Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

Oh okay, now I understand. Yeah, good point. Amazes me how Bell has been rolling over this idea on and on.
edit: I misread your line. I thought you said " no difference between the arg. that Bell was proposing when compared to Hiroshima..." ie in both cases (Soddom and Hiroshima, innocents were killed...). Sorry to confuse everyone .

After America dropped the nukes, they didn’t then go and rape all he virgin daughters and kill all he surving sons.

It’s totally different, the god in the Bible ordered survivors to be executed or raped, that is not justified.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes, but foundations by itself is not yet a house.

But it will be.

 

[SirRumpole]

When have I claimed to have perfect morality?

I never said you claimed "perfect" morality , but you have claimed "superior" morality to that of religions. I'm saying that there is not a lot of difference.

I find it a bit ridiculous that some people deny that anything in the Bible is true, but then go to great lengths to try and argue that it is wrong anyway.

Did Sodom and Gomorah really exist ? If not then the tales about their destruction never happened and the stories are simply allegorical. So why waste time debating non events ? There are plenty of moral decisions that people have to take today that we should be thinking about.

 

[Value Collector]

I never said you claimed "perfect" morality , but you have claimed "superior" morality to that of religions.
.

No I claimed secular morality is superior in general, not that I am personally more moral.

Think about, there is nothing stopping secular morality taking on all the good that any religion might have, but it is free to ignore the baggage that comes with that religion, that alone makes it superior.

I'm saying that there is not a lot of difference.

Having absolute rules makes a huge difference, it means you are not free to good things because they contradict an absolute rule.

I find it a bit ridiculous that some people deny that anything in the Bible is true,

I haven't seen anyone here say that, I think you building a straw man there.

Did Sodom and Gomorah really exist ?

Probably not.

If not then the tales about their destruction never happened and the stories are simply allegorical.

we can still have a discussion about whether such a thing would be morally right.

eg. If you say Darth Vader is the source of morality and 100% moral in all situations, I might quote parts of the Star Wars story where he was acting immorally, the fact that it is fiction is irrelevant.

So why waste time debating non events ?

I would much rather debate facts, But the religious often try to use moral arguments as some sort of proof their god exists, through twisted logic.

eg. Morality can't exist without god, but we are moral, so therefore god exists

That is one of the whole reasons we are even discussing morality, the religious have claimed only they can be moral, and therefore we started talking about morality, which as you have seen is a rabbit hole.

 

[Value Collector]

But it will be.

So what? when it is we will call it that, until then its not.

do you think sperm have human rights?

 

[Value Collector]

I will apply my argument to late term abortions since you said you understand the woman's right to abort no matter how old the unborn child is.

whats the point of doing that, I have already said I would be fine with banning late term abortions except in cases where the mother and baby will probably die.

Now , if you agree that a human, who is in this case perhaps almost equal or equal to another human (8 month old), can abort the child, that it isn't wrong, then my argument is this:

God can also perform an abortion if He thinks there is a worthy reason, and even more so, since He isn't equal to human beings, but a more superior life form. Also, that God is particularly capable of doing it because of His understanding of the situation at hand. So one can apply this to the innocent babies in e.g. Sodom/gomorah and other examples.

ok, if you think executing innocent boys and raping their sisters is the same as aborting a pregnancy that is doomed to fail anyway to save a mothers life you are a creep in my opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

So what? when it is we will call it that, until then its not.

do you think sperm have human rights?

No because they need to be fertilised to produce a human, but once this is done, a human is on it's way.

 

[SirRumpole]

So what? when it is we will call it that, until then its not.

Another example of moral malleability. You can call something whatever you like, that doesn't make you right.

 

[SirRumpole]

I haven't seen anyone here say that, I think you building a straw man there.

So tell us what parts of the Bible you think are true.

 

[Value Collector]

No because they need to be fertilised to produce a human, but once this is done, a human is on it's way.

they also need to grow for a couple of months, until they have grown they aren't a human.

Another example of moral malleability. You can call something whatever you like, that doesn't make you right.

It is not about labels, it's about whether something is or isn't actually some thing.

So tell us what parts of the Bible you think are true.

Egypt existed and had pharaohs, maybe some of the characters existed or were at least based on people that existed.

It's a big book (trilogy actually) , why don't you give me an example and I will tell you if I think its true.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's a big book (trilogy actually) , why don't you give me an example and I will tell you if I think its true.

That Jesus existed and the events of his life are essentially true.

 

[SirRumpole]

they also need to grow for a couple of months, until they have grown they aren't a human.

That's your opinion only. Others have a right to a different opinion.

 

[Value Collector]

That Jesus existed and the events of his life are essentially true.

of course I don't believe any of the super natural claims are true, eg walking on water, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin etc etc.

So if some one asks me if Jesus existed, I would say no because I think they would be referring to the bible character with all the bells and whistles.

If they asked whether its possible the character could have been based on a real person, I would say that if it was the story has been grossly embellished, but there isn't enough evidence for me to believe a real guy existed, but maybe he did, no one knows.

 

[SirRumpole]

of course I don't believe any of the super natural claims are true, eg walking on water, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin etc etc.

So if some one asks me if Jesus existed, I would say no because I think they would be referring to the bible character with all the bells and whistles.

If they asked whether its possible the character could have been based on a real person, I would say that if it was the story has been grossly embellished, but there isn't enough evidence for me to believe a real guy existed, but maybe he did, no one knows.

But , like Darth Vader you are still able to make a decision on the morality of what he is reported to have said ?

So where do you think he went wrong ?

 

[grah33]

whats the point of doing that, I have already said I would be fine with banning late term abortions except in cases where the mother and baby will probably die.

Now , if you agree that a human, who is in this case perhaps almost equal or equal to another human (8 month old), can abort the child, that it isn't wrong, then my argument is this:



ok, if you think executing innocent boys and raping their sisters is the same as aborting a pregnancy that is doomed to fail anyway to save a mothers life you are a creep in my opinion.

Yes but you did say that you understand how a woman still has a choice even in late term situations (you certainly didn't oppose this kind of secular morality). If you can understand that ,I think you can understand my argument. Also, from what I just read, many late term abortions are for convenience sake.

I think a 6-8 month year old baby can feel pain, and has limbs, and looks similar enough to a newborn baby. Do you not agree? I think you do agree that an 8 month old baby looks similar enough, but a woman still has the right to choose. My argument is that a Creator (not someone equal to another life) has far more rights. Just like a farmer can end the life of his chickens if he has a good reason to do so.

Have I convinced you now?

(we'll leave rape alone for now)

 

[Value Collector]

Yes but you did say that you understand how a woman still has a choice even in late term situations (you certainly didn't oppose this kind of secular morality).

I said "Technically" a women has the right to her body, and I don't think anyone not even a baby has the right to live inside another human against their will, However I would be ok with denying her rights to a late term pregnancy for the benefit of the child, as long as she had the right to an earlier term pregnancy.

This is vastly different from slaughtering people in another tribe, executing their male children and raping their female children.

Again if you can't understand that then you are a creep, IMO

Have I convinced you now?

No.

 

[Tink]

I agree with Pro Life - Pro Family.



Not Pro Death, like the Greens

 

[Value Collector]

But , like Darth Vader you are still able to make a decision on the morality of what he is reported to have said ?

Some of the stuff he said was good some of it was not, I have never said I disagree with every thing the Jesus character said or did.

So where do you think he went wrong ?

the way he preached the breaking up of families is a bit off, from personal experience I know the Jehovah witnesses quote this verse to make their flock feel better about ditching family not in the church.

Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.

Luke 12:53
They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Matthew 10:36
A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Matthew 10:35
For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

Matthew 19:29
And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

Matthew 23:9
Call no man your ‘father’ upon the earth

 

[grah33]

I said "Technically" a women has the right to her body, and I don't think anyone not even a baby has the right to live inside another human against their will, However I would be ok with denying her rights to a late term pregnancy for the benefit of the child, as long as she had the right to an earlier term pregnancy.

This is vastly different from slaughtering people in another tribe, executing their male children and raping their female children.

Again if you can't understand that then you are a creep, IMO

No.

Again, you just said that technically a woman has the right, and you are applying this to late term abortions. You're "ok" with restricting late term abortions, but you haven't said they are immoral. Why not just be upfront about it, since it is after all, secular morality (although not all secularists subscribe to it). You won't condemn late term abortions. And don't think of rape, as many late term abortions aren't for that at all.

How is a late term baby (say 8 months) vastly different from a newborn (few days)?
If a woman has a right to abort her child, why doesn't a Creator have the right to abort life shortly after birth, since they are similarly equal?

You've called me creep twice, but am I going to get answers to my questions?

 

[bellenuit]

That is no different to the argument that VC was proposing regarding the slaughter of innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I can't see a superiority in either the Bible or secular "morality".

There is one big difference. You and VC argued about whether the nuke bombing was morally correct. You both had a different perspective and were both presumably using your own moral criteria and the information available to base your decision on. In regards to the bible, that doesn't come into play for many. Because certain actions were ordered or committed by God, then that is OK, full stop, no need for discussion, even though the actions were the opposite to what Jesus preached.

It is this acceptance of OT stories as being true and as a source of moral guidance that is a huge danger. Even though much of the OT has no basis in fact (the creation story etc., even Cardinal Pell rejected the idea that Adam and Eve existed), some people will not let go of other parts. The atrocities in the OT, those that may have been historically true, were likely the stories as told by the war lords and they would have invoked God as having being on their side, no matter how immoral their actions were. One need look no further than the US today, to see how often God is invoked as agreeing with one side of politics and when it comes to ISIS, God (Allah) is constantly invoked. They all think that they are acting on the will of God.

It is not that one morality is superior to the other. Christian morality as espoused by Jesus is pretty much the same as secular morality and that is because, IMO, there is only secular morality and religions have merely adopted the secular morality of the time. Christianity, unlike Islam, has managed to keep up with secular morality since the time of Jesus, usually with some degree of resistance, but eventually getting there on most issues.