Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

Again, morality =/= legality. Hell, there are a lot of GOP posters on here that make that distinction clear when it comes to homosexuality. They believe it is a sin, a wrong act, but do not oppose it legally because of two consenting adults.

Legality evolves force (and government power); morality is just a mere opinion. So, although I think adultery is wrong, I do not think someone should be legally punished (by force) for said action.

Actually, my argument that you quoted explicitly made the case that legality does not equal justice, and you need objective truth for justice. I thought it was pretty clear.

 

[gcbvol]

For the purposes of this discussion, the bridge is short. I am not speaking to tax law. I am speaking to justice, which does not exist without morality. You don't have justice in your professed worldview where everything is just an opinion. You have... well... competing opinions with no true way of prescribing which opinion is more valid than the other.

You can either use:

Popular vote, which has to smuggle morality in to get to justice. You can have a society that votes that it is legal to rape women. It is legal, but not just.

You can have a society where the strong make laws that it is legal to rape women. It is legal, but not just.

You can decide societal morality, but it will eventually come down to a person or a group of persons saying that their moral opinion is more valid than another's-- and it will entail one society telling another society that their moral opinion is more valid than another's.

You are saying-- "No matter what you think, you "ought" not do this and that."

In a descriptive, mechanized universe, you are prescribing "ought".

I enjoy this discussion, and can tell you that I personally relate to your examples above. Not rape, of course, but I am in a minority that has been, and remains to be to an extent, on the wrong side of societal morality.

Still, I believe we learn and grow as individuals and a society. Morals evolve. Yes, sometimes for the bad, but I think primarily for the good.

If your position is that certain morals are inherent, that very well could be. I know some speculate a genetic moral tendency. I don't rule most anything out entirely.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I enjoy this discussion, and can tell you that I personally relate to your examples above. Not rape, of course, but I am in a minority that has been, and remains to be to an extent, on the wrong side of societal morality.

Still, I believe we learn and grow as individuals and a society. Morals evolve. Yes, sometimes for the bad, but I think primarily for the good.

If your position is that certain morals are inherent, that very well could be. I know some speculate a genetic moral tendency. I don't rule most anything out entirely.

Thanks. Me too.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am speaking to justice. You can not have justice without morality. You can not have justice without an objective law among competing opinions. The fact that you can't understand this distinction says a lot.

I am speaking at the societal level to show that relative morality is still sneaking in objective law, even at the societal level. Please don't let that confuse the issue by thinking I'm just speaking to government.

Depends on what you mean by justice. Often what is considered "just" differs from the three different levels of person vs collective vs law. You seem to want to rule out law (government). However, the collective manifests itself via government through social contracts. The collective (opinion) outside of what the official law says is still not objective (devoid of subjectivity); it is merely a collection, a majority, of the individual (person) subjective opinion.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Actually, my argument that you quoted explicitly made the case that legality does not equal justice, and you need objective truth for justice. I thought it was pretty clear.

You will never find "objective truth" in morality.

Justice is subjective.

 

[SergeantVol]

Atheists, agnostics and 'secular people' are all defined in detail for the purposes of the study and referred t as such throughout individually.

At any rate, semantics aside - my point stands, the more secular a country, the lower the murder rates. The more religious the country, the higher the murder rate. The States that tend to be most religious have the highest violent crime rates and the least religious, the lowest crime rates.

I am sure that there are many more variables than that. I can manipulate data sets about gun control laws to show you the same thing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

If your position is that certain morals are inherent, that very well could be. I know some speculate a genetic moral tendency. I don't rule most anything out entirely.

I think the genetic argument will fail for the same reason as the 'opinion' argument. You still never get justice without an objective standard. Period.

What kind of legal system will we have when the following precedent is set? "My client is genetically predisposed to baby rape. This is just part of his evolution. What makes your genetics better than his genetics?" Eventually, justice just has to say, "You know what, baby rape is just wrong. Period."

I believe every person has a fairly common, but imperfect copy of an objective moral law imprinted on their heart, and we call it a conscience. Because it is imperfect, it must be informed by the Word of God, and transformed by the power of God. Many of these are self-evident, and we can appeal to this objective law.

Every time you argue with someone about what they "should" have done, you have appealed to this objective, common moral law. Every time you made an excuse for breaking it, you nodded to its existence. That's why I (unfortunately) have to personally question the validity of PKT's posts. He expresses the belief that morality is just a matter of multiple, equally valid opinions and he can not judge anyone on theirs.

But I bet we could mine the forum history of his posts and find him arguing with someone about what they "should" do. I'll bet he's called someone morally wrong in some form or fashion. I bet if we followed him around for a day or two, he would complain that someone mistreated him and shouldn't have. As soon as he's done that, he's appealed to a common, objective morality. That's when he finds it impossible to live out his worldview. He believes it maybe, but it goes against what he "really" knows to be true.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

You will never find "objective truth" in morality.

Justice is subjective.

I guarantee you don't live that out. I guarantee it. That means you never argue with anyone about what they "should" do and what is "right".

 

[Orange_Crush]

You will never find "objective truth" in morality.

Justice is subjective.

1) There are plenty of people who are attracted to young people but don't act on it.

2) There are treatments for pedophilia that target the specific brain biochemistry.

3) If the above two points don't work out, and they can't control their urges, society can wall them off.

So, while proclaiming that there is no right or wrong, just varying opinions, you are all for drug treatments to change a person's brain chemistry, or sending them to prison, because their opinion of right/wrong differ from yours. There is a lot of "ought" smuggled into that.

I'm sorry. But you don't live out your professed beliefs. I don't really have much more to say about it.

:hi:

 

[VOLatile]

I guarantee you don't live that out. I guarantee it. That means you never argue with anyone about what they "should" do and what is "right".

Does it matter if he lives it out or not?

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guarantee you don't live that out. I guarantee it. That means you never argue with anyone about what they "should" do and what is "right".

How does that have anything to do with "objective truth"? I will have a discussion ("argue") with anyone willing to talk about a wide range of subjects including morality. They attempt to persuade me; I do the same. Two people expressing their views, pointing out each other fallacies, mistakes, or presenting food for thought is not objective truth or lessen the subjectiveness of the other's opinion.

What someone "should" do or "ought" to do is still relative to my viewpoint via my experiences (including conversing with others) and rational faculty.

 

[MercyPercy]

I honestly don't know why you continue to bother. Someone with such a warped and disturbed view of reality obviously can't be reasoned with. He honestly believes that someone cannot be a good/moral person without the teachings of the bible.

Let that sink in. That is what he is saying. And anyone who happens to have an opinion on right an wrong is simply smuggling those beliefs from christianity. Bless his heart.

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, while proclaiming that there is no right or wrong, just varying opinions, you are all for drug treatments to change a person's brain chemistry, or sending them to prison, because their opinion of right/wrong differ from yours. There is a lot of "ought" smuggled into that.

I'm sorry. But you don't live out your professed beliefs. I don't really have much more to say about it.

:hi:

I assume you are talking about child molesters.

I stated there was no way to judge right and wrong objectively (outside oneself) because we cannot escape our thoughts (mind), experiences, and rational faculty. Again, maybe you can (you never stated earlier); I can't. I certainly hold certain acts to be right and wrong just like the rest of humanity that is able to develop some sort of conscience.

I certainly think forced sexual acts (lack of consent) is wrong. Again, just my opinion but I find most people (outside of child molesters) feel that way. It doesn't make that "ought" any less subjective. Further, thinking child molesters "ought" to be legally locked up does not make it any less subjective. It is still from my viewpoint.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I believe every person has a fairly common, but imperfect copy of an objective moral law imprinted on their heart, and we call it a conscience. Because it is imperfect, it must be informed by the Word of God, and transformed by the power of God. Many of these are self-evident, and we can appeal to this objective law.

Where does this come from? If that was true, every person would think very similarly in terms of right and wrong. Societies would develop similarly in ethics, culture, tradition, etc. We would not have Kantian, Utilitarianism, Pragmatism, etc. schools of ethics.

Every time you argue with someone about what they "should" have done, you have appealed to this objective, common moral law. Every time you made an excuse for breaking it, you nodded to its existence. That's why I (unfortunately) have to personally question the validity of PKT's posts. He expresses the belief that morality is just a matter of multiple, equally valid opinions and he can not judge anyone on theirs.

But I bet we could mine the forum history of his posts and find him arguing with someone about what they "should" do. I'll bet he's called someone morally wrong in some form or fashion. I bet if we followed him around for a day or two, he would complain that someone mistreated him and shouldn't have. As soon as he's done that, he's appealed to a common, objective morality. That's when he finds it impossible to live out his worldview. He believes it maybe, but it goes against what he "really" knows to be true.

Again, all from my perspective. How could I possible say anything otherwise? What is so hard about that concept?

 

[Vol8188]

You really should do some research and study some theology before posting in a debate such as this. Your posts and comments really make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Enlighten me.

 

[Vol8188]

I honestly don't know why you continue to bother. Someone with such a warped and disturbed view of reality obviously can't be reasoned with. He honestly believes that someone cannot be a good/moral person without the teachings of the bible.

Let that sink in. That is what he is saying. And anyone who happens to have an opinion on right an wrong is simply smuggling those beliefs from christianity. Bless his heart.

And the implications of that are horrific. If you believe that right or wrong is only determined by your god, then you have no problem slaughtering people in his name.

 

[Obsessed]

I honestly don't know why you continue to bother. Someone with such a warped and disturbed view of reality obviously can't be reasoned with. He honestly believes that someone cannot be a good/moral person without the teachings of the bible.

Let that sink in. That is what he is saying. And anyone who happens to have an opinion on right an wrong is simply smuggling those beliefs from christianity. Bless his heart.

Freak only has so much bandwidth. Please quit wasting it. Ok?

 

[82_VOL_83]

What's sad is the people we are speaking to must be supportive of individuals who allow priests to rape their children or who personally drown their own kids, assuming god told them to do so.

How were they supposed to know it was wrong? Only god can teach us morality.

You are so wrapped up in trying to convince us you don't believe in anything that you can't even complete a sentence anymore. The real question is why do you care what someone else believes? Particularly when that system of beliefs tells them to treat even you with kindness and respect and keeps them from screwing your wife or girlfriend or you for that matter, keeps them from taking your stuff, giving you a helping had when you need it, and even to go to war when called upon to protect your freedom? What moral or ethical calendar do you as a supposed atheist gives you guidance to continue to mock others who actually have a deity that they claim is there moral compass. The real question is WHY DO YOU CARE?

 

[82_VOL_83]

So, if my instinct is to kill your kids, it's not inherently, objectively wrong?

Exactly, his kids come over to my yard, wreck my stackstone walls, tear up the flower beds, then I have a right to discipline those kids the way I see fit. Then when his narrow ass comes to my house to complain about the discipline, I get to take a baseball bat to him and drop him like a rock. THEN, if his wife is hot, go take her, kill his kids, and start having kids with her.

It's that old animal social order moralistic thing......you know.

 

[82_VOL_83]

His post was pretty straightforward.



Experiences, inspirations, logic, self-interest, etc.; depends on the person.



Seriously? One would only have to value their own life/consciousness.

Exactly.....anarchy ensues.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Therefore Asians eat there stepchildren.

Only the females.....

 

[82_VOL_83]

You better watch out,
You better not cry,
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Jesus Christ is coming to town.
He's making a list,
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out
Who's naughty and nice.
Jesus Christ is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping.
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
Oh, you better watch out!
You better not cry.
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Jesus Christ is coming to town.
Jesus Christ is coming to town!


A simple christmas song that explains why christians decide to act morally.

Here is my understanding of why Christians live the way they do.

You work for X company. X company makes parts for airplane engines that are extremely critical. You know you are subject to only a random check for drugs or alcohol, but you don't go to work under the influence because you know that it could wind up killing people if what you make fails in flight.

Now, do you not go to work under the influence because you are scared of losing your job or do you not go to work under the influence because it is the right thing to do?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I enjoy this discussion, and can tell you that I personally relate to your examples above. Not rape, of course, but I am in a minority that has been, and remains to be to an extent, on the wrong side of societal morality.

Still, I believe we learn and grow as individuals and a society. Morals evolve. Yes, sometimes for the bad, but I think primarily for the good.

If your position is that certain morals are inherent, that very well could be. I know some speculate a genetic moral tendency. I don't rule most anything out entirely.

Acceptance or rejection of your particular moral quandary is genetic. Science has shown it to be that way. It's not morals, it's how we are made.

 

[Orange_Crush]

How does that have anything to do with "objective truth"? I will have a discussion ("argue") with anyone willing to talk about a wide range of subjects including morality. They attempt to persuade me; I do the same. Two people expressing their views, pointing out each other fallacies, mistakes, or presenting food for thought is not objective truth or lessen the subjectiveness of the other's opinion.

By telling someone what they "ought" to have done is appealing to an objective law of right and wrong. While saying that they are all just equally valid, relative opinions, you are claiming that your opinion is right based on some outside measurement.

Again... Someone kills your kid, you will not sit and debate them. You will claimit was evil. I guarantee you.

What someone "should" do or "ought" to do is still relative to my viewpoint via my experiences (including conversing with others) and rational faculty.

Until you make an appeal to an external standard that says your opinion is right. If you fail to do this, you are confronted with your dead kid, a man with a bloody knife, and no basis to say he was wrong. He was just a guy with differing opinions.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I assume you are talking about child molesters.

I stated there was no way to judge right and wrong objectively (outside oneself) because we cannot escape our thoughts (mind), experiences, and rational faculty. Again, maybe you can (you never stated earlier); I can't. I certainly hold certain acts to be right and wrong just like the rest of humanity that is able to develop some sort of conscience.

You just referenced our reference to the objective moral law.

I certainly think forced sexual acts (lack of consent) is wrong. Again, just my opinion but I find most people (outside of child molesters) feel that way. It doesn't make that "ought" any less subjective.

It's all an opinion, and you monkey with someone's brain and/or lock them up (and I believe in later posts, referenced forced castration) for nothing more than a differing opinion. You enforce an objective standard on someone while claiming there is no objective standard.

Yah. Seems cohesive to me...

Further, thinking child molesters "ought" to be legally locked up does not make it any less subjective. It is still from my viewpoint.

Yes. And you just enforced your subjective opinion on someone objectively. Doesn't seem hypocritical at all...