Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

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…[/quote]

I’m pretty sure the downfall of the Aztec empire came at the end of my sword >:)

342

Alot of people seem to be confused about how Religion and Christianity is defined. Religion is a set of morals and rules that you would follow for your own sake whether it be reward or moral superiority. Christianity is defined by the bible as having a personal relationship with God and because you love God you want to live in his imagine and do what he knows is right for you. If you disagree, then ask yourself is it because of the way you’ve seen some christians act…then you are wrong simply because it doesn’t matter if people call themselves christians and act in a way that is non christian…Christianity is still what it is, if it is because you dont think it is defined this way then simply read the parable of “the lost son” Luke 15:11-32 NIV - The Parable of the Lost Son - Jesus - Bible Gateway. the younger brother represents a real christian, the older brother a “religious person”

343

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

…like who exactly?[/quote]

How much effort are you willing to put into it? Honest question. If you want a primer, I can point you to a few. I actually happen to be revisiting one that I really enjoy right now. If you’d like to start with a few choice philosophers, I’d suggest beginning at Plato and moving on from there. I’d be more than happy to make some recommendations to you, and I’ll wager orion has some pretty good ideas, too, if you are genuinely interested.

I promise you, even if you don’t agree with the philosophers, it is highly enriching, high entertaining reading (or listening if you go the audiobook route).

346

This thread really got away from me. Damned time zones.

347

Can we just nuke fucktarded England already.
You guys defend and house hateful Islamic Imans, but want to arres tthe pope.
All the while you pussies sound off about this, your women are getting fucked by some aids-infested african immigrants, becuase that’s what is culturally ‘coool’ to do in your country.

Can someone just whipe you off the face of the fucking planet already?

349

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Can we just nuke fucktarded England already.
You guys defend and house hateful Islamic Imans, but want to arres tthe pope.
All the while you pussies sound off about this, your women are getting fucked by some aids-infested african immigrants, becuase that’s what is culturally ‘coool’ to do in your country.

Can someone just whipe you off the face of the fucking planet already?[/quote]

Bill Roberts leaves.

This guy shows up.[/quote]

Hurrah.

350

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

However, he will not do that because he secretly wants to believe in an absolute morality, namely his version of morality.

[/quote]

…i just did, and i don’t…
[/quote]

No you did not, you danced around the crux of the matter.

Where they right or were they wrong?

You seem to evolve in a direction where mores are good if they lead to the survival of a society, which would be very social darwinistic of you.

351

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DCubed wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DCubed wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You and Eph and a few others are as dogmatic in your faith as any “churchman” anywhere.[/quote]

In what sense?[/quote]

Give it some thought.

Read some of what Alpha F had to say on the Missing Link thread.[/quote]

I’m going to have to say that if you’re going to make a claim like that you better back it up with substantial arguments or at least quote someone else’s. I have given it some thought, by the way. I just want to hear why you think that non-faith is faith and using evidence as a guide for what’s real is faith. [/quote]

I’ve been making the claim and backing it up over and over and over again for years right here on the Nation of Testosterone’s PWI. The fact that Johnny-come-lately strolls in here and issues a decree that I explain myself yet once again…well…in the words of one of Canada’s finest, Shania Twain…“that don’t impress me much.”

One has Faith nothing is there.

One has Faith something is.

You don’t need a big long windy diatribe. You just need some common sense.

(Don’t get hung up on the catch word, “Evidence”. It’s a floating concept in a debate like this one. It’s not a proprietary term)[/quote]

I’m sorry, but common sense doesn’t cut it for me. What is common sense? Who has it and who doesn’t? Why does one person possess common sense and the other one doesn’t? Common sense is not a proprietary term, so at least give an explanation of what you mean by common sense and from there I’ll evaluate whether your argument is legitimate or not.

Addressing your aside, I meant to say scientific evidence, but I was too lazy to change it and assumed you would interpret it in that manner. Obviously, I was wrong.

Please note that I acknowledge that I’m a “Johnny-come-lately”, but to me your lack of effort just means you’re not willing to prove to me that you’re right, which is fine, I guess. I only think that’s somewhat strange since the name of the game is to prove that you’re right. Also, don’t assume that just you’ve been here longer you no longer have to explain what you’re talking about.

352

Also, you got my head stuck on that stupid Shania Twain song. I thought I never had to listen to that stupid song anymore. You suck.

353

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Rohnyn wrote:
Can we just nuke fucktarded England already.
You guys defend and house hateful Islamic Imans, but want to arres tthe pope.
All the while you pussies sound off about this, your women are getting fucked by some aids-infested african immigrants, becuase that’s what is culturally ‘coool’ to do in your country.

Can someone just whipe you off the face of the fucking planet already?[/quote]

Bill Roberts leaves.

This guy shows up.[/quote]

Hurrah.[/quote]

x2 Seems quite the shit deal.

Makkun

354

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

However, he will not do that because he secretly wants to believe in an absolute morality, namely his version of morality.

[/quote]

…i just did, and i don’t…
[/quote]

No you did not, you danced around the crux of the matter.

Where they right or were they wrong?

You seem to evolve in a direction where mores are good if they lead to the survival of a society, which would be very social darwinistic of you.

[/quote]

…they did what they thought was the right thing to do in order to save themselves. They were wrong, because by doing so they didn’t actually save themselves. The average set of mores we have today has evolved socially, and has proven to be succesful. Where’s the problem?

355

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

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…[/quote]

I’m pretty sure the downfall of the Aztec empire came at the end of my sword >:)
[/quote]

…you’re right, the Maya’s and the Inca’s did it all by themselves though. Was it religious morality that allowed Cortes, a devout catholic, to slaughter and plunder for the Spanish king, also a devout catholic?

356

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…like who exactly?[/quote]

How much effort are you willing to put into it? Honest question. If you want a primer, I can point you to a few. I actually happen to be revisiting one that I really enjoy right now. If you’d like to start with a few choice philosophers, I’d suggest beginning at Plato and moving on from there. I’d be more than happy to make some recommendations to you, and I’ll wager orion has some pretty good ideas, too, if you are genuinely interested.

I promise you, even if you don’t agree with the philosophers, it is highly enriching, high entertaining reading (or listening if you go the audiobook route).
[/quote]

…not a lot. I’ll probably look them up online, but as i said before, on these issues i have little interest in the opinion of others, i prefer fiction to be honest. Nevertheless, i’ll start with Plato, but i can’t take orion’s advice on anything, so let’s not got there, lol…

357

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

However, he will not do that because he secretly wants to believe in an absolute morality, namely his version of morality.

[/quote]

…i just did, and i don’t…
[/quote]

No you did not, you danced around the crux of the matter.

Where they right or were they wrong?

You seem to evolve in a direction where mores are good if they lead to the survival of a society, which would be very social darwinistic of you.

[/quote]

…they did what they thought was the right thing to do in order to save themselves. They were wrong, because by doing so they didn’t actually save themselves. The average set of mores we have today has evolved socially, and has proven to be succesful. Where’s the problem?
[/quote]

Because it links those ideas to an outcome that could be depending on those ideas or not.

That is not a moral code but an attempt to appease the gods, which is ironically what the Azteks tried to do.

You have nothing to say against the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the American Indians or slavery because those societies still exist.

You are arguing for a version of “might makes right”.

358

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…they did what they thought was the right thing to do in order to save themselves. They were wrong, because by doing so they didn’t actually save themselves. The average set of mores we have today has evolved socially, and has proven to be succesful. Where’s the problem?
[/quote]

Because it links those ideas to an outcome that could be depending on those ideas or not.

That is not a moral code but an attempt to appease the gods, which is ironically what the Azteks tried to do.

You have nothing to say against the Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the American Indians or slavery because those societies still exist.

You are arguing for a version of “might makes right”.

[/quote]

…the spanish empire, as it existed at that time, does not exist anymore. And the global american empire is unsustainable, i expect it’ll implode within our lifetime. The roman empire had customs that are unthinkable in modern times, yet the empire lasted for [in part] for 1500 years. Be patient…

…“might makes right” is another way of saying “survial of the fittest”. I may not like aspects of it, but that doesn’t change the principle. This discussion on morality is basically moot because we’re still highly evolved animals, and nature is in essence a-moral. That humans tend to self-organise the system is not an indication of a higher order, imo…

359

I’m sorry if someone has stated this very simple point in the previous pages, i just couldn’t read it all.

This is to Push and Cortes,

Addressing the question of morality and the difference between ‘evil’ human actions (harming children) and those of animals, (wolves killing deer).

The one major difference in this comparison is that of the HUMAN MIND, our glorious, complex conciousness.

It is this mind (which evolved through natural causes, our bigger brain and subsequent hardware and culture allowing us a distinct survival advantage) which allows us more insight into these situations.

With our capacity for thought, unlike the wolf, we are able to examine situations from multiple angles, we have empathy, we can remember the past, and look to the future to judge the consequences of our actions.
Now we can remember how it was to be a child, and we can think about how hellish it would be to be raped as a child. This knowledge and the knowledge that other people have feelings similar to our own that sparks morality.

There is no need for a ‘God’s Law’, (a law which scripturally is based on carrot and big stick ideas of fear and servitude) in order to be good and live well amongst other humans and nature. There are natural, physical explanations for the complex behaviour of humans.

Can you recognise these points?

360

And addressing the point that in understanding how we and every other species came into being, through Darwinian evolution somehow undermines that which we all recognise as good morality.

It is the same as a doctor understanding cancer, its causes and effects, but still wishing to fight it.

We who understand the cruel, bias-less forces that shape survival in the natural world have no desire for these same forces to shape our culture and lives. We wish to fight, cruelty, pain and death, like the doctor fights cancer.