[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
Frankly I’d be more concerned about the reaction of white youths to me walking around dressed in that attire…
[/quote]
Who are the people in Europe committing all the anti-Semitic attacks right now? Isn’t it almost entirely Islamic “youths?” Given that it is, why would you expect it more from native European youths?
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
.
[/quote]
Q: Why did Mohammed make homosexuality a sin in the Koran?
A: Because his boyfriend thought that would make their sex hotter. [/quote]
Careful there JB. You keep cracking jokes like that and some muslim is going to want to kill you.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
…God isn’t required for morality.
[/quote]
Sure He is. That has been argued successfully on this forum for years so I’m not going to do it again. SM, DD and others have effectively destroyed the arguments that feebly attempt to explain it any other way.
[/quote]
Glad I missed those arguments. I’m sure the flip side of those discussions doesn’t agree with you about the outcome of those arguments.
Bottom line, I’m going right back where I went before. You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. So far nobody’s successfully done that.
You’re not going to say morality proves god or something like that are you?
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god.
[/quote]
Actually, no you don’t need to prove that first. It’s a matter of simple logic. If God doesn’t exist then an objective morality - a universal right and wrong cannot exist because all that’s left is each individual’s moral code, if they even have any, which logically they shouldn’t as atheism is the basis of existential and moral nihilism.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
Frankly I’d be more concerned about the reaction of white youths to me walking around dressed in that attire, but alas, due to my pitiful beard growing genetics we’ll never be able to put it to the test.
Now instead of silly scenarios which involve a 4 hour train journey for me, do you have input which doesn’t involve entertaining the idea that bombing a city of innocent people would be an ethical, acceptable, or effective method of discouraging evil people from doing evil things?
Granted, I’ve only read the first 3 pages of this thread, 23 pages of bigotry is a little much for me to swallow.[/quote]
Well, as a Jewish man who often travels in England, I’ve never had problems with “white youths,” but have been routinely hassled by “Asians” – not including Indians.
That said, I’ve never contemplated bombing Birmingham, nor said anything of the sort.
I do stay that France traded its productive, integrated, professional, and very French Jewish population for a non-productive, non-integrated, dole-sucking, and refusing to integrate population. As business model, I’d say that’s a brave, but poor, idea.
England will shortly be in a similar situation, and after they are done with us, they will come for you. My recommendations:
Consider a cessation of new immigration from troubled areas for a time (say 50 years) to permit time for integration. Enforce the borders and deport illegal immigrants post-haste.
Consider getting over PC nonsense and setting out to rid yourselves of minor-sex-trafficking immigrants, imans who preach hate, and the like. Be bold and quick about returning criminals and malcontents to their home countries, regardless of family situations and other excuses.
Greatly reduce the dole and condition the dole on things like English classes, English history classes, and useful jobs and skills. I really didn’t speak English when I arrived in the USA (Hebrew, French, Yiddish and high school English and Arabic). Seem to do fine, now. My accent is mistaken for English by everyone that is not English, and they think I am Irish. It’s not that hard, and should be expected of any immigrant.
Sharia schools paid for by taxes should be closed, and focus on integration. If they want religious schools, well, get together and pay for them with your own private money like us Jewish folk.
[/quote]
Nice post.
Suppose through some miracle (just saying Push, Beans, DD et al) we implemented all those proactive measures and many more but over the years and decades islamic terror strikes persisted and escalated. What then?
I imagine JB, as a Jewish man, especially one who intends to go home to Jerusalem (I do remember that right don’t I?) that that question likely weighs more heavily on you than it does us americans.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Good grief, you’re talking in circles. This is my point. God isn’t required for morality.
[/quote]
Morality is a meaningless word unless “objective” accompanies it.
As far as I can tell, you absolutely need a higher power to establish “objective morality”. Any other basis for “objective morality” doesn’t make any sense.
[quote]BPCorso wrote:
I’m just not conveying my message well. You are right with what you’re saying. But certain things like shooting up a movie theater, beheading people with a pocket knife, or flying a plane into a building – you need to have a severe mental disorder, religious fanaticism, or both.
If it was just about power, you’d go about your mayhem and killing of innocents in a much different and controlled manner.[/quote]
Oh ok.
Let me clarify a bit.
When I claim that events like these are fundamentally about power, I don’t necessarily mean the individuals who caused it themselves. What I meant was more on tone with mass movements and the like. Of course you have absolute maniacs who do things for seemingly no reason.
But, even then, it is almost always about power.
The Columbine shooters committed that particular bit of atrocity because they felt utterly powerless as their normal selves. AFAIK, they felt ostracized and bullied. They chose to rectify this feeling of powerlessness in a very brutal manner.
As for the terrorists here- Given that printing an image of Muhammad is a really big no-no in Islam, I would hazard to guess that they felt outraged that the given culture they bought into was being challenged in a very significant manner. And so they responded.
Now obviously everyone feels these kinds of things on a daily basis. Do these particular people commit these atrocities because they’re insane/somehow different? I don’t know. Maybe?
But as a general rule I prefer to believe that everyone is capable of anything given the right circumstances. I don’t like believing in the notion that those who commit atrocities are just evil and that’s that. It feels far too simplistic and lets us get over asking hard questions about ourselves.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god.
[/quote]
Actually, no you don’t need to prove that first. It’s a matter of simple logic. If God doesn’t exist then an objective morality - a universal right and wrong cannot exist because all that’s left is each individual’s moral code, if they even have any, which logically they shouldn’t as atheism is the basis of existential and moral nihilism.[/quote]
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
The idea that "atheism is the bases of existential and moral nihilism is just plain wrong. I’m not a programer but as programers say; crap in = crap out.
[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
Frankly I’d be more concerned about the reaction of white youths to me walking around dressed in that attire, but alas, due to my pitiful beard growing genetics we’ll never be able to put it to the test.
Now instead of silly scenarios which involve a 4 hour train journey for me, do you have input which doesn’t involve entertaining the idea that bombing a city of innocent people would be an ethical, acceptable, or effective method of discouraging evil people from doing evil things?
Granted, I’ve only read the first 3 pages of this thread, 23 pages of bigotry is a little much for me to swallow.[/quote]
Who are these white youths you speak of?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god.
[/quote]
Actually, no you don’t need to prove that first. It’s a matter of simple logic. If God doesn’t exist then an objective morality - a universal right and wrong cannot exist because all that’s left is each individual’s moral code, if they even have any, which logically they shouldn’t as atheism is the basis of existential and moral nihilism.[/quote]
You know, atheists are moral out of compassion, empathy, the desire for social structure and not chaos and other such commendable reasons.
Christians are moral because they are afraid of going to hell.
What, in your nonobjective opinion, is the more noble reason for morality?
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Not if God, as in the Judeo-Christian God, supposedly creates said rule.
Objective morality requires someone besides humans to establish it. There is absolutely no way to actually determine whether murdering someone is right or wrong, and certainly people with different backgrounds and life experiences will view it differently.
That’s why you need someone OTHER than human, a higher being of some sort, to establish morality for it to be objective.
Obviously this comes with a caveat- we must assume that the higher being is actually capable of establishing something as the baseline; the absolute truth. If it can’t, then bleh.
The greater point I want to make though is- Humans cannot establish objective morality. It is one thing to claim that murdering people is bad because X, and another to say that murdering people is morally wrong.
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Universal as in extrinsic to each individual’s ethics. A moral order that is not contingent upon subjective ethical systems is universal.
No it’s not. Nietzsche was an atheist and he knew full well that atheism entails existential nihilism. Again, it’s simple. If there is no afterlife or eternity then this life can’t have a meaning or purpose which is why people embark on “immortality projects” to try to grasp the eternal and the transcendental.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Not if God, as in the Judeo-Christian God, supposedly creates said rule.
Objective morality requires someone besides humans to establish it. There is absolutely no way to actually determine whether murdering someone is right or wrong, and certainly people with different backgrounds and life experiences will view it differently.
That’s why you need someone OTHER than human, a higher being of some sort, to establish morality for it to be objective.
Obviously this comes with a caveat- we must assume that the higher being is actually capable of establishing something as the baseline; the absolute truth. If it can’t, then bleh.
The greater point I want to make though is- Humans cannot establish objective morality. It is one thing to claim that murdering people is bad because X, and another to say that murdering people is morally wrong.[/quote]
Yes, that.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Not if God, as in the Judeo-Christian God, supposedly creates said rule.
Objective morality requires someone besides humans to establish it. There is absolutely no way to actually determine whether murdering someone is right or wrong, and certainly people with different backgrounds and life experiences will view it differently.
That’s why you need someone OTHER than human, a higher being of some sort, to establish morality for it to be objective.
Obviously this comes with a caveat- we must assume that the higher being is actually capable of establishing something as the baseline; the absolute truth. If it can’t, then bleh.
The greater point I want to make though is- Humans cannot establish objective morality. It is one thing to claim that murdering people is bad because X, and another to say that murdering people is morally wrong.[/quote]
Yes, that.[/quote]
Funny, I’m in agreement with this post also.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Not if God, as in the Judeo-Christian God, supposedly creates said rule.
Objective morality requires someone besides humans to establish it. There is absolutely no way to actually determine whether murdering someone is right or wrong, and certainly people with different backgrounds and life experiences will view it differently.
That’s why you need someone OTHER than human, a higher being of some sort, to establish morality for it to be objective.
Obviously this comes with a caveat- we must assume that the higher being is actually capable of establishing something as the baseline; the absolute truth. If it can’t, then bleh.
The greater point I want to make though is- Humans cannot establish objective morality. It is one thing to claim that murdering people is bad because X, and another to say that murdering people is morally wrong.[/quote]
Yes, that.[/quote]’
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, no. Since I’m not a Christian, and I don’t believe in any god in particular, I’m essentially saying that objective morality doesn’t exist. I think people could certainly have certain standards that they want to live by, but I disagree with any claim that there are universal concepts that we all should abide by, etc.