Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kandeda Trefil · 07-16-2003, 06:41 PM

This one's for Carrie...It's hard to blame you. I grew up in the Midwest, but after an introductory trip to California in '62, I saw the possibilities, jumped on my bike and split! Walking down Haight Street (before it "was Haight Street" so to speak) for the first time since becoming an adult, I wasn't getting cat calls. At first I thought it was because there were so many gays...but pretty soon I realized that the heteros in The City are close to being as civilized as gays. The West is a good place for women to be, because not only have a lot of cow/sheep pokes shucked the Bible; they've also shucked the misogyny that the fundaments (sic) promote.

Don't EVEN try converting Christians: always a waste of time, and besides, we now have Bart Simpson and South Park for that job.

And don't waste your time, Carrie. The Midwest is so uncivilized that when I took my kids back for a visit, they got prayed over. Although it was screamingly funny, I played it deadpan, because I wanted the kids to get a dose of where they COULD have grown up if I hadn't been responsible and hadn't gotten the hell out.

On ICQ I'm constantly trying to track down atheists, because I'm currently socially isolated. Why atheists? Because they're smart (no brainer, she oxymoronized), and if I can't have a good conversation, I might as well count my nose hairs. You're pissed at them, and I'm bored with them. Pretty soon you'll settle down and work on erecting a comfort zone.

Keith · 07-16-2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

"Oh, and since you've failed to address the issue of Leviticus 20:9, you've not only failed to win, you've conceded defeat."

It was God's command to the Israelites, and not intended as a command for all people, everywhere, in every period of time. Do you get it now?

winstonjen · 07-16-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
It was God's command to the Israelites, and not intended as a command for all people, everywhere, in every period of time. Do you get it now?

Right. So it's not objective. If it was objective, it would apply to everyone. Thank you for conceding defeat, it certainly took you long enough.

Joe V. · 07-16-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I meant that God is the source of objective morality and God is also the source of the bible.

Alright, forget everything else I said, and just back this up. You keep saying this over and over, but you don't present us with the evidence that supports this assertion! If you can't do that, then your whole argument is worthless.

- Joe

Keith · 07-16-2003, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pain Paien

Nor do I wish for one. I was simply asking for an explanation for the egregious leap of reasoning you've committed on the topic of Leviticus 20:9. Which you of course dodged completely. Address it, or you are conceding defeat.

Are you intentionally dodging issues and building straw-men? I never said anything of the sort. I don't think there's a "correct" way to interpret the bible, as I think it's just a nonsensical amalgamation of writings by religious lunatics (and various other misguided folk) so twisted through circulation and [mis]translation that it doesn't contain even the writer's original words. If I believed the bible to contain the actual sentiments of its original writers, I would believe there to be a "correct" interpretation. That's because I believe that the only "correct" interpretation of anything is what the person who created it intended it to mean (or, in the case of writings on morality/philosophy, what one subjectively wishes to gain from it).

Your conclusion that an objective reality equates the existence of a god is another ludicrous leap of logic. Besides that, the only thing that anyone has denied in this thread is objective MORALITY, not reality. At this point I feel the need to remind you that morality is not a tangible thing (and is not by definition a characteristic of the non-human universe).

I can hardly believe someone could ask this seriously. Obviously the reason is because people wish beneficial things for themselves, and (as has been mentioned many times in previous posts on this thread) because humans have empathy and wish the capacity to interact with other humans. If everyone descended into an existentialist abyss, no one would communicate with anyone else.

As for the rest of what you said, in reading it I can only conclude that you've either failed to read Mageth's posts (as well as the posts of many others), or completely failed to comprehend them. The issue of objective standards has been addressed exhaustively. Mageth's solution (repeated in numerous posts) is for societies to reach their own consensus, as this is most beneficial for the members of a society. You have utterly failed to provide any need for an "objective standard" and now act as if you have.

You really, really ought to reread this entire thread, or at least ask questions about the other posters' positions, rather then spending all your time spinning straw-men and dodging issues.

Is it really an egregious leap of reasoning I've committed on Leviticus 20:9? Would that be because you say so, or is there a reason you say this? You have now resorted to the tactic of standing on your soap box and uttering condescending invective and hurling baseless accusations. I appreciate good arguments...what you posted here is just your emotion getting ahead of you. Please take your condescending and emotional lecture somewhere else.

winstonjen · 07-16-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Is it really an egregious leap of reasoning I've committed on Leviticus 20:9? Would that be because you say so, or is there a reason you say this? You have now resorted to the tactic of standing on your soap box and uttering condescending invective and hurling baseless accusations. I appreciate good arguments...what you posted here is just your emotion getting ahead of you. Please take your condescending and emotional lecture somewhere else.

Soapbox? You claimed victory on this thread -

Quote:

If we humans have objective knowledge of what sorts of things are morally good/evil, then we can have an excellent empirical basis for saying that the bible has empirically proven itself to be true in the area of morality. All of our human experience, laws, and our inherent sense of justice makes it absurd for you to claim that human beings have no knowledge of any objective moral law. Case closed, I win.

And his accusations are nothing but baseless. Perhaps the fact that no theists have leapt to your defence speaks volumes - they don't want to be associated with arguments like yours.

Mageth · 07-16-2003, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Keith
So what if his actions were wrong under your moral standards, or most of the world's standards? What does that have to do with the moral rightness/wrongness of what Pol Pot was doing as he commited rape, murder, and genocide?

It was morally wrong only under the moral standards that held such actions to be morally wrong. Outside of moral standards, it was not morally wrong. You yourself have admitted this when you made your point about actions committed by those who did not know or realize those things were "morally wrong" not being morally wrong for the committers.

Who's goal?

Whose goal? Humankind's, of course.

How do you know what is good or bad?

That may depend on what thing/action I'm considering, but in general I reckon I use a similar formula to most other people. Things/actions that negatively impact, cause pain, injury, or death to living things I generally consider bad. Things that have positive impact, lessen pain, reduce or prevent injury or death, or give pleasure to living things I generally consider good. In addition, things/actions that negatively impact the environment I generally consider bad. I also consider many things/actions neutral, such as a cheetah killing an antelope.

The water is more often than not muddied because many things/actions can cause both good and bad, so for most cases you have to "balance the books" to determine if the thing/action is on the whole good or bad.

If God doesn't exist, how can you know that "civilization" or any feature of it, can possibly be either "good" or "bad"?

Civilization has been generally helpful in "balancing the books" towards the "good" side as defined above, so in balance I consider civilization good. Definitely not always, though; there's been some bad with the good.

Maybe civilization just is.

Yes, maybe it just is. But do you consider it better than the alternative? I do.

Keith · 07-16-2003, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe V.

"Alright, forget everything else I said, and just back this up. You keep saying this over and over, but you don't present us with the evidence that supports this assertion! If you can't do that, then your whole argument is worthless."

You already know that the bible is God's word. Although it is not necessary, I can back up this claim too, but that will have to wait for another time in another thread. I don't want to get away from the present topic.

winstonjen · 07-16-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
You already know that the bible is God's word. Although it is not necessary, I can back up this claim too, but that will have to wait for another time in another thread. I don't want to get away from the present topic.

We know that it is claimed as such. It is most likely the product of hallucinating fuckwits wandering in the desert.

Mageth · 07-16-2003, 08:24 PM

You already know that the bible is God's word.

What I know is that the Bible is man's word.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2003, 06:41 PM	#271
Kandeda Trefil Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Albion, CA Posts: 15	This one's for Carrie...It's hard to blame you. I grew up in the Midwest, but after an introductory trip to California in '62, I saw the possibilities, jumped on my bike and split! Walking down Haight Street (before it "was Haight Street" so to speak) for the first time since becoming an adult, I wasn't getting cat calls. At first I thought it was because there were so many gays...but pretty soon I realized that the heteros in The City are close to being as civilized as gays. The West is a good place for women to be, because not only have a lot of cow/sheep pokes shucked the Bible; they've also shucked the misogyny that the fundaments (sic) promote. Don't EVEN try converting Christians: always a waste of time, and besides, we now have Bart Simpson and South Park for that job. And don't waste your time, Carrie. The Midwest is so uncivilized that when I took my kids back for a visit, they got prayed over. Although it was screamingly funny, I played it deadpan, because I wanted the kids to get a dose of where they COULD have grown up if I hadn't been responsible and hadn't gotten the hell out. On ICQ I'm constantly trying to track down atheists, because I'm currently socially isolated. Why atheists? Because they're smart (no brainer, she oxymoronized), and if I can't have a good conversation, I might as well count my nose hairs. You're pissed at them, and I'm bored with them. Pretty soon you'll settle down and work on erecting a comfort zone.

07-16-2003, 08:20 PM	#277
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Keith So what if his actions were wrong under your moral standards, or most of the world's standards? What does that have to do with the moral rightness/wrongness of what Pol Pot was doing as he commited rape, murder, and genocide? It was morally wrong only under the moral standards that held such actions to be morally wrong. Outside of moral standards, it was not morally wrong. You yourself have admitted this when you made your point about actions committed by those who did not know or realize those things were "morally wrong" not being morally wrong for the committers. Who's goal? Whose goal? Humankind's, of course. How do you know what is good or bad? That may depend on what thing/action I'm considering, but in general I reckon I use a similar formula to most other people. Things/actions that negatively impact, cause pain, injury, or death to living things I generally consider bad. Things that have positive impact, lessen pain, reduce or prevent injury or death, or give pleasure to living things I generally consider good. In addition, things/actions that negatively impact the environment I generally consider bad. I also consider many things/actions neutral, such as a cheetah killing an antelope. The water is more often than not muddied because many things/actions can cause both good and bad, so for most cases you have to "balance the books" to determine if the thing/action is on the whole good or bad. If God doesn't exist, how can you know that "civilization" or any feature of it, can possibly be either "good" or "bad"? Civilization has been generally helpful in "balancing the books" towards the "good" side as defined above, so in balance I consider civilization good. Definitely not always, though; there's been some bad with the good. Maybe civilization just is. Yes, maybe it just is. But do you consider it better than the alternative? I do.

07-16-2003, 08:24 PM	#280
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You already know that the bible is God's word. What I know is that the Bible is man's word.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.