That’s actually not quite right.
[quote]
Makavali wrote:
No.
Wow, it’s one superficial understanding of Religion/Christianity after another Mak! Just HOW do clowns like this manage it?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
.[/quote]
Nice tiles - and yeah, bad ass dog too.[/quote]
More like this amirite.[/quote]
urrite
[quote]lou21 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]
Umm, who here has done that so far?[/quote]
you…[/quote]
I’m sure you’ll be able to find that quote for me then, won’t you? If not, then you are lying.
I can certainly find three instances, three, where I stated the following: “Child abuse in any instance is wrong. Its perpetrators should be prosecuted and its victims or potential victims protected.” I said that on the first page, liar.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
…It seems obvious to me that to harm another being is inherently wrong…[/quote]
Where does this inherency come from?[/quote]
Thousands if not millions of years of biologically ingrained and culturally refined instincts and principals.
[/quote]
What does biology have to with “wrong?”
Also, if they are deeply biologically and culturally ingrained in us, then why do humans, every human, act in defiance of those principles all the time?
[quote]clip11 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
Most likely where the dictionary got most of its terms: society. The collective agreement.
What’s your definition? And how does raping a child, not just pedophilia (subtle, disgusting difference: the former is always forced and unwanted, while the latter [as in Greece] can be consensual) fit into that? I’m seriously interested, no bullshit.
[/quote]
Wait just a dadburned minute here. So pedophilia is okay, but raping a child is not? Do I have that right?
You and I must be using two different dictionaries.[/quote]
Usually this supposed “pedophilia” in ancient Greece and Rome usually involved older teenagers and as such, would not make it pedophilia.[/quote]
Specifically, “hebephilia,” but the Greeks liked boys as young as 13, which is pretty danged young. I mean, how do you feel about putting it in a 7th grade boy’s butt? ;D
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…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…
[/quote]
Which is exactly why one must ultimately look to God and not the religion and/or religious leaders as the final moral authority. Man is perfectly capable of miserable failure, as you said.[/quote]
…belief in god does not seem to be a guarantee for succesful moral living, though. So i’d rather go on “gut feeling” and be moderately succesful than go by god and fail [miserably]…
[/quote]
Good for you, eph, but if the entire world suddenly decided to follow your philosophy, I’d be looking for the first rocket ship to Mars.
Thanks, but I’ll stick with what’s been tried and proven to result in the best human society has been able to achieve despite our make-up and desires.
To clarify, think if everybody on 4chan went with their “gut feelings?” Or the people who post comments on youtube?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
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[/quote]
Above is a statement from Dawkins.
And it seems to have been missed in all the post the followed.[/quote]
So, Richard Dawkins is gleefully attempting to have the Pope arrested when he comes to visit England. What here has changed?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
…It seems obvious to me that to harm another being is inherently wrong…[/quote]
Where does this inherency come from?[/quote]
Thousands if not millions of years of biologically ingrained and culturally refined instincts and principals…[/quote]
And the pedophile could argue his propensity for pre-adolescent genitalia is justified by “Thousands if not millions of years of biologically ingrained and culturally refined instincts and principals.”
He’s just an animal.
You’re just an animal.
Why are you Right?
Why is he Wrong?
One wolf kills strictly for food.
Another kills for food and pleasure.
Which is Right?
Which is Wrong?
They’re both just animals.[/quote]
Look, there are plenty of things that we are genetically inclined to do that are wrong or unjust. For example, overeating is something that, given most American’s situations, we are inclined to do. If one were to be, in fact, inclined to rape boys, he’s going to have to find ways to prevent such an event come into fruition, as it is wrong or unjust. But, that’s not your question; your question is basically the question of what is right and what is wrong. You can see that you are clearly interested in that issue when you look at your questions in earlier posts:
"See, evolution, especially atheistic evolution, teaches us we all are just animals, developed out of chance and chaos. No rhyme or reason for being here. No afterlife. No judgment seat. No accountability. Just a self developed sense of morality that didn’t come from an omnipotent One. It just kinda “happened” through naturalistic processes.
So in that respect tell me why pedophilia is wrong. Why is the lion wrong?"
“Why is purely selfish sexual gratification “wrong”? The one practicing it “is just an animal.” How can an animal do something “wrong?””
First, I’d like to say that, although you possibly may have “debated” the points that I’m going to make, please address them and don’t tell me to look at other ones. Because, if I know anything, I know that it’s either a ploy to get me to give up my argument or it’s a ploy to get me to try to debate the points you made before on which you’d say that I took your quote out of context. So, as I said before, please answer my questions directly, if you’re going to answer them at all.
As stated earlier in this conversation, raping little boys hurts the boys, but your argument is that it’s not inherently wrong from the secular point of view because it brings happiness to the raper. So why is it wrong? Given the hard utilitarian standpoint, you’re assessment superficially seems to work. The happiness of the raper offsets the pain of the child. But what about the pain in the future? The physical, emotional and mental damage inflicted on the child will be life-long, while the happiness provided to the raper will only last during the rape itself. Notice, that’s just using the primitive utilitarian stance; moral rights has a role in this as well - but it’s not needed for my argument.
I noted that you’re using the wolf metaphor, still. Wolves don’t do things for pleasure. Wolves that kill have been cited to kill because it is evolutionarily beneficial to be a more aggressive wolf. They may kill to have a higher ranking between other males so that their chances of procreation are higher. They may do it because it is just inherently better to be more aggressive. Regardless, it’s not a good metaphor as we’re talking about animals with underdeveloped brains when compared to humans.
To answer generally answer your question of morality, humans inherently have accountability for their actions because of who we’ve become and not because we’ve been made by a higher power. This is due to the fact that we have an acute ability to emphasize with others, and because of that, to do actions that would stray from actions that you would not want to do from yourself is immoral (see the Golden Rule, a rule that’s existed longer than the Bible). We’re also accountable insofar that with are awesome empathy skills, we can project how people will feel in the future, and because of that, we are responsible for committing our actions to those that better the situation for those who will succeed us.
Let me know if you have any questions or arguments. I’ll look at this tomorrow night since I have a business strategy midterm to study for.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Actually the Bible, specifically the first few chapters of Genesis predate any other writings on earth. There are indications therein that point to the idea that a “book” or “books” were kept that are centuries, possibly millenia, older than Moses. Moses was not the author of much of Genesis; he was the editor.
It is interesting to note that God had not issued the Law or a law(s) for the people who lived in the times of the early parts of Genesis (prediluvian). The result was “every man did what was right in his own eyes.” This led to the extreme wickedness that led to the Flood. This is evidence that man just flat out couldn’t come up with a moral code on his own. The “inherency” you speak of wasn’t there. The “instilled values” didn’t get instilled.[/quote]
Interesting debate. It seems that all these debates on morality in regards to atheism and evolution eventually center on moral ontology. I don’t have the time right now to give this topic justice but I’ll make a few quick points that hopefully haven’t already been covered.
As to the Bible containing the oldest writings on Earth, you are mistaken. If you have a source for your statement I would like to read it. Also, when do you think the first chapters of the Bible (at least those that made the final cut) were written and we’ll see how that fits into the time-line of YEC.
Regarding moral absolutes, this is as much a problem for the theist as the atheist. I’m sure you’re familiar with Eurythropo’s Dilemma as applied to monotheism and the problems it raises. Also, with regards to Judeo-christian religion, the case for moral absolutes becomes significantly weaker. It is hard to claim your deity as the author of morality when he commands human sacrifice, genocide, condones of slavery, and makes trivial offenses like adultery punishable by stoning; all things considered morally repugnant today. These problems are further exacerbated in Christianity by the conflicts between a New Covenant, an expanded Old Covenant or a Dual Covenant.
Regarding our difference to other animals, humans have the capacity to form moral contracts and make moral judgments. Humans do not like pain and they do not like to suffer, they feel empathy for others, they can see the consequences of their actions, individuals form social contracts that become the “morality” of that group. While there are others who would argue that moral absolutes exist with or without a creator (Betrand Russell comes to mind), I’d argue that morality is inherently subjective, whether there is a creator or not.
Edit: Actually that last sentence was worded poorly. What I meant to say was I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, whether from atheistic or theistic perspectives, but I haven’t collected my thoughts and formed a cogent argument against them yet. While I would agree that there are moral propensities and that there are objective factors that influence these propensities, moral absolutes, and thus morality itself, cannot be found in objective reality and are ultimately the products of minds.
Edit 2: Bah, nevermind. I’ll never have the time to answer any replies, just consider this post food for thought.