I can't trust "fundies", can you?

**iolo** · 21st June 2012, 10:00 AM

I think you can only judge people by your own reactions. If I started telling people that a concept named God somehow dictated a whole series of apparently contradictory texts at various times to various people so that as mis-copied and mis-translated they would, thousands of years later, be absolutely true I'd be a cynical lying scoundrel, or a brainwashed idiot, and anyone who trusted me would some sort of Dostoievskian Christian or a halfwit. How exactly are these persons different from me? Are they brighter? Do they have some special revalation? I think not. Why then should I trust them?

**ironeagle** · 21st June 2012, 12:59 PM

Quote by: xx_mortekai_xx

Thanks for displaying your massive ignorance, but I have to say that it is really ugly in this light.

If you feel it justified to trust someone who gets their values from a 2000 year old book of murder, genocide, rape, and torture, you be my guest. Ill stay away from war crimes and those who think they are somehow good.

Oh, and why would you assume that someone who doesnt believe would have no morals? Where in your ass, exactly, did you pull that gem from?

The majority of your argument is just commentary. What does it matter if the fundies morals come from 2000 y/o book or if it comes from a two-day old pamphlet? I do not pressume non fundies have no morals but I could definatley assume that and be correct. Also prey tell if the non-fundies have morals, then where do they come from? Is it a 2000 y/o concept or perhaps a concept over 10,000 years old, or did they get it from a government pamphlet, or did it come from their mom or dad. What's the difference? I would rather bet my money on the consistency of the moral beliefs of fundies than with radicals who change their morals at a whim often with little to no real reason. Trust is about guessing what a person will or won't do, about being able to feel confident and comfortable with them. So clearly if you are uncomfortable with anyone who believes in God you probably won't trust them, in opposition I don't trust a perosn who has no set of morals whom will likley change their morals at anytime to suit themseles.

**ironeagle** · 21st June 2012, 01:00 PM

Quote by: Jack

It doesn't seem to me that judging a person by whether or not they have imaginary friends is a very good indicator of character.

Exactly! So why is it ok to judge the ones who do as you say "have imaginary friends"?

**xx_mortekai_xx** · 21st June 2012, 02:12 PM

Quote by: ironeagle

The majority of your argument is just commentary. What does it matter if the fundies morals come from 2000 y/o book or if it comes from a two-day old pamphlet? I do not pressume non fundies have no morals but I could definatley assume that and be correct. Also prey tell if the non-fundies have morals, then where do they come from? Is it a 2000 y/o concept or perhaps a concept over 10,000 years old, or did they get it from a government pamphlet, or did it come from their mom or dad. What's the difference? I would rather bet my money on the consistency of the moral beliefs of fundies than with radicals who change their morals at a whim often with little to no real reason. Trust is about guessing what a person will or won't do, about being able to feel confident and comfortable with them. So clearly if you are uncomfortable with anyone who believes in God you probably won't trust them, in opposition I don't trust a perosn who has no set of morals whom will likley change their morals at anytime to suit themseles.

the point wasnt the age, but the fact that it was created by people with the moral and scientific understanding of the time shows through. And the fact that so many believers take the stories of the bible as moral guides makes me nervous, given the specific moral rules that the book defines.

My trust has nothing to do with god belief. It has to do with whether or not I judge the person to have the capacity to analyse a situation and respond in a way that is appropriate. it is not appropriate to tell people to set aside their intelligence in order to understand the moral horror that is the bible. its just not.

The point of the thread was about religious fundies, however, and that is what I responded to.

And yes, my morals are not fixed, because situations are not fixed. it is wrong to kill, EXCEPT if that person is trying to harm or kill you, or your family. It is generally wrong to steal, except if you there is a demonstrable need.

The morals of most fundies, in contrast, are very fixed. God says do not kill. No except, no unless. Just dont kill. Then he commands people to kill, and for dumb fucking reasons, like they dont worship the same god. How is that a moral guide?

I simply cannot trust someone who takes their morals from such a schizophrenic source.

**xx_mortekai_xx** · 21st June 2012, 02:14 PM

Quote by: ironeagle

Exactly! So why is it ok to judge the ones who do as you say "have imaginary friends"?

he said whether or not. As in judging someone's trustability on that singular characteristic is not a good idea.

and its not the belief we judge. its the claims that the characters are real, or that certain events happened, which have not been supported with actual evidence. Believe whatever the hell you want. But if you are going to make claims about those or based on those beliefs, we are well within rights to judge the claims.

**Questatement** · 21st June 2012, 03:59 PM

Quote by: xx_mortekai_xx

The morals of most fundies, in contrast, are very fixed. God says do not kill. No except, no unless. Just dont kill. Then he commands people to kill, and for dumb fucking reasons, like they dont worship the same god. How is that a moral guide?

The command that I believe you are referring to is 'Do not murder,' not 'kill' which, even if the word kill were used among the 10 laws written on stone, in context of the entire law, any thinking person would come to understand it as murder as it is understood today.

Do you realize that all you offer this site is one false assumption after another that you are unwilling to debate on any intelligent level?

It's no wonder that your posts are usually so easy for me to ignore.

**xx_mortekai_xx** · 21st June 2012, 04:06 PM

Quote by: Questatement

The command that I believe you are referring to is 'Do not murder,' not 'kill' which, even if the word kill were used among the 10 laws written on stone, in context of the entire law, any thinking person would come to understand it as murder as it is understood today.

Do you realize that all you offer this site is one false assumption after another that you are unwilling to debate on any intelligent level?

It's no wonder that your posts are usually so easy for me to ignore.

yeah, its not murder when god tells you to do it, regardless of the reason, huh?

Murder in the name of god glorifies him, aparantly. I mean, god IS a big fan of death and killing people. (if i remember right, his body count is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million, and that doesnt count major incidences to which there are no specific numbers, like the flooding of the entire world. Conversely, satan is responsible for something like 10. And those could even be traced to god, since god gave his explicit permission for satan to kill those people)

**Questatement** · 21st June 2012, 04:24 PM

Quote by: xx_mortekai_xx

yeah, its not murder when god tells you to do it, regardless of the reason, huh?

The reason always matters. In fact, that is what separates murder from the dozen or so other words we use depending on the context for taking human life.

Also, if you can not point to how the world would be a better place at any point in time (including the present) if God had not taken the human life how and when he did, you can not rightly claim the reasons were wrong.

I know that you believe there are times when taking human life is the higher good.

Quote by: xx_mortekai_xx

.. it is wrong to kill, EXCEPT if that person is trying to harm or kill you, or your family.

**xx_mortekai_xx** · 21st June 2012, 04:35 PM

Quote by: Questatement

The reason always matters. In fact, that is what separates murder from the dozen or so other words we use depending on the context for taking human life.

Also, if you can not point to how the world would be a better place at any point in time (including the present) if God had not taken the human life how and when he did, you can not rightly claim the reasons were wrong.

I know that you believe there are times when taking human life is the higher good.

Yeah, because I derive my morals from me and my thoughts on the actual situations.

But your example presupposes that god's reasons were moral or just (like that is a goddamn shocker). But murder for worshipping other gods isnt moral or just. Neither is killing 70,000 people for someone taking a census. And allowing another god to fuck with the life of a person simply to win a fucking bet is just monsterous.

I guess i can safely assume you havent changed your monster god lens yet, given your continued defense of atrocity.

**Questatement** · 21st June 2012, 04:41 PM

Quote by: xx_mortekai_xx

Yeah, because I derive my morals from me and my thoughts on the actual situations.

But your example presupposes that god's reasons were moral or just (like that is a goddamn shocker). But murder for worshipping other gods isnt moral or just. Neither is killing 70,000 people for someone taking a census. And allowing another god to fuck with the life of a person simply to win a fucking bet is just monsterous.

More abbreviated, false assumptions (like that is a scientific method damn shocker).

Is that all you really have to offer up for 'arguments'?

You do realize that I could simply reword what you stated with the same brevity and to mean the opposite of your intent? Where do you really think that would get us?