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.
[/quote]
In order to advance your argument you would do well to steer well out of your way to avoid bringing up natural rights. Locke and the American founding fathers want nothing to do with your foolish notion that those rights have any origin other than God.
[/quote]
It doesn’t bother me that people believe in god, In fact I myself believe in god. Thats not the purpose of my “article” my purpose is to point out how laughable it is that god needs to interviene in human societies. God didn’t set rules for humans, and if he did, he would have made them unbreakable, he decidedly would NOT have wispered into some guys ear who didn’t even have adequate means to write down what god was saying. And then expect people 2000 years later who do not even speak the same language to follow what this guy says god told him. This is the same shit that will get you locked away yet we have millions and millions and millions of people aroound the world who live thier lives according to this.
Perhaps the rules got did instill WERE built into our DNA. The overwhelming desire to advance the species, to further the DNA, to mate, there is no sense in mating if you just plan on destroying the species. Now the few humans who may want to destroy the species, maybe they are errors. Problems in the DNA code ETC… I don’t claim to know all the answers, but if I had to go with probabilities, God imprinting behavior into DNA and the fact that humans are social creatures and the inherint nature of social structures to evolve naturally to best enhance the lives of those within those societies. I can get behind that with say a 25% probability.
God whispering into a guys ear 2000+ years ago and expecting me to follow what that guy wrote down?
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(you get the point)
1% Probability
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The 15th and 16th century Aztecs were inflicting “wrong” stuff on folks that would cause a priest’s actions in the 20th and 21st century to pale in comparison.[/quote]
They sure were.
Wasn’t that also in the name of their brand of religion?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Veg, you fucked up this page. Go edit your post with the zeros.[/quote]
I agree. Maybe we should report V to the Mods?[/quote]
On what grounds?
I doubt he did anything with malicious intent. Get off the high horse and try not to pretend it’s for any other reason than him disagreeing with you.[/quote]
Eph, juxtapose this, [quote]eph said: 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[/quote]
with this, [quote]Cortes said: Would you say that what the Aztecs were doing until around 1521 was just an expression of their own particular brand of morality?[/quote]
The 15th and 16th century Aztecs were inflicting “wrong” stuff on folks that would cause a priest’s actions in the 20th and 21st century to pale in comparison.
Bottom line is “evolved morality from trial and error…(when) humans gathered in larger numbers to form societies” is the type that doesn’t cut the mustard.[/quote]
…from their POV the sacrifices were moral and even necessary, but their society was not succesful enough to last. One could argue because of the sacrifices. Instead of changing certain behaviours, and it’s believed that clearcutting surrounding forests to fuel the fires needed to make [i forgot the english term for it] the whitewash that covered all their temples led to their downfall, they engaged in superstition and violence…
…so in a way, their religious morality caused the collapse of civilisation…
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.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Dawkins is a pompous, hubristic, opportunistic ass who couldn’t give two shits about “the children.”
This is yet another attempt to destroy Catholicism via malicious defamation and mudslinging, nothing more.
Tell me again about “religious nuts” and their “righteousness.” [/quote]
Thank you
I’m no fan of the catholic church for religious reasons and others…no one is arresting the pope. That would literally piss off the freakin world!
There are an estimated 1 billion catholics and overall 33% of the world is christian, almost none would react positively. I personally believe that these human rights violations are all bullshit.
Being Protestant, a bible believing christian who practices his faith, I think that Dawkins and hitchens are both pathetic morons. I am happy to have a mature debate about Christianity, God, The nature of God etc. Ive opened their books and read a sentence then realized they were so stupid it was a waste of time. The plan they now have confirms this fact.They know they are ultimately losing their fight against God so now they’re trying this retarded plan.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
So you think what they were doing then, was excusable?[/quote]
If you are asking if I think what they was right or if I condone it, no. If you are asking if I can understand why they did what they did, then yes. It was “moral” for the Aztecs to perform human sacrifice according to their system of morals, but I find it morally abhorrent.
Rubrics are not composed out of thin air, they are the product of a mind or, at the very least, something capable of some kind of value judgment. I could create a rubric that the best morality is that which lessens unnecessary suffering, is logically consistent in punishments and rewards, etc. and we could conceivably agree on using this rubric to judge moralities but this is in no way objective.
[quote]I’m not sure of your definition of the word “subjective” matches mine. From this post, I could almost take it to have the same meaning as the word “different,” rather than my interpretation of its meaning “existing only in the mind.”
[/quote]
The existence of moral absolutes and morality is contingent on the existence of a mind or, at the very least, something that can make value judgments between objects or events. If no mind existed, then no moral absolutes would exist and no morality would exist. This is not the same with logical absolutes, logic is the product of a mind but logical absolutes are objective.
[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?[/quote]
Yep, that would be consistent. I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, so I really can’t see it any other way. Moral absolutes are not like logical absolutes, which are objective. That is not to say that morality cannot be explained or that systems of morality cannot be judged as superior or inferior by some rubric, however, this does nothing to change how morality is still inherently subjective.[/quote]
Indeed. And the argument you would like to advance crumbles in light of what you posted above.[/quote]
And what argument is that, that morality is inherently subjective and moral absolutes do not exist? How does it crumble?