Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
264

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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.[/quote]

…are you telling me you would’ve had trouble discerning right from wrong if you didn’t have an external moral guide to tell you what’s right or wrong?

265

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
To clarify, think if everybody on 4chan went with their “gut feelings?” Or the people who post comments on youtube?[/quote]

You know where most folks like Eph, you and me got their “gut feelings”?

Eph has already relayed to us a little bit of how he was raised and it surely did not exclude religion and God but now he wants us to believe his “gut feeling” was achieved wholly independent of religion and God? His “gut feeling” is a purely secular development?

If he had been raised on an Antarctic ice floe by penguins and was just flown to Holland the day before yesterday he would KNOW pedophilia was wrong based on the gut feelings he processed while drifting in the Weddell Sea?[/quote]

…tell the thousands of kids who were abused by priests how much we’re ingrained with god’s moral code, and tell them it’s all god’s plan who works in mysterious ways, and that they should pray to god for guidance while another kid is abused, because that is the moral thing to do here, isn’t it?

266

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…are you telling me you would’ve had trouble discerning right from wrong if you didn’t have an external moral guide to tell you what’s right or wrong?
[/quote]

I’m saying the internal one is not always the most reliable one to trust.

267

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…are you telling me you would’ve had trouble discerning right from wrong if you didn’t have an external moral guide to tell you what’s right or wrong?
[/quote]

I’m saying the internal one is not always the most reliable one to trust.

[/quote]

…how do you distinguish between internal and external? If Bush can tell his nation that it was Manifest Destiny to go to war in Iraq, and during that war the army kills over half a million innocent women and children. If 19 fundamentalist muslims can be persuaded to fly planes in to buildings because it’s the right thing to do from the POV of their clerics, shouldn’t they at one point have said, “No, i’m not going to do that”?

…i would even go as far as saying that over-ruling one’s own sense of morality by use of an external one led to far more hardship and suffering than sticking to your internal one. Look at it this way: if you can’t be persuaded by outside forces, like religion, to do harm or to act in a way that’s contrary to what you think is right, you’re a free man…

…that’s why i’m amazed by some people on this board, who are so vehemently against big government and scream “freedom not socialism!” at Obama, yet in the same breath pledge allegiance to an institution or deity that tells them what to do, and how to think…

…there’s a cognitive dissonance at work here i can’t wrap my head around. Maybe it’s as simple as a difference in culture, because frankly, i don’t see a difference in behaviour between religious jews and muslims and the christians on this board. Who knows? Guess it’s still up for debate, eh?

268

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

…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…

[/quote]
And I would argue that it is you who are mistaken.

There are indications even in the first few chapters of Genesis that a book was being kept/written. If so, there simply are no other writings that could precede it. I realize this may be a surprise for many; not conclusive proof but Morris makes a very good case.

*Source: The Genesis Record by Dr. Henry Morris
[/quote]

FYI

269

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

…I’d argue that morality is inherently subjective… [/quote]

I could then argue that the morality of certain primates, porpoises and whales is inherently subjective.
[/quote]

…Cortes argues that god gave humankind a set of moral rules that are absolute, and that we, as humans, do not have that set of rules instilled in us. We have to follow those rules, and not go by our inherent sense of morality…

…yet you argue from a position where this inherent sense of morality is of god, and even proof that absolute morality exists. Is this correct?

270

[quote]Alffi wrote:
A lot of people will be fine with the idea. “Good! Get them religious bastard abusers!”

However, if he went after jewish child abusers (it is said that this kind of abuse is the most prevalent in jewish circles actually) then there would be outcry about how it’s the holocaust again and how he’s a deranged anti-semite and his books were in line with Mein Kampf.[/quote]

That I highly doubt. Evidence? Cite? I think the evidence is fairly clear that sexual abuse is most prevalent in the Catholic Church. The problem is that priests are not allowed to marry. That did not used to be the case. Clerical celibacy is not rooted in the bible Priests very largely used to be married men. The church changed the law because it did not like them leaving money and property to their families. If priests were allowed to marry, the priesthood would attract a much nicer element and not so many sickos.

I think sexual abuse is outrageous and if anything there is too little outrage. Priests SHOULD be held to a higher standard. They are supposed to be the ultimate men of god. And when families entrust their children to the church it is a sacred trust. However, in no way do I see the pope being arrested.

271

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, Schmakadoodle and Richard Dawkins, da Pope is a head of state, plumb full of all the immunity, likez diplomatic immunity, that comes with dat position. He no git arrested.

Schmak and RD, you reeeelly shoulda known, doooooods.[/quote]

Not recognized by the UN.

272

Since most of the anti-religionists here are so scientifically minded, I know you will read a report explaining the current furor with the most unbiased eye.

And yes, I can plainly see that it comes from a Catholic publication. If you have a problem with any of it, feel free to show how it is actually wrong, don’t just bash the source. I’d be dollars to donuts that 99% of the places you are getting your present updates on this situation from are just as vehemently anti-Catholic.

And don’t accuse me of defending child abuse. I’m not.

273

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW, Schmakadoodle and Richard Dawkins, da Pope is a head of state, plumb full of all the immunity, likez diplomatic immunity, that comes with dat position. He no git arrested.

Schmak and RD, you reeeelly shoulda known, doooooods.[/quote]

Not recognized by the UN.[/quote]

But by every civilized nation-

The UN can go and write a protest note or something.

274

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…are you telling me you would’ve had trouble discerning right from wrong if you didn’t have an external moral guide to tell you what’s right or wrong?
[/quote]

I’m saying the internal one is not always the most reliable one to trust.

[/quote]

…how do you distinguish between internal and external? If Bush can tell his nation that it was Manifest Destiny to go to war in Iraq, and during that war the army kills over half a million innocent women and children. If 19 fundamentalist muslims can be persuaded to fly planes in to buildings because it’s the right thing to do from the POV of their clerics, shouldn’t they at one point have said, “No, i’m not going to do that”?

…i would even go as far as saying that over-ruling one’s own sense of morality by use of an external one led to far more hardship and suffering than sticking to your internal one. Look at it this way: if you can’t be persuaded by outside forces, like religion, to do harm or to act in a way that’s contrary to what you think is right, you’re a free man…

…that’s why i’m amazed by some people on this board, who are so vehemently against big government and scream “freedom not socialism!” at Obama, yet in the same breath pledge allegiance to an institution or deity that tells them what to do, and how to think…

…there’s a cognitive dissonance at work here i can’t wrap my head around. Maybe it’s as simple as a difference in culture, because frankly, i don’t see a difference in behaviour between religious jews and muslims and the christians on this board. Who knows? Guess it’s still up for debate, eh? [/quote]

Uhh, but eph, you said yourself [quote]…what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind.[/quote]

I believe I remember your also mentioning your conscience. That’s all fine and good, but if you want to argue that you are relying upon an internal morality determining device, you are going to have to explain how it got there. And if you say, society, culture and upbringing, then you are further going to have to explain how that makes you any different from “us.”

275

Further, because I think I see the old mislabeling-of-an-outsider-group’s-actions-and-motivations thing going on here yet again, I have to say that I’m rather offended if you think people like me came to our belief systems any differently than you did, as if you, immune to all influence, have The Truth™ all worked and figured out. As if we were nothing more than human sheep who’ve never once examined our own beliefs, or questioned them, or reasoned. It sounds arrogant, to say the least. And as many times as I’ve been miscategorized in just this one single thread, you might want to sit and have a think about the quoted sections in the post above this one.

Baa-a-a-a-a.

276

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Uhh, but eph, you said yourself …what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind.

I believe I remember your also mentioning your conscience. That’s all fine and good, but if you want to argue that you are relying upon an internal morality determining device, you are going to have to explain how it got there. And if you say, society, culture and upbringing, then you are further going to have to explain how that makes you any different from “us.”[/quote]

…didn’t i explain in that post how it got there? That i believe morality evolved from trial and error when, after the last ice age and the invention of agriculture, humans gathered in larger numbers to form societies, does not make me different from you. I can’t help but to think you’re projecting here, and in the post you wrote after this one…

…not attributing morality to god does anger some believers, and they believe that without paying creedence to the belief that god imposed his absolute morality on us to follow, the non-believer is immoral. This i object against, not your personal beliefs Cortes, be sure of that…

277

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
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. [/quote]

Would you say that what the Aztecs were doing until around 1521 was just an expression of their own particular brand of morality?

278

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Uhh, but eph, you said yourself …what guides us to make the appropiate choice is upbringing; it’s taught behaviour that’s honed by experience and not innate to humankind.

I believe I remember your also mentioning your conscience. That’s all fine and good, but if you want to argue that you are relying upon an internal morality determining device, you are going to have to explain how it got there. And if you say, society, culture and upbringing, then you are further going to have to explain how that makes you any different from “us.”[/quote]

…didn’t i explain in that post how it got there? That i believe morality evolved from trial and error when, after the last ice age and the invention of agriculture, humans gathered in larger numbers to form societies, does not make me different from you. I can’t help but to think you’re projecting here, and in the post you wrote after this one…

…not attributing morality to god does anger some believers, and they believe that without paying creedence to the belief that god imposed his absolute morality on us to follow, the non-believer is immoral. This i object against, not your personal beliefs Cortes, be sure of that…
[/quote]

This is why I think you should read some of the great ethical philosophers. You are getting your facts wrong. About these so-called beliefs and how they were arrived at.

God “imposes” nothing whatsoever. He just IS. We’re free to do whatever we choose.

279

Pushy, I fail to see your line of reasoning as to the whole “wolfs killing things”. What are you on about? Based on your intuition as an animal lover, a nature lover and a outdoorsman, would you say a wolf killing for pleasure is the exeption or the norm? Also with regard to people, do most people kill for pleasure? Or do most people not kill period.

The percentage of human lives that have been taken by another human for simple pleasure has to be an astronomically small percentage. Nearly all human killings of eachother are for specific social reasons, resources, or anger, being the two most prevalent. So it is not normal to kill for pleasure, that isn’t the way the majority of humasn are wired. Also humans are social creatures, it IS acceptable for common understanding to be expressed in order for that society to function smoothly. God doesn’t need to enter into the picture to tell humans that harming another human is not good for the society. We can also know that society is good for humans because those humans who developed societies flourished. These basic steps in logic are subliminal at this point due to the fact that we are oh say 100,000 + years out from when people had to make an active decision, be a part of society or go it alone.

We are actually at a new precipice if you will however. Where once local societies could have VAST differences with regard to the exact rules and standards that society adhered to, the world is shrinking due to widespread transportation advancements and communication advancements. We are entering an age where a global society is forming. Already certain individual groups amongst the global conglomerate eliminate certain aspects of others societies which they find to be just too far out of step with thier own views. One society may put economic sanctions on another or even use military force.

The bottom line though is that in the US our society HAS developed in such a way that each human has natural born rights, anyone who interferes with these rights, is in the wrong. And in a very general term, doing something to someone against thier will especially if it does damage to that person is a basic violation of these rights.

In fact the reason all these societies have similar values when they worshop different gods, is not because there is one benevolent god steering them, it is that there is a basic set of societal rules that allow humans to flourish the most. Some societies are closer to the ideal set than others, but eventually, it is going to boil down to one global society, all adopting the most optimal set of societal rules. There is simply no way around it. Any attempt to subvert this trajectory, or lead society in another path is going to end in revolt and violence, after all humans have shown over and over and over, thier propencity for violence.

V

280

Man and Animal both are driven by pain and pleasure.
This isnt new.

For the Wolf:
Food is pleasure. Starving is painful.
Power is pleasure. Low status is painful.
Destroying threats is pleasure. Threats are painful.

Same can go for Man.

“Do Wolves Kill for Sport?”

(They say no)