And tonight, on top of the pop morality:

Up three place to number 10, it's having sex with your father.

Sticking firm at number 9, it's taking instructions from talking animals.

A new entry at number 8: slavery. It's OK again, apparently. We read it right the first time.

Down four place to number 7, it's hitting women until they shut up.

Number 6, as you may have predicted, is forcing pregnant women to drink a suspicious liquid which may kill their child.

At number 5, making a resurgence is repressing your sexuality.

Join us after the break for more top of the pop morality!

(February 1, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 2:13 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I'm just confused on why the absolute standard of God changes as humanity progresses...

---

Please explain WTF sin is if it is not violation of the OT laws.  Because it seems quite clear that's exactly what sin is.  Turns out that you recognize the Torah was written by a bunch of savages, so you conclude that Jesus must've died for something else?  But what?  Are you saying this:

1. Jesus tells us that his father made garbage laws, and Jesus invents new ones
2. Jesus dies for our transgressions against the new laws he invented

Does that sum it up?

No. Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. This includes action and thought. Jesus did not change the Law He completed it. Meaning he expanded it to include thought, and to provide atonement that would cover all sin.. That way Everyone could self identify as being in sin all the time. Thus requiring a need for a new way to God's righteousness. (Atonement) rather than 'moral actions.'

Their is a difference between the OT and NT because after atonement we are free from the law as a means to define our righteousness. Yet the Law remains to judge those who do not have atonement.

That said Paul tells us not all of us can understand or handle this freedom in its unrestricted form. So for those who need 'rules and morality' He gave us a basic set, and told us if anything falls out of this basic set and we think it is a sin then for us it is a sin and shall be treated as such. However not all are bound by those rules, but to those who weren't, we were given a warning not to do something in front of our weaker brothers to cause them to sin or do something in their mind was a sin. Lest we be judged harshly for causing our weaker brothers to stumble.

Paul's basic guideline set simply reflect the life we naturally begin to live once we have sought atonement.

1. "Jesus did not change the Law He completed it. Meaning he expanded it to include thought, and to provide atonement that would cover all sin."

2. The law allows for rape, pedophilia, and fornication; also it expressly consents to slavery

3. Jesus condones these things

4. These things are part of God's moral absolutes

Let's see that backpedaling now.

(February 1, 2016 at 10:55 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 30, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: No, I showed how your world view fits into my terminology.  You didn't answer a third option, you just ignored the points I made and returned to your semantic argument.  Settling moral debts through atonement is every bit as much a system of arbitrary morals as settling moral debts through payback.  Just as arbitrary and just as relative.  You haven't escaped pop morality, you've just adopted a specific one, one based on atonement.

Again no. Morality at its core a set of rules defining good/bad behavior. Pop morality describes the origins of said rules.

Absolutes/Atonement is freedom from 'moral behavior' and a way to be found righteous despite our failures in morality.

Therefore the model that uses atonement can not be morality because behavior is not what is being judged.

This is just argument by definition. It's a word game, nothing more. And by choosing to play it, you forfeit the real game.

You want your arbitrary scheme of vicarious redemption to escape criticism as a moral system, and so you exempt it from consideration by using a custom definition of morality chosen to suit your argument. Besides being after the fact, it is also wrong. Living by vicarious redemption is a behavior which you have judged to be good. Thus, it constitutes a set of morals.

Moreover it's a despicable set of morals in that it denies the debt owed to the wronged party in favor of a magic act which mysteriously takes away guilt.

(February 1, 2016 at 10:49 am)Drich Wrote: Does someone want to explain what the word hypothetical means to this guy??

You keep forgetting I'm a scientist by education and former career-training. I know exactly what hypothetical means. The problem is that you weren't really offering a hypothetical, but a syllogism: "if allowing homosexuals to do what they want is justified by science, and therefore socially acceptable, then how can we stop the pedophiles from being next by using the same argument?"

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. Science has had very little to contribute to the social debate over whether or not to allow consenting adults to have sex with each other if they wish to do so. That's why I cited the Lawrence case, to show you exactly what the rationale actually is. As I also said, and you also ignored, it doesn't matter if there's a gene for a certain propensity or desire, as far as the social/moral questions you're asking go.

(February 1, 2016 at 10:49 am)Drich Wrote: I presented you with a hypothetical scenario concerning pedophilia gaining legitimacy through 'scientific discovery' in "Certain children." Also 'Science' was use to identify a pedo gene in the scenario. You acknowledged ALL Of his in your first response. now it seems you are beating back a cowards retreat on the subject now that you see you are being made to make the same 'moral judgement' the church had to make concerning Homosexuality. In that Traditional values tells you it is wrong, yet science is telling it is what certain members of society are genetically preconditioned to engage in. This is The same science that supposedly was tapped to legitimize homosexuality in the very same way. The question being if 'science'/evolutionary need was used to legitimize Homosexuality, then Why cant it be used in the exact same way to legitimize sex with young children? In the scenario I presented It has been, in that All physical and psychological concerns were proved to be scientifically unfounded. So then why the hasty retreat, and data dump on what science is currently saying?

Let me be really clear, here: Science. Did. Not. Legitimize. Homosexuality. Science has less bearing on public policy and lawmaking than I'd like to see, to be sure, but it certainly had nothing to do with this one. Gays coming "out of the closet" and making themselves known, so that people realized their own friends, family, neighbors, etc., were gay is what legitimized it-- people began to have empathy for those who had formerly been forced to live in hiding because of fear of what Christians would do to them, once the rest of us who weren't bent into bigots by religion actually got a chance to know members of the gay community.

As the others have been trying to tell you, much of what the Bible condones, such as slavery, was rejected by society once people began to have empathy for the oppressed, and to see them as fellow human beings. None of this has anything to do with the question of whether we let people harm our children just because they have urges that may or may not be rooted in their genomic defects.

In other words, who cares if there's a genetic propensity for pedophilia? There's also a gene-set for tendencies toward extreme and unreasonable violent reactions... it's still illegal for that guy to punch people who piss him off. And what "traditional values" are you talking about? On the one hand, you seem to be implying that I'm only against pedophilia because it has traditionally been banned (which is only loosely true; the modern trend has been toward protecting children more than in the past), while on the other I'm being attacked by Wooters for acknowledging that it may be possible that it changes in the future, as more information about the nature of the harm done comes to light. For reasons I already stated, I don't think that number will move downward, but I acknowledge the possibility that it could be so.

(February 1, 2016 at 10:49 am)Drich Wrote: Nice.. All of the heavy hitters on the Athiest side of the evolution of morality with science being your guide line, Cower like little children afraid of the boogey man, at the thought of making a moral judgement that society has not already preapproved. Even though all of the 'check points' of scientific permission have been met as with the case of homosexuality.

This should freak all of you the Hell out if you have two brain cells to rub together!

Holy shit, Drich. Seriously, your holiness is shit. You're the only one here who's saying "If science says ____, then ____ is permissible." We may use scientific knowledge to inform our own moral judgment making (we more than most!), but your entire argument is based on a false premise. So take your childish insults and provocations, reach waaaaaaayyyy back, and shove them up your ass.

I'm going to go ahead and skip a few paragraphs of gibberish as you meandered around the point of saying that science may be misused (or, alternately, partial science or outright pseudoscience promoted in place of actual, conclusive research) for the purposes of peoples' agendas. That's indeed true, and it's why scientific literacy is so important. But I feel like I need to say it one last time: finding that gay people have some sort of epigenetic, genetic, or developmental predisposition such that they cannot like anyone but their own gender (which the science seems to indicate is the case) is not the reason they're allowed equal rights with the rest of us. It's very simple. There is no legitimate reason, other than your religious bullshit, to stop them from doing so. With violent people and pedophiles, there's a harm element to be considered, and so we force those people to restrain their impulses lest they harm those who would not wish to be harmed (consent is key).

Seriously, Drich, did it seriously enter your head that I might not know the meaning of hypothetically? Good grief, man. Work on your "slippery slope" arguments, already!

(February 1, 2016 at 12:46 pm)Drich Wrote: I am showing a direct parallel between pop morality now and the popular morality of Nazi germany. I am simply asking if your only absolute to define what right and wrong is pop culture, then what keeps us/soceity from following the path of the Nazis?

Nothing keeps society from following that path.  If it did, then we wouldn't have had the Nazi's go that path either.  The fact is that all morality is 'pop morality' as you call it.  Even the morality that comes from the Bible, and other religious texts.  Some people base their morality off of these so called holy books, but in the end most people spin their holy books to fit their morality.

If Germany had won World War II most would likely conform their opinions to the idea that Jews were bad, and had to be disposed of. 

Is this a terrifying concept? No. Why?  For one simple reason:  Because we learn.  Humanity has been persecuting less and less as we continue intellectual pursuits.  Even in the short time I've been alive, this country has shifted it's opinion on Gay Marriage.  Look at how not that long ago segregation of blacks and whites had ample support.  Yet today, the only time we separate whites is with our washing machines.   Humans are nothing if not creatures of learning.  We learn from our history so that we do not repeat the mistakes of our past.  That isn't a faith in god, but a faith in humanity.  We've come so far from being apes who were just starting to learn to use tools.  We've taken that learning process to it's logical conclusion.  We learn, and that's why it's not terrifying.

(February 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Drich Wrote: Why is this an over simplified view?

Well...because you are creating a false dichotomy:

According to you, empathy is [i]either:[i]

A. Biologically innate

[i]OR[i]

B. Taught by society


But there is also secret option C that you don't want anyone to think about:

C. Empathy is a complex combination of [i]both[i] neurobiological predisposition and societal rules, and capable of being influenced my many, many factors.

But if you offer [i]that[i] as an option for discussion then your entire argument turns to dust, so I can see why you would refuse to acknowledge it. [emoji12]

Not sure what happened with the italics there...apologies!

(February 1, 2016 at 7:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Not sure what happened with the italics there...apologies!

The second i tag should have a / (forward slash) before the i, so for every word you wish to italicize, do it like this:

[ i ]word[ / i ]

without space, of course

let me test it out now:

word

(February 1, 2016 at 1:01 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 31, 2016 at 1:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: LFC is dead-on. 

But I agree, when they start arguing that their moral beliefs are "objective" while everyone else's are "subjective", simply because theirs are found in holy scriptures "from God" ("well, sure it was written by men, but it's really from Gawd, you see"), it's already a lost conversation. You can show them all day that theirs are just as subjective as anyone else's, and they'll never listen, because they're convinced of the legitimacy of their authority figure(s).

1) "The Bible is the Objective Moral Guide." (What makes you say that?, replies the atheist.)

OMG...
NO! for the 1000th time NO!
It's an absolute, NOT meant to be followed or looked at as a 'moral guide!"

It's only purpose is to identify sin and lay out the plan for atonement.

Once atoned/saved the Law ONLY judges the Unatoned/sinners.

For the Save it serves as a mile marker for the changes you will automatically want to undergo, but won't be able to complete in this life.

NOT A MORAL STANDARD.
The rest of your argument is crap!

Quote:2) "Because the Bible Says So and God as we have defined him is unchanging, therefore objective." (But your Biblical morality changes all the time, both internally--see Moses vs. Jesus' rules about divorce, Paul's new rules about Levitical Law, etc.-- and externally as society changes, such as the verses justifying genocide, women as property, and heritable permanent slavery for other races, not to mention the penalties for worshiping other gods, freedom of speech, etc.)

3) "Yeah but you have no external guide at all, so because you think you're just animals, anything is permissible to you, even baby rape and HITLER!!" (Um, Hitler was a Christian and the Nazis actively promoted "God is with Us" religiousity... also, we eat babies, we don't rape them.)

And arooouuuuunnnnd we go!

actually no one told you to go on the merry go round... You are just pulling out all the old tricks to try and refute what you can't seem to grasp...
I got an idea! Instead of just rambling off good olde atheist standby arguements that give you all such great comfort, how abouts asking a question rather than putting me in a position where I have to decide how to call you stupid with out setting you off all the time. How about asking a question, and stop assuming you know the basics of a religion you clearly know very little about. How about stop doing your victory lap over some other race you won, and maybe for once speak on point/get back into this race.

So, if god's word isn't meant to be a moral standard then wtf was the point of your thread?! Your whole condescending assertion was that people who don't believe in God can't possibly establish their own internal moral standard, correct? I'm lost as to the point you are trying to make...

(February 1, 2016 at 8:04 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 7:24 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Not sure what happened with the italics there...apologies!

The second i tag should have a / (forward slash) before the i, so for every word you wish to italicize, do it like this:

[ i ]word[ / i ]

without space, of course

let me test it out now:

word

THANK YOU!!! [emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]