Steff Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 And that is exactly what happened. It's extremely ironic that I (having had a divorce with no children) can call it so accurately. Divorces all have a few common elements... distrust, anger, hate.. all started by lies. One of them lies. Plain and simple. They lie to get the better "deal" Sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 A general question for atheists, hedonists, & the like: Why is it so common & predictable for people like you to discredit the messenger or the source as opposed to the message itself? Does the message scare you or is it simply that you lack the ability to debate it? I'm wondering of course because it flies in the face of being open-minded if your vision is narrowed to only a few sources. Sort of like Moronitti. Speaking as an athiest with ambitions of ascending to hedonism (and perhaps debauchery) at earliest convenience, I can tell you that it's no different than for any other group. You are going to be suspicious of 'facts' set forth by groups with perceived or real agendas not in accord with your own line of thought. All the moreso when statistics that are rarely the result of rigorous or scientific polling (the pollsters usually admit that up front) are bandied about. And on top of that when these stats are cut and pasted by all of us in a free-for-all forum the possibility of extending the numbers beyond their intended utility is great. All of that is well and good. Your continued insistence on trying to force some implied parity upon very different populations (i.e., "athiests and hedonists," "Goddless individuals and sadists," etc.) is really tiresome, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 No where did you ask for the article in the csmonitor.com Correct. I asked for a source for that survey. Further, you already discredited the csmonitor so it would be a waste of time for me to provide you with. I didn't say anything about the Christian Science Monitor. A general question for atheists, hedonists, & the like: Why is it so common & predictable for people like you to discredit the messenger or the source as opposed to the message itself? Does the message scare you or is it simply that you lack the ability to debate it? I didn't. One person, who thought the poll was done by CSM, did. Now you make a huge generalization. My initial post on this subject is anything but hostile but the responses were clearly the opposite. Not really. I found it hard to believe that so many people would respond that the problems were internet based and hoped that you had a source with more details since I was unable to find that specific survey on CSMonitor.com or from the name "American Marriage Lawyers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 FlaSoxxJim: What is tiresome are your responses. If you really believe there is neither parity of difference between certain social groups in America then I think you should create your own thread & discuss that argument there. In my educated opinion, that belief is irrational. As I pointed out there is a wealth of information that supports the basis of the underlying arguments in this thread. Now if you're only value to the thread is to deny the information then please go find a thread that is more suited for your level of comprehension & intelligence. There has been one person to respectfully & intelligently debate in this thread: TGOWT. He doesn't just argue with his own personal opinion but he tries to support it with other sources. I have not discredited his sources (like you are so quick to do) but rather I investigate them to debate them. That is called respectful debate. The strength of an argument is dependant on how well one correlates the basis of that argument to support a conclusion. It does however; assume a certain level of intelligence from the those engaging in the debate & the validity of a basis. Common sense, universal laws, statistics are all considered valid basis for an argument. Personal opinion does not qualify. That's simply a hollow conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Please work on quoting the right person. That's getting tiresome... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 Correct. I asked for a source for that survey. I didn't say anything about the Christian Science Monitor. I didn't. One person, who thought the poll was done by CSM, did. Now you make a huge generalization. Not really. I found it hard to believe that so many people would respond that the problems were internet based and hoped that you had a source with more details since I was unable to find that specific survey on CSMonitor.com or from the name "American Marriage Lawyers". You are correct there were 3 others that made derogatory comments towards the csmonitor.com. I apologize for the confusion there. As I stated earlier, the csmonitor & NY Daily News articles were based on the AAML survey. AAML survey: 62% of respondents - internet has played a big role 68% of respondents - new internet love interest 56% of respondents - new obsessive interest in online porn http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml http://www.aaml.org/ Now if someone disagrees with the results of the survey that's fine, but if all they have to support their opinion is their personal bias or experience than that's essentially a hollow opinion. Noteable but not worth debating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 ...As I pointed out there is a wealth of information that supports the basis of the underlying arguments in this thread. Now if you're only value to the thread is to deny the information then please go find a thread that is more suited for your level of comprehension & intelligence.... The strength of an argument is dependant on how well one correlates the basis of that argument to support a conclusion. It does however; assume a certain level of intelligence from the those engaging in the debate & the validity of a basis... "There has been one person to respectfully & intelligently debate in this thread...." I am at least glad that you did not attempt to count yourself among the respectful and intelligent debaters. With statements like: "please go find a thread that is more suited for your level of comprehension & intelligence..." and "It does however; assume a certain level of intelligence..." it's clear you cannot refrain from personal attacks in these threads. For you to try to equate doubt in the existence of a Divine Agent with sadism, depravity, hedonism, etc., is not debate, nor is it rational. Very little of what you have put up here the last week or so has been rational, but at least most of it was not as off the deep end as your inital post in this sad thread asserting that 'Godlessnes' was pretty much to blame for all the social ills of modern America. I'm sure you had to bite your tongue to maintain even that tenuous appearance of rational thought. You are correct in one thing, I should find a thread more suited to my level of comprehension & intelligence, though sometimes that is difficult. I've been slumming here for way to long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 For you to try to equate doubt in the existence of a Divine Agent with sadism, depravity, hedonism, etc., is not debate, nor is it rational. Very little of what you have put up here the last week or so has been rational, but at least most of it was not as off the deep end as your inital post in this sad thread asserting that 'Godlessnes' was pretty much to blame for all the social ills of modern America. I'm sure you had to bite your tongue to maintain even that tenuous appearance of rational thought. You are correct in one thing, I should find a thread more suited to my level of comprehension & intelligence, though sometimes that is difficult. I've been slumming here for way to long. Please do. Your personal opinion in support of your hollow conclusion has been more than noted in this thread. Once again denying facts does not make them any less factual or significant. It only places yourself in that category. Now if your argument is that those who engage in sadism, depravity, hedonism etc are just as likely to be church-going Christians than any other group please provide a basis other than your personal opinion for doing so. If you don't have one than it's not really worth debating. Furthermore if you have nothing but your personal opinion to debate with then perhaps you should choose another thread. I can offer no less than 1000 points with statistics to back up my assertions that American citizens who engage in sadism, depravity, hedonism, debauchery, divorce, & murder are less likely to be Church-going Christians than any other group. Otherwise I wouldn't even bother to make the argument. I do wish to point out a personal opinion about atheists though. I do not yet have any statistical or empirical reference to make this claim but based on my personal experience there are considerable numbers of them whom are closer to Christians than one would think. They do not believe in God, but they do believe in Jesus. Not as the son of God but as a philosopher. They do read the Bible not as the word of God but as a philosophy for life. I guess you could call them Christians that believe in the man but not the God. As a point of distinction I will refer to them as Godless Christians. Since there are others who follow moral philosophies we shall remove atheists them from the debate altogether. There is clearly a distinction between hedonists & non-hedonists & when discussing a debate on America's Culture War (of which there have been no less than 100 books written in the past 34 yrs) that's the clear divide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 Hedonism: the ethical theory that achieving one's own happiness thru pleasure is the proper goal of all conduct. Moralism: the ethical theory that individuals should conform to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong <the basic moral values of a community>. There lies the culture war of America. The hedonists vs the moralists. Now this debate is pretty simple: You compare the pros & cons of hedonism vs moralism with respect to society & determine which is better for the society. I've yet to see a study that suggests hedonism is best. Next you determine which aspects of a persons life will inevitably lead to hedonism & do the same for moralism. Since we are dealing with behavioral science at this point religion inevitably enters the picture. Now that there is well over 30 yrs of detailed information available in this area conclusions can be easily drawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Speaking as an athiest with ambitions of ascending to hedonism (and perhaps debauchery) at earliest convenience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 This par for the course in this thread as well: Does an accepted culture of hazing at high schools & colleges add to the likelihood of such behavior being considered normal in adult life? When you listen to the graduates of such circles of life discuss how they don't see anything really wrong with it on Oprah & the likes it's hard to argue that it doesn't. There are even initiation rights into sports & social clubs in junior high that I don't think the rest of the world would laugh at either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 The 'rest of the world' has some kickass hazing rituals of its own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Jugs, you keep pointing to cultural wars as having something to do with personal "morality." If you basing anything on he Scriptures, you are very wrong. Essentiallly the Scriptures don't give a s*** about so-called personal morality. God does care deeply about public justice, mercy, and humility. Rad any or all of the 8th century prophets. The divorce rate means nothing to God. Consider that in 66 books of Scripture (for Christians, 39 for Jews) God never once mentions the divorce rate. Was God sleeping? Or not as smart as you? But God does care about justice and economic exploitation of the poor. And if you believe Scriptures, God condemned both (Northern) Israel and (Southern Israel) Judah for trusting in military might and using weapons of war. Read your Scriptures. In other words, God don't give a damn about whether you beat off to porn tonight or have oral sex 5 times overs with your same sex lover or are no married to your opposite gender lover or say "s***" or "f***" or get the "porn video of the month" or smoke a little weed or do a little nose candy. God will care if you are treating you treating your partner and even more your society with injustice or justice. God does care far more highly about a society that resorts to military usage, or commits sin against the naked and the prisoners, and does not regard as equal the rights of the alien. Hey - it is in the Bible, not my words. Go ahead again and read the Magnificat. What did Mary speaking for God proclaim? That the rich would be sent away empty. (Can you justify that with current US economic policy? I can't.) The poor will be filled with good things. (Can you justify that with current US economic policy? I can't.) In other words, God doesn't give a damn about who f***s who or a person's private life as long as a person - and far much more a society - lives in justice. Read Micah and Isaiah and find the one passage repeated in both words of the prophets. And read all of the prohpets. In other words, in my own interpretation of the Scriptures as God has given me by the Spirit to understand... the sin of America against God is is everything that you fail to see and not in anything you have spoken of. The basis of "morality" that you have spoken of is nothing more, to me, as I have read it, than the phobias of the uptight. Read Song of Songs and dare criticise the joy of sex. Or Ecclesiates and tell me who spoke of enjoying the wine and pleasures you have and loving the physical joys you may have in this life. (Hint: the answer is spell "G-O-D.") And read the Scriptures and tell me that "hedoism" and such are anything more than nonGod inspired categories but justice and mercy are everything with which God is concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 In other words, God don't give a damn about whether you beat off to porn tonight or suck your same sex lover's cock off 5 times over or eat your same sex lover's vagina 5 times over. Yes I am 12, whydoyouask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Moralism: the ethical theory that individuals should conform to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong . Okay, so is someone a a hedonist if I do not possess the societal view about the importance of possessions in this society and if s/he strive to live more like Jesus by rejecting those sort of norms? Or am I a hedonist for opposing the death penalty because I don't believe in retributive justice--nor its value to society? So I oppose that norm--that makes me a hedonist? You don't seem to understand the fundamental nature of personal morality or valid morality that goes against cultural norms here. If no one ever opposed the sanctioned norms and morals of a culture America would still be segregated, have slaves, and be a British colony...Morality often times means being willing to find something that you believe is right and that is often diametrically opposed to social norms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 cw: No one mentioned scriptures nor has there been a scriptual reference made in this thead. Your post simply illustrates that no text (outside of perhaps math or science) should be taking literally in context. All books relating to philosophy, psychology, or social science if you will have a bias by the author. The same goes for political books as well. What we are talking about is core values & core morals. These have been around for centuries & have been endoctrinated through tradition in societies the world over. In America that tradition is associated with Christianity. Hopefully no one here would suggest disputing that. Your post clearly defines you as an arrogant disrespectful human being to suggest that you are a qualified theologian or student of the Bible. Any one can pick out passages from any epic book & assign their own personal opinion to them to define their meaning or character's meaning in the book. Your opinion is hollow and fruitless if no credible source supports it. There really is no point in debating a hollow opinion. Any educated student of the Bible knows that the best approach to studying it is correlation. Given that it took many centuries to write the significance of prophecy is what separates the Bible from any other book in existence. Prophecies that span several 1000 of years correlate to one another over that time. The mathematical probabilities that this could happen or that the faith could grow as it has over time place Christianity in a category all it's own. Especially given the extent to which western society has changed in that time frame. csg: If you are in doubt of what hedonism is then I suggest you either visit the library or do searches on Google. To ascertain it's definition as the opposite of moralism is foolish because you negate the fact that it is about placing one's happiness through pleasure above all else. That is the essence of hedonism & it comes in many forms: greed, lust, & envy among others. They are all hedonistic in nature. Likewise I do not believe the death penalty is a social norm. It is certainly not a Christian norm. Christianity grew because people were willing to risk martyrdom for their faith. Not one of the early leaders from St Peter to St Paul escaped martyrdom. You are likewise wrong if you believe there is no relation or better yet burden upon society as a result of personal moralism. When grouped together personal moralism defines society. Even beyond the rule of law when it comes to mob rule or simply respecting the law. That is why there is a societal responsibility to define personal moralism. There are people who dedicate their very lives to the subject of morality, ethics, & social science & they are better qualified to educate individuals then you or I. To believe otherwise is presumptuous if not arrogant to a fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 cwsox: Another fallacy in your argument against the Bible is that you do not place value on the New Testament vs the Old Testament. There is clearly a distinct value of one over the other. In terms of Christianity the only true value of the Old Testament is that which correlates to the New Testament. Jesus himself defined the greatest commandment in the Golden Rule. Likewise he illustrated with his life the importance of prophecy in the faith. It is the prophetic link that uniquely defines Christianity from all other faiths. With this in mind the greatest books of the Bible & the ones that speak the most for today are those written by the St. Paul. If you were to plot the growth in numbers of Christians vs Bible books it would be an exponential curve that shows it's greatest growth during the time of St. Paul. His story alone is one that again measured against mathematical probabilities is 1 in a million & no other figure in history parallels it amongst so many diverse cultures. St Paul being a Roman wrote the most with respect to morality in a modern society. Rome is considered are most closest cousin to the ancient world with respect to how are society is governed today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Another fallacy in your argument against the Bible is that you do not place value on the New Testament vs the Old Testament. There is clearly a distinct value of one over the other. In terms of Christianity the only true value of the Old Testament is that which correlates to the New Testament. That is total opposite of what the Scriptures themselves teach. My friend, read the Scriptures themselves, nothing says what you say, the Christian writings are totally dependent on what lay before and there is no superceding, there is only a new fulfillment wiothout aborgating he prior, read Paul for Christ's sake, really read it for Christ's sake. In that so much of what you say is a riff on the non-trained teacher of Sunday School message as opposed to a systematic study of the Scriptures, and you respond with insults, there is no grounds to dialogue with you. But baptized believer to baptized believer, I love you in the Name of Chirst and rejoice that we shall dance together with the God of all Dance in the realm which lays beyond. That is not to criticise you. If it works for you, go your way with God's blessings. When you try to univeralize your sectarian beliefs, be wary you do not commit an offense against the ecumenicty of the Church. Be happy with where you are at and stop laying your burdens on others for the weight of the Gospels is not with you. But God is with you as the One who loves you in Grace and I embrace you as my fellow believer and pray for love and joy to you and your spouse and all your family!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Your post clearly defines you as an arrogant disrespectful human being to suggest that you are a qualified theologian or student of the Bible Boy are you barking up the wrong sv'acheno drevo here or what! ROTFLMAO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 csg: If you are in doubt of what hedonism is then I suggest you either visit the library or do searches on Google. To ascertain it's definition as the opposite of moralism is foolish because you negate the fact that it is about placing one's happiness through pleasure above all else. That is the essence of hedonism & it comes in many forms: greed, lust, & envy among others. They are all hedonistic in nature. Likewise I do not believe the death penalty is a social norm. It is certainly not a Christian norm. Christianity grew because people were willing to risk martyrdom for their faith. Not one of the early leaders from St Peter to St Paul escaped martyrdom. You are likewise wrong if you believe there is no relation or better yet burden upon society as a result of personal moralism. When grouped together personal moralism defines society. Even beyond the rule of law when it comes to mob rule or simply respecting the law. That is why there is a societal responsibility to define personal moralism. There are people who dedicate their very lives to the subject of morality, ethics, & social science & they are better qualified to educate individuals then you or I. To believe otherwise is presumptuous if not arrogant to a fault. *yawn* My post most certainly did not indicate that I did not understand the concept of hedonism--one of my favorite morality tales is of course, The Story of Dorian Gray. You're picking arguments just for the sake of it--and haven't added anything constructive (i.e. other than a mean retort with a morally superior attitude) and you have been quite rude to some of my favorite posters here. If those are the values that the Christian church esposes then, well, I was wrong about the Christian church. Yep, that's everything I have to say to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 c-dub, I crack up every time I see your sig. Have you been getting all jacked up for the Kerry-McCain ticket? LMAO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Some of the ways people go about making their point is pretty friggin disgusting around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Some of the ways people go about making their point is pretty friggin disgusting around here. I was just trying to lighten the mood! Poor choice of words? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 To TGOWT: I really am beginning to wonder what they are teaching in college these days because you're thought process seems void of ER. No not the television show. Entity Relationships. The reason why I included the 2 links is to show the correlation of the two polls. Is there a poll at the divorcemag site specific to porn? No. Is there a poll dealing with infidelity? Yes. If you add up the male & female %'s on that issue it comes very close to 68% that the aaml survey shows. Now is it beyond your comprehension that cyber-sex & cyber-porn might be included in irreconcible differences given that there are not specific questions on these subjects at that site? There is one very telling statistic at the divorcemag site that strongly supports the aaml site: 71% of women polled view cyber-sex as infidelity 46% of men polled view cyber-sex as infidelity. Now when you combine that with the divorcemag stat that infidelity is by & large the single reason for divorce it certainly leads a lot of credence to the aaml survey. Now to point out your falicies: America On-Line existed prior to 1992. So to link cyber-space to the emergence of the public internet or WWW is flat out wrong. Cyber-space in a private form emerged in the mid-80's. And if you wish to trace back to the emergence of personals it can be traced back to the 60's. Your last statement is so oblivious in nature it's pointless to even comment on. Apparently you do not believe in cause & effect. Believing in coincidence or rather if you prefer chaos theory (that all things all events will at some time converge with one another thereby making random events seem fated) on a macro level is not necc a bad thing. It has it pros & cons like everything else. But to believe in it on a micro level is simply nonsense. Things happen for a reason. Not fate & not coincidence. Cause & effect. Purpose vs pleasure. There are a ton of philosophy books on the subject & they can teach you better than I can. What the numbers clearly show is that in the face of greater temptation the less morally rigid members of our society will choose pleasure over purpose. You have provided no basis to believe otherwise. I was going to respond to this, but after reading the rest of the thread, I will not. Your(Juggernaut) inability to argue without belittling other people, and your persistent refusal to concede any point to anybody who cant find a poll to back them up, is frustrating at best, and takes away all interest in debating those issues that are usually the most intriguing. You're a book-smart, undoubtably socially-challenged snob, and why anybody would waste their time arguing with you is mind-boggling. I will take solace in the fact that you and those who think like you will never win. The world is not as simple as "poll A shows situation B is caused by C 65% of the time." Never was, never will be, and you'll obviously never get it. But good luck, and keep me posted on how that crusade to get prayer in public schools is going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 I was just trying to lighten the mood! Poor choice of words? I'm sorry.. I was not referring to your post. I was referring to Vince's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.