Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    You mean like progressives who say they value all of humanity, but support the slaughter of the unborn?
    Yes. They're not counting fetuses as fully human. They're using the word 'human' as shorthand for conscious beings with standard human higher mental functions present.

    Yes, your values that were born out of the Christian west.
    Not really: We see Buddhists with exactly the same value system, and the same values appear in pre-Christian writings of Greek and Roman philosophers.

    and I already showed how damaging your sexual revolution was.
    I do recall you forcing me to note that overall it was a good thing.

    Right, you are not an atheist?
    Your bad arguments against atheism belong in the other forum. Someone there might be interested in addressing them.

    Right, I'm sure a German Jew valued his life in the 1930s, but those in power did not.
    That's true. What's your point?

    Are not human unborn - well - human? If you can minimize their humanity based on an arbitrary criterion, why not political dissenter?
    The moral system pays attention to the presence or absence of higher mental functions. Fetuses definitely lack a lot of the higher mental functions. Political dissenters don't.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Well that one goes without saying.

      And just for the record, whenever I read one of you guys raving about abortion, I just substitute in "I hate abortion! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!" in my head as I skim your post. I live in a country where there's no public controversy about abortion and hasn't been for decades, so I find all you people's utter obsession with the topic quite idiosyncratic and hilarious.


      Yes folks starlight shows again that he does not value human being lives or well being. He laughs at those who speak for human beings that cannot speak for themselves he laughs at those who truely unlike him value the well being of others. here's a clue Starlight if you cannot value the well being of the smallest and least able speak for themselves then you cannot say you value the well being of others.
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      As such, I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it. If I was writing a law, I would probably want to draw the line in the sand at 3 months post-birth . . .
      So Starlight fails even his view on what is moral. Since he cares nothing about the well being of the smallest human beings who can't speak for themselves and laughs at those of us who do.
      Last edited by RumTumTugger; 07-01-2015, 09:00 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
        I find the killing of infants highly objectionable. I must be mentally impaired.
        Give them a few years. You'll be shamed into compliance.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          But this simply pushes the causal question back a step: Why exactly does God have a "don't murder" nature rather than a "do murder" nature? An explanation could be that God just has a randomly generated nature, and this happens to be one of them. However most philosophically oriented Christians much prefer the idea that God is a 'necessary' being. So they would like to say that the definition of goodness is a part of God's nature and therefore a quality that he necessarily has. But if the definition of goodness has necessary existence, then there's not a great deal of practical difference between the scenario where it exists necessarily as a platonic form and where it exists necessarily as a part of God's essence (although in this second scenario, God's freedom is significantly curtailed). So a philosophically minded person would then say that moral truths are necessary truths, and thus could be determined by sheer logic, without reference to God.
          Firstly, if your objection is correct that it "simply pushes the causal question back a step", then you have ruled out all possibility of objective morality (as pointed out in the Craig quote above). For any ultimate objective standard, you would claim that pointing to the standard only pushes the question back a step, in an infinite regress, eliminating the possibility of an ultimate standard. But I don't think that's a good objection at all. I see no logical objection to the existence of an ultimate standard, beyond which there is no more regress. And if there is such a standard, surely it can be in God. God, as with everything else, is where the buck stops.

          So, as you point out, we answer that God is a necessary being. Is it different from it being an external "platonic form"? Yes. The objection to an external standard is that it implies that there exists some other necessary being besides God, which runs us into contradictions. It also would imply that there exists some other being higher in jurisdiction than God, to which God submits, (perhaps merely implying that that being is God). I don't know that it matters that God's "freedom is curtailed" by his own nature (including the laws of logic, mathematics, morality, etc.).

          If the standard is an eternal, necessary attribute of God, does that mean it "could be determined by sheer logic, without reference to God"? I don't think that follows. God may have lots of necessary properties that are not deducible from a Cartesian blank state, such as God's triune nature. Beings other than God would have to be informed of them by God. But even if they are knowable by "sheer logic", does that mean they are knowable without reference to God? No, "sheer logic", itself, has its necessary being in God. The very use of "sheer logic" implies reference to God. Being itself is in God. So the fact that some other being is using logic, implies that that being has being and abilities, which come from God. If you come to know one of these necessary truths, then it follows that you are knowing something about God. How can you know something about God, "without reference to God"? Neither can such truths have their reality apart from God, because it is necessary that they are part of God's nature, and because nothing can have reality apart from God.


          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          If I may butt in, my response to that would be that a given person could label maximum suffering with the English word "good" if they so desired. Though I don't think many other people would join them in that word usage. But, imagining they did, and everyone swapped the words "good" and "evil", then it would follow that everyone would value maximizing "evil" because people's values wouldn't have changed - they would still value their own well-being and that of their friends and family and other people in their society, and want to see that well-being increase, so they would then want to maximize "evil". They would say "maximizing 'evil' is a good thing" (good in the sense of achieving outcomes they ascribe greater value to)... which seems to show that labeling it that way around is not a sensible choice to make with the labels.
          Truth is not determined by popular opinion. It might be that "everyone" has the wrong values, according to the objective standard.

          Even if all logic, and all math, ultimately finds its existential basis in God, we still find ourselves perfectly able to use logic and do math as atheists, because those truths have an obvious necessary and objective existence. You can say they're "part of God" if you like, and that has no relevance: From our perspective it doesn't matter whether they are a part of God or not, as they're just obvious necessary truths. The situation is the same for morality... if it's a necessary truth then the atheist can use it every bit as much as the theist, and whether or not it's "part of God" has no relevance.
          (You can also use a tree (e.g. for lumber), without realizing that its continuing existence depends on God. )
          The only reason I brought up any of that is to show that the "Euthyphro dilemma" does not show an inconsistency in Christian theology.

          I am, however, mighty skeptical of the extent to which many Christians show no concern whatsoever about attributing any number of arbitrary-seeming attributes to God and claiming they are "necessary truths". I just sit there skeptically thinking "Your pile of alleged 'necessary truths' is looking both awfully large and also awfully arbitrary, and this is making your 'God' less believable not more believeable."
          Not arbitrary at all. They necessarily follow from the basic premises about God's necessity, self-existence, etc.
          It would be as if, as Euclid demonstrated more and more geometrical theorems that follow necessarily from the axioms, that you declared that the mounting number of theorems makes geometry less believable to you!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joel View Post
            People have mistaken expectations all the time. A person could walk into a book store expecting it to be a general book store, not realizing that it is a niche book store. E.g. a Jew, thinking he's entering a general book store, only to find that he's walked into a Christian-book store, where he is perhaps unlikely to find any products he is interested in buying. Or someone entering a deli expecting to be able to purchase ham, and then discovering that it's a kosher deli, and the person is not able to purchase ham. That could probably be corrected by improving the store's signage. So I'm not sure why peoples' uninformed, mistaken expectations are relevant to this issue. It would be horrific (and contradictory) to try to impose everyone's expectations about everything.

            (And I note that in Abigail's example, the store would willingly bake cakes for all weddings. The store just wouldn't stock same-sex figurines. You are only worried about random peoples' uninformed, mistaken expectation about how niche the store's stock of figurines is. Which, if you insisted, could be corrected by something like putting up a sign.)
            The store would and does stock same sex figurines. They stock both male and female figurines. Ya know, people can be very good at rationalizing away the reality of an obvious fact, but you all know that a baker refusing to bake a certain kind of cake because of a persons sexual orientation is blatant discrimination, so just admit that you believe in discrimination, and argue your case from that stance. Oh, guess what, you have no case, discriminating against persons in the public square is illegal.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joel View Post
              People have mistaken expectations all the time. A person could walk into a book store expecting it to be a general book store, not realizing that it is a niche book store. E.g. a Jew, thinking he's entering a general book store, only to find that he's walked into a Christian-book store, where he is perhaps unlikely to find any products he is interested in buying. Or someone entering a deli expecting to be able to purchase ham, and then discovering that it's a kosher deli, and the person is not able to purchase ham. That could probably be corrected by improving the store's signage. So I'm not sure why peoples' uninformed, mistaken expectations are relevant to this issue. It would be horrific (and contradictory) to try to impose everyone's expectations about everything.

              (And I note that in Abigail's example, the store would willingly bake cakes for all weddings. The store just wouldn't stock same-sex figurines. You are only worried about random peoples' uninformed, mistaken expectation about how niche the store's stock of figurines is. Which, if you insisted, could be corrected by something like putting up a sign.
              You mean a sign saying “We don’t stock same-sex figurines because we are Christian cake shop and consider that homosexual marriage is an abomination to the Lord”…perhaps with a helpful quote from Leviticus to reinforce exactly why your cake shop is discriminating against homosexuals.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                But there is no morally better in evolution, only what works.
                As opposed to a moral code that doesn't work you mean like one based upon religious beliefs, which by definition are divisive in a multicultural, diverse society. What’s “morally better” is a code which enables human societies to function as Natural Selection predisposed them to, namely as cooperative, socially cohesive, supportive communities.

                That is just silly there is no reverting or moving forward morally in your world.
                Of course there is, based upon social cohesion and the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper as we are evolutionarily predisposed so to do. What's the alternative, doing what your imaginary deity wants? You can't even tell me what that is apart from your catch-all: "read the New Testament".

                There is only what works or doesn't work.
                Well, historically, theocratic morality hasn't worked. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. The most violent countries tend to be the most religious ones, e.g. Nigeria; the most peaceful ones tend to be the least religious, e.g. Norway.

                No, the 1% are doing what they are predetermined to do. What nature created them to do. And I'm glad you have no problem with their natural behavior.
                The 1% are doing what they choose to do. And, although selfish choices are natural, social groups devise moral rules in an attempt to restrain individual selfishness and develop more cooperative groups. This is the sole purpose of moral codes, not keeping the gods happy.

                And how useful was that survival instinct after I swatted the fly?
                It’s very useful if the fly escapes to live another day, as many flies do. The alternative for flies is to just sit around being swatted.
                Last edited by Tassman; 07-01-2015, 01:22 AM.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Well that one goes without saying.

                  And just for the record, whenever I read one of you guys raving about abortion, I just substitute in "I hate abortion! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!" in my head as I skim your post. I live in a country where there's no public controversy about abortion and hasn't been for decades, so I find all you people's utter obsession with the topic quite idiosyncratic and hilarious.
                  Yes, well your conscience has become hardened to it. And that is the point about following our own moralities - our consciences become hardened and we end up thinking things are ok when they aren't. Under the Christian system, God gave us consciences and contact with Him, keeps them primed. Under your system consciences are ultimately a product of some corner evolution turned and have nothing to do with caring for all, even to the 'least amongst us' but rather about the survival of humans in the past. Evolution is a mindless biological process but as a conscious and thinking being, if this is really all that there is then the only thing that makes sense is to have as much fun as you can. Seriously who cares about living on through your offspring. What a load of rubbish since the grave knows nothing about what comes after. This is of course in effect, even though they don't admit it, what progressives are doing since they are about selfish self-centered lives and are systematically neutralizing anyone who stands in the way of that. Right now, it is just the babies who are physically done away with, but bit by bit this will change until it is ok to terminate anyone who is a fun spoiler. You have said it over in these forums. Maybe not in so many words but the message has been clear. Christians are a nuisance, hearing what they have to say ruins our day. They spoil the fun of the pleasure seekers and are thus a source of harm. How long till Christians are dispatched along with the babies.

                  Comment


                  • Oh, sweet, a religious person using religious explanations to an atheist.

                    I sure hope nobody talks past each other.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      How many times do I have to tell you that there is no such thing as "homophobia"?

                      http://www.dsm5.org/Search/default.aspx?k=homophobia

                      No results matching your search were found.

                      1.Check your spelling. Are the words in your query spelled correctly?
                      2.Try using synonyms. Maybe what you're looking for uses slightly different words.
                      3.Make your search more general. Try more general terms in place of specific ones.
                      4.Try your search in a different scope. Different scopes can have different results.
                      Of course there is. Homophobia: “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality”. Dictionary.com

                      It's true that homophobia isn't listed as a pathology, but the word came into being because it shares many of the traits of the pathological condition.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Plus, like, that whole "ITS NOT IN THE DSM" argument would be super topical if there was some prominent wing of the gay rights movement that actually, you know, claimed it was a pathology and that homophobia wasn't just shorthand.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          As opposed to a moral code that doesn't work you mean like one based upon religious beliefs, which by definition are divisive in a multicultural, diverse society. What’s “morally better” is a code which enables human societies to function as Natural Selection predisposed them to, namely as cooperative, socially cohesive, supportive communities.
                          This is stupid Tass. If you have a largely Christian or Muslim society then it would function just fine. And let's make it clear there is no diversity of thought with you leftists. As I have shown in thread after thread. It was not Christians who invented speech codes and Political Correctness.


                          Of course there is, based upon social cohesion and the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper as we are evolutionarily predisposed so to do. What's the alternative, doing what your imaginary deity wants? You can't even tell me what that is apart from your catch-all: "read the New Testament".
                          Again Tass, this is just silly. You can have social cohesion and cooperation in totalitarian states. And have for centuries, so your standard of social cohesion doesn't tell us anything.


                          Well, historically, theocratic morality hasn't worked. The record of human experience shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense beliefs produce intense hostility. The most violent countries tend to be the most religious ones, e.g. Nigeria; the most peaceful ones tend to be the least religious, e.g. Norway.
                          Except they did work. The largely Christian US has become one of the most potent forces in world history, and let me remind you Norway would be speaking German or Russia is not for the US. And you might be speaking Japanese. And we know what purely Secular states eventually turn into, just look at the former Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and more recently Venezuela where there is no longer any freedom of the press. Like speech codes and Political Correctness you leftists must curtail dissent.



                          The 1% are doing what they choose to do. And, although selfish choices are natural, social groups devise moral rules in an attempt to restrain individual selfishness and develop more cooperative groups. This is the sole purpose of moral codes, not keeping the gods happy.

                          Are the 1% of alpha males in primate groups restrained? And they don't need to be, they survive just fine, the group survives just fine. Your whole argument is just irrational Tass bro...
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Yes. They're not counting fetuses as fully human. They're using the word 'human' as shorthand for conscious beings with standard human higher mental functions present.

                            The moral system pays attention to the presence or absence of higher mental functions. Fetuses definitely lack a lot of the higher mental functions. Political dissenters don't.
                            First, if this is humanism then it is a lie, a hypocrisy. Second, if you can invent an arbitrary standard to justify the killing of the unborn, why not invent an arbitrary standard to justify the killing of dissenters? Beside you leftists are already looking to kill just born children.

                            http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261....b-f58d50714edc

                            ABSTRACT

                            Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
                            have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
                            that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
                            same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
                            both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
                            adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
                            people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
                            abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
                            the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
                            newborn is not disabled.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Of course there is. Homophobia: “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality”. Dictionary.com
                              Disagreement is neither unreasoning nor fear.

                              It's true that homophobia isn't listed as a pathology, but the word came into being because it shares many of the traits of the pathological condition.
                              No it doesn't. Anyone with a diagnosed phobia will tell you so.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jaecp View Post
                                Plus, like, that whole "ITS NOT IN THE DSM" argument would be super topical if there was some prominent wing of the gay rights movement that actually, you know, claimed it was a pathology and that homophobia wasn't just shorthand.
                                Shorthand for "you don't bow down and kiss my ring"
                                That's what
                                - She

                                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                                - Stephen R. Donaldson

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                383 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X