Argument for Love

General discussion on the subject of religion, losing religion, and having no religion to lose...
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:53 pm

I'm always looking for good ways to phrase an argument. It's easy to call people stupid or say that evolution is obviously true, but that only ends discussion. If that's your goal, fine. This interview is between two guys who used to be on the same team, but are not longer. If you don't know their stories, listen to the first half hour, the 2nd half hour has some development of the discussion, but the meat of it is in the "third half of the show" (as Click and Clack used to say). It's obvious once you think about, but to me, that's the mark of a good argument.

Here's the show, Unbelievable? on UK Christian radio

If you haven't heard the show, the interviewer is a Christian, but he brings in all the big atheist names and lets them tell their story. To get the full version of the argument, listen to at least the last half hour, but here is Bart's final statement, responding to Sean's insistence that morality has to come from a source, which must be God/Jesus and Bart has taken his values from Christianity and just given them a secular explanation.
“What you said was lovely, and my only response would be that I think that you are right my humanism borrows a great deal from my Xtian experience and Xtianity itself. Now, what I would say is, Christianity itself emerged out of something much deeper which is the human experience of life itself. So, what I would say is, that all the values that brought me into Christianity, the reason I was attracted to Christianity was because it was a great reflection of love, and love is natural.”
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4467
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Argument for Love

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:58 pm

so is hate...
...and farting.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Argument for Love

Post by landrew » Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:47 pm

You can't debate with someone you don't respect. You can only fight with them and claim victory at every turn.
Seems like the most pointless pastime I can imagine.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 33794
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Gord » Fri Jul 20, 2018 12:11 am

I had a doctor once who tried to tell me that burping wasn't natural.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:20 am

landrew wrote:You can't debate with someone you don't respect. You can only fight with them and claim victory at every turn.
Seems like the most pointless pastime I can imagine.
Trying to get along with our neighbors is pointless?
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:23 am

ElectricMonk wrote:so is hate...
...and farting.
McDowell said something similar. The point is we have evolved to do things that promote better societies. This is not a naturalistic fallacy. Data shows a more caring and cooperative group will produce healthier people.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Aztexan » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:39 am

Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:You can't debate with someone you don't respect. You can only fight with them and claim victory at every turn.
Seems like the most pointless pastime I can imagine.
Trying to get along with our neighbors is pointless?
It depends on which neighbor it is. Let's face it: some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it anymore than you men.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:08 pm

Aztexan wrote:
Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:You can't debate with someone you don't respect. You can only fight with them and claim victory at every turn.
Seems like the most pointless pastime I can imagine.
Trying to get along with our neighbors is pointless?
It depends on which neighbor it is. Let's face it: some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it anymore than you men.
Quoting a torturous representative of an oppressive government is not a good way to make your case. I'm always amazed at how many people I meet who say people don't change when I'm in a group of people who left religion and have changed their worldview to be more compassionate and open minded.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Aztexan » Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:20 pm

My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8867
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Argument for Love

Post by landrew » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:16 pm

Lausten wrote:
Aztexan wrote:
Lausten wrote:
landrew wrote:You can't debate with someone you don't respect. You can only fight with them and claim victory at every turn.
Seems like the most pointless pastime I can imagine.
Trying to get along with our neighbors is pointless?
It depends on which neighbor it is. Let's face it: some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it anymore than you men.
Quoting a torturous representative of an oppressive government is not a good way to make your case. I'm always amazed at how many people I meet who say people don't change when I'm in a group of people who left religion and have changed their worldview to be more compassionate and open minded.
Tribal mentalities are locked in endless conflict or gridlock. Not very sapiens-like.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:57 pm

Aztexan wrote:My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.
Can you imagine what it was like talking to someone about slavery in America 180 years ago? There were well reasoned arguments against it coming out of Europe and making their way around the globe, but you would have said, "Too much trouble. Sorry slaves, I'm busy."
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Aztexan
King of the Limericks
King of the Limericks
Posts: 9249
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:39 pm

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Aztexan » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:04 pm

Instead of trying to talk to pro-slavery people, I would have have been actively doing something about it, trying to change it. At the very least, I would have been tweeting some pretty mean-spirited insults at Jeff Davis and Gen. Lee, I tell you what.
trump is Putin's bitch

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11593
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Argument for Love

Post by OlegTheBatty » Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:49 pm

Lausten wrote:
Aztexan wrote:My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.
Can you imagine what it was like talking to someone about slavery in America 180 years ago? There were well reasoned arguments against it coming out of Europe and making their way around the globe, but you would have said, "Too much trouble. Sorry slaves, I'm busy."
Slavery wasn't ended in the US by getting along with the slavers.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:10 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Aztexan wrote:My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.
Can you imagine what it was like talking to someone about slavery in America 180 years ago? There were well reasoned arguments against it coming out of Europe and making their way around the globe, but you would have said, "Too much trouble. Sorry slaves, I'm busy."
Slavery wasn't ended in the US by getting along with the slavers.
No, but a large number of them had to be convinced it needed to be ended. Including of course people in government and churches. You need moral and economic reasoning before you can convince people to prosecute a war.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4538
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:09 pm

Aztexan wrote:My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.

Perhaps this is an extreme case of blinded-by-faith, but consider the following quotation from an autobiography:
James Lackington wrote:A general conversion among the boys was once effected by the late excellent Mr. Fletcher: one poor boy only excepted, who unfortunately resisted the influence of the Holy Spirit; for which he was severely flogged, which did not fail of the desired effect, and impressed proper notions of religion on his mind.
(Memoirs of the Forty-five First Years of the Life of James Lackington, Bookseller, Written by Himself in Forty-seven Letters to a Friend, 1793, p. 210. Page 201 of the 1827 edition of the same.

How WOULD one go about explaining to the good, humane Mr. Lackington that flogging is not a properly Christian way of getting converts? Would he understand that he was doing exactly what the Inquisition did? Torturing a body to save a soul. I really don't know how to reach people like this. I have had some experience with them.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:10 am

This is not argument for loving people who flog children. It's an argument that says love came first, then religion.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Upton_O_Goode
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4538
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:15 am
Custom Title: Dwayne de Schwamp
Location: The Land Formerly Known as Pangea

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Upton_O_Goode » Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:41 am

Lausten wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Aztexan wrote:My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.
Can you imagine what it was like talking to someone about slavery in America 180 years ago? There were well reasoned arguments against it coming out of Europe and making their way around the globe, but you would have said, "Too much trouble. Sorry slaves, I'm busy."
Slavery wasn't ended in the US by getting along with the slavers.
No, but a large number of them had to be convinced it needed to be ended. Including of course people in government and churches. You need moral and economic reasoning before you can convince people to prosecute a war.
But the large number of "them" who had to be convinced were not slavers. They were a minority of abolitionists, even in the North. The North supported the war (just barely) in order to keep the union together; Lincoln said this explicitly, and he had judged correctly what would keep support for the war going in the North.
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

― Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850), French economist

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3632
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Argument for Love

Post by Lausten » Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:47 pm

Upton_O_Goode wrote:
Lausten wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
Lausten wrote:
Aztexan wrote:My point was trying to get along with some people is futile. Let's take, for example, I don't know, say your trump voter/supporter. The depths they are willing to got to to explain this idiot, to continue to support him after all he has done and then feign outrage when called on to explain his policies.They can't be reached. So yes, trying to get along with certain sects of society, with certain factions of humanity is a colossal waste of time.
Can you imagine what it was like talking to someone about slavery in America 180 years ago? There were well reasoned arguments against it coming out of Europe and making their way around the globe, but you would have said, "Too much trouble. Sorry slaves, I'm busy."
Slavery wasn't ended in the US by getting along with the slavers.
No, but a large number of them had to be convinced it needed to be ended. Including of course people in government and churches. You need moral and economic reasoning before you can convince people to prosecute a war.
But the large number of "them" who had to be convinced were not slavers. They were a minority of abolitionists, even in the North. The North supported the war (just barely) in order to keep the union together; Lincoln said this explicitly, and he had judged correctly what would keep support for the war going in the North.
I don't see how this supports any of the points being made. An example of the current "them" are people who support tax cuts for the rich. A large number of "them" are not rich. But they are convinced by bad arguments. Like believing a power structure supported by clergy is what keeps the world peaceful and provides a basis for justice, instead of believing human nature has evolved to for us to care for each other and we should have power over own lives.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com