<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Too much to pass up</title>
	<atom:link href="http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up</link>
	<description>A Blog of Atheist Thought</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:03:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: UnGodly</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89580</link>
		<dc:creator>UnGodly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89580</guid>
		<description>I was draft bait during the Vietnam war.  On Feb 14, 1967 I had an interview with my local selective service board on my application as a Conscientious Objector.  I told them that I did not believe in God, but that I thought fighting in a war was immoral.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In their summary of my interview the board said &quot;We have no doubt of this young man&#039;s sincerity, however we do not see how he can qualify as a CO&quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1968 I refused induction into the US Army.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1970 I was arrested.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In January 1971 the gummint dropped the charges and I won.  It seems that in failing to give a specific reason for denying my original application they had denied me due process. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So it would seem that an atheist can be a Conscientious Objector, or at least they could under the Selective Service Act of 1967.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I ended up teaching TV and small appliance repairs at a Goodwill facility as my alternative service.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was draft bait during the Vietnam war.  On Feb 14, 1967 I had an interview with my local selective service board on my application as a Conscientious Objector.  I told them that I did not believe in God, but that I thought fighting in a war was immoral.</p>
<p>In their summary of my interview the board said &#8220;We have no doubt of this young man&#8217;s sincerity, however we do not see how he can qualify as a CO&#8221;.</p>
<p>In 1968 I refused induction into the US Army.</p>
<p>In 1970 I was arrested.</p>
<p>In January 1971 the gummint dropped the charges and I won.  It seems that in failing to give a specific reason for denying my original application they had denied me due process. </p>
<p>So it would seem that an atheist can be a Conscientious Objector, or at least they could under the Selective Service Act of 1967.</p>
<p>I ended up teaching TV and small appliance repairs at a Goodwill facility as my alternative service.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: what</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89582</link>
		<dc:creator>what</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89582</guid>
		<description>Ungodly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks for the post. And thanks for your commitment to rationally directed behavior even though it could have or may have cost you dearly. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ungodly</p>
<p>Thanks for the post. And thanks for your commitment to rationally directed behavior even though it could have or may have cost you dearly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: what</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89585</link>
		<dc:creator>what</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89585</guid>
		<description>Dave&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This deserves a thread:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
http://tinyurl.com/46mzmy&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave</p>
<p>This deserves a thread:</p>
<p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/46mzmy" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/46mzmy</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joe zamecki</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89588</link>
		<dc:creator>joe zamecki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89588</guid>
		<description>If this person spent a lot of his time reading the Bible, and loving it, he ought to WANT to be in the middle of combat. The Bible is part-religious mythology, and part-war manual. God&#039;s chosen people went on a tour of the holy land, slaughtering tribes out of existence along the way. I don&#039;t know what about that would ever conflict with combat in Iraq. America&#039;s kill ratio in Iraq is probably at least as good as it was back then for the chosen people.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the NT, Jesus promised to do the most killing in human history and never denounced the OT kill-fest for Jehovah. Later on in the Bible, we read about Armageddon.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the judge never read the Bible...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joe Zamecki&lt;br /&gt;
Austin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this person spent a lot of his time reading the Bible, and loving it, he ought to WANT to be in the middle of combat. The Bible is part-religious mythology, and part-war manual. God&#8217;s chosen people went on a tour of the holy land, slaughtering tribes out of existence along the way. I don&#8217;t know what about that would ever conflict with combat in Iraq. America&#8217;s kill ratio in Iraq is probably at least as good as it was back then for the chosen people.</p>
<p>In the NT, Jesus promised to do the most killing in human history and never denounced the OT kill-fest for Jehovah. Later on in the Bible, we read about Armageddon.</p>
<p>Maybe the judge never read the Bible&#8230;</p>
<p>Joe Zamecki<br />
Austin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phreedm</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89590</link>
		<dc:creator>phreedm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89590</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;What about MY sincere beliefs?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exactly what are you beliefs Dave?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked in an earlier thread of how one develops a moral foundation when their belief system basically says anything goes...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But instead on answering the question, the new president of AA took the easy path of character assassination and name calling...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would one of those beliefs be killing is wrong?  All killing?  Why is killing wrong? Based upon what?  And if it&#039;s based upon something, why is that &quot;something&quot; valid?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You think I&#039;m being argumentative, but I&#039;m not.  These are the questions I get from teenagers when we discuss the merits of being religious or non-religious...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Exactly what is the code of ethics a non-believer follows and who developed those codes?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>What about MY sincere beliefs?</p></blockquote>
<p>Exactly what are you beliefs Dave?</p>
<p>I asked in an earlier thread of how one develops a moral foundation when their belief system basically says anything goes&#8230;</p>
<p>But instead on answering the question, the new president of AA took the easy path of character assassination and name calling&#8230;</p>
<p>Would one of those beliefs be killing is wrong?  All killing?  Why is killing wrong? Based upon what?  And if it&#8217;s based upon something, why is that &#8220;something&#8221; valid?</p>
<p>You think I&#8217;m being argumentative, but I&#8217;m not.  These are the questions I get from teenagers when we discuss the merits of being religious or non-religious&#8230;</p>
<p>Exactly what is the code of ethics a non-believer follows and who developed those codes?</p>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: phreedm</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89591</link>
		<dc:creator>phreedm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89591</guid>
		<description>&quot;you&quot;=&quot;your&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;you&#8221;=&#8221;your&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: agnosticks</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89592</link>
		<dc:creator>agnosticks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89592</guid>
		<description>phreedm,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, let&#039;s take your example to begin.  You ask, essentially, if someone does not believe in a well-defined deity how would that person know killing in wrong?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frankly it comes down to the nature of the act.  Humans define killing another person (and animals in certain circumstances) as morally wrong when you voluntarily opt to prematurely end the life of another living creature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Now morally there is some debatable wiggle room when it comes to things like coercion, assisted suicide, or self-defense, and those nuances to the question should be actively debated, but let&#039;s remain talking about the core question for now.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember, killing as being morally wrong is a human construct; we created the rules of right and wrong.  Other members of the animal kingdom (of which we are a part, like it or not) live in worlds of acting out of necessity absent of moral concerns (as far as we know at this time).  If my studies serve me, Christians when Christianity was born were staunch pacifists, up to and including refusal to self-defend because killing was deemed wrong; however, the &quot;wrongness&quot; of killing was grayed during the many Crusades that came centuries later because &quot;moral authorities&quot; changed the rules.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is another aspect you mentioned which also has bearing on the conversation.  In my opinion, it appears that the &quot;atheists/agnostics say anything goes&quot; belief is inaccurately applied to the group.  It has been my experience that the statement should be more like &quot;anything goes that does not directly impact others and that does not violate the commonly agreed upon rules of our society.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know from experience that several of things I have written have common pitfalls and retorts, and these are general statements, but I look forward to continuing the discussion with you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>phreedm,</p>
<p>Okay, let&#8217;s take your example to begin.  You ask, essentially, if someone does not believe in a well-defined deity how would that person know killing in wrong?</p>
<p>Frankly it comes down to the nature of the act.  Humans define killing another person (and animals in certain circumstances) as morally wrong when you voluntarily opt to prematurely end the life of another living creature.</p>
<p>Now morally there is some debatable wiggle room when it comes to things like coercion, assisted suicide, or self-defense, and those nuances to the question should be actively debated, but let&#8217;s remain talking about the core question for now.</p>
<p>Remember, killing as being morally wrong is a human construct; we created the rules of right and wrong.  Other members of the animal kingdom (of which we are a part, like it or not) live in worlds of acting out of necessity absent of moral concerns (as far as we know at this time).  If my studies serve me, Christians when Christianity was born were staunch pacifists, up to and including refusal to self-defend because killing was deemed wrong; however, the &#8220;wrongness&#8221; of killing was grayed during the many Crusades that came centuries later because &#8220;moral authorities&#8221; changed the rules.</p>
<p>There is another aspect you mentioned which also has bearing on the conversation.  In my opinion, it appears that the &#8220;atheists/agnostics say anything goes&#8221; belief is inaccurately applied to the group.  It has been my experience that the statement should be more like &#8220;anything goes that does not directly impact others and that does not violate the commonly agreed upon rules of our society.&#8221;</p>
<p>I know from experience that several of things I have written have common pitfalls and retorts, and these are general statements, but I look forward to continuing the discussion with you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UnGodly</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89595</link>
		<dc:creator>UnGodly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89595</guid>
		<description>In order for any animal species to form a pack based society there must be a mutual understanding of non-aggression within the pack.  This forms the basis for the morality of any animal not obsessed with imaginary rules allegedly sent by an invisible sky fairy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You don&#039;t kill me and I won&#039;t kill you is a logical and self evident first basis for a moral code that does not require any  Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A truly imaginative creature might realize that mutual adoption of the golden rule would be a great add-on, and Jeebus did not invent the golden rule, so don&#039;t even go there.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sky fairies are not required for morality, in fact they nearly always pervert it into something obscene like a religion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In order for any animal species to form a pack based society there must be a mutual understanding of non-aggression within the pack.  This forms the basis for the morality of any animal not obsessed with imaginary rules allegedly sent by an invisible sky fairy.</p>
<p>You don&#8217;t kill me and I won&#8217;t kill you is a logical and self evident first basis for a moral code that does not require any  Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy.</p>
<p>A truly imaginative creature might realize that mutual adoption of the golden rule would be a great add-on, and Jeebus did not invent the golden rule, so don&#8217;t even go there.</p>
<p>Sky fairies are not required for morality, in fact they nearly always pervert it into something obscene like a religion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mxracer652</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89598</link>
		<dc:creator>mxracer652</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89598</guid>
		<description>Hammurabi code style ethics evolved with the species.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Good on the soldier, but he should have thought about that more before enlisting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hammurabi code style ethics evolved with the species.</p>
<p>Good on the soldier, but he should have thought about that more before enlisting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fosters24</title>
		<link>http://atheists.org/blog/2008/09/25/too_much_to_pass_up/comment-page-1#comment-89602</link>
		<dc:creator>fosters24</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-89602</guid>
		<description>I think soldiers who enlist in the Army then claim conscientious objector ststus are almost all lying.&lt;br /&gt;
That being said, I am in the Army and support anyone who wants to get out. I think they should have some sort of voluntary release where you forfeit all of your veterans benefits and instead of getting an honorable discharge you get some sort of neutral administrative seperation. The Army is a hard life and it is not for everyone. The reason I doubt the sincerity of those who apply for CO status is that when you join the Army you are asked are you now or have you ever been a conscientious objector? It&#039;s 2008, the war in Iraq has been going on for five years now. If you join the Army, especially in a combat arms capacity, you have to be willfully ignorant to think you&#039;re not going into the fight. If you are opposed to fighting war, there is an easy 100% effective way to get out of having to fight in it, don&#039;t join the military. However, I understand sometimes people make mistakes or the Army doesn&#039;t quite turn out to be like the movies, that&#039;s why there should be an easy way out.&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think soldiers who enlist in the Army then claim conscientious objector ststus are almost all lying.<br />
That being said, I am in the Army and support anyone who wants to get out. I think they should have some sort of voluntary release where you forfeit all of your veterans benefits and instead of getting an honorable discharge you get some sort of neutral administrative seperation. The Army is a hard life and it is not for everyone. The reason I doubt the sincerity of those who apply for CO status is that when you join the Army you are asked are you now or have you ever been a conscientious objector? It&#8217;s 2008, the war in Iraq has been going on for five years now. If you join the Army, especially in a combat arms capacity, you have to be willfully ignorant to think you&#8217;re not going into the fight. If you are opposed to fighting war, there is an easy 100% effective way to get out of having to fight in it, don&#8217;t join the military. However, I understand sometimes people make mistakes or the Army doesn&#8217;t quite turn out to be like the movies, that&#8217;s why there should be an easy way out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
