Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Primal · 10-15-2002, 08:50 PM

I'm ok with putting criminals to death but to use that as a basis for argument is to bring in very questionable assumptions. I am for the death penalty not for cultural reasons but because I see it as fair/organized retribution.

Glory · 10-15-2002, 10:52 PM

Is it impossible that you might have a different opinion on the matter were you of a different culture? I suspect I might.

Glory

Amen-Moses · 10-16-2002, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
Minor nit. the "US" does not mutilate the genitals of little boys. That is not something performed by a government agency. Executions are.

I was referring to a country not a government btw.

(I could have said America but that would have annoyed all those who are "American" and don't live in the US)

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses · 10-16-2002, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal:

How does that vary from:

I'm ok with arranged marriages but to use that as a basis for argument is to bring in very questionable assumptions. I am for arranged marriages not for cultural reasons but because I see it as sensible way of ensuring my childrens well being in life.

????

This is the argument put forward to me by the grandmother of an Indian girl I was at school with. The girl eventually agreed to meet the arranged bridegroom (leaving behind her English boyfriend) and fell madly in love with him (her words btw).

Last I saw of her she had ended up marrying his younger brother (the older brother pulled out of the wedding plans becasue he didn't want to come to England) and they are now back in England very happy together.

Amen-Moses

galiel · 10-16-2002, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
<strong>Jesus made it clear that everyone in need was our neighbor.</strong>

I KNEW it! Fred Rogers IS God!!!
(And they all laughed at me in school...)

luvluv · 10-17-2002, 02:01 PM

Glory:

Quote:

The more extraordinary the belief, the more extraordinary needs be the evidence supporting it.

The belief that any moral code is absolute, so that given two cultures who disagree on an issue, one is objectively wrong, is an extroidinary belief. Glory, if you do not believe in objective morality, you are a de facto cultural relatvist. You have NO grounds, not even self-preservation, upon which to state that one culture is better than another when two cultures disagree. So the claim that this person in Australia is wrong is an extraordinary claim that I have not seen you back up with any evidence, extraordinary or not. Why, exactly, is he wrong?

And if the girl does not have any inherent value, as you claim, then why should he not do anything he wants to her that is not contrary to his self-interest?

Quote:

I consider attempting to prove morality on a par with trying to prove that you love someone. It is impossible and futile. It is also silly and irrelevant. Each person has his own sense of morality and it is up to each person to live or not live up to that code. No one is interested in proving anything to you.

I didn't say you did, I didn't even ask you to (until the statement I made above). I was just saying that it is hypocritical to disparage an individual for believing things he cannot prove when you believe things you cannot prove. I'm glad you believe in an absolute morality, I never said you didn't have any rights to morality in a moral sense (whatever that would mean) only in the rational sense.

You are right that it would be impossible and futile to prove that you love somone or that morality exists. Your love and morality might be real things even though you cannot prove them.

Could not the same apply to God?

It seems there is so much that is important to your life that you believe without any evidence. Why not God, if evidence is the only criterion to belief?

Quote:

You seem to think that all atheists are empiricists. Is the lack of proof the only argument against God that you have ever encountered?

What are the other reasons for being an atheist, other than the lack of evidence? The lack of evidence must be part of your lack of belief, otherwise that implies that you would not believe even if there was overwhelming evidence of God's existence.

Quote:

Selfinterest is a broad category of motivation which includes within it every motivation I can think of for doing anything. In the case of Pascoe, his interests were conflicting though he probably doesn't know it. He wanted to have sex and imprison this girl and he did. He also wanted to live his life without being arrested, tried, convicted, spending time in prison, and becoming an object of scorn in several countries.

Well, this amounts to de facto cultural relativism. Should Martin Luther King have not worked for civil rights, in order to avoid being beaten, arrested, and ultimately killed? Can we infer anything about the morality of an act simply from the reactions of the surrounding people within a culture, or from the actions of surrounding cultures within the world? If your view of morality is correct, we are just as apt to call this man a Martin Luther King or a Rosa Parks: his suffering will allow other men who want to marry little girls to avoid arrest and harrasment. None of your reasons will apply to anyone who, after this man, decides to marry a young girl. They won't be arrested or inconvenienced in any way. The flood gates are open. So could you therefore condemn the next person who commits such an act?

Quote:

I have gotten way beyond the need to back up my beliefs by saying, "my mommy/daddy/god said so."

But this is just what I am NOT asking you to do. I am simply asking you to back up your beliefs with REASON, not authority. I am asking you to be consistent with YOUR OWN POSITION. That you cannot do so, consistently, should be revealing. That was my (not too subtle) point: you could dismiss the existence moralilty, the worth of persons, and countless other things that we know to exist simply by applying to them the same demands for 100% proof that you demand for God's existence.

Beyond that, if there is no rational reason for your moral concerns, why should "I say so" be any more reasonable than "daddy/mommy/God" said so?

Quote:

Your concept of God is external, impersonal, and is supposed to affect everyone.

The first two are wrong. Christians believe that God has an external existence, but that he resides within the self. Of course, theists believe God is personal and not impersonal, which is why they are theists and not deists.

Quote:

You need to learn the difference between phenomena in your mind(feelings) and phenomena in the world you share with everyone else(of which none supports the existence of God).

Yes, if I ignored the fact that 90% of the other people in the world also believe in God.

Quote:

Self interest is ultimately the only motivation behind moral behaviour.

But even self interest would seem to contradict your statement that humans have no intrinsic worth. If I don't have any value, for what rational reason should I seek to preserve my existence? You could argue that people "just do" value their existence, which is absolutely correct, but people also "just do" believe in God. Self-interest itself is not a rational justification of morality unless it is objectively of worth that the self continue existing.

Quote:

A minor cannot, by legal definition, be willing.

According to OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, of which the aboriginee, for example, is not beholden to. Why should the actions of people in foreign cultures be subject to the dictates of our legal system and not the reverse? You cannot say that an act is wrong because there is a law against it(otherwise intergration is wrong), you must rationally justify the law in the first place. A minor CAN be willing, despite the fact that OUR law code says their willingness cannot be considered in a court of law.

Quote:

An socialogical and economic structure that is dependent upon the subjugation of half its population will never be okay with me.

Well, I didn't say that these systems were dependant on men and women getting married at an early age, only that some systems have economic and cultural systems where there are no adverse effects of such actions. I also explicitly stated that I did not see anything wrong with being married young ONLY IF BOTH PARTNERS WERE WILLING, which means I obviously would not support it if any type of subjugation was involved. (young men are often married off, as well you know, often at birth, though rarely to much older women). I would not, however, approve of arranged marriages regardless of the age of the participants.

Quote:

Ah yes, the good old days when a man was given instructions for administering a proper wife beating. This is relevant how? People used to refrain from bathing to often. People used to drill holes in their heads to let the spirits out. People used to do high impact aerobics without a proper warm up. People used to wear leg warmers over jeans. People used to ask their doctors what cigarettes they should smoke.

I'm not implying that early marriage is okay simply because people used to do it, but because people use to do it AND THERE WERE NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES. My grandparents on my fathers side married very young (My grandmother was seventeen, I think) and they turned out fine.

What I am asking you is, if both partners are willing, and if over the long haul the marriage turns out fine, what exactly are the reasons that people should not be allowed to marry young.

In closing I want to say that I think you might be taking some of my comments a bit too personally. I obviously brought a lot of it on myself, by playing the devil's advocate so blatantly, but please understand it is not my intention to insult you. Pomp has known me a little longer, and he caught on right away. I guess I should realize before I post that not everyone is familiar with my actual positions and may confuse me for actually endorsing some of the opinions I am in fact challenging. It is not my intention to attack you or any other person, only atheism. I may come on strong, but I am an agreeable sort at heart. I would not argue with an atheist who claimed that the sky was blue, I would only gently correct him by telling him it was Tarheel blue.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

galiel · 10-17-2002, 03:19 PM

luvluv, you keep sprinkling your posts with "Why not God?" "why 'I said so'? Why not 'God said so?'"

The logical question to ask is "Why God"? In order to require the existence of a supernatural being for which there is no direct, tangible physical, universally accessible evidence, there must be answers to which there are no better solutions. Otherwise, Occam's Razor argues against it. If I say "I said so", there is direct evidence from the source to substantiate that I said so. Anyone who wants to can verify that, in fact, I said exactly and explicitly so. If you say "God said so", there is no direct evidence, only your second (actually at least third-hand) interpretive say-so.

Your assumption is fallacious. Since you have consistently used the language of logic in your arguments, you should be consistent in applying it, not only to dispute the asertions of others, but to examine your own.

luvluv · 10-17-2002, 03:30 PM

galiel:

Quote:

If I say "I said so", there is direct evidence from the source to substantiate that I said so.

I don't think you're following me. I am not trying to establish that you actually said what you are purported to have said, but asking whether or not what you said was true, or whether "I said so" is a rational justification for anything.

Simply put "I just do" or "I just say so" is not a logical explanation of anything. And I don't believe things simply because God said so, I need reasons for believing that God actually said what He is reported to have said. There is much that is done in the name of God, even from withing Christianity, that I disagree with. I am capable of disbelieving that God said or did a certain thing.

Pomp · 10-17-2002, 07:13 PM

luvluv,

Quick response here before I tackle your post to me.

You are right that it would be impossible and futile to prove that you love somone or that morality exists. Your love and morality might be real things even though you cannot prove them.

Could not the same apply to God?

I am perfectly willing to grant that the same arguments that apply to the existence of love or morality could also apply to the existence of a god, provided that you are willing to accept that such a god would exist in the exactly same sense that love or morality exists: soley as ideas or feelings in your head. Once you try to move beyond that and claim that such evidence might apply to a god who has independant existence, I'm going to have to disagree.

Kuu · 10-17-2002, 11:27 PM

A bit of a update on what is happening

The territorian Director of Public Prosecutions will appeal against the lightness of the sentence.

This decision came as Australians only indigeous cabinet minister,territory Minister Assisting Chief Minister of Indigenous affairs, John Ah Kit, told parliament the Supreme Court judge who sentenced Pascoe had failed to uphold the broader laws of Australia.

'I believe John Gallop failed in his broader duty to the law of the Northern Territory, the nation and the international community' Mr Ah Kit said.

The DPP has informed Pascoe's defense team of the appeal

ALSO

The girl originally complained to police that she had been repeatedly punched and raped by Pascoe when he 'took delivery' of her.

Pascoe served 3 1/2 years for killing his former wife.

Marion Scrymgour, also an indigenous member of the territory parliament said 'the judge's comments were misogynist in nature'

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kuu ]</p>

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

10-15-2002, 08:50 PM	#71
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	I'm ok with putting criminals to death but to use that as a basis for argument is to bring in very questionable assumptions. I am for the death penalty not for cultural reasons but because I see it as fair/organized retribution.

10-15-2002, 10:52 PM	#72
Glory Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: b Posts: 673	Is it impossible that you might have a different opinion on the matter were you of a different culture? I suspect I might. Glory

10-17-2002, 03:19 PM	#77
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	luvluv, you keep sprinkling your posts with "Why not God?" "why 'I said so'? Why not 'God said so?'" The logical question to ask is "Why God"? In order to require the existence of a supernatural being for which there is no direct, tangible physical, universally accessible evidence, there must be answers to which there are no better solutions. Otherwise, Occam's Razor argues against it. If I say "I said so", there is direct evidence from the source to substantiate that I said so. Anyone who wants to can verify that, in fact, I said exactly and explicitly so. If you say "God said so", there is no direct evidence, only your second (actually at least third-hand) interpretive say-so. Your assumption is fallacious. Since you have consistently used the language of logic in your arguments, you should be consistent in applying it, not only to dispute the asertions of others, but to examine your own.

10-17-2002, 07:13 PM	#79
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	luvluv, Quick response here before I tackle your post to me. You are right that it would be impossible and futile to prove that you love somone or that morality exists. Your love and morality might be real things even though you cannot prove them. Could not the same apply to God? I am perfectly willing to grant that the same arguments that apply to the existence of love or morality could also apply to the existence of a god, provided that you are willing to accept that such a god would exist in the exactly same sense that love or morality exists: soley as ideas or feelings in your head. Once you try to move beyond that and claim that such evidence might apply to a god who has independant existence, I'm going to have to disagree.

10-17-2002, 11:27 PM	#80
Kuu Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Tasmania Posts: 710	A bit of a update on what is happening The territorian Director of Public Prosecutions will appeal against the lightness of the sentence. This decision came as Australians only indigeous cabinet minister,territory Minister Assisting Chief Minister of Indigenous affairs, John Ah Kit, told parliament the Supreme Court judge who sentenced Pascoe had failed to uphold the broader laws of Australia. 'I believe John Gallop failed in his broader duty to the law of the Northern Territory, the nation and the international community' Mr Ah Kit said. The DPP has informed Pascoe's defense team of the appeal ALSO The girl originally complained to police that she had been repeatedly punched and raped by Pascoe when he 'took delivery' of her. Pascoe served 3 1/2 years for killing his former wife. Marion Scrymgour, also an indigenous member of the territory parliament said 'the judge's comments were misogynist in nature' [ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kuu ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.