An analogous argument to atheist morality

Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
An analogous argument to atheist morality

A common atheist assumption about morality includes that

 

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes society, or collective survival and prosperity.

 

Certainly, one can argue that murder is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote society.  But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that


a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

 

I mean, murder doesn't promote that either, does it?

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
agreed

                                This world needs more strawberry shortcake.  I'm in love with shortcakes  just ask my ever expanding waistline.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
But promoting society is

But promoting society is promoting our own survival. Reciprical alturism.

 

Strawberry short cake only promotes me. :3

 

 

Morality is ingrained to us by evolution

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/does-religion-make-you-good/

 

 

 

 

 

 


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But promoting society is promoting our own survival. Reciprical alturism.

 

Strawberry short cake only promotes me. :3

 

So instead of strawberry shortcake, you've arbitrarily decided to define "morally good" as "that which promotes our own survival"?

 

Quote:
Morality is ingrained to us by evolution

 

So is our love of strawberry shortcake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
A society that permits

A society that permits behavior destructive to society will not survive.  

There's nothing arbitrary about that condition; it's axiomatic.

You're more than welcome to redefine "moral" as that which is conducive to strawberry shortcake.  Morality will simply cease at that point to be a worthwhile concern.


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Morality cannot be stagnant,

Morality cannot be stagnant, otherwise the social norms of the polytheism and monotheism of 2k years ago would remain today.

I am glad woman are not considered property. I am glad you cannot own slaves. I am glad you cant burn witches. I am glad that there is no religious litmus test written in our constitution to compete for office.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:A society

zarathustra wrote:

A society that permits behavior destructive to society will not survive.  

There's nothing arbitrary about that condition; it's axiomatic.

You're more than welcome to redefine "moral" as that which is conducive to strawberry shortcake.  Morality will simply cease at that point to be a worthwhile concern.

 

I didn't say that it was arbitrary that a society that permits destructive behavior will not survive.

I said that it is arbitrary to define "morally good" as that which applies to behavior conducive towards society.  You might as well say that "morally good" is whatever behavior promotes strawberry shortcake.  If that's not worthwhile enough for you, you could always define it in other ways that will make it more worthwhile but which have nothing to do with survival or society; for instance, I could say that "morally good" is whatever promotes physical fitness.

I presume you agree that your notion of "morally good" amounts to a simple redefinition, and that you're essentially a moral nihilist with respect to moral truths in terms of ideal persons; therefore, there's not much else for us to debate.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote: I

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

 

I didn't say that it was arbitrary that a society that permits destructive behavior will not survive.

I said that it is arbitrary to define "morally good" as that which applies to behavior conducive towards society.  You might as well say that "morally good" is whatever behavior promotes strawberry shortcake.

You are more than welcome to redefine "moral" as that which is conducive to strawberry shortcake.  Morality will simply cease at that point to be a worthwhile concern. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The ultimate argument you

The ultimate argument you want to make is that your particular pet  god claim  invented morality.

Patently false.

Humans survived when they falsely thought vocanos were gods. They survived when they falsely thought the sun was a god. And even today human survive all around the world without believing in your pet god.

Humans invent gods, nothing more. 99% of all species that have existed in biological life are extinct today.

All our myths will die with us as a species when our species goes extinct because there will be no future generation to sell our myths to.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I didn't

zarathustra wrote:

You are more than welcome to redefine "moral" as that which is conducive to strawberry shortcake.  Morality will simply cease at that point to be a worthwhile concern. 

So are you willing to admit that it is not *really* wrong to rape someone, but rather it's only counterproductive to promoting society?  Is the behavior of promoting society also not *really* morally right?  If not, why should we do it?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:So are

Spencer_Bobson wrote:
So are you willing to admit that it is not *really* wrong to rape someone, but rather it's only counterproductive to promoting society?  Is the behavior of promoting society also not *really* morally right?  If not, why should we do it?

As far as whether it's *really* wrong, you'll have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".   It may not be *really* wrong to abstain from food and water; but anyone who does will not survive.  Likewise, a society that permits rape will not survive.
  

Rape is undesirable as the individual being raped has a nervous system which reacts painfully to stimuli such as being beaten or forcibly penetrated. We as humans have an evolved sense of empathy, so object as a society to such pain-inducing stimuli being inflicted upon any individual.

In case you're wondering :  There's nothing arbitrary about that condition; it's axiomatic. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3685
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:So are

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

So are you willing to admit that it is not *really* wrong to rape someone ...?

 

 

                                                 It's permitted as long as the rapist is a Catholic priest and the victims are under aged boys.

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:As far as

zarathustra wrote:

As far as whether it's *really* wrong, you'll have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".   It may not be *really* wrong to abstain from food and water; but anyone who does will not survive.  Likewise, a society that permits rape will not survive.

And anyone who abstains from food and water will not be able to make strawberry shortcake.  Why is survival anymore relevant?  I'm not talking about survival; I'm talking about moral rightness.

Quote:
Rape is undesirable as the individual being raped has a nervous system which reacts painfully to stimuli such as being beaten or forcibly penetrated.

So it's not about survival anymore?  It's about pain vs. pleasure?  Yeesh, at least stick with one definition of "morally right" at a time.

Quote:
We as humans have an evolved sense of empathy, so object as a society to such pain-inducing stimuli being inflicted upon any individual.

We also evolved this general love of strawberry shortcake.  What's your point?

Quote:
In case you're wondering :  There's nothing arbitrary about that condition; it's axiomatic. 

Actually, it's not axiomatic.  "Axiomatic" means "self-evident."  The stuff you're mentioning is not self-evident; it's empirically true.  It happens to be true in this possible world that rape triggers C-fiber excitation in our brain.  In some other possible world, it may give way to pleasure.  What's empirically true is not self-evident; we have to observe it in order to know that it's true.  "Axiomatic" refers to things like mathematical, analytic or synthetic a priori truths.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:So are

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

So are you willing to admit that it is not *really* wrong to rape someone, but rather it's only counterproductive to promoting society?  Is the behavior of promoting society also not *really* morally right?  If not, why should we do it?

 

And in the bible it says to compensate the rapee by marrying her.  How is that *really* right?  Pookie, I doubt anyone would want to rape me, that anyone could rape me, and if they succeeded, I sure as hell don't want to marry the s.o.b.  Clear?  (My cast iron skillet says, just try it.)

We could also note that in some Muslim countries, it is not okay to be raped, though it is okay to rape.  Is that *really* wrong?  And how does that promote society?  I don't have a clue and I don't see how those societies can continue much longer. 

Promoting society means we have to get along with each other.  It means that we can raise our children with some certainty of getting at least a couple to reproductive adulthood.  Rape does not engender loving mothers and fathers willing to contribute to the child's upbringing.  Evolutionarily, it makes no sense to allow rape since that reduces the chance of getting that child raised to adulthood. 

Aside from that, my morals are much stricter than christians'.  That is part of the reason I left the church.  Not the only one, but a significant chunk of my disgust with the entire set up. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:And in the bible it

cj wrote:
And in the bible it says to compensate the rapee by marrying her.  How is that *really* right?  Pookie, I doubt anyone would want to rape me, that anyone could rape me, and if they succeeded, I sure as hell don't want to marry the s.o.b.  Clear?  (My cast iron skillet says, just try it.)

Where did I even mention the Bible?

Quote:
We could also note that in some Muslim countries, it is not okay to be raped, though it is okay to rape.  Is that *really* wrong?  And how does that promote society?  I don't have a clue and I don't see how those societies can continue much longer.

Where did I even mention Islam?

Tell me a little bit about Buddhist, Hindu and Taoist areas while you're at it.  Oh, and what do the Raelians think about rape?  I mean, if you're going to just drop random facts about other religions, don't discriminate.

Quote:
Promoting society means we have to get along with each other.  It means that we can raise our children with some certainty of getting at least a couple to reproductive adulthood.  Rape does not engender loving mothers and fathers willing to contribute to the child's upbringing.  Evolutionarily, it makes no sense to allow rape since that reduces the chance of getting that child raised to adulthood.

And promoting strawberry shortcake means that we have a tasty delicacy to satisfy us after dinner.  It means that our children will be happy after dinner.  Someone who has just been raped will not feel like making a strawberry shortcake.  Strawberryshortcakily, it makes no sense to allow rape since that reduces the chance of getting that cake made to perfection.

Quote:
Aside from that, my morals are much stricter than christians'.  That is part of the reason I left the church.  Not the only one, but a significant chunk of my disgust with the entire set up. 

And I care about your personal history because..... ?


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

I don't like strawberry shortcake.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:A

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

A common atheist assumption about morality includes that

 

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes society, or collective survival and prosperity.

A common theistic assumption is that atheists are at a consensus regarding morality.  About the only thing atheists would agree upon on this topic is that there is no divine moral absolute.

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

Certainly, one can argue that murder is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote society.  But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that


a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

 

I mean, murder doesn't promote that either, does it?

I happen to think that morality is subjective, specifically subject to it's frame of reference.  I don't happen to think that there is a common society consciousness that weighs good vs. evil relative to murder, rape, etc.  I believe that murder is wrong only insofar as it serves no purpose.  Purpose may be subjectively attributed by society, my family or myself.  I also subjectively rate strawberry shortcake Smiling

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:A common

Ktulu wrote:
A common theistic assumption is that atheists are at a consensus regarding morality.  About the only thing atheists would agree upon on this topic is that there is no divine moral absolute.

Well, I was careful to say that this was a "common" atheist assumption--not a universal atheist assumption.  Even "common" might be a bit of a stretch, as I was merely abstracting from my experiences with atheists online.  I don't get a chance to read much these days, but I believe Sam Harris makes the same argument in The Moral Landscape.

Quote:
I happen to think that morality is subjective, specifically subject to it's frame of reference.  I don't happen to think that there is a common society consciousness that weighs good vs. evil relative to murder, rape, etc.  I believe that murder is wrong only insofar as it serves no purpose.  Purpose may be subjectively attributed by society, my family or myself.  I also subjectively rate strawberry shortcake Smiling

That's good that you can admit to that, but I don't think you live that way.  Tomorrow, I'll steal your wallet, poison your favorite pet and urinate on your tires; tell me then if you still believe that morality is subjective.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

zarathustra wrote:

As far as whether it's *really* wrong, you'll have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".   It may not be *really* wrong to abstain from food and water; but anyone who does will not survive.  Likewise, a society that permits rape will not survive.

And anyone who abstains from food and water will not be able to make strawberry shortcake.  Why is survival anymore relevant?  I'm not talking about survival; I'm talking about moral rightness.

As I previously requested, you will have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".  Again, one is not obliged to be concerned with his or her own survival, any more than one is obliged to make strawberry shortcake.  However, one who does not act with concern for his or her own survival is not likely to survive for very long.  Likewise (again), a society that does not embrace values conducive to its own survival is not likely to survive for very long.  

You ask at this point why survival is relevant, wherein  I assume you are asking why survival is relevant to "moral rightness".  I'll be happy to elaborate, but first let's take into account your mildly uncivil rejoinder:
 

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

Quote:
Rape is undesirable as the individual being raped has a nervous system which reacts painfully to stimuli such as being beaten or forcibly penetrated.

So it's not about survival anymore?  It's about pain vs. pleasure?  Yeesh, at least stick with one definition of "morally right" at a time.

I am sorry for presuming you could make the connection of your own accord.  I shall explain in more incremental a fashion:  

Our aversion to pain is not arbitrary; it is a feature of our physiology that has contributed to our survival (as individuals that do not avoid pain are more likely to die out than those that do).  In other words, "pain vs. pleasure" is itself about survival.  

Likewise, empathy for other individuals in our society is a trait that has contributed to our survival (as societies of individuals that do not practice empathy are less likely to collapse than those that do).  

So are murder and rape *really* wrong?  No, not *really*.  Just like it isn't *really* wrong to stop breathing oxygen, and it isn't *really* wrong to step into moving traffic.  But societies that treat murder and rape as "morally right" have a likelihood of success comparable to individuals who refrain from breathing or step incautiously into traffic.
 

I'll be happy to explain further should your misconstrual persist, but perhaps you would be interested in reviewing this post by another user in reference to this very topic:  ►William Lane Craig Has His Ass Handed To Him


 

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Spencer_Bobson
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-12-24
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra

zarathustra wrote:
As I previously requested, you will have to clarify what you mean by "*really*".  Again, one is not obliged to be concerned with his or her own survival, any more than one is obliged to make strawberry shortcake.  However, one who does not act with concern for his or her own survival is not likely to survive for very long.  Likewise (again), a society that does not embrace values conducive to its own survival is not likely to survive for very long.

I don't need to *really* clarify it, because your point is refuted without me doing so.  One is not obliged to make strawberry shortcake; however, one who does not concern himself with strawberry shortcake is not likely to produce one that tastes very good.  Likewise, a society that does not embrace strawberry shortcake is not likely to produce many strawberry shortcake distributors. 

Quote:
You ask at this point why survival is relevant, wherein  I assume you are asking why survival is relevant to "moral rightness".  I'll be happy to elaborate

You'll be happy to elaborate, okay.  ::Writes this down in notebook::

Quote:
Our aversion to pain is not arbitrary; it is a feature of our physiology that has contributed to our survival (as individuals that do not avoid pain are more likely to die out than those that do).  In other words, "pain vs. pleasure" is itself about survival.  

Okay.  Do I care?  Not really.

Quote:
Likewise, empathy for other individuals in our society is a trait that has contributed to our survival (as societies of individuals that do not practice empathy are less likely to collapse than those that do).  

Okay.  Do I care?  Not really.

Quote:
So are murder and rape *really* wrong?  No, not *really*.  Just like it isn't *really* wrong to stop breathing oxygen, and it isn't *really* wrong to step into moving traffic.  But societies that treat murder and rape as "morally right" have a likelihood of success comparable to individuals who refrain from breathing or step incautiously into traffic.

Ah, so we have to *pretend* that murder and rape are *really* wrong in order to survive.  Similarly, we have to *pretend* that murder and rape are *really* wrong in order to produce good strawberry shortcake.
 
Also, weren't you going to explain how survival is more relevant than strawberry shortcake?  ::Checks notebook:: Yes you were!  Interesting....
 

(By the way, you are falling right into my trap.  Your ideas are just the ordinary, Magic 8-ball atheist ideas that I've heard many other times and have been refuted many times over.  It would probably behoove you at this point to stop replying, lest you bury yourself alive.)


 

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:   I

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

 

I mean, murder doesn't promote that either, does it?

"Just who the hell are you?!"

Murder has been claimed to promote many things, and almost always from a philosophical (and often academia-inspired) PoV, rather than an empirical one. In so many words, everyone has their fuzzy-logic ideas about what constitutes a "civilized" and "just" world and where such "barbarous" concepts like "murder" and "retaliation" have a place in such a largely hypothetical society.

After a quick look at human evolution and the evolution of other "great apes", one quickly realizes the innate, instinctual desire to kill, harm, or divert the attention of a potential threat to one's existence and well-being that evolved long before any recognizable concept of well-socialized "morality" developed amongst what is collectively classified as "placental mammals". As the instinct to attack and destroy or manipulate threats to one's existence evolved before our primordial ancestors crawled out of the sea so many evolutionary epochs ago and even our most recent common ancestors (y-chromosome Adam, lived roughly 34 millennia ago) displayed a habit of killing and even cannibalizing the remains of one-another, I thusly contend that there are mountains of evidence to contribute to the hypothesis of modern psychology that the basic, biological drive to destroy things that cause discomfort is alive and well within the modern human psyche as is the drive to destroy threats to one's existence, meaning specifically that (I suspect) over 95% of Earth's human population has such an instinctual drive. Sure, instincts can be surpressed with the help of reason, but if you've ever experience unbridled emotional stress regarding the actions or presence of another person you've likely at least once imagined what your life and the world in general would be like without their continued existence. Emotions have the effect of arousing instincts in people. I know Iwbiek and myself have briefly experienced such an innate drive to 'deny presence' one or the other during a trivial spat that is best left in the past. I suspect most of the people that have ever posted on RRS have experienced such a drive to 'deny existence' (for extreme lack of a better term) or be put in willful ignorance of someone that causes them harm or pain for seemingly no valid reason. It's in your evolutionary nature to destroy that which causes you discomfort. Be in denial of this at your own peril.

It's also worth pointing out that any challenges to my previous claim of human instincts that consist of emotionally-charged or snarky appeals for secular humanism will be immediately tossed into my (metaphorical) 'collective philosophy trash heap'. Believe you me, the more I interact with people online, the bigger such a 'trash heap' becomes. EoD.

edit1,edit2, edit3; forgot to proof-read

edit4; terminology

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:And in the bible it

cj wrote:

And in the bible it says to compensate the rapee by marrying her.  How is that *really* right?  Pookie, I doubt anyone would want to rape me, that anyone could rape me, and if they succeeded, I sure as hell don't want to marry the s.o.b.  Clear?  (My cast iron skillet says, just try it.)


"Rape" of biblical and Classical times has an entirely different meaning to the "rape" of today. In the 17th century, English law was rewritten so that it took on the meaning of "intercourse with an unwilling partner" (not Parliament's exact terms.) Before than it simply meant "abduction" of some man's (primarily pubescent and fully grown) daughter. Since her virginity could not be proven after such an "abduction", the father was believed own a debt to be paid by the abducter.

How the Classical origins of the word "rape" defy the reasoning of so many supposedly well-informed antitheists who wish to attack biblical terminology and phrasing never ceases to escape my understanding. [/elitism]

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:I don't

Philosophicus wrote:

I don't like strawberry shortcake.

Best. Fucking. Post. In. A. Shite. Philosophy. Thread. EVAR.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:cj wrote:And in

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

And in the bible it says to compensate the rapee by marrying her.  How is that *really* right?  Pookie, I doubt anyone would want to rape me, that anyone could rape me, and if they succeeded, I sure as hell don't want to marry the s.o.b.  Clear?  (My cast iron skillet says, just try it.)

 

"Rape" of biblical and Classical times has an entirely different meaning to the "rape" of today. In the 17th century, English law was rewritten so that it took on the meaning of "intercourse with an unwilling partner" (not Parliament's exact terms.) Before than it simply meant "abduction" of some man's (primarily pubescent and fully grown) daughter. Since her virginity could not be proven after such an "abduction", the father was believed own a debt to be paid by the abducter.

How the Classical origins of the word "rape" defy the reasoning of so many supposedly well-informed antitheists who wish to attack biblical terminology and phrasing never ceases to escape my understanding. [/elitism]

It is simply the point of contrast of changing and better morals. The word rape has broadened its meaning in modern times. Even today we say that rape isn't about sex but about power and control. Something King David wouldn't get either.

So educate us, in biblical times if a man forcibly has sex with a widow what would Moses have called it?

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:I don't

**double post**


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1250
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:I don't

Spencer_Bobson wrote:
I don't need to *really* clarify it, because your point is refuted without me doing so.

Actually, you *really* do need to clarify it, insofar as your argument hinges on the term "*really* wrong" which you introduced -- albeit heavily padded with strawberry shortcake.  This is of course on the assumption that you are actually interested in a productive discussion.

Spencer_Bobson wrote:
 One is not obliged to make strawberry shortcake; however, one who does not concern himself with strawberry shortcake is not likely to produce one that tastes very good.  Likewise, a society that does not embrace strawberry shortcake is not likely to produce many strawberry shortcake distributors.

Quite so.  Our general dilection of strawberry shortcake is as non-arbitrary, and just as explainable in non-theistic terms, as our general aversion to rape and murder.  Insofar as your response in no way invalidates my preceding statements, I infer that you've conceded the point.  Thank you.

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

Quote:
Our aversion to pain is not arbitrary; it is a feature of our physiology that has contributed to our survival (as individuals that do not avoid pain are more likely to die out than those that do).  In other words, "pain vs. pleasure" is itself about survival.  

Okay.  Do I care?  Not really.

I had a developing suspicion that you didn't really care.  If you ever do start really caring, be sure to let us know.
 

Spencer_Bobson wrote:
Quote:
Likewise, empathy for other individuals in our society is a trait that has contributed to our survival (as societies of individuals that do not practice empathy are less likely to collapse than those that do).  

Okay.  Do I care?  Not really.

Again, I had a developing suspicion that you didn't really care.  Again, if you ever do start really caring, be sure to let us know.
 

Spencer_Bobson wrote:
Ah, so we have to *pretend* that murder and rape are *really* wrong in order to survive.  Similarly, we have to *pretend* that murder and rape are *really* wrong in order to produce good strawberry shortcake.

No more than we have to pretend that breathing or being cautious of moving traffic is necessary.    
 

Spencer_Bobson wrote:
(By the way, you are falling right into my trap.  Your ideas are just the ordinary, Magic 8-ball atheist ideas that I've heard many other times and have been refuted many times over.  It would probably behoove you at this point to stop replying, lest you bury yourself alive.)

Actually you've already fallen into my trap, given your persistent refusal to clarify your terms; your admission (at first implicit, and now explicit) that you don't *really* care; as well as your all-too-obvious avoidance of the thread to which I gratuitously provided a link.  Here it is again, so you can continue falling into my trap by continuing to avoid it:


 ►William Lane Craig Has His Ass Handed To Him 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Can I get an "ewwww bugspray!"?

ex-minister wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

cj wrote:

And in the bible it says to compensate the rapee by marrying her.  How is that *really* right?  Pookie, I doubt anyone would want to rape me, that anyone could rape me, and if they succeeded, I sure as hell don't want to marry the s.o.b.  Clear?  (My cast iron skillet says, just try it.)

 

"Rape" of biblical and Classical times has an entirely different meaning to the "rape" of today. In the 17th century, English law was rewritten so that it took on the meaning of "intercourse with an unwilling partner" (not Parliament's exact terms.) Before than it simply meant "abduction" of some man's (primarily pubescent and fully grown) daughter. Since her virginity could not be proven after such an "abduction", the father was believed own a debt to be paid by the abducter.

How the Classical origins of the word "rape" defy the reasoning of so many supposedly well-informed antitheists who wish to attack biblical terminology and phrasing never ceases to escape my understanding. [/elitism]

It is simply the point of contrast of changing and better morals. The word rape has broadened its meaning in modern times. Even today we say that rape isn't about sex but about power and control. Something King David wouldn't get either.

So educate us, in biblical times if a man forcibly has sex with a widow what would Moses have called it?

(heh)

There is no singular applicaple term, to my knowledge. In the OT, numerous means are used to describe what is believed to be scenes of forcible intercourse. They usually revolve around some apparent lack of consent such as "she said no and he laid with her". OT was very lewd at some junctures, and you have to wonder if its original authors were talking about "fantasy(s)" as opposed to say... reality. Since reality seems to have very little meaning in the OT.

But, of course... "fantasy" is an entirely different beast to the subject matter discussed here. Hundreds of millions of males and females have such fantasies, and they are almost always harmless and not acted upon literally. Often, it makes its way into fiction. But don't let my TMI remarks distract any of you from the sheer stupid found in this thread.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3267
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:A

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

A common atheist assumption about morality includes that a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes society, or collective survival and prosperity.

Certainly, one can argue that murder is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote society.  But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

I mean, murder doesn't promote that either, does it?

Weren't the crusades considered to be morally good for society (etc etc) and yet they killed millions over some thing less than strawberry shortcakes?

Now if the crusades would have been all about promoting strawberry shortcakes, I could support the killing of millions of heathens.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3685
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Frequently morals based

  Historically speaking it appears morals based upon sacred doctrines and belief in God have their dark side, that is to say their immoral side

If that were not the case the Southern Baptist Convention which was formed in 1845 over its pro-slavery stance would have never issued an apology stating "we lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery,".

The Evangelical Lutheran church apologized for the antisemitism of it's founder, Martin Luther and the harm done to Jews in his name.

United Methodists apologized for the 1864 massacre of 150 Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians, which was led by a Methodist lay preacher in Sand Creek, Colorado.

Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins of the Catholic Church against Jews, Muslims, heretics, women, native peoples...

 

Belief in an absolute moral standard...    even one that is alleged to come from "God" himself    ...seems to have little impact upon the actual behaviour of millions of those faithful followers who espouse it's superiority.  Apparently when it comes to actually living up to this supposed godly moral standard it's just not worth the effort. 

 

 

 

                                                                                                   Besides, they can always just issue an apology later on.

                                                                                                            

"Most people are ass holes." Jesus of Nazareth


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13762
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson? Care to tell

Spencer_Bobson? Care to tell me WHY you signed up with a name that makes you sound like you are stalking, or have a beef with Bob Spence here? Are you trying to make Bob Spence look like a soc puppet? Because that would be hard considering he has been a mod here for years.

I am just curious about your name selection and how you chose that name.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Hmmmm

Brian37 wrote:

Spencer_Bobson? Care to tell me WHY you signed up with a name that makes you sound like you are stalking, or have a beef with Bob Spence here? Are you trying to make Bob Spence look like a soc puppet? Because that would be hard considering he has been a mod here for years.

I am just curious about your name selection and how you chose that name.

I just thought it was Bob playing POE....

Ya mean he's for real?

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 It couldn't be Bob Spence.

 It couldn't be Bob Spence. I don't think he could possibly dumb down enough to be this guy. Bob would give us a serious challenge, not strawberry shortcake which became old and tired upon the second reference. Wow. That would be quite interesting for Bob to try POE.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:That's

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

That's good that you can admit to that, but I don't think you live that way.  Tomorrow, I'll steal your wallet, poison your favorite pet and urinate on your tires; tell me then if you still believe that morality is subjective.

How does that disprove a subjective morality? Do you mean you will subjectively justify those actions as good?  I'm sure you could, and I will subjectively rate those same actions as bad, I'm not sure what you are driving at?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Spencer_Bobson

Ktulu wrote:

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

That's good that you can admit to that, but I don't think you live that way.  Tomorrow, I'll steal your wallet, poison your favorite pet and urinate on your tires; tell me then if you still believe that morality is subjective.

How does that disprove a subjective morality? Do you mean you will subjectively justify those actions as good?  I'm sure you could, and I will subjectively rate those same actions as bad, I'm not sure what you are driving at?

The universe does not objectively care if the object defined as 'my wallet' is located in my pocket or yours. I might find, from a purely subjective viewpoint the poisoning of my (or anyone elses) pet to be despicable, the universe has no objective standard defining when where and how an animal dies. As far as urinating on my tires, do I need to point out that as a species, we urinated on rocks and trees freely for eons?

I've seen lame arguments against subjective morality before...yours isn't special, or very good. But that's just a subjective opinion...

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote: A

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

A common atheist assumption about morality includes that

a behavior is morally good

Morality is subjective.

Quote:
if and only if it promotes society,

No.

Quote:
or collective survival

No.

Quote:
and prosperity.

No.

Quote:
But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

In the sense you are implying, it's not different. You don't understand what we believe. Sorry.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Spencer_Bobson wrote:A

Spencer_Bobson wrote:

A common atheist assumption about morality includes that

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes society, or collective survival and prosperity.

Certainly, one can argue that murder is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote society.  But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

I mean, murder doesn't promote that either, does it?

Humans, like all species that live in groups, have morality built into our genetic makeup.

Quote:

Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Hi Spencer Bobson (Hehe,

Hi Spencer Bobson (Hehe, clever boy Eye-wink )

 

I can see what you're doing there with your question, but I am of the oppinion that morals are entirely relative, and so the question doesn't really apply to me, but I do have a counter-question:

 

A common Christian assumption about morality includes that

 

a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes Biblical values.

 

Certainly, one can argue that murder is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote biblical... no wait, bad example, murder can, and does promote biblical values very often. Let's say: one can argue that premarital sex is morally wrong insofar as it does not promote biblical values. But my question is, how is this any different from the assumption that


a behavior is morally good if and only if it promotes strawberry shortcake?

 

I mean, premarital sex doesn't promote that either, does it?

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin