The effect of custom, in preventing any misgiving respecting the rules of conduct which mankind impose on one another, is all the more complete because the subject is one on which it is not generally considered necessary that reasons should be given, either by one person to others, or by each to himself. People are accustomed to believe and have been encouraged in the belief by some who aspire to the character of philosophers, that their feelings, on subjects of this nature, are better than reasons, and render reasons unnecessary. The practical principle which guides them to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each person's mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes, would like them to act. No one, indeed, acknowledges to himself that his standard of judgment is his own liking; but an opinion on a point of conduct, not supported by reasons, can only count as one person's preference; and if the reasons, when given, are a mere appeal to a similar preference felt by other people, it is still only many people's liking instead of one. To an ordinary man, however, his own preference, thus supported, is not only a perfectly satisfactory reason, but the only one he generally has for any of his notions of morality, taste, or propriety, which are not expressly written in his religious creed; and his chief guide in the interpretation even of that.
John Stuart Mill

Mill seems to have considered that people have to work between an outer and an inner reference points.

But I wonder if he'd still say this if he'd read De Sousa's opinions on the rationality of feeling.

Since it seems so hard for people to put themselves in another person's shoes maybe doing unto others what you yourself would like done unto you is a reasonable standard of conduct with the added advantage of portability.

How can a non believer not misquote the bible when any interpretation they have is said to be a mistranslation of the true word by one Christian or another. If i say hell is a place of everlasting torment im misinterpreting. If i say hell is nonexistence im misinterpreting. If i say the only way to salvation is to believe in Jesus as my savior im misinterpreting. if i say God lets some be saved even without belief im misinterpreting. gg

Don't forget you don't have the right magical spirit being whispering into your ear what the bible means like the true believers

You obviously have read nothing of Mill.

No one can read everybody but I can entertain one of his ideas in piecemeal bite like I just did with this quote.

Yeah all i have is Satan.

Satan always seemed more honest to me so I think you're in good hands.

As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamental religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect.

Dawkins

Maybe ill become an Ophite.

Definitely more palatable than being a Christian. At least you'd be worshiping something that never rejected or judged you.

btw, De Sousa is a ****ing joke rofl.

Have you read him? Or do you just feel threatened by him. This kind of post makes me think you feel threatened at some kind of unreasoned basic level.

A short assessment of his book: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...d=8236&ttype=2

that is one hell of an assumption...

you really like the link function

Well look at the charming non-sequitur he supplied.

Either he knows DeSousa personally or he's been reactionary in his post.

What I hate about arguing is its so one dimensional. You need a lot more than unilinear logic to ascertain reality in the world. You need to be able to visualize things for one thing. Something can look right on paper and whether it will all fit together, bear weight and stand up to scrutiny is another. I'm a pragmatist.

I think emotions are in the main part rational or we couldn't be functional enough to survive or have any kind of success in this world.

Isn't that reassuring? Wouldn't the alternative be unthinkable?

so you are threatened by Dawkins then? I mean considering you've never read anything hes written, nor do you know him personally ... of course that doesn't stop you from calling him far worse than "a ****ing joke".

No we're not talking about Dawkins but about De Sousa. We are talking about the rationality of emotions.

Its a good thing they are rational most of the time because we depend on them.

Our subjective abilities need to be good. Not just our objective ones.

Be sure to google "Dawkins and petition". He's been petitioning the government to take parental rights away in the rearing and education of children.

And you don't think any of the posters on here agree with his actions?

IIRC Francis Collins wasn't even fit to be the Director of the NIH according to a number of regular posters on here a few months back.

Good job splendour!!! This either shows a lack of effort on your part, or deliberate dishonesty. The first link that you get when you search for tells you that Dawkins repudiates the petition, and it was a mistake for him to sign it. He made a comment on that blog post as well. Here it is.

Again nice job, but even if Dawkins did want that passed, it doesn't matter. He doesn't speak for all atheists. If you want to play that game, I can claim most christians agree with Pat Robertson.

These are not all by atheists, but mostly by the founding fathers of the United States:

Thomas Paine, one of the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution, wrote “All the tales of miracles, with which the Old and New Testament are filled, are fit only for impostors to preach and fools to believe”.

Thomas Jefferson, principle author of the Declaration of Independence of the United States, edited a version of the Bible in which he removed sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. Jefferson wrote, "The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent moralist (Jesus), and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, [footnote: e.g. The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, etc. —T.J.] invented by ultra-Christian sects, unauthorized by a single word ever uttered by him, is a most desirable object, and one to which Priestley has successfully devoted his labors and learning."

Thomas Jefferson also wrote "It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Book of Revelation], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherencies of our own nightly dreams ... I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events, past or subsequent. There is not enough coherence in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas.... What has no meaning admits no explanation. And pardon me if I say, with the candor of friendship, that I think your time too valuable, and your understanding of too high an order, to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive, I hope, also that I do not consider them as revelations of the supreme being, whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to him a pretension of revelation, couched at the same time in terms which, he would know, were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed."

John Adams, second President of the United States, wrote, "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

Elbert Hubbard, American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher, wrote "A miracle is an event described by those to whom it was told by people who did not see it."

American Revolutionary War patriot and hero Ethan Allen wrote "In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue."

Oh I only came across the Dawkins thing today while searching on another topic. If he changed his mind he changed it for whatever reasons.

Still there are atheists besides Dawkins that signed that petition. What about them?

While you're at it explain why its ok to discriminate against Francis Collins in the NIH position like several posters here were advocating. Of course, if you want to claim noob or sok puppet status because you're not cognizant of the former thread debate I'll understand.

What about them?

I think the petition was wrong, and I imagine most atheists do.

From what I know of Dr. Collins, I am fine with him being the head of the NIH. He accepts evolution, and as far as I am aware holds no beliefs that would be an impediment to him being qualified for such a position.

Why do you keep insisting on lumping all atheists together. Lets do that with the christian belief shall we?

Why do you think it is right to kill all homosexuals who have HIV? This is a strong belief in Africa, where one country is most likely going to pass that law.

Why do you think apartheid was ok? Jerry Falwell was a supporter of the apartheid in South Africa.

Please stop your bigotry.

lol...Pokeymeister...

I lump a lot less than some of the atheist posters who treat all Christians as fundamentalists and as the New Atheist leadership does.

Try googling AaronW.'s NIH appointment thread.