OK, thanks CL

You certainly seem to be appreciative of our perspective which is a rarity here.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:40 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I am not asking you to agree with me. Just to understand what I am saying. Do you still not understand, or are you just saying you don't agree? What you just said above seems to indicate that you do not understand.

That may well be seletive reading then.  I think I made my positive disagreement plain.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:07 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let me try to explain it in the form of a question:

So, back to the American justice metaphor.

Murder is a crime. It is not lawful. It is not legal. It is a crime, period. This is American law.

If the insane person who murdered 10 shoppers at the mall got an innocent for reason of insanity verdict, does that mean that murder ceases to be a crime? Does the fact that some murderers get the innocent for reason of insanity verdict mean that murder stops being a crime?

(We'll ignore the fact that legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things.)

What you're saying is that the moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal.

I will copypaste that sentence with the pertinent points emboldened:

1. What you're saying is that the moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal.

2. Now, do you think the state of mind is irrelevant to culpability?  Because it looks to me, from here, like you think that the moral responsibility for an event is distinctly tied to the mindset of the actor.  Is that a fair statement to you?

3. Do you think your god was right to kill all but eight humans on Earth because he was disappointed with his own creation?

4. Do you think Charlie Manson was right to order the murder of seven humans?

Explain your answers, in detail.

I have made corresponding numbers to make it easier.

1. A person's moral responsibility for a crime is relative to the state of mind of the criminal. Yes.

2. Hm? No. The state of mind is completely relevant to culpability, just as the sentence above says. Remember, culpability and moral responsibility are the same things. Just different ways of addressing it.

3. This is the story of Noah's Arc, which I believe was written allegorically.

4. No. Murder is always an immoral act.

I think we need to get through the misunderstanding in question 2 before we can go any further.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:45 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:38 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Doesn't that negate the concept of objective morality? ._.

Doesn't what negate it?

That we can have different moral standards and values

(June 22, 2015 at 2:53 am)robvalue Wrote: OK, thanks CL

You certainly seem to be appreciative of our perspective which is a rarity here.

You have been nothing but extremely kind to me. Definitely one of my favorites around here!

---

(June 22, 2015 at 2:09 am)robvalue Wrote: CL: this will be my last ride round the merry go round, and feel free to not answer any of my questions. This is curiosity, not an interrogation I shall leave you in peace whether or not you answer these.

So... what does it matter if something is "inherently wrong"? What is the point of this phrase? Who is it inherently wrong to? Clearly not to us as humans, as we take the situation into account before deciding how wrong it was. If God thinks it's inherently wrong but even he makes allowances, what is left? What does it matter if it's inherently wrong, why not call it inherently cheesecake? At best you can say it's probably wrong before considering mitigating factors. Would you agree?

Objective means it applies to everyone and everything and is not dependent on anyone's opinions or perspective. A commandment about morality from God is therefor not objective. You seem to be wanting to make god's opinion objective. But he can have whatever opinion he wants, right? Or is his opinion ultimately bound by something else?

As for Jesus, it appears that because he said, "Treat others as you want to be treated" that we can just assume he meant whatever we like about other subjects whether he says so or not. That is quite clearly projecting your own morality onto the bible, not the other way round. Now don't get me wrong, that is great! I'll take your morality over the bible any day of the week.

Can I answer this in the morning? Long question! I don't want you to think I am dismissing you.

I appreciate that, thank you

You've been very kind and respectful too, I wish every theist we had visit us was more like you.

Of course! I'd much rather you gave it thought than firing out what seems like the obvious answers to you anyhow.

(June 22, 2015 at 2:58 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:45 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Doesn't what negate it?

That we can have different moral standards and values

We can have different morals and values. Most people do! It just doesn't mean we can both be right. She thinks she's right, I think I'm right. I would never kick someone to the curb for believing differently from me.

(June 22, 2015 at 3:02 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:58 am)Neimenovic Wrote: That we can have different moral standards and values

We can have different morals and values. Most people do! It just doesn't mean we can both be right. She thinks she's right, I think I'm right. I would never kick someone to the curb for believing differently from me.

But how can that mean there are objective moral values? And how do you know you're right?

Bsides like Rob said, if it comes from god it's subjective

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:17 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Sorry; I know I said I'd stop, but I need to share this story:

When I was twelve, I paid for my piano lessons by babysitting my piano teacher's three-year old while she was teaching other kids' lessons.  One day, there was chaos in my neighborhood, with sirens and cops, etc.

Turns out, my piano teacher had gotten home from Mother's Day mass, and found her husband bludgeoned to death in their bed.  He was an attorney for the FBI and had many enemies, so the cops turned to them.  It wasn't until two weeks later, she called the cops and confessed to beating her husband to death.  She led them to where she had thrown the baseball bat, and they arrested her.  Apparently, she had walked in on her husband molesting their son, and she just lost it on him.  She had been molested as a foster child earlier in her life, and between that and finding her son in danger, she just lost it.

Two years later, she was cleared on temporary insanity.

Do you really see immorality there?  Can you really not see how there was nothing moral or immoral about that?  If not, I really am done here.  I thought you were a nice person, C_L, but if you can really say, after that story, that what she did was immoral, I have real problems with your version of morality.

I believe the death penalty is immoral as well, so I would be a hypocrite if I said this was moral. Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

But I do think that the woman's culpability is very much lessened if not completely eliminated due to the shock she was in. I would never condemn her or say she is a bad person.

And as you can see, even in our judicial system... murder remains a crime, but a person's verdict is subjective. 

You do not have to agree with my versions of morality. Likewise, I do not agree with yours either. We can have different morals and moral standards, and that is fine. I still respect your views, and I still think you are a good person despite our differences.

Well... I've changed my mind about whether you're a *good* person. I absolutely do not respect the views you have, especially regarding this (do you really think she wasn't acting to save her child's life??? Seriously??), and I think it's vile you can still hold the views you have even after reading the (true life) story I told.

Wow.

I share Becca's sentiment. I can't grasp how you can hold such abhorrent beliefs, CL. You don't sound like a good person to me.

(June 22, 2015 at 3:02 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:58 am)Neimenovic Wrote: That we can have different moral standards and values

We can have different morals and values. Most people do! It just doesn't mean we can both be right. She thinks she's right, I think I'm right. I would never kick someone to the curb for believing differently from me.

OK, so there is the correct objective moral code, "gods code" and everyone else's subjective versions.
Sometimes, they overlap, sometimes they don't. Fair enough.
What I find co-incidental is that the "correct" code, the one true objective code just happens to be the one you subscribe to!

This is how we atheists see all religious people who say they know the one real "truth".
If yours is the one true objective morality, and the Quran's is the one true objective morality, etc,
For us outsiders it's easy to see through all this nonsense.
We atheists are very consistent with what we think of the bible ...We have no agenda to cherry pick it. We don't believe anything in it is divinely inspired.


just my unholy 2 cents worth.
catch...