Why is it so hard to explain a simple idea??

[Tim the plumber]

Here on a predominantly American Forum I find a lot of religious types who seem to be absolutely in capable of taking on board a simple idea or question.

We have people continuously making the same argument that those of us who don't believe in the sky daddy are somehow incapable of having any morals. The fact that the first reply clearly disproves such an idea and that we are clearly highly capable of discussing our morals and ethics simply does not make a difference to the totally fixed mind of the God botherer.

Such a level of utterly willful ignorance has to be maintained somehow.

How?

I really don't know.

 

[lizzie]

Which ones, in specific? I don't read all the threads on the religious forum, but I don't recall religious people saying that atheists are immoral or incapable of ethical behavior. My experience is that most of the atheists I know are highly moral and ethical. They can tend to be a bit egotistical and pompous regarding their thoughts on religion, but then so can the religious, so I don't see any great distinction overall.

That being said, I do know that some people believe that morals are based on religion, and not on rational thought. I tend to think it's a mixed bag.

What would you like to discuss? The question of whether or not atheists have morals, or if the religious do not?

 

[DaveFagan]

Here on a predominantly American Forum I find a lot of religious types who seem to be absolutely in capable of taking on board a simple idea or question.

We have people continuously making the same argument that those of us who don't believe in the sky daddy are somehow incapable of having any morals. The fact that the first reply clearly disproves such an idea and that we are clearly highly capable of discussing our morals and ethics simply does not make a difference to the totally fixed mind of the God botherer.

Such a level of utterly willful ignorance has to be maintained somehow.

How?

I really don't know.

Their God is gonna' get 'em if they don't do what they think he says.
Hell and damnation and all the perks of perdition, don't ya' know?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Here on a predominantly American Forum I find a lot of religious types who seem to be absolutely in capable of taking on board a simple idea or question.

We have people continuously making the same argument that those of us who don't believe in the sky daddy are somehow incapable of having any morals. The fact that the first reply clearly disproves such an idea and that we are clearly highly capable of discussing our morals and ethics simply does not make a difference to the totally fixed mind of the God botherer.

Such a level of utterly willful ignorance has to be maintained somehow.

How?

I really don't know.

When you use the term “sky daddy” in that manner, you make it clear that you are only interested in mocking those of us who believe in God, and demonstrating your own willful ignorance and disrespect.

It is highly ironic, of course, although not at all uncommon, for atheists to make a big deal about how ignorant and foolish those of us who believe in God are for so believing, while at the same time, demonstrating their own ignorance and folly.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I suppose religious people who refuse to accept the reality that atheists can have morals are bound by the same cognitive bias as atheists who refuse to accept that religious people can be intelligent and that referring to people's deities as "sky daddies" is a guaranteed way of getting many believers to dismiss you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Here on a predominantly American Forum I find a lot of religious types who seem to be absolutely in capable of taking on board a simple idea or question.

We have people continuously making the same argument that those of us who don't believe in the sky daddy are somehow incapable of having any morals. The fact that the first reply clearly disproves such an idea and that we are clearly highly capable of discussing our morals and ethics simply does not make a difference to the totally fixed mind of the God botherer.

Such a level of utterly willful ignorance has to be maintained somehow.

How?

I really don't know.

Perhaps it is that without a written, clearly defined, moral code to present as "the moral code of our society" then one is free to have whatever they decide to do in any given situation become "self justified" as moral. When one has a religion which that says that X is morally correct (or incorrect) then it is only natural to say that those who feel that X may or may not be morally correct are lacking "proper" morals or denying their religious freedom. If you have a moral code that differs from my moral code then who, exactly, has the moral (or legal) authority to make the call?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Which ones, in specific? I don't read all the threads on the religious forum, but I don't recall religious people saying that atheists are immoral or incapable of ethical behavior. My experience is that most of the atheists I know are highly moral and ethical. They can tend to be a bit egotistical and pompous regarding their thoughts on religion, but then so can the religious, so I don't see any great distinction overall.

That being said, I do know that some people believe that morals are based on religion, and not on rational thought. I tend to think it's a mixed bag.

What would you like to discuss? The question of whether or not atheists have morals, or if the religious do not?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...heism-there-no-objective-morality-w-86-a.html

18 pages so far.

My point is that I find it hard to understand how often a very simple idea can be explained to somebody and they just don't get it. .

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...afterlife-thus-live-life-fullest-w-104-a.html

28 pages for this one.

 

[Tim the plumber]

When you use the term “sky daddy” in that manner, you make it clear that you are only interested in mocking those of us who believe in God, and demonstrating your own willful ignorance and disrespect.

It is highly ironic, of course, although not at all uncommon, for atheists to make a big deal about how ignorant and foolish those of us who believe in God are for so believing, while at the same time, demonstrating their own ignorance and folly.

Yes I think you are silly for believing in God.

That is not my point however. That you have completely missed it is hardly surprising. Yet still disappointing.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I suppose religious people who refuse to accept the reality that atheists can have morals are bound by the same cognitive bias as atheists who refuse to accept that religious people can be intelligent and that referring to people's deities as "sky daddies" is a guaranteed way of getting many believers to dismiss you.

I find that religious people can often be highly intelligent.

At least on subjects other than God. As soon as they start talking about that their brains seem to switch to idiot mode.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Perhaps it is that without a written, clearly defined, moral code to present as "the moral code of our society" then one is free to have whatever they decide to do in any given situation become "self justified" as moral. When one has a religion which that says that X is morally correct (or incorrect) then it is only natural to say that those who feel that X may or may not be morally correct are lacking "proper" morals or denying their religious freedom. If you have a moral code that differs from my moral code then who, exactly, has the moral (or legal) authority to make the call?

That is a very intelligent point. Off topic a bit but fine for what it is.

The point I am making is how often do you need to explain that to some people before they can deal with it?

 

[lizzie]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...heism-there-no-objective-morality-w-86-a.html

18 pages so far.

My point is that I find it hard to understand how often a very simple idea can be explained to somebody and they just don't get it. .

It's because people tend to sift things through their own perceptions and belief systems first.
That being said, no matter where one's morality comes from, be it religion, or reasoning, morality is subjective, as it is a social value judgement, and isn't universal.

 

[Thrilla]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...heism-there-no-objective-morality-w-86-a.html

18 pages so far.

My point is that I find it hard to understand how often a very simple idea can be explained to somebody and they just don't get it. .

this happens when two sides talk past each other and not to each other... it also happens when neither side cares about understanding the other.

you are no different.. .you absolutely refuse to understand many things ( their own "very simple ideas") about the religious ( as evident by your bull**** about "sky daddy")

so really, the old saying about glass houses and throwing rocks comes into play here.

 

[Tim the plumber]

this happens when two sides talk past each other and not to each other... it also happens when neither side cares about understanding the other.

you are no different.. .you absolutely refuse to understand many things ( their own "very simple ideas") about the religious ( as evident by your bull**** about "sky daddy")

so really, the old saying about glass houses and throwing rocks comes into play here.

What simple ideas (or complex ones) do you think I have not understood?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I find that religious people can often be highly intelligent.

At least on subjects other than God. As soon as they start talking about that their brains seem to switch to idiot mode.

Even if you don't explicitly call religious people "idiots" in debate with them, the fact that you hold such contempt for them is going to come out in how you speak to them. With this in mind, I suspect that one of the reasons you, in particular, get religious people telling you that atheists are immoral is because of your behavior. Admittedly, many religious people do have irrational anti-atheist bias, but you don't appear to be any better on that front.

 

[jet57]

Here on a predominantly American Forum I find a lot of religious types who seem to be absolutely in capable of taking on board a simple idea or question.

We have people continuously making the same argument that those of us who don't believe in the sky daddy are somehow incapable of having any morals. The fact that the first reply clearly disproves such an idea and that we are clearly highly capable of discussing our morals and ethics simply does not make a difference to the totally fixed mind of the God botherer.

Such a level of utterly willful ignorance has to be maintained somehow.

How?

I really don't know.

The very reason for the separation of church and state. Jefferson as quite right about it.

 

[Thrilla]

What simple ideas (or complex ones) do you think I have not understood?

the religious folks belief in a God.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Even if you don't explicitly call religious people "idiots" in debate with them, the fact that you hold such contempt for them is going to come out in how you speak to them. With this in mind, I suspect that one of the reasons you, in particular, get religious people telling you that atheists are immoral is because of your behavior. Admittedly, many religious people do have irrational anti-atheist bias, but you don't appear to be any better on that front.

I have no problem with being called what ever. I do expect other people to actually be able to take in ideas from the other side of the discussion. See;

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (With Atheism there is no Objective Morality[W:86])

 

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
What simple ideas (or complex ones) do you think I have not understood?

the religious folks belief in a God.

I think I have a full understanding of that. I have spoken to lots of religious people and fully understood what they have said. I have spoken with atheists who used to be Christians, one was even training for the priesthood at one time, and they have never suggested that there is anything complex in it.

I ask again what do you think I do not understand?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That is a very intelligent point. Off topic a bit but fine for what it is.

The point I am making is how often do you need to explain that to some people before they can deal with it?

Try not using sky daddy, or some similar mocking insult, and explain why your definition of a moral code beats that of say the pope.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I have no problem with being called what ever. I do expect other people to actually be able to take in ideas from the other side of the discussion. See;

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (With Atheism there is no Objective Morality[W:86])

You referred to people's belief in God as belief in a "sky daddy", then said religious people can be intelligent until they talk about religion, which is when they turn into "idiots". That doesn't sound like you are able able to take in ideas from the other side of the discussion.

Look, I don't know you well, so it's possible that you've truly just had consistently bad experiences with religious people. If that's true, then I'm sorry that that's been your experience. I've had a different experience. Hopefully, you'll open yourself up to those kinds of people and you'll get to have fruitful discussions with them.

 

[X Factor]

Yes I think you are silly for believing in God.

That is not my point however. That you have completely missed it is hardly surprising. Yet still disappointing.

I'm aware of 2 types of atheists. One type is content in their non belief but also have no objections or place any value judgments on those who do believe and this is probably the majority. The other type have an affirmative belief that there is no God and this type will often preach their belief with all the religious fervor of any televangelist and be just as judgmental.

So which type are you?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Try not using sky daddy, or some similar mocking insult, and explain why your definition of a moral code beats that of say the pope.

That would be a different thread.

This one is about the inability of some to actually get the idea that other people can in fact have a moral code which is just as valid as theirs without their particular world view. I am sure they would have the same trouble with the Pope's as they do with mine.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I don't think it does any good to be so inflammatory in the opening post when asking a question like this. However, that said, the reason why very religious people don't understand how you can have morality without God is that most very religious people are socially conservative. Social conservatism is an authoritarian ideology that does not accept that there can be any relativeness in morality. Its all black and white with them without any gray areas. Thus the notion that morality could exist without some controlling authority (an omniscient God) is antithetical to everything they believe.

 

[Thrilla]

I think I have a full understanding of that. I have spoken to lots of religious people and fully understood what they have said. I have spoken with atheists who used to be Christians, one was even training for the priesthood at one time, and they have never suggested that there is anything complex in it.

I ask again what do you think I do not understand?

so you tell us you understand them, but your very own morals guide you to openly mocking and disparaging them?..... and you are wondering why the religious question your morals?

seriously?

 

[Tim the plumber]

You referred to people's belief in God as belief in a "sky daddy", then said religious people can be intelligent until they talk about religion, which is when they turn into "idiots". That doesn't sound like you are able able to take in ideas from the other side of the discussion.

Look, I don't know you well, so it's possible that you've truly just had consistently bad experiences with religious people. If that's true, then I'm sorry that that's been your experience. I've had a different experience. Hopefully, you'll open yourself up to those kinds of people and you'll get to have fruitful discussions with them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...afterlife-thus-live-life-fullest-w-104-a.html

Have you tried reading a few of the posts on this thread?