I didn't say anything about "relative morality."
The benefit is you don't have to bend over backwards trying to justify murdering babies by invoking demons. It's a lot simpler and humane to just admit killing children is awful.
Random theological stuff - moved from Q about God
- Thread starter Dak
- Start date
I didn't say anything about "relative morality."
The benefit is you don't have to bend over backwards trying to justify murdering babies by invoking demons. It's a lot simpler and humane to just admit killing children is awful.
If the alternative is justifying babying killing because god says so then sign me up for "relative morality." Atheists can be good people. Take David Hume for example. He had very interesting moral ideas. Or John Stuart Mill. Or Quantum Foam. I am a moral person and an atheist. One thing is for sure, I don't have any global floods or slaughtering of egyptian infants on my resume.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Mankind wasn't without need for that nature of medical and psychological professonals, they were without recognition of their need. Mentally ill people still existed then, and probably in equal proportion to what we see today, but no one is aware of it because they weren't diagnosed. Part of this is explained by the lack of qualified professonals and adequate medical technology, but the remainder can be explained by the dominance of religion and superstition in society at that time. Consequently, rather than seeking medical help as people today might do, they would become estranged from society, exorcized to get rid of their personal demons, or burned as witches. Surely, the latter three are both reasonable and desirable alternatives to the diagnoses and possible treatments that today's mentally ill must endure
Actually, his argument and yours are very different. For starters, adultery and nukes don't hurt people in the same way. If my girlfriend cheats on me, there are two distinct psychological bases for my objection. The first of which, is the proximate explanation: "She has betrayed my trust." The deeper, ultimate explanation is that she has tainted my genetic assurance. However, neither cause any direct harm to my being and both of which are things that I will walk away from completely unharmed. In fact, one could even argue that she hasn't even done anything to me, as I was not involved. Additionally, I can easily distance myself from the situation and start over with a new partner, possibly leaving her to continue as a single mother. In this case, she's far worse of than I am.
With regards to nukes, the act of possessing a nuke never has and never will have any effect on anyone, physical or emotional. However, the very moment you convert the word "nuke" from a noun to a verb, its effect becomes catastrophic. When it comes to a comparison between the two, adultery causes short term emotional strain for a small handful of people, while a nuclear warhead vaporizes thousands of people in a single instant. To be honest, I really see no comparison.
As for your argument that the punishment needs to be severe enough to discourage the action, I still fail to see how one would justify death as an appropriate punishment for adultery. Most people already experience a fair degree of guilt surrounding the issue, and in addition to that, there are already other biological consequences that may arise from an extra pair copulation, such as sexually transmitted diseases, losing your significant other, and of course, pregnancy. In fact, you may be surprised by the mountain of data indicating that women of every species specifically time their extra pair compulations to coincide with peak fertility. The reasons for this are to ensure that a woman can provide the best genetic resources for their offspring, because no woman has or will cheat with a man who she perceives to be of lesser quality than the one she is currently dating. Also, this phenomenon has been in practice since the dawn of organic sexual reproduction, which I can assure you far exceeds the history of religion.
Was this school called Tekkenpedia?
http://www.tekkenpedia.com/wiki/Devil_Gene
Mankind wasn't without need for that nature of medical and psychological professonals, they were without recognition of their need. Mentally ill people still existed then, and probably in equal proportion to what we see today, but no one is aware of it because they weren't diagnosed. Part of this is explained by the lack of qualified professonals and adequate medical technology, but the remainder can be explained by the dominance of religion and superstition in society at that time. Consequently, rather than seeking medical help as people today might do, they would become estranged from society, exorcized to get rid of their personal demons, or burned as witches. Surely, the latter three are both reasonable and desirable alternatives to the diagnoses and possible treatments that today's mentally ill must endure
Actually, his argument and yours are very different. For starters, adultery and nukes don't hurt people in the same way. If my girlfriend cheats on me, there are two distinct psychological bases for my objection. The first of which, is the proximate explanation: "She has betrayed my trust." The deeper, ultimate explanation is that she has tainted my genetic assurance. However, neither cause any direct harm to my being and both of which are things that I will walk away from completely unharmed. In fact, one could even argue that she hasn't even done anything to me, as I was not involved. Additionally, I can easily distance myself from the situation and start over with a new partner, possibly leaving her to continue as a single mother. In this case, she's far worse of than I am.
With regards to nukes, the act of possessing a nuke never has and never will have any effect on anyone, physical or emotional. However, the very moment you convert the word "nuke" from a noun to a verb, its effect becomes catastrophic. When it comes to a comparison between the two, adultery causes short term emotional strain for a small handful of people, while a nuclear warhead vaporizes thousands of people in a single instant. To be honest, I really see no comparison.
As for your argument that the punishment needs to be severe enough to discourage the action, I still fail to see how one would justify death as an appropriate punishment for adultery. Most people already experience a fair degree of guilt surrounding the issue, and in addition to that, there are already other biological consequences that may arise from an extra pair copulation, such as sexually transmitted diseases, losing your significant other, and of course, pregnancy. In fact, you may be surprised by the mountain of data indicating that women of every species specifically time their extra pair compulations to coincide with peak fertility. The reasons for this are to ensure that a woman can provide the best genetic resources for their offspring, because no woman has or will cheat with a man who she perceives to be of lesser quality than the one she is currently dating. Also, this phenomenon has been in practice since the dawn of organic sexual reproduction, which I can assure you far exceeds the history of religion.
Was this school called Tekkenpedia?
http://www.tekkenpedia.com/wiki/Devil_Gene
A. The mass effect of adulterous acts in destroying the trust required to maintain the basic building block of a healthy society (healthy family unit) is just as dangerous as a nuke imo.
B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
BMWG... I was hardly talking about seriously mentally twisted people. i was refering to the size of the theropy crowd thats just average people over stresed by the turns society has taken. {should roll eyes... cause it should have been obvious as I NEVER mentioned serious wack jobs... at all.
Nuclear winter results in the death of all, or near all, animal and plant life on the planet.
Cheating on your spouse likely has no effect on a family if the cheater is not detected. If the cheater is detected, it may also have no effect on the family as the spouse who was cheated on may forgive the cheater. If the cheating ultimately results in divorce, then we have a situation where two people can choose to become involved with someone else they may be more compatible with and will work out for the best for everyone in the long run instead of staying in a perpetually unhappy marriage because you are afraid the boogie man thinks it is wrong to divorce.
As for the demonic genetics, I have a question. If the Canaanites were descended from demons, why did god let the descendants of these demon-human hybrids continue to exist in their half-demon form? Seems totally unjustified to me to have a baby be brought into a world as half-demon before it even has its umbilical cord cut and then condemn it to death for something it had no say in. If god is so powerful, surely he could have figured out some way to stop these evil demons, especially from infecting the children. Won't someone think about the children!!! You see, no matter what superstitious bullshit religious people come up with, it can always be defeated by moral reasoning. Just think how much worse off we would be if there were never people like Hume or Mill or Quantum Foam. Scary thought!
You know, this shit is really funny and yet sad. Just imagine a bunch of douches a few thousand years ago thinking this shit up. "Hey man, how can we make god look squeaky clean in the face of various genocides? I got it! Demon-hybrids. It's pure genius. Hopefully no one will ask pesky questions like Quantum Foam or else our entire theory will crumble to ashes." Are there any other justifications you would like to pull out of your ass? And by the way, can you hook me up with a demon pimp? I want some of that fine demon pussy next time i get a little anxious, if ya know what i mean. Something like this would do just fine. http://www.photofakerpro.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pussyteeth.jpg
Between your defense of adultery, and your blaming God for the actions of men, I don't know which is more wrong.
Monogamy is over-rated. Adultry is a self protection mechanizm for the jelous. monogamy is but a recent ideal in the larger history of man and its fading. Sex does not equal love and unfortunately love does not inspire sex for some partners. No one should become emotionally prisoned by their partner and many feel they have this given right to do so. I lived in total frustrated hell with my ex for the entire duration of our 20 years together. Took 12 years before I stepped out with the only feeling of guilt that I hurt her "feeling"... never mind what I went through for 12. It wasnt like anybody else was getting anything she was interested in. No one should feel they have the right to speak on such matters if they have not been there.
My point is not to defend adultery. If i was married i wouldn't commit adultery, but then I would never get married either. But if I was I wouldn't do it, not because I think I justly deserve death if I did it, but because I don't like keeping secrets from people or lying to people. If someone lied to me, I wouldn't like it and if it was over something serious, I would consider not associating with that person anymore, but I would not stand up and scream "Die Infidel!" It's not necessary and is disproportionate to the offense that was done to me. Seriously, think about this. Even if you were greatly offended by this to the point that punishment should be dished out, why death? I mean, how about a prison sentence of some reasonable length? Isn't this much more humane then killing someone, which is one of the two worst things you can do to someone, the other being torture? Don't you think if you were trying to deter adultery then putting someone in prison for a year or something would very likely effectively deter them?
Let's consider one other thing that was mentioned by someone else a bit earlier, that being std's. Now given the fact that we have access to condoms nowadays, at least in large parts of the industrialized world and in some parts of poorer parts of the planet, spreading of std's can be severely reduced. So if person A cheats on person B they need not acquire an std and transmit it to person B. Even if they did acquire an std, many std's are not lethal. Now in the case of person A acquiring a fatal std from adultery and transmitting it to person B, well that is pretty fucked up especially if you knew you had acquired the fatal std. In that case I think you could make a stronger argument that punishment could be given to person A, but death is not called for since if the person has a fatal std anyway they could be imprisoned for the relatively short duration of the rest of their life as punishment. I think the std angle, which you didn't even mention, has more potential to justify some form of punishment depending on what the circumstances are, however death is going to an unecessary extreme as punishment.
All of this entails another important question. Why does god allow std's to exist, especially ones that are fatal? Obviously many human beings have a strong sexual desire to fuck more then one person and i would argue that in an ideal world we should be able to fuck whoever we want without having to live in fear of contracting an std and the possibility of spreading it to someone else. just because we fuck more then one person doesn't mean we can't have families that take care of children and what not. The existence of something like Aids is pretty conclusive proof that if there is a god it is a lunatic. For example, if god made it rain food for the jews in the desert during the exodus, why doesn't god make it rain condoms in sub-saharan africa or thailand where hiv rates are extraordinarily high? Why doesn't god "reveal" to people in poor countries that something like Aids is indeed real and should be taken seriously, that way various people in poor countries would not have reason to be skeptical of outsider interference because they believe assholes like mugabe who say Aids isn't real? There are already 25 million people that have died from Aids and 33 million who are infected with hiv and will die within 10 years. Why all this suffering? Don't you see that if god was good the world would be extremely different then it currently is? For example, no one else would ever have to pay the price of another's poor decision. So if person A is married to person B and A fucks C, and A transmits Aids to B, that basically proves god is an asshole for making a world where such things can even potentially happen. You see, reason leads you to the conclusion that if there is a god, it is more like satan then the benevolent sky-father people would prefer to believe in.
Let me give another interesting example to further back up my claim of god being more like satan. Since this thread is about random theological shit, why not? My question is, why do we have to eat so often? It's a form of slavery, a complusion, a constant, multiple times a day reminder that you have to do what you have to do or you will starve to death and god will just sit and watch. Doesn't that sound horrifying to you? This is just in the normal flow of things where we have adequate food without taking into consideration droughts, famines, floods, etc. We are all completely unfree to avoid eating because our choice of not eating would lead quickly to death by starvation. It's clear as daylight. Think of how much time you have to spend earning money just to buy food so you can stuff your face 3 times a day or more. What did I do to deserve such slavery? I inherited adam and eve's "tainted genetics"? Assuming that is even true, that is no more justified then god letting "demonic genetics" infect subsequent generations. It is a completely unfair burden to place on people who had no choice in the matter but merely are suffering the consequences of other's actions. This is one version of what is called the Argument From Unfairness for the non-existence of God. It is the type of thing an evil tyrant would think of. "How can I make these puny mortals aware of how much power I have over them? I will make them run around like chickens with their heads cut off constantly searching for food, constantly on the verge of starvation if they should be so foolish as to expect to be free from my arbitrarily imposed compulsion that stops them from spending their life on things they might actually want to do instead of things they merely have to do." Maybe some satan like being exists who is very powerful and very sadistic or maybe there are multiple gods who exist, some of which are sadistic some of which aren't. But the all-loving god of monotheism? You have to turn a blind eye to reality to believe in such a thing.
As for blaming god for the actions of men, let's take your demon example. Wouldn't it be better for god to not allow a demon to fuck a human because of the consequences of creating offspring who god will condemn to death for something they have not chosen ie. being part demon? Also, wouldn't it be better for god to allow a demon to fuck a human but not allow them to actually reproduce? That way the human could take their genetic potential and use it with another humans genetic potential that way we don't have a group of people running around who have some demon genes in them which will then result in their being condemned to death by god for something they never chose through their own will. They merely suffer the consequences of the decision of a human to fuck a demon and the decision by god to allow reproduction to take place. Also, why doesn't god just remove the demon genetics from the children once they are born and replace it with some human genetics? Surely this would be fairer and within the realm of possiblility for a very powerful god.
However, I think everything i have written is in vain if you think reason is a tool of the devil and that faith is justified even more because of the absurdity of what you have faith in. The old "I believe because it is absurd" line. In that case, I really wonder what you are doing on a philosophy forum.
Death Aflame
voice of dissent
- Feb 1, 2004
- 2,504
- 2
- 38
- 38
Dakryn, you seem like a decent guy but you are retarded for advocating death to adulterers, and taking a fundamentalist approach to biblical scripture/law in contemporary society. I mean that is almost a Rush Limbaugh level of absurdity.
@DA
My beliefs are actually far from the group that holds the title of "biblical funamentalists".
@QF
I can see that the world is beyond fucked up, and insanity is doing things the same way over and over and expecting a different result.
Society has been degenerating over the last 100 years, not improving (in a social aspect). Our morals have collapsed, and the fallout from that is increases in crime and skyrocketing drugaddictions and psychological problems.
As I said before, we won't see eye to eye on any of these things because you do not believe in a god and I do. It blows my mind that you think that needing to eat is some sort of tyrannical sadistic burden. You claim to have reason but it sounds to me like nothing but grasping straws.
Let's just take your "logic" to the extreme! If "god" actually cared, he would have made us in a permanently orgasmic state, needing no sustenance, just basking in the glow of a never ending orgasm. But since he didn't, he must be some sort of sick pig.
My beliefs are actually far from the group that holds the title of "biblical funamentalists".
@QF
I can see that the world is beyond fucked up, and insanity is doing things the same way over and over and expecting a different result.
Society has been degenerating over the last 100 years, not improving (in a social aspect). Our morals have collapsed, and the fallout from that is increases in crime and skyrocketing drugaddictions and psychological problems.
As I said before, we won't see eye to eye on any of these things because you do not believe in a god and I do. It blows my mind that you think that needing to eat is some sort of tyrannical sadistic burden. You claim to have reason but it sounds to me like nothing but grasping straws.
Let's just take your "logic" to the extreme! If "god" actually cared, he would have made us in a permanently orgasmic state, needing no sustenance, just basking in the glow of a never ending orgasm. But since he didn't, he must be some sort of sick pig.
Well, Hannibal Lector would disagree with 99.9% of the rest of the human species that eating a baby is evil. But considering the other 99.9% of us consider it evil because of the harm it does to an innocent victim, why would god then force us to live in a world where there is the non-stop possibility someone might abduct and eat my baby? I'd prefer to live in a world where it wasn't possible that my baby might be eaten by hannibal lector. is that so much to ask? I don't think so. If Hannibal wants to eat babies, god could put him on another planet somewhere and hook him up to a computer simulation that makes hannibal think he's eating babies but no one would actually suffer since its a simulation. seems like a fair compromise. 99.9% of us get what we want and hannibal gets what he wants. He thinks he's eating real babies so it's all good to him. Or god could just not create people like hannibal in the first place since part of a very reasonable definition of evil would include eating babies.
there are a lot of potential negative consequences from heroin use/addiction, so given the nature of our world, i'd prefer not to get involved with such things. In an ideal world where there were no negative consequences of using certain pleasure stimulating drugs, i'd probably use them from time to time. I prefer getting whatever pleasure i can in a way that doesn't drastically increase my chances of dying sooner then later.
what exactly is a "concocted facade"? let me use an example to make sense of your phrase. let's say i fuck a hot girl i meet at the movie theater. it is a situation i've concocted because i set out with the intention of finding a hot girl to take home with me and fuck after the movie. but there is also the possibility this girl will go all sharon stone from Basic Instinct on my ass and chop my dick off or something. not a pretty picture, i know, but hey, this is reality. Now let's say we lived in a world where i could concoct the same exact situation but not have the possibility of the girl getting castration happy. would this be a facade? Let's use the definition of facade that says it is a "false appearance that is more pleasant than the reality." So in this situation where i've concocted a movie going experience that entails my fucking a hot girl afterwards, what is the underlying reality that is so horrible that makes my experience of satisfaction a false appearance? is the horrible underlying reality that i can't have my dick chopped off? Why is this horrible? Because I won't learn how to overcome pain? Why would anyone want to have to overcome pain? Purely as some macho bullshit to "test yourself"? Well, if that's what you want then that's what you want but i have no desire to suffer such horrors. Hence I conclude I am able to concoct a highly pleasurable experience that does not entail the possibility of any evil occuring to me and the experience is not a facade because my pleasure is not a false appearance but a reality i directly experience and there is no underlying reality that is so horrible that it diminishes the value of my experiencing pleasure.
Since 'pain' or 'suffering' seems to be where you take issue with life, what negative consequences ensue from dying in a haze of drug induced freedom from such? Obviously, if you felt there was more to life than the mere mitigation of suffering / pleasurable sensation seeking, I would understand.
The negative consequences are the cessation of my ability to have pleasurable experiences for some finite duration of time longer then the relatively short period entailing my "dying in a haze of drug induced freedom." In other words, I'd rather fuck, watch movies and spend time with my dog and hope it lasts for at least another 50 years instead of going out in "glory" after a week or a month or whatever after suffering the consequences of dying from drugs. if someone else wants to take the heroin route, i'm not going to tell them they are wrong, but it's not for me. if i am dead i can't experience anything. obviously if i am alive i might suffer but if i'm dead i can't even potentially experience pleasure. given the nature of our reality and the choices we face, it's a bad decision we have to make to put up with the possibility of suffering just to get our pleasures, but it seems better to me then being dead. others may disagree and i wish them well in their heroin journey.
i should add that of course my dog won't live for fifty years, but i could always get another one.
Similar threads
