View Full Version : Morality
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 01:00
I discourage firearms ownership among my friends who drink, have another substance abuse problem, are hotheads, seem prone to depression. I advise anyone with children to keep firearms either out of the house or locked away like Fort Knox.
There are already laws in America involving drinking and firearms. I would say don't drink. How many crimes and accidents of all natures are alcohol-related? More children drown in the bathtub than die from accidental gunshot wounds. We need to teach responsibility, for with every right comes a responsibility. It is my right to own a gun; it is my responsibility to make sure that it functions, and that I know how to operate it safely. Also we need to teach them morality, which has been removed from the schools. If we tell them that it is wrong to do something, such as kill people, we should tell them why it is wrong. It is my right to vote; it is my responsibility to know what the candidates stand for. Especially relevant today as it is a primary election day. And please, stop talking about democracy. Democracy leads to anarchy, where everybody's rights get trampled on, and the fickle opinions of the mob hold sway. The US is a constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law, ignored as it is nowadays.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
a completely inoffensive name
08-20-2014, 02:13
There are already laws in America involving drinking and firearms. I would say don't drink. How many crimes and accidents of all natures are alcohol-related? More children drown in the bathtub than die from accidental gunshot wounds. We need to teach responsibility, for with every right comes a responsibility. It is my right to own a gun; it is my responsibility to make sure that it functions, and that I know how to operate it safely. Also we need to teach them morality, which has been removed from the schools. If we tell them that it is wrong to do something, such as kill people, we should tell them why it is wrong. It is my right to vote; it is my responsibility to know what the candidates stand for. Especially relevant today as it is a primary election day. And please, stop talking about democracy. Democracy leads to anarchy, where everybody's rights get trampled on, and the fickle opinions of the mob hold sway. The US is a constitutional republic, governed by the rule of law, ignored as it is nowadays.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
How do you teach morality?
Kadagar_AV
08-20-2014, 02:33
How do you teach morality?
Easy:
* Don't do to others what you wouldnt like people to do to you.
* Do to others what you would want them to do to you...
it's quite simple, really.
Easy:
* Don't do to others what you wouldnt like people to do to you.
* Do to others what you would want them to do to you...
it's quite simple, really.
Downside is, someone in the second category forget about the first and it can really bite back hard.
Kadagar_AV
08-20-2014, 03:20
Downside is, someone in the second category forget about the first and it can really bite back hard.
That's why we invented absolutely awesome stuff like laws, state-monopoly-violence and prisons...
Also the international court of Haag, it's only that scumbag nations don't adhere to it. With scumbag nations I mean USA, Israel, and other warmongering nations that doesn't seem to make even a decade without war.
Silly scumbag nations.
a completely inoffensive name
08-20-2014, 03:25
Easy:
* Don't do to others what you wouldnt like people to do to you.
* Do to others what you would want them to do to you...
it's quite simple, really.
This is terrible logic. What if I am really into public flogging........
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 13:47
How do you teach morality?
Ethics lessons, behavioural training, 'learning by doing', internationalism, etc. There are many ways of teaching morality.
Including brainwashing, of course.
Also, as for the post ACIN replied to:
In order for an agent to take an action, it needs both the opportunity AND the motivation to take that action. Democracy has few safeguards against mob rule and anarchy; sure. There is plenty of opportunity to oppress within a democracy. But as Tocqueville argued, democracy also removes the motivation to oppress. That's why democracy simply will not decend into mob rule and anarchy.
Pannonian
08-20-2014, 16:02
This is terrible logic. What if I am really into public flogging........
Then you'll have to pay for the service like everyone else. Stilettos and leather gear are extra.
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 17:16
Teaching morality requires absolutes. For me, that is the Bible. A lot of those things, do unto others as you would have done to you, and such like, are biblical principals. The problem is, with the evolutionary rotgut pervading society, there are no absolutes. It is taught that man is just an animal. Well, no wonder we see school shootings. It shows that people understand what they have been taught. And so what? If evolution is true, then what is wrong with shooting somebody on a whim? Evolution is based on survival of the fittest. There are no true rights in an evolutionary society, for there is no higher power to bestow those rights.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 17:18
Teaching morality requires absolutes.
Nonsense.
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 17:26
Then what makes wrong wrong, and what makes right right? If I decide that I want to commit some horrible crime, who is to say what I am doing is wrong? You? Somebody else? What makes that other person the authority to say what is right? They are human, just like me. For true rights, you need somebody above the human realm, who tells us what is right. That is God. Why does every society, no matter how primitive, worship something? Worship is ingrained in us as humans.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 17:39
Then what makes wrong wrong, and what makes right right?
Lrn2philosophy.
Have (conversationalatheist.com/challenges/response-to-god-is-the-source-of-morality/) some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality) linkys (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morality).
There is the link with Oxytocin too.
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 17:59
???? And who is to say the philosophers are right? They are just humans after all, too. You need an ultimate authority. Look at what happened in America when we kicked God out of the schools. Violent crime, teen pregnancy, drug use all skyrocketed. Used to be nobody thought anything if a kid brought a gun to school. Nowadays it is not a good sign.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 18:05
And who is to say the philosophers are right?
....And who is to say you are right? Who is to say this god of yours is right?
You need an ultimate authority.
lol, no. This is PRATT (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/PRATT).
You may need an ultimate authority. We do not.
Also, you are indeed correct that everyone was nice back when God was a part of American schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_tears).
Rhyfelwyr
08-20-2014, 19:17
You are spot on Vincent. Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals. It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.
Lest anyone get offended, I am not saying atheists have no morality. I am saying that their moral views are inconsistent with their atheism.
BTW, I hope you'll be sticking around because I could do with some backup here!
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 19:25
It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.
Rubbish.
For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning? It brings enjoyment and pleasure to all. Sex is also a very healthy activity. Christian morals say free sex is wrong. This approach brings no pleasure and makes everyone stuck up wussies. Atheist morals are supreme.
That you don't understand what atheism is about has no effect on atheists being moral.
Rubbish. For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning?....
That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 19:50
That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.
It most certainly is not moral relativism. I do not claim that other views on sexuality are just as moral as this. In fact, I claim that some of them are immoral.
Sex with dogs and cocaine dealings does not follow the same logic as my example, by the way. The dog has no way to express consent, and the addict is not of sound mind(thus no consent there either). No consent, no mutual pleasure.
Sex with dogs and cocaine dealings does not follow the same logic as my example, by the way. The dog has no way to express consent.
Sure it does. Twice a year and in a very visual way.
...and the addict is not of sound mind(thus no consent there either). No consent, no mutual pleasure.
Two things:
1. You don't get to define what counts as consent from another person.
2. There are plenty of cocaine users who aren't addicts by any stretch of imagination (such as 1st time users).
You are a moral relativist. To each their own, but that's what your are. Whether that's a positive thing or a negative is largely a personal preference, but that doesn't subtract from the fact that you are a classic moral relativist.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 20:27
1. You don't get to define what counts as consent from another person.
Yup, I do.
Why shouldn't I get to?
Why shouldn't I get to?
Because you're not them.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 20:43
Because you're not them.
So?
The ability to make rational decisions is not subjective quality. It can, in fact, only be determined by an objective observer according to a set definition.
Greyblades
08-20-2014, 20:48
Are we really doing this? Christ, there are infants who know the no morals without god argument is dumb.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 20:49
Are we really doing this? Christ, there are infants who know the no morals without god argument is dumb.
Hence my extremely brief replies ~;)
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 20:51
The thing is, we are just people. With God, well, since he created everything he gets to decide what is right. By his very nature what he does is always just. I know there are people who claim to be atheists, who will say God does not exist. Sure, I take His existence by faith, the Bible says that we walk by faith, not by sight. They take it by faith that there is no God. Well, who determines for them what is right and wrong? If they determine that themselves, then they are a god. If the government, or whoever else, decides that, then they have become a god. Everybody has a god or gods of one kind or another, they may not realize it. HoreTore, in this case, by defining what, in essence, you believe to be right, you, as a fallible human, become your own god. The question boils down to, who determines what is right? I certainly would not leave it to men. Look at what happens when men attempt to seize that power, they ALWAYS abuse it.
HoreTore
08-20-2014, 21:13
Since there is no god, your own morals are decided by men as well.
The rest of your post is simply assuming that everyone behaves and believes in a similar way that you do (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychological_projection). This is false.
You may have a god. I do not.
Apparently I am sinning by eating this bacon sandwich, but it is so tasty.
But what tickles me is how some say there is a god, yet a major faith like Hinduism is the oldest major religion yet they have had morals even before there were even jews. What of the pagan faiths of druidism and others like Wotan or even the Greek gods?
Even if you could argue the existence of a 'god' or multiple, whatever they are, you could still be barking totally up the wrong tree with your morality.
And the existence of morality doesn't prove there is a higher being (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality) either.
The point of view we are missing: do 'believers' only not commit a 'sin' because 'god' told them not to? That is the scarey thought, that without the threat of divine retribution, they would do all the manner of unspeakable things. Maybe that is where the concern is, as HoreTore put out there with psychological projection, they only 'behave' as they think will be punished for it.
Rhyfelwyr
08-20-2014, 22:28
Rubbish.
For example, I believe free sex to be moral. My reasoning? It brings enjoyment and pleasure to all. Sex is also a very healthy activity. Christian morals say free sex is wrong. This approach brings no pleasure and makes everyone stuck up wussies. Atheist morals are supreme.
What are these morals of yours based on?
I have God as a universal arbiter. How can you claim in the absolute rightness of your morals without such a figure?
Apparently I am sinning by eating this bacon sandwich, but it is so tasty.
But what tickles me is how some say there is a god, yet a major faith like Hinduism is the oldest major religion yet they have had morals even before there were even jews. What of the pagan faiths of druidism and others like Wotan or even the Greek gods?
Even if you could argue the existence of a 'god' or multiple, whatever they are, you could still be barking totally up the wrong tree with your morality.
Could go all day with this...
Is your point that Judeo-Christian morals are wrong, or that the very concept of absolute morality is wrong?
Also, the Bible addresses the points you raise against Christianity - namely, that people follow other moral systems, and that these differ to some degree for the Christian one. On your first point, the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)
As for your second point, these other moral systems came to differ from the true law as revealed in the Bible, because of a process of degeneration which began when they corrupted their worship of God:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. For that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for he has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, so that they are without excuse. For when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to bird, and to fourfooted beasts, and to creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them over to uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and who worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1: 18-25)
There are a lot of very relevant themes in that passage right there. Not least the glorification of the created above the creator, which is so central to the supposedly moral beliefs of todays humanists. And from a historical viewpoint as well, it documents how the corrupted pagan and polytheist religions like Hinduism and Greek paganism emerged from a degeneration of the original monotheism of mankind.
Kadagar_AV
08-20-2014, 22:45
Here we go again.
1. The Christian ten commandments are more or less human rules. Lots of cultures go by them, and went by them before Christianity.
2. If you need the Christian God to be moral, how come other cultures and people have been able to reach morality without the Christian God around. Ghandi comes to mind.
3.Rather unimportant but just an amusing sidenote... Teen pregnancy is more common in more biblical states and surroundings... Just saying..
3.Rather unimportant but just an amusing sidenote... Teen pregnancy is more common in more biblical states and surroundings... Just saying..
Because wearing a condom is preached as a bigger sin than sex before marriage.
a completely inoffensive name
08-20-2014, 23:12
Rhy please rise above typical religious talking points.
If you are an atheist and are looking for a system of absolute morals:
A. Read some Mill
B. Read some Kant
C. Read some Aristotle
and then pick one ffs.
And to everyone replying to me on how you can teach morality, I know you can teach morality. I asked the question so we can skip the pussyfooting around and have him just come and say the Bible is the alpha and the omega. Makes it easier to ridicule.
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 23:22
Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values. Especially here in America, Christianity has become very lax, and accepted a lot of non-biblical influence. If everybody followed biblical values, we would be a much better culture. What is there to not like about values? Historically, a persecuted church has stronger Christians who adhere more to the Bible, than in a free country such as America. Nowhere, by the way, is using a condom taught as a sin, that I am aware of. Premarital sex is specifically named as a sin. Also, correct that morals have been around longer than Christianity. They have not been around longer than the God of Christianity. Right, I take it by faith, as stated, but so do atheists. People have always had some ideas of right and wrong. And for those who say they have no god, they are their own god. That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.
The rest of your post is simply assuming that everyone behaves and believes in a similar way that you do. This is false
Hence the belief in absolutes. If I did not believe that I was right, what would be the point in believing it? At least I have a basis for my beliefs. I am under no assumptions that everybody believes like I do, I am not that naive.
rickinator9
08-20-2014, 23:37
Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values.
Where in the bible does it say that teen pregnancy is wrong? And why were girls married as young as 12(so they could get pregnant in their teenage years) in medieval times, one of the periods in history that is characterised by a strict lifestyle based on Christian values?
That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.
And for some people it is their religiosity or "christian values"...
Vincent Butler
08-20-2014, 23:53
The term "teen pregnancy" is usually used with the understanding that the pregnancy is outside of wedlock. As such, the girl (and guy) would be guilty of fornication, which is a sin. The guy is just as much in the wrong as the girl. If a teenager gets married, and marriages at eighteen or nineteen are not rare, or sometimes younger (though not necessarily advisable), and gets pregnant, that is usually not considered when people talk about when they say "teen pregnancy". Girls getting married at twelve is not wise, as her body is not yet ready for pregnancy. But they had such a short lifespan (partially aided by the pregnancies at that age) that it was important to have children at a young age. I am by no means excusing that practice, I deplore it. There was nothing strictly Christian about the medieval times, just curious, what makes you say that?
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 00:10
Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals.
Of course, because absolute morality is an absurd concept.
Christian morality has changed considerably. For most of human history, slavery was thought of as completely normal and acceptable and the church(es) was no different. Nowadays, slaveowners are retroactively branded as 'sinful' and 'bad christians'. I'm sure there are other examples, but I like this one.
You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.
You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.
Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 00:20
Note that teen pregnancy is a departure from biblical values. Especially here in America, Christianity has become very lax, and accepted a lot of non-biblical influence. If everybody followed biblical values, we would be a much better culture. What is there to not like about values? Historically, a persecuted church has stronger Christians who adhere more to the Bible, than in a free country such as America. Nowhere, by the way, is using a condom taught as a sin, that I am aware of. Premarital sex is specifically named as a sin. Also, correct that morals have been around longer than Christianity. They have not been around longer than the God of Christianity. Right, I take it by faith, as stated, but so do atheists. People have always had some ideas of right and wrong. And for those who say they have no god, they are their own god. That is why there is no such thing as a true atheist, he always has some being he appeals to, be it himself, the government, nature, whatever it may be, that being is his god.
Hence the belief in absolutes. If I did not believe that I was right, what would be the point in believing it? At least I have a basis for my beliefs. I am under no assumptions that everybody believes like I do, I am not that naive.
What biblical values? To keep slaves? To send women out to be gang raped?
How would your culture be better off by that?
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 00:33
Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.
Then it's not really saying much, because the things specified in the 10 commandments are either:
1) idiosyncrasies of Judaism/Christianity, such as monotheism and ban on idolatery
2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 00:36
2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time
Then we really have found absolute morals.
Then it's not really saying much...
Perhaps that's the key to being timeless: brevity and simplicity.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 00:49
2) stuff that is indispensible for the functioning of any human community, and is literally found everywhere and in any time
Let's not overwhelm the poor guy with clear and utterly sane posts adhering to logic...
Instead let him slowly bleed out, till he becomes one of us..*
* Bitter, broken and possibly a danger to society.
Hooahguy
08-21-2014, 00:51
Violent crime, teen pregnancy, drug use all skyrocketed.
Actually, teen pregnancy went way down (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html), violent crime also decreased (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=49), and drug use mostly went down as well (http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school-youth-trends).
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 01:01
This topic is always distressing for because my observations in life have been this:
1. Religion seems nonsensical and silly to me.
2. "Good Christians" are better people than "good atheists".
3. I can't reconcile the two previous statements.
Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.
Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.
I'm afraid you're too late: Mormons already run pretty much everything related to gambling, etc in Nevada. They are the best at it. Why?
As one Mormon put it for me: "Because we do not drink, we do not smoke and we do not gamble."
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 01:08
I'm afraid you're too late: Mormons already run pretty much everything related to gambling, etc in Nevada. They are the best at it. Why?
As one Mormon put it for me: "Because we do not drink, we do not smoke and we do not gamble."
Oh I know, that's my point. I am just saying that as an atheist with my own "absolute morals" I still would go that route.
Papewaio
08-21-2014, 01:18
You are spot on Vincent. Atheism simply cannot be reconciled with absolute morals. It is totally intellectually bankrupt to claim to be an atheist and to hold moral values.
Lest anyone get offended, I am not saying atheists have no morality. I am saying that their moral views are inconsistent with their atheism.
BTW, I hope you'll be sticking around because I could do with some backup here!
Absolute morals lead to people thinking they are absolutely right and then doing absolutely horrible things in God(s) name(s)
Spanish Inquistion
Troubles
ISIS
etc
=][=
Also I take exception about not talking about Democracy. This isn't a USA only forum. It is international and a lot of us live in functioning democracies with:
Higher literacy
Longer lifespans
Cheaper education
Universal Healthcare
Dearth of school shootings
So maybe it isn't religious makeup, or gun rights, or personel responsibility it is not being a democracy that is the fault with USA.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 01:33
I just want gay atheists to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns!!
Yeah... One really shouldnt be too concerned about US issues on an international board... Nor christian ones, IMHO.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 10:29
What are these morals of yours based on?
The common good, mostly.
Reason. Logic.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 10:33
A. Read some Mill
Mill despised atheism, though.
Still, he didn't justify his reasoning on liberty by referring to a divine creator.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 10:51
Mill despised atheism, though.
Still, he didn't justify his reasoning on liberty by referring to a divine creator.
According to wikipedia he was an atheist himself. And it even comes with two sources next to that statement!
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 11:03
According to wikipedia he was an atheist himself. And it even comes with two sources next to that statement!
Wow! Two!
Anyway, in On Liberty, while arguing that atheists should not be banned from civil service(as they were at the time), he writes that "although a lack of belief in a divine being is vile and despicable, they should not be banned from civil service". Or something to that effect, it's been a long time since I read it. And it was in Norwegian anyway...
I took that to mean Mill was not an atheist himself. He may have had other motives for labeling atheism as "vile and disgusting", however. I must admit that I don't know much about the man himself.
Rhyfelwyr
08-21-2014, 11:14
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I try my best to be clear in what I am saying, but it seems that people will just not pay the least bit of attention to what I say. It's almost as if people presume I am saying one thing, and argue against that, without realising that I am in fact saying very much the opposite...
Here we go again.
1. The Christian ten commandments are more or less human rules. Lots of cultures go by them, and went by them before Christianity.
2. If you need the Christian God to be moral, how come other cultures and people have been able to reach morality without the Christian God around. Ghandi comes to mind.
My post directly above yours clearly states:
the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)"
So, what point of mine were you arguing against when you made your post Kad?
Rhy please rise above typical religious talking points.
If you are an atheist and are looking for a system of absolute morals:
A. Read some Mill
B. Read some Kant
C. Read some Aristotle
and then pick one ffs.
Don't just throw names about - tell me just how those characters proposed that absolute, objective moral values can exist without God.
IMO, atheists want to have their cake and eat it. The want to deny God and yet they want to keep a system of objective morality that relies upon God. But they can't, and the honest atheist knows it - Nietzsche was right when he said that you can't keep morality without God.
And to everyone replying to me on how you can teach morality, I know you can teach morality. I asked the question so we can skip the pussyfooting around and have him just come and say the Bible is the alpha and the omega. Makes it easier to ridicule.
God is the alpha and the omega. The Bible on the other hand is an excellent resource for learning to live in a godly way and for improving yourself as a person. As you said yourself ACIN, the "good Christians" you know are better people than the "good atheists" - what makes them different?
Of course, because absolute morality is an absurd concept.
I applaud your honesty in saying that atheism and absolute morality are not compatible. Of course, I do not think of absolute morality as absurd, but that is because I am thinking within a theistic framework. I realise that you will also consider that to be absurd, but at least we are being honest with each other.
Christian morality has changed considerably. For most of human history, slavery was thought of as completely normal and acceptable and the church(es) was no different. Nowadays, slaveowners are retroactively branded as 'sinful' and 'bad christians'. I'm sure there are other examples, but I like this one.
You might call it an improved understanding of Gods Will. To me it's proof that your morals are just as bound to place and time as mine.
Whatever so-called Christians may have said or done throughout history, the Christian position is ultimately that the Bible alone contains a true revelation of the unchanging moral order. The actions of all Christians should be held to that standard.
Absolute morals lead to people thinking they are absolutely right and then doing absolutely horrible things in God(s) name(s)
Spanish Inquistion
Troubles
ISIS
etc
As I said to Kralizec, I applaud your honesty in not attempting to reconcile atheism with absolute morality. If you do not hold to absolute morals, then that position is perfectly compatible with your atheism.
I posted in this thread to highlight the hypocrisy of those atheists who try to argue for an absolute, objective moral order without God. I'll not start any wider arguments over other points in the meantime.
ICantSpellDawg
08-21-2014, 11:23
I don't believe in secular "morality". To me, those are just manners, and who gives a shit about manners? There are either transcendent reasons to do or not do something, or it is up to an individual to determine If an action would benefit them more than it would hurt them and compare that consequence with their desire to do the action.
On the flip side, I believe in a secular public legal system and a minimalist State. I am perfectly happy accepting the Bible as my personal superlative; I am legally free to be a hypocrite if my will or personal reason/logic supersedes something that I read in the Bible. I am not okay with government developing laws based on the Bible/Koran/Fight Club/etc.
Down with laws, up with personal morality which is taught in the home and in communities.
Greyblades
08-21-2014, 11:27
Not necessarily. Things like the 10 Commandments are timeless, changeless and always relevant.
Which is kinda funny because there have been at least 7 differring official versions and the translation has been interprited in many ways, the most egregous being though shalt not murder/kill.
Also, commandments 1-3 (Catholic edition) are superfluous to non abrahamic societies and 4 is naiively ignoring the possibility of your father and/or mother being completely underserving of honour.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 11:55
Don't just throw names about - tell me just how those characters proposed that absolute, objective moral values can exist without God.
IMO, atheists want to have their cake and eat it. The want to deny God and yet they want to keep a system of objective morality that relies upon God. But they can't, and the honest atheist knows it - Nietzsche was right when he said that you can't keep morality without God.
Oh god. Now I have to remember all the intro PHIL classes I have taken.
Mill's utilitarianism is based on maximizing utility AKA happiness. Scientifically you can pretty much verify that almost every human at least has various receptors which do communicate a signal that is interpreted as pain or pleasure. So while the individual experience may be subjective, the presence of pain and pleasure is objectively universal and so we can build off of that without invoking God.
Aristotle if I remember the beginning to Nicomachean Ethics correctly doesn't even bother with first principles. He lays out a guideline for particular humans and kind of waves away the foundation by saying it is not really important to define the Good (like Plato tries) before promoting what is Good.
I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.
God is the alpha and the omega. The Bible on the other hand is an excellent resource for learning to live in a godly way and for improving yourself as a person. As you said yourself ACIN, the "good Christians" you know are better people than the "good atheists" - what makes them different?
They care more. The monotheistic route at its core is that there a God and you need to obey him, the differences in religion are superficial rituals. The secular route kind of gets treated as a buffet where people pick and choose what they like for individual situations. I personally still try to understand more about Kant and Aristotle because I actually take it seriously as to which I choose to follow.
I remember having an argument with my ex (who I inadvertently turned into an atheist) where she was trying to argue why pirating songs and movies wasn't wrong. It was silly and I didn't understand why something so clearly wrong by any standard is so common among people who are otherwise 'moral' and like to take pride that they don't need God to be nice to fellow people.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 11:59
Meh, pirating is perfectly moral to anyone with even the slightest anarchist bent...
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 12:01
Wow! Two!
Anyway, in On Liberty, while arguing that atheists should not be banned from civil service(as they were at the time), he writes that "although a lack of belief in a divine being is vile and despicable, they should not be banned from civil service". Or something to that effect, it's been a long time since I read it. And it was in Norwegian anyway...
I took that to mean Mill was not an atheist himself. He may have had other motives for labeling atheism as "vile and disgusting", however. I must admit that I don't know much about the man himself.
I was being a bit facetious lol. As for On Liberty, you might need to dig deeper because it is possible that he said that in order to make his work more palatable to the public. Keep in mind, Mill was also one of the first to write in the public sphere for the inclusion of women into society and the human rights of women. You can only rock the boat so much before you start hindering your message.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 12:01
Meh, pirating is perfectly moral to anyone with even the slightest anarchist bent...
????? No government = stealing property is ok?
Montmorency
08-21-2014, 12:14
ITT: One side makes shit arguments, and the other responds in kind; we all end up swimming in shit.
A lot of otherwise-clever people here are putting together posts so stupid they're not even worth parodying; every step is incorrect. :shame:
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 12:16
Joke is on you, because I am not a clever man. You have been wasting time reading shit from a moron.
EDIT: But maybe you can lay the foundation for a non-shit discussion.
Montmorency
08-21-2014, 12:19
Not on a mobile I won't. I might start a clean thread in some days.
Greyblades
08-21-2014, 12:39
vis-a-vis piracy: give me another way to voice my displeasure to a multi billion dollar company that might actually reach the people in charge and I might consider piracy a wrong. Alternatively give me the oppertunity to get my money back when a product bought turns out to be dog:daisy:.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 12:43
vis-a-vis piracy: give me another way to voice my displeasure to a multi billion dollar company that might actually reach the people in charge and I might consider piracy a wrong. Alternatively give me the oppertunity to get my money back when a product bought turns out to be dog:daisy:.
You could simply refuse to buy and go about your day.
Due to monetary constraints I have not watched any 'superhero' movie of any kind since iron man 2, with the sole exception of the Dark Knight Rises. It really has not impacted me negatively in the slightest, so I don't understand why people assert that pop culture phenomenons should be freely available to everyone.
Greyblades
08-21-2014, 12:54
You could simply refuse to buy and go about your day.
I could, but then they wont care about me. I play their games; if it's good and they arent dicks I pay them, otherwise they get another digit to add to the "imaginary profits lost" counter. It's infinitely more effective than the completely legal venues of complaint.
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 13:00
I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.
The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 13:06
The classic example of why Kant's imperative is problematic is that of helping the murderer. You walk the streets at night. A man flees past you in panic, then crosses into an alley. Then you see his pursuer who obviously has bad intentions, and he asks you where the other guy went.
According to Kant, it would be morally wrong to direct the pursuer in the false direction. "Lying" is not an action you would want the rest of the world to induldge in and is therefore bad in and of itself. The fact that telling the truth will result in the death of the fleeing man is because the pursuer isn't acting according to the categorical imperative, not because of your action.
Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 13:07
I could, but then they wont care about me. I play their games; if it's good and they arent dicks I pay them, otherwise they get another digit to add to the "imaginary profits lost" counter. It's infinitely more effective than the completely legal venues of complaint.
They don't care about you now. What's the difference?
Greyblades
08-21-2014, 13:10
They don't care about you now. What's the difference?
If they didnt care they wouldn't spend millions on failing DRM and lawsuits.
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 13:17
If they didnt care they wouldn't spend millions on failing DRM and lawsuits.
Your argument is nonsensical. This is close to the discussion I had with my ex.
I don't like the product I am getting. I want to express that I don't want this product. If I do not buy this product they will continue making the product because I am just one person. If I pirate the product that I hate they will make the product even worse with DRM but at least they acknowledge I exist. It boggles the mind. If you do not like what you are getting, why pirate it in the first place? If you do like it, why is it not worth the asking price? Piracy is thinly veiled greed.
EDIT: Let me express it in this way. Give an argument as to why you are entitled to express your displeasure towards the companies in this particular manner. I can of course tell my local police my displeasure by throwing eggs at the police station, but no matter how legitimate the complaint, that is not acceptable.
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 13:23
Just don't say anything. You do not have a duty to give a response to anyone who asks you a question. The beauty of "the right to remain silent".
That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.
Greyblades
08-21-2014, 13:27
I don't like the product I am getting. I want to express that I don't want this product. Not neccissarily: sometimes I like the prduct but I dont want my money going to the maker because they are abhorrent.
If I do not buy this product they will continue making the product because I am just one person. Indeed, I am under no delusion that my actions will hurt them any more than they let it. But they keep letting it
If I pirate the product that I hate they will make the product even worse with DRM but at least they acknowledge I exist. Again, I dont neccissarily hate the product, most of the time I pirate it to find out if I hate it or not. And if they ruin it with DRM it is irrelevant to me because unless I legally buy it I dont have to experience the DRM.
It boggles the mind. If you do not like what you are getting, why pirate it in the first place? If you do like it, why is it not worth the asking price? Piracy is thinly veiled greed. Actually in my case piracy is thinly veiled Vengeance, I pay those who do good in my eyes, to hell with the rest.
I have been burned many times, and I will not allow myself to continue being burned. Complaining does nothing, boycotting does nothing, piracy for some reason gets them angry. When you want to change something which do you choose?
Let me express it in this way. Give an argument as to why you are entitled to express your displeasure towards the companies in this particular manner. I can of course tell my local police my displeasure by throwing eggs at the police station, but no matter how legitimate the complaint, that is not acceptable. ...You come from a nation founded on petty rebellion, and you tell me what I am doing is unacceptable?
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 13:41
That's a flaw in the example. For the purpose of the argument you'll have to assume that you have to answer (i.e. he's threatening you) or that he'll pick the right direction if you remain silent.
The more specific the example, the less of a problem it becomes philosophically imo. You still do not have to reply even if he is threatening you. You always have the ability to be silent. Posing a scenario where the murderer somehow has the ability to compel you to say something starts to become silly. If the point of the example is that there is a situation where there are only two possible choices, lie or have the man be killed then I still don't see the problem that people have. You have a forced a situation where someone's duty is to be broken. Categorical Imperative in its first formulation is to treat people as ends in themselves not as a means to an end. Given the choice between the death of a rational being or lying, you must lie because to let the person die for the sake of upholding duty is in fact breaking your duty by treating his life as a means to an end (satisfying duty).
Not a perfect answer obviously. But then again, I try to live according to Aristotle's ethics than Kant.
Ironside
08-21-2014, 13:46
That's just typical moral relativism. I might believe that free sex with dogs is moral, or selling cocaine is moral (after all, both the dealer and the user get exactly what they want). That doesn't make it moral. Moral relativism is total trash.
So where in the Bible is cocaine classed as immoral? And why is cocaine classed as immoral, while alchohol isn't?
Where's slavery immoral?
Were you a blank sheet before you red those passages and then suddenly came to the conclusion that they were immoral actions?
Moral relativism doesn't mean that there's no morals. It's an aknowledgement that the basis of morals comes from the dominating thoughts and emotions that runs through society. Those change with time and place. The diadvantage is that it's easier to claim that something you do is moral, since that argument can always be told (although far from won).
The advantage is that there's no armour of God to wear. The one where's someones actions are always good because they're done under the banner of God, while filing the serial numbers off, and you'll have that obvious villain for your next novel (OT God's acts, done by a fantasy god? Evil god. Not fullblown, but evil nevertheless). Christian sects are fond of making that holy man's coveting of wives into a virtue for example.
Both foundations will have people that yarns that all their acts or wants are moral, and they will then try to justify their act as moral (the lesser version is to acknowledge that the act is evil, but justified).
a completely inoffensive name
08-21-2014, 13:49
Again, I dont neccissarily hate the product, most of the time I pirate it to find out if I hate it or not. And if they ruin it with DRM it is irrelevant to me because unless I legally buy it I dont have to experience the DRM.
Actually in my case piracy is thinly veiled Vengeance, I pay those who do good in my eyes, to hell with the rest.
I have been burned many times, and I will not allow myself to continue being burned. Complaining does nothing, boycotting does nothing, piracy for some reason gets them angry. When you want to change something which do you choose?
Clarify, how are you getting "burned" what exactly is the problem if you admit that the product itself is not necessarily the problem. Is it the fact that you don't get to know whether you will like the product before hand? It's entertainment dude. I'm not going to get mad if I pay to enter Laugh Factory and walk out with merely a handful of chuckles.
...You come from a nation where your most memorable event is civil disobediance, and you tell me what I am doing is unacceptable?
Civil disobedience is not inherently righteous. Also, there is a clear distinction between private and government policies with the role of civil disobedience.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 13:56
Reg. piracy:
Nationalize everything. Make everything free, pay the artists through taxation. A perfect solution, fit for anyone named Stalin. I see no reason why a world-famous singer/guitar player/actor/whatever should be excused from working part time at the local Wal-Mart to make ends meet.
Show-biz is an utter waste of money. The less money they get, the better it is.
Piracy is only really morally problematic if you respect the free market. Being a stinkin' commie, I don't have much respect for the free market.
Greyblades
08-21-2014, 14:11
Clarify, how are you getting "burned" what exactly is the problem if you admit that the product itself is not necessarily the problem. Is it the fact that you don't get to know whether you will like the product before hand? It's entertainment dude. I'm not going to get mad if I pay to enter Laugh Factory and walk out with merely a handful of chuckles.
No, but when I pay for a copy of frankenstien and the last act is replaced by 50 shades of grey I am going to get dissapointed. When I pay to watch star wars and I get some 5 year old's reenactment I get annoyed. When I go to see a play on the intricacies of the elizabethan court and it turns out the message is: the sky is green, I'm goinng to get mad. This is what we get in the gaming industry: unfinished tripe and abrupt changes in quality. Buggy games and crappy stories all due to cut corners, and precisely because it is entertainment I am not allowed to get my money back for false advertising.
I have been burned many times by great series ending on shit, great promise not being delivered and because I couldnt find out without playing or watching to the end I ended up spending money on products I would have otherwise not have touched with a 10 foot pole. So yeah, I have been burned. Piracy lets me test things before putting down money and it gives me the only way of getting a response from a willfully deaf industry.
Civil disobedience is not inherently righteous. Also, there is a clear distinction between private and government policies with the role of civil disobedience.
My apologies, I should have said: petty rebellion.
So where in the Bible is cocaine classed as immoral? And why is cocaine classed as immoral, while alchohol isn't?The Bible frowns upon intoxication regardless of its source. Cocaine in itself is neither moral or immoral, it's just a chemical. Same with alcohol.
Where's slavery immoral?
Are you talking about the Ante-bellum South chattel slavery? It's not addressed in the Bible because it did not exist at the time.
Were you a blank sheet before you red those passages and then suddenly came to the conclusion that they were immoral actions?I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Moral relativism doesn't mean that there's no morals.
I never claimed otherwise.
The advantage is that there's no armour of God to wear. The one where's someones actions are always good because they're done under the banner of God, while filing the serial numbers off, and you'll have that obvious villain for your next novel (OT God's acts, done by a fantasy god? Evil god. Not fullblown, but evil nevertheless). Christian sects are fond of making that holy man's coveting of wives into a virtue for example.People can claim whatever they want in the name of whatever they want. That doesn't change the morality of what they do. Also, when I claim that morals laws are absolute, that doesn't mean that I actually know what they are. I only assert that they exist and make a guess about what they might be.
Both foundations will have people that yarns that all their acts or wants are moral, and they will then try to justify their act as moral (the lesser version is to acknowledge that the act is evil, but justified).Well, that's humans for you, nothing new here.
The Lurker Below
08-21-2014, 16:35
This topic is always distressing for because my observations in life have been this:
1. Religion seems nonsensical and silly to me.
2. "Good Christians" are better people than "good atheists".
3. I can't reconcile the two previous statements.
Call me a hypocrite, but if this atheist ever starts up a casino in Vegas, I am hiring only mormons to run it.
Concerning #2 I share a similar experience. May I also make a couple more observations about these Good Christians:
1 - they don't evangelize and push their specific religion on others. They focus on the values, not the motivation.
2 - I've only heard a couple of these people suggest that religion should be in schools and have heard others argue distinctly against religion in schools.
Are you talking about the Ante-bellum South chattel slavery? It's not addressed in the Bible because it did not exist at the time.
You should look up the definition of chattel slavery then. It's totally addressed in the Bible because it very much did exist at the time. There are passages in there about it being a slaves duty to obey their master.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 17:48
Enslaving foreign populations to work in agriculture has existed for thousands of years.
Anyway, if rvg claims that the bible is silent on the type of slavery which existed in the US, then how on earth can the bible be said to be a timeless moral guide...?
You should look up the definition of chattel slavery then. It's totally addressed in the Bible because it very much did exist at the time. There are passages in there about it being a slaves duty to obey their master.
No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 18:02
No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.
Both the Greeks and the Romans had common forms of slavery without time limits.
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 18:13
No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.
I don't really see what the difference is...except that in ancient times slaves would occasionally be emancipated by their masters, as a reward for lifelong service or affectionate reasons.
I don't really see what the difference is...except that in ancient times slaves would occasionally be emancipated by their masters, as a reward for lifelong service or affectionate reasons.
That's the thing: it wasn't a lifelong service, it was a very specific time frame, usually 7 years. Afterwards the slave was able to declare himself free and walk away.
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 18:37
As far as I know that is not correct, I could be wrong though. Emancipation was usually a voluntary gesture.
I do know that children of slaves, at least in Rome, were likewise considered the property of the master.
As far as I know that is not correct, I could be wrong though. Emancipation was usually a voluntary gesture.
I do know that children of slaves, at least in Rome, were likewise considered the property of the master.
Not sure about Rome, I'm talking about Israel and Judea.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 18:44
Not sure about Rome, I'm talking about Israel and Judea.
Irrelevant. All the early church fathers knew about the slavery going on around them.
Irrelevant. All the early church fathers knew about the slavery going on around them.
Your observation is irrelevant.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 18:47
Your observation is irrelevant.
So, the writers of the bible knew about various forms of slavery, including chattel slavery. One of the most important features in human history. It is, however, silent on the issue.
And this is supposed to be the ultimate guide to timeless and unchanging morality? HAH!
Kralizec
08-21-2014, 18:50
According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery), the temporary arrangement was only for male Hebrew slaves. Slaves of non-hebrew ethnicity were property and inheritable, much like elsewhere.
So, the writers of the bible knew about various forms of slavery, including chattel slavery. One of the most important features in human history. It is, however, silent on the issue.
Did they know about chattel slavery from TV or from the newspapers?
And this is supposed to be the ultimate guide to timeless and unchanging morality? HAH!
The Ten Commandments are very much timeless and unchanging.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 18:58
Did they know about chattel slavery from TV or from the newspapers?
....living in Rome, perhaps...?
The Ten Commandments are very much timeless and unchanging.
....And yet they offer no guidance on the question of slavery? They are no guarantee against one person owning another, to do with as he pleases? If so, it's practically useless, isn't it?
Also, you have noted that they have changed over the years, right?
....living in Rome, perhaps...?
Biblical laws on slavery predate the Roman Republic.
....And yet they offer no guidance on the question of slavery? They are no guarantee against one person owning another, to do with as he pleases?
So what? They deal with personal conduct, not with social institutions. If you're looking for a more exhaustive and comprehensive how-to guide to living, the Koran might be more suitable.
Also, you have noted that they have changed over the years, right?
Wut?
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 19:15
Let's not forgot that sending girls out to be gang raped is also part of the whole Christian morale perspective.
Disgusting, if you ask me.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 19:17
Biblical laws on slavery predate the Roman Republic.
So Jesus didn't change anything? He couldn't introduce something new...?
So what? They deal with personal conduct, not with social institutions. If you're looking for a more exhaustive and comprehensive how-to guide to living, the Koran might be more suitable.
Taking ownership of another is no less an issue of personal conduct than taking the life of another. It's a basic limitation on our relationship with our neighbor.
You are on very shaky ground now, I must say.
Wut?
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image <-try finding this commandment in a lutheran church.
So Jesus didn't change anything? He couldn't introduce something new...?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Jesus pointed out what people were doing wrong because of misinterpretation and/or skewed perspective.He himself said that his mission was to re-affirm God's law.
Taking ownership of another is no less an issue of personal conduct than taking the life of another. It's a basic limitation on our relationship with our neighbor.
If you stole your neighbor's freedom, well, that's theft. Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image <-try finding this commandment in a lutheran church.
The Ten Commandments are beyond the jurisdiction of a drunken German priest.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 19:37
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Jesus pointed out what people were doing wrong because of misinterpretation and/or skewed perspective.He himself said that his mission was to re-affirm God's law.
So he did not care about the station of the majority of the worlds population who lived in crap conditions?
How on earth does his morals have any value, then?
The Ten Commandments are beyond the jurisdiction of a drunken German priest.
Lutherans are heretics...?
So he did not care about the station of the majority of the worlds population who lived in crap conditions?
Oh, I don't know. If preaching universal equality and brotherhood qualifies as "not caring", then yeah.
Lutherans are heretics...?
Depends on who you ask.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 19:47
Oh, I don't know. If preaching universal equality and brotherhood qualifies as "not caring", then yeah.
....Which is apparently not extended to slaves. Useless git.
Rhyfelwyr
08-21-2014, 19:48
Mill's utilitarianism is based on maximizing utility AKA happiness. Scientifically you can pretty much verify that almost every human at least has various receptors which do communicate a signal that is interpreted as pain or pleasure. So while the individual experience may be subjective, the presence of pain and pleasure is objectively universal and so we can build off of that without invoking God.
Aristotle if I remember the beginning to Nicomachean Ethics correctly doesn't even bother with first principles. He lays out a guideline for particular humans and kind of waves away the foundation by saying it is not really important to define the Good (like Plato tries) before promoting what is Good.
I don't know what the hell Kant makes the foundation of his deontology. I barely had time to make sense of Mill and Aristotle, I wasn't going to dedicate 10 hours a week into deciphering the 30 pages I was assigned of him. All I know is that I liked his (or my interpretation of his?) idea that all humans by apparent observation, obtain a degree of reason and thus hold a special responsibility/duty to act accordingly to his Categorical Imperative.....or something like that. Tbh, I just really liked his Categorical Imperative and didn't see why people freaked out when they learned you could not lie.
Well, as you say, Aristotle is more concerned about being good than with pondering its philosophical/metaphysical foundations. As for Kant, from what I understand, he seems to take the position that absolute morality is somehow self-evident because of its general pervasiveness across time and place. So I don't think either of those two are really getting to the heart of what we are discussing here.
I would agree that Mill does attempt to make the sort of argument I was looking for, in that he appeals to human pleasure/happiness as some sort of ultimate standard by which the morality of actions may be judged. However, happiness is a bit less concrete and a bit more abstract than a personal, all-powerful God, and from that perspective, his concept of absolute morality is not as robust as a theistic one.
Also, I would say that, despite being irrelevant to the truth of the matter, it is worth noting that it would be extremely difficult to develop a practical framework of ethics from Mill's viewpoint. Unlike a theistic (or indeed Kantian) viewpoint, where an action has an objective moral value in and of itself; from Mill's viewpoint, the action only takes on a moral character insofar as it relates to the happiness of an individual, which will be determined according to their subjective interpretation, rather than any inherent value in the action itself.
They care more. The monotheistic route at its core is that there a God and you need to obey him, the differences in religion are superficial rituals. The secular route kind of gets treated as a buffet where people pick and choose what they like for individual situations. I personally still try to understand more about Kant and Aristotle because I actually take it seriously as to which I choose to follow.
I remember having an argument with my ex (who I inadvertently turned into an atheist) where she was trying to argue why pirating songs and movies wasn't wrong. It was silly and I didn't understand why something so clearly wrong by any standard is so common among people who are otherwise 'moral' and like to take pride that they don't need God to be nice to fellow people.
I think there is more to it than the theists just caring more. I think that atheists that attempt to hold to absolute morals must realise that on some level that they hold some rather contradictory views - in those circumstances, they are going to be half-hearted. Also, although this is off-topic, I do not agree that the only difference between religions is superficial rituals. Prior to around 33AD I would have agreed - religions were all 'religions of works' as people from all faiths across the world (not just ancient Judaism) tried to fulfil that law that they know by nature. But since Jesus died for our sins we now have a 'religion of grace' which is drastically different from the 'religions of works' that so many people still hopelessly slave under. Christianity is the one that stands out.
So, the writers of the bible knew about various forms of slavery, including chattel slavery. One of the most important features in human history. It is, however, silent on the issue.
And this is supposed to be the ultimate guide to timeless and unchanging morality? HAH!
Love your neighbour as yourself... do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
How can the brutality of the slave trade be compatible with such commandments?
....Which is apparently not extended to slaves. Useless git.
I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but to each their own.
Rhyfelwyr
08-21-2014, 19:49
Let's not forgot that sending girls out to be gang raped is also part of the whole Christian morale perspective.
It's not.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 19:58
Love your neighbour as yourself... do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
How can the brutality of the slave trade be compatible with such commandments?
Please explain the part about slaves obeying their masters.
Next, if this passage is misinterpreted: given that this passage was used as justification of slave-owners, please elaborate on the usefulness of the bible when it allows itself to be used to justify slavery for centuries.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 20:06
It's not.
No?
My version of the "holy texts" rather much imply that the moral there - says girls can be sent out to be gang raped.
You have read about Lot, haven't you?
Same guy and same moral also totally approve of incest, pretty much in rape form.
Gang rape: Genesis 19:1–11
Incest: Genesis 19:30–38
Rather creepy stuff, if you ask me. And most definitely against human and humane moral values.
I have seen the incest part defended, havent quite got any defense on the gang rape thingy. However you bend it, women are seen as lesser beings.
...please elaborate on the usefulness of the bible when it allows itself to be used to justify slavery for centuries.
Absolutely anything and everything can be, is, and will be misinterpreted somewhere by somebody every single day. People make mistakes. Those mistakes do not subtract from the value of the absolute moral truth.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 20:13
Absolutely anything and everything can be, is, and will be misinterpreted somewhere by somebody every single day. People make mistakes. Those mistakes do not subtract from the value of the absolute moral truth.
Yeah, the "absolute" moral truth as understood by humans, based on texts from a bronze age desert living people.
Yey for the obvious moral superiority, not to mention logic, of that claim :laugh4:
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 20:15
Absolutely anything and everything can be, is, and will be misinterpreted somewhere by somebody every single day. People make mistakes. Those mistakes do not subtract from the value of the absolute moral truth.
So, it's absolutely useless, then ~;)
So, it's absolutely useless, then ~;)
I find it extremely useful. Your mileage may vary.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 20:23
I find it extremely useful. Your mileage may vary.
If you need someone to tell you how to behave, fine by me.
I'm quite capable of figuring that out by myself.
If you need someone to tell you how to behave, fine by me.
I'm quite capable of figuring that out by myself.
Your attempts at oversimplification are rather clumsy. Still, they do reveal a lot of hubris, and hubris is baaaaad.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 20:30
Your attempts at oversimplification are rather clumsy. Still, they do reveal a lot of hubris, and hubris is baaaaad.
You shall have no other Gods than me... :rolleyes:
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 20:31
Your attempts at oversimplification are rather clumsy. Still, they do reveal a lot of hubris, and hubris is baaaaad.
I will happily offend any and all gods.
I will happily offend any and all gods.
I doubt God will take offense. Hubris is bad in general, God or no God.
No, you should look up the definition of chattel slavery. Slavery in antiquity was most often a temporary condition akin to indentured servitude, brought on by debts or military captivity.
Wrong. Chattel slavery is the oldest form of slavery. And was in fact practiced by the Israelite's, as it was by most ancient civilizations in some form. Israelite's just had a quirk in their law that an Israelite could not permanently keep another Israelite as a slave (the 7 years bit only applies under that circumstance). However a non-Israelite was fair game for permanent chattel enslavement. And if an Israelite man kept a non-Israelite woman as a slave, any children produced were considered non-Israelite. And subject to permanent bondage. Bondage that was able to be passed to the masters heirs when he died.
All of this was taken from bible versus BTW. So the bible does condone slavery.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 20:49
I doubt God will take offense. Hubris is bad in general, God or no God.
Care to elaborate on why you believe man is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong?
The common good, mostly.
Reason. Logic.
Careful, Icarus...
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 21:23
Careful, Icarus...
I've flown a hangglider, like Icarus. I landed without any hassle.
I am indeed a GOD!!!
Care to elaborate on why you believe man is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong?
They only learnt what being wrong was when they ate an apple they were not meant to, apparently.
Vincent Butler
08-21-2014, 21:45
Multiple things.
First about slavery. If you claim there are no absolute morals then how can you call slavery wrong? Maybe it is right. I for one find the slave trade deplorable, such as we did in the South. Slavery itself is never condemned, though there was only a short time for the Israelites to be slaves, and then it was more indentured servitude. But again, if you say there are no absolutes, then shut up about anything, because you have no basis to call anything right or wrong.
As to the gang raping: uh, where is that justified in the Bible? As to Lot, he was drunk when his daughters committed incest, and the Bible says that he was barely aware of anything anyway. The Bible is not justifying incest, but it does give it as a historical account. The Bible is not just a moral book, it is a history and science book. Bear in mind Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Pasteur, just to name a few, were Bible believers. Virtually all our science is based on their work.
For those who depend on their reason. If we are a product of evolution, then we are a product of chance, and how do you know that your reason is really valid? It too would be a product of chance. And maybe the laws of reason will then change, after all, what keeps everything together? The laws of physics? According to evolution, they too are from chance. And I would wager that you will bend your reason to suit your purposes, if the need arises.
Bear in mind Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Pasteur, just to name a few, were Bible believers. Virtually all our science is based on their work.
Please don't use appeals to authority like that, or are you going to start arguing about Zeus being the source of morality due to the works of Socrates, Pythagoras and Archimedes ?
Could also point to how the USA was modelled after the Roman Republic, does this mean the Roman gods such as Jupiter and Mars are the renown absolute sources of governance?
You can see how silly it becomes when "Some guy hundreds of years ago said this!", because humans are flawed creatures, we are never perfect, as much as we want to be.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 22:00
But again, if you say there are no absolutes, then shut up about anything, because you have no basis to call anything right or wrong.
Nonsense. I have no problem saying that slavery is wrong. It does not bring the maximum amount of pleasure to the maximum amount of people, therefore it is wrong.
Further, it does not even bring the maximum amount of pleasure to the slave-owner, as he would earn more with free labour. It's double-wrong.
If we are a product of evolution, then we are a product of chance, and how do you know that your reason is really valid? It too would be a product of chance. And maybe the laws of reason will then change, after all, what keeps everything together? The laws of physics? According to evolution, they too are from chance. And I would wager that you will bend your reason to suit your purposes, if the need arises.
Evolution is NOT chance. In fact, evolution is anything BUT chance. Evolution is very much deterministic.
I know a lot of religious folks have this warped view of what evolution is; but please, pick up an 8th grade science book and learn what it actually is.
And there is no "if" in evolution. We are a product of evolution. That is proven beyond doubt.
Care to elaborate on why you believe man is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong?
Man is very much capable. You just happen to mistake capability for infallibility. That's divine territory.
Vincent Butler
08-21-2014, 22:22
Evolution has never been proven. Secular scientists look at data and interpret it according to a predetermined view. Creationist scientists do the same thing. Evolution has been shown to be statistically improbable, virtually impossible. I could get into it more, but it would take too long. Bottom line is, the data is interpreted based on your worldview. It is historical science, meaning we cannot say for certain what happened because nobody was there from your point of view (which you take by faith), and you do not accept the word of the One who was there, whose word I take on faith.
I have no problem saying that slavery is wrong. It does not bring the maximum amount of pleasure to the maximum amount of people, therefore it is wrong
If a majority of society feels that pedophilia or murder is pleasurable, does that make it right? And what society are you talking about? Not every society agrees on what is pleasurable. Some find eating goat's cheese pleasurable. Others can't stand it. Again, you have no absolute situation there. By the way, your belief that absolutes are not needed is an absolute that you base your life on. And pleasure passes. My God is always with me. When I die, I have the hope that God has given me of heaven. When you die, you hope that there is no God.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9
Rhyfelwyr
08-21-2014, 22:23
Please explain the part about slaves obeying their masters.
Next, if this passage is misinterpreted: given that this passage was used as justification of slave-owners, please elaborate on the usefulness of the bible when it allows itself to be used to justify slavery for centuries.
Ah, quite the change of the goalposts there.
I suppose you are referring to those epistles of Paul where he calls for slaves to obey their masters, and to serve them in good faith? If so, do you consider that he immediately afterwards calls on the masters to do these very same things for their slaves? I know atheists love to quote the following from Ephesians 6:
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free."
Of course, they totally ignore the next few words:
"And, ye masters, do the same things unto them"
Kind of puts a different perspective on things, doesn't it!
Regardless, I will say this: I have no interest in reducing the Gospel to a mere social movement in order to appease those who would worship man above God. The picture I get of the Bible on slavery is that we, as Christians, are called to transcend our temporal circumstances, and to live blamelessly even in hardship. This is very much what comes across in Paul's epistle to the Corinthians:
"Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. "
Which is not to say that Christian values cannot be applied to society - the Christian position is to focus on individual, spiritual reformation, from which societal reform flows as a happy consequence. Of course, this is the opposite of what people like yourself want - rather than making the person serve the world better, you want the world to serve the person better. But for me, the Christian position is much deeper and more meaningful.
Man is very much capable. You just happen to mistake capability for infallibility. That's divine territory.
I don't think anyone feels their morals are absolute or infallible outside some doctrine, whether that is religion or ideology. The main problem is, doctrine is not absolute and it is unjustifiable.
Simply saying "that is wrong because x said so" doesn't actually make it right. There are perfectly logical arguments as to why 'Murder is wrong' without having to resort to such things.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 22:34
Evolution has never been proven. Secular scientists look at data and interpret it according to a predetermined view. Creationist scientists do the same thing. Evolution has been shown to be statistically improbable, virtually impossible.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This ties in so well with your belief that evolution happens purely by chance.
Evolution has been shown to be statistically improbable, virtually impossible. I could get into it more, but it would take too long.
Sorry, this is utter nonsense. Did you read this garbage at creationist.com or something? You really need to find a better source for information. Evolution's main evidence comes from common descent (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent), Horetore's favourite site has an article on it.
Since you brought up Isaac Newton, you totally forget to mention the point that they did not have access to modern science, big-bang and evolution as concepts did not even exist, so naturally, in a Christian dominated world, Mr. Newton was indeed a 'creationist'.
As for 'creation scientist' they don't exist. You have people claiming as such, but in reality, these are fringe lunatics who cherry pick data, ignore evidence, and attempting to assert biblical truth where-ever they can. This is not behaviour a scientist ever conducts, unless they are a very bad one and never get any work published in respected journals.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 22:35
Ah, quite the change of the goalposts there.
How so?
My one and only argument concerning the bible in this thread has been that the bible is useless. As you now argue that any societal change is merely a side-effect of some other goal of the bible, this only reinforces my point. The bible is useless, and only good for some silly spiritual stuff I don't care about.
By all means, use it if you find meaning in it. I have no problem with that, and if it works for you, then good for you. But please don't try to invalidate the views of those who do not share your views.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 22:36
They only learnt what being wrong was when they ate an apple they were not meant to, apparently.
Brilliant. Your quote?
As a sidenote, nowhere in the bible does it say it was an apple. I've heard that a fig is the most likely forbidden fruit :shrug:
Also Cherubs aren't cute little baby kids, like, at all.
Brilliant. Your quote?
Well, it is my quote as far as it is a paraphrasing of the Garden of Eden story. I didn't actually take it from anything, it is just a one-liner of what basically happened. 'God' apparently had a 'tree of knowledge' and they were denied it eat its fruit, an apple, a fig or whatever it might have been. Adam and Eve were amoral creatures, they had no concept of what 'doing wrong' actually is, apparently, eating the fruit from the tree granted them this knowledge. Anyway, encouraged by the snake, they ended up eating the fruit. This didn't actually grant them any knowledge, they simply discovered what 'doing wrong' actually was, thus, morality was born.
What is interesting is how they got embarrassed and ashamed of not wearing clothing, since nowhere it is mentioned that this is bad and 'God' was apparently puzzled by this. Does this mean not clothing is our first original manmade sin ?
I don't think anyone feels their morals are absolute or infallible outside some doctrine, whether that is religion or ideology. The main problem is, doctrine is not absolute and it is unjustifiable.
Just because this doctrine or that doctrine is fallible doesn't mean that an infallible doctrine does not exist. Moral relativists are quick to declare the morals du jours to be "the way, the truth and the light", forgetting that in the process they are justifying old injustices such as slavery. To the moral relativist of ca 300 AD slavery was normal, logical and just.
Simply saying "that is wrong because x said so" doesn't actually make it right.
And I'm not making that argument.
There are perfectly logical arguments as to why 'Murder is wrong' without having to resort to such things.
The phrase "Murder is wrong" rests mostly on the definition of the word "murder".
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 22:52
Multiple things.
First about slavery. If you claim there are no absolute morals then how can you call slavery wrong? Maybe it is right. I for one find the slave trade deplorable, such as we did in the South. Slavery itself is never condemned, though there was only a short time for the Israelites to be slaves, and then it was more indentured servitude. But again, if you say there are no absolutes, then shut up about anything, because you have no basis to call anything right or wrong.
As to the gang raping: uh, where is that justified in the Bible? As to Lot, he was drunk when his daughters committed incest, and the Bible says that he was barely aware of anything anyway. The Bible is not justifying incest, but it does give it as a historical account. The Bible is not just a moral book, it is a history and science book. Bear in mind Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Pasteur, just to name a few, were Bible believers. Virtually all our science is based on their work.
For those who depend on their reason. If we are a product of evolution, then we are a product of chance, and how do you know that your reason is really valid? It too would be a product of chance. And maybe the laws of reason will then change, after all, what keeps everything together? The laws of physics? According to evolution, they too are from chance. And I would wager that you will bend your reason to suit your purposes, if the need arises.
You really haven't read about Lot, aight?
The incest is just suspicious, the gangrape however is utterly clearly a violation of modern morals, where women are not seen as lesser beings made for men to control.
Evolution has never been proven. Secular scientists look at data and interpret it according to a predetermined view. Creationist scientists do the same thing. Evolution has been shown to be statistically improbable, virtually impossible. I could get into it more, but it would take too long. Bottom line is, the data is interpreted based on your worldview. It is historical science, meaning we cannot say for certain what happened because nobody was there from your point of view (which you take by faith), and you do not accept the word of the One who was there, whose word I take on faith.
If a majority of society feels that pedophilia or murder is pleasurable, does that make it right? And what society are you talking about? Not every society agrees on what is pleasurable. Some find eating goat's cheese pleasurable. Others can't stand it. Again, you have no absolute situation there. By the way, your belief that absolutes are not needed is an absolute that you base your life on. And pleasure passes. My God is always with me. When I die, I have the hope that God has given me of heaven. When you die, you hope that there is no God.
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9
First bolded part: Evolution has been rather more proven than God. So if you base your view of actual evidence, the Christian God would be among the last places to look, no?
Second bolded part: Creation of life need an extreme number of factors to happen, as modern science hold it today. Thank "God" we have a pretty damn extremely big universe, so stuff like that can happen.
Look at it like this: I shuffle a deck of cards and give it to you. What are the odds of you getting the cards you got?
Christians here would say statistically improbable (even close to impossible with a large enough deck of cards)... As for me? I say that it is a 100% chance that you've got the cards you've got.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 22:59
And I'm not making that argument.
If you're not saying that you base your morals on your god saying so, then by all means, explain what you actually base it on.
As for the rest of your post, it's black and white in the extreme. It's either absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. Have some Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm), by Isaac Asimov.
If you're not saying that you base your morals on your god saying so, then by all means, explain what you actually base it on.
I believe that there are absolute moral truths. I also believe in God. The absolute moral truths are timeless, changeless and always relevant. As with all timeless things, these truths are divine (i.e. they come from God). Being timeless is what makes them divine, not the other way around. If one of the commandments stated that 2+2 = 92, I would not consider that timeless or true. Of course that's not something to worry about, since God is a perfectly rational and logical being.
The incest is just suspicious, the gangrape however is utterly clearly a violation of modern morals, where women are not seen as lesser beings made for men to control.
Semi-related, Numbers 31 is one of those will ruffles my moral compass, perhaps I cannot play the ignorant card of believing in 'absolute morality' from God.
"(17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (18) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Imagine the number of warcrimes if certain 'Christian' soldiers were doing this in modern conflicts. If you believe in universal and absolute morality, how do you reconcile this? Do you support 'gods' commands?
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 23:24
Semi-related, Numbers 31 is one of those will ruffles my moral compass, perhaps I cannot play the ignorant card of believing in 'absolute morality' from God.
"(17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (18) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
Damn spoilers... I was just about to get to that!!
Stuff like that kind of make Muslim insane people seem sane. But then, their definition of the christian god concept is wrong.
HoreTore
08-21-2014, 23:25
I believe that there are absolute moral truths. I also believe in God. The absolute moral truths are timeless, changeless and always relevant. As with all timeless things, these truths are divine (i.e. they come from God). Being timeless is what makes them divine, not the other way around. If one of the commandments stated that 2+2 = 92, I would not consider that timeless or true. Of course that's not something to worry about, since God is a perfectly rational and logical being.
In other words, X says it's right, therefore it's right. With X being your god.
The whole thing is also something that you yourself has determined to be true. In other words, you yourself have created your morals. How human of you.
Stuff like that kind of make Muslim insane people seem sane. But then, their definition of the christian god concept is wrong.
It is part of why I don't really care too much about what is said in the Koran, because similar nonsense is in the Bible. When people come out in support of it, is when I naturally reject it.
I think many people simply identify as 'Christian' and 'Muslim' just because of cultural reasons, they do not actually support these viewpoints in reality, unless they prove me wrong.
In other words, X says it's right, therefore it's right. With X being your god.
No, the exact opposite. A statement is divine because it is absolutely right, not the other way around. Being right is what makes it divine. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
No, the exact opposite. A statement is divine because it is absolutely right, not the other way around. Being right is what makes it divine. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
That statement pretty much circular reasonings at its finest.
You simply just said:
Statement is divine = absolutely right
Statement being right = it is divine
You then say 'it is not the opposite' but you are actually saying the opposite as well, as well as the statement being the opposite.
It doesn't make sense.
Kadagar_AV
08-21-2014, 23:35
It is part of why I don't really care too much about what is said in the Koran, because similar nonsense is in the Bible. When people come out in support of it, is when I naturally reject it.
I think many people simply identify as 'Christian' and 'Muslim' just because of cultural reasons, they do not actually support these viewpoints in reality, unless they prove me wrong.
Of course, but that viewpoint dictate their reality.
Give a man warmth, roof over the head, food, some sleep, and some hope for their kids to do better... And very few will argue with the main principles controlling them, regardless of how fudged up those principles may be.
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2014, 00:21
No, the exact opposite. A statement is divine because it is absolutely right, not the other way around. Being right is what makes it divine. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
This... This might be another rvg-quote worthy of my signature...
Obstinate, we have a definition.
Sorry Rhyfelwyr, I forgot I didn't reply to you, so I will do it now. Didn't intend to come across as ignoring you.
Is your point that Judeo-Christian morals are wrong, or that the very concept of absolute morality is wrong?
Very concept of absolute morality is wrong, by proxy, Judeo-Christian morals are wrong due to the numerous flaws and contradictions, especially when you consider various passages like Numbers 13 with modern day conduct of warfare.
Whilst it is perfectly valid and fine to argue that standards were not the same in that timeframe and can be excused on those groups as "We learnt from mistakes", this directly conflicts with 'absolute morality' as this very concept argues whatever the place and time, it is wrong.
By extension, you could argue Christian morality was better than some of its predecessors objectively, but this doesn't change the fact it is imperfect in itself.
Also, the Bible addresses the points you raise against Christianity - namely, that people follow other moral systems, and that these differ to some degree for the Christian one. On your first point, the Bible says that people have an inherent sense of morality which they know by nature:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained therein; these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew forth the works of the law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." (Romans 2: 14-15)
This can be raised with one of my first replies to the presence of Oxytocin and the effects this chemical has on our morality, which is a very difficult concept to test in itself. We do possess the capabilities of empathy and thought, this allows us to make judgements and observations. This allows us to start creating our own sense of morality. As Kadagar was earlier saying is basically quoted from Jesus "Love others as you love yourself", he wasn't speaking it as some absolute infallible of morality but the basic tools required for the necessity of living in a society.
So whilst what you quote it indeed rather informative of biological facts and the basic bricks of creating a society, it doesn't suddenly start proving some higher being intentionally did it. It would be like saying "When you take peoples belongings and they greatly suffer because of it, this is not fair or just", it is a clear observation of cause and effect, then simply going "So god says do not do it, it is a sin". The actual reason for it being there isn't because god actually said it, it is simply an known observation, then added god to it to give it 'higher authority'.
There are a lot of very relevant themes in that passage right there. Not least the glorification of the created above the creator, which is so central to the supposedly moral beliefs of todays humanists. And from a historical viewpoint as well, it documents how the corrupted pagan and polytheist religions like Hinduism and Greek paganism emerged from a degeneration of the original monotheism of mankind.
Sorry, this is mostly just theological fluff and not really factual. I cannot really address this due to mostly being belief. Many religions and beliefs though seem to stem from polytheistic leanings rather than 'one' god, the reverse of what you have suggest and to turn twist the handle, the worship of 'god' came from a polytheist religion.
Did you know that 'god' has a wife called Asherah ? The stories of El, Anu, Yahweh and the others ?
I recommend taking a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_mythology#Abrahamic_religions).
The word has been edited multiple times for many valid reasons, to try to repair inconsistencies and to be updated with the use of language. There are differences between the different bibles (catholic, orthodox and protestant), torahs, koran, the 'words of god'. There is no absolute nature in any of these.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 00:38
I shuffle a deck of cards and give it to you. What are the odds of you getting the cards you got?
Christians here would say statistically improbable (even close to impossible with a large enough deck of cards)... As for me? I say that it is a 100% chance that you've got the cards you've got.
Logical fallacy. You are predicting the order after the fact. Had you predicted the hand you dealt before you dealt them, that would be pretty amazing. The odds are 100% that you will get an outcome. That stands to reason. Name me one, just one, solid proof of evolution. I am pretty confident I can answer it, or at least point out a scientifically valid creationist answer. The thing is, for an evolutionist to admit there even might be a God, would a)mean they are not the ultimate judge of what they do, and b)they are accountable to a higher being. That is why they fight so hard. Evolution has been around longer than Darwin. During the time of Pasteur, people believed that maggots came from rotting meat. Life from non-life, same as evolution. And how do you get sentient life? Evolution still has not found the answer. I know that is an argument from silence, so I am not touting their lack of an answer as solid proof of creation, just so far it seems to lend credulity to the creationist viewpoint.
Evolution by chance. Dealing with amino acids, you would need to get just the right amino acids, in just the right combinations. There are, what, I think it is twenty amino acids used in life, there are something like 300 amino acids altogether. And you need just the left-handed amino acids. Just trying to get 100 left-handed amino acids in a row to form a protein, from an equal mix of right-and-left-handed amino acids is one in 10^30. Never mind trying to get them in the right position. That is what I mean when I talk about evolution and chance.
You really haven't read about Lot
Um, yes, I have. I have grown up reading the Bible, and I am almost thirty. I am very familiar with what happened. His daughters didn't think they could get a husband, so they got Lot drunk on two successive nights and went into him. It says that he perceived not when she lay down nor when he arose. That sounds like a drunken stupor to me.
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2014, 00:52
Logical fallacy. You are predicting the order after the fact. Had you predicted the hand you dealt before you dealt them, that would be pretty amazing. The odds are 100% that you will get an outcome. That stands to reason. Name me one, just one, solid proof of evolution. I am pretty confident I can answer it, or at least point out a scientifically valid creationist answer. The thing is, for an evolutionist to admit there even might be a God, would a)mean they are not the ultimate judge of what they do, and b)they are accountable to a higher being. That is why they fight so hard. Evolution has been around longer than Darwin. During the time of Pasteur, people believed that maggots came from rotting meat. Life from non-life, same as evolution. And how do you get sentient life? Evolution still has not found the answer. I know that is an argument from silence, so I am not touting their lack of an answer as solid proof of creation, just so far it seems to lend credulity to the creationist viewpoint.
Evolution by chance. Dealing with amino acids, you would need to get just the right amino acids, in just the right combinations. There are, what, I think it is twenty amino acids used in life, there are something like 300 amino acids altogether. And you need just the left-handed amino acids. Just trying to get 100 left-handed amino acids in a row to form a protein, from an equal mix of right-and-left-handed amino acids is one in 10^30. Never mind trying to get them in the right position. That is what I mean when I talk about evolution and chance.
Um, yes, I have. I have grown up reading the Bible, and I am almost thirty. I am very familiar with what happened. His daughters didn't think they could get a husband, so they got Lot drunk on two successive nights and went into him. It says that he perceived not when she lay down nor when he arose. That sounds like a drunken stupor to me.
It's 2pm and I have work tomorrow, so I really need to keep this short. If argued against I will debate in style tomorrow.
As to the bolded parts..
1. We ARE the order after the fact. No need to predict it. You so didn't get my point.
I don't know how to explain it in more simple terms... but that a deck of card will give you the shuffle it did, is still a 100% chance. And it doesn't matter what odds you have, at all.
Look, I am not saying this isn't amazing... I am just saying that it's amazing, but no need to start cutting my penis or chill out every seventh day.
Get my point? I bet not.
2. As to my second point: No you have not read about Lot, apparently. Why did he send out girls to be raped? Like, really?
3 You know... turn that around with the genders and it would be rape, no?
Get someone overly drunk... Copulate... No memory the next day... Sounds like the bible hit it on date-rape.
That statement pretty much circular reasonings at its finest.
You simply just said:
Statement is divine = absolutely right
Statement being right = it is divine
You then say 'it is not the opposite' but you are actually saying the opposite as well, as well as the statement being the opposite.
It doesn't make sense.
Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...
Absolutely right => Divine.
If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.
Get it now?
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2014, 01:09
Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...
Absolutely right => Divine.
If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.
Get it now?
Uh... I think he did the first time around.
You however...
Name me one, just one, solid proof of evolution. I am pretty confident I can answer it, or at least point out a scientifically valid creationist answer.
I gave you this link (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Common_descent), but I will simply just post this picture.
https://i.imgur.com/jgNi2rc.jpg
Common descent.
The thing is, for an evolutionist to admit there even might be a God, would a)mean they are not the ultimate judge of what they do, and b)they are accountable to a higher being.
Do you know that PVC, our resident catholic also believes in God and evolution? He is a theological realist.
Even going to the vatican and the pope:
283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers....
This refers to mainstream Science, not 'Creation' Science.
So the entire premises of your statement that somehow evolutionists and faith cannot be reconciled is a myth and fallacy. You are not arguing about the 'threat of unbelievers', you are also arguing against 'fellow' Christians. Even in Sunday School, creation is told as a story to explain the beginnings of the world, no real stock is taken in its involvement because it actually doesn't matter to their faith.
That is why they fight so hard. Evolution has been around longer than Darwin. During the time of Pasteur, people believed that maggots came from rotting meat. Life from non-life, same as evolution. And how do you get sentient life? Evolution still has not found the answer. I know that is an argument from silence, so I am not touting their lack of an answer as solid proof of creation, just so far it seems to lend credulity to the creationist viewpoint.
There is no credibility to any viewpoint which goes "because fairies did it", I might as well start sourcing the History channel and go: "Aliens".
How does the viewpoint which was disproven have any impact on a different viewpoint which hasn't been disproven? Evolutionists do not suggest maggots come from meat magically. It is like saying Jesus sacrificed his right eye for wisdom, because that is what Odin did. It doesn't follow.
Evolution by chance. Dealing with amino acids, you would need to get just the right amino acids, in just the right combinations. There are, what, I think it is twenty amino acids used in life, there are something like 300 amino acids altogether. And you need just the left-handed amino acids. Just trying to get 100 left-handed amino acids in a row to form a protein, from an equal mix of right-and-left-handed amino acids is one in 10^30. Never mind trying to get them in the right position. That is what I mean when I talk about evolution and chance.
Do you know we share 50% of our DNA with Banana's? We share 98% with Gorillas ?
All life on earth share the great majority of our DNA with each other. Great many genetic trees show similar traits and even the same 'spelling mistakes'. There is a lot of evidence pointing towards a common ancestor.
Life isn't that different.
You could argue "God created the Big Bang" or "God created Evolution", but those are vastly different arguments and positions.
a completely inoffensive name
08-22-2014, 01:24
Evolution has never been proven. Secular scientists look at data and interpret it according to a predetermined view. Creationist scientists do the same thing. Evolution has been shown to be statistically improbable, virtually impossible. I could get into it more, but it would take too long. Bottom line is, the data is interpreted based on your worldview. It is historical science, meaning we cannot say for certain what happened because nobody was there from your point of view (which you take by faith), and you do not accept the word of the One who was there, whose word I take on faith.
AKA, you have no idea what you are talking about and have nothing.
Oh Jesus, not again. Okay, i'll make this very simple...
Absolutely right => Divine.
If statement X is absolutely right Then statement X is divine.
Get it now?
Okay.
There is nothing absolutely right, so nothing is divine?
Got you.
Okay.
There is nothing absolutely right, so nothing is divine?
Got you.
There we go... now you're getting it. Except that we differ on the question of whether or not something can be classified as absolutely right. But yeah, that's what I was trying to convey: if a moral statement isn't absolutely right, it's not divine. And that's the way to recognize something divine: it's absolutely right.
There we go... now you're getting it. Except that we differ on the question of whether or not something can be classified as absolutely right. But yeah, that's what I was trying to convey: if a moral statement isn't absolutely right, it's not divine. And that's the way to recognize something divine: it's absolutely right.
Can you give an example of something absolutely right? I can honestly not.
'Thou shalt not kill' ends up falling short when you factor in things such as self-defense, the army, and other bodies. Similar scenarios can be said for a lot of other things.
Only thing which could be argued in your favour is Matthew 22:39 "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." which is my favourite phrase in the Bible.
But this is not an absolute and very wishy-washy definition.
Can you give an example of something absolutely right? I can honestly not.
'Thou shalt not kill' ends up falling short when you factor in things such as self-defense, the army, and other bodies. Similar scenarios can be said for a lot of other things.
'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.
'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.
Exodus 20:13, King James Version.
I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is from a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible, dogma or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?
If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 02:14
Exodus 20:13, King James Version.
I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?
If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.
This has always been by understanding of truth - if it exists.
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 02:16
'Thou shalt not kill' is a load of crap. 'Thou shalt not murder' looks a whole lot better.
There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7523.htm)was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
The problem is ones interpretation of Justice.
Exodus 20:13, King James Version.
I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible. So if I am understanding you correctly, your position is pretty much "To know truth is to know the face of God" in the sense that the truth is from a divine source in itself, and if this conflicts with the Bible, dogma or various others teachings, those teachings are incorrect/not divine?
If so, that is an interesting theological position. I have no arguments with it.
I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. The Ten Commandments might be one possible exception, but other than that it's up in the air. But yeah, you understand my position.
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 02:23
I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. The Ten Commandments might be one possible exception, but other than that it's up in the air. But yeah, you understand my position.
What you have just written is logically flawed.
Where did your understanding of the 10 Commandment's come from? Our only record of them comes from "the Holy Scriptures" that you've just cited as an untrustworthy source. It's not like the Tablets and the Torah are separate entities any more than Moses, Elijah, Jesus and their activities (walking on water, parting the sea, being taken up to heaven in a fiery chariot, etc.) are separate entities from the Bible.
It is easy for you to call these things BS, but not that God might have spoken to a guy on the mountaintop and inscribed tablets using lightning?
Existence is nonsensical. The older I get, the less anything makes sense. The idea that people come out of other people and have mouths is endlessly strange. It doesn't really bother me to believe that crazy deity related stuff happens. Even if there was nothing after death, there would be no reason not to impose jihad on others - if that's what you wanted to do.
This has always been by understanding of truth - if it exists.
I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men. But yeah, you understand my position.
If that is your position, then I have no real arguments with you. My apologies for misunderstanding.
I may disagree that I don't think we can get any absolute truths, but I believe in the endeavour to try to find them and learn them so we may better ourselves, so any position which aims/strives for truth I don't have conflicts with.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 02:27
He was wrong in sending them out, and the Bible never justifies it. I thought you were talking about his daughters after that.
The common descent picture. Bear in mind those are evolutionary artist's impressions. Bear in mind that there is no evidence that those creatures evolved one into another. Every change would have had to work right the first time. I'm sorry, I don't have the faith to believe that, though apparently you do. Nobody was there to see it happen, it is impossible to say for sure that is what happened. That is why I say evolution and creation are both taken by faith. But at least creationists have a claim from One who claims to have been there. That is more than evolutionists have.
The so-called similarity in DNA was made from selected genes. When the entire genome sequence is taken into account the similarity is much lower.
no real stock is taken in its involvement because it actually doesn't matter to their faith
It plays a huge role in faith. If I don't believe in a literal Genesis, how do I know what else to believe? Many Christians have sadly bought into the idea that the view on creation has no bearing on belief. It has much to do with it. And note, 100 years from now the theory of evolution may, and probably will, be much different than it is now. How many times has it changed already? The Bible account never changes.
Evolutionists do not suggest maggots come from meat magically
I know that. But it is still a life-from-non-life belief.
Great many genetic trees show similar traits and even the same 'spelling mistakes'. There is a lot of evidence pointing towards a common ancestor
Common ancestor or common designer? By the way, if mankind were as old as they say we are, we would have mutated ourselves into extinction by now.
the thing is, for an evolutionist to admit there even might be a God, would a)mean they are not the ultimate judge of what they do, and b)they are accountable to a higher being.
OK, I said that wrong. Replace evolutionist with atheist, many of whom are evolutionists. Some people, and PVC is probably one of them, have been told over and over that evolution is true and don't know any better, no slight on his intelligence, but evolutionism is much more prevalent in our culture than creationism. Those are not the ones I am talking about.
What you have just written is wildly flawed logically.
Where did the 10 Commandment's come from? Our only record of them comes from "the Holy Scriptures" that you've just cited as an untrustworthy source.
I don't see a problem here. Just because something might be partially or fully flawed doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be partially or fully flawed. You can find a diamond in a pile of refuse.
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 03:00
I don't see a problem here. Just because something might be partially or fully flawed doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be partially or fully flawed. You can find a diamond in a pile of refuse.
Why do you think that the 10 commandments are OK?
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 03:00
I agree with your statement, but it isn't from the Bible
It is, but not in Exodus, though the context is about murder. Jesus referencing the Ten Commandments in Matthew 19:18 quotes it as "Thou shalt do no murder".
There is nothing wrong with killing by Biblical standards or my own standards as a general rule.
רָצַח was the word used in the Torah and the Ten Commandments, and it doesn't mean "kill" as it was improperly translated.
Just killing is acceptable. It was acceptable then, it is acceptable now.
It depends on the reason for killing, God instituted the death penalty for various crimes, but did not condone murder, as that was the primary reason for the death penalty. Murder flies in the face of God, the creator of life. When one being takes an innocent's life, he forfeits his own right to life.
I take holy scriptures with a grain of salt seeing that they were written by fallible men
An understandable view. Mankind is very fallible. However, there is a doctrine of preservation, described in the book of 2 Peter 1:21 (and other places), stating the the men were writing the words as directed by God, and part of that doctrine is that the Scripture is infallible and inerrant in its recording, that is, the men were divinely helped to write without mistake, and that continues through the different translations (Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, etc., there were a total of seven). The modern Bibles were translated from the Critical Texts rather than the Received Text (the traditional text), by people who did not even believe the Bible to be the Word of God. I am not including those in my list, and please do not turn this into yet another fiery debate, this time about Bible versions. There is a time and a place for that discussion, and now is neither. I will not respond to any comments regarding Bible versions. I myself use the KJV, what you use is between you and God.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6,7
Why do you think that the 10 commandments are OK?
Because I do not see a situation where they would lose their relevance or would require a revision. I might be mistaken of course.
Kadagar_AV
08-22-2014, 03:20
Because I do not see a situation where they would lose their relevance or would require a revision. I might be mistaken of course.
It's pretty much guaranteed.
Heard of other religions?
The common descent picture. Bear in mind those are evolutionary artist's impressions. Bear in mind that there is no evidence that those creatures evolved one into another. Every change would have had to work right the first time.
Where are you getting the 'right the first time' from? Everything is constantly evolving, all around us, all this very second. What the picture pretty much showing is that these have diverged significantly enough to show. There is a lot of 'failures' and some mutations are very harmful and kill us.
It wasn't as simple as a 'proto-horse suddenly popped out a modern day horse' it was a process of them gradually changing over a long time to get that way.
Nobody was there to see it happen, it is impossible to say for sure that is what happened.
But there evidence is there within our DNA code. By comparing the similarities and differences, we can see how mutations occurred and what directions they took.
By comparison, it would be me going into your living room, sitting on your sofa, putting my feet up on the table and eating out of a yogurt pot then left. Then, you walk into the room, you see the dent where I sat on the sofa, the small sprinkle of mud from my shoes upon the table, and the finished yoghurt pot.It is very likely from this information, you can recreate that someone was in your room, with their feet upon the table and ate a yoghurt.
The evidence is as obvious as that. In comparison, there is no evidence for creationism. Zip, zap, none. Especially young-earth creationism. I am guessing by similar comparison, instead of me eating a yoghurt pot, you are arguing that Santa Claus came in, ate a mince pie and sat himself upon the TV.
I know which I would rather believe.
That is why I say evolution and creation are both taken by faith. But at least creationists have a claim from One who claims to have been there. That is more than evolutionists have.
Really.. ?
.... Really?
I mean.. really?
It plays a huge role in faith. If I don't believe in a literal Genesis, how do I know what else to believe? Many Christians have sadly bought into the idea that the view on creation has no bearing on belief. It has much to do with it.
Well, that is a issue for you, because sadly no one sane actually believes in a literal genesis, not even the Pope.
And note, 100 years from now the theory of evolution may, and probably will, be much different than it is now. How many times has it changed already? The Bible account never changes.
There is three fundamental problems with this statement:
1) Science is not absolute, it is discovering and exploring reality, attempting to demonstrate and understand the world around us. If something is inaccurate, it self-corrects and this is usually brought about with advances in technology and other knowledge, to give us better understanding.
2) By contrast as you said yourself, the Bible is 'literal truth', it is absolutely right and cannot be wrong. So compared with Science which is constantly updating our current knowledge, your belief is that we already know the answer, therefore, change is very bad.
3) The Bible account has changed a great many times. There are the various councils, the Apocrypha, the Dead-Sea scrolls, Torah, Gospel of Barnabas and Thomas, from the differences due to the Septuagint...
So ignoring 1 and 2 is linked with 3 and since number 3 is something far more tangible...:
We have the Codex Sinaiticus, here is a link to a news article (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html?iref=topnews)about it. Or the 1500-year old Turkish bible shown here (http://www.latintimes.com/1500-year-old-bible-discovered-turkey-indicates-jesus-christ-was-not-crucified-171471). This is forgetting the differences between many of the new bibles, such as the New International version (version 2, it was updated!) and the King James.
There is also a great debate about the creation story in genesis too. You can get your bible out, and lets take a look at Chapter 1 and Chapter 2. See before your eyes, the following:
Ch1: Water is created before land.
Ch2: Land is created before water.
Ch1: Plants, Animals and then God creates man and woman.
Ch2: God creates man, he then creates the plants and animals, than a woman from the mans rib.
Ch2 is sometimes argued as a postscript version of chapter 1, but then, it wouldn't be the literal truth, would it?
Psalm 104 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+104&version=NIV) - this is a different order.
We then have Job 38 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=KJV) has another account.
These seem to be different stories to me.
This is the biggest difference between a fundamentalist, and the majority of mainstream Christians, such as ICantSpellDawg, rvg, PVC, etc. Perhaps you should consider asking them how they keep their faith knowing the Bible isn't the literal truth, word for word.
By the way, if mankind were as old as they say we are, we would have mutated ourselves into extinction by now.
How does one 'mutate' themselves into extinction ?
The only species alive are the 'survivors', those who fail to adapt or evolve to changing environment end up dying, like the do-do. I don't know of any species which have 'mutated' themselves into extinction, unless you are discussing cancer. Now that is a horrible cell mutation.
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 03:38
The beauty of beliefs is that you can believe in whatever you want. You can believe in evolution and a Heliocentric system, and in a God that is involved in our daily lives for some reason, and in angels, but not in politicians and not in natural supplements etc..
Why not? Is Richard Dawkins going to be at the gates, judging you on how logical you were in your life? Who cares? Religious yourself out all over the place. Have fun. I have fun - I do whatever I want, but I try to go to Mass every Sunday (failing miserably this summer). Why not? I have values and they are more consistent in some ways with devoted Catholics than anybody else. But not too devoted. I'm not sure why I have values, I don't know if they are valuable. Or what valuable is. Or really anything at all.
I'm just glad that I don't have to collect nuts all summer and get eaten by foxes. But even then, maybe you would just deal with it?
Heading back in the territory of morality, I have been talking to a Jewish friend of mine in regards of the Torah.
Apparently even during the days of the old testament, there was quite a number of disagreements with what was written and reality, with the Sanhedrin (the highest court of the great temples) overruled the Torah itself in certain cases and it certainly wasn't called as the end-all book of laws. This is also why there are later law books like the Mishnah and the Talmud which clarify the rules sert forth.
There are instances where 'rebellious sons' should be stoned, for simply disagreeing with their father, yet this rule is so stringent, it wasn't enforced.
Majority of current Torah scholars say that it is a guideline of how to live/parables than anything else. Not the 'literal truth'.
..but not in politicians and not in natural supplements etc..
Your own argument falls on itself when you start mentioning not to believe in things such as homeopathy~
Unfortunately, a lot of beliefs are harmful. Whilst thinking a microwavable spaghetti monster fondled the universe in existence with its noodly appendage is not going to hurt anyone, forcing Tolkien's version of creation upon everyone and trying to return everyone to a dark age of elves and orcs is.
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 04:23
Your own argument falls on itself when you start mentioning not to believe in things such as homeopathy~
Unfortunately, a lot of beliefs are harmful. Whilst thinking a microwavable spaghetti monster fondled the universe in existence with its noodly appendage is not going to hurt anyone, forcing Tolkien's version of creation upon everyone and trying to return everyone to a dark age of elves and orcs is.
Bad manners sure, but where is the imperative not to do things harmful to others? You seem to suggest that it is "truth" that one should not harm others. Why? What if someone were to desire the harm of others. It wouldn't be their truth.
To suggest that people "just don't do that" is patently false. To suggest that doing harm to others necessitates that harm be done to you is false. So, why shouldn't you do it?
Personally, I believe that I will be inescapably punished for wrongdoings. This is generally why I don't do terrible things that I feel like doing. I don't particularly fear punishment in this life - the human mind finds ways to cope. I do believe in a superlative and unexplainable judgement for wrongdoing. If I didn't, wrongdoing is a lot of fun and who cares what happens to others. Terrible stuff makes life more interesting - and most people value interesting more than being nice. Seriously.
I'd still be a pretty nice guy, with the occasional low drag behind the back suspension and prostitute in the passenger seat.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 05:11
We have the Codex Sinaiticus
Found in a trash can, unless I am thinking the Vaticanus. Those two are the basis for most of the modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, and virtually every modern version. Part of the Critical Text. Bible manuscripts is something I have actually studied, so I know something about it.
Science is not absolute
Then you can't say evolution is true, because other findings may disprove it. Whenever that has happened, they just changed their beliefs instead of trashing it. After all, when the main alternative is Creation...
creation story in genesis too
Heard that argument too. A detailed creating of the planting of the Garden of Eden. If you are referring to Genesis 2:4 about day, that is a different use of the word "day" than a 24 hour day, just as we would say "back in my day". There are multiple meanings we use for the word day, that is talking about when he created it in the past, not as a 24 hour day. Psalm 104 seems to be talking about the flood. Anyway, the dry land was under the water, 1:9. The waters separated by the firmament were those in the atmosphere and those in outer space. There is water, albeit ice, in outer space. Job 38 is not a creation account as it were, but God mentioning some of the stuff he did at creation.
How does one 'mutate' themselves into extinction
Our genetic code would be so scrambled that we could not survive.
The Bible account has changed a great many times
The Apocrypha and such like books were never accepted as biblical canon. True, the original KJV had it, but the translators of the KJV did not believe in it for doctrine, but for good reading.
As far as changing science. The biblical account never changes. How many times has science changed? Leaving creation for the purpose of this question, where is the Bible wrong? Everybody who has tried to prove it wrong has ended up with egg on their face. And you know what? It makes sense.
As to the DNA, the supposed evolution would require new information being created. Mutations only lead to a loss of information. And sure, some mutations may be beneficial in select circumstances, but overall those mutations are harmful. Again, information is lost, not gained.
Everything is constantly evolving, all around us, all this very second. What the picture pretty much showing is that these have diverged significantly enough to show
Then how do we know it is happening at all? You only assume that, nobody has actually been around long enough to verify it. I will bring up one evidence of young creation, found out by an evolutionist who decided that the discrepancy was due to his own error and left it there. The earth is not yet at equilibrium for Carbon 14. Starting with none present and only forming in the atmosphere, we should reach equilibrium in around 30,000 years. Yet we are not there. He used valid methods, but because it did not match up to what he believed, he just figured he had made a mistake and left it there. I have heard of peer review sessions where somebody in front of a bunch of evolutionists goes through his work, everybody agreeing on what he has done, until his work showed that the earth was young. Then they just say they made a mistake, when everybody had been agreeing up to that point. There are many other evidences for the biblical account, not "none" as you say. As I have already pointed out, the data is the same, the interpretation is based on worldview. I do find it interesting how as soon as God came into the picture, everybody went on the attack. It drove them mad.
Papewaio
08-22-2014, 05:32
How can the bible ever be thought of as set in stone never changing?
It's called the New Testament because its a variation/appendix/new version of the older belief system.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 06:09
The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed. The New Testament tells of the fulfillment of the Old Testament. When the Bible was actually compiled, there were set guidelines used to determine whether or not to accept a book. A big part of that was authorship, who wrote it. It has been too long, though I could probably dig out my materials on that stuff. Bear in mind that initially the church did not have a Bible as we know it. Books were expensive, and many times the epistles were sent to various churches, not everybody had all the materials. Also, they saw no need for the collection of the Scriptures (New Testament manuscripts, mainly) because they were expecting the imminent return of Christ. Those who will mock that, I direct you to to 2 Peter 3. I think it was around AD 200 that a full copy of the Scriptures was finally compiled, it has been too long so don't quote me on that.:rolleyes: I am getting off for the time being, it is getting late. I hope this does not erupt like it has before. That was interesting. Thanks for your help Rhy, rvg.
I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety. Psalm 4:8
a completely inoffensive name
08-22-2014, 06:11
Why are all the new people coming in religious fundamentalists? It frustrates me to no end. Why can't there be one guy or girl that is normal and has a different view on things that doesn't rely on ignoring modern science or slapping on bible quotes in bold at the end of every post as if we will see the light just by reading the LORD's words.
Greyblades
08-22-2014, 06:23
ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.
a completely inoffensive name
08-22-2014, 06:23
Well, as you say, Aristotle is more concerned about being good than with pondering its philosophical/metaphysical foundations. As for Kant, from what I understand, he seems to take the position that absolute morality is somehow self-evident because of its general pervasiveness across time and place. So I don't think either of those two are really getting to the heart of what we are discussing here.
I would agree that Mill does attempt to make the sort of argument I was looking for, in that he appeals to human pleasure/happiness as some sort of ultimate standard by which the morality of actions may be judged. However, happiness is a bit less concrete and a bit more abstract than a personal, all-powerful God, and from that perspective, his concept of absolute morality is not as robust as a theistic one.
Also, I would say that, despite being irrelevant to the truth of the matter, it is worth noting that it would be extremely difficult to develop a practical framework of ethics from Mill's viewpoint. Unlike a theistic (or indeed Kantian) viewpoint, where an action has an objective moral value in and of itself; from Mill's viewpoint, the action only takes on a moral character insofar as it relates to the happiness of an individual, which will be determined according to their subjective interpretation, rather than any inherent value in the action itself.
I definitely agree with your last point about Mill. That's why I am not interested in Utilitarianism at all actually.
I think there is more to it than the theists just caring more. I think that atheists that attempt to hold to absolute morals must realise that on some level that they hold some rather contradictory views - in those circumstances, they are going to be half-hearted. Also, although this is off-topic, I do not agree that the only difference between religions is superficial rituals. Prior to around 33AD I would have agreed - religions were all 'religions of works' as people from all faiths across the world (not just ancient Judaism) tried to fulfil that law that they know by nature. But since Jesus died for our sins we now have a 'religion of grace' which is drastically different from the 'religions of works' that so many people still hopelessly slave under. Christianity is the one that stands out.
Hold on Rhy, you are asserting the conclusion before we reached any. The question is about if you can have absolute morals without God, I said it seems that good Christians are better people than good atheists, you can't simply go straight to "it's because atheism is incompatible with absolute morals". First give an example of these contradictory views and lets see if it holds up.
Also, I never really gave much thought to that distinction you pointed out about Christianity and other religions. It's interesting.
ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.
That wasn't such a good decision imho, backroom was better when it was more of a hidden gentlemen's club. It's still way better than any other forum I know though. I would love a followup on MRD stories of his experiences in Afghanistan, but because it's now fuly public I am not getting it.
Edit, in no way critisism of our moderators. Freedom of speech goes VERY far when compared to other sites.
ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.
Well, the situation is not particularly different, now. Except for Vincent Butler and myself, nobody of the Backroom poster is what I would describe with the words "newbie" or "troll".
ICantSpellDawg
08-22-2014, 12:37
I won't say much about morality except that you can't force it on somebody.
I agree mostly, but why not?
ACIN it's because we made the backroom available to the public. Anyone can get in , when before there was an inadvertent vetting process In befriending a moderator to get access, it was rather effective at making sure those who partook weren't merely passing trolls.
Yea, no passing trolls! Only established, long-standing trolls.
Greyblades
08-22-2014, 12:39
Well, the situation is not particularly different, now. Except for Vincent Butler and myself, nobody of the Backroom poster is what I would describe with the words "newbie" or "troll".
Totalrelism, Kurdishspartakus, Vuk.
Just because we've been in a lull in the last few months doesnt mean they dont exist and keep showing up.
Sorry, this is mostly just theological fluff and not really factual. I cannot really address this due to mostly being belief. Many religions and beliefs though seem to stem from polytheistic leanings rather than 'one' god, the reverse of what you have suggest and to turn twist the handle, the worship of 'god' came from a polytheist religion.
Did you know that 'god' has a wife called Asherah ? The stories of El, Anu, Yahweh and the others ?
I recommend taking a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_mythology#Abrahamic_religions).
My god (pun intended). You sir, are growing on me. Who are you really? Margaret Barker is that you?
Give 'em all of the Deutoronomic reform while you are at it. (You are completely right BTW)
And on the evolution thing... quote Genesis 1:20. The version where the waters brought forth living creatures including the fowls (dinosaurs).
You people haven't learned about the Heavenly Mother yet?
http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_life/content_mother.asp
Rhyfelwyr
08-22-2014, 13:55
I definitely agree with your last point about Mill. That's why I am not interested in Utilitarianism at all actually.
Fair enough.
Hold on Rhy, you are asserting the conclusion before we reached any. The question is about if you can have absolute morals without God, I said it seems that good Christians are better people than good atheists, you can't simply go straight to "it's because atheism is incompatible with absolute morals". First give an example of these contradictory views and lets see if it holds up.
I didn't mean to offer it so much as a conclusion, as a potential explanation. Of course, whether or not atheism and absolute morality are truly contradicting views is what we are here to debate. But regardless of the truth of the matter, it is worth remembering that many atheists who hold to absolute morality don't really know why they do it. Christianity offers an easy explanation in the form of an all-powerful God. On the other hand, as our discussion of Kant, Mill etc testifies to, finding such a foundation for morality within an atheist framework is considerably more difficult, if not necessarily impossible.
For that reason, I still think that, for the average atheist who doesn't really dig into such things, they really will be half-hearted in living out their moral ideals.
Now, if an more investigative atheist like yourself goes about a serious philosophical enquiry in order to reconcile his atheism with his morality, you may be able to buck that trend. But only if you find the answers you are looking for.
Also, I never really gave much thought to that distinction you pointed out about Christianity and other religions. It's interesting.
Aye, and don't let anybody ever tell you otherwise by debasing the Christian message with the old "do good works to earn a place in heaven", or just as bad, "say a prayer to get into heaven" tripe. If you are only in it to get into heaven, then you won't be going there.
I realise that your experience of Christianity will be tainted by the rather toxic culture/sub-cultures that exist within mainstream American Christianity, of which, from the sounds of things (advocating piracy, abandoning the faith etc), your ex would have been a part of.
But, at least in the sense of analysing a philosophical system, try and give Christianity a chance for what it is, and not for what humanity has corrupted it to mean.
Rhyfelwyr
08-22-2014, 14:18
My one and only argument concerning the bible in this thread has been that the bible is useless. As you now argue that any societal change is merely a side-effect of some other goal of the bible, this only reinforces my point. The bible is useless, and only good for some silly spiritual stuff I don't care about.
What do you care about?
No?
My version of the "holy texts" rather much imply that the moral there - says girls can be sent out to be gang raped.
You have read about Lot, haven't you?
Same guy and same moral also totally approve of incest, pretty much in rape form.
Gang rape: Genesis 19:1–11
Incest: Genesis 19:30–38
Rather creepy stuff, if you ask me. And most definitely against human and humane moral values.
Eh, you are aware of the difference between something being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, aren't you?
What next? Will you tell me to build a calf and worship it because Aaron did so?
I have seen the incest part defended, havent quite got any defense on the gang rape thingy. However you bend it, women are seen as lesser beings.
I'm almost surprised that some Church of England female priest over at the Guardian hasn't written a column about how Genesis 19:30-38 is an example of female empowerment. :laugh4:
My god (pun intended). You sir, are growing on me. Who are you really? Margaret Barker is that you?
Give 'em all of the Deutoronomic reform while you are at it. (You are completely right BTW)
And on the evolution thing... quote Genesis 1:20. The version where the waters brought forth living creatures including the fowls (dinosaurs).
When I struggled with my old faith, I thought the word was so twisted by man and those who want it to exploit it for power, that I did research/readings in the origins and older text. Instead of hopefully being greeted by some simple divine truth to stake it on, I found that (Semitic Mythology/Deuteronomic reform). Along with other examples like Gibbons and friends on the early church where great pagans converted over, bringing their teachings, stories, poems and art with them to establish Christianity.
Whilst all historically interesting, it pretty much removed the reason I searched in the first place.
Rhyfelwyr
08-22-2014, 14:55
Sorry Rhyfelwyr, I forgot I didn't reply to you, so I will do it now. Didn't intend to come across as ignoring you.
No worries, I never thought you were. Plus, I'm often guilty of posting in a thread then disappearing, I need to stop doing that.
Very concept of absolute morality is wrong
If I may stop you there, that is really all I wanted the atheists here to come out and say, because I believe that view to be a necessary consequence of atheism. I have to ask though, how can you make your system of relative morality binding when it is entirely subjective?
This can be raised with one of my first replies to the presence of Oxytocin and the effects this chemical has on our morality, which is a very difficult concept to test in itself. We do possess the capabilities of empathy and thought, this allows us to make judgements and observations. This allows us to start creating our own sense of morality. As Kadagar was earlier saying is basically quoted from Jesus "Love others as you love yourself", he wasn't speaking it as some absolute infallible of morality but the basic tools required for the necessity of living in a society.
So whilst what you quote it indeed rather informative of biological facts and the basic bricks of creating a society, it doesn't suddenly start proving some higher being intentionally did it. It would be like saying "When you take peoples belongings and they greatly suffer because of it, this is not fair or just", it is a clear observation of cause and effect, then simply going "So god says do not do it, it is a sin". The actual reason for it being there isn't because god actually said it, it is simply an known observation, then added god to it to give it 'higher authority'.
In raising that passage of Romans, my point was simply that the prevalence of morality across times and places is in fact consistent with the Biblical position, rather than (as Kadagar in particular reckoned) an argument against it.
Sorry, this is mostly just theological fluff and not really factual. I cannot really address this due to mostly being belief. Many religions and beliefs though seem to stem from polytheistic leanings rather than 'one' god, the reverse of what you have suggest and to turn twist the handle, the worship of 'god' came from a polytheist religion.
Did you know that 'god' has a wife called Asherah ? The stories of El, Anu, Yahweh and the others ?
I recommend taking a look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_mythology#Abrahamic_religions).
The word has been edited multiple times for many valid reasons, to try to repair inconsistencies and to be updated with the use of language. There are differences between the different bibles (catholic, orthodox and protestant), torahs, koran, the 'words of god'. There is no absolute nature in any of these.
The evolutionary view of religion (the idea that we 'developed' from animism to polytheism to monotheism) has now been discarded by the majority of the academic community. All across the world, the evidence suggests that polytheism was a degeneration of an original monotheism. The most ancient Hindu texts are actually monotheistic, eg the Rig Veda. Likewise, the Oracle Bone scripts, which is the most ancient example of written Chinese, shows they worshipped a single God.
Also, I do have an interest in Semitic mythology and indeed the mythology of the ancient world. I am currently reading 'The Ark Before Noah' by Irving Finkel. It is very interesting in that is corroborates Biblical history with other sources. Of particular note was the fact that Finkel noted the causal way with which "the flood" is referenced in various tablets (eg, before the flood, so-and-so was king, or so-and-so ruled for x years before the flood, etc).
If I may stop you there, that is really all I wanted the atheists here to come out and say, because I believe that view to be a necessary consequence of atheism. I have to ask though, how can you make your system of relative morality binding when it is entirely subjective?
How do you mean by 'binding' ?
I am guessing you are meaning: "How do you get others to accept your version of morality" or "how does society construct its morality" without some sort of absolute source. So I will respond to you with this premises.
Effectively, we as the vast majority have the same genetic makeup which allows us to experience empathy and has the cognitive functions to reason and come to conclusions.
Everyone wants to be treated well or to at least acceptable standards. No one wants to be treated unfairly.
It is clearly observable when you treat others well, you get treated well in return.
When you are treated unwell, you are sad/angry/upset and this feels bad. Doing the same with others makes them feel the same.
Again, we show resentment and other emotions when done in this way.
So now we got the 'fundamental basics' to work from and the tools to reason at our disposal.
Obviously, through the ages vast majority of these arguments have been done, but lets keep it simple.
Someone said as an argument against this earlier in the thread: 'Paedophiles like children, so it is good?" So lets examine this.
First we have to look at the action, sex. What effect does this have in general:
- Diseases, Illnesses and all those things.
- Possible pregnancy
What effect this has in the specific situation:
- Size difference can cause severe injury.
- Lack of pleasure for the minor, pain.
- Not fully developed systems which can cause disfigurement.
- Emotional immaturity. Can cause terrors and mental scarring. (see Child Abuse cases)
- List of other things.
So looking at this, you can clearly see that this action is very negative to one of the participants, even if it is a 'positive' for the other. These actions are also not justifiable in any kind of context either.
This gets even murkier, when you take a look at the participants as well. Children are unable to give consent, due to lack of emotional, intellectual maturity and understanding the consequences and information about those actions. Won't go into details about this, but those for arguments, feel free to googlefu.
Without much stretch of imagination, you can clearly see that practising paedophilia is immoral.
Now! Lets pick something more interesting, I am going to go with a classic, the Heinz's dilemma.
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
I will leave it open and I hope for your response to this. I would prefer if you didn't try to 'cheat' or re-use someone elses answers, because I would like a look at your morality, especially in regards to 'absolute' morality.
I will write up my answer now using the formulae I have pretty much given, and lets see what our results look like.
If anyone else wants to chip, feel free to as a little forum game.
Rhyfelwyr
08-22-2014, 18:32
Someone said as an argument against this earlier in the thread: 'Paedophiles like children, so it is good?" So lets examine this.
First we have to look at the action, sex. What effect does this have in general:
- Diseases, Illnesses and all those things.
- Possible pregnancy
What effect this has in the specific situation:
- Size difference can cause severe injury.
- Lack of pleasure for the minor, pain.
- Not fully developed systems which can cause disfigurement.
- Emotional immaturity. Can cause terrors and mental scarring. (see Child Abuse cases)
- List of other things.
My problem with your argument here is that you are trying to rationalise something that is really just abhorrent at a more visceral level. As much as this is a disgusting subject to discuss, it is possible for a paedophile to abuse a child without risking physical injury, disease or pregnancy. Also, although I personally believe that any child who is abused by a paedophile will be mentally scarred, bizarrely, there are victims who claim otherwise.
A case in point: Richard Dawkins has revealed that he was sexually abused as a child. However, he has said himself that it didn't do him any harm. He seems to dismiss it as something that just happened back in those days. Now, since you seem to be taking the view that an action only takes on a moral value isofar as it relates to a person's health and happiness, how then can you condemn the teacher that did this to Dawkins? I can condemn the teacher because I see the action itself as morally reprehensible. I can say that the lusts that that teacher has were vile and perverse. But you are only concerned with the affect the action had on Dawkins, which Dawkins himself claims was non-existent.
If Dawkins was still a child, you might say that he simply did not yet have the mental capacity to appreciate the severity of what happened to him. But your line of reasoning runs into serious trouble when Dawkins, as a fully matured adult, continues to claim that he suffered no adverse affects as a result of his sexual abuse, either in the immediate or the long-term sense.
So, I would like you to tell me: what do you say now? Was this particular act of paedophilia excusable? Or are you going to open that can of worms of saying that Dawkins is somehow too traumatized, too repressed, or perhaps even so normalized to his abuse, that he is simply blind to the fact that he did suffer at the hands of his abuser?
I think another difference between our viewpoints is hinted at when you made this remark:
Without much stretch of imagination, you can clearly see that practising paedophilia is immoral.
I find it interesting that you went to the trouble to note that "practising" paedophilia was immoral. Would you feel that it is moral for a paedophile to have paedophillic urges, so long as he did not act on them?
Now! Lets pick something more interesting, I am going to go with a classic, the Heinz's dilemma.
I will leave it open and I hope for your response to this. I would prefer if you didn't try to 'cheat' or re-use someone elses answers, because I would like a look at your morality, especially in regards to 'absolute' morality.
I will write up my answer now using the formulae I have pretty much given, and lets see what our results look like.
If anyone else wants to chip, feel free to as a little forum game.
I will just give you my gut response: no, he should not steal the medicine to save his wife.
Was this particular act of paedophilia excusable?
Nope, there isn't an excuse due to many factors I listed. There is no moral dilemma involved. Even if Mr. Dawkins in your example wasn't too affected by it, I doubt he is signing up to have it done again, he just learnt to cope with it or brush it off. There is still the matter of consent, and there was not any.
The thing you fail to mention is that many people in the past, even during the bible times practised what we call paedophilia today. This was more a mistake of our past that we have progressed from, but in your absolute terms, they all must have defied god's will and be roasting in the fiery place.
I think another difference between our viewpoints is hinted at when you made this remark:
I find it interesting that you went to the trouble to note that "practising" paedophilia was immoral. Would you feel that it is moral for a paedophile to have paedophillic urges, so long as he did not act on them?
If you thought "That Tiaexz is annoying, sometimes I wish he jumped off a bridge", have you committed a crime?
Maybe not be nice, but am I being harmed by your thought? Are you acting in any manner such as meeting up on tower-bridge, with an untied bungee cord ? I had an nightmare once where a space alien ripped apart my family, is it my fault this happened, should I be punished?
I am not playing thought police and it would be pretty wrong to do this.
I will just give you my gut response: no, he should not steal the medicine to save his wife.
I wish you went into more detail, such as explaining 'Why not' !
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 19:39
Why are all the new people coming in religious fundamentalists? It frustrates me to no end. Why can't there be one guy or girl that is normal
Food for thought, how do you know what normal is? Maybe you are, maybe we are, maybe neither of us is. Normal is not an absolute, and abnormal is not always a bad thing.
I am seeing a lot of people talking about using their reason to determine what's right and wrong. But not everybody reasons the same, my reason differs from yours. Why is your reason any better than mine? Reason is not an absolute. I base my reason off of absolutes. Anybody can reason themselves to allow anything.
I wish you went into more detail, such as explaining 'Why not'
Thou shalt not steal. I have a basis for saying that. Why do you say stealing is wrong? Also, for those who reference the ten commandments, there is more than just those. Christ summed it up by saying that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. The second was thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Those are the two greatest commandments. Note that if you follow the first, the second will fall into place. And everybody uses the second to preach tolerance or justify themselves when told they are wrong, they leave out the first.
Everyone wants to be treated well or to at least acceptable standards. No one wants to be treated unfairly.
It is clearly observable when you treat others well, you get treated well in return.
When you are treated unwell, you are sad/angry/upset and this feels bad. Doing the same with others makes them feel the same.
Again, we show resentment and other emotions when done in this way.
So now we got the 'fundamental basics' to work from and the tools to reason at our disposal.
But what bothers people varies from person to person. I tend to have thick skin, and personal insults bounce off. Other people are easily offended or bothered. So your fundamental basics are not constant. Please clarify something I have been wondering. You are saying that absolutes are not needed, not that there are no absolutes, right?
HoreTore
08-22-2014, 19:41
nvm.
Game on.
Heinz' dilemma sound to me like the Javert vs Jean Valjean story.
Saving lives should be the overall goal. Heinz tried to reason with the scientist, but the bastard wanted a unreasonable percentage profit. The moral thing would be to round up a posse and make the scientist give up the drug for less money :sneaky:
Not exactly the false dichotomy you were looking for? ...
Very well. Steal the damn drugs. Wife is sick and will die if the drug is not stolen. Condemning people to die for profit is the greater sin. If losing an arm is the punishment for stealing this drug, I would do it.
Rhyfelwyr
08-22-2014, 19:55
Nope, there isn't an excuse due to many factors I listed. There is no moral dilemma involved. Even if Mr. Dawkins in your example wasn't too affected by it, I doubt he is signing up to have it done again, he just learnt to cope with it or brush it off. There is still the matter of consent, and there was not any.
But I pointed out that all the physical aspects you listed can be avoided, leaving only the psychological impact, which Dawkins denies in his case. You are going into that dangerous ground I warned you of - your comment that "he just learnt to cope with it or brush it off" indicates that you are going with the second of the two options I presented - that Dawkins is simply too traumatized/repressed/normalized by his abuse to see the damage of it. I'm sure you realise that that is a very problematic position to maintain in the face of his own testimony as a fully functional, mature and rational adult.
I suspect you realise that the fact that he wouldn't actively "sign up to have it done again" is not really that relevant when ultimately, he says he is entirely indifferent and unaffected concerning it. Likewise, consent only becomes an issue if one party was harmed... the vast majority of everyday human interactions have to be at least initiated without consent, be it direct or tacit.
In short... on what grounds do you condemn his abuser?
The thing you fail to mention is that many people in the past, even during the bible times practised what we call paedophilia today. This was more a mistake of our past that we have progressed from, but in your absolute terms, they all must have defied god's will and be roasting in the fiery place.
I can assure you, that I am firm in the belief that every paedophile from every culture and every time will be roasting for their sin if they haven't looked to Jesus Christ for redemption. The fact that whole societies can be so caught up in their sin that they call abominable things acceptable does not in the least way excuse any individual for engaging in them.
Your argument here doesn't pose me any problems, nor would I level it back at you if you are happy to say that paedophilia is always wrong. It is a problem for the moral relativists who claim that morality only exists as a social construct, and not something innate to humanity.
If you thought "That Tiaexz is annoying, sometimes I wish he jumped off a bridge", have you committed a crime?
Maybe not be nice, but am I being harmed by your thought? Are you acting in any manner such as meeting up on tower-bridge, with an untied bungee cord ? I had an nightmare once where a space alien ripped apart my family, is it my fault this happened, should I be punished?
I am not playing thought police and it would be pretty wrong to do this.
If I wished in my heart that you were dead (and I do not, I actually quite enjoy talking to you), then I would say that that would be wrong of me. I could not feel right with myself if I felt such a thing, even if I knew no harm came to you by it.
Of course it is not a crime, in the sense that it should be legally prosecuted. But it would be a sin, it would be immoral.
To bring it back to the example you were responding to: are you saying that it is not immoral for a paedophile to lust after children? I would like you to answer that particular example.
I wish you went into more detail, such as explaining 'Why not' !
Apologies, I got the feeling you just wanted a straightforward answer, first thing that popped into my head type thing.
To delve into a bit of detail... I do not believe in doing evil for the greater good. I think part of the 'problem' with this puzzle is that it plays on the human tendency to view the sick as objects purely of care and nurture, and thus we tend to view the husband and the chemist as the only rational agents, acting on behalf of a totally defenceless and passive agent in the form of the wife. Thus, from this misconception, the actions of the husband become (potentially) selfless, while the wife is absolved of all moral responsibility.
Of course, the wife is in fact a rational and moral agent just like her husband. And if she advocates stealing from the chemist to save her life, then she is advocating for the suffering of another (because, of course, being a victim of theft causes suffering beyond the loss of property) for her own personal gain. From this more correct perspective, the husband goes from being somebody acting selflessly in aid of the helpless, to somebody active and complicit in aiding and abetting the selfish desires of another.
Now, even if the husband did this without his wife's knowing, or even if she was in a coma, he is not absolved of his wrongdoing. Because although the wife is not in that moment a rational agent, he is acting in for her in her capacity as a rational agent. He may himself be selfless, but he is acting on behalf of what is essentially a hurtful desire on his wife's behalf. Gah I'm in a rush I'll try to explain that last bit better later.
At this stage, I would say that is my position on this dilemma.
Here is what I wrote:
Heinz Dilemma in its very nature has several themes which result in the action of theft. In order to give an ‘overall’ answer, you need to look at the specifics of the case. Again, I will keep these brief.
A person’s life is on the line:
Due to the balance, death is argued as the worst outcome of a situation so this ‘fundamental right to life’ and this is shared by many religions and non-religions. If jumping into the water to save someone’s life only risked your clothing, it is a moral obligation to jump in to save them from death, as being irresponsible would cost them dearly and wouldn’t you want people to jump in after you to save you too if you were in that situation?
Personal Property/Patents:
The druggist develops the drug to provide food on his table, put shelter over his head, and to essentially live their life. He has worked and laboured to be able to do this, thus denying him access to food/shelter so he suffered greatly would be inexcusable.
Lack of Compromise:
Heinz has offered $1000 and a promise to pay the rest later. The production cost to produce 1 bottle is $200. We can have assumption that the druggist involved is producing a lot more and trading them away at the full-cost because that is how it works in reality and the fact the druggist only objected on the grounds he wants to make more money for the sake of it, opposed to a real need to impact his real situation (as in the second paragraph). But even then, there is a large upfront payment and we have reason to assume Heinz would keep to his promise due to its delivery to offset this.
Desperation:
There is a sense of urgency that it cannot be done ‘later’, but now. The consequence of this is the person’s life (Heinz’s wife). This urgency is not shared by the druggist in the given statement.
The Options:
The article only gives 1 choice for you to make, either ‘yes’ or ‘no’, with the reasoning of ‘why’ or ‘why not’ and as such, this would influence the overall answer I would give. This doesn’t allow any opportunity to make compromises, ie: “Take the drug, but leave the $1000 behind and a note saying he will make the rest of the payment”, though there is also the interesting response which can be “Heinz shouldn’t have stolen it, but the druggist shouldn’t have denied him the drug due to x,y,z”, this is not what is meant by the spirit of the question.
Overall:
“Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?” – Yes
“Why or Why not?” –
Because on the balance, there was a great and urgent need to save someone’s life (his wife), and the motivation of preventing that is attributed to greed/self-interest, despite fair arrangements for compromise. Any delays would have made the situation significantly worse. The person’s right to life is greater than the person’s right to property. This scenario does not provide any information or facts such as that medicine bottle being earmarked for someone else who did manage to pay, where someone else’s life is put into danger because of the consequences of Heinz’s actions.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 20:24
To delve into a bit of detail... I do not believe in doing evil for the greater good
7) For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8) And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. Romans 3:7,8
This verse clearly teaches against moral relativity.
For those who are contrary to the Christian worldview. If we are wrong, how are we hurt? If indeed after death we cease to exist, we will at least have lived a good life, done good to others, been faithful to our beliefs, and really, not missed out on other stuff, such as getting stoned or drunk. Really, by avoiding a carnal lifestyle, what have we missed? But the flip side, if we are right, then we go to heaven, and those who have rejected Christ will go to hell. I think Christians are better off either way.
3) For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4) And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 1 Corinthians 15:3,4
For those who don't like us quoting Scripture, telling us to leave it behind is like telling a soldier to leave behind his weapons. Also, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. That is why we use it.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 20:39
Out of common decency, the pharmacist should have agreed to Heinz's deal, but he was under no moral obligation to do so, so from my previous post, no, Heinz should not steal the drug.
The person’s right to life is greater than the person’s right to property
Your personal opinion that you have no basis for. In fact, according to survival of the fittest, he should not have helped out Heinz. Heinz's wife apparently was not fit to survive. Evolution makes no provision for charity or kindness, those instances where one organism helps another, it would be for the benefit of itself, not the other organism.
Your argument here doesn't pose me any problems, nor would I level it back at you if you are happy to say that paedophilia is always wrong. It is a problem for the moral relativists who claim that morality only exists as a social construct, and not something innate to humanity.
I do not see a situation where paedophilia is 'right', Reasons come from abuse of authority, abuse of trust, abuse of responsibility.. there is a long list and even if your example said they 'enjoyed it', there are factors in my mind and opinion which still make it 'wrong'.
It could be argued there are different levels of 'wrongness'. As some actions are more 'wrong' than others. With what you argue, you could suspect what happened to the person wasn't as wrong as a different situation, but the situation is never 'right' in absolute terms.
You can accuse me of having 'different shades of grey' in a situation, that is a point I will agree to, as I do not think the world is black&white.
If I wished in my heart that you were dead (and I do not, I actually quite enjoy talking to you), then I would say that that would be wrong of me. I could not feel right with myself if I felt such a thing, even if I knew no harm came to you by it.
Of course it is not a crime, in the sense that it should be legally prosecuted. But it would be a sin, it would be immoral.
To bring it back to the example you were responding to: are you saying that it is not immoral for a paedophile to lust after children? I would like you to answer that particular example.
This again comes back to language and unfortunately, language is not my strongest point.
I value/judge people more on their actions, intentions and thoughts pretty much in that order. To point this in the bible, think about the Parable of the Widow (Mark 12:41-44). Whilst the rich men gave in abundance to the Church, something I presume you say is 'the right thing to do', the value of their action is significantly less than the widow.
So I do not simply see these as "both right", but in fact, different shades.
So when you say lust, lets assume there was a mature looking 14 year old at an angle, so the viewer didn't know better and thought "She looks good" - is he wrong?
Upon further inspection and information, he finds out or the angle changed and sees she is younger than he first though, and go "Oops" - is he wrong?
Upon said further inspection, their thought was "Damn, perhaps in a few years when she is an adult" - is he wrong?
Upon said further inspection, their thought was "Cruds, she does look good" - is he wrong ?
I could continue this for a while, but this is a demonstration how it isn't simply black and white. The person in question committed the 'sin' as you described based on a misconception, but the different responses show the intention and perhaps reasoning about it.
For me, I draw the line where it results in perverse actions.
There is also the question where you can think something is aesthetically pleasing but do not have any lustful desires, like I think my dog is adorably cute and there is definitely nothing untowards thought or acted upon, or that you might have a niece who looks pretty and you have nothing wrong/immoral thought in any way.
At this stage, I would say that is my position on this dilemma.
I will save my response because I am interested in your thoughts on what I said, but I have one question. You mentioned the wife as a moral agent, but you seem to be neglecting the druggist.
Do you think it was right of him to deny treatment even when offered suitable compensation?
Your personal opinion that you have no basis for.
Actually, there are a great many existing arguments for this, and I kept it brief and didn't go into detail. But there is something you said which is a misconception...
In fact, according to survival of the fittest, he should not have helped out Heinz. Heinz's wife apparently was not fit to survive. Evolution makes no provision for charity or kindness, those instances where one organism helps another, it would be for the benefit of itself, not the other organism.
You really do not understand evolution at all, 'survival of the fittest' or even the basic evolutionary adaptations which are the basis of creating a society. The reason the great many of us are altruistic is because it leads to a greater degree of survival than being a 'lone-wolf'. This is seen in the animal kingdom with pretty much all species from ants, lions, dogs, monkeys, elephants, all assist each other and sometimes other species, because the end result is better survival.
'Survival of the fittest' is on the species level, not the individual level and helping eachother ensures we as a species prospers better.
Heinz should have enough money to buy the drug because he is a filthy rich ketchup magnate.
Thou shalt not steal. I have a basis for saying that. Why do you say stealing is wrong? Also, for those who reference the ten commandments, there is more than just those. Christ summed it up by saying that the greatest commandment was to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. The second was thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Those are the two greatest commandments. Note that if you follow the first, the second will fall into place. And everybody uses the second to preach tolerance or justify themselves when told they are wrong, they leave out the first.
Oh yeah, the problem with that is when people claim to follow the first and show no trace of the second.
That's pretty weird if the second follows automatically from the first.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm talking about people who call themselves Christians and then go to demonstrate asking Obama to deport or shoot all the filthy immigrant kids.
The love love your neighbor or your next (i.e. everybody else) rule sort of demands a certain level of tolerance, especially when you couple it with the whole do not judge others lest you get judged yourself.
Excuse me if I don't get the quotes right, I did all my bible reading in German so far and things probably don't always translate too well directly.
Vincent Butler
08-22-2014, 22:11
Ok, now we get to the definition of "survival of the fittest", apparently we are not agreed on that. You are talking a herd mentality for protection. I am talking the inability to survive on one's environment. As the environment changes, the organism must adapt, die, or move. That is what survival of the fittest means. The lion does not care if he hunts the monkey to extinction, he will just hunt something else. The monkey would like for the lion to go extinct. By the way, would would motivate a single celled organism to evolve into anything else? It has it made, no enemies, nothing to wipe it out. Energy? Where did the energy come from? The universe? Where did the universe come from? And if you say that "Where did God come from?". God is eternal. Time is his creation, therefore he is beyond the bounds of time. As humans, we cannot comprehend that, for time is all we know. Eternity past makes sense from either view, what was there before time began? Time is told with the celestial bodies, and we both agree they have not been around forever. You just believe they have been around longer than I do.
I will take your word that you have a basis for your opinion. Just saying, mine doesn't change, and it is eternal.
Oh yeah, the problem with that is when people claim to follow the first and show no trace of the second.
That's pretty weird if the second follows automatically from the first.
If they don't follow the second, they are not following the first, because loving God with all your heart, mind, and soul will entail doing what he wants, and he wants us to do good to others, see Galatians 6:10.
HoreTore
08-23-2014, 02:06
By the way, would would motivate a single celled organism to evolve into anything else? It has it made, no enemies, nothing to wipe it out.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek knowledge before you flaunt your ignorance? (http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/how_singlecell_organisms_evolve_multicellular_ones)
For the rest of your post, I say keep your god. It does not contradict evolution in any way, and the vast majority of Christians accept evolution without losing their god(s). Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of any divine being, it only disproves the idiotic pseudoscience of young earth creationism.
If they don't follow the second, they are not following the first, because loving God with all your heart, mind, and soul will entail doing what he wants, and he wants us to do good to others, see Galatians 6:10.
That was my point, a lot of the conservatives who want a return of christian values also support wars, the death penalty, harsher punishments for minor "crimes" and sometimes also shooting someone in the back if he runs away with 20 bucks he stole from you. To me that is the very definition of showing no trace of the love for others they should have if they were real christians. And that is also why just asking for more christian values does usually not convince me as a lot of people who say that seem to imply that theiy want people who think otherwise somehow subdued, marginalized or out of sight. And I do not think that is the right mindset to promote christianity, thankfully you do not seem to have it. :bow:
Vincent Butler
08-23-2014, 07:13
Is anybody else getting tired of this line of conversation? It is going nowhere. I am not going to convince you guys, you guys will not convince me.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to seek knowledge before you flaunt your ignorance?
Flaunt what ignorance? Maybe I don't have the original origin quite right, but I am close enough to make my point.
it only disproves the idiotic pseudoscience of young earth creationism
Not going too far into it, you refuse to acknowledge my point about historical vs observational science. Just pointing out that much virtually all our science today is built on the work of creationists. Maxwell's equations work the same for you as for me, that is observational science. Interpreting the past based on what we see, that is historical science, no way for sure to say what happened because scientists were not there to observe it. For every evolutionist explanation, there is a valid creationist explanation. Bear in mind that just because creation scientists don't agree with evolutionary ones, they still use the same laws of science in their work. After all, true science can be observed and repeated in the lab, no matter what view you hold.
As for things like the death penalty, wars, stuff like that. God instituted the death penalty, mainly for murder but also for other crimes, listed in the Bible. God commanded the children of Israel to go to war, in fact I think it is in Psalms that it says that God is a man of war, so pacifism is not a biblical teaching.
And that is also why just asking for more christian values does usually not convince me as a lot of people who say that seem to imply that theiy want people who think otherwise somehow subdued, marginalized or out of sight
People have a right to believe what they believe. You not believing what I believe does not hurt me, my beliefs do not hurt you. And people have a right to believe anything they want, such as the four or seven percent who believe the country is being run by lizard people. By the way, I see you are in Essen. That was a major German production facility or something during WW2, right?
a completely inoffensive name
08-23-2014, 09:02
Is anybody else getting tired of this line of conversation? It is going nowhere. I am not going to convince you guys, you guys will not convince me.
Flaunt what ignorance? Maybe I don't have the original origin quite right, but I am close enough to make my point.
Not going too far into it, you refuse to acknowledge my point about historical vs observational science. Just pointing out that much virtually all our science today is built on the work of creationists. Maxwell's equations work the same for you as for me, that is observational science. Interpreting the past based on what we see, that is historical science, no way for sure to say what happened because scientists were not there to observe it. For every evolutionist explanation, there is a valid creationist explanation. Bear in mind that just because creation scientists don't agree with evolutionary ones, they still use the same laws of science in their work. After all, true science can be observed and repeated in the lab, no matter what view you hold.
As for things like the death penalty, wars, stuff like that. God instituted the death penalty, mainly for murder but also for other crimes, listed in the Bible. God commanded the children of Israel to go to war, in fact I think it is in Psalms that it says that God is a man of war, so pacifism is not a biblical teaching.
People have a right to believe what they believe. You not believing what I believe does not hurt me, my beliefs do not hurt you. And people have a right to believe anything they want, such as the four or seven percent who believe the country is being run by lizard people. By the way, I see you are in Essen. That was a major German production facility or something during WW2, right?
The crux of your argument is that "since were not there to see it, secular scientists are merely putting forth ideas, and creationist scientists put forth their own ideas which also fall in line with the historical science that have been made". The problem with that, is that evolution is not historical science. I can take some e.coli and put it in a dish. And add an amount of antibiotics to the dish. And the e.coli will die. I take another dish with e.coli and I put the smallest amount of antibiotics my pipette can hold in it and most of the e.coli die. I wait for the e.coli to grow again and I put that small amount in again and a lot of e.coli die as before. And I do it again, and again and again. And I find that the small amount is not killing e.coli as well anymore and even when I put in the normal amount of antibiotics, some e.coli are now surviving that amount. This is literally the origin of antibiotic resistant diseases which have been sprouting up in the last two decades. Antibiotics did not even come into prevalent use until the mid-20th century and now bacteria are already adapted to it. Guess what, we have seen all of this happen with our own eyes. If you honestly think evolution is false, tell me at what point did God decide to pop these antibiotic resistant diseases into existence?
Ironside
08-23-2014, 10:54
Ok, now we get to the definition of "survival of the fittest", apparently we are not agreed on that. You are talking a herd mentality for protection. I am talking the inability to survive on one's environment. As the environment changes, the organism must adapt, die, or move. That is what survival of the fittest means. The lion does not care if he hunts the monkey to extinction, he will just hunt something else. The monkey would like for the lion to go extinct.
Thing is that cooperation is a very effective survival strategy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I71mjZefg8g). Add partial genetic survival. That is, it's better for me to die for a stanger's children than there being no children at all. Your children>siblings' children>extended family's children>stranger's children>no children at all.
Basically, the personality of the man that let's his wife die to get a new younger one and have children with her, will fail more on average and will thus be quite uncommon, compared to the man that tries to do everything to save her.
Your post on C14 was very vague with actual fact, but yes, the C14 isn't in equilibrium atm. That's because there has been nuclear tests, that produces extra C14.
And the problem with creationist scientists are that they place conclusions first, facts second. Fact doesn't fit the conclusion? Twist it to fit. The reason why young earth creationism was abandoned were because it was simply impossible to reconcile that theory with the evidence presented. It's the same way as geocentrism got abandoned.
As for things like the death penalty, wars, stuff like that. God instituted the death penalty, mainly for murder but also for other crimes, listed in the Bible. God commanded the children of Israel to go to war, in fact I think it is in Psalms that it says that God is a man of war, so pacifism is not a biblical teaching.
In the old testament perhaps but if you're going to base your christianity on that, then you're almost a jew.
Which raises another good question by the way. If the jews go to heaven, why did Jesus preach to them and try to turn them into christians? He said the only way to get to the father is through him, but jews do not recognize him as their saviour, so why do so many christians give the jews blanket support as brothers in faith?
Quite frankly a lot of what Jesus taught seems to conflict with what was taught in the old testament, especially regarding violence. And if Jesus was the messiah who was promised to the jews, then they should indeed accept him as their saviour and the new rules he brought about, shouldn't they? Can you give any examples from Jesus where he justified or sanctioned something that would support the death penalty or is that all based on the old testament? And does sacrificing a young sheep for your sins work as a substitute for accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour?
People have a right to believe what they believe. You not believing what I believe does not hurt me, my beliefs do not hurt you. And people have a right to believe anything they want, such as the four or seven percent who believe the country is being run by lizard people. By the way, I see you are in Essen. That was a major German production facility or something during WW2, right?
Yes.
And Essen was one of the big industrial towns in the Ruhr area, famous for coal and steel production, but that is mostly a thing of the past nowadays.
Rhyfelwyr
08-23-2014, 13:51
I do not see a situation where paedophilia is 'right', Reasons come from abuse of authority, abuse of trust, abuse of responsibility.. there is a long list and even if your example said they 'enjoyed it', there are factors in my mind and opinion which still make it 'wrong'.
It could be argued there are different levels of 'wrongness'. As some actions are more 'wrong' than others. With what you argue, you could suspect what happened to the person wasn't as wrong as a different situation, but the situation is never 'right' in absolute terms.
You can accuse me of having 'different shades of grey' in a situation, that is a point I will agree to, as I do not think the world is black&white.
But what are those factors that still make it wrong when victims like Dawkins have said they suffered from none of the ills you have already listed? I say that the act and the desire are in themselves reprehensible, can you tell me why you find them to be so?
For me, shades of grey don't come into it. Strictly speaking, the Christian position would be that, as Jesus said, if you commit murder in your heart, you are no better than a murderer. Likewise, if you lust after women in your heart, you are no better than an adulterer. The fact that some people might not carry through such desires, or carry them through to limited degrees, doesn't make the desires or the limited actions themselves any less immoral.
But you seem reluctant to call a thought itself immoral, and are maintaining the position that actions are only moral/immoral depending on how they relate to the happiness of others. Give me a concrete answer from your moral framework on just how this teacher was immoral to abuse Dawkins as he did. Things like abuse of authority or abuse of trust indicate Dawkins was in some way wronged, yet he himself maintains that he was not.
So when you say lust, lets assume there was a mature looking 14 year old at an angle, so the viewer didn't know better and thought "She looks good" - is he wrong?
Upon further inspection and information, he finds out or the angle changed and sees she is younger than he first though, and go "Oops" - is he wrong?
Upon said further inspection, their thought was "Damn, perhaps in a few years when she is an adult" - is he wrong?
Upon said further inspection, their thought was "Cruds, she does look good" - is he wrong ?
I could continue this for a while, but this is a demonstration how it isn't simply black and white. The person in question committed the 'sin' as you described based on a misconception, but the different responses show the intention and perhaps reasoning about it.
I would say that what matters in this scenario isn't so much the difference between the different 'shades' of the sin, but rather if any immoral intention was there in the first place.
I will use an extreme hypothetical example so as to avoid any confusion here... let's say there is a girl who is 16 (let's just be cautious when discussing this sort of thing), but she has an extremely rare medical condition that means she in fact looks and behaves like a fully mature, 40 year old woman. She has the physical looks, dress style, and mannerisms of a 40 year old woman - in every way she would appear as a 40 year old woman. Now, if a man was to see her on the street, and, having no awareness of who she was or her medical condition, was to look at her lustfully, then I would not accuse that man of having paedophillic thoughts.
On the other hand, if that man knew of her condition, or had any reason to believe she may be younger than she really was, then I would accuse that man of having paedophillic thoughts.
Intention is central to morality.
For me, I draw the line where it results in perverse actions.
So, to be clear on this: would you say that it is not immoral for a man to knowingly lust after, say a 16-year old (lets go with 16 as I said earlier), even when he was fully aware of her age, so long as he did not act upon it at all? Without going into the details on any different shades of morality, I would like you to answer simply yes/no as to whether you think it would be immoral at all.
I know that I would without a doubt call such thoughts totally immoral. But I would like a simple yes/no answer from you on this. Is it immoral at all?
There is also the question where you can think something is aesthetically pleasing but do not have any lustful desires, like I think my dog is adorably cute and there is definitely nothing untowards thought or acted upon, or that you might have a niece who looks pretty and you have nothing wrong/immoral thought in any way.
Of course, we are talking about inappropriate/wrong thoughts here. You can recognize beauty without any sexual element. For an obvious example, the beauty of a mountainous landscape, or whatever.
I will save my response because I am interested in your thoughts on what I said, but I have one question. You mentioned the wife as a moral agent, but you seem to be neglecting the druggist.
Do you think it was right of him to deny treatment even when offered suitable compensation?
I thought it went without saying that the chemist was the real bad guy in the scenario. Of course, he should have given the medicine to the husband. He may or may not rightfully demand some payment according to his own economic situation, but he should ensure that ultimately the dying woman gets the medicine, even if the husband was not able to offer anything for it at all.
As for my thoughts on your answer, well I disagree because of the reasons I stated in my own. Either the wife desires another's harm purely for her own gain, with the husband complicit in this; or else the husband presumes such a desire on his wife's behalf, and acts on behalf of this presumed selfish and immoral desire. The wife, the husband, and the chemist are all immoral in the former situation; only the husband and the chemist in the latter.
The whole scenario is basically designed to get people to bend their morals in the face of hardship and an unjust world. Christians are called to be perfect - to respond to hate with love, to respond to selfishness with selflessness - not to use the hate and selfishness of others to justify our own descent into theft and deceit. This is the only morally defensible position.
HoreTore
08-23-2014, 13:53
creationist scientists
There is such a thing as a creation scientist...?
' For me, shades of grey don't come into it. Strictly speaking, the Christian position would be that, as Jesus said, if you commit murder in your heart, you are no better than a murderer. Likewise, if you lust after women in your heart, you are no better than an adulterer. The fact that some people might not carry through such desires, or carry them through to limited degrees, doesn't make the desires or the limited actions themselves any less immoral.'
Sorry but wht shouldn't I lust for me friend's girlfriend. She is pretty, and he does't mind
Vincent Butler
08-25-2014, 21:58
There is such a thing as a creation scientist...?
The inventor of the MRI, Raymond Damadian, is a creationist. Dr. John Baumgardner, a leader in the field of plate tectonics, is a creationist. As I said, Maxwell's equations work the same for you and me (I use Maxwell because I am studying electrical engineering). As I have already pointed out, Bacon (who formulated the scientific method, and who has an awesome name), Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, to name a few, were creationists. That is really what a scientist is, he experiments and observes. Part of science is observation. If it can be repeated with the same results, then it starts to fall into the category of true observational science. Then your view on origins does not come into play either way, at least as far as the science itself works. I cannot recreate my view of creation, you cannot recreate yours.
The e.coli example. It is still an e.coli bacteria. It has not changed into anything else. It has lost some information, which loss enables it to survive in the presence of an antibiotic. Not good for us. If I recall, though, it has problems surviving in the absence of that antibiotic. Not saying that for sure, I may not be remembering correctly what I read.
On to the thing of lust, Jesus said that to look upon a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery. The point of what he is saying is that it is impossible to keep the whole law (any man I know of, outside of Jesus Christ, has been guilty of lustful thoughts, to use that example), so nobody can rely on keeping the law to get to heaven. That is why Christ came, as the Lamb of God, to make the payment for sin once and for all. Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29 Humans, including Christians, commit sin. Now Christians are held to a higher standard, and rightfully so, but they are still human, and still need to confess those sins and get them out of their lives. If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me: Psalm 66:18
Rhyfelwyr
08-25-2014, 22:11
On to the thing of lust, Jesus said that to look upon a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery. The point of what he is saying is that it is impossible to keep the whole law (any man I know of, outside of Jesus Christ, has been guilty of lustful thoughts, to use that example), so nobody can rely on keeping the law to get to heaven.
There is so much truth in the verse: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend on one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10).
Just think of what adulterous thoughts entail - perversion of the institution of marriage, cheating on your own wife, disrespecting and objectifying another woman, fuelling your base desires, corrupting your own perception of relationships, rebellion towards God, lukewarmness in your faith.
There is not one sin, that does not show in somebody's heart a sense of anger, malice, perversion, deceit, selfishness, rebellion - everything bad within them. But sadly in this day and age it is so rife and so normalized that even Christians become blind to it.
HoreTore
08-25-2014, 22:18
Einstein wasn't religious though.
Vincent Butler
08-25-2014, 22:20
Just think of what adulterous thoughts entail - perversion of the institution of marriage, cheating on your own wife, disrespecting and objectifying another woman, fuelling your base desires, corrupting your own perception of relationships, rebellion towards God, lukewarmness in your faith.
Not to mention the reproach you bring to the name of Christ if you follow through with the thoughts. Sadly, many Christians fail to think about that, or they do not care enough to put aside their own lusts. Any action begins with a thought. That is why we are supposed to guard our thoughts.
HoreTore
08-25-2014, 22:38
Actually, he was. He believed in a constant universe that abided by universal rules. He believed in God. He wasn't a bible thumper, and I don't know that he ever called himself a Christian (or anything else), but he was a religious man. It is one of the reasons quantum theory pissed him off so much for most of his latter years--he didn't like the metaphysical implications.
First of all, he was Jewish - christianity is a stretch ~;)
Secondly, Einstein said he believed in Spinoza's god - which is a dickish way of saying he doesn't believe in god.
EDIT: He was also a socialist, of course - as any man with brains is ~;)
Vincent Butler
08-25-2014, 22:39
Actually, he was. He believed in a constant universe that abided by universal rules. He believed in God. He wasn't a bible thumper, and I don't know that he ever called himself a Christian (or anything else), but he was a religious man.
That is my understanding as well. He was Jewish, and I believe it was he who basically gave the Allies the atomic bomb in exchange for a Jewish state. Correct me if somebody else knows otherwise, it might not have been Einstein, though I think I remember it right.
HoreTore
08-25-2014, 22:40
That is why we are supposed to guard our thoughts.
Stalin and Big Brother approves of this post.
HoreTore
08-25-2014, 22:47
Einsteins own reply (http://books.google.no/books?id=T5R7JsRRtoIC&pg=PA43&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)to a claim he was religious:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Case closed.
Vincent Butler
08-25-2014, 22:51
He was also a socialist, of course - as any man with brains is
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Margaret Thatcher
Churchill said something to the effect that if you are in your twenties and not a socialist you have no heart, but if you are in your forties and a socialist, you have no brain. Socialism sounds nice and good, but it does not work. Communism is essentially the same situation as socialism, with a more oppressive government, but the end result being the same. One huge issue I have is that here in America, we take money from defense, and put it to social programs, while our enemies are increasing their militaries. Charity is not the government's role. Individuals should take accountability for themselves.
"A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have."
HoreTore
08-25-2014, 22:55
A quote from an upper class twit and a mad old bag. You, sir, have convinced me.
Enjoy your crime and paying for your doctors, I'll be sure to think of you at least one of the days of my 12-week paid vacation.
Greyblades
08-25-2014, 23:03
I've said it many times: socialism without capitalism is unsustainable but capitalism without socialism is intollerable.
Anyone who extols one while excluding the other should be viewed with suspicion and/or derision.
HoreTore
08-25-2014, 23:08
I've said it many times: socialism without capitalism is unsustainable but capitalism without socialism is intollerable.
Anyone who extols one while excluding the other should be viewed with suspicion and/or derision.
Personally, I'm more of a socialist on the social side of things, ie. gay rights, anti-racism, feminism, anti-war, etc.
On the economic side, I favour a working private sector for everything except the fundamentals(infrastructure, healthcare, justice, and so on), with a strong state with a proper whip to deal with those who cause trouble(currently: finance). In euroweenies terms, that puts me a little to the left of center, I think.
So yeah, in economic terms I would agree with your statement.
Kadagar_AV
08-25-2014, 23:08
A "creationist" who looks at the sum total of scientific discovery so far and decides that it is all so wondrous that surely there is a God behind it all, and who believes that surely God invites more research and truth-seeking by the very mechanisms we've been given to discover the sum total of scientific discoveries so far, well... that's someone I respect and agree with.
A "creationist" who uses man-made dogma to try and revise the sum total of scientific discovery so far because ignorance is preferable to the unknown, well... that's not someone I respect at all.
Most great scientists were indeed religious men. Your Einsteins and your Newtons. But they were the former, not the latter. Especially once you correct for the cultural differences.
The bolded part is the problem.
I totally agree with your statement at large. Totally.
I have no problem what so ever with people looking at the world, and just think there might be more to it than we know. Heck, I am one of them.
To have a big bang - creating a universe that can spring to life... Is nothing short of a miracle.
Science is just trying to EXPLAIN this miracle, science in no way state this isn't a miracle, though. As many creationists seem to believe.
I have said over, and over, and over again:
When theology, philosophy, and science all reach their individual peak, they will meet and greet at the very top.
There clearly is a universal strive towards complexity... The more you learn about the world, the more you believe in it.
Now, my problem is when people state that they have the answer, and that answer means that you should cut your penis or pray before bed or whatever (generally donate cash or waste your energy making the meme spread). Bollocks, to put it mildly.
We're not even close to grasping the true wonder of the universe.
I believe in a "God", in my way. I just don't believe in the material way that different churches want to dictate my everyday life.
The ultimate complexity = God.
Doesn't have to be harder than that, science support the view. And there's no need to start wars over it, or mutilating people who think otherwise (nor their own people).
From this perspective, people who adhere to a religious dogma made by a bronze age desert living tribe is....
I mentioned ridiculous already, didn't I?
Vincent Butler
08-26-2014, 01:38
And there's no need to start wars over it, or mutilating people who think otherwise (nor their own people).
Agreed.
Enjoy your crime and paying for your doctors
Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.~:rolleyes:
The natural tendency is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground. -Thomas Jefferson
Seamus Fermanagh
08-26-2014, 01:52
A "creationist" who looks at the sum total of scientific discovery so far and decides that it is all so wondrous that surely there is a God behind it all, and who believes that surely God invites more research and truth-seeking by the very mechanisms we've been given to discover the sum total of scientific discoveries so far, well... that's someone I respect and agree with.
A "creationist" who uses man-made dogma to try and revise the sum total of scientific discovery so far because ignorance is preferable to the unknown, well... that's not someone I respect at all.
Most great scientists were indeed religious men. Your Einsteins and your Newtons. But they were the former, not the latter. Especially once you correct for the cultural differences.
Pithily expressed and exactly on point. Kudos.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-26-2014, 01:56
Einsteins own reply (http://books.google.no/books?id=T5R7JsRRtoIC&pg=PA43&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)to a claim he was religious:
Case closed.
I remember reading that. I would not classify Einstein as religious in the sense we use the term. Spiritual, possibly. Believing in some "higher power" as the Friends of Bill W. phrase it, yes. I do not believe Einstein would have or did agree with any of the then extant depictions of this higher power. For him, the music of the spheres was enough.
a completely inoffensive name
08-26-2014, 09:50
I am studying electrical engineering).
God help us all.
Agreed.
Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.~:rolleyes:
I get to choose my doctor as well for the most part and if I'm willing to pay the costs myself I can probably choose any doctor.
That you cannot trust your government is not a problem of socialized medicine but a problem with your way of thinking, your society and how your government works.
HoreTore
08-26-2014, 10:59
Agreed.
Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.~:rolleyes:
The sweet, sweet smell of ignorance... I choose my own doctor, and my treatment.
But you do an excellent job at parroting propaganda without checking whether or not it fits with reality. I do not understand how you became a creationist. /sarcasm
a completely inoffensive name
08-26-2014, 11:42
The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.
rory_20_uk
08-26-2014, 11:43
Apologies to most persons, but these just need to be reposted - in short healthcare works better in practically every developed country you care to mention - and many undeveloped countries:
1415914160
Leaving aside the odd belief that doctors could treat based upon voting patterns (is Government ever that organised?) the cost of healthcare is off the charts - or more spceifically the charts have to be redrawn to keep the USA on them.
~:smoking:
rory_20_uk
08-26-2014, 11:48
The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.
No, not really:
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
08-26-2014, 12:14
No, not really:
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.
~:smoking:
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
It's almost as if the Bible is not consistent. Note I said "should". I really couldn't care less about what I read in 90% of the Bible, including some of the things Jesus says. All I care about is the message of goodwill, something that is lacking among many political ideologies.
Ironside
08-26-2014, 12:29
Agreed.
Don't know what you mean by the crime part. As for the doctors, at least I get to choose my doctor and what treatments I get, the problem with the government paying for my health care is that they get to tell me how I live, and who my doctor is, and they get to decide if I get health care at all, see Barack Obama "Give your grandma a pain pill instead of a pacemaker". The problem with giving them that kind of power is "Well, we don't like what you believe" or "We don't like how you voted. You won't get the cancer care you need." I know that is an extreme case, but I have a severe distrust of government. Now I do know that European social medicine, at least Dutch, seems to be working better than the American idea, don't know about the other countries. But the private sector is still involved. Take a look at our social medicine, Obamacare, and how well it is being implemented.~:rolleyes:
We can use the Republican complaints as the testing measure. From the start they've hated the idea and gone for full repell. If they silently forget the issue, then it's because their own base has gotten it so much better under Obamacare that repelling it would be political suicide.
Full circle would be remembering that most of it was originally Republican ideas, and then accusing Obama of stealing those ideas, while the Republicans were supporting it all along. I say that this one got 50-50.
Short version, the US system is so inefficient compared to the rest of the world that you can increase cover, reduce costs and improve service in a single reform.
No, not really:
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.
~:smoking:
I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.
rory_20_uk
08-26-2014, 12:42
I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.
Indeed. trying to shoe-horn a religion to have one clear message on any modern system is pointless. If one wants to do it / thinks we should do it fine. But no point putting a religion in there to add weight.
~:smoking:
a completely inoffensive name
08-26-2014, 12:46
Indeed. trying to shoe-horn a religion to have one clear message on any modern system is pointless.
Why? I would rather have the public dialogue centered around the concepts of community and charity rather than "culture wars" and ignorance.
rory_20_uk
08-26-2014, 12:51
Why? I would rather have the public dialogue centered around the concepts of community and charity rather than "culture wars" and ignorance.
Choosing a religion is going to be choosing a culture as you can't have one without the other.
I don't think that any group of persons has a monopoly on ignorance.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
08-26-2014, 14:12
The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.
Really, his teachings advocated a focus on the spiritual, on growth in one's connection to the Almighty, irregardless of one's pelf. He did seem to assert that fixating on the materialistic was an impediment to this, not that the existence of wealth was of itself an evil.
HoreTore
08-26-2014, 14:30
The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.
That would be liberation theology. I've never seen much sense in it. It's not the christianity in liberation theology I have a problem with, but how they bastardize Marx to fit christianity...
Still, every socialist party in western europe contains a christian faction.
I do not think you can explain or grasp Jesus' entire "philosophy" based on a single quote.
"Love your neightbor as much as you love yourself" can also mean that if you would pay the best doctors to treat you, you should also pay for your neighbors to see the best doctors.
Well, hypothetically, that is the concept behind socialised health-care.
rory_20_uk
08-26-2014, 15:29
In the UK I think it came out of the theory that preventative care would be of economic benefit to society - as the cost of treatment would be less than the improved productivity. How wrong they were!
~:smoking:
Kadagar_AV
08-26-2014, 16:00
NVM, me being stupid.
HopAlongBunny
08-26-2014, 16:07
The responsibility toward the "other" is central to Christ's teaching.
The parable of the good Samaritan makes it clear that the well being of the "other" is almost the definition of a Christian's lot.
Early Christianity were Communalistic. See Acts 2-5
Vincent Butler
08-26-2014, 18:42
But socialism is the government taking care of people, not people taking care of people. Study the Bible, the care of the poor is the responsibility of the church, not the government. That is why so many European countries (and now America) are going bankrupt, look at the social programs. Defense is important, to quote Sun Tsu, "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or ruin." Social spending, no, you kill the will and motivation of your people because you take care of them.
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27
Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. Galatians 2:10
The government's role is the protection of the citizen and the execution of justice.
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 1 Peter 2:14
What about individual accountability? Maybe that is why America is, or at least was, the world leader. Americans have always been about taking care of themselves, more motivated, though not so much any more; Europeans are content to let the government take care of them.
Rhyfelwyr
08-26-2014, 18:46
The end goal of Christianity should be socialism. People helping people. I can't ever remember Jesus ever advocating for varying quality of life based on your household income and credit score.
Certainly, I would agree that the principles of helping each other, of justice and equality, are all central to Christianity. But it is quite a leap to suggest that a socialist system, with state ownership of the means of production, is somehow a true (or at least, Christian) manifestation of such principles. Human liberty is another core Christian value, and one that is hard to reconcile with a truly socialist system (if not so much, say, a more social democratic system).
The Catholic Church does a good job at articulating a Christian approach to politics in the form of Catholic social teaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching). In terms of wealth/inequality/socialism etc, it has some interesting ideas. For example, distributism - the idea that every individual should privately own a portion of the means of production.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Appears to be a complete separation between temporal wealth and religion. As long as people die, they will return to God. When that happens is not much of an issue.
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
It's almost as if the Bible is not consistent. Note I said "should". I really couldn't care less about what I read in 90% of the Bible, including some of the things Jesus says. All I care about is the message of goodwill, something that is lacking among many political ideologies.
The two passages are hardly in conflict, since they are dealing with different issues. My understanding of biblical teaching on the issue of wealth is that it can be a major stumbling block for a Christian's growth in the faith, but it is not inherently evil. Remember, it is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not money itself as that verse is so often misquoted to say.
Vincent Butler
08-26-2014, 19:00
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Look at the context of that verse, Jesus was telling the Jews that it was not wrong to pay tribute to Rome. Rome was in power over Judea, so they had the right to demand tribute. Jesus himself paid tribute, and did not deplore Rome for collecting it. The modern application, and I believe an accurate one, is that paying taxes is not wrong. The government needs to run somehow.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.