'Duck Dynasty' Star Imagines Vivid Rape And Murder Scenario For Atheist Family

originally posted by: Aazadan

Society. Humans decide as a group what their rights are.

Glad to know that slavery and such were OK back in the day

Maybe if I phrase it in a more Christian way you will agree. The modern day concept is that the participants in a religion are the church, but it is also said that the church is the body of God. Therefore you are the body of God. If it is God that dictates certain things as inalienable rights then it is effectively saying that you, your family, your neighbor, and your townsfolk dictate those rights. Or as James Madison put it we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Our creator is those who give us life (our parents), and those who shape the person we become (society). So the roundabout answer to your question is our rights come from other people.

How can people endow us with inalienable rights?

That pdf says a person who kills in self defense is not guilty of murder. They are still guilty of killing another, and one of the commandments is don't kill. Not don't murder, but don't kill.

As I explained earlier on this thread, it is very clear in the original language and context that the word mean "murder," which is why you'll find that word used in modern translations. It's also why Christians are not (all) pacifists.

They quite clearly say that it is wrong to use self defense to kill another. It also says that accidents happen, but that you shouldn't set out with the intention of killing another. The intent here is more important than the result, if you answer lethal force with lethal force of your own you are guilty. If you stop the threat but the person unintentionally dies anyways you are in the clear.

It quite clearly says that if you kill someone in a necessary act of self-defense, it is permissible.

Punishments for breaking the law can exist without morality. What is immoral about speeding? Why is there a punishment for it? People are perfectly capable of identifying what creates a dysfunctional society and outlaw it without relying on morality.

Uh...no, not really. The idea of "functionality" implies that society has a *telos,* an end, set up by a higher body than the individual. If there's no objective good, then there's nothing wrong with society being "dysfunctional" because "dysfunctional" really just means "dysfunctional in your view" and that's a subjective opinion. Yet you think it's alright to enforce your subjective ideas of what a functional society looks like by the force of arms (i.e., the law)?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Glad to know that slavery and such were OK back in the day

According to the Bible and many other holy books/religions it was. Vast numbers of civilizations also endorsed slavery, we even consider it a perfectly legal practice today for those who are imprisoned and there is an entire industry built around to premise of torturing prisoners until they agree to work as a slave.

As far as it being ok goes, what gives us the right to impose our moral judgment on them? Modern day society says it abhors slavery, isn't it good enough that we try to not practice it? Why should we impose the morality of today on the actions of our ancestors? It has barely even been a generation since interracial marriage has lost it's taboo. When people were discriminated against racially, they considered themselves perfectly moral people even though it's a practice we find immoral today. By the standards of some future society, and perhaps even some present society I am likely a racist, bigoted, homophobic, a pedophile, and a classist. Just as it's wrong to judge my past society by current day beliefs, it is wrong to judge today by any standards other than what our society sets for itself.

How can people endow us with inalienable rights?

What is a right other than that which society permits to all people? It is a legal status, that's why a police officer can strip you of your rights. A legal status is something dictated by government, and government is something which comes from the people, so ultimately your rights come from other people.

As I explained earlier on this thread, it is very clear in the original language and context that the word mean "murder," which is why you'll find that word used in modern translations. It's also why Christians are not (all) pacifists.

Many other religions say not to kill. You're not exactly making your case for morality here by saying Christians are told to be more bloodthirsty than everyone else.

It quite clearly says that if you kill someone in a necessary act of self-defense, it is permissible.

A difference in interpretation I suppose. What I get out of it, is that it's saying it's wrong to purposefully kill someone while defending yourself. If something happens and the person dies, that's ok as long as you didn't set out with that intent.

Examples of this would be:
You're walking through a parking lot and someone decides to mug you. You pull a taser on them and use it. This induces a heart attack and the person dies. Your intent was not to kill them so you're good.

You're again walking through a parking lot and someone decides to mug you. You pull a gun on them and shoot them. In your ammunition selection you have chosen a round that is very likely to kill a person rather than disable them. After shooting the person, you leave them there to bleed out while waiting for the ambulance/police. Your intent is for them to die. God is not going to look kindly on this one going by what was written.

Uh...no, not really. The idea of "functionality" implies that society has a *telos,* an end, set up by a higher body than the individual. If there's no objective good, then there's nothing wrong with society being "dysfunctional" because "dysfunctional" really just means "dysfunctional in your view" and that's a subjective opinion. Yet you think it's alright to enforce your subjective ideas of what a functional society looks like by the force of arms (i.e., the law)?

Perhaps you're getting hung up on the word dysfunctional. Lets try the word self destructive. It is in everyones interest to not cannibalize ourselves, therefore society makes rules to prevent that from happening.

originally posted by: Aazadan

According to the Bible and many other holy books/religions it was. Vast numbers of civilizations also endorsed slavery, we even consider it a perfectly legal practice today for those who are imprisoned and there is an entire industry built around to premise of torturing prisoners until they agree to work as a slave.
As far as it being ok goes, what gives us the right to impose our moral judgment on them? Modern day society says it abhors slavery, isn't it good enough that we try to not practice it? Why should we impose the morality of today on the actions of our ancestors? It has barely even been a generation since interracial marriage has lost it's taboo. When people were discriminated against racially, they considered themselves perfectly moral people even though it's a practice we find immoral today. By the standards of some future society, and perhaps even some present society I am likely a racist, bigoted, homophobic, a pedophile, and a classist.

I do sincerely respect your decision to refrain from judgment. It's a wise one. But I think to throw all objective moral standards out the window is a poor idea. More on that later.

Just as it's wrong to judge my past society by current day beliefs, it is wrong to judge today by any standards other than what our society sets for itself.

Is this an objective or subjective truth?

What is a right other than that which society permits to all people? It is a legal status, that's why a police officer can strip you of your rights. A legal status is something dictated by government, and government is something which comes from the people, so ultimately your rights come from other people.

And so other people can take them away. This is what I find so incredible dangerous about this idea. If everyone decides we don't need a trial by jury, POOF, there it goes. Democratic government? POOF! later, kids. Don't like the Jews/blacks/Greeks/Christians/Muslims/American Indians, well, we can fix that too, and those who would fight against it would be wrong, or at least not right, because they would be in favor of objective moral truths and inalienable rights, and those don't exist.

Many other religions say not to kill. You're not exactly making your case for morality here by saying Christians are told to be more bloodthirsty than everyone else.

I'm not aware of any religions whose followers do not believe it is alright to kill at certain times (such as war, or in civil matters) but I'm always ready to be educated. Which ones did you have in mind?

A difference in interpretation I suppose. What I get out of it, is that it's saying it's wrong to purposefully kill someone while defending yourself. If something happens and the person dies, that's ok as long as you didn't set out with that intent.

I...don't think it's that hard to interpret.

Perhaps you're getting hung up on the word dysfunctional. Lets try the word self destructive. It is in everyones interest to not cannibalize ourselves, therefore society makes rules to prevent that from happening.

Er...we have rules against self-cannibalization? That doesn't seem like a problem society has.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I'm not aware of any religions whose followers do not believe it is alright to kill at certain times (such as war, or in civil matters) but I'm always ready to be educated. Which ones did you have in mind?

Jesus didn't teach self defense. He taught to "turn the other cheek" when confronted with violence. He did absolutely nothing to defend his own life. Martyrdom was common among early Christians, who didn't wage war to protect themselves.

Ghandi taught "nonviolent resistance", but he didn't invent it. It's a teaching within his religion.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Jesus didn't teach self defense. He taught to "turn the other cheek" when confronted with violence. He did absolutely nothing to defend his own life. Martyrdom was common among early Christians, who didn't wage war to protect themselves.

Yup. The same guy told his disciples to buy swords. Perhaps there's some nuance in his position?

Ghandi taught "nonviolent resistance", but he didn't invent it. It's a teaching within his religion.

He also was inspired by Leo Tolstoy. To the best of my knowledge, the mainstream interpretations of Hinduism do not forbid violence.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

If you believe those things and reconcile it with Christianity then you can't use the example of Shamash handing down the code of laws to humans when trying to prove that morality comes from god. All your points make the original point a useless point to even say in the first place.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yup. The same guy told his disciples to buy swords. Perhaps there's some nuance in his position?

The contradictions in the scripture regarding the words of Jesus himself are staggering, even before you add everyone else's interpretations, like as in Paul's letters.

Jesus certainly isn't someone I would want my children to emulate.

To the best of my knowledge, the mainstream interpretations of Hinduism do not forbid violence.

Do not forbid anything.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The contradictions in the scripture regarding the words of Jesus himself are staggering, even before you add everyone else's interpretations, like as in Paul's letters.

I think that apparent contradictions make things more interesting. Perhaps Scripture is merely cryptic and written with depth.

Do not forbid anything.

Well, there you go

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent
If you believe those things and reconcile it with Christianity then you can't use the example of Shamash handing down the code of laws to humans when trying to prove that morality comes from god.

Mmmmm...I sort of agree with you.
It suggests that even early man thought that morality should come from the gods, perhaps because otherwise it did not hold weight.

What I was mostly responding to, though, was your idea that morality must come from people unless you believe in [insert pagan deity credited with handing down a moral code here.]

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I do sincerely respect your decision to refrain from judgment. It's a wise one. But I think to throw all objective moral standards out the window is a poor idea. More on that later.

Why? Do you share moral standards with ISIS? According to ISIS what they are doing is not wrong. We can tell them to stop (or force them if we really want), but does that make us right? They are also deeply religious people acting according to their faith. Oddly enough, also doing what God and Jesus told them to do. Who are we to say that what they're doing is wrong? They are living according to the desires of their society, for the most part.

Is this an objective or subjective truth?

Does it matter? It's true for me regardless of the source.

And so other people can take them away. This is what I find so incredible dangerous about this idea. If everyone decides we don't need a trial by jury, POOF, there it goes. Democratic government? POOF! later, kids. Don't like the Jews/blacks/Greeks/Christians/Muslims/American Indians, well, we can fix that too, and those who would fight against it would be wrong, or at least not right, because they would be in favor of objective moral truths and inalienable rights, and those don't exist.

That is correct. All of the things you mentioned have been granted to society by others, or taken away by society at one time or another. In order to have the freedom to advance, you must also have the freedom to regress. Even those rights in our constitution are no further away than a 2/3 vote in congress. Freedom of religion? The right to own property? How about that time when the freedom to drink alcohol was removed?

I'm not aware of any religions whose followers do not believe it is alright to kill at certain times (such as war, or in civil matters) but I'm always ready to be educated. Which ones did you have in mind?

Well, I'm not an expert on the details of every religion out there but most Muslims (excluding those ISIS guys) say they are a religion of peace and that they're forbidden to kill others. Or we could go with the Buddhists who abhor killing so much that a large number of their followers will go vegetarian and their priests walk with special brooms to push insects out of the way so they're not stepped on.

I...don't think it's that hard to interpret.

Seeing as how we seem to have completely different interpretations, it clearly is.

Er...we have rules against self-cannibalization? That doesn't seem like a problem society has.

Cannibalization of society is metaphorical, I also referred to it as self destructive. Where society preys upon itself, and harms/kills the many for the benefit of the few. This is a huge problem in society, and if we didn't have the laws we have it would be an even bigger problem.

originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

Why? Do you share moral standards with ISIS?

Heavens, no. Personally, I believe that we should judge (or, if you prefer, evaluate) cultures, past and present, but we should do so with humility.

Does it matter? It's true for me regardless of the source.

It's true for you? What does that mean?

That is correct. All of the things you mentioned have been granted to society by others, or taken away by society at one time or another. In order to have the freedom to advance, you must also have the freedom to regress. Even those rights in our constitution are no further away than a 2/3 vote in congress. Freedom of religion? The right to own property? How about that time when the freedom to drink alcohol was removed?

Cool. So long as we're clear on that.
Going back to the OP, do you then agree with Phil Robertson, that there is no reason for an atheist to decry any action as immoral?

Well, I'm not an expert on the details of every religion out there but most Muslims (excluding those ISIS guys) say they are a religion of peace and that they're forbidden to kill others.

Ummm....no. Most Muslims are fine with killing, as long as it's done by the government for a legitimate reason (say, execution of a criminal or warfare.)

Or we could go with the Buddhists who abhor killing so much that a large number of their followers will go vegetarian and their priests walk with special brooms to push insects out of the way so they're not stepped on.

And how many Buddhists do this?

Seeing as how we seem to have completely different interpretations, it clearly is.

So...if you and I disagree on whether the world is round, does that mean it is clearly open to debate on whether it is round or not?

Cannibalization of society is metaphorical, I also referred to it as self destructive. Where society preys upon itself, and harms/kills the many for the benefit of the few. This is a huge problem in society, and if we didn't have the laws we have it would be an even bigger problem.

Why is it a problem? Society itself is a human construct–where is the value in it? What if it should be destroyed? That's certainly true for some people. So why should we seek to preserve society?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Well, there you go

Not forbidding anything is the same as it is for the Buddhists. The religion has it's teachings but tells the individual to think about those teachings and how to live according to them. It doesn't say "murder is forbidden" and instead calls on the follower to determine if murder is something they should partake in. The vast majority of people are able to decide on their own to not do it.

I think this is one of the big differences between eastern/western religion and why people like Pat Robertson come up with the scenarios they do. Under western religion something is usually said to be forbidden by a higher power, just like a child whose parent forbids them from eating an entire bag of candy, God is forbidding you from making a poor decision. The follower doesn't need to put any more thought into it or attempt to rationalize the why.

Under the eastern religions however, the why is taught and it's then up to the follower to decide if they want to accept that explanation or come up with their own, and then after they have the explanation either ignore the recommendation or not.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

I agree. Clearly the early humans were just as mistaken as Christians in saying that morality comes from a divine source and is not inherent in all humans. That doesn't mean they were right though.

Since the Sumerians predate the Hebrew god by millennia this is before god supposedly revealed himself to humans. So if the Sumerians were correct in that their morality came from elsewhere, who exactly gave them that morality? If it was the Hebrew god, then why isn't it mentioned in the bible? Why would the ten commandments (an event that happened MANY years after the Code of Hammurabi was written) be a more important event of god handing down morality than the Code of Hammurabi?

originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent

The vast majority of people are able to decide on their own to not do it.

I bet living in societies with law enforcement helps

I think this is one of the big differences between eastern/western religion and why people like Pat Robertson come up with the scenarios they do. Under western religion something is usually said to be forbidden by a higher power, just like a child whose parent forbids them from eating an entire bag of candy, God is forbidding you from making a poor decision. The follower doesn't need to put any more thought into it or attempt to rationalize the why.

Er...Christians and Jews have put hundreds of years of thought and rationalization into what is forbidden by a higher power and why. Perhaps you're misidentifying a particular *coughAmericancough* breed of Christianity as representative of all of Christianity.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

I agree. Clearly the early humans were just as mistaken as Christians in saying that morality comes from a divine source and is not inherent in all humans. That doesn't mean they were right though.

The idea that morality is inherent in all humans isn't incompatible with the idea that morality comes from a divine source.

Since the Sumerians predate the Hebrew god by millennia this is before god supposedly revealed himself to humans.

What? The Hebrew God supposedly revealed Himself to humans from the very beginning...

So if the Sumerians were correct in that their morality came from elsewhere, who exactly gave them that morality?

Well, it could be that morality is inherent in humans because God placed it there...

If it was the Hebrew god, then why isn't it mentioned in the bible?

I doubt it was, but why would it be mentioned in the Bible.

"And also, the LORD God went to the Sumerians and gave them moral codes." I can see why that would be omitted

Why would the ten commandments (an event that happened MANY years after the Code of Hammurabi was written) be a more important event of god handing down morality than the Code of Hammurabi?

What do you mean? I mean, I guess we're more interested in it because Judeo-Christian morality has such a prevalent impact in our world, if that's what you're getting at.

a reply to: Aazadan

Also...you sidestepped the part where I asked you if you agreed with Phil Robertson, in that there is no reason for an atheist to decry anything as immoral?

ETA: actually I think his point was that atheists don't really believe that...do you?

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

What? The Hebrew God supposedly revealed Himself to humans from the very beginning...

The Hebrew God revealed himself with the birth of the Hebrews. I'm pretty sure that you aren't a YECer so you should know that the Adam and Eve story isn't a word for word account of creation. Humans evolved over millions of years and there is no way God could have been with us from "the very beginning", because it is impossible to pinpoint the exact point that humans evolved the rational thinking capability to conceptualize god. Therefore, the most reasonable point that humans became aware of the Hebrew god is with the birth of the Hebrews.

Well, it could be that morality is inherent in humans because God placed it there...

Yet god fails to correct the Sumerians falsely attributed it to some fake god? After all we ARE dealing with the Old Testament god here. He is supposed to be angry and jealous of humans worshiping other gods. Yet no smiting of the Sumerians.

I doubt it was, but why would it be mentioned in the Bible.

"And also, the LORD God went to the Sumerians and gave them moral codes." I can see why that would be omitted

Yea you're right God really isn't a chief advocator of racial tolerance. Good point. God gave all humans morality, but only deems to tell one group because god is racist. I guess that could work. After all, Hebrew faith DOES preach they are the chosen people.

What do you mean? I mean, I guess we're more interested in it because Judeo-Christian morality has such a prevalent impact in our world, if that's what you're getting at.

I'm talking about important to god. The bible is the divine word of god. So if god is telling us the history of his love for us, then what was so much more important about an event that had already occurred at least once more in the past?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: StalkerSolent
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: StalkerSolent

The Hebrew God revealed himself with the birth of the Hebrews. I'm pretty sure that you aren't a YECer so you should know that the Adam and Eve story isn't a word for word account of creation.

Even if we toss that aside for the moment, there's the story of Job to consider.

Humans evolved over millions of years and there is no way God could have been with us from "the very beginning", because it is impossible to pinpoint the exact point that humans evolved the rational thinking capability to conceptualize god. Therefore, the most reasonable point that humans became aware of the Hebrew god is with the birth of the Hebrews.

I'd say, based on what I know of evolutionary theory, that either we didn't evolve (odds are not in its favor, IMHO, and you don't have to be a YECer to do the math in this regard) or it was a divinely guided process. Either way, you can make a strong case that God is here from the beginning.

Yet god fails to correct the Sumerians falsely attributed it to some fake god? After all we ARE dealing with the Old Testament god here. He is supposed to be angry and jealous of humans worshiping other gods. Yet no smiting of the Sumerians.

Well, He hasn't smitten anyone on this thread for suggesting He's not involved in morality, so why would he bother smiting the Sumerians? Or maybe He did, but we don't have a record of it.

Yea you're right God really isn't a chief advocator of racial tolerance. Good point. God gave all humans morality, but only deems to tell one group because god is racist. I guess that could work. After all, Hebrew faith DOES preach they are the chosen people.

Which is why the Hebrew faith has ways for people who are not Hebrew to come into the faith and *also* why God chills with Job before He gets around to the Hebrews and *also* why He (in the Christian conception) died to save the whole world.

I'm talking about important to god. The bible is the divine word of god. So if god is telling us the history of his love for us, then what was so much more important about an event that had already occurred at least once more in the past?

Wait, the Code of Whatshisface was written by the finger of God? I had no idea
But seriously, in the Christian conception of the Old Testament, God details a record of the Hebrews to illustrate the problems with following the law...legalism, if you will. I'm not sure why a random legal code would do anything more than serve as another illustration of the immutability of humans' need for morality external to them, which Paul(?) deals with in the New Testament.

Maybe Phil is a closet homosexual? I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

Bible Belt leads the nation in consumption of gay porn

originally posted by: Metallicus
I agree with Phil Robertson on the point he made about atheists having no defined right or wrong. Without a God what reason is there to not 'do as thou wilt' which is the Law of Thelema and Thelemites (a well known atheist group). Without God anything goes.

A truly bullshyte series of statements.

Without God, you have something called human empathy and compassion.

Idiot statements are idiotic.