[quote]AceRock wrote:
Oversimplification of the arguments against your case make things real simple don’t they.
So does quoting wantonly. Fun being on this side of it, I can see why you hang out here.[/quote]
icwutudidthar
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Eph, this is an honest question, no condescension or ulterior motives or anything else of the sort. How much ethical philosophy have you actually read?
Because, I mean, we are not just talking about what you appear to be talking about here. Do you really believe, anywhere in the entire history of ethical philosophy as pertains to the doctrine of Moral Law, that anyone, anywhere, ever came up with the idea that child abuse and systematic cover-up of crimes against children would be a solid moral tenet?
[/quote]
…i’ve always had a healthy disinterest in the opinion of others, especially regarding issues of morality, spirituality and social issues. I’ve found the works of, for instance, Asimov much more thoughtprovoking…
…and what made you think that i was talking about child abuse being a solid moral tenet? Religious thinkers may very well have studied morality indepth with the intent to better themselves, but that’s not the way of the catholic church, is it?
[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah well yes, religious teachings are an attempt to indoctrinate the masses- I just doubt that that is necessarily always a bad thing.
The Catholic church for example has hundreds of years of experience under her belt when it comes to pondering moral questions whereas you basically start from scratch.
That is not even a contest and a little child fucking wont change that. Also, I would like to know where their moral teachings encourage child abuse- The very fact that they are accused of hypocrisy shows that they do not live according to their teachings-
[/quote]
…and you call yourself a natural law libertarian? Based on the church’s trackrecord i wouldn’t touch their suggestions with a ten-foot pole, and it’s not their moral teachings that encourage child abuse, it’s creeps like Ratzinger who do by not cracking down on pedo’s and surpressing evidence…
Update: Needless to say, I did NOT say “I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.
What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope’s proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my ‘Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope’ article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341
Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson’s subsequent ‘Put the Pope in the Dock’ article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.
Even if the Pope doesn’t end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn’t cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope’s visit, let alone pay for it.
Richard
Above is a statement from Dawkins.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
…i’m confused Cortes, you say there are societies who “evolved” due to following absolute morality, and then you say we’re led down the wrong path often. Name the societies that followed the absolute moral path and show that they indeed followed that path, please…
Those societies that used the philosophies of Moses, Jesus, Confucius and Muhammad as their foundations tended to do pretty well. I am not in any way arguing that those societies were free from wrongdoing. In fact I already said that once. But their establishing principles clearly served them well. Thousands of years well, in fact. [/quote]
…does it matter to you that there were ancient culture that existed for thousands of years without the aid of the god of Abraham? I see you mention Confucius, but i don’t understand why exactly. Was that intended to include Eastern religion?
[/quote]
You guys really can’t see what I was hinting at in bringing up these societies based upon Moral Law? Really?
Okay, this is the last I’m going to say about it because to be honest it was not the crux of my argument but now everyone wants to focus on this like it’s some kind of “gotcha” moment.
Look, of course there were ancient societies before, and after, those based upon the philosophies of those I’ve mentioned. And you know what, frankly, most of the one’s I can think of make The Catholic Church look like a pimple-faced 14 year old boy hiding under the bleachers trying to catch a glimpse of panty. If you think bloodthirsty war-obsessed killing machines or vast slave empires are somehow comparable to those I’ve mentioned, then you had better have some pretty good evidence for comparison. In the meantime, I’m sticking with my assertion that there were a number of different societies with different cultures, religions, in different times and wholly different places, some with no prior knowledge of the others, who all happened to discover, not create, a very, very similar set of rules that actually go contrary in many cases to herd mentality and human nature. And it just so happened that those societies who adopted those philosophies as their guiding principles happened to have advanced, excelled and created more, far, far more, than any of the other societies who went the other way.
It was almost as if, well, yes, there was a set of RULES, which, if followed, would lead the followers to the greatest amount of success and happiness.
Now, did any of these societies follow those rules 100%? Fuck no. Of course not! That’s exactly because moral law is so often in conflict with our very nature. No society, indeed no human, is going to conform to Moral Law 100% of the time. So please don’t come at me with this garbage that this or that society is not a good example. You’re better off looking to the other side, your side, is it? If you want some spectacular, incredible examples of atrocities and injustices that will have you feeling, well, “absolutely” horrified, then we had better lay everything out on the table.
Now, as I said, I’m done talking about this. It was seriously a sub-point and I expected it would be a lot clearer where I was going with it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Eph, this is an honest question, no condescension or ulterior motives or anything else of the sort. How much ethical philosophy have you actually read?
Because, I mean, we are not just talking about what you appear to be talking about here. Do you really believe, anywhere in the entire history of ethical philosophy as pertains to the doctrine of Moral Law, that anyone, anywhere, ever came up with the idea that child abuse and systematic cover-up of crimes against children would be a solid moral tenet?
[/quote]
…i’ve always had a healthy disinterest in the opinion of others, especially regarding issues of morality, spirituality and social issues. I’ve found the works of, for instance, Asimov much more thoughtprovoking…
…and what made you think that i was talking about child abuse being a solid moral tenet? Religious thinkers may very well have studied morality indepth with the intent to better themselves, but that’s not the way of the catholic church, is it?[/quote]
You know what, Eph, I find that rather disappointing. You don’t see just a little bit of hypocrisy in all this? It certainly oozes through in your last sentence there as you casually judge an entire institution based upon the last 30 or so years of history, willfully ignoring the 1950 or so years that came before that.
Good to know you got it all figured out on your own, though. The ancient Egyptians could have used you back then. You could have saved them a lot of trouble.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
It was almost as if, well, yes, there was a set of RULES, which, if followed, would lead the followers to the greatest amount of success and happiness.
[/quote]
…why didn’t you just say so? All kidding aside Cortes, it does seem that way, doesn’t it? That there’s a general set of rules that seems to lead to a succesful society, and i actually agree with you! Obviously i don’t see the hand of god in that set of rules, but there you go…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Eph, this is an honest question, no condescension or ulterior motives or anything else of the sort. How much ethical philosophy have you actually read?
Because, I mean, we are not just talking about what you appear to be talking about here. Do you really believe, anywhere in the entire history of ethical philosophy as pertains to the doctrine of Moral Law, that anyone, anywhere, ever came up with the idea that child abuse and systematic cover-up of crimes against children would be a solid moral tenet?
[/quote]
…i’ve always had a healthy disinterest in the opinion of others, especially regarding issues of morality, spirituality and social issues. I’ve found the works of, for instance, Asimov much more thoughtprovoking…
…and what made you think that i was talking about child abuse being a solid moral tenet? Religious thinkers may very well have studied morality indepth with the intent to better themselves, but that’s not the way of the catholic church, is it?[/quote]
You know what, Eph, I find that rather disappointing. You don’t see just a little bit of hypocrisy in all this? It certainly oozes through in your last sentence there as you casually judge an entire institution based upon the last 30 or so years of history, willfully ignoring the 1950 or so years that came before that.
Good to know you got it all figured out on your own, though. The ancient Egyptians could have used you back then. You could have saved them a lot of trouble.
[/quote]
…don’t take all of this too personally Cortes, we have more in common than just a difference in opinion…
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Also, I saw nothing wrong with Goose’s posts, even if he did apparently.
[/quote]
I’ll bet Goose could detect that AceRock’s posts are those of an insecure, arrogant little man with as poor a grasp of his own hubristic beliefs as those of his opponents.
But I’ll have to leave that to him, if he wants it. This is my last post in response to the likes of you. You’ll have to find someone else’s mouth to stuff all of your fatuous words into.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
It was almost as if, well, yes, there was a set of RULES, which, if followed, would lead the followers to the greatest amount of success and happiness.
[/quote]
…why didn’t you just say so? All kidding aside Cortes, it does seem that way, doesn’t it? That there’s a general set of rules that seems to lead to a succesful society, and i actually agree with you! Obviously i don’t see the hand of god in that set of rules, but there you go…[/quote]
Cool, let’s go get us a beer. I’ll buy the first round 
One last point, just something that is still bugging me. This is not directed at any one person, but I was pretty surprised, genuinely surprised, by the number of people here arguing against who just assumed I am a Christian. Never once did I state anything more than my belief in God, that’s it.
This is not to mention the TON of words put into my mouth and beliefs attributed to me and assumptions about me by people who really have no basis, none, for asserting such things.
Be careful with that. First, your argument should be strong enough to stand on it’s own, no matter whom you are arguing with. Second, if you happen to be arguing under so many false or at least untested assertions, how can you or anyone possibly have any confidence that your premise is true?
Think about this the next time you know someones particular system of beliefs. It still applies.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cool, let’s go get us a beer. I’ll buy the first round :)[/quote]
…always wanted to visit Japan, but it’s expensssiiiivvvveeee…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cool, let’s go get us a beer. I’ll buy the first round :)[/quote]
…always wanted to visit Japan, but it’s expensssiiiivvvveeee…[/quote]
You got that right.
Still, you let me know if you ever do. And I’ll drop you a line if I ever get way over there to Nederland. In the meantime, I will content myself with the incomparably lovely Huis Ten Bosch.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah well yes, religious teachings are an attempt to indoctrinate the masses- I just doubt that that is necessarily always a bad thing.
The Catholic church for example has hundreds of years of experience under her belt when it comes to pondering moral questions whereas you basically start from scratch.
That is not even a contest and a little child fucking wont change that. Also, I would like to know where their moral teachings encourage child abuse- The very fact that they are accused of hypocrisy shows that they do not live according to their teachings-
[/quote]
…and you call yourself a natural law libertarian? Based on the church’s trackrecord i wouldn’t touch their suggestions with a ten-foot pole, and it’s not their moral teachings that encourage child abuse, it’s creeps like Ratzinger who do by not cracking down on pedo’s and surpressing evidence…[/quote]
Well the natural law doctrine is very Christian, just read Locke.
As for a flawed instituition, what does that have to do with their moral philosophy? It seems to me you condemn them because they fail to live upt to it, not because you disagree with them.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Cool, let’s go get us a beer. I’ll buy the first round :)[/quote]
…always wanted to visit Japan, but it’s expensssiiiivvvveeee…[/quote]
You got that right.
Still, you let me know if you ever do. And I’ll drop you a line if I ever get way over there to Nederland. In the meantime, I will content myself with the incomparably lovely Huis Ten Bosch.
http://english.huistenbosch.co.jp/[/quote]
…will do!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Yeah well yes, religious teachings are an attempt to indoctrinate the masses- I just doubt that that is necessarily always a bad thing.
The Catholic church for example has hundreds of years of experience under her belt when it comes to pondering moral questions whereas you basically start from scratch.
That is not even a contest and a little child fucking wont change that. Also, I would like to know where their moral teachings encourage child abuse- The very fact that they are accused of hypocrisy shows that they do not live according to their teachings-
[/quote]
…and you call yourself a natural law libertarian? Based on the church’s trackrecord i wouldn’t touch their suggestions with a ten-foot pole, and it’s not their moral teachings that encourage child abuse, it’s creeps like Ratzinger who do by not cracking down on pedo’s and surpressing evidence…[/quote]
Well the natural law doctrine is very Christian, just read Locke.
As for a flawed instituition, what does that have to do with their moral philosophy? It seems to me you condemn them because they fail to live upt to it, not because you disagree with them.
[/quote]
…perhaps you partly right. If you act like, and demand your followers to follow your lead, as if you are a moral authority based on religious grounds, but fail miserably at it, you lose the right to have any say in the matter. It also casts aspersions on the sincerity, and even validity, of their moral teachings…
…it re-inforces the image of an institution that’s not “in it” for the good of humankind, but to maintain a powerbase with all the perks that come with such a huge base. It surprises me that you, who rails against big government all the time, does not seem to object to a moloch like the catholic church…
Hai Gais! wutz goeng on in dis tread?
<look at my avatar when you read it, I don’t feel like posting a cute animal picture>
I love me some Jesus Juice! Haha Just messin with ya’ll christian types.
V
Religion is not needed for people to have a common moral framework: Secular ethics - Wikipedia