Duck Dynasty Actor Delivers Hate Filled Speech - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Killjoy;47401466]I do read it, although I am starting to get out of the habit, I am trying to read it more. I am a believer because I have seen a lot in my life to lead me to that conclusion. I have seen a lot of miraculous things happen not only in my own life but in others. The historical parts of the Bible are actually my favorite. While I find meaning in all of it, the historical information is... "fun" to read. I hate it when people take verses out of context for an agenda. People should read the Bible and see what a verse is really about before using it for their own reasons. A lot of people who bash the Bible also take it completely out of context, talking about horrible things done by people in the Bible. And that is true, they did, that is for us to see the wrong things that these people did. And about throwing out religion entirely, I would not know about "religion" in that sense. I care more about God, not a "religion". It is our purpose to better ourselves and to better each other. In my opinion this is a God-given purpose. Also I do not see my belief as a >1400 y/o unrealistic thing. It holds relevance at any time, and it still will far into the future. Just because its events take place in the past, that does not mean it is not relevant. I do not plan to elaborate further here because someone is bound to start flaming and derail the thread. PM me if you seriously want my complete opinion. :v:[/QUOTE] But if you read the bible, you would know that the new testament states that the world would end in the generation of Jesus, and that his followers would live to see armageddon... How can you believe in a prophecy that never happened ? Im really curious about what you define as a miracle, but I will take that in PM. Thanks for answering, you are awesome!

[QUOTE=Killjoy;47401466]I do read it, although I am starting to get out of the habit, I am trying to read it more. I am a believer because I have seen a lot in my life to lead me to that conclusion. I have seen a lot of miraculous things happen not only in my own life but in others. The historical parts of the Bible are actually my favorite. While I find meaning in all of it, the historical information is... "fun" to read. I hate it when people take verses out of context for an agenda. People should read the Bible and see what a verse is really about before using it for their own reasons. A lot of people who bash the Bible also take it completely out of context, talking about horrible things done by people in the Bible. And that is true, they did, that is for us to see the wrong things that these people did. And about throwing out religion entirely, I would not know about "religion" in that sense. I care more about God, not a "religion". It is our purpose to better ourselves and to better each other. In my opinion this is a God-given purpose. Also I do not see my belief as a >1400 y/o unrealistic thing. It holds relevance at any time, and it still will far into the future. Just because its events take place in the past, that does not mean it is not relevant. I do not plan to elaborate further here because someone is bound to start flaming and derail the thread. PM me if you seriously want my complete opinion. :v:[/QUOTE] I don't like telling people how to read their holy texts, but depending on what type of christian you are, you may be reading it "wrong" for your own religious denomination.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47398651]The problem atheism has is not atheism, but the anti-theists who fly under the banner of atheism. It's the people who believe in freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion. The type of people who try and get nativity scenes banned or taken down even though it doesn't affect them whatsoever.[/QUOTE] You picked the tamest possible example. If you're talking about people trying to get religious iconography out of government buildings those people are simply fighting for what the law says.

[QUOTE=Vic_Boss1;47399494]It's not hate speech if atheists are doing it.[/QUOTE] Says no one in this thread.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47398651]The problem atheism has is not atheism, but the anti-theists who fly under the banner of atheism. It's the people who believe in freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion. The type of people who try and get nativity scenes banned or taken down even though it doesn't affect them whatsoever. These people are seen as enemies by religious people because they are actively attacking anything religious. It causes religious people to farther intrench themselves, which causes anti-theists to do the same. Both sides are guilty of this. I'm a Diest, which is a belief in a god, but not religion, miracles, or any of that nonsense. I believe that natural laws and such can rationally explain everything, and in rational thought, but there still is a god. I get shit on by both atheists AND religious folk. But it's never by people who are just "atheist" or "(x) religion", but by the people who use their (non)belief as a defining characteristic of who they are.[/QUOTE] We wouldn't have to come off as "anti-theist" if religious people didn't insist they have a god-given right to use governmental power as a weapon to inflict their beliefs upon the rest of us, as they are doing in my home state right now. Yes, we want freedom from religion, at least in the government as required by the Establishment Clause and legal precedent since then. If religious people weren't constantly bleating about their moral superiority (which they don't have) and insisting the US was founded as a Christian theocracy (it wasn't) and actively trying to use the law to punish people that don't conform to their dogmatic, outdated, garbage beliefs we wouldn't have a problem.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47402567]I don't like telling people how to read their holy texts, but depending on what type of christian you are, you may be reading it "wrong" for your own religious denomination.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, I am a "Christian" because I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that the Bible is truth. I believe the Bible in its entirety, but I still like how you can see the connections to history in it. If you are referring to the "horrible people" thing, take king David as an example. He did great things and was a righteous man for much of his life, then he just went batshit crazy and slept with one of his best soldier's wife and killed him so he would not be in the way. Some of the people in the Bible had REALLY messed up periods in their life. It is supposed to be seen as, you can start out great but if you lose your integrity you lose everything. Edit: I think I started out writing about what you said and I slowly drifted off, oops.

[QUOTE=archangel125;47390514]Well, moral nihilism is a conclusion many atheists, myself included, come to. However, we can make a conscious choice of whatever principles we choose to live by, with or without any intrinsic value. Phil Robertson doesn't seem to understand how the world works or people think.[/QUOTE] Having been unfamiliar with the concept before googling it just now, I think moral nihilism is a bit stronger of a concept than you think: [img]http://puu.sh/gRj9o.png[/img] I don't know about yours, but there aren't any atheists in my life that believe the above and aren't scary humans.

I'm a christian as well, but holy crap, this guy went off the deep end with that one.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47403117]We wouldn't have to come off as "anti-theist" if religious people didn't insist they have a god-given right to use governmental power as a weapon to inflict their beliefs upon the rest of us, as they are doing in my home state right now. Yes, we want freedom from religion, at least in the government as required by the Establishment Clause and legal precedent since then. If religious people weren't constantly bleating about their moral superiority (which they don't have) and insisting the US was founded as a Christian theocracy (it wasn't) and actively trying to use the law to punish people that don't conform to their dogmatic, outdated, garbage beliefs we wouldn't have a problem.[/QUOTE] I understand the atheist (or anti-theist) side and their motivations. I'm not going to argue about which side is in the right and which is in the wrong, because I think both sides have some fair points as well as stupidity. People who are overly(extreme) atheist or religious are seen more as activist by the opposing side. I was trying to explain the reasoning behind why people who are "proud to be atheist" are seen more negatively by religious people than people who just don't believe in God, and it's the same the other way around. I've seen a lot of people who don't want to be called atheists because people associate it with anti-theist activism, and they don't want any part of it. I've also seen a lot of people who feel the need to explain that while they are Christian, they aren't "one of THOSE" Christians. They are all just people who want to believe what they believe, and don't care about what anyone else does or does not believe.

[QUOTE=Killjoy;47403634]Not necessarily, I am a "Christian" because I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that the Bible is truth. I believe the Bible in its entirety, but I still like how you can see the connections to history in it. If you are referring to the "horrible people" thing, take king David as an example. He did great things and was a righteous man for much of his life, then he just went batshit crazy and slept with one of his best soldier's wife and killed him so he would not be in the way. Some of the people in the Bible had REALLY messed up periods in their life. It is supposed to be seen as, you can start out great but if you lose your integrity you lose everything. Edit: I think I started out writing about what you said and I slowly drifted off, oops.[/QUOTE] so do you read it metaphorically or literally? do you switch between the two types of reading? do you read the right bible as there are so many different translations resulting in ever so slight differences. How do you reconcile that?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;47402591]You picked the tamest possible example. If you're talking about people trying to get religious iconography out of government buildings those people are simply fighting for what the law says.[/QUOTE] Then no more Halloween or Easter decorations on federal/state property either, can't have the government endorsing paganism now, can we? :v:

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47407040]so do you read it metaphorically or literally? do you switch between the two types of reading? do you read the right bible as there are so many different translations resulting in ever so slight differences. How do you reconcile that?[/QUOTE] literally not metaphorically. I have found that most common versions of the Bible use different wording, but ultimately *most* say the same thing. Now, there are many that twist verses and change the context/meaning. I have done a bit of research into the history of some of the Bible versions and I find that the kinds that I use were not tampered with in the passage of time. I am always careful to make sure whatever I read is genuine, and whatever I quote is not taken out of context.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;47403789]Having been unfamiliar with the concept before googling it just now, I think moral nihilism is a bit stronger of a concept than you think: [IMG]http://puu.sh/gRj9o.png[/IMG] I don't know about yours, but there aren't any atheists in my life that believe the above and aren't scary humans.[/QUOTE] So a moral nihilist simply denies the existence of a "right" or "wrong"? Doesn't one inherently know a right or wrong regardless, its simple a matter of just a matter of choosing a course of action (Steal, lie, cheat, ect)?

[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;47407543]So a moral nihilist simply denies the existence of a "right" or "wrong"? Doesn't one inherently know a right or wrong regardless, its simple a matter of just a matter of choosing a course of action (Steal, lie, cheat, ect)?[/QUOTE] Can you point to me a form of morality that is defined by nature and exists without us? No, you can't, so for all practical aspects, we live in a morally nihilistic universe. It is up to us to overcome that. But that's where we live and the universe we function within. It has NO morals.

[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;47407543]So a moral nihilist simply denies the existence of a "right" or "wrong"? Doesn't one inherently know a right or wrong regardless, its simple a matter of just a matter of choosing a course of action (Steal, lie, cheat, ect)?[/QUOTE] what i think my point is that moral nihilism is a bit more meta than we have to deal with here and that it doesn't really belong in this thread.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;47407592]what i think my point is that moral nihilism is a bit more meta than we have to deal with here and that it doesn't really belong in this thread.[/QUOTE] You and HumanAbyss somewhat misunderstood the intention of my post. It was simply a question, I'm not trying to argue a point.

oh no i got it i think it feels so confusing and out of place because it's so much heavier and abstract of a concept than "there isn't [I]god[/I] to tell right from wrong", which is the actual belief of most of the posters here

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;47398243]It's funny, when you tell some deeply religious folks you're an atheist they go ballistic but if you tell them that you don't believe in god they just shrug it off. I think atheism has given itself a bad name.[/QUOTE] athiesm is commonly associated with "against religion" rather than "no belief in a god". So when you hear athiest, you think "this dude is gonna try and convince me to not believe in god! he's going to look down upon me for my beliefs, how dare him!" That's of course incorrect, but it's what seems to happen nowadays.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47407558]Can you point to me a form of morality that is defined by nature and exists without us? No, you can't, so for all practical aspects, we live in a morally nihilistic universe. It is up to us to overcome that. But that's where we live and the universe we function within. It has NO morals.[/QUOTE] Than how can packs exist? How can a wolf mother nurse her pups and provide them with protection and sustenance instead of outright eating all of them? How can all of the pack provide and protect pups? Why aren't animals killing each other at random? Couldn't morality be an evolutionary trait?

He's not exactly wrong it's just that this is a fucking outrageous example. He's just saying one thing that sounds like something else. It would be wrong, "even in an atheist's eyes."

[QUOTE=Punchy;47407832]athiesm is commonly associated with "against religion" rather than "no belief in a god". So when you hear athiest, you think "this dude is gonna try and convince me to not believe in god! he's going to look down upon me for my beliefs, how dare him!" That's of course incorrect, but it's what seems to happen nowadays.[/QUOTE] For some reason, even as an atheist, the only thing I've found more annoying than a militant Christian is a militant atheist.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47407904]Than how can packs exist? How can a wolf mother nurse her pups and provide them with protection and sustenance instead of outright eating all of them? How can all of the pack provide and protect pups? Why aren't animals killing each other at random? Couldn't morality be an evolutionary trait?[/QUOTE] How is that morality? They also leave their weakest pups to die, and exile the ones that are albino or too black to fit in with the rest of the pack. Is that morality? Their actions are attempts of survival that they have found evolutionarily advantageous. Animals are careful to not kill their own because they will die out as a species if they do, but if you starve two wolves long enough, they WILL eat each other to survive. Animals as much as they rely on social mechanisms are not following innate moralities by doing so, they understand at some level the best method for them to maintain and survive is to help each other. But even then, you have animals who often differ from this.

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47407904]Couldn't morality be an evolutionary trait?[/QUOTE] It is, but that there doesn't mean that there's a NATURAL LAW that dictates morality for every single creature. Human morality dies with the last human.

Kinda sad that when this guy says something racist and bigoted he gets to keep his job on tv but when Jeremy Clarkson goes on a rant and hits someone off camera he gets fired.

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;47411878]Kinda sad that when this guy says something racist and bigoted he gets to keep his job on tv but when Jeremy Clarkson goes on a rant and hits someone off camera he gets fired.[/QUOTE] to be fair, this isn't the first time and he WAS kicked off temporally. the whole clarkson thing was over many, many fights and i'm assuming if this guy keeps it up the show is gonna go down the same track (assuming the cash cow starts to show it's age, judging by how it was run i'm gonna guess top gear, while one of the best shows on the BBC loved by millions, wasn't making as much money as say, doctor who)

I can't help but feel that he brings up the rape of one's daughters, the beheading of one's wife, and the removal of one's penis because they're all likely things that have been done in the Bible. Seriously, if anyone knows their verses they can probably cite examples of all of those things. :v: Actually, fuck, fire up the Google. [quote]Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)[/quote] [quote]"This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel," - 1 Samuel 17:46[/quote] [quote]Judith 13:2-11 They were all overcharged with wine ... But Holofernes lay on his bed, fast asleep, being exceedingly drunk. ... Judith stood before the bed praying ... Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel ... that I may bring to pass ... that it might be done by thee ... When she had said this, she ... loosed his sword ... And ... she took him by the hair of his head, and said: Strengthen me, O Lord ... And she struck twice upon his neck, and cut off his head ... And after a while she went out, and delivered the head of Holofernes to her maid, and bade her put it into her wallet. [/quote] [quote]Deuteronomy 23:1 - He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.[/quote] Haven't found anything about women specifically being beheaded, so +1 originality points for Robertson on that one. Actually, scratch that, there was a verse that said that the non-virgin women should be slaughtered during one of the Isreali's sieges, so I'm going to have to deduct half a point.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47409941]Animals as much as they rely on social mechanisms are not following innate moralities by doing so, they understand at some level the best method for them to maintain and survive is to help each other. But even then, you have animals who often differ from this.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry to keep stirring the discussion, but aren't social mechanisms the basis/root of morality? Morality does greatly vary by culture, but it's telling that all human cultures---even isolated ones---have codes of morality. I think of the experiment where a bonobo was given a pile of treats. Instead of hording them, he shared it with the other bonobo who he'd never before interacted with. When distilled down, morals are ultimately just social mechanisms. They doesn't devalue them, or make them something only advanced human cultures can achieve.

[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;47413645]I'm sorry to keep stirring the discussion, but aren't social mechanisms the basis/root of morality? Morality does greatly vary by culture, but it's telling that all human cultures---even isolated ones---have codes of morality. I think of the experiment where a bonobo was given a pile of treats. Instead of hording them, he shared it with the other bonobo who he'd never before interacted with. When distilled down, morals are ultimately just social mechanisms. They doesn't devalue them, or make them something only advanced human cultures can achieve.[/QUOTE] My point is that you cannot point to a "Law of morality" in nature. Sure, you can find a million examples of animals functioning in societies together using what we could and probably would call "Morals" but you can just as easily find a million examples of them ignoring so called "Morality" and acting in their own interest. Morality is a social construct. That's all it is. It's not real. It's not a thing you can find or define, it's a concept at best and we build upon that as intelligent creatures. Sure, the actions of animals can be construed as "moral" but I don't think that's in defense of "morality" as an extension of reality. The only thing it's "telling" us is that we're hard wired at some level to obey social constructs because we survive better that way.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47413737]My point is that you cannot point to a "Law of morality" in nature. Sure, you can find a million examples of animals functioning in societies together using what we could and probably would call "Morals" but you can just as easily find a million examples of them ignoring so called "Morality" and acting in their own interest. Morality is a social construct. That's all it is. It's not real. It's not a thing you can find or define, it's a concept at best and we build upon that as intelligent creatures. Sure, the actions of animals can be construed as "moral" but I don't think that's in defense of "morality" as an extension of reality. The only thing it's "telling" us is that we're hard wired at some level to obey social constructs because we survive better that way.[/QUOTE] What I'm trying to get at is "morality" is instinctual, and that morality is indeed just a fancy name for social mechanisms. It seems we agree on that point. Before, I was falling under that impression that you didn't believe things like empathy are instinctual. Obviously many human cultures clash on moral values. I agree there's no ultimate moral code. Just in this thread, if we go back in time it was once acceptable to rape your enemy and stone adulterers to death.