| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Mr ProgFreak 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
 Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:06 |
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:10 |
 Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My point (that Mike doesn't seem to grasp) is this:
YES a society can create law and order, and people can feel moral in upholding those laws. But when an anarchist comes along, one who does not believe in any eternal consequence or care about his own life, atheism does not deter him- nay, atheism actually provides the man a philosophical consolation (what I said earlier that Mike attributed to me and insinuated I was a sociopath.  ):
"No God = I can do what I want and it's only game over for me if I die. No biggie."
|
You are a sociopath if you think that only God's authority is keeping you from committing those crimes.
Interesting.
The only thing keeping many people from committing crimes is legal
consequences implicated by man. Don't believe me? Explain riots. Are
such people all sociopaths?
Epignosis wrote:
Funny thing is, all of this is sort of a Red Herring as well. God's purpose (in the Bible) is not to make a moral world (as we consider morality, anyway). Were that the case then Jesus would not have been so critical of the Pharisees. 
By the way, being "good" does not earn you eternal life. The Bible categorically contradicts that.
|
And your point is? You're not a Christian, but you believe that Christ is God. You don't think that God's purpose has anything to do with morality, but you insist that Atheists would be immoral.
|
And you need to read peoples' posts more carefully, I'm afraid.
1. I am a Christian (according to what the Bible says a Christian is)
2. Where did I say I believe Christ is God? (I do, but that's a complex discussion I'm not sure you would appreciate...I'm not a Trinitarian by the way. I agree with Neal Morse here).
3. I did not say God's purpose has nothing to do with morality. Please read more carefully (or invest in glasses...evolution is not perfect I know! )
4. I never said atheists would be immoral. Or I did. Specifically, I said that everyone is immoral (that's called total depravity).
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:12 |
Very well...doesn't affect my position any.
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:12 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
"No God to judge me = I can do what I want, including kill, and I have nothing to worry about except Game Over."
|
Well, if you're a sociopath then that's that ... but it's none of my business. Of course I don't think that you're a sociopath, since I don't think that you actually believe in that statement.
|
I didn't say it. An atheist did.
|
A deeply disturbed serial killer (and later born again christian, I might add) said that.
But an atheist before. His conversion later did not lead him to kill.
|
|
He was a sociopath, maybe also a psychopath. In normal persons, empathy will prevent them from harming others for no good reason. Empathy is a well researched attribute of humans and other animals.
So if a person is for whatever reason born without the ability to empathize, they are morally excused from murder?
|
That's a legal and maybe even philosophical question. As far as I know, sociopaths are not excused in any way. Their condition enables them to commit those crimes, but - in my opinion - is no excuse. But who knows - as psychology advances, maybe the classification of the condition changes. In any case, sociopaths of that kind must be locked away to protect the society.
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
This reminds me of why debating with you feels like such a waste of time.
I too am reminded. You rip things people say out of context:
1. Insinuating I'm a sociopath when I clearly did not say such a thing. I am not thrown off by your apparent inability to read.
|
I insinuate that you would have to be a sociopath to agree with such a statement.
And I insinuate that you would have to be illiterate to think that I would agree with such a statement.
|
Then maybe it would be best if you simply said so in your post.
It's nice to know that you don't agree with it, since it refutes your claim that Atheists can't have moral values.
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
2. Using an "argument" you know to be weak to prove a point ("Thou shalt not kill"... "Of course, I know that can be translated 'Thou shalt not murder'").
|
Any Christian country which uses capital punishment uses that argument ... or how else could they rationalize it?
So what? It's what the language says.
You remind me of a juvenile who will make wisecracks about an old person who might say "We had a gay old time the other night."
Except in this case, it's not the same word changing its meaning over time, it's three completely different Hebrew words.
|
Sorry, but are you actually trying to make a point, or are we merely quivering?
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
3. Arguing that New Atheism has no dogma and yet insisting that there are clear moral boundaries one must adhere to (else, Dahmer would not be a sociopath unworthy of representing atheism ).
|
Atheism has no dogma, and does not imply any morality. If Dahmer believed that there is no god, then he was an Atheist ... nobody is arguing that.
So why then is he disqualified from speaking about atheism?
|
*Sigh* for the same reason that a psychopathic Christian is usually not being taken seriously about matters of Christianity.
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My point is that you can only construct your own sense of morality as you like it. Different societies have different rules, many of them contradictory (even irrespective of religion). Abortion is evil, and yet many people in the USA (and other parts of the world) claim it is okay. Either it's evil, or it's not. Atheists have no fundamental basis to say one way or another.
|
"Abortion is evil" is religious doctrine.
I don't care about whether it's "evil" ... I care about whether it is ethically ok.
You may claim to have a fundamental basis ... but as it turns out, it is simply a work of fiction by illiterate villagers of the bronze age. If you're comfortable using that as a basis ... be my guest.
|
Abortion is murder and therefore evil. On what basis do you claim anything is evil? Right...you don't. It's either socially accepted or it isn't.
Oh right...female circumcision....
|
Societies can - and should - evolve. Abortion can be considered to be murder depending on whether you consider the fetus a human being or not, or at which point during its development you consider it to be a human being.
I'm sorry, the world is simply more complex than you claim it to be. Even in scripture abortion is allowed under certain conditions (for example in Jewish teachings, in early stages when the life of the mother is in danger).
|
Could you point out a Bible verse where abortion is "allowed under certain circumstances?"
I'm going to watch George Lopez. I'll be back either tonight or tomorrow at some point.
|
See my previous post.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:18 |
Epignosis wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My point (that Mike doesn't seem to grasp) is this:
YES a society can create law and order, and people can feel moral in upholding those laws. But when an anarchist comes along, one who does not believe in any eternal consequence or care about his own life, atheism does not deter him- nay, atheism actually provides the man a philosophical consolation (what I said earlier that Mike attributed to me and insinuated I was a sociopath. ):
"No God = I can do what I want and it's only game over for me if I die. No biggie."
|
You are a sociopath if you think that only God's authority is keeping you from committing those crimes.
Interesting.
The only thing keeping many people from committing crimes is legal
consequences implicated by man. Don't believe me? Explain riots. Are
such people all sociopaths?
|
Many are. Some might be religious though.
Seriously: How do I explain riots? There are many reasons, including injustice being done to people, and group dynamics. In any case, they have little to do with Atheism.
Epignosis wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Funny thing is, all of this is sort of a Red Herring as well. God's purpose (in the Bible) is not to make a moral world (as we consider morality, anyway). Were that the case then Jesus would not have been so critical of the Pharisees.
By the way, being "good" does not earn you eternal life. The Bible categorically contradicts that.
|
And your point is? You're not a Christian, but you believe that Christ is God. You don't think that God's purpose has anything to do with morality, but you insist that Atheists would be immoral.
|
And you need to read peoples' posts more carefully, I'm afraid.
1. I am a Christian (according to what the Bible says a Christian is)
2. Where did I say I believe Christ is God? (I do, but that's a complex discussion I'm not sure you would appreciate...I'm not a Trinitarian by the way. I agree with Neal Morse here).
|
Ok, I'll simply say that you're the strangest Christian I ever heard of, and I'm sure that representatives of the major Christian "factions" would agree.
Epignosis wrote:
3. I did not say God's purpose has nothing to do with morality. Please read more carefully (or invest in glasses...evolution is not perfect I know! )
|
You're rarely clear and precise in what you actually mean. Please post more carefully.
Epignosis wrote:
4. I never said atheists would be immoral. Or I did. Specifically, I said that everyone is immoral (that's called total depravity).
|
I'm saying that everyone has the potential to be moral, except for people with certain psychological disorders. I guess we should end this conversation and agree to disagree.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19551
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:26 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Well, I find it unsettling to think that there are people who would base their life on something, but not care if it was true or not. If they are really moderately religious, in that they never go to church and are only "religious on paper", then they are practically Atheists. In any case, I think it would be great if people cared enough to be interested in these questions.
|
As usual your conclusions are absolutely wrong.
People don't need to go to a church every day or even every Sunday to be religious, some may not believe in a formal religion but believe in God, others may simply have SOME differences with their church, but still be absolutely religious.
In my case, I rarely go to Church and am a moderate religious person who doesn't believe in fanatism of any kind, but nobody will convince me that God doesn't exist or say I'm religious on paper and that I'm practically an atheist, that's absurd, from the moment I believe in God, I can't be an atheist, both positions are incompatible.
I pray every night and believe I have a personal communication with God, I honestly have my doubts about having to confess to a priest when I can accept my sins before God, of course I confess if I have to take communion because otherwise it would be a disrespect for my Church, but not sure if doing it before a priest is the only way.
Atheists are those who don't believe in any divinity, not those who don't do everything that their church asks them to do.
stonebeard wrote:
I don't know what you believe specifically, but I'm just saying now that anyone who doesn't do socially unacceptably things only because of some mandate by God has a disgusting sense of morality. |
I have to agree with Stonebeard in this issue.
If you don't kill only for fear to God, then you are not honest with you or with God. I believe killing is wrong, because I was taught that and understood that life is precious.
One of the reasons why I'm a Catholic is because I believe in most of their precepts and dogmas, but if I don't do anything only because of fear, I have no real morality.
Iván
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:32 |
|
Ok, since it's an interesting point ... let me sum up my opinion about morality:
One of the typical arguments of Theists is that without God there would be no absolute reference for morality. But since religion is inherently man made, this can't be a valid argument to begin with. Even if you thought that the book of your favorite god contained the absolute moral values, it would compete with those of competing gods. Except for elements like the "Golden Rule" the various religions conflict in many ways. And even if you supposed that for example the Bible contained the valid absolute rules, then you find various contradictions between Old Testament and New Testament, or even within the individual books and gospels.
The conclusion can IMO only be that there is no absolute point of reference when it comes to morality. Each society makes its own rules and guidelines. As different as they may be, concepts like the Golden Rule and some others can be found in most societies. This leads me to the conclusion that, since God can be ruled out for the reasons laid out above, these common rules are embedded within our species ... through evolutionary principles.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 28 2009 at 19:37
|
|
Captain Capricorn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 21 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1085
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:35 |
|
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - The Book of the Law, I:40
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:41 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
3. I did not say God's purpose has nothing to do with morality. Please read more carefully (or invest in glasses...evolution is not perfect I know! )
|
You're rarely clear and precise in what you actually mean. Please post more carefully.
|
No- don't read into peoples' post what isn't there (or what you want/expect to be there). I see you do this time after time.
Edited by Epignosis - December 28 2009 at 19:44
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:43 |
|
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin...
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:43 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Ok, since it's an interesting point ... let me sum up my opinion about morality:
One of the typical arguments of Theists is that without God there would be no absolute reference for morality. But since religion is inherently man made, this can't be a valid argument to begin with. Even if you thought that the book of your favorite god contained the absolute moral values, it would compete with those of competing gods. Except for elements like the "Golden Rule" the various religions conflict in many ways. And even if you supposed that for example the Bible contained the valid absolute rules, then you find various contradictions between Old Testament and New Testament, or even within the individual books and gospels.
The conclusion can IMO only be that there is no absolute point of reference when it comes to morality. Each society makes its own rules and guidelines. As different as they may be, concepts like the Golden Rule and some others can be found in most societies. This leads me to the conclusion that, since God can be ruled out for the reasons laid out above, these common rules are embedded within our species ... through evolutionary principles.
|
This entire post is ultimately what we are arguing over in the first place... 
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 19:50 |
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort. Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 20:01 |
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort.
Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
Exactly - though the "protection" implies some form of threat/risk for the person seeking retribution - so if that is sufficient to prevent retaliation, then the same "protection" could be present to prevent the original murder.
The fear of anarchical break-down and the mutually assured destruction of both families/tribes could have easily been the basis for all secular and religious law making - the simply equation of "an eye for an eye" would be enough to maintain some form or tribal order.
However, I don't actually believe any of this - the fact that we as a species are naturally sqeamish is an indication that we are not built for mass-slaughter - even as a omnivourus species we are inherrantly replused by gore and bloodshed which suggests to me that there is a genetic reason for this.
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 20:37 |
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort.
Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
Exactly - though the "protection" implies some form of threat/risk for the person seeking retribution - so if that is sufficient to prevent retaliation, then the same "protection" could be present to prevent the original murder.
The fear of anarchical break-down and the mutually assured destruction of both families/tribes could have easily been the basis for all secular and religious law making - the simply equation of "an eye for an eye" would be enough to maintain some form or tribal order.
However, I don't actually believe any of this - the fact that we as a species are naturally sqeamish is an indication that we are not built for mass-slaughter - even as a omnivourus species we are inherrantly replused by gore and bloodshed which suggests to me that there is a genetic reason for this. |
I doubt it Dean. The Saw franchises are fairly popular. So were the gladiatorial games. Nothing I can come up with on a historical level shows that we as a species are repulsed by gore.
Anyway, I never said there wasn't a natural basis for morality (some folks just assume I believe certain things based on my Christian "tags"). I am, after all, a materialist Christian. But I do believe that God has decreed certain things as universal evils- they are things that displease Him categorically (like murder and adultery). Societal mores are of course free to evolve beyond this, and sometimes do (such as by disallowing slavery).
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 21:21 |
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort.
Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
Exactly - though the "protection" implies some form of threat/risk for the person seeking retribution - so if that is sufficient to prevent retaliation, then the same "protection" could be present to prevent the original murder.
The fear of anarchical break-down and the mutually assured destruction of both families/tribes could have easily been the basis for all secular and religious law making - the simply equation of "an eye for an eye" would be enough to maintain some form or tribal order.
However, I don't actually believe any of this - the fact that we as a species are naturally sqeamish is an indication that we are not built for mass-slaughter - even as a omnivourus species we are inherrantly replused by gore and bloodshed which suggests to me that there is a genetic reason for this. |
I doubt it Dean. The Saw franchises are fairly popular. So were the gladiatorial games. Nothing I can come up with on a historical level shows that we as a species are repulsed by gore.
|
There is a whole world of difference between watching a film and watching real life or doing it yourself. If you can tell me you can sit and watch someone cutting off a limb in real life without reacting in some way then I'm staying in England forever. There is no historical evidence for any human emotions or emotional reaction beyond what is written in some heroic epic or Greek tragedy and certainly nothing from pre-history, but there is practical evidence for natural repulsion now. This is not some received morality, quite the reverse - our instinctive reaction is to vomit - we have to force ourselves to become inured to gore.
In the animal kingdom killing is for food or defence against predators - fighting over territory or breeding rights rarely results in mortality - the loser will always back down and the victor will not move in for the kill. This means that not killing is an inherrent instinct. The human species is not a natural killer, we are not built to kill with our bare hands, our finger-nails cannot rip raw flesh, our canines are not suitable for delivering the killer-bite - just like chimpanzees the only way we can kill something is to beat it to death - which is not as easy as it sounds without tools. Meat could not have been our primary source of sustainance, as an omnivore we were an oportunist meat eater - it is quite probable that we were originally scavengers that developed hunting after we formed social groups. It would also explain why we are unmoved by the sight of raw meat in a butcher's window but puke at the thought of killing Junior's pet bunny for lunch while there are still cold-cuts in the fridge.
Epignosis wrote:
Anyway, I never said there wasn't a natural basis for morality (some folks just assume I believe certain things based on my Christian "tags"). I am, after all, a materialist Christian. But I do believe that God has decreed certain things as universal evils- they are things that displease Him categorically (like murder and adultery). Societal mores are of course free to evolve beyond this, and sometimes do (such as by disallowing slavery).
|
Like Mike, I hold the opposite view - in that those universal evils purported to have been decreed by gods were an invention of man and attributed to those gods to give them irrefutable status among the general population. And that aversion to those universal evils has social morality and instinctive morality as its root.
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 21:33 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort.
Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
Exactly - though the "protection" implies some form of threat/risk for the person seeking retribution - so if that is sufficient to prevent retaliation, then the same "protection" could be present to prevent the original murder.
The fear of anarchical break-down and the mutually assured destruction of both families/tribes could have easily been the basis for all secular and religious law making - the simply equation of "an eye for an eye" would be enough to maintain some form or tribal order.
However, I don't actually believe any of this - the fact that we as a species are naturally sqeamish is an indication that we are not built for mass-slaughter - even as a omnivourus species we are inherrantly replused by gore and bloodshed which suggests to me that there is a genetic reason for this. |
I doubt it Dean. The Saw franchises are fairly popular. So were the gladiatorial games. Nothing I can come up with on a historical level shows that we as a species are repulsed by gore.
|
There is a whole world of difference between watching a film and watching real life or doing it yourself. If you can tell me you can sit and watch someone cutting off a limb in real life without reacting in some way then I'm staying in England forever. There is no historical evidence for any human emotions or emotional reaction beyond what is written in some heroic epic or Greek tragedy and certainly nothing from pre-history, but there is practical evidence for natural repulsion now. This is not some received morality, quite the reverse - our instinctive reaction is to vomit - we have to force ourselves to become inured to gore.
In the animal kingdom killing is for food or defence against predators - fighting over territory or breeding rights rarely results in mortality - the loser will always back down and the victor will not move in for the kill. This means that not killing is an inherrent instinct. The human species is not a natural killer, we are not built to kill with our bare hands, our finger-nails cannot rip raw flesh, our canines are not suitable for delivering the killer-bite - just like chimpanzees the only way we can kill something is to beat it to death - which is not as easy as it sounds without tools. Meat could not have been our primary source of sustainance, as an omnivore we were an oportunist meat eater - it is quite probable that we were originally scavengers that developed hunting after we formed social groups. It would also explain why we are unmoved by the sight of raw meat in a butcher's window but puke at the thought of killing Junior's pet bunny for lunch while there are still cold-cuts in the fridge. |
Note that I never said people would want to cut off a man's limb themselves- I said people are not as repulsed as you claim they are to watch it. We love being a spectator because we enjoy it without participating in it (I daresay most fat ass men watching a match on the telly would not be keen on actually joining the football game  ).
I would ask you- if not killing is our inherent instinct- why murder is so prevalent, why we have invented such a vast array of weaponry, or why we even thoughtlessly stomp cockroaches that appear in our kitchens (even knowing they pose no real harm to us!).
|
|
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 21:34 |
" If you can tell me you can sit and watch someone cutting off a limb in real life without reacting in some way then I'm staying in England forever."
Does blowing up frogs with firecrackers count?? If so there's a whole troop of Boy Scouts somewhere in the mid-west you'll want to avoid. If only I knew where the rest of them lived. I do know for a fact that one went to prison out west. Several of us teased and tormented that poor kid for years, trashed his lunches, wedgies, and worse. I for one feel like I had a hand in the murder he eventually committed.
Edited by Trademark - December 28 2009 at 21:39
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 21:47 |
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort.
Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
Exactly - though the "protection" implies some form of threat/risk for the person seeking retribution - so if that is sufficient to prevent retaliation, then the same "protection" could be present to prevent the original murder.
The fear of anarchical break-down and the mutually assured destruction of both families/tribes could have easily been the basis for all secular and religious law making - the simply equation of "an eye for an eye" would be enough to maintain some form or tribal order.
However, I don't actually believe any of this - the fact that we as a species are naturally sqeamish is an indication that we are not built for mass-slaughter - even as a omnivourus species we are inherrantly replused by gore and bloodshed which suggests to me that there is a genetic reason for this. |
I doubt it Dean. The Saw franchises are fairly popular. So were the gladiatorial games. Nothing I can come up with on a historical level shows that we as a species are repulsed by gore.
|
There is a whole world of difference between watching a film and watching real life or doing it yourself. If you can tell me you can sit and watch someone cutting off a limb in real life without reacting in some way then I'm staying in England forever. There is no historical evidence for any human emotions or emotional reaction beyond what is written in some heroic epic or Greek tragedy and certainly nothing from pre-history, but there is practical evidence for natural repulsion now. This is not some received morality, quite the reverse - our instinctive reaction is to vomit - we have to force ourselves to become inured to gore.
In the animal kingdom killing is for food or defence against predators - fighting over territory or breeding rights rarely results in mortality - the loser will always back down and the victor will not move in for the kill. This means that not killing is an inherrent instinct. The human species is not a natural killer, we are not built to kill with our bare hands, our finger-nails cannot rip raw flesh, our canines are not suitable for delivering the killer-bite - just like chimpanzees the only way we can kill something is to beat it to death - which is not as easy as it sounds without tools. Meat could not have been our primary source of sustainance, as an omnivore we were an oportunist meat eater - it is quite probable that we were originally scavengers that developed hunting after we formed social groups. It would also explain why we are unmoved by the sight of raw meat in a butcher's window but puke at the thought of killing Junior's pet bunny for lunch while there are still cold-cuts in the fridge.
|
Note that I never said people would want to cut off a man's limb themselves- I said people are not as repulsed as you claim they are to watch it. We love being a spectator because we enjoy it without participating in it (I daresay most fat ass men watching a match on the telly would not be keen on actually joining the football game ). |
Huh-uh - I never said that either 
Dean wrote:
I would ask you- if not killing is our inherent instinct- why murder is so prevalent, why we have invented such a vast array of weaponry, or why we even thoughtlessly stomp cockroaches that appear in our kitchens (even knowing they pose no real harm to us!).
|
Because not everyone is out there indiscriminately killing. And you cannot claim that existing laws, be they secular, religious or social, are solely responsible for that, there is simply no basis for such a claim. I claim that all those laws are a direct result of our inherent instinct not to kill.
We developed weapons to hunt for food. Some clown realised they could also be used to settle tribal disputes, so some other clown built a bigger weapon to defend themselves - it's called arms escalation and is why a neutron bomb is hopeless for catching lunch.
You stomp cockroaches (we don't have them - evolution decided we didn't need them in the UK  ) because they repulse you - more so than a squashed one. I don't stomp spiders, I catch them and release them in the garden.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 21:49 |
Trademark wrote:
" If you can tell me you can sit and watch someone cutting off a limb in real life without reacting in some way then I'm staying in England forever."
Does blowing up frogs with firecrackers count?? If so there's a whole troop of Boy Scouts somewhere in the mid-west you'll want to avoid. If only I knew where the rest of them lived. I do know for a fact that one went to prison out west. Several of us teased and tormented that poor kid for years, trashed his lunches, wedgies, and worse. I for one feel like I had a hand in the murder he eventually committed.
|
And your point is...?
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
|
Posted: December 28 2009 at 21:56 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Dean wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Dean wrote:
Even in a god-less, law-less and moral-less society no one would be free to kill: If you killed my brother I would kill you, your brother would kill me, my father would kill your brother, your father would kill my father, my uncle would kill your father, your uncle would kill my uncle, my aunt would kill your uncle, your aunt would kill my aunt, my cousin would kill your aunt, your cousin would kill my cousin, my cousin's son would kill your cousin... |
Unless the original murderer had "protection" of some sort.
Ultimately though, both this anarchical scenario and current legal frameworks boil down to the same thing: a risk/reward calculation independent of moral/ethical considerations.
|
Exactly - though the "protection" implies some form of threat/risk for the person seeking retribution - so if that is sufficient to prevent retaliation, then the same "protection" could be present to prevent the original murder.
The fear of anarchical break-down and the mutually assured destruction of both families/tribes could have easily been the basis for all secular and religious law making - the simply equation of "an eye for an eye" would be enough to maintain some form or tribal order.
However, I don't actually believe any of this - the fact that we as a species are naturally sqeamish is an indication that we are not built for mass-slaughter - even as a omnivourus species we are inherrantly replused by gore and bloodshed which suggests to me that there is a genetic reason for this. |
I doubt it Dean. The Saw franchises are fairly popular. So were the gladiatorial games. Nothing I can come up with on a historical level shows that we as a species are repulsed by gore.
|
There is a whole world of difference between watching a film and watching real life or doing it yourself. If you can tell me you can sit and watch someone cutting off a limb in real life without reacting in some way then I'm staying in England forever. There is no historical evidence for any human emotions or emotional reaction beyond what is written in some heroic epic or Greek tragedy and certainly nothing from pre-history, but there is practical evidence for natural repulsion now. This is not some received morality, quite the reverse - our instinctive reaction is to vomit - we have to force ourselves to become inured to gore.
In the animal kingdom killing is for food or defence against predators - fighting over territory or breeding rights rarely results in mortality - the loser will always back down and the victor will not move in for the kill. This means that not killing is an inherrent instinct. The human species is not a natural killer, we are not built to kill with our bare hands, our finger-nails cannot rip raw flesh, our canines are not suitable for delivering the killer-bite - just like chimpanzees the only way we can kill something is to beat it to death - which is not as easy as it sounds without tools. Meat could not have been our primary source of sustainance, as an omnivore we were an oportunist meat eater - it is quite probable that we were originally scavengers that developed hunting after we formed social groups. It would also explain why we are unmoved by the sight of raw meat in a butcher's window but puke at the thought of killing Junior's pet bunny for lunch while there are still cold-cuts in the fridge.
|
Note that I never said people would want to cut off a man's limb themselves- I said people are not as repulsed as you claim they are to watch it. We love being a spectator because we enjoy it without participating in it (I daresay most fat ass men watching a match on the telly would not be keen on actually joining the football game ). |
Huh-uh - I never said that either
Dean wrote:
I would ask you- if not killing is our inherent instinct- why murder is so prevalent, why we have invented such a vast array of weaponry, or why we even thoughtlessly stomp cockroaches that appear in our kitchens (even knowing they pose no real harm to us!).
|
Because not everyone is out there indiscriminately killing. And you cannot claim that existing laws, be they secular, religious or social, are solely responsible for that, there is simply no basis for such a claim. I claim that all those laws are a direct result of our inherent instinct not to kill.
We developed weapons to hunt for food. Some clown realised they could also be used to settle tribal disputes, so some other clown built a bigger weapon to defend themselves - it's called arms escalation and is why a neutron bomb is hopeless for catching lunch.
You stomp cockroaches (we don't have them - evolution decided we didn't need them in the UK ) because they repulse you - more so than a squashed one. I don't stomp spiders, I catch them and release them in the garden. |
Nor would I claim there is no natural basis for us not to kill. We generally need other people, true enough? I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying we like violence so long as it isn't too close to home. We like the bogeyman so long as he's not in our closet. In other words, that's not the same thing as saying we have a "natural repulsion." I don't believe we do. We like car wrecks, earthquakes, 9-11s, robbed 7-11s, and Hannibal Lecter- so long as its NIMBY.
By the way, I actually stomp cockroaches because I don't care about them enough to capture them and release them back into the wild. I've eaten insects before and even kept them as pets (well, my younger brother kept them, but his keeping them never bothered me...I get lazy when it comes to animals, you see  ).
And I'm calling bullsh*t. All that rain, and you're telling me you don't have cockroaches?
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll
