Atheism-o-Phobia

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1021

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
These people are sick, crazy fucks, sure…[/quote]

Am I sick and crazy for having a different favorite color than you?[/quote]

…no, it’s because you can’t discuss topics like this properly…[/quote]

That’s weak, ephrem. You used language that suggests you don’t look at it as simply a matter of opinion.

Besides, once you arrive at the conclusion that morality is relative you must put away your biases and look at it as a disinterested party. Neither you or the pedophilde is right or wrong. You recognize this, yet fail to live it? His way is no less just than your own, but you condemn him. My favorite color is blue, what’s yours? Promise not to hate you, no matter your answer.[/quote]

…so you want to go there again, huh? I have my own sense of morality that may or may not overlap with yours. I can still think something is wrong inspite of relative morality, that’s not the point i’m making, at all…

1022

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I can still think something is wrong inspite of relative morality[/quote]

Then you’re being irrational. If you’ve found eligntenment, recognizing that morality is simply opinion, then you know your moral revulsion is baseless. You might FEEL like the pedophile is wrong, but you must CONCLUDE that he isn’t. Instead, you must know, not feel, that neither of you is right or wrong. Or, feeling that your way is morally superior to his, you KNOW that it isn’t.

1023

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I can still think something is wrong inspite of relative morality[/quote]

Then you’re being irrational. If you’ve found eligntenment, recognizing that morality is simply opinion, then you know your moral revulsion is baseless. You might feel like the pedophile is wrong, but you must CONCLUDE that he isn’t. You must know, not feel, that neigther of you is actually right or wrong.[/quote]

…can’t i just say “i’m of the opinion that”…? Maybe i base my morality on, “It’s wrong because i would never do such a thing”, and if a guy hurts, traumatises or kills a child he’s still accountable for his actions, not in the least because the child’s parents would like retribution…

1024

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…can’t i just say “i’m of the opinion that”…? Maybe i base my morality on, “It’s wrong because i would never do such a thing”,[/quote]

Can you say it? Of course. But why? What’s the point in expressing your personal opinion when you KNOW it isn’t reality?. Thank’s for sharing your feelings, but now tell me what you actually KNOW. Look, you’re the aware moral relativist. You know what you FEEL is irrationl, because the reality is that the pedophile isn’t wrong, immoral.

We need a judgement on what is, not on how you feel. We’re trying to build a legal system here. Tell us what you KNOW and we’ll make a law either convicting pedophiles or leaving them be. But, tell us your opinion, and in return we’ll just leave it up to the opinion of whatever judge is presiding to sentence, reward, or apologize to him, sending him home neither. Hope he, the judge, isn’t a card carrying member of NAMBLA.

1025

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…can’t i just say “i’m of the opinion that”…? Maybe i base my morality on, “It’s wrong because i would never do such a thing”,[/quote]

Can you say it? Of course. But why? Why even say something, even if its your opinion, when you KNOW it isn’t? What’s the point in expressing your personal opinion when you KNOW it isn’t reality?. Thank’s for sharing your feelings, but now tell me what you actually KNOW. The pedophile isn’t wrong or right. You know what you FEEL is irrationl, because the reality is that the pedophile isn’t wrong, immoral.

We need a judgement on what is, not on how you feel. We’re trying to build a legal system here. Tell us what you KNOW and we’ll make a law either convicting pedophiles or leaving them be. But, tell us your opinion, and in return we’ll just leave it up to the opinion of whatever judge is presiding to sentence, reward, or apologized to and sent home without either reward or sentence, a man charged with pedophilia. Hope he, the judge, isn’t a card carrying member of NAMBLA.[/quote]

…aside from appealing to some deity pretty much all we’ve deemed wrong is based on opinion. It just so happens that the majority feels the same way, and then it becomes law. But when there’s pressure from society to change certain laws, or if society itself changes so that it no longer deems certain behaviours unwanted [same thing], law and morals change…

…this has always been the case, but just because we happen to live in an era where certain things are believed to be cut and dry, black and white, does not mean the mechanism has changed. If you take away the appeal to a deity, that’s what you’re left with…

1026

[quote]kamui wrote:
an extremely frequent necessary evil.

there is nothing to rejoice in the irreversible destruction of a living being.[/quote]

So true.

I despise cockroaches with every atom of my being. More than any other creature on this earth. I feel nothing but the most sublime hatred for those disgusting creatures. Yet, every time I am forced to kill one I feel absolutely no joy. None. I just wish the prehistoric little surviving multiplying machine had chosen another place to be.

1027

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i think that for something to be absolute/objective it must be equally true for each and everyone of us, under all circumstances. As this isn’t the case with kamui’s statement, i think his statement is relative…[/quote]

So you wouldn’t have a murderer arrested because, to him, murder isn’t immoral? If you do have him arrested you’ve, in fact, declared that murder is wrong for everyone. Relative morality absolutely backed by force? Ok…[/quote]

…that’s beside the point. Put the same guy in the army and give him a gun and a target, then suddenly it’s okay eventhough there’s “collateral” damage. As orion pointed out, morality has more to do with definitions than anything absolute…
[/quote]

But absolute morality is more complicated than that. Abs morality says killing is relative, murder is absolute. Does your relative morality view killing in defense the same as deliberately killing an innocent who meant you know harm?

You’re jousting with a simpleton’s absolutism. Killing? Context, please. Oh, a murder? Now that’s wrong, period.

But, back to my question.[/quote]

…what you continue to fail to understand is that it does not matter what my opinion is. What matters is that, as soon as there is one person that deviates from what is thought to be absolute morality by someone else, it becomes relative…

…to you there is a difference between killing and murder? It’s still the death of a human being. If you narrow your definitions down to specific scenarios then still there will be people who make exceptions…

…let’s say it’s wrong to kill a child for ones own pleasure. I agree and you’d agree, and yet there are people who kill children for their own pleasure. These people are sick, crazy fucks, sure, but it goes to show that you can’t label something that’s as malleable and subject to change through minute variables as morality as absolute…

…we’ve been here before Sloth, and you know by now what i mean by absolute/relative, so do we have to go through with this again?

[/quote]

You and I have been here before, too, eph, and I thought we had already agreed upon this months ago. I believe one of our previous examples was raping a child in the ass ;), and yes, it is always wrong, period. Because an individual, or even an entire society has a different idea about right and wrong does not change the inherent wrongness of the act.

Forget for a moment all of your disdain for religious institutions throughout history, this particular line of thinking is exactly the kind of justification that can lead to some truly spectacular evil.

(This probably already got covered in a better retort than I just provided but I have not yet read to the end of the page.)

1028

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…can’t i just say “i’m of the opinion that”…? Maybe i base my morality on, “It’s wrong because i would never do such a thing”,[/quote]

Can you say it? Of course. But why? Why even say something, even if its your opinion, when you KNOW it isn’t? What’s the point in expressing your personal opinion when you KNOW it isn’t reality?. Thank’s for sharing your feelings, but now tell me what you actually KNOW. The pedophile isn’t wrong or right. You know what you FEEL is irrationl, because the reality is that the pedophile isn’t wrong, immoral.

We need a judgement on what is, not on how you feel. We’re trying to build a legal system here. Tell us what you KNOW and we’ll make a law either convicting pedophiles or leaving them be. But, tell us your opinion, and in return we’ll just leave it up to the opinion of whatever judge is presiding to sentence, reward, or apologized to and sent home without either reward or sentence, a man charged with pedophilia. Hope he, the judge, isn’t a card carrying member of NAMBLA.[/quote]

…aside from appealing to some deity pretty much all we’ve deemed wrong is based on opinion. It just so happens that the majority feels the same way, and then it becomes law. But when there’s pressure from society to change certain laws, or if society itself changes so that it no longer deems certain behaviours unwanted [same thing], law and morals change…

…this has always been the case, but just because we happen to live in an era where certain things are believed to be cut and dry, black and white, does not mean the mechanism has changed. If you take away the appeal to a deity, that’s what you’re left with…
[/quote]

Slavery:

Well if slavery wasn’t wrong back then, because it was accepted, and it could possibly be acceptable again (you never know), why bother saying it’s wrong today?

Further, If we could’ve made a slavery society realize that thier society wasn’t wrong (since moral aren’t reality), at the first hint of a growing questioning of the practice, then slavery would never have become wrong. That they need not abandonen the practice, since the practice would only become wrong when they as a society accepted it as a wrong. So as long they retreat back from doing what is right, they can do no wrong. Excellent!

1029

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You and I have been here before, too, eph, and I thought we had already agreed upon this months ago. I believe one of our previous examples was raping a child in the ass ;), and yes, it is always wrong, period. Because an individual, or even an entire society has a different idea about right and wrong does not change the inherent wrongness of the act.

Forget for a moment all of your disdain for religious institutions throughout history, this particular line of thinking is exactly the kind of justification that can lead to some truly spectacular evil.

(This probably already got covered in a better retort than I just provided but I have not yet read to the end of the page.)[/quote]

…i’m off to bed Cortes, but i’ll get back to you on this…

1030

Eph we’ve been here before and you know better.

Show me a society where greed, cheating, lying, or stealing were considered “right.”

Where generosity, integrity, honesty, charity or love are considered “wrong.”

These societies don’t exist and they don’t work and there’s a reason for that.

Even in the animal kingdom you won’t find a group of animals that exists without some form of cooperation and “integrity.”

*Edit: Posted before reading your previous post.

1031

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i’m off to bed Cortes, but i’ll get back to you on this…[/quote]

World’s greatest problems being solved in this forum, and he goes to bed?! We’re on a mission here folks.

1032

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i’m off to bed Cortes, but i’ll get back to you on this…[/quote]

World’s greatest problems being solved in this forum, and he goes to bed?! We’re on a mission here folks. [/quote]

6am where I am and I’m not usually up before 9.

Just sayin…

:wink:

1033

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
an extremely frequent necessary evil.

there is nothing to rejoice in the irreversible destruction of a living being.[/quote]

So true.

I despise cockroaches with every atom of my being. More than any other creature on this earth. I feel nothing but the most sublime hatred for those disgusting creatures. Yet, every time I am forced to kill one I feel absolutely no joy. None. I just wish the prehistoric little surviving multiplying machine had chosen another place to be.[/quote]

I’ll actually leave the tree cockroaches alone (the big ones that fly occasionally). They don’t multiply like crazy, they’re fairly clean insects, and they leave my food alone. The German cockroaches on the other had, I kill out of necessity because they’re disease ridden (potentially), get into food, and multiply like crazy.

1034

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
an extremely frequent necessary evil.

there is nothing to rejoice in the irreversible destruction of a living being.[/quote]

So true.

I despise cockroaches with every atom of my being. More than any other creature on this earth. I feel nothing but the most sublime hatred for those disgusting creatures. Yet, every time I am forced to kill one I feel absolutely no joy. None. I just wish the prehistoric little surviving multiplying machine had chosen another place to be.[/quote]

I’ll actually leave the tree cockroaches alone (the big ones that fly occasionally). They don’t multiply like crazy, they’re fairly clean insects, and they leave my food alone. The German cockroaches on the other had, I kill out of necessity because they’re disease ridden (potentially), get into food, and multiply like crazy.[/quote]

All philosophical issues aside, I make no distinction when it comes to cockroaches. If those fuckers are on my property, they die.

1035

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i think that for something to be absolute/objective it must be equally true for each and everyone of us, under all circumstances. As this isn’t the case with kamui’s statement, i think his statement is relative…[/quote]

So you wouldn’t have a murderer arrested because, to him, murder isn’t immoral? If you do have him arrested you’ve, in fact, declared that murder is wrong for everyone. Relative morality absolutely backed by force? Ok…[/quote]

…that’s beside the point. Put the same guy in the army and give him a gun and a target, then suddenly it’s okay eventhough there’s “collateral” damage. As orion pointed out, morality has more to do with definitions than anything absolute…
[/quote]

I’m going out here on a limb, but I think you misread Orion.

1036

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
But is killing them with necessity a necessary evil, or morally right?[/quote]

It is morally right to stop someone from taking another persons life. Morals deal with actions and inaction.

1037

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]…there’s an ongoing research project in Canada that looks at the structure of the brain, in particular the amygdala, to assess whether sociopathy can be linked to deformations of the brain…

…we can agree that there are sociopaths who have no sense of “other”, have no guilt, remorse or empathy for another being? Your idea that murder is wrong is an absolute, because that is how it’s wired in the brain, is hereby refuted…

…an absolute truth is a truth that is equally true for everyone, under all circumstances. Clearly when we change the circumstances, like war for instance, murder is suddenly a good thing. It’s not an absolute. That we cannot survive without breathing air; that’s an absolute, but morality is not… [/quote]

you are playing with words here.

if we use such a narrow definition of the word absolute, nothing is

not even your statement “we cannot survive without breathing air”.
Trees can. Cryogenized humans can.

there may be psychopaths who are amoral because of some pathological anatomy. Vut it doesn’t change the normal (and normative) definition of morality.
It just means it doesn’t apply to them and can’t be enforced on them.

morality may be relative to normal human beings, if you want, but it is definitely not arbitrary.

[/quote]

He’s doing the Extra-ordinary-ordinary heresy you often seen in religion. As well, “an absolute truth is truth always and for everyone in all circumstances.” Killing is not morally wrong when someone has a gun pointed to another persons head. It is morally wrong to not stop that person from killing someone if you have the capability to stop it.

1038

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You and I have been here before, too, eph, and I thought we had already agreed upon this months ago. I believe one of our previous examples was raping a child in the ass ;), and yes, it is always wrong, period. Because an individual, or even an entire society has a different idea about right and wrong does not change the inherent wrongness of the act.

Forget for a moment all of your disdain for religious institutions throughout history, this particular line of thinking is exactly the kind of justification that can lead to some truly spectacular evil.

(This probably already got covered in a better retort than I just provided but I have not yet read to the end of the page.)[/quote]

…it’s not fair; with religion you can justify torture, murder, indoctrination and child-abduction by saying it’s the will of god, so the perps can’t even be held accountable. If i was truly evil atheism just isn’t the way to go (:

1039

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Eph we’ve been here before and you know better.

Show me a society where greed, cheating, lying, or stealing were considered “right.”

Where generosity, integrity, honesty, charity or love are considered “wrong.”

These societies don’t exist and they don’t work and there’s a reason for that.

Even in the animal kingdom you won’t find a group of animals that exists without some form of cooperation and “integrity.”

*Edit: Posted before reading your previous post.[/quote]

…what i’m saying isn’t a reflection on the succes or failure of certain sets of morals. Certain sets of moral have been succesful, and other sets have been failures. Christian morality has been succesful, but there are other sets of morals that have been succesful. That something is an idea or opinion doesn’t invalidate it’s value…

…i’m happy to concede that morality has been a wildly succesful invention, like sliced bread or the toilet, but you wouldn’t praise the toilet as a gift of god, would you?

Introducing the army ant: Army ant - Wikipedia Moral behaviour has been observed in primates, but i consider nature to be a-moral. Since i believe we are animals, we are in essence a-moral too. But because we’re highly evolved animals our moral structures and behaviour are evolved aswell, even upto a point where they’re believed to be absolute…

1040

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

some slight differences at a molecular level doesn’t alter the nature and function of a spoon.
it’s still a spoon, no more, no less.
it’s a tool, made of inert matter, and its value is function of its utility. no more, no less.

it’s not the same thing for a person.
because there is an objective difference between a “thing” and a “being”.

obviously, you can treat a person as if it was a thing or a tool, denying it is a being on its own, but it would be wrong. intellectually and morally.
you can even break a person like you would break a spoon, and say “it’s the same thing”. yet there is only one of them you can repair or replace.

you can say the universe is very small because you only see (or are only interrested in) your cave.
and it would be wrong too.

it’s not an opinion, it’s myopia, in both case.

…there’s an ongoing research project in Canada that looks at the structure of the brain, in particular the amygdala, to assess whether sociopathy can be linked to deformations of the brain…

…we can agree that there are sociopaths who have no sense of “other”, have no guilt, remorse or empathy for another being? Your idea that murder is wrong is an absolute, because that is how it’s wired in the brain, is hereby refuted…

…an absolute truth is a truth that is equally true for everyone, under all circumstances. Clearly when we change the circumstances, like war for instance, murder is suddenly a good thing. It’s not an absolute. That we cannot survive without breathing air; that’s an absolute, but morality is not…
[/quote]

How somebody feels about something and wrong v. right are two different things. Sociopaths cannot empathize, that’s not the same as not knowing right or wrong, good or evil. You can know something is wrong and not feel it’s wrong.