Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[buckshot24]

Perhaps there are no need for Morals to prevent the gouging of eyes from Babies? In that scenario, there is no need for Objective Morality to prevent it.

The murderer in solitaire confinement has no opportunity to kill again. Since murder has been stopped, in this case, isn't it still a moral question?

All Morals can be explained as value judgements. We weigh the action against the consequence. Sometimes those judgements are made subconsciously, but that does not make them Objective.

So if you murdered somebody and got away with it completely you wouldn't feel any guilt for taking a life?

 

[buckshot24]

The question is moot as the answer does not imply Objective Morality.

So in some cases it could be right and in others it could be wrong?

 

[sandorski]

The murderer in solitaire confinement has no opportunity to kill again. Since murder has been stopped, in this case, isn't it still a moral question?
So if you murdered somebody and got away with it completely you wouldn't feel any guilt for taking a life?

1) I don 't understand the question
2) I dunno, I haven't done that. The answer is moot though as that still doesn't imply Objective Morality. It may just mean I fear being caught, as I would never know that I actually had got away with it.

 

[sandorski]

So in some cases it could be right and in others it could be wrong?

Sure.

 

[buckshot24]

1) I don 't understand the question
2) I dunno, I haven't done that. The answer is moot though as that still doesn't imply Objective Morality. It may just mean I fear being caught, as I would never know that I actually had got away with it.

It wasn't supposed to imply OM I was just addressing the way you're viewing it in a utilitarian sense. I'm not talking about it's usefulness I'm talking about it's existence.

Sure.

Well, you're being consistent at least. In some instances you feel that drop kicking babies could be considered "good". Thank you for being honest about it.

 

[sandorski]

It wasn't supposed to imply OM I was just addressing the way you're viewing it in a utilitarian sense. I'm not talking about it's usefulness I'm talking about it's existence.
Well, you're being consistent at least. In some instances you feel that drop kicking babies could be considered "good". Thank you for being honest about it.

Try again, the question was about plucking eyes out, not drop kicking.

Your smugness of victory is premature.

 

[Darwin333]

Not really.

I don't find it relevant, now what?
I've been involved with these sorts of discussions for a long time. You're employing a "kitchen sink" method here and I simply refuse to be lead by the nose wherever you want me to go.

No, you have gladly engaged in debate with people that have made claims that you can sort of argue against, now that I have brought you something that you can not you simply refuse to play.

Its ok bud, I understand that you can't possibly defend nor agree with the word of the lord as you see it. I hope that your god forgives you for refusing to defend, believe in and stand up for what you believe to be his own words.

Thanks for playing though. Maybe somewhere else in the thread I'll lob a softball with plenty of wiggle room and you can get back into the game.

Whether I agree with something or not doesn't make it wrong or right. Whether you agree with something or not doesn't make it wrong or right.

You are right but thankfully most of the civilized world disagrees with the bible and believes that owning human beings is wrong. I guess you could run some sort of argument that a society that has evolved beyond slavery doesn't mean slavery is "wrong" but I would disagree wholeheartedly with you.

 

[buckshot24]

Try again, the question was about plucking eyes out, not drop kicking.

Your smugness of victory is premature.

LOL, sorry my mistake.

 

[Darwin333]

LOL -- I don't believe in Hell (a place of torment where dead "souls" go) because I believe once you die, you die -- there is no pitch-fork touting, two-horned monster waiting to burn you.

So you don't believe in heaven either?

So, my kids would never even believe such a thing because I won't teach it. Many atheist have "brainwashed" their kids into thinking religion is anti-science and God doesn't exists -- children raised in atheistic households are just as likely to not believe in God. Case in point, Sam Harris mentioned his family was entirely secular, and guess what....he's an Atheist!!!

Parents teach their kids what they feel is important...if you think it's important to teach them religion is bull, then they'll grow up thinking that way....if you teach them God is real, they're likely to keep that belief.

Thank you for actually admitting that and yes I agree, a child can be brainwashed to believe virtually anything with extremely high success if its continually reinforced.

Your point is really invalidated by facts...kids normally adopt the views and beliefs of their parent regardless of what those views and beliefs are.

How is that invalid? We have a clear enough understand of psychology to understand what is going on.

But please, provide these facts that you say invalidate my point, I would truly appreciate it.

You may not preach to them that way, but what if they asked "does God exists", what would you tell them?

I would answer honestly, I don't know, but that is absurdly different than impressioning them every day of their lives that he does in fact exist.

If religion doesn't have the "gotcha" how is it the same thing as Santa Clause?

I said it was the same thing without the "gotcha" because kids can wait up all night on Christmas and see that Santa doesn't come down the chimney. They can not do that with religion.

By that definition, they aren't the same thing.

Lol, not only are they the same thing they are almost the same damn subject! Regardless, the point is rather simple and you are trying to dance around it.

Oh, I believed God was real, I just lived my life as if He wasn't real. So I never really thought about God for years, so as far as I was concerned, God was a non-issue and something I hardly ever worried about, so he may as well not been real, if you get my point.

So you never really lost the belief that you were taught as a child, you simply didn't pursue it very much.

 

[Darwin333]

He's making an argument against moral relativism -- that there are indeed absolute right and wrongs, which he is totally correct about.

Is selling your daughter as a sex slave absolutely right or absolutely wrong or is it sort of in the middle?

 

[buckshot24]

No, you have gladly engaged in debate with people that have made claims that you can sort of argue against, now that I have brought you something that you can not you simply refuse to play.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.

Thanks for playing though. Maybe somewhere else in the thread I'll lob a softball with plenty of wiggle room and you can get back into the game.

Your question doesn't even get off the ground if you don't believe in objective morality. If you do then you'll have to tell us why it exists.

You are right but thankfully most of the civilized world disagrees with the bible and believes that owning human beings is wrong.

You have no basis to say it is wrong.

I guess you could run some sort of argument that a society that has evolved beyond slavery doesn't mean slavery is "wrong" but I would disagree wholeheartedly with you.

Explain why it is objectively wrong then.

 

[sandorski]

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
Your question doesn't even get off the ground if you don't believe in objective morality. If you do then you'll have to tell us why it exists.

You have no basis to say it is wrong.
Explain why it is objectively wrong then.

You assume that Objectivity can be the only Basis. That is an incorrect assumption. The Basis could be purely a Philosophical position, such as: Do no harm.

 

[buckshot24]

Is selling your daughter as a sex slave absolutely right or absolutely wrong or is it sort of in the middle?

Yes it is wrong.

 

[buckshot24]

You assume that Objectivity can be the only Basis. That is an incorrect assumption. The Basis could be purely a Philosophical position, such as: Do no harm.

If you're admitting that morality is subjective (without God) then I don't really have an argument against you. Darwin seems to be implying that slavery is objectively wrong. I'm wondering how he can come to that conclusion.

 

[sandorski]

If you're admitting that morality is subjective (without God) then I don't really have an argument against you. Darwin seems to be implying that slavery is objectively wrong. I'm wondering how he can come to that conclusion.

Declaring something as Wrong does not mean that it is Objectively Wrong. Even using Subjective Morality, when asked, a person will declare certain things as Wrong.

 

[Broheim]

 

[bshole]

So Buck disagrees with the lord his god....

Originally Posted by Darwin333
Is selling your daughter as a sex slave absolutely right or absolutely wrong or is it sort of in the middle?

Yes it is wrong.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

 

[Darwin333]

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard.
Your question doesn't even get off the ground if you don't believe in objective morality. If you do then you'll have to tell us why it exists.

You have no basis to say it is wrong.
Explain why it is objectively wrong then.

Oh give it a break. I will not engage in the bullshit debate about "objective morality". The only way for morality to be truly objective, especially in any debate with you, is for it to be external.

For the rest of civilized humanity we simply know that certain things are wrong. I know that owning another person is wrong. I know that selling my daughter into slavery is wrong. I know that kicking a baby is wrong. I, nor most others, need any external force to know that.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes it is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Especially considering your line of "objective morality" questioning, if you get "right and wrong" from the bible then shouldn't it be not only ok but an absolute right?

I am confused.

I would also like to know who determines which parts of the bible are wrong and which parts are right? Did you come to that conclusion on your own or were you taught that by a preacher/parents?

 

[Darwin333]

Dude, you are my sock puppet or I am yours. That is exactly the same situation I am in. I live in Milwaukee and only a complete nutter would send their kids to MPS. I pay 5k for catholic school and I am not even Catholic.

I can't imagine its worse than schools in South Louisiana lol but I completely understand your situation.

 

[Retro Rob]

Is selling your daughter as a sex slave absolutely right or absolutely wrong or is it sort of in the middle?

Back then, if the family was in dire financial strains, she could be sold, but was protected (could not go to foreigners, and was required to be treated as a daughter) and of given in marriage to the son, he must treat her as a wife of let her go for free.

So while I get your point, do yourself a favor and keep reading.

On the surface, I did think it was wrong, but this was a social construct already well into place -- God allowed it but made laws, even instituting the death penalty, to regulate it.

The reason why this was allowed is because God promises to abolish all these things permanently (Rev 21:3-4).

In the meantime, he simply put rules into place.

 

[child of wonder]

Back then, if the family was in dire financial strains, she could be sold, but was protected (could not go to foreigners, and was required to be treated as a daughter) and of given in marriage to the son, he must treat her as a wife of let her go for free.

So while I get your point, do yourself a favor and keep reading.

On the surface, I did think it was wrong, but this was a social construct already well into place -- God allowed it but made laws, even instituting the death penalty, to regulate it.

The reason why this was allowed is because God promises to abolish all these things permanently (Rev 21:3-4).

In the meantime, he simply put rules into place.

This is unconscionable. God allowed, even commanded, things like murder because he knew it would all get straightened out after the apocalypse? Do you hear yourself speaking?

What a horrid sense of morality. To accept any atrocity committed or vile act condoned since the "master" will just make it right later on. This is exactly why such a philosophy is so dangerous because it absolves one of any personal responsibility so long as the boss says it's OK. And virtually anyone can officially or unofficially become a "man of god" and claim to speak in his name.

Sickening.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is unconscionable. God allowed, even commanded, things like murder because he knew it would all get straightened out after the apocalypse? Do you hear yourself speaking?

What a horrid sense of morality. To accept any atrocity committed or vile act condoned since the "master" will just make it right later on. This is exactly why such a philosophy is so dangerous because it absolves one of any personal responsibility so long as the boss says it's OK. And virtually anyone can officially or unofficially become a "man of god" and claim to speak in his name.

Sickening.

LOL -- who cares what you find "unconscionable"?

 

[thraashman]

LOL -- who cares what you find "unconscionable"?

So you don't find it odd that if a person did the same things that your god has done, we'd call that person a detestable monster. Yet if god does them, it's A-ok? Should a supreme and perfect being be held to a higher set of standards and not a lower one? Face it, if you read the Bible, God is a fucking douchebag and really on the same level as people like Hitler. At least we recognize Hitler was a monster.

 

[child of wonder]

LOL -- who cares what you find "unconscionable"?

Clearly you don't since your moral compass is so askew you'll defend any atrocity your god performs or commands.

I'll bet you think The Great Flood was totally cool, right? God killing off nearly every living thing is fine since he's god.