Vorkosigan

You are wrong on every count.

First of all, morals do not require "grounding." Morals exist in networks of values, beliefs, and facts and are mutually intersupporting. There isn't any "ground" that they rest on; they rest on other values, some cultural, some innate. To the extent they are grounded, they rest on innate moral biases.

Second, we don't require a "ground" to say that what the woman did is wrong. All we need to do, as everyone has said, is say "That's wrong." We need reasons only if someone disagrees, to convince them. Thus, our moral judgements are as valid as yours; more valid, for we consider the human as the center of the equation, whereas you place a fictional being at the center.

Atheist morals are derived from the same place yours are; namely, the culture around you, your parents, the stored wisdom of the human species, your own thinking and observations, and your experiences. Our morals, like yours, are situational, ad hoc, and relative. The only difference is we don't pretend to have some absolute system we can impose on everyone.

Your system is inhuman, nihilistic, meaningless and incomplete. It is inhuman because it focuses on something other than people. Nihilistic because in the end, nothing humans do matters, only your deity counts. Meaningless because it is incoherent and contradictory. Incomplete because despite being "absolute" there are whole areas of values your system fails to address. For example, what is the proper way to manage a river basin? Should we subsidize infant industries? What type of personal weapons should be legal? What is the proper level of taxation? How should incinerators be sited? What level of individual risk is safe? And so on.

Additionally, your Bible is worthless as a guide to proper behavior because of the kind of behavior it produces: intolerant, violent, narrow-minded, evil and ignorant. One need only look at the way Christians behaved for the 1800 years prior to the Enlightenment for confirmation. Any decent behavior Christians have -- love, tolerance, liberty, democracy -- they brought in from outside Christianity.

Christian clerics running death camps. Christians aiding Hitler. Christian clerics acting as dictators. Christians hunting Muslims in Indonesia and Buddhists and Hindus in India. Christians sending in missionaries to places like China and Afghanistan where converts are murdered. Christians fighting democracy in the US. Christians murdering each other in Ireland. Christian clerics planning genocide in Rwanda. Christian clerics supporting Chiang Kai-shek, Franco, Hitler..... The list goes on. And you want to lecture us on what is moral? You people don't know shit about what is moral.

Here's one for you: no atheist has ever committed genocide for the purpose of atheism. Communists killed for Communism, not atheism (they executed freethinkers in China, Vietnam and Russia). Meanwhile, Christianity has given us twenty centuries of murder. But you guys are the moral ones....

I get a little tired of the group that argues that the majority of individuals in society -- women, gays, atheists -- should have reduced civil rights telling us that they are morally superior.

What is the purpose of this absolute morality of yours? Dominance. Authoritarian power. Control over the minds and bodies of others. God's love is the same as Hitler's: Follow me or die! Is that what you stand for? I feel sorry for you.

So bring on your absolute morality and answer the following questions:

According to your god, what is the morally correct way to...

manage a river basin?
subsidize infant industries?
site nuclear reactors?
site incinerators?
subsidize industries vital to the national defense?
manage a wilderness area?
compensate injured workers?
treat a slave?
handle a disobediant child?
sell one's daughter into slavery?
permit people to own personal weapons?
choose local and national political leaders?
constitute the educational system?
handle the national defense?
engage in alliances with other nations?
treat women in politics?
handle gay marriage?
handle gay adoption?
legislate for the internet?
handle copyrights?
handle human rights?
handle political revolutions?
find the proper level of personal risk?
invest, loan, and borrow money?

Vorkosigan

Not Prince Hamlet

Hey now, is that nice? Calling Christians values nihilistic?

I happen to know some very nice nihilists who'd never dream of committing the attrocities advocated by Christianity.

Jeff

Not Prince Hamlet

And of course, who could forget the poor Amalekites: "Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling ..."?

(1 Samuel 15:3-7)

Jeff

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Or the 185,000 Assyrians killed in their sleep. (2 Kings 19:35)

Dr Rick

Non sequitor; with a loving, omnipotent sky-daddy running the show, we don't need to: you insisted earlier that he has defined them in absolute terms for us. We don't have to know bad to live in good if a loving omni-god is there to guide us.

<strong> Good entities do good and bad ones do bad. An omipotent god would have power over everything, so everything would ultimately be his responsibility. If he allowed bad when he could make good, then he would not be all good.

<strong> Another non sequitor; I have not defined nor am I compelled to define something that does not exist.

You claim that gods exist, though their existence by your definitions is a contradiction; it is your criteria that are being pummelled here.

Rick

Coragyps

From Media-1, way back there: Damn! THAT sounds helpful!

tronvillain

Not Prince Hamlet:
Of course, he obviously applies that to the Bible as well as mysterious voices.

Coragyps

Re god telling a person to kill a child: Genesis, chapter 22. Abraham told to kill his son Isaac. He told Abe to, why not you?

Not Prince Hamlet

Media-1,

It must be rough, all these people poking holes in your arguments like this.

But don't worry. As it says in the Bible: "He trusted in God that he would deliver him: Let him deliver him if he delight in him." (Matthew 27:43)

So, I'm sure God will explain His attrocities any moment now.

Yup, any moment now.

ANY moment now ...


Jeff

rebelnerd

I am pissed for the same reason, except for the absolute part.

Leaving her kids to fry in the car was wrong. If I have to explain why it was morally wrong to you, you are either baiting me or have serious value issues.

Don't you want humans to survive? I do. I would like to have a world for my child to grow up in.
Says me.

No. It's common sense.

Well, not allowing your kids to die in a car is a good start.

Survival itself for one. Does this seem unrealistic to you?

Gee, I leave for a couple of hours and there are two more pages in this thread!


Filo

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>