vaxx:
what is it that you don't understand?

why rape is wrong for the theist.

advocate666:


why rape is wrong for the theist.

Romans 13: 9- For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love does NO harm to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. There is quranic equvelent .

Anything that harms, directly or indirectly, immediately or over the long run, is morally wrong by harming both the individual and the collective. Harming one harms all. Equally, harming the collective harms everyone in it.

This is not just an ethic code of every theists but a cold mathematical certainty. Game Theory takes no prisoners.

Vic2Ree:
So, by my estimation, it appears that theists have won, for all intents and purposes:
1. The logical problem of evil
2. Morality (objective moral standards and non-arbitrary value systems)
3. The limits of science, the axioms of the scientific method, the end of materialism/naturalism, etc.

Atheists, by contrast, have won:
1. Determinism (no free will)
2. Evolution
3. The emotional problem of evil
4. Scientific inerrancy of religious texts

And it appears they can all agree, for the most part, upon:
1. Evolution
2. The psychological significance of religion (though they often disagree on the impact being positive or negative)
3. Infinite reality (theists believing in an infinite being, atheists believing in an infinite material universe).

These debates are by no means settled, of course.

What overarching arguments/debates do you, honestly, think either camp has "won"? What conversations do you think both sides are having on common ground?

Cc. LordReed, IamSabrina, Martinez39, CreepyBlackpool, HellVictorinho, MJBOLT, hahn, 1Sharon, paxonel, johnydon22, Frank317, RuthlessLeader, AgentOfAllah, HappyPagan, NPComplete

I am not sure of the debate aspect but there are things both sides have "won". My own take may contradict some of what you put down.

Religion/Theists have "won":

1. The emotional/intuition aspect that is religion or theism in general appeals very easily to the emotions and to unguided intuition. Because faith is necessarily a leap in the dark, you are asked to trust not the facts but your gut feelings. And emotions are the most fickle of things which is why I believe religious practice was instituted because it continually reinforces the emotional responses to a belief in a god or gods. You notice that it is easier for people who stop going to religious observances to stop believing or to express doubt. The highly organised religions are also a testament to the power of it.

2. The above point means theists are much more easy to inspire. Inspiration is the capturing of the imagination through provoking an emotional response. This is why some people are inspired by art or nature, sight of such things provokes an emotional agitation that stimulates an imaginative response. This religions do more often and more frequently. When ever you hear of a revival or a convention this is what they want to achieve, an inspiration through emotional activities like singing and preaching "powerful" messages. This is also responsible for people blowing themselves and others up because someone has inspired them to do it.

3. The preceding then makes easy for a large section of humanity to go with the flow. Once you've captured the emotions and inspired the imagination you create a potent drug like reaction that can be done over and over again with an apparent lack of side effect unlike real drugs thus it is said "Religion is the opium of the masses". A large section of humanity has been drugged without knowing it and they are happy.

I will do that of Atheism/nonbelief later.

vaxx:
You forget emphaty is what devilish individual lack. As long as you are evil, everything wicked or satanic become a thing of joy. what if i derive joy in it.

It does not matter. We do not live in an isolation. Actions are judged by us and others. That's why people make mistakes and are corrected. That's why learning exist.
Every human has the capability of judging his action based on how it affects him and others. Enjoying a wicked act does not mean the individual does not know its wrong.

frank317:


It does not matter. We do not live in an isolation. Actions are judged by us and others. That's why people make mistakes and are corrected. That's why learning exist.
Every human has the capability of judging his action based on how it affects him and others. Enjoying a wicked act does not mean the individual does not know its wrong.

No, they are the protagonist of their story, why would they consider themselves wicked? for example: Hitler definitively thought he was the good guy. Hitler thought he was saving Germany and truly thought that the Jewish population was a detriment along with all non-German races. He just decided to target them first. He was extremely nationalistic, and thought the German people deserved the land.

johnydon22:


God.


Let's put it this way; The fundamental assumption fot theological basis for morality is - God exists.

U and I know this makes no sense. We have seen same theists use the word God (as their basis for moral action) to do evil thing that even those who do not believe in God see as immoral. In that situation how has God being the basis for morality helped?

Therefore here are the logical steps.

The owner of any system determines what governs such systems.

Based on the assumption of God existing which is fundamental to theology.

1. God exists
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Therefore God owns the system
4. Any thing God considers sacred is fundamental to the universe like the laws of physics.
5. Therefore any moral basis on this principle is objective.

Ok

So, the only way to attack this argument is to argue that God doesn't exist, but one cannot deny in any way the sound logical link in that argument based on the fundamental assumption of no.1.

Even if God exists, he has not been shown to be basis for morality. Theists say it just like they are used to saying a lot of meaningless things. They use God to fill in the Gaps when they don't want to think deep. Like if God exists and is the basis for morality, why is it dynamic? Why is it still determined by the society and why does it change over time. Dies this not mean that God is actually not the basis for morality but humans with empathy?

Second basis: Fundametal belief in a non-arbitrary value system.
Belief such as; Sex is sacred, Human life is sacred etc.

Have u ever even dug into the history of how some theists came about to think sex is sacred?
All these where laws that came from the natural way humans feel about these things.
Theists saying sex or human is sacred does not stop the secular human from attributing same feeling towards sex and human life. These are just labels, but the human feelings towards these things is what matters and u can easily see that both the theists who sees sex as sacred and the secular guy who does not see it as sacred will react the same way if someone (for instance) touches their private part.
This on its on destroys the assumption that God is the basis for morality. This means the basis for morality is human empathy not God.

Secular morality on the hand operates on two principles.

1. Borrow a primary foundation from a theological basis (which most human law practise)

No, they didnt borrow anything from any theological basis. They learned it and use empathy which they are born with.

2. Or simply make a moral conclusion based on what you feel is ok without deriving a fundamental assumption that injects distinction between subjects. (Most atheistic arguments on morality operates on this one even though one can still ultimately link this to 1)

Judging morality on what we think is OK is the same thing that has led humans, both theists and atheists, this far. Theists just deny this truth because of the need to believe in a higher cause, but everything is staring at us right their in our faces.

The idea that morality is individually subjective is a secular idea which ultimately means morality doesn't really exist

How so?
If an atheists says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling, how then does this show that not killing is not moral?

Which then puts us in a moral dilemma cus on that note, nothing truly can be wrong.

Moral dilemma is real and not just an idea. Isn't this why what is good or bad changes over time and is even different in different location?
Saying God is the basis for Morality hand not eliminated this dilemma.
The fact is the, nothing truely can be wrong or right. It is determined by environment, situation, and time.
Yes, to an extent, humans have come to accept some things to be right and wrong, its all about us and not God.

johnydon22:


Is this a basis that something wrong?

Determining if something is wrong or right depends on a lot of things. But in the case of rape, the fact that the effect makes many people unhappy is one of the determinants that its wrong.

You are just making a moral conclusion that 'not rejoicings over an action' makes it wrong.

No that's not my position.
Is this Johnny talking or someone else. Pls check if ur account has been hacked.
Not rejoicing over and action? U mean u think what i am saying is that not rejoicing over rape is the same as not rejoicing over a man eating chicken? I think u are too smart for this kind of conclusion.

Pls come back home... Don't quote me out of context... We are talking about rape (which he puts forth an argument that it's good) and I asked him a simple question to allow him think of how he would feel if his child is raped. I want to know if his empathic self is still in check. He should have answered the question directly na
But let me ask u do u think it makes sense for theists to see rape as wrong because sex is sacred?
I think rape is wrong because of how it affects the people involved (the victim and his loved ones, even the who carried out the act

How did you get to this conclusion?

I didn't get into any conclusion, how did u see that as conclusion?

See? Example 1 of the implications of fundamental basis for moral conclusions.

Like I said, I will not deny that the fundamental basis for moral conclusion has many implications

vaxx:
No, they are the protagonist of their story, why would they consider themselves wicked? for example: Hitler definitively thought he was the good guy. Hitler thought he was saving Germany and truly thought that the Jewish population was a detriment along with all non-German races. He just decided to target them first. He was extremely nationalistic, and thought the German people deserved the land.

If Hitler killed a lot of people and thought he was doing good, just what do u want to do about that?
Do u want to use God as basis for morality to undo what he did...

I mean, isn't his kind of ideology the reasons why we have wars and law?

I really don't know what u are getting at. The existence of people like Hitler is the reason why saying God is the basis for morality makes no sense.

johnydon22:


God.

Let's put it this way; The fundamental assumption fot theological basis for morality is - God exists.

Therefore here are the logical steps.

The owner of any system determines what governs such systems.

Based on the assumption of God existing which is fundamental to theology.

1. God exists
2. God is the creator of the universe
3. Therefore God owns the system
4. Any thing God considers sacred is fundamental to the universe like the laws of physics.
5. Therefore any moral basis on this principle is objective.

So, the only way to attack this argument is to argue that God doesn't exist, but one cannot deny in any way the sound logical link in that argument based on the fundamental assumption of no.1.

Second basis: Fundametal belief in a non-arbitrary value system.
Belief such as; Sex is sacred, Human life is sacred etc.

Secular morality on the hand operates on two principles.

1. Borrow a primary foundation from a theological basis (which most human law practise)

2. Or simply make a moral conclusion based on what you feel is ok without deriving a fundamental assumption that injects distinction between subjects. (Most atheistic arguments on morality operates on this one even though one can still ultimately link this to 1)

The idea that morality is individually subjective is a secular idea which ultimately means morality doesn't really exist

Which then puts us in a moral dilemma cus on that note, nothing truly can be wrong.

I have addressed my opinion about morality on a previous thread u created and I maintain that stance
Nothing is inherently right or wrong,it all depends on the situation, condition or circumstance in which they are applied

As far as I am concerned the theist stance or idea of morality is flawed and I uphold the one I have because it makes more sense to me and would cause less harm to others and would also allow me to gain maximum satisfaction from life

frank317:


If Hitler killed a lot of people and thought he was doing good, just what do u want to do about that?
Do u want to use God as basis for morality to undo what he did...

I mean, isn't his kind of ideology the reasons why we have wars and law?

I really don't know what u are getting at. The existence of people like Hitler is the reason why saying God is the basis for morality makes no sense.

what i simply mean is, many bad people see themselves as being just like everybody else -- they often rationalizing their behavior by real or imagined insults or actions that have been levied against them. Some believe their actions are justified by their need to survive or situations beyond their control or even flr the benefit of others.

Example , cuilt members, do what they do to maintain respect or to demonstrate loyalty to their gangs; even though they are not "bad" people per se.

Psychopaths believe they are superior to everyone and have little or no empathy for others, human or animal.

note : these are generalizations.


Theists aready put this kind of lifestyle into check, by working base on the instruction giving in their holy books. whether it is written by God or human is not part of this topic.

vaxx:

Romans 13: 9- For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love does NO harm to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. There is quranic equvelent .

Anything that harms, directly or indirectly, immediately or over the long run, is morally wrong by harming both the individual and the collective. Harming one harms all. Equally, harming the collective harms everyone in it.

This is not just an ethic code of every theists but a cold mathematical certainty. Game Theory takes no prisoners.

lol.

Like I said, theists didn't win the argument on morality.

advocate666:


lol.

Like I said, theists didn't win the argument on morality.

believe in whatever that rock your boat

vaxx:
what i simply mean is, many bad people see themselves as being just like everybody else -- they often rationalizing their behavior by real or imagined insults or actions that have been levied against them. Some believe their actions are justified by their need to survive or situations beyond their control or even flr the benefit of others.

Yes there are people like this and there will always be.
That's why we have laws, policemen and that's why people who are affected are there to challenge them too or fight back.

Example , cuilt members, do what they do to maintain respect or to demonstrate loyalty to their gangs; even though they are not "bad" people per se.

What determines if their action is bad is how what they do affects people around them.

Psychopaths believe they are superior to everyone and have little or no empathy for others, human or animal.

So?

note : these are generalizations.

Ok

Theists already put this kind of lifestyle into check, by working base on the instruction giving in their holy books. whether it is written by God or human is not part of this topic.

U just described the real situation using cultists and psychopaths and still went ahead to say theists put this kind of lifestyle in check... So u even know why so much noise is made when the so called people who "put this lifestyle in check" go ahead and do immoral things? Its because it unconsciously amazes how they so called instruction of God has not helped in outing immoral act in check.

The reasons why morality is a big issue is because of difficulty in determining what is actually wrong or right, and diversity in personalities

Saying God is the basis for morality has not resolved it either.

vaxx:
believe in whatever that rock your boat

Stop arguing things you don't understand.

advocate666:


Stop arguing things you don't understand.

lol. you failed to grasp common knolwedge, how much of advance one. anyway peace.

frank317:

U and I know this makes no sense. We have seen same theists use the word God (as their basis for moral action) to do evil thing that even those who do not believe in God see as immoral. In that situation how has God being the basis for morality helped?

Again, i am not talking about the actions but the basis.

I know this premise is new to this board that is why most people are unable to grasp it.

Ok
Even if God exists, he has not been shown to be basis for morality. Theists say it just like they are used to saying a lot of meaningless things. They use God to fill in the Gaps when they don't want to think deep. Like if God exists and is the basis for morality, why is it dynamic? Why is it still determined by the society and why does it change over time. Dies this not mean that God is actually not the basis for morality but humans with empathy?

I wish arguments such as this were live arguments because it is incredibly difficult to break it down to the basics for people who are entirely new to such philosophical depth.

You are not getting the argument; A morality based on the assumption of an ultimate authority who by definition owns the system is by implication non-arbitrary because such moral laws would be as inherent to the universe as the laws of physics.

And this means that it doesn't matter what you feel about such action as long as the ultimate authority rules it wrong then it is wrong, if it rules it right then it is.

Therefore a theological standpoint on morality using God as basis argues for an objective nature of morality.

A secular basis for morality is arbitrary, it means anyone can decide for themselves what is right or wrong which by implication means nothing really is right or wrong.

On such subjective moral ground; You can't really say rape is wrong or Hitler was wrong for killing jews.

Because that is just your opinion.

If you are asked why such thing as rape or murder is wrong and you say "it hurts people"

You are simply doing nothing but also giving an opinion that hurting people is wrong.

To the next person it may not be, therefore in the real sense there is no morality.

Have u ever even dug into the history of how some theists came about to think sex is sacred?
All these where laws that came from the natural way humans feel about these things.

There were valid assumptions or belief for moral basis to be successfully established.

Even our current criminalization of rape is based on this ancient assumption; Sex is something sacred, people's property are sacred to them - therefore stealing any of this is a violation of its sacred values.

if we do not think sex is sacred, then sex organs aren't sacred, therefore aren't any different from our hands or legs - then on what basis do we criminalize grabbing someone's sex organs but not that person's hands?

Theists saying sex or human is sacred does not stop the secular human from attributing same feeling towards sex and human life.

Exactly. demonstrating that even modern moral derivations have basic roots in the fundamental beliefs of ancient theological basis. Savvy?

These are just labels, but the human feelings towards these things is what matters and u can easily see that both the theists who sees sex as sacred and the secular guy who does not see it as sacred will react the same way if someone (for instance) touches their private part.

Give me one reason a secular guy who doesn't believe sex organs as sacred would react different when touched in the sex organ than he would when touched on his hand or head? Why would he regard the former as sexual assault and the other as not?

This on its on destroys the assumption that God is the basis for morality. This means the basis for morality is human empathy not God.

You people are not even getting my arguments at all, i fully understand this dilemma. I have not argued that God is the basis for morality, my argument is; that for the theist (theologically) God is the basis therefore an argument on objectivity which derives a superior methodological basis than secular morality that either jumps into a moral conclusion or borrows the necessary theological assumptions.

No, they didnt borrow anything from any theological basis. They learned it and use empathy which they are born with.

As i said - classical moral conclusions without basis.

let me demonstrate; Killing is wrong?

This is a statement. now here are examples;

Mr A killed a rat
Mr B Killed a woman

Who do we chastise and abhor his action as morally repulsive.

mr B of course.

Why? Aren't both A and B guilty of killing?

Yes. they both are but there is a difference.

There is a fundamental belief in a value system that sets out human life from other life, this is a theological assumption, in theology based on this assumption, it is even wrong to commit suicide.

Mr A and B both killed but this action has no moral weight, the moral weight comes with subject which is an implication of the fundamental belief ascribed to this subject.

This is exactly the same way rape is wrong. Mr A grabbed a hand Mr B grabbed a dick. Mr B is marked out as an offender.

they are both guilty of grabbing a body part but mr B grabbed a body part with ascribed belief of specialty

See?

Judging morality on what we think is OK is the same thing that has led humans, both theists and atheists, this far. Theists just deny this truth because of the need to believe in a higher cause, but everything is staring at us right their in our faces.

Again, this makes morality arbitrary, you on this note therefore cannot conclusively say hitler is wrong or a rapist is wrong because it is simply what you think.

let me categorically make this clear; I am not arguing that morality is objective, this is not my position.

My position simply is that a non-arbitrary moral value makes far more sense because an arbitrary morality is in essence meaningless.

How so?
If an atheists says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling, how then does this show that not killing is not moral?

1. says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling
2. says killing is right and not killing is wrong based on his subjective feelings.

Which one is correct? neither, both are based on feelings which one must first show to logically establish a moral distinction.

You are not getting it frank, because you feel this way doesn't make your feelings more correct than the other guy's feelings.

You feel rape is wrong
the other guy doesn't feel the same way.

So, who can say that rape is really wrong or right since it is simply down to what individuals feel?

It simply implies that there is no such thing as wrong or right.

Whatever you think is what is.

Moral dilemma is real and not just an idea. Isn't this why what is good or bad changes over time and is even different in different location?
Saying God is the basis for Morality hand not eliminated this dilemma.

This is why something is a dilemma; changing the fundamental belief but not the conclusion.

Example; The idea that murder is wrong is from the fundamental belief that human life is sacred.

When we change this belief on the sacredness of human life, there is entirely no basis whatsoever for we to think that killing a human is anymore wrong than killing a rat.

For you to think this is to implicitly ascribe a form of value to human life - hence; sacredness.

So, the moral dilemma of secularity is making logical conclusions without basis without knowing that these conclusions implicitly leads back to the fundamental basis that are by definition theological.

The fact is the, nothing truely can be wrong or right. It is determined by environment, situation, and time.

Therefore, nothing is wrong.

Yes, to an extent, humans have come to accept some things to be right and wrong, its all about us and not God.

the question is; How did we come to accept this?

How = basis.

See?

vaxx:
lol. you failed to grasp common knolwedge, how much of advance one. anyway peace.

says the one that runs to the bible when cornered but ends up butressing my point.

advocate666:


says the one that runs to the bible when cornered but ends up butressing my point.

pls enough . i only answer what you request for.and if that by any way buttress your point. then it shows you are not aware of your initial argument.

frank317:

Yes there are people like this and there will always be.
That's why we have laws, policemen and that's why people who are affected are there to challenge them too or fight back.


What determines if their action is bad is how what they do affects people around them.


So?


Ok


U just described the real situation using cultists and psychopaths and still went ahead to say theists put this kind of lifestyle in check... So u even know why so much noise is made when the so called people who "put this lifestyle in check" go ahead and do immoral things? Its because it unconsciously amazes how they so called instruction of God has not helped in outing immoral act in check.

The reasons why morality is a big issue is because of difficulty in determining what is actually wrong or right, and diversity in personalities

Saying God is the basis for morality has not resolved it either.[/

i have not said that either. most theist has their only book as their watchword. whether it idt followed or not is another debate. and whether it is given by god or man too is another argument not partaninig to this one.


Theist justify their moral stands by what is obtainable from their holy book.

vaxx:
pls enough . i only answer what you request for.and if that by any way buttress your point. then it shows you are not aware of your initial argument.

OK. Let's go to bible then. Where is the morality in God killing African babies?

advocate666:


OK. Let's go to bible then. Where is the morality in God killing African babies?

Then ask a bible theologians. they are lot of them here. i am not a christain, so don't rope me with what i am less concern.

johnydon22:


therefore in the real sense there is no morality.

FINALLY!!!

vaxx:
Then ask a bible theologians. they are lot of them here. i am not a christain, so don't rope me with what i am less concern.

No problem, I get where you are coming from just as johnydon22. It is a convincing argument that theists made on morality and it has conviced a lot of people including you two.

Until you ask people to actually define this "morality".

Then you get gymnastics.

advocate666:
says the one that runs to the bible when cornered but ends up butressing my point.

vaxx:
pls enough . i only answer what you request for.and if that by any way buttress your point. then it shows you are not aware of your initial argument.

advocate666:
OK. Let's go to bible then. Where is the morality in God killing African babies?

vaxx:
Then ask a bible theologians. they are lot of them here. i am not a christain, so don't rope me with what i am less concern.

Using a "get out of jail" card and what in the trade is called executing the weasel out of popular contingency clause.

vaxx:
Then ask a bible theologians. they are lot of them here. i am not a christain, so don't rope me with what i am less concern.

advocate666:
No problem,
I get where you are coming from just as johnydon22. It is a convincing argument that theists made on morality and it has conviced a lot of people including you two.

Until you ask people to actually define this "morality".

Then you get gymnastics.

Yeah, let's go there. Where and what is the so called African babies God allegedly killing all about?

advocate666:


No problem, I get where you are coming from just as johnydon22. It is a convincing argument that theists made on morality and it has conviced a lot of people including you two.

LOL anyone intellectually honest or with a good grasp of philosophy would understand the theological argument of morality and why it is quite superior.

You don't need to be a theist to realise a good argument when you see one.

Until you ask people to actually define this "morality".

Then you get gymnastics.

LOL. You play too much.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Anything else? The definition of morality furthers our argument even more.

MuttleyLaff:






Using a "get out of jail" card and what in the trade is called executing the weasel out of popular contingency clause.



Yeah, let's go there. Where and what is the so called African babies God allegedly killing all about?

Exodus 11:4-5

4 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

advocate666:


FINALLY!!!

Quoting a single sentence out of context is a poor straw-man.

vaxx:
i have not said that either. most theist has their only book as their watchword. whether it idt followed or not is another debate. and whether it is given by god or man too is another argument not partaninig to this one.


Theist justify their moral stands by what is obtainable from their holy book.

Yes they do...is this what u want to establish? What's the implication of their justification?

johnydon22:
LOL anyone intellectually honest or with a good grasp of philosophy would understand the theological argument of morality and why it is quite superior.

You don't need to be a theist to realise a good argument when you see one.


LOL. You play too much.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Anything else? The definition of morality furthers our argument even more.

The issue of morality, as you've succintly put it it to be principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, wouldnt have been a subject of discourse if not because the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten off. The serpent was quarter right when it said that eating of the tree will open the eyes of the eater, make the eater become god and knowing good and evil.

johnydon22:


LOL anyone intellectually honest or with a good grasp of philosophy would understand the theological argument of morality and why it is quite superior.

You don't need to be a theist to realise a good argument when you see one.

Let me deal with this one first.

Ok, here is a superior and good philosophical argument. I hope you are intellectually honest to understand it.

Here goes: If Thor does not exist, thunder will not exist. Thunder exists, therefore Thor exists.

johnydon22:


LOL. You play too much.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Anything else? The definition of morality furthers our argument even more.

Now, to the second part. I won't insult your intelligence by asking the obvious question which is "right or wrong for whom?"

What I will ask instead is this: Based on your definition, is suicide an immoral act?

johnydon22:
Quoting a single sentence out of context is a poor straw-man.

Not if it makes my point.