People forcing their moral opinions on others

turgon

So we can safety assume that each individual person has different opinions on different things. A lot of peoples beliefs in Ireland are motivated by their religion, or more specifically, their morals. A lot of situations demand people to apply their morals and act accordingly.

However it would also seem that people want to force their morals on others. They imagine a situation and instead of leaving it up to individuals to decide on their action, they want to legislate to force what they see as the right option on other people.

Case in point: Embryonic Stem Cell research. Many people in Ireland, due to their beliefs about life, want this illegalized completely because it is "morally wrong". And I completely understand their viewpoint. However just because they think this shouldn't happen, does this mean they can force other people to follow their train of thought? So even though we have two consenting partners donating stem cells, and willing scientists to work on them, the others believe their morals should hold superior to those involved even though they dont have anything to do with the situation.

There are many topics this can be applied to such as Gay Marriage and the divisive issue of Abortion. Like if two would-be-parents feel it is morally ok to get an abortion, why should others who simply disagree force them to choose their line of thought? Remember that in situations like this the people forcing their morals on others are not even remotely involved in the situation.

What do people think? Should the majority force the minority to act the way the want, when all parties involved in the siltation are consenting?

Oh and please dont turn this topic into one on Abortion or Stem cells.

Zulu

So take rape. Morally John has no problem with it.
So why should John intervine when Jack, James, Micheal, Paul and Christopher all take turns raping his 14 year old sister?

Society determines it's own moral values. If you wish to be a member of that society, you tow the line.

PS: you're soley responsible for turning this into an abortion topic - YOU brought it up. :rolleyes:

turgon

Zulu wrote: »

So take rape. Morally John has no problem with it.
So why should John intervine when Jack, James, Micheal, Paul and Christopher all take turns raping his 14 year old sister?

Yes, but obviously in the examples all those who are affected by the "situation" are consenting, unlike your unlucky sister. This was mentioned in the OP.

Mena

turgon wrote: »

So we can safety assume that each individual person has different opinions on different things. A lot of peoples beliefs in Ireland are motivated by their religion, or more specifically, their morals.

Case in point: Embryonic Stem Cell research. Many people in Ireland, due to their beliefs about life, want this illegalized completely because it is "morally wrong".

And I completely understand their viewpoint.

Just two or three things I wanted to pick on here. Firstly, you state people are motivated by their religion, or more specifically their morals. Are you suggesting that religion = morals? Because that is simply not the case.

Secondly, you say that many people in Ireland want stem cell research "illegalized". Is this actually true? I've not seen any hard data on this and would be extremely curious to know if it is in fact the case.

Thirdly, you say you understand their viewpoint. Well most who actually understand the argument and the science behind it don't. We're talking about a clump of like 100 cells here, when we talk about embryonic stem cells. Certainly not a human being.

As to your primary question, I'll come back to that when I've had a think about it :P

Bottle_of_Smoke

Mena wrote: »

Secondly, you say that many people in Ireland want stem cell research "illegalized". Is this actually true? I've not seen any hard data on this and would be extremely curious to know if it is in fact the case.

Theres a few alright. Was some posters in Dublin a while back with a picture of a cute baby with a caption saying "don't use me for spare parts"

Could be just a Catholic organisation I can't remember who was behind it

Macha

Consequentialism is the answer, IMO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

It isn't about whether something is "moral" or not, but about whether people suffer or benefit from it. It doesn't solve all ethical dilemmas but steers the discussion away from dogma.

silverharp

Someones political outlook will have a bearing on this as well. For instance I have a libertarian perspective so I see any "nanny state" activities as being wasteful and sub optimal.
So take an issue like drugs, yes they are self destructive but I wouldnt crimilalise someone that uses drugs , cos it doesnt work , it creates more crime and non drug users end up picking up the cost for their behaviour.

Handsome Bob

Political decisions on such issues will always be influenced by the majority belief. Politics is a game of constant maneuvering and oneupmanship so if Finna Fail came out tomorrow and completely legalised Stem Cell Research you can be rest assured Finna Gael and Labour would be scrambling over each other to see who gets to land the first deathblow in the Dail. Both parties would also launch huge media campaigns to appeal to the masses. It'd be political suicide and that's the way it will always be. Is it fair? Of course not. But that's the way it has always been; majority rule.

The Corinthian

turgon wrote: »

Yes, but obviously in the examples all those who are affected by the "situation" are consenting, unlike your unlucky sister. This was mentioned in the OP.

Define consenting. Might seem simple but it's not really.

An interesting scenario is the one of consensual incest. Two blood-related adults decide they what to have sex. Big taboo, however this was also the case with homosexuality, not so long ago. Allow it?

Now consider the age of consent. Used to be 21 in most Western nations. In Ireland it's now 17 (ironically increased from 12). Other countries actually have it as low as 12, although presently the average in the developed World is around 15 or 16. I say presently, because it wasn't always 15 or 16 in most places, and if anything it could go down further.

Now add acceptance of consensual incest with a decreased age of consent - tell me what you get.

My point is this; if you want to do something you will find a moral rationalisation (read the pages of NAMBA if you want to see some). And, perhaps more importantly, whenever we allow or prohibit something it will more often than not have unforeseen circumstances.

That's why morality is not simply left to individuals, even if they follow a basic principle of "don't do things that will affect others", because they often do, even if they don't know it yet.

Zulu

turgon wrote: »

Yes, but obviously in the examples all those who are affected by the "situation" are consenting, unlike your unlucky sister. This was mentioned in the OP.

You've missed my point. Thanks TC.

Portia 27

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Political decisions on such issues will always be influenced by the majority belief. Politics is a game of constant maneuvering and oneupmanship so if Finna Fail came out tomorrow and completely legalised Stem Cell Research you can be rest assured Finna Gael and Labour would be scrambling over each other to see who gets to land the first deathblow in the Dail. Both parties would also launch huge media campaigns to appeal to the masses. It'd be political suicide and that's the way it will always be. Is it fair? Of course not. But that's the way it has always been; majority rule.

I agree, politics is a game, and a dangerous one for those whom they are supposed to represent.

Politics is more about propaganda than anything, but few people see what the final endgame is.

However, if they were curious to know how we got to this point in our civilisation where anything goes- they would know we are full circle and on the point of self destruction.

That of course is part of our evolution process and makes us questions things for ourselves, instead of following the other sheep.

There are those who will make any harm of another acceptable- like those who give conferences to judges etc citing research from USA that all women and children ENJOY being sexually abused.

So, then is it any wonder that so few predators spend time in prison, and if they are sent down, it is to one of the clinics run by the very institute proclaiming to know truth from research.

But in research, with the right money, you can make the outcome the way money dictates.

Sam Vimes

turgon wrote: »

Yes, but obviously in the examples all those who are affected by the "situation" are consenting, unlike your unlucky sister. This was mentioned in the OP.

sigh, here we go again :pac:

with an abortion, the mother and father are consenting but the child they've just murdered is not. i hope that'll be my only contribution to this thread

The Corinthian

Sam Vimes wrote: »

with an abortion, the mother and father are consenting but the child they've just murdered is not. i hope that'll be my only contribution to this thread

Before we get dragged into a discussion on abortion, it is interesting to note that it is based upon a difference in opinion as to what constitutes rights as they are assigned. Another example might be animal rights, where some believe they should receive comparable rights to humans, or the abolitionist movement that sought to give rights to slaves.

In all three cases; abortion, animal rights and slavery, both sides are resisting having morality dictated by another - those on behalf of a third party that cannot represent themselves and those who do not recognise that third party's rights and so feel that someone is dictating morality upon them.

How do you solve such an impasse given both, based upon their presumption of rights to the third party, are technically correct?

Sam Vimes

The Corinthian wrote: »

How do you solve such an impasse given both, based upon their presumption of rights to the third party, are technically correct?

you come to an agreement about who's correct about the third party having rights
although my post was in response to the OP saying that "all parties" are consenting. all parties are not consenting. he just doesn't recognise the rights of the third party but there is a third party there

The Corinthian

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you come to an agreement about who's correct about the third party having rights

And when you cannot you have one group forcing their moral opinions on another.

although my post was in response to the OP saying that "all parties" are consenting. all parties are not consenting. he just doesn't recognise the rights of the third party but there is a third party there

When he cited "all parties" he naturally implied "all parties entitled to consent" (from his POV). Let's not get stuck in pedantry.

turgon

Thanks for the great response by all posters. Im not going to specifically reply to all, this with a view to keeping this debate fluid and not bogged down by unwholly relevant details.

Mena wrote: »

Firstly, you state people are motivated by their religion, or more specifically their morals. Are you suggesting that religion = morals? Because that is simply not the case.

The phrasing there was a bit haphazard, and as someone who doesn't have much religion I know that morals do not = religion. My morals are dictated by what I think is right.

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Is it fair? Of course not. But that's the way it has always been; majority rule.

This is the situation I was referring too. In the US Im sure their constitution provides safeguarding on the government encroaching upon peoples individual liberties, which is why Abortion is permitted. However the states still have control, and in California gay marriage is not permitted because the majority don't want it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now add acceptance of consensual incest with a decreased age of consent - tell me what you get.

A most excellent point you made TC. The whole age of consent thing is to curb immaturity in young people, in that it is held that they arent capable of making these decisions due to their inexperience (for lack of a better word) and that the head is usually ruled by hormones. And I except this, at the age of 13 I was a bit mad that way, not that I did anything I was too shy, but I wouldn't have been hard to consent. I realize now that the moral values I placed upon myself were insufficient and were motivated by a hyper sex drive. But now that Im older I feel that the moral values I place upon myself are sufficient, and that I should be entitled to live within these values, once of course I dont effect other people negatively, ie "un-consenting parties".

Now someone touched upon the idea of "society values". In cases like murder and rape etc society must have values as a whole so that these crimes can be banned. But my freedom of moral evaluation would extend to situations where I am the only one effected, or where those effected are ok with it.

You made a good point saying that consenting is hard to describe, so maybe you would expand upon this. Another post said the baby that had been murdered did not give consent, but the whether or not that lump of cells is in fact fully a human being is the moral opinion of that poster. Even though I dont agree with it, its an opinion I heartedly respect. However the fact that abortion is not legal is proof that the majority have in fact forced their moral opinion of the reproduction process on others?

As you state in the first paragraph below:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Before we get dragged into a discussion on abortion, it is interesting to note that it is based upon a difference in opinion as to what constitutes rights as they are assigned.

In all three cases; abortion, animal rights and slavery, both sides are resisting having morality dictated by another - those on behalf of a third party that cannot represent themselves and those who do not recognise that third party's rights and so feel that someone is dictating morality upon them.

Another excellent observation. Should the third person give consent is a major corner stone. In the case of slavery its clear cut-ish in that few would debate the humanity of slaves and whether or not they get equal rights.

However in the other two the debate is whether the parties, ie the unborn and the animal, deserve rights. And the fact that I have different opinions on those two has given me food for thought.

The Corinthian

I think taconnol's citing of Consequentialism was a good rule of thumb in 'practical' morality.

As to morality's connection with religion, this is an old one. Back when tribes were beginning to form, rudimentary religions were being adopted with the following in mind:

• To explain the unexplainable and potentially allow man to influence it.
• To create a series of social rules (morals) that would allow a community to co-exist - that could not be reasonably challenged (one does not debate with the divine).

I think most, if not all, religions tend to have moral codes that are sociologically practical at their core (they get sillier as they get more detailed). Generally there will be one or two stamping the authority of the religion, then you get the usual basic rules protecting things like life, property and family. Essentially, those rules that any community needs to function without becoming dog-eat-dog.

Consent is only one possible bone of contention when defining morality. Rights are another as there are plenty of cases where one is deemed fit to consent, but has no rights (or vice versa). Value is a third, off the top of my head.

In short, people will disagree upon these, especially if self-interest can play a part. In such cases, where you cannot reach a consensus, you are ultimately forced to impose morality upon others for 'the greater good'.

Now, morality being absolute as opposed to relative - there's an interesting can of worms

The Corinthian

Now that I think of it, culpability is an interesting part of morality that has changed and been debated over the ages.

Modern culpability centres around intent - attempted murder is a crime, even if no one is actually harmed.

Classical culpability centred more on the sin itself - for example Oedipus is punished because of a sin of incest, even though he was not aware of the sin until after he committed it.

silverharp

The Corinthian wrote: »

Modern culpability centres around intent - attempted murder is a crime, even if no one is actually harmed.

could add alot of offenses relating to driving. here is an amusing piece I came across

The feds have declared that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.

But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.

What have we done by permitting government to criminalize the content of our blood instead of actions themselves? We have given it power to make the application of the law arbitrary, capricious, and contingent on the judgment of cops and cop technicians. Indeed, without the government's "Breathalyzer," there is no way to tell for sure if we are breaking the law.

Sure, we can do informal calculations in our head, based on our weight and the amount of alcohol we have had over some period of time. But at best these will be estimates. We have to wait for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals. That's not the way law is supposed to work. Indeed, this is a form of tyranny.

Handsome Bob

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now that I think of it, culpability is an interesting part of morality that has changed and been debated over the ages.

Modern culpability centres around intent - attempted murder is a crime, even if no one is actually harmed.

Classical culpability centred more on the sin itself - for example Oedipus is punished because of a sin of incest, even though he was not aware of the sin until after he committed it.

Good point and I'm glad you brought modern culpability.

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=9632

Unwittingly committing statutory rape, and how it is perceived by society, is something that I have debated in my mind many times over. If we take the typical example of the guy meeting someone (who he is not aware is a minor) in a club and having sex, I question how the argument of "I didn't know she was underage" is not accepted by the majority.

First of all, for the most part it completely absolves the club of any wrongdoing in failing to identify an underage person with a fake ID. The club will not have any longstanding damage done to its' image. It also absolves the "victim" of any wrongdoing. Yet the man, who could have a clean record and who could be a contributory member to society, would have his entire life destroyed. He'd be thrown in jail for a couple of years and have his name thrown on the sex offenders list for possibly the rest of his life. What if the man asked the girl her age and she lied? It would be irrelevant in the eyes of the most vocal in society because the only fact they would acknowledge is that the man had sex with a minor.

All it will take to have the right to the defence of "I didn't know" taken away is one tragic incident, and a burst of moral outrage against the government.

The Corinthian

LZ5by5 wrote: »

All it will take to have the right to the defence of "I didn't know" taken away is one tragic incident, and a burst of moral outrage against the government.

That bad laws can be created by extreme cases is nothing new. The classic example is that a horrific crime is committed by an immigrant, results in an outcry for draconian measures towards immigration - even though there may be no correlation, let alone causation, between the two.

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

All it will take to have the right to the defence of "I didn't know" taken away is one tragic incident, and a burst of moral outrage against the government.

didn't that already happen a few years ago? it used to be having sex with someone under 15 was an automatic conviction but someone challenged it a while ago no?

Handsome Bob

The Corinthian wrote: »

That bad laws can be created by extreme cases is nothing new. The classic example is that a horrific crime is committed by an immigrant, results in an outcry for draconian measures towards immigration - even though there may be no correlation, let alone causation, between the two.

Indeed. It's a similar situation re: the Padraig Nally case. The media incited a public outcry against the travelling community. The spokesman at the time for Pavee Point said that the case and how it was dealt with in the public realm set back relations between the two cultures years.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

didn't that already happen a few years ago? it used to be having sex with someone under 15 was an automatic conviction but someone challenged it a while ago no?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=9632

The above link basically sums up the situation. And yep, a teenager from Donegal challenged the the statutory rape laws;

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/donegal-teenager-to-challenge-statutory-rape-laws-13876731.html

johnnyskeleton

turgon wrote: »

Case in point: Embryonic Stem Cell research. Many people in Ireland, due to their beliefs about life, want this illegalized completely because it is "morally wrong". And I completely understand their viewpoint. However just because they think this shouldn't happen, does this mean they can force other people to follow their train of thought? So even though we have two consenting partners donating stem cells, and willing scientists to work on them, the others believe their morals should hold superior to those involved even though they dont have anything to do with the situation.

Am I a bad person for thinking that Ireland should embrace stem cell research with open arms because it gives us a chance to get in some necessary investment at a high tech level? We have plenty of natural resources (hot blooded, unemployed young people) and because it is such a decisive issue throughout the rest of the world, if we could guarantee the safety of any stem cell research which could then be repackaged and sold on to the US etc without any moral problems on their part, it might just save the economy & ultimately lead to medical advances that save lives/make lives better.

Morals are all very fine, but one moral I hold dear is preventing people from dying.

The Corinthian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Am I a bad person for thinking that Ireland should embrace stem cell research with open arms because it gives us a chance to get in some necessary investment at a high tech level?

Depends who you ask. To some you would be a bad person, to others not - comes down to where you stand on the issue of foetal rights.

Morals are all very fine, but one moral I hold dear is preventing people from dying.

Again, it depends upon the issue of foetal rights, which is essentially based upon two questions; is the foetus a person and, if so, should the foetal person be granted the same basic rights as a post-natal person?

If the conclusion to the above two questions is yes, then you're in a moral dead end - preventing people from dying is good, but not if to do so you must kill someone else to do so - otherwise we, no doubt, would harvest healthy criminals for their organs.

Then again, even that principle does not always hold, with the concept of a just war being the classic example.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's a line somewhere between having a discussion/talk/debate with someone about something and "forcing opinions upon".

OF note is parents, plenty of people may disagree with their parents' views , opinions, beliefs etc. It's a bit desperate to take little jibes at them for that and/or argue about their opinions/views/beliefs while living under their parent's roof.

philologos

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Morals are all very fine, but one moral I hold dear is preventing people from dying.

Interesting, but surely if you hold such a view you would be pro-life.

Stem cell research is fine by me as long as it uses adult cells, not embryos, as that wouldn't be "preventing people from dying" it would be rather along the lines of sacrificing one human being for another in pro-life mentality.

ChocolateSauce

An act cannot be immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone, and this is a good starting point.

Morals and laws should all come from this starting point, and any moral or law which restricts one's freedom without protecting the freedom of another is in grave danger of being unjust.

Further, I'd point out that if I demand, for example, gay marriage be legalised, I'm not forcing my morals on anyone; I'm merely forcing the homophobe's morals off the gays.

The Corinthian

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

An act cannot be immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone, and this is a good starting point.

But that's the question really - how do you define hurting someone?

As I said earlier, legalize something and there are almost always indirect consequences, some of which will hurt. Additionally, who is 'someone'? An adult? A disabled person? A child? A foetus? An animal? Your definition will likely differ to that of another.

A simple example is litter. If I litter, then realistically it is not going to make any big difference to anyone. It hurts no one. However, if I litter and it is acceptable to litter, then it will not only be me who litters, but others and our combined littering will ultimately cause harm that from an individual perspective would not be seen.

Another interesting example is that of no fault divorce. Previous to this you needed a good reason to divorce - abuse, infidelity, etc. No fault divorce removes this need and simplifies it to "irreconcilable differences".

The good news is that it it more easily allowed a lot of very unhappy couples to split. The bad news is that marital break up statistically increased dramatically, as it became more easy to divorce, attempts to make a relationship work became harder relative to this, leading to an increased level of marital breakup and with it the social problems that will come with such an increase.

All moral choices seem to result in a butterfly effect that ultimately will harm someone, which is why we compromise and impose a common view on all.

ChocolateSauce

The Corinthian wrote: »

But that's the question really - how do you define hurting someone?

That is a matter so broad it cannot be fully addressed except by a case by case study. Who "someone" is is also up for definition, and can extend to nature. I thus did not try .

Loxosceles

The Corinthian wrote: »

But that's the question really - how do you define hurting someone?

That is actually not a philosophical question, but a legal and criminal question, and can be defined by the view of the victim by certain determined factors.

Hurting someone is an act of putting someone's life or well-being in danger either by direct or cumulative action, without view to positive outcome. (View to positive outcome would be, for example, forcing someone through involuntary incarceration to detox from opiates, which is profoundly painful and downright sadistic by the addict's definition at the time, until the detox is complete.)

Giving an alcoholic their first drink or a smoker their first cigarette could come under this definition of hurting them, but since the remainder of the addiction comes under the addict's personal choice and free will which they can end anytime, then not so much. The same applies to a woman who keeps going back to a physically abusive partner regardless of warnings. One could legally define it as a consensual BDSM relationship with or without the chains and trappings, but the bottom line is one of the woman wanting to be abused and feeling validated by it whether by flogger or punch in the jaw. At this point you have to bring in degrees of soundness of mind as well. So when it comes to defining 'hurting someone', we must take free will into consideration, and also legal definitions of whether or not a person is of fully sound mind or age of consent at the time the alleged harm took place.

When someone decides to join the US Marine corps and the sergeant says "You are mine", the grunt knows that he will get hurt and endure suffering for the next six weeks inflicted on him by the drill sergeant. However, he signed up. If a woman goes back to her abusive ex, and knows she could do better but craves the high of conflict, she did so, and if she is not of sound mind, it is our responsibility as observers to consider involving the authorities. If a violent criminal is in jail and gets sodomised, he knew what he was in for before committing a crime; jail is punitive and not a picnic.

However, if a 12-year-old engages in a sexual act with an adult, they are not of sound mind due to being under age of consent, and the adult has committed a criminal act taking advantage of natural trust, and a 12-year-old who inflicts damage on a younger child should again be considered not of sound mind and therefore in need of intensive medical incarceration rather than criminal conviction.

So when it comes to defining 'harm', we have to consider the following on behalf of the victim:

1) Did the victim a) know what was going to happen, b) were they aware of the effects intended, whether well-intended or not, or c) did they have the option to leave at any time? If no in any category, then some degree of harm was intended- unless the intention was medical in reason for full benefit of the victim, such as detox, or involuntary commitment to a mental institution, or incarceration by authorities to prevent criminal action.

2) Was the situation of a perpetrator originally a situation in 1)? If so, then harm was done in self-defense, even if the definition of self-defense is that of a schizophrenic who hallucinates someone meaning them harm and acting violently to avoid it. The act of self-defense must be considered as a valid legal defense against full criminal conviction, although a lifetime of medical incarceration is necessary for some.

On the part of a perpetrator who is not in any way defending themselves, there is no defense or explanation they can use to explain the reason behind the intended harm except for the authorities to intend the degree of malice behind the actions and whether or not the malice meant death. The only definition of 'harm' can be provided by the victim, at which point it is the responsibility of the authorities, being police, legal, and medical, to ascertain the amount of free reign, free will, and soundness of mind present in the situation of the victim in order to judge accurately how criminal the intention of the perpetrator actually was.

If a person is forced into a situation where they have no free will, have no option to leave, and a deleterious effect is caused either to mental or physical health, then they have definitely been harmed in a criminal act. It is the responsibility of authorities to determine the degree of any of those qualifying factors.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

An act cannot be immoral if it doesn't hurt anyone, and this is a good starting point.

So are you telling me you subscribe to a morality of hedonism?

What is pleasurable is automatically good?
What is painful is automatically bad?

Sometimes people learn things through pain, and sometimes pleasure isn't exactly moral.

People have to consider what harms themselves, as well as what harms others. If you based it on the principle of harm instead of what hurts or what is pleasurable it would be far more effective on basing morality on a system of hurts.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Further, I'd point out that if I demand, for example, gay marriage be legalised, I'm not forcing my morals on anyone; I'm merely forcing the homophobe's morals off the gays.

That depends on whether or not one is actually homophobic for opposing gay marriage. I don't consider it to be at all. This actually affects far more than just the couple involved if you look to the consequences it has for the family unit.

Loxosceles

turgon wrote: »

So we can safety assume that each individual person has different opinions on different things. A lot of peoples beliefs in Ireland are motivated by their religion, or more specifically, their morals. A lot of situations demand people to apply their morals and act accordingly.

However it would also seem that people want to force their morals on others. They imagine a situation and instead of leaving it up to individuals to decide on their action, they want to legislate to force what they see as the right option on other people.

What amazes me about Ireland is that this nation prides itself on being so vehemently leftist, but is in no way liberal. I came here thinking that if everyone in Ireland loves the Democrats so much, then it can't be so bad. What I learned is that socialist programs are very much the norm, but the continued dregs of fascist theocracy boil up and slap me in the face from time to time, and when I dismiss and berate them as a liberal, I get pigeonholed as a baby-killing atheistic feminazi. But I am nothing of the kind: I am a liberal; fiscally conservative in regard to social programs and government involvement in well-being, like Ireland, but I am very liberal in social mobility and personal freedom, which is not the case here.

The fact is, embryonic stem cells are balls of naturally recombinant DNA which follow their evolved nature to recombine as the amino acids AGCT. They did so ever since they developed in the primeval soup 4 billion years ago. A ball of recombinant cells is not a human being; the potential for a ball of cells to become a human being is nonexistent if the cell division into a nonfetal blastula occurs outside the womb in a petri dish. For the Church to designate that all fetal cells must be implanted in a womb is a laughable scientific requirement by the Church to do something equally as unnatural, and therefore not in line with dogma and none of their business one way or another. The cells in the blastula are an already-living person's original fetal stem cells, and have enormous healing potential for humankind when the DNA of the egg cell is replaced with the DNA of a person's normal body stem cells, and begins dividing as a brand-spanking-new blueprint for a healthy body system. **That** is the miracle.

The people in the US who oppose it, oppose it because of science fiction religion rather than common sense. Fantasies of devilish frankensteins power an apocalypse fantasy. The truth is, a secular humanist world is actually MORE moral than a religious one, because no medical scientist except one who is operating independent of the Hippocratic Oath would use stem cells to make monsters and chimaeras. If someone does, they should be smacked down as an example to humanity, but that is not for our generation to determine right now as atomic conscience was not the concern of the Victorians.

As for Ireland's stupid laws regarding what is life and what isn't, that is an argument that is upheld in laughable legal doctrine that embraces a view to religion that was not given the historic opportunity to filter what dogma is good and what is nonsense. Other free Catholic nations were able to do so, such as France and Italy, and had plenty of opportunity as free nations to distinguish common sense from nonsense and what should remain secular. But Ireland, because Catholicism was repressed for so long, swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker, because the English told them that it was rubbish and outlawed it. Unfortunately, outlawing the Church was the wrong thing for the English to do even if they were right on some levels judging the RCC a pile of superstitious nonsense, because the Irish were compelled by its mere illegality in their oppressed rebellion, to believe it in patriotic duty. And that's why you were stuck with a stupid theocracy from 1922 to the Tiger, sorry to say.

philologos

Loxosceles wrote: »

The fact is, embryonic stem cells are balls of naturally recombinant DNA which follow their evolved nature to recombine as the amino acids AGCT. They did so ever since they developed in the primeval soup 4 billion years ago. A ball of recombinant cells is not a human being; the potential for a ball of cells to become a human being is nonexistent if the cell division into a nonfetal blastula occurs outside the womb in a petri dish. For the Church to designate that all fetal cells must be implanted in a womb is a laughable scientific requirement by the Church to do something equally as unnatural, and therefore not in line with dogma and none of their business one way or another. The cells in the blastula are an already-living person's original fetal stem cells, and have enormous healing potential for humankind when the DNA of the egg cell is replaced with the DNA of a person's normal body stem cells, and begins dividing as a brand-spanking-new blueprint for a healthy body system. **That** is the miracle.

The people in the US who oppose it, oppose it because of science fiction religion rather than common sense. Fantasies of devilish frankensteins power an apocalypse fantasy. The truth is, a secular humanist world is actually MORE moral than a religious one, because no medical scientist except one who is operating independent of the Hippocratic Oath would use stem cells to make monsters and chimaeras. If someone does, they should be smacked down as an example to humanity, but that is not for our generation to determine right now as atomic conscience was not the concern of the Victorians.

Do you realise that bolds used with opinion statements don't have that much of an impact.

I find it interesting the way that people try to make it out that pro-choice is the only view that scientists have.

Also, prove to me that the secular world is more moral than a religious one while a) not using 1 group to misrepresent all, and b) with reference to secular thinkers, and the Biblical text while c) not taking Biblical passages out of context but rather viewing it with a whole.

I have yet to see an atheist do this for me.

Also what defines your morals if they are universal, if not state otherwise, and if they are universal, what caused them to be universal.

Loxosceles

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you realise that bolds used with opinion statements don't have that much of an impact.

I find it interesting the way that people try to make it out that pro-choice is the only view that scientists have.

Also, prove to me that the secular world is more moral than a religious one while a) not using 1 group to misrepresent all, and b) with reference to secular thinkers, and the Biblical text while c) not taking Biblical passages out of context but rather viewing it with a whole.

I have yet to see an atheist do this for me.

Also what defines your morals if they are universal, if not state otherwise, and if they are universal, what caused them to be universal.

It's not the only view that scientists have, but it's the view that most scientists who accomplish anything of note in the scientific world tend to carry. Same goes with evolution. A physicist does not necessarily have to believe in the mechanics of the big bang or a biologist in evolution, but not believing in them tend to get in the way of accepting givens which enable scientists to work on theory which, in finding the burden of proof, enable theory to become fact. Respectable scientists may be spiritual but are in essence, atheists regarding official mythology and dogma, and it's the only logical view to have if you base your life on emprical evidence.

In ancient civilisations, a child was not an official person until it lived 7 to 14 days after birth, therefore for the RCC to dictate that a blastula is life, is preposterous- by definition of the technology present at the beginning of the RCC, and all the other ancient outdated dogma the RCC embraces, then the ancient definition should be the one in effect. But I will say that the longer a pregnancy develops after the first month, the more of a severe trauma any abortive procedure is to the emotional and physical health of a parent, just for physiological and hormonal reasons, so if a decision gets made it should be made quickly for practical reasons.

As for the RCC, they're only looking out for their financial continuation in another mindless tithe-tossing drone as it is, which is the root of their motivation against family planning to begin with. I've seen too many miserable unwanted kids here trailing after alcoholic, narcissistic, defeated parents who hate their kids for "I could have been somebody, but instead I had a kid". I grew up with Roe V. Wade, and after seeing the previous, I think that making it illegal back home would be preposterous. I'm just glad it's legal next door. Wanted children are loved children; we don't have kids in pubs waiting to wander home afer drunk Da or angry-looking mothers using buggies as crowd control bludgeons. At least, I never saw that in the 35 years I lived there. Hooray for wanted children!

As for providing your burden of proof, that's not my job. Read your Richard Dawkins, but don't ask me to waste my time recapping the whole thing in purple crayon so that a pro-life creationist can understand it.

philologos

Loxosceles wrote: »

It's not the only view that scientists have, but it's the view that most scientists who accomplish anything of note in the scientific world tend to carry. Same goes with evolution. A physicist does not necessarily have to believe in the mechanics of the big bang or a biologist in evolution, but not believing in them tend to get in the way of accepting givens which enable scientists to work on theory which, in finding the burden of proof, enable theory to become fact. Respectable scientists may be spiritual but are in essence, atheists regarding official mythology and dogma, and it's the only logical view to have if you base your life on emprical evidence.

Pro-life views are not in the same category as denying evolution. The two aren't the same by any means. You are again saying, that pro-life is anti-science, but this isn't the case and is quite frankly nonsense. Science is meant to be objective to ideology, hence chucking pro-choice nonsense into science would be merely propoganda rather than science.

Loxosceles wrote: »

In ancient civilisations, a child was not an official person until it lived 7 to 14 days after birth, therefore for the RCC to dictate that a blastula is life, is preposterous- by definition of the technology present at the beginning of the RCC, and all the other ancient outdated dogma the RCC embraces, then the ancient definition should be the one in effect. But I will say that the longer a pregnancy develops after the first month, the more of a severe trauma any abortive procedure is to the emotional and physical health of a parent, just for physiological and hormonal reasons, so if a decision gets made it should be made quickly for practical reasons.

Which ancient civilisations? The Romans and the Greeks practiced several things which are considered immoral in modern Western society, such as incest, and beastiality, are you suggesting we should bring these back in. I'm with the RCC and other churches on this one. (i'm not of the RCC)

Why should abortive procedures be made available at all, if it is to result in the death of the growing human lifeform in the womb, which is on one of the life stage that humankind goes on until death. There's no difference to me between it and any other human being.

Loxosceles wrote: »

As for the RCC, they're only looking out for their financial continuation in another mindless tithe-tossing drone as it is, which is the root of their motivation against family planning to begin with. I've seen too many miserable unwanted kids here trailing after alcoholic, narcissistic, defeated parents who hate their kids for "I could have been somebody, but instead I had a kid". I grew up with Roe V. Wade, and after seeing the previous, I think that making it illegal back home would be preposterous. I'm just glad it's legal next door. Wanted children are loved children; we don't have kids in pubs waiting to wander home afer drunk Da or angry-looking mothers using buggies as crowd control bludgeons. At least, I never saw that in the 35 years I lived there. Hooray for wanted children!

If you are to slander the RCC it would be nice if you could substantiate it by Papal statements or statements from Irish bishops in the RCC, otherwise they are of little value to me.

Unwanted kids = adoptive services can be useful. Aborting isn't a fair option. I'd like to know in what stage did they suddenly become a child to you? I find the stage of life argument to be lacking, primarily because there have been abortion survivors in the past.

As for Roe v Wade, it's probably the most anti-democratic decision that has been made in the US. It removed the possibility of allowing federal states to decide what is best for them. Basically the US is federal only in so far as it suits the folks out in Washington D.C.

Loxosceles wrote: »

As for providing your burden of proof, that's not my job. Read your Richard Dawkins, but don't ask me to waste my time recapping the whole thing in purple crayon so that a pro-life creationist can understand it.

Why should I take Richard Dawkins as an authority. Burden of proof = get out clause to make it more convenient for others. Hence why I don't buy it. It's rather simple, I asked you questions, if you can answer them it would be nice if you could, if not or if you don't want to please state so instead of invoking Richard Dawkins. He's not an authority on atheism or on Christian religion by any means.

We don't have any reason to suggest that people who are pro-life are less intelligent, unless you can provide some if we are to apply your burden of proof concept that is.

Actually I don't think Richard Dawkins works [based on what I have read of the God Delusion] on you getting out of having to prove that secular humanism is more moral than religion if you claim so.

Loxosceles

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is meant to be objective to ideology, hence chucking pro-choice nonsense into science would be merely propoganda rather than science.

Perhaps...but chucking pro-life nonsense into religion is done constantly, and nobody has the cheek to come out and call it propaganda, barring liberal clergy in the more enlightened and practical denominations.

Jakkass wrote: »

Aborting isn't a fair option. ...

A personal opinion that also does not carry burden of proof, so it's a bit circular asking for it from me.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Roe v Wade, it's probably the most anti-democratic decision that has been made in the US. It removed the possibility of allowing federal states to decide what is best for them. Basically the US is federal only in so far as it suits the folks out in Washington D.C...

I rather tend to think the Patriot Act trumps that assumption to an exponential degree.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why should I take Richard Dawkins as an authority. ...He's not an authority on atheism or on Christian religion by any means..

He's got a whole book which points out the flaws and circular logic in every theistic argument in existence.

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't have any reason to suggest that people who are pro-life are less intelligent, unless you can provide some if we are to apply your burden of proof concept that is..

Well, since the massive majority of pro-life persons cite religious reasons for their views, and if A=B and B=C then A=C:

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Jakkass wrote: »

Actually I don't think Richard Dawkins works [based on what I have read of the God Delusion] on you getting out of having to prove that secular humanism is more moral than religion if you claim so.

Because I have outgrown the need for an invisible punishing deity to instill morality in me through fear. I know I can be good without God. And I think it would be a better world if everyone else could figure out how to do the same thing.

I'm not going to use the scientific arguments; that would just be a recap of Dawkins and not my concern. But what I do like is the sociological argument of the lifestyle disparity of lifetime godless liberals vs religious conservatives, which I directly observed back home.

And, I'm using the same sociological A=C argument in that liberals are much more often athists and humanists simply by their attraction to practicality and logic, and conservatives are almost all religious across the board. For lifetime liberals, we make room for human mistakes and teach common sense early on, as well as embrace cultural changes, environmental responsibility and technology much more quickly. We also do not support controlling human choice as freedom to make mistakes is also freedom, so we tend to make more informed decisions. If an unplanned pregnancy occurs among liberals, I have found that we welcome the child and love it more, but if abortion happens occasionally, a girl has a support network to keep her from hating herself or feeling alone and unsupported.

Whereas lifetime conservatives repress and forbid aspects of human sexuality, which make those behaviors appealing as forbidden fruit and make unplanned pregnancies a hell on earth. And, cheating and unplanned pregnancy happens much more often due to judgment and disapproval, as well as drug use, alcoholism and other repressed activities.

What liberalism does, is make room for informed decisions instead of make bad choices appealing. So by pure practice, liberals actually end up being more moral over the long run than conservatives, by a very large margin. Just ask the madams in Washington's S/M dungeons and cathouses. It's all Republican clientele...the liberals are going home to their wives because none of their fruit is forbidden, so they already know what tastes best.

And since secular humanists are almost universally liberal, and religious moralists are almost universally conservative, I think I've argued well my moral pov from my own sociological standpoint.

But as for the arguments that disprove theism, I really am not bothered in answering them personally; it would be like being asked to explain to a creationist why evolution makes more sense on every biological level, stopping to teach biology on the way, while all I want to do now is go eat dinner and have a coffee.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Also, prove to me that the secular world is more moral than a religious one while a) not using 1 group to misrepresent all, and b) with reference to secular thinkers, and the Biblical text while c) not taking Biblical passages out of context but rather viewing it with a whole.

I have yet to see an atheist do this for me.

That's not really a fair question. You ask us to prove that a secular world is more moral than religious one but your a) forces us to exclude all those groups that are immoral and use religion as their base. Religion is not necessarily immoral but it can be used to justify immoral acts more so than secularism.

I believe a secular world is more moral because there is no higher power passing down commandments to us that we have to follow no matter how ridiculous they are, eg the banning of condoms in countries where AIDS is rampant. We follow rules if they make sense and not because some guy in a dress or a robe tells us its god's will

Sam Vimes

Loxosceles wrote: »

Well, since the massive majority of pro-life persons cite religious reasons for their views, and if A=B and B=C then A=C:

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

I'm against abortion except in cases where it's medically advisable and I'm a hardened atheist.........

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not really a fair question. You ask us to prove that a secular world is more moral than religious one but your a) forces us to exclude all those groups that are immoral and use religion as their base. Religion is not necessarily immoral but it can be used to justify immoral acts more so than secularism.

Of course it is. I never said that you could exclude them, I said that you would have to take into account Christianity in general (i.e the true face of it) instead of taking the view of one particular sect.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I believe a secular world is more moral because there is no higher power passing down commandments to us that we have to follow no matter how ridiculous they are, eg the banning of condoms in countries where AIDS is rampant. We follow rules if they make sense and not because some guy in a dress or a robe tells us its god's will

Sam, for us the higher power is the thing that makes it more moral. God is what defines morality for Christians and that's why we use the Bible as a moral guide.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Perhaps...but chucking pro-life nonsense into religion is done constantly, and nobody has the cheek to come out and call it propaganda, barring liberal clergy in the more enlightened and practical denominations.

Difference: Christianity promotes the valuation of life quite clearly throughout the Biblical text.

Loxosceles wrote: »

A personal opinion that also does not carry burden of proof, so it's a bit circular asking for it from me.

Aborting isn't fair because it rejects the rights of the unborn as defined in the Irish Constitution, and the right to life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Loxosceles wrote: »

I rather tend to think the Patriot Act trumps that assumption to an exponential degree.

If not the most, one of the most. Roe vs Wade was one of the most anti-democratic decisions in the USA as it didn't allow for the federalism that the US so claimed to represent, it also didn't allow for the majority of the peoples view to be taken into account at the time.

Loxosceles wrote: »

He's got a whole book which points out the flaws and circular logic in every theistic argument in existence.

You're kidding me right? The God Delusion? He makes serious mistakes in Christian theology that really cannot be ignored. I won't post them here as there are quite a lot, but if you PM me I'd be glad to oblige.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Well, since the massive majority of pro-life persons cite religious reasons for their views, and if A=B and B=C then A=C:

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Nonsense. The same guy who made this paper from Denmark, has also cited that black people are less intelligent than whites, or that women are less intelligent than men. Do you hold either of these views? I certainly don't.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Because I have outgrown the need for an invisible punishing deity to instill morality in me through fear. I know I can be good without God. And I think it would be a better world if everyone else could figure out how to do the same thing.

Luckily I don't follow God through fear.

Loxosceles wrote: »

I'm not going to use the scientific arguments; that would just be a recap of Dawkins and not my concern. But what I do like is the sociological argument of the lifestyle disparity of lifetime godless liberals vs religious conservatives, which I directly observed back home.

Dawkins isn't the only atheist figure. Actually, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens aren't either. They are only a clique of "new atheists". There are many secular figures from far before their time that I would consider to be far more convincing.

Loxosceles wrote: »

And, I'm using the same sociological A=C argument in that liberals are much more often athists and humanists simply by their attraction to practicality and logic, and conservatives are almost all religious across the board. For lifetime liberals, we make room for human mistakes and teach common sense early on, as well as embrace cultural changes, environmental responsibility and technology much more quickly. We also do not support controlling human choice as freedom to make mistakes is also freedom, so we tend to make more informed decisions. If an unplanned pregnancy occurs among liberals, I have found that we welcome the child and love it more, but if abortion happens occasionally, a girl has a support network to keep her from hating herself or feeling alone and unsupported.

Atheists and logic? Who said these went together? Also, if you expect a serious acceptance of what you are saying, don't chuck words such as "logic" and "reason" as buzz words. If you are going to claim atheists are more logical explain how!

Also inaccurately generalising liberals and conservatives doesn't help for clear discussion.

Loxosceles wrote: »

And since secular humanists are almost universally liberal, and religious moralists are almost universally conservative, I think I've argued well my moral pov from my own sociological standpoint.

Who says liberalism is automatically good.

Loxosceles wrote: »

But as for the arguments that disprove theism, I really am not bothered in answering them personally; it would be like being asked to explain to a creationist why evolution makes more sense on every biological level, stopping to teach biology on the way, while all I want to do now is go eat dinner and have a coffee.

You're not bothered because you don't have any arguments that disprove theism. Be honest. Neither does Richard Dawkins.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's not really a fair question. You ask us to prove that a secular world is more moral than religious one but your a) forces us to exclude all those groups that are immoral and use religion as their base. Religion is not necessarily immoral but it can be used to justify immoral acts more so than secularism.

Of course it is. I never said that you could exclude them, I said that you would have to take into account Christianity in general (i.e the true face of it) instead of taking the view of one particular sect.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I believe a secular world is more moral because there is no higher power passing down commandments to us that we have to follow no matter how ridiculous they are, eg the banning of condoms in countries where AIDS is rampant. We follow rules if they make sense and not because some guy in a dress or a robe tells us its god's will

Sam, for us the higher power is the thing that makes it more moral. God is what defines morality for Christians and that's why we use the Bible as a moral guide.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Perhaps...but chucking pro-life nonsense into religion is done constantly, and nobody has the cheek to come out and call it propaganda, barring liberal clergy in the more enlightened and practical denominations.

Difference: Christianity promotes the valuation of life quite clearly throughout the Biblical text.

Loxosceles wrote: »

A personal opinion that also does not carry burden of proof, so it's a bit circular asking for it from me.

Aborting isn't fair because it rejects the rights of the unborn as defined in the Irish Constitution, and the right to life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Loxosceles wrote: »

I rather tend to think the Patriot Act trumps that assumption to an exponential degree.

If not the most, one of the most. Roe vs Wade was one of the most anti-democratic decisions in the USA as it didn't allow for the federalism that the US so claimed to represent, it also didn't allow for the majority of the peoples view to be taken into account at the time.

Loxosceles wrote: »

He's got a whole book which points out the flaws and circular logic in every theistic argument in existence.

You're kidding me right? The God Delusion? He makes serious mistakes in Christian theology that really cannot be ignored. I won't post them here as there are quite a lot, but if you PM me I'd be glad to oblige.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Well, since the massive majority of pro-life persons cite religious reasons for their views, and if A=B and B=C then A=C:

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Nonsense. The same guy who made this paper from Denmark, has also cited that black people are less intelligent than whites, or that women are less intelligent than men. Do you hold either of these views? I certainly don't.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Because I have outgrown the need for an invisible punishing deity to instill morality in me through fear. I know I can be good without God. And I think it would be a better world if everyone else could figure out how to do the same thing.

Luckily I don't follow God through fear.

Loxosceles wrote: »

I'm not going to use the scientific arguments; that would just be a recap of Dawkins and not my concern. But what I do like is the sociological argument of the lifestyle disparity of lifetime godless liberals vs religious conservatives, which I directly observed back home.

Dawkins isn't the only atheist figure. Actually, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens aren't either. They are only a clique of "new atheists". There are many secular figures from far before their time that I would consider to be far more convincing.

Loxosceles wrote: »

And, I'm using the same sociological A=C argument in that liberals are much more often athists and humanists simply by their attraction to practicality and logic, and conservatives are almost all religious across the board. For lifetime liberals, we make room for human mistakes and teach common sense early on, as well as embrace cultural changes, environmental responsibility and technology much more quickly. We also do not support controlling human choice as freedom to make mistakes is also freedom, so we tend to make more informed decisions. If an unplanned pregnancy occurs among liberals, I have found that we welcome the child and love it more, but if abortion happens occasionally, a girl has a support network to keep her from hating herself or feeling alone and unsupported.

Atheists and logic? Who said these went together? Also, if you expect a serious acceptance of what you are saying, don't chuck words such as "logic" and "reason" as buzz words. If you are going to claim atheists are more logical explain how!

Also inaccurately generalising liberals and conservatives doesn't help for clear discussion.

Loxosceles wrote: »

And since secular humanists are almost universally liberal, and religious moralists are almost universally conservative, I think I've argued well my moral pov from my own sociological standpoint.

Who says liberalism is automatically good.

Loxosceles wrote: »

But as for the arguments that disprove theism, I really am not bothered in answering them personally; it would be like being asked to explain to a creationist why evolution makes more sense on every biological level, stopping to teach biology on the way, while all I want to do now is go eat dinner and have a coffee.

You're not bothered because you don't have any arguments that disprove theism. Be honest. Neither does Richard Dawkins.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course it is. I never said that you could exclude them, I said that you would have to take into account Christianity in general (i.e the true face of it) instead of taking the view of one particular sect.

If I am to take Christianity in general and Secularism in general then I wouldn't say either is more moral. In every walk of life there are moral people and immoral people. It's not christianity or secularism that is moral, it's what people do with it

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, for us the higher power is the thing that makes it more moral. God is what defines morality for Christians and that's why we use the Bible as a moral guide.

Ok so a christian does things because the bible says they are good. But what if your particular holy book says something is good that actually isn't? For example Fred Phelps follows the literal word of the bible. Technically what he does is moral and he truly believes it to be moral.

The problem with following the bible is that it removes free will from the process. you do something because you're told it's good, not necessarily because you believe it to be good or because it is good

Of course this argument makes perfect sense to me because I don't believe in God but not necessarily to you. I don't think there was any divine influence in the bible. I believe that the morals existed before the religion, as evidenced by the fact that completely independent religions have very similar fundamental rules. The bible is simply the written record of beliefs that were already held.

Back then people needed a holy book to tell them right from wrong so the rules were written down but, and this is the important bit, the rules they wrote down are not necessarily right and even if they were right when they were written, that was 2000 years ago and it's no longer ok to sell your daughter into slavery. Nowadays we should be able to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong. But again, all this is contingent on there being no divine influence in the book.


On a separate note, who is more moral? The person who doesn't steal because a book tells him not to and because he fears repercussions for his actions in hell, or the person who doesn't steal because has decided to do unto others as he would want them to do unto him, without any divine guidance?

edit:Also you say god is what defines morality for christians, but if morality only comes from god, how do you explain the fact that atheists aren't all raping and pillaging every day of the week? Why do atheists follow pretty much the same moral code as christians except with the religious stuff removed? I think its because morality is something built into our brains that allowed us to survive and live together and it doesn't come from a book.

Loxosceles

Jakkass wrote: »

Difference: Christianity promotes the valuation of life quite clearly throughout the Biblical text..

And equally denotes the valuation of death since most Christians include the Old Testament which results in massive self-contradiction in Christian practice, as American conservative xtians have proven. If Christ said that the New Testament was the new Covenant, then including the Old Testament in the bible was a bad idea since the bloodthirst and racism of Yahweh is extremely well documented.

Jakkass wrote: »

Aborting isn't fair because it rejects the rights of the unborn as defined in the Irish Constitution, and the right to life in the UN Declaration of Human Rights...

I live here in Ireland but it's by legal requirement to satisfy a custody agreement. I do not uphold the Irish Constitution, I uphold the US Constitution. Unfortunately, if I followed the Second Amendment I would get arrested for owning firearms, if I followed the First Amendment I would get carbombed, and if I followed Roe V Wade as a provider, I would be run out of town on a rail on a multiple murder charge. So I agree to mostly abide by the rules, although I myself do not agree with them. That is all I have to say on the subject. However, it will not prevent me from opening my very big American mouth and saying why I think I'm better off for having those rights where I come from, very proudly and in the most obnoxious fashion possible.

Jakkass wrote: »

If not the most, one of the most. Roe vs Wade was one of the most anti-democratic decisions in the USA as it didn't allow for the federalism that the US so claimed to represent, it also didn't allow for the majority of the peoples view to be taken into account at the time....

If it were the majority view then it owuld have been overturned in multiple state supreme courts. The only ones where it has is in Louisiana (the land of David Duke) and a few other ignorant backwaters inhabited by Klan members.

The main reason that conservative white xtians in the US oppose abortion is for one main reason that is kept out of the media limelight: most people having abortions are white women, because white women can afford them. This in their minds is creating a disparity in population between themselves and minorities which is making them very uncomfortable; they are going to lose majority control of the US as a racial group. The opposition of abortion is inherently a racist motive.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're kidding me right? The God Delusion? He makes serious mistakes in Christian theology that really cannot be ignored. I won't post them here as there are quite a lot, but if you PM me I'd be glad to oblige.....

Well if you would like to post just a couple I will be happy to provide arguments which disprove theism. Like the fact that science cannot provide an acceptable proof of the theory that "Invisible man done it".

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense. The same guy who made this paper from Denmark, has also cited that black people are less intelligent than whites, or that women are less intelligent than men. Do you hold either of these views? I certainly don't......

The fact that those views are true are unfortunately only due to the fact that those minorities have been historically forced into a cultural role that disables them from fully pursuing those goals. I personally think that if a bunch of white guys going after me if I were a black girl trying to go to a decent school, all the way up to the 50s, would contribute to the desire to lie low. Same goes for women who are forced into a submissive role. The fact is, educated knowledge by blacks and women _is_ lower, and western IQ measurement is based on education. This disparity is not due to potential, which is equal, but due to culture, which is not.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheists and logic? Who said these went together? Also, if you expect a serious acceptance of what you are saying, don't chuck words such as "logic" and "reason" as buzz words. If you are going to claim atheists are more logical explain how!......

Because the explanation of "Invisible Man done it" is probably the most laughably silly argument for existence ever. The theory that intelligence can create before there was intelligence to evolve, is a circular argument which no theist can present respectably and no atheist can give the time of day.

Jakkass wrote: »

Who says liberalism is automatically good.

Tá mishe.

Jakkass wrote: »

You're not bothered because you don't have any arguments that disprove theism. Be honest. Neither does Richard Dawkins.

See above.

lox.

Loxosceles

I believe that the Universe was crapped out of the back of a 50-billion-mile-wide blue hamster with irritable bowel syndrome, and there's absolutely no way that science can disprove my theory besides identify the subatomic particles in the Big Bang which I believe is transcendental hamster poo, even though they all say it's just subatomic particles, I know better. Therefore, Hamster Theory is true because you cannot disprove it, I am right, and it must be taught in schools alongside science.

Those who believe in the spaghetti monster should not be allowed to impose their religious views on my children, however, so we must agree on Hamster Theory as the only one which children are required to study.

The Corinthian

Loxosceles wrote: »

That is actually not a philosophical question, but a legal and criminal question, and can be defined by the view of the victim by certain determined factors.

No, you've missed the point. Harm is neither a legal / criminal nor philosophical question, but a sociological one.

As for this whole secular versus religious morality argument, it's a bit like a blind man laughing at someone who's deaf.

Loxosceles

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you've missed the point. Harm is neither a legal / criminal nor philosophical question, but a sociological one.

As for this whole secular versus religious morality argument, it's a bit like a blind man laughing at someone who's deaf.

Mmm...I think it's only a sociological question if the question was addressed to the social conditions that are factors in creating the motive to do harm.

The anatomy of motive is indeed sociological in origin, since there had to be stimuli to instigate it. However, the free will to interpret social stimuli into a motive to inflict harm is a huge factor, as well as the sanity of the person involved.

For someone to blame their violent mother for their violent treatment of women, for example, would be partially an explanation due to stimuli, but more of a copout due to free will and responsibility. Responsibility at all times should always trump stimuli, even if the stimuli were the worst circumstances imaginable. Responsibility to confront a perpetrator as a victim in an appropriate venue, then becomes the necessary action before hostility is displaced onto other parties and the cycle is repeated.

The only thing that can contraindicate free will and its accompanying responsibility, is insanity.

The Corinthian

Loxosceles wrote: »

Mmm...I think it's only a sociological question if the question was addressed to the social conditions that are factors in creating the motive to do harm.

The principle social condition that is a factor in creating the motive to do harm is civilization - more correctly, the interaction between two or more humans.

The only thing that can contraindicate free will and its accompanying responsibility, is insanity.

Responsibility? What's that exactly? Indeed, what is insanity?

philologos

Loxosceles wrote: »

And equally denotes the valuation of death since most Christians include the Old Testament which results in massive self-contradiction in Christian practice, as American conservative xtians have proven. If Christ said that the New Testament was the new Covenant, then including the Old Testament in the bible was a bad idea since the bloodthirst and racism of Yahweh is extremely well documented.

Well, up until the ministry of Jesus Christ the death penalty was carried out by the High Priests and the Sanhedrin for violations of the Jewish law. As for bloodthirst and racism, that's highly contentious and if you want a theological discussion, go to the Christianity forum many people will be willing to explain it to you there if you are open minded enough to listen.

Loxosceles wrote: »

I live here in Ireland but it's by legal requirement to satisfy a custody agreement. I do not uphold the Irish Constitution, I uphold the US Constitution.

You live in Ireland, you should be quite willing to follow the way we do things here surely? We aren't the US, and I certainly wouldn't like it to be in certain respects.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Unfortunately, if I followed the Second Amendment I would get arrested for owning firearms

I consider that rather fortunate. Ireland has a far lesser rate of gun crime than in the USA because of policy like this. I'd prefer a safe society compared to a gun ridden one.

Loxosceles wrote: »

if I followed the First Amendment I would get carbombed, and if I followed Roe V Wade as a provider, I would be run out of town on a rail on a multiple murder charge.

First Amendment is the right to freedom of speech and right to assembly? I believe this right is afforded to you in the Irish Constitution. However as for abortion, the Constitution expresses a right to life to the unborn as given in the UN Declaration of Human Rights Article 8, and I see this as only proper and appropriate.

Loxosceles wrote: »

So I agree to mostly abide by the rules, although I myself do not agree with them. That is all I have to say on the subject. However, it will not prevent me from opening my very big American mouth and saying why I think I'm better off for having those rights where I come from, very proudly and in the most obnoxious fashion possible.

This is all well and good, but if one wants the exact same policies that are currently practiced in the US, I could well point you in the direction where you might find them. People might think that this is harsh, but if you like the US so much in terms of this, and dislike Ireland's policy so much surely you have every right to return to the country of your origin where this is practiced.

Loxosceles wrote: »

If it were the majority view then it owuld have been overturned in multiple state supreme courts. The only ones where it has is in Louisiana (the land of David Duke) and a few other ignorant backwaters inhabited by Klan members.

Judicial activism is another of my pet peeves. Look at the mess that it has caused in California. Unelected elites shouldn't have a role in political systems.

Loxosceles wrote: »

The main reason that conservative white xtians in the US oppose abortion is for one main reason that is kept out of the media limelight: most people having abortions are white women, because white women can afford them. This in their minds is creating a disparity in population between themselves and minorities which is making them very uncomfortable; they are going to lose majority control of the US as a racial group. The opposition of abortion is inherently a racist motive.

I would need you to cite a press release from conservative Christians in the US to suggest that this is true. Otherwise this is just speculation with no substance.

Pro-life isn't racism, and it's highly inaccurate and inappropriate for you to say so. Why is valuing life the same as racism? I expect a good answer for this.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Well if you would like to post just a couple I will be happy to provide arguments which disprove theism. Like the fact that science cannot provide an acceptable proof of the theory that "Invisible man done it".

I don't intend to discuss Richard Dawkins' work here.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Because the explanation of "Invisible Man done it" is probably the most laughably silly argument for existence ever. The theory that intelligence can create before there was intelligence to evolve, is a circular argument which no theist can present respectably and no atheist can give the time of day.

The explanation of an entirely naturalistic universe, is impossible to believe. Just take a look at the probabilities of this coming into place it's in the millions of billions of zeroes. I think this raises more questions. This doesn't really refute God's existence in any meaningful way.

Loxosceles wrote: »

Tá mishe.

Unfortunately not good enough. Just because "you say so" doesn't make it a valid argument. I really can't imagine a world in which:
1) drugs are legalised
2) abortions are legalised
3) a low age of consent being put into place
4) euthanasia is legalised
5) moves away from the traditional family unit

being in any way better than the system that is currently in place, but rather far worse.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ok so a christian does things because the bible says they are good. But what if your particular holy book says something is good that actually isn't? For example Fred Phelps follows the literal word of the bible. Technically what he does is moral and he truly believes it to be moral.

You might want to read it again:

Matthew 18:10 wrote:

"Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones for I tell you in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven."

There isn't really much of a technically about it for me. Gay people are just as much children of God as anyone else. Therefore by hating them the WBC are committing a sin. We have all been given another chance to put ourselves right with God before the judgement, and all of us need it, none more than the other.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem with following the bible is that it removes free will from the process. you do something because you're told it's good, not necessarily because you believe it to be good or because it is good

Of course it doesn't. It's ones free choice to consider Christianity a moral guide in their lives in the first place.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Of course this argument makes perfect sense to me because I don't believe in God but not necessarily to you. I don't think there was any divine influence in the bible. I believe that the morals existed before the religion, as evidenced by the fact that completely independent religions have very similar fundamental rules. The bible is simply the written record of beliefs that were already held.

I take a different view on it. Theres a universal morality system, which was the product of the creation just as much as the laws of science are. This doesn't weaken the argument of God's existence, but strengthens it for me. People run away from these moral guidelines the whole time, thus what separates humanity from God in a Christian mindset.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Back then people needed a holy book to tell them right from wrong so the rules were written down but, and this is the important bit, the rules they wrote down are not necessarily right and even if they were right when they were written, that was 2000 years ago and it's no longer ok to sell your daughter into slavery. Nowadays we should be able to decide for ourselves what's right and wrong. But again, all this is contingent on there being no divine influence in the book.

The Bible is far more than a book of morals. It's not a result of "need" it's more a case of acknowledging the world the way it is apparent to us in a Christian view. The world is not conceivable without God for Christians, it couldn't be any more nonsensical without God.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a separate note, who is more moral? The person who doesn't steal because a book tells him not to and because he fears repercussions for his actions in hell, or the person who doesn't steal because has decided to do unto others as he would want them to do unto him, without any divine guidance?

The one who follows the Biblical text. They are closer to the universal standards of rights and wrongs. Just because you think something is right and something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

BTW, I don't follow God out of fear, but out of gratitude for the new chance I have been given. Why should a Christian have anything to fear if there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus? (Romans 8:1) We want to thank God for this chance and serve as a light to others. That's my primary goal in life anyway.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit:Also you say god is what defines morality for christians, but if morality only comes from god, how do you explain the fact that atheists aren't all raping and pillaging every day of the week? Why do atheists follow pretty much the same moral code as christians except with the religious stuff removed? I think its because morality is something built into our brains that allowed us to survive and live together and it doesn't come from a book.

I would contend that there is nothing to stop them. People who have distorted religion and people who have rejected it have both carried out acts of pillage and rape. Just look to the Crusades, or Stalin.

As for morality being something built into our brains it's interesting, reminds me of a Scripture I read the other day.

Romans 2:13-14 wrote:

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these though not having the law are a law until themselves.

Irrespective of this, to us it is God who has set this desire. However, people (both believers and unbelievers) can and do fall away from this standard in other areas even if there are things in common.

ChocolateSauce

Jakkass wrote: »

So are you telling me you subscribe to a morality of hedonism?

What is pleasurable is automatically good?
What is painful is automatically bad?

Sometimes people learn things through pain, and sometimes pleasure isn't exactly moral.

People have to consider what harms themselves, as well as what harms others. If you based it on the principle of harm instead of what hurts or what is pleasurable it would be far more effective on basing morality on a system of hurts.


That depends on whether or not one is actually homophobic for opposing gay marriage. I don't consider it to be at all. This actually affects far more than just the couple involved if you look to the consequences it has for the family unit.

Hedonism takes no note of other people, only oneself. I thus do not subscribe to that. As someone who is active in the Irish BDSM scene, I can assure you I know all too well that pain isn't automatically bad

There are varying degrees of homophobia, but in my books, the definition of a homophobe is anyone who doesn't treat gay people as totally equal to non-gay people, and this extends to marriage and adoption.

The Corinthian

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

There are varying degrees of homophobia, but in my books, the definition of a homophobe is anyone who doesn't treat gay people as totally equal to non-gay people, and this extends to marriage and adoption.

I don't want to have sex with gay men, but I do with non-gay women. Does that make me a homophobe because I treat them differently? That I don't want to have sex with men make me a mysandrist?

I'm sorry I'm such a bad person.

hobochris

My view is that no legislation should be put in place based on an individuals views.

Just because someone believes it to be wrong doesn't mean others should not be aloud with the except of where it involves an unwilling participant (i.e. rape etc).

legislation should only be in place for protection not restriction.