Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:25 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
#31
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
Quote:Americans wanted to rid Europe from socialism, they got theocracy in progress...

Russia having nukes is more dangerous now

then EVER


Its only dangerous when the Russian Christians figure out Obama's a Muslim. /sarcasm
Or when Russian Christians decide they're the only true Christians.

I find it hilarious that it may be possible that all these new world orderists actually think its atheists who would end up forcing 'marks' on people, when Catholics run around with ash crosses on their foreheads once a year. Just sayin.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply
#32
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
Statler,

You might want to look at the thread http://atheistforums.org/thread-19363.html where the idea that relativistic morality allows judgement of other's moral systems is heavily covered. No absolute required.
Reply
#33
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
(June 18, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(June 18, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I don't know if it is right for sure. But societies do seem to make their own moralities.

Why DOES it make rape okay?

It seems we have to options here, either…

1. Rape is always wrong, no matter when or where it is committed.

OR

2. Rape is only wrong if a society (or people) deems it wrong.

Your relativistic definition logically leads to the second option, however you seem to be hinting at or acting like the first option is what is true, I’d agree with that, but in an atheistic universe I do not see how you can demonstrate that the first option is in fact true. Does that make sense?

(June 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Well then, if you feel that I should have to defend my beliefs against yours, then you will tell me precisely what your dispute is regarding my beliefs and then I will defend them.

Sure, the fact that you claim morals are relative, but then you also believe you are justified in criticizing morals that differ from yours upon moralistic grounds; how do you reconcile that apparent contradictory behavior?

Let me see if I get this. You're bitching to your argumentative opponent, set up a dichotomy, but agree with your opponent regarding the choice.

You then clamour on about how your argumentative opponent chooses the option you want to rail against, ignoring the fact that you have already agreed with your opponent, as a demonstration of your superior reasoning capacity.

What the fuck am I missing here?
Reply
#34
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
Seriously Waldorf? I would like to know what your fears are about an "atheistic universe".

For one thing, if you do something underhanded, unfair, or mean: even a three year old will call you on it. Its not hard to recognize ones own basic rights in relation to another's unless you have an overbearing duty to a god who makes his own morality and administers eternal judgement for digressions.
According to Drich, if your god told you to rape or bash a babies' head on a rock you better do it. Don't worry though, its a moral act because god told you to do it. Its even a lament praise in your Bible about how wonderful it was to crush those infants heads on a rock. Nevermind that it was in the old testament; jesus didnt come to abolish those rules, and if god tells you to do something you still have to do it. Morality coming from you is rich, to say the least. Not to mention the ripping out of those that god considers innocent, from their mothers wombs thus taking their oh so important choice of eternal destination away from them.. And I definitely wont mention the enslavement and RAPE of women and girls being the primary reason for a war. Apparently, they didn't get enough slave women for everyone in the first run so they pounced on an un suspecting people by decree of your moral god.
Yeah you have no leg to stand on.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply
#35
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
(June 18, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: But I do not think what society deems right and wrong makes something absolutely right and wrong - i merely believe that people create morality. Hence, morals are relative. But we can still analyze those morals and the justification for the morals. For example - Where do they come from? What purpose do they serve? Do people within society actually benefit from a particular moral stance?

Well I think we’re running into a difference of terminology then here, what do you call actual right and wrong if you do not call it morality?

Quote: Rape leads to all sorts of problems - what purpose does rape have in any universe, atheistic or otherwise?

Are you saying that something that leads to problems and serves no purpose is absolutely wrong?

(June 18, 2013 at 8:20 pm)Ryantology Wrote: 1. I don't claim that morals are relative; this is simple fact.
How do you know that?

Quote: 2. Just because I acknowledge the above fact does not mean I am not allowed to consider any moral system better than any other, on any grounds I wish. What I do not do evaluate moral standards based upon what a fictional character is said to think of the specific practices, because that is the point of the entire debate: your moral system is no more objective or superior to anyone else's.

We’re not talking about my moral system; we’re talking about atheistic moral systems. What grounds are you using to judge each system by and why did you choose those grounds?

Quote: Obviously, I will find nothing in a moral code I like when that moral code does not place the highest priority on human happiness and progress. That doesn't mean my specifics are objectively superior, but I know under which system I'd prefer to live.
So what happens if someone’s moral system dictates that it is morally right to kill you, then is it morally right to kill you?

Quote: Sorry I doused your strawman.

No straw-man here, I accurately pointed out your contradictory behavior. “Everyone is free to choose their favorite color, but those who choose blue are totally wrong because red is a better color!” Quite the arbitrary and therefore meaningless system you have created there.

(June 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm)FifthElement Wrote: No theocracy had them yet (which is a good thing), as far as I know ...


If no theocracy has possessed them, then how do you know they’d actually use them on other countries? I would personally prefer Vatican City having nuclear weapons over North Korea even though the former is a theocracy and the latter is not.

(June 19, 2013 at 12:09 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

How do you know the standard of morality is whether it hurts someone or not? Why not what maximizes happiness? So someone who commits adultery but never gets caught didn’t do anything morally wrong because they didn’t hurt anyone?

(June 19, 2013 at 12:37 am)max-greece Wrote: Statler,

You might want to look at the thread http://atheistforums.org/thread-19363.html where the idea that relativistic morality allows judgement of other's moral systems is heavily covered. No absolute required.

But it doesn’t allow for judgments of other moral systems because it is all purely arbitrary (which is a cardinal sin in logical reasoning). If two people are allowed to adopt contradictory moral systems you cannot say one is superior to the other or else you’re appealing to a system that transcends both people.

(June 19, 2013 at 1:00 am)cato123 Wrote: Let me see if I get this. You're bitching to your argumentative opponent, set up a dichotomy, but agree with your opponent regarding the choice.

You then clamour on about how your argumentative opponent chooses the option you want to rail against, ignoring the fact that you have already agreed with your opponent, as a demonstration of your superior reasoning capacity.

What the fuck am I missing here?

You’re missing a lot apparently.
Opponent makes “Argument A”, and a logical conclusion of “Argument A” is that “rape is only morally wrong if people deem it to be wrong.” Opponent then begins making claims that contradict this position, for example he/she starts hinting at the fact that he/she believes rape is always wrong. So I point out that I agree that rape is always wrong (but because I believe in “Argument B”), but if “Argument A” were true (which they also claim to believe is true) then rape would not always be wrong. So they are essentially claiming they believe in “Argument A” but reject the logical conclusion of that argument. Atheism leads to these sorts of logical inconsistencies.

(June 19, 2013 at 1:00 am)missluckie26 Wrote: Seriously Waldorf? I would like to know what your fears are about an "atheistic universe".

I have no fears of any such Universe because I know I do not live in one.

Quote: For one thing, if you do something underhanded, unfair, or mean: even a three year old will call you on it. Its not hard to recognize ones own basic rights in relation to another's unless you have an overbearing duty to a god who makes his own morality and administers eternal judgement for digressions.

Honestly, I do not care what a three year old thinks. If God didn’t exist, there’d be no afterlife, and there’d be no punishment for the people who get away with such “underhand” behavior, so then why should they not behave in such manners? If Joseph Stalin believes that there’s no afterlife, and he’s the most powerful man in his country, then why shouldn’t he kill 50 million of his fellow Russians in order to improve his own situation? He was acting in a manner that was completely consistent with his atheistic views of reality.


Quote: According to Drich, if your god told you to rape or bash a babies' head on a rock you better do it. Don't worry though, its a moral act because god told you to do it. Its even a lament praise in your Bible about how wonderful it was to crush those infants heads on a rock. Nevermind that it was in the old testament; jesus didnt come to abolish those rules, and if god tells you to do something you still have to do it. Morality coming from you is rich, to say the least. Not to mention the ripping out of those that god considers innocent, from their mothers wombs thus taking their oh so important choice of eternal destination away from them.. And I definitely wont mention the enslavement and RAPE of women and girls being the primary reason for a war. Apparently, they didn't get enough slave women for everyone in the first run so they pounced on an un suspecting people by decree of your moral god.
Yeah you have no leg to stand on.

Well ignoring your rather embarrassing ignorance of the Old Testament, you just beautifully proved my point! If any of that was actually condoned in the Bible (which it’s not) then who cares? Given your definition of morality absolutely none of it was morally wrong because the Israelites were free to determine their own morality, if they wanted to own slaves, rape women, and kill infants then more power to them in an atheistic Universe right? You look rather silly objecting to something that your definition of morality does not merely allow for but actually deems morally good. Oops. Angel
Reply
#36
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
(June 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(June 18, 2013 at 7:40 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: But I do not think what society deems right and wrong makes something absolutely right and wrong - i merely believe that people create morality. Hence, morals are relative. But we can still analyze those morals and the justification for the morals. For example - Where do they come from? What purpose do they serve? Do people within society actually benefit from a particular moral stance?

Well I think we’re running into a difference of terminology then here, what do you call actual right and wrong if you do not call it morality?

Quote: Rape leads to all sorts of problems - what purpose does rape have in any universe, atheistic or otherwise?

Are you saying that something that leads to problems and serves no purpose is absolutely wrong?

I do not know if there is an actual right or wrong. But certain actions, example - rape, have no justification across societies and borders. At least, none that I have seen yet, but there is much doubt in ever finding a halfway decent argument for rape.

And I am not saying anything is absolutely wrong. Is this action worth the damage? No? Don't do it. It's not even about right/wrong for me personally, so much as is there a good reason to do *insert action here*?
Reply
#37
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
(June 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I do not know if there is an actual right or wrong. But certain actions, example - rape, have no justification across societies and borders. At least, none that I have seen yet, but there is much doubt in ever finding a halfway decent argument for rape.

Well I think a rapist would say they rape because they enjoy it, who determines whether that is enough justification or not?

Quote: And I am not saying anything is absolutely wrong. Is this action worth the damage? No? Don't do it. It's not even about right/wrong for me personally, so much as is there a good reason to do *insert action here*?

I am just not sure where these rules you keep appealing to come from, for instance where does the rule that a particular action must be worth the damage come from? What if someone doesn’t care whether it’s worth the damage or not?
Reply
#38
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
(June 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:
(June 19, 2013 at 7:17 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I do not know if there is an actual right or wrong. But certain actions, example - rape, have no justification across societies and borders. At least, none that I have seen yet, but there is much doubt in ever finding a halfway decent argument for rape.

Well I think a rapist would say they rape because they enjoy it, who determines whether that is enough justification or not?

Quote: And I am not saying anything is absolutely wrong. Is this action worth the damage? No? Don't do it. It's not even about right/wrong for me personally, so much as is there a good reason to do *insert action here*?

I am just not sure where these rules you keep appealing to come from, for instance where does the rule that a particular action must be worth the damage come from? What if someone doesn’t care whether it’s worth the damage or not?

Societies determine this all the time, as do the courts, etc. Oh, and myself. And everyone. Some places/people will buy that sort of thing, others will not. We all make a judgement upon these things.

And I don't understand what you mean about these rules I am appealing to. That last bit is my approach to these sort of issues of morality.
Reply
#39
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
(June 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know that?

I know that because I have a moral code and you do not follow it.

Quote: We’re not talking about my moral system; we’re talking about atheistic moral systems. What grounds are you using to judge each system by and why did you choose those grounds?

What difference does it make why I decide what I do? I'm not asking you to follow my moral code.

On what grounds does God judge, and why did he choose the rules he chose?

Quote:So what happens if someone’s moral system dictates that it is morally right to kill you, then is it morally right to kill you?

Depends on who you ask, obviously.

Quote:No straw-man here, I accurately pointed out your contradictory behavior. “Everyone is free to choose their favorite color, but those who choose blue are totally wrong because red is a better color!” Quite the arbitrary and therefore meaningless system you have created there.

No straw-man, so here's a straw-man?

1. That's not a contradictory argument. Recognizing the non-existence of objective morality doesn't make it contradictory that I have personal preferences about moral codes. Subjectively, my moral code is better than yours. I have no doubt that, subjectively, you think the same of mine.

2. God's moral code is just as arbitrary and meaningless as mine. Even moreso, as God never justifies or explains the majority of the morals he tells everybody to follow.

I can't convince you that my moral code is better than yours, nor would I bother trying. What I will say is that our moral codes reflect our worldviews, and my worldview does not find genocide, rape, slavery, or murdering children acceptable or justified under any circumstance. Yours does, whether or not you know your own scripture well enough to understand that. It says a lot about who we both are, as human beings.
Reply
#40
RE: Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws
Ohhhhhh Waldorf. Now whose the idiot? Not only did you just make up the reasoning behind Stalin's moral fiber or lack thereof, you wrongly assume mine. Where in the definition of atheism does it say 'no morality'? It doesn't. Your creed does not own morality and I made a case that being of such a creed makes you less moral than me. To which you had no rebuttal.

Human rights have been and always will be, default. With or without afterlife repurcussions, they're there. Problem is in your world you can violate them then go confess to your god and feel absolved without actually having to pay for your actions in any real way, or when violated you just hug yourself and pretend the violaters are gonna pay. Childish poppycock.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A thing about choice and laws in the USA ShinyCrystals 7 888 October 15, 2023 at 10:14 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Anti-immigration..does Right wing still fools masses? WinterHold 106 4503 July 16, 2023 at 1:54 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Trump and Russia Belacqua 66 4882 March 17, 2023 at 2:40 pm
Last Post: HappySkeptic
  Russia is Europe. Kyiv and Moscow should be in the European Union Interaktive 53 4462 December 14, 2022 at 9:36 am
Last Post: Interaktive
  One Russia, communists, liberal Democrats, socialist Democrats Interaktive 19 837 April 27, 2022 at 8:44 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Are you Anti-Political? Disagreeable 52 2290 April 7, 2022 at 1:12 am
Last Post: Oracle
  With All the Anti-QAnon Hate, How Come We Never Hear About Christian Zionism? Seax 21 1751 April 6, 2021 at 7:12 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Eastern Europe is richer than Russia. Victory Interaktive 4 341 January 14, 2021 at 11:35 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Russia Bounty Issue is Indefensible AFTT47 19 1167 July 7, 2020 at 6:46 pm
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  Anti Cop Apologist Memes The Architect Of Fate 18 1923 June 26, 2020 at 12:09 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)