If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
If humans and animals are related, is bestiality wrong?

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

What leads you to ask this absurd question?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
What?

What? wtf


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I just want to know what

I just want to know what atheists think. According to you guys, animals and humans are the same, so is it right or wrong?

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


Digital_Babu
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Are animals able to consent

Are animals able to consent to sexual intercourse with a human being?

 

And you say that atheist say that animals and humans are the same? This relation of identity is not as strict as 1=1, there are enough criteria upon which you can differentiate between human beings and other animals.

 

But who told you this anyhow? 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I, to be honest, see no good

I, to be honest, see no good reason why an atheist can object to beastiality, any more than they can seriously object to homosexuality or masturbation.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: I just want

mythrys wrote:
I just want to know what atheists think. According to you guys, animals and humans are the same, so is it right or wrong?

It's not a question of right or wrong. Why would I want to screw a monkey? I can't have any human-monkey kids. I can't have a long term relationship with a monkey the same way I could with a human. I'm not attracted to monkeys. Why would I do it? This has nothing to do with atheism.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I, to be

StMichael wrote:
I, to be honest, see no good reason why an atheist can object to beastiality, any more than they can seriously object to homosexuality or masturbation.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Homosexuality and masturbation are a whole different matter.


Digital_Babu
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Sex in general is fine

Sex in general is fine (well that's quite an understatement), if it is consensual. 

Homosexuality is fine, if it is consensual.

Maturbation is fine, anytime, anywhere, anyhow.

 

Bestiality is fine, but (again) how can an animal consent? 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Digital_Babu

Digital_Babu wrote:
Bestiality is fine, but (again) how can an animal consent?

I think this questions goes along with what are our ethical responsibilities towards animals. Bestiality may be considered abuse, and if that's so then it should be discouraged. I think a bigger questions is should we still be slaughtering animals and eating them.


Digital_Babu
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I agree on that... but I

I agree on that... but I think the biggest question is not whether we ought not kill and/or eat animals, since that would be a consequence of answering the question what moral status animals have.

 

It seems evident that animals are not morally on par with human beings in respect that they're less or not involved in the practice of conscious decision making, which is a neccessary condition for morality. So what we have to decide, or reason about is whether animals are morally valuable in itself or is it some kind of indirect calculus by which we can conclude that we owe animals something.


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Yes, human beings are very

Yes, human beings are very unique "animals", but still, we are just animals. The most smartest and highly evolved, but we are still related to them.

Nobody told me this, but I did find an article where a person had the same thought.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/speculation.htm 

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't see any reason why

I don't see any reason why you can say that. What makes human beings any different from animals? What is "consent," in your view, but merely the evolutional illusion of a mind in a human being? Why are homosexuality and masturbation any different?

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
'Tis a question of right

'Tis a question of right and wrong. I don't want to screw a monkey either, but there are people out there who do want to. Are they crazy, or is that ok if they desire to do such a thing?

 

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
They are crazy. It's hard to

They are crazy. It's hard to come up with a reason why shoving a lit cigar up your nose is "immoral," but if you want to do it you belong in Club Cuckoo!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I, to be

StMichael wrote:
I, to be honest, see no good reason why an atheist can object to beastiality, any more than they can seriously object to homosexuality or masturbation. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

This is completely asinine; animals have the ability to feel pain so there is a reason to consider how you treat them. There is a moral connotation because you are dealing with another thing that can feel pain.

With masturbation you’re dealing with yourself so you can set your own limits on that. No moral connotation whatsoever. Homosexuality, if you’re dealing with someone who can and has consented then no moral connotation there either.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Digital_Babu
Posts: 64
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
In honesty I am entirely

@StMichael 

In all honesty I am entirely lost in what you mean, please elaborate.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: I don't

StMichael wrote:
I don't see any reason why you can say that. What makes human beings any different from animals?

Uh...besides the obvious?

StMichael wrote:
What is "consent," in your view, but merely the evolutional illusion of a mind in a human being?

Consent between humans? A common agreement on something.

I think our entire consciousness is a product of our brain. It's an illusion that there's the self and my body are different things.

StMichael wrote:

Why are homosexuality and masturbation any different?

Isn't this obvious? They don't involve non-humans.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: so what

mythrys wrote:
so what about human + monkey?

Don't you mean Human + APE?

Typical, think evolution is an atheist and only atheist thing, just piss all over theists who accept evolution.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ape, monkey, whatever. I'm

Ape, monkey, whatever. I'm sorry for not saying the specific kind we came from. I never said only atheists believe in evolution, I just notice that many people here are atheists. Ok, this topic is addressed to atheists, agnostics, catholics, hindus, muslims, rostafarians, scientologists, witches, satanists, rosicrucians, illuminatis, etc.ect.etc. Happy now?

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I would only object on

I would only object on cruelty grounds.  I have no objections based on claims about one form of sex or another being "wrong" in some way.  If you can find a cat that can really, seriously, agree to have sex with a person, go ahead and get a little pussie.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Ape, monkey,

mythrys wrote:
Ape, monkey, whatever. I'm sorry for not saying the specific kind we came from. I never said only atheists believe in evolution, I just notice that many people here are atheists. Ok, this topic is addressed to atheists, agnostics, catholics, hindus, muslims, rostafarians, scientologists, witches, satanists, rosicrucians, illuminatis, etc.ect.etc. Happy now?

*SIGH* 

You are one dumb motherfuc.. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Stop listening to your bearded holy elders and the pathetic  immages they have sold about us. They must have scared you really good to get you to buy that bullshit.

I dont screw a goat because I am not attracted to them. Anyone who wants to have sex with another species has a biological screw lose and there  is no need for a devil with a pitchfork to explain the obvious.

And I find it quite sick and bigoted of anyone to equate beastiealty to homosexuality. Homosexuality is quite normal for gay people. Stop that bullshit slippery slop crap. It doesnt go over well here and you are just making yourself look like a bigot. 

St Micheal, btw, your true colors are comming out in this thread. You have tried to pass yourself off as a calm thinker and then you pull this bigoted crap here.

How dare you insult an intire portion of the population by insinuating that gays are in the same mental illness catigory as beasteality. 

Why dont you post your personal e-mail in this thread so they can send you personally the same love you are sending them.

You owe all the gays that read this an apology.

And they wonder why atheists get angry?Yell

 

 

"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


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Note to self: another

Note to self: another example of a cruel atheist, supporting my comment on my other post.

Well, this dumb (censored) loves you and is not going to attack you. 

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Stop listening to your

Stop listening to your bearded holy elders and the pathetic  immages they have sold about us. They must have scared you really good to get you to buy that bullshit.

Stop assuming I listen to some yes man to a bearded elder. I'm not, Thankyou.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Note to

mythrys wrote:

Note to self: another example of a cruel atheist, supporting my comment on my other post.

Well, this dumb (censored) loves you and is not going to attack you.

Yeah, blame my atheism for you stupidity. 


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, THAT made no sense. You

OK, THAT made no sense. You called me a dumb ~~~~~~, so I'm like, Ok, but this dumb ~~~~~ still loves you. It's a play on what you said. Like..."You throw like a girl" "Yeah, but this 'girl' can bat" or something.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: OK, THAT

mythrys wrote:
OK, THAT made no sense. You called me a dumb ~~~~~~, so I'm like, Ok, but this dumb ~~~~~ still loves you. It's a play on what you said. Like..."You throw like a girl" "Yeah, but this 'girl' can bat" or something.

 Why do you love me and your making all these comments about atheists? Ok, now THAT makes no sense.
 


mythrys
Theist
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Because I love you, but hate

Because I love you, but hate your sins. I love atheists even though they tend to be mean to me, but I hate their sins. If you were falling off a cliff, I would try my best to save you. However, if your sins were falling off a cliff, I would push them.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Because I

mythrys wrote:
Because I love you, but hate your sins. I love atheists even though they tend to be mean to me, but I hate their sins. If you were falling off a cliff, I would try my best to save you. However, if your sins were falling off a cliff, I would push them.

That is so sweet. <3

Laughing


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This is completely

Quote:

This is completely asinine; animals have the ability to feel pain so there is a reason to consider how you treat them. There is a moral connotation because you are dealing with another thing that can feel pain.

Ah, but where does a moral notion arise from?
BTW, I am NOT arguing that moral obligation directly from God so don't, like Brian, assume devils with pitchforks are the moral imperative in this situation.

Quote:

With masturbation you’re dealing with yourself so you can set your own limits on that. No moral connotation whatsoever.

So personal action is just fine? So, why again can't someone have sex with animals if there is not a reason to consider an animal able to either consent or not to consent? Or, what compromises "personal action?" Can someone cut themself for fun, like a masochist? Or, can someone morally commit suicide? Or, can someone have sex with a dead person?

Quote:
Homosexuality, if you’re dealing with someone who can and has consented then no moral connotation there either.

Why not a moral connotation? Why is consent merely the deciding factor? Is it OK to commit adultery with the boss's wife if she consents? Is it OK to have sex with a child if they "consent?" What determines consent in a human being when consent is merely an illusion of evolution? Why ought consent to mean anything at all if it is merely illusory?

Quote:

They are crazy. It's hard to come up with a reason why shoving a lit cigar up your nose is "immoral," but if you want to do it you belong in Club Cuckoo!

Why? People used to rank homosexuality in the rank of mental illnesses. What determines whether beastiality is immoral or crazy or anything else? What determines whether pederasty or any other immoral sexual act is immoral in the first place?

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
I don't see any reason why you can say that. What makes human beings any different from animals?
Uh...besides the obvious?

Obviously, I don't see how an atheist can find this obvious. To quote a famous atheist who founded PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." I see no reason why an atheist ought to consider them any different from one another.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
What is "consent," in your view, but merely the evolutional illusion of a mind in a human being?

Consent between humans? A common agreement on something.
I think our entire consciousness is a product of our brain. It's an illusion that there's the self and my body are different things.


OK, two totally contradictory statements. Either consent really means something or it is merely a product of evolution, chemical processes, and is actually and utterly meaningless. No middle ground.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Why are homosexuality and masturbation any different?
Isn't this obvious? They don't involve non-humans.

What is the standard for "non-humans?" Why draw the line at humans? Why is necrophilia wrong?

Quote:

I would only object on cruelty grounds. I have no objections based on claims about one form of sex or another being "wrong" in some way. If you can find a cat that can really, seriously, agree to have sex with a person, go ahead and get a little pussie.

Cruelty? How can a cat either consent or refuse to consent? If the entire concept of consent is an illusion of evolution and chemical processes in a small football-shaped mass of tissue we call the "brain" and consent is merely the firing of a couple hundred neurons in a different section of the brain, why is "consent" so meaningful? The feeling of love can be replicated by eating large quantities of chocolate, to quote someone. If I were to use a machine to reproduce brainwave forms that matched what is viewed as "consent" in your eyes, can someone have sex with the machine? Or, if I used the machine to replicate that pattern in your brain, what inhibits anyone else from "consentually" raping your body?

Quote:
I dont screw a goat because I am not attracted to them. Anyone who wants to have sex with another species has a biological screw lose and there is no need for a devil with a pitchfork to explain the obvious.

I think more needs to be said here, and I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. Are things determined merely on the basis of attraction? If someone is attracted to goats, or little children, what makes that action wrong? What determines the normative in an evolutionary model of humanity? Maybe your biological screw is loose when you choose to have sexual relations with women. What determines the normative/moral sexual conduct in a human being? What makes pederasty or beastiality or necrophilia wrong?

Quote:
And I find it quite sick and bigoted of anyone to equate beastiealty to homosexuality. Homosexuality is quite normal for gay people. Stop that bullshit slippery slop crap. It doesnt go over well here and you are just making yourself look like a bigot.
St Micheal, btw, your true colors are comming out in this thread. You have tried to pass yourself off as a calm thinker and then you pull this bigoted crap here.
How dare you insult an intire portion of the population by insinuating that gays are in the same mental illness catigory as beasteality.

I am NOT claiming that homosexuals are mentally ill.
Why is homosexuality normal, however? You claim above, "homosexuality is quite normal for gay people." Why is beastiality any different? Maybe beastiality is quite normal for beastial people. Maybe pederasty is quite normal for pederasts. Why are these last two any different from the above? I see no good reason to draw this divide at all, from an atheists' point of view. I am not denigrating homosexuals; I am asking why you draw the line at gay people? Why not admit zoophiliacs into the realm of entirely acceptable atheistic behaviour? I don't see why your opinion that beastiality is wrong is not merely an expression of "your true colors [...] comming out in this thread."

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Ah, but

StMichael wrote:
Ah, but where does a moral notion arise from?

C'mon, it's pretty obvious where you're taking this.  You want to set us up for the is-ought fallacy by pointing out that there is no true statement or description of our world from which an objective moral claim can be derived.  So just say it.  We're well aware of the is-ought problem.

Unfortunately, if you think theism solves this problem, you are dead wrong.  A statement such as "God disapproves of this act" is still a statement of what is.  No moral statement of what ought to be can be inferred from this.  Just because God thinks something is wrong, it does not follow at all that the thing is actually wrong in any objective sense.  The God-concept succumbs to the very is-ought problem you purport it to solve, not to mention introducing new additional problems such as Euthyphro's dilemma, theodicy, and the straightforward ontological problem of positing existing beings for which no evidence exists.

Theism is metaphysical vacuousness at its finest.  See my post here for more on the vacuity of invoking theism to solve metaphysical conundrums:   http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/kill_em_with_kindness/4677 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I personally don't see

I personally don't see anything morally wrong with suicide or self-injury - though it is usually insane/counterproductive. By the way, for those of you who don't know I have been suicidal from a very young age until pretty recently and the thoughts still come up sometimes. I even attempted in Nov 2005. I'm glad it didn't work, but I can definitely understand why it happens.

Oh by the way, I had a very good friend (haven't heard from him in about 6 years) who was gay and Catholic and had some serious mental problems. Multiple suicide attempts. We had been friends since 5th grade.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
This is completely asinine; animals have the ability to feel pain so there is a reason to consider how you treat them. There is a moral connotation because you are dealing with another thing that can feel pain.
Ah, but where does a moral notion arise from? BTW, I am NOT arguing that moral obligation directly from God so don't, like Brian, assume devils with pitchforks are the moral imperative in this situation.
Quote:
With masturbation you’re dealing with yourself so you can set your own limits on that. No moral connotation whatsoever.
So personal action is just fine? So, why again can't someone have sex with animals if there is not a reason to consider an animal able to either consent or not to consent? Or, what compromises "personal action?" Can someone cut themself for fun, like a masochist? Or, can someone morally commit suicide? Or, can someone have sex with a dead person?
Quote:
Homosexuality, if you’re dealing with someone who can and has consented then no moral connotation there either.
Why not a moral connotation? Why is consent merely the deciding factor? Is it OK to commit adultery with the boss's wife if she consents? Is it OK to have sex with a child if they "consent?" What determines consent in a human being when consent is merely an illusion of evolution? Why ought consent to mean anything at all if it is merely illusory?
Quote:
They are crazy. It's hard to come up with a reason why shoving a lit cigar up your nose is "immoral," but if you want to do it you belong in Club Cuckoo!
Why? People used to rank homosexuality in the rank of mental illnesses. What determines whether beastiality is immoral or crazy or anything else? What determines whether pederasty or any other immoral sexual act is immoral in the first place?
Quote:
StMichael wrote: I don't see any reason why you can say that. What makes human beings any different from animals? Uh...besides the obvious?
Obviously, I don't see how an atheist can find this obvious. To quote a famous atheist who founded PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." I see no reason why an atheist ought to consider them any different from one another.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: What is "consent," in your view, but merely the evolutional illusion of a mind in a human being? Consent between humans? A common agreement on something. I think our entire consciousness is a product of our brain. It's an illusion that there's the self and my body are different things.
OK, two totally contradictory statements. Either consent really means something or it is merely a product of evolution, chemical processes, and is actually and utterly meaningless. No middle ground.
Quote:
StMichael wrote: Why are homosexuality and masturbation any different? Isn't this obvious? They don't involve non-humans.
What is the standard for "non-humans?" Why draw the line at humans? Why is necrophilia wrong?
Quote:
I would only object on cruelty grounds. I have no objections based on claims about one form of sex or another being "wrong" in some way. If you can find a cat that can really, seriously, agree to have sex with a person, go ahead and get a little pussie.
Cruelty? How can a cat either consent or refuse to consent? If the entire concept of consent is an illusion of evolution and chemical processes in a small football-shaped mass of tissue we call the "brain" and consent is merely the firing of a couple hundred neurons in a different section of the brain, why is "consent" so meaningful? The feeling of love can be replicated by eating large quantities of chocolate, to quote someone. If I were to use a machine to reproduce brainwave forms that matched what is viewed as "consent" in your eyes, can someone have sex with the machine? Or, if I used the machine to replicate that pattern in your brain, what inhibits anyone else from "consentually" raping your body?
Quote:
I dont screw a goat because I am not attracted to them. Anyone who wants to have sex with another species has a biological screw lose and there is no need for a devil with a pitchfork to explain the obvious.
I think more needs to be said here, and I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. Are things determined merely on the basis of attraction? If someone is attracted to goats, or little children, what makes that action wrong? What determines the normative in an evolutionary model of humanity? Maybe your biological screw is loose when you choose to have sexual relations with women. What determines the normative/moral sexual conduct in a human being? What makes pederasty or beastiality or necrophilia wrong?
Quote:
And I find it quite sick and bigoted of anyone to equate beastiealty to homosexuality. Homosexuality is quite normal for gay people. Stop that bullshit slippery slop crap. It doesnt go over well here and you are just making yourself look like a bigot. St Micheal, btw, your true colors are comming out in this thread. You have tried to pass yourself off as a calm thinker and then you pull this bigoted crap here. How dare you insult an intire portion of the population by insinuating that gays are in the same mental illness catigory as beasteality.
I am NOT claiming that homosexuals are mentally ill. Why is homosexuality normal, however? You claim above, "homosexuality is quite normal for gay people." Why is beastiality any different? Maybe beastiality is quite normal for beastial people. Maybe pederasty is quite normal for pederasts. Why are these last two any different from the above? I see no good reason to draw this divide at all, from an atheists' point of view. I am not denigrating homosexuals; I am asking why you draw the line at gay people? Why not admit zoophiliacs into the realm of entirely acceptable atheistic behaviour? I don't see why your opinion that beastiality is wrong is not merely an expression of "your true colors [...] comming out in this thread." Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Stop the semantic bullshit.

Your religion teaches that homosexuality is bad. This thread started by a troll trying to imply that atheists promote beastality. You went on to say imply that homosexuality should be classed in the same catigory.

What told you that homosexuality was bad? For someone who ends every post with "Yours In Christ" it doesnt take a slide rule to figure out.

Or are you going to be a coward and publically deny that you dont think that your Jesus god tells you that? 

"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


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Or, what


StMichael wrote:

Or, what compromises "personal action?" Can someone cut themself for fun, like a masochist?

If that's what they find fun, sure. If they are doing it due to feelings of helplessness/depression, I think they should seek help.

StMichael wrote:
Or, can someone morally commit suicide?

Yup. If their life is not their own to take, then they are a slave.

StMichael wrote:

Or, can someone have sex with a dead person?

I would say that such actions are a waste of energy, but hey, if the person with ownership of a corpse really wants to let them...

StMichael wrote:

Is it OK to commit adultery with the boss's wife if she consents?

There's more than just you and the boss' wife involved in that. She's likely made a promise to her husband which she would be breaking. If, on the other hand, her and her husband have a different agreement, then sure, go right ahead.

StMichael wrote:

Is it OK to have sex with a child if they "consent?"

No. And you understand that a child is not likely to know enough to consent, which is why you put quotation marks around it.

StMichael wrote:

What determines consent in a human being when consent is merely an illusion of evolution? Why ought consent to mean anything at all if it is merely illusory?

StMichael wrote:
OK, two totally contradictory statements. Either consent really means something or it is merely a product of evolution, chemical processes, and is actually and utterly meaningless. No middle ground.

Wrong, this is a false dichotomy.

A waterfall is "nothing more" than a bunch of water going over some rocks, but it can still have beauty. A painting is "just" a bunch of paint on a canvas.

We attach value to things that matter to us.

 

StMichael wrote:
Obviously, I don't see how an atheist can find this obvious. To quote a famous atheist who founded PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." I see no reason why an atheist ought to consider them any different from one another.

That person does not speak for all atheists. Your stance seems to be nothing more than incredulity.

StMichael wrote:
What is the standard for "non-humans?" Why draw the line at humans? Why is necrophilia wrong?

Because adult humans can communicate their consent plainly to each other. That's why I would draw the line.

Necrophilia is "wrong" because people with a fondness for such things are probably more prone to infections and illness and have also wasted their time on dead people so they've been much less likely to pass on their genes.

 

StMichael wrote:
Cruelty? How can a cat either consent or refuse to consent? If the entire concept of consent is an illusion of evolution and chemical processes in a small football-shaped mass of tissue we call the "brain" and consent is merely the firing of a couple hundred neurons in a different section of the brain, why is "consent" so meaningful? The feeling of love can be replicated by eating large quantities of chocolate, to quote someone.

A cat is still capable of suffering.

And again with the false dichotomy.

StMichael wrote:
If I were to use a machine to reproduce brainwave forms that matched what is viewed as "consent" in your eyes, can someone have sex with the machine?

If you let them, sure. What does that have to do with consent?

StMichael wrote:
Or, if I used the machine to replicate that pattern in your brain, what inhibits anyone else from "consentually" raping your body?

Interesting proposition. I wonder if the person would have memories of consent or not.

Well, since this is hypothetical, I say we cross that bridge when we get to it.

 

StMichael wrote:

I think more needs to be said here, and I don't think you understand the implications of what you're saying. Are things determined merely on the basis of attraction? If someone is attracted to goats, or little children, what makes that action wrong? What determines the normative in an evolutionary model of humanity?

That which is conducive to the survival of the species.

If someone spends their time screwing with children and the others of the group don't stop him, you are going to end up with a lot of disturbed children and a dysfunctional social group.

If someone spends their time screwing goats instead of humans, they aren't going to be having many kids. If the others in the group don't shun this behavior and it gets learned by others, the group will have trouble surviving because so many of their members will be too busy screwing goats.

It's called natural selection.

StMichael wrote:

Maybe your biological screw is loose when you choose to have sexual relations with women.

Well, it seems to be quite conducive to the survival of the species.

 

-Triften


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You want to set us

Quote:

You want to set us up for the is-ought fallacy by pointing out that there is no true statement or description of our world from which an objective moral claim can be derived.

No, actually, I don't. In fact, I think the opposite is quite true. From nature we can make real meaningful statements about what people ought or ought not to do.

Quote:

Just because God thinks something is wrong, it does not follow at all that the thing is actually wrong in any objective sense.

I never claimed that the subjective judgement of an arbitrary God was the reason things were moral or not. In a certain sense, what is good is what God loves, but God also loves it because it is good. Goodness is what God is, so moral goodness flows from Him, but not as determined by Him. What is good in the world shares in God's own Goodness. Our knowledge of what is good and evil is natural and can be discovered by using reason. We are discovering God's law as it exists in nature. The morality found in Revelation is merely an explication of what this is, which is why most people can agree to the Ten Commandments.

Quote:

The God-concept succumbs to the very is-ought problem you purport it to solve, not to mention introducing new additional problems such as Euthyphro's dilemma, theodicy, and the straightforward ontological problem of positing existing beings for which no evidence exists.

Just to counter, I would argue that clear evidence from metaphysics indicates that God exists and is demonstrable.

Quote:

I personally don't see anything morally wrong with suicide or self-injury - though it is usually insane/counterproductive.

What is immoral is basically what is contrary to right reason.
Suicide is clearly contrary to natural law, whereby things preserve themselves and will their own being. Also, insofar as man is part of a community and killing one's self is an injustice against the community, it is immoral. For us Catholics, of course, God is the only one as well who takes away and gives life, so such ursurping of God's role is an infringement of justice. But that last one is just additional.
I am sad, however, that you have tried to commit suicide. I can't claim to know how that feels or know what that is like. I will keep you and your friend in my prayers and the prayers of the Dominican nuns of whom I know. I would ask you to pray for the grace to overcome it, but of course that is not really appropriate Smiling. Our Blessed Mother will pray for you, at least.
Quote:

Stop the semantic bullshit.

What semantics?

Quote:

Your religion teaches that homosexuality is bad. This thread started by a troll trying to imply that atheists promote beastality. You went on to say imply that homosexuality should be classed in the same catigory.

I don't think the person who started this thread tried to imply the atheists promoted beastiality; I think his intention was the same as mine: to ask yourself why beastiality is immoral. I think homosexuality is immoral, but that is not purely a consideration stemming from my faith. I see clear natural ethical reasons why homosexuality is immoral. I have nothing against gays themselves. I worked all last year at an AIDS hospice and have no desire to bash gays. I do not, however, think that justifies their behaviour. I think, as well, that the fact that they were in an AIDS hospice tells you how dangerous their lifestyle can be on a level that even an atheist would accept.
Quote:

What told you that homosexuality was bad? For someone who ends every post with "Yours In Christ" it doesnt take a slide rule to figure out.

The Catholic Church and my reason together. They are most certainly not in conflict.

Quote:
Or are you going to be a coward and publically deny that you dont think that your Jesus god tells you that?

Our Lord hasn't felt it worthwhile to personally reveal to me the morality of homosexuality. I know it because the Church teaches it and because my mind shows me such from the natural order of things. It is clear to me that a homosexual action is contrary to the natural purpose of sex. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Quote:

If that's what they find fun, sure. If they are doing it due to feelings of helplessness/depression, I think they should seek help.

Why? I see such action as totally and utterly contrary to reason.

Quote:
Yup. If their life is not their own to take, then they are a slave.

Why is that a reason? We are all slaves to many things, regardless of suicide. I see no reason to place some notion of personal autonomy above the good of a person. We stop our little children from running off cliffs because it's not good for them. The same is true of some man trying to jump off a bridge. He is acting contrary to reason and doesn't know what's good for him. True freedom only exists when we can will our own good, not when we can will our own destruction.

Quote:
I would say that such actions are a waste of energy, but hey, if the person with ownership of a corpse really wants to let them...

Apart from the disgusting factor, it is again clearly contrary to what sex is for. It twists the goal of sexual activity.

Quote:
There's more than just you and the boss' wife involved in that. She's likely made a promise to her husband which she would be breaking. If, on the other hand, her and her husband have a different agreement, then sure, go right ahead.

Why ought that promise to be kept? Then she is his "slave" and that cannot be tolerated for one minute.

Quote:
No. And you understand that a child is not likely to know enough to consent, which is why you put quotation marks around it.

I do. But I see no reason why you ought to hold that position.
"I would say that such actions are a waste of energy, but hey..."

Quote:
Wrong, this is a false dichotomy.

And why is that?

Quote:
A waterfall is "nothing more" than a bunch of water going over some rocks, but it can still have beauty. A painting is "just" a bunch of paint on a canvas.

We attach value to things that matter to us.


But the beauty of the waterfall and the meaning of the painting is much more than merely the sum of its parts. I still however do not see how you can maintain this, as the entire goal of your arguments here are that human beings are no more than the sums of their parts. I am arguing that they are quite more than that, with subsistent minds. I think if you accept this position, there is no reason to accept the other. How can we assign meaning? What does meaning mean in a world where there can be no meaning? If the mind is merely the brain with chemical processes that are what we call choice, no meaning can exist there. It is like saying that a rock can appreciate Mozart. It just doesn't make sense. And I think you know it doesn't.

Quote:
That person does not speak for all atheists. Your stance seems to be nothing more than incredulity.

Again, I see no reason why that position ought not to be true for all atheists. A human being is merely an advanced ape with delusions of grandeur, in your opinon. And, anyway, isn't this what you atheists like to pin on us, saying it is the True Scotsman fallacy?

Quote:
Because adult humans can communicate their consent plainly to each other. That's why I would draw the line.

Why there? Why not at who can best the other in a game of ping-pong? It seems there is no reason you solve the problem at this level. Why is consent so important if it has no intrinsic value? It is merely a delusion, in your view.

Quote:
Necrophilia is "wrong" because people with a fondness for such things are probably more prone to infections and illness and have also wasted their time on dead people so they've been much less likely to pass on their genes.

I think you're basically correct. The act of necrophilia destroys the purpose of sex, acting contrary to reason on a number of levels. Likewise, it is endangering your life. But it also is a disrespect to a person's remains and begets a larger question of right reason in terms of why that person is having sexual relations with a corpse in the first place.

Quote:
A cat is still capable of suffering.

And again with the false dichotomy.


What is suffering, if not merely the movement of electricity between synapses in the brain? Why ought we to place any value in that at all? Who cares? Why can't I be the arbiter of what is good for me to do? I am now the cat's slave!

Quote:
If you let them, sure. What does that have to do with consent?

If the machine replicated the brainwaves of what we called "consent" does it really give consent? At what point do you draw the line? If all consent is is merely the chemical reactions, if I perform these chemical reactions in a laboratory test tube, does it count as consent and I can have sex with the test tube? Why place so much meaning in something that has none, in your view?

Quote:
Interesting proposition. I wonder if the person would have memories of consent or not.

Well, since this is hypothetical, I say we cross that bridge when we get to it.


I think you really ought to answer. What is "consent?" It cannot be an act of the will, because such doesn't exist in atheism. It must be a purely materialist account. If that is the case, if I place an eyedrop in someone's eye that reads "consent" on a brainwave meter, why not go ahead and rape them? It all strikes me as incredibly simple-minded.

Quote:
That which is conducive to the survival of the species.

If someone spends their time screwing with children and the others of the group don't stop him, you are going to end up with a lot of disturbed children and a dysfunctional social group.

If someone spends their time screwing goats instead of humans, they aren't going to be having many kids. If the others in the group don't shun this behavior and it gets learned by others, the group will have trouble surviving because so many of their members will be too busy screwing goats.

It's called natural selection.


Why ought natural selection to be a normative criteria of anything? Then why is beastiality and homosexuality not morally wrong if the standard is reproduction? And, again, consent or free choice cannot exist in this model. It is purely the force of nature. Nobody ought to be punished in human society, because everyone acts merely according to the chemical actions and reactions, physical movements, which determine their outcome. All these categories and values we place on things are merely illusory. Science is right out, as all knowledge is merely our little ape brains fiddling with things and assigning meaning to it when no such thing exists. It would lead to utter and total insanity.

Quote:
Well, it seems to be quite conducive to the survival of the species.

I agree. But why is that normative at all? Why assign meaning at all if none exists?

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Are you looking for an excuse or justification for fucking animals? God made the animals "helpmeets" for Adam so God didn't have a problem with Adam fucking animals.  Adam didn't like cow pussy so god created a woman with a better smelling twat and referred to her as a helpmeet.  So the question is why did your god have no problem with Adam fucking animals, and why do you obsess about animal sex?


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Just to


StMichael wrote:
Just to counter, I would argue that clear evidence from metaphysics indicates that God exists and is demonstrable.

And this clear and demonstrable evidence is....? 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote: StMichael

AL wrote:

StMichael wrote:
Just to counter, I would argue that clear evidence from metaphysics indicates that God exists and is demonstrable.

And this clear and demonstrable evidence is....?

Get ready for the unmoved mover argument, AL.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Now, I'm not trying to be

Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

This is the most idiotic question I have ever seen.

If you really want me to answer this from an evolutionary standpoint, here goes.

Bestiality goes against natural laws. Speciation in evolution occurs when the gametes have differed so much from the prototype to the new organism a couple thousand generations down the line that the gametes no longer fuse. For animal sexual reproduction to continue the species, an organism has to be attracted to their mate who is of the same species but opposite sex. Organisms which are of different species are conditioned to be physically unattractive to one another. This is why you do not see a dog attempting to copulate with a cat. Therefore, we are naturally conditioned to be unattracted to animals, and bestiality goes against these fundamental precipts of morality which were given to us by evolution.

 

Of course, from the standpoint, one could argue that homosexuality is wrong, but this is not the case. Homosexuality must have some hitherto not understood purpose because the number of homosexuals in a sample remains at a constant 8%, we do not quite know why this is yet.  

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
mythrys wrote: Now, I'm not

mythrys wrote:
Now, I'm not trying to be unkind, because I love you all, but you atheists must believe bestiality is ok because humans are animals according to you. Horses + burros = donkey, so what about human + monkey?

Well, this is just the kind of question I'd expect from somebody who doesn't think very much beyond appearances.

Forgive me for skipping all comments above, but I really don't feel like reading two pages for an absurd question.

Every animal with a certain genetic structure can only mate with an animal with almost the same genetic structure, otherwise two possibilities might arise: 1) nothing else happens or 2) something very weird happens (in extremely rare cases), but that "something" is sterile (the case you described)

Animals, therefore, have this attraction towards other animals of similar gfenetic structure, that is animals of the same species. You won't see a lion trying to shag a hipo, that's for sure.

And just like other animals, humans (should) have an attraction to the same genetic structure. And since the human genetic structure is only common to humans, then no, I'd say bestiality isn't OK. Not even with a chimp.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, if you have some

Well, if you have some abhorrence of the unmoved mover argument, here is a different one:
In the world, we find things that come to be and go out of being - the dog was not the cause of its own existence, but was born from parent dogs, and so forth. These are possible beings. You and I are possible beings, as we are born and will die. These possible or dependent beings depend on another being for their existence. But this cannot proceed infinitely, as the entire series would be dependent and lack existence. So, one being must have existence necessarily by reason of its own essence. This being we call God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, if you have

Quote:
Well, if you have some abhorrence of the unmoved mover argument, here is a different one:
In the world, we find things that come to be and go out of being - the dog was not the cause of its own existence, but was born from parent dogs, and so forth. These are possible beings. You and I are possible beings, as we are born and will die. These possible or dependent beings depend on another being for their existence. But this cannot proceed infinitely, as the entire series would be dependent and lack existence. So, one being must have existence necessarily by reason of its own essence. This being we call God.

So in other words, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 And on that note, then how could God exist?  If you claim that God is one and needed no orgin, then couldn't you say that about the universe as well?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Well, if

StMichael wrote:
Well, if you have some abhorrence of the unmoved mover argument, here is a different one: In the world, we find things that come to be and go out of being - the dog was not the cause of its own existence, but was born from parent dogs, and so forth. These are possible beings. You and I are possible beings, as we are born and will die. These possible or dependent beings depend on another being for their existence. But this cannot proceed infinitely, as the entire series would be dependent and lack existence. So, one being must have existence necessarily by reason of its own essence. This being we call God. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

It's funny how you claim the "uncaused cause" argument is some sort of replacement for the "unmoved mover" argument.

It's still a special plead and an argument from ignorance. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Ah, but

StMichael wrote:
Ah, but where does a moral notion arise from?
BTW, I am NOT arguing that moral obligation directly from God so don't, like Brian, assume devils with pitchforks are the moral imperative in this situation.

Well I think it really depends on your perspective. From a utilitarian perspective the capacity to suffer is really the only reasonable measure. If something can suffer then there is something to take into consideration, if it can't suffer then there's nothing to take into consideration.

Whether you consider the suffering of animals to be important or as important as the suffering of humans I think is another question. Personally I think you should if you want to be consistent. But at the least you shouldn't puposefully mistreat them.

Quote:
So personal action is just fine?

Morality has to do with how your actions effect other people. If it's just you then there's no moral connotation except in the way that it might hurt people who care about you. And even then it's your life not theirs.

Quote:
So, why again can't someone have sex with animals if there is not a reason to consider an animal able to either consent or not to consent?

That an animal can't consent doesn't really matter because an animal can still know it's being mistreated and that was the measure I was using for how you treat things that can't give consent.

Quote:
Or, what compromises "personal action?" Can someone cut themself for fun, like a masochist? Or, can someone morally commit suicide?

Someone could cut themselves for fun or kill themselves if they understood the consequences of doing those things and they were sane. They are in the best position to know how important it is to them. I think you would have an obligation to inform them of the consequences but it would actually be immoral for you to stop them because you would be impeding their happiness.

Quote:
Or, can someone have sex with a dead person?

I think with the dead person thing that you would have to consider how people would feel knowing that their departed loved ones were being molested. While that is gross I wouldn't necessarily consider it a high crime or anything it's pretty much a victimless crime.

Quote:
Why not a moral connotation?

There is actually a moral connotation with homosexuality because there are two people involved. But if they both agree to do it then it is moral because they are both happy with it.

Quote:
Why is consent merely the deciding factor?

Consent is the deciding factor because individuals are in the best position to know what would make them happy.

Quote:
Is it OK to commit adultery with the boss's wife if she consents?

The adultery thing would be immoral because it would be hurting your boss. Beyond that it would be hypocritical because you probably wouldn't want somebody doing that to you.

Quote:
Is it OK to have sex with a child if they "consent?"

In the child molestation case the child wouldn't really be in a reasonable position to give consent and they would probably be very traumatized by it so you couldn't do that.

Quote:
What determines consent in a human being when consent is merely an illusion of evolution? Why ought consent to mean anything at all if it is merely illusory?

Consent is more than an illusion you can observe it and there are even ways to determine if people are being coerced or if they are not fit to give consent.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: It's funny

jcgadfly wrote:

It's funny how you claim the "uncaused cause" argument is some sort of replacement for the "unmoved mover" argument.

It's still a special plead and an argument from ignorance.

Not only that, but even if the argument worked, which it doesn't, it wouldn't prove the Catholic God.  It would only prove that something was always here.  That something could be anything.  Matter, energy, pasta monster, what have you.  To go from "there is an uncaused cause" to "the Christian faith is true and the uncaused cause is the father of a crucified Jewish carpenter who died for our sins" is one hell of a non-parsimonious leap. 

But I'm guessing it's the inability to draw appropriate, parsimonious conclusions that make theists theists in the first place. 

If atheism is a religion, why am I paying taxes?


Family_Guy
Family_Guy's picture
Posts: 110
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Let me get this straight -

Let me get this straight - living, breathing, talking human beings cannot give consent because they have the 'illusion of evolution', but nonexistant, invisible sky daddies with no mouth to speak, no ears to hear, or eyes to see can communicate with you?

 I suggest counseling, St. Michael.  It's quickly becoming obvious that you have lost track of reality in order to make appeals to your nonexistant God that you wish is there.

If I'm in a desert, and I think I see a lake across the way, you have every right to say "I'm not sure if that's a lake - it could be a mirage."  In fact, if you happened to travel through there often, you may KNOW that I'm seeing a mirage.  However, if we come across a lake and are taking a swim and all of a sudden you say "I think this lake is a hallucination", I am going to think you are insane - as you have no reason to doubt the lake that you are in other than as an attempt to claim that sensory evidence isn't evidence.

 You're in a lake, Michael - it's wet.  Now stop trying to claim otherwise.

"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."

-BHG


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Well, if

StMichael wrote:
Well, if you have some abhorrence of the unmoved mover argument, here is a different one: In the world, we find things that come to be and go out of being - the dog was not the cause of its own existence, but was born from parent dogs, and so forth. These are possible beings. You and I are possible beings, as we are born and will die. These possible or dependent beings depend on another being for their existence. But this cannot proceed infinitely, as the entire series would be dependent and lack existence. So, one being must have existence necessarily by reason of its own essence. This being we call God. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

Life on this planet began a few billion years ago, it was indefinite.  That life originated from proteins.  So where did this god originate from?  I don't see any fossil record from this god although you insist that this god is dead and once lived.  So once you produce something to support your position then we can continue with this irrelevant point. 


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It's funny how you

Quote:
It's funny how you claim the "uncaused cause" argument is some sort of replacement for the "unmoved mover" argument.

It's still a special plead and an argument from ignorance.


It is neither because you don't understand it. I am further not claiming a first cause in my argument, but a necessary being. They are different. I am also not claiming that all beings are possible. That would be just silly because the argument is directly the opposite of that, saying that all beings cannot be possible, but that one necessary being must exist for possible beings to exist. I don't see likewise how it is an argument from ignorance. It is not claiming that we cannot know the source of existence, so it must be God. It is claiming that, for any possible being to exist, there must be one necessary being which causes all other possible beings to exist. This is what we call God, the Necessary Being.

Quote:

Well I think it really depends on your perspective. From a utilitarian perspective the capacity to suffer is really the only reasonable measure. If something can suffer then there is something to take into consideration, if it can't suffer then there's nothing to take into consideration.

Whether you consider the suffering of animals to be important or as important as the suffering of humans I think is another question. Personally I think you should if you want to be consistent. But at the least you shouldn't puposefully mistreat them.


I don't see why you ought to. What is pain but the firing of synapses? If no meaning exists, why delude yourself in assigning a meaning to pain? You are being inconsistent, is the problem.

Quote:
Morality has to do with how your actions effect other people. If it's just you then there's no moral connotation except in the way that it might hurt people who care about you. And even then it's your life not theirs.

So, we can not hurt others, except when it is our own lives, in which case we can hurt others? Wonderful. It's all clear to me now.
Further, morality is beyond just what affects me. Morality has to do with how a human being ought to act, not just to avoid hurting others. What is a good person? What is a complete human being? This is what morality tells us. Justice and injustice is merely the relation we have to other people.

Quote:

That an animal can't consent doesn't really matter because an animal can still know it's being mistreated and that was the measure I was using for how you treat things that can't give consent.

An animal cannot know anything, any more than a human being can give consent. A human being's notion of "consent" isn't meaningful at all, nor is its notion of pain, in your view. Why give value to pain if value cannot exist? It is just arbitrary. Be consistent.

Quote:
Someone could cut themselves for fun or kill themselves if they understood the consequences of doing those things and they were sane. They are in the best position to know how important it is to them. I think you would have an obligation to inform them of the consequences but it would actually be immoral for you to stop them because you would be impeding their happiness.

So why do I have an obligation to inform them? According to you, it's your life and that's that. No obligation ought to exist. If so, from where? Why, likewise, do you have an obligation not to stop them? Where does such an obligation come from? Happiness is nonsense, just as pain is, to a materialist. It is just the firing of neurons in a different spot of the brain. Who cares about that? Why care?
I would argue that we do have a moral obligation to stop them because it is contrary to their good, regardless of their personal perception of how it might help them. It is contrary to their happiness.

Quote:
I think with the dead person thing that you would have to consider how people would feel knowing that their departed loved ones were being molested. While that is gross I wouldn't necessarily consider it a high crime or anything it's pretty much a victimless crime.

Who cares why someone would object to it? If no value has any objective basis, who cares what the family thinks? It is just a pile of randomly assorted molecules on the trash heap. It can't even "feel pain."

Quote:
There is actually a moral connotation with homosexuality because there are two people involved. But if they both agree to do it then it is moral because they are both happy with it.

Why assign meaning to homosexuality and not beastiality? There are two things involved in a beastial union. Homosexuality is contrary to nature in a different way than beastiality, but it is contrary nevertheless. From an obvious standpoint, the parts weren't meant to be used in that way.

Quote:
Consent is the deciding factor because individuals are in the best position to know what would make them happy.

Who cares about "happiness?" It is just some chemical reaction. Why assign meaning where there is none? It is arbitrary and useless, in your view.
I could consent with someone to rob a bank, but it would not be moral. I could consent with every other person on the planet that eating lots of candy will not give me tooth decay but I will still get tooth decay.

Quote:
The adultery thing would be immoral because it would be hurting your boss. Beyond that it would be hypocritical because you probably wouldn't want somebody doing that to you.

Who cares? Can't I do anything I want to make myself feel pleasure? Why do I have to assign something to another? There is no ground to place that obligation on.

Quote:
In the child molestation case the child wouldn't really be in a reasonable position to give consent and they would probably be very traumatized by it so you couldn't do that.

Why not? Again, who cares about consent? It is just an illusion without meaning. A couple more firings and a slightly different CAT scan. Who cares at all? You can't interfere with someone else's pursuit of happiness and pleasure. Get out of their life.

Quote:
Consent is more than an illusion you can observe it and there are even ways to determine if people are being coerced or if they are not fit to give consent.

And who cares if some ape-like creatures have a delusion of grandeur. They just evolved out of the slime and all these feelings we have of "consent" are merely our selfish genes coming to the fore and having a go with our pectoral glands. No ground for meaningfulness of consent at all. No morality possible.

Quote:

Not only that, but even if the argument worked, which it doesn't, it wouldn't prove the Catholic God.

No, it wouldn't necessarily draw any inference between the Catholic God and the Necessary Being, because you would need Revelation to know about the Catholic God in the first place. But you would know about a singular, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving Being who orders all things and most deserves the name God. Likewise, the Catholics define their God as being the Prime Cause. You wouldn't need to accept their revelation, as they claim their God to be identical with this being.

Quote:
It would only prove that something was always here. That something could be anything. Matter, energy, pasta monster, what have you.

No, it can't be matter or energy. It is a necessary cause of its own existence, eternally actual and without potential. Its essence, "what it is," is precisely "to exist." It is not matter nor energy. It is entirely immaterial and without composition. If it had matter, it would be in potency toward something else. Likewise, if it had matter, it could not sustain material things in existence.

Quote:

Let me get this straight - living, breathing, talking human beings cannot give consent because they have the 'illusion of evolution', but nonexistant, invisible sky daddies with no mouth to speak, no ears to hear, or eyes to see can communicate with you?

I am merely explicating an atheist critique of morality. It is not my personal opinion that people cannot give consent; it is something an atheist must believe to be consistent.
Further, if you had read anything I wrote, you would realize that I do believe that God can be known through creation.

Quote:

Life on this planet began a few billion years ago, it was indefinite. That life originated from proteins. So where did this god originate from? I don't see any fossil record from this god although you insist that this god is dead and once lived. So once you produce something to support your position then we can continue with this irrelevant point.

It has nothing to do with life. It has to do with all existing things. We see things around us that came into existence, like life. They are thus possible beings. They require a being to bring them into existence. But if all beings were possible, none would exist. Hence, a single necessary being must be posited to explain the existence of things - this self-existing being is what we call God.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It has

StMichael wrote:
It has nothing to do with life. It has to do with all existing things. We see things around us that came into existence, like life. They are thus possible beings. They require a being to bring them into existence. But if all beings were possible, none would exist. Hence, a single necessary being must be posited to explain the existence of things - this self-existing being is what we call God. Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom, StMichael

You say that something "must" have created everything and this thing "must" be your god.  I suppose you say that because it means you can avoid actually providing a reason why it "must" be the case.  Is this the extent of your position, repeating the same thing over and over again?  The very fact that you posit that some complex, intelligent being that's interested in human penises must exist in order to create everything is just plain absurd since the existence of that being would disprove your point.  You can argue your point by stating a contradiction.  I'm sure this has already been pointed out to you but some cognitive dissonance blockage is preventing you from understanding a simple logical construct.

I'll continue to accept the current scientific position that matter and energy are neither created or destroyed and life came from proteins.  There's a lot more supporting my position than yours which is simply some physical gods that resides in clouds that created everything in six days then took a nap because they were really tired.  Oh yeah, then there was a talking snake and a piece of magical fruit in there somewhere.  You do know that these are children's stories right?


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I think that St. Michael's

I think that St. Michael's argument is that if there is no "essence" (soul?) to someone or something which is being violated, how can you argue that that violation is wrong?