Atheist Morality

Derf

Well-known member
Oh 100% true, in my anecdotal experience. We drink liquor too, and smoke cigrits!

A little off topic, and if you want to pursue it we'll bow it out of the thread, but it's rooted in a firm belief in the relative gravity, weight or seriousness of particular sins. There are so many sins. It's conceptually, as far as I'm concerned, just a big disorganized pile of stuff, all the sins. Catholicism does divide the pile into two, one pile is grave sins, and all the rest of light. They are all still sins, but here's where the Church's beliefs about participating in Holy Communion comes in: if you commit even a single grave sin, you ought to go to confession and reconcile with the Body of Christ before receiving Communion again.

Given these circumstances, we do focus our attention always on that pile of grave sins, and work as hard as possible with the Lord's help to avoid them completely. What we do with His help regarding the much, much larger pile of light sins, is simply a distant second place to avoiding grave matter. And especially when avoiding grave sins feels difficult, like it's a little more than what the Lord calls an easy yoke and a light burden, we can blow off steam with light sins and still remain in full communion with the Church, able to partake of the Lord's body and blood in the Eucharist, which spiritually feeds us by cleansing us of the temporal consequences of our light sins and fuels our development as we seek to become transformed indefinitely, conformed to the image of Christ through His Word and His Church's sacraments (we believe He is Really Present in all of them).
Maybe a good idea to move it to another thread.

What you said made me think of Dave Ramsey's approach to paying off debt--start with the baby steps. Iow, pay off the easier debts to pay off, then apply that payment that was freed up to the next easiest, etc., not stopping until all debt is paid off. Debt is explicitly compared to sin by Jesus, so the analogy is appropriate, I think. Giving permission to commit little, or less significant, sins is like putting Jesus back on the cross.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
I swear all the time. Like a drunken sailor on leave. It's really pretty ugly, my mouth. I wish I could change it, but it's how I think. I can censor my mouth, control my tongue, but I can't censor my thoughts, I think 'in swear'. It's my native tongue. When I think in my native tongue (which everyone should always do), I swear.
It is a pity that precludes you from manifesting Christ on earth.
Repentance is still available to you though, and with the power of God helping you, you can quit offending Him.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Our veterans carry around with them the heaviest heart for our Constitution, just naturally, all of them, as a group. The only way a moral man can reconcile shooting people and preparing to shoot people is to mentally tie it together with an absolutely righteous purpose. And that is what American troops past, present and future are all doing by virtue of their service and sacrifice.

The only problem with most veterans is that when it comes time to consider buying better government services for them, they as a super majority would rather put up with their conditions, if it means that the present and future troops have even slightly better guns. I use guns here to signify an umbrella concept that includes everything that the ideal military can have, including luxuries, anything at all to make our current and future troops better able to survive. Guns, missiles, battleships, aircraft carriers, nukes, nukes, rifles, food, food, fuel, armor, armor, etc., etc.

So we might have to force it on them. The thing is their service to our Constitution, if not their sacrifice, is not over just because their tours of duty are up. They must continue to be healthy, we want all of our veterans to live well into old, old age. They are one of our physical anchors to upholding, defending and protecting our moral and righteous Constitution.
Do you know what the constitution really is?
A false idol.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
It is a pity that precludes you from manifesting Christ on earth.
Wow thanks for your pity.
Repentance is still available to you though, and with the power of God helping you, you can quit offending Him.
Actually He says my light sins are automatically forgiven me in an eternal sense, and when I licitly receive His body and blood in Holy Communion, I'm also forgiven in the temporal sense. He takes cares of me. :)

Do you know what the constitution really is?
A false idol.
lol. Manifestly untrue. Rather, it's the opposite of irresponsibility, and a particularly moral opposite of irresponsibility to boot.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Wow thanks for your pity.
I was offering no pity.
Actually He says my light sins are automatically forgiven me in an eternal sense, and when I licitly receive His body and blood in Holy Communion, I'm also forgiven in the temporal sense. He takes cares of me. :)
You will need to provide the bible verse stating that.
I regard it as false teaching.
lol. Manifestly untrue. Rather, it's the opposite of irresponsibility, and a particularly moral opposite of irresponsibility to boot.
Let's see...men die to protect it, and they serve under it, it is in parts the opposite of what God desires, and it seems men are ready to die for it.
Sounds like idolatry to me.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Not everyone agrees it is better to exist than not to. So which is more correct, you, or the other guy? And why, since you are both basing your opposite conclusions on the same inputs?
The premises of It is good to exist and existing in a state of well-being is better than in a state of misery are foundational and are technically discretionary, but only obliquely so. Who makes the claim it is better to not exist? You point to basically suicidal individuals as proof that everything is just an opinion without God. It is a very lame approach.

The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute. It doesn't. The Bible is vague and downright contradictory. It is obvious that morality based on the Bible is little better than morality based on tea leaves. You cannot deny the vast array of different beliefs among Christian sects. You cannot say your vision is the one correct one when people within your own congregation differ in their views. The realization that other sects have a resolve of righteousness equal to yours and yet they differ should give you pause. It doesn't. You parrot off the notion that God gives you certainty, and everyone else just has opinions. It is a game of pretend.
If it is a universal value to exist over not existing, and nature's normal course results in you not existing, then nature is inherently immoral.
Evolution would not occur unless individuals died. There would be no human existence if life was not temporary. Your dichotomous thinking leads to nonsensical conclusion: If I cannot live forever, then there is no point in being born. It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship.

Accepting simple premises is easier than accepting the fantastic stories in thick book. The morality flowing from the premises can be objectively evaluated and revised. The wisdom of the Bible can be included in making hypotheses.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
...
The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute. It doesn't. The Bible is vague and downright contradictory. It is obvious that morality based on the Bible is little better than morality based on tea leaves. You cannot deny the vast array of different beliefs among Christian sects. You cannot say your vision is the one correct one when people within your own congregation differ in their views. The realization that other sects have a resolve of righteousness equal to yours and yet they differ should give you pause. It doesn't. You parrot off the notion that God gives you certainty, and everyone else just has opinions. It is a game of pretend. ...
This part only relevant to non-Catholicism.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
When you claim this kind of thing you strip the concept of rights of any actual meaning.

On the contrary, it's a statement of fact. Rights were endowed to man by our Creator, an authority higher than man. They are not dependent on other men agreeing to not violate them.

My neighbor was killed by a drunk driver.

I'm sorry to hear that.

The drunk driver should be tried for capital negligence, and upon conviction, executed.

Should I go to his grave and say don't worry you have the absolute right to life, JR says so. He will still be dead.

Don't be absurd.

Your neighbor, when he was alive, had the right to life. The drunk driver unjustly and without the right to do so, took your neighbor's life, depriving him of access to his rights.

Rights are contingent on an explicit or implicit social contracts.

False.

Rights are not contingent on anything.

Social contracts are there for people to not violate those rights, not for the rights themselves.

Rights have limits.

Duh.

There are legitimate circumstances when they will be impinged upon by the government,

Only when the person commits a crime. When a man commits a crime, he cedes certain rights applicable to the crime he commits, until the debt of justice is paid off. Theft? Right to own property. Assault or physical injury? Right of life, limb, and freedom of movement. Murder, rape, kidnapping? Right to life.

The punishments for those respective crimes are restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty.

and sometimes private citizens.

Only during the commission of a crime, or to prevent a crime from occurring.

Notice a theme here yet?

Rights are not absolute in that there is no guarantee that they cannot be illegitimately violated.

This is moving the goalposts.

I'm specifically talking about the rights themselves, not the social contracts that people agree to to not infringe upon other people's rights, which is a separate matter that you seem to be conflating with the rights themselves.

Persons have a corollary right to recourse when their rights are violated that the government is willing to enforce.

The responsibility of the government is to enforce just (as in, "justice") recompense for whenever a crime is committed or someone is harmed.

Your life could be taken in mistaken self-defense whereby you are incorrectly perceived as an aggressor and killed for it.

Which would be a violation of my right to life, but not a taking away of my right to life.

Do you see the difference?

It is quite possible no criminal charges succeed in punishing your killer.

Which would be a failure of the government to enforce justice.

In the scenario, my killer would have committed the crime of deadly negligence, and SHOULD be put to death.

Your family may get survivor damages if your attacker is deemed negligent.

Anything other than putting the killer to death would be up to the judge to decide, but the bare minimum in this scenario is that he is put to death.

Life for life.

The state can end your life but only after due process.

Correct. Yet we see over 62 million murders in abortion mills since Roe v Wade where there is no due process applied.

You can be legitimately ordered to shelter in place during a hurricane or infectious disease emergency.

Ordered, yes. But you have the right to refuse.

If you do not comply, you can rightfully be jailed.

Wrong. The government does not have the right to jail anyone. That's inhumane.

If your worship behavior includes elements that is legislated against for all persons, you can be be prosecuted.

This is incorrect, but not because you're necessarily wrong.

Anyone and everyone has the right to worship whoever/whatever they want. But their right to worship does not give them the right to commit crimes.

Just like the right to liberty doesn't mean I can enter restricted government areas.

If you yell "Fallacy of Appeal to Incredulity" in a group of atheists, you will be held liable for damage incurred by the crowd trying to exit the building.

Your jokes are terrible. Find a different job.

Property can be appropriated for public use along as you are fairly compensated.

For government needs and infrastructure ONLY, the government has the ability to purchase real property from unwilling sellers at quintuple its value.

It does not have the right to take my house and turn it into a motel for homeless people, or my car and use it for a taxi service, or my computer and use it to hunt cyber criminals.

Not if you have a felony.

If a man has previously committed a crime with a deadly weapon, in a just system, he would have been executed upon conviction. There wouldn't be a "walking around with a criminal record," since the scales of justice would have already been met.

Not if you leave a bruise.

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. - Proverbs 20:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs20:30&version=NKJV

The KJV renders the first part of that verse as "the blueness of a wound."

If it doesn't leave a mark, it's not hard enough or painful enough for child to realize that they shouldn't do what they did again. This goes for adults too.

CPS will open a case on you.


And the CPS shouldn't exist.

One right you exercise continually.

Insulting me doesn't help your argument, and won't work, Skeeter.

I'm talking about failing at life, to not be caught by some governmentally implemented safety net.

Semantics.

It's not. It's an important distinction to make. One that you refuse to.

Also, as noted above, your rights can be legitimately curtailed

Supra.

due to [JR: I'm going to assume you meant to say "circumstances" here] that you did not even create.

False.

A compelling government interest can trump your rights legitimately.

Not for any reason. Only in certain circumstances.

A criminal or interloper can violate your rights.

Violate != take away

This is my entire point.

You will have recourse but no absolute guarantee.

I am guaranteed my rights. What I don't have any absolute guarantee of is that my rights will not be violated by someone who willfully breaks the law.

Aspirations of absolute morality are borne of binary thinking not realism.

False.

The premises of It is good to exist and existing in a state of well-being is better than in a state of misery are foundational and are technically discretionary, but only obliquely so. Who makes the claim it is better to not exist? You point to basically suicidal individuals as proof that everything is just an opinion without God. It is a very lame approach.

It's not a lame approach. It's a perfectly valid point.

What gives you the right to say that, for the suicidal individual, it is better to exist?

Would you force them to live in misery?

The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute.

It's not conceited.

And yes, the Bible DOES give man a solid foundation of morals, because it comes from the One who made us.

It doesn't.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Bible is vague and downright contradictory.

No, it's not.

It is obvious that morality based on the Bible is little better than morality based on tea leaves.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

You cannot deny the vast array of different beliefs among Christian sects.

This is an appeal to popularity and an appeal to tradition.

What people believe has no bearing on right or wrong.
Beliefs of different groups of Christians have no bearing on what is right or wrong.

That's why instead of appealing to the different Christian sects, we go straight to what the Bible says first, and then go from there.

You cannot say your vision is the one correct one when people within your own congregation differ in their views.

Again, appeal to popularity.

As for me, I go to scripture first, to see what it says. If what other people think differently than what it says, then I reject their beliefs in favor of Scripture.

The realization that other sects have a resolve of righteousness equal to yours and yet they differ should give you pause.

Supra. More of the same.

It doesn't. You parrot off the notion that God gives you certainty, and everyone else just has opinions. It is a game of pretend.

Supra.

Evolution would not occur unless individuals died.

Evolution doesn't occur.

There would be no human existence if life was not temporary.

Do you also believe that there is no existence after death?

Your dichotomous thinking leads to nonsensical conclusion: If I cannot live forever, then there is no point in being born.

You will live forever. Your relationship with God will determine where.

It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship.

So if cutting the head off of one baby would guarantee every other human being that exists and ever will exist will have an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship, would you be the one wielding the blade?

Accepting simple premises is easier than accepting the fantastic stories in thick book.

The Bible is thick in proportion to the thickness of people's skulls. Yours included.

And it even presents simple premises that any child can easily comprehend.

The morality flowing from the premises can be objectively evaluated and revised.

Same with the Bible.

The wisdom of the Bible can be included in making hypotheses.

But you reject the Bible. So now what?
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
On the contrary, it's a statement of fact. Rights were endowed to man by our Creator, an authority higher than man. They are not dependent on other men agreeing to not violate them.

Even if there is creator, it does not follow that he/ she/ they has/have the power to declare what rights their creation can have. Living sentient beings are not property. If humans create sentient artificial intelligence, we would be acting immorally if we tried to dictate rights based on the mere fact the new beings would not exist without us. A better moral understanding will be demonstrated by healthy practice not our status as an authority.
I'm sorry to hear that.

The drunk driver should be tried for capital negligence, and upon conviction, executed.
This is an escalation of violence. The state intentionally kills someone who has not intentionally killed. If Negligence - which could be borne of mere cognitive lapse in capacity, not intentional ill will or even recklessness - is sufficient to trigger the death penalty, unrest would abound. I personally would subvert the government so readily prone to escalate violence. Simplistic eye for an eye notions are an antiquated basis for law.
Don't be absurd.

Your neighbor, when he was alive, had the right to life. The drunk driver unjustly and without the right to do so, took your neighbor's life, depriving him of access to his rights.
Why insert the word absolute when rights are clearly relative to circumstance.
Only when the person commits a crime. When a man commits a crime, he cedes certain rights applicable to the crime he commits, until the debt of justice is paid off. Theft? Right to own property. Assault or physical injury? Right of life, limb, and freedom of movement. Murder, rape, kidnapping? Right to life.

The punishments for those respective crimes are restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty.

Only during the commission of a crime, or to prevent a crime from occurring.

Notice a theme here yet?
I notice a giant thread of nonsense in your thinking. I gave numerous example where rights are limited by circumstances other than crimina behavior of the right holder.
Which would be a violation of my right to life, but not a taking away of my right to life.

Do you see the difference?
It is a distinction without a difference. Rights are by in large qualified rights.
Which would be a failure of the government to enforce justice.

A success in avoiding insurrection. A government that escalates violence should not stand.
In the scenario, my killer would have committed the crime of deadly negligence, and SHOULD be put to death.
Old world thinking that will lead to more strife than benefit. It is not moral to apply the death penalty for unintentional homicide and non-homicidal crimes because it escalates violence and strife. People lose loved ones unjustly when the government acts in a broad and demonstrably unfair fashion.

The death penalty is not a deterrent for unintentional crimes. It is not a simple thing to avoid unintentional actions. They are unforeseen and out of the control of the person. Some events are true quirks of fate.
Wrong. The government does not have the right to jail anyone. That's inhumane.
But executing people is humane?
Anyone and everyone has the right to worship whoever/whatever they want. But their right to worship does not give them the right to commit crimes.
An example of two cases where religious practices were barred involve the use of a hallucinogen in one and the practice of animal sacrifice in another. The mainstream religion is catered to and obscure sects are the ones who are denied the freedom to practice as their tradition dictates. Catholics were give exemption in use of wine during prohibition.
For government needs and infrastructure ONLY, the government has the ability to purchase real property from unwilling sellers at quintuple its value.
So, you do see how the right to own property is qualified then. (AND its fair market value compensation)
It does not have the right to take my house and turn it into a motel for homeless people, or my car and use it for a taxi service, or my computer and use it to hunt cyber criminals.
In emergency situations, houses and cars have been commandeered and rightfully so.
If a man has previously committed a crime with a deadly weapon, in a just system, he would have been executed upon conviction. There wouldn't be a "walking around with a criminal record," since the scales of justice would have already been met.
Your view would result in the killing of of low level offenders at a higher rate than abortion. And, you consider this more moral and just?
Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. - Proverbs 20:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs20:30&version=NKJV

The KJV renders the first part of that verse as "the blueness of a wound."

If it doesn't leave a mark, it's not hard enough or painful enough for child to realize that they shouldn't do what they did again. This goes for adults too.

And the CPS shouldn't exist.
You sound like you would be a horrible parent. There are so many consequences that are just as effective but do not model violence to children. Why stick with violence then?
Insulting me doesn't help your argument, and won't work, Skeeter.

I am guaranteed my rights. What I don't have any absolute guarantee of is that my rights will not be violated by someone who willfully breaks the law.
If you own a chalet on a snow top mountain, an injured skier can enter your building out of necessity and not be charged criminally. This is a good result. Qualified rights are better than absoltue rights for the reason that the needs of others can be balance with individual rights.
It's not a lame approach. It's a perfectly valid point.

What gives you the right to say that, for the suicidal individual, it is better to exist?

Would you force them to live in misery?
Most often Suicide is associated with mental illness and drug addiction and you still hold it out as proof that reasonable minds can differ?
It's not conceited.
It's a pretense. Check out the secondary definition of conceit.
And yes, the Bible DOES give man a solid foundation of morals, because it comes from the One who made us.
Stupra.
This is an appeal to popularity and an appeal to tradition.
Wrong. You should give up trying to call out fallacies. You have trouble applying them logically. The diverse reaction to the Bible is evidence that it is a least poorly written. A clear text would yield more consistent interpretation. A manual that helps most put their furniture together is a good manual while another obtuse and contradictory version yields mixed results is a bad one. This has nothing to do with an appeal to authority or tradition. It is a practical empirical comparison.
What people believe has no bearing on right or wrong.
Beliefs of different groups of Christians have no bearing on what is right or wrong.
That's why instead of appealing to the different Christian sects, we go straight to what the Bible says first, and then go from there.
Even among Bible literalists, results differ. If the Bible were user friendly and based on absolute mortality, we would predict much more consistency than we see.
As for me, I go to scripture first, to see what it says. If what other people think differently than what it says, then I reject their beliefs in favor of Scripture.
What it says is even under dispute, Different translations are favored. Different passages accepted as cannon. The language is antiquated. You descibe a simple task but its actually daunting. And would you have come up with is immoral in effect with injustice the rule rather than the exception.
So if cutting the head off of one baby would guarantee every other human being that exists and ever will exist will have an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship, would you be the one wielding the blade?
How could cutting off the head of a baby possibly result in such effects? Sounds like what Jesus did - sacrificing himself to undue what a previous rule rather than just changing the rule. I am not answering a hypothetical that has no rational basis.
The Bible is thick in proportion to the thickness of people's skulls. Yours included.
keep on truckin because comedy ain't your thing.
And it even presents simple premises that any child can easily comprehend.
The diversity of interpretations of the Bible argues against that simplicity. Sometimes things are hard to understand because they are nuanced and abstract, sometimes things are hard to understand because they do not make sense.
 

Derf

Well-known member
The premises of It is good to exist and existing in a state of well-being is better than in a state of misery are foundational and are technically discretionary, but only obliquely so. Who makes the claim it is better to not exist? You point to basically suicidal individuals as proof that everything is just an opinion without God. It is a very lame approach.
That's your opinion.
The second very weak layer you ride on is the conceit that the Bible gives everyone a bedrock foundation which is absolute. It doesn't. The Bible is vague and downright contradictory.
No, it's etched in stone.
Evolution would not occur unless individuals died. There would be no human existence if life was not temporary.
Thus, in your morality, death is actually advantageous. In mine it is something to be avoided and defeated.

In yours, the "less" good should die to help the "better". In mine, the better die to help the lesser.
Your dichotomous thinking leads to nonsensical conclusion: If I cannot live forever, then there is no point in being born.
Nope. If you cannot live forever, you should do whatever feels good to you, because tomorrow you may die. And death is preferable to everyone's existence at some point in their lives, if this life is all there is. Thus, any morality that makes you feel good is the morality that you would be a proponent of. The same for any murderer, adulterer, child raper, etc.
It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship.
Why?

Accepting simple premises is easier than accepting the fantastic stories in thick book.
Like this one?
The morality flowing from the premises can be objectively evaluated and revised. The wisdom of the Bible can be included in making hypotheses.
So morality must evolve? Then even by your own "standards", your morality isn't very good, because your standard is never as good as it could get--thus you have to be looking, if you care about morality, for the next standard to come along--thus, you've shown your standard of morality to be unfit by your own standard. Which is what I said in the first place--atheist morality is only one guy's opinion vs the next guy's. And the strongest will get to enforce his by subjugating or killing the weaker. How strong are you, Skeeter?
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
That's your opinion.
Yes it is. It's an opinion I support. This is where you are suppose to refute it!
No, it's etched in stone.
Because you say so. Because you think your book says so. This is where you are suppose to refute the evidence I provided and offer your own to support the notion that you have access to an absolute source of infallible guidelines.
Thus, in your morality, death is actually advantageous. In mine it is something to be avoided and defeated.
No, it's not. My point of view accepts the conditions that are evident, finds a silver lining, and makes the best of a temporary situation rather than pretend.
In yours, the "less" good should die to help the "better". In mine, the better die to help the lesser.
Nope. Are you talking about social darwinism again?
Nope. If you cannot live forever, you should do whatever feels good to you, because tomorrow you may die. And death is preferable to everyone's existence at some point in their lives, if this life is all there is. Thus, any morality that makes you feel good is the morality that you would be a proponent of. The same for any murderer, adulterer, child raper, etc.
Who here has embraced hedonism? You create a strawman here. Stop that. Maybe comment on my actual position.

The Conservative Christian view is the more selfish because it focuses on individual salvation over community. Want of a lower level of government and regulation allows greater exploitation of working class individuals by upper class individuals. Unbridled Capitalism is basically social darwinism run amok.
Why?


Like this one?

So morality must evolve? Then even by your own "standards", your morality isn't very good, because your standard is never as good as it could get--thus you have to be looking, if you care about morality, for the next standard to come along--thus, you've shown your standard of morality to be unfit by your own standard. Which is what I said in the first place--atheist morality is only one guy's opinion vs the next guy's. And the strongest will get to enforce his by subjugating or killing the weaker. How strong are you, Skeeter?
Morality will improve over time--yes. I would not call it evolution. I would expect new technologies to require the most change. Balancing individual and collective needs could reach a point where little change will be necessary given quite optimal results.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yes it is. It's an opinion I support. This is where you are suppose to refute it!
I just did. You agreed with me. Your thread should be closed now.
Because you say so. Because you think your book says so. This is where you are suppose to refute the evidence I provided and offer your own to support the notion that you have access to an absolute source of infallible guidelines.
No. That would be for a thread about true morality. Yours is only about atheist morality.
No, it's not. My point of view accepts the conditions that are evident, finds a silver lining, and makes the best of a temporary situation rather than pretend.
You only accept the conditions you want to accept. Why is that less pretentious?
Nope. Are you talking about social darwinism again?
No, I'm talking about your view of nature.
Who here has embraced hedonism? You create a strawman here. Stop that. Maybe comment on my actual position.
There's not that much to say. Animals have done just fine for billions of years, eating, kidnapping, stealing from, and raping each other, and now you want to make yourself and a few others comfortable until you disappear forever.
The Conservative Christian view is the more selfish because it focuses on individual salvation over community. Want of a lower level of government and regulation allows greater exploitation of working class individuals by upper class individuals. Unbridled Capitalism is basically social darwinism run amok.
You should at least address the topic before you start bashing the other side.
Morality will improve over time--yes. I would not call it evolution. I would expect new technologies to require the most change. Balancing individual and collective needs could reach a point where little change will be necessary given quite optimal results.
Who decides the results are optimal? You? Societies fail under athiest leadership--always.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Even if there is creator, it does not follow that he has the power to declare what rights their creation can have.

Yes, it does.

Living sentient beings are not property.

They are the property of the Creator.

If humans create sentient artificial intelligence,

There is no such thing. A computer doesn't know what a computer is. It doesn't "know." It's simply the movement of ones and zeros.

Humans are FAR different (though not dissimilar) from computers. We are self-aware. We are more than just flesh and blood, we are body, soul, and spirit, two of those things are not physical.

we would be acting immorally if we tried to dictate rights based on the mere fact the new beings would not exist without us.

You're in the realm of science fiction. Come back to reality, please.

A better moral understanding will be demonstrated by healthy practice not our status as an authority.

Whatever that means...

This is an escalation of violence.

WRONG.

Your neighbor was killed. That's already violent.

The drunk driver is the one who killed him.

The equal payment for your neighbor's life is the drunk driver's life.

Life for life.

That is just. It is not an escalation of violence, it is matching the taking of life with the death penalty for the one who wrongfully took someone else's life.

The state intentionally kills someone who has not intentionally killed.

It was NOT an accident that the drunk driver got drunk, got in his car, and drove, and then by driving drunk, killed your neighbor.

Thus, it is deadly negligence, not accidental death.

If it were an accidental death (say, the head of his axe flew off when he swung it and hit your neighbor on the head and killed him), then the government should protect the man, not execute him, because it was an accidental death.

But again, killing someone because he decided to drive while drunk is NOT accidental, and thus, while he didn't intend to kill anyone, it was still criminal negligence.

If Negligence - which could be borne of mere cognitive lapse in capacity, not intentional ill will or even recklessness

What we're talking about is known as Criminal Negligence.

- is sufficient to trigger the death penalty, unrest would abound.

What SHOULD cause unrest is the fact that a drunk driver who killed someone can get away with his crime and not be executed.

But such things are hardly even reported in the local news anymore, because it's become such a common occurrence, and that's because drunkenness (let alone drunk driving) isn't punished at all, let alone harsh enough to deter people from driving drunk.

I personally would subvert the government so readily prone to escalate violence.

Again, there's no "escalation." Drunk drivers killing people is already violent.

To end that violence, force must be used.

Simplistic eye for an eye notions are an antiquated basis for law.

Hate to break it to you, Skeeter, but the law is based on balancing injustice with justice.

You take money from me? The punishment is that you pay me back twice the amount: 100% to return what was stolen, and another 100% to have you experience what you did to me.

Didn't you ever learn the golden rule?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Justice is the literal application of that, enforced by the law.

Thus:

Eye for an eye is just.

Life for a life is just.

Prison, or monetary fine, or what have you, for a life is unjust, and inhumane (in the case of prison).

Why insert the word absolute when rights are clearly relative to circumstance.

Because they're not.

I notice a giant thread of nonsense in your thinking.

You're imagining things.

It is a distinction without a difference.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Rights are by [and] large qualified rights.

No, they're not.

A success in avoiding insurrection.

Wrong.

You're forgetting that when you don't punish criminals appropriately, it ends up harming the people.

In other words, there IS insurrection when you don't punish criminals. It's just not immediately apparent.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+8:11&version=NKJV

A government that escalates violence should not stand.

A government that responds to violence with enough force to deter the next criminal WILL stand.

Old world thinking

Appeal to novelty.

that will lead to more strife than benefit.

Wrong.

It is not moral to apply the death penalty for unintentional homicide

Except that there WAS intent to kill. He killed the wrong person, but he still pulled the trigger with his weapon aimed at me.

And yes, it is moral and just to apply the death penalty for homicide, especially as a result of negligence.

and non-homicidal crimes

See "head of axe flying off handle example above.

because it escalates violence and strife.

This is simply false.

Putting a violent criminal who has murdered, raped, or kidnapped to death ENDS the violence he is sowing.

People lose loved ones unjustly when the government acts in a broad and demonstrably unfair fashion.

This is true, but is not relevant to what we're talking about, since the death penalty is NOT a "broad and demonstrably unfair fashion."

The death penalty is not a deterrent

It is indeed a deterrent.

for unintentional crimes.

Which isn't what my death in the scenario above was.

It is not a simple thing to avoid unintentional actions. They are unforeseen and out of the control of the person.

Supra.

Some events are true quirks of fate.

Fate doesn't exist.

But executing people is humane?

Yes. Swiftly and painfully punishing a criminal treats them with the dignity and respect they deserve as a human being.

Treating them like an animal and locking them up for decades on end is, by definition, inhumane, and not only that, but it will only serve to increase their resentment towards their victims and the government.

An example of two cases where religious practices were barred involve the use of a hallucinogen in one

In a just society, any substance that can make one high or drunk immediately would be banned outside of medical use, and strictly controlled. (To be clear, drinking would be allowed, but drunkenness would not.)

As I said: The right to worship does not give people the right to commit crimes in the name of their religion.

and the practice of animal sacrifice in another. The mainstream religion is catered to and obscure sects are the ones who are denied the freedom to practice as their tradition dictates. Catholics were give exemption in use of wine during prohibition.

I'm not sure what point it is you're trying to make here. What I said stands, that the right to worship does not give people the right to commit crimes in the name of their religion.

So, you do see how the right to own property is qualified then.

No, not in the sense you are thinking of.

To use an example: Lets say the government is building a highway, and there's a house and farm smack dab in the middle of where the highway needs to go. The owner refuses to sell, but the government forces the sale, buying it at quintuple the value of it. The (now former) owner of the house still has the right to own property. The government buying the land did not take away their right to own property.

(AND its fair market value compensation)

In emergency situations, houses and cars have been commandeered and rightfully so.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. And I would imagine that they were returned to their rightful owners as soon as the need to use them disappeared, or they should have been.

Your view would result in the killing of of low level offenders at a higher rate than abortion.

What?

Why?

"Low level offenders" means what, exactly?

I have repeatedly said or implied that in a just system, thieves would be forced to pay restitution, assaulters would be corporally punished, and criminals who commit capital crimes would be executed.

If you think "low level offenders" means criminals who have committed capital crimes, then you have deluded yourself.

And, you consider this more moral and just?

It IS just, regardless of what I think, to execute murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. It is NOT just, regardless of what I think, to execute thieves and those who harm (without killing) others.

You sound like you would be a horrible parent.

Then you need to get your ears checked.

Bob Enyart raised 7 boys that way, and ALL of them (and I've met most of them) turned out amazingly.

They are some of the most respectful individuals I've met.

There are so many [methods] that are just as effective but do not model violence to children.

You're mistaken.

There are no methods that are as effective at punishing children for wrongdoing as spanking.

Why stick with violence then?

Because pain is a strong deterrent, ESPECIALLY for children, and it teaches them that wrongdoing will result in pain.

If you own a chalet on a snow top mountain, an injured skier can enter your building out of necessity and not be charged criminally. This is a good result.

Of course he wouldn't be charged, because as the owner, I wouldn't be pressing charges if he was injured.

Now, if he used that injury as an excuse to take something valuable from that chalet, then I would.

Qualified rights are better than absolute rights for the reason that the needs of others can be balance with individual rights.

Whatever that means...

Most often Suicide is associated with mental illness and drug addiction and you still hold it out as proof that reasonable minds can differ?

How do you know it's mental illness or drug addiction? Maybe they're perfectly fine and you're the one who's mentally ill.

It's a pretense. Check out the secondary definition of conceit.

The Bible does, in fact, give humanity a solid foundation for morality and ethics.


Addressed. The Bible comes from God, the One who made us.


I'm not.

The diverse reaction to the Bible is evidence that it is a least poorly written.

1) It's not poorly written. I don't think you ever answered my question ever when I asked you if you had read the Bible all the way through. So, have you?

2) It's not evidence that it's poorly written. It's evidence that people have differing opinions on what it says, without actually reading it, or even by rejecting what it says outright. But the overarching message of the Bible has never changed: That man has sinned, and in need of a Savior, Whom God sent in the form of a man, His Son, to pay for the sin of mankind, and that whoever should believe in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life with Him.

A clear text would yield more consistent interpretation.

No, it wouldn't. The Bible is written as the story of Israel because it adds context to what is said that you wouldn't get if it just said "do this, not that" or "here are the principles to live by."

The fact that there is context to everything that is said allows for a solid foundation for people to understand what is said.

A manual that helps most put their furniture together is a good manual while another obtuse and contradictory version yields mixed results is a bad one.

The Bible isn't an instruction manual to put something together.

If it were, you might have a point. But it isn't.

It's the history of a nation, a manual on how humans work, a legal textbook, and a message from God, all rolled into one.

Of course it's going to be harder to understand in some places. But understanding it isn't impossible, and the principles it teaches are NOT hard to understand.

This has nothing to do with an appeal to authority or tradition. It is a practical empirical comparison.

I didn't say "appeal to authority." I said popularity, which it is.

You were arguing "since there is a vast array of different beliefs (traditions) other than yours, and people in your own congregation (popularity) differ in their views from yours, we can't know which is the right one."

Which I addressed above.

Even among Bible literalists, results differ.

Of course. Which is why I don't rely on "Bible literalists." I rely on scripture and the context of what is said.

If the Bible were user friendly and based on absolute morality,

No one said the Bible was "user friendly." What I specifically have said is that it's easy enough to read that a child can understand it.

It does contain absolute morality though.

we would predict much more consistency than we see.

You have yet to show any inconsistency in the Bible, or in its predictions.

What it says is even under dispute, Different translations are favored. Different passages accepted as cannon.

Cannons go on ships. Canon is the word you're looking for.

That aside, I don't disagree that there are different sets of texts.

The problem with this argument of yours, however, doesn't take into consideration that the overall message of the Bible doesn't change regardless of which sets of texts are used. Which is why it's important to get an overview of the Bible before trying to delve into the details.

The language is antiquated.

There are more Bibles than just the KJV.

There are plenty of modern language Bibles in existence.

I recommend the NKJV. I strongly recommend against using the NIV.

You describe a simple task but its actually daunting.

Only to those who aren't all that interested in it.

And would you have come up with is immoral in effect with injustice the rule rather than the exception.

That made no sense. Try again?

How could cutting off the head of a baby possibly result in such effects?

It's a hypothetical to test what you said, which was: "It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship."

So if the condition for "each humans being having ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship" was cutting off the head of a baby, would you be the one to wield the blade?

Sounds like what Jesus did - sacrificing himself to undo what a previous rule rather than just changing the rule.

Sounds like you've completely misunderstood what Jesus did.

Jesus went to the cross to PAY for the sins of mankind, to provide a way for man to live with Him forever, which we cannot do because we have sinned.

It is the ultimate application of justice, paying the debt that comes as a result of sin.

But of course, you wouldn't understand that, because you reject that the Creator has rights over His creation.

I am not answering a hypothetical that has no rational basis.

I'm glad you admit that your statement of "It is moral to strive for conditions where each human being has an ample chance to live a full lifespan without undue misery and hardship" has no rational basis.

keep on truckin because comedy ain't your thing.

Jokes on you, because I'm a truck driver.

The diversity of interpretations of the Bible argues against that simplicity.

No, it's simply evidence that most people don't understand the Bible.

What I said stands: The Bible presents simple premises that any child can easily comprehend, such as: do not steal, do not murder, do not bear false witness, love your neighbor as yourself, love God, etc....

Sometimes things are hard to understand because they are nuanced and abstract,

No one said there aren't things in the Bible that are nuanced and abstract, and therefore hard to understand.

sometimes things are hard to understand because they do not make sense.

And you have yet to provide even one example from the Bible that is "hard to understand because it doesn't make sense." (which by the way, is almost tautological)
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Yes, it does.

They are the property of the Creator.

Why are living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination, beholden to the mechanics that created them?
There is no such thing. A computer doesn't know what a computer is. It doesn't "know." It's simply the movement of ones and zeros.
The human brain is a network of neurons that excite or inhibit each other. The mechanics of our biological computer do not erase our consciousness, identity or autonomy. The hypothetical you were given and that you refuse to deal with involves an electronic network that approaches the level of the human brain. Why not accept the scenario and respond?
Humans are FAR different (though not dissimilar) from computers. We are self-aware. We are more than just flesh and blood, we are body, soul, and spirit, two of those things are not physical.



You're in the realm of science fiction. Come back to reality, please.
Reality? You say this after offering a scenario where cutting off a baby's head eliminates all suffering? Ever wonder why religious fiction was never a phenomena like science fiction? Religion is fiction, a useful fiction that has helped humans have a sense of meaning and deny the harsh realities of death. Some people are far too knowledgeable to accept simplistic (and faux complex) notions. Why fight them and judge them? We are all trying to makes sense of our short journey. I have compassion for all. I like Christians who accept that their beliefs are based on faith and personal revelation more than those who pretend they have iron clad logic and evidence.

Thank you for your earnest responses.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Why are living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination, beholden to the mechanics that created them?

Those living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination were not made by "mechanics."

They were made by a Being who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving, Who imparted some of His qualities into them when He created them.

The human brain is a network of neurons that excite or inhibit each other. The mechanics of our biological computer do not erase our consciousness, identity or autonomy.

Our brain is not simply a network of neurons. It is an interface between that which is physical, one's body, with that which is not physical, one's soul/spirit.

The hypothetical you were given and that you refuse to deal with involves an electronic network that approaches the level of the human brain. Why not accept the scenario and respond?

I did. And I did again above.

I'll say it again: Our brains are the interface between one's body and one's soul/spirit.

A computer is just a bunch of physical parts (including the electrons that flow through them). There's nothing else there.

Think of it this way: You can transfer a heart from one person to the next (hopefully after the donor has died), and the person who receives it will still be the same person, just with a different heart.

But, assuming you had the technology and know-how to do so, if you were to transplant one person's brain into another body, the brain would still contain the "essence" of the first person, not the second.


Yes.

You say this after offering a scenario where cutting off a baby's head eliminates all suffering?

Again, it's a hypothetical to test your reasoning. Why are you so scared to answer it?

Ever wonder why religious fiction was never a phenomena like science fiction?

Not really.

Religion is fiction,

Most religions are.

Christianity is not.

a useful fiction that has helped humans have a sense of meaning and deny the harsh realities of death.

If God does not exist, then there is no meaning in anything, and thus, it is useless to ponder what the meaning would be.

Some people are far too knowledgeable to accept simplistic (and faux complex) notions.

Are you talking about yourself here?

Why fight them and judge them? We are all trying to makes sense of our short journey.

I can tell you why we exist. There's nothing mysterious about it.

We exist to have a relationship with God our Creator.

That's it. Why does it have to be more complex than that?

I have compassion for all.

That's nice. Too nice, if you ask me.

I like Christians who accept that their beliefs are based on faith and personal revelation

We call those flakes in my church.

Our beliefs are not based on blind faith, and they're not just from "personal revelation," whatever that's supposed to imply.

Our beliefs (Christians', that is) are to be based on sound reason, evidence.

more than those who pretend they have iron clad logic and evidence.

So, basically what you're saying is that you prefer flights of fancy over logic and evidence, because no one here is pretending to have something they don't.

Thank you for your earnest responses.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Banned
Those living self-aware beings fully capable of self-determination were not made by "mechanics."

They were made by a Being who is living, personal, relational, good, and loving, Who imparted some of His qualities into them when He created them.
The question is why would it be rational to expect creatures to take a servile and supplicatory stance toward their creator especially when the form of the creator's dictates can be proven speculative?
Our brain is not simply a network of neurons. It is an interface between that which is physical, one's body, with that which is not physical, one's soul/spirit.

I did. And I did again above.

I'll say it again: Our brains are the interface between one's body and one's soul/spirit.

A computer is just a bunch of physical parts (including the electrons that flow through them). There's nothing else there.

Think of it this way: You can transfer a heart from one person to the next (hopefully after the donor has died), and the person who receives it will still be the same person, just with a different heart.

But, assuming you had the technology and know-how to do so, if you were to transplant one person's brain into another body, the brain would still contain the "essence" of the first person, not the second.

If humans create a humanoid being, would we necessarily expect the humanoids to follow the dictates of the humans without question? If the humanoids did obey every whim of the humans, would you consider that a good thing? A goal accomplished? Would we expect constant praise?

My view is that such a power-over relationship would be a very bad thing. A cautious accumulation of knowledge and insight from experience is far preferable than blind acceptance of conditions with incomplete rationales.
Again, it's a hypothetical to test your reasoning. Why are you so scared to answer it?
Again, you don't get the irony here?
If God does not exist, then there is no meaning in anything, and thus, it is useless to ponder what the meaning would be.
A wild claim. Quite sad to realize you view the human mind so weak.
That's nice. Too nice, if you ask me.
In contrast to many Christians, why do conservative Christians come off as incapable of empathy, sadistic, and nearly psychopathic?
So, basically what you're saying is that you prefer flights of fancy over logic and evidence, because no one here is pretending to have something they don't.
I despise people who pretend to be humble but enjoy their narcissism via a thin veneer of piety.
 
Top