Go ahead, shred my homily for today
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
(16-04-2013 09:30 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Initiating force/violence against another human being is immoral.
A false syllogism since the initial premise is utterly false.

How can you say that? How can you even use the word immoral? Are you sure you didn't mean to write "unethical"?

Initiating force/violence against another creature is done in the natural world for:

*Food
*Shelter
*MATING RIGHTS AND PRIVILIGES
*Pack leadership
*Etc.

Rape is fine if you're a Darwinist. Go ahead and tell us all why it's otherwise, please.

Ethical is fine, since moral and ethical are synonymous.

And yes, force is initiated by all animals. Non human animals are not moral agents though, so rather than saying creature, the correct term would be human. And with that said, that a human does a thing does not make it moral.

Who told you that people who accept the theory of evolution also condone rape? That's a rather broad and presumptuous statement which I would bet you cannot substantiate.

Regarding why rape is wrong, I've already explained that. You don't seem to agree that initiating force against another human being is wrong, so can you explain why not? Can you explain when the initiation of force is justified? Is it justified only for certain people? Only at certain times or in certain places?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
Quote:All of those things you mention are done in order for the species or group to survive. In some instances that happens at the expense of the individual. I seem to remember reading somewhere a couple of rare examples where certain traits/behaviors benefited the individual not the group but I can't remember what those are atm.
Sweeping statements like we KNOW why these things are done... "for the species or group to survive"... is why Christians rightly accuse some Evolutionists of making it their God. "E" did it sounds like myth to me.

How many species are gone now that were here? 10 for every living specie now? More?! But you find with a 90% attrition rate on species that Evolution "magically motivates" GROUP and not individual survival? Really? Or are you going to say that those with survival "policies" better outlasted their peers?

Why a 9-month gestation for folks as high as us? Why an 18 YEAR stay at the home and with even teens showing an astonishing lack of brain development? (And recreational drug use.) Smile

"I seem to remember reading somewhere a couple of rare examples where certain traits/behaviors benefited the individual not the group but I can't remember what those are atm."

Let me help you; killing, raping and eating at all costs. You CANNOT say rape is "wrong" on your bases.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2013, 08:16 AM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
Quote:Ethical is fine, since moral and ethical are synonymous.

And yes, force is initiated by all animals. Non human animals are not moral agents though, so rather than saying creature, the correct term would be human. And with that said, that a human does a thing does not make it moral.

Who told you that people who accept the theory of evolution also condone rape? That's a rather broad and presumptuous statement which I would bet you cannot substantiate.

Regarding why rape is wrong, I've already explained that. You don't seem to agree that initiating force against another human being is wrong, so can you explain why not? Can you explain when the initiation of force is justified? Is it justified only for certain people? Only at certain times or in certain places?
To explain these things to a naturalist we'd lack common ground once we left "natural law" and talked about loving our neighbor and honoring God. Right? YOU have no grounds to say initiating violence is wrong. I NEVER said I don't agree with the moral principle of tolerance and peace among neighbors. The burden of proof is on the Evolutionist. Sorry.

And I'm not saying Evolutionists condone rape! I am saying that condemning rape is inconsistent with a naturalist's worldview. As for initiating violence, why don't Evolutionists march against lions killing gazelles? The lions initiate violence, cause separation for gazelle young from their parents, cause gazelles pain and suffering, etc. It's because it's NATURAL for evolved predators to predate. It's natural for animals to forcibly mount other animals and impregnate them.

Rape, murder and even human cannibalism are justifiable for survival of individuals and in some cases, groups, right? If the Jews went for it and murdered every Nazi they could kill on the sly, perhaps they wouldn't have gone through the Holocaust, right? And tribes ate tribes before they were eaten, right?

I'm sorry, and I'm trying to say this kindly, but it seems like the only justification naturalists have for what most folks call "decent, Christian behavior" Wink (here comes the Inquisition stories) is "we have clearly evolved to be a social species". Well, the same Inquistion you hurl in my face shows we haven't, and you have no empirical proof. People don't rape and murder because they fear retribution... from man and God.

Epic fail, folks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2013, 10:33 AM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
(17-04-2013 08:16 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  To explain these things to a naturalist we'd lack common ground once we left "natural law" and talked about loving our neighbor and honoring God. Right? YOU have no grounds to say initiating violence is wrong. I NEVER said I don't agree with the moral principle of tolerance and peace among neighbors. The burden of proof is on the Evolutionist. Sorry.

And I'm not saying Evolutionists condone rape! I am saying that condemning rape is inconsistent with a naturalist's worldview. As for initiating violence, why don't Evolutionists march against lions killing gazelles? The lions initiate violence, cause separation for gazelle young from their parents, cause gazelles pain and suffering, etc. It's because it's NATURAL for evolved predators to predate. It's natural for animals to forcibly mount other animals and impregnate them.

Rape, murder and even human cannibalism are justifiable for survival of individuals and in some cases, groups, right? If the Jews went for it and murdered every Nazi they could kill on the sly, perhaps they wouldn't have gone through the Holocaust, right? And tribes ate tribes before they were eaten, right?

I'm sorry, and I'm trying to say this kindly, but it seems like the only justification naturalists have for what most folks call "decent, Christian behavior" Wink (here comes the Inquisition stories) is "we have clearly evolved to be a social species". Well, the same Inquistion you hurl in my face shows we haven't, and you have no empirical proof. People don't rape and murder because they fear retribution... from man and God.

Epic fail, folks.


Your attempts at wordsmithing don't strengthen your argument. Nor does your use of non sequitur. To clarify, yet again... the principle I mentioned is the non aggression principle. It applies to humans, not to animals. Animals are not moral agents and thus, the principle of non aggression does not apply to them. Lions do eat gazelles and sex in the wild is often violent and imposed... on that we agree. But again, for clarity... this is not a discussion about lions and gazelles or any other animal that doesn't have the level of cognition that humans possess. This discussion is exclusive to the human animal.

Rape & murder are never justifiable. Cannibalism, except in "lifeboat" scenarios, is unjustified. However, those lifeboat scenarios are so rare and so desperate that applying moral rules to them is best left to those who experience them. Interestingly enough, cannibalism throughout history has been the result of superstition and not nutritional needs. Rural tribes eat others among them (usually children) as sacrifices or as a means to transfer perceived powers from the body of the dead to the body of the living. Early Christians regularly practiced infanticide and the consumption of their murdered offspring by the parents. Often, the other living children were forced to share in the meal and the reasons for that cannibalism were as unfounded as those of earlier superstitious peoples. In the end, cannibalism has never been widely practiced by "naturalists". Rather, it has always been a religious rite.

As for the evolution of humans as a social animal, we are and always have been social animals. Children are not inclined toward violence, distrust and superstition. Those are learned behaviors and given that for thousands of years humans have been superstitious, it stands to reason that humans have been rearing superstitious children. Fortunately, the trend has been toward empathy and that has allowed a certain number of children to be raised a little less violently than their parents were. Over the centuries that phenomena has facilitated the many advances humanity has made and not consequently, it is the sole reason that superstition is on the decline.

You mentioned Jews and Nazis... why do you suppose Hitler and the majority of Germans we capable of such hatred for Jews? In Hitler's case, he was raised by the bastard son of a Jew who, as an Austrian, shared in the common hatred for Jews. Hitler's father beat him unmercifully and daily, ostensibly for the purpose of punishing the filthy Jewish blood that ran through the child's veins. The result of such a brutal childhood was that Adolf was determined that Jews be eradicated so that he could vindicate his father and thus, finally gain his love. As for the German populace, they too suffered from brutal childhoods, with the most common parenting book of the time advising that infants should be beaten until their will was broken. And that further beatings would serve to reinforce their subjugation. When not being beaten for imagined sinfulness, German (and Austrian) infants were kept in swaddling bands, placed in sacks and hung from nails while their parents worked or went about other activities. When they were older, they were also bathed in ice cold water to "strengthen" their resolve and their character. All of these practices were common in the area at the time and all were based upon the strictures of Catholicism.

Is it any wonder these people were capable of the atrocities they supported and carried out? Were they born with this hatred? Of course not. They were simply projecting their childhood fears and abuse onto an object of hatred, which is a common psychological defense mechanism unique to all humans.

All of the above is documented throughout various accounts, diaries, and literature of the times.

Likewise, the effects of more peaceful parenting methods are demonstrable in everyday life. As we move away from violence, we move away from religion. Instead opting for more rational and peaceful means of resolving problems and rearing our young. Violence is so uncommon now that when there is a serial or spree killer, the news shakes the world. A thousand years ago, seeing people killed in public was often seen as entertainment. People were murdered for such crimes as blasphemy or adultery and children were frequently killed by their parents for misdemeanor offenses. Little girls were killed for the crime of being raped. All in the name of honoring your god's will.

I don't need to justify my moral framework to you, because it doesn't rely on honoring mystical beings or avenging made up crimes.It is based upon observable, empirical evidence of the negative affects violence has on human beings. It can be proven without the use of faith and it is applicable to all people at all times and in all places. Such universality is the hallmark of a principle. Religious or even secular relative morals are not morals at all. They are nothing more than bigoted opinions.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
17-04-2013, 01:05 PM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
(17-04-2013 08:09 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:All of those things you mention are done in order for the species or group to survive. In some instances that happens at the expense of the individual. I seem to remember reading somewhere a couple of rare examples where certain traits/behaviors benefited the individual not the group but I can't remember what those are atm.
Sweeping statements like we KNOW why these things are done... "for the species or group to survive"... is why Christians rightly accuse some Evolutionists of making it their God. "E" did it sounds like myth to me.

How many species are gone now that were here? 10 for every living specie now? More?! But you find with a 90% attrition rate on species that Evolution "magically motivates" GROUP and not individual survival? Really? Or are you going to say that those with survival "policies" better outlasted their peers?

Why a 9-month gestation for folks as high as us? Why an 18 YEAR stay at the home and with even teens showing an astonishing lack of brain development? (And recreational drug use.) Smile

"I seem to remember reading somewhere a couple of rare examples where certain traits/behaviors benefited the individual not the group but I can't remember what those are atm."

Let me help you; killing, raping and eating at all costs. You CANNOT say rape is "wrong" on your bases.
wow. I think I will call you Jane from now on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2013, 01:27 PM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
Quote:Your attempts at wordsmithing don't strengthen your argument. Nor does your use of non sequitur. To clarify, yet again... the principle I mentioned is the non aggression principle. It applies to humans, not to animals. Animals are not moral agents and thus, the principle of non aggression does not apply to them. Lions do eat gazelles and sex in the wild is often violent and imposed... on that we agree. But again, for clarity... this is not a discussion about lions and gazelles or any other animal that doesn't have the level of cognition that humans possess. This discussion is exclusive to the human animal.
And on what basis do you find the human animal evolved “morality” or “ethics”, constructs which have no value if we are mere animals? On what basis do you determine we are social/societal creatures since we sometimes are societal and sometimes tear down its fabric?
Quote:Rape & murder are never justifiable. Cannibalism, except in "lifeboat" scenarios, is unjustified.
How do you “justify” or refuse to justify anything as a naturalist? There is no God, no spirituality or metaphysics. A black hole is natural. A flood that kills babies is natural, not justified. A human that eats another human’s heart while the second human is still breathing is not “justified” or “unjustified”. Where do you appropriate these terms from?
“For the Lord is a God of justice. How blessed are all those who long for Him.”
Quote:However, those lifeboat scenarios are so rare and so desperate that applying moral rules to them is best left to those who experience them.
On what evolutionary basis do you say that justification?
Quote:Interestingly enough, cannibalism throughout history has been the result of superstition and not nutritional needs. Rural tribes eat others among them (usually children) as sacrifices or as a means to transfer perceived powers from the body of the dead to the body of the living. Early Christians regularly practiced infanticide and the consumption of their murdered offspring by the parents. Often, the other living children were forced to share in the meal and the reasons for that cannibalism were as unfounded as those of earlier superstitious peoples. In the end, cannibalism has never been widely practiced by "naturalists". Rather, it has always been a religious rite.
I never said it was practiced by naturalists, since no predominant naturalist culture has ever had possession of a country until the modern era. I said when two tribes are warring, some eat the ones before the ones eat them! I’m glad you put your human constructs of “superstition, not nutrition” on this but the impulse to eat or not eat humans is a purely evolutionary one. Do you disagree? And if so, if you think humans may supersede their evolutionary programming, how is this possible and not possible in the rest of the animal kingdom. And please don’t say, “brain evolution”.
Quote:As for the evolution of humans as a social animal, we are and always have been social animals. Children are not inclined toward violence, distrust and superstition.
Sounds to me like you’ve never had kids!
Quote:Those are learned behaviors and given that for thousands of years humans have been superstitious, it stands to reason that humans have been rearing superstitious children. Fortunately, the trend has been toward empathy and that has allowed a certain number of children to be raised a little less violently than their parents were. Over the centuries that phenomena has facilitated the many advances humanity has made and not consequently, it is the sole reason that superstition is on the decline.
How can superstition be on the decline as a result of conscious programming? Do you really believe in free will? The other folks around here probably think that’s screwed up!

Quote:You mentioned Jews and Nazis... why do you suppose Hitler and the majority of Germans we capable of such hatred for Jews?
Um, sinful humans?
Quote:In Hitler's case, he was raised by the bastard son of a Jew who,
Myth!
Quote: as an Austrian, shared in the common hatred for Jews. Hitler's father beat him unmercifully and daily, ostensibly for the purpose of punishing the filthy Jewish blood that ran through the child's veins. The result of such a brutal childhood was that Adolf was determined that Jews be eradicated so that he could vindicate his father and thus, finally gain his love. As for the German populace, they too suffered from brutal childhoods, with the most common parenting book of the time advising that infants should be beaten until their will was broken. And that further beatings would serve to reinforce their subjugation. When not being beaten for imagined sinfulness, German (and Austrian) infants were kept in swaddling bands, placed in sacks and hung from nails while their parents worked or went about other activities. When they were older, they were also bathed in ice cold water to "strengthen" their resolve and their character. All of these practices were common in the area at the time and all were based upon the strictures of Catholicism.
Are you currently imbibing or doing drugs? Have you not read the countless quotes citing Germany’s ENLIGHTMENT and LACK of religious superstition, its Goethes and its von Bismarcks and WAGNERS, and how shocking it was that such a tolerant and enlightened nation could do all this?

Quote:Is it any wonder these people were capable of the atrocities they supported and carried out? Were they born with this hatred? Of course not. They were simply projecting their childhood fears and abuse onto an object of hatred, which is a common psychological defense mechanism unique to all humans.
I see. So they didn’t sin in the Holocaust but were engaging psychological defense mechanisms including mass genocide, cover-up of same, and intense and depraved sadism. You are still ducking the question I asked about murder.

Quote:All of the above is documented throughout various accounts, diaries, and literature of the times.
The majority of scholars disagree that Hitler was part Jewish. The majority of humans, including Jewish people, disagree that the Germans “couldn’t help themselves” or that it’s “no wonder” they did what they did. Your remarks border on hate speech, perhaps the mods will excise them to limit the liability of this forum.

Quote:Likewise, the effects of more peaceful parenting methods are demonstrable in everyday life. As we move away from violence, we move away from religion. Instead opting for more rational and peaceful means of resolving problems and rearing our young. Violence is so uncommon now that when there is a serial or spree killer, the news shakes the world. A thousand years ago, seeing people killed in public was often seen as entertainment. People were murdered for such crimes as blasphemy or adultery and children were frequently killed by their parents for misdemeanor offenses. Little girls were killed for the crime of being raped. All in the name of honoring your god's will.
Um, what? This last is almost incomprehensible. There is no punishment of death for blasphemy in the scriptures, nor of being raped, quite the opposite actually.

Quote:I don't need to justify my moral framework to you, because it doesn't rely on honoring mystical beings or avenging made up crimes.It is based upon observable, empirical evidence of the negative affects violence has on human beings.
Um, death is natural. Rape is natural as committed by natural animals (humans also being animals). The negative effects of violence are not negative to the perpetrators (the Nazis ran the Holocaust camps at a profit other then using their trains less then they might have to carry soldiers).
Quote:It can be proven without the use of faith and it is applicable to all people at all times and in all places. Such universality is the hallmark of a principle.
Um, you just said that in ancient times people were martyred and exposed to death in gladiatorial combat so I don’t think you meant the word “universality”, right?
Quote: Religious or even secular relative morals are not morals at all. They are nothing more than bigoted opinions.
Um, you’re missing my point. A-religious or secular morals are also not only not morals at all but completely unsupported by the weight of materialism, secular humanism and Darwinism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2013, 01:34 PM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
(17-04-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Um, you’re missing my point. A-religious or secular morals are also not only not morals at all but completely unsupported by the weight of materialism, secular humanism and Darwinism.

Says who ? Your holiness ?
BS, as usual.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-04-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
(17-04-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Your attempts at wordsmithing don't strengthen your argument. Nor does your use of non sequitur. To clarify, yet again... the principle I mentioned is the non aggression principle. It applies to humans, not to animals. Animals are not moral agents and thus, the principle of non aggression does not apply to them. Lions do eat gazelles and sex in the wild is often violent and imposed... on that we agree. But again, for clarity... this is not a discussion about lions and gazelles or any other animal that doesn't have the level of cognition that humans possess. This discussion is exclusive to the human animal.
And on what basis do you find the human animal evolved “morality” or “ethics”, constructs which have no value if we are mere animals? On what basis do you determine we are social/societal creatures since we sometimes are societal and sometimes tear down its fabric?
Quote:Rape & murder are never justifiable. Cannibalism, except in "lifeboat" scenarios, is unjustified.
How do you “justify” or refuse to justify anything as a naturalist? There is no God, no spirituality or metaphysics. A black hole is natural. A flood that kills babies is natural, not justified. A human that eats another human’s heart while the second human is still breathing is not “justified” or “unjustified”. Where do you appropriate these terms from?
“For the Lord is a God of justice. How blessed are all those who long for Him.”
Quote:However, those lifeboat scenarios are so rare and so desperate that applying moral rules to them is best left to those who experience them.
On what evolutionary basis do you say that justification?
Quote:Interestingly enough, cannibalism throughout history has been the result of superstition and not nutritional needs. Rural tribes eat others among them (usually children) as sacrifices or as a means to transfer perceived powers from the body of the dead to the body of the living. Early Christians regularly practiced infanticide and the consumption of their murdered offspring by the parents. Often, the other living children were forced to share in the meal and the reasons for that cannibalism were as unfounded as those of earlier superstitious peoples. In the end, cannibalism has never been widely practiced by "naturalists". Rather, it has always been a religious rite.
I never said it was practiced by naturalists, since no predominant naturalist culture has ever had possession of a country until the modern era. I said when two tribes are warring, some eat the ones before the ones eat them! I’m glad you put your human constructs of “superstition, not nutrition” on this but the impulse to eat or not eat humans is a purely evolutionary one. Do you disagree? And if so, if you think humans may supersede their evolutionary programming, how is this possible and not possible in the rest of the animal kingdom. And please don’t say, “brain evolution”.
Quote:As for the evolution of humans as a social animal, we are and always have been social animals. Children are not inclined toward violence, distrust and superstition.
Sounds to me like you’ve never had kids!
Quote:Those are learned behaviors and given that for thousands of years humans have been superstitious, it stands to reason that humans have been rearing superstitious children. Fortunately, the trend has been toward empathy and that has allowed a certain number of children to be raised a little less violently than their parents were. Over the centuries that phenomena has facilitated the many advances humanity has made and not consequently, it is the sole reason that superstition is on the decline.
How can superstition be on the decline as a result of conscious programming? Do you really believe in free will? The other folks around here probably think that’s screwed up!

Quote:You mentioned Jews and Nazis... why do you suppose Hitler and the majority of Germans we capable of such hatred for Jews?
Um, sinful humans?
Quote:In Hitler's case, he was raised by the bastard son of a Jew who,
Myth!
Quote: as an Austrian, shared in the common hatred for Jews. Hitler's father beat him unmercifully and daily, ostensibly for the purpose of punishing the filthy Jewish blood that ran through the child's veins. The result of such a brutal childhood was that Adolf was determined that Jews be eradicated so that he could vindicate his father and thus, finally gain his love. As for the German populace, they too suffered from brutal childhoods, with the most common parenting book of the time advising that infants should be beaten until their will was broken. And that further beatings would serve to reinforce their subjugation. When not being beaten for imagined sinfulness, German (and Austrian) infants were kept in swaddling bands, placed in sacks and hung from nails while their parents worked or went about other activities. When they were older, they were also bathed in ice cold water to "strengthen" their resolve and their character. All of these practices were common in the area at the time and all were based upon the strictures of Catholicism.
Are you currently imbibing or doing drugs? Have you not read the countless quotes citing Germany’s ENLIGHTMENT and LACK of religious superstition, its Goethes and its von Bismarcks and WAGNERS, and how shocking it was that such a tolerant and enlightened nation could do all this?

Quote:Is it any wonder these people were capable of the atrocities they supported and carried out? Were they born with this hatred? Of course not. They were simply projecting their childhood fears and abuse onto an object of hatred, which is a common psychological defense mechanism unique to all humans.
I see. So they didn’t sin in the Holocaust but were engaging psychological defense mechanisms including mass genocide, cover-up of same, and intense and depraved sadism. You are still ducking the question I asked about murder.

Quote:All of the above is documented throughout various accounts, diaries, and literature of the times.
The majority of scholars disagree that Hitler was part Jewish. The majority of humans, including Jewish people, disagree that the Germans “couldn’t help themselves” or that it’s “no wonder” they did what they did. Your remarks border on hate speech, perhaps the mods will excise them to limit the liability of this forum.

Quote:Likewise, the effects of more peaceful parenting methods are demonstrable in everyday life. As we move away from violence, we move away from religion. Instead opting for more rational and peaceful means of resolving problems and rearing our young. Violence is so uncommon now that when there is a serial or spree killer, the news shakes the world. A thousand years ago, seeing people killed in public was often seen as entertainment. People were murdered for such crimes as blasphemy or adultery and children were frequently killed by their parents for misdemeanor offenses. Little girls were killed for the crime of being raped. All in the name of honoring your god's will.
Um, what? This last is almost incomprehensible. There is no punishment of death for blasphemy in the scriptures, nor of being raped, quite the opposite actually.

Quote:I don't need to justify my moral framework to you, because it doesn't rely on honoring mystical beings or avenging made up crimes.It is based upon observable, empirical evidence of the negative affects violence has on human beings.
Um, death is natural. Rape is natural as committed by natural animals (humans also being animals). The negative effects of violence are not negative to the perpetrators (the Nazis ran the Holocaust camps at a profit other then using their trains less then they might have to carry soldiers).
Quote:It can be proven without the use of faith and it is applicable to all people at all times and in all places. Such universality is the hallmark of a principle.
Um, you just said that in ancient times people were martyred and exposed to death in gladiatorial combat so I don’t think you meant the word “universality”, right?
Quote: Religious or even secular relative morals are not morals at all. They are nothing more than bigoted opinions.
Um, you’re missing my point. A-religious or secular morals are also not only not morals at all but completely unsupported by the weight of materialism, secular humanism and Darwinism.


The idea that we are on our own and have to find our own way just scares the shit out of you, doesn't it?

Just grow up, you whining baby.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
17-04-2013, 11:03 PM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
Quote:And on what basis do you find the human animal evolved “morality” or “ethics”, constructs which have no value if we are mere animals? On what basis do you determine we are social/societal creatures since we sometimes are societal and sometimes tear down its fabric?
The prefrontal cortex.

Quote:How do you “justify” or refuse to justify anything as a naturalist? There is no God, no spirituality or metaphysics. A black hole is natural. A flood that kills babies is natural, not justified. A human that eats another human’s heart while the second human is still breathing is not “justified” or “unjustified”. Where do you appropriate these terms from?
“For the Lord is a God of justice. How blessed are all those who long for Him.”
I can scarcely answer questions you've based upon a manufactured idea of my positions. If you want to know what I think, ask me a question and let me answer it.

Quote: On what evolutionary basis do you say that justification?
I don't base it on evolution. I base it on reason.

Quote:I never said it was practiced by naturalists, since no predominant naturalist culture has ever had possession of a country until the modern era. I said when two tribes are warring, some eat the ones before the ones eat them! I’m glad you put your human constructs of “superstition, not nutrition” on this but the impulse to eat or not eat humans is a purely evolutionary one. Do you disagree? And if so, if you think humans may supersede their evolutionary programming, how is this possible and not possible in the rest of the animal kingdom. And please don’t say, “brain evolution”.
The impulse to eat or not eat another human being has nothing to do with evolution. Cannibalism, like other irrational beliefs and behaviors, is a result of childhood traumas.

Quote: Sounds to me like you’ve never had kids!
My son is twenty six years old. He is a peaceful, honest and compassionate man who has never been in a fist fight, used drugs, smoked or been in a courtroom. Throughout his life, my wife and I have consistently been complimented by friends, family and strangers on his manners, his willingness to help and his intelligence. He was raised with no yelling, no violence, no arbitrary rules and no religion. He was always given the opportunity to voice his opinions, choose his own style of dress, music etc. Funny thing is, the parents of his contemporaries often accused us of molly coddling. Yet they never seemed to make the connection between our parenting style and theirs, even though their children were allegedly bad kids. There are no bad kids... only bad parents.

Quote: How can superstition be on the decline as a result of conscious programming? Do you really believe in free will? The other folks around here probably think that’s screwed up!
I didn't say conscious programming. I said empathy. Yes, I do believe in free will, although not in the same manner that you do. And frankly, I don't care what others think here. I care what is true.

Quote:Um, sinful humans?
That's not an answer. It's an appeal to superstitious authority.


Quote:Myth!
It is not a myth, it is a fact. There are numerous accounts of Alios's history and a number of Adolf's relatives' DNA contains traces of both Jewish and African ancestry.

Quote:Are you currently imbibing or doing drugs? Have you not read the countless quotes citing Germany’s ENLIGHTMENT and LACK of religious superstition, its Goethes and its von Bismarcks and WAGNERS, and how shocking it was that such a tolerant and enlightened nation could do all this?
I'm not casting personal insults at you. If you won't accord me the same respect, I'll not pretend to debate you. Hitler spoke of his Catholicism in his biography and Germany was, a the time, a largely Catholic nation. This isn't information that's hard to find.


Quote:I see. So they didn’t sin in the Holocaust but were engaging psychological defense mechanisms including mass genocide, cover-up of same, and intense and depraved sadism. You are still ducking the question I asked about murder.
Sin is exclusive to superstition. One can no more sin against a god than one can commit adultery with Olive Oyl. But yes, they committed heinous, immoral acts as a result of the traumas they suffered in childhood. And I've ducked no question. I answered that murder is never justified.

Quote:The majority of scholars disagree that Hitler was part Jewish. The majority of humans, including Jewish people, disagree that the Germans “couldn’t help themselves” or that it’s “no wonder” they did what they did. Your remarks border on hate speech, perhaps the mods will excise them to limit the liability of this forum.
I don't care what any majority of people think about the truth. There is ample evidence to demonstrate how these atrocities could be carried out by otherwise "normal" human beings and those who disagree do so because they have either not studied the evidence or because they have some bias against it. And I've not disparaged anyone. I've repeated evidence as it has been presented.

Quote:Um, what? This last is almost incomprehensible. There is no punishment of death for blasphemy in the scriptures, nor of being raped, quite the opposite actually.
I never claimed the Bible prescribed those punishments, although I disagree with that statement. There is also no prescription for female genital mutilation in the Koran but it is inflicted upon thousands of young girls as a result of the misogynistic nature of the Muslim holy book.

Quote:Um, death is natural. Rape is natural as committed by natural animals (humans also being animals). The negative effects of violence are not negative to the perpetrators (the Nazis ran the Holocaust camps at a profit other then using their trains less then they might have to carry soldiers).
Death is irrelevant to this conversation outside the context of murder. That something is natural does not make it ethical for humans. And again, you're attempting to put words in my mouth with presuppositions of my positions. As I said above, if you want to know my position on a topic, ask me. And yes, the affects of violence on the perpetrator are indeed negative. There may be an initial positive benefit but no one commits immoral acts without a net negative affect in the long term. For instance, the parent who uses mental or physical aggression against his child may effect the immediate desired behavior but the long term behavior of the child as a result of those actions will be negative for both he and the child.

Quote:Um, you just said that in ancient times people were martyred and exposed to death in gladiatorial combat so I don’t think you meant the word “universality”, right?
That a principle is universally applicable does not mean it is universally adhered to. Breathing is universally required of all humans who choose to remain alive but that truth does not stop people from purposefully restricting their ability to breathe.

Quote:Um, you’re missing my point. A-religious or secular morals are also not only not morals at all but completely unsupported by the weight of materialism, secular humanism and Darwinism.
Right. And 2+2=Puffer fish.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bbeljefe's post
18-04-2013, 12:08 AM
RE: Go ahead, shred my homily for today
(17-04-2013 01:27 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And on what basis do you find the human animal evolved “morality” or “ethics”, constructs which have no value if we are mere animals? On what basis do you determine we are social/societal creatures since we sometimes are societal and sometimes tear down its fabric?
Quote:Rape & murder are never justifiable. Cannibalism, except in "lifeboat" scenarios, is unjustified.
How do you “justify” or refuse to justify anything as a naturalist? There is no God, no spirituality or metaphysics. A black hole is natural. A flood that kills babies is natural, not justified. A human that eats another human’s heart while the second human is still breathing is not “justified” or “unjustified”. Where do you appropriate these terms from?
“For the Lord is a God of justice. How blessed are all those who long for Him.”

It's too long of a post/too many topics to address in one reply. So I'll just deal with this one--the 'justification' argument.

The Jews had to have had some sense of morality before the laws were given to them from on high. Are you saying that until Moses receives the ten commandments, the Jews didn't know not to steal and murder? I wouldn't think the Jews would have made it without that basic understanding of human morality. If you were to learn that there is no god and become thoroughly convinced of it, would you go out and commit rape and murder? You might get the point I'm making here, but to be more explicit, do you acknowledge that humans have an innate morality, and that it is possible for a non-believer to lead a moral life?

So I can continue on this point, I will assume you acknowledge that it is possible for a non-believer to lead a moral life. Most theists would agree to this, but then argue that god made us that way or some such similar argument. We know that consumption of certain chemical substances can effect our judgement, and there have been documented cases of individuals radically altering their moral composure and inhibitions to act immoral after damage to their brains. So there also exists good evidence that this morality is in fact innate in us even if you do not end up acknowledging it.

In response to an argument that god made us this way, I would say you are making a claim to an objective standard of morality based on 'whatever god says is right'. That isn't any more objective and doesn't serve as any form of justification that is better than relying on humans to decide what is moral. For one thing, we clearly do not approve of all the actions god recommends in the bible--especially the old testament. Claiming god was just acting in a way consistent with the times would obviate god's role in establishing that morality you claim for his/her/it's role. Polygamy was just grand in the old testament, but the new testament saw Jesus back away from that, claiming that the reason god didn't prohibit it earlier was that their 'hearts were hardened' that was the reason it was ok in the past:

From Matthew:
Quote:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

When I read that the first time, I thought to myself that Jesus was perhaps right on the morals, but otherwise full of shit. Under pressure, he manufactured reason for why it was now adultery to marry another wife. It's right there in the bible--THE LAW CHANGED. So much for immutable moral standards, eh? Riiight, it was always wrong, but Moses allowed the sin to go on because 'hearts were hardened'. Yet the bible doesn't make issue with prominent figured in the old testament having multiple wives. Imagine if Jesus was alive today, he might even support gay marriage now that our hearts aren't as hardened to it.

So in summary on this point of god as justification, that only works if you are ok with capricious justification. If your form of morality is whatever god says or whatever you think god says at the moment, then you are happy being a slave to a dictator--speaking of which, slavery is just cool as well in the bible. So maybe you really do fit in with iron age morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like BryanS's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: