It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 13
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Empathy and compassion! Have you been napping this entire time?


Nope. I merely remain unconvinced that empathy and compassion are a good standard for morality. I mean, take an average person, cut their sleep cycle in half for a week, and feed them food they don't like, and watch their empathy and compassion disappear. People are fundamentally selfish, and, as I've pointed out before, scientific testing indicates that human beings will quickly commit unethical behavior if put into an environment that is conducive to such behavior. Either fewer people actually have empathy and compassion than you seem to think, or people lose them quickly. Either way, it seems they're really horrible models for morality.

Granted, the same tests would indicate that people don't hold up well to whatever type of morals they believe in, whether a TMO or compassion. But if a TMO exists, it exists regardless of how far from it humans fall. If, on the other hand, morality is continent upon compassion and empathy, than it's really a very mutable thing.



Look, according to your Bible, Adam and Eve stole their sense of right from when they disobeyed "God" and ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil! God didn't give them the knowledge, they took it!


Er...right...the knowledge, which they took, which was God's to begin with, so God was the one that created moral codes, which humanity then accessed...
Presuming, of course, that you read the story literally.
edit on 29-3-2015 by StalkerSolent because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Nyiah
So, let me get this straight.

This inbred schlup is saying that in order to not go bonkers and be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, you have to fear an imaginary friend, and adhere to it's 4,000 year old Jewish texts. Correct?


No.
That's not what he's saying, at least not if I read the link correctly. Feel free to reread it yourself, though, and please correct me if I am wrong

He's saying that even atheists think it's wrong to be a total sociopathic menace to anything alive, which is inconsistent with the belief of an atheist that there is no objective morality. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is necessarily true if you are a purely materialistic atheist.

Even if your interpretation is correct, it's still borked beyond belief. Do you enjoy being alive? I do, along with all the pleasant experiences therein. To enjoy that is to also repay it in kind. Morality or not, it doesn't need a hippe in a dress in the sky to mandate it -- we as a species tend to do what is necessary to facilitate our continuance, and the civilized interactions, of all kinds, go hand in hand with it. Misery enjoys company, but so does happiness.
edit on 3/29/2015 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Oh, good! Glad we cleared that up


Nobody knows for sure if Objective Morality exists or not. So that should have been pretty clear from the start.
However, we all know for a fact that Subjective Morality does exist.



Er...sure. Or maybe it's a book that rewards study


I studied it. Repeatedly actually. Which is why I can say without a doubt that as far as a book of morals goes, it has some problems.


Eh...no...


Ummm, ya. I'm afraid so. Women were basically property to men. Either their father or their husband. They are told to serve man. If raped they are either killed or made to marry their rapist. They were considered less than a man in almost every way. There are countless examples of this, I'm sure you've come across them.

Same goes for slavery. At the time slavery was considered normal and it sets down some rules to follow about how to treat them and so forth. It's just how it was then.

How about when Lot is raped by his own daughters??? Or when God makes a bet with Satan and punished Job???


Eh...no...it served as the foremost standard of an objective morality up until recently. The standards that grew out of Christian morality are still selectively adhered to by most of the West. Islam, of course, provides another standard of objective morality.


Ya, well historically we haven't exactly been champions of morality now have we??? That hasn't changed either. We were both moral and immoral then and we are both moral and immoral now.

Other cultures were also moral and immoral without having to follow Jesus or the Bible.


Why? Couldn't one just as plausibly the say the opposite: "unless you can somehow show exactly how Morality is Subjective I'd say you'd have to conclude that it is Objective."


Ummm no, not really. We know it's Subjective because we've witnessed the fact that people have held different morals and live by different moral codes throughout history. That shows pretty clearly that it's subjective.

That even goes for the big rule breakers like Murder. Murder wasn't always seen as immoral. Nor were lots of other things. Now, that may not Prove Morality one way or the other, because as I said before, nobody can prove it 100%. However, it certainly is powerful evidence showing that it's subjective.



All the various philosophers and great thinkers still haven't been able to prove that objective reality exists, because they haven't been able to climb out of Hume's hole. So why should they be able to prove that objective morality exists?


You tell me. You're the one claiming that Objective Morality exists, not me. I'm saying it can't be proven.


Objectively, they can't really be truly valid and truly meaningful at the same time. If they're all valid, than completely opposite moralities are both equally valid, which means they are objectively meaningless.

On the other hand, if they are objectively meaningful, then completely opposite moralities cannot be equally valid because of the way logic works: if two propositions are mutually exclusive, than only one of them can be true.


We can both have different Moral Codes which have meaning for each of us. We will never know for sure if they match a universal Objective Morality nor if such an Objective Morality exists for certain. If my morals and your morals do not match then perhaps we are both incorrect. Or perhaps that is simply more evidence of Morality being Subjective.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
But you're OK with other people forcing your morals on others?


Where did I say that?



So, we should say something is immoral because it inconveniences us?


Ask the people who want to kill someone instead of lose a piece of property.



Christians struggle to follow their own guidelines–it's something that has been recognized since the inception of Christianity.


Did you know that most Atheists don't struggle with living within their own self imposed guidelines? That's something unique to those who live according to the dictates of a God without ever determining their own logical reasons why things are good or bad. Such as Pat Robertson who apparently only believes rape is bad because God says so.




So, as long as a majority of people agree on something, it's good to go.


Not completely. The rights of the minority are a thing and are a very important concept. People are more than capable of coming together and deciding on a system of rights and laws without relying on their religion however. As proof of this, I point out that most nations involve people of multiple religions coexisting.



Uhh...you've been telling me it's not wrong.


No I haven't. I said I see it as wrong, many other people agree with me. Enough that society has decided to outlaw it. According to the morality of some people they won't see it as wrong, such as you since you've defended killing multiple times in this thread or Pat who thinks the only reason to not rape is that it keeps him out of heaven, although I suppose he could always just ask for forgiveness on his deathbed. That sure is awfully convenient.

Then again, it seems to me that if real God would be more apt to judge you based on what's in your heart than how you behaved. Someone who obeys the rules, but truly wants to break them all and only doesn't because of the bribery of eternal heaven isn't the type of person that should be rewarded.



Yes, this is true. This also means that the morality of the serial killer is just as valid as the morality of the erudite and compassionate atheist.


If people are equal, then our differing moralities are also equal. That doesn't mean people can't come together and decide on what rules they want where they live. People who can't abide by those rules can go live where they can do what they want, or try to change the rules.



You haven't been able to tell me why it's wrong, just that you don't like it and it's inconvenient.


Why is something wrong because God says so? What makes God correct? Last I checked, God has a long list of contradictory statements. Maybe God is just as arbitrary as the rest of us.
edit on 29-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: StalkerSolent


Even if your interpretation is correct, it's still borked beyond belief. Do you enjoy being alive? I do, along with all the pleasant experiences therein. To enjoy that is to also repay it in kind.


Unless you enjoy being a sick twisted psychopath, or a clinically depressed person.
Then you can either enjoy life, commit suicide, or be miserable, amiright?

The fantasy idea that we're all just really nice people who can live together happily is not confirmed by reality. Our history as a species is full of violence and murder.



Morality or not, it doesn't need a hippe in a dress in the sky to mandate it -- we as a species tend to do what is necessary to facilitate our continuance...


This, of course, is why we have engaged in brutal and meaningless wars for time out of mind, and currently have enough nuclear weapons to consume the Earth in fire and ash...



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



I studied it. Repeatedly actually. Which is why I can say without a doubt that as far as a book of morals goes, it has some problems.


So...who put you on a high pedestal to judge the Bible? Worst case scenario, the Bible was written by a bunch of uninformed people whose opinions are just as valid as yours




Same goes for slavery. At the time slavery was considered normal and it sets down some rules to follow about how to treat them and so forth. It's just how it was then.


^ 'zactly. Compare this with the Roman view of women and slaves, where you can kill them for no reason, and tell me which moral standard is superior. I should hedge my bets here by pointing out that I'm not an expert on either Hebrew culture or language, so I'm a little hesitant to claim to understand all of the commands to the Hebrew people, some of which were pretty clearly contextual.



How about when Lot is raped by his own daughters??? Or when God makes a bet with Satan and punished Job???


If you'd studied the Bible, you'd know that Lot's rape by his daughters was not considered a good, uh, example to look up to, and that God didn't punish Job...



Ya, well historically we haven't exactly been champions of morality now have we??? That hasn't changed either. We were both moral and immoral then and we are both moral and immoral now.


Yup.



Other cultures were also moral and immoral without having to follow Jesus or the Bible.


I'd agree, but on what grounds can you say that they were moral or immoral? Unless there is an objective morality, you can't judge them.



Ummm no, not really. We know it's Subjective because we've witnessed the fact that people have held different morals and live by different moral codes throughout history. That shows pretty clearly that it's subjective.


So, if I tell all my workers to build houses forty feet high, and they build them between twenty and fifty feet high, my building code is subjective???



That even goes for the big rule breakers like Murder. Murder wasn't always seen as immoral. Nor were lots of other things. Now, that may not Prove Morality one way or the other, because as I said before, nobody can prove it 100%. However, it certainly is powerful evidence showing that it's subjective.


Powerful evidence that people are stupid, maybe




You tell me. You're the one claiming that Objective Morality exists, not me. I'm saying it can't be proven.


I'm agreeing with you. I don't think anything can be proven




We can both have different Moral Codes which have meaning for each of us. We will never know for sure if they match a universal Objective Morality nor if such an Objective Morality exists for certain. If my morals and your morals do not match then perhaps we are both incorrect. Or perhaps that is simply more evidence of Morality being Subjective.


We will also never know for sure if each other exists. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and forgo rational enquiry.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



Where did I say that?


I inferred it. If you're not OK with it, then you must have a moral standard that says that it is not OK. But since this is a subjective opinion, you cannot force it on others, because if you did so you would be guilty of forcing your own moral standard on others, which would then make you guilty of what you find wrong. See how that works? Ergo, you must be fine with people forcing their own moral standards on others.



Ask the people who want to kill someone instead of lose a piece of property.


Don't have any handy. I'd prefer to ask you




Did you know that most Atheists don't struggle with living within their own self imposed guidelines?

Oh, gosh, living up to your own moral code. That must be really liberating. I bet even serial killers can do it!
Not that atheists = serial killers, of course. It's just that any fool can set their own moral code and live up to it.



Not completely. The rights of the minority are a thing and are a very important concept.


Wait...if I recall correctly, you told me that rights were created by the people. So the rights of the minority only exist if the majority/consensus are OK with such rights, correct?



People are more than capable of coming together and deciding on a system of rights and laws without relying on their religion however. As proof of this, I point out that most nations involve people of multiple religions coexisting.


This is most certainly true.



No I haven't. I said I see it as wrong, many other people agree with me. Enough that society has decided to outlaw it. According to the morality of some people they won't see it as wrong, such as you since you've defended killing multiple times in this thread


Most people think killing is OK if it's done during a legitimate war or in legitimate self-defense...
I still don't see why you see anything as "wrong." How do you define "wrong," again?



Then again, it seems to me that if real God would be more apt to judge you based on what's in your heart than how you behaved. Someone who obeys the rules, but truly wants to break them all and only doesn't because of the bribery of eternal heaven isn't the type of person that should be rewarded.


I'd agree that they shouldn't be rewarded as much as the person who truly want to break the rules. Virtue-based ethics for the win! (That's what that ethical system is called, and personally I think Christianity supports it. But that's just me.)



If people are equal, then our differing moralities are also equal. That doesn't mean people can't come together and decide on what rules they want where they live. People who can't abide by those rules can go live where they can do what they want, or try to change the rules.


Welp, if everyone's morality is equally valid, than who gets to dictate morality should be decided by sheer numbers and then backed up by force?



Why is something wrong because God says so? What makes God correct? Last I checked, God has a long list of contradictory statements. Maybe God is just as arbitrary as the rest of us.


Maybe it's because those statements are paradoxes. And maybe "God says so" is a good reason because if the God (of the Abrahamic background, at least) exists, He created the universe. His game, His rules.

Re: the "arbitrary point," there's a tension between in the idea that God's laws are determined by His will or by His nature. As I understand it, Christians usually fall on the "nature" side, and Muslims usually fall on the "will" side, but I could be wrong. It's a fascinating debate, you should check it out!



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

So...who put you on a high pedestal to judge the Bible? Worst case scenario, the Bible was written by a bunch of uninformed people whose opinions are just as valid as yours


I guess I don't consider it to be putting myself high on a pedestal to read and critique a book. This also isn't about my opinion or their opinion. It's about the fact that the Bible itself lays out an antiquated form of morality that 2000 years later has shown to have flaws in it. That of course is Subjective however.

What isn't subjective are the passages within the bible where it's moral code opposes other moral codes. Those I think are simply called mistakes. But since it was written by different authors at different times this is to be expected.



^ 'zactly. Compare this with the Roman view of women and slaves, where you can kill them for no reason, and tell me which moral standard is superior. I should hedge my bets here by pointing out that I'm not an expert on either Hebrew culture or language, so I'm a little hesitant to claim to understand all of the commands to the Hebrew people, some of which were pretty clearly contextual.


IMO Slaves and killing for no reason is bad, be it women or men or whoever. I don't think I need to judge which one is better than the other. They both seem to be a pretty bad way to go if you ask me.



If you'd studied the Bible, you'd know that Lot's rape by his daughters was not considered a good, uh, example to look up to, and that God didn't punish Job...


Well, I think the whole Job story and if he was punished or not is debatable. You say God didn't punish him and I'm sure you have your reasons, but I would have to disagree. He rewarded him in the end and removed the boils that covered his body and all, but I think the fact that he put him through it in the first place because of a bet with Satan is a form of punishment. Also, his reward wasn't even his original wife and kids, but new ones. It never even discusses how Job felt about that. Maybe he really loved his original wife and kids even if the new ones were just as good.



I'd agree, but on what grounds can you say that they were moral or immoral? Unless there is an objective morality, you can't judge them.


I'm saying it they were moral based upon the collective standard of the day that's all. The point being that historically different cultures have had various moral standards even if they aren't always linked to the same God as it's origin.



So, if I tell all my workers to build houses forty feet high, and they build them between twenty and fifty feet high, my building code is subjective???


No, but if you and your workers build a couple houses and yours is 50ft tall and their house is 25ft tall and you say your house is better and they say their house is better. Who actually has the better house is Subjective.


Powerful evidence that people are stupid, maybe


It might be evidence for that as well.


I'm agreeing with you. I don't think anything can be proven


Oh well good. At least we can agree on something.



We will also never know for sure if each other exists. That doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and forgo rational enquiry.


That makes two things I think we can agree on.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




But if a TMO exists, it exists regardless of how far from it humans fall. If, on the other hand, morality is continent upon compassion and empathy, than it's really a very mutable thing.


Morality IS a very mutable thing! If you want proof, just look at the Bible!



Er...right...the knowledge, which they took, which was God's to begin with, so God was the one that created moral codes, which humanity then accessed...
Presuming, of course, that you read the story literally.


Of course I don't read the story literally. I take NONE of the Bible literally, NONE OF IT!

According to the story, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of "Good and Evil", and became like God. What they did with their knowledge was up to them. God didn't help them with that at all, at least there's no moral guide from God to the first family once they did the unthinkable, and ate the fruit, in the Bible. Nothing stopped Cain from killing Adam.



edit on 29-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
I inferred it. If you're not OK with it, then you must have a moral standard that says that it is not OK. But since this is a subjective opinion, you cannot force it on others, because if you did so you would be guilty of forcing your own moral standard on others, which would then make you guilty of what you find wrong. See how that works? Ergo, you must be fine with people forcing their own moral standards on others.


What I find to be ok isn't what others are going to find ok. What I find to be wrong isn't what others are going to find wrong. Part of free will is in choosing for yourself what is and isn't right.



Don't have any handy. I'd prefer to ask you



Sometimes morals are inconvenient. That doesn't mean you need an exterior motivator in order to stick to them.



Oh, gosh, living up to your own moral code. That must be really liberating. I bet even serial killers can do it!
Not that atheists = serial killers, of course. It's just that any fool can set their own moral code and live up to it.


And most people are able to determine that rape, theft, murder, assault, and others are morally wrong. They can even rationalize why it's wrong unlike God who says, X is wrong because it is wrong. Pat Robertson seems to struggle to live with the idea that he shouldn't sexually assault people, that's something unique to people who haven't determined on their own that sexual assault is bad.



Wait...if I recall correctly, you told me that rights were created by the people. So the rights of the minority only exist if the majority/consensus are OK with such rights, correct?


No. Pure majority rule is nothing other than mob rule. Those who have 51% of the vote get their way. That's not how rational people make deals with each other because if you were to do that, 49% of the population would be heavily incentivized to break the law, and show the 51% how wrong they are.



Most people think killing is OK if it's done during a legitimate war or in legitimate self-defense...
I still don't see why you see anything as "wrong." How do you define "wrong," again?


Right and wrong are up to how an individual wishes to conduct their life. Laws are not about right and wrong, that which is legal is not always right and that which is illegal is not always wrong. In most places it is illegal to feed the homeless and it is legal to enter into an unfair contract with someone despite the fact that to me and many other people the former is right and the latter is wrong.


Welp, if everyone's morality is equally valid, than who gets to dictate morality should be decided by sheer numbers and then backed up by force?


Well, as we already established, the law has nothing to do with morality. Sometimes it forbids an action that a person believes to be moral but they are different constructs.



Maybe it's because those statements are paradoxes. And maybe "God says so" is a good reason because if the God (of the Abrahamic background, at least) exists, He created the universe. His game, His rules.


If I were to believe in God, I would take the view that God is a computer programmer. Perhaps you're familiar with the theory, there's quite a few threads around here on it. This could be because my own background is in programming, but the more I do it the more it makes sense that if intelligent design is a thing it is the mechanism that was used to create the universe.

When programming a world (lets take an example of a couple simple AI's that are created and interact with each other), it is trivial to find any piece of information about that world. This ability to oversee anything going on in that world makes one omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent in regards to that world. However, it doesn't mean that the programmer is without fault. The programmer or God could make a rule, and highly suggest that the AI's follow it. That doesn't necessarily make the programmer correct. I think about this in similar terms.

His universe, his rules makes no sense to me. That's like saying my house, my rules which is completely arbitrary as the person making the rules is capable of being wrong.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
originally posted by: mOjOm



I guess I don't consider it to be putting myself high on a pedestal to read and critique a book. This also isn't about my opinion or their opinion. It's about the fact that the Bible itself lays out an antiquated form of morality that 2000 years later has shown to have flaws in it.


See (IMHO) the OT law was supposed to point out that legalism is flawed. That's why the New Testament is full of raves about how the New Covenant of love and grace is superior to the Old Covenant of laws of punishment.



What isn't subjective are the passages within the bible where it's moral code opposes other moral codes. Those I think are simply called mistakes. But since it was written by different authors at different times this is to be expected.


To clarify, do you mean moral codes within the Bible opposing other moral codes?



IMO Slaves and killing for no reason is bad, be it women or men or whoever. I don't think I need to judge which one is better than the other. They both seem to be a pretty bad way to go if you ask me.


See my comment above




Well, I think the whole Job story and if he was punished or not is debatable. You say God didn't punish him and I'm sure you have your reasons, but I would have to disagree. He rewarded him in the end and removed the boils that covered his body and all, but I think the fact that he put him through it in the first place because of a bet with Satan is a form of punishment. Also, his reward wasn't even his original wife and kids, but new ones. It never even discusses how Job felt about that. Maybe he really loved his original wife and kids even if the new ones were just as good.


IIRC, Job didn't lose his wife. I *think* that Satan is held to be responsible for Job's tribulation.



I'm saying it they were moral based upon the collective standard of the day that's all. The point being that historically different cultures have had various moral standards even if they aren't always linked to the same God as it's origin.


This is certainly true. But that doesn't discount the idea of an objective morality




No, but if you and your workers build a couple houses and yours is 50ft tall and their house is 25ft tall and you say your house is better and they say their house is better. Who actually has the better house is Subjective.


Yes. The question (IMHO) is why do atheists insist they have equally good houses?




Oh well good. At least we can agree on something.


That makes two things I think we can agree on.


Always good to find common ground (and I mean that sincerely.)
IMHO, proof is hard to come by. It's all about what has the best evidence in favor of it, and the best explanatory power



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent



Morality IS a very mutable thing! If you want proof, just look at the Bible!


Just because humans act as if it is mutable doesn't mean it is




Of course I don't read the story literally. I take NONE of the Bible literally, NONE OF IT!

According to the story, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of "Good and Evil", and became like God. What they did with their knowledge was up to them. God didn't help them with that at all, at least there's no moral guide from God to the first family once they did the unthinkable, and ate the fruit, in the Bible. Nothing stopped Cain from killing Adam.


And yet, oddly enough, Cain seemed to realize that he had sinned.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




f you'd studied the Bible, you'd know that Lot's rape by his daughters was not considered a good, uh, example to look up to, and that God didn't punish Job...


This is an excellent example of subjective morality from the Bible. It leaves us, if we can access our empathy, feeling pity for the girls.

If they were good (Hebrew) followers of the God of Noah, then they would have known the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Because the men of the city rejected them, in favor of the angels, (DUH, they're ANGELS!!!!), the girls were most probably virgins. Young innocent young women, ripped from everything they knew, who watched their mother turned into a pillar of salt and their friends and family burnt alive. They were convinced that the whole earth had been destroyed, and the 3 of them were the only earthly survivors, according to biblical narrative.

Their decision to get their father drunk, to save him the shame of taking them, was what they thought, the most moral thing to do.

There's no end result of objective morality in this story at all.

edit on 29-3-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: StalkerSolent



What I find to be ok isn't what others are going to find ok. What I find to be wrong isn't what others are going to find wrong. Part of free will is in choosing for yourself what is and isn't right.


Yes. But then the beautiful part is where you get to impose your morality on people. So are you in favor of imposing morality on people, or do you think it's fine to stand by and let people impose their own morality on others?



Sometimes morals are inconvenient. That doesn't mean you need an exterior motivator in order to stick to them.


But what are morals beyond what we all find convenient, in your view.



And most people are able to determine that rape, theft, murder, assault, and others are morally wrong.


So you DO believe in objective moral truth?



No. Pure majority rule is nothing other than mob rule. Those who have 51% of the vote get their way. That's not how rational people make deals with each other because if you were to do that, 49% of the population would be heavily incentivized to break the law, and show the 51% how wrong they are.


So, rights are created by the people, but not by the people because that's mob rule.
I'm really confused.



Right and wrong are up to how an individual wishes to conduct their life. Laws are not about right and wrong, that which is legal is not always right and that which is illegal is not always wrong. In most places it is illegal to feed the homeless and it is legal to enter into an unfair contract with someone despite the fact that to me and many other people the former is right and the latter is wrong.


So does it matter how we determine laws, or is it enough for us that it's convenient?



Well, as we already established, the law has nothing to do with morality. Sometimes it forbids an action that a person believes to be moral but they are different constructs.


So, it's fine if it violates the moral principles of the minority?



If I were to believe in God, I would take the view that God is a computer programmer. Perhaps you're familiar with the theory, there's quite a few threads around here on it. This could be because my own background is in programming, but the more I do it the more it makes sense that if intelligent design is a thing it is the mechanism that was used to create the universe.


Yup. It's a pretty sweet theory.



When programming a world (lets take an example of a couple simple AI's that are created and interact with each other), it is trivial to find any piece of information about that world. This ability to oversee anything going on in that world makes one omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent in regards to that world. However, it doesn't mean that the programmer is without fault. The programmer or God could make a rule, and highly suggest that the AI's follow it. That doesn't necessarily make the programmer correct. I think about this in similar terms.

His universe, his rules makes no sense to me. That's like saying my house, my rules which is completely arbitrary as the person making the rules is capable of being wrong.


So, we, the programmed, judge the programmer based on the programming the programmer gives us?



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent




Just because humans act as if it is mutable doesn't mean it is


Well then, show me the unmutable!




And yet, oddly enough, Cain seemed to realize that he had sinned.



Sigh.........


The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.


The first lesson in empathy!



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent




If they were good (Hebrew) followers of the God of Noah, then they would have known the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. Because the men of the city rejected them, in favor of the angels, (DUH, they're ANGELS!!!!), the girls were most probably virgins. Young innocent young women, ripped from everything they knew, who watched their mother turned into a pillar of salt and their friends and family burnt alive. They were convinced that the whole earth had been destroyed, and the 3 of them were the only earthly survivors, according to biblical narrative.


Yeah, I doubt they were that dumb.



Their decision to get their father drunk, to save him the shame of taking them, was what they thought was the most moral thing to do.
There's no end result of objective morality in this story at all.


Weeeelll, except for the bit where they end up spawning the race of the Moabites, who are generally presented as problematic jerks, IIRC (up until Ruth.) You said you don't take the Bible literally, so if you take it metaphorically, doesn't it seem clear that the lesson is evident: don't sleep with your father, or you too can become the mother of a race of annoying people!



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent



And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:

32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

36 That’s how both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.




Yeah, I doubt they were that dumb.


I doubt they truly existed. This is nothing more than a biblical lesson in subjective morality.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

I doubt they truly existed. This is nothing more than a biblical lesson in subjective morality.


But my interpretation was so much more interesting!



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
Yes. But then the beautiful part is where you get to impose your morality on people. So are you in favor of imposing morality on people, or do you think it's fine to stand by and let people impose their own morality on others?


Neither. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.



But what are morals beyond what we all find convenient, in your view.


Standards by which to live. Sometimes they're inconvenient, but if you throw them away when they're inconvenient then what's the point in ever having any standards? Most people are capable of realizing this.



So you DO believe in objective moral truth?


Nope, but people can make their own subjective decisions. Like anyone else, I have my own opinions on what is/isn't acceptable.



So, rights are created by the people, but not by the people because that's mob rule.
I'm really confused.


It's more of an argument against simple majorities and all of the rights going to the majority of people. Otherwise being popular would bestow all of the popularity while being unpopular would mean you have no rights.



So does it matter how we determine laws, or is it enough for us that it's convenient?


It's better when it's inconvenient.



Yup. It's a pretty sweet theory.


There's a lot I have to say about the theory, and probably a lot to learn too. It really intrigues me though because I'm quite familiar with programming, having a degree and 20 years experience. Recently I went back to school for a more advance programming degree than I already have and some of the more advanced concepts I have to use really do make me feel like parts of the process are divinely touched. Sadly, my classmates aren't interested in the discussions, especially the AI programmers. Oddly enough it's the political science and liberal arts majors that are better equipped to discuss the concepts.

There is a lot to the theory that based on what I know I simply can't ignore. The universe seems to recursively subdivide to all scales, it corrects errors using ECC, object oriented programs that create a billion people all with unique attributes, are trivial to write. The whole thing even works into reincarnation as the memory block holding your information opens up when you die, and another takes it's place, but data (if stored in any system similar to what we already have) leaves remnants which see the past lives of that block of memory.

The theory has a lot of interesting things going on. But then what I always think is that, given a few hours.... maybe a week after some planning, I could set this same system up and I'm nothing special. If the average person can do this and create realities for other machines, then what does that say about the God who set up the rules for our machine? It certainly wouldn't be that of an omnipotent being.

The theory has holes in it but they relate more towards the classes of objects than anything else.



So, we, the programmed, judge the programmer based on the programming the programmer gives us?


That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the creator set up a system by which people would only gain information necessary to their lives and not to the life of your creator. I'll be honest here, from what I have read of God in the Bible, I do not like him. He has a complex to be worshipped and obeyed for all manner of things, and has set about a series of rules to follow that even the most devout to struggle can't stick with because they don't understand the underlying intent. As a systems designer this really irks me. Things should have purpose, and that purpose should be obvious. Jesus is a little more tolerable but going by what I've read of his younger years he wasn't living a wholesome life.

Maybe God encouraged us to accept his rules because he couldn't figure out how to program answers for them. Or maybe, he wants a second opinion on his rules, and as such gave us the ability to develop the philosophy and math behind designing a better system. What if those rules weren't given as something we should obey, but rather as a system which needs improvement from the lifetimes of 20 billion people in order to develop a more powerful theory. Oddly enough, in these stories it's Satan who points out that these rules don't work, and tries to give humans a jump start on developing their own working rule set.
edit on 30-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2015 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE




I would call that a fair comparison.


BS! If religious people only follow "God's" law out of fear of punishment, that's their problem. Non-religious and atheist people don't need no "God" to tell them what's right and wrong, and the "law" doesn't stop those who are going to rape and murder from raping and murdering, any more than your "God" does.

Get over yourself and put your anti-anti-religious hatred away before you expose yourself as the same type of bigot in the OP!





Yeah...OK. For the record, I have no God. I don't believe in God and I detest man made religion. Good try...but major fail. But unlike some, I don't hate people who do believe in God or religion.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join