Mad_Michael

I object to the slander Sir John A.

ROTFL. What an amazing demonstration of rational thought! I realize that I will never convince any of the anti-theist zealots that they are just as narrow minded and dogmatic any fundamentalist theist. Fortunately, the anti-theists seem to be more than willing to prove my argument with their own words. Anti-theist? I don't believe so. You are being rather obnoxious with your accusations here. Non-theism is not anti-theism. Personally, I'm a longtime defender of the right of religious expression and religious freedom (though I admit, it is getting harder and harder to maintain this political position these days).

Please state how you "know this". Can you cite a study or opinion poll or anything to support this absurd assertion? Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger were not royalty/monarchy. They were elected leaders in 18th/19th century British Parliament. No doubt just like Pitt the Younger. I don't see anything new here at all. The rise of famous names/celebrities is a sign of democratic weakness. No surprise that Quebec shows the most advanced form of this trend in Canada. In a healthy democracy, the people elect the best qualified candidates. When candidates achieve electoral success based on their name or fame, that is not a healthy democracy - it is trending towards elite rule (fascism). You cannot define democracy as the only form of legitimate government. I agree that it is, but not absolutely or necessarily so. It seems to me that: A) you are attacking/insulting a person just because they disagree with you. you are projecting Btw, I am an American, so last laugh is on you. The real question is, why do you feel the need to attack me personally for disagreeing with you? And why can this theory not apply to politics? Just because it usually applies to bureaucracy? Yes, pretty much. But then again, most western nations demonstrate relatively weak attachments to democratic principles. Odd question. Transfers of power are almost always seemless in western nations. The only one in recent memory where the transition wasn't 'seemless' was the USA in 2000. So what's your point here? But this has little to do with analysing the relative strength of attachment to democratic principles. Your knowledge is apparently lacking. Britain can make that same claim and add a few centuries to the time frame. So the primary measure of democracy is the number of people killed when the government changes? As long as no one is killed in process, it is democracy eh? Follow the logic of your own argument. When everyone has access to the internet, everyone has the ability to make themselves famous and attract attention. Fame is thus likely to become a flooded market. And anything that gets 'flooded' on the market tends to drop in value over time. Let us hope for the sake of democracy that it does.

I appreciate your point, but I don't think it is meaningful to state that atheists "worship". That butchers the language.

I believe the common term of reference for this is the evolution of a "god-shaped hole" in humans. It is one of the more colourful religious arguments, hardly worthy of mockery, let alone consideration!

Or in short, the authenticity or authority of Holy Writ is proven because Holy Writ is authentic and authorative.

I never claimed to have read Kant (other than Wikipedia). I am simply addressing the logical contradictions in your arguments that refer to Kant. You have claimed that: 1) Kant developed a moral framework that does not depend on a belief in god. 2) Kant believed that "God logically existed outside of human reasoning and it cannot be otherwise". Those two statements contradict each other. 2) is clearly a statement of Kant's beliefs when it comes to god. No. It is a logical conclusion based upon epistemological reasoning. God is knowable? According to which Christian doctrine please? I'm not going to continue this silly game. You are butchering Kant, quoting Wiki and insulting me.

Sounds like a rehash of the golden rule argument to me. You don't explain why human rights are in the self interest of every human all of the time. In fact, you cannot make such a claim unless you appeal to some higher notion of humanity which more important than the desires of the individual (i.e. turn 'humanity' into a deity). I didn't make the claim. And no, it is not the same as the golden rule. The golden rule states that one ought to treat others humanly in order to get others to treat ourselves the same way. The argument I gave is not predicted on so narrow an interest. Self interest can be rather widely defined. My argument is not necessarily predicted upon the actions of others. I'm not concerned with the self interest of some groups. Self interest is mine alone (by definition). That just proves that slave owners were immoral since their self interest was harmful of other humans. Huh? I don't see any point here. The good soldiers of the North followed their own self interest in enlisting in the Union Army. Likewise, the good soldiers of the South followed their own self interest in enlisting in the Confederate Army. So what's the point?

Homosexuality an anomaly? Like, go figure. So is genius, intelligence, good looks, wealth, prosperity, peace, good government, happy marriage, good kids, etc., etc. As for the argument about the term "gay" - suffice it to say that is a purely American term - and a loaded political term at that. English speaking homosexuals outside of America often reject the term prefering the old Brit term of 'queer'.

I'd be interested in this. I strongly disagree with the assertion as it contradicts a primary tenet of academic political science based on the influential work of Alex de Tocqueville.

With all due respect, it is statements like this that feed the animosity between 'believers' and 'non-believers'. Religious people do not need 'brainwashing' to think everything is a 'belief'. It is a logical process of projection that almost all humans are guilty of. Accusing religious folks of being 'brainwashed' is not helpful or condusive to a meaningful discussion.

Any statement about god is, by definition, a statement of metaphysical beliefs. Kant may have constructed a rational framework to justify his beliefs but that does not change the fact that they are his beliefs and not absolute truths.Kant does go on to develop is case for rational morality but that entire case is built on his initial assumptions regarding the nature of god. Absolute truth is 100% dependent upon the existence of God. No God, no truth. And your pronouncements about Kant are becoming comical. You have not read and have not studied Kant, but you continue to lecture us about Kant's work. Kant most certainly did not "construct a rational framework to justfy his beliefs". As I have already noted (and you apparently have ignored) Kant was a devout Christian-theist. His moral system is not dependent upon God in any way. The two are entirely independent of each other. Please read or study Kant before you presume to lecture us about what Kant was doing, why or how. It is quite obvious that you have not done so. Your are being deliberately obtuse. And you are now being insulting. Your analogy is bizarre. Please stick to the issue under discussion. You asserted that one's metaphysics and one's moral framework were linked together, always in tandem (by definition). Then you assert that one's metaphysics is only one part of one's moral framework. Which is it? Please spare us an absurd analogy in your reply. Cognitive dissonance is a well documented phenomena. People cannot maintain conflicting beliefs over time. A person cannot have a moral framework that contradicts their metaphysical beliefs. If one changes then so must the other. I don't see how you can deny this. Your inability to imagine the internal thought processes of other human beings is not a valid negation of the existence of the internal thought processes of other human beings. I deny your statement because it has no obvious or logical validity and runs counter to all my experience of dealing with other human beings. And you've been unable to substantiate it other to repeat your statement over and over. Just you saying so doesn't make it so. I've given you counter arguments and counter examples which you just ignore and restate your point with increasing exasperation. Bemused giggles. Now you are letting your frustrations get the best of you. Logic is not an opinion. If you construct a logical argument (premise1, premise2 therefore conclusion) then it is not an opinion. My critique of your argument has taken the form of logical critique. It is not an opinion. I did address it. Cognitive dissonance is quite common amongst humans. Humans can apparently go through life with various cognitive dissonances on various issues or another. It does not apparently affect their health or state of mind. Your assertion that cognitive dissonance absolutely requires immediate resolution is just another fanciful opinion that is not substantiated by anything save your own assertion. I have already explained that Kant's moral framework starts with a set of assumptions regarding the nature of god. And I have pointed out that this is categorically wrong. You clearly have not read/studied Kant. Once again, your lack of imagination or inability to understand it does not negate the statement. Kant does supply substantive logical reasoning for every single statement that Kant makes. Absolutely nothing is assumed by Kant. Bemused giggles. Once again you presume to lecture us about Kant's philosophic work and at the same time prove you have never read or studied Kant. This is getting silly.

If Drea doesn't mind, I'll take this one. Why should humans treat other humans humanly? Because it is in our own self interest to do so. This reply is entirely based upon subjective utility. No appeal to the 'golden rule' is required here. In other words, your argument is yet another strawman.

That is religious propaganda that has no basis in factual reality. The largest spike in 'atheism' occured during and after WW1, notably amongst returning soldiers. According to your propaganda theory, WW1 should have caused one of the largest increases in religious faith ever witnessed by modern humans. It didn't - quite the opposite effect. Yeah well i can pretty much tell ya most everyone that i knew in my military days believed in god. At least those who were ever shot at. But hey, whatever you wanna think is fine by me. Arguments from personal anecdote have no substantive validity.

P.S. If you are going to cite my words, I insist they be properly attributed. Given the nature of the software, you have to purposefully delete my name from the quote attribution to achieve it. Your behaviour is insulting and I'm asking you politely to stop. Otherwise, I shall have to ask you to refrain from citing my words and claiming they are anonymous. you are too easily offended. In trying to trim posts in accordance to the rules of the forum I have chosen to NOT quote the whole post, thus your name get's cut off. My apologies to your sensibilities. My sensibilities accept your apology. But I stand by my polite request. And yes, I am easily offended by ridicule and/or insults. This is meant to be a forum for civil discussions. I am not, merely trying to provide an analogy to free will. If we did not have free will we would not be who we are. I inferred that humanity can be poison, it can also be very good as well. And your point about freewill has been already shown to be spurious. Freewill does not exempt God from responsibility for creation. It doesn't matter if some humans are good and some are bad if it is asserted that God created them both, then God holds responsibility for all - good or ill.

Okay, since you seem to be pushing this topic, I'll address the core issues since the phenomena you describe is quite old and well known - and on the rise. First of all, famous names have had electoral advantage in elected politics going back for centuries. Nothing new here. British politics of the 17th and 18th century is full of it (Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger, etc). Politics in India or Pakistan is totally dominated by 'famous names'. Without any doubt, evidence of this trend increasing is an indication of a failing of democracy. The more functional and robust your democracy, the less you will see of this phenomena. Secondly, there are two traditional methods of rising up to electoral success. The first is natural charisma and demonstrated abilities. This is apparently quite rare, but by far the most powerful and likely successful method of getting to the top (Clinton and Blair are good examples of this type). The other method is 'insider-player' - here one works the back rooms, pays one's dues and kisses the right ass and waits in line for your turn (Jean Chretien is a classic example of this type). Unfortunately for our political elites, this second method is becoming less and less viable as television has transformed the political process into a beauty contest. All the backroom skill can't make you look pretty on tv and thus, 'insider-player' type politicians are increasingly unable to achieve the 'brass ring' of public popularity. As the traditional track of 'insider-player' fails, the need for leaders to fill offices keeps rising. Thus, there is a vacuum here. Nature abhors a vacuum (so they say) and celebrity is the model that is now being adopted to fulfill this void. It is a natural fit since celebrities (by definition) are pretty on tv. It is also notable that the trend towards 'famous names' or 'celebrities' is usually most advanced where democracy is weak, or where political parties are comparatively weak. In our western world, USA is where the trend is most advanced (they have a traditionally weak attachment to democracy and traditionally weak political parties). As it stands now, I understand some 18% of Congress is blood or marriage related to previous members of Congress. Canada has no where near the same percentage, though Quebec is where the trend is most notable.

That is religious propaganda that has no basis in factual reality. The largest spike in 'atheism' occured during and after WW1, notably amongst returning soldiers. According to your propaganda theory, WW1 should have caused one of the largest increases in religious faith ever witnessed by modern humans. It didn't - quite the opposite effect.

That is reasonable. Many non-critical thinking people do base their beliefs on faith - reason or religion, it doesn't really matter. But most serious thinking people don't believe that reason is a solution to every personal problem. Your point is thus a strawman.

He was only able to construct such a system because he started with the assumption that 'God is outside of human reasoning'. The statement: 'God is outside of human reasoning' _is_ a statement of metaphysical beliefs. This means that Kant's own arguments are based on his metaphysical beliefs and cannot be separated from them. About the only thing you are proving here is that you've never read Kant. Just because you apparently like to make big assumptions and claim them to be metaphysical, doesn't mean that's how Kant came to his conclusions. Indeed, there is epistemological reasoning to Kant's conclusion that God exists outside of human understanding. It is not a blind assumption that he just happened to like. A resonable illustration of the nature of relativism. What's the point? This is not a substantive argument. It is a series of statements of your subjective opinion. Of course, a person's metaphysical beliefs are only one part of their moral framework. This is becoming comical. Can you please hold consistent to your own argument? The way you negate your own assertions from post to post and then pretend you didn't is quite tiresome. If one's own metaphysics are ONLY ONE PART of their moral framework, how is it that ANY change in one's metaphysics MUST cause a change in moral framework as you stated earlier? Your moral beliefs and your metaphysical beliefs must be consistent. If they are inconsistent then you would experience 'cognitive dissonance'. Over time one (or both) of these beliefs would change to ensure consistency. That is why I say the two are always connected. You are only stating why you believe your own opinion. You have not given any substative reasoning as to why moral and metaphysical beliefs must be consistent other than your own statement that they must be so otherwise you wouldn't like it. I've given you an example (Kant's moral system) that shows a clear distinction between a moral system and a metaphysical belief. That is an exception to your 'rule'. Btw, cognitive dissonance is a lovely term. It is also apparently extremely common. Apparently human beings have no trouble at all engaging in cognitive dissonance on a regular and/or longterm basis. Ergo, anything that causes a congnitive dissonance is not impossible by definition (as you are trying to assert).

You do know the definition of free will do you not? So, if your mother let's you out to play when she feels you are old enough and you come back with a bloody nose, it's your mothers fault? You do realize how silly that is? My mother doesn't claim to have created the universe and all that is in it.

Not logical. God giving humanity a choice, including bad one's does not make him poison. No. The point is, if the human world is poison (a point you agreed) then that means that if God exists, and God created the universe and all that it is in it, then God is responsible for making that poison. As noted above, dancing on the head of the 'free will pin' will not allow God to dodge this. God is responsible for all that God creates. Don't know, and don't care. I certainly would never kindnap anyone so your analogy strikes me as patently absurd. Apparently, that and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee. But it doesn't address the topic of this discussion. Why are you trying to change the topic? You are free to believe anything you like. But not one word you've stated here has any relevance to the topic under discussion. P.S. If you are going to cite my words, I insist they be properly attributed. Given the nature of the software, you have to purposefully delete my name from the quote attribution to achieve it. Your behaviour is insulting and I'm asking you politely to stop. Otherwise, I shall have to ask you to refrain from citing my words and claiming they are anonymous.

Freewill doesn't save your argument. If God created the universe and humans and all possibilities, then it all belongs to God's will. You may choose what you like, but God is the one who provided the choices. Ergo, no assumption regarding freewill was made, one way or the other. You are making the erroneous assumption that you accuse. I should be delighted if you were to do so. I look forward to it.

As I noted, the point about Christian doctrine was entirely spurious to the line of discussion. I apologise if I have offended you with the assumption. The assumption is based upon the nature and character of your argument following the classic journalistic theory of 'follow the money' - that is to say, who benefits from granting the general principle of your argument? That is who is likely to be your team. Like I alluded to in the statement itself, that point is entirely irrelevant to the point of the argument at hand. Such a moral system implicitly assumes that no diety exists or is irrelevent. You are not familiar with Immanuel Kant? Kant was a devout Christian and a believer in God. Yet the rational-based moral system that he logically constructed stands entirely independent of any existence or non-existence of God. God is irrelevant to the rationality of the moral system constructed - yet not denied. Kant logically reasons that God exists outside of human understanding. What is "IOW" ??? Yes, people with different metaphysical views of the universe would likely have different moral frameworks, but not necesarily so. People who share the same metaphysical views often have entirely different moral frameworks. That belief forms the basis for your moral framework. So you say. And you apparently have nothing to substantiate your statement since you've given nothing here save a repetition of your point. Saying it doesn't make it so. Where's the logical basis for this conclusion that you assert?

I emphatically disagree. Members of the human race have shown themselves to be quite capable of the most horrible acts. Taking 'belief in God' out of the equation is not likely to change this fact. Human nature is not pretty. I refuse to blame this on some imaginary God. Indeed, if God doesn't exist, how is it that a mere idea could cause so much bloody mayhem for so many thousands of years? Ergo, it is illogical to assert that religion or belief in God is responsible for so much bloodshed - if one claims to be an atheist.

Immanuel Kant (who was a real puissant!), a man who by all accounts was a devout Christian, logically constructed a rational-based moral system that stands entirely outside of the realm of God or religion. Indeed, according to Kant's own reasoning, God logically existed outside of human reasoning and it cannot be otherwise. In other words, it is entirely possible that morality and metaphysics may be disjunct. There is no logical reason that morality and metaphysics must be identical in any given subjective being.