Morality

[ICantSpellDawg]

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]

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.

[Sigurd]

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.

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).

[Husar]

You people haven't learned about the Heavenly Mother yet?

http://english.watv.org/truth/truth_...ent_mother.asp

[Rhyfelwyr]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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]

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.

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).

[Beskar]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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]

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]

nvm.

[Sigurd]

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
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]

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.

[Beskar]

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]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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?

[Beskar]

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.

[Husar]

Heinz should have enough money to buy the drug because he is a filthy rich ketchup magnate.

[Husar]

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]

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]

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?

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Vincent Butler]

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]

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]

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. 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.

[Husar]

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]

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.