religion - coping mechanism. we need to grow up.

[reaper]

killing of civilians is never acceptable, not even in war.  we didn't know what we had when we used it.  no person will ever be able to convince me that there was no alternative to using the bombs on two major japanese cities, because, as i said, we had no idea what we had in our possession.  it had never been used in combat before, and especially not to the levels we used them at.

they are still witnessing the horrors.  genetic mutations and cancers that have been markedly higher.  there was no foresight to this because this was the precedent.  and it's why we will never do it again.  remember that.  the japanese may have initiated with us, but they targeted pearl harbor.  we targetted two cities.

this is off-topic.

I think you forget that the sympathies of many people lied with the allies, so we won the race to build such a device.  This means you're forgetting about the axis powers, and those were powers that wouldn't consider other options.

[|iR|Focalor]

killing of civilians is never acceptable, not even in war.

Since we're discussing "morality/ethics", I can certainly agree with that... TO A POINT. It is a dishonorable thing and usually all sides can agree with that ...excepting Muslim Jihadists and similar loons. And I can't completely agree with SgtDick's sentiments that those who died during the raid on Pearl Harbor were mere civilians (if indeed that is what he meant?), because Pearl Harbor was a US Naval base and considered a strategic military target for the Japanese Empire. Along the same lines, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were strategic military targets as well. They produced tools of war there. The US did not target those cities at random. It's impossible to have a moral, civilized, respectful war. It's one side trying to murder the other for an end result. It's MURDER. It only seems more civilized these days because we have guns and do our killing from greater distances. In the old days, you'd charge balls first at your enemy and hack his body apart with a sword. Thanks to Sam Colt, we no longer walk away from a battle soaked from head to toe in another man's blood.

 we didn't know what we had when we used it.  no person will ever be able to convince me that there was no alternative to using the bombs on two major japanese cities, because, as i said, we had no idea what we had in our possession.  it had never been used in combat before, and especially not to the levels we used them at.

they are still witnessing the horrors.  genetic mutations and cancers that have been markedly higher.  there was no foresight to this because this was the precedent.  and it's why we will never do it again.  remember that.  the japanese may have initiated with us, but they targeted pearl harbor.  we targetted two cities.

We knew exactly what we had. The technology was tested. This is a well documented fact.

Once again, we come to my point. Primal instincts (self preservation) trump moral rationale. I said "always" before, but I'll take that back. When your life is on the line, morals matter very little. There are many Christians who claim to live by the commandment "Thou shalt not kill.", but they certainly would if they were facing mortal danger. Had we not dropped those bomb, Japan could very well have won the war. At the point when we dropped those bombs, if we had not had that option, the war could've conceivably lasted another 5 to 10 years further. Think about how many US troops died fighting tooth and nail over a few mere pebbles of land floating hundreds of miles from mainland Japan. Think about how much of a bitch it was flushing those bastards out of those small islands. What would taking the war to mainland Japan have been like? Ask the Soviets who barreled through Nazi Germany into Berlin. Even civilians were enemy combatants. Little 9 year old German boys and girls hiding pistols in their pockets, ready to shoot them in the back at the first opportune moment.

Morals and war go together like rats and strychnine: One always kills the other.

[Sgt. Dick]

What I am saying is if your country is not involved your military personnel are similiar to your civilians, none of them are attacking or killing anyone.

As I think about it more thou, I can see if you think the US is going to join the war, hit them first and destroy as much of their resources as you can.

[b0yce]

Does god exist? and the reson i hear alot of people saying no is because of all the shit going on in the world "oh how come god lets babies die" "why does god allow torture and rape" well accroding to the bible he hates all those things. according to the bible how you live your life is what u will ultimately be judged on. according to the bible all the shit happening in the world was fortold to happen by the prophets and jesus. accroding to the bible satan was cast down to earth after rebelling against god, it was sort of like god saying to satan "ok so you think you can do a better job, then do it". I know that could imply that if there was a god he is actually allowing all the bad things to happen but on the other hand it also says that satan "has but a short time, and he knows it" and after satan is cast down to hell anyone who has been saved will be wiped clear from all their grief.

weather god exists or not i have seen alot of good things done in the name of god almighty. I have seen people turn their lives around just by asking god for help. I am not embarressed to admit i was a drugo, and an alcoholic for years and years, i hit rock bottom i had no where else to go, no one else to turn to. One day i actually did pray to god, asking if there was truely a god i wanted to clean myself up, i needed help. it didn't happen overnight but it happened, alot of coincedences came into place for me to get me the help i needed and now i am proud to say i am drug and alcohol free for 5 years now, and the way things happen i do thank god for that. i have said before i have sat on the fence because i was not sure if god existed or does not and mainly because of all the crap happening in the world, but if u sit down and actually read the bible it can be quiet inspirational

[yahoo]

i bet tubby is drolling to post by this time   oh wait its not his thread.. my bad

[Kami]

this ww2 part has gone off on a tangent.  its interesting  and i'd love to keep  going, but i doubt it would ever end.

and golgo13, morality is not subjective; yet i also do not need a bible to tell me how i should live my life.  if anyone needs a manuscript of what is right and wrong, then they have not grown up correctly.  there are some tenents that must be obeyed in life so that our society both advances and survives, and such things that are against this are considered immoral.  you can easily have morality without the 10 commandments or 7 deadly sins.

according to the bible all the shit happening in the world was fortold to happen by the prophets and jesus.

what the hell have prophets ever foretold that wasn't vague and was infact accurate and true?

I know that could imply that if there was a god he is actually allowing all the bad things to happen but on the other hand it also says that satan "has but a short time, and he knows it" and after satan is cast down to hell anyone who has been saved will be wiped clear from all their grief.

we have to understand if god is a force of good or if he is a force of evil.  if he is a benevolent god or not.  and finally if we have free will or not.

we are supposedly creations of god.  now if we think of god as an omnipotent being, then time as we understand it has no meaning.  god could conceivably exist at all points in time at the same time.  like a circle, constantly moving in cycle.  this means, when god creates, he also watches it finish.  he knows the exact history of every thing that's happened at the same time he'd create it.  this means, he knows exactly what is going to happen.  why would he create people he knows are going to be evil?  why would you specifically create that if you know you have to be a certain way to enter into heaven?  it makes no sense.  he is essentially deliberately sending people to hell.  these people have no chance, because their history is already done.  he would know upon creation.

so why would he allow it to go on?  the bible talks of repenting and doing good deeds.  but it means nothing, as i said, he would know upon creation whether you go to heaven or hell.  so literally whatever you do means nothing, because your history has been read already, and you will do what you have already done.

so at this point, god creates evil people knowing full well they have no chance of getting into heaven, and watching them live out their wretched lives, possibly killing people who don't deserve it.

also for christianity, only people who accept jesus will get saved.  what of the thousands of good people who will never hear about jesus, or the other good people in the world who just aren't convinced due to having no reason to believe?  these people will go to hell?

at this point god just sounds like a huge dick to me

[Whirlingdervish]

also for christianity, only people who accept jesus will get saved.  what of the thousands of good people who will never hear about jesus, or the other good people in the world who just aren't convinced due to having no reason to believe?  these people will go to hell?

at this point god just sounds like a huge dick to me

What about babies who are too young to understand the concept?!1

DO THEY ALL GO TO HELL?!! OMFGBBQORIGINALSIN

[Whirlingdervish]

morality can entirely stand alone from law, and it predates law.

Laws are effectively an attempt to enforce specific morals through government intervention and threats of punishment.

The morals themselves stand alone, and would still be morals without the addition of a government and edicts seeking to enforce those things that they deem to be in their best interest.

take your example:

You believe X
The next guy believes Y which is the antithesis to X

the rightness of X and Y do not depend on these people's beliefs at all, nor does it matter where the people are or what government (or religion or set of laws) that they are bound by.

If your government or religion makes it a law that you must do something like kill people for working on a sunday, it doesn't make killing people over something so trivial into a morally acceptable behavior. It's still immoral, but now it's just an immoral activity that you won't be punished for engaging in.

Killing people who aren't trying to kill you remains an immoral behavior even if such a behavior is legitimized by "the law".

[|iR|Focalor]

I suppose you'd also say that killing for sport alone is immoral.

Cats are immoral. They kill birds for fun.

I don't really know what point I'm trying to make. Maybe that I really fucking hate cats.

[Kami]

and golgo13, morality is not subjective; yet i also do not need a bible to tell me how i should live my life.  if anyone needs a manuscript of what is right and wrong, then they have not grown up correctly. there are some tenents that must be obeyed in life so that our society both advances and survives, and such things that are against this are considered immoral.  you can easily have morality without the 10 commandments or 7 deadly sins.

you just proved morality is subjective without law.  example* lets say you think it would be ok to get with your bosses wife while the next person believes it is wrong. who is the arbitor of what is right and wrong? your own mind. so you base your morality on laws created by man do you not?

what about laws not yet created by man? by which component will you judge the valid morality of the law? so, saying morality is not subjective in the absence of law or (the ten commandments) is refuted.


on the other issues you brought up.. you must have been the only person to ever come to that conclusion ever. i guess people really do have all the answers... 

morality can be extended to follow societal laws.  at such a point, it may be moral to follow it or not.

but since you say morality is subjective, i guess that means its okay for muslims to kill the rape victims in their own family.  its okay for them to subjugate their women to such a stripping of autonomy and promote them as objects to be collected in some cases.

and furthermore, it is not my own conclusion.  this is an arguement put forth by many scientists who attempt to show reason in the face of god.  richard dawkins makes this, carl sagan has talked about this, many others have spoken.  and we're not going very far if you're going to post ad hominem in response.  i have said nothing personally about you, but apparently my lack of celebrity status means that my words have no meaning.

i was really hoping we wouldn't get to that point.

[Whirlingdervish]

way to ignore posts that directly contradict your idiotic claims.

 

PS: Notice that you can't make an argument without postulating a god and requiring a "someone" who arbitrates all dispute.
There is no someone, and there is no evidence that there is a someone. There is no need for some mythical being to decide on universal morals, and there can be morals without a specific "who" deciding what they are for everyone.

If GOD decides what is moral for everyone, and he destroys entire towns like the bible claims was done to Gomorah and Sodom, does that mean it was completely morally acceptable for America to destroy 2 Japanese towns that like Sodom and Gomorah did not directly affect the destroyer in question?

The answer is NO, and that leads to a double standard. Supposedly God is perfect and without sin, but his actions can be immoral? BRAIN OVERLOAD!!!

 

[Whirlingdervish]

you win.

Fixed.

[haunted]

golgothirtium loses

[Sgt. Dick]

Boyce,

However or Whatever helped you overcome the situation you were in, I'm glad it worked for you.  Congrats on staying with it through the years also.

One thing I think we can all agree on is Golgo's choice of text in his post are terrible.  For me, they are almost as annoying as his content.

[Kami]

Ad-Hominem
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Where in my response do i appeal to emotions or special interests?. or perhaps i offended you with my example comparison to adulterous people who go with other peoples wives? or perhaps you sounded condescending, when you stated that people who need rules to behave morally, didn't grow up right. while we are on the topic, seeing as though you are admitting you are an athiest. hence giving the conclusion of being apathetic to the idea of bagging another man's wife, as if it is of no consequence.

this is what an ad hominem response looks like.

on the other issues you brought up.. you must have been the only person to ever come to that conclusion ever. i guess people really do have all the answers... 

you're obviously being sarcastic.  what you mean by this is that because i am not well known nor published in journals of philosophy or science i have no credibility.  even though i never claimed that this is my own idea, you attack the idea based on who i am, not for what the idea is itself.  that is called ad hominem in debating.  essentially you choose to ignore the point and instead refute the person making the claim rather than the claim itself.


 

I am stating that morality is subjective because of the fact that everyone is a sinner.  the bible states that noone is sinless except christ. saying morality is timeless, is very subjective in time and place. example being that cavemen had instinct to club a random woman and mate with her to procreate the next generation. by today's standards, if that had occured it would be illegal and immoral. although it was accepted before because its was beneficial to the survival of the species? today the law would have something to say about that. now modern man just uses roofies and excessive alcohol.

first of all, we're not debating the bible.  the bible is a second hand source of hearsay.  it is not written by god or christ, and it was written thousands of years ago.  you'll find that you go to any philosophy, philosophical theology (as far as relating morality questions, not historical relevance), or any other class, you'll find that the bible is not an acceptable source for this reason.  the bible has many contradictory notions in it, and it's no surprise that even the bible affirms that even "the devil can quote scripture for his own ends" -Psalm xci.  so while we could use the bible as a good source of debate, i'd rather skip 20 pages of you quoting scripture for your ideas and me quoting scripture that contradicts them.

secondly, morality cannot be relative or then it is completely arbitrary.  morality serves a valuable purpose in human relationships; a purpose you can find the roots of in how animals form relationships.  again, as long as you say morality is subjective then you MUST agree that there is nothing morally wrong with muslims killing the female rape victims for shaming their own families.  and if you agree with this, then you are, quite simply, a pretty immoral person.  if morality is subjective, then it is subjective, and i am only required to put forward a single example of how it is not subjective.  i am not saying there exists a single tablet of morality in the universe, but for the purposes of humanity, there are some things that can be considered universal such as not murdering your neighbor, protecting the young, and protecting the pregnant to say a few.

to say morality is subjective is to say it is arbitrary.  that is to say, i am allowed to judge morality for myself.  so what if i said it was completely okay to burn churches down all the time?  because you say morality is subjective, and because there is nothing about burning down a church in the ten commandments, you would have to agree that it is moral.  because it is subjective and i therefore have judged it to be okay, then it is okay.

but let's take this a step further:  if you believe that morality is subjective, then your 10 commandments do not have to be followed.  10 commandments would be what you should consider objective rules of morality.  if these are not objective and so not set in stone, then someone may interpret them however they wish to.  in the 10 commandments, it says "Thou shalt not murder".  because of my subjective moral right, i will determine it can mean "Thou shalt not murder, except if someone insults my mother".  Perhaps I made a special case because it bothered me so much.  it may be extreme, but in my view there, i figured people who insulted my mother deserved it.

you cannot have your cake and eat it too.  if you say morality is completely subjective, then no parts of morality are objective, including your commandments from your god.  so no, morality is not subjective.