Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 12:16 pm
(January 29, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Drich Wrote: (January 28, 2016 at 2:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: But empathy is just not as simple a concept as 'you are either taught it or not.' To a degree, our species is hard wired for it, probably for evolutionarily advantageous reasons. I've posted this article before but I'll offer it to you as well.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the...ce-empathy
Do you argue that empathy is not controllable on a societal level? if it is controlled, it can be taught.
Well...I'm not arguing society -versus- human nature in regards to empathy. I'm arguing that to approach empathy from this type of binary perspective is to oversimplify it, and it is not an accurate reflection of reality. Does that make sense?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 12:43 pm
(January 31, 2016 at 12:16 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well...I'm not arguing society -versus- human nature in regards to empathy. I'm arguing that to approach empathy from this type of binary perspective is to oversimplify it, and it is not an accurate reflection of reality. Does that make sense?
Yes, yes it does. I know you can start to feel pretty out there in a conversation with someone dedicated to their 'objective' belief.
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 1:01 pm
(January 31, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: (January 31, 2016 at 12:16 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Well...I'm not arguing society -versus- human nature in regards to empathy. I'm arguing that to approach empathy from this type of binary perspective is to oversimplify it, and it is not an accurate reflection of reality. Does that make sense?
Yes, yes it does. I know you can start to feel pretty out there in a conversation with someone dedicated to their 'objective' belief.
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.)
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!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 1:13 pm
(January 31, 2016 at 1:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: (January 31, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Yes, yes it does. I know you can start to feel pretty out there in a conversation with someone dedicated to their 'objective' belief.
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.)
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!
LOL, yes, the baby eating is very important!
And in Drich's case, the -next- step after number 3 once he realizes he can't argue against anything in number 2 (because it is STRAIGHT text from his own book), is to say: "yeah, well...I'm not saying God's moral code is -better- necessarily..."
Um....Yes, that is EXACTLY what you were saying. That was EXACTLY the purpose of your own thread, in case you forgot. How embarrassing! [emoji23]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 7568
Threads: 20
Joined: July 26, 2013
Reputation:
54
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 1:33 pm
(January 31, 2016 at 1:13 pm)LadyForCamus 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.)
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!
LOL, yes, the baby eating is very important!
And in Drich's case, the -next- step after number 3 once he realizes he can't argue against anything in number 2 (because it is STRAIGHT text from his own book), is to say: "yeah, well...I'm not saying God's moral code is -better- necessarily..."
Um....Yes, that is EXACTLY what you were saying. That was EXACTLY the purpose of your own thread, in case you forgot. How embarrassing! [emoji23]
The thing to always remember about Drich is that he is a True Believer in Paul and Paul's Christ, so he takes seriously Paul's claim that the law, as supposedly revealed to Moses, is really nothing more than a stumbling block meant to demonstrate the insufficiency of any moral code and our utter inability to redeem ourselves through acts -- hence the need for grace and Christ's atonement. It's the perfect theology for unembarrassed sociopaths.
Posts: 550
Threads: 23
Joined: January 25, 2016
Reputation:
12
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 2:53 pm
(January 31, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: (January 31, 2016 at 1:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: LOL, yes, the baby eating is very important!
And in Drich's case, the -next- step after number 3 once he realizes he can't argue against anything in number 2 (because it is STRAIGHT text from his own book), is to say: "yeah, well...I'm not saying God's moral code is -better- necessarily..."
Um....Yes, that is EXACTLY what you were saying. That was EXACTLY the purpose of your own thread, in case you forgot. How embarrassing! [emoji23]
The thing to always remember about Drich is that he is a True Believer in Paul and Paul's Christ, so he takes seriously Paul's claim that the law, as supposedly revealed to Moses, is really nothing more than a stumbling block meant to demonstrate the insufficiency of any moral code and our utter inability to redeem ourselves through acts -- hence the need for grace and Christ's atonement. It's the perfect theology for unembarrassed sociopaths.
I'm getting the same tune.
"Objective morality comes from only the Bible"
So slavery is ok?
"Those laws are not the real objective standard."
But you said it's in the Bible...
If Paul is the new Moses then women who speak in church are blasphemers... women who don't cover their heads are a shame to the church. Right. I can see how this is a good objective morality that leads to optimal happiness.
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 3:13 pm
(This post was last modified: January 31, 2016 at 3:13 pm by robvalue.)
The problem is agreeing what "morality" even means, with a religious person. They often seem to want it to be somehow to do with wellbeing and doing what God wants at the same time.
But these are either contradictory in parts, or else the God part is redundant. We know what is good for wellbeing. We don't need to be told it by an old book. I've managed to be considerate of people's wellbeing my whole life, and I didn't read any of the bible until a few years ago. So clearly it's not required to even read the book to get its "power", which makes me wonder what the point of it is.
Slavery, rape, genocide based on voices in your head are clearly not good for wellbeing in general, so at this point what "God says" becomes irrelevant. I already do the actual good things the bible has to say, and like any nice Christian, I ignore the bad parts.
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 5:16 pm
(January 31, 2016 at 3:13 pm)robvalue Wrote: Slavery, rape, genocide based on voices in your head are clearly not good for wellbeing in general, so at this point what "God says" becomes irrelevant. I already do the actual good things the bible has to say, and like any nice Christian, I ignore the bad parts.
QFT
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 2087
Threads: 65
Joined: August 30, 2015
Reputation:
24
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 5:23 pm
Honestly the bible is just a collection of 'pop morality'. I mean if you listen to most apologetics, they say "You have to take it in context of the times!" In fact one could say all morality is 'pop morality'.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: pop morality
January 31, 2016 at 10:25 pm
(January 30, 2016 at 2:08 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: ...On the other hand, Hebephilia, which is adult sexual attraction to teenagers, is a slightly different proposition. If science discovers that we are wrong about this factor, then I can see the laws changing to suit a different figure than the ones we have artificially drawn (somewhere between 14 and 18, depending on the nation and/or the state in question)...
And so it begins. What was formerly unthinkable finds its way back into consideration.
|
