Imperfectionist

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

I don't think he's being dishonest at all, and that's what I want to get at. I believe there is some entirely legitimate reason for him to fervently argue like this, and I don't know what it is. I feel like, if I don't understand him as a person, I cannot understand the context of his arguments... Thus, the question.

I would greatly appreciate a thesis statement, if you will, that puts things into your perspective, Gwazi. And then, I will see what I think, and respond in kind.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Yeah, I still think you are forcing a false dichotomy there, the opposite of what de Botton's point was. You do not need to see "Religion", the monolith, as an inherently negative force, as you seem to. You, as a rational person can look at the words of Muhammad, who said to give to the poor, and Buddha, who preached kindness to all, and Jesus, who said to treat your enemy as your friend, and say "Though I do not believe in your divinity, I highly admire these just sentiments." That doesn't make you a bad atheist, and it definitely doesn't make you a bad person. You can, through rational thought, discern the just from the unjust, and attempt to explain your conclusions to others, without making them defensive or insulting their beliefs.

Religion is part of human culture, part of our past and our present, and everything we do is built on those who came before us. Just because a moral code has its base in a tradition of faith, that does not mean it is inherently bad. That's what I think you aren't getting. :( You don't have to be so negative about it in order to persuade people to be secularly moral.

EDIT: Just to say this, the grandfather that I mentioned at the beginning of the thread, the one with the Doctorate of Theology who assists people in their lives through secular means... He does nothing but question. There are thousands of religious scholars throughout history and today who do nothing but question, and have stronger faith because of it.

EDIT 2: They look at the contradictions, the problems that arise from humans attempting to understand the will of an unknowable being, and they ponder that. They justify their faith through reason.

EDIT 3: Last one, a question: what is your goal, Gwazi? What do you truly want to change by arguing this?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

So many interesting ideas in this thread. I'm glad I got it un-deleted.

Hogwarts: The Golden Era

They're probably just busy...

Or, maybe they're having a hard time deciding which characters to pick?

If it does die, though, I'll probably set up an HP game myself. :( I hate seeing good characters go to waste before the game even starts...

So I just bought Fallout 3

:P Better than nothing, though, right? I mean, there's never been a Fallout game in the Northeast (until 4), nor the Southeast (where I live). The best we Southerners have is Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel (not to be confused with Fallout Tactics, Xbox/Ps2, 2004), which is set in Texas... Nothing against Texas, but it ain't East of the Mississippi.

EDIT: Plus, BoS is also mostly non-canon, AND it sucks worse than Tactics.

So I just bought Fallout 3

The Nexerus said
Holy shit the main questline is so short

Do you have the add-ons (or GOTY edition)? Cause yeah, without them the game can feel a little... Incomplete. Broken Steel especially extends the main quest quite a bit, and the others give you access to some very cool stuff.

---

And, well, there was a Fallout game set in the Midwest (including Chicago, but also St. Louis and several other Midwest cities and areas) called Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel (PC, 2001), but it wasn't quite the same as Fallout and Fallout 2... Not as much an RPG, much more an RTS-ish tactical combat game. AND BethSoft has declared it mostly non-canon, because it contradicts elements from the original two games.

Granted, I declare Fallout 3 mostly non-canon on similar grounds, but that's neither here nor there.

EDIT: Oh, and Fallout 3 had Pittsburgh in it (called "The Pitt")... Does that count?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

:) That is an excellent question. The obvious philosphical answer is, "never", but I'm not quite comfortable with that. When your interests do no harm? There's a whole other can of worms there, with the definition of "harm". It's a difficult process... Perhaps it reduces to aptitude. If I, knowing myself, my limitations and my aptitude, am able to help someone, my morality tells me that I should. As a corollary, I need to always be self-reflecting, refining my aptitude so that I am able to help others.

But, I suppose I should ask you the same. When do your interests supercede others?

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

Empathy, as I've already stated. Not taking actions you know will harm others, attempting to understand the perspectives of all sides, and purposeful self-reflection that allows you to see where your actions are hurting others. It isn't perfect, but it's a start.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

They might do that. So that means that every person who chooses to remove themselves from arranged marriages based on the trading of sheep and money for young women is going to raise immoral children, and thus must be executed?

:( That doesn't sound very moral to me, even for the time. In fact, it's quite brutal and incredibly misogynistic, both things that I don't believe any form of benevolent higher power to be. Right now, if you were married, Boerd, and your spouse cheated on you, would you advocate for your spouse's execution? Of course not!

And that's what I mean. Regardless of whether you hated your spouse's guts, or how many times your spouse was unfaithful to you, you would be able to look at the line in the Old Testament that talks about adulterers and say "I refuse to stone my adulterous spouse." And that sentiment is part of the universal, secular moral code. Looking at something unjust, and saying "that is unjust", no matter who is telling you to do it.

Atheism 2.0 - Atheism using Religions perks.

I assume you mean "an afterlife which has punishments for immoral behavior", such as the Christian Heaven/Hell dichotomy. But what if your views of the afterlife include no such provisions? Is that wrong?

EDIT: What I mean is, "an afterlife" is separate from morality in the observable, physical (as far as we know) universe, unless it has those provisions.