Philosophical heckling

[Burning ghost]

Heckling is not a good thing. If religious people want to question someone they have the right, and if non-relgious people want to question someone they have the right.

The OP is antagonistic and the responses of DM are also antagonistic in response to what is essentially an attack on religion.

If an atheist want to walk into a church and question people about their belief he can. If a religious person wishes to question someone about their lack of belief in such and such they can.

Beyond that I think we just resort to flinging **** at each other ... all fun and games and even may help vent some frustration. Not really constructive though.

I say this from my own personal pedestal of **** built over the years from listening to such rants haha

Dark Matter -

I gather you believe in God? What does that mean?

Everyone else -

You don't believe in God? What does that mean?

To all -

We can agree that "heckling" is not really the best way to communicate ideas and thoughts? Some people are bloody annoying and some not so much (regardless of beliefs).

Note: I may be more annoying than any of you and you'll never hear me say I am anything but an antitheist/atheist/theist Godlike figure of boundless stupidity and intelligence.

[Dark Matter]

When I asked "why?" I was hoping for something more than a victicratic answer. Let me give you another possibility.

It's fine to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out. As Francis Schaeffer observed,: “…the Humanist has both feet firmly planted in mid-air.” Secularism's lack of a moral groundl is seen as dangerous to society and civilization.

[Sy Borg]

We can agree that "heckling" is not really the best way to communicate ideas and thoughts?

I do not think that is the aim of heckling. It's usually intended as a low level mental and emotional assault against despised opponents, with the aim being disruption and mental disintegration rather than communication of ideas.

[Burning ghost]

Dark Matter -

Theists don't own morality. I think this would be what is protested by many. The issue, as far as I can see, is that some theists struggle with the idea of "morality" outside of theist rational thought.

Morals can be established simply through empathy. The major concern I hear voiced from thiests is in regard to free-will and determinism.

Ethically and morally we are responsible for what we do and free-will/determinism has zero impact upon this.

It porbably seems as strange to an atheist that a theist dowsn't thunk they possess moral integrity as it does to the theist that an atheist can possess moral integrity. Theist or otherwise some people are more responsible and concerned about people than other are. People.can act in extreme ways and cause great harm even with the best of intentions (both thiests and non-thiests have doen such things).

Greta -

I said "not really the best way", so I agree. The OP is suggesting, ironically, an eye for an eye argument in going to Churches and "heckling" theists.

If some fanatic wants to protest and scream about something and cannot engage in a reasonable discussion I don't think "I should do that!"

[Sy Borg]

Greta -

I said "not really the best way", so I agree. The OP is suggesting, ironically, an eye for an eye argument in going to Churches and "heckling" theists.

If some fanatic wants to protest and scream about something and cannot engage in a reasonable discussion I don't think "I should do that!"

Agreed! For me the issue is the imbalance of "sacredness" and, thus, the relative considered importance of humanist meetings and church services. Personally, I would immediately have fundamentalist hecklers removed, not because of the contrary views, but the method of delivery and the deliberate disruptiveness. I expect the same would happen to hecklers at church services, hopefully.

[Dark Matter]

DG
Don't get me wrong. I do not condone heckling, but I understand it. I agree with Greta that they should be immediately removed, even in a public forum.

But the idea that morals can be established through empathy is ambiguous and culturally determined.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

But the idea that morals can be established through empathy is ambiguous and culturally determined.

Theism is every bit as ambiguous and culturally determined as empathy. There is, however, an element of empathy that is neither ambiguous nor culturally determined. From birth infants display empathy. They mimic and respond to facial expressions, they smile in response to a smile and get agitated and upset in response to a face that is angry or scared or unhappy. There is also a sense in which empathy and care cannot be taught or learned, only developed. It is quite common to see young children comforting each other. The behavior itself may to some extent be learned but what moves them to act is spontaneous. When someone else is upset they too become upset. This is not something that they have learned. It is biological.


I agree that empathy alone is insufficient, but neither is theism, and in fact, as history shows over and over again, since it relies on human authority masquerading as absolute authority it is particularly prone to the perpetuation of moral abuses.


God and empathy, however, are not the only options on which to establish morality, but a discussion of alternatives is not the subject of this thread.

[Dark Matter]

DM:

But the idea that morals can be established through empathy is ambiguous and culturally determined.

Theism is every bit as ambiguous and culturally determined as empathy. There is, however, an element of religious-based empathy that is neither ambiguous nor culturally determined.

There ya go.

[Fooloso4]

DM:

Perhaps you misread what I said, but if you have deliberately misquoted me it is duplicitous. If you believe that there is an element of religious-based empathy that is neither ambiguous nor culturally determined then just say so.

[LuckyR]

(Nested quote removed.)


Uummm... pointing out that historically atheists feel that Believers are missing out a superior worldview while theists look at Nonbelievers as BEING inferior.

Nooo. You're creating an "us" vs. "them" scenario.

I assume that since you have failed to point out a problem with my analysis, that you are in complete agreement. Thanks for the support. And you are correct, BTW that I have identified two groups as nonidentical, guilty as charged on that. Though I don't see where that gets you.

[Burning ghost]

DG
Don't get me wrong. I do not condone heckling, but I understand it. I agree with Greta that they should be immediately removed, even in a public forum.

But the idea that morals can be established through empathy is ambiguous and culturally determined.

I don't understand what the last sentence means. Grammatical error?

The idea that morals can be established with empathy is unclear? And/or, the idea that morals can be established is culturally determined?

It would help me a great deal if yoy rewrote this sentence.

[Dark Matter]

it means that secularism has its feet planted firmly on thin air.

[Sy Borg]

it means that secularism has its feet planted firmly on thin air.

Unlike the "groundedness" of religious mythology?

[Burning ghost]

DM -

Mayeb you don't see the difficulty I have with the sentence? I was not referring to the meaning of it I was referring to the actual sentence structure.

[Dark Matter]

it means that secularism has its feet planted firmly on thin air.

Unlike the "groundedness" of religious mythology?

Yes.