Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
The mind is what separates humans from animals, not the brain. We have a less obscured view of the world than animals. Not a clear one, but a bit better. They don’t usually argue morality through machines they create. Too busy finding food.

Society got its agreement from years of people like us having these discussions. Apparently not too many pedophiles are good at debate.

Since we used to have sex with kids in Greece, and we don’t anymore, then sure, we could “evolve” back into having sex with kids again. I’m not Nostradamus, or Darwin. Just a dude that thinks putting his dick in a kid’s hole seems weird. Hilarious to me that this point is actually being contested.

Cortes, sorry for skipping your question.

I think we both arrived at the same conclusion that harming kids is wrong because… we’re not stupid.

Are you implying that there’s something leading us both there? Other than simple reason? God, perhaps?

I hope not, but we’ll see.[/quote]

Yeesh, this is turning into a weird conversation.

Okay, so if we “evolve back” to having sex with kids again, is it then going to become morally acceptable?

And what do you mean by, “we’re not stupid.” Are you then saying that the reason we do not accept pedophilia “or” child rape is because that is the “right” answer?

Do you even know what you are saying? Because it sounds to me like you are all over the place.

EDIT: I see you answered this above in response to push. Morality does change.

[/quote]

Morality changes only if there’s not a firm basis for it to begin with.

82

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

I think you’re missing the entire point here which is: what gives you the right to deem another individual’s actions wrong? Where is your high ground if we’re all evolved animals on level footing?[/quote]

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.”

“That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

“We should behave to friends as we would wish friends to behave to us.”[/quote]

It is SO WEIRD how all of those different religions, from completely different times, and cultures, and areas of the earth, came up with the EXACT same concept! You’d think, like, there was this absolute law that already existed and that each society discovered that law for itself. Or, like, something.[/quote]

…it’s not coincedental Cortes. These rules make a society or tribe succesful. As human population started to grow and cities formed, we needed guidelines to be able to live together peacefully. The golden rule was the key to succesful co-existence, hence it’s proliferation…

83

ITT people get defensive and try to side track the argument.

84

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

I think you’re missing the entire point here which is: what gives you the right to deem another individual’s actions wrong? Where is your high ground if we’re all evolved animals on level footing?[/quote]

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.”

“That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

“We should behave to friends as we would wish friends to behave to us.”[/quote]

Why use religion based quotes to attack religion as a moral foundation?

85

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…combine points 1 and 2 with my post quoted above and you have my answer Cortes…
[/quote]

That is not an answer, that is a cop out.

I do not think introducing a “god” helps in any way, but to claim that either you or “the law” is somehow the source of morality is probably even worse than inventing an invisible being that gives us moral rules.

[/quote]

…and your third option would be?
[/quote]

There is none.

There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.

There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:

Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?

Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.

86

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

I think you’re missing the entire point here which is: what gives you the right to deem another individual’s actions wrong? Where is your high ground if we’re all evolved animals on level footing?[/quote]

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.”

“That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

“We should behave to friends as we would wish friends to behave to us.”[/quote]

It is SO WEIRD how all of those different religions, from completely different times, and cultures, and areas of the earth, came up with the EXACT same concept! You’d think, like, there was this absolute law that already existed and that each society discovered that law for itself. Or, like, something.[/quote]

…it’s not coincedental Cortes. These rules make a society or tribe succesful. As human population started to grow and cities formed, we needed guidelines to be able to live together peacefully. The golden rule was the key to succesful co-existence, hence it’s proliferation…[/quote]

Except there were societies already established well before “The Golden Rule” was spoken as such.

87

OK, Ace and Mak seem to deem that it is wrong because:
Severe physical and psychological harm is caused to the unwilling and innocent child. This harm is carried out not for the survival needs of the perpetrator, but for their own selfish sexual gratification. Ace is not saying that sexual gratification in itself is wrong, but the fact that the perpetrators have unnecessarily harmed innocent people in order to get it.

Cortes, do you not think that this is a valid justification?

You and Push have said that it doesn’t follow that Ace’s morals are “superior” to the morals of the pedo. You have also said that the pedo deems his acts to be morally acceptable. Considering, that in this case, the pedo is a priest, and believes (supposedly) in the Catholic code of morals, this cannot be the case - I’m pretty sure the Bible says stuff against sexual misconduct. This renders your “why are your morals superior to the pedo’s morals?” point moot.

Cortes, what is your justification of why it is wrong?

88

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…combine points 1 and 2 with my post quoted above and you have my answer Cortes…
[/quote]

That is not an answer, that is a cop out.

I do not think introducing a “god” helps in any way, but to claim that either you or “the law” is somehow the source of morality is probably even worse than inventing an invisible being that gives us moral rules.

[/quote]

…and your third option would be?
[/quote]

There is none.

There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.

There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:

Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?

Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]

Is it convenient to debate without taking a side?

89

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…combine points 1 and 2 with my post quoted above and you have my answer Cortes…
[/quote]

That is not an answer, that is a cop out.

I do not think introducing a “god” helps in any way, but to claim that either you or “the law” is somehow the source of morality is probably even worse than inventing an invisible being that gives us moral rules.

[/quote]

…and your third option would be?
[/quote]

There is none.

There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.

There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:

Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?

Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]

And, therefore, as Dostoyevsky tells us: “If God is dead, all is permitted.”

So what are you guys getting so worked up about? :wink:

90

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…combine points 1 and 2 with my post quoted above and you have my answer Cortes…
[/quote]

That is not an answer, that is a cop out.

I do not think introducing a “god” helps in any way, but to claim that either you or “the law” is somehow the source of morality is probably even worse than inventing an invisible being that gives us moral rules.

[/quote]

…and your third option would be?
[/quote]

There is none.

There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.

There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:

Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?

Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]
Is it convenient to debate without taking a side?[/quote]

No, that is actually very inconvenient.

It help when you try to understand where people are coming from though.

91

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
The mind is what separates humans from animals, not the brain. We have a less obscured view of the world than animals. Not a clear one, but a bit better. They don’t usually argue morality through machines they create. Too busy finding food.
[/quote]

I’m not sure that the inane waste of time (which I realize I am freely participating in) is the best basis for an argument of a superior mind.[/quote]

Also, as someone who deals with rapists (child and otherwise) at work, I can tell you it’s not about the sex act itself 99.9% of the time. It’s about superiority. They do it because they can, and because that other person wanted or should have wanted the rape… not labeling you at all, but just saying, I think it’s important to have the insight into why the rapist is does what they do to begin with. They see themselves as the more enlightened being at the time, if you will.

92

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…this is absolute bullshit. I, or an atheist, do not need a religious damnation of something vile like child abuse to deem such acts “wrong”. That you would even go there amazes me…[/quote]

I think you’re missing the entire point here which is: what gives you the right to deem another individual’s actions wrong? Where is your high ground if we’re all evolved animals on level footing?[/quote]

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”

“In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.”

“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.”

“That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.”

“We should behave to friends as we would wish friends to behave to us.”[/quote]

Why use religion based quotes to attack religion as a moral foundation?[/quote]

…because it’s the only one that makes sense…

93

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…combine points 1 and 2 with my post quoted above and you have my answer Cortes…
[/quote]

That is not an answer, that is a cop out.

I do not think introducing a “god” helps in any way, but to claim that either you or “the law” is somehow the source of morality is probably even worse than inventing an invisible being that gives us moral rules.

[/quote]

…and your third option would be?
[/quote]

There is none.

There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.

There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:

Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?

Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]

And, therefore, as Dostoyevsky tells us: “If God is dead, all is permitted.”

So what are you guys getting so worked up about? ;)[/quote]

I do not get worked up about anything.

While I do believe that the systematic cover ups when it comes to child abuse warrant a crimininal investigation I do not need a god to tell me that I do not want this kind of thing going on.

This is one of the very few instances where I think that rough men with guns are an acceptable way of keeping this problem in check.

94

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…and your third option would be?
[/quote]

There is none.

There is no ultimate source of morality, it is not even possible to create a logically sound ethical system that would convince anyone halfway sane.

There are just some things in there that I would like to point out:

Whereas they claim the moral universe withing them was put there by God, you claim that “the law” makes an act moral or immoral? Is the state your God?

Then, your gut feeling is no more legitimmate than theirs when it comes to determining what is moral or not. And that is basically what you do, you rephrase your gut feeling over and over when they would like to know why your gut feeling should hold be more relevant than that of a pedophiles.[/quote]

…nevertheless, all societies need a set of moral guidelines to function. If you claim this is not the case, i doubt your sanity. So, how would you go about setting guidelines in order to have a society functioning succesfully, and how do you justify those guidelines?

95

Is that your point, Cortes? Really? Just a quote, not even something original?

96

I guess you guys realize that:

a. The morality of followers of the SAME religion differs radically:
Example: Some christians find it ok to kill people working in abortion clinics, most do not.

b. The morality of followers of the same religion CHANGES with time:
Example: The pope will no longer support execution of atheists or heretics like in the middle ages.

So how is religion good at giving an answer to the question which morality is superior to another?

Morality will always be heavily influenced by social norms which do not have much to do with religion itself.

From a practical point of view I think whether a person ACTS like what the majority of people at that time will feel is morally sound has nothing do to whether he or she is religous or not or which religion he or she subscribes to.

97

I don’t think there is a moral foundation. That would be an absolute approach, which obviously just doesn’t work.

Morals are always relative, and each situation needs to be judged as an individual event, not against an absolute “moral foundation”.

For example, If I say “killing is always wrong”. This is an absolute statement. However, what if someone said to my friend “If you don’t kill The Goose, I will kill a thousand other people.” In this situation would it still be wrong for my friend to kill me?

Obviously, its tough to answer that question, but it makes clear why you can’t really have an absolute “moral foundation”.

98

[quote]SRT08 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…it’s not coincedental Cortes. These rules make a society or tribe succesful. As human population started to grow and cities formed, we needed guidelines to be able to live together peacefully. The golden rule was the key to succesful co-existence, hence it’s proliferation…[/quote]

Except there were societies already established well before “The Golden Rule” was spoken as such.[/quote]

…perhaps so, but that doesn’t mean those societies didn’t follow a version of the golden rule. Or perhaps they didn’t follow a similar rule and crumbled as a result, i don’t know. What’s your point?

99

[quote]yusef wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
It is SO WEIRD how all of those different religions, from completely different times, and cultures, and areas of the earth, came up with the EXACT same concept! You’d think, like, there was this absolute law that already existed and that each society discovered that law for itself. Or, like, something.
[/quote]

Of course. They all originate from the same Source. God-inspired, or enlightened people, as the founders of this (single) message of kindness spread it to their own cultures. The enlightened ones are those who manage to get their own mind/desires out of the way for a long enough time to see this ‘absolute law that already existed’ - the Reality, God, their true Self, whatever you wish to call it. It is the political leaders that then, over time, mutate, omit and distort the message for their own gain. I also have my doubts that the pope is an enlightened master.

Orion, ‘God’ may be different from the concept you have of Him in your mind - hence why I hesitate to use that word.

By the way, nice DELTS, Cortes.[/quote]

There is no absolute law. See my above post.

100

[quote]The Goose. wrote:
OK, Ace and Mak seem to deem that it is wrong because:
Severe physical and psychological harm is caused to the unwilling and innocent child. This harm is carried out not for the survival needs of the perpetrator, but for their own selfish sexual gratification. Ace is not saying that sexual gratification in itself is wrong, but the fact that the perpetrators have unnecessarily harmed innocent people in order to get it.

Cortes, do you not think that this is a valid justification?

You and Push have said that it doesn’t follow that Ace’s morals are “superior” to the morals of the pedo. You have also said that the pedo deems his acts to be morally acceptable. Considering, that in this case, the pedo is a priest, and believes (supposedly) in the Catholic code of morals, this cannot be the case - I’m pretty sure the Bible says stuff against sexual misconduct. This renders your “why are your morals superior to the pedo’s morals?” point moot.

Cortes, what is your justification of why it is wrong?[/quote]

I believe child rape to be wrong because there exists an absolute morality, and that absolute morality is derived from God. It exists because it is the essence of His nature. Now, by following that morality it will just so turn out that it will result in the greatest benefit for the maximum amount of people, as well as true happiness (as opposed to a fleeting satisfaction of desires) for its adherents. This is because, much like the laws of thermodynamics and physics, it is a law. The only difference between this law and those is that we, as humans, are free to break the Moral (or Natural, if you prefer) Law. But we do so at our own peril. It is from this law, and our discovery, not creation, of it, that we have come to such conclusions as “raping a child is bad,” or “greed and selfishness are never virtues.” Can you imagine a society in which turning away from a woman being mugged (ensuring your survival and following your instincts), would be seen as any kind of virtuous act?

Now, if there is no God, there is no law, and the atheistic apologist is then challenged with the task of justifying his beliefs based upon experience or reason. Problem is, there is no foundation now, none, to compare or justify why one act is now “good” while another one is “evil.” And so, as orion correctly states, you have a lot of people repulsed with an act who label it “wrong” because of nothing more than a gut reaction based upon their prior experience and biases. This opens the door for all sorts of abuse, and what you end up with is a formula for someone justifying any sort of morality he pleases.

I’m happy to continue this argument, but I want to see a stronger justification for why an act is “not good” than what has been presented so far. Feelings, laws, and examples based upon evolution have thus far failed to convince me.