Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[TheRocketSurgeon]

[siderant]You have no business telling anyone else how they should feel about metaphysical purpose. Being an atheist doesn't have anything to do with that. Are you seriously trying to say atheists cannot believe in having a predestined purpose? Have you learned nothing since you got here?[/siderant]

Oh but I can.  Rather you cannot tell me I cannot.  I am also aware of the general hypocrisy of the atheistic position and have argued it extensively in another thread (which was my first thread).  You see if you are to have a justified disagreement with the existence of a thing it will be founded on the lack of direct explicit empirical evidence.  When such evidence is missing you may say the thing does not exists (though you are wrong in saying as much, it is at least reasonable).  Well metaphysical purpose is equally devoid of direct explicit empirical evidence.  Thus if you do not wish to be a hypocrite you should also hold it does not exists.  The fact that you say atheist can believe there is a metaphysical PREDESTINED (protestant much?) purpose without evidence while not believing in a god for lack of evidence is text book hypocrisy.

You know, if you're going to be as arrogant as you just were in these posts, you should probably learn the difference between assigned "purpose", as determined by the individual, and metaphysical "purpose". You should also stop trying to say that because some atheists believe in RandomThing, than others/all/most are also defined by RandomThing. Lots of people believe in things without evidence, based on feeling, such as the belief that their wife is faithful or that their team's draft pick will turn the losing streak around. So for you to leap from the phrase "you say atheist can believe" to "text book hypocrisy" is ignorance of the first order, and as far as I can tell based on what Losty was clearly trying to tell you there, indicative of a basic lack of reading comprehension skills.

However, I have not learned anything since being here.  Not to say that anyone is stupid, but comments by many illustrate ignorance to a far greater degree then enlightenment.  In all honesty I thought higher of atheist before coming to this board.  You guys seemed more rational and less pathological beforehand; this site has dispelled that anecdotal notion for me.  The more I read the more I see the various atheists on this board argue entirely based on subjective sentiment (aka your feelings).  Some of you are smart enough to build up mountains of half truths and fallacious arguments as to perpetrate an image of rationalism.  But alas, in the end, when argued in accordance with the logic your arguments all devolve into how you in particular feel.  Something which neither law, ethics, nor morality could or should ever be predicated on.  

See, here you go with that some-versus-many-verus-all thing, again. We're generally pretty careful to distinguish between what we feel and what we know; it's an underlying basis for most of the skeptic's mindset. I have seen not one shred of evidence to suggest what you are asserting here, that "all devolve into how [we] in particular feel".

That said, all ethics and morality are predicated on how the individual feels. Law is a form of "groupthink", and has no bearing on the other two concepts except indirectly, through the adopted social views of the ones who make the laws, but it is up to each person to decide for himself what is moral. That individual might feel that the claims of Revealed Truth™ by a particular religion are worthy of personal adoption, but in the end it still comes down to feeling. What I suspect you mean is that moral relativism is indefensible in the light of your personal feeling that the particular Revealed Truth™ guidebook contains a code of Moral Absolutes. If you were a more honest person, you'd acknowledge that your Guidebook of Moral Absolutes is actually pretty immoral by common modern standards of morality (e.g. we have "discovered" since the Bible days that owning another human being is a bad thing).

Alas it seems the majority (who comment) here are more concerned with justifying their feelings and are only willing to consider things from their own personal view.  There was a lot of talk of empathy, but from the comments being made there is neither an ability to empathize or be objective.  What is exhibited instead is self projection under the name of empathy to such a degree that endeavoring to discuss logically about a topic in a non-self projecting manner is met with accusations of self projecting ("it is hard to believe others do not do what you, yourself do in the situation").  So learned something while here...  hardly and unlikely.

Now this kind of statement is when I start to seriously question whether or not you're actually this delusional, or if you're a violation of Poe's Law. Even the most basic reading of this form (or any atheism forum in which I have participated over the years) shows that we tend to go out of our way to empathize with different perspectives, and I would venture to say that on the whole we are more aware of the positions of a broad range of others than they are of ours by a significant margin. Just because we come to different conclusions doesn't mean an inability to see where they are coming from, and here (far more than at any religious website I have ever seen) you will find people willing to argue entire positions from their opponent's point of view as best they can, just to try to get to the bottom of an argument or understand it better. Indeed, I'd say the Robert Frost jibe, "A liberal is a person too broad-minded to take his own side in an argument" applies to us more than to liberals in general.

Furthermore, the most common moral philosophy among atheists is called Secular Humanism, and their point of view (including mine) is almost entirely based on the principle of empathy for others. What you are doing is conflating an inability to adopt your position with an inability to see your position. If a person makes a counter-argument that shows they do not actually understand your position, then you are not only entitled but encouraged, here, to point out the flaws in their analysis.

Human beings have no biological purpose. We have biological functions. You can say, the biological purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction. I don't see how you can say the biological purpose for the existence of human beings is anything. I don't think we have a biological purpose.

HA HA!!  Let us see if we can help you to figure this out.  Biological functions are meant to do something.  Would we call what they are meant to do their purpose?  Now the amalgamation of biological functions within a given organism and evolution of various organisms overtime are meant to do something as well; which we may once again refer to as a purpose.  

---

Now if we consider biological functions and biological evolution we observe both are orientated or mean to keep the organism alive.  Now is that alive unto eternity, the next shit, or intergalactic conquest?  Well let us consider the evidence as observed by the vast majority of biological organisms.  They do not live unto eternity so that cannot be the purpose of biological functions or evolution.  They do not live only to shit; so that cannot be it.  Nor do they live until intergalactic conquest has been achieved.  Alas it would seem nearly every biological organism's biological functions and evolution is to extend the life of the organism to the point of procreation.  After this is achieved nearly every biological organism on this planet ceases biological functions (dies).  

So if we were to say biology (as a general term) is evidenced to do something, it is to the procreation of the biology (we are of course ignoring the quintessential biological function of cells is to live until cellular procreation of other biological cells).  Now if we say what something was meant to do is its purpose than we would say the biological purpose, as evidenced, of biological existence is procreation (as biological existence of biological organisms is general extended to this point and not beyond by means of biological functions and evolution.)  Hence while metaphysical purpose of being is devoid of direct empirical evidence (and thus as "real" as an imaginary guy in the sky or in one's mind) the biological purpose of being is supported by direct empirical evidence as being procreative.

---

Okay, for brevity's sake I hid a huge chunk of rambling word salad in which you essentially said "We clearly exist to reproduce, because evolution." Which is true, in that narrow sense. But since the topic of this thread is concerning marriage and homosexuality, I'm going to steer back on course by saying the following:

Yes, we "exist to reproduce", but that term does not mean necessarily that each individual person must reproduce. There are two problems with your application of that idea to homosexuality and marriage:
1) People are born all the time, for various reasons, with deleterious mutations and/or have accidents which render them infertile or unable to have sex. No one in their right mind would suggest that we should deny them the legal institution of marriage because of this fact, so if you are going to make such an assertion about homosexuality, you're going to have to base it on other characteristics of their gayness.
2) Anyone with a basic understanding of genetics knows about the principle of kin-selection, in which an individual with a seemingly deleterious mutation can still propagate his genetics through siblings/cousins/etc., if the trait which is deleterious in the individual are nevertheless beneficial toward the group as a whole. The common example of this is the "lookout alarm" (sentinel) behavior of many species of social animals, in which one will expose themselves to predators in order to sound an alarm that gives his kin a better chance of reaching safety when a predator attacks. The sum total of his decreased survival fitness is much less than the sum total of the benefit to the others. Since humans are a social species, and homosexuality is seen in at least some form in almost every social mammal species we observe, it is easy to surmise that there is a purpose to this trait. But even if that were not so, point one remains the case. Even if you could somehow demonstrate that it serves no biological purpose, in terms of genetics, homosexuality is no different than a host of other mutations/aberrations from the norm that impact suitability for reproduction, and our society deems it morally abhorrent to deny marriage on that basis.

In other words, examine your own prejudices very carefully.