The JREF is not an atheist organization

[Jeff Corey]

... Again. I'll admit not to be up on the smartest chip in the block regarding this. Thus my doubts base my current held view and concerns.

You still haven't answered the questions about equating religion with morality.
Let's try again.
Do you think that religion is a necessary and sufficient cause of morality?

 

[crackers]

...
I now find I have doubts about the Jref commitment based on that. Again. I'll admit not to be up on the smartest chip in the block regarding this. Thus my doubts base my current held view and concerns.

Are you saying that you have doubts based on what people have posted in this thread? I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread actually has a position of authority (or any kind of position) in the JREF organization.

 

[andyandy]

Skepticism isn't about atheism any more than it is about contrarianism, although I'm sure we have plenty of those around as well.

no we don't

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Are you saying that you have doubts based on what people have posted in this thread? I don't think anyone who has posted in this thread actually has a position of authority (or any kind of position) in the JREF organization.

Yes I am basing my doubts on the remarks made, that is my response to it. What was said has raised my concern.

Shouldn't skepticism being promoted, irregardless if it rattles a few pots and pans in segments of society that is following it's own paths? Not remaining semi-hiding behind the apron strings for fear of upsetting a few apple carts?

Why does the religious society incites such fear? What if the physics imposed the same level of fear or blackmail, as I view it, would the Jref be so lighted footed? What does that say about the face Jref shows to places other than its home where it may stomp instead of tip-toe about?

That is the question that worries me.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Immoral ("conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles") is the opposite of moral. Amoral is being neither moral or immoral.

Perhaps you mean that I am immoral?

My sames answer remains as was. I cannot answer it, how I am supposed to? For I do not know you, therefore cannot provide an answer. For the answer will be one based on guesswork. Which has an equal probabilty of being both offencive and wrong as it does of being flattering and correct.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

You still haven't answered the questions about equating religion with morality.
Let's try again.
Do you think that religion is a necessary and sufficient cause of morality?

I don't think religion is necessary. As for it and morality being bed-mates. I guess I do based on what I believe is correct basing it on the assumptions I have made from information I have been given along the way.

Morality and religion are like strawberries and cream, hands and gloves co-linked. As said before I don't attribute society attributes as moral or morality. They are behaviours.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't think religion is necessary. As for it and morality being bed-mates. I guess I do based on what I believe is correct basing it on the assumptions I have made from information I have been given along the way.

Morality and religion are like strawberries and cream, hands and gloves co-linked. As said before I don't attribute society attributes as moral or morality. They are behaviours.

You still didn't answer my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.
Is morality possible without religion?

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

You still didn't answer my question. Maybe I should rephrase it.
Is morality possible without religion?

I answered it as best that I could. It wasn't the answer you wanted, I am sorry. I am not claiming it to be correct or making it a hard and fast statement of fact.

If you are asking me directly do I think that morality is possible without religion then I will answer, no I do not think so.

 

[CFLarsen]

I answered it as best that I could. It wasn't the answer you wanted, I am sorry. I am not claiming it to be correct or making it a hard and fast statement of fact.

If you are asking me directly do I think that morality is possible without religion then I will answer, no I do not think so.

Why am I not in jail, then?

Why should you (or anyone who thinks they are moral) help me in any way, if you think I don't have morality?

In fact, why should you even let atheists live? Clearly, you think they are a danger to society.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...If you are asking me directly do I think that morality is possible without religion then I will answer, no I do not think so.

Explain this, then http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Why am I not in jail, then?

Why should you (or anyone who thinks they are moral) help me in any way, if you think I don't have morality?

In fact, why should you even let atheists live? Clearly, you think they are a danger to society.

Back off there, you are barking up the wrong tree.

As for why are you not in jail CFLarsen, how am I supposed to know that. Perhaps you are eluding the police by dressing as woman for all I know. For all I know they are camped outside your residence and are storming your front door as I type. I am a skeptic not a psychic you know.

When did I say atheists were a danger to society? Never or would I. Go pick that argument with somebody who states so. Likewise did I say you were anything. If I recall I refused to answer as I could not answer it. I repeat NO I have not. So go pick a fight with somebody who did. This is how you react. Glad I didn't answer it, you may have spat something other than a dummy out of your pram.

I won't bite or play that game with you. I am far to old to embark in playground games of this kind.

I say this politely never add words to my post or even claim to know what I think again. You do not and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that again.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Explain this, then http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

Sorry not understanding your point here. I see alot of figures about jailtime. That means zilch to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Back off there, you are barking up the wrong tree.

As for why are you not in jail CFLarsen, how am I supposed to know that. Perhaps you are eluding the police by dressing as woman for all I know. for all I know they are camped outside your residence and are storming your front door as I type. I am a skeptic not a physchic you know.

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?

When did I say atheists were a danger to society? Never or would I. Go pick that argument with somebody who states so. Likewise did I say you were anything. If I recall I refused to answer as I could not answer it. I repeat NO I have not. So go pick a fight with somebody who did. This is how you react. Glad I didn't answer it, you may have spat something other than a dummy out of your pram.

I won't bite or play that game with you. I am far to old to embark in playground games of this kind.

I say this politely never add words to my post or even claim to know what I think again. You do not and I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that again.

You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?

You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.

I am not explaining anything to you dear when you talk to me in that tone of voice. Change your mannerism and I may chose to re-engage with you.

No dear, I am not running away I am acting civilly and as an adult. So please don't get it into your head you've won some weird battle that is only going on inside your skull.

You are wrong and I bid you good day to you sir.

 

[prewitt81]

No, you are not a skeptic. When you jump to the unfounded conclusion that atheists have no morality, and it is contradicted by hard evidence that you are wrong, you are not a skeptic.

Notice something about atheists in jail? There sure aren't a lot of them, are there?

Why is that? Do they all dress as women? Or is the police camped outside every atheist's residence, storming their front doors as you type?

Or, perhaps there are fewer atheists among the jailed population than in the rest of society, because they have a higher moral than religious people?

Maybe morality isn't dependent on religion after all, hm?



You are clearly not prepared to accept the consequences of what you are saying.

Why are atheists not an inherent danger to anyone? They have no morality, so what prevents them from committing crimes? If they do commit crimes, they sure aren't put in jail because of that. That makes them even more dangerous, doesn't it?

You got 'splainin' to do.

I don't think CC is saying this at all. In fact she/he (sorry I don't know everyone's genders yet ) has said the exact opposite. See http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2877273#post2877273

I think this has been a misunderstanding. I think here that if CFLarsen and Corpse Cruncher both stated what they mean when they say "morality", two completely different answers would be given.

Now, as moderator: I have no plans to split this thread, but the last few posts have gotten away from the topic. I see it as acceptable thread drift at this point, but let's keep it that way.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am not explaining anything to you dear when you talk to me in that tone of voice. Change your mannerism and I may chose to re-engage with you.

No dear, I am not running away I am acting civilly and as an adult. So please don't get it into your head you've won some weird battle that is only going on inside your skull.

You are wrong and I bid you good day to you sir.

Spoken like a blind believer on wild retreat.

 

[brodski]

Why am I not in jail, then?

because you haven't been convicted of a crime which carried a custodial sentence.

Why should you (or anyone who thinks they are moral) help me in any way, if you think I don't have morality?

because they may think you have ethics

In fact, why should you even let atheists live? Clearly, you think they are a danger to society.

Either because one believes that killing is wrong, or because one believes that ethics are an acceptable substitute for, or even better than, morals.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

As prewitt81 has already stated, please keep this thread on topic and do not use personal attacks. Argue the post, not the poster. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[CFLarsen]

because you haven't been convicted of a crime which carried a custodial sentence.

I haven't even committed such a crime. Nor have I ever gotten a fine. If I am so lacking in the morality department, why not?

because they may think you have ethics

I know that I shouldn't kill you for stealing my tractor.

Either because one believes that killing is wrong, or because one believes that ethics are an acceptable substitute for, or even better than, morals.

I think you have misunderstood something.

Ethics isn't a substitute for morality.

As prewitt81 has already stated, please keep this thread on topic and do not use personal attacks. Argue the post, not the poster. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

A split is fine with me.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Whether atheists are moral or not has nothing to do with whether a religious person can be a skeptic and if not, whether JREF should change its mission statement to reflect that only atheists can be skeptics.

Please don't take the troll bait folks.