The Strange and Interesting Thread

[|iR|Focalor]

Now that that has been corrected, let's get back to morals. If your state was to pass a law tomorrow allowing you to kill and rape anyone you so wished, could you live it out? could you actually live out doing something like that? Or would you feel bad for even thinking about doing it? Better still lets say you went through with it, would you feel guilty afterwards? would you feel bad within yourself? Even better again, you were forced to watch your wife and child get raped right in front of your eyes powerless to stop it, you wouldn't get angry and mad right because morals are all relative and the law says its ok to do so. You see if morals are all relative, you possibly could rape and murder without feeling guilty, but something tells me that you wouldn't actually be able to live it out, and live it out without feeling guilty, or get extremely pissed of if you saw a loved one get raped or killed in front of your eyes.

Ugh! Wait a minute wait a minute. Let's get back to this one here. What the fuck was your point with this at all? That morals are relative to the law? No. See, YOU miss the point I was making. Morals are not relative to the law. Morals are relative to societies of people. Those societies with their collective values MAKE the laws. Just changing a law isn't going to necessarily change the morals of the people in that society.

The whole point of saying that Phil Robertson was a dumbass for what he said, and what you unwittingly parroted, is that morals can and DO exist apart from belief in a Judeo-Christian "god". PEOPLE make values and morals what they are, not any "god".

Way way back in the time of Fred Flintstone, humans lived in packs like any other animal. But there was one guy in the pack, we'll call him Frank. Frank would go nuts occasionally and bash someones head in with a rock and kill them. He did it about 2 or 3 times. Eventually the other people in that pack got sick and tired of Frank killing their friends with rocks. So they met one night by a tree and said, "This Frank guy... he keeps killing people. He killed Dave! Dave was my hunting buddy! We gotta do something about Frank." They all agreed. So the next morning, Frank woke up and found everyone else in the pack holding sharpened sticks in his face. So they marched him to the nearest cliff, shoved his ass over the edge, and from thence forth it was decreed amongst that pack and mini-society that people killing other people would no longer be tolerated because it was a total asshole jerk-off thing to do and people were tired of having their hunting buddies killed. Thus... murder was considered immoral. And because just the idea of "calling" it immoral wasn't enough to stop some people from doing it, then they eventually had to make it a law. Because LAWS in a society make morals a little more official. Morals by themselves are just opinions of what is right and wrong. But laws spell out the expectations of peoples behavior and says, "If you cross the line, we're gonna point sticks at you and march you off the cliff, because that's our official policy now, you assholes."

[quadz]

Only in the sense that Australia is entirely peopled with criminals.

What does that have to do with the price of fish? If that was meant as a personal insult to me, it shows me you have to resort to that because you can't so easily explain things away. Im trying to have a reasonable debate about this. However if you want to go down that path, you would have to be pretty daft not to see that their are criminals anywhere you go in the world. I hear the crime rate in the USA isn't so flash there either bucko.

Oh, dear.

It's a line from Princess Bride:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL4c9gCRSKY  (2:40) 

When you state, "Humans evolved over millions of years from raining on a rock for millions of years" and claim that "this is what scientists actually believe", you are leaving out important details.

Much in the way the line, "Australia is entirely peopled with criminals" is an oversimplification about Australia's history.

Scientists don't 'believe' in the big bang

They don't huh? Then why do they spend millions of dollars keeping it in the public schools text books? If it's just a theory and these people don't "believe" in it then why go through so much trouble to force feed it to kids as what really happened?

I suppose to some, quibbling over the term 'belief' as applied to scientific understanding might seem an exercise in semantics. But 'believing' in a theory would be a liability in science.

I've been trying to figure out how to communicate this distinction, and I think you're conflating belief with truth. Believing in something doesn't make it any more or less true (Tinkerbell aside.)

Science deals with uncertainty, and the likelihood a theory is true based on evidence. Since that's how science works, it shouldn't be taught as Belief in X, but rather Evidence in Support of X.

What is scientific, is to require you to provide evidence to support your god-hypothesis.

I have already provided you with ample evidence. Show me anywhere in the world where a scientist in any lab has produced life from non life. Show me experiments where something comes out of thin air from nothing. Show me anywhere, where an explosion makes things evolve. It;s never happened in any science room i know of.

That's not how evidence works. What you've described is called an argument from ignorance, also known as the god of the gaps: "I don't understand X in nature, therefore GOD(X)"

Wrapping mystery X with GOD(X) does nothing to help illuminate mystery X.

For millennia, people observed the orbits of the planets in the night sky (Planet is from the Greek word for Wanderer) and documented their belief that some supernatural force must be responsible for their motion.

We don't understand P, therefore GOD(P).

Even Newton, who invented calculus, got stuck on the multi-body problem and couldn't figure it out, and gave up and went GOD(P).

Just like those before him, all the way back to the Greeks, Newton gave up and punted: "But it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. ... This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Then a couple centuries later, Laplace finally figured out motion of planetary orbits.

And after all those centuries of people saying GOD(P), once Laplace figured it out, nobody says GOD(P) anymore.

They just write the equation.

Today we have mystery L, the question of abiogenesis, the chemical origin of the primordial self-replicating molecule, and you want to write GOD(L).

GOD(L) doesn't shed any light on L.

Jesus was an historical figure, you have eye witnesses, you have the dead sea scrolls (historical documentation) as well as documentation from even the secular circles to say jesus was a real historical figure.

Not even close.

This is a lengthy topic, but the historical evidence for Jesus as a person is miniscule, let alone historical evidence for anyone who was famous for performing miracles (nonexistent.)

What's especially interesting is the deafening silence of contemporaneous historians. We still have records from historians who lived during the time Jesus was supposed to be at his most active and famous, and there's just nothing.

This doesn't even scratch the surface of the many problems associated with later claims of Jesus' historicity -- but, perhaps a discussion for another time.

Your "kinds" hypothesis is not only unsupported by evidence, it is contradicted by the chemical process of biology.

Really? I actually studied biology in school. And I can tell you right now there is no way known that a cat will ever give birth to a new "species" just like every other animal on this planet. A kind will produce a like kind, but never a whole new species.

That wasn't biology you studied, that was propaganda.

The biological reproductive process at the chemical level is intriguing and fascinating in its digital nature, and again, there's no knowledge of speciation or 'kinds' built into the processes governing genetic heredity and mutation.

It doesn't work that way, and Ken Ham is a dipshit who lies to children.

If you have actually read the bible and fully understand it, which i doubt you have and do, You will come to find things that people try and use to say "oh look your god is a cruel god" is actually wrong, taken out of context twisted ect ect.

We read the whole shoddy thing. Daily Bible study was mandatory.

The Biblical god is not only cruel, but capricious and malevolent.

"Ooh, you'd better love me and accept my salvation for these ancestral sins you didn't commit, or I'll see to it you're tortured for eternity."

Yeah that's some nice 'morality' there, big guy.

[Alpha]

hypothetical laws that are gonna be passed to make murder legal aren't real and don't matter and are complete bullshit. Never gonna happen. Nothing to debate there. Because relative to the society I live in, too many people consider murder to be an asshole thing to do, and they'd never stand for a law that would legalize it.

really? what about the death penalty? That's legalizing murder isnt it?

I'm sure citizens in the USA have no right to ask for clemency from another country if they are about to hang an innocent person because they have some obscure law you don't agree with right? because morals are all relative. They would have no right to be outraged would they if morals are relative?

You dont understand what relative morals are. It doesn't matter if what the majority think is right. If you are going to say morals are relative, what right do you have to say that murder is the asshole thing to do to anyone? To me murder could be totally fine and have no right to call me an asshole..that would be hypocritical. That's if morals are relative.

[Alpha]

Not even close.

This is a lengthy topic, but the historical evidence for Jesus as a person is miniscule, let alone historical evidence for anyone who was famous for performing miracles (nonexistent.)

Actually there is near unanimity among scholars that Jesus existed historically although i will concede biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels

However in saying that, the book of mathew mark luke and john are historical documents from the dead sea scrolls. Eye witness accounts not contradicting each other......

And yes im going to predict you jumping all over the contradicting part, I will explain the book of mathew mark luke and john all have variations of their encounter with jesus, but they never contradict each other for example....

If you saw a woman running down the road you hear a scream and a screech then a thud and saw her getting hit, that is your eye witness testimony, but lets say if i saw the same thing and the police asked me what happened and i said i didn't see the woman running down the road but i did hear the thud when she got hit, we are not contradicting each other, we just have different eye witness testimony, and neither of those statements are false.


Jesus when he was crucified and  resurrected had eye witness testimonies not just to 1 person, he actually appeared to over 500 people when he was resurrected.

[|iR|Focalor]

hypothetical laws that are gonna be passed to make murder legal aren't real and don't matter and are complete bullshit. Never gonna happen. Nothing to debate there. Because relative to the society I live in, too many people consider murder to be an asshole thing to do, and they'd never stand for a law that would legalize it.

really? what about the death penalty? That's legalizing murder isnt it?

I'm sure citizens in the USA have no right to ask for clemency from another country if they are about to hang an innocent person because they have some obscure law you don't agree with right? because morals are all relative. They would have no right to be outraged would they if morals are relative?

You dont understand what relative morals are. It doesn't matter if what the majority think is right. If you are going to say morals are relative, what right do you have to say that murder is the asshole thing to do to anyone? To me murder could be totally fine and have no right to call me an asshole..that would be hypocritical. That's if morals are relative.

You still miss the point. In the jungle, is it immoral for one animal to kill another animal? No, that's just what animals do. And people are animals too. We kill each other all the fucking time. We killed each other by the millions in World War 2. Relative to war, killing the other guy isn't wrong at all, it's just what you do. Relative to civilian life in a civilized society, going around with a gun and killing lots of people is wrong. We define when it's right and wrong to kill people. We collectively decide what justifies it. Capital punishment? We decided that was okay. More and more people are deciding that it's NOT okay. And that's why more and more states in the US have abolished the death penalty. Morals and values are not absolute and eternal and defined by God. They're defined by the people who hold them.

Another example: It used to be entirely immoral for two men to smooch it out in public like queers. These days, morals have changed. More and more of the collective have said, "You know, it's kind of an asshole thing for us to tell these two queers they can't be queers when them being queers really doesn't effect anyone else." And so now it's actually becoming more immoral to oppose homosexuality than to call homosexuality immoral.

Like I said, our species tends to define things as being immoral when it oppresses someone else or harms them. Basically every law on the books is there to prosecute people for doing things that fit that description. And those laws became laws because the society they govern have collectively agreed upon a set of values pertaining to the modern definition of "justice" within that society, and so they made them laws to give them authority and to enforce them.

The 10 Commandments? Fuck that shit. That's too many. You really only need ONE.

The One Commandment, thus saith the Lord thy Focalor...

DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE!

Now, go! Go ye into the world and spread this message! If ye all do this one thing, the world will be a better place.

Because...
Murder? That's what assholes do. I don't wanna be killed, and someone making me die when I don't wanna - that person's an asshole.
Rape? That's what assholes do. I don't wanna be fucked (unless you're a woman with really big tits), and someone fucking me when I don't wanna fuck - that person's an asshole.
False witness (lying)? That's what assholes do. I don't wanna be deceived, I want an accurate representation of things. Someone telling me shit that ain't true - that person's an asshole.
Stealing (theft/fraud/etc)? That's what assholes do. I wanna keep what's mine. I worked for my shit, and I like my shit. If you want some shit, go work for you some shit too. Someone taking the shit that belongs to someone else - that person's an asshole.

etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc infinity.

[Alpha]

Ok well I would love to hear your thoughts on this.... Currently there are 1.57 billion islamic muslims, making up over 23% of the world population.

Currently there are 318.9 million (2014) residence in the USA

These muslims are trying to impose their sharia law on every country in the world, that is their main goal. They clearly out number the population of the USA and if every single one was to converge on the USA right now, you would have to say you would have no choice but to concede power to them, and they would infact bring their sharia law to all the people of the USA.

So because morals are relative, you wouldn't have an issue with this right? your country wouldn't try and stop them right because they have the majority and majority is always right according to moral relativity

[|iR|Focalor]

What the fuck does it matter what the fuck I'd have or wouldn't have a problem with? If you have a fucking point, get to it. Otherwise, I'm to assume that your only point is that, much like brainiac Phil Robertson was saying, without God and being an atheist, things like murder and rape cease to be things that someone should consider to be "bad". Which would be... *sigh* REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY fucking stupid. I've already made my case that morals are subjective to the environment and any other number of mitigating factors. I've given examples of this. I've already made my case about how mankind has arrived at the conclusion that murder is a bad thing and something to be discouraged within a healthy functioning society with the whole caveman Frank thing. You see, I've made my point. Where's yours? Show it to me.

Your point is probably something in bible scripture though, right? And yeah, I've already said all of that is hogwash. So we disagree. Fuck this shit. I quit.

[Alpha]

What the fuck does it matter what the fuck I'd have or wouldn't have a problem with?

 the last comment i made it was a simple yes or no answer. Would you fight and try and keep over 1 billion muslims from imposing their majority sharia law onto the USA? If so under moral relativism you sir would be a bigot and a hypocrite. So I would hope that you would answer no to be consistent and not intellectually  dishonest

[yahoo]

bottom line

Religion makes people fuck up

[quadz]

the last comment i made it was a simple yes or no answer. Would you fight and try and keep over 1 billion muslims from imposing their majority sharia law onto the USA? If so under moral relativism you sir would be a bigot and a hypocrite. So I would hope that you would answer no to be consistent and not intellectually  dishonest

So you've presented a textbook case of the problems with moral absolutism (Sharia.)

Then, apparently without irony, you've erected a straw-man of "moral relativism" which you intend to bludgeon.

None of which actually engages the positions of your interlocutors on this thread.

So after you're done dismembering your straw-man, what next?

Ready to take the step of recognizing moral philosophy isn't divided into two boxes?

[Alpha]

Huge difference between sharia law and what gods commandments teach

[quadz]

Huge difference between sharia law and what gods commandments teach

Only if you make use of your own 21st century moral relativism to cherry-pick the least offensive parts of scripture.

(Moderate Muslims can cherry-pick Sharia just like you cherry-pick the bible, you know.)

But do let us know about the next non-virgin bride in your community you intend to stone to death on her father's doorstep.

[Alpha]

They are only offensive to you because you  like to live the lifestyle opposite to what good morals teach. The reason you don't like the idea of a god is for the same reason a criminal doesn't find a police officer. You will have to be held accountable for your actions, where as if you believe in moral relativism, you think you can drift through life making your own decision and what is right and wrong and never be held accountable for it.

[quadz]

They are only offensive to you because you  like to live the lifestyle opposite to what good morals teach.

I do?  How so?  Do you have something specific in mind?

[|iR|Focalor]

What the fuck does it matter what the fuck I'd have or wouldn't have a problem with?

 the last comment i made it was a simple yes or no answer. Would you fight and try and keep over 1 billion muslims from imposing their majority sharia law onto the USA? If so under moral relativism you sir would be a bigot and a hypocrite. So I would hope that you would answer no to be consistent and not intellectually  dishonest

Sigh.

It doesn't matter. It's a hypothetical question, postulating imaginary circumstances and events. Much like the Holy Bible talks about entirely imaginary things like boats that can hold 2 of every animal on the planet, dead people coming back to life, and talking snakes. It's ridiculous. If at some point in the future a bunch of Muslims take over America and impose Sharia Law, so fucking what? It could happen. Lots of shit COULD happen. I prefer to worry about the shit that DOES and WILL happen.

A bigot? Apparently you haven't been paying attention to my ten thousand plus posts around this dump. I'm white, I live in the deep south and, yes, I tend to have a bit of a prejudicial streak in me.

A hypocrite? Uh, no. There's nothing for me to be hypocritical about. What I've been describing all along isn't any particular special school of thought and philosophy. It's observations about how the world ACTUALLY works. There's no theory to it. (/me looks at Derv) It just IS.

you think you can drift through life making your own decision and what is right and wrong and never be held accountable for it.

Statistically speaking, last I heard, only 33% of murders are solved. 2/3 odds? Those are pretty good. Better than any odds you'd get on a single bet at any table in Vegas.

That said...
Who wants to have a sleepover at Uncle Focalor's house? Don't mind that plastic on the floor, it's not there for any particular reason.