RE: Morality
April 14, 2012 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm by Creed of Heresy.)
You are discussing morality. You are making the claim that the bible is the institution of morality and that christian morality is based off of a book written by a bunch of dudes about a man half a lifetime after the man had died [by the way I could write the same amount of text as the four gospels put together in a quarter of the time about a fantasy character BY MYSELF, there's no excuse for four people taking decades to write something about a guy long since dead, the resurrection myth notwithstanding]. My counterpoint is that morality and the golden rule [yes, they DO tie in together, I shouldn't have to explain how, considering that's elementary level of moral understanding] are based in biological altruism; the idea of morality was NOT invented by the Abrahamic religions, yet like most things, religion has absconded with it and claimed it to be of its own workings.
Is that not what you are arguing? That biblical morality is superior? I counterpoint that it is INFERIOR because it is a bastardization of NATURAL morality in the senses of, again, biological altruism which science has already proven to exist in both the wild AND in human civilization, and in fact it is IMMORAL in the sense that a schizophrenic can have the voices in his head shriek at him to go on a murderous rampage and if we let our society adhere to Christian morality rather than the morality of law [which was largely written in the name of common sense and human rights, not the bible, despite whatever you may attempt to claim], he could be considered innocent because "god" told him to do it and therefore he could not only be considered innocent, but doing the right thing. This is the problem with Sharia-law-run countries in the middle east; if you do something and you use the quran to justify it as an act in the name of god you're basically innocent, even if that means torturing and murdering a woman as a "punishment" for being raped. What you are proposing as moral superiority is no different especially because this same book of yours says that stoning a child for not wanting to do his chores is A-OK. The fact that you yourself think that this kind of shit is perfectly fine and moral is very telling about you as a person. And it tells nothing good.
Or maybe I'm missing the point entirely.
Is that not what you are arguing? That biblical morality is superior? I counterpoint that it is INFERIOR because it is a bastardization of NATURAL morality in the senses of, again, biological altruism which science has already proven to exist in both the wild AND in human civilization, and in fact it is IMMORAL in the sense that a schizophrenic can have the voices in his head shriek at him to go on a murderous rampage and if we let our society adhere to Christian morality rather than the morality of law [which was largely written in the name of common sense and human rights, not the bible, despite whatever you may attempt to claim], he could be considered innocent because "god" told him to do it and therefore he could not only be considered innocent, but doing the right thing. This is the problem with Sharia-law-run countries in the middle east; if you do something and you use the quran to justify it as an act in the name of god you're basically innocent, even if that means torturing and murdering a woman as a "punishment" for being raped. What you are proposing as moral superiority is no different especially because this same book of yours says that stoning a child for not wanting to do his chores is A-OK. The fact that you yourself think that this kind of shit is perfectly fine and moral is very telling about you as a person. And it tells nothing good.
Or maybe I'm missing the point entirely.
