Atheism-o-Phobia

wfifer · October 22, 2010, 6:21pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Pay attention.

I know you were implying there are no absolutes. My post was addressing exactly this, and pointing out that your position is not logically sound, unless you are willing to excuse all manner, and I mean absolutely (wink wink) all manner of heinous behavior.

But you won’t, because there are certain things that you know are always going to be wrong. And if you won’t admit it you will tie yourself into gordian knots trying to prove your point.

[/quote]

I’m paying attention, I just need you to spell your argument out a little better, because apparently you’re making a leap that I’m not seeing. I don’t see where I’m excusing any behavior in particular, or making a judgment as to whether or not it’s heinous.

I’m saying that a society should choose some basic goal or goals and define them explicitly. I think a simple, self-evident example is the preservation of society itself. We can choose to place the lives and freedoms of the people who make up society above all else. Relative to that goal, we can say what’s good or bad. In this society, you can freely do anything except murder or otherwise interfere with the freedom of anyone else. Again, I’m speaking very basically here. And yes, this excuses a lot of things that you may find distasteful. We can’t abolish everything we don’t “like.”

You seem to be supposing that I would twist logic to make arguments based on preexisting moral tenets. This is not the case. I’m glad to live in a society where murder is morally wrong. But no part of me believes that anything is absolutely wrong. [/quote]

I don’t believe that you intend to twist logic. But you’ll have to, if you intend to follow your line of reasoning to its eventual conclusions.

I’m already following this exact line of thinking with Fletch, so I’m not really inclined to have the same argument with two people at the same time. You are welcome to jump in on our dialogue, however.

One thing for you to think about in the meantime, though. You twice mention murder. How do you feel about the German society that arose in the '30s and '40s?[/quote]

This is why I think we’re not on the same page. I don’t agree with what Hitler did, and you think I should, based on my reasoning. How does the Third Reich fit the criteria? It is not a group of people who agreed on a morality for that group. Morality has to be authentic. So even though there were a lot of people who went along with the Nazis, it had little to do with what they actually believed. This is personal morality imposed on a group, not true group morality.

wfifer · October 22, 2010, 6:23pm

[quote]Rocky2 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One thing I like about the video , is that Altruism is a good thing .

What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
Agnostic duh :P[/quote]

Theist. A theist could be agnostic, but doesn’t have to be.

Cortes · October 22, 2010, 6:48pm

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Pay attention.

I know you were implying there are no absolutes. My post was addressing exactly this, and pointing out that your position is not logically sound, unless you are willing to excuse all manner, and I mean absolutely (wink wink) all manner of heinous behavior.

But you won’t, because there are certain things that you know are always going to be wrong. And if you won’t admit it you will tie yourself into gordian knots trying to prove your point.

[/quote]

I’m paying attention, I just need you to spell your argument out a little better, because apparently you’re making a leap that I’m not seeing. I don’t see where I’m excusing any behavior in particular, or making a judgment as to whether or not it’s heinous.

I’m saying that a society should choose some basic goal or goals and define them explicitly. I think a simple, self-evident example is the preservation of society itself. We can choose to place the lives and freedoms of the people who make up society above all else. Relative to that goal, we can say what’s good or bad. In this society, you can freely do anything except murder or otherwise interfere with the freedom of anyone else. Again, I’m speaking very basically here. And yes, this excuses a lot of things that you may find distasteful. We can’t abolish everything we don’t “like.”

You seem to be supposing that I would twist logic to make arguments based on preexisting moral tenets. This is not the case. I’m glad to live in a society where murder is morally wrong. But no part of me believes that anything is absolutely wrong. [/quote]

I don’t believe that you intend to twist logic. But you’ll have to, if you intend to follow your line of reasoning to its eventual conclusions.

I’m already following this exact line of thinking with Fletch, so I’m not really inclined to have the same argument with two people at the same time. You are welcome to jump in on our dialogue, however.

One thing for you to think about in the meantime, though. You twice mention murder. How do you feel about the German society that arose in the '30s and '40s?[/quote]

This is why I think we’re not on the same page. I don’t agree with what Hitler did, and you think I should, based on my reasoning.[/quote]

No. Of course you don’t agree with what Hitler did. Again, be careful to look at exactly what I am saying.

[quote]
How does the Third Reich fit the criteria? It is not a group of people who agreed on a morality for that group.[/quote]

Um, what? You’re telling me that millions and millions of Germans, members of said National Socialist Party, mind you, both military and civilian, did NOT agree with the Nazi Party? These people were all coerced?

You mean relative morality?

And how does one go about determining this “authenticity?”

[quote]
So even though there were a lot of people who went along with the Nazis, it had little to do with what they actually believed. This is personal morality imposed on a group, not true group morality. [/quote]

Remember that thing about having to twist logic I mentioned just a few paragraphs back?

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:37pm

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
There’s some misunderstanding of what “relativism” means here.

I will never throw a baby off a cliff, under any conceivable circumstances. It goes against my code.

Someone else might think it’s all right to throw a baby off a cliff, and it might be impossible for me to convince that person that he’s doing wrong. I could say, “But you’re hurting a defenseless human who never harmed you!” And he’d say, “And what’s wrong with that?” I couldn’t prove objectively that there’s something wrong with throwing babies off cliffs, unless you start by accepting certain values as axiomatic. You can’t derive morality from first principles.

That doesn’t mean that I, personally, will occasionally throw a baby off a cliff. It doesn’t mean that I won’t do what I can to stop baby-throwers. I am an anti-baby-thrower. But a pro-baby-thrower could be just as logically consistent as I am; I happen to be his enemy, that’s all.

This is a ridiculous example, but there are real creeds and real belief systems that are, by my lights, immoral and repugnant, and yet I can’t prove that my own beliefs are better. Eventually I hit a wall, and I have to say, “I value this; clearly, you don’t.”

There are two ways you can deal with someone who starts with fundamentally different moral values than yourself. One, you can tolerate him (it doesn’t mean you approve, it just means you let him be), or two, you can make war on him, using force to stop him from acting on those different moral values. I personally would choose to tolerate in most cases, but to make war in a few (mainly, when the other person initiates aggression.) There are things I wouldn’t tolerate. What I do think is that it isn’t wise to NEVER choose tolerance. You cannot hope to force everyone to follow the moral values you hold; if you try to do it by verbal guilt-tripping, you’ll be friendless and ignored, and if you try to do it by literal force, you’ll make a dictator of yourself.[/quote]

This is the most wishy washy thing I have read from you. Throwing a baby off a cliff, even if it would save the world, is always wrong. Because murder is never just.[/quote]

…except when it’s your god who does the murdering, right?
[/quote]

But is it wrong? Its not “just” to kill an innocent baby but if killing one baby saved 6 billion people…

IE. If you DONT throw the baby, you’re killing 6 billion people instead? MURDER!

So something can be unjust, but still the right thing to do? thats pretty interesting.
[/quote]

Where I come from, killing babies is wrong no matter what your justification for it.

Just because an act contains some perceived benefit does not justify the act itself. Morals are not suddenly transformed by situations. They inform our response to situations. They remain, despite all our justifications.

If you disagree, then tell me honestly, if you had to look a baby in the face and then crush its head to save six billion people, which part would stick with you afterward, the fact that you had purportedly saved six billion people, or that you had crushed the life out of an innocent child?
[/quote]

Basically youre saying you’d let the human race be wiped out to save your guilt of killing one baby? Imo (in an obviously unreal scenario)- if you had the choice to save six billion people, or lose one child, you could absolutely justify your decision to save the larger amount of people, which would include other babies.

If this is not the logical choice well Im just flabbergasted… Im not saying anyone would enjoy it or remember it with fond memories but surely for the greater good ?

Also, i understand what you’re trying to say about any one act being right or wrong(perceived benefit) and whether it is justifiable, but like most things, surely there is circumstantial change to what would be “morally” the right to do. In this case, obviously saving the entire population.

And to answer your (silly) question, I think most people would choose to off the baby to save the entire earth’s population. Because not killing that one baby would be killing MANY MANY other babies(and everyone else). So that is justifiable.

[/quote]

Killing babies is NOT MORAL! It does not BECOME MORAL because suddenly you are Jack Bauer!

[/quote]

Mate you’re just a flat out retard or something - your quote above, was CLEARLY alluded to in what I wrote.

Killing an innocent child, is not “moral”, i agree. But given the choice to KILL 6 BILLION PEOPLE, or ONE CHILD. It would be immoral to save the baby. stupid fuck youre insufferably arrogant without the smarts to back it up…im over talking to you. pls do not reply.
[/quote]

This is all I read, it would be moral to kill a baby.

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:44pm

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
A man rapes a young girl. As a result of the rape, the young girl stops believing in God. She wonders how God could let this happen to her and loses her faith. The man, who ends up in prison, becomes a Christian and asks for forgiveness of his sins. When both these people die, the rapist will end up in heaven (given he has atoned for all other remaining sins) and the girl will end up in hell forever (for not believing in God).

How is this moral?[/quote]

How is what moral?[/quote]

The girl in hell and the rapist in heaven.[/quote]

Um…I maybe missing something here, but situations aren’t really classified as moral or immoral. Actions are. [/quote]

Okay dokey. How is it moral that the girl ended up in hell over an action that previously happened to her?[/quote]

An action that previously happened to her did or would not send her to hell.

[quote]
Of course, one could say that the girl sent herself to hell by not believing in God.[/quote]

Yes, she lacked the religious virtue of faith.

Um, what does being raped have anything to do with not believing God. I never understood this. It is an illogical position to take.

raped =/= not believing in God.

She likely did not have a good Shepard, he did not teach her to be strong in her faith. And, honestly this question is humbuck, because we don’t know if God wouldn’t be merciful towards the girl.

[quote]
Again, how is this moral? (her going to hell over an action God knew would make her a non-believer).[/quote]

God did not rape her, the man that raped her did. God can do amazing things, but he doesn’t stop people’s free will.

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:48pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?

…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?[/quote]

There is graveness to the act, yes. And killing someone is a grave matter.

Either action is immoral, killing is a grave matter. Killing anyone (even to “save”) is immoral.

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:49pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?

…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?[/quote]

No. It’s just a shitty choice to have to make.

As far as I know, there are not degrees of murder. Dead is dead.

This makes me think of somebody who’s “a little honest.” [/quote]

…stealing a bread to feed your family, or swindling old people out of their money to feed your coke addiction. Surely there’s some difference? [/quote]

Yes, but both are a grave matter. And, I am sure there are plenty of charities that will give you bread for your family, eph.

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:51pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Except when the abortion topic comes up it is always black and white in the eyes of the self proclaimed pro-lifers. Life is never that convenient.[/quote]

Either “it” is a human life or “it” is not. I am not familiar with a sort of human life, or a kinda human life.[/quote]

Yes, never mind those pesky real life situations like a child who will be born with a genetic condition that will leave them in agony and give them a life expectancy of a few short years. That is but one hypothetical example, but if the pro-lifers had it their way, this child would be subject to much pain and misery, without the opportunity to experience a long and healthy life.[/quote]

So you ok with killing people who do not have a good quality of life? At least you agree you’re killing a human. I guess we should do away with all folks who have poor quality of life.[/quote]

You certainly are an odd one.[/quote]

That picture is straw-man. Isn’t even close to the story.

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:52pm

[quote]Rocky2 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One thing I like about the video , is that Altruism is a good thing .

What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
Agnostic duh :P[/quote]

I hope you have a long time career in BB, because you’re a retard. All that protein must be messing with your brain

Still be a theist.

Brother_Chris · October 22, 2010, 7:53pm

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Rocky2 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One thing I like about the video , is that Altruism is a good thing .

What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
Agnostic duh :P[/quote]

Theist. A theist could be agnostic, but doesn’t have to be. [/quote]

A theist, admits to himself that he cannot know if there is God, a theist believes there is a God

Cortes · October 22, 2010, 8:10pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…saving 6 billion people by killing a baby doesn’t make the killing less immoral, but you wouldn’t let 6 billion people perish in order to save one baby either because that would be more immoral?

…so are there levels of immorality or is any immoral act equal to another immoral act?[/quote]

No. It’s just a shitty choice to have to make.

As far as I know, there are not degrees of murder. Dead is dead.

This makes me think of somebody who’s “a little honest.” [/quote]

…stealing a bread to feed your family, or swindling old people out of their money to feed your coke addiction. Surely there’s some difference? [/quote]

Don’t know if you are trying to find a loophole or a “gotcha” dilemma, but stealing is immoral. The act itself, in pretty much any society I can think of ever having existed, has been viewed as an immoral no-no. (Of course, as you well know, that has not stopped people or societies from attempting to justify the acts of theft they have engaged in.)

Now of course, we can easily see that a father swiping a loaf of bread to feed his sickly child is a crime less heinous than your coke-addict example, but would you consider either act noble?

(Note: The father risking his own life to save his child’s is noble, the act of stealing itself, however, is what I am here referring to. In much the same way we would consider a woman who prostitutes herself only because she feels there is no other way to provide for her child. We don’t suddenly say, “See, prostitution really is a noble profession!” Though we may respect her self-sacrifice).

wfifer · October 22, 2010, 10:27pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Rocky2 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One thing I like about the video , is that Altruism is a good thing .

What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
Agnostic duh :P[/quote]

Theist. A theist could be agnostic, but doesn’t have to be. [/quote]

A theist, admits to himself that he cannot know if there is God, a theist believes there is a God[/quote]

I think you misspoke, I’m guessing you meant “agnostic” for the first one.

A theist believes there is a god. This is not a statement of knowledge, just belief. Now, he may think he knows, in which case he is not agnostic. On the flip side, he may admit that he cannot know, in which case he is agnostic. This is pure semantics, you can’t argue with the dictionary.

wfifer · October 22, 2010, 10:48pm

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Um, what? You’re telling me that millions and millions of Germans, members of said National Socialist Party, mind you, both military and civilian, did NOT agree with the Nazi Party? These people were all coerced?

You mean relative morality?

And how does one go about determining this “authenticity?”

Remember that thing about having to twist logic I mentioned just a few paragraphs back? [/quote]

I appreciate you breaking down my argument to such an extent, honestly. It doesn’t happen often.

Do you think, morally, all those millions and millions were okay with the conduct of the Nazi Party? I refer you to Stanley Milgram’s experiment regarding obedience to authority figures. Not only is this sort of thing not uncommon, I dare say it’s the norm. You give people entirely too much credit.

Yes, relative morality has to be authentic. Assume from now on that I am only speaking about morality in relative terms, because I don’t believe in absolute morality.

Authenticity is an existentialist term. I assumed you would be familiar with this. Might want to do some reading.

Again, I’m not twisting logic. I have a clear definition for what morality is. And it is not something forced on you, nor is it passivity in the face of a more willful morality.

In any country at any time, there are things going on with which the vast majority of the population would not agree. And yet they persist. The greater the population, the less likely it is that any one individual is going to do anything about it. It’s the bystander effect, psychology 101.

Cortes · October 23, 2010, 2:38am

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Um, what? You’re telling me that millions and millions of Germans, members of said National Socialist Party, mind you, both military and civilian, did NOT agree with the Nazi Party? These people were all coerced?

You mean relative morality?

And how does one go about determining this “authenticity?”

Remember that thing about having to twist logic I mentioned just a few paragraphs back? [/quote]

I appreciate you breaking down my argument to such an extent, honestly. It doesn’t happen often.

Do you think, morally, all those millions and millions were okay with the conduct of the Nazi Party? I refer you to Stanley Milgram’s experiment regarding obedience to authority figures. Not only is this sort of thing not uncommon, I dare say it’s the norm. You give people entirely too much credit.

Yes, relative morality has to be authentic. Assume from now on that I am only speaking about morality in relative terms, because I don’t believe in absolute morality.

Authenticity is an existentialist term. I assumed you would be familiar with this. Might want to do some reading.

Again, I’m not twisting logic. I have a clear definition for what morality is. And it is not something forced on you, nor is it passivity in the face of a more willful morality.

In any country at any time, there are things going on with which the vast majority of the population would not agree. And yet they persist. The greater the population, the less likely it is that any one individual is going to do anything about it. It’s the bystander effect, psychology 101. [/quote]

Wait a minute, so do societies collectively decide upon a morality or do they not?

Or do you just get to say which society came to an authentic consensus and which didn’t? There are plenty of accounts of the average German citizen having a fairly good idea that something pretty bad was happening. So, you are telling me that at some point everything flipped over from a consensual morality to a coerced one?

It appears you will excuse the average German’s passivity, and assume that the vast majority of the populace was not really in agreement with the Party. That millions and millions of them were secretly sympathizing with the Allies and just praying for the day the Allied powers would break through and liberate them from the oppressive National Socialist government, under which they lived in a constant state of fear. Perhaps also the average German was not a vehement racist and anti-Semite, but a noble if terrified lover of humanity? There was no collective agreement that led to all of this, either? I guess you might even agree that the typical Nazi soldier and even officer was “just following orders,” no?

Anyway, all of this begs the question, if we are talking here, both assuming that the National Socialist party of the '30s and '40s was a really bad group that did some really bad, dare I say evil things, then we are both assuming a standard of morality against which to judge this society. You said yourself that murder is a no-no. Easy to argue that if you can just say that every society that has ever engaged in the systematic practice of it didn’t really have any say it its own participation. Does this apply to the Spartan’s and their baby murders, as well? They were coerced? Or does baby-murder fall under the umbrella of relativity, thereby excusable? The Aztec populace regularly engaged in cannibalism of their sacrificial victims…because they were, like, against sacrifice and all but how can we let all this good meat go to waste?

I’m honestly not being facetious here. I really do not see any sort of consistency in this argument, again, without making all sorts of excuses and complicated explanations for heinous behavior. Which, if we are being honest here, should not matter, because if there are NO absolutes (haha, get it?) then the most heinous behavior had better either be considered acceptable. Otherwise you are going to have to admit that there is a standard (ie Absolute) that you are judging it against.

Brother_Chris · October 23, 2010, 10:14am

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]wfifer wrote:

[quote]Rocky2 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
One thing I like about the video , is that Altruism is a good thing .

What do you call some one that believes in God but not in Religion ?[/quote]
Agnostic duh :P[/quote]

Theist. A theist could be agnostic, but doesn’t have to be. [/quote]

A theist, admits to himself that he cannot know if there is God, a theist believes there is a God[/quote]

I think you misspoke, I’m guessing you meant “agnostic” for the first one.

A theist believes there is a god. This is not a statement of knowledge, just belief. Now, he may think he knows, in which case he is not agnostic. On the flip side, he may admit that he cannot know, in which case he is agnostic. This is pure semantics, you can’t argue with the dictionary.
[/quote]

Word, I be tired, bro. The dictionary ain’t infallible. I can argue with it if I want to. I still be tired, though. I goez to bed.

Brother_Chris · October 23, 2010, 10:16am