What makes an atheist so scary

[ethical.atheist]

If we don't stand up for morality, who will?

It isn't the law's job to decide morality. The law's job is to ensure that people cannot interfere with the freedoms of others. (Or at least limit such things as much as possible)

You may be able to argue that things like homosexual marriage is immoral, but there is no basis for such things being illegal.

Sex with minors is illegal not because it is immoral, but because it limits the freedom of the young who are not yet judged able to take responsibility for themselves. It is illegal because those who take advantage of a minor are limiting their ability to pursue happiness.

---

Oh and please don't try to argue something like, "Well aren't we taking away the freedom of the man who wants to sleep with a boy?" The law is not intended to protect the "freedom" to impose upon others.

[undone]

If we don't stand up for morality, who will?

It isn't the law's job to decide morality. The law's job is to ensure that people cannot interfere with the freedoms of others. (Or at least limit such things as much as possible)

Who makes the laws?

[ethical.atheist]

If we don't stand up for morality, who will?

It isn't the law's job to decide morality. The law's job is to ensure that people cannot interfere with the freedoms of others. (Or at least limit such things as much as possible)

Who makes the laws?

Um... well, in my country, elected officials do.

But the place that laws have in society has been around long before the recognition of Abraham's god (the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam). The philosophy of law was pretty solid by the time Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were piecing together my countries constitution. The idea is that laws are intend to help the people be free, but limit them only when one freedom limits the freedom of another.

Laws are based off of the idea of being able to practice one's religion (or lack of) and for anyone to have their own moral values so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Makes sense right?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

EA;

Sex with minors is illegal not because it is immoral

Okay this statement scares me a little. It is illegal precisely because it is immoral and reprehensible. There is no excuse for it including Liberty. Liberty does not give one the Freedom to shout, "Fire" in a movie theater. plus there are limits on all manner of Liberty. To include Free Speech.

The idea is that laws are intend to help the people be free, but limit them only when one freedom limits the freedom of another.

So doesn't man boy love limit the Freedom of the minor?

and for anyone to have their own moral values so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So how do you determine if someones morals are not hurting someone else?

Homosexuality has repercussions far beyond the two partcipants and in some cases may harm and even limit someone elses Freedom.

Peace,

Dave

[ethical.atheist]

Liberty does not give one the Freedom to shout, "Fire" in a movie theater. plus there are limits on all manner of Liberty. To include Free Speech.

Free speech does not reach into public establishments or to the limits of harassment. Since movie theaters are owned by private individuals (or corporate entities) they can throw you out if they don't like how you look. They need to reason to remove you.

The idea is that laws are intend to help the people be free, but limit them only when one freedom limits the freedom of another.

So doesn't man boy love limit the Freedom of the minor?

Not necessarily. There is empirical evidence to show that that the sexual activities of minors is detrimental to their development and psychological state. Even if the minor desired the sexual activity, they are protected (prohibited) from it. This is for the same reason that minors are not allowed to consume alcohol or smoke tobacco. Because they are deemed to not be capable of the level of responsibility to make such decisions, they are prohibited from making them until they are responsible enough.

and for anyone to have their own moral values so long as they don't hurt anyone else.

So how do you determine if someones morals are not hurting someone else?

...um... the morals of an individual don't hurt anyone. It is the actions. I'm sorry I should have stated that more specifically.

Homosexuality has repercussions far beyond the two partcipants and in some cases may harm and even limit someone elses Freedom.

I disagree, but I would love to see what evidence you have of this.

Edited December 1, 2006 by ethical.atheist

[eric]

If we don't stand up for morality, who will?

It isn't the law's job to decide morality. The law's job is to ensure that people cannot interfere with the freedoms of others. (Or at least limit such things as much as possible)

Who makes the laws?

Um... well, in my country, elected officials do.

But the place that laws have in society has been around long before the recognition of Abraham's god (the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam). The philosophy of law was pretty solid by the time Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were piecing together my countries constitution. The idea is that laws are intend to help the people be free, but limit them only when one freedom limits the freedom of another.

Laws are based off of the idea of being able to practice one's religion (or lack of) and for anyone to have their own moral values so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Makes sense right?

WRONG. Sure people are allowed to have their own moral standards, whether legal or illegal as long as they dont put them into practice, because when you do, someone is going to be hurt and we expect our law makers to prevent it.

[ethical.atheist]

WRONG. Sure people are allowed to have their own moral standards, whether legal or illegal as long as they dont put them into practice, because when you do, someone is going to be hurt and we expect our law makers to prevent it.

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying in my message.

Let me help with an example. I find it immoral to smoke or otherwise treat your body in such a way. ...but I do not expect to remove the freedom of others to do so.

If someone smokes in privacy (as to not share the harmful effect of smoke with others) they should have every right to do so.

So... I have a question. Which group's moral standards should the law enforce, and which one's should not be protected?

[...]someone is going to be hurt [...]

Or that was a threat.

[edit] arg! I can't spell.

Edited December 1, 2006 by ethical.atheist

[ted]

ethical.atheist:

I apologize. I had forgotten that nonbelievers cannot use the PM system. I said that I would not mention NAMBLA any longer because I thought that it may have distracted from the Original Poster's intent of the thread. Then, I noticed that you are the original poster of this thread!

Sorry man, I just didn't want the thread to steer away from what the OP wanted to accomplish in the thread, not realizing that you were the OP in the first place. If you would like to continue the discussion about NAMBLA, I'd be more than happy to. It's your thread, therefore your call.

Now, with some responses to various quotes I found interesting.......

Um... well, in my country, elected officials do.

But the place that laws have in society has been around long before the recognition of Abraham's god (the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam). The philosophy of law was pretty solid by the time Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were piecing together my countries constitution.

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you know that people recognized "Abraham's God" well before Jefferson and Madison were putting together the pieces of our Constitution, right?

I mean, Abraham's God has been recognized since, well, since the time of Abraham......which, if my memory if correct, was a few years before Jefferson and Madison's time.

Ted, this whole thing about nambla is nothing short of a strawman. You and I both know that regardless of this groups existence or lobbying no law will ever be passed to allow adults to have sex with minors, let alone homosexual sex. Stop being ridiculous by using this argument as if it were valid. and stop using it in a discussion about atheists. Thank you.

Godless,

While I was the one who first brought mention of the group into this thread, it was ethical.atheist who first raised the notion that they should have the right to address laws in the country and be able to argue to change those laws if they so desired. My response to that followed the line of thought and I stated my opinion of what I thought about the possibility of them having the right to argument with the intent to change laws in their favor. That was the context of the discussion. Yes, it was a hypothetical situation that we were discussing, but the thought did not come from me, just the response to the thought.

So, if the "straw man" was born, it was ethical.atheist who raised him, not me. All I tried to do was burn him down.

Nice try, though.

Anyway, to all:

All of this talk about morality and freedoms means nothing if we don't have the common sense to apply the law designed to protect each other from nasty little things like child pornography and the rape of little boys. I mean, where's the justification in saying that they have the "right" to pursue the concept of argument for their position?

Is smoking bad for you and harmful to others nearby? Sure, but it has nothing in common with the rape of innocent children. Anyone who argues that ideas like having sex with little boys or the retaining the "right" to argue their points in favor of over turning laws designed to protect children form the activity are subjective and should be open to the possibility of debate are, quite frankly, off their rocker.

It is people like this who should have their rights of a public forum stripped. Behavior such as sexual activity with under aged boys (or girls) needs to be stopped. The people who engage in this activity do not deserve to have the ability to engage in public debate about laws designed to stop them.

Is that such a bad concept?

Where does it stop and just which activities should be subject to this treatment? Well, I'm not exactly sure, to tell you the truth. But, I know it should begin with child molestation, that's for sure. If anyone can't see at least that much, they need their heads checked. Sorry, but this ain't rocket science, nor is it debate concerning evolution and creation where their are things not known in each subject, thereby leaving the door open for the possibility of someone being wrong in the matter.

We are talking about the rape of the innocents. It's real, it's a problem, and it should be such an obvious concept that anyone can see without having to be told.

Any Government that guarantees the rights bestowed upon us by our Creator should have the common sense to reject the rights of people who wish to argue that child molestation is ok.

Anyway, if you really want me to build up a straw man, then have a seat and check this one out......

Imagine your child's behavior changing drastically over the course of a few months. Imagine his grades slipping, his smile hidden, and his demeanor sinking with each passing day. Imagine sitting him down one day and letting him know that you've noticed a change in him and asking if you could help.

Now, imagine that he breaks down and cries out for close to an hour before he can compose himself long enough to tell you that he was molested by the guy who lives three doors down from you some months ago.

Now, tell me what your next action would be to go down to the guy and let him know that, even though you do not agree with his actions, you still support his right to his feelings and thoughts and that you support his right to try to change the laws that hold him back from his freedom.

Ah, but I failed. I tried to create a straw man but instead described a scene which happens thousands of times a day, every day, in all areas of this country.

So, go ahead and tell me that you would act the way you do in this thread- that you would stand up for this "straw man" molester's rights of freedom and the pursuit of his individual happiness.

If anyone here can do that, then you have no concept of law, morality, or what either one stands for.

And this, my friends, has no bearing on whether or not one believes in God or not.

t.

[ethical.atheist]

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you know that people recognized "Abraham's God" well before Jefferson and Madison were putting together the pieces of our Constitution, right?

I mean, Abraham's God has been recognized since, well, since the time of Abraham......which, if my memory if correct, was a few years before Jefferson and Madison's time.

Oh.. of course I realize this. In fact, Madison was very influenced by christianity... He was influenced to go to great lengths to make sure that no religion had power over the government or the people it governed. Christianity was his focus since the tyranny of Christian theocracies were what he and Jefferson were most familiar with.

I'm sorry I should have pointed out that I was pointing at the 1st amendment. You know... all of that "not respecting any establishment of religion" thing.

[...]

I don't think that the majority of Christians find either atheists, nor their "potential" to ruin society as something to be feared.

[...]

To that extent, I can share some of my own fears:

1. [...]

2. Groups like NAMBLA will become "legitimate" in the eyes of society and they will be able to gain a foothold with their views to the extent where I become legally prohibited from protecting my son against their agenda.

I snipped it up a bit to save space. I encourage any reader to read this original post in context. It is on page 13.

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...0637&st=120

So you think that if atheists have control of society, groups like NAMBLA will then become legitimate? I'm not sure what else I could gather from this. If I have misinterpreted, please explain what you did mean.

And... I'm pretty sure I have been trying to negate NAMBLA from the realm of "atheism's evils."

By the way... what does this [NAMBLA] have to do with Atheism? I forgot.

Is smoking bad for you and harmful to others nearby? Sure, but it has nothing in common with the rape of innocent children. Anyone who argues that ideas like having sex with little boys or the retaining the "right" to argue their points in favor of over turning laws designed to protect children form the activity are subjective and should be open to the possibility of debate are, quite frankly, off their rocker.

How many times have I said this now? Laws are in place to prevent harm and the limiting of freedom. Child pornography and rape limit the freedom of children. I'm not ready to debate that this should be changed, but in this country, people have the right to their opinions no matter how poorly founded, cruel or moronic.

It is people like this who should have their rights of a public forum stripped.

Wow. You should try a theocracy. See, here in democracy, we try to discourage tyranny.

It is that whole telling the populous what to think that is so dangerous.

Behavior such as sexual activity with under aged boys (or girls) needs to be stopped.

Not a single poster has disagreed with you.

We are talking about the rape of the innocents.

I was talking about freedom of speech.

Imagine your child's behavior changing drastically over the course of a few months. Imagine his grades slipping, his smile hidden, and his demeanor sinking with each passing day. Imagine sitting him down one day and letting him know that you've noticed a change in him and asking if you could help.

Now, imagine that he breaks down and cries out for close to an hour before he can compose himself long enough to tell you that he was molested by the guy who lives three doors down from you some months ago.

Now, tell me what your next action would be to go down to the guy and let him know that, even though you do not agree with his actions, you still support his right to his feelings and thoughts and that you support his right to try to change the laws that hold him back from his freedom.

His lack of a right to break the law is very different from his right to protest the law. Where do you get this stuff?

And this, my friends, has no bearing on whether or not one believes in God or not.

Yay! Can we all agree on this? ...and move the freedom of speech thing to another post along with the nambla stuff. Plz send message to Mod.

Edited December 2, 2006 by ethical.atheist

[ted]

This is what you said.....

Um... well, in my country, elected officials do.

But the place that laws have in society has been around long before the recognition of Abraham's god (the God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam). The philosophy of law was pretty solid by the time Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were piecing together my countries constitution.

This is what I said.....

I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you know that people recognized "Abraham's God" well before Jefferson and Madison were putting together the pieces of our Constitution, right?

I mean, Abraham's God has been recognized since, well, since the time of Abraham......which, if my memory if correct, was a few years before Jefferson and Madison's time.

It was a joke, with me under a complete understanding that you meant something else entirely, and that you know that Abraham was well before these two gentlemen's time. However, I did miss the context of you meaning the 1st amendment.

BTW- you did forget to put the other part in, you know the whole "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

I snipped it up a bit to save space. I encourage any reader to read this original post in context. It is on page 13.

http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?show...0637&st=120

So you think that if atheists have control of society, groups like NAMBLA will then become legitimate? I'm not sure what else I could gather from this. If I have misinterpreted, please explain what you did mean.

And... I'm pretty sure I have been trying to negate NAMBLA from the realm of "atheism's evils."

Let's end this one once and for all. I'll post the parts you skipped so that the complete text is there in it's original context to avoid confusion....

QUOTE(ted @ Nov 25 2006, 10:32 AM) *

Atheists are not scary. smile.gif

t.

**************************************************************

Great! Why do you think that the majority of people find them frightening?

**************************************************************

I don't think that the majority of people (Christians, I assume is the notion) find them frightening.

I regards to the article that you posted, I basically think that it's a majority of the ones polled who may fear them, in the context of what they may or may not be doing to society as a whole.

In other words, I don't think that the majority of Christians find either atheists, nor their "potential" to ruin society as something to be feared. What I do see, however, are many stories in the news about some Christians who are concerned about the decline of what they feel to be religious-based morality within the world.[/b}

To that extent, I can share some of my own fears:

1. My 14 year old son will be subjected to a general wave of immorality while he is in school, without the means to state his positions without reprisal.

2. Groups like NAMBLA will become "legitimate" in the eyes of society and they will be able to gain a foothold with their views to the extent where I become legally prohibited from protecting my son against their agenda.

3. My views and beliefs, based on the Bible, becoming illegal in America.

The list goes on and on, but they are concerns based on the current trend of legal proceedings, not fears based on atheists becoming more powerful than God.

Some people just like the way things were, and have trouble connecting to what is going on today. That much, I guess, could be taken as "fear".

But true fear is something which I can no longer feel. God is in control, and in Him I put my trust.

Have a great night.

t.

Please notice the quotes of mine in bold, and especially the quote that is bold and in italics! This is key to why I wrote what I did concerning the group and to get the proper context of what I wrote what I did.

No, I did not say that if atheists have control of society, then groups like NAMBLA would become legitimate. What I said was this:

The list goes on and on, but they are concerns based on the current trend of legal proceedings, not fears based on atheists becoming more powerful than God.

See the difference? It's already happening in the courts today, and to me, it's a disturbing trend. It is also a fear of mine that this trend may worsen on it's own, whether or not atheists are "in control" of society. It was more a remark concerning my fears of a declining society in America, and wasn't meant to show a link between atheism and NAMBLA.

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, I do not imply a link between the two. Please go back and read several of my posts where I state as much.

So, the confusion, I think, stems from my failure to put a proper partition between where I was discussing the article you posted and where I started relaying some of my own personal fears. These fears, again, are not so much based on atheists or how scary they may or may not be, but from trends in how various court decisions seem to point to a decline in the moral standards which some people, including myself to an extent, feel is becoming more of a danger in the country. This trend, however real or perceived, was the focal point of my fears- not atheists or atheism.

Now, the "missing link" to all of this could lie within the sentence preceding my list. In it, which was a reference to the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, I tried to show how some Christians may feel that there is a decline in what they may feel is a religion-based moral standard of which the country was founded upon. The line preceding my list was in reference to that point, and thus it began.

How does it relate to atheism in general? Well, I was trying to show that some people may feel that atheism is what many people blame for the decline in what they feel are religious-based foundations and that it could be manifesting within the courts in the form of legal decisions. To that extent, I then shared what I feel are troubling trends or possible future ramifications of what a society in decline could turn to.

Are my fears justified? Well, like you said before, fears aren't always justified. But is it such a stretch to think that we could be heading down a slippery slope under the guise of "freedom"? Are we to honor all forms of freedom with no regard to public safety or how one's freedom of the pursuit of happiness could very well be detrimental to our society as a whole?

In fear #2, specifically, I was implying that I feared that groups like NAMBLA could possibly gain enough momentum within the courts and society just enough that a possible result would be that I would be legally prevented from stopping them from "sharing" their views in places like 5th grade school libraries, and other such locations. Let's say that I objected to a particular book that the library stocks which shows NAMBLA in a healthy, normal light. It's not a stretch to say that I would be powerless to stop that book from remaining in the school.

Fifty years ago, would it be likely to see a book praising the virtues of "My Two Daddies" in an elementary school library? Not hardly, but in such a short time, so much has changed, and books like that are turning up all over the place in schools designed to teach children. Now, can you guarantee that books designed to "raise awareness" concerning sex between adult men and little boys won't be placed in schools in the next 50 years?

What I am saying is that there are many people out there who are afraid that we will continue to decline as a society and any kind of measure designed to stop this decline will be met with opposition strong enough to allow us to slip far, far below what is prudent, moral, or in any sense of the word decent. It's happening today, and it's getting worse. If we don't begin to put safeguards and limitations up now which protect the already placed safeguards and limitations, we are heading for a great fall.

Many of these people who fear that society will continue fall deeper into depravity base their opinions and morals from what they get from their faith.

I am one of them.

That's the point I was trying to make, and that's why I brought up NAMBLA as an example.

Then, I thought that I was causing a distraction by bringing them up and felt like the thread was straying from it's original intention. After that, you implied that you wished to continue with that part of the discussion. Then, you post this:

Yay! Can we all agree on this? ...and move the freedom of speech thing to another post along with the nambla stuff. Plz send message to Mod.

Fine.

I'm tired of playing your games.

Once again, I will not post anything about this NAMBLA group in here. If you wish to discuss them, start another thread, but I'm not bringing them up in here any more after this post is completed.

Wow. You should try a theocracy. See, here in democracy, we try to discourage tyranny.

It is that whole telling the populous what to think that is so dangerous.

What did you mean by these statements?

Chances are, I've lived in this democracy much longer than you have. The chances are even better that I've done a whole lot more to protect this democracy than you have, as well.

But, anyway.....

Personally, I wouldn't like a Theocracy very much. A Theocracy would make it so I'd have to fall under the official religion of the nation. Given it's recent track record, I wouldn't trust even this country to get it right. So, I think I'll stick with this Democracy thing for a while- especially seeing as how it's so new to me and all.

Even then, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy by definition. But you knew that already, I'm assuming.

As far as telling the populous what to think, I don't think it matter that much any more, does it? Let them think what they want, but if they think that groups that advocate the rape of boys deserve to have a say in the world, I guess I'll just have to separate myself from the populous.

I'd love to see how you would protect the rights of someone standing in the street in front of your house, mumbling words like "I'm going to rape your son", or of someone who states that he only wants to work as a janitor in your local school so that he can eyeball the little girls in the shower room.

Let them have the freedom to speak of their desires, right? As long as they don't hurt anyone, things are just peachy.

I don't know what kind of argument you can post up against what I just said, but if you did, I'll have to assume that you are only doing so because you enjoy arguing.

No one could possibly claim to defend the idea that those people would have the right to do that stuff, could they?

Good day to you, sir. I'd love to stick around and debate these things and see how you try to make it a freedom of speech issue, but these things kinda make me ill.

As my dear friend suggested a while ago, freedom should never be used as a cover for evil.

Doing so would only serve to cheapen freedom in the first place.

Good bye.

t.