Believers: What Would You Do?

[Vires_Eternus]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

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]

By the way my friend, you hopelessly mutilated this story. I don’t know what monastery you studied in but if I were your dad I’d ask, even sue, to get my tuition back. You should be ashamed of yourself as well for not working hard enough and reading your Playboy (for the articles) instead of studying your Bible.

The man was not a prophet.

The cut up woman was not his wife.

God actually intervened on behalf of the Israelites not the Benjamites, exacting justice.

You screwed up the account about the wives that were LATER given to the Benjamites too.

Face it, bud, you aint qualified enough to come in here and shoot from the hip. You’re making yourself look bad. Clean up your act.[/quote]

OK arguably I had to cut shit down considerably, and yes since going the way i’ve chosen, it’s been a long old time since I’ve reviewed this tale. But the gist is true, and you avoid the obvious issue, as my dad a church elder and a hell of a man does as well. You can’t explain G-d’s apparent inconsistencies, so you try to make excuses for him drawn from the immediate or wider context of scripture.

[Vires_Eternus]

BTW I’m not ashamed of myself, anymore than you are of your proclivities. And yes I did study, and yes I’m not one of the faithful, and based on your posts, I’d guess you and I are the same kind of sinner, so why do you still believe?

Seriously, you live the life condemned by the scripture you defend, as do I without the defense, so why defend the one who condemns your choices?

[smh23]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Morality is a word we use to validate a system by which actions detrimental to societal cooperation are discouraged and punished. Some sort of absolute ethical code has not been–and presumably never will be–shown to exist, either on its own or, as is more commonly posited, as a system contingent upon some supranatural judge, or God.[/quote]

Damn, that is a finely crafted couple of sentences, and is spot on.[/quote]

Thank you, good sir.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.

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.

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.[/quote]

Good post. I think it’s more likely an ordered society would survive, compared to a chaotic society, which I see as ultimately self-destructive.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I think you’re confusing my agnosticism about the objective reality of universal values with lack of commitment when it comes to those values. I know you disagree, but I believe you can be just as committed to your values, irrespective of whether or not they are governed by a universal standard.

I’m as opposed to rape as you are. When I say I’m agnostic about the objective reality of a “rape value” existing in the physical universe, I’m talking about empirical facts. I see values as metaphysical, rather than physical, objects. They aren’t made of matter or energy, and I’m unaware of any universal laws like gravity that would govern them. That isn’t to say I know such laws don’t exist: maybe they do. I truly don’t know, hence my agnosticism.

[forlife]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.

[pat]

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:

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]

By the way my friend, you hopelessly mutilated this story. I don’t know what monastery you studied in but if I were your dad I’d ask, even sue, to get my tuition back. You should be ashamed of yourself as well for not working hard enough and reading your Playboy (for the articles) instead of studying your Bible.

The man was not a prophet.

The cut up woman was not his wife.

God actually intervened on behalf of the Israelites not the Benjamites, exacting justice.

You screwed up the account about the wives that were LATER given to the Benjamites too.

Face it, bud, you aint qualified enough to come in here and shoot from the hip. You’re making yourself look bad. Clean up your act.[/quote]

OK arguably I had to cut shit down considerably, and yes since going the way i’ve chosen, it’s been a long old time since I’ve reviewed this tale. But the gist is true, and you avoid the obvious issue, as my dad a church elder and a hell of a man does as well. You can’t explain G-d’s apparent inconsistencies, so you try to make excuses for him drawn from the immediate or wider context of scripture. [/quote]

Wow, that was an absolute massacre of the story! If you knew anything about the story what is significant about it, is the foreshadowing of the apostles in particular Judas and how he turned toward evil and how he was replaced.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

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.[/quote]

I recall this occurred some time ago with Forlife, where he essentially admitted that some of the most heinous evils we could imagine would have to be, as a matter of logic, mere preferences entirely dependent on the individual’s perspective, and not morally objectionable. Kind of the same thing here - in order to defend a point, a damning adherence to a grotesque “agnosticism” in the name of ideological purity in order not to concede even, as you say, an inch.[/quote]

I never said it wasn’t morally objectionable. I only said it wasn’t demonstrably morally objectionable according to a universal objective standard, since there is no evidence such a standard exists.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

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.[/quote]

I recall this occurred some time ago with Forlife, where he essentially admitted that some of the most heinous evils we could imagine would have to be, as a matter of logic, mere preferences entirely dependent on the individual’s perspective, and not morally objectionable. Kind of the same thing here - in order to defend a point, a damning adherence to a grotesque “agnosticism” in the name of ideological purity in order not to concede even, as you say, an inch.[/quote]

Aye. Do we really have to ask ourselves if “Well, my personal opinion is that_____is evil. But, then again, I know evil doesn’t actually exist” is the stern stuff from which ordered civilization arises? If a society repeats the above long enough, it will be begin to actually believe it. Then, it will actually resemble such a philosophy.

Where did some of our non-theistic, yet faith friendly (moral absolutes, so on), posters go? Always enjoyed their input. I want to say Phaethon, and I believe a frenchman (a teacher or professor) with a forum handle starting with a K. It’s been a while.[/quote]

This is a good point, and once I catch up with the thread I’m going to pose another hypothetical for discussion.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.[/quote]

Existence itself is a metaphysical question. What exists metaphysically, is more real and more provable than anything physical. If you lost all your faculties and perceptions you would have awareness of only the metaphysical.
The physical depends on the metaphysical for it’s existence, but no the other way around…
We only know about physical objects through errored perception.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I see values as metaphysical, rather than physical, objects. They aren’t made of matter or energy, and I’m unaware of any universal laws like gravity that would govern them. That isn’t to say I know such laws don’t exist: maybe they do. I truly don’t know, hence my agnosticism.[/quote]Are they universally binding. What of a society that views violent forcible rape as a sacred practice?

[forlife]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

You apparently flunked your Old Testament courses too.
[/quote]

Do you believe the children of Adam and Eve had sex with one another?

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, forlife. Before I go, don’t go getting the impression that I’m trying to beat up on you. It’s not my intention, even if I have a go at topic with some passion. You got the debate you were looking for. You made a topic that got some good, serious, and deep jawing going. Who can’t appreciate that?

And again, ultimately, I think you’re better than actully being agnostic about rape as an evil act. Whatever else we may vehemently disagree on, I just don’t believe you on that one. I know, it’s sort of a dig at you, but it’s also a sign that I think you’re bettern than that. I think you adopted a stance you felt you had to take, in order to salvage some consistency. Besides, as DD has pointed out, faith in something which isn’t falsifiable is agnosticism? You’d make even theists into agnostics with that definition. Honestly, thanks for the topic, but I’m all talked out.

Later folks.[/quote]

No problem. I was getting a little frustrated yesterday, since I didn’t believe you were answering my question, and I apologize for that. Overall, the level of our discourse has improved, and I’d like that to continue.

My sincere goal is to understand what people believe, and why they believe as they do, without passing judgment on those beliefs. And I’m happy to share my own perspective. I’m not perfect on that, especially with people I fundamentally disagree with like Tiribulus, but you have my commitment to do better.

For the record, I honestly believe what I post here. I’m not going to say something just to win debate points. I think that only feeds into internet egotism, and is a waste of everyone’s time.

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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

So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]

The existence or nonexistence of a god is a physical, not a metaphysical question. As such, it is categorically true or false. Either a supernatural being created the universe or he didn’t. There is no middle ground on this question. It is an empirical issue, not an issue of faith.

However, values, beliefs, emotions, perceptions, etc. are metaphysical. They don’t objectively exist in the universe, and aren’t subject to empirical validation.[/quote]

Existence itself is a metaphysical question. What exists metaphysically, is more real and more provable than anything physical. If you lost all your faculties and perceptions you would have awareness of only the metaphysical.
The physical depends on the metaphysical for it’s existence, but no the other way around…
We only know about physical objects through errored perception.[/quote]

I agree that existence itself is a metaphysical question.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say metaphysical objects are more real and more provable than physical objects. Can you give me an example?

[forlife]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< I see values as metaphysical, rather than physical, objects. They aren’t made of matter or energy, and I’m unaware of any universal laws like gravity that would govern them. That isn’t to say I know such laws don’t exist: maybe they do. I truly don’t know, hence my agnosticism.[/quote]Are they universally binding. What of a society that views violent forcible rape as a sacred practice?
[/quote]

Just because a society disagrees with the value doesn’t mean it is or isn’t universally binding. People don’t have to understand, share, or even be aware of it in order for it to potentially exist.

On the other hand, to my knowledge it’s impossible to prove it actually does exist.

[forlife]

So, Sloth made me think of another hypothetical scenario for the believers. As before, please momentarily accept the premises of the scenario as valid for the sake of the thought experiment. I’m not interested in whether you actually accept the underlying premises, so much as in what you would believe if the scenario actually were true.

Assume a world in which universal values don’t exist. People may share common values across most societies, but this is for reasons other than those values being objectively universal. People may generally hold one another accountable for those values, but there is no 100% guaranteed ultimate accountability for following those values. Finally, assume those common values are the same common values that exist in our own world (love, integrity, fairness, etc.).

Ok? Two questions for you:

1. In that world, do you believe people would generally (not always, but in the aggregate) be happier by following those common values than by not following them?

2. In that world, would people generally be happier by believing those values really are universal, even though they’re not?