Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]wramsey wrote:
So I guess push etc would go around raping children if they thought god didn’t exist. They claim god is the basis of their morality yet their reason for following (or claiming to follow) his word is purely self interest (ie going to heaven not going to hell).

We can judge things wrong or right without the universe caring about our judgments or holding us accountable for them. The universe is utterly indifferent. The good suffer and the bad prosper, and although the idea of an afterlife which balances things out makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, that’s no evidence for a god or an afterlife.

To ask where our ability to judge good comes from or why we think one thing is right or wrong might seem like a special sort of question, but it’s really no different than asking how do we interpret certain wavelengths as red or blue or green, or how do we experience the taste of an orange when tasting an orange. A rough answer lies in the fact that some things promote the proliferation of genes (we experience these as pleasurable) and some things hinder it (these are painful). As societies become more complex that which is associated with the good becomes less strongly correlated with raw or base pleasure.

And obviously different societies have different ideas of rightness and wrongness. This doesn’t entail moral subjectivity, since some societies could simply be wrong. There are plenty of ways to root morality other than a deity. Kant used rationality. Mill used pleasure. Rand used self-interest.

[/quote]

Just to add to this, God really does not help their case at all.

Either they believe that some things are right or wrong and they accept that God has made it so and internalize it and make it their own, than they could arrive at that conclusion in a number of other ways.

Or, they simply bow down because otherwise they will get surprise buttsecks for eternity, but that is submission and not a moral decisision.

Just because your God tells you to do something does not mean that you have to do it, you can refuse. Insofar accepting his ideas of what is “right” is a decisions people are responsible for.

[/quote]

I won’t speak for push, but I’m pretty certain that I never said anything anywhere in this thread that contradicts any of these statements. Hell I mentioned Confucius pretty damned early on.

483

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeesh.

No matter how many people’s lives it saves. No matter what disaster it prevents. No matter what war is averted. No many how many other children protected from harm. It is still morally wrong to fuck a 7 year old boy in the asshole.

I can’t believe this is something I’m being challenged to “prove.”

[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You are not a making a defense, you are just making assertions and question begging. Do you disagree with the premise that the context of actions affect the morality of such actions, that normally moral actions in some circumstances would be considered immoral and vice versa?

If you don’t, then what it the problem? If you do, then make the case for an objective moral law or moral absolutes and counter the objections I’ve brought up previously.

I know full well that you believe the rape of children is morally wrong, as do I. However, your justification for that belief, that an objective moral law exists, is not valid from what you have presented.

[/quote]

You’re equivocating. You cannot say that you believe the rape of children to be morally wrong, but then it suddenly becomes okay when it is beneficial to someone else (and you can’t hear the absurdity in all of this?).

This is why I asked for a yes or no answer. As it stands, your answer appears to be no, that the rape of children can, indeed, be justified. If you disagree, then you find yourself in a dilemma.

Again, this is not situational. If you believe that raping children can be justified in some perverted situation, then you don’t really believe that child rape is bad. Period.[/quote]

I don’t know if this has been addressed, but Cortes, this is completely wrong on a million levels. I can sit here right now and give you a few things which you could say are wrong, and then I could paint a situation where you would do it anyways, but that does not mean that because a situation can exist where you would make the choice to do it, that does not mean that under ever circumstance you think it’s good or right.

Here are a couple if you will humor me. Is it morally wrong to kill a dog?

Is it morally wrong to kill off a species (POLAR BEAR) for example?

Is it morally wrong to cut off another mans balls?

Is it morally wrong to kill 50 innocent people?

Is it morally wrong to cut off your own finger?

Is it morally wrong to kill yourself?

V

484

The fact that every couple of months this same thread with the same posters with the same results pops up is sad/hilarious. If you believe that your savior is the ONLY one and ONLY true way to “get to heaven” then no one will ever be able to truly have a logical conversation about this with you. If you believe that the bible is the literal word of god then you are just a simple minded zealot at this point (don’t think anyone is arguing that on here). Just because other people have believed your faith for a really long time doesn’t make it right either way. God is god you either have a personal relationship with “it” or you don’t.

485

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Actually you are wrong, the lack of evidence for a God is a form of evidence that there is no God. It is not proof, I will grant you that but it is evidence. In a Universe that contains or is created by a God, one would expect some shred of evidence to be availabile, however what you actually have is the old fallback that Faith requires there to be no proof.

486

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Actually you are wrong, the lack of evidence for a God is a form of evidence that there is no God. It is not proof, I will grant you that but it is evidence. In a Universe that contains or is created by a God, one would expect some shred of evidence to be availabile, however what you actually have is the old fallback that Faith requires there to be no proof.[/quote]

Start a new thread, then.

487

[quote]storey420 wrote:
The fact that every couple of months this same thread with the same posters with the same results pops up is sad/hilarious. If you believe that your savior is the ONLY one and ONLY true way to “get to heaven” then no one will ever be able to truly have a logical conversation about this with you. If you believe that the bible is the literal word of god then you are just a simple minded zealot at this point (don’t think anyone is arguing that on here). Just because other people have believed your faith for a really long time doesn’t make it right either way. God is god you either have a personal relationship with “it” or you don’t.[/quote]

Are you proud of yourself? Does anything you’ve written here have anything to do with the topic at hand? Do you even know what the topic is?

Boy, for calling the theists and Christians dummies as often as some of you atheists do, you’d think your own posts might show evidence of a little more intelligence.

488

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeesh.

No matter how many people’s lives it saves. No matter what disaster it prevents. No matter what war is averted. No many how many other children protected from harm. It is still morally wrong to fuck a 7 year old boy in the asshole.

I can’t believe this is something I’m being challenged to “prove.”

[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You are not a making a defense, you are just making assertions and question begging. Do you disagree with the premise that the context of actions affect the morality of such actions, that normally moral actions in some circumstances would be considered immoral and vice versa?

If you don’t, then what it the problem? If you do, then make the case for an objective moral law or moral absolutes and counter the objections I’ve brought up previously.

I know full well that you believe the rape of children is morally wrong, as do I. However, your justification for that belief, that an objective moral law exists, is not valid from what you have presented.

[/quote]

You’re equivocating. You cannot say that you believe the rape of children to be morally wrong, but then it suddenly becomes okay when it is beneficial to someone else (and you can’t hear the absurdity in all of this?).

This is why I asked for a yes or no answer. As it stands, your answer appears to be no, that the rape of children can, indeed, be justified. If you disagree, then you find yourself in a dilemma.

Again, this is not situational. If you believe that raping children can be justified in some perverted situation, then you don’t really believe that child rape is bad. Period.[/quote]

I don’t know if this has been addressed, but Cortes, this is completely wrong on a million levels. I can sit here right now and give you a few things which you could say are wrong, and then I could paint a situation where you would do it anyways, but that does not mean that because a situation can exist where you would make the choice to do it, that does not mean that under ever circumstance you think it’s good or right.

Here are a couple if you will humor me. Is it morally wrong to kill a dog?

Is it morally wrong to kill off a species (POLAR BEAR) for example?

Is it morally wrong to cut off another mans balls?

Is it morally wrong to kill 50 innocent people?

Is it morally wrong to cut off your own finger?

Is it morally wrong to kill yourself?

V[/quote]

Thanks for being one of the very few to stay on topic and argue in good faith, V.

I’ll ask your question as soon as mine gets answered:

Can it ever be morally right to rape a 7 year old boy in the asshole? I don’t care if it’s raping his ass to save thousands, or it’s just a nasty old perverted uncle. Can the ACT ITSELF ever be considered morally justified and okay? Yes or no answer, please. “Well in this case…” is a yes answer. Please do not answer with a different situation. I’m asking about this situation.

Just because doing one thing can prevent another does not equal morality. That’s just a simple assessment of outcomes.

490

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Yeesh.

No matter how many people’s lives it saves. No matter what disaster it prevents. No matter what war is averted. No many how many other children protected from harm. It is still morally wrong to fuck a 7 year old boy in the asshole.

I can’t believe this is something I’m being challenged to “prove.”

[/quote]

This is getting absurd. You are not a making a defense, you are just making assertions and question begging. Do you disagree with the premise that the context of actions affect the morality of such actions, that normally moral actions in some circumstances would be considered immoral and vice versa?

If you don’t, then what it the problem? If you do, then make the case for an objective moral law or moral absolutes and counter the objections I’ve brought up previously.

I know full well that you believe the rape of children is morally wrong, as do I. However, your justification for that belief, that an objective moral law exists, is not valid from what you have presented.

[/quote]

You’re equivocating. You cannot say that you believe the rape of children to be morally wrong, but then it suddenly becomes okay when it is beneficial to someone else (and you can’t hear the absurdity in all of this?).

This is why I asked for a yes or no answer. As it stands, your answer appears to be no, that the rape of children can, indeed, be justified. If you disagree, then you find yourself in a dilemma.

Again, this is not situational. If you believe that raping children can be justified in some perverted situation, then you don’t really believe that child rape is bad. Period.[/quote]

I don’t know if this has been addressed, but Cortes, this is completely wrong on a million levels. I can sit here right now and give you a few things which you could say are wrong, and then I could paint a situation where you would do it anyways, but that does not mean that because a situation can exist where you would make the choice to do it, that does not mean that under ever circumstance you think it’s good or right.

Here are a couple if you will humor me. Is it morally wrong to kill a dog?

Is it morally wrong to kill off a species (POLAR BEAR) for example?

Is it morally wrong to cut off another mans balls?

Is it morally wrong to kill 50 innocent people?

Is it morally wrong to cut off your own finger?

Is it morally wrong to kill yourself?

V[/quote]

Thanks for being one of the very few to stay on topic and argue in good faith, V.

I’ll ask your question as soon as mine gets answered:

Can it ever be morally right to rape a 7 year old boy in the asshole? I don’t care if it’s raping his ass to save thousands, or it’s just a nasty old perverted uncle. Can the ACT ITSELF ever be considered morally justified and okay? Yes or no answer, please. “Well in this case…” is a yes answer. Please do not answer with a different situation. I’m asking about this situation.

Just because doing one thing can prevent another does not equal morality. That’s just a simple assessment of outcomes.
[/quote]

The act itself can never be moral, But you can do an unmoral act for a greater good. In other words, to play out your scenario. I’m in a chinese prison camp. Ho chi min or whoever comes in and tells me I have to rape this 7 year old boy in the arse or he WILL start launching nukes all over the world, essentially ending humankind as we know it. Ok it’s far fetched, but I guess it’s possible. Hell Kim Jong Ill might actually do this some day. Ok so you are left with a decision, do an absolutely horrible disgusting act to an innocent child, or doom humanity to extinction. I’m not even sure if I would be physically able to due to lack of erection, but I’m thinking I would try. For the record, I’m not a heaven or hell, fire and brimstone, judgemental god type person. I believe in a creator, but other than that, I stray very far away from any religion.

This example doesn’t mean the ends always justify the means, they do some times, but other times they would not. I am a human capable of making a decision based on a sliding scale of inputs and possible outcomes. For example, I could be driving down the road and reach for my cell phone in the cup holder. Probably a wrong action, but millions of people do it every day. Now two kids run out in the road after a ball while I do this and I splatter them all over the road. Which action caused a worse result, buttsex with a 7 year old who might have a difficult life due to emotional problems, or two children who are just gone, done fini. One I made a conscious decision to act badly so that humanity could live on. The other I violated a simple rule of driving an automobile safely and ended two childrens life with the only apparent gain being me answering my phone instead of calling the person back when I responsibly could.

Hell I could act morally, or do an act that was moral and have it lead to Great harm to others. You can never truly know exactly how your actions will be represented in reality.

I’ll finish with this. I really don’t know what I would do if the situation arose. Thinking about it again, if it were my daughter and not some random kid, Fuck humanity, I’m going to rip and claw at every motherfucker I can get my hands on until my body is well past dead. In the case of a random child I may actually make the decision that human existance doesn’t deserve to be saved. The ability of a human to present me with the situation at hand might just be the straw that breaks the camels back with regard to my faith in humanity.

All in all it is a very hard question no doubt, but I don’t think it’s correct to say if you would do an immoral act, that makes you think it’s ok or moral or good or something. It’s just not true.

V

491

[quote]Vegita wrote:

The act itself can never be moral,
[/quote]

That’s all you had to say. :slight_smile:

492

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

The act itself can never be moral,
[/quote]

That’s all you had to say. :)[/quote]

As I’m a libertarian, doing anything to anyone against thier will is immoral. To me a hospital trying to save a persons life even if they do not want to be saved is immoral. If someone wants to down a botle of pills and end it all, I morally cannot interfere. If it’s a loved one I may act immorally and interfere, because I am selfish etc… But it would still be immoral.

All that being said, There are certainly things that could be precieved as moral in another palce and time which would be not moral today. For example, there is a very large percentage of people in the US that would consider raising and killing a dog or a cat for human consumption to be completely immoral, yet in china, it is a normal practice. If some of us went over there and started a crusade against the immoral act, they would look at us in the same way you or I look at a peta freak telling me not to eat beef.

Very extreme examples like you gave me are much easier to draw a black and white conclusion from, but humans make day to day grey area moral decisions every single day. The end result is that not everyone has the same morals, even within a close family they could be wildly different.

These grey area cases is where I can make my best case that each human LEARNS his morals throughtout the society he/she is raised in and through thier own personal experiences. Example. Child 1 has a father who is a hunter. Child 1 learns from an early age that animals are hunted and consumed, or even just hunted for pleasure and mounted as trophies. Father exposes child 1 to this early and often, father glorifies hunting to child 1. Because father is a very strong influence on child 1 while early development is taking place, child 1 grows up to have similar moral views on animals.

Child 2 grows up with hippie parents who are vegans. Child 2 grows up in an environment where animals have spirits and are interconnected to the planet in a delicate way. They are living entities who have thier own free will and rights, like any humam. Child 2 has pets early and often, not just a dog, but a cat, a gerbal, fish, some ducks. Child 2 makes strong emotional connections to animals early in life.

These 2 children will be adults with vastly different morals regarding the treatment of animals. Niether set of morals is right or wrong in an absolute sense. But to the individual, they can be very strong and important morals.

V

493

I’ve noticed a trend on these threads. If someone posts anything quite logical that’s not easily refuted, the theists take it as a personal attack. I wish this (taking it as a personal attack) would stop so a better discussion would form.

Now, I’ll be insulted in: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…

494

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’ve noticed a trend on these threads. If someone posts anything quite logical that’s not easily refuted, the theists take it as a personal attack. I wish this (taking it as a personal attack) would stop so a better discussion would form.

Now, I’ll be insulted in: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…[/quote]

Good call Back in Action, but I see it going both ways. I dont think it is just the Theists, but also the Atheists that do the above.

You on the other hand are level headed, but it appears you are at least looking for answers. Honestly who is going to be proven right on this thread, Atheists or Theists?

495

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Good call Back in Action, but I see it going both ways. I dont think it is just the Theists, but also the Atheists that do the above.

You on the other hand are level headed, but it appears you are at least looking for answers. Honestly who is going to be proven right on this thread, Atheists or Theists?[/quote]

It definitely occurs on the Atheist side as well. I just keep seeing the exact same people take any discussion as inflammatory and respond negatively. If their convictions to their beliefs (Atheist or Theist) are that strong, at least have the decency to support them in a way that doesn’t negatively hurt their cause.

As far as who is right or wrong, if we go back to the original argument (arresting the pope), I don’t think that a possibility in Italy. Although, I don’t think the institution should be immune to such crimes and should be punishable the same as any other man. You would think people who have such a strong commitment towards God wouldn’t break their commitment so quickly. I don’t think it’s wrong to take such commitments (if you’re doing it for the right reasons), but breaking them shows the type of person you’re dealing with and should always be punished accordingly.

EDIT: BTW, I just remembered that the Vatican is an independent country in Italy, so I don’t even think arresting the pope is a possibility.

496

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’ve noticed a trend on these threads. If someone posts anything quite logical that’s not easily refuted, the theists take it as a personal attack. I wish this (taking it as a personal attack) would stop so a better discussion would form.

Now, I’ll be insulted in: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…[/quote]

Which part are you talking about? Genuinely curious.

497

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
I’ve noticed a trend on these threads. If someone posts anything quite logical that’s not easily refuted, the theists take it as a personal attack. I wish this (taking it as a personal attack) would stop so a better discussion would form.

Now, I’ll be insulted in: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…[/quote]

Which part are you talking about? Genuinely curious.[/quote]

I would prefer not to point out individuals as this would only negatively hurt what I’m trying to get across. Just consider this a general message to those on this thread to not take things personally and act out on this. It hurts the good discussion between forum members.

498

Cortes I apologise if you have already done this, but I don’t feel like you or push has clearly stated WHY you think moral authority comes from god. Perhaps thats not what you are arguing, and in that case, I don’t even know what I am arguing for.

Let me make my final point that societies direct morality.

First a standard definition of morality:

The term â??moralityâ?? can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. -End

So going by that definition of the word alone, Morality CAN stem from religion, in which case for those followers of religion, it would stem from god. BUT the absence of religion or belief in god does not mean an absence of morality.

Allow me to use my own example and you will probably have to use your imagination on this one, but it should paint the picture I intend. Pretend for a second that God doesn’t exist. That all of creation is just random and chance that it turned out the way it did. Complex organisms are just a luck set of basic universal physics and chemistry priciples who stack upon eachother to form complex structures. Every human response, emotion, thought etc… is the direct result of trillions of individual chemical reactions, in essence, you really don’t have free will or free choice, you just have extremely complex chemical reactions going on. We can’t count them or predict them (yet) so we assume some other force has input, Spirit if you will. But in this reality, there really is no spirit, or god.

Ok Now, amongst all these chemical reactions, there develops a certain type of chemical that has an interesting set of properties. It seems this specific cluster of chemicals will duplicate itself. Now due to more complex physics and chemical properties, certain clusters of these chemicals started attracting other chemicals which increased thier ability to duplicate themselves. Over millenia, things like cells started to come into existance because they allowed the origional chemicals with a propensity to duplicate themsleves to duplicate faster.

Another millenia or two later, chemical reactions between cells led to even further advancement of the chemical systems, organisms began to form. By random encounter yet staying within the physical laws of the univers, differnet things began to happen. Some things resulted in the destruction of the complex chemical organisms, some things led to the organisms to flourish. This progressed even further, where too much of a good thing could lead to the elimination of a resource and thus the end result was a bad thing. Through pure chance, certain chemical reactions ultimately had a better chance of duplicating than others, or others simply wiped themselves out or where wiped out bu outside forces out of thier direct involvement.

And now we arrive at the present day, even millenia further down the scope of things and those chemical reactions are still taking place. The reactions have become so complex that entire clusters of organisms have started acting together, much the same way the first cells did, random and very complex actions and reactions taking place. Those chemical traits which prove detrimental to the replication of the chemicals (DNA) eventually are out replicated by good chemical traits that help the chemicals replicate.

With each increase in organism coplexity, new forms of communication came into being beyone chemical. Things like interacting with radiation, light and sound made things even more complex. Organsisms could interact on levels previously unthinkable. The ultimate desire of the root chemicals (DNA) could begin to actively manipulate thier environment instead of just floating along bumping into shit.

With this action came societies and morals. for the base desire for those chemicals to replicate is the driving force in all of this random cluster called life. It’s the ONLY rule of law, duplicate oneself. This is the foundation for moral code. What brings one the highest chances of duplicating oneself.

No god, just a chemical trying to replicate. And we still get morals.

V

499

I’ve not got the time at all right now to get to this. I will try and tackle some of it tomorrow, bro.

500

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ve not got the time at all right now to get to this. I will try and tackle some of it tomorrow, bro.[/quote]

No problemo! Going nowhere I am.

V