out Bibles with food.
Click to expand...

There's nothing more offensive than being handed Hope and a hot plate..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#86
#86
therealUT said:
...Love they neighbor, give to the poor, and all the other stuff being in non-theist writings for over 2,500 years? Yes. I suggest you read Plato's dialogues, some Aristotle, maybe go all the way back to the Presocratics (Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, etc.), read what Herodotus writes in his Histories, etc.

A plethora of non-theist (remember, theist implies the existence of a personal god, not just a supernatural force) ethical treatises exist in antiquity. And, plenty of these treatises speak of duties owed to neighbors and fellow citizens, duties owed to the poor, duties owed to widows and orphans, etc. Christianity did not bring much of anything new to the table; Christianity did a lot to incorporate a lot of Platonic ideals into Jewish theism (in fact, you can find much of that incorporation in Philo's writings, which were written about 30 years prior to the supposed crucifixion of Jesus).
Click to expand...

Au contraire. Good works as a matter of conscience have been around since the creation of man. However Christianity introduced grace, mercy and forgiveness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#87
#87
txbo said:
Au contraire. Good works as a matter of conscience have been around since the creation of man. However Christianity introduced grace, mercy and forgiveness.
Click to expand...

I'll easily grant 'grace', but feel free to define mercy and forgiveness.

When speaking of mercy, if you are merely speaking of showing compassion and beneficence, then this concept predates Christianity. If, on the other hand, you are speaking of a personal God opting not to punish for sins, then, yeah, Christianity introduces that notion (but, for those who do not believe in a personal God, it's akin to introducing the concept of unicorns).

As for forgiveness, if you are merely speaking of pardoning offenses and providing a clean slate to others, again, this concept predates Christianity. If, on the other hand, you are speaking of a personal God who supernaturally cleans your soul and wipes away sin, then, yeah, Christianity introduces that notion (again, though, might as well talk about sprites and fairies).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#90
#90
therealUT said:
That you can do ethics and morals without presupposing a personal God, and that such was done prior to the advent of Christianity.
Click to expand...

I believe ethics and morals are a matter of conscience that date to the creation of man. So certainly predate Christianity.

The question is from where does conscience originate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#92
#92
Happy endings sometimes do exist:

Kids, parents fight back after humanist group threatens another school over Christmas toy drive | Fox News

On Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of students and parents and well-wishers staged a grassroots act of defiance. And while they meant to send a message to the humanists – it was really about making sure poor children had toys on Christmas day.

“The young people weren’t concerned about the politics of it,” Unruh told me. “They were asking, ‘what about the kids?’”

Instead of collecting the shoe boxes inside the school – the students just moved their entire operation outside – on a public sidewalk.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#93
#93
txbo said:
I believe ethics and morals are a matter of conscience that date to the creation of man. So certainly predate Christianity.

The question is from where does conscience originate?
Click to expand...

So, ethical theories that absolutely neglect questions of conscience are theories that you must believe are either non-existent, theories that are smuggling notions of conscience in between the lines, or theories that only appear to be ethical theories but are not ethical theories?

The Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle do admit of soul, but the way they speak of soul does not align with our thoughts of soul (hell, they think plants have souls and some presocratics think rocks have souls). Soul is simply the generative element in any living thing. Humans have rational souls, but these souls are, again, not aligned with our notions of conscience.

The Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle begin their ethical works with the question of what is the way to live to insure individual happiness. It is reason and self-interest that motivate the ethical life, it is just that the self-interest is reflective; and, further, when one does enough out of reflective self-interest, one will simply develop certain habits and act without reflection but according to habit. These habits, for Aristotle, are the virtues.

Plato is less concerned with virtue and more concerned with an inner harmony; this has been most often cashed out as simply the integrity and consistency of the principles by which one lives. With more consistency and integration, one will be able to make more sound decisions. All of these lead to a happier and, thus, better life.

Conscience is not struggled in by these individuals; feelings of guilt play very small roles, if any. It is reason and self-interest: the proper manifestations of these result in the appearance of beneficence, charity, mercy, forgiveness, justice, prudence, magnanimity, etc.

In the same vein, Christianity can be said to cause fear of eternal punishment and hope for eternal salvation in the believer: the proper manifestation of this fear and hope results in the appearance of charity, beneficence, mercy, forgiveness, justice, prudence, magnanimity, etc.
 
#94
#94
Obsessed said:
Y'all getting deep in here.


What year is it to a atheist?
Click to expand...

Starting from the French year one, I think it is almost 200...right? That experiment occurred around 1815, correct?

Whoa...I was way off, Year One was 1792. So, 221.
 
#95
#95
therealUT said:
So, ethical theories that absolutely neglect questions of conscience are theories that you must believe are either non-existent, theories that are smuggling notions of conscience in between the lines, or theories that only appear to be ethical theories but are not ethical theories?

The Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle do admit of soul, but the way they speak of soul does not align with our thoughts of soul (hell, they think plants have souls and some presocratics think rocks have souls). Soul is simply the generative element in any living thing. Humans have rational souls, but these souls are, again, not aligned with our notions of conscience.

The Presocratics, Plato, and Aristotle begin their ethical works with the question of what is the way to live to insure individual happiness. It is reason and self-interest that motivate the ethical life, it is just that the self-interest is reflective; and, further, when one does enough out of reflective self-interest, one will simply develop certain habits and act without reflection but according to habit. These habits, for Aristotle, are the virtues.

Plato is less concerned with virtue and more concerned with an inner harmony; this has been most often cashed out as simply the integrity and consistency of the principles by which one lives. With more consistency and integration, one will be able to make more sound decisions. All of these lead to a happier and, thus, better life.

Conscience is not struggled in by these individuals; feelings of guilt play very small roles, if any. It is reason and self-interest: the proper manifestations of these result in the appearance of beneficence, charity, mercy, forgiveness, justice, prudence, magnanimity, etc.

In the same vein, Christianity can be said to cause fear of eternal punishment and hope for eternal salvation in the believer: the proper manifestation of this fear and hope results in the appearance of charity, beneficence, mercy, forgiveness, justice, prudence, magnanimity, etc.
Click to expand...

First and foremost, I can't separate ethics from conscience. Admittedly that derives from a matter of faith. I'd be interested to here an example of how you can.

I'm less interested in the musing of a handful of philosophers than I am you're belief.
 
#96
#96
txbo said:
First and foremost, I can't separate ethics from conscience. Admittedly that derives from a matter of faith. I'd be interested to here an example of how you can.

I'm less interested in the musing of a handful of philosophers than I am you're belief.
Click to expand...

I can easily say that what is good for me to do is what will make my life go better. I can say this without saying a single thing concerning conscience. You can disagree, but that does not make my normative claims incoherent or impossible.
 
#97
#97
therealUT said:
I can easily say that what is good for me to do is what will make my life go better. I can say this without saying a single thing concerning conscience. You can disagree, but that does not make my normative claims incoherent or impossible.
Click to expand...

Are morals and ethics not representative of our conscience?

What we deem ethical? Are they not one in the same? At least a reflection of?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#99
#99
therealUT said:
I can easily say that what is good for me to do is what will make my life go better. I can say this without saying a single thing concerning conscience. You can disagree, but that does not make my normative claims incoherent or impossible.
Click to expand...

Not incoherent or impossible at all but it does not separate conscience and ethics unless of course you are suggesting that you are ignoring your conscience to satisfy your personal ethics. Which is also both coherent and possible. Indeed, it's quite Hobbesian in nature and the need for social contract.
 
#100
#100
txbo said:
Not incoherent or impossible at all but it does not separate conscience and ethics unless of course you are suggesting that you are ignoring your conscience to satisfy your personal ethics. Which is also both coherent and possible. Indeed, it's quite Hobbesian in nature and the need for social contract.
Click to expand...

You are presuming the existence of conscience. One can coherently say such an entity does not exist, so one is not ignoring anything other than certain intuitions, and, well, intuitions are often ignored and often ignorable on the vast majority of moral and ethical theories, to include those that appeal to conscience (they just separate common intuitions from dictates of conscience).

Nothing is necessarily Hobbesian about self-interested ethics unless you assert that a population of self-interested individuals will destroy each other (which, not all ethical theories believe).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top