Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

People forcing their moral opinions on others

24567

Comments

  • #32
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    Loxosceles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭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.


  • #34
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    Loxosceles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭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.


  • #36
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Loxosceles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭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.


  • #38
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #39
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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.........


  • #40
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    Loxosceles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭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.


  • #44
    Loxosceles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭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.


  • #45
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Loxosceles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 171 ✭✭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.


  • #47
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #48
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭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.


  • #50
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    hobochris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    hobochris wrote: »
    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).
    You've not actually read this thread, have you?


  • #53
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    hobochris wrote: »
    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.

    Impossible suggestion. What if someone has an opinion that people will be protected by certain measures? Indeed this is the only way that legislation can come into being.


  • #54
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    you see that's another problem with following the bible. The early part is all about specific rules about life eg don't eat pork, smiting people, destroying cities, stoning people, slavery etc etc and the latter part is all about forgiveness and limitless love and turning the other cheek. You and Fred Phelps are both following the same bible but the bible contradicts itself

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course it doesn't. It's ones free choice to consider Christianity a moral guide in their lives in the first place.
    ok you have the free will to call yourself a christian or not but if you want to call yourself a christian and some part of the bible go against what you believe to be right, you don't have the right to overrule the higher power and break the rule that you disagree with while still calling yourself a christian. It's all or nothing surely?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.

    Hang on, that doesn't make sense. There are atheists who follow a moral code very similar if not identical to yours, there are members of other religions who follow the code, there are people living on islands who have never heard of the judeo-christian god who follow the code. If people have never heard of your particular god or any of his works and yet they still follow a moral code almost identical to yours, how does that strengthen the argument for your particular god's existence?

    It might strengthen the argument for some form of creator that implanted universal rules but it says absolutely nothing about the judeo-christian god.

    And if these rules are a product of creation, what is the purpose of the bible? Why is someone who follows the same moral code as you less moral just because they're using the universal morality system as their base instead of the same system written down in a book?

    I agree with you that there's a universal morality system but I believe we have it because all the animals who didn't killed each other until they were all gone. The animals who possessed this moral code in their genome survived and reproduced. Morality is a survival mechanism and is a result of evolution imo
    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    That's something you must accept once you reject god. The world is non-sensical. The reason the meaning of life has never been found is that "to reproduce" isn't a lofty enough reason for religious folk

    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    What about the universal morality system that has existed since creation? Can they not follow that instead?

    And just because some guy in a desert 2000 years ago said something is right doesn't make that so either tbh

    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    Again the bible's contradictions. Can you explain what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if there is no condemnation?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    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.
    You say there is nothing to stop them and yet the vast majority of them don't commit immoral acts. Why is that if morality comes from god?


  • #55
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you see that's another problem with following the bible. The early part is all about specific rules about life eg don't eat pork, smiting people, destroying cities, stoning people, slavery etc etc and the latter part is all about forgiveness and limitless love and turning the other cheek. You and Fred Phelps are both following the same bible but the bible contradicts itself

    No, the Christian New Testament explains how Christians read the Old Testament rather well. Walk through Romans. The Bible is one revelation developing from the beginning to the end. As of the revelation of Christ, the ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel have been fulfilled for the following reasons:
    1) Israel as a Torah bound state doesn't exist.
    2) The High Priests make the decisions
    3) Jesus is our High Priest in Christianity hence His rulings on OT laws are what count.

    Actually love as a concept in the New Testament also features in the same way in the old if you look to the Psalms and Proverbs of David and Solomon and in several other New Testament books. Infact the God which is the same in both testaments, promotes justice towards our neighbours even in the Torah. God has the right to judge.

    Punishment for sins is still there if you do not come to repent of them. God punished them then and He will punish people if they do not repent now.

    If you read the Bible chronologically as one revelation from start to end it makes a lot more sense.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    ok you have the free will to call yourself a christian or not but if you want to call yourself a christian and some part of the bible go against what you believe to be right, you don't have the right to overrule the higher power and break the rule that you disagree with while still calling yourself a christian. It's all or nothing surely?

    I believe what God believes to be right. This is the only measure that will ultimately matter. I trust that God has the best in mind for me with these laws and seeks to protect me.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Hang on, that doesn't make sense. There are atheists who follow a moral code very similar if not identical to yours, there are members of other religions who follow the code, there are people living on islands who have never heard of the judeo-christian god who follow the code. If people have never heard of your particular god or any of his works and yet they still follow a moral code almost identical to yours, how does that strengthen the argument for your particular god's existence?

    It strengthens the idea that there is a universal moral law that is binding to all people, and when you have a law you must surely question its source? One cannot say to another "you should know better" without having a source. That source for me is God.

    As for identical, no, I don't think that you will find an absolutely identical moral code to Christianity in other religions. Similarities perhaps but not identical moralities.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It might strengthen the argument for some form of creator that implanted universal rules but it says absolutely nothing about the judeo-christian god.

    I don't think that it weakens it like you seem to suggest it does. The start of all religious discourse is on identifying the existence of God, then and only then do we start to review more complex claims of Christianity such as the historicity of Christ and other events, the archaeological record in Israel and so on and so forth.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And if these rules are a product of creation, what is the purpose of the bible? Why is someone who follows the same moral code as you less moral just because they're using the universal morality system as their base instead of the same system written down in a book?

    The Bible tells us about who God is, and reminds us when we go astray what we should be doing. In my own personal situation I see it of particular value.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I agree with you that there's a universal morality system but I believe we have it because all the animals who didn't killed each other until they were all gone. The animals who possessed this moral code in their genome survived and reproduced. Morality is a survival mechanism and is a result of evolution imo

    So we created it ourselves?

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's something you must accept once you reject god. The world is non-sensical. The reason the meaning of life has never been found is that "to reproduce" isn't a lofty enough reason for religious folk

    I can't see how things do not have a purpose.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What about the universal morality system that has existed since creation? Can they not follow that instead?

    And just because some guy in a desert 2000 years ago said something is right doesn't make that so either tbh

    If they believe in Jesus Christ and if they follow this universal morality system as it was intended to be followed then yes. In the early church there was no such thing as the Bible. I quoted Romans 2 last time, and this explains the exact situation. However the Bible makes this clear for us in writing when we stumble or fall out with the morality system delivered to us by God. Since we don't have people who witnessed the ministry of Christ or of the Jewish prophets it would be difficult to do without reading the Bible.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again the bible's contradictions. Can you explain what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if there is no condemnation?

    There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus.

    If you do not repent of your sins and believe in Jesus' message, then yes there will be condemnation by God. I never said that there wouldn't be judgement on anyone.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You say there is nothing to stop them and yet the vast majority of them don't commit immoral acts. Why is that if morality comes from god?

    Free will. People willfully disobey at times, and indeed people can fall out with it. There is no reason why it is any less binding on them then if it is indeed universal though.


  • #56
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, the Christian New Testament explains how Christians read the Old Testament rather well. Walk through Romans. The Bible is one revelation developing from the beginning to the end. As of the revelation of Christ, the ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel have been fulfilled for the following reasons:
    1) Israel as a Torah bound state doesn't exist.
    2) The High Priests make the decisions
    3) Jesus is our High Priest in Christianity hence His rulings on OT laws are what count.
    So when there are contradictions in the bible we are to take jesus' ruling on it? how can there be any differences whatsoever in a universal truth?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe what God believes to be right. This is the only measure that will ultimately matter. I trust that God has the best in mind for me with these laws and seeks to protect me.
    That is exactly word for word the logic used by suicide bombers and that is why it's not good to trust an old, mistranslated and misinterpreted book to give you your moral code

    Jakkass wrote: »
    It strengthens the idea that there is a universal moral law that is binding to all people, and when you have a law you must surely question its source? One cannot say to another "you should know better" without having a source. That source for me is God.
    But why must it be god? throughout history many things have been attributed to god but as science has developed we have learned more and more about the world around us and fewer and fewer things have been put down to "I don't know so it must be god". I'd be fairly confident that in a few decades the exact genetic sequence that gives us our moral code will be pinpointed.

    Its source for me is evolution. As I said animals who treated each other well survived better than ones who killed each other. Simple as that

    Jakkass wrote: »
    So we created it ourselves?
    Yes we did. We also wrote the bible all on our own
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can't see how things do not have a purpose.
    You not being able to see it does not mean there is a purpose. No evidence has ever been shown of any guiding force in our lives. Good people are punished and bad people are rewarded. There is no discernible pattern to it. You want there to be a purpose because it gives your life meaning but that doesn't mean there is one

    Jakkass wrote: »
    If they believe in Jesus Christ and if they follow this universal morality system as it was intended to be followed then yes

    But if they follow this universal morality that is built into all of us, why is it necessary for them to also follow jesus christ? Is it not enough that they do unto others as they would have people do unto them? That idea existed long before JC and existed in places that were completely without his influence. It's just common sense and doesn't need divine guidance to be followed
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Free will. People willfully disobey at times, and indeed people can fall out with it. There is no reason why it is any less binding on them then if it is indeed universal though.

    That makes sense, the universal morality is binding on them because it's been built into them since creation. So why is any form of religion necessary if that is the case? Should our sub conscious not be leading us on the right path whether we read the refresher course or not?


  • #57
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So when there are contradictions in the bible we are to take jesus' ruling on it? how can there be any differences whatsoever in a universal truth?

    No, the Bible is consistent. The law still stands, Christians are told that they are under a New Covenant, but the law remains, with Christianity came new ceremonial laws and rites such as the Eucharists amongst other things, but the moral Law still stands and still is binding upon all Christian men. Judicial laws can no longer exist as there is no longer a Torah run state, and there are no longer High Priests (rabbis) apart from Jesus Himself.

    This is explained to us in the New Testament.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That is exactly word for word the logic used by suicide bombers and that is why it's not good to trust an old, mistranslated and misinterpreted book to give you your moral code

    Perhaps so, but then again that is more down to distortionism. As for mistranslations you'd need to clarify that with solid evidence from the Hebrew and the Greek. Anywhere in modern Bibles where there are contested meanings the alternatives are shown in the footnotes and if there are any they generally only involve a single word or a very minor difference between the main one in the text.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But why must it be god? throughout history many things have been attributed to god but as science has developed we have learned more and more about the world around us and fewer and fewer things have been put down to "I don't know so it must be god". I'd be fairly confident that in a few decades the exact genetic sequence that gives us our moral code will be pinpointed.

    I find it more difficult to believe that this could have possibly been a human invention. How could all human beings be in agreement in relation to a morality system or expect the other to have this same moral system in appealing to "you should know better" type logic if there was not a common source between the men and between mankind? Unless human beings are aware that there is a binding moral source higher than them involved in the process you would agree that it is rather futile.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Its source for me is evolution. As I said animals who treated each other well survived better than ones who killed each other. Simple as that

    So you are claiming that evolution in a sense formed the laws of nature. This doesn't tell me why this had to be the case for humans rather than animals though.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes we did. We also wrote the bible all on our own

    Nobody contests the fact that people wrote the Bible, what is the issue is is if it was the result of divine encounters or not. I personally believe that they were.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You not being able to see it does not mean there is a purpose. No evidence has ever been shown of any guiding force in our lives. Good people are punished and bad people are rewarded. There is no discernible pattern to it. You want there to be a purpose because it gives your life meaning but that doesn't mean there is one

    That's exactly the atheist mindset though. Don't worry about meanings, deal only with what science tells us and live your life. I can't do that and I won't do that. I believe there are differing forms of wisdom in the world than science, and yes I believe that God transcends science.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But if they follow this universal morality that is built into all of us, why is it necessary for them to also follow jesus christ? Is it not enough that they do unto others as they would have people do unto them? That idea existed long before JC and existed in places that were completely without his influence. It's just common sense and doesn't need divine guidance to be followed

    It's necessary for them to follow Christ to receive atonement for their past transgressions and to have a second chance to put themselves right before God who all will be before at the judgement. As for "before JC", Christians believe that Jesus existed before being born in human flesh.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That makes sense, the universal morality is binding on them because it's been built into them since creation. So why is any form of religion necessary if that is the case? Should our sub conscious not be leading us on the right path whether we read the refresher course or not?

    I've said this before. It's not about being necessary or not necessary in every case. It's about realising what is, and aiming to know and understand it on a deeper level. I trust that God knows what is best for me to do or not to do. I'm not claiming I have a full understanding of this yet, I want to seek it and understand it as I grow in my faith and trust in Him though.

    As for subconsciousness, I don't think that would have any bearing surely. We need to bring ourselves and to review ourselves, see what we are doing wrong as people and see how we can improve that in the future to become better people. This constant need of review and reformation, is a helpful way for us to become morally responsible creatures as we were intended to be for eachother in a global and local community.


  • #58
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, the Bible is consistent

    The bible is not consistent. That statement is provably wrong. Just google "bible contradictions" to see a big list of them. If you can't accept that then you're just ignoring evidence right in front of your eyes.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Perhaps so, but then again that is more down to distortionism.
    Is it distortism? There's a load of bad stuff in the old testament. And of course my argument here isn't specifically against Christianity, it's against the idea of trusting your moral guidance to a "higher power". You have to trust that the higher power is correct which he may very well not be.

    Basically, when you override your own judgement because a priest or whatever tells you its god's will and you trust god, you're getting into dangerous territory.

    Also, what makes you so sure that your particular god and your particular holy book are the right one? If you'd been born in Iran you'd most likely believe just as strongly in Allah. Why this god of all gods?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I find it more difficult to believe that this could have possibly been a human invention. How could all human beings be in agreement in relation to a morality system or expect the other to have this same moral system in appealing to "you should know better" type logic if there was not a common source between the men and between mankind? Unless human beings are aware that there is a binding moral source higher than them involved in the process you would agree that it is rather futile.
    Ah but you see there was a common source. When you go back far enough all life came from a common source. Our brains are programmed to work in a certain way. We can understand each other's facial expressions, we can speak to each other, we can empathise with each other and comfort each other and yes we have a common basic way of thinking because we are all of the same species. Society also dictates certain behaviours that we learn. We are social animals and we're wired to work together

    Finding it difficult to believe that we might have a common moral code without a god to put it in us makes no more sense than finding it difficult to believe that that we all have feet or that chinese people have chinese children. It's in our genes, we're programmed that way
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you are claiming that evolution in a sense formed the laws of nature. This doesn't tell me why this had to be the case for humans rather than animals though.
    Evolution is random. There is no "why". We just happened to get it and they didn't. Also, humans are animals, just ones slightly further along the evolutionary path
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nobody contests the fact that people wrote the Bible, what is the issue is is if it was the result of divine encounters or not. I personally believe that they were.
    that's why I said we wrote it all on our own ;)
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's necessary for them to follow Christ to receive atonement for their past transgressions and to have a second chance to put themselves right before God who all will be before at the judgement. As for "before JC", Christians believe that Jesus existed before being born in human flesh.
    That is of course contingent on christ existing and there being judgement and an after life. My question was why is religion necessary in order for someone to behave morally. Also, that is an entirely selfish reason for behaving morally
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for subconsciousness, I don't think that would have any bearing surely. We need to bring ourselves and to review ourselves, see what we are doing wrong as people and see how we can improve that in the future to become better people. This constant need of review and reformation, is a helpful way for us to become morally responsible creatures as we were intended to be for eachother in a global and local community.

    when I say sub consciously, I'm talking about universal morality. It's not something we decide to have, it's just built into us and it guides our decision making process. People with a faulty one become murderers etc whether they believe in god or not


  • #59
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The bible is not consistent. That statement is provably wrong. Just google "bible contradictions" to see a big list of them. If you can't accept that then you're just ignoring evidence right in front of your eyes.

    It's consistent if you can see that there is a progression in divine revelation from the first revelations to the patriarchs and to Moses, down to Jesus Christ, and if you read the prophetic books, you will see that there is a rather clear link between the development from OT understanding of God to NT. It's not a sudden leap by any means, but rather a single revelation.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »

    Is it distortism? There's a load of bad stuff in the old testament. And of course my argument here isn't specifically against Christianity, it's against the idea of trusting your moral guidance to a "higher power". You have to trust that the higher power is correct which he may very well not be.

    Yes it is. If you distort the true meaning of something to kill others, you are nothing other than a distortionist.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Basically, when you override your own judgement because a priest or whatever tells you its god's will and you trust god, you're getting into dangerous territory.

    I've judged that God is the lawgiver, and that God knows best for us. That is my own judgement, I've chosen to accept Christianity for myself.

    As for just listening to a priest. No, that isn't in any case a part of my faith. I'd tell anyone, listen to the priest on the pulpit, but check him out for yourself. I'm inspired by the Protestant Reformation when people were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves for the first time.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, what makes you so sure that your particular god and your particular holy book are the right one? If you'd been born in Iran you'd most likely believe just as strongly in Allah. Why this god of all gods?

    Personal experience, archaeological records that back up Biblical events, geological records that back up Biblical events (scholars agree that an event similar if not identical to the Biblical event at Sodom and Gomorrah happened), amongst the Bible holding up in terms of authenticity when questioned, and many other things auger quite well for the Biblical text as a whole. I've also read sections of the Qur'an so it's interesting you brought up Allah.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ah but you see there was a common source. When you go back far enough all life came from a common source. Our brains are programmed to work in a certain way. We can understand each other's facial expressions, we can speak to each other, we can empathise with each other and comfort each other and yes we have a common basic way of thinking because we are all of the same species. Society also dictates certain behaviours that we learn. We are social animals and we're wired to work together

    Yes, I attribute God as the common source.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Finding it difficult to believe that we might have a common moral code without a god to put it in us makes no more sense than finding it difficult to believe that that we all have feet or that chinese people have chinese children. It's in our genes, we're programmed that way

    This depends on whether or not evolution could have taken place without a creator. I find this improbable at best, considering the odds of the chemical state being correct, and the planets being in the correct alignment after the Big Bang is highly highly unlikely. We're very lucky to be alive, many athiests tend to forget this.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That is of course contingent on christ existing and there being judgement and an after life. My question was why is religion necessary in order for someone to behave morally. Also, that is an entirely selfish reason for behaving morally

    Not really considering the primary rationale is to serve God and to serve ones neighbour.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    when I say sub consciously, I'm talking about universal morality. It's not something we decide to have, it's just built into us and it guides our decision making process. People with a faulty one become murderers etc whether they believe in god or not

    Yes, I fail to understand what this has to do with people falling out of the universal moral code.


  • #60
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    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?

    You know what I meant by that. I was referring specifically to treating them negatively, or differently before the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    You know what I meant by that. I was referring specifically to treating them negatively, or differently before the law.
    Is treating someone negatively, or differently before the law always bad?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement