News:

In case of downtime/other tech emergencies, you can relatively quickly get in touch with Asmodean Prime by email.

Main Menu

Started by fundie, August 19, 2006, 05:57:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

fundie

Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"Does a constitution necessarily make a country's policies right? Absolutely not. But it is the guiding text of a nation. There are things in it I do not agree with just as apparently there are things that you do not agree with.... but in effect, what you just said is its okay for you to break our laws of men because you believe in a more divine law.

And yes, if I were in another country I would respect thier doctrines for that is how THEY wish for THIER country to opperate. I won't be the one to cock it up.

You have the right under our constitution to uphold your anarchist ideals, but don't for a second think that God gave you that right.

And does it follow from that, that if you were in, say, a muslim country, you would keep your women wrapped up in burkhas, and stop schoolgirls from getting an education?

Would you REALLY follow that country's constitution, knowing what you know about so-called american freedom, and the right to personal happiness, etc?

Fourth Iteration

#1
If I was a citizen and not already blinded by propoganda or fear, then a transfer to a better place would be in order.

Let me ask ya, would you do the same? Stop your girl from getting an education; beat your wife to submission? .... The Old Testament says you should....
"Inevitably, underlying instabilities begin to appear..." - Ian Malcolm

fundie

#2
Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"If I was a citizen and not already blinded by propoganda or fear, then a transfer to a better place would be in order.


So what are you saying, then?

Fourth Iteration

#3
I'm trying to put myself in the mind set of a citizen of that country from birth. IF I wasn't blinded by the forces in power, AND I knew of a better place, then I would certainly move my family. Sorry it wasn't clear the first time. lol.

Now, if I was a guest in the nation, yes, if my wife was in agreement to come, then she would wear the clothes mandated.
"Inevitably, underlying instabilities begin to appear..." - Ian Malcolm

fundie

#4
Aw, come on, 4thI

Do you really think you would submit to such archaic laws, subjecting your women to what is essentially 'slavery'?   Maybe you would.  Would the women in your life?  I think that's sick.

No reflection on you, 4thI.  Just trying to pick your brains, is all.

Fourth Iteration

#5
No no no, understood 100%. Ummm, lemme explain. If that is what I grew up with, I would know no better (Option A)/ If I was on a visitation of some kind, I really would insist that if my wife tagged along that we abide by the silly rules until we leave. I'd even grow that horrible beard.....(Option B)

Now, what are the odds that I'd actually go there for the Hell of it knowing damn well how we live here? Slim to none, in all honesty.
"Inevitably, underlying instabilities begin to appear..." - Ian Malcolm

fundie

#6
Good answer, 4thI

But would you really grow that horrible beard?    Horrible being the operative word, of course.

fundie

#7
Quote from: "Fourth Iteration"Does a constitution necessarily make a country's policies right? Absolutely not. But it is the guiding text of a nation. There are things in it I do not agree with just as apparently there are things that you do not agree with.... but in effect, what you just said is its okay for you to break our laws of men because you believe in a more divine law.

And yes, if I were in another country I would respect thier doctrines for that is how THEY wish for THIER country to opperate. I won't be the one to cock it up.

You have the right under OUR constitution to uphold those anarchist ideals, but don't for a second think that God gave you that right.

Like I said before:  different countries have different 'constitutions'.  
Stalin had something of a 'constitutioin' and worked millions of his own countrymen to death.   Hitler's constitution allowed for the killing of millions of jews.  Saddam Hussain's constitution included wiping out the kurds.  Bin Laden's constitution (if he was in power to make it legal), promotes the killing of innocent civilians in the 'free world'.

Constitutions vary, according to who happens to be in power at any given moment.  Not good.

There should be a moral absolute.  I'm realistic enough to know that this won't happen, at least not in my lifetime.

imrational

#8
Morals are a product of the environment.  That's why the Eskimos used to practiced euthanasia and why some cultures have polygamy.

Why do you think that your moral code is better than someone else's?  The bible?  The same book that requires stoning for a myriad of petty crimes?  Excuse me if I am a little more humble than that.  

The more freedom people have, the better.

fundie

#9
Quote from: "imrational"Morals are a product of the environment.  That's why the Eskimos used to practiced euthanasia and why some cultures have polygamy.

Why do you think that your moral code is better than someone else's?  The bible?  The same book that requires stoning for a myriad of petty crimes?  Excuse me if I am a little more humble than that.  

The more freedom people have, the better.

I agree with you to a certain extent, rational.  

The NT, though, does not condone stoning, in my understanding of it.  Remember Jesus' teaching?....'Let him that is without sin cast the first stone.'


As regards you saying 'the more freedom people have, the better'.....now, that is not really practical, is it?

As I said before, people who are given the freedom to persecute certain other members of society, the jews, kurds, etc.....are they supposed to have all freedoms,  just because the state sanctions it?  Certain 'freedoms' have to be curtailed.  We have to submit to a common standard of what is acceptable in a civilised society.

This is one of the problems highlighted in the OT, because 'every man did what was right in his own eyes'

Well, some people had different ideas about what was acceptable.  It was every man for himself, and hang the consequences, as long as 'I' got what 'I' wanted.

That is why I said that not all people should have all freedom to do whatever they want.  There has to be a common standard.  There has to be an absolute truth, which caters for and includes all members of society.  Is that not so?

iplaw

#10
QuoteWhy do you think that your moral code is better than someone else's?
This is where I think atheists run into a major philosophical SNAFU.  Purely from a material deterministic POV, no moral code is any better, nor any denunciation justified, because every denunciation implies a moral code of some sort.  

The concept of an objective moral code is at least philosophically permissible or coherent from a theistic framework, but from a truly atheistic viewpoint, to talk of an objective moral code is incoherent babble based upon the fundamental assumption that morals are only subjective personal interpretation.

It's the Coppelston/Russell debate all over again.  Here is a great excerpt from that debate:


In a landmark debate between the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell admitted that he did. Copleston then asked him how he differentiated between the two. Russell said that he differentiated between good and bad in the same way that he distinguished between colors. "But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don't you? How then, do you judge between good and bad?" "On the basis of feeling, what else?" came Russell's sharp reply.

Somebody should have told Russell that in some cultures people love their neighbors while in other cultures they eat them--both on the basis of feeling! Did Mr. Russell have a personal preference?

How can we possibly justify differentiating between good and bad merely on the basis of feeling? Whose feeling? Hitler's or Mother Theresa's? There must be a transcendent moral law, a standard by which to determine good and bad. Without such a point of reference, the question of evil is no longer coherent. Removing a god, the giver of the moral law, from the question of evil, in essence, blunts the force of the question.


QuoteThe more freedom people have, the better.

If freedom is the answer, then what business is it of yours to ever punish a criminal for his crimes...he just has a different moral code from yours.  His freedom allows him to do things your moral code won't allow you to do.  The criminal in essence, is more evolved in his freedom and has more liberty than the simpleton who governs himself with a moral code.  Seems to me like we should respect the criminal for his enlightenment and forward thinking...

Fourth Iteration

#11
Personally, I think that we can draw a few lines in the sand here. If we grant freedoms without breeching others, then we won't have murdering as a non-crime. EVERYONE has rights, they all have freedoms. The moment they use those freedoms to take another's away, a great line has been crossed. Is this a morel line? Some say so. Is it one developed through years of living in the world's largest superpower? It may very well be. If I were to grow up elsewhere I may feel differently than I do. This greatly defends Iplaw's subjective world..... And its true. This is why there can be no perfect society; we would have to unite everyone under one belief. Now how to do it is the question...... Through religion? That's the easiest way, but as we evolve why not embrace discovery rather than relapsing to archaic ideals and theories? If I ranted this entire time to make one point, it was this: Ultimate freedom can only come from unified thought. Theists would never lose they're religion to resist eradication (as we know well at this point in time), and atheists would bend not to a religion for such a reason either. If the world were run by man's law, the divine law would surface with an uprising to back it..... OWWWWWW! My brain hurts!  :bang:
"Inevitably, underlying instabilities begin to appear..." - Ian Malcolm

Woody

#12
There is a problem with the idea of the need for an absolute moral code dictated by god.  The problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it. If the code exists, theists, please let us all see it. Is it the moral code dictated by god to the Christians, or to the Muslims, or to the Hindus, or to the Sikhs, or to the Aztecs, or to some lost tribe in the deepest Amazonian rainforest?  I think you get the point.

    The theists here wouldn't be alluding to anything written in the Christian Bible would they? That very human book of contradictions, prejudice and awful cruelty can't be where we'll find this absolute moral code, can it? Surely you don't mean the 10 Commandments do you? I think that would not only insult the intelligence of atheists but would reflect badly on your intelligence too.

    Theists are sure that we need some god-given moral code because they can't accept that humans are capable of taking care of themselves; there must be such a code, and that too proves there must be a god. However, if we are left looking for a secure basis for morality in the Bible, or the Koran, of Bhagavad Gita, then we are in trouble.  No sign of any god there...just the hand of very mortal men dictating their very human concept of morality tied in with their myths and ignorance, as arbitrary and meaningful as any modern godless morality - they share the same source; the human mind and heart.  There is no absolute moral code, there never has been and never will be.  

Theists have a very poor opinion of humanity.  The truth is, we sometimes get it awfully wrong and sometimes we get it very nearly as near perfect as is possible.  The swing will continue to move between the terrible and the wonderful, humans will suffer horribly at the hands of others of their own kind and we shall experience the wonders of our shared humanity in societies which come as close to ideal as we are ever going to get.  I am an optimist - I think that the modern western culture is one of our best attempts yet at an equitable and just society.  It isn't perfect, and it is never likely to be so, but it is still far superior to anything I'm aware of which ever came out of any theocracy.  There is no absolute moral code - it is just another fairy tale, believed by people who seem to need such fairy tales.  Theists: deal with it.

iplaw

#13
Boy...and people here call theists arrogant!

You cannot argue that no god exists simply by pointing to inconsistencies within a given philosophy.  You can attempt to argue against the validity of that specific philosophy, but that CANNOT be extrapolated to encompass a refutation of every philosophy, or god's ultimated existence; that is just a fallacious argument.  When it's all said and done, no one philosophy may have it right, but that has no direct bearing on the ultimate existence of a god.

QuoteThere is a problem with the idea of the need for an absolute moral code dictated by god. The problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it.
I read the first sentence and thought you were going somewhere with this until I read the second sentence.  You actually could have tried to make a point here instead of comitting intellectual suicide by dismissing the problem as opposed to arguing a point.

BTW, there is a philosophical problem with justifying any moral denunciation without objective moral ethics, a question that atheists have to deal with as well as the theist.  It gets even more difficult philisophically for the atheist when you discuss things like supererogatory acts.

If we are merely mind machines dancing to the tune of DNA you have no right to tell me what I may or may not do.  Your subjective analysis of reality is no more or less valid.   What is wrong today may be well within the bounds of progressive eithics next week.  You should err on the side of personal freedoms and succumb to the reality that you have no right to pidgeon hole another human into your subjective view of the world.

QuoteThe problem is, there is no such code, and that's because there is no god to dictate it.
Interesting assertion, but it happens to be personal opinion and not a widely shared philosophical basis at that.

QuoteIs it the moral code dictated by god to the Christians, or to the Muslims, or to the Hindus, or to the Sikhs, or to the Aztecs, or to some lost tribe in the deepest Amazonian rainforest? I think you get the point.
No. Not really.  That position is a disjunctive argument.  "Who's ethics are correct" is another distinct topic unto itself and cannot be argued as a proof that no moral code exists by showing diversity of opinion.  That's simply ad hoc arguendo.

QuoteThe theists here wouldn't be alluding to anything written in the Christian Bible would they? That very human book of contradictions, prejudice and awful cruelty can't be where we'll find this absolute moral code, can it? Surely you don't mean the 10 Commandments do you? I think that would not only insult the intelligence of atheists but would reflect badly on your intelligence too.
Spoken like a true atheistic exeget.  Again, more fallacious ad hoc arguments combined with the fallacy of argument by outrage.  The fallability of scripture and applicability of the 10 commandments are facinating topics, but whether the christian version of ethics is right is another discussion.  Whether objective moral ethics exist doesn't depend on whether the version I choose is correct.  I could be wrong in my belief, but that doesn't serve to prove the non-existence of god or a transcendent moral ethic.

QuoteNo sign of any god there...
Again, this argument is rife with personal opinion.  Thousands of brilliant minds that preceded you have thought differently.

QuoteTheists have a very poor opinion of humanity.
No more than the atheist has an over inflated opinion of its inherent good.  Take a look at the book Court recommended, The Wanting Seed, both extremes are abstractions and wholly incorrect.

QuoteI think that the modern western culture is one of our best attempts yet at an equitable and just society.
Yes.  A system concocted, drafted and ratified by theistic minds of varying flavors.  Theism was part of the initial conditions of the creation of the revolutionary American culture.  That matter is also another independent discussion which I would love to be a part of if anyone is interested.

QuoteThere is no absolute moral code - it is just another fairy tale, believed by people who seem to need such fairy tales. Theists: deal with it.
Somebody's been reading too much Mushford Brains.  Again, more personal opinion, and extremly arrogant opinions at that.  I love to see people who are so confident in their own summations and paradigmatic dogma who turn around and criticize others for being rigid and dogmatic.

iplaw

#14
Fourth Iteration

QuoteThat's the easiest way, but as we evolve why not embrace discovery rather than relapsing to archaic ideals and theories?
Because what is ancient is often poignant and transcendent.  Most truth about human behavior is as old as humanity itself.  I firmly believe that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to people.  We may drive cars and type on computers, but from what I can tell of human history and human beings, we have changed very little over the course of time.  We may understand our behaviors and motivations better, but our actions and behaviors are seemingly very consistent over time.

Technology and science are wonderful tools to help us understand our world, but I contend there are esoteric matters which will elude our understanding forever, specifically on a scientific level.  Some things cannot be measured with a compass and a ruler.