The Lie of the True Christian™

[Silver]

Wow! It may very well be irrational, does that make it invalid? It is irrational to put myself in danger to save a baby from the traintracks, does that mean I ought not do it? The moral law in humanity tells us innately we should, and guilt comes when we rest safely and watch the baby expire. There has never a culture existed in which it was noble to run away in battle, rationality be damned.

What is truly invalid is the illogical comparison you made between love and duty to rescue. Neither is dependent on the other.

[FiniteImmortal]

If love is merely a byproduct of advanced neurochemistry, why do we cry foul when it is violated? If it is ONLY a feeling, you have proved by point as to why rights in an atheistic framework can never be unalienable, love unconditional, beauty unfathomable, and truth absolute.

Bullshit. Pain is merely a product of neurochemistry. It also provides a definite evolutionary advantage.

That is the whole point love is more than a feeling, as is everything sacred that ought not be violated.

Are you insane? If pain is ONLY an product of neurochemistry, how can you people make a MORAL pronouncement that it should be stifled???? Tell that to the mothers at Sandy Hook. That is textbook unliveable-philosophy.

[Godlesspanther]

Yeah yeah, yeah. The old -- you can't have true meaning in your life unless you believe in a cosmic cupcake.

That's stupid.

Case closed.

[FiniteImmortal]

Wow! It may very well be irrational, does that make it invalid? It is irrational to put myself in danger to save a baby from the traintracks, does that mean I ought not do it? The moral law in humanity tells us innately we should, and guilt comes when we rest safely and watch the baby expire. There has never a culture existed in which it was noble to run away in battle, rationality be damned.

What is truly invalid is the illogical comparison you made between love and duty to rescue. Neither is dependent on the other.

So is this Duty you speak of based on situational ethics, or is it universally recognized that a baby ough be resued? If it is universal, would you not call that a moral law? If it is situational, I hope you have a clear head and can weigh all the pros and cons fairly when you see a distressed baby. 'Duty' can be no other way than to be umbilically connected to a moral law.

[davidMC1982]

So is this Duty you speak of based on situational ethics, or is it universally recognized that a baby ough be resued? If it is universal, would you not call that a moral law? If it is situational, I hope you have a clear head and can weigh all the pros and cons fairly when you see a distressed baby. 'Duty' can be no other way than to be umbilically connected to a moral law.

Well, it's certainly not universally recognised that a baby ought to be rescued. Moreover, it's not even recognised within the texts of the major religions. Quite the opposite in many cases. This line of reasoning is spurious at best. All ethics are based on the prevailing circumstances.

Regarding love being "just" a construct of our minds without a belief in god, it disregards the fact that our minds are very real. Take away our minds and we lose the ability to do... well.... anything. Without your mind, where would your faith in god be? Just because we are gaining a more complete understanding of how our brains work, does not make thoughts and feelings any less real. It only goes to make them more real and by virtue of this, more significant.

Is a work of art any less inspiring when you know how it was made?

[FiniteImmortal]

Yeah yeah, yeah. The old -- you can't have true meaning in your life unless you believe in a cosmic cupcake.

That's stupid.

Case closed.

I'm expecting this brilliant response of yours to be soon flooded with kudos. Though, to a thinking person, this is something akin to what you'd read in a bathroom stall...or worse; a YouTube comment.

If you'd like to discuss cosmic cupcakes, how bout 'all life in the universe was seeded by little green men'. Green frosting I'm assuming.

Case still open.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

So is this Duty you speak of based on situational ethics, or is it universally recognized that a baby ough be resued? If it is universal, would you not call that a moral law? If it is situational, I hope you have a clear head and can weigh all the pros and cons fairly when you see a distressed baby. 'Duty' can be no other way than to be umbilically connected to a moral law.

Neither. It's instinctive. For many people, the exact same instinct kicks in when they see an animal in distress. So here's a question for you:

Is it moral to rescue an animal?
If not, why not?
If it is, do you consider that moral imperative to be universal or situational?

[Owlix]

There was a very short time where I was so deluded that every little thing I thought was amazing would automatically denote itself as 'god's beauty' and such like. The suns ray's were assurance he was above me. The normality of the passage of time was proof of his reliance.

Rubbish. Worst nightmare ever.

[Angrboda]

If love is merely a byproduct of advanced neurochemistry, why do we cry foul when it is violated? If it is ONLY a feeling, you have proved by point as to why rights in an atheistic framework can never be unalienable, love unconditional, beauty unfathomable, and truth absolute.

And.... ?



(For your benefit, you appear to be engaging, or about to engage, in the fallacy of appeal to consequences.)

[thesummerqueen]

No one said you should stifle pain. You should stifle some pain. I enjoy the neuro-chemistry that goes on when I get spanked really hard.

I've also read more profound things on bathroom walls than the things you've written here.