Careful there! A pedophile's own morality wouldn't categorise his/her actions as bad. He/She has a different morality. Exactly by what 'standards' would you categorise such actions as bad?
Following God's law in Christianity is not a chore. Christians know that the law has no power over them. To know the Triune God, is to know true peace.
-shrugs- saying morals are man-made gives anyone free reign to do as they please. Stop being a farking idiot and think about it: if there is no God, no standard for morality, THEN THERE IS NO farkING REASON NOT TO RAPE, MURDER, AND PILLAGE! Unless you feel like conforming to what society says; at which point you aren't really free.
Morals ARE man made. Religions simply echo the moral knowledge we already had.
Allow me to give you an example of this: The bible says murder is wrong, and you agree, it is...
Except...
Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Suddenly, I'm not so sure what to think. After all, if I'm deriving my morality from the bible, I'm suddenly given moral permission to murder people for these seemingly random acts. Working on a Sunday is reason to kill? Wow, and you're accusing me of having no morals.
..
It's pretty obvious to me that everyone has intrinsic moral sensibilities and that we pick and choose what we agree with from books like the bible or order to reinforce our moral beliefs.
In the end, we all have morals, and we have them because it allows us to operate in a society, without them, society would not work. None of this has anything to do with god or gods.
Actually, sir, though I understand your point in itself, it's a bit fallacious to make the jump as you have. I agree with what you say about morality being intrinsically societal, but the jump you make between "shall surely be put to death" and "murder" is one that is surely fallacious. Obviously, it is interdependent on your connotative definition of each of the words -- Wittgenstein would agree, and most likely tell you the argument is unnecessary as words never truly mean what we intend them to -- but ultimately, what you've said here means that punishment is the same as crime. Unless you're one who equates all human death as murder, then this logic cannot follow. Your argument is essentially saying that punishment of death is murder, and is immoral. Many might agree, but this is subjective. You've simply brought up a biblical image of the modern day argument for or against capital punishment. These scriptures by no means give a "license to kill" as your insinuating. They are simply
laying out punishments for the breaking of biblical law, which was obviously very different than the laws of today.
I understand the apprehension to the idea of a "god." You can believe whatever you'd like, but if you're claiming "logic" as your guide, or even fact, then don't try to make fallacious connections like these.
It's cute how you think you're so clever, but this was the ancient Jews, the Old Testament. As in: doesn't apply now. This was the norm back then for everyone, even non-Jews. The Egyptians would sacrifice their first-borns for the sake of battle. And the difference between murder and kill is subtle, but there is one lemmie show you:
Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of.
Murdering is killing in hate. Whereas killing is simply that: killing. The death penalty which many people are FOR is not called murder by the proponents, but is by anyone who opposes it. What you're doing is called framing the argument. I'm not exactly sure what your point is... You aren't good at that part but you can frame and argument pretty well.
But allow me to point out something I find interesting: your use of the word intrinsic. Now this word means belonging to a thing by its very nature. I.e. not taught or learned, but ingrained in. A
theists views cannot have intrinsic moral codes. That would imply that he/she was born with a moral code. But wait! Wouldn't that mean that some people could "mutate" and be born with a different moral code? So... Someone who was born with a propensity to murder, rape, and pillage... Well surely we can't blame them for following their moral code. “Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn't that give me equal right?” Charles Manson said this. He felt he had the RIGHT to kill people. He had no moral objection to this. So this is the type of person that atheism must accept or risk being hypocritical. You can't say "People are born with a moral code! You have to accept that!" and then deny Charles Manson his right to murder. So here's my frame: Without God, who gave us a reason not to murder, why not murder? Charles Manson surely did. He was not by any means a Christian. Before you go into the crusades and all that non-sense, a true Christian is defined by who they follow and obey. So a Christian who murders is not a Christian. By definition a Christian follows Christ who taught peace and love. 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 is a nice verse about that. Mark 12:31 is another.
Morality IS intrinsic. Riddle me this: how is that you decide that the moral code of the Bible is good and applicable? You decide it's good because you ALREADY have an inherent sense of morality. You didn't use the Bible to decide the Bible's moral code was good, right? You decided before you knew what the whole book had to say, i'm sure.
It breaks down like this: If everyone followed a particular moral code, no matter how dubious, how would the world fair as a result? If all society breaks down under its scripture, then the morality doesn't work in society. People understand how to act (i.e. don't lie, be altruistic, consider other's opinions) because these are ways that allow people to function in society as a whole. Everyone WANTS everyone else to be moral because it is USEFUL to have everyone think this way. The truth of the matter is, this is how things really are.
Stupid Example: Is there a rule that says people have to wait in line at gas stations for service? Nope. It's just a
useful, easy to understand way to act. So, everyone follows suit. Same goes for the rapin', murderin', and lyin'. If everyone lied, then lies would lose their meaning and it would be incredibly difficult to communicate. Try only speaking lies and going to the grocery store, try driving on the other side of the street. It won't work. Why? Because everyone else is ON THEIR OWN following common morality to make their own lives easier and, by proxy, everyone else's.
The entire basis of your argument is fallacious. Morality is in no intrinsic. Think about it, when growing up you were told to stop doing bad things all the time by your parents. you were taught how to be good and moral whilst there was no training needed for you to be bad. you say, try driving on the opposite side of the street. It won't work. Why? Not because everyone else is on their own following common morality. No. It is because a higher authority, such as someone who designs roads, decided it would be best to drive on the right side. It's actually a law to do that, not just following common morality. You may not have needed to be trained to understand this law, but through observation on the law working you figured it out. Therefore, God had to give us a set of rules, because man was chaotic and immoral. Now, you mat not believe in God. Let me put it this way to you then. Some random higher authority decided to keep humanity from just killing everyone and doing wrong all the tim
e that he would put some nice rules in order for us to follow.
How about "I don't want to rape anyone because I don't think it's right to hurt people"?
If there is no standard for morality, then yes. You're right. But there is, it's called Humanity. We can do what we want, but even the most atheist of atheists knows it's wrong to rape someone.
For the record, (so you know my stance), I am agnostic, that wonderful lukewarm label. But that's all it is: a label. I don't really care for religion, but I won't disrespect it.
That said, I don't really believe in your God, so does that make me a rapist?
to help out mister Average idiot. Just as you are not saying that life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content, neither is he saying that we feel we are controlled by an invisible man.
I want to ask this to probe your mind a little. I implore you to be a little open-minded with this question. Suppose you are wrong? What if there is a God? What are the consequences of your not believing? Now, what if I'm wrong? What are the consequences if there is no God and my beliefs are false? If you are wrong you spend eternity in hell. If I'm wrong I simply die and decay. Doesn't it seem more worthwhile to believe?
If you believe in god solely because you figure it's better to believe than not to... then you really don't believe. In which case, IF (and that's a huge if) god exists, don't you think he'd see through your game?
You misunderstand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying to believe just to believe. By my question, does it not make more since to believe that God is the God of the universe and that he sent his son Jesus because he loved you and wanted to spend eternity. Does it not make more sense to generally believe that? Also, you have once again conveniently ignored the question I asked. I want your answer to the question. Not somebody else's answer through wikipedia, I want your genuine answer to the question.
a side note question, what is the difference between believing and pretending to believe? because you are pretending to believe your actions will still reflect your pretend belief, in essence your pretend belief is not different than believe.
Careful there! A pedophile's own morality wouldn't categorise his/her actions as bad. He/She has a different morality. Exactly by what 'standards' would you categorise such actions as bad?
Following God's law in Christianity is not a chore. Christians know that the law has no power over them. To know the Triune God, is to know true peace.
Disturbing thought. You feel an invisible man in the sky has control over you...
how sad.
Disturbing though. You feel life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content...
how sad.
Yeah, that EXACTLY what I said.
Where do you people come from? Do you wander the streets yelling at stop signs for being too red?
This image very clearly states that you need to make your own meaning and fill your life with happiness and not expect it to come from nowhere.
AT NO POINT DOES ANYONE SAY IT'S OK TO RAPE, MURDER AND PILLAGE, YOU farkING TWIT.
-shrugs- saying morals are man-made gives anyone free reign to do as they please. Stop being a farking idiot and think about it: if there is no God, no standard for morality, THEN THERE IS NO farkING REASON NOT TO RAPE, MURDER, AND PILLAGE! Unless you feel like conforming to what society says; at which point you aren't really free.
False.
Morals ARE man made. Religions simply echo the moral knowledge we already had.
Allow me to give you an example of this: The bible says murder is wrong, and you agree, it is...
Except...
Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:15: He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17: He that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 22:19: Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
Suddenly, I'm not so sure what to think. After all, if I'm deriving my morality from the bible, I'm suddenly given moral permission to murder people for these seemingly random acts. Working on a Sunday is reason to kill? Wow, and you're accusing me of having no morals.
..
It's pretty obvious to me that everyone has intrinsic moral sensibilities and that we pick and choose what we agree with from books like the bible or order to reinforce our moral beliefs.
In the end, we all have morals, and we have them because it allows us to operate in a society, without them, society would not work. None of this has anything to do with god or gods.
Actually, sir, though I understand your point in itself, it's a bit fallacious to make the jump as you have. I agree with what you say about morality being intrinsically societal, but the jump you make between "shall surely be put to death" and "murder" is one that is surely fallacious. Obviously, it is interdependent on your connotative definition of each of the words -- Wittgenstein would agree, and most likely tell you the argument is unnecessary as words never truly mean what we intend them to -- but ultimately, what you've said here means that punishment is the same as crime. Unless you're one who equates all human death as murder, then this logic cannot follow. Your argument is essentially saying that punishment of death is murder, and is immoral. Many might agree, but this is subjective. You've simply brought up a biblical image of the modern day argument for or against capital punishment. These scriptures by no means give a "license to kill" as your insinuating. They are simply
laying out punishments for the breaking of biblical law, which was obviously very different than the laws of today.
I understand the apprehension to the idea of a "god." You can believe whatever you'd like, but if you're claiming "logic" as your guide, or even fact, then don't try to make fallacious connections like these.
It's cute how you think you're so clever, but this was the ancient Jews, the Old Testament. As in: doesn't apply now. This was the norm back then for everyone, even non-Jews. The Egyptians would sacrifice their first-borns for the sake of battle. And the difference between murder and kill is subtle, but there is one lemmie show you:
Murder: to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of.
Murdering is killing in hate. Whereas killing is simply that: killing. The death penalty which many people are FOR is not called murder by the proponents, but is by anyone who opposes it. What you're doing is called framing the argument. I'm not exactly sure what your point is... You aren't good at that part but you can frame and argument pretty well.
But allow me to point out something I find interesting: your use of the word intrinsic. Now this word means belonging to a thing by its very nature. I.e. not taught or learned, but ingrained in. A
theists views cannot have intrinsic moral codes. That would imply that he/she was born with a moral code. But wait! Wouldn't that mean that some people could "mutate" and be born with a different moral code? So... Someone who was born with a propensity to murder, rape, and pillage... Well surely we can't blame them for following their moral code. “Remorse for what? You people have done everything in the world to me. Doesn't that give me equal right?” Charles Manson said this. He felt he had the RIGHT to kill people. He had no moral objection to this. So this is the type of person that atheism must accept or risk being hypocritical. You can't say "People are born with a moral code! You have to accept that!" and then deny Charles Manson his right to murder. So here's my frame: Without God, who gave us a reason not to murder, why not murder? Charles Manson surely did. He was not by any means a Christian. Before you go into the crusades and all that non-sense, a true Christian is defined by who they follow and obey. So a Christian who murders is not a Christian. By definition a Christian follows Christ who taught peace and love. 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13 is a nice verse about that. Mark 12:31 is another.
Morality IS intrinsic. Riddle me this: how is that you decide that the moral code of the Bible is good and applicable? You decide it's good because you ALREADY have an inherent sense of morality. You didn't use the Bible to decide the Bible's moral code was good, right? You decided before you knew what the whole book had to say, i'm sure.
It breaks down like this: If everyone followed a particular moral code, no matter how dubious, how would the world fair as a result? If all society breaks down under its scripture, then the morality doesn't work in society. People understand how to act (i.e. don't lie, be altruistic, consider other's opinions) because these are ways that allow people to function in society as a whole. Everyone WANTS everyone else to be moral because it is USEFUL to have everyone think this way. The truth of the matter is, this is how things really are.
Stupid Example: Is there a rule that says people have to wait in line at gas stations for service? Nope. It's just a
useful, easy to understand way to act. So, everyone follows suit. Same goes for the rapin', murderin', and lyin'. If everyone lied, then lies would lose their meaning and it would be incredibly difficult to communicate. Try only speaking lies and going to the grocery store, try driving on the other side of the street. It won't work. Why? Because everyone else is ON THEIR OWN following common morality to make their own lives easier and, by proxy, everyone else's.
The entire basis of your argument is fallacious. Morality is in no intrinsic. Think about it, when growing up you were told to stop doing bad things all the time by your parents. you were taught how to be good and moral whilst there was no training needed for you to be bad. you say, try driving on the opposite side of the street. It won't work. Why? Not because everyone else is on their own following common morality. No. It is because a higher authority, such as someone who designs roads, decided it would be best to drive on the right side. It's actually a law to do that, not just following common morality. You may not have needed to be trained to understand this law, but through observation on the law working you figured it out. Therefore, God had to give us a set of rules, because man was chaotic and immoral. Now, you mat not believe in God. Let me put it this way to you then. Some random higher authority decided to keep humanity from just killing everyone and doing wrong all the tim
e that he would put some nice rules in order for us to follow.
How about "I don't want to rape anyone because I don't think it's right to hurt people"?
If there is no standard for morality, then yes. You're right. But there is, it's called Humanity. We can do what we want, but even the most atheist of atheists knows it's wrong to rape someone.
For the record, (so you know my stance), I am agnostic, that wonderful lukewarm label. But that's all it is: a label. I don't really care for religion, but I won't disrespect it.
That said, I don't really believe in your God, so does that make me a rapist?
to help out mister Average idiot. Just as you are not saying that life is pointless and people can murder pillage and rape to their hearts content, neither is he saying that we feel we are controlled by an invisible man.
I want to ask this to probe your mind a little. I implore you to be a little open-minded with this question. Suppose you are wrong? What if there is a God? What are the consequences of your not believing? Now, what if I'm wrong? What are the consequences if there is no God and my beliefs are false? If you are wrong you spend eternity in hell. If I'm wrong I simply die and decay. Doesn't it seem more worthwhile to believe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
If you believe in god solely because you figure it's better to believe than not to... then you really don't believe. In which case, IF (and that's a huge if) god exists, don't you think he'd see through your game?
You misunderstand the argument I'm making. I'm not saying to believe just to believe. By my question, does it not make more since to believe that God is the God of the universe and that he sent his son Jesus because he loved you and wanted to spend eternity. Does it not make more sense to generally believe that? Also, you have once again conveniently ignored the question I asked. I want your answer to the question. Not somebody else's answer through wikipedia, I want your genuine answer to the question.
a side note question, what is the difference between believing and pretending to believe? because you are pretending to believe your actions will still reflect your pretend belief, in essence your pretend belief is not different than believe.
you get off by being condescending?, its really quite pathetic