The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[hindy111]

BTW Pou if you have an answer for that I don't want too know.I was being a smart ass.

 

[The Phelan Folly]

Jeezus you can talk out of your arse some, Pou. You think religion predates law? Spose it depends on your definition of "law". Not f**king your sister or not killing your mother in law would have been basic guidelines for anyone way long before moses popped his head up. Indeed, like a lot of religious practice, its highly likely that even Moses' decrees had their root in what would be best described as Lore.
Even morality itself has no hard set rules. Essentially it is doing what is best. You could argue that infanticide or oldfogycide were morally acceptable practices to pre- religion peoples if they increased the chance of a tribe, or whatever, surviving a lean season or 2.
As it is, law and morality have evolved to the extent that pasty merkins like yourself are free to pontificate endlessly on the interweb free from reprisal.

 

[hindy111]

I think Religion would of been hear since mankind.Since the first one there would of been an idea of what happens when you die, which is a form of religion.Even if they worshipped the sun which is probably how it all started. So I agree with Pou on a technicality.Im not sure why im getting involved in this thou.And BTW I reckon the hicken come first.If it was the egg who fertilized it without a rooster?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The Armstrong and Miller show had a documentary section about the life of pre-historic humans and their mammoth hunting activities. From what I can remember, they seemed to have rules about who got to eat the fillet and who got the hoof in episode one, and it was only in episode 4 that they recognised that the sun-god made it easier to see the mammoths. That's about as strong a proof as we are going to get.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytgDuV0qOBI

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Jeezus you can talk out of your arse some, Pou. You think religion predates law? Spose it depends on your definition of "law". Not f**king your sister or not killing your mother in law would have been basic guidelines for anyone way long before moses popped his head up. Indeed, like a lot of religious practice, its highly likely that even Moses' decrees had their root in what would be best described as Lore.

You think there was no religion before Moses? f**king wow.

Even morality itself has no hard set rules. Essentially it is doing what is best. You could argue that infanticide or oldfogycide were morally acceptable practices to pre- religion peoples

Who are these pre-religion people you're talking about? Do you mean pre-Judaism?

if they increased the chance of a tribe, or whatever, surviving a lean season or 2.

Who would argue otherwise? These practices are still morally acceptable in parts of the world. Though instead of leaving them out for the wolves or the cold they are generally 'apprenticed' to paedophiles. That is true for the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, South America, and wherever you have the Catholic Church.

As it is, law and morality have evolved to the extent that pasty merkins like yourself are free to pontificate endlessly on the interweb free from reprisal.

I dunno if we're that free from reprisal mate.

 

[phantom eel]

I already refuted that point when I quoted from the holy books of three of the world's most relevant religions.

Not at all. I said killing predates religion, not that the laws against it predate religion.

Wrong again. See above.

Thanks, I'll just refer to what you actually posted in #1602... not your revisionist history since. (Talk about going around in circles and sprinkling shit :lol:.)

Then it looks like we don't share the same definition of religion. I dare say your definition is narrow to the point of being a straw man. If you believe that religion is man made (as I do) then why would you believe that the old religions (traditional systems of irrational belief) have been replaced with anything other than new religions (modern systems of irrational belief)? Even Christianity and Islam don't look like they did a thousand years ago. Hell, the atheism of 1950 bears little resemblance to the atheism of 2014.

You've just been itching to use that word, "strawman". Pity it doesn't apply to what I posted. All beliefs aren't necessarily religions, however by your definition it appears that you think they must be? Talk about a truism!

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning - that's not religion for me, nor was it for people existing before modern/evangelistic religions...

So in what ways do atheists disagree? If they've been freed from religious morality (as I assume you believe you have been) then surely there is only one logical conclusion to any moral question.

What a nonsense assumption! Why must there be one universal truth/conclusion to any questions? Surely every (freed) person's worldview would be based on their own individual experiences and influences... resulting in a range of different "answers" to any question.

Again, what personal biases/religious beliefs are making you assume there must be just one "atheist" view, despite the very definition of atheism indicating that people don't subscribe to a group think religion?

I think it's clear that we have a different definition of religion. We are on the verge of arguing past each other.

I think you argue "past" every person on this forum - that's part of the problem with your "logic" :lol:. Also no answer as to the personal biases that inform your point of view I see. Silence speaks volumes...

Religion is part of everyone's history. Nobody is untouched by it. This is why Western atheists differ from Chinese atheists who differ from Russian atheists.

If you define religion as broadly as you do, then you statement becomes a truism - and therefore a useless aspect of any discussion.

There's that 'sprinkler effect' you were talking about.

No, I think your posts have that well covered. With all that fertiliser flying around, at least it will be a good crop this year!

 

[lingard]

What are you on about? Killing predates all laws against it but that doesn't contradict my point that law came from religion. Religion predates law as well. Then for a long time they were the same thing.



There is no 'broader morality'. Do you think all atheists have the same morals?



I suppose we could answer that if there ever was a person whose morality developed in a historical vacuum.

Not all atheists have the same morals, just as not all religions have the same morals. Nevertheless, most atheists do have morals - just as most religious people have morals. This is a side issue, though. I still maintain that killing in today's world has nothing to do with the tenets or teachings of religion. It has all to do with political agendas and psychopaths who jump on the band wagon. These same people (e.g: ISIS) who profess to be ardent followers of their religion, also rape women and children. Is this part of their religion, too?

 

[lingard]

My logic as stated here says nothing about which came first. I merely said I believe religion came first. As it developed to suit increasingly complex societies it was then co-opted to enforce the law that necessarily emerged with those societies.

As for why I believe religion came first, it's because it arose as a means of explaining the world, long before there was a need for any law beyond might-makes-right.If you believe rule by the strong is a legal code then you're right andI have contradicted myself. You win. Good work champ.



No. See above.



So do I. See above.

It's over, then. Now can we go back to talking about football?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It's the offseason thread Lingard. Take that football shit out of here.

 

[strider]

lingard - you are an utter failure posting here .... you have only one quote .... don't you know you must pull apart two or three posts into about 7 or 8 quotes and respond to each bit separately ... ffs mate

 

[lingard]

FFS use argue about the most stupid thing. Bring on the footy...
Ok what came first the chicken or the egg? Who cares.

Actually, Hindy, I care. I care very deeply. For whosoever eateth the chicken before he eats the egg shall not partake of the pudding afterwards. (My dad 1: 13)

 

[lingard]

lingard - you are an utter failure posting here .... you have only one quote .... don't you know you must pull apart two or three posts into about 7 or 8 quotes and respond to each bit separately ... ffs mate

Believe me, I'm itching to do that. I dream of dissecting someone's posts and commenting on individual quotes. Why, if I could do that, imagine the power I'd have! HA HA HA !!!

Unfortunately, I'm ashamed to admit I don't know how. Ah, well.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Thanks, I'll just refer to what you actually posted in #1602... not your revisionist history since. (Talk about going around in circles and sprinkling shit :lol:.)

So why not post what I said? Here it is:

Killing has everything to do with religion. Religion is where laws first came from. Do you think killing has nothing to do with the law?

The Quran and the Torah both say killing is wrong EXCEPT where it is used to punish a crime. And what greater crime is there than being an infidel? The ancient Hebrews and Muslims both killed their enemies (i.e. rival civilisations) in war, as man has done since long before religion.

So there you go. Killing is wrong, except when it's right.

If you're going to be dishonest, bart, you might do well not to accuse others of the same.

You've just been itching to use that word, "strawman".

Because that's how you roll, regardless of which username you're currently going by. If the shoe fits...

Pity it doesn't apply to what I posted. All beliefs aren't necessarily religions, however by your definition it appears that you think they must be? Talk about a truism!

I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning - that's not religion for me, nor was it for people existing before modern/evangelistic religions...

So at what point does it become a religion, in your opinion?

What a nonsense assumption! Why must there be one universal truth/conclusion to any questions? Surely every (freed) person's worldview would be based on their own individual experiences and influences... resulting in a range of different "answers" to any question.

So who should get to decide the laws, in your opinion? And what should you, Phantom/bartman, do if you personally disagree with those laws (assuming you don't think you're the one who should decide the laws, or is that also a nonsense assumption?)

What happens when conflicting moralities butt up against each other? Who should concede, in your opinion?

What good is a moral code if the people you coexist with don't share it?

Again, what personal biases/religious beliefs are making you assume there must be just one "atheist" view, despite the very definition of atheism indicating that people don't subscribe to a group think religion?

I said there isn't just one atheist view. That's my point.

I think you argue "past" every person on this forum

No, just the ones who make too many assumptions. As you continually do. As we know, assumptions are key to any successful strawman.

- that's part of the problem with your "logic" :lol:. Also no answer as to the personal biases that inform your point of view I see. Silence speaks volumes...

My personal biases are the same as yours - personal experience. Unless you can be more specific with your questions I will just assume you are trying to establish yet another strawman. And you know I won't play that game with you.

If you define religion as broadly as you do, then you statement becomes a truism - and therefore a useless aspect of any discussion.

You could say the term itself - 'religion' - is likewise useless in discussion. It means what people want it to mean. Like other emotive terms such as justice, democracy, fairness, etc.

No, I think your posts have that well covered. With all that fertiliser flying around, at least it will be a good crop this year!

No you are. :roll:

 

[hindy111]

Not all atheists have the same morals, just as not all religions have the same morals. Nevertheless, most atheists do have morals - just as most religious people have morals. This is a side issue, though. I still maintain that killing in today's world has nothing to do with the tenets or teachings of religion. It has all to do with political agendas and psychopaths who jump on the band wagon. These same people (e.g: ISIS) who profess to be ardent followers of their religion, also rape women and children. Is this part of their religion, too?

Poverty-Poor schooling-People with nothing to lose don't care. And also Media has a lot to do with it.Just look at drugs and sex.You show it on TV it desensitizes it and I guess makes it not so bad in some peoples mind.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Not all atheists have the same morals, just as not all religions have the same morals. Nevertheless, most atheists do have morals - just as most religious people have morals. This is a side issue, though. I still maintain that killing in today's world has nothing to do with the tenets or teachings of religion. It has all to do with political agendas and psychopaths who jump on the band wagon. These same people (e.g: ISIS) who profess to be ardent followers of their religion, also rape women and children. Is this part of their religion, too?

I'm sure it provides justification for those acts. For starters they are allowed to marry children. I assume they're allowed to f**k their 'wives' no matter how young they are.

 

[yy_cheng]

Chicken came first. It evolved from something out of the ocean

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's over, then. Now can we go back to talking about football?

It's the off season thread. Maybe you could resurrect one of the footy related ones or even start your own.

 

[strider]

Chicken came first. It evolved from something out of the ocean

but maybe it was born from an egg that something in the ocean layed :-k

 

[strider]

Believe me, I'm itching to do that. I dream of dissecting someone's posts and commenting on individual quotes. Why, if I could do that, imagine the power I'd have! HA HA HA !!!

Unfortunately, I'm ashamed to admit I don't know how. Ah, well.

alot of copy n paste

 

[Poupou Escobar]

alot of copy n paste

No you just break up the quoted post with square-bracket-slash-quote-close-bracket then your own bullshit followed by square-bracket-quote-close-bracket.

No need to thank me. I will receive my reward in heaven.