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

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Really? That seems to me to be very much the same thinking that Phil Robertson has put forth. The only thing keeping you from attacking grizzly bears is the fact that you would lose, and not because the grizzly bears have the same right to life as you? Is the only thing that keeps you from robbing banks getting caught?

As I thought I had made clear, fear is not the basis of my morality. If I was to rob banks, I wouldn't get caught

Sociopaths are the reason that we have laws, governments, military and the police. Sociopaths aren't going to be effected by some story about Jesus dying for their sins. Like you, they're detoured by the idea of getting caught or losing a fight.

Ehhh...no. Perfectly normal people are the reason we need the laws, governments, military, and police. There aren't enough sociopaths to require that much firepower.

What is the correct understanding of reality? Where does the proposal to "love" each other come from, and what does love and hate have to do with reality? What does any of that have to do with whether or not there exists an "objective moral standard"?

Can't you see how these might tie together?

What is a "transcendent moral order"? Can you give me an example of such a thing?

Google it. The moral codes of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic religions qualify.

There are lots of reasons NOT to rape, murder and pillage.

Sure, like the police and the transcendent moral order. But we agree that the first reason is pretty shoddy and the second reason doesn't seem to please you. Any other ideas?

Stalker solent I will get back at your questions, I can't afford to get carried away right now, but I just wanted to share some of these because people where asking who Hitchens was.

both of these are directly related to the discussion. If you don't know hitchen's I'm not sure if you know sagan. Sagan shares some of my beliefs, and may have even inspired some :-)

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Xaphan

But, it appears to me that these types WOULD actually go wild and rape, murder and whatnot, if they didn't have their religion.

Or if their religion told them that it was expected of them in the name of whatever God to punish the Godless.

Jude11

a reply to: StalkerSolent

As I thought I had made clear, fear is not the basis of my morality

No. You haven't made it clear. You clearly stated that you don't attack bears because you would lose. Why is it immoral to attack bears? Does the Bible tell you not to?

Can't you see how these might tie together?

You made a leap in logic, saying that we're supposed to love one another, not "hate" each other. Why are we supposed to love one another? Is it natural/safe to automatically love strangers? What good can come from avoiding those who repel us?

Do you think that love is an "objective moral standard"? I think love is an emotion that displays preference, affection and loyalty, but NOT an objective moral standard.

Perfectly normal people are the reason we need the laws

No. Not really. Most reasonable people will follow rules and obey societal laws voluntarily. It's the ones who won't that need to be policed, fined, punished or restricted.

Google it. The moral codes of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic religions qualify.

You believe that the religious laws put forth in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are moral standards? Why then are most of those "laws" either illegal, irrelevant or immoral by today's standards?

Sure, like the police and the transcendent moral order.

No. Police don't enforce morality. They enforce laws, laws that society has subjectively agreed upon.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

No. You haven't made it clear. You clearly stated that you don't attack bears because you would lose. Why is it immoral to attack bears? Does the Bible tell you not to?

As I stated, I do not believe it is immoral to attack bears. I think it is imprudent without proper equipage.

You made a leap in logic, saying that we're supposed to love one another, not "hate" each other. Why are we supposed to love one another? Is it natural/safe to automatically love strangers? What good can come from avoiding those who repel us?

Well, I was under the impression my opinion was being asked. Perhaps I was wrong; if so, I apologize! We can go into a side-tangent about love if you like, but the point I was trying to get at is that a transcendent moral order dictates human behavior.

Note: love as an emotion, but that's just one of the word's meanings. Sadly, English doesn't handle this as well as Greek.

Perfectly normal people are the reason we need the laws

Haven't you heard the average person [in the US] commits three felonies a day?
You should look at human behavior a little closer. Back in the 1950s(?) the Milgram experiments proved ordinary people had the capacity to harm other unoffending human beings. And that's just one example.

You believe that the religious laws put forth in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are moral standards? Why then are most of those "laws" either illegal, irrelevant or immoral by today's standards?

You do realize that something can be a moral standard regardless of whether or not you agree with it, right? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is *a* moral standard.

No. Police don't enforce morality. They enforce laws, laws that society has subjectively agreed upon.

We were speaking of reasons not to rape and pillage. Fear of harm is a good reason not to. So is a transcendent moral order, the belief that it is objectively wrong to do something. Do you have anything else to add?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

transcendent moral order

What, exactly, IS a transcendent moral standard? Is that like when a group of people agree that something is moral or immoral, or is it an "objective moral standard" that is true for everyone all the time?

I don't believe that there is any such thing as an "objective moral standard". Perhaps your "transcendent moral order" is subjective?

Well, I was under the impression my opinion was being asked.

Being asked? I thought you were opining on what is the definition of a "transcendent moral standard". You said that we are supposed to love one another. I want to know why you think love is a transcendent moral standard and why.

Haven't you heard the average person commits three felonies a day?

You seem to be under the impression that secular laws dictate morality. They don't. Breaking a law is NOT immoral, in and of itself.

You do realize that something can be a moral standard regardless of whether or not you agree with it, right? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is *a* moral standard.

If something seems immoral to me, due to my personal inner moral compass which is based on empathy, then it's immoral for me. Most of the teachings in the Bible are immoral, in my opinion, and are irrelevant, and/or illegal. The Bible has a may have some (borrowed) subjective morality within its pages, if any, but it is in no means an "objective moral standard" that applies to everyone all the time. There is no such thing.

originally posted by: windword

What, exactly, IS a transcendent moral standard? Is that like when a group of people agree that something is moral or immoral, or is it an "objective moral standard" that is true for everyone all the time?

I don't believe that there is any such thing as an "objective moral standard". Perhaps your "transcendent moral order" is subjective?

The latter. (Google is your friend in this regard.) And yes, it would be objective, practically by definition.

Being asked? I thought you were opining on what is the definition of a "transcendent moral standard". You said that we are supposed to love one another. I want to know why you think love is a transcendent moral standard and why.

You misunderstood me

You seem to be under the impression that secular laws dictate morality. They don't. Breaking a law is NOT immoral, in and of itself.

No, I'm not under that impression. You said that we don't have laws for the average person. I beg to disagree

If something seems immoral to me, due to my personal inner moral compass which is based on empathy, then it's immoral for me.

I understand that, but going back to the question posed by Phil Robertson, what gives you the right to object to immoral actions committed by others?

Most of the teachings in the Bible are immoral, in my opinion, and are irrelevant, and/or illegal. The Bible has a may have some (borrowed) subjective morality within its pages, if any, but it is in no means an "objective moral standard" that applies to everyone all the time. There is no such thing.

So...you're saying that most of the teachings in the Bible are immoral, but also that there is no objective morality. Which is it? Or is it just our opinion?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

You said that we don't have laws for the average person. I beg to disagree

Our laws are proof that we don't need God(s)s, and are able to subjectively self govern, based on agreed upon cultural mores; the customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group, culture, etc. They change. An objective moral standard wouldn't change with time or geography.

ME
What, exactly, IS a transcendent moral standard? Is that like when a group of people agree that something is moral or immoral, or is it an "objective moral standard" that is true for everyone all the time?

I don't believe that there is any such thing as an "objective moral standard". Perhaps your "transcendent moral order" is subjective?

YOU
The latter. (Google is your friend in this regard.) And yes, it would be objective, practically by definition.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "objective moral standard" that is the same all the time for everyone. Our morality is dictated on an individual level through our own personal experiences with "empathy".

I understand that, but going back to the question posed by Phil Robertson, what gives you the right to object to immoral actions committed by others?

What gives YOU that right? Everything in Robertson scenario was condoned by the God of the Bible, in the Old Testament.

In answer to your question, "What gives me the right............" Empathy gives me that right.

So...you're saying that most of the teachings in the Bible are immoral, but also that there is no objective morality. Which is it? Or is it just our opinion?

Both. There is NO objective morality in the Bible, NONE! It's all subjective morality. That's the only kind of morality there is.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Our laws are proof that we don't need God(s)s, and are able to subjectively self govern, based on agreed upon cultural mores; the customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group, culture, etc. They change.

Yes, because this works so well...

An objective moral standard wouldn't change with time or geography.

That's why it's so good.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as an "objective moral standard" that is the same all the time for everyone. Our morality is dictated on an individual level through our own personal experiences with "empathy".

But some people don't have empathy...so they can do what they want, right?

What gives YOU that right? Everything in Robertson scenario was condoned by the God of the Bible, in the Old Testament.

Eh...sure...no, not really...
The Israelites were pretty ruthless when it comes to warfare, but the written legal code was pretty enlightened for the time.

In answer to your question, "What gives me the right............" Empathy gives me that right.

Psht. Empathy might help you understand other people. That's it.

Both. There is NO objective morality in the Bible, NONE! It's all subjective morality. That's the only kind of morality there is.

That's not really true...or, since we're dealing with subjective morality, that's not how *I* interpret it

a reply to: StalkerSolent

The Israelites were pretty ruthless when it comes to warfare, but the written legal code was pretty enlightened for the time.

So..................subjective moral laws, for the time?

Psht. Empathy might help you understand other people. That's it.

What gives YOU the right to judge what's right and wrong? Do you ignore your personal inner compass, (empathy) and refer to a moldy old book for the end all of morality for your everyday life?

Would you stone your neighbor's wife, and her star crossed lover, to death if she had fallen in love with someone other than the man that her father arranged for her marry, and acted on it? Would you beat your slave into a 3 day coma, and be okay with it as long as he was able to get up after 3 days?

Do you make your wife cover her head, you know, because of the angels? Is she allowed to speak with authority in church?

But some people don't have empathy...so they can do what they want, right?

Not if they want to survive. We have to work together, learn to cooperate, if we want to survive, let alone thrive. Empathy, and learning to read the signals that others are putting out, is quickest path to coexistence and absolutely necessary to thrive.

That's not really true...or, since we're dealing with subjective morality, that's not how *I* interpret it

Please give me an example, in the Bible if you like, or anywhere in nature, of an existing "objective moral standard" that is always true for everyone all the time.

ETA One more question. Does your God judge you on what's in your heart or on how well you follow Biblical rules?

originally posted by: windword

So..................subjective moral laws, for the time?

In my opinion, some of the material in the OT is *clearly* cultural in nature and some of it is universal.

What gives YOU the right to judge what's right and wrong? Do you ignore your personal inner compass, (empathy) and refer to a moldy old book for the end all of morality for your everyday life? Would you stone your neighbor's wife, and her star crossed lover, to death if she had fallen in love with someone other than the man that her father arranged for her marry, and acted on it? Would you beat your slave into a 3 day coma, and be okay with it as long as he was able to get up after 3 days?

All of my Bibles are new and I prevent mold most vigorously

Do you make your wife cover her head, you know, because of the angels? Is she allowed to speak with authority in church?

Not married

In the end, though, what matters is that without belief in a transcendent moral order, there's nothing wrong with committing adultery, or enslaving someone, or beating said slave. And while it's all very well and good to pick on the Bible, there's no reason to believe that slavery would have ended without it's radical teaching that "in Christ there is no slave nor free, male nor female, Jew or Greek" It was a radical teaching at the time, and it's no coincidence that the Western culture that embraced the Bible's TMO also came down against slavery, for better treatment for women, against racism, etc. Something in that book, perhaps something you missed, prompted an awful lot of good changes (at least, I think they're good.) That's an unpopular idea, but it's all fun and games until history hits

Not if they want to survive. We have to work together, learn to cooperate, if we want to survive, let alone thrive. Empathy, and learning to read the signals that others are putting out, is quickest path to coexistence and absolutely necessary to thrive.

Baloney. I've seen a lot of "empathy" in my time and it's completely off the rails unless it's tempered with a great deal of prudence, sound judgment, and a healthy dose of criticism. Besides, Darwinian evolution suggests and post-Industrial-Revolution observations confirm that there likely is a link between scientific and technological progress and improved quality of life and continual conflict.

Please give me an example, in the Bible if you like, or anywhere in nature, of an existing "objective moral standard" that is always true for everyone all the time.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength seems like a pretty good example.

ETA One more question. Does your God judge you on what's in your heart or on how well you follow Biblical rules?

Only one way to find out, and I'm too young
But in seriousness, the Bible indicates that God judges people based on their actions...but that would seem to include actions taken within the privacy of the mind. So both?

a reply to: StalkerSolent

the Bible indicates that God judges people based on their actions...but that would seem to include actions taken within the privacy of the mind. So both?

On their actions? Not what's in their heart and mind? The Bible indicates? So, you don't know. You're just winging it, trying to figure what the Bible tells you, following some of the Bible and but not ALL of the Bible?

In my opinion, some of the material in the OT is *clearly* cultural in nature and some of it is universal.

What's the "universal" part?

And while it's all very well and good to pick on the Bible, there's no reason to believe that slavery would have ended without it's radical teaching that "in Christ there is no slave nor free, male nor female, Jew or Greek"

"Christ" didn't free the salves! Empathy freed the slaves! And, by the way, your Jesus taught you to rely on your empathy as a moral compass; "In everything, therefore, do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In other words, let your empathy be your inner moral guide.

I'm not picking on the Bible, I'm just showing you how it's NOT a source of any "objective moral standard".

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength seems like a pretty good example.

What does that even mean!? What's "Your God"? Could be anything, right? Nope. That's not an example of morality. How does that answer any moral question? If anything, it's an adage encouraging us to follow our passion.

Well just one more reason for me to despise organized religion. Utter fools that they are. I am a Discordian, that means I pay homage to Eris Kallisti Discordia the goddess of the one true constant, chaos.

Never would I consider such blatant violence porn a worthy topic for discussion let alone publication on a television broadcast or other public venue, its disgusting it is irrefutably disgusting.

God, that tyrant king of the Christian faith, is a depraved and succinctly abhorrent entity and, needless to way, my morals have nothing to do with such a creature as this Christian "God". Never would I even so much as contemplate perpetrating such heinous acts as described by this self professed "man of God".

So Mr. Robertson, I say to you, you are a disgusting, perverted and ultimately vile individual (I wont give him the right to be called a man, he is most surely not). Mr. Robertson, I bid you f### off and your petty intolerant tyrant king you so eloquently call God.

Hail Eris.
King Kong died for your sins.

originally posted by: windword

On their actions? Not what's in their heart and mind? The Bible indicates? So, you don't know. You're just winging it, trying to figure what the Bible tells you, following some of the Bible and but not ALL of the Bible?

I said both actions and the heart/mind...

What's the "universal" part?

The Ten Commandments are a good place to start

"Christ" didn't free the salves!

*resists joke*
Perhaps not in a way you recognize.

Empathy freed the slaves!

Nope. Military action freed the slaves.

And, by the way, your Jesus taught you to rely on your empathy as a moral compass; "In everything, therefore, do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In other words, let your empathy be your inner moral guide.

I think Jesus was relying on people to be well-informed as well. Empathy without information is chaos.

I'm not picking on the Bible, I'm just showing you how it's NOT a source of any "objective moral standard".

But it is, and has been for years

What does that even mean!? What's "Your God"? Could be anything, right? Nope. That's not an example of morality. How does that answer any moral question? If anything, it's an adage encouraging us to follow our passion.

He pretty clearly believed in one objective God. (And I should add, was speaking to those who also believed in said God.)

a reply to: StalkerSolent

He pretty clearly believed in one objective God.

No. That's not clear at all. Clearly, according to the Bible, "he" was all about the Jews, if he existed at all.

The Ten Commandments are a good place to start

No. They're really not! But I can see that you think that 4000 year old religious rules should dictate the morality of today.

The 10 Commandments are Unnecessary, Irrelevant and Immoral

Nope. Military action freed the slaves.

Whatever man. It wasn't Jesus. It took a war. Neither Jesus nor the God of the Old Testament give us an objective moral standard. There's more immorality preached in the Bible, in the Old Testament and New, that needs to be rejected than there are nuggets of good.

The very teachings of Jesus dying for our transgressions is immoral. The teaching of Original Sin is immoral. The teaching that some are chosen by God and others are not, is immoral. There's so much more immorality in the Bible and its teachings, but you're not taking any of this seriously anyway.

There is no "objective moral standard", not in the Bible and not in nature, not anywhere in the universe. Morality is all subjective, and even Christians believe that God judges them on what's in their heart, not what rules are in an old book that they follow or brake.

Well, what a perfect example of complete ignorance in that statement.

Honestly, how do people come to the conclusion that without holy retribution we're incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong?

What's misfiring in their brains that they cannot think for themselves that little tiny bit that's required to see "Oh hey. It's wrong to stop someone's life, because it's just wrong?"

If anything, atheists value life more than believers because we know it's all there is.

stalkersolent

good grief, you're brilliant!

originally posted by: gottaknow
What's misfiring in their brains that they cannot think for themselves that little tiny bit that's required to see "Oh hey. It's wrong to stop someone's life, because it's just wrong?"

a reply to: undo

Very different circumstance there.

I have no problem whatsoever with people choosing to exit early or upon serious circumstances. I'm also very pro-choice.
I was referring to the outright murder which Robertson is using as his example.

Huge difference. It's really simple.

originally posted by: gottaknow
a reply to: undo

Very different circumstance there.

I have no problem whatsoever with people choosing to exit early or upon serious circumstances. I'm also very pro-choice.
I was referring to the outright murder which Robertson is using as his example.

Huge difference. It's really simple.

it was terrible. handicapped people all over the world, were traumatized by it. now feeding tubes have been reclassifed as medical treatment.