O'Reilly -Tides prove God!

[5-0 Kenpo]

Ok, believe it or not I agree with you about the law and morality, the two are separate on most levels.
That is not my point.

I had no other way to address it. You said that criminals rationalize their behavior in order to justify it, but that the breaking of the law was morally wrong. I simply posted examples of where violating the law was actually more moral the following it.

My point is that the law is loosely based around morality AND many other factors. However a COURT of law depends on evidence and not loose ideas that people have, which I will get to in a second.

Some law is based around morality. It depends on where you are, and what era you are in. Tell me how the massive legislation regarding slavery, segragation, lynching, etc. were "loosely based around morality."

And have you ever been on a jury, or testified in a case? I have done both. In terms of evidence in a court, it is up to the jury to decide the credibility of the witness giving testimony, which is a completely subjective viewpoint.

Not only that, but we have in court something called "expert opinion". It is someone's opinion, which may or may not be related to actual objective fact, but merely facts as they know them. Once again, it's subjective. Arguably the best system, but still mostly subjective.

BTW the argument you make about morality being subjective is crazy,lol.

This statement shows the fundamental lack of understanding of what I am saying. I never once intimated that morality was subjective. What I said was that basing morality on logic and reason can allow morality to be based on a subjective plane.

Ok, it's very true that what people regard as moral is subjective and culturally dependant but that doesn't make morality on a level that we can develop truly subjective.

Yes it does, because you cannot separate people from their culture. Even reasoning is based on a subjective cultural perspective.

Look at it this way. Logical and reason-based moral decisions have to have "inputs", kind of like a computer. Information is imputed into the moral dilema to make a decision. Those inputs include information based on the cultural mores and subjective experiences of the individual. There is no way around it. And if the inputed information is "bad", "bad" decisions will result.

Morality does not subject itself to strict a logical or reasoning basis. For instance, let's ask the question of whether it is moral to spank your child. Some would say no, some would say yes based on personal experience. Even if you tried a "scientific" study, you could show that there are people who get spanked who turn out to be fully functioning individuals, and people who are not spanked can be the same. The opposite can also be true, that those same individuals can turn out rotten. So what is the proper "moral" position in this matter?

Here is an example of logic and reasoning when it comes to murder. You have something that I want, but will not part with it. Murder is a reasoned (differentiated from reasonable, a cultural understanding) way to attain what I want that you have, especially if I consider that the odds of being caught violating the law are slim. It is a matter of deduction.

We are at war, and I have a nuclear weapon. Is it logical and reasonable to drop it on you in order to save the lives of my own countrymen? What about catapulting plague suffering rats into your midst during a seige? The use of painful chemical weapons?

It's completely idiotic, (and many would argue a liberal viewpoint) that the law is subjective. Which I'm not sure if you are arguing, (I understand that you are arguing that morality is subjective.

Again, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I never said that morality is subjective. How can the guy who is arguing that there is a god who gives us rules to follow saying that morality is subjective?

And I think it is idiotic to say that the law is not subjective. Look at all the issues regarding law that are discussed here. Look at the arguments in politics and in the courts over the meaning of the Constitution. I know what I think it means, and what I believe the Founders meant it to mean, but can I ever be 100% sure, absolutely not, ie., subjective, but based on some evidence.

So if my culture thinks it's right to kill infidels then you believe that morally I'm right?
That's ridiculous.

I never made such an argument.

It's immoral and just becauee some cultures have rididulous views of morality then that doesn't make them right (ours included.)

So you are saying that there is some objective moral standard. Ok. Where does it come from? How is it deduced? If we are all limited in our understanding, how do we determine that which is moral and that which is not?

Even if we don't have all of the information, and act as we see best, isn't that in itself a subjective moral decision?

So since the (actual) God of the universe, BTW does this refer to only our universe or others as well, do they have other gods? Where is your proof, Oh I forgot, you for some reason don't need any, because accordng to billcihak's argument, god is above and beyond nature.

I was never arguing that nature of god, so whether you consider a single universe or multiple universes is irrelevant for the purpose of my argument.

And I don't need proof as this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. You are arguing that reason and logic provide a better barometer with which to judge moral behavior. I have suggested that reason and logic for moral behavior can be just as easily subjective as religion, as evidenced by that fact that many logical and reasoned positions can be, and have been, made for atrocities. You have done nothing to refute that.

You call it rationalization, but, based on the DSM definition of rationalization, it denotes that there must be some type of emotional conflict within an individual. Using reason, one can destroy the emotional conflict. But it depends on the subjective inputs one uses to solve the dilema.

So my simple question is, if we have no way of relating to God, because he is completely above nature, then how are we ever to understand that he's ordering us to do anything?
How would he order us and how are we supposed to know, BTW most people who are hallucinating be it because of madness or drugs aren't able to tell the difference between their hallucination and reality.

You are making assumptions about which neither you nor I can prove. Who said that we have no way of relating to God, or more importantly, God relating to us?

And I can't answer your question, only to say that it is a matter of faith. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

So how would they know, according to your thinking, they are right to think anything and do anything sfter all according to your above sentence they are right because they believe the are doing gods will, just like terrorists, right???

I never said they were morally right. I can only judge based on my subjective beliefs in an objective morality.

More importantly, you tell me, objectively, why they are morally wrong.

Wrong, in reality we can base our morality on logic, does this mean we'll have all the answers, probably not, but we're way better off than subjective cultural norms.

No we don't. Most people base their morallity on what is convienent for them at the time. Most people don't like theft, and think it's morally repugnant. But how many of them have stolen from their jobs, minor though it may be. And that includes misappropriation of material, ie., using the copy machine for personal rather then professional use.

Or, objectively, is that ok, too?

As to whether we are better off, it kinda depends on whether you are one who has been subject to the mistreatment of logical morality.

When based on logic and well being, we get alot further in terms of progress and sanity than anything else seems to be able to bring us

Alot further in terms of what? If reason and logic can lead us down a bad road, and we will make allowances for that, then why so not religion.

Of course, you are throwing something else into the mix, "wel being". What does that have to do with logic and reason? Why should I, logically speaking, care about your well-being if it causes a detriment to me? Well-being in what way.

Is it morally better to give you a fish and feed you for a day, or teach you to fish so that you can feed yourself for a lifetime without my help.

It would be for my well-being if everyone in the country gave me $1, then I would have $350 Million. I call you all immoral for not doing so.

The point is, you throw a subjective measure into something while making an argument over reason and logic and call it a better morality. Come on now.

Religion has been used quite often to bring people together in harmonious ways. But we will ignore all the good it has done because we don't agree with it, and only emphasize the negative?

 

[Sukerkin]

I think perhaps that this is getting needlessly complex in terms of argumentation.

'Morality' is the set of social rules that come about as a consequence of the need to live together in groups in relative harmony.

They are not laid down by God (or any other fantastical being) nor are they entirely logical from an individual perspective, as they sometimes require you to do what is not best for yourself.

What morality is, is necessary if you are to have a society. If you don't develop a coherent morality, then you don't have a coherent society and it fails.

It is the societal equivalent of evolution - the systems that don't work die out. What is left is what works. It might not work perfectly and it might not be in total balance but the society survives - and that is good enough.

These rules didn't just pop out of nowhere (nor did they get delivered on stone tablets writ by the hand of the divine). They are the consequence, like all life, of pain, suffering and death from which was wrung a rough set of tenets that allow most of us to go about our daily business confident that a particular morality holds sway.

Addendum: As a historical note, religion was adopted by the ruling classes of many societies as the most effective way to enforce these rules as, whilst people might revolt against a King, it is hard to kill an etherial being who, you are told, has the power to torture you eternally if you don't do as you are told.

 

[granfire]

Addendum: As a historical note, religion was adopted by the ruling classes of many societies as the most effective way to enforce these rules as, whilst people might revolt against a King, it is hard to kill an etherial being who, you are told, has the power to torture you eternally if you don't do as you are told.

:nod:

 

[SensibleManiac]

Morality does not subject itself to strict a logical or reasoning basis. For instance, let's ask the question of whether it is moral to spank your child. Some would say no, some would say yes based on personal experience. Even if you tried a "scientific" study, you could show that there are people who get spanked who turn out to be fully functioning individuals, and people who are not spanked can be the same. The opposite can also be true, that those same individuals can turn out rotten. So what is the proper "moral" position in this matter?

Here is an example of logic and reasoning when it comes to murder. You have something that I want, but will not part with it. Murder is a reasoned (differentiated from reasonable, a cultural understanding) way to attain what I want that you have, especially if I consider that the odds of being caught violating the law are slim. It is a matter of deduction.

I myself was spanked and worse and yet I became a better person "despite" that.

It has been proven that spanking a child generally has a negative effect on that child.
They will have to work to get past that. The truth is that it doesn't teach the child anything other than might makes right.
This doesn't mean we should let our children do whatever they please and not punish them, sometimes we need to, but that teaching our children why they are doing something wrong is the right thing to do and will actually teach them something. Which isn't always easy.

The second example is a matter of deduction, the problem is a very limited scope is involved in the reasoning and so the person is reaching that conclusion based on very limited understanding of getting what they want. The more difficult task is making available the critical thinking skills necessary to get beyond limited reasoning which led the person to the conclusion that murder will get them what they want.

I'm not saying that religion is all wrong, their are some very positive aspects to it, the problem I'm pointing out is that there are far more negative points that make so tht it is time to move beyond it. Or at the very least to point out the majority of what's wrong so that we can put an end to the negative aspects and move beyond them.
Again it's not my place to tell you what to believe, but it is my place to point out what I see as wrong.

Religion does bring people together to share in a positive experience, unfortunately it is limited to a tribal experience and not truly a global one for many (although not all) involved in a given religion.

I think we can all contribute to making the world better place.
And the promotion of logic and compassion is the surest way of implemeting that.
I base this on fact, nothing else.

 

[Cirdan]

Addendum: As a historical note, religion was adopted by the ruling classes of many societies as the most effective way to enforce these rules as, whilst people might revolt against a King, it is hard to kill an etherial being who, you are told, has the power to torture you eternally if you don't do as you are told.

mmmh. Population control by pushing mental opium on the masses from birth. Very very effective tho. Somewhat replaced by political correctness and mass media today.

 

[Mark Jordan]

Horrible editing but I give O'reilly 10/10 for believing in God.

 

[elder999]

Horrible editing but I give O'reilly 10/10 for believing in God.

To be frank, I have no problem with anyone believing in "God," but I have to take issue with O'reilly insisting that "the tide goes out, the tide comes in, you can't explain it," because, well, I can.

Of course, he was educated by Jesuits-not that there's generally anything wrong with that, but it explains his "debating" style.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I myself was spanked and worse and yet I became a better person "despite" that.

It has been proven that spanking a child generally has a negative effect on that child.
They will have to work to get past that. The truth is that it doesn't teach the child anything other than might makes right.
This doesn't mean we should let our children do whatever they please and not punish them, sometimes we need to, but that teaching our children why they are doing something wrong is the right thing to do and will actually teach them something. Which isn't always easy.

Proven by whom. I did a quick google search for studies relating to spankings. They were evenly split between positive and negative effects of spaking. What you are doing is being selective of the reasearch that you use to prove your point, or using your personal experiences as proof. Besides, you admit to being given "worse" punishment then spanking.

The second example is a matter of deduction, the problem is a very limited scope is involved in the reasoning and so the person is reaching that conclusion based on very limited understanding of getting what they want. The more difficult task is making available the critical thinking skills necessary to get beyond limited reasoning which led the person to the conclusion that murder will get them what they want.

Deduction is a logical and reasoned approach to solvings one's problems. Hence, it goes to show that it can be, and has been, used to have negative consequenses. You argue that critical thinking skills are required. You are subjecting a personal judgement onto the issue because you don't agree with murder, not that a person can use critical thinking skills and still come to the same conclusion, that the best way to accomplish the task is by murder.

It's not a matter of limited reasoning, it's a matter of limited or imperfect knowledge. As humans, we can never have perfect knowledge, so as a matter of course, our "reasoning", as you call it, will always be imperfect. Once again, if a person weighs all the factors known to them, murder, genocide, theft, etc., are all perfectly logical and reasoned approaches to solving particular problems.

I'm not saying that religion is all wrong, their are some very positive aspects to it, the problem I'm pointing out is that there are far more negative points that make so tht it is time to move beyond it. Or at the very least to point out the majority of what's wrong so that we can put an end to the negative aspects and move beyond them.

That is your personal, subjective experience. There is no way that you can prove any such thing.

Again it's not my place to tell you what to believe, but it is my place to point out what I see as wrong.

A subjective, and not necessarily logical viewpoint.

Religion does bring people together to share in a positive experience, unfortunately it is limited to a tribal experience and not truly a global one for many (although not all) involved in a given religion.

Everything is tribal. Nationalism, socialism, communism, capitalism, religion. Why do you subject religion to a special category for your derision?

I think we can all contribute to making the world better place.
And the promotion of logic and compassion is the surest way of implemeting that.
I base this on fact, nothing else.

See, you keep throwing compassion into this. What is compassionate is subjective, and can even be based on a tribal perspective.

You are not basing this on fact, as you have shown no facts, just stated opinions. Once again, I have given you a multitude of issues where in logic has shortcomings to live up to your perception of what is moral. Murder, spanking, etc. Then you throw compassion into the mix. Well, compassion can be illogical.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

By the way, you have yet to elucidate from whence this "objective measure of morality" comes from?

 

[SensibleManiac]

Proven by whom. I did a quick google search for studies relating to spankings. They were evenly split between positive and negative effects of spaking. What you are doing is being selective of the reasearch that you use to prove your point, or using your personal experiences as proof. Besides, you admit to being given "worse" punishment then spanking.

Yes everyone here knows that there is worse punishment than spanking, as for evenly split?
There are positive effects to spanking, (ex; the child behaves) and negative effects (ex; the child develops self esteem issues and becomes a bully.) No one is arguing that all these effects happen to every child but that doesn't take away from the FACT that spanking is generally bad for children because it has negative consequences and does nothing to truly develop a child.

You are merely deviating from the discussion by using poor reasoning skills.

Deduction is a logical and reasoned approach to solvings one's problems.

What does this even mean?
In the context you are using it? The murderer is not using logic and critical thinking only trying to justify himself this is not the same.

As for perfect knowledge???

As for you other argument against my "subjective view of religion" the molestation of children is subjective?
I won't even argue against that nonsense.
Do I actually have to prove to you that is wrong???

Everything is tribal. Nationalism, socialism, communism, capitalism, religion. Why do you subject religion to a special category for your derision?

Those are 5 things, hardly everything...

By the way, you have yet to elucidate from whence this "objective measure of morality" comes from?

It comes from critical thinking and logic. And not something imagined as real. I never said a fairy told me or an ogre under a bridge told me or some perceived authority, I reached this conclusion through the reasoning and examining of the facts.
If you don't think that examining the facts will get you anywhere, then that's completely up to you but don't be surprised if others tell you you're spouting nonsense.

BTW I never said that logic and compassion are the same things. Here you are only trying to put words in my mouth and confuse things, is this your idea of an argument?

Your arguments are boiling down to nonsense and taking everything out of context. I too can take everything out of context and then this whole discussion would become nonsense.

Think about it, so far you've said, God told you through never actually telling you that something is moral and something isn't because you might have read it in a book or did a google search... right?

See what I mean?

Nonsense, this is what your posts are sounding like.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Yes everyone here knows that there is worse punishment than spanking, as for evenly split?

I can only tell you what the results of the google search that I did shows. I am not a psychologist who studies the effects of spanking.

There are positive effects to spanking, (ex; the child behaves) and negative effects (ex; the child develops self esteem issues and becomes a bully.) No one is arguing that all these effects happen to every child but that doesn't take away from the FACT that spanking is generally bad for children because it has negative consequences and does nothing to truly develop a child.

Where do you get this "fact" from. You show me your study and I'll show you mine. The fact of the matter is that you will get studies that show both. You only agree with the fact that it is generally bad because it suits your world view, but you have yet to cite one study or source proving it to be so.

Where are you facts other then you saying they are facts. And you want to talk about having a logical discussion???

You are merely deviating from the discussion by using poor reasoning skills.

No, just not going to simply agree with what you have to say, especially considering that you have shown no evidence to support your assertions.

What does this even mean?

If you don't know what deduction is, then to further continue a discussion regarding logic is useless.

In the context you are using it? The murderer is not using logic and critical thinking only trying to justify himself this is not the same.

So there is no logical, deductive reasoning which can be used to, yes, justify murder? BTW, justification is not a bad word. We use evidence to justify all types of things, even why murder is wrong, or why we should change pollution policy due to global warming, etc.

As for perfect knowledge???

Yeah, what about it?

As for you other argument against my "subjective view of religion" the molestation of children is subjective?
I won't even argue against that nonsense.

What does that have to do with what I said? You made the statement that religion has more negative then positive conotations. What does child molestation have to do with that? I was saying that your statement is a personal and subjective viewpoint. Prove to me that what you said is true.

BTW, I know of no religion that condones child molestation, even though it has occurred, even by the clergy of a church.

Do I actually have to prove to you that is wrong???

Yes. Prove to me in a logical way that child molestation is wrong. Use pure logic now, and not emotional or cultural based arguments.

BTW, before you go off on a rant telling me things like "if you don't know, then your crazy", or some other such hyperbole. What I am trying to do is to have you use pure logic and reasoning as to why such activity is immoral for every individual being on earth using that. It is your form of argumentation that I am looking for, not the ultimate moral conclusion.

It comes from critical thinking and logic. And not something imagined as real. I never said a fairy told me or an ogre under a bridge told me or some perceived authority, I reached this conclusion through the reasoning and examining of the facts.

What you refuse to accept is that logic can dictate many things, even those that have what you perceive to be negative repurcussions. That shows a lack of critical thinking on your part.

I have used many examples to prove my point. You have used none, and merely state "facts" not in evidence. You showed not one shred of proof for even your spanking position. You simply call a logical, deductive argument for murder based on a specific example ridiculous without even trying to use a logical argument against it.

Stop using your emotional connection to your position to justify it and start using logic. Hell, I can make a logical reason why murder is immoral, and it's not even the position I'm arguing in this debate.

If you don't think that examining the facts will get you anywhere, then that's completely up to you but don't be surprised if others tell you you're spouting nonsense.

What's funny is that I have been using fact to support my examples, and you have used none. Then you say that I am using nonsense. Pot, meet kettle.

BTW I never said that logic and compassion are the same things. Here you are only trying to put words in my mouth and confuse things, is this your idea of an argument?

And I never said that you did say that either. You are obviously not reading what I said. Your original premise was that logic and reasoning are a better barometer for judging moral behavior that religion is. Logic and reasoning, not compassion. Then, later in your argument, you throw in compassion, which had nothing to do with your original premise. Not only that, but reasonable people can disagree on whether a particular act is compassionate or not. You give him a fish, I will teach the person how to fish, which one is the compassionate position.

If you are going to try to make a coherent argument with someone, it is best you understand what you are trying to say first before spouting off.

Your arguments are boiling down to nonsense and taking everything out of context. I too can take everything out of context and then this whole discussion would become nonsense.

Nope, you are the one changing the context, and then trying to pin my original counter-argument to your new one. When I adjust my argument to your new context, then you tell me that I'm taking things out of context.

Think about it, so far you've said, God told you through never actually telling you that something is moral and something isn't because you might have read it in a book or did a google search... right?

See what I mean?

Not right at all. Once again you have totally misunderstood the logical argument that I am making. And, by the way, I never said that God told me anything.

You're premise is also making the assumption that there is no God, nor does he speak to individuals on a personal level. And you have no facts to back up that assertion, only a lack of evidence to prove that it actually occurs.

Nonsense, this is what your posts are sounding like.

That's because you can't understand a complex logical argument.

I provide evidence, you provide none.

I give context and meaning, you change it constantly.

I have to agree that there is no further point in arguing, as you are too emotionally connected to your position to see what I am trying to say here.

 

[SensibleManiac]

You are only attacking me because you know you are wrong.

Instead of taking what I'm saying out of context, putting words in my mouth and misconstruing what I have said to sound like nonsense, how about you provide some evidence for your poorly reasoned views instead of:

A) Putting words in my mouth and saying things that I never said then asking for proof.

B) Making no sense and having me try to prove you wrong.

If you need some proof:

BTW, justification is not a bad word.

I never said it was. This is just your attempt to take what I have said out of context to discredit me.

No, just not going to simply agree with what you have to say, especially considering that you have shown no evidence to support your assertions.

No one has asked you to simply agree with me, (again putting words in my mouth, I never said you needed to agree with me, just that I wouldn't argue the facts with you.) My evidence is in the facts, you can easily look these up for yourself, are you afraid of what you might find if you do the research?
The beauty of the proof I'm offering is that it isn't dependent on me. You can research the facts, and this way you can't say that I'm making them up to support my argument, which has been your argument that I'm twisting the facts. Why don't you go research the facts, besides learning something, you'll see that I'm not the one making things up.
And no, saying you found (equal?) studies showing both doesn't work, you'll find that the many findings for both the pros and cons of a topic like spanking will lead you to one conclusion when looking at the bigger picture.
Which again has nothhing to do with my world view.

What does that have to do with what I said? You made the statement that religion has more negative then positive conotations. What does child molestation have to do with that? I was saying that your statement is a personal and subjective viewpoint. Prove to me that what you said is true.

BTW, I know of no religion that condones child molestation, even though it has occurred, even by the clergy of a church.

By them having the power to stop it and letting it go on for quite possibly and probably thousands of years, just to protect their image, the catholic church up to it's highest order is responsible for allowing it to continue and go on, while this may not be exactly the same as condoning it, it is enabling it to go on and helps make it possible.
Which is effectively worse than condoning it. It is making it possible.

Child molestation is destructive to the mental, emotional, and even physical well being of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society.
This isn't subjective opinion, it is fact.
That's what makes it wrong.

Do I need to offer proof of that? It exists, but do I actually have to go digging it up?
Will that only serve to help you take this out of context so you can attempt to discredit me because you have no proof for your assertions?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You are only attacking me because you know you are wrong.

Wow.

Instead of taking what I'm saying out of context, putting words in my mouth and misconstruing what I have said to sound like nonsense, how about you provide some evidence for your poorly reasoned views instead of:

A) Putting words in my mouth and saying things that I never said then asking for proof.

B) Making no sense and having me try to prove you wrong.

Oh, so you are going to accuse me of the same thing that you are doing to me. How ironic.

If you need some proof:

I never said it was. This is just your attempt to take what I have said out of context to discredit me.

I never said that you said it was.

No one has asked you to simply agree with me, (again putting words in my mouth, I never said you needed to agree with me, just that I wouldn't argue the facts with you.) My evidence is in the facts, you can easily look these up for yourself, are you afraid of what you might find if you do the research?

I never said that you said that I should agree with you just because you made a statement. I said that I was not going to simply agree with you because you say it. It was a statement of what I was going to do or not do, not a statement about what you wanted me to do.

So much for logical reasoning.

What I find interesting is that you make an assertion in a debate, refuse to provide evidence, and then tell me that I am supposed to find the evidence supporting your assertion.

Well here is my evidence.

“The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,” said Gunnoe. {professor of psychology, Calvin College] “I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”

In his Family Psychologist John Rosemond's book "To Spank or Not to Spank", he does not believe parents should spank their children, and instead says there are more effective ways to discipline a child than to inflict pain. However, spanking a child, if it is done correctly, is not harmful to a child and actually is helpful.

According to Drs. Jennifer Lansford and Ken Dodge, their study suggests that if a culture views spanking as the normal consequence for bad behavior, kids aren’t damaged by its occasional use. To explain this shocker, the scholars suggested that in cultures or communities where spanking is common, parents are less agitated when administering spankings. Spanking almost never—when combined with losing your temper—can be worse than spanking frequently.

So there. You have evidence based on scientific studies which show that spanking does not cause damage. And you have shown....... what evidence.

The beauty of the proof I'm offering is that it isn't dependent on me. You can research the facts, and this way you can't say that I'm making them up to support my argument, which has been your argument that I'm twisting the facts.

I never said that you were twisting the facts. What I said was that you were offering no proof of your statements. You merely stated something as fact, but provided no evidence to support your conclusion. Not only that, but you are now telling me that I should find your proof for you.

Why don't you go research the facts, besides learning something, you'll see that I'm not the one making things up.

I did. I showed it. You're wrong.

And no, saying you found (equal?) studies showing both doesn't work, you'll find that the many findings for both the pros and cons of a topic like spanking will lead you to one conclusion when looking at the bigger picture.
Which again has nothhing to do with my world view.

So, once again, I'm just supposed to believe your "bigger picture", even when researchers who are against corporal punishment for children state that when done properly, no damage occurs.

By them them having the power to stop it and letting it go on for quite possibly and probably thousands of years, just to protect their image, the catholic church up to it's highest order is responsible for allowing it to continue and go on, while this may not be exactly the same as condoning it, it is enabling it to go on and helps make it possible.
Which is effectively worse than condoning it. It is making it possible.

So you take one act, done by one particular church and are going to make broad assumptions about every religion in the world that has ever existed in order to make them have more negative then positive effects. None of which goes to oppose the fact that people who have thought logically and reasonably in context have caused just as many negative effects.

Child molestation is destructive to the mental, emotional, and even physical well being of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society.
This isn't subjective opinion, it is fact.
That's what makes it wrong.

Now bringing it back full circle to the topic of morality the question becomes: why should I, as an individual, care? By what rational or logical basis does this effect me that I should consider such behavior wrong?

Do I need to offer proof of that? It exists, but do I actually have to go digging it up?
Will that only serve to help you take this out of context so you can attempt to discredit me because you have no proof for your assertions?

You should really look at your own attempts to take what others take out of context, rather then simply looking at how others, supposedly, take yours out of context.

To make things simple for you, I actually agree with your position on child molestation, but probably for entirely different reasons. You think that it is wrong based on some "logical" method of thinking. I do so because of emotion, and having personally seen the effects.

The difference is, I can admit it.

 

[Cirdan]

Now bringing it back full circle to the topic of morality the question becomes: why should I, as an individual, care? By what rational or logical basis does this effect me that I should consider such behavior wrong?

Because as an induvidual with the benefits of logic and reason you accept responsibility for your actions. You do not lie to yourself about who and what you are or seek justification in fictional realities. Living a life of extreme selfishness is; a) contuary to dicipline which logic relies on, b) wholy destructive keeping one from understanding the world around you which is also a requirement for logic, and c) another fiction since there are other beings around you and there is no reason they should matter less than you do either.

Being a person of reason and logic does not in any way mean you are completely given over to your desires.

"When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual."

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Because as an induvidual with the benefits of logic and reason you accept responsibility for your actions.

A person can accept responsibilty for their actions without using logic. One can see the pain one has caused and have an emotional sense of responsibility, ie., guilt. One can say that a person, having caused pain, can see the negative results, a logical deduction. But that is to assume that the person made a cognitive connection in the first place.

In this instance, it is difficult for me to use child molestation for an example. As I said, I don't agree that it is a moral act, so therefore find it impossible to defend.

For instance, as a police officer, if I stop a man who matches the description of a man with a gun, I go to stop him, and he begins to reach into his back pocket, I can logically and reasonably infer that he is reaching for a weapon, and if I don't stop him, he will kill me. So I shoot. But in reality, he was pulling out his ID.

Now, I just killed a man who was no real threat to me. I can take responsibility for my actions and justify it, but what is the moral outcome? More importantly, why is that the moral one?

You do not lie to yourself about who and what you are or seek justification in fictional realities.

Fictional realities. Define that for me. I only ask because if I weigh the odds, such as the one above where I believe a person may be attacking me but in reality was not, am I trying to justify a fictional reality?

If I believe that a country was on the verge of attacking me based on information that I have available to me at the time, am I justified logically speaking in defending myself in attacking first to gain the initiative and advantage?

If I believe, based upon information available to me, that a country is manipulating it's currency to cause an unfair balance of trade, couldn't I logically commit an action to counteract that, even though it may cause people in that country to lose jobs and become poor and destitute?

Living a life of extreme selfishness is; a) contuary to dicipline which logic relies on,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. As an individual, it can be my goal to acquire certain things in life. If, in order to accomplish those goals, I have logically deduced that I would need to do something that mainstream morallity would call immoral, then why would I not do it? This is considering that one has weighed the odds and could reasonably survive / accept any social repercussions.

b) wholy destructive keeping one from understanding the world around you which is also a requirement for logic,

Once again, it depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Remember, we are talking about acts being moral or immoral. I can certainly commit an act which is logically deduced and still understand the world around me.

I'll use Jack Bauer as a fictional example. He is a counter-terrorist agent who does things that are considered by many to be immoral. Yet, he does them anyway knowing the full consequences of his behavior, including imprisonment, death, or emotional self-destruction. But, he believes, based upon his knowledge, cultural understanding, and experience, that they are the only reasonable things to do based upon the scenario presented to him. He has deduced that these immoral acts are logically justified.

and c) another fiction since there are other beings around you and there is no reason they should matter less than you do either.

That's one way to frame it. The other way to frame it is there is no reason that they should matter equally or more then me, from an individual perspective. Why should I starve while they are fed? Why should I die while they live? Should I do everything in my power to make sure that we are exactly the same, after all he deserves no less then me?

On a grander scale, why should they have oil and live prosporous, and I should eke out a third world existance. Why should they have perfect soil for growing crops and have an abundance of them (if you consider other factors, such as they are refusing trade, or the trade is grossly one-sided) while my country is living a ground to mouth lifestyle.

Being a person of reason and logic does not in any way mean you are completely given over to your desires.

I agree. However, one can come to logical and reasonable conclusions as to what actions to take that are to the detriment of others. That is my singular point in this whole ridiculous argument. It is perfectly reasonable to come to a logical conclusion that in order to accomplish certain goals, hurting or hindering others may be necessary, not just for one's own selfish goals, but in order to help others.

So when a person says that logic and reason are a better barometer for moral acts then religion, I have to protest. I would actually argue that it depends on the inputed information.

"When law and duty are one, united by religion, you never become fully conscious, fully aware of yourself. You are always a little less than an individual."

A quote from "Dune"?

 

[Cirdan]

So when a person says that logic and reason are a better barometer for moral acts then religion, I have to protest. I would actually argue that it depends on the inputed information.

Moral is just a word for what is acceptable. Logic and reason allows you to understand why you make a choise rather than just follow tradition or norms. Religion should encourage you to think for yourself too, but unfortunately are more often than not concerned with the authorative "because it is so" and "or else". In other words robbing you of your individuality. And without induviduals what you have is an easily manipulated mob that will do anything given the right opportunity or nudge. This is why you have so many atrocities and mass suicides in religious cults, not to mention why religion has been used for population control everywhere in the world down trough the ages.

As for all the "imputed information" scenarios you took the trouble of making up, I believe you can awnser them perfectly well by yourself.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Moral is just a word for what is acceptable. Logic and reason allows you to understand why you make a choise rather than just follow tradition or norms. Religion should encourage you to think for yourself too, but unfortunately are more often than not concerned with the authorative "because it is so" and "or else". In other words robbing you of your individuality. And without induviduals what you have is an easily manipulated mob that will do anything given the right opportunity or nudge. This is why you have so many atrocities and mass suicides in religious cults, not to mention why religion has been used for population control everywhere in the world down trough the ages.

Absolutely. But one can understand why you made a choice even if that choice has profoundly negative consequences for others.

But this also goes to show that there is no objective view of morality.
In my circumstances, I know that my pastors (when I was younger) always encouraged me to question things, even my religious beliefs. In fact, as I had belonged to the Lutheran Church, some of them said that I epitomized the questioning aspect of religion that Martin Luther inspired.

Of course, I am no longer a "Christian", though by logical deduction I have a belief in God.

As for all the "imputed information" scenarios you took the trouble of making up, I believe you can awnser them perfectly well by yourself.

I can. As someone said in another thread (although in a different context): One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I have my own subjective beliefs based on logical deduction of the inputed information.

 

[Cirdan]

Of course, I am no longer a "Christian", though by logical deduction I have a belief in God.

Many do. This of course, raises a whole new range of personal questions.

I just wonder, how do you view the existence of all the other hundreds of gods and supernatural beings in human religion and belief? Feel free to not awnser if it is too personal.

(edit) As for there being no "objective view on morality" the world is of course not black and white.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Many do. This of course, raises a whole new range of personal questions.

I just wonder, how do you view the existence of all the other hundreds of gods and supernatural beings in human religion and belief? Feel free to not awnser if it is too personal.

(edit) As for there being no "objective view on morality" the world is of course not black and white.

My position right now is that I believe in God, however have no explanation for the nature of God, nor whether it has, in fact, decided to communicate with us on a level that we can understand it.

So there could be one or many, or all. I lean towards the idea that if God does indeed communicate with man, he needs to do so in a way that they can understand him. And since we all have different cultural attributes, he must address us in differing manners. Hence, the many religions all express their understanding of God as filtered through their cultural experiences and understanding.

 

[Cirdan]

So there could be one or many, or all. I lean towards the idea that if God does indeed communicate with man, he needs to do so in a way that they can understand him. And since we all have different cultural attributes, he must address us in differing manners. Hence, the many religions all express their understanding of God as filtered through their cultural experiences and understanding.

Good ol` Odin at least knows how to communicate