Is faith a human emotion?

[Tread Softly]

If an atheist debates the existence of God or whether their religion is right with a believer, then they may get them to the point where they say that they "Just Know" - they "Have Faith".

No amount of rational discourse can move them from their position of belief. This faith thing gets in the way.

So faith must be important for these chaps. And I'll tell you something - when I've studied religion I have sometimes thought how easy my life would become if I believed in a higher being, to believe that the responsibility was not just mine, and sometimes this thought takes on an emotional vector. I was feeling something!

It is after those sort of thoughts and feelings, and observing the way faith acted as a road block in converting people to my evil atheistic ways, that I realised that faith could possibly be described as a feeling.

It was then a simple matter for my brain to engage and deduce that a feeling need not have an object. I could feel happy without any person or thing to be happy about, I could be sad without an object to be sad about, I might even be able to feel love without loving a person or thing. Why shouldn't faith be like this?

Why shouldn't faith be just a human emotion without the need for an object? Something about being human may just mean that we have these feelings of faith, particularly perhaps in moments of perceived lack of coping (in what mental states are conversions made I wonder?). The object of faith I'm referring to is a divine being of course.

So, do you chaps think faith is a human emotion which should be expected by anyone, can be studied by looking at brain scans, and which certainly does not necessitate the existence of something to be faithful about?

[danyboy27]

maybe, i am an atheist and i have a certain faith toward myself, but lets just call it confidence.

[Tread Softly]

Heh sure. I meant specifically a feeling which could be described as "wishing for a higher authority". Or, as interpreted by people who go on to believe, "an emotional reaction to the idea of a higher being that turns me into a believer". Just shooting these descriptions off the hip here so they are almost certainly shabby.

[Tread Softly]

It's difficult really, as those who have not earnestly explored the emotional side of religion may not have experienced the emotion of faith, and most of those who have experienced it may have gone on to be religious and thereby be more likely to dismiss this idea. Hurrrrr.

[¿Que?]

Rather, I would call faith an emotional judgment. Faith can't be an emotion, because by definition it is a judgment about something e.g. I have faith in this or that. Now, does emotion play a role in faith, absolutely and without a doubt. Often, but not always, beliefs based on faith are emotionally influenced.

[Tread Softly]

Here we get to semantics, and the way meanings and common usage sometimes fail to adequately describe what we are talking about. Damn, this takes me back to my days trying to synthesise Quine and Wittgenstein!

Faith may be by definition be a judgement but that definition may be inadequate. Take love, for instance. Love is an emotion, but also something other than this (especially after the initial chemical reactions have started to fizzle out!). In a similar way, we might be able to see faith as both an emotion, a judgement, and a mixture of these depending on under what circumstances we use the word. A bit like the word "cloud" is useful in everyday conversation but not much use to a weatherman who will want to use more precise nomenclature.

People describe conversions as a moment when a metaphorical shaft of light strikes them from above, or some other single event/revelation when it all became clear and they "Just Know". This is the moment of emotion that I mean when I talk about faith in this thread.

If this moment of revelation/faith can be shown to be a hormonal emotional brain event (no idea of the correct wording here) then atheists will have a response to those who hold up the faith card and shrug at arguments of reason.

[¿Que?]

Here we get to semantics, and the way meanings and common usage sometimes fail to adequately describe what we are talking about. Damn, this takes me back to my days trying to synthesise Quine and Wittgenstein!
We didn't just get to semantics. This thread started out as a semantic argument.


Faith may be by definition be a judgement but that definition may be inadequate. Take love, for instance. Love is an emotion, but also something other than this (especially after the initial chemical reactions have started to fizzle out!). In a similar way, we might be able to see faith as both an emotion, a judgement, and a mixture of these depending on under what circumstances we use the word. A bit like the word "cloud" is useful in everyday conversation but not much use to a weatherman who will want to use more precise nomenclature.
fair enough...



People describe conversions as a moment when a metaphorical shaft of light strikes them from above, or some other single event/revelation when it all became clear and they "Just Know". This is the moment of emotion that I mean when I talk about faith in this thread.
OK...



If this moment of revelation/faith can be shown to be a hormonal emotional brain event (no idea of the correct wording here) then atheists will have a response to those who hold up the faith card and shrug at arguments of reason.
So your argument is that we need to redefine faith, so that religious people will not be able to hide behind it and avoid rational argumentation. Except that most emotions are considered natural and healthy. Thus, feeling (notice I don't say "having") faith will just be normalized in the same way, and religion will be legitimized further.

When people argue the whole faith thing to me, it makes more sense to show them how little role faith actually plays in the decisions they make throughout their daily lives. Furthermore, they would not want other people making choices based on faith either. For example, when the car breaks down, they don't have faith (in god) it will be repaired, they take it to the mechanic. And they don't expect the mechanic to fix it through faith (in god), but through general (rational) knowledge of car mechanics. Or when they go to a doctor, they expect the doctor to think rationally not to have faith (in god) that they will heal. When they board a plane, they expect the pilot not to fly based on faith (in god) but in rational knowledge of aviation.etc.

Human beings are naturally rational, it actually takes effort to have faith.

[Tread Softly]

Yes I suppose you're right I'm saying we need to refine the definition of faith. I agree with your last paragraph agustin. But when I've used the argument you mention with people, or use any other rational form of reasoning, a believer is not moved, except perhaps to a position where they acknowledge that faith alone is the reason for their belief (and this, for them, is sufficient).

The most success I've had is with a kind of reductio ad absurdum argument where you take these religious laws and show situations where they conflict with conscience. I also made a big impact on a Muslim with focusing in on "wal bara" and asking whether a god that demanded you hate was worthy of worship.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I mean about faith though. Why does faith have such a big impact on people? How is it that faith can overpower reason? I'll struggle again to describe what I mean: there is an emotion associated with faith which is often interpreted as an experience of revelation. This feeling or emotion is taken as proof, beyond reason, that the divine being which was being thought about at the time is a reality, that god exists. It is a palpable and memorable moment, akin to deep shock or some other non-regular but ordinary mental/cognitive episode. It tends to define the rest of a person's life as they become believers. It is taken as a "sign".

Believers talked to me about this but I never appreciated what they meant until I experienced it myself, but for me it was instantly recognisable as an acute feeling of relief against the stress of responsibility.

I would disagree that, if correct, this would normalise religious faith. It would normalise that acute wave of emotion/feeling of faith as a human condition certainly and in such a manner show that there is no divine link to it at all.

[¿Que?]

I would disagree that, if correct, this would normalise religious faith. It would normalise that acute wave of emotion/feeling of faith as a human condition certainly and in such a manner show that there is no divine link to it at all.
Well, I am fairly sure I understood. What exactly makes you think I didn't understand your point?

Most "feelings" in psychology are regarded as normal. Even violent feelings and suicidal thoughts are considered relative to degrees and if you do or don't act out on them. Why would this be any different with faith? Of course, I don't think you deny this, except you seem to think that it would permit a discourse which would dissociate faith with a divine being. Essentially, you're saying that "feeling faith" would render it a scientific concept rather than something relegated to the realm of the supernatural.

To be honest, I don't know if you are entirely wrong, but I remain skeptical. I've been around the psychological establishment once or twice in my life and I even have a psychology degree. One thing I've found is that there is no shortage of mysticism in psychology, particularly around counseling and therapy (AA is a case in point).


If you honestly want to combat mysticism and religion, I don't think that's a good strategy, honestly. Now, if you're yanking my chain and this whole thing is leading up to some anti-Muslim screed (as was your cult thread) then I would ask you not to respond to this post so that I don't have to waste my time with someone who is not taking me seriously.

[Lynx]

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. For most religions, faith is a requirement, a test, and they acknowledge this openly. An atheist cannot argue against that which is a requirement.

[spiltteeth]

If it helps, I'll just mention "faith" defined in the New Testament is more about the "faith" one has in their loved one.
I KNOW my girlfriend exists, I have a certain amount of faith that she won't cheat on me etc

S0 in Christianity, there has always been great efforts to give reasons/evidences for the truth of Christianity, but faith is more about having faith that God really is all good, or has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil, or having faith He really has a plan for us etc

Faith, in New Testament understanding, has nothing to do with believing without knowing.

Also, reformed epistemologist's argue that in the right circumstances belief in God is a natural, normal, basic belief - as long as it doesn't conflict with other basic beliefs.

A basic belief is something for which their is no evidence or good argument for, but which it is rationally justified to believe in anyway

Examples : Axioms like 2+2=4, the belief that an external world actually exists, the belief that other people have minds - that is, they have an inner life like ours with feelings of love etc, certain memories for which we have no proof, the belief that the future will be like the past (such as if salt melts in water today, it isn't going to explode in water tomorrow, Hume wrote that famous essay showing we could never PROVE this is true, and there is no evidence etc) belief in the laws of logic, and various other beliefs.

[Lynx]

What's the difference between faith and assumption?

[spiltteeth]

What's the difference between faith and assumption?

You mean, can you also say, "I assume my wife won't cheat on me?" Well, I think ones faith or assumptions needs to be grounded.

It's impossible to PROVE yr wife loves you, or won't cheat, but she did say she wouldn't, she declared her fidelity, she promises her fidelity, and you will never find out unless you put yr trust in her first.

Also, it's grounded in a deeply held intuition.

Do you just assume other people have minds? Or that the external world exists? Or that the future will be like the past? Or that 2+2 will always be 4?

Even though there is no proof these things are true, it seems naturally to most people they are self-evidently true.

I don't assume 2+2=4. As soon as someone explained it to me, it just seemed obviously true.

Also, it cannot contradict other beliefs or evidences.

You can have faith yr wife won't cheat, but if theres evidence that she's cheating, then one must give up the faith due to this new information.

[danyboy27]

its useless to have faith toward an individual, either this person is reliable, or he not.

Beccause you KNOW her well, you spend time together.

I dont need faith, The only thing it does is blind people.

I dont have faith in communism, i know, trought several observation and thinking it would work.

Sure some might come to me with more fact, but that will be okay, beccause i will not have anything that will hold me back (faith).

Believe me, by giving up faith i became a totally better person, with a much better judgement, i am not always lagged behind like i used to.

[spiltteeth]

its useless to have faith toward an individual, either this person is reliable, or he not.

Beccause you KNOW her well, you spend time together.

I dont need faith, The only thing it does is blind people.

I dont have faith in communism, i know, trought several observation and thinking it would work.

Sure some might come to me with more fact, but that will be okay, beccause i will not have anything that will hold me back (faith).

Believe me, by giving up faith i became a totally better person, with a much better judgement, i am not always lagged behind like i used to.

Ah, so half of all the married couples who end up getting divorced KNEW that when they got married?

No one ever disappoints another person ever. No one ever lies to another person ever. No one cheats on another person ever. If they do you know in advance weather they will or not.

Ok.

Since there is no evidence or proof that other people have minds, Or that the external world exists, Or that the future will be like the past, Or that 2+2 will always be 4 - then you don't believe in those things?

What a bizarre world you must live in Danny....

[Lynx]

You mean, can you also say, "I assume my wife won't cheat on me?" Well, I think ones faith or assumptions needs to be grounded.

It's impossible to PROVE yr wife loves you, or won't cheat, but she did say she wouldn't, she declared her fidelity, she promises her fidelity, and you will never find out unless you put yr trust in her first.

Also, it's grounded in a deeply held intuition.
I'm unable to see a difference in meaning other than assuming her fidelity is a detached/colder version of having faith in her.

Do you just assume other people have minds? Or that the external world exists? Or that the future will be like the past? Or that 2+2 will always be 4?
yes, yes, no, no
If you have perfect information, there is no room for assumption. (ie. 2+2=4)
In the absence of perfect (or complete) information, assumptions can be based on past experience, likelihood (probability), or similarity.
eg. I assume I won't be killed in a car accident. (probability).

And I imagine there are some unusual or extraordinary situations where no assumptions can be made, because they lack a ready reference.

[spiltteeth]

I'm unable to see a difference in meaning other than assuming her fidelity is a detached/colder version of having faith in her.

yes, yes, no, no
If you have perfect information, there is no room for assumption. (ie. 2+2=4)
In the absence of perfect (or complete) information, assumptions can be based on past experience, likelihood (probability), or similarity.
eg. I assume I won't be killed in a car accident. (probability).

And I imagine there are some unusual or extraordinary situations where no assumptions can be made, because they lack a ready reference.

fROM wIKI :


An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.

A person doesn't just assume 2+2=4, even though it can never be proven/there is no evidence - it presents itself as actual knowledge, it really seems true that 2+2=4.

This is not based on past experience or other facts, as soon as you see it it is self-evidently true to you that 2+2=4.

As a basic belief, it is the presupposition upon which assumptions may rationally be made.

So belief in God could be basic, then I suppose one could assume (or have faith) that He is all good, based on other basic beliefs or other experiences.

[Lynx]

I don't understand how 2+2=4 is non-factual. It is based on the definition of numbers of objects. Does it lack a mathematical proof?

I know that 2+2=4. It seems I assumed this equation was fact.

Belief in the unknown might be basic, as in God-of-the-Gaps.

[spiltteeth]

I don't understand how 2+2=4 is non-factual. It is based on the definition of numbers of objects. Does it lack a mathematical proof?

I know that 2+2=4. It seems I assumed this equation was fact.

Belief in the unknown might be basic, as in God-of-the-Gaps.

2+2=4 is an axiom, it cannot be proved and there is no evidence for its truth.
Bertrund Russell said the entire purpose of his life was to prove 1+1=2, which he never could do.

To be a basic belief you must really feel it immediately as true, not because it seems likely, or you have no other answer - but because you EXPERIENCE it as true.

When someone says "That house looks scary to me." it can never be proved that a person actually experiences some house as frightening - you have an actual internal experience.

It's not that I assume 2+2=4, it really presents itself to me as true, it is self evidently true.
Even if I tried NOT to believe 2+2=4 I couldn't.

Many theists claim that in the right circumstances (looking at the wonder of a starry night say) they experience the knowledge that God exists; as a person who can count and who sees 2+2=4 will experience that as self-evidently true -without proof, argument, knowledge of mathematical theory or evidence.

A "God of the gaps" is not experienced directly, but offered as a solution, so would no be considered, epistemically, a basic belief, upon which all other beliefs are based.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Yes

[Elfcat]

I see so much variation. Some people are so irrationally faith-based as to put statements up like "We walk by faith, not by sight", without batting a lash of the eyes they claim are in their heads in accordance with a perfect intelligent design, which makes an intent not to use them categorically stupid by their own logic. But, you know, consistency with their religious text is the only consistency for which they even pretend to care.

Then there are those who are perfectly comfortable with there being some pretty blatant flaws and fallacies in those texts but who still feel that there is a god and a plan and all that. I think sometimes, why do we care to attack these latter types' belief? Maybe that god has no problem whatsoever with revolution. Maybe that god wants us to grow a pair and make it happen. Once the bindings of the ancient texts are off the divine plan could be just about anything, yes? And by definition, if everything is part of a divine plan, then what has happened and will happen (like, say, revolution) is a part of that plan. Well then, what's the problem?

[tradeunionsupporter]

I believe Religion is good for Humans.

[Dimentio]

fROM wIKI :



A person doesn't just assume 2+2=4, even though it can never be proven/there is no evidence - it presents itself as actual knowledge, it really seems true that 2+2=4.

This is not based on past experience or other facts, as soon as you see it it is self-evidently true to you that 2+2=4.

As a basic belief, it is the presupposition upon which assumptions may rationally be made.

So belief in God could be basic, then I suppose one could assume (or have faith) that He is all good, based on other basic beliefs or other experiences.

All-goodness is a basic self-contradiction in itself. You cannot be all-righteous, all-merciful and all-good at the same time, since you often have to choose between decisions which would poise a dilemma between these various characteristics.

[spiltteeth]

All-goodness is a basic self-contradiction in itself. You cannot be all-righteous, all-merciful and all-good at the same time, since you often have to choose between decisions which would poise a dilemma between these various characteristics.

That's true for Judaism and Muslim faiths, it is logically incoherent to be all just AND all merciful.
To be all Just one MUST give out a punishment, how can one then be merciful?

However Christianity solves this on the cross - where justice and mercy come together - in other words, Christ takes the rap for our moral crimes.

Its a good point, indeed, only Christianity has a logically coherent picture of God, for this and other reasons as well.

[danyboy27]

That's true for Judaism and Muslim faiths, it is logically incoherent to be all just AND all merciful.
To be all Just one MUST give out a punishment, how can one then be merciful?

However Christianity solves this on the cross - where justice and mercy come together - in other words, Christ takes the rap for our moral crimes.

Its a good point, indeed, only Christianity has a logically coherent picture of God, for this and other reasons as well.

wait wait...are you telling christianity prevail over the other religions? sound like preaching to me.

[spiltteeth]

wait wait...are you telling christianity prevail over the other religions? sound like preaching to me.

What do you mean "prevails" ?

It is, as I've demonstrated, not vulnerable to the accusation of logical incoherency when describing God as is the Muslim or Jewish faiths.

Obviously you think atheism and'or relativism "prevails"

Funny, I;ve heard people here say ONLY atheism is true and ALL religions false! Is preaching that only relativism is true Ok?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

However Christianity solves this on the cross - where justice and mercy come together - in other words, Christ takes the rap for our moral crimes.

Its a good point, indeed, only Christianity has a logically coherent picture of God, for this and other reasons as well.

How on Earth is that logically coherent? Christ isn't responsible for human sin (in fact he is often said to be sinless himself), so it is utterly absurd to claim that he "takes the rap" for all sin, past present and future, which has nothing to do with him anyway.

There is no justice in punishing those who are blameless, even if the punishment is self-inflicted. It is simply a bizarre act of sado-masochism; "Christ gave his life for you, so be grateful and worship him". Fuck that! I never asked him or anyone else to shoulder responsibility for my crimes; that's a matter for my own conscience. I refuse to submit to such emotional blackmail on a cosmic scale.

[spiltteeth]

How on Earth is that logically coherent? Christ isn't responsible for human sin (in fact he is often said to be sinless himself), so it is utterly absurd to claim that he "takes the rap" for all sin, past present and future, which has nothing to do with him anyway.

There is no justice in punishing those who are blameless, even if the punishment is self-inflicted. It is simply a bizarre act of sado-masochism; "Christ gave his life for you, so be grateful and worship him". Fuck that! I never asked him or anyone else to shoulder responsibility for my crimes; that's a matter for my own conscience. I refuse to submit to such emotional blackmail on a cosmic scale.

What do you mean by "emotional blackmail"?
In the Christian way of thinking, yr free to refuse what we think of as a gift, IF you don't ask for it it will not be forced on you.

Ask yourself 2 questions: Do you believe moral crimes should be punished? And then have you ever committed a moral crime?

My answer is yes to both, so I can take the punishment or Christ is willing to if I ask Him.

Philosophically, it is logically incoherent, as Dimentio points out, for a being to be all just and all merciful. IF this being is all just, then the punishment must be meted out, no matter how merciful He is.

Its like the story of the judge who got his own daughter before him on a speeding ticket. Being just he found her guilty and fined her; but she didn't have the money. He then took off his robes came down from the bench and paid the fine himself.
Forgiveness and mercy is one thing, but someone must pay the fine for God to be all just.

[Foldered]

Ask yourself 2 questions: Do you believe moral crimes should be punished? And then have you ever committed a moral crime?

My answer is no to both of those as "moral" is really, in all respects, a non-definable term.

For example, by some people's moral standards, I've committed crimes in my bedroom through consentual types of sex.


Its like the story of the judge who got his own daughter before him on a speeding ticket. Being just he found her guilty and fined her; but she didn't have the money. He then took off his robes came down from the bench and paid the fine himself.
Forgiveness and mercy is one thing, but someone must pay the fine for God to be all just.

That story doesn't work very well with your philosophy as a "speeding ticket" is a man-made thing, not a natural law. To suggest that every human-made law must be followed in order to please God is basically just saying you're going to be an automaton for the rest of your life, unwilling to question anything.

[danyboy27]

What do you mean by "emotional blackmail"?
In the Christian way of thinking, yr free to refuse what we think of as a gift, IF you don't ask for it it will not be forced on you.

Ask yourself 2 questions: Do you believe moral crimes should be punished? And then have you ever committed a moral crime?

My answer is yes to both, so I can take the punishment or Christ is willing to if I ask Him.

Philosophically, it is logically incoherent, as Dimentio points out, for a being to be all just and all merciful. IF this being is all just, then the punishment must be meted out, no matter how merciful He is.

Its like the story of the judge who got his own daughter before him on a speeding ticket. Being just he found her guilty and fined her; but she didn't have the money. He then took off his robes came down from the bench and paid the fine himself.
Forgiveness and mercy is one thing, but someone must pay the fine for God to be all just.

haha remember me that video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

[spiltteeth]

My answer is no to both of those as "moral" is really, in all respects, a non-definable term.

Like, by some people's moral standards, I've committed crimes in my bedroom through consentual types of sex.

What about your own standards of morality? Would you say torturing children for fun is ok?

I would say one ought not to do that, on moral grounds.

Do you believe in justice? Would you stop smeone from raping a child? If so, on what grounds?

[Foldered]

What about your own standards of morality? Would you say torturing children for fun is ok?

I would say one ought not to do that, on moral grounds.

Do you believe in justice? Would you stop smeone from raping a child? If so, on what grounds?
On the grounds that I simply don't think anyone should be hurt unless they want to be. It's less to do with the fact that the torturer is doing something "wrong" and more to do with the fact that someone is being hurt (or raped) without consent.
But this is the problem with what you call morals, they are subjective, they are dynamic. So if you say "moral crime," that means nothing. If it means the person committing the crimes feels immoral, then that doesn't make any sense either. I'm sure there are people out there who would have no problem torturing a child and raping a child as it fits into their "moral" structure.
And no, I don't believe in justice. I think justice is as wishy-washy a term as moral is.

[spiltteeth]

haha remember me that video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA

Yea, I do know many atheist's who only believe in the material world so if a person murders or tortures a child or rapes they shouldn't be punished.

We are all just biochemical machines and noone is 'morally responsible' for their behavior since they couldn't have done otherwise.

It would be like punishing a cat for killing a bird.

[danyboy27]

What about your own standards of morality? Would you say torturing children for fun is ok?

I would say one ought not to do that, on moral grounds.

Do you believe in justice? Would you stop smeone from raping a child? If so, on what grounds?

this is not god standard, this is humanity standard.

raping=restricting someone else freedom.

has a species, its perfectly normal to set up some kind of ethical and moral code to ensure our continuation.

monkey, wolves and other social annimals have also set up general guidelines to ensure their continuation.

[spiltteeth]

On the grounds that I simply don't think anyone should be hurt unless they want to be. It's less to do with the fact that the torturer is doing something "wrong" and more to do with the fact that someone is being hurt (or raped) without consent.
But this is the problem with what you call morals, they are subjective, they are dynamic. So if you say "moral crime," that means nothing. If it means the person committing the crimes feels immoral, then that doesn't make any sense either. I'm sure there are people out there who would have no problem torturing a child and raping a child as it fits into their "moral" structure.
And no, I don't believe in justice. I think justice is as wishy-washy a term as moral is.

Ok, so your moral is that noone
should be hurt unless they want to be.

And, since you say morals are subjective, if a rapist disagrees with this moral statement of yours he ought to be free to torture children. Fine.

Back to my original question, if that is your moral ground, even if arbitrary and subjective that you yourself live by, then you have to ask yrself have you ever hurt a person who didn't want to be hurt? Emotionally? Physically?

Incidentally, yr morals would make most sports immoral - in football players constantly hurt people who do not wish to be hurt. But I guess since morals are subjective you'd say they don't have to abide by this moral rule.

[danyboy27]

Yea, I do know many atheist's who only believe in the material world so if a person murders or tortures a child or rapes they shouldn't be punished.

We are all just biochemical machines and noone is 'morally responsible' for their behavior since they couldn't have done otherwise.

It would be like punishing a cat for killing a bird.

has i said earlier, we set up those general guidelines (no killing, no raping etc)
to ensure the continuation of our species, its something natural to feel compassion for other being of our own species.

Rapist, serial killer should not be punished, but kept away from the general population in order to preserve order and security for rest of the world.

Punishement never achieve nothing, its brutish, its childish and over-emotional.

[spiltteeth]

this is not god standard, this is humanity standard.

raping=restricting someone else freedom.

has a species, its perfectly normal to set up some kind of ethical and moral code to ensure our continuation.

monkey, wolves and other social annimals have also set up general guidelines to ensure their continuation.

Why would anyone believe in your personal morals that its immoral to restrict another persons freedom?
Arn't you forcing your morals on other people?
Arn't you restricting a persons freedom to rape if they want to?

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1734815]has i said earlier, we set up those general guidelines (no killing, no raping etc)
to ensure the continuation of our species, its something natural to feel compassion for other being of our own species.

Why should anyone care about "continuing the species?"

But anyway, we could still rape and kill and continue our species - we do it now. Thousands of people are raped and murdered every week, its always been like this,
As long as EVERYONE doesn't do it our species will be fine.
So its ok to rape and murder as long as we set a quota on it right? That way our species will be fine.


Rapist, serial killer should not be punished, but kept away from the general population in order to preserve order and security for rest of the world.

Punishement never achieve nothing, its brutish, its childish and over-emotional.

Why should anyone care about "preserving the order"?

We could still "preserve the order" if we had 'rape rooms' like Sadam.

So if a person raped you, or yr mother, or yr nephew etc you wouldn't want that person punished?

[danyboy27]

Why would anyone believe in your personal morals that its immoral to restrict another persons freedom?
Arn't you forcing your morals on other people?
Arn't you restricting a persons freedom to rape if they want to?

those are not my values but society values.

its moral to restrict someone to do bad thing to society.

rape is bad for society, bad for the species so its restricted, same goes for murder.

there is something unatural in Murdering or hurting our own species.

[Foldered]

Arn't you restricting a persons freedom to rape if they want to?
No, because rape involves two parties.


Also, with regard to sport, you overlooked the consent aspect; sports are physical and it is understood that you may get hurt playing them. And for the most part, yes, I am against sports, but simply due to their competative natures.

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1734830]those are not my values but society values.

There are societies where rape and murder is considered moral - ever heard of setee - you set your wife on fire?


its moral to restrict someone to do bad thing to society.

What are "bad things"?
There are societies where murder and rape are Ok.
Many men in certain areas of India rape 10 yr old girls. They've been doing it for thousands of years.
It doesn't hurt society or "the species"


rape is bad for society, bad for the species so its restricted, same goes for murder.

Rape and murder are not restricted in all societies.
But why should a rapist care what's best for society!?


there is something unatural in Murdering or hurting our own species.

But people do it in nature all the time! Animals do it too! How is it unnatural?
And why should a rapist care if its natural or not?

[danyboy27]

Why should anyone care about "continuing the species?"

beccause that what other species do, they fight for their lives and the lives of the group.





But anyway, we could still rape and kill and continue our species - we do it now. Thousands of people are raped and murdered every week, its always been like this,
As long as EVERYONE doesn't do it our species will be fine.
So its ok to rape and murder as long as we set a quota on it right? That way our species will be fine.

Societies in the past that allowed rape and murder to happen are either collapsing, or have collapsed. and with valid reason, fucking up your future (children) and killing people is not really a recipies for progress.




Why should anyone care about "preserving the order"?

We could still "preserve the order" if we had 'rape rooms' like Sadam.

So if a person raped you, or yr mother, or yr nephew etc you wouldn't want that person punished?
my mother is dead btw, but thanks for the little attention.

well, order is important to ensure the continuation of our species, but order is useless without freedom beccause without freedom a society is going down the drain anyway.

name me 1 place today where the rape and murder is legal, that isnt a fucking hell hole with a life expectency of 26.

[spiltteeth]

No, because rape involves two parties.


Also, with regard to sport, you overlooked the consent aspect; sports are physical and it is understood that you may get hurt playing them. And for the most part, yes, I am against sports, but simply due to their competative natures.

It still restricts the rapists freedom.

But, like I say, since you say morals are subjective, if a rapist disagrees with your personal subjective moral of yours that "its immoral to restrict another persons freedom" then he ought to be free to rape, right?

[Foldered]

It still restricts the rapists freedom.
Not really, they are free to go rape someone that wants to do some rape roleplay.


But, like I say, since you say morals are subjective, if a rapist disagrees with your personal subjective moral of yours that "its immoral to restrict another persons freedom" then he ought to be free to rape, right?
Morals are not the only guidance for proper behaviour that we have. I think that's something necessary to get over.

[danyboy27]

There are societies where rape and murder is considered moral - ever heard of setee - you set your wife on fire?
?
yea and we can see how this wonderful society soar in progress and...hoo wait.....





What are "bad things"?
There are societies where murder and rape are Ok.
Many men in certain areas of India rape 10 yr old girls. They've been doing it for thousands of years.
It doesn't hurt society or "the species"
?
yes it does, and greatly contribute to the misery of people down here, traumatised children are more prone to violence, and violence kindof lead to chaos, you know.
Criminality is sky high in a number of place in India.





Rape and murder are not restricted in all societies.
But why should a rapist care what's best for society!?


and we can see how fantastic and great those societies are!




But people do it in nature all the time! Animals do it too! How is it unnatural?
And why should a rapist care if its natural or not?

Annimals dont have the same degree of self awareness than us, that why we dont send our elderly to gas chamber when they become weak.
You will notice that those who tried that a long time ago ended up with a bullet in his brain shot by itself.

Rapist are people who have a mental disease, there is nobody that is born and naturally a rapist, its either a neurological or a psychological disorder.

so no, they dont really care, that why we lock them up.

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1734842]beccause that what other species do, they fight for their lives and the lives of the group.

One can still rape and "fight for their lives". Why should one care about the gruop though? Or what other people or groups do?


Societies in the past that allowed rape and murder to happen are either collapsing, or have collapsed. and with valid reason, fucking up your future (children) and killing people is not really a recipies for progress.

But the societies in India have lasted thousands of yrs! They are among THE LONGEST LASTING civilizations in the entire history of mankind!

Anyway, why should a rapist care how long a society lasts?


my mother is dead btw, but thanks for the little attention.

Still, doesn't answer the question.


well, order is important to ensure the continuation of our species, but order is useless without freedom beccause without freedom a society is going down the drain anyway.

As I say, 1) why should a rapist care about order or continuing the species?
and 2) There are societies that rape and are very orderly - so whats the problem?


name me 1 place today where the rape and murder is legal, that isnt a fucking hell hole with a life expectency of 26.

What does the age expectancy matter? You mean its ok to rape IF the age expectancy is low?

[danyboy27]

It still restricts the rapists freedom.

But, like I say, since you say morals are subjective, if a rapist disagrees with your personal subjective moral of yours that "its immoral to restrict another persons freedom" then he ought to be free to rape, right?

restricting someone freedom to protect other is fine.

Not to punish him but to protect the other of our species.

[spiltteeth]

Not really, they are free to go rape someone that wants to do some rape roleplay.

Morals are not the only guidance for proper behaviour that we have. I think that's something necessary to get over.

That still doesn't answer the question.

So what should guide behavior>?

[Obrero Rebelde]

Faith is resignation to psuedo confidence born out of ignorance, out of not knowing, out of inability to know for certain -- basically, a placebo that sometimes gets it right and is thus deemed by the suffering soul to be effectual.

[Foldered]

So what should guide behavior>?
I'm not a fucking philosopher. If I knew that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now, would we? I'll write my MA thesis on Morals and Philosophy, and get back to you. ;)

In all seriousness, all it takes is to come up with another form of terminology dissociated from religion. Your use of "morality" makes it seem like every time we decide that human behaviour is guided by something, we are somehow proving Christianity. New terms, problems solved.

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1734851]yea and we can see how this wonderful society soar in progress and...hoo wait.....

Again, why should a rapist care if a society "progresses?"


yes it does, and greatly contribute to the misery of people down here, traumatised children are more prone to violence, and violence kindof lead to chaos, you know.
Criminality is sky high in a number of place in India.

Why should a rapist care if the kids are miserable? Those areras of India are orderes and have been for thousands of yrs.



and we can see how fantastic and great those societies are!

Why should a rapist care how "great" a society is? Its great for the rapist!


Annimals dont have the same degree of self awareness than us, that why we dont send our elderly to gas chamber when they become weak.
You will notice that those who tried that a long time ago ended up with a bullet in his brain shot by itself.

Rapist are people who have a mental disease, there is nobody that is born and naturally a rapist, its either a neurological or a psychological disorder.

so no, they dont really care, that why we lock them up.

Ok - so people who rape and murder aren't responsible for their actions and ought not be blamed because they are "mentally ill" Fine.

[Foldered]

Why should a rapist care how "great" a society is? Its great for the rapist.
Your argument is incredibly flawed in plenty of very little things, like the fact that your example doesn't take into account that the person who rapes in these societies isn't only a "rapist." As it is accepted in the society, they are simply normal members of society, not people being reduced to a single identity of "rapist." That's a very problematic outlook, as rape is not the only aspect of a "rapists" life, just as academia is not the only portion of my life despite the fact that I associate myself with the term "academic."

[danyboy27]

One can still rape and "fight for their lives". Why should one care about the gruop though? Or what other people or groups do?
?
NO, beccause raping someone is fucking up the group survival, that why people who put the group at risk must be locked up.




But the societies in India have lasted thousands of yrs! They are among THE LONGEST LASTING civilizations in the entire history of mankind!

but rape is not a norm in india, its an exeption, and still punishable in most of the places.
Your exemple of india is not valid.




Anyway, why should a rapist care how long a society lasts?
?
i dunno, to stay free and not being locked up??
anyway, a rapist dosnt think like a normal human being, he is either affected by a psychological or a neurological disorder.
so yea, rapist dosnt care about society, your point?
/QUOTE]


As I say, 1) why should a rapist care about order or continuing the species?
and 2) There are societies that rape and are very orderly - so whats the problem?

they dont care beccause they are affected by something they dont control.
There is no society that is verry orderly and rape people, and no india is a bad exemple, beccause rape is not the norm.



What does the age expectancy matter? You mean its ok to rape IF the age expectancy is low?
no, its never okay to rape beccause it restrict someone else freedom.

[spiltteeth]

Your argument is incredibly flawed in plenty of very little things, like the fact that your example doesn't take into account that the person who rapes in these societies isn't only a "rapist." As it is accepted in the society, they are simply normal members of society, not people being reduced to a single identity of "rapist." That's a very problematic outlook, as rape is not the only aspect of a "rapists" life, just as academia is not the only portion of my life despite the fact that I associate myself with the term "academic."

I haven't made an argument.
So instead of rapist simply read "a person who functions in society and occasionally rapes little girls" Good?

[danyboy27]

Again, why should a rapist care if a society "progresses?"



Why should a rapist care if the kids are miserable? Those areras of India are orderes and have been for thousands of yrs.



Why should a rapist care how "great" a society is? Its great for the rapist!
/QUOTE]
neurological disorder, psychological disorder, the person in question dont care about those thing, he sick, just like someone suffering of boulimia or anorexia.


[QUOTE=spiltteeth;1734862]
Ok - so people who rape and murder aren't responsible for their actions and ought not be blamed because they are "mentally ill" Fine.
yes, fine, lock them up, protect society from them, give them the best psychological help possible.

[danyboy27]

I haven't made an argument.
So instead of rapist simply read "a person who functions in society and occasionally rapes little girls" Good?

a person who rape will always do more harm than good, he is then not functionnal.

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1734872]NO, beccause raping someone is fucking up the group survival, that why people who put the group at risk must be locked up.


But in those places in India it has NOT fucked up group survival - so this is wrong.
Again, why would a person who rapes care about the 'order of society'


but rape is not a norm in india, its an exeption, and still punishable in most of the places.
Your exemple of india is not valid.

It was a norm for thousands of yrs! What about setee - settting ones wife on fire!
Anyway - so yr saying IF it's a norm THEN rape is ok?


i dunno, to stay free and not being locked up??
anyway, a rapist dosnt think like a normal human being, he is either affected by a psychological or a neurological disorder.
so yea, rapist dosnt care about society, your point?

My piont is you can't say he's doing anything wrong.
Although rape and murder are perfectly natural and have been happening for man forever.


they dont care beccause they are affected by something they dont control.
There is no society that is verry orderly and rape people, and no india is a bad exemple, beccause rape is not the norm.

Rape was the norm for thousands of yrs! Still is in places - again - if rape is a norm Then its ok?


no, its never okay to rape beccause it restrict someone else freedom.

Why is restricting someone's freedom wrong?

[spiltteeth]

a person who rape will always do more harm than good, he is then not functionnal.

Why should a person do "good"? What is good? You say 'protecting the species!"
But I've heard many say Mankind is bad and "good" is to destroy the species.

Why are you "right" and they "wrong"?!

A person who rapes might say raping is "good" and "continuing the species" is wrong!

[danyboy27]

so, this is it? we need jesus in our lives to not rape and kill?

[spiltteeth]

My point is that without objective transcendental morals life is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose, and one cannot justify anything.

On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong.
On the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone.

if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest?

If, as Kurtz states,
“The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality and rape is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil.
Nor can one praise brotherhood, equality, or love as good.

It does not matter what values you choose—for there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist.
That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent. You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

So the atheist can make no sense of a person’s right not to be sexually abused by another.
The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with the will or commands of a holy, loving God.

[danyboy27]

but subjective moral dosnt implies a god.

[spiltteeth]

so, this is it? we need jesus in our lives to not rape and kill?

No. A person can be atheist and lead a perfectly moral life, he just can't account for those ,morals, as I've shown.

[spiltteeth]

but subjective moral dosnt implies a god.

I never said they did. As I've shown, subjective morals can't even account for themselves.

But if one denies God’s existence, then it is difficult to make sense of moral duty or right and wrong, as Richard Taylor explains,


A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.

It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God’s existence.

And certainly we do have such obligations. You say we have an obligation to order, and not hurting people, and keeping the species going.

Why do those things? Why are they "right"?

AS I said :
the atheist can make no sense of a person’s right not to be sexually abused by another. The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with the will or commands of a holy, loving God.

[danyboy27]

I never said they did. As I've shown, subjective morals can't even account for themselves.

But if one denies God’s existence, then it is difficult to make sense of moral duty or right and wrong, as Richard Taylor explains,



It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God’s existence.

And certainly we do have such obligations. You say we have an obligation to order, and not hurting people, and keeping the species going.

Why do those things? Why are they "right"?

AS I said :
the atheist can make no sense of a person’s right not to be sexually abused by another. The best answer to the question as to the source of moral obligation is that moral rightness or wrongness consists in agreement or disagreement with the will or commands of a holy, loving God.

well, i have humanist values, and i got those values from my family.
i NEVER took any religious class of my life, i have been educated in a verry secular way, i have been taught when i was young that doing wrong to other human was bad, except to save people, i received the education that rape was bad, all that without god.

I believe in hope, love , charity and solidarity and i dont need any god to cherish those values who made my childhood comfortable.

You dont need a supernatural being to love and care for other.

Is it subjective? yea of course.

[spiltteeth]

well, i have humanist values, and i got those values from my family.
i NEVER took any religious class of my life, i have been educated in a verry secular way, i have been taught when i was young that doing wrong to other human was bad, except to save people, i received the education that rape was bad, all that without god.

I believe in hope, love , charity and solidarity and i dont need any god to cherish those values who made my childhood comfortable.

You dont need a supernatural being to love and care for other.

Is it subjective? yea of course.


if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding.
We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

So if a person is brought up with values that rape murder and exploration is good, then those are just as justifiable as yours.

It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God?
Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not?
Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation?
Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest?

On your account Hitler just has different subjective values than you, neither is right or wrong- both are equally "correct".

[danyboy27]

if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding.
We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

So if a person is brought up with values that rape murder and exploration is good, then those are just as justifiable as yours.

It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God?
Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not?
Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation?
Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest?

On your account Hitler just has different subjective values than you, neither is right or wrong- both are equally "correct".

first.
Well, if values are social convention, what wrong with that?
I really love my social convention of peaceful, humanist values.
i think it worked verry well for me, and from the stuff i heard from people who fled places like Iran that impose restriction on everything, it worked well for them too! Even if there was no right and wrong, who wouldnt like staying alive and enjoy life rather than being raped and killed by deathsquad!

yea, i love my convention.

and second: Hitler believed in right or wrong, he was a strong believer.
He believed in Germany, national-socialism, he had fanatical belief for his creazy fucked up politics.

[Bilan]

if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding.

That is actually not the case.
Universal morality is necessary (to some degree) for a society to function.
The difference between morality with a good and without is that the former is subject to criticism and reason, whilst the latter is not.

[spiltteeth]

That is actually not the case.
Universal morality is necessary (to some degree) for a society to function.
The difference between morality with a good and without is that the former is subject to criticism and reason, whilst the latter is not.

Not universal morality. I'm talking of objective morality.
Hitlers germany had a near universal morality that genocide was fine.

Morality without good makes no sense, as I quoted :

Richard Taylor explains,


A duty is something that is owed . . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons. There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . . . than those of the state is understood. In other words, our moral obligations can . . . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral obligations are more binding upon us than our political obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? . . . . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart form the idea of God. The words remain, but their meaning is gone.

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1734947]first.
Well, if values are social convention, what wrong with that?
I really love my social convention of peaceful, humanist values.
i think it worked verry well for me, and from the stuff i heard from people who fled places like Iran that impose restriction on everything, it worked well for them too! Even if there was no right and wrong, who wouldnt like staying alive and enjoy life rather than being raped and killed by deathsquad!

yea, i love my convention.

That right, some people like continuing the species, like you, and some people like raping.
Since, according to you, both are subjective conventions, one is not better than the other.

If a person chooses to rape little girls that is their convention and they l;ove it and that is perfectly ok .

Thus far you haven't even been able to give a reason why rape is wrong, or why one ought to want to continue the species.


and second: Hitler believed in right or wrong, he was a strong believer.
He believed in Germany, national-socialism, he had fanatical belief for his creazy fucked up politics.

Why are they "fucked up politics"? He just had a different social convention according to you, some people drive on the right side of the road some people drive on the left.

You asked whats wrong with morals being a social convention, Right, if someone's social convention is to commit genocide, its just a convention according to you, nothing really wrong with it.

Like you, I'm sure Nazi's "really loved" their conventions too.

[danyboy27]

That right, some people like continuing the species, like you, and some people like raping.
Since, according to you, both are subjective conventions, one is not better than the other.
.
well, this is subjective, but this subjectivity applies to society has a whole, just like you said earlier, some place in the world are ruthless and horrible.We do not tolerate murder or rape, and we do so in order to protect the other member of this subjective group. If the rapist is not happy with that he should leave our society before we get him and lock him up.

the intervention with other societies is still touchy, some humanist advocate we should liberate other society from tyranny, other think they should be left alone

We value the life of human being.



If a person chooses to rape little girls that is their convention and they l;ove it and that is perfectly ok .

Thus far you haven't even been able to give a reason why rape is wrong, or why one ought to want to continue the species.

well, rape is wrong beccause its an attack against an human being, and my humanist values learn me that its wrong beccause of that.
Our group(humanists) have set those rules, those who breach those rules will be locked up. We are the majority that want to live in a peaceful society, so we set those rules and work so that they can be applied.



Why are they "fucked up politics"? He just had a different social convention according to you, some people drive on the right side of the road some people drive on the left.

Well, he hurt people, and its against my humanist values, so he fucked up.
has a maoist dont you think capitalist politics are fucked up?
see, 2 differents convention, opposing eachother about a set of subjective values have nothing to do with god.





You asked whats wrong with morals being a social convention, Right, if someone's social convention is to commit genocide, its just a convention according to you, nothing really wrong with it.
Like you, I'm sure Nazi's "really loved" their conventions too.
The difference is that my convention dont murder and kill innocent peoples for fun. hey, if you like rape and nazi, you have the right to do so, but dont expect my society to tolerate your behavior!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That right, some people like continuing the species, like you, and some people like raping.
Since, according to you, both are subjective conventions, one is not better than the other.

If a person chooses to rape little girls that is their convention and they l;ove it and that is perfectly ok .

Thus far you haven't even been able to give a reason why rape is wrong, or why one ought to want to continue the species.

Rape has harmful consequences that can be objectively measured, moron. I'm not just talking about physical and psychological trauma suffered by the victims and those close to them, but I'm also talking about the kind of society that doesn't see rape as wrong. Such a society is highly likely to view women as second-class citizens if not outright chattel. Since women are human like the other half of the species, it doesn't make sense on any level not to treat them so, including on the issue of rape.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do you mean by "emotional blackmail"?
In the Christian way of thinking, yr free to refuse what we think of as a gift, IF you don't ask for it it will not be forced on you.

Oh yeah, I'm free to choose between accepting Jesus and eternal damnation, which depending on the sect of Christianity could mean anything from "being tortured for eternity" to "complete and utter seperation from God" which seems to presented as something almost as bad.

You guys can't even agree on the consequences of rejecting Jesus. Why should I even consider the offer?


Ask yourself 2 questions: Do you believe moral crimes should be punished? And then have you ever committed a moral crime?

My answer is yes to both, so I can take the punishment or Christ is willing to if I ask Him.

Except that Jesus is not responsible for any of your "moral crimes", you are. You seem to think that justice is served no matter if the punishment is dished out to someone innocent. That is the very opposite of any civilised notion of justice; it reeks of the old practice of "scapegoating" which was more a cleansing ritual than a method of seeing justice done.


Philosophically, it is logically incoherent, as Dimentio points out, for a being to be all just and all merciful. IF this being is all just, then the punishment must be meted out, no matter how merciful He is.

Its like the story of the judge who got his own daughter before him on a speeding ticket. Being just he found her guilty and fined her; but she didn't have the money. He then took off his robes came down from the bench and paid the fine himself.

That's utterly ridiculous. That means she effectively got off scot-free, since judges tend to be richly paid and he would be unlikely to miss the cash. That's an example of favouritism and nepotism, not justice.

Now, it may be the case that someone may come before a court unable to pay a fine. In which case it is the court's reponsibility to come up with an alternative punishment that the defendant can serve.


Forgiveness and mercy is one thing, but someone must pay the fine for God to be all just.

It's utterly pointless to have punishments if anyone can step in and take it in the place of the perpetrator. Justice should be a tool to redress inbalances, but you reduce it to a mere ritual.

[spiltteeth]

Rape has harmful consequences that can be objectively measured, moron. I'm not just talking about physical and psychological trauma suffered by the victims and those close to them, but I'm also talking about the kind of society that doesn't see rape as wrong. Such a society is highly likely to view women as second-class citizens if not outright chattel. Since women are human like the other half of the species, it doesn't make sense on any level not to treat them so, including on the issue of rape.

This doesn't address any issues.

Woman are considered 'lesser humans' no doubt.

The question is why should these societies care about the "harmful consequences" to the woman when they enjoy rapping 10 yr old girls.

As Dannyboy says, its just a different convention.

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1735420]well, this is subjective, but this subjectivity applies to society has a whole, just like you said earlier, some place in the world are ruthless and horrible.We do not tolerate murder or rape, and we do so in order to protect the other member of this subjective group. If the rapist is not happy with that he should leave our society before we get him and lock him up.

So IF a society is OK with rape, like many in India, then its Ok.

In Hitlers Germany the majority of society thought genocide was a good thing.
And if your not happy with that majority opinion you should leave that society before they lock you up.


the intervention with other societies is still touchy, some humanist advocate we should liberate other society from tyranny, other think they should be left alone

YEs, I think it is objectivley wrong to commit genocide EVEN IF everyone subjectivley in that society says its Ok.

You think its subjective so as long as the majority say its ok then its right.


We value the life of human being.

You like saving people, others like killing people. Its all subjective and social customs. One is not better than the other.


well, rape is wrong beccause its an attack against an human being, and my humanist values learn me that its wrong beccause of that.
Our group(humanists) have set those rules, those who breach those rules will be locked up. We are the majority that want to live in a peaceful society, so we set those rules and work so that they can be applied.

Right, and in Hitlers Germany the majority's values was to kill and commit genocide so thats perfectly right according to you.


Well, he hurt people, and its against my humanist values, so he fucked up.
has a maoist dont you think capitalist politics are fucked up?
see, 2 differents convention, opposing eachother about a set of subjective values have nothing to do with god.

Right, IF they are both subjective one is not better than the other. Killing, saving lives, raping, - whatever the majority want -right?


The difference is that my convention dont murder and kill innocent peoples for fun. hey, if you like rape and nazi, you have the right to do so, but dont expect my society to tolerate your behavior!

What makes your morals "more right" than the Nazi's? You just said its up to the majority and both are mere social conventions.

[spiltteeth]

=NoXion;1735448]Oh yeah, I'm free to choose between accepting Jesus and eternal damnation, which depending on the sect of Christianity could mean anything from "being tortured for eternity" to "complete and utter seperation from God" which seems to presented as something almost as bad.

You guys can't even agree on the consequences of rejecting Jesus. Why should I even consider the offer?

My church, the Orthodox, has held the exact same view of hell for thousands of yrs.
Above you've written your own theology, I explained mine.
None is going to "force" you into Heaven - as you made clear you reject it totally.
Your free to commit moral crimes - but you gotta pay or ask Christ to pay and repent.


Except that Jesus is not responsible for any of your "moral crimes", you are. You seem to think that justice is served no matter if the punishment is dished out to someone innocent. That is the very opposite of any civilised notion of justice; it reeks of the old practice of "scapegoating" which was more a cleansing ritual than a method of seeing justice done.

IF you think you are not perfect and have committed any moral crimes, then your free to take the punishment.
Scapegoating is when it is forced on a person.
Christ takes our rap freely - on condition of true repentence and willingness to be made new in Him.


That's utterly ridiculous. That means she effectively got off scot-free, since judges tend to be richly paid and he would be unlikely to miss the cash. That's an example of favouritism and nepotism, not justice.

You've missed the point; but she did not pay for her crime since she did not have the money.
She, like you, can say "no, I'll take the time."

Haven't you ever loved a child? You would never bail out a friend? Or help him pay a fine? That's pity Noxian....


Now, it may be the case that someone may come before a court unable to pay a fine. In which case it is the court's reponsibility to come up with an alternative punishment that the defendant can serve.

That is known as Hell.


It's utterly pointless to have punishments if anyone can step in and take it in the place of the perpetrator. Justice should be a tool to redress inbalances, but you reduce it to a mere ritual.

All crimes unrepented will be punished.
You think its easy to clean ones heart of pride and ask for forgiveness? It takes an incredible amount of work, time, will - the pardon is conditional, afterwords you work for God.
This is the most efficient way to "redress imbalances" - it involves real change.

[danyboy27]

So IF a society is OK with rape, like many in India, then its Ok.
.
No, its not ok, not regarding to the convention i am part of.






In Hitlers Germany the majority of society thought genocide was a good thing.
And if your not happy with that majority opinion you should leave that society before they lock you up.
.
yes, damn right, leave this fucking place or fight underground to save people. Your argument is flawed, most people where unaware of the holocaust in nazi germany.



YEs, I think it is objectivley wrong to commit genocide EVEN IF everyone subjectivley in that society says its Ok.
You think its subjective so as long as the majority say its ok then its right.
.
No, its subjective to your personnal views on religion and politics, Many christian participated to the genocide, and they where thinking they where doing a great thing. has you said all is subjective. You cannot claim objectivity.




You like saving people, others like killing people. Its all subjective and social customs. One is not better than the other.
.
Has you said, all is subjective, and the convention i am part of think its damn wrong killing, and i also think its wrong. Same goes for religions dude, some orthodox believe in peace, other bless weapon and praise genocide, Your moral values are not superior and you cant claim to be able to be objectively wrong or right, has you said everything is subjective so nobody hold objectivity.





Right, and in Hitlers Germany the majority's values was to kill and commit genocide so thats perfectly right according to you.
.
you dont know shit about nazi germany. Only a small minority of zealot had those beliefs. The genocide was a politcal hijack.

[danyboy27]

Right, IF they are both subjective one is not better than the other. Killing, saving lives, raping, - whatever the majority want -right?

.

i think , and the people of my social convention think killing is wrong, it wont change if we become a minority. has you said everything is subjective, we fight for what right.





What makes your morals "more right" than the Nazi's? You just said its up to the majority and both are mere social conventions.
you said it, there is no right or wrong!!
just social convention, and i fight for my social convention.

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1735791]No, its not ok, not regarding to the convention i am part of.

But your convention is not better then the Nazi's - both are just subjective conventions.


yes, damn right, leave this fucking place or fight underground to save people. Your argument is flawed, most people where unaware of the holocaust in nazi germany.


Most people thought the jewish people were lesser humans.


No, its subjective to your personnal views on religion and politics, Many christian participated to the genocide, and they where thinking they where doing a great thing. has you said all is subjective. You cannot claim objectivity.

And those Christians who supported the Nazi's were just as right as you - both are just conventions - one is not right and the other wrong.


Has you said, all is subjective, and the convention i am part of think its damn wrong killing, and i also think its wrong. Same goes for religions dude, some orthodox believe in peace, other bless weapon and praise genocide, Your moral values are not superior and you cant claim to be able to be objectively wrong or right, has you said everything is subjective so nobody hold objectivity.

I think there are objective values. But you say they are all subjective - some like saving people, some like raping people- its all the same!


you dont know shit about nazi germany. Only a small minority of zealot had those beliefs. The genocide was a politcal hijack.

The majority thought the Jewish peoples were sub-human.

Your values, you said, come from your parents.
If parents teach racism and murder then those values are just as good and legitimate.

What makes your values more correct then anyone elses?

[spiltteeth]

=danyboy25;1735797]i think , and the people of my social convention think killing is wrong, it wont change if we become a minority. has you said everything is subjective, we fight for what right.

But you said there is no such thing as "right" - its all subjective, Some people think racism is "right".


you said it, there is no right or wrong!!
just social convention, and i fight for my social convention.


And your social convention is no better then the Nazi's - you only follow yours because you said your parents taught them to you.

If your parents taught you racism then you would fight for racism!

[danyboy27]

But your convention is not better then the Nazi's - both are just subjective conventions.
?
so? dosnt change jack.




And those Christians who supported the Nazi's were just as right as you - both are just conventions - one is not right and the other wrong.
?
yea well all is subjective, and according to my framework of life, its wrong.



I think there are objective values. But you say they are all subjective - some like saving people, some like raping people- its all the same!
?
IF you would have been raised in a pro nazi christian family you would claim anti-semitism would be objective, if you would have been born a muslim you would have believe the sharia was an objective code of law.
see, nothing is really subjective.



What makes your values more correct then anyone elses?
there is no right or wrong, so my values are not more correct, neither are yours.

[danyboy27]

But you said there is no such thing as "right" - its all subjective, Some people think racism is "right".
!
Right, racism is wrong according to my social convention, beccause we think its brutish and stupid.





And your social convention is no better then the Nazi's - you only follow yours because you said your parents taught them to you.

just like you fallow your religion beccause you where told has well.
I am just less narrow minded by religious bullshit.





If your parents taught you racism then you would fight for racism!
you could have been born a racist and a bigot has well!

[spiltteeth]

Right, racism is wrong according to my social convention, beccause we think its brutish and stupid.



just like you fallow your religion beccause you where told has well.
I am just less narrow minded by religious bullshit.




you could have been born a racist and a bigot has well!

I've come to my morals after deep reflection
I think there are objective mortals even if I don't always know what they are.

I there ARE values that are more right than the Nazi's.
I say the Nazi's ARE wrong.

I can even say the Nazi's did evil things - that torturing small children is objectively wrong - NOT JUST BECAUSE I SAY SO, or because my mom told me so, or because my society says so.

As YOU said yourself, the Nazi's values are just as good and legitimate as yours.

[danyboy27]

I've come to my morals after deep reflection - not because my mommy and daddy told me what to value.

Unlike you, I can say my values ARE more right than the Nazi's.
I can say the Nazi's ARE wrong.

I can even say the Nazi's did evil things - that torturing small children is objectively wrong - NOT JUST BECAUSE I SAY SO, or because my mom told me so, or because my society says so.

As YOU said yourself, the Nazi's values are just as good and legitimate as yours.
but your learning and personnal revelation are subjective to your reasoning.

i can say the nazi are wrong according to my values, beccause psychologist and historian studied their crimes, i read countless of book on the subject, and have been able to see the thrauma it did to human being.

You condemn the nazi beccause your god say so, i condemn the nazi beccause the evidence show how horrible this ideology was for other human being.

of course, all is subjective, your belief, and my values.

if you think i am no more than a nazi, please feel free to send pm to the admin.

[spiltteeth]

but your learning and personnal revelation are subjective to your reasoning.

i can say the nazi are wrong according to my values, beccause psychologist and historian studied their crimes, i read countless of book on the subject, and have been able to see the thrauma it did to human being.

You condemn the nazi beccause your god say so, i condemn the nazi beccause the evidence show how horrible this ideology was for other human being.

of course, all is subjective, your belief, and my values.

if you think i am no more than a nazi, please feel free to send pm to the admin.

I never said you were a Nazi - YOU said your values are just as legitimate as a Nazis and one is not better then the other.

IF its all subjective then the Nazis did nothing objectively wrong, as you say; and there is no reason to follow your values over a Nazi's.

I believe in objective values - HOW one comes to recognize them is a different matter. As I say, one doesn't need to believe in God to know rape is wrong etc long before I was Christian I knew genocide was wrong - objectively wrong.

To you weather a person rapes and not depends on convention. To me raping is an objective moral abomination - not just a matter of custom.

And if a person were to ask you "why should I be a humanist and not a Nazi/" you couldn't give then an answer since both are equally subjective.

[danyboy27]

I never said you were a Nazi - YOU said your values are just as legitimate as a Nazis and one is not better then the other.
.
Everything is subjective, My convention of humanist values indicate that beccause this ideology is killing human being, its not legitimate.
its subjective to me and to my convention.




I believe in objective values - HOW one comes to recognize them is a different matter. As I say, one doesn't need to believe in God to know rape is wrong etc long before I was Christian I knew genocide was wrong - objectively wrong.

its wrong according to your convention, and to my convention, everything is subjective, you said it yourself!



To you weather a person rapes and not depends on convention. To me raping is an objective moral abomination - not just a matter of custom.

everthing is subjective, you said it yourself, our subjectivity tell us that its a moral abobination.

[spiltteeth]

Everything is subjective, My convention of humanist values indicate that beccause this ideology is killing human being, its not legitimate.
its subjective to me and to my convention.



its wrong according to your convention, and to my convention, everything is subjective, you said it yourself!


everthing is subjective, you said it yourself, our subjectivity tell us that its a moral abobination.

IF everything is subjective your values are no better than a Nazi's and therefore its simple convention weather you rape or not - you cannot blame the Nazi for having different values since one is not more correct than another.

I believe rape is objectively wrong - even if everyone else says its right; therefore I believe in objective moral values - this has been my point which I've stated and restated about a hundred different ways, if you still don't get it I can't help you.

[danyboy27]

IF everything is subjective your values are no better than a Nazi's and therefore its simple convention weather you rape or not - you cannot blame the Nazi for having different values since one is not more correct than another.
.
subjectivity dosnt take away my right to criticize or to condemn something that goes against the values i gathered all my life from people , litteratures and other sources.

that the beauty of subjectivity, since everything is subjective, nothing is immune to critics, not even my values.



I believe rape is objectively wrong - even if everyone else says its right; therefore I believe in objective moral values - this has been my point which I've stated and restated about a hundred different ways, if you still don't get it I can't help you.
I got the same right has well, since everything is subjective, nothing stop me from criticizing or condemning such action.

Nobody can never claim to be objective, everything is subjective to a certain level.
.
I have real world references ; voltaire, nietche, sigmund freud, and based on their writing i have became what i am today, i didnt need god for that.

Your values come from religious scripting, religious people to tell you what is right and what is wrong.

our set of consulted data and our experiences of life learned us right from wrong, so it is subjective, beccause there is no such thing has objective data. Even math can be subjective, 1+1=2, we all agree on that, but in a more complete equation with multiple algoritm, the answer might be 56.


but, can you answer me, why you think rape is objectively wrong AKA god logic?

I have responded that rape is subjectively wrong, and that, according to the moral convention set in place in many places of the world, its been determined that rape damage people mind and body,(BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACTS) that why its forbidden.

so explain me sherlock, why fallowing god logic, rape is wrong.

[spiltteeth]

subjectivity dosnt take away my right to criticize or to condemn something that goes against the values i gathered all my life from people , litteratures and other sources.

that the beauty of subjectivity, since everything is subjective, nothing is immune to critics, not even my values.


I got the same right has well, since everything is subjective, nothing stop me from criticizing or condemning such action.

Nobody can never claim to be objective, everything is subjective to a certain level.
.
I have real world references ; voltaire, nietche, sigmund freud, and based on their writing i have became what i am today, i didnt need god for that.

Your values come from religious scripting, religious people to tell you what is right and what is wrong.

our set of consulted data and our experiences of life learned us right from wrong, so it is subjective, beccause there is no such thing has objective data. Even math can be subjective, 1+1=2, we all agree on that, but in a more complete equation with multiple algoritm, the answer might be 56.


but, can you answer me, why you think rape is objectively wrong AKA god logic?

I have responded that rape is subjectively wrong, and that, according to the moral convention set in place in many places of the world, its been determined that rape damage people mind and body,(BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACTS) that why its forbidden.

so explain me sherlock, why fallowing god logic, rape is wrong.

Math can be subjective? 2+2 Can = 56?

You have NOT said why causing damage to people, or not continuing the species, is wrong.

You say "its wrong because according to my values its wrong"

There is NO foundation for yr morals, as you keep saying.

This is circular reasoning, like someone saying "the bibles true because the bible says so" your saying "my morals are true because my morals say so"

2+2 is always 4, in every nation culture or time it will always be true, same with moral laws - they are objective.

[danyboy27]

answer me pal, why your morals are better than mine??

[spiltteeth]

answer me pal, why your morals are better than mine??

I don't think my morals are "better" than yours.

According to you, your morals are not better then the Nazi's!

[danyboy27]

I don't think my morals are "better" than yours.

According to you, your morals are not better then the Nazi's!
no, according to you.
you have been the one who been saying that for a fucking day now

[spiltteeth]

no, according to you.
you have been the one who been saying that for a fucking day now

I didn't say morals were subjective social conventions - you did!

IF they are mere social conventions one is not better than another.

Thus far you have not provided any reason why yr values are better than a Nazi's - you say they are both subjective!

I keep saying they are objective.

[danyboy27]

I didn't say morals were subjective social conventions - you did!

IF they are mere social conventions one is not better than another.
I
keep saying they are objective.

no you said mine where subjective, so i decided to play along and act like if i believed they where subjectives.

[spiltteeth]

no you said mine where subjective, so i decided to play along and act like if i believed they where subjectives.

Where did I say that? YOU keep saying everything is subjective - that morals are subjective.

[danyboy27]

Where did I say that? YOU keep saying everything is subjective - that morals are subjective.

Are you acting now? Rape and genocide aren't serious enough issues for you?

i made my own base for my moral values, with time and experience.

even if i consider my values objective, what would confirm that they are objective?
I know that those are progressive, good values, but what do i have to claim the objectivity of my moral and values? nothing.

what do you have to back up your objectivity?

[spiltteeth]

i made my own base for my moral values, with time and experience.

even if i consider my values objective, what would confirm that they are objective?
I know that those are progressive, good values, but what do i have to claim the objectivity of my moral and values? nothing.

what do you have to back up your objectivity?

Thats my point. Like all atheist your views are incoherent.

You have no reason to believe in yr morals.

You cannot justify them. You cannot account for them.

If moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm.

So you don't have to believe in God to know these morals - you can discover them by introspection for instance.

You CAN recognize objective moral values without believing in God.

I can summarize this argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Goodnight Danny -ST

[danyboy27]

Thats my point. Like all atheist your views are incoherent.

no.




You have no reason to believe in yr morals.


yes i do, they gave me peace of mind, well being, make the life i had so enjoyable, i didnt suffered when i was young beccause we had those.
i truly think those values are the cornerstone of every civilisation.
i am aware this is a subjective, but i still believe, beccause of the good climate i lived in, that this is the best values humanity could think of.




If moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm.


so that your objectivity? that god made us discover those values, like if we where in a pet laboratory?



So you don't have to believe in God to know these morals - you can discover them by introspection for instance.

i dont believe in witchcraft, and i dont believe god gave me those values.



You CAN recognize objective moral values without believing in God.

I can summarize this argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Goodnight Danny -ST

the existance of morals are the result of thousand of year of moral ajustement made by mankind itself, not the result of some witchcraft organised by god.

[Havet]

You CAN recognize objective moral values without believing in God.

I can summarize this argument as follows:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

1. If ~p => ~q
2. q
3. .:. p

I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy. Perhaps the affirmation from a negative (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afromneg.html), coupled with affirming the consequent (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html)?

Now that I think of it, it's probably just the fallacy of affirming the disjunct (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afonedis.html).

BTW, why are some moral values objective? I think you've been reading too much Ayn Rand lately...

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1737384]1. If ~p => ~q
2. q
3. .:. p

I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy. Perhaps the affirmation from a negative (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afromneg.html), coupled with affirming the consequent (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html)?

Now that I think of it, it's probably just the fallacy of affirming the disjunct (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afonedis.html).

If we do think that objective moral values exist, then we shall be led logically to the conclusion that God exists.
And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist?
As the atheist philosopher Ruse himself confesses,
"The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."
There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.

The argument is perfectly logical but unsound if premise 2 is simply denied. I wasn't trying to affirm premise 2 - it is a necessary truth, I thought Danny decided to affirm there were objective moral values. Every person atheist or not believes in and lives by and apprehends objective morality, regardless of what they say.

So I consider it an objectively necessary truth that it is always wrong to torture children for fun.

On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong.

On the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone.
Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it and apprehend it as clearly as we do 2+2=4.

This argument is unlike the cosmological argument, so premise one is not necessarily true; but is at least more true than its contrary (ie without a moral lawgiver there is no obligation to be rational, or want to help people, or care about society or humanity. so moral obligations are simply incoherent without a law giver (God) - there would be no such thing as what one 'ought' or 'should' do.)


BTW, why are some moral values objective? I think you've been reading too much Ayn Rand lately...

I never said some morals are objective; I did say some objective morals are easier to know - such as its always wrong to torture a child for pleasure.

To an atheist that will depend on the culture and what's helped it survive. Indeed I'm in the social care business and spoke to a woman coming back from africa who told me she had to put a stop to a ritual that involved sodomizing an infant.
On the atheistic scale theres nothing really wrong with that.

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.

It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

An atheist can, of course, recognize these moral truths just as easily as a believer.

[Klaatu]

2+2=4 is an axiom, it cannot be proved and there is no evidence for its truth.
Bertrund Russell said the entire purpose of his life was to prove 1+1=2, which he never could do.

To be a basic belief you must really feel it immediately as true, not because it seems likely, or you have no other
answer - but because you EXPERIENCE it as true.

When someone says "That house looks scary to me." it can never be proved that a person actually experiences some
house as frightening - you have an actual internal experience.

It's not that I assume 2+2=4, it really presents itself to me as true, it is self evidently true.
Even if I tried NOT to believe 2+2=4 I couldn't.

Many theists claim that in the right circumstances (looking at the wonder of a starry night say) they experience the
knowledge that God exists; as a person who can count and who sees 2+2=4 will experience that as self-evidently
true -without proof, argument, knowledge of mathematical theory or evidence.

A "God of the gaps" is not experienced directly, but offered as a solution, so would no be considered, epistemically,
a basic belief, upon which all other beliefs are based.


I might suggest that 2+2 = 4, in that we DEFINE it as such. Abstractions which cannot be proven must have a forced definition.

For example, I hold up two potato chips, and define these as "two." A comrade said, "No, they are not two, because they are
not the same; they are not two perfect replicas of each other, thus cannot be defined as two." My answer is that, it does not
matter whether we have two PERFECT replicas of a thing, the point is that we have "two" because we have DEFINED these
as being two. We made it up. We made it up as a basis for a system of counting. Do numbers exist in nature? Not really.
We made up a number system, in order to define and understand the physical world.

By the same token, we DEFINE gods and faith as being what they are, since they do not exist outside of the mind. Just as
mathematics requires a mind to exist, faith and other emotion require an intellect in order to exist. Without intellect, these
things amount to nothing.

Here's a thought: We love our gods, yet we hate other humans who don't love our particular god. (this is interesting)
"Faith" may be a hybrid of the emotions of fear and love. (we "love" god, yet we are supposed to "fear" him)
And, interestingly enough, we "hate" other humans, in god's name... as if "our god" approves of this thinking (?)

[spiltteeth]

I might suggest that 2+2 = 4, in that we DEFINE it as such. Abstractions which cannot be proven must have a forced definition.

For example, I hold up two potato chips, and define these as "two." A comrade said, "No, they are not two, because they are
not the same; they are not two perfect replicas of each other, thus cannot be defined as two." My answer is that, it does not
matter whether we have two PERFECT replicas of a thing, the point is that we have "two" because we have DEFINED these
as being two. We made it up. We made it up as a basis for a system of counting. Do numbers exist in nature? Not really.
We made up a number system, in order to define and understand the physical world.

By the same token, we DEFINE gods and faith as being what they are, since they do not exist outside of the mind. Just as
mathematics requires a mind to exist, faith and other emotion require an intellect in order to exist. Without intellect, these
things amount to nothing.

Here's a thought: We love our gods, yet we hate other humans who don't love our particular god. (this is interesting)
"Faith" may be a hybrid of the emotions of fear and love. (we "love" god, yet we are supposed to "fear" him)
And, interestingly enough, we "hate" other humans, in god's name... as if "our god" approves of this thinking (?)

If the laws of logic are only in the mind then they are not absolute and universal but contingent.
So for some peoples 2+2 might be "defined" as =5.

The sentence "2+2= 4 and 2+2=5 are both true" is false because of the laws of logic - the law of non-contradiction.
BUT if these laws, as you say, are not universal and absolute because they are contingent on human minds then we can't say the above is always false.
In some cultures it might be true.
It depends on our minds and how we define things.

Even aliens, although using different symbols, would say 2+2=4; unless yr correct, then 2+2 might equal 115!

So, if contingent on our mind, then I am perfectly free to say 2+2=4 is false, and define it differently.

Yet every time someone chooses to walk thru a door instead of a wall they are affirming that the law of non-contradiction is universal, absolute, and always hold.

[Klaatu]

I am NOT saying that 2+2=5 at all. I was trying to point out that in mathematics, we must DEFINE things.
I suppose we could have defined 2+2 as = 5 if we wanted to. But we haven't; we have defined it as = 4.
And so we stick with that definition, because it has been agreed upon by the world.

Too bad we cannot agree on faiths, as we can on mathematics! Some people will define a faith and stick to it.
Others will define their own faiths. Or this "faith" might be a universal thing? (as was originally asked?)

As far as alien symbols are concerned, (assuming we are visited) for communication purposes, it may be difficult
to understand each other. But then, there is mathematics to the rescue. (Actually OUR math; these given are just
markings, for our purposes of illustration) For example, if we present the visitor with this arrangement of marks:

••• • •••• • ••••••

Notice that this can be understood to mean 31416 (without the decimal) This is PI, the ratio of a diameter
to circumference of a circle. The value of PI must be universally applicable to a circle anywhere in the universe,
and visitors would understand this. Or perhaps our concept of mathematics would be primitive to our visitors?

If aliens visit (again) let's let them know that we (the human race) are not so backward as we were millions
of years ago; we have learned a few things along the way. Let us not worship them with religion; as was done
in antiquity; let us challenge them instead, on an intellectual level, next time they visit. ;)

[spiltteeth]

I am NOT saying that 2+2=5 at all. I was trying to point out that in mathematics, we must DEFINE things.
I suppose we could have defined 2+2 as = 5 if we wanted to. But we haven't; we have defined it as = 4.
And so we stick with that definition, because it has been agreed upon by the world.

Too bad we cannot agree on faiths, as we can on mathematics! Some people will define a faith and stick to it.
Others will define their own faiths. Or this "faith" might be a universal thing? (as was originally asked?)

As far as alien symbols are concerned, (assuming we are visited) for communication purposes, it may be difficult
to understand each other. But then, there is mathematics to the rescue. (Actually OUR math; these given are just
markings, for our purposes of illustration) For example, if we present the visitor with this arrangement of marks:

••• • •••• • ••••••

Notice that this can be understood to mean 31416 (without the decimal) This is PI, the ratio of a diameter
to circumference of a circle. The value of PI must be universally applicable to a circle anywhere in the universe,
and visitors would understand this. Or perhaps our concept of mathematics would be primitive to our visitors?

If aliens visit (again) let's let them know that we (the human race) are not so backward as we were millions
of years ago; we have learned a few things along the way. Let us not worship them with religion; as was done
in antiquity; let us challenge them instead, on an intellectual level, next time they visit. ;)

So yr saying the entire world, for thousands of yrs, in different cultures, of course using different symbols, coincidently all defined 2+2=4...arbitrarily?

And the reason mathematics is considered the 'universal launguage' is not because they are universal, but becuase every culture spontaneously "decided" to define math and the laws of logic the exact same the world over?

And if we just "decided" 2+2=4, then why would aliens "decide" the same? The SYMBOLS we use are obviously decided upon, but the actual laws too?

You say
The value of PI must be universally applicable to a circle anywhere in the universe, and visitors would understand ...

But IF the laws are universal, (as I think they are - universal, unchanging and absolute) then they cannot be based on contingent, finite human minds as you say.

IF I say, "the bible (or whatever) can't be true because it contradicts itself" then, according to you, a person can just say, "well. in that culture they defined the laws of logic differently, so it doesn't apply" or "in the future the laws of logic will change so it won't contradict itself"?

I don't decide to get into my house through the door rather than through the wall, the structure of reality demands it of me - regardless how I 'define' a wall.

I honestly an't make sense of your statment :

I suppose we could have defined 2+2 as = 5 if we wanted to. But we haven't; we have defined it as = 4.
And so we stick with that definition, because it has been agreed upon by the world.

I don't think it was coincidence, and I think we could communicate with aliens through math, but that is because I believe the laws of logic are abstract, absolute, unchanging, and universal - they describe the structure of reality and it is a necessary truth that 2+2=4 and not 5 and there is no culture, and will be no culture, where it will ever =5.

[The Feral Underclass]

No. A person can be atheist and lead a perfectly moral life, he just can't account for those ,morals, as I've shown.

But you, as someone who believes in god, cannot account for your morals either, since you cannot prove that god exists.


But if one denies God’s existence, then it is difficult to make sense of moral duty or right and wrongYet, I don't find it difficult at all.


as Richard Taylor explains,He doesn't explain anything. He simply makes assertions in order to justify his belief in god, which in actuality is no less difficult to make sense of.


It follows that moral obligations and right and wrong necessitate God’s existence. How does it follow...?


And certainly we do have such obligations. You say we have an obligation to order, and not hurting people, and keeping the species going.

Why do those things? Why are they "right"?The fundamental premise of your question is false. There's no "right" or "wrong". People obviously adhere to certain concepts of what is "right" or "wrong", just as you chose to believe in some superstitious nonsense to qualify why you don't hurt people (why you can't come to that conclusion by yourself is beyond me?). But these choices are variable and constantly changing.

Social conditioning, education and cultural understandings all contribute to how we engage with notions of "right" or "wrong". I think it's "morally wrong" to forcibly circumcise a child, yet Jews and Muslims may consider that "morally right". I consider teaching people that there exists some immaterial being that created them to be "morally wrong", yet you and others are happy to teach people those ideas. You think it's "morally right" to believe in god. In fact, you would argue that god's existence is the basis of what is "morally right". I find that belief highly immoral.

I came to that conclusion because of social upbringing, education and understanding philosophical and cultural ideas, ultimately I made those conclusions based on real, objective, quantifiable existence. Does it make me "right"? No, it doesn't make me right, any more than it makes me wrong, or you wrong, or right for that matter. As an anti-theist, I still have to accept that without evidence one way or the other, I cannot definitively disprove the existence of god (just as you cannot prove his existence), but I accept that evidence which is available and I conclude my views based on what is justifiable. There is no unequivocal fact that proves that god exists, just as there is no unequivocal fact to prove that hurting people is wrong. Yet with all the quantifiable evidence available to us, material and empirical, we can deduce from that, that believing in god and hurting people is unjustifiable.

[spiltteeth]

The Anarchist Tension;1738919]But you, as someone who believes in god, cannot account for your morals either, since you cannot prove that god exists.

That would mean I could not account for God. But 1) I do have rational reasons for my belief in God and
2) It sounds like your saying I ought not to (a moral injunction) beleive in something unless I have proof.

(And even then I have historical proof, deductive proof, experiential proof etc etc you probably mean a certain kind of proof)


Yet, I don't find it difficult at all.

But you say :
There's no "right" or "wrong"

So you have no difficulty following things which don't exist?
Ok. Make sense of it - What makes certain actions right or wrong for us? What or who imposes moral duties upon us? Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this ‘ought’ come from?

From evolution? Cultural or societal customs? Then why does one have a 'duty' to follow these? Why should not one torture an innocent child if it provides pleasure or entertainment?

It sounds like you may be anthropomorphizing evolution and society into a personal God who give moral injunctions if you believe this.


He doesn't explain anything. He simply makes assertions in order to justify his belief in god, which in actuality is no less difficult to make sense of.

He gives clear reasons - see below.


How does it follow...?

Its rather simple. He says :
A duty is something that is owed

. . . . But something can be owed only to some person or persons.

There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . .

The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . .

Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . .

I think yr saying

1) There are no moral laws
2) there are no moral duties
yet 3) You have no problem recognizing these duties as obligations which one is "justified" (a moral injunction) in following, even though they don't exist and you have no reason to follow them beyond subjective personal taste.....?


The fundamental premise of your question is false. There's no "right" or "wrong". People obviously adhere to certain concepts of what is "right" or "wrong", just as you chose to believe in some superstitious nonsense to qualify why you don't hurt people (why you can't come to that conclusion by yourself is beyond me?). But these choices are variable and constantly changing.

As I've said, I did come to the conclusion that hurting people is wrong by myself.

Yet why would one follow this if it is not a moral obligation?

Indeed, you say it is not even right or wrong! It changes. Sometimes torturing children for fun is not wrong - wring doesn't even exist!

And IF there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist.
It does not matter what values you choose—That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent.
You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good!

And thus one cannot condemn atrocities or praise sacrifice or 'goodness;.


Social conditioning, education and cultural understandings all contribute to how we engage with notions of "right" or "wrong". I think it's "morally wrong" to forcibly circumcise a child, yet Jews and Muslims may consider that "morally right". I consider teaching people that there exists some immaterial being that created them to be "morally wrong", yet you and others are happy to teach people those ideas. You think it's "morally right" to believe in god. In fact, you would argue that god's existence is the basis of what is "morally right". I find that belief highly immoral.

I came to that conclusion because of social upbringing, education and understanding philosophical and cultural ideas, ultimately I made those conclusions based on real, objective, quantifiable existence. Does it make me "right"? No, it doesn't make me right, any more than it makes me wrong, or you wrong, or right for that matter. As an anti-theist, I still have to accept that without evidence one way or the other, I cannot definitively disprove the existence of god (just as you cannot prove his existence), but I accept that evidence which is available and I conclude my views based on what is justifiable. There is no quantifiable evidence that proves that god exists, just as there is no quantifiable evidence to prove that hurting people is wrong. Yet with all the evidence available to us, material and empirical, we can deduce from that, that believing in god and hurting people is unjustifiable.


Here's the entire point :

Please tell me how the "evidence" points to the moral obligation that hurting people is unjustifiable and why one ought follow that injunction.

It seems for that to make sense one would have to say humans were objectively valuable but why think that?

After all, what is so special about human beings?
They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

If man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species.

There is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.

Without God, what is the basis for the value of human beings?

I have to agree with atheist ethicist like Kai Nielsen he writes,


We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God?
If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree.

Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it,
“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

[Klaatu]

So yr saying the entire world, for thousands of yrs, in different cultures, of course using different symbols, coincidently
all defined 2+2=4...arbitrarily?

And the reason mathematics is considered the 'universal launguage' is not because they are universal, but becuase every
culture spontaneously "decided" to define math and the laws of logic the exact same the world over?

And if we just "decided" 2+2=4, then why would aliens "decide" the same? The SYMBOLS we use are obviously decided
upon, but the actual laws too?




But IF the laws are universal, (as I think they are - universal, unchanging and absolute) then they cannot be based
on contingent, finite human minds as you say.


You're giving me a headache. I did NOT say that we "defined 2+2=5" at all, and that is not the point anyway.
My point is that mathematics and logic are abstractions, as is faith, and have no real need to exist outside of the
human (or alien) mind. Does your dog care whether 2+2=4? Do the trees care? Does the sun and the moon care?

I am only saying that we have DEFINED things to be what they are. How else can we understand them?

As an example, in mathematics, take the imaginary number, i. (the square root of -1) this is a "tool" to solve
transcendental functions. We have DEFINED this to be so. Does the sq root of -1 exist? no, it does not. But we MADE
IT UP for a purpose. It has absolutely no use outside of mathematics, which, in turn, has no use outside of the mind.

By the same token, people "make up" gods and faiths (mythology) in order to serve a purpose, that is, to satisfy their
need for a reason for their existence, or a meaning of life, purpose for the universe, etc. Outside of the mind, as I've
pointed out, faith, as well as mathematics, has no purpose, in that nature goes on without it (it went on for millions
of years before man conjured faith and mathematics, didn't it?) The point is that, nature does not need mathematics,
nor faith, nor man himself, in order to survive. Nature, in fact, will flourish sans mankind.



I don't think it was coincidence, and I think we could communicate with aliens through math, but that is because
I believe the laws of logic are abstract, absolute, unchanging, and universal - they describe the structure of reality
and it is a necessary truth that 2+2=4 and not 5 and there is no culture, and will be no culture, where it will ever =5.

Well my point is also that we decide on 2+2=4 BECAUSE it is logical. (what are we arguing about anyway?)

[spiltteeth]

You're giving me a headache. I did NOT say that we "defined 2+2=5" at all, and that is not the point anyway.
My point is that mathematics and logic are abstractions, as is faith, and have no real need to exist outside of the
human (or alien) mind. Does your dog care whether 2+2=4? Do the trees care? Does the sun and the moon care?

I am only saying that we have DEFINED things to be what they are. How else can we understand them?

As an example, in mathematics, take the imaginary number, i. (the square root of -1) this is a "tool" to solve
transcendental functions. We have DEFINED this to be so. Does the sq root of -1 exist? no, it does not. But we MADE
IT UP for a purpose. It has absolutely no use outside of mathematics, which, in turn, has no use outside of the mind.

By the same token, people "make up" gods and faiths (mythology) in order to serve a purpose, that is, to satisfy their
need for a reason for their existence, or a meaning of life, purpose for the universe, etc. Outside of the mind, as I've
pointed out, faith, as well as mathematics, has no purpose, in that nature goes on without it (it went on for millions
of years before man conjured faith and mathematics, didn't it?) The point is that, nature does not need mathematics,
nor faith, nor man himself, in order to survive. Nature, in fact, will flourish sans mankind.


Well my point is also that we decide on 2+2=4 BECAUSE it is logical. (what are we arguing about anyway?)

My point is that it is incoherent to say we decide on the laws of logic.
Rather they are objective (not dependent on finite contingent minds as you say) unchanging absolutes that describe actual reality and I have given reasons why this must be so.

The only thing we 'decided on' was how to symbolize these laws.

We didn't decide the law of noncondridiction describes reality - it actually does.

I believe they are abstract hence not material.

Of course if they depend on human minds, as you say, then they are not objective, absolute, or unchanging and propositions which contradict themselves could still be true.

Even if we change our minds and evolve or encounter an alien species, because the laws of logic are NOT based on our minds, they will always universally absolutely apply - they will not change.

Without minds they simply wouldn't be known.

Although I do think God is an objective fact. If Someone were to make up a religion to try and get folks to follow (for power or comfort) I'd imagine it would be more like the new age spiritualities that have grown up - no guilt, alot of free choice, no strict obligations, and they lead to self-satisfaction, peace, happiness etc and make people feel good about their lives, regardless of how their living (ie 'im ok your ok)

[Klaatu]

My point is that it is incoherent to say we decide on the laws of logic.
Rather they are objective (not dependent on finite contingent minds as you say) unchanging absolutes that describe actual reality and I have given reasons why this must be so.

The only thing we 'decided on' was how to symbolize these laws.

We didn't decide the law of noncondridiction describes reality - it actually does.

I believe they are abstract hence not material.

Of course if they depend on human minds, as you say, then they are not objective, absolute, or unchanging and propositions which contradict themselves could still be true.

Again, I've provided numerous examples of why this is an incoherent stance.

Even if we change our minds and evolve or encounter an alien species, because the laws of logic are NOT based on our minds, they will always universally absolutely apply - they will not change.

I might agree completely, if we were JUST talking about mathematics and logic. But bear in mind that the discussion here is
really about faith, and it's relation to the human mind. That is, we are talking about something which (a) cannot be proven,
(b) is illogical, and (c) is 100% subjective. I see that it was a mistake to bring mathematics into a discussion on religion.
That part belongs in another discussion. I propose that we leave mathematics and logic out of this altogether. Fair enough?

[spiltteeth]

I might agree completely, if we were JUST talking about mathematics and logic. But bear in mind that the discussion here is
really about faith, and it's relation to the human mind. That is, we are talking about something which (a) cannot be proven,
(b) is illogical, and (c) is 100% subjective. I see that it was a mistake to bring mathematics into a discussion on religion.
That part belongs in another discussion. I propose that we leave mathematics and logic out of this altogether. Fair enough?

Sounds reasonable!

But I disagree about its being illogical and 100 subjective.

A person ought to give reasons why he or she thinks something is true.

What is illogical exactly?

[Klaatu]

Sounds reasonable!

But I disagree about its being illogical and 100 subjective.

A person ought to give reasons why he or she thinks something is true.

What is illogical exactly?

Well I'm no expert, but I recall from Psych 101 that emotion is an illogical part of the mind. For example, we often do irrational things when consumed with emotion, whether it be fear, anger, love, etc. Perhaps faith, too, as was suggested at the beginning of this thread?

[The Feral Underclass]

That would mean I could not account for God. But 1) I do have rational reasons for my belief in God

That's not an account for god, that's an account for your belief in god. That's not the same thing.


2) It sounds like your saying I ought not to (a moral injunction) beleive in something unless I have proof.I'm not saying that at all. You're perfectly welcome to believe in whatever you want. But for all available evidence, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that god exists. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite being true.


(And even then I have historical proof, deductive proof, experiential proof etc etc you probably mean a certain kind of proof) I mean unequivocal, material, objective fact.


So you have no difficulty following things which don't exist?No, I have no problem with that. But the difference is that to believe in anarchism and to believe in god are two fundamentally different things. Your belief in god relies upon you having faith in an entity that you cannot prove exists. I do not believe in anarchism because I have faith in its perfection and abilities to exist. I believe in it because it offers the best possible analysis on understanding the world. My views are based on the objective reality, verifiable through an interaction with the material world.

I could be wrong. That's the difference between me and you.


Ok. Make sense of it - What makes certain actions right or wrong for us?Nothing.


What or who imposes moral duties upon us?No one.


Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this ‘ought’ come from? That's not for me to decide. That's for individuals to decide.


From evolution? Cultural or societal customs? Then why does one have a 'duty' to follow these? Why should not one torture an innocent child if it provides pleasure or entertainment?People do torture innocent children because it provides pleasure and entertainment. The real question you're asking is why doesn't everyone do that.


It sounds like you may be anthropomorphizing evolution and society into a personal God who give moral injunctions if you believe this. That sentence doesn't make sense.


He gives clear reasons - see below.No, he issues a series of assertions...


A duty is something that is owedIs it? Says who and why?


But something can be owed only to some person or persons. Why? Why is this true?


There can be no such thing as duty in isolation . . . . Why not?


The idea of political or legal obligation is clear enough . . . . Yet another assertion...


Similarly, the idea of an obligation higher than this, and referred to as moral obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some lawmaker higher . . It's not clear enough at all though. No matter how much you assert it.


1) There are no moral lawsNot as definite absolutes, no.


2) there are no moral dutiesExcept those we choice to abide by.


yet 3) You have no problem recognizing these duties as obligations which one is "justified" (a moral injunction) in following, even though they don't exist and you have no reason to follow them beyond subjective personal taste.....?No, I have no problem recognising that hurting someone isn't very conducive to a harmonious and peaceful society, which is what I strive for as an anarchist.


As I've said, I did come to the conclusion that hurting people is wrong by myself. Bravo!


Yet why would one follow this if it is not a moral obligation?Because you have interacted with the world, you have been educated, you have developed understandings about reality and you have concluded what is justified and what is not.

Most humans are raised to follow certain ideas. We are socially conditioned by society and by our parents to follow notions of what is right and what is wrong. Of course, conversely people sometimes have upbringings which are void of love and education and their interaction with the world is troubled. Take for example the two killers of Jamie Bulger. These were two young boys who lived horrednous lives, full of abuse and neglect. Their understanding of what is right and wrong was clearly damaged and thus provided a pre-requisite for their violence.


Indeed, you say it is not even right or wrong! It changes. Sometimes torturing children for fun is not wrong - wring doesn't even exist! It's always "wrong" as far as I am concerned; to the point where I would actively cause hurt to prevent it, but that's the struggle isn't it? That doesn't mean that because I believe it's wrong someone else won't and then perpetuate that torture. This is because there are no moral absolutes or duties. There are only what people choice to do, or are compelled to by illness.


And IF there is no right and wrong; good and evil do not exist.
It does not matter what values you choose—That means that an atrocity like the Holocaust was really morally indifferent.It clearly depends on what you consider to be "morally right", since the Nazi's thought it was their moral obligation to rid the world of Jews. I find the holocaust "morally" reprehensible, yet Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hoss thought it was "morally" right.


You may think that it was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good! Well, except my "moral" belief was vindicated and that is what happens, isn't it? "Morality" or what is believed to be justified and unjustified are in a continuous battle to succeed.

Capitalism Vs anti-capitalism, exploitation Vs collective ownership and so on.


Please tell me how the "evidence" points to the moral obligation that hurting people is unjustifiable and why one ought follow that injunction.Well, it's not as simple as that, since hurting people is sometimes justified. It depends on what kind of "hurt" we're talking about.


It seems for that to make sense one would have to say humans were objectively valuable but why think that? I don't think that follows.


After all, what is so special about human beings?Beyond the fact we are humans?


They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. That is the human condition. That doesn't mean we're not special, since we are what we are.


If man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species.I agree.


There is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.Why would you anyway?


Without God, what is the basis for the value of human beings? Whatever we decide. That is the beauty of our existence.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My church, the Orthodox, has held the exact same view of hell for thousands of yrs.

Well, according to Wikipedia:


The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches teach that both the elect and the lost enter into the presence of God after death, and that the elect experience this presence as light and rest, while the lost experience it as darkness and torment.[14] The Orthodox see this doctrine as supported by Scripture and by the patristic tradition.

The afterlife for the damned is dreadful anticipation of Judgment Day, while the elect happily await the resurrection of the dead. Orthodox Christians pray for the dead, and believe that such prayers are beneficial for the dead. Some have misunderstood the Orthodox Church to teach that sometimes a lost soul can be saved after death through the prayers of the living. Rather, the Orthodox teaching is that the souls of the departed - in either Heaven or Hell - do not receive "Final Judgment" until "Judgment Day". Thus, the living pray for the souls of the dead, that God grant them Eternal Life, and asking for the intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos on-behalf of the departed.

On Judgment Day, bodies are resurrected and reunited with their respective souls. (This is why Orthodox Christians do not cremate their remains.) Upon Final Judgment, the joys of Heaven - or the torment of Hell, is finally experienced in fullness of a complete human being (body and soul).

Sounds like a distinctly unpleasant experience for the heathens.


Above you've written your own theology, I explained mine.

I don't have theology since I don't believe in any Gods to which a theology can be applied. I was giving two examples.


None is going to "force" you into Heaven - as you made clear you reject it totally.

On the basis of no good reasons to believe it exists. What kind of sick fuck of a deity allegedly creates humans capable of rational thought (occasionally), but doesn't actually back up it's threats until death (allegedly)?


Your free to commit moral crimes - but you gotta pay or ask Christ to pay and repent.

I am free to commit moral crimes and face the very real consequences for my conscience, from my victims and from society. It is that trinity, rather than some theologians' bafflegab and blabberguff, which serves as the moral anchor for society. It may not be up to God's standards, but since he has done fuck-all in the way of enforcement we have to make do on our own.


IF you think you are not perfect and have committed any moral crimes, then your free to take the punishment.
Scapegoating is when it is forced on a person.
Christ takes our rap freely - on condition of true repentence and willingness to be made new in Him.

That doesn't change the fact that any crimes committed are down to those responsible, not to any innocent party, no matter how willing said party is to masochistically take the punishment so the perps can kiss their ass.


You've missed the point; but she did not pay for her crime since she did not have the money.
She, like you, can say "no, I'll take the time."

Haven't you ever loved a child? You would never bail out a friend? Or help him pay a fine? That's pity Noxian....

I'll bet the judge never showed that kind of forebearance to anyone in the dock who wasn't a friend or relation. In fact, if I remember correctly, judges are not allowed to pass sentence on family members for that very reason.

A justice system that gives one a "choice" between a fine and a custodial sentence (for speeding?) is one that is broken and needs fixing.

There's a difference between helping a friend pay a fine, and a judge displaying favouritism towards family members.


That is known as Hell.

Something that secular justice systems do not recognise, and for good reason; it must serve everybody regardless of their beliefs.


All crimes unrepented will be punished.

So you claim, but simple assertions like that are not good for any effective justice system.


You think its easy to clean ones heart of pride and ask for forgiveness? It takes an incredible amount of work, time, will - the pardon is conditional, afterwords you work for God.
This is the most efficient way to "redress imbalances" - it involves real change.

Bullshit. Anyone can ask forgiveness and claim to have found Christ - in fact that something a lot of prisoners do in order to make it easier to get an earlier release.

There is no way for the sincerity of "Findin' da LAWD" to be checked, since we can't read minds or ask God if they're serious. One the other hand, punishment, rehabilitation and compensatory service that happens in this world rather than some alleged otherworld, can be demonstrable in its sincerity.

[spiltteeth]

=The Anarchist Tension;1739824]That's not an account for god, that's an account for your belief in god. That's not the same thing.

I'm not saying that at all. You're perfectly welcome to believe in whatever you want. But for all available evidence, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that god exists. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite being true.

I mean unequivocal, material, objective fact.

I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree, objective scientific fact points the the existence of God.


No, I have no problem with that. But the difference is that to believe in anarchism and to believe in god are two fundamentally different things. Your belief in god relies upon you having faith in an entity that you cannot prove exists. I do not believe in anarchism because I have faith in its perfection and abilities to exist. I believe in it because it offers the best possible analysis on understanding the world. My views are based on the objective reality, verifiable through an interaction with the material world.

I could be wrong. That's the difference between me and you.

I could be wrong as well.
And my belief in God, like yr belief in anarchy, is the only way I can make sense of my world - the existence of life, the universe, the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, and finally morals.

I still don't know what you mean by 'proof' - not 100% certainty of course.
But, based on scientific data. I have several good reasons to belive in God, also it makes my world understandable.

Also, everyone, including you , belives and lives by things for which there exists no proof AND een no good reaosns to belive in.

However - I wasn't talking about anarchy but norality.


Nothing.

I'm afraid one of us is confused. You say

Yet, I don't find it difficult at all.

'it' being moral duty/ obligations. Then I ask you to make sense of it and now you say nothing can?


No one.

So you say you can make sense of moral duty, yet you have no duty to be moral? As the quote explained an duty is an obligation to a person....


That's not for me to decide. That's for individuals to decide.

Yes, noone is denying that one must decide on what to do, the entire point is upon what grounds do we make that decision.

IF there are no grounds, more right or wrong, then Hitler did nothing wrong, no evil was committed, and it would be nonsensical for you to condemn him....or praise the 'good' the resistance did, as I keep saying.


People do torture innocent children because it provides pleasure and entertainment. The real question you're asking is why doesn't everyone do that.

No, thats not my question. My assertion is that without objective moral values then there nothing actually wrong with torturing innocent children for fun and you could not condemn it.


That sentence doesn't make sense.

No, he issues a series of assertions...

Is it? Says who and why?

Why? Why is this true?

Why not?

Yet another assertion...

It's not clear enough at all though. No matter how much you assert it.

Ok, how can a law exist without a lawmaker?

I'm not sure you understand what 'obligation' means; here is its definition :


ob·li·ga·tion   
–noun
1.
something by which a person is bound or obliged to do certain things, and which arises out of a sense of duty or results from custom, law, etc.
2.
something that is done or is to be done for such reasons: to fulfill one's obligations.
3.
a binding promise, contract, sense of duty, etc.
4.
the act of binding or obliging oneself by a promise, contract, etc.
5.
Law .
a.
an agreement enforceable by law, originally applied to promises under seal.
b.
a document containing such an agreement.
c.
a bond containing a penalty, with a condition annexed for payment of money, performance of covenants, etc.
6.
any bond, note, bill, certificate, or the like, as of a government or a corporation, serving as evidence of indebtedness.
7.
an indebtedness or amount of indebtedness.
8.
a favor, service, or benefit for which gratitude is due.
9.
a debt of gratitude: He felt an obligation to his teacher.
10.
the state of being under a debt, as of gratitude, for a favor, service, or benefit.

What makes certain actions right or wrong for us? What or who imposes moral duties upon us? Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this ‘ought’ come from? Traditionally, our moral obligations were thought to be laid upon us by God’s moral commands.

I once read a poster: “Sexual Assault: No One Has the Right to Abuse a Child, Woman, or Man.”

Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the atheist can make no sense of a person’s right not to be sexually abused by another.


Not as definite absolutes, no.

Except those we choice to abide by.

No, I have no problem recognising that hurting someone isn't very conducive to a harmonious and peaceful society, which is what I strive for as an anarchist.

1) Well, its a known fact that there are many communities in India, most harmonious, where raping small girls is India the custom, so I don't agree.

2) Your saying as long as society is harmonious it is ok to harm people - like Sadam with his rape rooms

3)And heres the entire point of this thread, without objective morals there's no reason to want a harmonious society.

So the rapist who loves chaos, or the Nazi who want to create a harmonious society through force and oppression, is as moral as you, and Anarchy has no superiority to Naziism or chaos.


Bravo!

Because you have interacted with the world, you have been educated, you have developed understandings about reality and you have concluded what is justified and what is not.

I honestly don't see how education and understanding provides moral obligations. A rapist concludes children are fun to rape, so he is, by yr way of thinking, perfectly justified to rape, and to condemn him would be incoherent.


Most humans are raised to follow certain ideas. We are socially conditioned by society and by our parents to follow notions of what is right and what is wrong. Of course, conversely people sometimes have upbringings which are void of love and education and their interaction with the world is troubled. Take for example the two killers of Jamie Bulger. These were two young boys who lived horrednous lives, full of abuse and neglect. Their understanding of what is right and wrong was clearly damaged and thus provided a pre-requisite for their violence.

But you said there is no right and wrong.
You are clearly measuring these kids actions by an objective rule of morality (I think God has created every healthy person to have these objective morals, which is learned from wherever)

Again, why do you say these kids had a "wrong" understanding of right and wrong?

What is the "right" understanding and what is the basis for it!

You keep ducking the essential point!


It's always "wrong" as far as I am concerned; to the point where I would actively cause hurt to prevent it, but that's the struggle isn't it? That doesn't mean that because I believe it's wrong someone else won't and then perpetuate that torture. This is because there are no moral absolutes or duties. There are only what people choice to do, or are compelled to by illness.

No one is denying people choose to do bad things, the question, the whole point, is on what basis are you saying its 'bad'?
Whats your yard stick? Just custom? Then the person isn't doing anything wrong but just floating custum.

And it couldn't always be wrong - that would make it absolute and unchanging ie objective (which I of course belive it is)

Do you see the incoherence of subjective morals? You seem to want to affirm objective morals but cannot account for them.


It clearly depends on what you consider to be "morally right", since the Nazi's thought it was their moral obligation to rid the world of Jews. I find the holocaust "morally" reprehensible, yet Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hoss thought it was "morally" right.

Well, except my "moral" belief was vindicated and that is what happens, isn't it? "Morality" or what is believed to be justified and unjustified are in a continuous battle to succeed.

How was your moral belief vindicated? WHAT (this is the point, yet you seem not to want to answer) justifies it?

Victory? Had the Nazi's won then they would have been 'right/?

Since the US won the Vietnam war they were justified?!


Capitalism Vs anti-capitalism, exploitation Vs collective ownership and so on.

Well, it's not as simple as that, since hurting people is sometimes justified. It depends on what kind of "hurt" we're talking about.

Again, what is the ground for this 'justification' and why ought one to follow it?


I don't think that follows.

Beyond the fact we are humans?

Right. I knew a murderer who said people were just a bag of biochemicals, killing them was just like spilling a bag of chemicals.

Since there's no objective qualitative difference between a person and a potato etc then there is no objective reason to value human beings.

I think we ARE valuable in ourselves - but this is an objective statement and so needs to be grounded. (obvioulsy I ground it in God)


That is the human condition. That doesn't mean we're not special, since we are what we are.

It means we are not objectively intrinsically valuable.

I knew a guy (I've been to prison) who said killing a person was just like unplugging a computer - no right or wrong.

We say an animal kills another animal, we don't say it murders etc


I agree

why would you anyway?

Exactly so, and then the holocaust wasn't wrong or evil, its just something that happened.
Nothing significant....

Who cares if their society is harmonious are not etc


Whatever we decide. That is the beauty of our existence.

Right, then the person who decides to torture small children for fun is a thing of beauty to you. No reason not to!

Historian Stewart C. Easton sums it up well when he writes,
“There is no objective reason why man should be moral, unless morality ‘pays off’ in his social life or makes him ‘feel good.’ There is no objective reason why man should do anything save for the pleasure it affords him.”

Of course I believe actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior—they are moral abominations.

By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good.

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1739886]Well, according to Wikipedia:



Sounds like a distinctly unpleasant experience for the heathens.

Indeed! Do you have a point? I've already said my church, the Orthodox has had the same understanding of hell since the beginning.


I don't have theology since I don't believe in any Gods to which a theology can be applied. I was giving two examples.



On the basis of no good reasons to believe it exists. What kind of sick fuck of a deity allegedly creates humans capable of rational thought (occasionally), but doesn't actually back up it's threats until death (allegedly)?

s you've heard me argue there are numerous good reasons to think He exists. In fact, even you believe but let that go.

You mean He ought to punish before the crime is committed? Or before a person has a chance to repent?

Again, yr theology - you see hell as a threat, which isn't what I believe at all.


I am free to commit moral crimes and face the very real consequences for my conscience, from my victims and from society. It is that trinity, rather than some theologians' bafflegab and blabberguff, which serves as the moral anchor for society. It may not be up to God's standards, but since he has done fuck-all in the way of enforcement we have to make do on our own.

How is society and yr victims to know what yr moral crimes are? How do you inform them Noxion? And who decides what they were? And who decides the punishment?

What if you commit a moral crime and you don't notice it? Or forget to report it to whomever you apparently report these things to?

Then you wouldn't be punished - yet toy say you believe moral crimes ought to be punished.


That doesn't change the fact that any crimes committed are down to those responsible, not to any innocent party, no matter how willing said party is to masochistically take the punishment so the perps can kiss their ass.

Such a strabge theology! What do you call it? A deity takes the rap so perps can kiss his ass!

Fanciful. But what does nthis have to do with me?


I'll bet the judge never showed that kind of forebearance to anyone in the dock who wasn't a friend or relation. In fact, if I remember correctly, judges are not allowed to pass sentence on family members for that very reason.

Since the story is just a story to make a point I don't think we can comment on how this fictitious judge treated others.

Again, you would never take bail money, and you yourself would never help a loved one because they MUST suffer for their crimes - this is what you believe right?


A justice system that gives one a "choice" between a fine and a custodial sentence (for speeding?) is one that is broken and needs fixing.

There's a difference between helping a friend pay a fine, and a judge displaying favouritism towards family members.

Ok Noxion I'll spell it out for you - the Judge was a METAPHOR for God and the daughter was a METAPHOR for the sinner.

There wasn't any real judge etc

The Christian doesn't think his actual dad will judge him.

Anyway, IF you believe people ought to be punished moral crimes then who decides that? The offender> Society? And how do they know what the moral crimes are?

If one is willing to undergo transformation and is truly repentant, Christ will take the rap.
IF you disagree and what to take the punishment on yrself, then that fine too.


Something that secular justice systems do not recognise, and for good reason; it must serve everybody regardless of their beliefs.



So you claim, but simple assertions like that are not good for any effective justice system.



Bullshit. Anyone can ask forgiveness and claim to have found Christ - in fact that something a lot of prisoners do in order to make it easier to get an earlier release.

There is no way for the sincerity of "Findin' da LAWD" to be checked, since we can't read minds or ask God if they're serious. One the other hand, punishment, rehabilitation and compensatory service that happens in this world rather than some alleged otherworld, can be demonstrable in its sincerity.

Right, to be perfectly just one would have to know a person's sincerity, and only God can really know what's in a persons mind.
So a person can say he repents, but God would know the truth.

I don't know how sincerity can be demonstrated in this world - I've been to prison. Its a revolving door.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm afraid I'll have to strongly disagree, objective scientific fact points the the existence of God.

Are you seriously claiming that you have unequivocal, verifiable, objective proof that god exists...?


And my belief in God, like yr belief in anarchy, is the only way I can make sense of my world - the existence of life, the universe, the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, and finally morals.

Please don't extrapolate my position. I don't believe in anarchy as a way to make sense of the world. I believe in anarchy because the analysis it provides is founded on verifiable evidence.


I still don't know what you mean by 'proof' - not 100% certainty of course.
But, based on scientific data. I have several good reasons to belive in God, also it makes my world understandable.

I have already said what "proof" I mean. I've repeated it in fact. You just responded to me above...:confused:


Also, everyone, including you , belives and lives by things for which there exists no proof AND een no good reaosns to belive in.

Well, I contest that assertion actually. I don't "believe" in things for which there is no proof. In fact, I make a very strong point of doing the precise opposite.


I'm afraid one of us is confused. You say:


Yet, I don't find it difficult at all [to make sense of moral duty/obligation


'it' being moral duty/ obligations. Then I ask you to make sense of it and now you say nothing can?

Yes, you're confused.

What you actually said was: "Ok. Make sense of it - What makes certain actions right or wrong for us?"

The issue here is that you have conflated two issues. The idea of making sense of moral duty/obligation and the idea of what makes an action right or wrong.

I answered that question you asked me, which was "what makes certain actions right or wrong?". The answer is nothing. But that doesn't mean that I cannot make sense of them, since I provide my own understandings based on my social conditioning and cultural understandings etc.


So you say you can make sense of moral duty, yet you have no duty to be moral?

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. It's called human reasoning.


Yes, noone is denying that one must decide on what to do, the entire point is upon what grounds do we make that decision.

That's an individual choice based on your own understandings.


IF there are no grounds, more right or wrong, then Hitler did nothing wrong, no evil was committed, and it would be nonsensical for you to condemn him....or praise the 'good' the resistance did, as I keep saying.

But only Nazi's proposition that Hitler did nothing wrong.

The world, society and what happens in it is founded on what we, as humans, provide as understanding. There are no moral absolutes and some people will choose to believe that Hitler did nothing wrong, but while they construct that understanding, other people construct an understanding to the contrary. You choose which is "right" or "wrong".


No, thats not my question. My assertion is that without objective moral values then there nothing actually wrong with torturing innocent children for fun and you could not condemn it.

But there are many, many things that are wrong with torturing children. I don't need an objective moral value to know that. Some other people may not share my views, but they are wrong. I say that because I make that choice through my understandings.

By saying it's wrong, it becomes wrong.


Ok, how can a law exist without a lawmaker?

I appreciate the point your making, but I have addressed that when I talk about social conditioning.

Look, the "moral values" four-hundred years ago are fundamentally different to what our "moral values" are now. Throughout history our understanding of the world, of our interaction with it have altered dependent on the development of our material conditions, which is the basis of society.


I'm not sure you understand what 'obligation' means; here is its definition

No, you don't understand the notion of human beings creating moral values dependent on their material conditions.


What makes certain actions right or wrong for us? What or who imposes moral duties upon us? Why is it that we ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things? Where does this ‘ought’ come from? Traditionally, our moral obligations were thought to be laid upon us by God’s moral commands.

It doesn't matter how much you repeat the question, my answers aren't going to change.


Most of us recognize that that statement is evidently true. But the atheist can make no sense of a person’s right not to be sexually abused by another.

You're not really addressing the central point of my argument.

I'll repeat it: I, as an individual, conditioned by my social experiences, by the cultural understandings and the ideas that have been the product of my existence have given me the ability to "make sense" of a persons "right not to be sexually abused."

Someone should not be sexually abused because it denies their autonomy, inflicts violence and causes physical and psychological trauma. It does not help establish a free, harmonious and peaceful society, with happy functioning human beings.

I don't need god to tell me it's "wrong". I know it's "wrong" because I can reason that it is wrong, and I can see it is.


1) Well, its a known fact that there are many communities in India, most harmonious, where raping small girls is India the custom, so I don't agree.

I reject the premise that a community can be harmonious if small girls are being rapped.


2) Your saying as long as society is harmonious it is ok to harm people - like Sadam with his rape rooms

:confused:

I'm really not sure how you've managed to make that leap. I have not said that in the slightest...


3)And heres the entire point of this thread, without objective morals there's no reason to want a harmonious society.

The reason is because people want it.

There are no objective moral values, but that doesn't mean that human beings cannot create moral values.


So the rapist who loves chaos, or the Nazi who want to create a harmonious society through force and oppression, is as moral as you, and Anarchy has no superiority to Naziism or chaos.

I would argue that they are not as "moral" as me, no.


I honestly don't see how education and understanding provides moral obligations.

How could you even be having this conversation without education or "understanding"?


A rapist concludes children are fun to rape, so he is, by yr way of thinking, perfectly justified to rape, and to condemn him would be incoherent.

I have not argued that. I have simply argued that there are no moral absolutes. You're essentially arguing "believe in god or you condone child rape". It's absurd.


But you said there is no right and wrong.

Actually, what I said is that there are no moral absolutes.


Again, why do you say these kids had a "wrong" understanding of right and wrong?

Because that's what I have concluded.


What is the "right" understanding and what is the basis for it!

It is based on my understanding of the world.


You keep ducking the essential point!

Despite the fact I've repeatedly addressed it...I have repeatedly answered these questions.


No one is denying people choose to do bad things, the question, the whole point, is on what basis are you saying its 'bad'?

My answer hasn't changed.

As you can see, I've not looked at the rest of your post because it seems to be repetition of what I've already talked about up until this point.

I'll just end with a quote by Karl Marx from The German Ideology, which essentially sums up the point I'm making.

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness."

[spiltteeth]

=The Anarchist Tension;1740507]Are you seriously claiming that you have unequivocal, verifiable, objective proof that god exists...?

Oh no, not at all. I'm only saying I have could reasons to think God exists based on objective science. Its not 100% certainty or proof thouhj.


Please don't extrapolate my position. I don't believe in anarchy as a way to make sense of the world. I believe in anarchy because the analysis it provides is founded on verifiable evidence.

As is my belief in God.


I have already said what "proof" I mean. I've repeated it in fact. You just responded to me above...:confused:



Well, I contest that assertion actually. I don't "believe" in things for which there is no proof. In fact, I make a very strong point of doing the precise opposite.


Well I;ve never met anyone who did, the great atheist Bertrand Russell gives many examples of things that people believe in for which there are not evidences or reasons, I'll name a few.
1) Other persons with minds exist - that is, they have a similar inner life to your own, when they wince they are having an actual experience of pain, they feel love, hate etc and are not just automatic responsive creatures.
2) Axioms like 2+2=4. Russell said his whole life was a search for the certainty that 1+1=2, but there is no way to prove axioms. They are self-evidently true.
3) That the external world exists
4) Bertrand Russell wrote, in The Analysis of Mind:
'there is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past'.
The concept is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any conceivable scientific method—in other words, it is impossible even in principle to subject it to any form of test by reference to any empirical data because the empirical data themselves are considered to have been arbitrarily created to look the way they do at every observable level of detail.
5) The uniformity of nature - that just because salt dissolves in water today doesn't mean it won't explode in watet tomorrow.

There are numerous other examples.

My last example is your morality - you think arbitrary it should be based on yr understanding and reasoning.
But what makes yr understanding and reasoning correct? Because yr understanding and reasoning tell you it is?
That like someone saying 'I get all my morals from the bible and I know its correct because the bible tells me its correct"!

Why should you base your morals on understanding instead of the bible? Why base it on the society you coincidently grew up ion and not the society in India which condones raping little girls?

What's your objective factual evidence for choosing one over the other?


Yes, you're confused.

What you actually said was: "Ok. Make sense of it - What makes certain actions right or wrong for us?"

The issue here is that you have conflated two issues. The idea of making sense of moral duty/obligation and the idea of what makes an action right or wrong.

I answered that question you asked me, which was "what makes certain actions right or wrong?". The answer is nothing. But that doesn't mean that I cannot make sense of them, since I provide my own understandings based on my social conditioning and cultural understandings etc.

Your right, I AM confused, thanks for clearing that up.

But since every person, according to you, provides thee own understanding a rapist whose understanding is that children are best used to rape is just as justified and moral as you.


Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. It's called human reasoning.

Well, I don't see why one ought to follow human reasoning over impulse or emotions, regardless, you admit there are no moral obligations only moral duty.

Moral duty to what? If it is to your understanding then there is nothing wrong with what the Nazi's did - it according to their understanding and its incoherent to condemn them.


That's an individual choice based on your own understandings.

Ok moral choice is based on understanding. Ok. What understanding? If a rapist understands what he's doing then it can be said to be moral, correct?


But only Nazi's proposition that Hitler did nothing wrong.

The world, society and what happens in it is founded on what we, as humans, provide as understanding. There are no moral absolutes and some people will choose to believe that Hitler did nothing wrong, but while they construct that understanding, other people construct an understanding to the contrary. You choose which is "right" or "wrong".

I understand. And if a person chooses that torturing a child for fun is right then there is nothing wrong or immoral about it according to you.


But there are many, many things that are wrong with torturing children. I don't need an objective moral value to know that. Some other people may not share my views, but they are wrong. I say that because I make that choice through my understandings.

By saying it's wrong, it becomes wrong.

But then by saying its right it would then become right. So a person who tortures children for fun is just as justified and morally correct as you are and therefore to condemn them is incoherent.
One view is not objectively better than another - both Nazi germany and an anarchist utopia are objectively the same morally.

By saying its 'wrong' you simply mean you are culturally conditioned to be averse to such a thing. IF someone likes doing it then they are morally right and justifies to do so..


I appreciate the point your making, but I have addressed that when I talk about social conditioning.

Look, the "moral values" four-hundred years ago are fundamentally different to what our "moral values" are now. Throughout history our understanding of the world, of our interaction with it have altered dependent on the development of our material conditions, which is the basis of society.

I agree. And our knowledge of the objective laws of science is becoming clear as our understanding changes.

These morals could, and I believe often are, discovered through various institutions.

That doesn't show that laws, weather scientific or moral, change, simply our understanding of them changes.


no, you don't understand tNhe notion of human beings creating moral values dependent on their material conditions.

I will say torturing small children for fun is wrong regardless of a societies material conditions and cultural institutions.


It doesn't matter how much you repeat the question, my answers aren't going to change.


Your definition is that something is morally good because you understand it to be morally good. This understanding is based on understanding.
Society conditions this understanding and you have a moral obligation to do what your understanding tells you to.

Is this right?


You're not really addressing the central point of my argument.

I'll repeat it: I, as an individual, conditioned by my social experiences, by the cultural understandings and the ideas that have been the product of my existence have given me the ability to "make sense" of a persons "right not to be sexually abused."

Someone should not be sexually abused because it denies their autonomy, inflicts violence and causes physical and psychological trauma. It does not help establish a free, harmonious and peaceful society, with happy functioning human beings.

Right. But there's no reason to think denying someone's autonomy is wrong.

You wouldn't want those Indian villages whose social customs say raping a little girl is morally good to stop it because it it based on their understanding and education and they have a moral obligation to follow their understanding, therefore, it is good.

So if a person has no interest in establishing a free, harmonious society then its perfectly morally good of them to rape and murder and to condemn them for following their understanding and conditioning which makes it morally good would be incoherent.

For many in power it would be against their interests and education, and therefore 'immoral' for them to create a harmonious just society. So they have a moral duty to inflict injustice.

Theres no reason one ought want happy free people. The person who doesn't is just as moral and justified as you.


I don't need god to tell me it's "wrong". I know it's "wrong" because I can reason that it is wrong, and I can see it is.

I would honestly like to know your reasoning.
As I said at the very beginning you probably start by the arbitrary assumption that humans are, intrinsically OBJECTIVELY valuable.
Then you reason that what's immoral is what hurts them, makes then unfree etc

But,as I say, heres the crux, theres NO reason to think they are intrincically objectivley valuable.

So yr reasoning on a premise that has no evidence or basis in reality (obviouly I think we ARE intrinsically valuable, my REASON for thinking this involves God though)

If a person reasoned that humans are just bags of meat and its fun to toerure them, then they would see and understand that its morally right to do so.


I reject the premise that a community can be harmonious if small girls are being rapped.

What do you mean? Those Indian villages have existed for thousands of years. Surly you've heard of Sutree - burning ones wife alive in a bon fire?


:confused:

I'm really not sure how you've managed to make that leap. I have not said that in the slightest...

I thought you were saying you know hurting someone doesn't contribute to a harmonious society and thats why its wrong.

IF thats the only reason then IF we can create a harmonious society and still rape children, as some cultures have done, then its no longer immoral.


The reason is because people want it.

Ok something is moral if people want it. So the Nazi's were perfectly moral and justifies because they wanted to commit genocide.

Its the desire of the majority correct? So liberating the slaves (a minority position - something the people didn't want, even if you count the slaves) would be immoral.


There are no objective moral values, but that doesn't mean that human beings cannot create moral values.

I got you, But since there all just subjective based on ones education and cultural background one is not better then the other.


I would argue that they are not as "moral" as me, no.

No I am completely lost! You said you know something is immoral because your understanding and cultural conditioning tells you so and you have a moral obligation to follow that understanding.

The Nazi's were following this exact prescription! How are you more moral or good then the Nazis??!


How could you even be having this conversation without education or "understanding"?

I actually think we are born with an knowledge of good and bad, and even an illiterate uneducated outcast could come to this knowledge by simple reflection.


I have not argued that. I have simply argued that there are no moral absolutes. You're essentially arguing "believe in god or you condone child rape". It's absurd.

I've said the exact opposite! Remember I even highlighted it:


the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God?
If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree.

Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it,
Quote:
“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”


Actually, what I said is that there are no moral absolutes.

Ok.



Because that's what I have concluded.



It is based on my understanding of the world.

And your understanding is no more moral then a person who understand it differently - like the person who rapes children for fun and games.

Both, based on understanding, are morally equal and one is no better then the other.

Despite the fact I've repeatedly addressed it...I have repeatedly answered these questions.


My answer hasn't changed.

As you can see, I've not looked at the rest of your post because it seems to be repetition of what I've already talked about up until this point.

I'll just end with a quote by Karl Marx from The German Ideology, which essentially sums up the point I'm making.

"We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness."

ok :)

[The Feral Underclass]

Spiltteeth, if you re-read my posts you will find all the answers to your questions.

[spiltteeth]

Spiltteeth, if you re-read my posts you will find all the answers to your questions.

All I can really find is you say your morals are based on your understanding of what they are (isn't everything a person believes!) and which is conditioned by the culture and society you grew up in and that you feel morally obligated to follow your conditioning and understanding and that something is immoral when you, Anarchist Tension, personally say so.

You give no reason one ought to follow ones individual understanding or the understanding ones culture pushes on a person.

You give no reason why people are valuable, you say you only go by hard evidence but where is it?

You give no reason why you consider yourself more moral than a Nazi.

In fact, according to you, a Nazi should NOT stop committing genocide, since that is what his society and conditioning tell him is morally good and you say we have a moral obligation to go by our understanding!

You give no reason why you saying something is wrong is more authoritative than a Nazi saying it's morally right.

- I know you say its wrong because you say its wrong, but when you die it will then be Ok, because then you won't be able to say its wrong.
Its wrongness, according to you, will die with you.

you say :

I don't need god to tell me it's "wrong". I know it's "wrong" because I can reason that it is wrong, and I can see it is.

I don't need God to tell me either, as I keep saying.

But you won't tell me how you reasoned your way to this conclusion.

You just say it won't lead to a harmonious society or happy free people, but you give no reason why this is a morally good thing, especially since there's no qualitative difference between a bunch of rats drowning and the men women and children who dies during the holocaust.


I'll sum up the debate so far --

you : Something is moral when my understanding tells me its moral and I have an obligation to follow my understanding.

me: Well, A Nazi could say the same thing and justify killing children is moral! What makes you right and him wrong?

you : Because I say so.


Now if the difference of torturing a small child for fun and saving its life is weather or not you personally say so (based on yr understanding) I weep for humanity!

Of course I think you are far more moral then a Nazi, not just because you say so, but objectively.

I'll leave with a quote from the ATHEIST Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science:


“The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5.”

Bertrund Russell acted and lived also as if objective morals existed, he recognized this when protesting against the Vietnam war and frankly admitted he was disturbed by it since, without God, he could not account nor justify his actions and said he could find no solution to it.

Sartre admitted much the same in his last work - his autobio.


If only all atheists were as honest and brave as Russell, Sartre or Hume...

[The Feral Underclass]

All I can really find is you say your morals are based on your understanding of what they are (isn't everything a person believes!)

Then you have failed to understand. I really cannot make it any simpler.


which is conditioned by the culture and society you grew up in

It's a materialist understanding of history. Obviously as someone who believes in a god that understanding is totally alien to you. But it is the pre-requisite of Marxism and class struggle, so without it you're in trouble. Of course, you can believe whatever you want.


that you feel morally obligated to follow your conditioning and understanding and that something is immoral when you, Anarchist Tension, personally say so.

Something is only immoral insofar as I say so in accordance with my life, not that there is an absolute morality which I command.

I believe it is "immoral" to rape someone and I would use violence to enforce that "moral". I would wager that many other people share the same view, yet there are people who may not consider it immoral to rape someone and may use violence to rape. Who is "right" and who is "wrong". That's for you to decide. Do you think rape is immoral?


You give no reason one ought to follow ones individual understanding or the understanding ones culture pushes on a person.

You have to believe in your own capacity to make choices. You have to believe in your abilities to determine what is "right" or "wrong".


You give no reason why people are valuable, you say you only go by hard evidence but where is it?

I'm sorry, but can you show me where I have talked about people as "value"?


You give no reason why you consider yourself more moral than a Nazi.

Isn't that self-evident? Do I really need to explain to you why I am more "moral" than a Nazi?


In fact, according to you, a Nazi should NOT stop committing genocide, since that is what his society and conditioning tell him is morally good and you say we have a moral obligation to go by our understanding!

What you have done here is extrapolated my position. You have done this several times now, despite my having responded.

Saying that there are no "moral absolutes" is not the same as saying Nazi's are morally obligated to commit genocide. That's just ridiculous.


You give no reason why you saying something is wrong is more authoritative than a Nazi saying it's morally right.

There is nothing more authoritative than that. It is up to the collective will of "the people" to ensure that Nazi's are put in their place. It is the obligation of those people who believe Nazism is to be wrong, to ensure that it doesn't succeed.

In short, we as human beings are responsible.


I assume you concede that a rapist, following his own understanding, is perfectly justified to torture a small child and that to condemn him is incoherent -

No, I don't concede that as I have plainly explained.


- I know you say its wrong because you say its wrong, but when you die it will then be Ok, because then you won't be able to say its wrong.
Its wrongness, according to you, will die with you.

Except for the fact that I didn't create the moral understanding that rape is "morally wrong". Society did and I have simply agreed.


But you won't tell me how you reasoned your way to this conclusion.

I really don't understand what's going on here. Are you seriously telling me that I haven't responded to this?


You just say it won't lead to a harmonious society or happy free people, but you give no reason why this is a morally good thing, especially since there's no qualitative difference between a bunch of rats drowning and the men women and children who dies during the holocaust.

As far as I am concerned there is a qualitative difference. I believe that because I am an anarchist. Because I believe in freedom and social equality.

I have reasoned this through my own experiences, through the experiences of others and through my interaction with the material world.

That is your answer.


I guess since society conditions you what to think you just go by the herd mentality - so if someone doesn't think people are valuable and kills them he's just acting unfashionably.

You're making no sense any more. Who are you even talking to any more?


Of course on all this it would be incoherent for you to condemn the Nazi's or fight against injustice (on what basis? because you personally say so? And why does that carry more authority than a Nazi who doesn't say so!) - they are just as objectively moral as you.

It seems to me that you're having an intellectual breakdown. Nothing you're saying makes sense. It's just repetitive jibberish and serves no purpose as far as this discussion goes.

I have consistently addressed your arguments and you have responded with lots of the same babble that we started with. I have adequately positioned my argument.

It's unfortunate that you either can't or won't understand it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed! Do you have a point? I've already said my church, the Orthodox has had the same understanding of hell since the beginning.

My point is that you're still saying "worship Christ or God will make you suffer", just using different words. That's a threat.


s you've heard me argue there are numerous good reasons to think He exists. In fact, even you believe but let that go.

I don't believe, and I'm insulted that you have the presumption to tell me my beliefs. Like most Christians you simply cannot countenance the fact that there are people out there who have no room in their worldview for God.


You mean He ought to punish before the crime is committed? Or before a person has a chance to repent?

God presumably knows if someone is going to "repent" or otherwise come to regret their crimes, right? So why do we not see some people being sent to Hell as soon as they commit their crimes? In fact, why did God create us with the ability to sin? And don't give me that "free will" bollocks. No matter how much I will it, I will never be able to fly unassisted. Why not the same with sin?


[Again, yr theology - you see hell as a threat, which isn't what I believe at all.

It is a threat! You say that God created the universe, which includes Hell. He therefore set things up so that not accepting Christ gets one into Hell. It's like if I offered you the "choice" of being horribly tortured for the rest of your life or kissing my ass for the rest of your life.


How is society and yr victims to know what yr moral crimes are?

Victims, witnesses, that kind of stuff.


How do you inform them Noxion?

That's up to my conscience. I may murder someone and then confess the deed, or I may hide the evidence. Not having murdered anyone I would not know how I would react.


And who decides what they were?

Society decides, these days via law.


And who decides the punishment?

The courts.


What if you commit a moral crime and you don't notice it? Or forget to report it to whomever you apparently report these things to?

The fuck? Are you saying I could murder or rape someone without noticing it? I suppose I could accidently steal something from someone, in which case I would seek to return whatever it was I stole, and apologise.


Then you wouldn't be punished - yet toy say you believe moral crimes ought to be punished.

They ought to be, yes. But sometimes the bad guys get away with it. Life isn't perfect, and it's utterly pointless and counter-productive to imagine that some cosmic Judge in the sky is going to make everything better at the end of days.


Such a strabge theology! What do you call it? A deity takes the rap so perps can kiss his ass!

Fanciful. But what does nthis have to do with me?

Because it is Christianity in a nutshell, stripped of all it's high-falutin' theological gabble.


Since the story is just a story to make a point I don't think we can comment on how this fictitious judge treated others.

In which case the story is bunk.


Again, you would never take bail money, and you yourself would never help a loved one because they MUST suffer for their crimes - this is what you believe right?

I don't believe that people "must suffer" - that is an unwarranted extrapolation on your part. I spoke not just of punishment (which may or may not involve suffering) but also of rehabilitation and recompense.

Bail isn't a punishment, it's an incentive not to run away. Would I pay a friend's bail? That depends entirely on circumstances. Rather than being an inflexible moral absolutist, I judge each situation on its merits.


Ok Noxion I'll spell it out for you - the Judge was a METAPHOR for God and the daughter was a METAPHOR for the sinner.

There wasn't any real judge etc

Then it was a shitty metaphor. It seems you Christians have no shortage of shitty metaphors.


The Christian doesn't think his actual dad will judge him.

Anyway, IF you believe people ought to be punished moral crimes then who decides that? The offender> Society? And how do they know what the moral crimes are?

The usual way deeds are decided to be crimes and found out about.


If one is willing to undergo transformation and is truly repentant, Christ will take the rap.
IF you disagree and what to take the punishment on yrself, then that fine too.

But the "crimes" as defined by Christianity are bullshit, the punishment is massively out of proportion (eternal damnation) to the effects of the "crimes", and it is manifestly unjust to punish someone for crimes they have not committed, even if Christ is willing to take the punishment. That does not change the fact that he did not do it.


Right, to be perfectly just one would have to know a person's sincerity, and only God can really know what's in a persons mind.
So a person can say he repents, but God would know the truth.

But God isn't willing to tell the rest of us if those who claim to be washed in the blood of the Lamb are sincere or not.


I don't know how sincerity can be demonstrated in this world - I've been to prison. Its a revolving door.

I'm skeptical about the rehabilitative effects, if any, of prison. But that is beside the point; there are potentially a huge number of ways of demonstrating one's sincerity, but there are no ways of reading people's minds.

[spiltteeth]

Then you have failed to understand. I really cannot make it any simpler.



It's a materialist understanding of history. Obviously as someone who believes in a god that understanding is totally alien to you. But it is the pre-requisite of Marxism and class struggle, so without it you're in trouble. Of course, you can believe whatever you want.



Something is only immoral insofar as I say so in accordance with my life, not that there is an absolute morality which I command.

I believe it is "immoral" to rape someone and I would use violence to enforce that "moral". I would wager that many other people share the same view, yet there are people who may not consider it immoral to rape someone and may use violence to rape. Who is "right" and who is "wrong". That's for you to decide. Do you think rape is immoral?



You have to believe in your own capacity to make choices. You have to believe in your abilities to determine what is "right" or "wrong".



I'm sorry, but can you show me where I have talked about people as "value"?



Isn't that self-evident? Do I really need to explain to you why I am more "moral" than a Nazi?



What you have done here is extrapolated my position. You have done this several times now, despite my having responded.

Saying that there are no "moral absolutes" is not the same as saying Nazi's are morally obligated to commit genocide. That's just ridiculous.



There is nothing more authoritative than that. It is up to the collective will of "the people" to ensure that Nazi's are put in their place. It is the obligation of those people who believe Nazism is to be wrong, to ensure that it doesn't succeed.

In short, we as human beings are responsible.



No, I don't concede that as I have plainly explained.



Except for the fact that I didn't create the moral understanding that rape is "morally wrong". Society did and I have simply agreed.



I really don't understand what's going on here. Are you seriously telling me that I haven't responded to this?



As far as I am concerned there is a qualitative difference. I believe that because I am an anarchist. Because I believe in freedom and social equality.

I have reasoned this through my own experiences, through the experiences of others and through my interaction with the material world.

That is your answer.



You're making no sense any more. Who are you even talking to any more?



It seems to me that you're having an intellectual breakdown. Nothing you're saying makes sense. It's just repetitive jibberish and serves no purpose as far as this discussion goes.

I have consistently addressed your arguments and you have responded with lots of the same babble that we started with. I have adequately positioned my argument.

It's unfortunate that you either can't or won't understand it.

It's a shame you cannot justify your own beliefs, you simply say its what I've decided, thats what I understand, its obvious I'm more moral than a Nazi, I'm right because I say so and because society says so.

Unfortunately I see no scientific evidence supporting yr view, an intellectually responsible person would abandon it or admit its incoherence as virtual all atheist philosophers have.

You give no justification for yr reasoning - society says its immoral or moral, I go along with it.

Ok why? Because you "decided" to and thats what yr understanding tells you. Yet you can't share this secret information with the rest of us!

I've studied moral philosophy extensively, I fully understand you.

I understand you have no proof why it's a good thing to follow societies customs, or it's a good thing to do what people want, or that a peaceful free society is better than a despotic one, or that happy people are better then enslaved people.

[danyboy27]

It's a shame you cannot justify your own beliefs, you simply say its what I've decided, thats what I understand, its obvious I'm more moral than a Nazi, I'm right because I say so and because society says so.

Unfortunately I see no scientific evidence supporting yr view, an intellectually responsible person would abandon it or admit its incoherence as virtual all atheist philosophers have.

You give no justification for yr reasoning - society says its immoral or moral, I go along with it.

Ok why? Because you "decided" to and thats what yr understanding tells you. Yet you can't share this secret information with the rest of us!

I've studied moral philosophy extensively, I fully understand you.

I understand you have no proof why it's a good thing to follow societies customs, or it's a good thing to do what people want, or that a peaceful free society is better than a despotic one, or that happy people are better then enslaved people.

well, subjectively, he does in a way, because the values he defending made him what he is today, protected his childhood and his parent, and allowed to him and his family to thrive undisturbed by pillage, murder and rape, so subjectively he can claim his values are subjectively better without problems.

just like you can subjectively claim that your values are better than our beccause you where born again and that you seen the christ.

[spiltteeth]

=NoXion;1741001]My point is that you're still saying "worship Christ or God will make you suffer", just using different words. That's a threat.

When a doctor tells you to take medicine or you will be in intense pain, do you consider it a threat?


I don't believe, and I'm insulted that you have the presumption to tell me my beliefs. Like most Christians you simply cannot countenance the fact that there are people out there who have no room in their worldview for God.

Well, a person unconsciously believes if they believe in the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past)

These are only explicable if the God in the Bible exists.

The only way to make sense of these 2 (and many more) is if the atheist builds his world-view on a Christian understanding of the world.


God presumably knows if someone is going to "repent" or otherwise come to regret their crimes, right? So why do we not see some people being sent to Hell as soon as they commit their crimes? In fact, why did God create us with the ability to sin? And don't give me that "free will" bollocks. No matter how much I will it, I will never be able to fly unassisted. Why not the same with sin?

I don't know. There are apologetic answers of course. I assume this life is a learning process, we sin to be made whole, there may not be any other way around it.


It is a threat! You say that God created the universe, which includes Hell. He therefore set things up so that not accepting Christ gets one into Hell. It's like if I offered you the "choice" of being horribly tortured for the rest of your life or kissing my ass for the rest of your life.

I'm afraid IF God forced you into Heaven it would be just as much a torture for you, it sounds like you don't want to be with God.


Victims, witnesses, that kind of stuff.



That's up to my conscience. I may murder someone and then confess the deed, or I may hide the evidence. Not having murdered anyone I would not know how I would react.



Society decides, these days via law.



The courts.

Well I'm glad you try to be a law abiding citizen and have great faith in the system!
But we are talking about moral crimes. For instance, nonone will arrest me if I walk by a starving homeless man with pockets flush with surplus cash.

No one will arrest me if I betray my best friend, or do wrong by my mother.


The fuck? Are you saying I could murder or rape someone without noticing it? I suppose I could accidently steal something from someone, in which case I would seek to return whatever it was I stole, and apologise.

Apologize! But that wouldn't be punishment! Which you were very adamant that girl receive for speeding.

Obviously if you ever sped you would go turn yourself in.

But again, we're talking about moral laws, lying, being unjust, screwing other people over etc


They ought to be, yes. But sometimes the bad guys get away with it. Life isn't perfect, and it's utterly pointless and counter-productive to imagine that some cosmic Judge in the sky is going to make everything better at the end of days.

It doesn't matter if its 'counter=productive' (to what? I thought life had no objective point or goal?)

The 2 questions were :

1) Do you think moral crimes ought to be punished?
2) Do you think you have ever committed a moral crime?

Thats up to you. You can say no to both.
I say yes to both and feel I'm in trouble because I don't even know all the times I've acted like an asshole and there is no earthly court to judge such a thing.


Because it is Christianity in a nutshell, stripped of all it's high-falutin' theological gabble.

That makes you a great theologian!


In which case the story is bunk.

Yes, I didn't think anyone would - just yes.


I don't believe that people "must suffer" - that is an unwarranted extrapolation on your part. I spoke not just of punishment (which may or may not involve suffering) but also of rehabilitation and recompense.

What type of punishment would not contain suffering?


Bail isn't a punishment, it's an incentive not to run away. Would I pay a friend's bail? That depends entirely on circumstances. Rather than being an inflexible moral absolutist, I judge each situation on its merits.

A fine then. You seem to miss the point.


Then it was a shitty metaphor. It seems you Christians have no shortage of shitty metaphors.



The usual way deeds are decided to be crimes and found out about.

The usual ways can never detect the moral crimes of an individual.


But the "crimes" as defined by Christianity are bullshit, the punishment is massively out of proportion (eternal damnation) to the effects of the "crimes", and it is manifestly unjust to punish someone for crimes they have not committed, even if Christ is willing to take the punishment. That does not change the fact that he did not do it.

We believe that Hell probably is not eternal, as in the New Testament, many times it is said that it is God's will that everyone will be saved. The view of a soul burning forever in Hell, is something more typical of the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox one. But there is disagreement.

Anyway, Christ will pay the fine if one asks Him too, BUT if you disagree and wish to pay it yrself go ahead.


But God isn't willing to tell the rest of us if those who claim to be washed in the blood of the Lamb are sincere or not.

true


I'm skeptical about the rehabilitative effects, if any, of prison. But that is beside the point; there are potentially a huge number of ways of demonstrating one's sincerity, but there are no ways of reading people's minds.

If you believe you've committed moral crimes and they ought to be punished, THEN it would take a neutral objective perfectly just being who could read yr mind and gage yr sincerity.

[spiltteeth]

well, subjectively, he does in a way, because the values he defending made him what he is today, protected his childhood and his parent, and allowed to him and his family to thrive undisturbed by pillage, murder and rape, so subjectively he can claim his values are subjectively better without problems.

just like you can subjectively claim that your values are better than our beccause you where born again and that you seen the christ.

I really don't think my values are better. I have pretty much the exact same values.

I think you and Anarchist Tension are more morally correct -objectively- then a Nazi.
I think you both are righteously fighting for the Good - which is freedom, justice, natural rights

A Nazi is just as objectively wrong as a man who thinks 2+2=5.

Anyway, its possible to protect ones family from rape, while committing rape oneself.

Again, I think it all boils down to natural rights - are people objectively valuable.

You can say it's morally good to create a free society because thats what people want - but why should I care what people want? Or that they are free?

Anarchist tension can't answer that, but as a morally good person I bet he lives it.

My answer is because they are intrinsically objectively valuable.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's a shame you cannot justify your own beliefs

I have justified them.


you simply say its what I've decided, thats what I understand, its obvious I'm more moral than a Nazi, I'm right because I say so and because society says so.Well, there's more to it than that. If you look at the quote from Marx, it answers more clearly these questions.


Unfortunately I see no scientific evidence supporting yr view, an intellectually responsible person would abandon it or admit its incoherence as virtual all atheist philosophers have.But the views I have positioned are those positioned by Karl Marx...


give no justification for yr reasoning - society says its immoral or moral, I go along with it.You're babbling again.


Ok why? Because you "decided" to and thats what yr understanding tells you. Yet you can't share this secret information with the rest of us!Yes, because I decided. It's really very simple to understand.


I've studied moral philosophy extensively, I fully understand you.The problem here is that you're purposefully trying to complicate this issue in order for you to cling onto your beliefs. Beliefs that you clearly can't face being wrong about.

This is the tragic nature of believing in god. I feel sorry for you.


I understand you have no proof why it's a good thing to follow societies customs, or it's a good thing to do what people want, or that a peaceful free society is better than a despotic one, or that happy people are better then enslaved people.That's because there is no "proof". There's only what we understand and come to believe through our interaction with the material world. "Morals" exist because we make them exist.

You have to make these decisions by yourself. I know it's scary, but you can do it.

[The Feral Underclass]

well, subjectively, he does in a way, because the values he defending made him what he is today, protected his childhood and his parent, and allowed to him and his family to thrive undisturbed by pillage, murder and rape, so subjectively he can claim his values are subjectively better without problems.

just like you can subjectively claim that your values are better than our beccause you where born again and that you seen the christ.

I wouldn't even bother trying. I'm certainly not going to any more, it's totally futile. The problem with people like Spiltteeth is that their beliefs are impenetrable. He won't develop this argument because he faces having to be wrong. That's why he just keeps repeating himself. It's the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA".

This is the nature of religious fanaticism.

[spiltteeth]

The Anarchist Tension;1741352]I have justified them.

No, you haven't justifies why you follow the dictates of your cultural conditioning; or why one culture conditioning is superior to another.


Well, there's more to it than that. If you look at the quote from Marx, it answers more clearly these questions.

Marx's quote explains why you have the morals you do, and why a Nazi has the morals he daoes' Not why one is superior to the other.


But the views I have positioned are those positioned by Karl Marx...

You're babbling again.

Yes, because I decided. It's really very simple to understand.

I understand. You decided. I also decided. The Nazi also decided. The rapist also decided. We all decided.
Now, what makes yr decision more right than a Nazi's?

Upon what should we (or you) base these decisions and why? Our conditioning? Why follow that?


The problem here is that you're purposefully trying to complicate this issue in order for you to cling onto your beliefs. Beliefs that you clearly can't face being wrong about.

I've quoted several atheists who also agree with me that morals are objective.

I will say a third time - all my morals I decided upon BEFORE my belief in God, when I was an atheist.


This is the tragic nature of believing in god. I feel sorry for you.

See above. I keep saying it is IRRELEVANT if one believes in God or not.


That's because there is no "proof". There's only what we understand and come to believe through our interaction with the material world. "Morals" exist because we make them exist.

Ok. And if a Nazi reaches a different conclusion he is perfectly morally justified to

We know this because you cannot tell us your secret why you are more moral then a Nazi.
Why its better to have a harmonious free society that people want rather than a despotic one.


You have to make these decisions by yourself. I know it's scary, but you can do it.[/QUOTE]

But I have - yrs ago. Before I believed ion any God. I suppose you keep missing the point.

You keep telling me HOW YOU CAME TO YOUR MORALS - but, for a third time, that is not the question -

Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not?

I think you answer yes.

Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation?

I think you say no.

Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest?

You have no answer. You can't even tell us the foundations for the reasons you've given.

[spiltteeth]

I wouldn't even bother trying. I'm certainly not going to any more, it's totally futile. The problem with people like Spiltteeth is that their beliefs are impenetrable. He won't develop this argument because he faces having to be wrong. That's why he just keeps repeating himself. It's the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA".

This is the nature of religious fanaticism.

Indeed, don't ask him why he has superior morals than a Nazi = he can't tell you.

Read Hume, Sartre, Russell, and all the other honest atheists who admit they have no justification for there morals.


Moral values are either just expressions of personal taste or the by-products of socio-biological evolution and conditioning.
Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of Anarchist Tension? The ever changing morals of society? Why listen to them?

Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views
"incredible." "I do not know the solution," he confessed."

Unlike Anarchist Tension, I can actually give reason why he, and you and I, are superior to Nazis.

A real fanatic has no answers, and you can see Anarchist Tension refuses to answer :

Isn't that self-evident? Do I really need to explain to you why I am more "moral" than a Nazi?

This is the hallmark of defeat and concession.

If he answers, "for the sake of social coherence," one may legitimately ask why I should sacrifice my self-interest for the sake of social coherence?

The only answer the relativist can give is that social coherence is in my self-interest—but the problem with this answer is that self-interest and the interest of the herd do not always coincide.

Besides, if (out of self-interest) I do care about social coherence, the totalitarian option is always open to me.

I rationally explore the consequences of his beliefs.
Unlike him. So, which one of us is the fanatic?

[danyboy27]

why your values are objectively better than the nazi, spliteeth?

[spiltteeth]

why your values are objectively better than the nazi, spliteeth?

I think your values, mine and A.T. are ALL better then a Nazi's.

I think they are valid independently of our apprehension of them, there is no proof or argument to believe 2+2=4. It is an axiom. A self-evident truth.

It is also self-evidently true that it is always wrong to torture a child for fun, regardless of what your culture or society tells you.

As the Atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse says,

“The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5.”

People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.

So an atheist can be just as moral, or in alot of cases much MORE moral, than a theist.
You don;t need to believe in God to clearly perceive these moral absolutes.

So the question is - what is the foundation?

Exactly like the laws of logic, it must be transcendent (not dependent on what some person or society says), unchanging, and universal.

Many atheists, Camus, Sartre, Hume, Bertrund Russell simply say they cannot account for it.

I have heard other atheist answers as to this transcendent source, the most impressive being from Walter Sinnott Armstrong.

But I'm a theist.

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God.

God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured.
God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.”
He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

However, as I say, belief in God has nothing to do with perceiving these moral laws, anymore than it does with perceiving the laws of logic.

[Klaatu]

Splitteeth, I wish to ask a question, see if you agree.

I feel as though "God" is actually "Mother Nature." same thing, just a different word.

For example, a car is an automobile. A man is a human. Therefore, god is nature.

God did not "create" nature, because god IS nature.

Do you accept this idea?

[spiltteeth]

Splitteeth, I wish to ask a question, see if you agree.

I feel as though "God" is actually "Mother Nature." same thing, just a different word.

For example, a car is an automobile. A man is a human. Therefore, god is nature.

God did not "create" nature, because god IS nature.

Do you accept this idea?

No, I don't although I do respect such a view. I disagree on 3 grounds, one scientific, one philosophical, and one moral.

I think yr talking about some kind of pantheism.

1) First, philosophically, a person would have to affirm that everything is 'God.' The child rapist is God. Hitler is God. Excrement is God. Cancer is God etc

I see no reason to worship such things or personalize impersonal 'nature' as 'mother nature.'

Also, nature conforms to certain laws - where did these laws come from? What created nature then?

2) So secondly, A huge problem with pantheism is that it cannot account for the existence of the universe.

The universe is not infinitely old. It had a beginning.
This would mean that God also had a beginning, but how can something bring itself into existence?
This is impossible, so this leaves us with the question of where God and the universe came from.
Pantheism cannot answer this question and it naturally leads to absurdities.

The cause of the universe is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself.

3) Thirdly, since we're talking about morality, pantheism claims that reality is ultimately impersonal and non-moral.

But even pantheists pass moral judgments on others.
They have fought for stricter anti-pollution legislation and campaigned for animal rights.
Pantheists must explain where intelligence and morality come from. Could intelligence and morality have been caused by a non-intelligent and non-moral being?

I think its more probable that the Ultimate Cause of intelligence and morality must Himself be an intelligent and moral Being.

What do you think?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

When a doctor tells you to take medicine or you will be in intense pain, do you consider it a threat?

No, because the doctor did not create the conditions which could lead to me experiencing pain. You cannot say the same thing for God, who supposedly created the universe, including Hell.


Well, a person unconsciously believes if they believe in the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature (that the future will be like the past)

These are only explicable if the God in the Bible exists.

The only way to make sense of these 2 (and many more) is if the atheist builds his world-view on a Christian understanding of the world.

Why should these things be explicated? Isn't it enough to see that they exist, and admit our ignorance otherwise, rather than trying to claim that we know the Ultimate Answer?


I don't know. There are apologetic answers of course. I assume this life is a learning process, we sin to be made whole, there may not be any other way around it.

It's all crap anyway. The existence of suffering and "sin" make a hell of a lot more sense when one realises that humans are nothing special beyond being a particularly smart (allegedly) species of ape that evolved like all the others.


I'm afraid IF God forced you into Heaven it would be just as much a torture for you, it sounds like you don't want to be with God.

So I get the choice between suffering the presence of a bunch of pious stuffed shirts or suffering alongside my fellow apostates in Hell. Marvellous - not!


Well I'm glad you try to be a law abiding citizen and have great faith in the system!
But we are talking about moral crimes. For instance, nonone will arrest me if I walk by a starving homeless man with pockets flush with surplus cash.

That's because society is not just enough, and that's why we need revolutionaries and enlightened workers, not priests and theologians, to fix that.


No one will arrest me if I betray my best friend, or do wrong by my mother.

No, but you will have revealed yourself to be a rotten human being who nobody in their right mind would associate with. We are social creatures, so the ostracism that comes with being anti-social is it's own punishment.


Apologize! But that wouldn't be punishment! Which you were very adamant that girl receive for speeding.

I also said I would give the item back! That is recompense, which I mentioned alongside punishment. I also said that if the girl was unable to pay the fine then some alternative should have been arranged by the court. That's not the same thing as being let off.


Obviously if you ever sped you would go turn yourself in.

I don't drive.


But again, we're talking about moral laws, lying, being unjust, screwing other people over etc

You don't need God in order to know how to be a pleasant human being. People don't like being cheated or betrayed, therefore it follows that one shouldn't mistreat others because it means that people will not like you and therefore will be more willing to mistreat you.


It doesn't matter if its 'counter=productive' (to what? I thought life had no objective point or goal?)

It is counter-productive to serving justice.


The 2 questions were :

1) Do you think moral crimes ought to be punished?

Depends on what you judge to be a "moral crime", since you're asking. I certainly don't think looking at a women in lust is anything that anyone should be bothered with.


2) Do you think you have ever committed a moral crime?

What a stupid question to ask. You might as well ask if I am a human being.


Thats up to you. You can say no to both.
I say yes to both and feel I'm in trouble because I don't even know all the times I've acted like an asshole and there is no earthly court to judge such a thing.

You may find it troubling, and that's a good thing, because it indicates you have a conscience. But if you find your conscience is really that troubled, then I would say that actually going out and doing good deeds would be far more helpful to yourself and socially useful than making a song a dance about how you're "SAAAAAAAAAVED BY JEEEEEBUS!".


What type of punishment would not contain suffering?

Boring but socially useful work.


The usual ways can never detect the moral crimes of an individual.

What the hell kind of crimes are these then? The kind of crimes that leave no victims, no forensic evidence and no damage to anyone's possessions do not sound like crimes at all to me.


We believe that Hell probably is not eternal, as in the New Testament, many times it is said that it is God's will that everyone will be saved. The view of a soul burning forever in Hell, is something more typical of the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox one. But there is disagreement.

So you only get thrown into the torture chamber for an indefinate (but finite) period? I suppose that's all right then! :rolleyes:


Anyway, Christ will pay the fine if one asks Him too, BUT if you disagree and wish to pay it yrself go ahead.

You're still avoiding the fact that "Christ" is innocent of anything except what he himself has done.


If you believe you've committed moral crimes and they ought to be punished, THEN it would take a neutral objective perfectly just being who could read yr mind and gage yr sincerity.

Sincerity can be demonstrated through one's actions. Mind-reading is not necessary.

[spiltteeth]

=NoXion;1742812]No, because the doctor did not create the conditions which could lead to me experiencing pain. You cannot say the same thing for God, who supposedly created the universe, including Hell.

God did not create the conditions that put people in hell, you gotta commit moral crimes and rebel etc


Why should these things be explicated? Isn't it enough to see that they exist, and admit our ignorance otherwise, rather than trying to claim that we know the Ultimate Answer?

We need not claim we know an ultimate answer to explain the laws of logic.

Why should we explicate them? To see if we ought to follow them. To see if they are true.

One of my favorite writers WS Burroughs had a saying "Exterminate all rationality"


It's all crap anyway. The existence of suffering and "sin" make a hell of a lot more sense when one realises that humans are nothing special beyond being a particularly smart (allegedly) species of ape that evolved like all the others.

I think that makes all morals nonsensical.
On this view what is so special about human beings?
They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.
Some action, say, rape, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is nothing really wrong about committing rape.


So I get the choice between suffering the presence of a bunch of pious stuffed shirts or suffering alongside my fellow apostates in Hell. Marvellous - not!

Thats not the Christian view, heaven is not full of good people, but repentant ones willing to be made anew.


That's because society is not just enough, and that's why we need revolutionaries and enlightened workers, not priests and theologians, to fix that.

No, but you will have revealed yourself to be a rotten human being who nobody in their right mind would associate with. We are social creatures, so the ostracism that comes with being anti-social is it's own punishment.

There are plenty of people who don't care about that at all, its all about money and 'ostracism' is no punishment at all.

But if it is then - thats the punishment.


I also said I would give the item back! That is recompense, which I mentioned alongside punishment. I also said that if the girl was unable to pay the fine then some alternative should have been arranged by the court. That's not the same thing as being let off.

Right, along side punishment, you would still seek punishment though.


You don't need God in order to know how to be a pleasant human being. People don't like being cheated or betrayed, therefore it follows that one shouldn't mistreat others because it means that people will not like you and therefore will be more willing to mistreat you.

I don't think you do need God to be a good, morally just human being.


Depends on what you judge to be a "moral crime", since you're asking. I certainly don't think looking at a women in lust is anything that anyone should be bothered with.

I'm not telling you what to think or what moral crimes are, in yr opinion have you committed what you deem as moral crimes.


What a stupid question to ask. You might as well ask if I am a human being.

Well, IF you ay yes then ask yrslef if moral crimes ought to be punished? If yes to that second answer then if follows you ought to be punished.
But no court could ever assess yr moral crimes, only some kind of God could do that.


You may find it troubling, and that's a good thing, because it indicates you have a conscience. But if you find your conscience is really that troubled, then I would say that actually going out and doing good deeds would be far more helpful to yourself and socially useful than making a song a dance about how you're "SAAAAAAAAAVED BY JEEEEEBUS!".

I agree. But the question is do you think moral crimes ought to be punished.


Boring but socially useful work.

Ok, if you consider boredom a punishment then fine, perhaps hell will have a spot were its really boring and yr forced against yr will ti help people.


What the hell kind of crimes are these then? The kind of crimes that leave no victims, no forensic evidence and no damage to anyone's possessions do not sound like crimes at all to me.

Moral crimes.
There have been times when friends really needed me but I was too busy to notice.
Once my mother broke her shoulder and she could have used help and support but I was too busty doing my own thing.
I've walked by homeless men with money in my pocket and spent it on stupid shit.
What is someone screws there best friend girl?
Lies.

I'm not telling you these are moral crimes, to ME they are, but thats not the point.


So you only get thrown into the torture chamber for an indefinate (but finite) period? I suppose that's all right then! :rolleyes:

So you DON'T think moral crimes ought to be punished?


You're still avoiding the fact that "Christ" is innocent of anything except what he himself has done.

Thats true. That is the definition of mercy - getting less than you deserve.

But how can a perfectly just and righteous God give less than what you deserve? If He Himself takes on the punishment ...


Sincerity can be demonstrated through one's actions. Mind-reading is not necessary.

Yea right! How many people play the innocent dove in jail, then when they get out rape and kill again - more importantly how many don't but WOULD have if they got the chance but the opportunity never came up or they died before getting the chance etc

[The Feral Underclass]

Spiltteeth personifies the reasoning for anti-theism.

Picture (http://farouqnimer.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/adultswithimaginaryfriends12.jpg)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God did not create the conditions that put people in hell, you gotta commit moral crimes and rebel etc

Bullshit. Supposedly, he created the universe, which includes Hell, and humans capable of sinning and rebelling.


We need not claim we know an ultimate answer to explain the laws of logic.

Why should we explicate them? To see if we ought to follow them. To see if they are true.

You don't need an explanation of the origins of logic in order to use it, any more than you need an explanation on the origins of a motor vehicle to drive it.


One of my favorite writers WS Burroughs had a saying "Exterminate all rationality"

Why am I not surprised?


I think that makes all morals nonsensical.
On this view what is so special about human beings?
They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.
Some action, say, rape, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is nothing really wrong about committing rape.

Why should there be? Isn't it enough to realise that rape is unpleasant for the victim and deleterious to society, and thus cultivate a society that punishes rapists?


Thats not the Christian view, heaven is not full of good people, but repentant ones willing to be made anew.

Same difference.


There are plenty of people who don't care about that at all, its all about money and 'ostracism' is no punishment at all.

But if it is then - thats the punishment.

I suppose money can buy you "friends", but they're really just parasites.


Right, along side punishment, you would still seek punishment though.

What would the point of that be? I would have returned the mistakenly taken item and apologised, and most people would leave it at that, at least in my experience because most people are actually fairly decent.


I don't think you do need God to be a good, morally just human being.

Then God is superfluous.


I'm not telling you what to think or what moral crimes are, in yr opinion have you committed what you deem as moral crimes.

Well, IF you ay yes then ask yrslef if moral crimes ought to be punished? If yes to that second answer then if follows you ought to be punished.
But no court could ever assess yr moral crimes, only some kind of God could do that.

Lucky escape for me, eh?


I agree. But the question is do you think moral crimes ought to be punished.

They ought to be, but that's not the same thing as saying they will.


Ok, if you consider boredom a punishment then fine, perhaps hell will have a spot were its really boring and yr forced against yr will ti help people.

And perhaps when I die I will go to a heaven of my choosing. It's a fucking useless exercise in speculation; justice in this world is what we should be concentrating on.


Moral crimes.
There have been times when friends really needed me but I was too busy to notice.
Once my mother broke her shoulder and she could have used help and support but I was too busty doing my own thing.
I've walked by homeless men with money in my pocket and spent it on stupid shit.
What is someone screws there best friend girl?
Lies.

I'm not telling you these are moral crimes, to ME they are, but thats not the point.

What, you're all broken up because you're not perfect? Newsflash: NOBODY IS PERFECT! Everybody will do things that they will later come to regret and may hurt them still.

Why the hell should anyone be punished for being merely human?


So you DON'T think moral crimes ought to be punished?

I don't think torture is an appropriate punishment for anything.


Thats true. That is the definition of mercy - getting less than you deserve.

But how can a perfectly just and righteous God give less than what you deserve? If He Himself takes on the punishment ...

Utter bollocks. He could simply let you off, or give you a lesser punishment. Justice is not a zero-sum game.


Yea right! How many people play the innocent dove in jail, then when they get out rape and kill again - more importantly how many don't but WOULD have if they got the chance but the opportunity never came up or they died before getting the chance etc

It's hard to play the "innocent dove" in a prison environment - it's brutalising and demanding, which is why going to prison shortens your lifespan and why I am against prison.

I find it disturbing that you focus on punishments that are retributive and custodial.

[spiltteeth]

Spiltteeth personifies the reasoning for anti-theism.

Picture (http://farouqnimer.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/adultswithimaginaryfriends12.jpg)

You seem to personify the unreason of anti=theism with all your secrets of why your more moral than a Nazi and why your moral decisions are more moral than a person who works against what the majority want and why, if its all relative, you have right to enforce your personal decisions about morals on a Nazi...

Interesting you can't point out the unreason....another secret!

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1743866]Bullshit. Supposedly, he created the universe, which includes Hell, and humans capable of sinning and rebelling.

Yea but people put themselves there, not because they sin, but because they don't repent.


You don't need an explanation of the origins of logic in order to use it, any more than you need an explanation on the origins of a motor vehicle to drive it.

No you don't. Every-time you use logic though you are proving the existence of the God of the Bible, weather you know it or not.


Why am I not surprised?

What've you got against Burroughs!


Why should there be? Isn't it enough to realise that rape is unpleasant for the victim and deleterious to society, and thus cultivate a society that punishes rapists?

No, because the Indian societies that do practice rape of little 10 yr old girls have had an ordered society for thousands of yrs and see no reason they should care if it causes harm or not.


What would the point of that be? I would have returned the mistakenly taken item and apologised, and most people would leave it at that, at least in my experience because most people are actually fairly decent.

Your the one who said crimes deserve punishment along side reparation, not me.

I simply asked if a person ought to be punished for moral crimes.


Then God is superfluous.

You need not believe in Him, but obviously these morals must be grounded in some transcendent source, if the source doesn't exist then neither do universal morals.

But to live as a good person - you don't need to believe in God at all. I have many atheist friends far more moral than I.


Lucky escape for me, eh?

Not unless you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished...


They ought to be, but that's not the same thing as saying they will.

Thats true.


And perhaps when I die I will go to a heaven of my choosing. It's a fucking useless exercise in speculation; justice in this world is what we should be concentrating on.

Well, if you have a strong moral intuition that moral crimes ought to be punished, one ought to allow the possibility that they WILL be punished.

Anyway, I'm just answering you about God's justice from the Christian perspective.


What, you're all broken up because you're not perfect? Newsflash: NOBODY IS PERFECT! Everybody will do things that they will later come to regret and may hurt them still.

Wll, God is perfect and His kingdom is perfect, so to get in....


Why the hell should anyone be punished for being merely human?

I asked you if someone ought to be punished for moral crimes.

Rape is a natural human thing that happens all the time. Should it be punished?

For just being human? No, noone should be punished and noone need be.


I don't think torture is an appropriate punishment for anything.

I beat a child molester while in prison. He suffered horribly and I felt it just.

Anyway the torture is more about being without God's love, or rather having God's love when you despise Him.


Utter bollocks. He could simply let you off, or give you a lesser punishment. Justice is not a zero-sum game.

That would not be justice, that would be mercy.

And God is willing to completely let you off, if you really repent.


It's hard to play the "innocent dove" in a prison environment - it's brutalising and demanding, which is why going to prison shortens your lifespan and why I am against prison.

I find it disturbing that you focus on punishments that are retributive and custodial.

I do. But God doesn't in my faith.

From that Wiki you quoted :


The Eastern Orthodox teach that both the elect and the lost enter into the presence of God after death, and that the elect experience this presence as light and rest, while the lost experience it as darkness and torment.

So its not being punished for breaking rules, but what feels like love to me, clearly seems tyrannical to you.

[The Feral Underclass]

You seem to personify the unreason of anti=theism with all your secrets of why your more moral than a Nazi and why your moral decisions are more moral than a person who works against what the majority want and why, if its all relative, you have right to enforce your personal decisions about morals on a Nazi...

Interesting you can't point out the unreason....another secret!

You're actually just an idiot, aren't you? Either that or you're just purposefully trying to provoke me.

Well, If you carry on with this deliberate provocation, I'm going to ban you.

[spiltteeth]

You're actually just an idiot, aren't you? Either that or you're just purposefully trying to provoke me.

Well, If you carry on with this deliberate provocation, I'm going to ban you.

You call me an idiot - then ask me not to be 'provocative'!:laugh:

I haven't said a bad word about you, I say you can't tell us why your better than a Nazi, which is true, then I go on to tell dannyboy WHY you are indeed more righteous and more morally correct than a Nazi!

But how do you decide that banning me is the right thing to do....?

[danyboy27]

this whole thing is going into circle for a while now.

but its simple really, theist think their standard of values are righteous beccause they are implented worldwide by some god.

non-theist dont believe in god, so they agree that Humanist values are the result of thousand of year of human interractions.

Spliteeth, i find your religion fetish for punishement pretty disturbing.

[The Feral Underclass]

I say you can't tell us why your better than a Nazi

Why can't I?

[spiltteeth]

this whole thing is going into circle for a while now.

but its simple really, theist think their standard of values are righteous beccause they are implented worldwide by some god.

non-theist dont believe in god, so they agree that Humanist values are the result of thousand of year of human interractions.

Spliteeth, i find your religion fetish for punishement pretty disturbing.

I don't think I have a fetish for it. It is disturbing.

If you ask yourself, do moral crimes deserve to be punished, if yes then you can understand it at least.

But really there is no hell separate from heaven and God does not really punish.

I'm an orthodox Christian, the idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church.

While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places.
This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife.
In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations.
The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy.
In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the God.

Experiencing God's presence in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible.

[spiltteeth]

Why can't I?

Rather you won't :
me :
You give no reason why you consider yourself more moral than a Nazi.

you :

Isn't that self-evident? Do I really need to explain to you why I am more "moral" than a Nazi?

A nazi will give your exact same reasoning , "well, I decided, for me, that the world was better off with all those jewish peoples."

Or a rapist :
" I decided that it doesn't matter if I cause chaos and suffering, the good is whatever feels good to me"

You might say, "the moral thing is what brings justice to people etc" And I'll agree, but Why is following that principal more moral than a rapists principal? There's no objective truth in that statement.

Some people decide justice is good, others decide rape is good, one is not better than the other on this view etc

[The Feral Underclass]

Rather you won't

Why won't I?


A nazi will give your exact same reasoning , "well, I decided, for me, that the world was better off with all those jewish peoples."Can you explain to me how you've managed to get this from my questions?


You might say, "the moral thing is what brings justice to people etc" And I'll agree, but Why is following that principal more moral than a rapists principal?There is no reason why, only that we have chosen to believe it is, and that we would fight to defend that principle in the "real world" i.e. we'd use violence to prevent rape.


There's no objective truth in that statement.So? Why is that a problem?


Some people decide justice is good, others decide rape is good, one is not better than the other on this view etcBut that's reality. There's nothing you can do about it. I'm not making the decision. It's simply a fact.

Of course you can construct some imaginary entity that told you what to do. Clearly that's far better for you than to actually consider the world for yourself and make choices by yourself. But that is precisely the pervasive debilitating nature of superstition. It negates your desire, ability and willingness to think for yourself.

Unfortunately, there is no certainty to existence. That is why people construct these metaphysical views. That is why ideology is founded. That is why you believe in god. But just because we believe these things doens't mean there is some objective truth out there that we can attain. You probably find that terrifying, that's why you believe in god. But my view is that it's a liberating thing, rather than something to cause despair.

[danyboy27]

I don't think I have a fetish for it. It is disturbing.

If you ask yourself, do moral crimes deserve to be punished, if yes then you can understand it at least.

But really there is no hell separate from heaven and God does not really punish.

I'm an orthodox Christian, the idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church.

While Heaven and Hell are decidedly real, they are experiential conditions rather than physical places.
This is not the way traditional Western Christianity, Roman Catholic or Protestant, has envisioned the afterlife.
In Western thought Hell is a location, a place where God punishes the wicked, where they are cut off from God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet this concept occurs nowhere in the Bible.

While there is no question that according to the scriptures there is torment and "gnashing of teeth" for the wicked, and glorification for the righteous, and that this judgment comes from God, these destinies are not separate destinations.
The Bible indicates that everyone comes before God in the next life, and it is because of being in God's presence that they either suffer eternally, or experience eternal joy.
In other words, both the joy of heaven, and the torment of judgment, is caused by being eternally in the presence of the God.

Experiencing God's presence in glory or in torment, as Paradise or as Punishment, is the heaven and hell of the Bible.
well, i dont believe in vengeance, and i dont think punishing people is a form of justice.

punishement is evil, barbaric and downright stupid.

Take the child molester you hit in jail, do you think he have chosen this path to life? do you really thing a mentally ill individual deserve to be brutalised?

yes, he should be kept away from the general population, but punishing him wont change him, what will change him is psychological help.

If punishement would work, then the us would be the safest place in the world, and china the second.

i believe dangerous individual should be kept away to prevent innocent victims, but i dont believe punishing those individual will do something.

[spiltteeth]

=The Anarchist Tension;1744997]Why won't I?

I don't know, I assume there is no grounding to your morality other than arbitrary.


Can you explain to me how you've managed to get this from my questions?

Well, right below you say there is no reason why, simply that you've chosen to believe X.
I don't know how you choose, or how you decide one choice is better than another.
Everyone chooses, that does nothing to show one choice is better or more justified than another.


There is no reason why, only that we have chosen to believe it is, and that we would fight to defend that principle in the "real world" i.e. we'd use violence to prevent rape.

Ok, then there is no reason why raping someone is less morally good than helping someone.
You just choose to believe other wise. Why do you choose this? you say, no reason.

On the atheist view you may think that the holocaust was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good.

On this basis, a writer like Ayn Rand is absolutely correct to praise the virtues of selfishness. Live totally for self!
Indeed, it would be foolish to do anything else, for life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid.


So? Why is that a problem?

I guess its nice to know if the values we hold dear and guide our lives by are mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not;
If morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? How do we choose?

My point is atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of brotherhood.
Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood.
The two are logically incompatible.
Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent - he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom.
Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views
"incredible." "I do not know the solution," he confessed."
In his "Existentialism Is a Humanism," Sartre struggles vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely pre-established values and his urgent desire to affirm the value of human persons.
Like Russell, he could not live with the implications of his own denial of ethical absolutes.


But that's reality. There's nothing you can do about it. I'm not making the decision. It's simply a fact.

I'm not denying it! But there are sides, and its nice to know I'm on the right one, or else whats the point?
If there isn't a right side, then might as well choose what's in my personal self-interest...


Of course you can construct some imaginary entity that told you what to do. Clearly that's far better for you than to actually consider the world for yourself and make choices by yourself. But that is precisely the pervasive debilitating nature of superstition. It negates your desire, ability and willingness to think for yourself.

I haven't constructed an imaginary entity. I was forced to acknowledge that reality by rational thought.
Normally, I hate Christians, my political beliefs are opposite of most in my country, and I am even embarrassed by them.

My morals were chosen, as I assume yours were, after deep reflection and thought.

I came to the conclusion man is intrinsically morally valuable and therefore has natural rights. This is my foundation which necessitates a trancendetal grounding to be coherent.

But you say theres nothing special about humans. I'm horriified, as I assume you are, when I read that at camps like Dachau the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living humans. But why not? If God does not exist, there can be no reason to object to using people as human guinea pigs.

You chose your principals based on what? There's no reason, you say, that one is better than another.
I wonder why you chose to live for a harmonious free society instead of self-interest?

You say you have no reasons and then accuse me of not thinking! :confused:

Did you see that sea rescue where the guy sacrificed his life for a few drowning persons?
He chose to die for others he did not even know, to give up all the brief existence he would ever have—what for?
For the atheist there can be no reason, as you say.
And yet I assume you praise selfless action. Indeed, i'VE never find an atheist who lives consistently with his system.


Unfortunately, there is no certainty to existence. That is why people construct these metaphysical views. That is why ideology is founded. That is why you believe in god. But just because we believe these things doens't mean there is some objective truth out there that we can attain. You probably find that terrifying, that's why you believe in god. But my view is that it's a liberating thing, rather than something to cause despair.

I respect that view.
But again, I have rational reasons for my belief in God.
Furthermore, my Orthodox faith does not have plenty of answers- why is there suffering in the world? I don't know.
I'm always skeptical of people who say they have answers.

But I need SOMETHING to ground my decisions on IF I want to be rational and consistent.

IF one wishes to live unreasonably (with no reasons for there choices) then that is your privilege.

[spiltteeth]

well, i dont believe in vengeance, and i dont think punishing people is a form of justice.

punishement is evil, barbaric and downright stupid.

Take the child molester you hit in jail, do you think he have chosen this path to life? do you really thing a mentally ill individual deserve to be brutalised?

yes, he should be kept away from the general population, but punishing him wont change him, what will change him is psychological help.

If punishement would work, then the us would be the safest place in the world, and china the second.

i believe dangerous individual should be kept away to prevent innocent victims, but i dont believe punishing those individual will do something.

Well, you have some good points that I really can't answer. The beating I gave the guy did nothing so I think your right.

But I do not think a person who rapes etc is mentally ill at all. They can be of course, but in prison I played cards with rapists and child molesters and in all respects they seemed perfectly rational people.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't know, I assume there is no grounding to your morality other than arbitrary.

While that is perfectly true, it's not the reason for me not articulating precisely why I am more "morally principled" than a Nazi. If you really require me to answer that question, then there is something seriously wrong with your perspective.


I don't know how you choose, or how you decide one choice is better than another.Use your intellect.


Everyone chooses, that does nothing to show one choice is better or more justified than another.You demonstrate it by believing it.


Ok, then there is no reason why raping someone is less morally good than helping someone.We're going round in circles. As I've repeatedly said, there is no outside objective truth that makes this fact. But there are human beings that make it reality. We, the collective "good", who determine that rape is morally wrong are those that enforce that "morally correctness". We being humans.


You just choose to believe other wise. Why do you choose this? you say, no reason.No, I've not said that. I have come to believe this because I was raised by my mother to show compassion and love towards people, and I hold those principles to be sacrosanct. Forcing yourself on someone is not compassionate or loving, it is violent and hateful and takes away someone's autonomy and leaves them in fear and despair. Those things are the opposite of what I want to see. I ultimately don't want to hurt any one. That's why I have chosen.


On the atheist view you may think that the holocaust was wrong, but your opinion has no more validity than that of the Nazi war criminal who thought it was good. We give it value. The collective world gives it value. That's why we have to fight Nazism, because otherwise their "morally values" might succeed.


On this basis, a writer like Ayn Rand is absolutely correct to praise the virtues of selfishness. Live totally for self!I don't agree that she is correct though, because I have a different understanding of the world.


Indeed, it would be foolish to do anything else, for life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person would be stupid. Well then do that if that's what you choose.


I guess its nice to know if the values we hold dear and guide our lives by are mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not;
If morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? How do we choose?Use your intellect. Use your experiences and ability to judge. Use your understanding of compassion and love.

What's so complicated about it?


My point is atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of brotherhood.
Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood.
The two are logically incompatible. Why is that true?


In his "Existentialism Is a Humanism," Sartre struggles vainly to elude the contradiction between his denial of divinely pre-established values and his urgent desire to affirm the value of human persons.I don't find that.


I'm not denying it! But there are sides, and its nice to know I'm on the right one, or else whats the point? This is the basis of your neurosis.

You just want to be "right", no matter what and you can't begin to believe that being "right" is something that you have to decide, otherwise if you're not told what is right then there's just "no point".

It's like turning up at a cinema to watch a film, five minutes after it's started shouting: "Oh there's absolutely no point in watching the film now, it's just totally ruined, we might as well kill ourselves"

Just calm down. There are a variety of "points" to being good, you have to discover them and believe in them. It's your responsibility. Just because there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean that you have to find yourself in some existential despair.

Get a grip.


If there isn't a right side, then might as well choose what's in my personal self-interest...Why does that follow?


I haven't constructed an imaginary entity. I was forced to acknowledge that reality by rational thought.No. That's not what's happened.


My morals were chosen, as I assume yours were, after deep reflection and thought.:confused:

You just asked me "how do you choose?"


I came to the conclusion man is intrinsically morally valuable and therefore has natural rights. This is my foundation which necessitates a trancendetal grounding to be coherent.It's not coherent at all. Since the basis of your argument is founded on the belief that some immaterial being exists somewhere outside of reality that we, conveniently interact with.


But you say theres nothing special about humans.When did I say that? :blink:

There are a variety of things that are special about human beings.


I'm horriified, as I assume you are, when I read that at camps like Dachau the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living humans. But why not? If God does not exist, there can be no reason to object to using people as human guinea pigs.That's just absurd and highly offensive. If you said that to my face, I'd probably punch you. I'm sorry, but what kind of utter shite is this? Get a fucking a grip.

To try and claim that there are no reasons to object to human experimentation if you deny the existence of god is pure and unadulterated lunacy. If you honestly believe this then you've seriously lost perspective.

It's brutally de-humanising, it's horrifically violent, it's perpetuated by fundamentally misguided racist ideas...Erm, hello?!


I wonder why you chose to live for a harmonious free society instead of self-interest?You clearly wonder too much. You've got lost in some philosophical nightmare.


You say you have no reasons and then accuse me of not thinking! :confused:No, I've not said that. And you keep conflating these issues. Please just listen to what I'm saying.

It's not a question of me not having a reason. I have many reasons why I have "moral values". I am saying there is no universal reason, or objective truth. The two things are different.


Did you see that sea rescue where the guy sacrificed his life for a few drowning persons?
He chose to die for others he did not even know, to give up all the brief existence he would ever have—what for? Because he's an amazing person, full of love and compassion.


For the atheist there can be no reason, as you say.That's not what I say. And I've provided three reasons above.


But again, I have rational reasons for my belief in God.No you don't. You just believe that you do.


But I need SOMETHING to ground my decisions on IF I want to be rational and consistent.You're trying to rationalise an irrational world. I know you need something to ground your decisions, this is the nature of religious belief. It makes you dependent on "something", rather that on yourself, but there is nothing to found your decisions other than what you choose to believe.


IF one wishes to live unreasonably (with no reasons for there choices) then that is your privilege.But I have many reasons for my choices. The difference is, they are not founded on some mystical entity. They are founded on my ability to reason. My ability to chose and decide what is right.

I am liberated to be myself, to understand myself and to understand what I am in the context of reality. You're trapped in some despairing, neurotic hole in which the notion of living in an uncertain world makes your entire world view start to crumble. And you find that terrifying.

[danyboy27]

Well, you have some good points that I really can't answer. The beating I gave the guy did nothing so I think your right.

But I do not think a person who rapes etc is mentally ill at all. They can be of course, but in prison I played cards with rapists and child molesters and in all respects they seemed perfectly rational people.
well, Psychologist differs on the subject.

plus being mentally ill dosnt mean you are irrational in everything you do.

Rapist and child molester are never born that way, they where most of the time victim of some form of abuse, they where rejected, raped, beaten, treated like dirt.

they most likely need psychological help, and if we cant help him, we need to keep him away from the general population.

those guy dosnt belong to a prison, but to a mental institution where we could efficiently help them.

most people who commit crimes do it either beccause they are mentally ill or for their own survival.

There is no prison needed, only a lot of mental institutions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yea but people put themselves there, not because they sin, but because they don't repent.

Why should they? Christians can't even agree with themselves what is or isn't a sin, and God certainly isn't saying anything. Because he doesn't exist.


No you don't. Every-time you use logic though you are proving the existence of the God of the Bible, weather you know it or not.

Absolute bollocks. Logic is independant of the myths of a bunch of bronze-age nomads.


What've you got against Burroughs!

He said something fucking stupid.


No, because the Indian societies that do practice rape of little 10 yr old girls have had an ordered society for thousands of yrs and see no reason they should care if it causes harm or not.

If that's true and not simply racist bullshit, that doesn't change the fact that rape victims suffer.


Your the one who said crimes deserve punishment along side reparation, not me.

I simply asked if a person ought to be punished for moral crimes.

As it seems you think being human is a moral crime, no.


You need not believe in Him, but obviously these morals must be grounded in some transcendent source, if the source doesn't exist then neither do universal morals.

They don't. There are certain moral rules, such as the one against murder, which exist because societies with no such prohibitions tend to fall apart. But aside from things like that there is a lot of room for maneuver.


Not unless you think people who commit moral crimes ought to be punished...

Good grief. Ought is not the same thing as will be. In an ideal world every transgressor would be punished and no innocents would have to suffer. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a Godless, indifferent universe that gave rise to life and intelligence through impersonal natural forces, and we have to face facts and deal with it rather than sucking our thumbs and holding the skirts of some imagined cosmic parent.


Well, if you have a strong moral intuition that moral crimes ought to be punished, one ought to allow the possibility that they WILL be punished.

Anyway, I'm just answering you about God's justice from the Christian perspective.

The possibility that transgressors will be punished comes from other human beings. Yes, we're imperfect in our application of justice and our judgement nof what is a crime and what isn't, and as long as we are human that situation will remain. But all we have, all we know for certain that we have is each other to ensure that justice is done. Not God, not benevolent aliens, not even the technological Singularity can be depended on.


Wll, God is perfect and His kingdom is perfect, so to get in....

The world you actually live in is the one you should give a shit about. Not to store up brownie points with god the cosmic asshole, but to make things better for yourself and others, entities that really exist and have feelings and lives of their own.


I asked you if someone ought to be punished for moral crimes.

Rape is a natural human thing that happens all the time. Should it be punished?

Absolutely. But what the fuck has this got to do with god?


I beat a child molester while in prison. He suffered horribly and I felt it just.

How do you feel about it now?


Anyway the torture is more about being without God's love, or rather having God's love when you despise Him.

Spending an eternity with someone you hate, or an eternity without someone you desperately love, is a torturous situation. You sound like the people who try to make out the excuse that waterboarding isn't torture.


That would not be justice, that would be mercy.

And God is willing to completely let you off, if you really repent.

Mercy has a place in justice.





I do. But God doesn't in my faith.

From that Wiki you quoted :



So its not being punished for breaking rules, but what feels like love to me, clearly seems tyrannical to you.[/QUOTE]

[spiltteeth]

=The Anarchist Tension;1745367]While that is perfectly true, it's not the reason for me not articulating precisely why I am more "morally principled" than a Nazi. If you really require me to answer that question, then there is something seriously wrong with your perspective.

Why? I gave a reason to Dannyboy the reasons why you are indeed more moral. My contention is that, with your world veiw, you cannot.
I gave you my rational - how all moral justification begions with the idea that humans aree intrincically valuabvle, however, iof there is nothing special about humans (no soul) then it is hard to justify that.

It seems like it would be much easier just to tell me why yr more moral than a Nazi, in your veiw, but I guess your keeping this secret!


Use your intellect.

Well I have used my intellect. You are the one with no reasons. You cannot be reasoned with. You are unreasonable.


You show that it is better and more justified.

I did. You can't. But without reasons, how do you show that?


We're going round in circles. As I've repeatedly said, there is no outside objective truth that makes this fact. But there are human beings that make it reality. We, the collective "good", who determine that rape is morally wrong are those that enforce that "morally correctness". We being humans.

There are many societies "the collective good" that have decide rape is morally good, and killing jews is good too.

How do you, choose with your intellect, who is right. Whom do you follow? Whomever your mom tells you too?


No, I've not said that. I have come to believe this because I was raised by my mother to show compassion and love towards people, and I hold those principles to be sacrosanct. Forcing yourself on someone is not compassionate or loving, it is violent and hateful and takes away someone's autonomy and leaves them in fear and despair. Those things are the opposite of what I want to see. I ultimately don't want to hurt any one. That's why I have chosen.

No, you didn't choose, you just said I came to believe those morals because your mom taught you to believe those morals.
Your mom chose your moral values.
So you didn't use your intellect to reason to your values at all!
I prefer to think for myself, but why did you choose to believe her and not...say, someone else's mom? Or choose instead to follow what Neitzche teaches?
Or is against your will - you have no choice but to follow your mom's viewpoint?
And what makes your mom's values so incredibly convincing to you that you devote your entire life to upholding them?
But how can you then condemn a Nazi when he might only be, like you, following what his mom taught him?


We give it value. The collective world gives it value. That's why we have to fight Nazism, because otherwise their "morally values" might succeed.

Why follow what the majority thinks is right?

So if most people, in the coming yrs, decide fascism is the moral good, then that is what you will fight for yes?

Wait a minute....how much of the collective world considers anarchy better than capitalism? I think your on the wrong side!


I don't agree that she is correct though, because I have a different understanding of the world.

But you can't tell us why you disagree, except that your mother disagrees.


Well then do that if that's what you choose.

Choices, to be rational, must be based on reasons, not what your mom tells you.


Use your intellect. Use your experiences and ability to judge. Use your understanding of compassion and love.

What's so complicated about it?

Oh I do, you don't. If you did you could provide reasons. Oh thats right, your reason is because your mom told you so.
Much like the Christian who says the bible is right because the bible says so


Why is that true?

Because there is no logical reason to find humans intrinsically valuable. If there is no rational bias then one cannot logically justify acts of self-lessness or your morals, for instance


I don't find that.

Well you haven't thought about it using your reason. It is simple to just blindly follow mothers dictates, but I use my intellect and follow the reasoning process.
IF you did the same, you might well come to the same conclusions, as did virtually all atheist philosophers who have thought about it - Camus, Russell, Neitzche, Sartre, Hume and present ones Kai Nelson, Thorbron, etc etc etc

This is the basis of your neurosis.

You just want to be "right", no matter what and you can't begin to believe that being "right" is something that you have to decide, otherwise if you're not told what is right then there's just "no point".

It's like turning up at a cinema to watch a film, five minutes after it's started shouting: "Oh there's absolutely no point in watching the film now, it's just totally ruined, we might as well kill ourselves"

Just calm down. There are a variety of "points" to being good, you have to discover them and believe in them. It's your responsibility. Just because there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean that you have to find yourself in some existential despair.

I've reasoned otherwise. Though I do believe they are 'discovered' and not created. Since you have no reasons I cannot reason with you.


Why does that follow?

Because, as you say, there is no reason to do otherwise; however there are many reasons to act in ones self interest.
This is for people who wish to live reasonably.


No. That's not what's happened.

I assure you it is! I grew up fiercely atheist, Ingersole was my hero!
I thought you only believed in things for which there is evidence? And yet here is yet another blind belief based on....did yr mother teach you this>?
Well, I cannot argue with her.


:confused:

You just asked me "how do you choose?"

I believe you are more moral than a Nazi and are justified in so beliving, I explained my reasons to dannyboy.


It's not coherent at all. Since the basis of your argument is founded on the belief that some immaterial being exists somewhere outside of reality that we, conveniently interact with.

Firstly, it is founded on the deep intuition that there are moral axioms, as there are mathematical ones, which then led me to look for a grounding.

Secondly there are many good reasons, based on objective science, that this entity does exist and no good reasons to think He does not.

But you do not live by reasoning, but you say, pure conditioning, thank God yr parents weren't Fascists!


When did I say that? :blink:

There are a variety of things that are special about human beings.

I'll refresh yr memory, at least one of us is paying attention to the debate, : post 111


me -After all, what is so special about human beings?

you - Beyond the fact we are humans?

me - They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

you - That is the human condition. That doesn't mean we're not special, since we are what we are.

me - If man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species.

you - I agree.

me - There is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.

you -Why would you anyway?


Do you fight as hard for rat rights?


That's just absurd and highly offensive. If you said that to my face, I'd probably punch you. I'm sorry, but what kind of utter shite is this? Get a fucking a grip.

To try and claim that there are no reasons to object to human experimentation if you deny the existence of god is pure and unadulterated lunacy. If you honestly believe this then you've seriously lost perspective.

It's brutally de-humanising, it's horrifically violent, it's perpetuated by fundamentally misguided racist ideas...Erm, hello?!

I clearly said, I assume YOU find it horrifying as well.

I NEVER said


To try and claim that there are no reasons to object to human experimentation if you deny the existence of god

Indeed I've said the opposite 4 different ways! That one does NOT need to believe in God etc

But I still claim there is no reason to object to human experimataion if humans are qualitatively the same as rats - as you say they are.

And you still haven't given any reason to object!!

You have no reasons! If its offensive you'll just have to be offended...or give us your secret reasons.


You clearly wonder too much. You've got lost in some philosophical nightmare.

I've just reasoned about the issue, beyond what the majority or my mother tells me.


No, I've not said that. And you keep conflating these issues. Please just listen to what I'm saying.

It's not a question of me not having a reason. I have many reasons why I have "moral values". I am saying there is no universal reason, or objective truth. The two things are different.

Then how do you use your intellect to decide which reasons are better then the other?
Or do you just do whatever the majority or you mother tell you to do?


Because he's an amazing person, full of love and compassion.

I agree! But you have no reason to think love and compassion are actually good things and I have.


That's not what I say. And I've provided three reasons above.

Yes. Your mother and what the 'collective' has decided presently.


No you don't. You just believe that you do.

Prove I don't! I'll prove I do right now - with a clear deductive argument, you can disagree, but you cannot deny it is in fact a rationally sound valid argument following all the rules of deductive reasoning :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator, following the rules of deductive argument.

Again, you can disagree, but cannot claim my reasons are not rational.


You're trying to rationalise an irrational world. I know you need something to ground your decisions, this is the nature of religious belief. It makes you dependent on "something", rather that on yourself, but there is nothing to found your decisions other than what you choose to believe.

I believe the world is rational, plenty of mystery and uncertainty but rational.
When a scientist gets odd results he doesn't just say "Well, we live in an irrational random universe, what do you expect?"!


But I have many reasons for my choices. The difference is, they are not founded on some mystical entity. They are founded on my ability to reason. My ability to chose and decide what is right.

Then why not share this reasoning? Thus far you've said your values come from yr mom and what other people -the majority- have decided what is right.
And you haven't told us your reasons for following them!


I am liberated to be myself, to understand myself and to understand what I am in the context of reality. You're trapped in some despairing, neurotic hole in which the notion of living in an uncertain world makes your entire world view start to crumble. And you find that terrifying.

An interesting theory, but I see no evidence to think its true.
Based on the fact I have clear rationales for my beliefs it would seem, in fact, to be false.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why? I gave a reason to Dannyboy the reasons why you are indeed more moral. My contention is that, with your world veiw, you cannot.

I have given reasons already.


I gave you my rational - how all moral justification begions with the idea that humans aree intrincically valuabvle, however, iof there is nothing special about humans (no soul) then it is hard to justify that.No it isn't hard to justify it.


It seems like it would be much easier just to tell me why yr more moral than a Nazi, in your veiw, but I guess your keeping this secret! Because I don't believe in mass genocide. That's one obvious reason.


Well I have used my intellect. You are the one with no reasons. You cannot be reasoned with. You are unreasonable.You're an incredibly frustrating person, because your simply not listening to what I'm saying.

Why am I more morally principled than a Nazi? Because I do not believe in the ideas of hate, violence and racial extermination. Why is my choice morally principled? Because it promotes a society based on harmony, peace and tolerance. How do you make that choice? Because I have experienced the world, I have learned the nature of compassion and love, I have seen them in practice and I have seen what Nazism does. From that, I can reason, If I wish to pursue a society based on harmony, peace and tolerance and negate the hate and violence of Nazism, then I must promote a "moral principle" that negates those ideas.


I did. You can't. But without reasons, how do you show that?No, I mean through your ability to experience and understand the world, not by relying upon some mystical entity.

Genocide is antithetical to the creation of a harmonious society, based on compassion and peace. Therefore anything contrary to that is unjustified.

That assertion is not founded on any objective truth, only what I have come to believe.


There are many societies "the collective good" that have decide rape is morally good, and killing jews is good too.No there aren't.


How do you, choose with your intellect, who is right. Whom do you follow? Whomever your mom tells you too? I used my mother as a simplified example of what I have previously been talking about. Namely social conditioning and experience.

To answer your question (again). Through my upbringing and interaction with the world, I come to form my understandings and beliefs about what is right or wrong.

I refer you back to the Marx quote:


The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.


In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.

The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm)


No, you didn't choose, you just said I came to believe those morals because your mom taught you to believe those morals.That's actually not what I said. I said that I learned the principles of compassion and love from my mother, who represents the nature of social conditioning and learning through experience.

From those principles; through my interaction with the material world, I formed my views on "morality".


So you didn't use your intellect to reason to your values at all!Well, I could have chosen to believe something else. But through my experience, through my interaction with the world I was able to reason why compassion and love are "right" and why the opposite, revenge and hate are "wrong".

I did not obtain those views through attaining some absolute truth, because none exists. I had to form my own views.


I prefer to think for myself, but why did you choose to believe her and not...say, someone else's mom? Or choose instead to follow what Neitzche teaches?Because I used my intellect to determine that it was right.


And what makes your mom's values so incredibly convincing to you that you devote your entire life to upholding them?They're not my mothers values, though, are they? They're values that she learned and chose to believe in. They're convincing to me because I can see the benefits of promoting them in the world.


But how can you then condemn a Nazi when he might only be, like you, following what his mom taught him?I can condemn him because his ideas are not passed on compassion and tolerance.


Why follow what the majority thinks is right?Well, I will only follow what the "majority" thinks if I think they're "right".


So if most people, in the coming yrs, decide fascism is the moral good, then that is what you will fight for yes?No.


But you can't tell us why you disagree, except that your mother disagrees.Actually I can. There is no scientific basis that proves that human beings are intrinsically selfish. There's no "selfish" gene, and in actual fact human beings constantly perform acts of selflessness on a daily basis. If "selfishness" existed as an intrinsic human characteristic then the world would cease to function. That's not to say that human beings are intrinsically unselfish, either.

The reality is human beings are neither selfish nor unselfish. Our consciousness is simply the product of our society and we can be selfish or selfless or a combination of both depending on how we have interacted with the world as we develop.

But there is an argument to be made that working together in a collective capacity, or by demonstrating mutual aid, our society can be both harmonious and productive (See Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid).


Choices, to be rational, must be based on reasons, not what your mom tells you.You've clearly missed the point I was making when I referenced my mother, so I really don't think you should fixate too much about that. As I said, my reference was an attempt to represent, simply, the nature of social conditioning and experience.


Oh I do, you don't. If you did you could provide reasons. Oh thats right, your reason is because your mom told you so.If you had any decency in your debating style, you'd know perfectly well that this is not what I said, at all.


Because there is no logical reason to find humans intrinsically valuable.I find humans valuable because they're humans.


If there is no rational bias then one cannot logically justify acts of self-lessness or your morals, for instance I perform acts of selflessness in order to help other human beings in times of needs.


I've reasoned otherwise. Though I do believe they are 'discovered' and not created. Since you have no reasons I cannot reason with you.That doesn't adequately address what I said.


Because, as you say, there is no reason to do otherwiseNo, you don't understand. Why does it follow that because there is no "reason" not to do so, you should act selfishly?


But you do not live by reasoning, but you say, pure conditioning, thank God yr parents weren't Fascists!Again, I have not said that I live by "pure" conditioning. I accept Marx's understanding of history. I agree with his analysis.


I'll refresh yr memory, at least one of us is paying attention to the debateSigh.

You have clearly not understood the nature of my responses. I outline below in Italic.


me -After all, what is so special about human beings?

you - Beyond the fact we are humans?

I am saying that the fact we are humans is what makes us special.

me - They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

you - That is the human condition. That doesn't mean we're not special, since we are what we are.

I am claiming that the human condition is to exist in a mindless universe and are doomed to perish on a hostile planet. But that this truth doesn't make human beings any less special.

me - If man has no immaterial aspect to his being (call it soul or mind or what have you), then he is not qualitatively different from other animal species.

you - I agree.

Human beings and non-human animals are special in various different ways. The point I'm making is that human beings are special, but they're not more special than other species just because we're human.

me - There is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats.

you -Why would you anyway?

I'm making an anti-speciesist argument. Just because another animal is not a human doesn't make them less valuable.
Do you fight as hard for rat rights?Well, I don't accept that there are such things as "rights", but I am an anti-speciesist, if that's what you mean.


I still claim there is no reason to object to human experimataion if humans are qualitatively the same as rats - as you say they are.Then you're an idiot.


And you still haven't given any reason to object!!

I've just reasoned about the issue, beyond what the majority or my mother tells me.:cursing:

Me: "It's brutally de-humanising, it's horrifically violent, it's perpetuated by fundamentally misguided racist ideas"


Then how do you use your intellect to decide which reasons are better then the other?Through experience, through observation, through interaction.


I agree! But you have no reason to think love and compassion are actually good things and I have.Read carefully:

My reasons are because it produces a harmonious society; it's beneficial to other humans; it ensures people are helped and promotes happiness. My reasons are because it saves peoples lives, or stops them from being hurt.

Those are my reasons for thinking it. Do you understand?


Yes. Your mother and what the 'collective' has decided presently.That's two reasons.

I was actually referring to: "It's brutally de-humanising, it's horrifically violent, it's perpetuated by fundamentally misguided racist ideas"


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.Then what was the cause of God?


2. The universe began to exist.How do you know that? Do you really claim to understand the universe?


3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.But if that's true, it doesn't prove that it was god.


From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.Then your first proposition isn't true then.

I think you should read the relevant segment from Sébastien Faure's pamphlet '12 Proofs For The Non-Existence Of God'.


“THERE IS NO EFFECT WITHOUT A CAUSE”

This second objection seems to be quite dangerous. Many consider it almost indisputable. It originates from the spiritualist philosophers. These gentlemen say in a self-assuring manner: “There is no effect without a cause; the Universe is an effect; then, this effect has a cause which we call God.”The argument is well represented; it seems well construed and solidly based.All depends, though, on proving whether it really is so.This form of exposition is what is called a syllogism. A syllogism is an argument consisting of three propositions, the first two being called the major and minor premises and the third called consequence or conclusion.For a syllogism to be impregnable two ‘conditions are necessary:1) the major and minor premises must be exact;2) the third proposition, the conclusion, must be logically derived from the pre-ceding premises.If the syllogism brought forth by the spiritualist philosophers embodies these two conditions, it really is indisputable, and all that would be left for me to do would be to bow in recognition; if it lacks one of these two conditions, then the syllogism is void,valueless, and the whole argument falls short.In order to establish the soundness of the syllogism, let us examine the three propositions which constitute it.The first proposition is the major premise: “There is no effect without a cause.”Philosophers, you are right. There is no effect without a cause: nothing can be more exact than this. There is not, there cannot be any effect without a cause. Effect is nothing else but the following, the continuation, the end of a cause. When you say effect, you say cause as well; the idea effect
immediately and necessarily calls for the idea cause. Would it be otherwise, the effect without a cause should be an effect from nought. This is absurd. Therefore, we agree on this proposition.

The second proposition is the following: “The Universe is an effect.” Ah! but here I ask you to reflect; I demand some elucidations. On what do you base so sure and definite an affirmation? What is the phenomenon or the aggregation of phenomena, what is the observation or the sum of observations which warrant so categorical a statement? First of all, do we know the Universe well enough? Have we studied, scanned, examined and understood the Universe in such a manner that would permit us to be so definite about it? Have we penetrated its inward parts? Have we explored the infinite spaces? Have we descended to the oceans depths? Have we ascended every summit? Do we know all the things within the domain of the Universe? Have we pulled all the veils, penetrated all mysteries, solved all enigmas? Have we seen all, touched all, felt all, observed all? Have we nothing else to discover, nothing else to learn? In short, are we in a position to give a formal appraisal, a definite opinion, a certain decision about the Universe? Nobody can answer all these questions affirmatively. We would have to pity deeply the fool or the insane who would dare to pretend complete knowledge of the Universe. The Universe! It is to say, not only the humble planet which we inhabit and on which we drag our miserable carcasses, not only the millions of known stars and planets which are part of our solar system, but also the other numerous Worlds whose existence we either know or suppose, whose number, distance and extensions are yet incalculable. Should I say: “The Universe is a cause”, I would surely provoke the cries and protests of the believers. And yet my statement would be no more crazy than theirs. My temerity would be equal to theirs, that’s all. If I observe the Universe as man’s acquired knowledge permits me, I see some-thing like an incredibly complex and entangled whole, an inextricable and colossal piling up of causes and effects which determine, link, succeed, repeat and penetrate themselves. I see that the whole forms a kind of endless chain whose links are steadfastly bound. I notice that each of these links is; from time to time, cause and effect: effect of the cause which determined it and cause of the effect which follows it. Who can say: “Here is the first link, the link-Cause”? Who can say: “Here is the last link, the link-Effect”? And who can say: “There is necessarily a First-Cause, a Last-Effect”?

The second proposition, “The Universe is an effect,” therefore, lacks the indispensable condition of exactness. Consequently, the famous syllogism has no value. I add that even if this second proposition would be exact, before accepting the conclusion, it should be definitely proved that the Universe is the effect of a unique cause, of a prime cause, of the causes’cause, of a causeless cause, of the eternal cause. Unmoved and without worry, I shall wait for this demonstration. This demonstration has been tried many times but has never been successful. We can easily say that this demonstration will never be established seriously, positively and scientifically. Finally, I add that even if the entire syllogism would be correct, it would be easy for me to turn it against the thesis of the God-Creator and in favor of my contention. Let us prove it:- There is no effect without a cause?- All right.- Now, the Universe is an effect?- Agreed!- Then this effect has a cause and it is this cause which we call God?- Let it be so. But, my good theists, do not proclaim your triumph yet. Listen to me attentively. If it is evident that there is no effect without a cause, it is also plainly evident that there is no cause without an effect. There is not, there cannot be a cause without effect. When you say “cause”, you say “effect”, the idea of cause necessarily implies and immediately calls for the idea effect. Otherwise, the cause without the effect would be a cause of nothing, and it would be as absurd as an effect of nothing would be. Therefore, it is well agreed that there is no cause without effect. Now, then, you say that the cause of the Universe-effect is God. Therefore, it is proper to say that the effect of the God-cause is the Universe. It is impossible to separate the effect from the cause, but it is equally impossible to separate the cause from the effect.

Finally, you affirm that the God-cause is eternal, and I conclude that the Universe-effect is also equally eternal because to an eternal cause must, necessarily, correspond an eternal effect. Otherwise, during the billions of centuries which perhaps preceded the creation of the Universe, God would have been a cause with-out effect - an impossibility, a cause of nothing - an absurdity. Consequently, God being eternal, the Universe is also so; if the Universe is eternal it means that it has never been created. Is that clear?
Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.But your premises are flawed.


Again, you can disagree, but cannot claim my reasons are not rational.They're not rational. They're founded on flawed assertions, and you have no knowledge in which to back them up. Ultimately, even if we were to accept that your syllogism were true, it still doesn't prove that the cause was god. You still have no unequivocal proof that this is the case. It's simply a theory.


Then why not share this reasoning? Thus far you've said your values come from yr mom and what other people -the majority- have decided what is right.
And you haven't told us your reasons for following them!I've repeatedly stated them, you're just not listening.

[spiltteeth]

=The Anarchist Tension;1745967]I have given reasons already.

No, you havn't told us why you fiollow your mom or the majority.


No it isn't hard to justify it.

It is for you - you cannot.


Because I don't believe in mass genocide. That's one obvious reason.

What is your reason for no believing in genocide - that is the whole point. Why is a harmonious society where people are happy and free and get what they want good?
Humans are just skin bags of chemicals!

The reason I don't believe in it is because I don't believe in it! :rolleyes:


Why am I more morally principled than a Nazi? Because I do not believe in the ideas of hate, violence and racial extermination. Why is my choice morally principled? Because it promotes a society based on harmony, peace and tolerance. How do you make that choice? Because I have experienced the world, I have learned the nature of compassion and love, I have seen them in practice and I have seen what Nazism does. From that, I can reason, If I wish to pursue a society based on harmony, peace and tolerance and negate the hate and violence of Nazism, then I must promote a "moral principle" that negates those ideas.

Yes, you keep saying that. But the whole point is, and what I keep asking, is how you reasoned that harmony, love, compassion are good things?

I claim one cannot reason there way to this point because it must include a notion that people are intrinsically morally valuable, and this cannot be reasoned to.

So I know, you wish to peruse said things - why? Because you've seen the world? What have you seen in the world to reason to this?


No, I mean through your ability to experience and understand the world, not by relying upon some mystical entity.

I'm afraid my ability to experience the world is not qualitatively different then the Nazi, and therefore gives me no reason to follow my judgments over his...unless I have some objective criteria.


Genocide is antithetical to the creation of a harmonious society, based on compassion and peace. Therefore anything contrary to that is unjustified.

But you have no reason to think harmonious society and happy people are good things.
Unless your keeping this a secret...


That assertion is not founded on any objective truth, only what I have come to believe.


No there aren't.

Actually there was an entire nation, called Germany, not only believed in anti-semitism, but actually tried to commit genocide!

There are many Indian villages, around for centuries and still here today, that condone 50 yr old men marrying 10 yr old girls, whom they rape.

The greeks normalized infanticide...etc

But you have no reason to follow what the majority wants anyway.


I used my mother as a simplified example of what I have previously been talking about. Namely social conditioning and experience.

To answer your question (again). Through my upbringing and interaction with the world, I come to form my understandings and beliefs about what is right or wrong.

I refer you back to the Marx quote:



The German Ideology (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm)

So has everybody. That means one understanding is not better than another. A nazi is just as moral as you then.


That's actually not what I said. I said that I learned the principles of compassion and love from my mother, who represents the nature of social conditioning and learning through experience.

From those principles; through my interaction with the material world, I formed my views on "morality".

So has everybody. That means one understanding is not better than another. A nazi is just as moral as you then.


Well, I could have chosen to believe something else. But through my experience, through my interaction with the world I was able to reason why compassion and love are "right" and why the opposite, revenge and hate are "wrong".

And yet you keep these reasons secret!


I did not obtain those views through attaining some absolute truth, because none exists. I had to form my own views.

Because I used my intellect to determine that it was right.

I doubt it. So far your intellect cannot tell us why a harmonious society is better than a chaotic one. Or why free happy people are better than miserable ones, especially when it conflicts with our self interest.


They're not my mothers values, though, are they? They're values that she learned and chose to believe in. They're convincing to me because I can see the benefits of promoting them in the world.

I claim they are only beneficial if people are intrinsically morally valuable, which is a conclusion which you cannot reason yourself.


I can condemn him because his ideas are not passed on compassion and tolerance.

So? You have no reason to think those are good things, especially if they conflict with yr self interest.


Well, I will only follow what the "majority" thinks if I think they're "right".

Oh, so ultimately, it doesn't matter what the "collective decides". You retract that then?


Actually I can. There is no scientific basis that proves that human beings are intrinsically selfish. There's no "selfish" gene, and in actual fact human beings constantly perform acts of selflessness on a daily basis. If "selfishness" existed as an intrinsic human characteristic then the world would cease to function. That's not to say that human beings are intrinsically unselfish, either.

The reality is human beings are neither selfish nor unselfish. Our consciousness is simply the product of our society and we can be selfish or selfless or a combination of both depending on how we have interacted with the world as we develop.

But there is an argument to be made that working together in a collective capacity, or by demonstrating mutual aid, our society can be both harmonious and productive (See Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid).

You have no reason to think a harmonious society is good, unless its a secret!


You've clearly missed the point I was making when I referenced my mother, so I really don't think you should fixate too much about that. As I said, my reference was an attempt to represent, simply, the nature of social conditioning and experience.

But you didn't choose your conditioning, nor have you given a reason for chooseing to follow it.


I find humans valuable because they're humans.

That is not a reason. A Nazi will say "I find jews valueless because they are jews"

I'm sure you must recognize the silliness of what you wrote.


I perform acts of selflessness in order to help other human beings in times of needs.

But you have no reason to. No reason to think its good to have a harmonious society or happy free people.


No, you don't understand. Why does it follow that because there is no "reason" not to do so, you should act selfishly?

This is only applicable to people who wish to act reasonably. There are no reasons to act selflessly, on yr view, and many to act selfishly.


Again, I have not said that I live by "pure" conditioning. I accept Marx's understanding of history. I agree with his analysis.

Sigh.

You have clearly not understood the nature of my responses. I outline below in Italic.

Yes humans are humans. I agree. If you can point out why they are intrinsically valuable or qualitatively different than rats please do so.


Well, I don't accept that there are such things as "rights", but I am an anti-speciesist, if that's what you mean.

Then you're an idiot.

Well, this is also the opinion of every thinker who has thought about this issue.
I have hundreds of quotes if you'd like.
Also, I'll point out you cannot give any reason why humans are valuable, you only say humans are humans.
Yes, I'm the idiot.


:cursing:

Me: "It's brutally de-humanising, it's horrifically violent, it's perpetuated by fundamentally misguided racist ideas"


It is! But you cannot give is any reason that a free harmonious society is a good thing, so you cannot give us any reasons why it being brutal is a bad thing.

I can give reasons of course...


Through experience, through observation, through interaction.

Read carefully:

My reasons are because it produces a harmonious society; it's beneficial to other humans; it ensures people are helped and promotes happiness. My reasons are because it saves peoples lives, or stops them from being hurt.

Those are my reasons for thinking it. Do you understand?

Yes. Now what are your reasons for thinking these things are good.

I claim, along with all thinkers, you cannot give any because one cannot reason to an intrinsic value of human beings.
Remember my buddy who said humans are just skin bags of chemicals? Who cares what happens to them! Why value them? As long as you get yours...


That's two reasons.

I was actually referring to: "It's brutally de-humanising, it's horrifically violent, it's perpetuated by fundamentally misguided racist ideas"

Then what was the cause of God?

If you asked a scientist what caused the universe they would say 100 yrs ago it is uncaused, because it never began to exist.
I take their cue, God is uncaused, as I explained.


How do you know that? Do you really claim to understand the universe?

Well, WE know the universe began to exist 13.7 billion yrs ago.

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.



But if that's true, it doesn't prove that it was god.


Then your first proposition isn't true then.

In all of human experience, nothing has ever popped into being without a cause.
I am claiming that things don’t pop into being out of nothing without a cause. And you’re saying they do.
Now I want to know where I can go experience these violations of the physical law of conservation of mass.
Do you have any evidence that the premise is false? I have appealing to a scientific law and universal human experience.
Do you have a counter-example based in objective reality, not in flights of fancy?


I think you should read the relevant segment from Sébastien Faure's pamphlet '12 Proofs For The Non-Existence Of God'.

Interesting! When was this written? We know the universe is not eternal. It is 13.7 billion yrs old.

Also there could be a co-simultaneous cause and effect.

Also, the failure of Faure's objection is that in speaking of God's willing that the universe exist, he does not differentiate between God's timeless intention to create a temporal world and God's undertaking to create a temporal world. Once we make the distinction, we see that creation ex nihilo is not an instance of statestate causation and is therefore not susceptible to Faure'ss objection.


But your premises are flawed.

They are not.

Regardless, IF a premise was "flawed" that would make the argument unsound, but still rational.

Do you really refute premise one?!

Do you sincerely think that things can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing?
Do you believe that it is really possible that, say, a raging tiger should suddenly come into existence uncaused out of nothing in the room in which he is now reading this post?
How much the same would this seem to apply to the entire universe! If there were originally absolute nothingness-- no God, no space, no time-- how could the universe possibly come to exist?


They're not rational. They're founded on flawed assertions, and you have no knowledge in which to back them up. Ultimately, even if we were to accept that your syllogism were true, it still doesn't prove that the cause was god. You still have no unequivocal proof that this is the case. It's simply a theory.

Well, it might be wrong, but it is still rational.

And if true from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.
Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

The knowledge I have to back it up :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars


But your right - it is not unequivocal proof. But why is that a problem? 2+2=4 has no proof, it is an axiom, self-evident. Hell, it doesn't even have a rational argument!

Your morals don't have unequivocal proof, yet don't seem to need it to devote your entire life to them!

Most of your beliefs have no unequivocal proof! - the laws of logics, the uniformity of nature, morals, etc etc etc etc


I've repeatedly stated them, you're just not listening.

Just one last time - I can;t find it anywhere! -why is it good to have a free harmonious society or happy people or care what they want?

[Revy]

I'm an orthodox Christian, the idea that God is an angry figure who sends those He condemns to a place called Hell, where they spend eternity in torment separated from His presence, is missing from the Bible and unknown in the early church.


This is what the Bible says about hell:

Hell is eternal:

Daniel 12:2 Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

Matthew 25:46 "And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Hell is a place of torment, of deeply physical and emotional pain:

Matthew 13:50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

[The Feral Underclass]

No, you havn't told us why you fiollow your mom or the majority.



It is for you - you cannot.

.

What is your reason for no believing in genocide - that is the whole point. Why is a harmonious society where people are happy and free and get what they want good?
Humans are just skin bags of chemicals!

The reason I don't believe in it is because I don't believe in it! :rolleyes:



Yes, you keep saying that. But the whole point is, and what I keep asking, is how you reasoned that harmony, love, compassion are good things?

I claim one cannot reason there way to this point because it must include a notion that people are intrinsically morally valuable, and this cannot be reasoned to.

So I know, you wish to peruse said things - why? Because you've seen the world? What have you seen in the world to reason to this?



I'm afraid my ability to experience the world is not qualitatively different then the Nazi, and therefore gives me no reason to follow my judgments over his...unless I have some objective criteria.



But you have no reason to think harmonious society and happy people are good things.
Unless your keeping this a secret...





Actually there was an entire nation, called Germany, not only believed in anti-semitism, but actually tried to commit genocide!

There are many Indian villages, around for centuries and still here today, that condone 50 yr old men marrying 10 yr old girls, whom they rape.

The greeks normalized infanticide...etc

But you have no reason to follow what the majority wants anyway.



So has everybody. That means one understanding is not better than another. A nazi is just as moral as you then.



So has everybody. That means one understanding is not better than another. A nazi is just as moral as you then.



And yet you keep these reasons secret!



I doubt it. So far your intellect cannot tell us why a harmonious society is better than a chaotic one. Or why free happy people are better than miserable ones, especially when it conflicts with our self interest.



I claim they are only beneficial if people are intrinsically morally valuable, which is a conclusion which you cannot reason yourself.



So? You have no reason to think those are good things, especially if they conflict with yr self interest.



Oh, so ultimately, it doesn't matter what the "collective decides". You retract that then?



You have no reason to think a harmonious society is good, unless its a secret!



But you didn't choose your conditioning, nor have you given a reason for chooseing to follow it.



That is not a reason. A Nazi will say "I find jews valueless because they are jews"

I'm sure you must recognize the silliness of what you wrote.



But you have no reason to. No reason to think its good to have a harmonious society or happy free people.



This is only applicable to people who wish to act reasonably. There are no reasons to act selflessly, on yr view, and many to act selfishly.



Yes humans are humans. I agree. If you can point out why they are intrinsically valuable or qualitatively different than rats please do so.



Well, this is also the opinion of every thinker who has thought about this issue.
I have hundreds of quotes if you'd like.
Also, I'll point out you cannot give any reason why humans are valuable, you only say humans are humans.
Yes, I'm the idiot.



It is! But you cannot give is any reason that a free harmonious society is a good thing, so you cannot give us any reasons why it being brutal is a bad thing.

I can give reasons of course...



Yes. Now what are your reasons for thinking these things are good.

I claim, along with all thinkers, you cannot give any because one cannot reason to an intrinsic value of human beings.
Remember my buddy who said humans are just skin bags of chemicals? Who cares what happens to them! Why value them? As long as you get yours...



If you asked a scientist what caused the universe they would say 100 yrs ago it is uncaused, because it never began to exist.
I take their cue, God is uncaused, as I explained.



Well, WE know the universe began to exist 13.7 billion yrs ago.

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.






In all of human experience, nothing has ever popped into being without a cause.
I am claiming that things don’t pop into being out of nothing without a cause. And you’re saying they do.
Now I want to know where I can go experience these violations of the physical law of conservation of mass.
Do you have any evidence that the premise is false? I have appealing to a scientific law and universal human experience.
Do you have a counter-example based in objective reality, not in flights of fancy?



Interesting! When was this written? We know the universe is not eternal. It is 13.7 billion yrs old.

Also there could be a co-simultaneous cause and effect.

Also, the failure of Faure's objection is that in speaking of God's willing that the universe exist, he does not differentiate between God's timeless intention to create a temporal world and God's undertaking to create a temporal world. Once we make the distinction, we see that creation ex nihilo is not an instance of statestate causation and is therefore not susceptible to Faure'ss objection.



They are not.

Regardless, IF a premise was "flawed" that would make the argument unsound, but still rational.

Do you really refute premise one?!

Do you sincerely think that things can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing?
Do you believe that it is really possible that, say, a raging tiger should suddenly come into existence uncaused out of nothing in the room in which he is now reading this post?
How much the same would this seem to apply to the entire universe! If there were originally absolute nothingness-- no God, no space, no time-- how could the universe possibly come to exist?



Well, it might be wrong, but it is still rational.

And if true from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.
Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

The knowledge I have to back it up :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars


But your right - it is not unequivocal proof. But why is that a problem? 2+2=4 has no proof, it is an axiom, self-evident. Hell, it doesn't even have a rational argument!

Your morals don't have unequivocal proof, yet don't seem to need it to devote your entire life to them!

Most of your beliefs have no unequivocal proof! - the laws of logics, the uniformity of nature, morals, etc etc etc etc



Just one last time - I can;t find it anywhere! -why is it good to have a free harmonious society or happy people or care what they want?

The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. – real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process.

In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.