Kei_Angels: Looks like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are holding a big Tea Party rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Haters gonna hate. I say we rename the GOP as the “Hater Party,” and call the Tea Party “Tinfoil Party” instead. Thy might as well have accurate names.
DJTmetz: Yep, because honoring what MLK Jr. stood for is totally raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist. 😛
Kei_Angels: Did you see that “avoid the black parts of DC” map the tea partier made?
DJTmetz: Again, the POINT of the tea parties has nothing to do with race; the restoring honor was about troops & religion.
Kei_Angels: And yet, the vast majority of the demonstrators were white. And then there’s this fiasco: http://ritsu.me/aHGw1c. America is better than Glenn Beck. For all of his celebrity, Mr. Beck is an ignorant, divisive, pathetic figure. http://j.mp/bCbHvc
DJTmetz: C’mon, you and I both know that’s utterly ridiculous.
Kei_Angels: Dr. Laura is fired for repeatedly calling one of her black callers a “n*gg*r.” Palin’s advice to her? “Don’t retreat — reload.” The evidence is there. You’ve seen the racist protest signs, anti-Mexican convention speeches, blatant abuse of the n-word… Threats to shoot the president, explicit and otherwise, as seen on various blogs and Newsvine. The burden of proof is overwhelming. I even met a TPer a few weeks back who was yelling at a Mexican store clerk. “I’m calling Arpaio to arrest you, fucking wetback!”
DJTmetz: Again, the Dr. Laura thing you can hardly call racist, from the article you linked me anyway. Stupid? yes. Racist? no. And again, there are crazies in every party and group — they hardly represent what the groups stand for.
Kei_Angels: The crazies are in control of the Tea Party. The keynote speech at the TP convention was an anti-mexican rant.
DJTmetz: If that’s the one you showed me before (where Tancredo was the speaker I thinkg?) then no, it wasn’t racist.
Kei_Angels: You are just refusing to acknowledge the evidence. You don’t WANT to believe that the Tea Party is racist, so you selectively ignore anything that conflicts with that viewpoint. It’s the same logic used to justify Creationism.
DJTmetz: Either way, the message of the Restoring Honor rally was entirely unobjectionable, to the point that even most lefties are lauding it, even if somewhat reluctantly (jealousy over the ability to attract that size of crowd, I’d wager).
Kei_Angels: It WAS objectionable. Haven’t we moved past all this God bullshit? I hate having it shoved down my throat. The last thing this country needs is a relapse into superstition. We’ve outgrown religion, and it’s just hurting us now.
DJTmetz: Couldn’t I justifiably ask you the same question? And suggest that it is you who are refusing to address actual issues?
Kei_Angels: Sorry, but when your side is hurling around the n-word, it’s your turn to be on the defensive.
DJTmetz: Excuse me? Shoved down your throat? He can’t MAKE you listen to his speech; that’d be why we separate religion from gov’t. Hey wait, I thought I was supposed to be the anti-religious one here. I am Christian, you know.
Kei_Angels: Really? Is that why Beck’s religion (Mormonism) helped pass a law in California that took away MY rights, and those of my peers? All because they wanted to legislate their morality? Force others to obey THEIR definition of marriage?
DJTmetz: That’s what people DO in a democratic gov’t. Everyone pushes for their beliefs about the way things should be; what makes us exceptional is that we can do it in a nonviolent way. They have as much a right to push a marriage amendment as the left has to repeal anti-sodomy laws.
Kei_Angels: It’s alright for you to infringe on MY rights, as long as it passes a popular vote? Glad to know you Christians are out to get me. What are you going to outlaw next, masturbation? God HATES that one. How about extramarital sex? Scientology? Better get going! Nice to know the nanny theocracy is choosing MY morality! It’s so nice to let God do all the thinking! I just obey his divine will!
DJTmetz: Riddle me this: you’re an atheist, right? How do you have “rights” that mustn’t be stepped on? *whew* You’re really getting yourself into a frantic raving loony mess here; I didn’t even state my opinion on such laws.
Kei_Angels: Simple. It’s called enlightened self interest. Humans are social animals. The happier individual humans are, the happier society is.
DJTmetz: …rather I pointed out that such laws were around and struck down, and the putting up or striking down of such things is completely arbitrary…and I’m thinking you’re gonna tell me to use twitlonger in a minute here huh? XD
Kei_Angels: It’s in everybody’s best interest to treat others with kindness and respect. It makes the individual happier, and society better. That’s because we evolved as social animals. We HAVE to help each other to survive. That’s how we’re coded.
DJTmetz: But even that’s arbitrary. You decided that happiness is great. That itself is a moral judgment Under your stipulations of nonuniversal morals, somebody else could just as easily decide that everyone should just die (nihilism), and you can’t really argue that your ideas are any better than theirs because it’s all arbitrary in the end.
Kei_Angels: People are free to be nihilistic as long as they don’t harm others. The good of society ALWAYS comes first. Base human instinct is survival. Our best hope for survival comes from supporting the social order that keeps us alive and healthy. A society that encourages free secular thought is more conducive to further scientific advancement, which helps humanity’s survival in the long run.
DJTmetz: But what is the “good” of society? Under your belief, happiness; under someone else’s, death. So you say, but history says science (and reason in general, really) is the child of Christian theology. In other words, there’s no reason to ask scientific questions or assume a reasonable world with regular physical laws w/o God.
Kei_Angels: Society should encourage humans to better themselves and those around them. Monetary gain and religion are distractions. Humans used religion to justify their deep-held instincts to preserve human life and exercise curiosity. Both curiosity and respect for life were around long before organized religion. That’s fact. Simply because scientific curiosity and respect for life contributed to our survival. That’s why we’re Earth’s apex predator.
DJTmetz: Yes, but science requires something more distinct — IE the understanding that there are universal laws of nature. But again, you’re not basing that on anything but your own opinion, which is purely arbitrary.
Kei_Angels: It’s not arbitrary. We know how evolution works. Natural selection chose humanity because of those traits. The ability to grasp abstract and philosophical concepts is an evolutionary adaptation that has served us well.
DJTmetz: Your opinion about what is “good” IS arbitrary…as are ALL morals, in your religion, anyway.
Kei_Angels: It’s not a religion. It’s based on hard evidence and the scientific process, not blind faith. I’m a naturalist. I always demand PROOF. Hard, repeatable, peer-reviewed evidence obtained via the scientific method. That is not faith. It’s fact.
DJTmetz: It still doesn’t make “to survive” anything more than an arbitrary moral value. Ah but the scientific method doesn’t work unless you’ve already accepted that there is a Nature to things…which isn’t rational unless you accept the idea of a designer.
Kei_Angels: Just because science hasn’t found an explanation doesn’t mean you can assume a supernatural cause. The sun isn’t a divine chariot. Nor must we accept a designer because we don’t fully understand the universe. The universe does not bow to our human conceits. We used God as a crutch to explain away the unexplainable. We don’t need that crutch anymore.
DJTmetz: I’m just saying it’s not reasonable to think there’s an Order to things without an Orderer.
Kei_Angels: Why? You’re assuming the universe obeys the laws of philosophy… that it must conform to your worldview of how things work. Order and Chaos are human conceits. They’re terms we created so we can begin to understand that which is beyond our understanding. Another product of our evolved sense of curiosity, to be sure. We’re always looking for an explanation.
DJTmetz: I’m just saying, the way science is now, God is pretty much an accepted axiom. If you don’t believe in God, there’s no reason to believe in science or the scientific method as a credible method of reasoning.
Kei_Angels: Sure there is. I don’t believe in God, and I believe science is credible. That’s because science has proven itself. God has not. Science gives repeatable results. God does not. Science is observable and falsifiable. God is not. I’ll bet you’ve done the same thing in your life. Taken a seemingly unexplainable event, some good fortune, and said “God did it.”
DJTmetz: But there’s no reason to believe that repeated results prove something indefinitely, if you haven’t already postulated that natural physical laws exist; There’s no reason to conduct such experiments in the first place, since the answer might as well be whimsical.
Kei_Angels: You have no PROOF that God did it, of course. It’s just nice to think he did. Makes life nice and orderly. You’re defining science by your own limited worldview. If it doesn’t make sense to you, it can’t make sense to anybody else either.
DJTmetz: Well then, even reason is capricious and relative, eh? I’m glad _I_ don’t believe that.
Kei_Angels: But people like me don’t NEED God to justify these things. We’re perfectly capable of justifying our morality and lives without him.
DJTmetz: It’s true that I count my blessings from the bottom up; and thank God for things like being able to go to College despite being the 5th child in my family…but I hardly see how that’s within the relevance of our conversation.
Kei_Angels: It’s relevant because of magical thinking. Something unexplained happens, you jump to God. That’s the fallacy in your reasoning. Admit it. You NEED God to justify yourself. He’s a mental crutch to explain away the inconveniences of reality.
DJTmetz: I didn’t ever jump to God in our earlier conversation to explain something I found inexplicable. Rather, I was trying to explain the axioms Science has and why it has them.
Kei_Angels: You can’t deal with the fact that reality is arbitrary. You jump straight to God to comfort yourself with the illusion of meaning.
DJTmetz: There, you said exactly what I’ve been trying to get across the whole time; under your belief system YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS! In other words, nothing’s sacred, and under a democratic system, whichever laws get the most votes should go, and you should stop complaining as if anybody’s rights mattered.
Kei_Angels: I don’t believe in democracy. I think humans are too stupid for it. I believe in providing the ILLUSION of democracy like we do now.
DJTmetz: And if you want a proof of God, since God is an axiom of science and science works, well, it seems reasonable to believe.
Kei_Angels: But you’re still defining my views by your own limited understanding. Just because you can’t justify my morals doesn’t mean I can’t.
DJTmetz: Ah, again with reason being relative and arbitrary. So if a = b and b = c, in your world it is reasonable to conclude a != c.
Kei_Angels: My worldview makes perfect logical sense, without the need for magical sky beings. It’s based on simple observations about humans.
DJTmetz: Uh huh. So far your perfect logical sense amounts to “shut up, you’re an idiot; it is because it is”.
Kei_Angels: Nope, you just like ignoring arguments you can’t deal with. That’s why you won’t admit the Tea Party is racist, among other things. Religion and conservatism in the modern age are both products of cognitive dissonance. Those beliefs don’t hold up to scrutiny.
DJTmetz: Maybe I’m alone in this, but it seems like the best way to describe “morals” is as a sense, like sight, sound, taste, etc. Of course…that idea rather assumes that morals are universal, or rather that there is a right and a wrong.
Kei_Angels: In the world of conservatism, calling a black person a n*gg*r is not racist
DJTmetz: Actually it is; but that’s not what the article you linked to me said Dr. Laura had done.
Kei_Angels: In the world of religion, believing in invisible beings is logical. They’re both based on self-deception.
DJTmetz: Well if you understand logic, (and I think you do, but you’re evading), you have to start somewhere, which means axioms. And I accept “there is a God” as an axiom to begin reasoning from.
Kei_Angels: But anyway… I’ve got a podcast to prepare for. Thanks for the rousing discussion!
DJTmetz: Alrighty, have fun; though I hate to have basically repeated the points I made in my blogpost 😛 And God Bless!
Kei_Angels: Oh, and while I’m gone, read this. It explains what I was trying to say far better than I can. http://ritsu.me/aqwPUw
The discussion ended there. I must say it is a healthy discussion and kudos to both person for being professional in handling it, ie. not getting carried away and not taking things too personally although it may be in contrast to what they believe, and most importantly they did not calling names on each other just because they’re disagreeing, and they remain being friends, which is a good example for all of us.
As for me, I’m siding with believing in God and religion. I may be biased because I’m a believer but believe me I don’t place my support by default merely because I believe in God, but rather because I still see God and religion “makes sense” to me, and I don’t see religion as restrictive as many atheists may think, and not as prohibitive as it may seem. My opinion is from what I’ve seen, atheists and anti-religion people are just those who are afraid or lacking the will to acknowledge the existence of God, mainly because of personal reputation, not because they have solid proof that God does not exist.
Most atheists (or humanists or whatever they call themselves) I’ve encountered so far always told me God does not exist simply because there is no scientific proof that he does exist. And they may continue believing it that way as long as they have enough words to defend themselves, although things may not necessarily true. However as far as I know the absence of proof is not the proof of absence and that’s what science taught me, as for why people continue believing the existence of intelligent life out there despite the lack of real evidence. The worst I’ve seen is many atheists put the blame on religion for the lack of freedom for things that may have nothing to do with them such as gay marriage, transsexual, etc., claiming themselves as the victim of religious oppression. I don’t understand why must they care and being particular about marriage when marriage is a religion thing to begin with. Yeah I may be wrong but what we believe is a personal thing to begin with so I’ll just let you readers to decide.
Also sorry if my limited English is too hard for you to understand. Do tell me if there is stuff need to be fixed. Your help is very much appreciated.