Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

Still the same baloney, VC....

Going by moral relativism, what Hitler did was acceptable as it is his view as right and wrong.

No judgements allowed.

That is how it is.

So are we going to move down to that thinking, where there is no right and wrong.
What sort of society will it become?

.

I have said I believe in Objective morality, not moral relativism, But I know you don't care, you prefer to keep stuffing that straw man with straw and attack it rather than actually listen to what I am saying.

VC, we are not animals, we are humans

Humans are a species of animal. we aren't plants, fungi, bacteria etc we are animals.

Saying we aren't animals we are humans is as silly as saying "That's not an animal, its a dolphin"

An animal is - a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.


If we don't fit that definition then I don't know what does.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes that happens but between people with no moral scruples but it's frowned on in polite society.

I don't think its frowned upon at all, Do you think members of "Polite society" would do nothing if an intruder invaded their property an hopped in bed with their wife??? I think anyone would react with vigour and violence if needed, and if they couldn't handle it then they would call some guys in blue with guns to come and handle it.

Do you think you can determine what the general consensus of apes is towards adultery ?

Which apes? humans are apes.

I question whether there is a "taboo" on murder within chimps and wolves groups. It's your opinion that there is but on what evidence do you base this ? Chimp law courts ?

The fact that they don't tend to violently murder those in their group, but will kill outsiders and members of other species. A group of chimps can live peacefully for years in a zoo, and never killing each other, but if a racoon gets into the enclosure, suddenly they want to tear it apart.



They also hunt and kill outsider chimp and hunt monkeys etc, but don't really kill each other, this is a clear indication that they have social rules which they live by.

 

[SirRumpole]

Which apes? humans are apes.



The fact that they don't tend to violently murder those in their group, but will kill outsiders and members of other species.

Sorry that doesn't stack up.

You assert that there is a "taboo" on murder of their own tribe in ape communities ?

That's not the case.

In (non human) ape communities the males of that group battle for the alpha male position and some of the losers could get killed.

If there was a taboo on murder then the rest of the tribe would turn on the murdering ape and exact retribution, like killing him or driving him away. But no, the victorious ape gets the girls and the prestige of being the head of the tribe. All the other males are subservient to the alpha male.

So where is the morality in that ?

Kill and get rewarded, the law of the jungle.

 

[Value Collector]

In (non human) ape communities the males of that group battle for the alpha male position and some of the losers could get killed.

.

I think you will find battles for dominance very rarely end in death in any species of ape, including humans.

Even in humans we allow killing for self defence etc.

If there was a taboo on murder then the rest of the tribe would turn on the murdering ape and exact retribution, like killing him or driving him away. But no, the victorious ape gets the girls and the prestige of being the head of the tribe. All the other males are subservient to the alpha male.

That's not true, even when it comes to establishing dominance they have rules and procedures for how this is done, there are examples of groups turning against individuals who break certain rules, having a biff to establish dominance is probably considered perfectly fine in their culture, it is not a sign that no rules exist at all.

But that's not my point anyway, My point is that in day to day cohabitation they are not killing and eating each other, they look at each other differently than they do other species of monkeys which they are willing to hunt and kill.

So where is the morality in that ?

Kill and get rewarded, the law of the jungle

We are getting way off track here, I only used animals as an example of early development of social rules, if you are trying to say chimps etc don't have social rules you are wrong, simple as that, they wouldn't function as the groups they do without them.

My point was that humans would have also developed social rules that covered things such as killing and stealing long before the ten commandments.

You have it backward, secular morality is the source of religious morality, religious morality is not the source of secular morality.

 

[SirRumpole]

We are getting way off track here, I only used animals as an example of early development of social rules, if you are trying to say chimps etc don't have social rules you are wrong, simple as that, they wouldn't function as the groups they do without them.

You tried to say that non human apes have a "taboo" on killing and used that to justify that they have developed a moral code. That's simply not true as the following article explains.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ally-aggressive-human-impact-not-to-blame.htm

You named the ten commandments, of which one is "Thou shalt not murder", I use chimps and wolves as non human examples of social groups that already have that as a taboo, so to say it didn't exist in human culture until 4000 years ago is silly.

 

[Value Collector]

You tried to say that non human apes have a "taboo" on killing and used that to justify that they have developed a moral code. That's simply not true as the following article explains.

]

So your quoted article says this

chimps kill each other for personal gain and resources. They kill to gain resources such as land, food or mates. Sound familiar?

So firstly, which of those things hasn't been a part of human history, both religious and non religious???

Secondly, does the fact that humans do that show that humans don't have a moral system? offcourse it doesn't, it shows that sometimes we break our own moral code for personal gain.

In general chimps and the other apes don't kill members of their group, they work together, protect each other, this takes a simple moral code where they value the lives of their social group.

__________________

Instead of getting bogged down in example I gave of animals, I really wish you would back up your claim that morals are sourced from the ten commandments and maybe provide reasoning on why you believe cultures the world over all have rules against killing even though they never saw the ten commandments and how you think human society survived for 100,000 years if they thought it was a good idea to kill each other.

 

[SirRumpole]

In general chimps and the other apes don't kill members of their group, they work together, protect each other, this takes a simple moral code where they value the lives of their social group.

I think you are confusing morality with convenience.

It's more efficient to hunt in packs , it's safer not to be alone. That's all there is with animals, trying to say they are moralistic is absurd.

Instead of getting bogged down in example I gave of animals, I really wish you would back up your claim that morals are sourced from the ten commandments and maybe provide reasoning on why you believe cultures the world over all have rules against killing even though they never saw the ten commandments and how you think human society survived for 100,000 years if they thought it was a good idea to kill each other.

Humans managed to survive despite wars, sacking , pillaging etc , Again you confuse survival or lust for conquest with morality.

The Romans, Goths, Vikings, Macedonians thought little of the morality of invading other people's countries, looting their treasures and raping their women. Do you ascribe a morality to those actions ?

Where is the written set of instructions that describe how they should treat fellow humans ?

Morality is about not just how you treat your own tribe but everyone else in the world.

What written documentation have you got describing moral principles pre Bible ?

 

[Value Collector]

It's more efficient to hunt in packs , it's safer not to be alone. That's all there is with animals, trying to say they are moralistic is absurd.

That's where our morals started in their most primitive form.

People say things like "If it wasn't for religion, we would all be killing each other", well no we wouldn't for the same reason chimps don't.

The Romans, Goths, Vikings, Macedonians thought little of the morality of invading other people's countries, looting their treasures and raping their women. Do you ascribe a morality to those actions ?

Again, moral system tend to be applied within social groups, the ten commandments didn't stop either the Christians or the Jews invading other nations, they were rules about how to live in your own society, the same jews in the bible that god gave the ten commandments to later pillaged towns and to women as sex slaves.

Where is the written set of instructions that describe how they should treat fellow humans ?

why does it have to be written? The aboriginals didn't have a written language, but they had laws.

Morality is about not just how you treat your own tribe but everyone else in the world

I agree, but then you can't use the biblical morality then, its only for gods chosen people, the other tribes don't count.

But moral systems started from rules about how tribesmen treated each other, do unto others as you would have them treat you etc, you don't need a religion to understand that.

What written documentation have you got describing moral principles pre Bible

As I have said previously the Egyptians had a similar list, but we don't even need to go that far, the fact that civilizations all over the world with no access to bibles had moral codes that outlawed killing and stealing is enough to show the source can't be biblical.

Think of what you are saying, you are trying to say that until the story of Moses was written, no human civilisation had existed which had thought to introduce laws and moral teachings, that's just silly, you are writing off most of human history, and most of the worlds nations, except for one group with one set of myths.

 

[SirRumpole]

Think of what you are saying, you are trying to say that until the story of Moses was written, no human civilisation had existed which had thought to introduce laws and moral teachings, that's just silly, you are writing off most of human history, and most of the worlds nations, except for one group with one set of myths.

I'm saying that religious laws contributed to the development of morality as did other factors.

You appear to want to ignore the effect of religion entirely.

Are you saying religion played NO part in the development of moral codes ?

As for your Egyptian example, the Egyptians believed in Gods and an afterlife so there is a religious influence there as well.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm saying that religious laws contributed to the development of morality as did other factors.

No, you actually said it was the "Source" of morality. if all you were saying was that it contributed I wouldn't have a problem.

Morality is a topic we have learned about over thousands of years, and we are still learning, the problem with religion is it tends to want absolute answers, which it can lock in and never change, this leads them to resist new moral ideas as we get better and better.

You appear to want to ignore the effect of religion entirely.

Are you saying religion played NO part in the development of moral codes

No, I say secular morality is superior, and both the source and need for morality are secular.

Religion and Morality is like the Amish people, the Amish took a snapshot of 1800's technology and said "this is it, this is the correct way to live" and they haven't moved on, the religions take the same snap shot of morality, but we learn more about morality as we go on, so these snapshots are out dated, and tying the morals to religion mean its hard to change.

 

[SirRumpole]

No, I say secular morality is superior, and both the source and need for morality are secular.

You may think we live in a secular society (secular - not connected with religious or spiritual matters) but in fact we live in a multi faceted society where religion has a place as well as do all the other inputs including corporations who would make as much as they could by selling alcohol to minors if they could, and it seems to be only the churches that oppose an alcohol based society because the politicians are too concerned with feathering their own nests.

So I think we need a religious influence as some form of circuit breaker against rising alcohol and gambling abuse because I don't see too many "seculars" all that concerned about it.

 

[Value Collector]

You may think we live in a secular society (secular - not connected with religious or spiritual matters) but in fact we live in a multi faceted society where religion has a place as well as do all the other inputs including corporations who would make as much as they could by selling alcohol to minors if they could, and it seems to be only the churches that oppose an alcohol based society because the politicians are too concerned with feathering their own nests.

So I think we need a religious influence as some form of circuit breaker against rising alcohol and gambling abuse because I don't see too many "seculars" all that concerned about it.

Why would you care about rising alcohol abuse, why do care if children drank?

 

[SirRumpole]

Why would you care about rising alcohol abuse, why do care if children drank?

Yes I know what you are saying, that everyone should be concerned about alcohol abuse, but our "secular" society sees it as a national rite of passage to get drunk and annoy or kill other people in car accidents etc.

The point is that our "secular" politicians just want the revenue and don't care much about the costs ad our secular society sees interference in their fun as the work of do gooders (churches) and their nanny state lackeys.

So, be my guest and try and talk the country out of being alcoholics if you agree we would be better off that way.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes I know what you are saying, that everyone should be concerned about alcohol abuse, but our "secular" society sees it as a national rite of passage to get drunk and annoy or kill other people in car accidents etc.

The point is that our "secular" politicians just want the revenue and don't care much about the costs ad our secular society sees interference in their fun as the work of do gooders (churches) and their nanny state lackeys.

So, be my guest and try and talk the country out of being alcoholics if you agree we would be better off that way.

I see the government paying for Ads encouraging people to not drink drive and have "plan b", I see the police forces out there enforcing the laws and testing people, they obviously care, what are the "churches" doing?

I just have a problem with you making out the it's only churches that have good intentions, everyone else are just uncaring secularists.

You have said things like only churches care about charity etc, yet there are many non religious charities and some of the biggest doners are non religious.

 

[SirRumpole]

I see the government paying for Ads encouraging people to not drink drive and have "plan b", I see the police forces out there enforcing the laws and testing people, they obviously care, what are the "churches" doing?

I just have a problem with you making out the it's only churches that have good intentions, everyone else are just uncaring secularists.

I never said "only" the churches care, but the fact is that alcohol is more freely available than it ever was due to its availability in supermarkets, pubs are open to 3 am, drunken assaults are on the increase, alcohol advertising is pervasive and when the Labor government tried to tax alcopops they were shouted down by the alcohol lobby.

So secular society does not appear to be dealing with the problem. Agree or not ?

 

[explod]

I never said "only" the churches care, but the fact is that alcohol is more freely available than it ever was due to its availability in supermarkets, pubs are open to 3 am, drunken assaults are on the increase, alcohol advertising is pervasive and when the Labor government tried to tax alcopops they were shouted down by the alcohol lobby.

So secular society does not appear to be dealing with the problem. Agree or not ?

On the ball champ.

Money is everything, that's why the chief set up the witch doctor on the hill.

Good. Post.

 

[Value Collector]

I never said "only" the churches care, but the fact is that alcohol is more freely available than it ever was due to its availability in supermarkets, pubs are open to 3 am, drunken assaults are on the increase, alcohol advertising is pervasive and when the Labor government tried to tax alcopops they were shouted down by the alcohol lobby.

So secular society does not appear to be dealing with the problem. Agree or not ?

Firstly the alco pops tax was dumb, and would lead to more drinking.

Secondly, do you have any stats to show alcohol violence is on the rise?

And what are the churches doing about it? I don't really pay attention to the issue, but all I can remember seeing is secular groups speaking out, and acting on it, and how do you know what the religion of the alcohol lobby is, how do you know they aren't all Anglican.

Also, most of the pollies are religious, why are you blaming their decisions on a lack of religion?

 

[SirRumpole]

Firstly the alco pops tax was dumb, and would lead to more drinking.

Wat is your evidence for that ?

Secondly, do you have any stats to show alcohol violence is on the rise?

The evidence isn't hard to find if you have a look.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...y-from-alcohol-related-illness:-study/5637050

And what are the churches doing about it? I don't really pay attention to the issue, but all I can remember seeing is secular groups speaking out, and acting on it, and how do you know what the religion of the alcohol lobby is, how do you know they aren't all Anglican.

It appears you have a selective memory if you only remember "secular" groups speaking out.

Also, most of the pollies are religious, why are you blaming their decisions on a lack of religion?

A complete generalisation without supporting evidence.

 

[Tink]

VC, I have already said that our laws were built by our biblical worldview, and a lot more has come out of the Bible than you realise.
You say I don't listen, you are not listening.

The Bible hasn't changed. The teachings haven't changed.

As has been pointed out -
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=25726&page=12&p=894597&viewfull=1#post894597

Now that we have made that clear, that our country was built on our Christian Heritage, can we move on, as we just go on with the same.

Conservatives believe in limited government intervention, where customs, laws and morals run society, not the government.
Life and Liberty, Rule of Law.

Do you know what Life and Liberty means?
It does not mean freedom for the government to pick up the tab, it means to live responsibly, with accountability.

----------------------------

What we are seeing now is a selfish society, in my view, where it is all about yourself, the ME society, not the community.

As I said, in Victoria, it is now becoming an anti-life, anti-family, anti-Christian.
Do they want people to be dependent on the government?

Like this moral relativism, where no judgements are to be made
Society should be about judgements, not without.
If no one can be judged, we will end up in a country that looks like a jungle.
Whatever they want to do, they should be allowed.

It all comes down to this new word - tolerance - which is being thrown about too freely.

The government shouldn't be jumping in to tell people how to think.
Using political correctness, moral relativism etc for social engineering to steer the masses is rubbish, in my view.
Public education is full of this left political rubbish, and it shouldn't be, it should be about literacy and numeracy.

We then have rights, which have taken a whole new life of their own.
It is not about the community anymore.

Just my view
---------

Just so people know, the atheism comment was pointed at VC and my debate.

I have mentioned before, you get good and bad in all people.

From not saying much through the years, I probably have been saying more, because of the changes I am seeing.
The anti-family, anti-fathers, and other things I don't agree with.

 

[Value Collector]

Wat is your evidence for that ?



The evidence isn't hard to find if you have a look.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...y-from-alcohol-related-illness:-study/5637050



It appears you have a selective memory if you only remember "secular" groups speaking out.




A complete generalisation without supporting evidence.

The alco pops tax was only a tax on pre mixed drinks, eg cans and bottles of premixed and pre measured and accurately labeled beverages, now by taxing only these, you suddenly make it cheaper to buy a bottle of spirits and a bottle of soft drink and mix it yourself, which generally leads to a lot heavier drinking because people make the drinks stronger when they pour them, think about it. do you want your teenage daughter heading out to a party with a 6 pack of premixed drinks, or do you want to have her go with a 750ml bottle of vodka, and have some scum bag boys pouring her drinks.

That article did mention a flaw in their figures saying the rise could be due to better information, eg since the 60's cancer deaths have risen steadily also, but in reality it's not that cancer rates have risen, it's just we are collecting better information and diagnosing people better, people used to just get sick and die, now we call it cancer.

Can you name some things the churches have done?

How many of the pollies are declare atheists?