God Creation

[canpakes]

He would never do the same for my people.

Your people?

Are you a god, too?

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think we're in the same position because of the words we've posted. What you posted showed contempt for POF. I quoted an example to you and asked you to find words of mine that displayed similar contempt. If you can't do that, then that's the difference between us in this situation. I'm reacting to the words you posted. You may have the most innocent of intentions, but all the rest of us get to see is what you post.

You think wildly throwing around the word "bigotry" isn't showing contempt?

But listen, you made good points about the words you've been reading vs. what I intend, and I stand rebuked on that score (especially since I've made the same argument many times).

in my opinion, contempt is based on the arrogant assumption that you aren't like the people you hold in contempt. Except you really can't know that, can you?

Well, I don't think I'm that different. In fact, the majority of my thoughts are based on the premise that we aren't that different.

Is that what you think I’ve done? Wildly thrown around the word “bigotry” in a way that communicates contempt for you? If so, would you quote a couple of examples?

You and I are alike when it comes to that last bit. How does that comes into play when you think about religious folks?

[canpakes]

cp I went back and viewed your original post. You really said crap.

Yes, I ‘said crap’. I’ve seen at least two dear relatives decide to take the train to Crazy Town and go full in on the most batshit nutty election crap. And although they were on the evangelical side of things prior to 2020 (‘dinosaur bones’ are tools of Satan!), they’ve just let themselves be led further into that madness by folks who operate under the guise of being a mouthpiece for God, like the Enlows. There’s no longer any tether to reality along those lines for them.

I’ve only had a chance to skim your reply so far; I’ll read it more carefully in a moment. I will mention, though - with regard to your suggestion to engage these faithful folks with their own weapon - I once asked a relative to shed some light on their abortion rationale given that abortion isn’t mentioned as forbidden within the Bible, and that Numbers 5:11-31 actually contains an ‘abortion recipe’ and application (‘unfaithful wife = abort the kid’). Their response was a full page of the most tortured interpretive reading of scripture that I’ve ever seen, basically giving the message that what is literally written within the Bible is substantially less important for some believers than how they want to spin it to fit their position.

In other words, the source material for their faith is just as easily tossed aside in an argument if that makes it more convenient for some to maintain that they’re ‘right’. End result: God is on their side, even if God said something different or nothing at all … and you can’t argue with God. So everyone better do as God (i.e. the believer) wants, and God (i.e. the believer) will make you do it via legislation, if necessary.

It’s a great way to just push off the discussion onto the invisible entity, then sit back and stop thinking about it, while advancing an agenda.

[Res Ipsa]

What I'm really suggesting is that a moral code, whether its personal or shared, involves not what "is" but what "should be."

For someone like Schmo, he has nothing to persuade other people to agreeing with his view of what the moral code should be other than to shame, belittle, and verbally abuse. He can't appeal to the Bible because he doesn't believe a word of it himself. He can't appeal to the spiritual because he doesn't believe that either. All that exists is right here and right now. So when he calls me selfish why would I choose to work myself to death and bankrupt myself providing for his impoverished people? He would never do the same for my people. As he steadily marches forward chipping away at my constitutional rights and the rights of my posterity, why would I not stand up and fight him? Because he thinks I'm a selfish or a racist? Because he's shamed me into being good tax chattel? I don't even agree with that as a believer, much less as an atheist. Schmo is very lucky that so many people in his host country believe. He owes his life to the religion he disparages.

Man, that’s a ton to unpack, Hawkeye. I’ll give it a try.

First, I’m not sure what you mean by someone like Schmo. Everyone is like Schmo. You are like Schmo. I am like Schmo. But when you say “someone like Schmo,” you’ve just started down the road that leads to othering. If Schmo says something you object to, focus on that.

Second, you don’t know what Schmo’s personal moral code is. I don’t think he’s discussed it much, let alone tried to persuade anyone to adopt it.

Third, I’m an atheist, and I use the Bible all the time in discussions about morals and ethics. Just because I don’t believe it’s the word of God doesn’t mean that I think everything in it is worthless. It’s one of the sources I pick and choose from in figuring out my personal moral code — just like you do. In fact, if you and I put our heads together to try and figure out a common moral codes between us, I’d start with the Bible precisely because I know you consider it authoritative.

Fourth, the key to persuasion isn’t to talk about what you believe — it’s to talk about what the other person believes. Persuasion has to be grounded in some common belief or value in order to be effective. If I’m going to try and persuade a Christian that climate change is a serious problem Society needs to address, I’m going to start from the Biblical concept of stewardship. Why? Because it’s common ground.

Fifth, the poor aren’t Schmo’s. That’s an extreme form of othering the poor. I claim that you are responsible for taking care of the poor. If I were going to persuade you of that, I would start with what the Bible says about the poor. I’d discuss in detail what Jesus said about wealth and material possessions, as well as how we are supposed to treat others. But that would be a long discussion for another thread.

Sixth, why do you think Schmo isn’t working or hasn’t worked to take care of your people. Who are your people? I think your division of people into your people and Schmo’s people is completely artificial. Everybody is everybody’s people. I can’t recall Schmo’s specific circumstances, so I’ll talk about me. I’m working and paying taxes, just like you. Those taxes, in part, are going to help people — yours, mine, Schmo’s, everyone’s. I’m doing exactly the same thing you are, and the exact same people are benefiting.

If I’m remembering correctly, you plan to work until the day you die. You don’t have to — that’s a choice you are making. None of us asked you to. Society has set up a system through which you don’t have to. That’s your choice. But, none of us owe you gratitude for doing something none of us asked you to do. Expecting gratitude in those circumstances is called co-dependency, and it’s mentally and emotionally unhealthy. You might want to read up on it.

As to your people, if you mean white people in rural West Virginia, those are my people, too. They’re not only fellow human beings, they’re fellow Americans, too. And they have problems that their state and federal governments should be helping them with. I’m more than happy to have my tax dollars go to job training, creating jobs, treating addiction, building rural hospitals, providing to access to health care, etc. for those folks.

Gotta get on the clock, so I’ll have to get to the rest later.

[Hawkeye]

In fact, if you and I put our heads together to try and figure out a common moral codes between us, I’d start with the Bible precisely because I know you consider it authoritative.

Why would I be persuaded by the interpretation of a nonbeliever? If there is no God, no supernatural, no ultimate justice, to me the Bible is just foolishness as Schmo says. The death of Christ makes no sense to me without the resurrection.

I am interested in your beliefs and what motivates you to give money to West Virginia drug addicts, unwed mothers, and welfare cases. Many of them share my DNA but it was never a part of our culture to enable behavior like this. When I see bums on the street I give them a card to Ranstad Temp agency.

Society has set up a system through which you don’t have to.

I think I should have the right to voluntarily opt out of the that system. Would it be within your moral code to kill me to keep me from opting out of that system? That sounds a lot like slavery doesn't it? It sure isn't freedom.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think I should have the right to voluntarily opt out of the that system. Would it be within your moral code to kill me to keep me from opting out of that system? That sounds a lot like slavery doesn't it? It sure isn't freedom.

-_-

[Chap]

I am interested in your beliefs and what motivates you to give money to West Virginia drug addicts, unwed mothers, and welfare cases. Many of them share my DNA but it was never a part of our culture to enable behavior like this. When I see bums on the street I give them a card to Ranstad Temp agency.

People like me and the people like me that I know give to various charitable causes (and also sometimes to people in person) mainly because of a sense of shared humanity with people in need. We don't need a belief in a deity to make us feel that way, any more than (I assume) you need belief in a deity to motivate yourself to help your own friends and neighbours. Or do you?

[canpakes]

I think I should have the right to voluntarily opt out of the that system. Would it be within your moral code to kill me to keep me from opting out of that system?

If Res killed you, he’d be opting you out of the system for you. As such, I don’t think that’s on his options list. : D

[Some Schmo]

You and I are alike when it comes to that last bit. How does that comes into play when you think about religious folks?

I think of religious folks as potential non-believers, just like I used to be.

[honorentheos]

What Hawkeye expresses reflects the issue I've brought up regarding the challenges of maintaining social cohesion in a post-modern world. Subtract out religion, Hawkeye is appealing to idealism for his moral foundation. He says there has to be some perfect form, an ideal morality that exists independent of the base, material fleshy humanity that is our existence. We reach up after that ideal, and one has to be able to point to it as independent for anyone to accept it.

When he argues the alternative is shaming, belittling, herding someone into a moral position it seems he is rejecting the idea that morality as "ought" can exist and have pull as an arrived-at position. It automatically discounts the quality of anything built on a foundation other than idealism.