Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, I don't have a problem with the son, being a dumbass and not waiting to buy the company. What I worried about is Mitt winning, then 4 years after he leaves office. His son run with the hope of using his daddy name to win, just like Bush did. It would be so bad if the son didn't just prove by this he is a dumb a child Bush is.

Alright, third exalt for Silver. That was very well said.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Not really,

Aetheists, being that they don't have any belief that there will be a divine judgement at some time in the future, have no motivation to follow any sort of moral principles. As such, an Aetheist can act purely out of self-interest with no fear of the consequences. Beyond what is imposed upon him by the government, but when the Aetheist is the government we have a problem.

That is why an Aetheist cannot be trusted in the broad scheme of things.


You may not agree with it, but it is a logical belief.

I would counter argue that atheists are more trustworthy than religious folk. When an atheist performs an act of kindness or does someother good deed, they are doing so out of genuine good will. Hyper religious types only do so to avoid their patron's displeasure.

I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

Relapse wrote:all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

Only in the Boy Scouts, which as you know is a bible based organization that will ostrasice gays but cover up pederasty.

Relapse wrote:
I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.

Just to add to what I wrote earlier, there are plenty of athiests out there that do good just to look good and get some advantage out of being seen doing things for people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

Relapse wrote:all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

Only in the Boy Scouts, which as you know is a bible based organization that will ostrasice gays but cover up pederasty.

Why are you taking what I said out of context?

I think he was pointing out the irony. The way the BSA goes about being a Christian organization seems to involve concealing the crimes of predators, and throwing out moral and honest gay people.

It's more fun without context.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.

Basically this.

Relapse wrote:
Just to add to what I wrote earlier, there are plenty of people out there that do good just to look good and get some advantage out of being seen doing things for people.

There we go...fixed it for you. But by all means denounce the painting of one group with a broad brush while at the same time doing it to another. It really drives home your point.

 J-Roc77 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Just to add to what I wrote earlier, there are plenty of people out there that do good just to look good and get some advantage out of being seen doing things for people.

There we go...fixed it for you. But by all means denounce the painting of one group with a broad brush while at the same time doing it to another. It really drives home your point.

Before you go jumping all over my comment, check the one I answered and please keep the context. The comment I answered painted religious people doing good only to avoid divine retribution, while atheists were put in the light of doing good only because they genuinly care about the people the help.

I just pointed out it wasn't entirely a cut and dried truth for either group as to why they do good.

If you want to get all bent out of shape, though, be my guest.

Relapse wrote:
Before you go jumping all over my comment, check the one I answered and please keep the context. The comment I answered painted religious people doing good only to avoid divine retribution, while atheists were put in the light of doing good only because they genuinly care about the people the help.

No it didn't.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.

Basically this.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.

Silver, I wish there were more intelligent, logical people like you in the world.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.

Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.

True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.

You know what it doesn't feel right to me that religious people should be allowed to teach their lies to the proletariat. So I think it would be best for society as a whole to put them all in reeducation camps and if they don't shape up we will just put them in work camps until they die or get wise.

Certain athiestic states thought that line of reasoning was moral goodness. And there are certain atheists today that are going around preaching doctrine, that teaching religion to children is child abuse.

GG

p.s. I have no problem with atheists..just the crazy religious zealot ones.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.

Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.

True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.

You know what it doesn't feel right to me that religious people should be allowed to teach their lies to the proletariat. So I think it would be best for society as a whole to put them all in reeducation camps and if they don't shape up we will just put them in work camps until they die or get wise.

Certain athiestic states thought that line of reasoning was moral goodness. And there are certain atheists today that are going around preaching doctrine, that teaching religion to children is child abuse.

GG

p.s. I have no problem with atheists..just the crazy religious zealot ones.

Well all groups have there bad apples after all.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I disagree strongly with that since I'm in an area where there are a lot of religious types that genuinly love and care for people. The steryotype you put forth is as ridiculous as saying all gay people are out to seduce kids and turn them gay.

I don't think he was suggesting that religious people are not genuinely capable of caring and loving, but that atheists are able to be without having a metaphysical gun to the head. Vis they are caring and loving because it is who they are rather than because they fear the consequences of not being so.

So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".

GG

Silver, I wish there were more intelligent, logical people like you in the world.

Or at least in Dakka OT...

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think he was pointing out the irony. The way the BSA goes about being a Christian organization seems to involve concealing the crimes of predators, and throwing out moral and honest gay people.

Being an Eagle Scout, and an atheist, it's quite frustrating. On one had, I applaud them for sticking to their "traditionalism" as they do seem really firm in their beliefs, but on the other hand, I don't agree with a lot of the things they demand. Covering up these crimes is frustrating as well, and definitely a black mark on what they do. From my own personal experience, it was mostly live-and-let-live. There were kids we knew were pretty gay. And I don't mean "wow, that kid is SO gay", I mean, "feth, my tent is next to those guys. I need to make sure to go to sleep before they do, otherwise it's going to be uncomfortable around here". And if we knew, the adults HAD to have known. I mean, c'mon.

Further, I wasn't even practicing any religion nor did I make any efforts to 'prove' my belief at any point throughout my career. In a community of about 600 people, my family had never joined any of the local churches. I don't think I was ever even asked about it. It wasn't something we did, and no one cared. Maybe my troop was one of the better ones though.

Honestly, I think it's because most of the admin is made up of the staunch old-guard who's set in their ways. I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in a future generation or two. Maybe when the time comes, I'll go back and help change it myself.

Part of me also wonders if the majority of stuff that makes the news are people making a scene about being atheists or gay. I mean, I didn't 'preach' atheism, and the guys who were clearly gay weren't screaming it from the rooftops, demanding parades. Maybe that's the bit that creates the friction that isn't sensationalist enough to make the headlines? Maybe I'm just rationalizing?

 daedalus wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I think he was pointing out the irony. The way the BSA goes about being a Christian organization seems to involve concealing the crimes of predators, and throwing out moral and honest gay people.

Being an Eagle Scout, and an atheist, it's quite frustrating. On one had, I applaud them for sticking to their "traditionalism" as they do seem really firm in their beliefs, but on the other hand, I don't agree with a lot of the things they demand. Covering up these crimes is frustrating as well, and definitely a black mark on what they do. From my own personal experience, it was mostly live-and-let-live. There were kids we knew were pretty gay. And I don't mean "wow, that kid is SO gay", I mean, "feth, my tent is next to those guys. I need to make sure to go to sleep before they do, otherwise it's going to be uncomfortable around here". And if we knew, the adults HAD to have known. I mean, c'mon.

Further, I wasn't even practicing any religion nor did I make any efforts to 'prove' my belief at any point throughout my career. In a community of about 600 people, my family had never joined any of the local churches. I don't think I was ever even asked about it. It wasn't something we did, and no one cared. Maybe my troop was one of the better ones though.

Honestly, I think it's because most of the admin is made up of the staunch old-guard who's set in their ways. I wouldn't be surprised if it changes in a future generation or two. Maybe when the time comes, I'll go back and help change it myself.

Part of me also wonders if the majority of stuff that makes the news are people making a scene about being atheists or gay. I mean, I didn't 'preach' atheism, and the guys who were clearly gay weren't screaming it from the rooftops, demanding parades. Maybe that's the bit that creates the friction that isn't sensationalist enough to make the headlines? Maybe I'm just rationalizing?

This is a great post, thanks. I think undoubtedly some of the gay or atheist Scouts or Scouting parents are deliberately drawing attention to themselves. Because they don't feel it's just to have to be dishonest and hide their true identities, thoughts and feelings. They do no harm to others, and as your first sentence shows, can exemplify the scouting principles and skills. By making them conceal their true identities and beliefs, BSA denies the reality of your example. That you can be an atheist (or gay), and also be a good scout and good person.

 Mannahnin wrote:


This is a great post, thanks. I think undoubtedly some of the gay or atheist Scouts or Scouting parents are deliberately drawing attention to themselves. Because they don't feel it's just to have to be dishonest and hide their true identities, thoughts and feelings. They do no harm to others, and as your first sentence shows, can exemplify the scouting principles and skills. By making them conceal their true identities and beliefs, BSA denies the reality of your example. That you can be an atheist (or gay), and also be a good scout and good person.

We're totally off-topic at this point, of course, but I might continue: I want to speculate, referencing your second sentence, that perhaps the staunch policies of the BSA are in fact backfiring on them. Perhaps if they did just maintain a policy where they didn't make a big deal about sexuality or religion, then they wouldn't have to deal with people who may want to go to war with them (for lack of better expression) on those terms.

I mean, the Boy Scouts never officially had anything to do with religion or sexuality in practice, only dogma. There was a religious service at summer camp, but it wasn't compulsory. There were no classes or lessons I took on either topic. I shot rifles and shotguns, learned boating, fishing, firebuilding, survival, and first aid. Maybe they just need to cut out all the extraneous stuff, and not even have to condone homosexuality or atheism, but not condemn it either.

Yet I'm somewhat troubled on the topic of sexuality. I mean, when you think about it, well, so say you allow two 17 year old, openly gay boy scouts to the same tent. They may have an attraction to each other, they genuinely might not. But now consider that we have a 17 year old boy scout and a 17 year old girl scout (are there such things?) in the same tent together. Again, they may have an attraction to each other, or they genuinely may not.

Obviously, not many parents would be cool with the latter. Why is the former alright?

 generalgrog wrote:
So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".

GG

No, undoubtedly there are religious people who are as close to living saints (if you will forgive the expression, and ignore the saints who were complete bastards) who are that way because they are genuinely excellent people. Just as there are people (because at the end of the day, everyone is just a person no matter what they believe) who are complete and utter bastards, regardless of whether they have a belief in god.

And regards your comments about "atheist states" rounding people up and putting them into work/death/re-education camps because they disagreed with the ruling party, I think you will find they did that because they were evil bastards, not because they were atheists.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:
So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".

GG

No, undoubtedly there are religious people who are as close to living saints (if you will forgive the expression, and ignore the saints who were complete bastards) who are that way because they are genuinely excellent people. Just as there are people (because at the end of the day, everyone is just a person no matter what they believe) who are complete and utter bastards, regardless of whether they have a belief in god.

I absolutely agree with this. Some of the most devout people I've meet have been people that I've wished there was a heaven for, though I doubt there is. Likewise, there have been a significant number of devout people for wish I've wished there was a hell for, though I likewise disbelieve in it.

And regards your comments about "atheist states" rounding people up and putting them into work/death/re-education camps because they disagreed with the ruling party, I think you will find they did that because they were evil bastards, not because they were atheists.

Also, theists doing the same, for simple genetic reasons, and far more popularly.

/godwinned

I wasn't going to mention all the religious states

But you very rarely find atheist terrorists as well. I struggle to think of any off the top of my head actually, other than some communist groups who have substituted religion with their political views.

my major question is


do Mormon's all have game style names?

Mitt = well a baseball mitt

Tagg = well; fething tag


if Romney wins it will be recalled and this will NOT LOOK GOOD FOR HIM OR HIS PARTY






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalgrog wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
We shouldn't follow moral codes because people force us to. We should follow them because they feel right to us.

Morals exist because of fundamental human kindness and good will. No one can force people to have this, no matter how powerful or divine they are.

True, sincere moral goodness is not enforcable or imitatable, nor can a mere threat of consequences produce it.

You know what it doesn't feel right to me that religious people should be allowed to teach their lies to the proletariat. So I think it would be best for society as a whole to put them all in reeducation camps and if they don't shape up we will just put them in work camps until they die or get wise.

Certain athiestic states thought that line of reasoning was moral goodness. And there are certain atheists today that are going around preaching doctrine, that teaching religion to children is child abuse.

GG

p.s. I have no problem with atheists..just the crazy religious zealot ones.

the most FETHED up part is


The US of FETHING A is still mostly run as a religious governing group. ALL presidents, ALL of them have been religious so don't tell me we are not a religious nutjob of a country. We are just a bit more advanced than most of the ME. We are crazy as all gack, and we are run by tyrants who care for nothing more than profits. The day you realize this and start just living for you and your circle the better off you will be, IMO


people are flying rodent gak scared of CULTS, but they are also all members of RELIGIONS

the GACK?

 DIDM wrote:
my major question is


do Mormon's all have game style names?

Mitt = well a baseball mitt

Tagg = well; fething tag


if Romney wins it will be recalled and this will NOT LOOK GOOD FOR HIM OR HIS PARTY

The two I recall in high school were Lance (supports your theory) and Lincoln (who was a surprising hard-ass, though he refutes your theory).

By my understanding, they had a younger sister whom I never met nor knew the name of. As I'm 28 and the eldest was my age, I'm willing to bet she's hot now. I shall ask my younger brother next time I see him.

....well I suppose if you count protestant as a form of Catholic that's correct.

There's been two Roman Catholic Presidents and we shot both of them.

(Lincoln and Kennedy)

 DIDM wrote:

people are flying rodent gak scared of CULTS, but they are also all members of RELIGIONS

the GACK?

I'm scared of cults AND religions, but yet I repeat myself.

I am drunk and this may be considered inflammatory. I apologize in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
....well I suppose if you count protestant as a form of Catholic that's correct.

There's been two Roman Catholic Presidents and we shot both of them.

(Lincoln and Kennedy)

Clearly, they should have been protestant.

Well, the only difference between the two is numbers and possibly also age.

...sociologically speaking.

generalgrog wrote:So do you think that ALL religious people are nice because of this "gun" or can there be some that are just genuinely nice, regardless of the "gun".

GG

Normally, I'd be inclined to take the reasonable route and suggest that people are people irrespective of their belief structure, and behaviour is constructed out of a combination of both genetic predisposition and environmental/sociological factors.

Unfortunately, in this particular instance, all true believers are faced with such an overwhelming level of deterrence that it is designed to completely dwarf all other reasoning: torment such that can barely be understood for a duration of time that cannot be fathomed, administered by an omniscient and omnipotent deity lacking in a moral compass itself.

As soon as a circumstance such as the above is incorporated into a person's psyche, and if that person truly believes this, then all other frames of morality are eradicated by the risk-reward analysis of the deterrence equation.

In other words: that gun is so big and accurate and scary that it supercedes any pre-existing niceness.