From Deism to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 05:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no contradictions and I have no beliefs, the problem is that you aren't taking the time to understand my position.

That’s because I’m often left to parse out your position here. You’re not particularly forthcoming.

Quote:So who is to say that the standard or principle is whether it harms people?

Some intuitive acknowledge of something akin to the golden rule. Something you seem to know as well, when you say you don’t want to be hypocritical, when desiring that force not be used upon you, thereby not wanting to use force on others.

Quote:If I give government too much power then they may force their will on me. Too much power in government = threat to me.

So that’s why you found the Brazilians passing a law prohibiting infanticide, shameful? Because it puts too much pressure on you?

I’m also going to repeat my previous question:

Early you suggested that passing of a law prohibiting infanticide, was shameful. Would you find it shameful if someone rescued a handicap child about to be murdered by his tribe, out of empathy for the victim, shameful?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 05:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  An alternative approach would be for you to describe a reliable and objective method to discover the moral truths.
We could then pick a few scenarios, run it through this method and find out once and for all whether these things are moral, immoral or neutral.
e.g.
Lying
Premarital sex
prostitution
masturbation
gay marriage
abortion
Polygamy

When I speak of moral truths, i'm not claiming that the acknowledgement of these this equates to knowing whether any of the above mentioned things are right or wrong. I'm speaking of some basic principles often acknowledge by both parties, regardless of which side their own. Both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge that murder is wrong, taking a person's life is wrong, the arguments is whether or not a fetus is a person, or whether abortion is murder. An acknowledge of this basic principles doesn't mean that we know which side of the debate is correct, or that everyday moral questions are black and white.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2015 06:01 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 05:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When I speak of moral truths, i'm not claiming that the acknowledgement of these this equates to knowing whether any of the above mentioned things are right or wrong. I'm speaking of some basic principles often acknowledge by both parties, regardless of which side their own. Both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge that murder is wrong, taking a person's life is wrong, the arguments is whether or not a fetus is a person, or whether abortion is murder. An acknowledge of this basic principles doesn't mean that we know which side of the debate is correct, or that everyday moral questions are black and white.




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2015, 06:42 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-05-2015 05:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I have no contradictions and I have no beliefs, the problem is that you aren't taking the time to understand my position.

That’s because I’m often left to parse out your position here. You’re not particularly forthcoming.
I'm answering everything I can. I am never just offering one word or one sentence answers. I do find this conversation a bit of a struggle because I don't have a huge amount of time to spare on this.
(04-05-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:So who is to say that the standard or principle is whether it harms people?

Some intuitive acknowledge of something akin to the golden rule. Something you seem to know as well, when you say you don’t want to be hypocritical, when desiring that force not be used upon you, thereby not wanting to use force on others.
But you interprete it all incorrectly especially when trying to apply it to me. I don't support the golden rule. I certainly don't think it determines right from wrong.

(04-05-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:If I give government too much power then they may force their will on me. Too much power in government = threat to me.

So that’s why you found the Brazilians passing a law prohibiting infanticide, shameful? Because it puts too much pressure on you?
Again a gross misrepresentation of my position.
My statement was
"I feel it is a shame that you so strongly believe that you are right and that they are wrong. It is a shame that a government can interfere with an isolated tribe like this. Forcing the beliefs of the government onto these people, I disagree with it. I hope that if we ever do discover intelligent life on other planets that we don't go there with our guns and force them to comply to our moral beliefs."
I was using "shame" as a figure of speech rather than as to mean "Shameful".
Perhaps I wasn't careful enough with my language.
I clearly told you why I prefer if a government doesn't interfere.
“Forcing the beliefs of the government onto these people, I disagree with it. I hope that if we ever do discover intelligent life on other planets that we don't go there with our guns and force them to comply to our moral beliefs”
I do not support use of violence on other people to force them to conform to opinions. I would not support such a government, they would not be representing me in their use of violence and oppression.
I can, without risk of being hypocritical, complain if a government uses force on me to make me conform to their opinions.
(04-05-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m also going to repeat my previous question:

Early you suggested that passing of a law prohibiting infanticide, was shameful. Would you find it shameful if someone rescued a handicap child about to be murdered by his tribe, out of empathy for the victim, shameful?
Really? I said that? Come on buddy try to be clear. At no point did I state that.
I said “It is a shame that a government can interfere with an isolated tribe like this. “
And “shame” was used as a figure of speech.
Lets say you heard about the goings on of the Amazon tribe and you then went there and tried to save a baby, I would consider you to be interfering, if you killed some amazonions in your efforts I would consider you to be dangerous, if you got killed by them I would consider you dead.
But what does it matter what I think, these would just be my opinions. I don't seek to force my opinions on the Amazon tribe. I don't go in there with guns blazing and try to stop them.
If my government were to take the action to force themselves on the tribe, this government wouldn’t be representing me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 04:58 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 06:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I was using "shame" as a figure of speech rather than as to mean "Shameful”.

I’m not sure what the difference is, other than perhaps that saying something is shameful is bit stronger than saying something is a shame. Either way, I'll be more mindful and use the word "shame" instead.

Quote:I do not support use of violence on other people to force them to conform to opinions. I would not support such a government, they would not be representing me in their use of violence and oppression.

The “opinion” in question here is infanticide, that killing children, burying them alive for the crime of handicap is wrong. While you may not support the Brazilian government enacting infanticide laws, you’re a part of nation where these practices are already illegal.

Do you not support your government, or see them as representing you, if they imprisoned parents who murdered their 1 year old because of their handicap? Do you see these parents as being oppressed? Do you think it’s a shame?

Or is it something you accept, get behind, but just don’t support this when extended by your government beyond your borders?

Quote:I can, without risk of being hypocritical, complain if a government uses force on me to make me conform to their opinions.

But you acknowledged you’d be hypocrite if you supported the government using force on others to make them conform to their opinions. And that you don't want to be a hypocrite.

Quote:
(04-05-2015 05:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Early you suggested that passing of a law prohibiting infanticide, was shameful. Would you find it shameful if someone rescued a handicap child about to be murdered by his tribe, out of empathy for the victim, shameful?
Really? I said that? Come on buddy try to be clear. At no point did I state that.
I said “It is a shame that a government can interfere with an isolated tribe like this. “
And “shame” was used as a figure of speech.

Uhm, you said it in response to my support of the Brazilian government passing an infanticide law. That you found it a “shame”.

But I’m just trying to understand why you find it a “shame”, or at least the extent of this.

Do you find the UN Declaration of human rights to be a shame? Do you think it’s a shame when countries put pressure on other countries to comply with these standards? Like economic pressures, like refusing to trade with them, as they commonly do? Do you think it’s a shame when our governments oppose a genocide occurring in some other nation?

It’s not clear to me what you mean by “interfering”, if it’s exclusively violent interventions that you’re opposed to, or these everyday type non-violent interventions we resort to, that you find a shame.

Quote:If my government were to take the action to force themselves on the tribe, this government wouldn’t be representing me.

But if your government took action to force themselves on a community in your neck of the woods, who was about to stone a child for being handicapped, that government would be representing you? If they were representing you, would they just allow these communities to do as they wish here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 05:21 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
In regards to empathy


I’m just going to highlight a question I asked early on, and one of your most recent response that seems to be applicable to it:

Quote: ME: ”It's very difficult Until now, I just could unbury one alive,Amalé. His mother was single, she cried a lot, but her father [the baby's grandfather] buried him . He wascrying inside the grave, so my relatives called me. I came inside the house and askedwhere he was buried, and I took him from the grave. Blood issued from his mouth, buthe survived. He's sick, but I decided to raise him. Now he's my son. He's a beautiful boy,not a dog. It's wrong to bury." -Kamirú Kamaiurá

Clearly this Amazonian tribe member sees this as wrong? And it's not even in relationship to her own children, she took in someone else's unwanted child as a result. And clearly sees the wrongness of burying children alive, that a child is not a dog. She recognizes the wrongness of it, as we would. How do you account for that?

Quote:You: Regarding the Amazon tribe, some people might consider it bad despite what their leaders tell them. The amazons possibly don't cntrol every thought of their members like the Catholics do. Plus I'm sure many amazonians go their whole adult life trying to avoid harming other amazonian members so switching to harming a young child may feel wrong according to this continuum

Plus, many people have empathy, they may feel for the baby's plight.
There are so many reasons why an amazonian may feel it "wrong". None of these appeal to a universal truth.

It seems you would consider Kamiru’ response, against the opinion of her tribe, that it’s wrong to bury, likely to have resulted from her empathy. That empathy not only led her to save the child, but to also believe that killing children for being handicapped is wrong, though this wrong in your opinion is not real, it’s just illusory.

Empathy here is not merely a feeling, but it also leads people to believe that certain things are right or wrong, even if that goes against the views of their tribe.

But there’s also two competing factual statements here, used by the tribe, and seen by Kamiru.

That a handicap child, is not a dog, but a child, like every other child.

And the other, that a handicap child, is not a child, but a dog, cursed, unlike other children.

This is not an opinion. Kamari stated something that’s true, while the tribe holds a false belief, a lie.

Why do you think this lie is important for the tribe to murder their crippled young? Do you believe they are dependent on this lie, to murder them? Perhaps to suppress empathy? To override intuitions and perceptions like Kamiru’s?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 01:13 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(04-05-2015 05:48 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When I speak of moral truths, i'm not claiming that the acknowledgement of these this equates to knowing whether any of the above mentioned things are right or wrong. I'm speaking of some basic principles often acknowledge by both parties, regardless of which side their own. Both sides of the abortion debate acknowledge that murder is wrong, taking a person's life is wrong, the arguments is whether or not a fetus is a person, or whether abortion is murder. An acknowledge of this basic principles doesn't mean that we know which side of the debate is correct, or that everyday moral questions are black and white.
"person" and "murder" are legal terms.
It is illegal to "murder" a "person".

But with regards to the objective morality of it, well, if we get to put it to a vote as to what we define as a "person" and if we get to vote as to what we define a "murder" then it is a political thing, either a might makes right or a majority makes right situation. This system is not based on objective morality.

If you seek to conquer savage nations or savage tribes to make them conform to your own opinion of moral right and moral wrong, then you are a war monger supporting "might makes right".

Even if objective morality were true, if there is no way to discover them then who cares about them. There is no universal judgement.

If a god exists then this judgement is the realm of the god not the realm of humans, how can we judge when we have no way of knowing right from wrong? Where the hell is this tree of knowledge of right and wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 01:17 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(05-05-2015 04:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-05-2015 06:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I was using "shame" as a figure of speech rather than as to mean "Shameful”.

I’m not sure what the difference is, other than perhaps that saying something is shameful is bit stronger than saying something is a shame. Either way, I'll be more mindful and use the word "shame" instead.
Picture this.
A friend comes to your place for a visit on a sunny Summer's day.
You ask if they brought their togs.
They say "No"
You say "Oh that's a shame, we have a great Hot Pool nearby that would have been fun to go to"

Do you understand. It's not the bloated emotional head hung low type of thing you are trying to make out. It's like missing out on an opportunity.
With regards to the Tribe the opportunity is to leave them be, let them develop their own culture and be unique.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 01:19 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(05-05-2015 04:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I can, without risk of being hypocritical, complain if a government uses force on me to make me conform to their opinions.

But you acknowledged you’d be hypocrite if you supported the government using force on others to make them conform to their opinions. And that you don't want to be a hypocrite.
Yes, why does your sentence start with a "but"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(05-05-2015 04:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you find the UN Declaration of human rights to be a shame? Do you think it’s a shame when countries put pressure on other countries to comply with these standards? Like economic pressures, like refusing to trade with them, as they commonly do? Do you think it’s a shame when our governments oppose a genocide occurring in some other nation?
I don't support war. I don't support violence in order to get others to comply to opinions. I don't support countries interfering in the goings on in other countries.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: