(October 30, 2014 at 11:31 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You know, it is really shitty to lie about why you are here. Why do it? It would be perfectly natural do just introduce yourself and say "I'd like to get you guys' take on moral absolutes." Why make up the bullshit about compiling statistics?

Why are you calling me a liar?? I AM compiling information and stats. You call me a liar why then when you don't know anything about me? You don't know I research and write, you don't know about the fact I do radio internet talk shows, and you don't know I instruct. I suggest asking one about one's self before accusing them out of some paranoia.... but I'm happy to forgive it this time... if you have anything to ask me, ask me or go to admin and ask THEM to check me out ...no more accusation though, not only is it unethical, I would assume its against the rules here eh?

Quote:As civilization marches on, we seem to come by rules that become etched into our collective ethos. By this I mean that at one time, rape was seen as the spoils of war, a man's right over a woman. No one would have thrown a second glance at it by most accounts. Certain castes were excluded even from the right to claim rape. That was then, this is now. We have a more evolved sense of morality. I would say that in all but some ridiculous hypothetical existential situation (the end of the human race is imminent and it's just me and an unwilling woman left to continue the species), there is no situation where rape is moral.

We still look back and say they were wrong... 90 percent of us do that is. Would you agree with the 90? And IF you were the last man on earth, would it be good then for you to rape the last woman who was unwilling?
Also... how is it an atheist can assume that one can violate matter and electrical impulses? In the end wouldn't an atheist be forced to admit that there is no real violation?

Quote:I would also say that the ritual mutilation of children's genitals is morally unacceptable. But clearly I am in some sort of minority or other there, and that continues to be (less and less, thank Jaysus) an acceptable thing to do. Would you say that this is morally acceptable?

I wasn't aware there was a ritual involved with circumcision. Have you observed these rituals?

.

(October 30, 2014 at 11:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 11:34 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: I hold that a tree cant morally violate a dog.

I would agree.

Unless that tree in from the "Evil Dead" series, those can violate any creature.

---

@Tsun Tsu I am glad to see you are ignoring my post and pushing on with your universal truth nonsense. Just goes to show, you are not really interested in any statistics at all.

Anyway, you seem to be quite interested in child abuse and how you 'know' it to be immoral. But for a second stop and think, why is it immoral? I hope you'll answer me, why do you consider pedophilia to be immoral?

(October 30, 2014 at 11:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 11:34 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Atheists hold that we are nothing more significant than matter and chemical reaction.

LOL, do they? Hmn, I must not have gotten the memo.

Ahh so you think the human being is more than matter and electronic impulses... Please explain what more are we than that?

Quote:The definition of Higher Truth is simple. It is Truth that transcends anyone's belief in it, anywhere, any time, and is also true regardless of anyone's opinion. So it transcends time space and the will of dissenters and remains true, making the dissenters "wrong".

Quote:So....in what way is that different from just plain old truth?

just plain old truth CAN be dependent on social structure... for instance it is true some have held rape is socially acceptable, that is the "plain truth". The HIGHER Truth is that they were "wrong" regardless of what they thought.

.

(October 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Do you agree with me that it is NEVER good to rape a child, or do you hold it is SOMETIMES good?

I agree with you that raping children is repulsive. I do not follow you in attaching 'universal status' to the repulsion I feel .. whatever that exactly means. I don't find I require absolute agreement or approval to stand with those who would use the power of the state to punish offenders. Internal/subjective moral reasons will suffice.

(October 30, 2014 at 11:58 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Can't answer the poll because there's no "I don't know" option.

What would you have to have in order to "KNOW" that regardless of time space or opinion, rape was "always wrong"??

---

(October 31, 2014 at 12:06 am)whateverist Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Do you agree with me that it is NEVER good to rape a child, or do you hold it is SOMETIMES good?

I agree with you that raping children is repulsive. I do not follow you in attaching 'universal status' to the repulsion I feel .. whatever that exactly means. I don't find I require absolute agreement or approval to stand with those who would use the power of the state to punish offenders. Internal/subjective moral reasons will suffice.

The point being that if rape is ALWAYS wrong, it becomes an absolute truth, an absolute moral standard, and universally so. This is strong evidence of a higher morality that the Atheist isn't accounting for.

(October 31, 2014 at 12:09 am)Tsun Tsu Wrote: What would you have to have in order to "KNOW" that regardless of time space or opinion, rape was "always wrong"??

Personally I don't require to know that rape is always and everywhere objectively wrong. It is wrong from my point of view and pretty obviously that is a popular view backed by the law. That'll do. I don't miss a feeling of self-righteousness.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 12:09 am)Tsun Tsu Wrote: This is strong evidence of a higher morality that the Atheist isn't accounting for.

I think that is simply a bias you are happy to confirm. While I share the repugnance toward rape, I do not share your bias that things which seem horrible to me are or should be horrible to everyone. Sure, I'd be happy if everyone just left the kids out of their sex play. But the universe won't implode because deviants exist. It is an unfortunate truth.

(October 31, 2014 at 12:06 am)Tsun Tsu Wrote: Ahh so you think the human being is more than matter and electronic impulses... Please explain what more are we than that?

To general of a question to answer. I don't know all of us so my list of the many others things that "we" are would be incomplete. Tell me what more there is to yourself, it's likely that we'll agree on nearly every example.

Quote:just plain old truth CAN be dependent on social structure... for instance it is true some have held rape is socially acceptable, that is the "plain truth".

Doesn't sound like truth at all to me. Sounds like a cultural more or societal norm. What is plain or true about the above?

Quote: The HIGHER Truth is that they were "wrong" regardless of what they thought.

Hmn, I see.... well...care to demonstrate this then, shouldn't be too much trouble?

.

Maybe you're not lying inasmuch as you are, in fact, compiling statistics, but I think it is disingenuous to post a poll asking for an opinion (with a somewhat academic, neutral-sounding description) and then to start arguing loudly against one of your options.

(October 31, 2014 at 12:00 am)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(October 30, 2014 at 11:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I would agree.

Unless that tree in from the "Evil Dead" series, those can violate any creature.

---

@Tsun Tsu I am glad to see you are ignoring my post and pushing on with your universal truth nonsense. Just goes to show, you are not really interested in any statistics at all.

Anyway, you seem to be quite interested in child abuse and how you 'know' it to be immoral. But for a second stop and think, why is it immoral? I hope you'll answer me, why do you consider pedophilia to be immoral?

Because it violates the most helpless and weakest of us, but I find rape itself an immoral personal violation regardless of innocent and helpless natures. How about you... why do you find it immoral?

And do you agree with me there is never a time that it is good? And if you agree with me, then you do realize you are now believing in a moral absolute. How does one explain the existence of moral absolutes (aka also universal truths)?

And this, I believe, is the trouble with your argument: None of what you've said provides any "evidence" of anything, because your arguments are just as valid if you replace the word "wrong" with the word "right." Within your logical framework, rape could just as easily be a universal good; that would just mean 1) the source of universal morality is a dick and 2) we're collectively mistaken in our "intuition" or "knowledge" or whatever that rape is generally wrong.

The point I'm trying to make is this: everything you've said so far is DESCRIPTIVE of an unprovable position, but there's a massive ontological gap between describing the consequences of your logical assumptions/axioms and the real world.