Dumb Catholics - shameful

[D1B]

Outstanding Clucker!

+2

No shit. Clucker just put the "can't be moral and ethical without god" bullshit to rest, for good. Thanks for playing Jolt, Hogan, St. Wronge, Tman... - better luck next time!

Here's a parting gift for you all:



Post of year nomination for Clucker!

[JohnStOnge]

You want an objective definition of what's right and wrong? It's easy. Live and let live.

Really? Now, take the concept of something "higher" than mankind that sets the rules out of it. Why would it be "wrong" to fail to "live and let live."

Take Stalin. He didn't do that. So why was what he did "wrong?"

I'll tell you before you start: You can't win this one.

[JohnStOnge]

No ****. Clucker just put the "can't be moral and ethical without god" bullshit to rest, for good. Thanks for playing Jolt, Hogan, St. Wronge, Tman... - better luck next time!

Oh, sure, you can be "moral and ethical" without "God" based on what you think is "moral and ethical." The problem is that there is then no basis for saying what "moral and ethical" is. So you can't say that what anybody else does is immoral or unethical. Not really.

Everything just is. Let's play a game. You tell me something is objectively wrong then tell me why it is wrong. The premise is that there is nothing outside of and higher than man who sets the rules. Each time you do I will ask you another question. It will be a "why" question. And you will find that there is no basis for saying anything is objectively wrong without the concept of something outside of and higher than humankind that sets the rules.

As I told the other guy: You can't win this one. Try. But you can't.

[JohnStOnge]

It is not that hard to define right and wrong...hell, you do it all the time when saying that 10 year old girls who have reached puberty are fair game. In that case, you use nature's timetable to give your consent. In the meantime, other folks would bring in some artificial "morality" to say that having sex with a 10 year old is not OK.

What I have said is that a sexually mature member of one sex being sexually attracted to a sexually mature member of the opposite sex is not perverted. It is not "pedophilia."

And it is amazing to me that some of you guys can't see that. We are animals.

Whether or not it is "moral" for a "legal adult" person of one sex to have sex with a member of the opposite sex who is not a "legal adult" is a different question. I also think it's a pretty complicated one.

For instance: Loretta Lynn was 13 when she married 22 year old Doolittle Lynn. They were married in 1948 and stayed married until he died in 1996. Was there some "immorality" involved in a marriage that lasted 48 years "till death do us part" because one partner was at what we now call a "legal adult" age while the other was not? Was Doolittle Lynn a "pervert" for being attracted to Lorretta? BTW, she quickly demonstrated that she was indeed sexually mature by becoming pregnant at 13. They had four children by the time she was 17.

[youngterrier]

Justice seems like an easy moral code for me

[D1B]

No ****. Clucker just put the "can't be moral and ethical without god" bullshit to rest, for good. Thanks for playing Jolt, Hogan, St. Wronge, Tman... - better luck next time!

Oh, sure, you can be "moral and ethical" without "God" based on what you think is "moral and ethical." The problem is that there is then no basis for saying what "moral and ethical" is. So you can't say that what anybody else does is immoral or unethical. Not really.

Everything just is. Let's play a game. You tell me something is objectively wrong then tell me why it is wrong. The premise is that there is nothing outside of and higher than man who sets the rules. Each time you do I will ask you another question. It will be a "why" question. And you will find that there is no basis for saying anything is objectively wrong without the concept of something outside of and higher than humankind that sets the rules.

As I told the other guy: You can't win this one. Try. But you can't.

Go fuck yourself St. Wronge. You're a fucking head case.

[YoUDeeMan]

You want an objective definition of what's right and wrong? It's easy. Live and let live.

Really? Now, take the concept of something "higher" than mankind that sets the rules out of it. Why would it be "wrong" to fail to "live and let live."

Take Stalin. He didn't do that. So why was what he did "wrong?"

I'll tell you before you start: You can't win this one.

No, YOU don't get it.

Any 5 year old can keep asking "why"...that applies to God and everything associated with religion also. It is a silly game that gets you no further in a religious stance than in an atheist's stance. YOU can't win that one.

We can play anoyther one...if God has been here since the beginning of time, then what was there before the beginning of time? Wheeee.....

Now, take the concept of something "higher", such as your God, and then answer why other people's Gods have different morals. And why do those godly morals seem to change all the time? Oooops. Did God, the all knowing, suddenly change his mind? Of course not...people are changing their minds...as people, not by any God's actions. And people change their minds and behaviors based upon their surroundings...and the actions of those around them. Animals do, too. What gods do animals believe in, John?

[JohnStOnge]

No, YOU don't get it.

Any 5 year old can keep asking "why"...that applies to God and everything associated with religion also. It is a silly game that gets you no further in a religious stance than in an atheist's stance. YOU can't win that one.

We can play anoyther one...if God has been here since the beginning of time, then what was there before the beginning of time? Wheeee.....

Now, take the concept of something "higher", such as your God, and then answer why other people's Gods have different morals. And why do those godly morals seem to change all the time? Oooops. Did God, the all knowing, suddenly change his mind? Of course not...people are changing their minds...as people, not by any God's actions. And people change their minds and behaviors based upon their surroundings...and the actions of those around them. Animals do, too. What gods do animals believe in, John?

No animal we know of other than ourselves has the intellect to contemplate questions such as the existence of "God."

The "Why" question is not a silly game. No matter how you slice it, there is no basis for morality without the concept of something outside of ourselves establishing it. As far as the question of "different people's God:" If there is a God what people think about him doesn't matter. He is what He is. Or you can say it is what it is. Yes, people change their minds. But that doesn't mean God does.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no real basis for morality absent the premise of something outside of us that sets the rules. You can argue that it's necessary to have rules in order to have a society in which we can survive...that if we don't do that most will suffer. But what's best for the "average" individual in a collective often isn't what's best for a particular individual. And what is "wrong" about one individual gaining advantage at the expense of others?

With the premise of something outside of us setting the rules, the "why" question ends at "because He (or it, or they, or whatever) says so. Without that premise, there is no real answer. There is always another "why?"

If you say that having such a rule is necessary for the soceity to function, for example, the question is: "Why is it necessary for the society to function?" What is "wrong" about a situation in which the society doesn't function? What, in the final analysis, is "wrong" with us imploding and going extinct?

Absent that "something else," we are just arrangements of atoms. There is nothing important or essential about any of us. What we feel and experience is no more important than sand washing back and forth along a seashore.

[D1B]

No, YOU don't get it.

Any 5 year old can keep asking "why"...that applies to God and everything associated with religion also. It is a silly game that gets you no further in a religious stance than in an atheist's stance. YOU can't win that one.

We can play anoyther one...if God has been here since the beginning of time, then what was there before the beginning of time? Wheeee.....

Now, take the concept of something "higher", such as your God, and then answer why other people's Gods have different morals. And why do those godly morals seem to change all the time? Oooops. Did God, the all knowing, suddenly change his mind? Of course not...people are changing their minds...as people, not by any God's actions. And people change their minds and behaviors based upon their surroundings...and the actions of those around them. Animals do, too. What gods do animals believe in, John?

No animal we know of other than ourselves has the intellect to contemplate questions such as the existence of "God."

The "Why" question is not a silly game. No matter how you slice it, there is no basis for morality without the concept of something outside of ourselves establishing it. As far as the question of "different people's God:" If there is a God what people think about him doesn't matter. He is what He is. Or you can say it is what it is. Yes, people change their minds. But that doesn't mean God does.

The bottom line is that there is absolutely no real basis for morality absent the premise of something outside of us that sets the rules. You can argue that it's necessary to have rules in order to have a society in which we can survive...that if we don't do that most will suffer. But what's best for the "average" individual in a collective often isn't what's best for a particular individual. And what is "wrong" about one individual gaining advantage at the expense of others?

With the premise of something outside of us setting the rules, the "why" question ends at "because He (or it, or they, or whatever) says so. Without that premise, there is no real answer. There is always another "why?"

If you say that having such a rule is necessary for the soceity to function, for example, the question is: "Why is it necessary for the society to function?" What is "wrong" about a situation in which the society doesn't function? What, in the final analysis, is "wrong" with us imploding and going extinct?

Absent that "something else," we are just arrangements of atoms. There is nothing important or essential about any of us. What we feel and experience is no more important than sand washing back and forth along a seashore.

Since the dawn of man, there have been tens of thousands of "something else's" John. All with varying attributes.

God was invented by man.

[JohnStOnge]

Since the dawn of man, there have been tens of thousands of "something else's" John. All with varying attributes.

God was invented by man.

Well, that's fine if you believe that. But if that's what you believe don't do what Hitchens did. Don't talk about all the "immoral" things somebody or some institution did because there is no such thing as "immoral." As soon as you say "there is no God" (or something else) you have removed the premise for morality. You can resist that reality all you want, but it is still reality. If there is no God (or something else) there is nothing "wrong" with anything the Catholic Church did. As soon as you declare yourself as an "atheist," you lose all credibility with respect to "moral" matters because the premise upon which you operate precludes the existence of any objective morality.

[YoUDeeMan]

Well, that's fine if you believe that. But if that's what you believe don't do what Hitchens did. Don't talk about all the "immoral" things somebody or some institution did because there is no such thing as "immoral." As soon as you say "there is no God" (or something else) you have removed the premise for morality. You can resist that reality all you want, but it is still reality. If there is no God (or something else) there is nothing "wrong" with anything the Catholic Church did. As soon as you declare yourself as an "atheist," you lose all credibility with respect to "moral" matters because the premise upon which you operate precludes the existence of any objective morality.

John, you still don't get it. Name me one "moral" that people agree upon that is based upon a "higher power" right and wrong.

Killing? No way. People kill all the time...and for many reasons. What seems right for you might not be right for anyone else.

Rape? No way. People rape others all the time...and people can't agree on what constitutes rape. Men raped women long after religion came into being, so screw the idea that religious beliefs end rapes (see Catholic priests).

Theft? Uh-uhhh. People justify stealing every day.

What is a universal moral code? There is none. Never will be. Why? Situational ethics rules the world, John. The concept of right and wrong is made up inside the head of a person...not a God. It is a human being who is trying to survive...and thrive...usually in a society...and contemplating how to make the best of the situation.

Once again, you are a person who advocates that children who are capable of reproduction are fair game for any guy who can bed them. I would agree if I lived in midevil times where death came so easily and the drive for human reproduction was paramount. Grass on the infield, play ball! But those were different times...and as a society we have evolved to a point where the benefits of such a relationship are not important or practical.

These days, there is no practical need for a very young girl to be taken for the sole purpose of sex. In fact, why would someone bother with such a young girl?

Simple situational ethics based upon the measurement/balance of one's needs and societal norms.

It is a wonder you can't see that. Religious morals have changed throughout time...and certainly not based upon a universal religoius feeling of right versus wrong.

[JohnStOnge]

I realize that there is no single, universal moral code. There are basic principles that the overwhelming majority agree with. Like you mentioned killing. Lots of killing goes on. But the overwhelming majority of people would say that it is innately wrong to kill someone who is no threat to you (i.e., what they would define as "murder" as opposed to self defense, killing in war, etc.). Or raping a three year old. The overwhelming majority of the people would say it's innately wrong to do that and the overwhelming majority wouldn't do it.

Either way, if somebody believes in a Higher Power that sets the rules and they attempt to follow the rules they think the Higher Power sets they have a basis for their morality. You might say that it's a false basis. But it's a basis for saying there is innate right and wrong.

Without the Higher Power concept there is no real basis for situational ethics or any other kind. Yes, you could say that you need to act in a certain way to advance your own interests but to me that's not really ethics. If you come to believe you can get away with not practicing the "ethics" there is no reason not to do that. Say a person doesn't rape three year olds because he's afraid to suffer the consequences (prison or in some cases execution). But what if he finds himself in a situation where he is absolutely certain that he can rape a three year old, kill her, dispose of her body, and never be caught? What is there to stop him from doing it?

Why would it be wrong to rape and kill a three year old? Because it hurts her? Why is it wrong to hurt somebody? Because you wouldn't want that done to you? So what? It wasn't done to you. So on and so forth. There's no end. We are just arrangements of atoms with no more innate importance or significance than rocks. Nothing really matters.