Atheist Vs. Conscience

estebancambias

Hivemind I despise your hatred of religous beliefs, but damn that was a good post. If Boards did star ratings, that post would probably be the highest star rating in the world.

JCB

Dades wrote: »

Your original post asked "where does your sense of conscience or morality come from?" ....
So unless you put forward what you think is the correct source of morality, I can't see how you can suggest that the "secular" system is failing us.

Not sure I was ever suggesting a 'secular' system is failing us, as you put it, but I query whether an 'atheist' system (derived from atheist conscience) can look beyond the self? Sorry if i've hit a sore point here, but I would honestly like to hear alternative views on this.

pH wrote:

Now are you saying that there's absolutely no way that someone reading the bible could come the the conclusion that 'God hates fags'? The bible totally supports a homosexual lifestyle and anyone who reads the bible and comes to an opposite conclusion is delusional completely misreading the text?

Your questions highlight the difference between the person and the lifestyle. All people live to some degree sinful lifestyles, but yet Jesus loves us all.
So.... I don't think a child should be raised surrounded by what has been considered by the Bible as a sinful lifestyle.

pH wrote:

Because if you raise a child with a Christian mother and father, absolutely nothing can go wrong?

:rolleyes:Again I never claimed this, but there is a difference between raising a child in what is considered to be always a sinful lifestyle vs. potentially not a sinful lifestyle.

pH wrote:

It's good that your true colours are starting to show....
Your "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" objection is a pathetic position most likely because you feel somewhat guilty about your irrational homophobia and have used this 'issue' to rationalise your bigotry in your own mind. Pathetic.

Oh dear....

Hivemind wrote:

From a cursory reading of this thread I think Dades has hit the nail on the head. This was a set up by someone with a clear agenda and prepared answers to the questions he posed.

Notice how their is no question available for the scientific principals of reciprocal altruism (insofar as it is a testable hypothesis).

So I was not allowed to have views on the topic before I posted this thread? Of course I had a stance on them, which I felt to some extent were confirmed, but I honestly apologise if you felt the poll was skewed because of this.

I really don't get this 'prepared answers' nonsense.

If i had ever even heard of 'reciprocal altruism' before this post, I dont see why I shouldn't have included it. (my ignorance is showing ) I did include an other option, so why didn't you bother voting for it?

Hivemind wrote:

The reason is that morals, for the most part, are based on emotional reactions.

Interesting post overall, but I wish you good luck finding people devoid of emotional reactions.

Hivemind wrote:

most human beings share a similar revulsion towards murder, rape etc when not under the influence of external factors such as religion, politics or any other hysteria inducing things (drugs, alcohol etc).

Not meaning to be trite but how can you be certain of this? Where has this revulsion come from? If someone was raised by animals who's to say that they would consider any of these things to be wrong.
Much of the world (especially the western world) has been influenced by morals derived by Judo-Christian teaching (i.e. that murder is wrong etc...) that people (even atheists) can take this as being just society, family etc

Who's to say that without religion or politics for thousands of years that we would be different to say the world of lions who wouldn't hold such views.

Hivemind wrote:

Homosexuality.
Racism.
Liberalism.
Abortion.
Drinking.
Substance abuse.
Being an athiest.

In each of these cases the cry of "morality" has been heard to bellow. Yet each and every one of them, when emotion is removed from the equation, becomes acceptable.

Again who's to say that perhaps the terrible crime of rape isn't acceptable when emotion is removed, some could claim that 'it's only sex'.

Please tell me I have totally misinterpreted what you have said, because I really don't get your point.

pH

JCB wrote:

Your questions highlight the difference between the person and the lifestyle. All people live to some degree sinful lifestyles, but yet Jesus loves us all.
So.... I don't think a child should be raised surrounded by what has been considered by the Bible as a sinful lifestyle.

So if Jesus loves both the homosexual partners and forgives them, what exactly is the problem with them bringing up children?

Again I never claimed this, but there is a difference between raising a child in what is considered to be always a sinful lifestyle vs. potentially not a sinful lifestyle.

So? No one is forcing you to bring up children in a 'sinful lifestyle'. Are you saying that gay marriage should be forbidden to all Christians because it's incompatible with their faith in a gay-hating god?

Even if you forbid it for all Christians, I still don't see what this has to do with a non Christian gay couple living in this state? You think they should obey your God's rules? Even if they don't believe in that God and don't subscribe to his rules?

What would you say to a Muslim who said that their God forbids the eating of pork, and no children should be raised in sinful houses where pork is eaten? You really think that we all should be allowed enforce our religious morales on each other? or perhaps you just believe that seeing as your rules are obviously the right ones they're the ones everyone should follow whether they believe in your god or not?

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

Again who's to say that perhaps the terrible crime of rape isn't acceptable when emotion is removed, some could claim that 'it's only sex'.

Good point, in fact there is plenty of raping in the Bible which is condoned, for example Moses demanding his soldiers rape the women of the Midianites, then we have in Deuteronomy:

But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

and

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Of course not forgetting when Lot offered his daughters to the men of Sodom so they could rape them.

So the Bible condones rape, in fact God gives the victors the women of the defeated just so they can rape them. But should the victim not be a gift from God she is forced to marry her rapist.

Hivemind187

JCB wrote: »

So I was not allowed to have views on the topic before I posted this thread? Of course I had a stance on them, which I felt to some extent were confirmed, but I honestly apologise if you felt the poll was skewed because of this.

I really don't get this 'prepared answers' nonsense.

If i had ever even heard of 'reciprocal altruism' before this post, I dont see why I shouldn't have included it. (my ignorance is showing ) I did include an other option, so why didn't you bother voting for it?

Interesting post overall, but I wish you good luck finding people devoid of emotional reactions.

Not meaning to be trite but how can you be certain of this? Where has this revulsion come from? If someone was raised by animals who's to say that they would consider any of these things to be wrong.
Much of the world (especially the western world) has been influenced by morals derived by Judo-Christian teaching (i.e. that murder is wrong etc...) that people (even atheists) can take this as being just society, family etc

Who's to say that without religion or politics for thousands of years that we would be different to say the world of lions who wouldn't hold such views.


Again who's to say that perhaps the terrible crime of rape isn't acceptable when emotion is removed, some could claim that 'it's only sex'.

Please tell me I have totally misinterpreted what you have said, because I really don't get your point.

No, not misinterpreted, that would imply lack in intent.

You had a stance on them and asked the questions in such a way as to get the responses you wanted and could argue against by means of preparation (stock answers from another source I suspect but then I'm a cynic).

Regarding the issue of revulsion towards particular crimes such as rape etc these are evolutionary imperatives for the most part. Its called reciprocal altruism by most people. Its a complicated conocept when you are trying to approach it from the position you have shown you are coming from (that we get morals from god/bible/bubblling caudrons etc) The basic concept is that you do someone a good turn and expect that they will do the same for you.

You can find people devoid of emotional reactions in a lot of places. They are called sociopaths, psychopaths and in some rare cases, special forces.

A quick couple of points.

1) I dont know what a "Judo-Christian" is other than one who wrestles with his theology everyday.

2) Comparing human beings to lions is a little peculiar a choice for a christian isnt it?

3) If you think rape is just about sex then you might want to do a bit more reading. Rape is a crime of power. The act of rape is not so much about the sex as it is about demeaning, subjugating and being dominant over another person.

4) My point, to help you with your confusion, is that morals are a humanised concept that attempts to give intellectual credence to emotional reactions. Like racism, which for most of those who are racists is an emotional reaction of fear and confusion, it is justified by quasi intellectual arguments about morality (notably that the object of the racial abuse is in someway morally corrupt or inferior to your own stock) or through pseudo science. It is the justification of emotional content where we derive "morality".

JCB

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

So the Bible condones rape, in fact God gives the victors the women of the defeated just so they can rape them. But should the victim not be a gift from God she is forced to marry her rapist.

Wow! You will have to remind me again why Christianity does not promote rape.

pH wrote:

So if Jesus loves both the homosexual partners and forgives them, what exactly is the problem with them bringing up children?

Because, as with any sin, it takes Jesus' love and forgiveness for granted, which Christians believe is wrong.

pH wrote:

So? No one is forcing you to bring up children in a 'sinful lifestyle'. Are you saying that gay marriage should be forbidden to all Christians because it's incompatible with their faith in a gay-hating god?

Even if you forbid it for all Christians, I still don't see what this has to do with a non Christian gay couple living in this state? You think they should obey your God's rules? Even if they don't believe in that God and don't subscribe to his rules?

What would you say to a Muslim who said that their God forbids the eating of pork, and no children should be raised in sinful houses where pork is eaten? You really think that we all should be allowed enforce our religious morales on each other? or perhaps you just believe that seeing as your rules are obviously the right ones they're the ones everyone should follow whether they believe in your god or not?

Lots of questions there, I guess it comes down to whether people should follow any rules that they think are wrong.
Look at any referendum, a referendum on abortion for example. If the majority in a country believe that abortion is wrong and hence it is deemed illegal, does that mean you should ignore this and have an abortion anyway?

I can only influence public policy based on my vote. I will not vote for a proposal to legalise something I view as sinful, since that would be condoning it. And hence if many people in a country share the same view then voila, something isn't accepted.

Hivemind wrote:

3) If you think rape is just about sex then you might want to do a bit more reading. Rape is a crime of power. The act of rape is not so much about the sex as it is about demeaning, subjugating and being dominant over another person.

Thanks, I now have some idea of your stance, but really you pretty much said that murder/rape/theft/abuse will be considered immoral by most even when 'emotion is removed from the equation'.

Obviously, I do think that rape is more than sex (really, do you read my posts at all? I did mention the word 'some people', why does that make it my view?)

Yet all the things you mentioned about demeaning, dominance etc.. which make rape AWFUL, all come from emotions. So what are you talking about? Without emotion, what makes these crimes so terrible?

I am questioning that when you remove emotion from the equation then what makes us any different to wild animals?

You seem to claim 'evolutionary imperatives' which results in a 'you do someone a good turn and expect that they will do the same for you' philosophy. In other words you are talking about incentive.

This is all well and good, but that seems to imply that there must be a framework for this to act on, which I think comes from a society influenced by Jewish come Christian morals in the Western world (did I really have to spell this out for you?) and other religions elsewhere.

Why didn't these 'evolutionary imperitaves' affect the wild animals that would have no problems with murder etc... for survival?

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

Wow! You will have to remind me again why Christianity does not promote rape.

This is a classical Christian tactic that happens time again and again, they are always more than happy to accept the teachings of the Old Testament when it comes to issues like homosexuality, abortion etc (because Jesus provides them with very little ammunition to fight with on these issues) but as soon as they are made to defend the aspects of the Old Testament that are obviously f*cked up the typical response is "I'm a Christian, show me where Jesus said we have to do that" knowing that it can't be done because Jesus doesn't say very much about anything.

It is perhaps one of the most infuriating aspects of debate with a Christian and when I try to discuss the nasty aspects of their Bible with believers I can nearly pre-empt when and how they will play their trump card. Either get rid of the horrible Old Testament altogether or else be willing to defend all of its teachings, just cherry picking the nice stuff means nothing.

Hivemind187

JCB wrote: »

Thanks, I now have some idea of your stance, but really you pretty much said that murder/rape/theft/abuse will be considered immoral by most even when 'emotion is removed from the equation'.

Obviously, I do think that rape is more than sex (really, do you read my posts at all? I did mention the word 'some people', why does that make it my view?)

Yet all the things you mentioned about demeaning, dominance etc.. which make rape AWFUL, all come from emotions. So what are you talking about? Without emotion, what makes these crimes so terrible?

I am questioning that when you remove emotion from the equation then what makes us any different to wild animals?

You seem to claim 'evolutionary imperatives' which results in a 'you do someone a good turn and expect that they will do the same for you' philosophy. In other words you are talking about incentive.

This is all well and good, but that seems to imply that there must be a framework for this to act on, which I think comes from a society influenced by Jewish come Christian morals in the Western world (did I really have to spell this out for you?) and other religions elsewhere.

Why didn't these 'evolutionary imperitaves' affect the wild animals that would have no problems with murder etc... for survival?

Oh boy, where to start with this.

My argument is that morals are an emotional reaction, not that crimes are devoid of emotion. Where you got that from is a little confusing.

Let me explain this once again for you becausse you have a very bad habit of picking and choosing the bits you want to argue with, its called strawman argument or al-a-carte debating.

Morals are the intellectualisation of emtional reactions. Emotional reactions are not rational and therefore are subject to flaw. As a result they should be viewed with extreme scrutiny to ensure that they make any sense at all.

I might have made an error when I allowed emotion (see how easy it is?) to overcome the point of what I was getting at. Humans have an aversion to certain acts that they would perpetrate against other humans (and indeed some extend this EMOTIONAL state to animals).

Murder.
Rape.
Theft.

These are the basic ones. Contrary to your assertion that these aversions are not seen in animals I can say with certainty that they are. Primates from small monkeys to chimps to gorillas have a sense of justice. If you steal from them or cheat them they will become offended. If you are hungry they are unlikely to steal from you, rather they are likely to offer you some of their food - they are not aware that they are doing this because their instincts have been honed in this fashion by evolution but it is the implication that you would reciprocate if the roles were reversed that is the incentive.

It can be seen in a certain species of cave-bat. They often share the blood that they have collected while feeding in the night. A bat that does not share is remembered by the others and ostracised, literally cut off from getting blood for the others when it has failed to feed enough.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism etc are all human constructs of ritual. Not a single one of them is responsible for the "morality" (or emotional tendencies) inherent to human beings and other life forms. These things existed LONG before the 2000 year birth of christianity, the 4000 years of Judaism, the 5-6000 years of Hinduism and even before the Polytheistic nations of Babylon, Sumeria and other proto-civilisations.

The problem is that people confuse "murder" with "killing". There is a difference. In war you dont "murder" you "kill" and there is something in the psychology of people that allows them to do this when necessary. cultures that habitually murdered people tended to make sure those people were from other tribes (the stories of children sacrificed to Baal are likely early propaganda or not the children of the culture doing it).

Why you would assume that their is a framework within which all of these things happen is beyond me. Surely you can see that the framework is a human construct that allows you to comprehend something but is ultimately meaningless and irrelevant? Surely you can understand that the moral imperatives of Christianity and Judaism are too similar to those of the other cultures to have occured in a vacuum?

I will state this again, morals are the intellectual agrandisment of emotional reactions. They are meaningless.

The aversions we feel towards murder, rape and theft are not "morals" they are evolution.

The moral gibberish of homophobic rhetoric found in the bible (Leviticus "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, this is detestable") or for the strange and unusual ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") or any one of the plethora other moral rules given by the bible - all bunkum. All based on the irrational emotions of ancient men given the dressings of legitimacy.

JCB

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This is a classical Christian tactic that happens time again and again, they are always more than happy to accept the teachings of the Old Testament when it comes to issues like homosexuality, abortion etc (because Jesus provides them with very little ammunition to fight with on these issues) but as soon as they are made to defend the aspects of the Old Testament that are obviously f*cked up the typical response is "I'm a Christian, show me where Jesus said we have to do that" knowing that it can't be done because Jesus doesn't say very much about anything.

It is perhaps one of the most infuriating aspects of debate with a Christian and when I try to discuss the nasty aspects of their Bible with believers I can nearly pre-empt when and how they will play their trump card. Either get rid of the horrible Old Testament altogether or else be willing to defend all of its teachings, just cherry picking the nice stuff means nothing.

I am sorry you find it so infuriating to discuss Jesus with me.

If I followed the Old Testament, to the exclusion of the New Testament I would be a Jew.

Please tell me, out of curiousity do Jews promote rape too? Or could it be that you are selectively manipulating scripture for your own means?

Hivemind187

JCB wrote: »

Please tell me, out of curiousity do Jews promote rape too? Or could it be that you are selectively manipulating scripture for your own means?

Selectively manipulating scripture ... ok, "Pot? This is Mr. Kettle ... please try not to bring up apartheid"

JCB

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Oh boy, where to start with this.

My argument is that morals are an emotional reaction, not that crimes are devoid of emotion. Where you got that from is a little confusing.

Let me explain this once again for you becausse you have a very bad habit of picking and choosing the bits you want to argue with, its called strawman argument or al-a-carte debating.

Morals are the intellectualisation of emtional reactions. Emotional reactions are not rational and therefore are subject to flaw. As a result they should be viewed with extreme scrutiny to ensure that they make any sense at all.

I might have made an error when I allowed emotion (see how easy it is?) to overcome the point of what I was getting at. Humans have an aversion to certain acts that they would perpetrate against other humans (and indeed some extend this EMOTIONAL state to animals).

Murder.
Rape.
Theft.

These are the basic ones. Contrary to your assertion that these aversions are not seen in animals I can say with certainty that they are. Primates from small monkeys to chimps to gorillas have a sense of justice. If you steal from them or cheat them they will become offended. If you are hungry they are unlikely to steal from you, rather they are likely to offer you some of their food - they are not aware that they are doing this because their instincts have been honed in this fashion by evolution but it is the implication that you would reciprocate if the roles were reversed that is the incentive.

It can be seen in a certain species of cave-bat. They often share the blood that they have collected while feeding in the night. A bat that does not share is remembered by the others and ostracised, literally cut off from getting blood for the others when it has failed to feed enough.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism etc are all human constructs of ritual. Not a single one of them is responsible for the "morality" (or emotional tendencies) inherent to human beings and other life forms. These things existed LONG before the 2000 year birth of christianity, the 4000 years of Judaism, the 5-6000 years of Hinduism and even before the Polytheistic nations of Babylon, Sumeria and other proto-civilisations.

The problem is that people confuse "murder" with "killing". There is a difference. In war you dont "murder" you "kill" and there is something in the psychology of people that allows them to do this when necessary. cultures that habitually murdered people tended to make sure those people were from other tribes (the stories of children sacrificed to Baal are likely early propaganda or not the children of the culture doing it).

Why you would assume that their is a framework within which all of these things happen is beyond me. Surely you can see that the framework is a human construct that allows you to comprehend something but is ultimately meaningless and irrelevant? Surely you can understand that the moral imperatives of Christianity and Judaism are too similar to those of the other cultures to have occured in a vacuum?

I will state this again, morals are the intellectual agrandisment of emotional reactions. They are meaningless.

The aversions we feel towards murder, rape and theft are not "morals" they are evolution.

The moral gibberish of homophobic rhetoric found in the bible (Leviticus "thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, this is detestable") or for the strange and unusual ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") or any one of the plethora other moral rules given by the bible - all bunkum. All based on the irrational emotions of ancient men given the dressings of legitimacy.

Well at least what you said there made sense anyway, moreso than your original post, no 'emotion' getting in the way that time:D I wish I had more time now to discuss your points.

But, If that's what you actually believe, good for you!

Just wondering, what's your explaination that the caring bat thing only applies to certain species of bat, why not all of them?

Also, do you have any link to the bat thing, just out of interest.

pH

JCB wrote: »

Because, as with any sin, it takes Jesus' love and forgiveness for granted, which Christians believe is wrong.

Still Jesus will love the homosexuals and forgive them even for that, I still fail to see the problem. Even if God won't, what's that to do with you? That's between God and them, how does it affect you in the slightest? Let me guess, you think that your preventing them getting married is an act of kindness to them? Cruel to be kind type of thing? You know what's right, *they* might want to get married but *you're* not going to let them 'for their own good and the sake of their eternal souls'?

Lots of questions there, I guess it comes down to whether people should follow any rules that they think are wrong.
Look at any referendum, a referendum on abortion for example. If the majority in a country believe that abortion is wrong and hence it is deemed illegal, does that mean you should ignore this and have an abortion anyway?

I can only influence public policy based on my vote. I will not vote for a proposal to legalise something I view as sinful, since that would be condoning it. And hence if many people in a country share the same view then voila, something isn't accepted.

So this has really nothing to do with God's laws, merely what the majority want? Racism, rape, murder, slavery? As long as 51% of people agree the other 49% go jump? Anything that 51% agree on can be inflicted on the the other 49%?

If 10 people get together they can dictate what one person does? Can 100? Why are the the 4m people in this state the perfect size to decide what the majority 'want'? Why not add the population of the island next door? Does the fact that we're on a contiguous piece of land matter? A majority of the population of Europe may accept gay marriage, what do you do then?

Your jump to this concept of 'majority' was predictable, so to pre-empt your next one remember here that a gay marriage has no effect on other people except for its 2 willing participants. Unlike theft, rape and murder, no other citizen suffers when 2 people of the same sex get married* - and attempting to equate them would be a stupid move.

• You believe Gay marriage is wrong - fine don't marry someone of the same sex - no one is forcing you to
• You believe that God will chuck them in hell for all eternity when they die - fine that's between God and them - you didn't marry a man - you're in the clear - heaven awaits you.
• Majorities everywhere have tried to impose their morales, views and policies on minorities for years - so what? Are you implying that say that Apartheid was wrong only because the whites were in the minority? That morale decisions are right or wrong by weight of numbers? If the majority of people in National Socialist Germany were anti-Semites was then the holocaust right? If the majority of people in a Muslim country believe that apostasy is punishable by death then you see no problem executing apostates and Christian converts?

And like I said before abortion is a terrible example, it will descend quickly into a pro-life/pro-choice debate and go nowhere.

* this may be a trap - come on tell me about the children again

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

I am sorry you find it so infuriating to discuss Jesus with me.

If I followed the Old Testament, to the exclusion of the New Testament I would be a Jew.

Please tell me, out of curiousity do Jews promote rape too? Or could it be that you are selectively manipulating scripture for your own means?

Its nothing personal, it is just the same argument I have heard over and over again which I feel cannot be justified.

In your other thread you mentioned that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. Correct me if I'm wrong but that comes from the Old Testament, Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. Why are you happy to accept the Jewish teachings in this regard?

You are right that the Jewish religion no longer promotes rape (I certainly used to), this being an example of the cherry picking tactic I mentioned earlier which is not exclusively a Christian phenomenon.

Hivemind187

JCB wrote: »

Well at least what you said there made sense anyway, moreso than your original post, no 'emotion' getting in the way that time:D I wish I had more time now to discuss your points.

But, If that's what you actually believe, good for you!

Just wondering, what's your explaination that the caring bat thing only applies to certain species of bat, why not all of them?

Also, do you have any link to the bat thing, just out of interest.

I havent got a link no. I'll check with a friend of mine if I remember to. He's a big bat-guy.

And just for the record, you are doing it again. Making straw man arguments but this time you used weasel words.

You arent asking "why is only that group of bats" you are saying "Its only one group of bats, its an abberation". However you are getting confused here.

The bats are an example of a group behaviour stemming from such altrusitic evolutions. It is not the "proof" as Christians are so fond of demanding.

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

Also, do you have any link to the bat thing, just out of interest.

Reciprocal altruism in vampire bats

Dades

Other source ~ please explain

I think, JCB, what you're really asking is, if there were no religions ever, would we have any morality?

We remember that man invented religion (or in your view, all religions but one) - so consequently man invented the morality contained therein. Hence any morality contained in religion came from man himself. The fact that this morality was written down by men as the words of an imaginary deity, does not change the fact that it originated in the brains of men.

Zombrex

JCB wrote: »

So I ask, as atheists where does your sense of conscience or morality come from? I.e. How do you tell what is 'right' from what is 'wrong'?

Human morality is based on our evolutionary development, coupled with our higher reasoning and logic that can turn emotional markers from evolution, such as feeling bad because you hurt someone, into more formal moral/ethical/legal rulings "it is illegal to steal belongings from someone"

JCB wrote: »

I have provided a poll with some possible choices.

As has been pointed out your options are rather nonsensical to the question at hand, so I didn't do the poll.

JCB wrote: »

Also, I'm just wondering how these sources influence your opinion with say two issues
(i) Abortion
(ii) Gay Marriage

I'm not quite sure what you are asking? They greatly influence my opinion on those two issues.

Are you asking why I believe what I believe about both of those issues?

Hivemind187

By the way JCB,

You know my stance on abortion.

My stance on gay marriage is "if you dont llike gay marriage dont marry a gay".

In all seriousness, its a private affair between two people who are not harming or infringing on you in any way. Your little comment that the two things are mutually exclusive shows an alarming naiivete on your part - at last I hope so. the alternative is most disturbing.

JCB

pH wrote: »

Still Jesus will love the homosexuals and forgive them even for that, I still fail to see the problem. Even if God won't, what's that to do with you? That's between God and them, how does it affect you in the slightest?

I don't believe I ever claimed it would effect me. The question is whether I would vote to endorse something I believe to be morally wrong.

pH wrote:

Let me guess, you think that your preventing them getting married is an act of kindness to them? Cruel to be kind type of thing? You know what's right, *they* might want to get married but *you're* not going to let them 'for their own good and the sake of their eternal souls'?

I wish I cared that much tbh

pH wrote:

So this has really nothing to do with God's laws, merely what the majority want? Racism, rape, murder, slavery? As long as 51% of people agree the other 49% go jump? Anything that 51% agree on can be inflicted on the the other 49%?
....
A majority of the population of Europe may accept gay marriage, what do you do then?

Well nothing obviously. My conscience is clear once I do not vote for something I believe is morally wrong. I am not in a position to do anything else.
I have already explained why I believe it's wrong, so all you're doing is going around is circles.

Ph wrote:

Your jump to this concept of 'majority' was predictable, so to pre-empt your next one remember here that a gay marriage has no effect on other people except for its 2 willing participants. Unlike theft, rape and murder, no other citizen suffers when 2 people of the same sex get married* - and attempting to equate them would be a stupid move.* this may be a trap - come on tell me about the children again

:rolleyes:

JCB

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Reciprocal altruism in vampire bats

Cheers for that! - it's really interesting.

I would be really grateful if you could find a link about Jews promoting rape until recently, because I tried and found nothing about it?

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

Cheers for that! - it's really interesting.

I would be really grateful if you could find a link about Jews promoting rape until recently, because I tried and found nothing about it?

Numbers 31:7-18 NLT

" They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Straight from the horses mouth. Last time I checked Moses was a Jew (a pretty important one at that) and he is not only condoning, but actively encouraging, rape.

pH

JCB wrote: »

I don't believe I ever claimed it would effect me. The question is whether I would vote to endorse something I believe to be morally wrong.

So for some group of people to have rights, you would be forced to vote 'for' it? That is the most pathetic and stupid excuse for discrimination I've ever heard.

When 51% of this country don't believe in god, you'd happily accept the complete suspension of all religious worship in the state on that basis?

Obviously these non-believers couldn't endorse something they believed to be wrong, and religious people being able to worship would have to be something that was voted on. The fact that going to church on a Sunday seems to only affect those who want to go, by your twisted reasoning another (larger) group of people disapproving of it should be enough to have it prohibited.

I'm just glad your brand of religiously inspired intolerance is dying out, and much as I think the lot of you are petty sex-obsessed hypocrites I see no reason why theists can't worship their gods in ways that don't affect the rest of us. Whether you'll enjoy it quite as much when you can no longer inflict your morality on others is another question.

JCB

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Oh boy, where to start with this.

Yeah, now you know how I felt.

My argument is that morals are an emotional reaction, not that crimes are devoid of emotion. Where you got that from is a little confusing.

The point is that you said that people could distinguish crimes such rape/murder from crimes such as racism, when 'emotion is left out of the equation'. This I had a problem with.

Let me explain this once again for you becausse you have a very bad habit of picking and choosing the bits you want to argue with, its called strawman argument or al-a-carte debating.

Ha.

Morals are the intellectualisation of emtional reactions. Emotional reactions are not rational and therefore are subject to flaw. As a result they should be viewed with extreme scrutiny to ensure that they make any sense at all.

This scrutiny should also be applied to some of your opinions.

I might have made an error when I allowed emotion (see how easy it is?) to overcome the point of what I was getting at.

Yeah I agree

Humans have an aversion to certain acts that they would perpetrate against other humans (and indeed some extend this EMOTIONAL state to animals).

Murder.
Rape.
Theft.

These are the basic ones. Contrary to your assertion that these aversions are not seen in animals I can say with certainty that they are. Primates from small monkeys to chimps to gorillas have a sense of justice. If you steal from them or cheat them they will become offended. If you are hungry they are unlikely to steal from you, rather they are likely to offer you some of their food - they are not aware that they are doing this because their instincts have been honed in this fashion by evolution but it is the implication that you would reciprocate if the roles were reversed that is the incentive.

It can be seen in a certain species of cave-bat. They often share the blood that they have collected while feeding in the night. A bat that does not share is remembered by the others and ostracised, literally cut off from getting blood for the others when it has failed to feed enough.

You arent asking "why is only that group of bats" you are saying "Its only one group of bats, its an abberation". However you are getting confused here.

The bats are an example of a group behaviour stemming from such altrusitic evolutions. It is not the "proof" as Christians are so fond of demanding.

I lol'd.
but really are you suggesting that you don't have 'proof' of this altrusitic evolutions for humans thing? Then why so dogmatic?

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism etc are all human constructs of ritual. Not a single one of them is responsible for the "morality" (or emotional tendencies) inherent to human beings and other life forms. These things existed LONG before the 2000 year birth of christianity, the 4000 years of Judaism, the 5-6000 years of Hinduism and even before the Polytheistic nations of Babylon, Sumeria and other proto-civilisations.

Dades wrote:

I think, JCB, what you're really asking is, if there were no religions ever, would we have any morality?

We remember that man invented religion (or in your view, all religions but one) - so consequently man invented the morality contained therein. Hence any morality contained in religion came from man himself. The fact that this morality was written down by men as the words of an imaginary deity, does not change the fact that it originated in the brains of men.

Now obviously I wouldn't agree with that, nor do I think that man invented religion.

Why you would assume that their is a framework within which all of these things happen is beyond me. Surely you can see that the framework is a human construct that allows you to comprehend something but is ultimately meaningless and irrelevant? Surely you can understand that the moral imperatives of Christianity and Judaism are too similar to those of the other cultures to have occured in a vacuum?

It's funny I don't they occured in a vacuum, but then again I don't think that communication from God to anyone be they any of the religions you mentioned is in fact wrong. Sure, I may think certain misinterpretations may be wrong, but generally people have interpreted the basics right, hence the similarities you mentioned.

I will state this again, morals are the intellectual agrandisment of emotional reactions. They are meaningless.

The aversions we feel towards murder, rape and theft are not "morals" they are evolution.

Again if that's what you think, then good for you! but I suggest you refrain from using phrases like 'pius, beatifically smirking twats' such as in your other thread, because really, it only reflects more on you.

JCB

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Numbers 31:7-18 NLT

" They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Straight from the horses mouth. Last time I checked Moses was a Jew (a pretty important one at that) and he is not only condoning, but actively encouraging, rape.

Okay?

So you have no link to support your view that Jews actively encouraged rape until recently?

Could it be possible that they don't interpret that passage the way you do?

JCB

pH wrote: »

So for some group of people to have rights, you would be forced to vote 'for' it? That is the most pathetic and stupid excuse for discrimination I've ever heard.

When 51% of this country don't believe in god, you'd happily accept the complete suspension of all religious worship in the state on that basis?

Obviously these non-believers couldn't endorse something they believed to be wrong, and religious people being able to worship would have to be something that was voted on. The fact that going to church on a Sunday seems to only affect those who want to go, by your twisted reasoning another (larger) group of people disapproving of it should be enough to have it prohibited.

I'm just glad your brand of religiously inspired intolerance is dying out, and much as I think the lot of you are petty sex-obsessed hypocrites I see no reason why theists can't worship their gods in ways that don't affect the rest of us. Whether you'll enjoy it quite as much when you can no longer inflict your morality on others is another question.

Wow you really only see what you want to read don't you.

Ph wrote:

So for some group of people to have rights, you would be forced to vote 'for' it? That is the most pathetic and stupid excuse for discrimination I've ever heard.

I never said anything remotely like this.

pH wrote:

When 51% of this country don't believe in god, you'd happily accept the complete suspension of all religious worship in the state on that basis?

Again I never said anything that even remotely implied this.

pH wrote:

Obviously these non-believers couldn't endorse something they believed to be wrong, and religious people being able to worship would have to be something that was voted on. The fact that going to church on a Sunday seems to only affect those who want to go, by your twisted reasoning another (larger) group of people disapproving of it should be enough to have it prohibited.

Why would religious people being able to worship be considered wrong?
And no, it's not saying the same thing as saying gay couples being able to get married is wrong - it's the involvement of children I have a problem with - because such an environment has an effect on them.

Out of curiousity, do you have a problem with children being baptised in a religion or 'indoctrinated' as some have called it? Do you think it affects the child?

I'm just glad your brand of religiously inspired intolerance is dying out, and much as I think the lot of you are petty sex-obsessed hypocrites I see no reason why theists can't worship their gods in ways that don't affect the rest of us. Whether you'll enjoy it quite as much when you can no longer inflict your morality on others is another question

Ok?

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

Okay?

So you have no link to support your view that Jews actively encouraged rape until recently?

Could it be possible that they don't interpret that passage the way you do?

Firstly never did I say that "until recently" Judaism supported rape. Secondly the passage I gave you doesn't need interpretation. It is not some vague moral teaching, it is an event which really happened under the direct orders of Moses, a hero to the Jews and Christians (assuming you believe the Bible to be true). What in that needs interpretation? Do you think Moses really meant was that the soldiers shouldn't rape the women whose families had just been slaughtered, but instead should be perfect gentlemen and try to fairly win over their hearts by taking them out on long walks along the beach and candle-lit dinners and if something happens then brilliant?

If the Bible really is a historically true and reliable document then moderate people of today would have Moses brought to The Hague in chains as a war criminal, and anyone who worshipped him as a good and moral man would have alot of explaining to do.

JCB

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Firstly never did I say that "until recently" Judaism supported rape. Secondly the passage I gave you doesn't need interpretation. It is not some vague moral teaching, it is an event which really happened under the direct orders of Moses, a hero to the Jews and Christians (assuming you believe the Bible to be true). What in that needs interpretation? Do you think Moses really meant was that the soldiers shouldn't rape the women whose families had just been slaughtered, but instead should be perfect gentlemen and try to fairly win over their hearts by taking them out on long walks along the beach and candle-lit dinners and if something happens then brilliant?

If the Bible really is a historically true and reliable document then moderate people of today would have Moses brought to The Hague in chains as a war criminal, and anyone who worshipped him as a good and moral man would have alot of explaining to do.

Sorry you're right I ment 'no longer' instread of 'until recently'

Well I'm still asking what changed their mind?

Zombrex

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

and anyone who worshipped him as a good and moral man would have alot of explaining to do.

And it is certainly a reason to be very careful around someone who claims they get their morals from the Bible, or their God. A moral system that recommends the rape and slavery of enemies of the religion is not a moral system that I see merit in.

pH

JCB wrote: »

Again I never said anything that even remotely implied this.

yes you did:
=>gay people getting married (no effect on me at all)
=> I don't agree with it
=> therefore shouldn't be allowed

So either you believe.
A) your morales are superior to everyone else's and everyone should follow them (I don't know why, maybe 'just because')
or
Everyone has the right to force other people to live by their morals.

which?

Why would religious people being able to worship be considered wrong?

I don't know, why would two homosexuals getting married be wrong? Maybe I have a book where it says it is? Maybe I think it rots their brains, maybe I'm against excessive wear on the knees of suits? Maybe I'm just an intolerant asshole, who knows?

And no, it's not saying the same thing as saying gay couples being able to get married is wrong - it's the involvement of children I have a problem with - because such an environment has an effect on them.

Oh dear, back to THINK OF TEH CHILDREN!!!

Let's say a mother dies, should we have a law to take the children off a man who's trying to bring them up alone? What about if the father died, should we take kids from single mothers?

If not, if you're happy with one man or one woman raising children as best they can, what possible objection could you have to there being an additional person of the same sex in the household?

Out of curiousity, do you have a problem with children being baptised in a religion or 'indoctrinated' as some have called it? Do you think it affects the child?

I don't, but you could yet convince me otherwise, carry on.

Pompey Magnus

Personal Experience

JCB wrote: »

Sorry you're right I ment 'no longer' instread of 'until recently'

Well I'm still asking what changed their mind?

The very same thing that changed Christian minds that its not right to kill heretics, destroy priceless works of art and literature by pagans, burn women at the stake for being witches, keep slaves or imprison scientist who disagree with Church teachings. Society changes and human morality constantly evolves. It was not finalised in Bronze age Judea. Humanity did not reach its moral peak then and there and we should stick by it. That is the problem with the Bible, it doesn't change. It is becoming increasingly stagnant as more and more of it is recognised as immoral and it holds back the morality of those who believe in it. It is like a weight around their neck. The believers attempt to hold back the tide by making excuses such as "God didn't really mean that" or "Jesus changed all that", but at the end of the day those are just excuses, and weak ones at that. They are happy enough to accept the Bible as the word of God when it suits them, and dismiss the bits that don't suit as misinterpretations.