The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[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]

Well, the counter argument surely can’t be.[/quote]

I’d certainly concede that there are reasons one would want to convince people there’s an objective morality; that there are reasons one would want to conduct his or her life life as if morality were objective; and that there are reasons one would to want to believe in an objective morality. But the fact remains: it is or it isn’t and there’s no way to prove it one way or the other.

603

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[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]

Well, the counter argument surely can’t be.[/quote]

I’d certainly concede that there are reasons one would want to convince people there’s an objective morality; that there are reasons one would want to conduct his or her life life as if morality were objective; and that there are reasons one would to want to believe in an objective morality. But the fact remains: it is or it isn’t and there’s no way to prove it one way or the other.

[/quote]

Well, if that’s the case why don’t we just go with the one that’s more useful?

Wouldn’t that be prudent?
[/quote]

Ok, let’s assume morality is objective and the moral rules are handed down by god. I’m assuming you will agree that in any objective moral system the rules permit and, in fact, command me to kill infidels.

If you disagree, where do I find the “objective” moral rules? Or am I supposed use my judgment to pick and choose the rules that I think are the correct “objective” moral rules?

604

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Responded to your post on page 21.[/quote]

Went back and re-read it. And if you go further back in this thread, you will see I agreed with you Biz, in a more concise way.

605

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Ok, let’s assume morality is objective and the moral rules are handed down by god. I’m assuming you will agree that in any objective moral system the rules permit and, in fact, command me to kill infidels.

If you disagree, where do I find the “objective” moral rules? Or am I supposed use my judgment to pick and choose the rules that I think are the correct “objective” moral rules?[/quote]

Well, once you’ve assumed that objective moral rules are handed down by God, you have to make sure they were handed down by the right God, and that the God they were handed down by was not, when handing down these objective moral laws, speaking to people living in a different historical and cultural context than yourself.

606

The Code of Hammurabi was almost certainly handed down by Shamash, the Babylonian god of Justice, since an objective moral code teaching “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” (later co-opted by the Hebrews) could not have arisen any other way.

607

  1. Unless you define “god” in an absurdly broad way, it is absolutely possible to believe in an objective moral code without also believing in god. “I believe that a morality exists objectively, uncreatedly, noncontingently, and outside of time.” Here believers will say that that is impossible, and any argument they make will also be an argument against their own god. (E.g., the answer to “Who made the moral code?” will, mutatis mutandis, be the answer to “Who made the god?”)

  2. On a different note, the “objective” morality championed by our venerable Christian contingent is in fact no more than god’s subjective morality. “If god does it, it is good” – this is the ultimate moral relativism. Note that to deny this is to deny god’s godliness by affirming the existence of dicta in accordance with which he must judge and act. Here believers will try to make semantic arguments about “objective” and “subjective,” but these will fail. Ultimately, we can call something “good” either because we decided so, or because god decided so. Many would prefer the former.

608

[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
Inb4 “Let’s bomb Birmingham the next time something blows up”[/quote]

did you mean Dearborn?

nevermind, Birmingham England not Michigan.

609

The American President is the only Western leader who has not referred to the terror attacks as Islamic. I take it this is “diplomacy”? And sending Eric Holder to Paris was an insult. It shows that he feels these acts are merely crimes.

610

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The American President is the only Western leader who has not referred to the terror attacks as Islamic. I take it this is “diplomacy”? And sending Eric Holder to Paris was an insult. It shows that he feels these acts are merely crimes. [/quote]

I think everyone needs to apologize to Clint Eastwood.

611

[quote]on edge wrote:

[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]

Yeah, they might hole up “randomly” in a Kosher Supermarket and kill some hostages.

That area of Paris is the square the painters always painted Paris. Easily the prettiest spot in the city.

FWIW, I am Israeli, but a French-speaking Jew. Before WWII, France was 1/2 of my family’s home, and a handful fled and came back after the war (or hid/passed as gentile). I have a real affinity for France, but I think it is time for them to leave again.

Israel and Quebec are going to be getting about 100,000 college and post-college grads, business owners, doctors, etc, while France is going to be stuck with non-French-speaking thugs on the dole. Bad trade.

612

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The American President is the only Western leader who has not referred to the terror attacks as Islamic. I take it this is “diplomacy”? And sending Eric Holder to Paris was an insult. It shows that he feels these acts are merely crimes. [/quote]

I think everyone needs to apologize to Clint Eastwood.[/quote]

When the Religious Police come knocking on a certain residence on Pennsylvania avenue, then they will understand.

613

I’ve recently found that the texture of the Holy Koran makes excellent toilet paper.

614

[quote]on edge wrote:
Christians are moral because they are afraid of going to hell.

[/quote]

Not exactly a Christian theologian here, but that is false.

Christians, correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Christians to think they are all going to Heaven if they accept the teachings, divinity, death/resurrection of the Nazarine, and agree to follow him, regardless of the merits of their actions on Earth.

The act moral (or are supposed to) out of gratitude and as a statement of their faith.

Me, as a Jewish guy, act moral because it’s the right thing to do and keeps my soul at peace with G-d.

Sure (in both religions as I understand it) there are Earthly rewards and punishments for good behavior and misbehavior, but such is not the point and of little eternal significance for the person involved.

615

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
I’ve recently found that the texture of the Holy Koran makes excellent toilet paper. [/quote]

I found it too super-saturated with bullshit, so nothing sticks.

616

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Christians are moral because they are afraid of going to hell.

[/quote]

Not exactly a Christian theologian here, but that is false.

Christians, correct me if I am wrong, but I understand Christians to think they are all going to Heaven if they accept the teachings, divinity, death/resurrection of the Nazarine, and agree to follow him, regardless of the merits of their actions on Earth.

The act moral (or are supposed to) out of gratitude and as a statement of their faith.

Me, as a Jewish guy, act moral because it’s the right thing to do and keeps my soul at peace with G-d.

Sure (in both religions as I understand it) there are Earthly rewards and punishments for good behavior and misbehavior, but such is not the point and of little eternal significance for the person involved.
[/quote]

That’s the gist of it. I’m an atheist who was raised Roman Catholic. The deal in that sect is that the sacrament of Confession cleans your slate, assuming you are current on all of the other sacraments as well.

Murdered a homeless person last week? Just confess and you’re in.

Molested your neighbor’s kids? Just confess and you’re in.

Cheated millions of people out of their retirement savings? Yep, same deal. Confess and you’re in.

Now you may spend some time in purgatory, but you’ll get to heaven sooner or later as long as you say the magic words, eat the magic cracker and drink the magic wine.

That’s how I remember it, at least. I’m not exactly current on the dogma and it is possible I missed a thing or two.

Similar principles with fewer rituals apply to Protestant sects, I believe. You can still do awful, awful things and get to Heaven.

WooWoo Stuff - All Things Woowoo
617

^I’m pretty sure you have to actually mean it when you “say the magic words, eat the magic cracker and drink the magic wine.” Something tells me God knows when you’re just going through the motions…

What do I know though, I was raised Presbyterian.

618

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
^I’m pretty sure you have to actually mean it when you “say the magic words, eat the magic cracker and drink the magic wine.” Something tells me God knows when you’re just going through the motions…

What do I know though, I was raised Presbyterian. [/quote]

Yes, that part is important too. It is also a major reason why I left the religion. I never believed any of it, even when I was young. It just didn’t make any sense to me at all and my heart was never in it.

619

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Now you may spend some time in purgatory, but you’ll get to heaven sooner or later as long as you say the magic words, eat the magic cracker and drink the magic wine.

That’s how I remember it, at least. I’m not exactly current on the dogma and it is possible I missed a thing or two.

Similar principles with fewer rituals apply to Protestant sects, I believe. You can still do awful, awful things and get to Heaven.[/quote]

I, too, was raised Catholic, but no longer practicing and I have not been to a Catholic service in years.

However, in partial defense of that dogma, it’s not that simple, and I’ve never heard any Protestant sect claim similar either, so I will argue that your example is too simplistic of what the church(es) actually teach or attempt to convey, or at least doesn’t reflect what scripture actually teaches itself.

There is a difference between confessing one’s sins and genuine repentance and change of heart. We were always taught that ultimately the sincerity of this was between the individual and God, but that phony confessions, e.g., the “shampoo, rinse and repeat” mentality, generally signified a state of being unrepentant in the heart, and thus likely was meaningless to God.

None of that was an assumption that a person could ever be free from sin for his or her totality of life, but that true repentance signified walking away from habitual sin, especially what the Catholic church classified under its own dogma as “mortal sins.”

620

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Now you may spend some time in purgatory, but you’ll get to heaven sooner or later as long as you say the magic words, eat the magic cracker and drink the magic wine.

That’s how I remember it, at least. I’m not exactly current on the dogma and it is possible I missed a thing or two.

Similar principles with fewer rituals apply to Protestant sects, I believe. You can still do awful, awful things and get to Heaven.[/quote]

I, too, was raised Catholic, but no longer practicing and I have not been to a Catholic service in years.

However, in partial defense of that dogma, it’s not that simple, and I’ve never heard any Protestant sect claim similar either, so I will argue that your example is too simplistic of what the church(es) actually teach or attempt to convey, or at least doesn’t reflect what scripture actually teaches itself.

There is a difference between confessing one’s sins and genuine repentance and change of heart. We were always taught that ultimately the sincerity of this was between the individual and God, but that phony confessions, e.g., the “shampoo, rinse and repeat” mentality, generally signified a state of being unrepentant in the heart, and thus likely was meaningless to God.

None of that was an assumption that a person could ever be free from sin for his or her totality of life, but that true repentance signified walking away from habitual sin, especially what the Catholic church classified under its own dogma as “mortal sins.”
[/quote]

Yes, that is an important clarification as well. I was absolutely over-simplifying the concept, but the point still stands that even the most heinous of actions don’t necessarily keep you out of heaven.

The Vatican’s tolerance towards the abhorrent actions of its predators in the priesthood is a very real manifestation of this dogma. Rinse and repeat may not be good enough for god, but it seems to be good enough for the Pope.