Darwin's Fish Decal

[KenRU]

I'm interested in both theist and atheist opinions.

Just purchased the Darwin's Fish decal from Amazon and was wondering what the popular consensus was. Do you find it offensive? Disrespectful?

I know its a light-weight topic and all, but nonetheless, they all don't have to center around quantum theory, right?

All the best,

-Ken

(my apologies if this has been discussed already in another post)

[dianaiad]

All that said, I'd just like to point out that I don't think there's a recorded incident of a deist committing atrocities against theists, atheists or anybody. In fact, many of the primary leaders who brought enlightened freedom from tyranny into the world were deists. Yes, I know we're small, but growing, and that was a massive achievement--and we've only been around for c. 400 years or so. Doesn't that speak well for reason guided faith as opposed hearsay motivated blind faith?

Ooo, and we don't even have a symbol. (I knew there was a tie in there somewhere. )

It IS a little difficult for a deist to be anti-theist, yes, and of course it tends to be difficult for a deist to set himself up as a replacement for God (as those atheistic anti-theist megalomaniac leaders did). Hang in there, though, it's early days yet. As you said, you've only been around 400 years (deists have been around a lot longer than that, actually...you are just quieter than most).

I used to say that Mormons made pretty good political leaders, too...and traditionally they did, but then Harry Reid came along.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 39 by Jashwell]

(A problem with religion, not theism).

What's the diff?

In my view, the difference between theism and religion is the same as that between atheism and a specific ideology that requires atheism, such as certain types of humanism.

And the difference between both is like the difference between the class "motor vehicle" and "Honda Civic."

If one is a theist, then one HAS to have a specific idea of God in mind, even if that idea is "I have no clue what God is like, I just think there is one." This idea will include a set of guiding moral and ethical principles that revolve around that idea of deity, or at least allow for the existence of deity.

If one is an atheist, one MUST have a specific set of guiding morals and principles by which one lives ones life; a set that allows for, or demands, the idea that there is no such thing as a deity.

Nobody is completely without a set of morals or ethical guidelines, not even sociopaths.

[ThePainefulTruth]

All that said, I'd just like to point out that I don't think there's a recorded incident of a deist committing atrocities against theists, atheists or anybody. In fact, many of the primary leaders who brought enlightened freedom from tyranny into the world were deists. Yes, I know we're small, but growing, and that was a massive achievement--and we've only been around for c. 400 years or so. Doesn't that speak well for reason guided faith as opposed hearsay motivated blind faith?

Ooo, and we don't even have a symbol. (I knew there was a tie in there somewhere. )

It IS a little difficult for a deist to be anti-theist, yes, and of course it tends to be difficult for a deist to set himself up as a replacement for God (as those atheistic anti-theist megalomaniac leaders did). Hang in there, though, it's early days yet. As you said, you've only been around 400 years (deists have been around a lot longer than that, actually...you are just quieter than most).

Well, it's only been around by that name and it's "modern" ideology of a laissez faire God for about that long. I've added that God (if It exists) would be hands off for a reason--maintaining our free will, the sole purpose for the Cosmos. From our perspective, there's no difference between atheism and deism, and they both promote reason and science, unlike theism. "Replacement for God"????

I used to say that Mormons made pretty good political leaders, too...and traditionally they did, but then Harry Reid came along.

And the Devil will drag you under
By the sharp lapels of your checkered coat
Sit down, sit down, sit down you're rockin' the boat

Too much power always rocks and rolls.

[dianaiad]

All that said, I'd just like to point out that I don't think there's a recorded incident of a deist committing atrocities against theists, atheists or anybody. In fact, many of the primary leaders who brought enlightened freedom from tyranny into the world were deists. Yes, I know we're small, but growing, and that was a massive achievement--and we've only been around for c. 400 years or so. Doesn't that speak well for reason guided faith as opposed hearsay motivated blind faith?

Ooo, and we don't even have a symbol. (I knew there was a tie in there somewhere. )

It IS a little difficult for a deist to be anti-theist, yes, and of course it tends to be difficult for a deist to set himself up as a replacement for God (as those atheistic anti-theist megalomaniac leaders did). Hang in there, though, it's early days yet. As you said, you've only been around 400 years (deists have been around a lot longer than that, actually...you are just quieter than most).

Well, it's only been around by that name and it's "modern" ideology of a laissez faire God for about that long. I've added that God (if It exists) would be hands off for a reason--maintaining our free will, the sole purpose for the Cosmos. From our perspective, there's no difference between atheism and deism, and they both promote reason and science, unlike theism. "Replacement for God"????

I used to say that Mormons made pretty good political leaders, too...and traditionally they did, but then Harry Reid came along.

And the Devil will drag you under
By the sharp lapels of your checkered coat
Sit down, sit down, sit down you're rockin' the boat

Too much power always rocks and rolls.

.......and you were doing so well there for a moment, too.

"Theism" neither supports nor denies 'reason and science." Some of the religions within it are 'science deniers,' but then some of the religions within it are all for science.

"Atheism" neither supports nor denies 'reason and science" either. Some of the ideologies within it are all for science. Some don't give a hoot. There is nothing about simply believing that a god might exist that causes one to abandon 'reason and science,' no matter what anti-theists might tell you.

By the way, you forgot one of the 'sit down's in your excerpt from that fun "Guys and Dolls" song. There are four 'sit down's" in the chorus. Just sayin'. Yeah, Yeah, I'm being picky but YOU have put that song in my head now so that I'm going to be hearing 'sidown, sidown, sidown,sidown" for the rest of the flippin' morning!

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 42 by dianaiad]

Nobody is completely without a set of morals or ethical guidelines, not even sociopaths.

Actually this is not true. Sociopaths are amoral they can make moral judgments based off of perceived societal norms but this does not mean that they themselves have morals. Merely and this is the key differentiator here is that as amoral beings they can manipulate others by appearing to follow an ethical or moral guideline. In other words if you think they have a moral guideline they are faking it. They can abandon any "moral code" at will and with no regret.

Sociopaths lack the biological structures in the brain that allow us to develop remorse empathy and altruism. Truly these people are amoral. As this also effects roughly 4% of the population there are roughly 280-300 million sociopaths in the world that have no moral compulsions.

It would be folly for yourself or anyone else to think that a sociopath can have morals.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 42 by dianaiad]

Nobody is completely without a set of morals or ethical guidelines, not even sociopaths.

Actually this is not true. Sociopaths are amoral they can make moral judgments based off of perceived societal norms but this does not mean that they themselves have morals. Merely and this is the key differentiator here is that as amoral beings they can manipulate others by appearing to follow an ethical or moral guideline. In other words if you think they have a moral guideline they are faking it. They can abandon any "moral code" at will and with no regret.

Sociopaths lack the biological structures in the brain that allow us to develop remorse empathy and altruism. Truly these people are amoral. As this also effects roughly 4% of the population there are roughly 280-300 million sociopaths in the world that have no moral compulsions.

It would be folly for yourself or anyone else to think that a sociopath can have morals.

Of course they can, and do, have moral and ethical guidelines. They just aren't the sort of moral and ethical guidelines an empathic..or 'normal' person would have.

Their ethical guidelines all revolve around "that which is good for me...getting what I want...is the correct thing to do, no matter what is involved in getting that."

That's an ethical guideline.

I didn't say that it was good ethics for anybody with whom a sociopath interacts.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

The problem is mixing up the application of terminology. Yes I can concede that they have some ethical guidelines in regards to themselves and only themselves but then this starts to become a semantics game. The way a sociopath applies ethics and the way a normal person applies ethics are not the same. As such they should not be referred to having ethics in the same regard or even implied in such a way.

I specify ethics in this case because there is a difference between ethics and morals
.
Its like calling science a religion. While certain definitions of religion can be applied to science it is not the same definitions applied to spiritual or supernatural religions.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 46 by dianaiad]

The problem is mixing up the application of terminology. Yes I can concede that they have some ethical guidelines in regards to themselves and only themselves but then this starts to become a semantics game. The way a sociopath applies ethics and the way a normal person applies ethics are not the same. As such they should not be referred to having ethics in the same regard or even implied in such a way.

I specify ethics in this case because there is a difference between ethics and morals.

I agree that the ethics of a sociopath would not be considered 'ethical' by a 'normal' person. However, this IS a 'semantics game.' "Ethics" and "Morals" in this discussion have to do with the title of a system of principles and rules by which one lives one's life. There is no value judgment involved here. To allow only 'good' ethics to be called 'ethics' is to muddy the waters too much. For one thing, who gets to judge which morals and ethics are 'good' ones?

Wouldn't even the sociopath consider his own ethical foundation to be 'good,'...that is, good for him? Wouldn't he consider any other approach a 'stupid' one?

In fact, isn't what you are doing here, pulling a true scot fallacy (the only ethics are 'good' ones, and if they aren't 'good' as defined by me, they aren't actually an ethical system)?

Now me, I think I have a pretty good, ethical set of rules to live by. Good morals. I know for a fact, however, that there are people on this list who think that my morals are a: stupid, b: too restrictive and c: judgmental of others.

They think that their ethics are good ones...and I think that they allow too much licentious behavior and will cause unwarranted death and heartbreak.

I'm quite certain that they think my position is 'unethical,' as I think theirs is.

But we all use a 'system of ethics.' See the difference?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 48 by dianaiad]

I am not talking about what is good or what is bad as far as ethics. I am concerned with the function of how these ethical guides are applied.

For most humans our ethical guidelines govern interactions between the self and other organisms. This is fundamentally different than an ethical guideline that only governs the self.

Like lets examine murder for a second.

Most people will not murder someone because of the function of remorse and empathy in our brains. Indeed even the justified killing of another human is exceedingly difficult for most.

In was psychologists have found that most people will not shoot without an authority figure in more recent wars we have found that shots fired without an authority figure present drops by more than 70% vs when an authority is present.

so Murder is bad we as individuals develop moral and ethical systems that deem that murder is bad.

for a sociopath though they are not effected by this if they feel like murdering at any given moment they can do that. The only guideline preventing them from doing that is not that is this good for me or is this bad for me. It is this do I want to do this or do I not want to do this.

I really reading a sociopath next door it is a great read that you will probably find very interesting. It is written by a psychologist who has spent 25 years on the subject. She brings up many of the interesting pardigms with regards to the societal impacts of sociopathy and their interactions with individuals it really is eye opening.

[ThePainefulTruth]

All that said, I'd just like to point out that I don't think there's a recorded incident of a deist committing atrocities against theists, atheists or anybody. In fact, many of the primary leaders who brought enlightened freedom from tyranny into the world were deists. Yes, I know we're small, but growing, and that was a massive achievement--and we've only been around for c. 400 years or so. Doesn't that speak well for reason guided faith as opposed hearsay motivated blind faith?

Ooo, and we don't even have a symbol. (I knew there was a tie in there somewhere. )

It IS a little difficult for a deist to be anti-theist, yes, and of course it tends to be difficult for a deist to set himself up as a replacement for God (as those atheistic anti-theist megalomaniac leaders did). Hang in there, though, it's early days yet. As you said, you've only been around 400 years (deists have been around a lot longer than that, actually...you are just quieter than most).

Well, it's only been around by that name and it's "modern" ideology of a laissez faire God for about that long. I've added that God (if It exists) would be hands off for a reason--maintaining our free will, the sole purpose for the Cosmos. From our perspective, there's no difference between atheism and deism, and they both promote reason and science, unlike theism. "Replacement for God"????

I used to say that Mormons made pretty good political leaders, too...and traditionally they did, but then Harry Reid came along.

And the Devil will drag you under
By the sharp lapels of your checkered coat
Sit down, sit down, sit down you're rockin' the boat

Too much power always rocks and rolls.

.......and you were doing so well there for a moment, too.

"Theism" neither supports nor denies 'reason and science." Some of the religions within it are 'science deniers,' but then some of the religions within it are all for science.

Any religion, which is just about all of them, that claims divine/supernatural revelation is anti-science automatically.

"Atheism" neither supports nor denies 'reason and science" either. Some of the ideologies within it are all for science. Some don't give a hoot.

True, but if you look close they're essentially just immature anarchists.

There is nothing about simply believing that a god might exist that causes one to abandon 'reason and science,' no matter what anti-theists might tell you.

True again, I "believe" (or hope) in God. But I'm not claiming that God talks to me, that's the credibility prob. And you still haven't explained your deist "replacement for God" comment. ??

By the way, you forgot one of the 'sit down's in your excerpt from that fun "Guys and Dolls" song. There are four 'sit down's" in the chorus. Just sayin'. Yeah, Yeah, I'm being picky but YOU have put that song in my head now so that I'm going to be hearing 'sidown, sidown, sidown,sidown" for the rest of the flippin' morning!

I compromised. The Don Henley version from the incredibly appropriate Leap of Faith (good sound track album and movie), only has two "sit down"s. If you like, you can wash that song right out of your hair.......... with the next song from that movie, Patti LaBelle's "Are You Ready for a Miracle", and finish out your day with that.