Believers: What Would You Do?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

…It would be like repairing your Ferrari with a splitting maul. Morality, from my admittedly limited viewpoint, is highly contextual. [/quote]

Contextual = relative[/quote]

Right. Rape is fine for certain Marsupials, rodents, insects, etc for the very reason that their intellectual capacities do not allow for the type of advanced social order that would preface sexual intercourse with an otherwise amiable courtship.

It’s TERRIBLE for humans primarily because it robs the victim and the perpetrator of the dignity due a high order primate.

If a child steps on a needle, you get them tetanus shot, you don’t amputate the foot and cauterize the stump… unless of course you neglected the wound until infection set in. All I’m saying is that some definitions of morality are static, and others quite dynamic.

[/quote]

So rape in humans is always wrong, absolutely?[/quote]

From my perspective yes. As is incest.

Curiously the G-d of the bible has a different viewpoint. The moral relevance of both is apparently VERY contextual. While incest is STRICTLY verboten in the law of Moses it was perfectly appropriate for Lot and his daughters, who with God’s blessing, had drunken intercourse resulting in pregnancy, after their narrow escape from sodom and gomorrah.

This was not an imperative because the survival of the species was in question. There were still PLENTY of eligible males afoot. It was so Lot could have an heir and legacy of his own bloodline!

On another occasion men from the tribe of Benjamin raped a prophet’s wife to death with relative impunity. When the prophet solicited the help of the other tribes of Israel to exact justice, (By chopping up his dead wife’s corpse and sending the pieces abroad to the chieftains of the other tribes no less) G-d eventually intervenes on behalf of the Benjaminites, out of compassion for the fact that the birth rate of females within their tribe had been statistically VERY low, and they in trying to observe G-d’s express commandment to marry within their tribe, had been largely ‘doing without’.

222

[quote]forlife wrote:

So you now acknowledge that you don’t actually KNOW rape is evil or that your god is real?
[/quote]

No, I know. Are we back to you baing agnostic about the evil of rape? “Rape is evil? Tell him!” “Well, actually, I’m agnostic about rape.”

223

[quote]forlife wrote:

Sure I do. That the species even exists is evidence for instincts, like preserving one’s offspring, which would motivate people’s behavior. Without such instincts, the species would be more likely go extinct.[/quote]

But you are forgetting you are talking about humans, not just an animal species. In an environment without God/higher moral authority, humans still have Reason - and humans reason themselves into all sorts of non-biologically utilitarian actions.

A mother lion may perpetuate her offspring with devotion (though the daddy lion doesn’t always do so, but I am setting that aside for a moment), but why is there any reason to think that a human woman - consumed with so many non-biological motives, such as motherhood getting in the way of her social life - would adhere to this idea?

Humans “rationalize” their way out of all sorts of purely biological behavior (even assuming purely biological behavior would dictate “good” outcomes, it wouldn’t). You can’t take this element out of your “hypothetical”. And, you have no reason to think that Humans would adhere to such biological imperatives.

You reductionist thinking is in error - you don’t behave that way in your own life, why suddenly assume that in the absence of God/moral authority, we’d revert to being “just animals”?

I’d argue we’d be the opposite - we’d be animals, all right, but armed with amoral Reason to guide our decisions. We’d have the worst excesses of both - raw animal instincts with the unconstrained power to rationalize any action we want as long as we decide that it benefits me “right here, right now”.

Then, what is your point? In truth, that behavior is just as likely to not exist as exist in your hypothetical, but set that aside - even if you are right (that certain behaviors would still exist), so what? Why would that matter to you?

224

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

…It would be like repairing your Ferrari with a splitting maul. Morality, from my admittedly limited viewpoint, is highly contextual. [/quote]

Contextual = relative[/quote]

Right. Rape is fine for certain Marsupials, rodents, insects, etc for the very reason that their intellectual capacities do not allow for the type of advanced social order that would preface sexual intercourse with an otherwise amiable courtship.

It’s TERRIBLE for humans primarily because it robs the victim and the perpetrator of the dignity due a high order primate.

If a child steps on a needle, you get them tetanus shot, you don’t amputate the foot and cauterize the stump… unless of course you neglected the wound until infection set in. All I’m saying is that some definitions of morality are static, and others quite dynamic.

[/quote]

So rape in humans is always wrong, absolutely?[/quote]

From my perspective yes. As is incest.

Curiously the G-d of the bible has a different viewpoint. The moral relevance of both is apparently VERY contextual. While incest is STRICTLY verboten in the law of Moses it was perfectly appropriate for Lot and his daughters, who with God’s blessing, had drunken intercourse resulting in pregnancy, after their narrow escape from sodom and gomorrah.

This was not an imperative because the survival of the species was in question. There were still PLENTY of eligible males afoot. It was so Lot could have an heir and legacy of his own bloodline!

On another occasion men from the tribe of Benjamin raped a prophet’s wife to death with relative impunity. When the prophet solicited the help of the other tribes of Israel to exact justice, (By chopping up his dead wife’s corpse and sending the pieces abroad to the chieftains of the other tribes no less) G-d eventually intervenes on behalf of the Benjaminites, out of compassion for the fact that the birth rate of females within their tribe had been statistically VERY low, and they in trying to observe G-d’s express commandment to marry within their tribe, had been largely ‘doing without’.
[/quote]

They claim morality is absolute and noncontextual, only to rationalize cases like you describe as exceptions to the rule.

225

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
It’s TERRIBLE for humans primarily because it robs the victim and the perpetrator of the dignity due a high order primate.

[/quote]

So? Not everyone argees all, if any, ‘high order primates’ are due anything, much less dignity. For you to say so is a moral judgment.

226

Why does “higher primate” atheistic morality sound like, “well, this action would be more conducive to the development of the internet or cable tv?” As if everyone accepted that as the primary goal, anyways.

227

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
It’s TERRIBLE for humans primarily because it robs the victim and the perpetrator of the dignity due a high order primate.

[/quote]

So? Not everyone argees all, if any, ‘high order primates’ are due anything, much less dignity. For you to say so is yet another moral judgment. [/quote]

Oh absolutely! But if morals are the offspring of perpetual intellectual complexity, then my opinions are not necessarily invalidated by the fact that they are subject to the very morals that have come about because of that self same intellectual complexity.

Primates have a social order and a sense of right and wrong, albeit far less detailed and advanced as ours. They do not tolerate theft, infedelity to group authority etc, and within varying degrees of exclusion, have these ‘moral’ tendencies from birth without the benefit of a language so as to be ‘taught’ right from wrong.

What grand purpose does it serve in G-d’s scheme to grant monkeys a limited moral palate?

228

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

So you now acknowledge that you don’t actually KNOW rape is evil or that your god is real?
[/quote]

No, I know. Are we back to you baing agnostic about the evil of rape? “Rape is evil? Tell him!” “Well, actually, I’m agnostic about rape.”[/quote]

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. Agnostic means literally, “without knowledge”.

Explain how you know, not how you have faith, but how you know rape is evil.

229

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Sure I do. That the species even exists is evidence for instincts, like preserving one’s offspring, which would motivate people’s behavior. Without such instincts, the species would be more likely go extinct.[/quote]

But you are forgetting you are talking about humans, not just an animal species. In an environment without God/higher moral authority, humans still have Reason - and humans reason themselves into all sorts of non-biologically utilitarian actions.

A mother lion may perpetuate her offspring with devotion (though the daddy lion doesn’t always do so, but I am setting that aside for a moment), but why is there any reason to think that a human woman - consumed with so many non-biological motives, such as motherhood getting in the way of her social life - would adhere to this idea?

Humans “rationalize” their way out of all sorts of purely biological behavior (even assuming purely biological behavior would dictate “good” outcomes, it wouldn’t). You can’t take this element out of your “hypothetical”. And, you have no reason to think that Humans would adhere to such biological imperatives.

You reductionist thinking is in error - you don’t behave that way in your own life, why suddenly assume that in the absence of God/moral authority, we’d revert to being “just animals”?

I’d argue we’d be the opposite - we’d be animals, all right, but armed with amoral Reason to guide our decisions. We’d have the worst excesses of both - raw animal instincts with the unconstrained power to rationalize any action we want as long as we decide that it benefits me “right here, right now”.

Then, what is your point? In truth, that behavior is just as likely to not exist as exist in your hypothetical, but set that aside - even if you are right (that certain behaviors would still exist), so what? Why would that matter to you?
[/quote]

A I mentioned earlier, I’m asking about probable behavior. Of course there could be exceptions, but would the woman be more likely to save the life of her child than eat a Snickers bar? Given the constraints of the scenario, the clear answer is yes.

It matters because this behavior, no matter what you label it, would continue to occur in a universe with no god and no afterlife. Therefore, the behavior isn’t dependent on there being a god or an afterlife.

Believers sometimes contend that in the absence of a god, chaos would rule, societies would crumble, and people would indiscriminately kill, rape, and destroy since they would have no conscience. The scenario illustrates that this isn’t the case. Even without a god, ordered societies would likely exist.

230

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why does “higher primate” atheistic morality sound like, “well, this action would be more conducive to the development of the internet or cable tv?” As if everyone accepted that as the primary goal, anyways.[/quote]

You will see me type ‘if’ a lot, and for good reason. I find certain concepts within evolution dubious and others revoltingly stupid. As far as I know perpetually advancing complexity could be ‘wisely designed’ into the fundamental underpinnings of DNA. As such morality could just as well be an outcrop of a grander design.

I am not an atheist, but I also find the blind faith that human existence is the result of a miraculous event ~6000 years ago dubious and intellectually dishonest. Is there supreme intelligence and power beyond our comprehension in the universe? In my opinion, quite likely. Does this advanced intelligence prefer that human males cut the foreskin off their cock? Does it really care if they knock three times, turn in a circle, enchant some inarticulate gibberish, burn incense, erect phallic symbols, or not, burn offspring, tithe earnings or crops, knock on peoples doors early on Saturday mornings, baptize infants, honor their dead, put coins over the eyes of a corpse, etc etc etc?

231

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are…[/quote]

No, I’m not. I wholeheartedly say the evil of rape exists. Rape IS (not maybe) evil. There’s the difference between you and I. I can use that kind of language without handwringing, you can’t. I’m religious that way.

It’s starting to get repetitive now. My answers won’t change, and I doubt yours will either. And frankly, I don’t believe some of the responses I’m seeing. “I don’t know if rape is evil. Society would be better off with this agnostic view.” Sorry, I don’t think even you guys believe this New Atheism. Why? Because, again, I have a hard time picturing you equivocating, coming off as agnostic, about the evil of the act to the victims of rape. No, I have a feeling you live it, and would declare it, as a matter of fact.

“Rape is evil because it robs the victime their due dignity”

Hold, on you defined a moral position, by making another moral judgment.

“Yes, and I’ll defend that moral judgment with a long complicated chain of moral judgments, each backed up by one more assumed moral position, if you keep asking.”

Meh.

There’s not much else to say, that I haven’t said. Not much else else to explore that I even care to explore. Honestly, I think the responses and history have answered your question.

232

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are…[/quote]

No, I’m not. I wholeheartedly say the evil of rape exists. Rape IS (not maybe) evil. There’s the difference between you and I. I can use that kind of language without handwringing, you can’t. I’m religious that way.

It’s starting to get repetitive now. My answers won’t change, and I doubt yours will either. And frankly, I don’t believe some of the responses I’m seeing. “I don’t know if rape is evil. Society would be better off with this agnostic view.” Sorry, I don’t think even you guys believe this New Atheism. Why? Because, again, I have a hard time picturing you equivocating, coming off as agnostic, about the evil of the act to the victims of rape. No, I have a feeling you live it, and would declare it, as a matter of fact.

“Rape is evil because it robs the victime their due dignity”

Hold, on you defined a moral position, by making another moral judgment.

“Yes, and I’ll defend that moral judgment with a long complicated chain of moral judgments, each backed up by one more assumed moral position, if you keep asking.”

Meh.

There’s not much else to say, that I haven’t said. Not much else else to explore that I even care to explore. Honestly, I think the responses and history have answered your question.

[/quote]

So the big question you have yet to answer:

How do you know?

Please stop asserting that you know, and just tell me clearly how you KNOW.

Faith is NOT KNOWLEDGE.

233

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
Is there supreme intelligence and power beyond our comprehension in the universe? In my opinion, quite likely. Does this advanced intelligence prefer that human males cut the foreskin off their cock? Does it really care if they knock three times, turn in a circle, enchant some inarticulate gibberish, burn incense, erect phallic symbols, or not, burn offspring, tithe earnings or crops, knock on peoples doors early on Saturday mornings, baptize infants, honor their dead, put coins over the eyes of a corpse, etc etc etc? [/quote]

Being beyond your comprehension, is it really so surprising that what it would want, ask, desire, do, and how it reveals itself, etc., would often be beyond your comprehension, wants, tastes, distates, and requirements?

234

[quote]forlife wrote:

How do you know?

[/quote]

Answered. You can reject it, but I’m not repeating myself.

235

[quote]forlife wrote:

Please stop asserting that you know, and just tell me clearly how you KNOW.

[/quote]

With all this talk of rape, I picture you screaming this at someone counseling a rape victim.

236

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

How do you know?

[/quote]

Answered. You can reject it, but I’m not repeating myself.[/quote]

I’m not asking you to repeat yourself. I’m asking for a damn answer to the question instead of dancing around it.

Your admit that you have faith in a god, which isn’t actually knowledge, then you turn around and insist you somehow magically KNOW that rape is objectively wrong.

HOW do you know this? Where is your PROOF?

Believing something deeply doesn’t make it real.

Knowledge is based on actual PROOF, not on a fiery feeling in your gut.

237

[quote]forlife wrote:

A I mentioned earlier, I’m asking about probable behavior. Of course there could be exceptions, but would the woman be more likely to save the life of her child than eat a Snickers bar? Given the constraints of the scenario, the clear answer is yes.

It matters because this behavior, no matter what you label it, would continue to occur in a universe with no god and no afterlife. Therefore, the behavior isn’t dependent on there being a god or an afterlife. [/quote]

This is not true. You have no basis for saying that “clearly, yes”, this behavior would continue. You are assuming your own premise - you say “this would likely occur because it would likely occur”.

You have no idea if it would occur, and you have no basis for assuming it “likely” would. You haven’t established one. Your only basis is that some animals do. Well, some animals don’t, which you don’t account for. And you don’t account for non-animal behavior.

No, you don’t think humans would do that, you hope that they would - in order to prove the point you are trying to make: that certain “good behavior” would endure, even in the absence of a higher morality.

And, as such, your conclusion is not based on reason - it is based on a faith that humans would just keep on keepin’ on in the absence of higher morality. Thus, in support of your conclusion, you rely on the one thing you accuse opponents of: hope that it is true, versus facts.

No, “the scenario” doesn’t state this case, and in any event, you keep avoiding your threshold error problem - in the absence of morality, chaos is just as good as order. You assume, for purposes of your hypothetical, that some universal “good” - an ordered society - exists and would exist in the absence of a higher morality, thus certain “goods” are not dependent on a higher morality.

This is categorically false - in the absence of a higher morality, you don’t have good things or bad things, period.

You don’t have an argument here - your premise (no higher morality) negates your entire point (a moral society would exist even in the absence of a higher morality).

Moreover, these “ordered societies” could exist in an amoral world, or…they could not. Both kinds of societies would “likely exist”, and there is no reason to think the “ordered” one would proliferate while the “chaotic” would be more rare. In fact, the opposite, inductively, would be more likely to be true.

Absent a higher morality, humans have no reason, no constraint not to indulge their wickedness as often as they want for advantage - why not? Such behavior ceases to be wicked.

238

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are…[/quote]

No, I’m not. I wholeheartedly say the evil of rape exists. Rape IS (not maybe) evil. There’s the difference between you and I. I can use that kind of language without handwringing, you can’t. I’m religious that way.

It’s starting to get repetitive now. My answers won’t change, and I doubt yours will either. And frankly, I don’t believe some of the responses I’m seeing. “I don’t know if rape is evil. Society would be better off with this agnostic view.” Sorry, I don’t think even you guys believe this New Atheism. Why? Because, again, I have a hard time picturing you equivocating, coming off as agnostic, about the evil of the act to the victims of rape. No, I have a feeling you live it, and would declare it, as a matter of fact.

“Rape is evil because it robs the victime their due dignity”

Hold, on you defined a moral position, by making another moral judgment.

“Yes, and I’ll defend that moral judgment with a long complicated chain of moral judgments, each backed up by one more assumed moral position, if you keep asking.”

Meh.

There’s not much else to say, that I haven’t said. Not much else else to explore that I even care to explore. Honestly, I think the responses and history have answered your question.

[/quote]

The subject is complicated, Sloth. This isn’t a game of checkers, and no one’s going to show you their soft underbelly, or the nape of their neck to allow you the quick and easy kill. Complicated counter arguments do not = invalid arguments. I would have proposed many of the same arguments you do now at one time. I changed once I began to look at my own arguments as an unbeliever would, and tried to prove my LONG standing beliefs as anything more than closed minded rhetoric.

239

[quote]forlife wrote:

HOW do you know this? Where is your PROOF?

Believing something deeply doesn’t make it real.

Knowledge is based on actual PROOF, not on a fiery feeling in your gut.[/quote]

So, you don’t know that you love your significant other? Believing in something, of course, does not make it real. We’ll need your proof that this love exists. Otherwise, you are wasting your time pursuing something that isn’t real.

240

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course I’m agnostic about rape…[/quote]

Last thing, then I don’t think I need say anything else. This statement.

First. I don’t believe you. You know I have a religious faith which puts us into heated debate over a certain topic. But, for all that, I don’t believe you’re ‘agnostic’ about rape. I think you’re better than that, and will treat you as such. For if I truly believed your supposed agnosticism about the evil of rape, I’d simply shun you.

Secondly, we both know that any ‘humanity’ that could go no further than agnosticism (and actually mean it) over rape–and a number of other things–wouldn’t be any kind of humanity at all. Not one you’d actually want to live in.

You wouldn’t want an society agnostic about rape. Well, one that actually meant it.

I realize that giving the religious an inch in these arguments is undersireable, but when you’re stuck with claiming agnosticism over the evil of rape, you’re not doing your side of the debate any favors. That is, the debate over faithless vs faith embracing society.