Primal

BTW Luvluv name's Primal *points up* please adress accordingly.


[quote]
Demanding that one not make condemnations sounds more like a call to actions/ethics and less like a pure gathering of evidence to me.

Nope because theism is a belief/superstition. Here we would be looking for behavioral patterns and how the organism is "built". Morals would involve studying motivations of humans. Examining theism, the existence of something supernatural.


Nice try Mrs. False Dillema. But there's more to it then that.


His feelings do not alter the reality of the situation. If he thinks he can fly should we let him do air mail?


Basic emotion, empathy, the consequences of his actions if widespread, a need for justice, an emotional commitment to human rights.

For reasons illustrated above. If his emotional mechanisms are actually different though, then because of the consequences i.e. brute force. Other then that I wouldn't expect him to respond, just like I wouldn't expect a Tiger to not attack/kill me if I was unarmed and it was hungry. That would not stop me from defending my life though if armed. That should also not stop us from punishing this man and the family. The judge and anthropologist should also be punished as well.

Last, you have not answered my question concerning God and preference Luvluv, please be polite and do so. i.e. demonstrate your Xian integrity to us.

Glory

No. All things are not equal as your statement assumes them to be. Each belief comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. Each belief is uniquely extraordinary or ordinary as the case may be. To compare and contrast is meaningless. The more extraordinary the belief, the more extraordinary needs be the evidence supporting it.



You can believe what ever you want. You started off saying that atheists have no right to morality. It is up to you to back up your statement. Puting words in our mouths and building straw men doesn't cut the mustard here. I don't care if you believe that Boy George is the messiah or that wearing underpants on your head will keep the aliens from reading your mind. It makes no difference to me what you believe. Try to stay with us here. 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.



Once again, in unison. I don't believe that people have any intrinsic or objective value and I don't care about proving anything to you. Please get that through your head.



Go for it. Knock yourself out. I believe alot of things I can't prove. I believe that my car is in its parking space right now. I can't prove it because I can't see it from where I am and if were to go look, I could only verify wether it was in the spce when I looked. Someone could be stealing my car right now and they may bring it back before I can get to the space to see. Proof is a tricky thing.



You seem to think that all atheists are empiricists. Is the lack of proof the only argument against God that you have ever encountered? Or is it simply the only one you have understood? Sweeping generalisations will really hurt you here. Atheists can believe alot of things. The only thing an atheist cannot believe is that God exists. By definition, an atheist must not believe in God. Everything else is up for grabs. In fact, an atheist could even believe that God may exist. He just can't believe that He positively does exist.



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. He may even have some burried feelings of guilt that he could have avoided but that last bit is pure speculation on my part.

I don't have to justify my condemnation to anyone. I have expressed how I feel about what he did and why I feel that way. If I have convinced someone else that I am right, hooray. Atheism has no relevance. I have gotten way beyond the need to back up my beliefs by saying, "my mommy/daddy/god said so." Either you agree with my ideas or you don't. It's as simple as that. Of course I have no hope of convincing you. You would argue with an atheist who said that the sky was blue, I expect.




I realise that everything in your life has to reflect your religious belief. I do not operate under such conditions. Feelings are internal, personal and only experienced by the individual having them. Your concept of God is external, impersonal, and is supposed to affect everyone. 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). Remember that I didn't question the reasonableness of your beliefs. You attacked the validity of mine in a misguided attempt to make us atheists see what you see as a truth.




I already explained that I believe that selfinterest is the motivation behind all moral acts. Tell me something. It would really help me to know how many times you have to be told something before it sinks in. This three or is it four times now that I have repeated myself? Lets try again for good measure. Self interest is ultimately the only motivation behind moral behaviour. Are we clear? Also for the third time, I don't give a rat's ass what you believe.




A minor cannot, by legal definition, be willing.



An socialogical and economic structure that is dependent upon the subjugation of half its population will never be okay with me. The Old South used to have a social and economic structure that made slavery work. Shall we talk about South Africa or Afghanistan or china, or Saudi?



What about an eleven year old? Or an eight year old? An acquaintence of mine was in Saudi with his daughter. Several times he was asked to begin negotiations for his daughter's hand in marraige. He would often respond by asking them how old they thought his daughter was. (She was 9) Most of the men guessed 12. A couple correctly guessed 9 or 10. They were asking for his permission to have sex with his 9 year old child. You don't have a problem with that? The Bible also doesn't set an age for children to begin working. Indeed, childhood as we know it is a Victorian invention. What limits or protections for children do you believe in?



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.

Glory

Pomp

galiel,

That is not entirely true, and presupposes that all value systems are equally valid merely by virtue of being posited and/or followed.

I don't think it presupposes any such thing, although I would actually agree that, in a certain sense, any set of values is just as valid as any other. I'm not sure if you're using "valid" in the same sense that I am, though, so there's no need to get into that here.

My point here, though, is that we can refrain from passing any judgement regarding whether or not the values espoused by, say, fundamentalist Xianity are valid (whatever we happen to mean by "valid"), and still note, in an empirical fashion, that the UDoHR is not compatible with fundamentalist Xianity and, thus, not belief-independant.

[This is a particular interest and ongoing pursuit of mine, and I will perhaps start a separate thread (or nine ) on the topic of discovering basic laws or principles to govern a new, better form of political organization.]

Fun. Time permitting, I'll be right there to critique.

Pomp

luvluv,

Old Pompous Bastard :

Just call me OPB.

Never fear, I'm going to respond to yoru latest post, but tomorrow, when I'm not hovering on the verge of unconsciousness.

Keith Russell

Whenever 'culture' is used as an excuse, it always seems that one member of a 'culture' wants to take unfair advantage of 'another'.

The tribe wants to stone a woman to death for extra-marital sex, and people say 'well, that's their culture'.

(What about the woman?)

The tribe wants to cut off the hand of a thief, and they say, 'well, that's our culture'.

(It's the thief's culture, too, but no one asks him.)

The tribe wants to remove the clitoris of a two-year old daughter, before the family moves to the US, because the procedure ('normally' done around eight to ten years old) is illegal in the US. That's their 'culture'.

(Of course, women raised in that 'culture', who are part of that 'culture', when they reach adulthood, are often very angry and upset that this was done to them.)

Whose culture is it? What gives a group of people the right to harm another person, and why would anyone wish to excuse such behaviour on the grounds of 'culture'?

Something isn't right, just because it's often been done before.

Keith.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Glory

Keith,

Well put.

Glory

Amen-Moses

So I take it you are on my side when I claim how barbaric the US is for mutilating the genitals of little boys and putting to death criminals?

Both of these things are cultural too you know!

Amen-Moses

Glory

I am.

Glory

galiel

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

Glory

Both are cultural practices though. Certainly a vast number of Americans are put off by an uncircumcised penis and just try getting elected to office on an anti death penalty platform.

Glory