A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia is next on the Slippery Slope . . .

[M.D. Rawlings]

Saying that instinct or intelligence is the source of morality explains nothing; you're merely giving us the means of calculation. If that be the case, morality is relative and not quantifiable in any absolute sense. Do you comprehend that?

But you just asserted an absolute, though it be inherently contradictory and therefore irrational: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. . . .

Funny, objectively speaking, whether it be ultimately the case or not, no such reductio ad absurdum arises to overthrow the assertion that truth or morality must be grounded in a universal absolute.



Oh? There's nothing in evolutionary theory that holds that species necessarily become more intelligent over time, and greater intelligence does not necessarily make for more ethically enlightened persons.

We continue to discover that some of our umm, more draconian morals, are not moral afterall. We come to that conclusion by using our intelligence and instincts to their current capacities.

We do? How ya figure that?

circles

Indeed. So goes the logic of those thinking they can refute the rational necessity of absolute, universal imperatives. This is especially true when someone is trying to assert that his relativist gibberish is self-evident when in fact it's nothing of the kind.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

A plea to the religious folks: Don't you dare tell us what to do until you fix your priest sex scandals, pope sex scandals, the polygamy fiasco, etc (all under religion.).
Until you address and fix every single one of these problems, **** OFF!

Postal much?

 

[bodecea]

Yes they do, it depends on the person. A devout catholic takes thier cues on morality from Catholic doctrine. Where else would they get it from?

Catholics and Morals....at this time, not the best example.

Wonder if thees guys were catholic ?

Jesse Dirkhising | Newsnet 14

Jesse Dirkhising

13 year old Arkansas boy abducted and raped to death by 2 homosexuals

BENTONVILLE — Rope bound Jesse Dirkhising’s hands to the ends of a baseball bat, and duct tape secured his mouth, which had a pair of underwear shoved inside.

Joshua Macabe Brown propped pillows under the 13-year-old’s midsection and sodomized him with several items, Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Balfe said Wednesday during opening statements in Brown’s capital murder and rape trial.

Wait a minute....We were led to believe that this story was kept hush hush because the news outlets don't report about crimes committed by homosexuals. How did you find out about it?

 

[Dot Com]

Take the plank out of your eye before you try to remove the sliver in someone elses

Abuse Scandal Plagues Hasidic Jews In Brooklyn : NPR

The Reichman case is not isolated. Four ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Brooklyn have been sued or arrested for abusing boys in the past three years. That's a tiny fraction of the actual abuse, says Hella Winston, author of Unchosen: The Hidden Lives of Hasidic Rebels. She says that in researching her book, she encountered dozens of alleged victims who told her sexual abuse is an open secret in the Hasidic community. But the community is so insulated and the rabbis are so powerful that few dare to come forward.

 

[G.T.]

But you just asserted an absolute, though it be inherently contradictory and therefore irrational: there are no absolutes except the absolute that there are no absolutes. . . .

Funny, objectively speaking, whether it be ultimately the case or not, no such reductio ad absurdum arises to overthrow the assertion that truth or morality must be grounded in a universal absolute.



Oh? There's nothing in evolutionary theory that holds that species necessarily become more intelligent over time, and greater intelligence does not necessarily make for more ethically enlightened persons.



We do? How ya figure that?

circles

Indeed. So goes the logic of those thinking they can refute the rational necessity of absolute, universal imperatives. This is especially true when someone is trying to assert that his relativist gibberish is self-evident when in fact it's nothing to the kind.

There are no absolute universal imperatives or else we'd be stuck living in ancient times. There are imperatives that change over time, such as human sacrifice going from acceptable (and actually, considered necessity to satisfy the "Gods," ironically) to repugnant.....

burning people at the stake going from acceptable, to repugnant....

disallowing minorities and women voting right from acceptible, to repugnant

hitting your kids


teachers hitting your kids (mostly was the Religious ones, ironically)

public lynchings

segregation






where were the universal imperatives, then?

They hadn't caught up yet, well why not? Society needed time to evolve and become more intelligent, that's why.

The gibberish is gibberish, no matter which way you slice it. There are a ****-ton of examples of once-accepted activities and norms that are now considered atrocities. That's not relativity then I don't know what the hell is.

Is it ok to cut a 7 year old's hand off if he steals a pack of gum?> **** no, it's not ok.




and just to toss it in there, how should people feel about this (especially the Conservative right):

Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves."

Laugh that one off.

 

[G.T.]

A plea to the religious folks: Don't you dare tell us what to do until you fix your priest sex scandals, pope sex scandals, the polygamy fiasco, etc (all under religion.).
Until you address and fix every single one of these problems, **** OFF!

Postal much?

The thesis of this thread is the epitome of going postal

 

[G.T.]

How stupid is this guy?

"For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical."

Enjoying it or not enjoying it, is the consequence? Is this guy dense?

 

[NGSamson]

Catholics and Morals....at this time, not the best example.

Wonder if thees guys were catholic ?

Jesse Dirkhising | Newsnet 14

Jesse Dirkhising

13 year old Arkansas boy abducted and raped to death by 2 homosexuals

BENTONVILLE — Rope bound Jesse Dirkhising’s hands to the ends of a baseball bat, and duct tape secured his mouth, which had a pair of underwear shoved inside.

Joshua Macabe Brown propped pillows under the 13-year-old’s midsection and sodomized him with several items, Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Balfe said Wednesday during opening statements in Brown’s capital murder and rape trial.

Wait a minute....We were led to believe that this story was kept hush hush because the news outlets don't report about crimes committed by homosexuals. How did you find out about it?

Well, A guy I work with is super gay. He has an eye for color, and that's why we work together. Any way, he is from the community ware it happened and he told me about it. I never herd about it until I googled it up and looked.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There are no absolute universal imperatives. . . .

Once again, that is an irrational, inherently self-contradictory statement. You're a slow learner, aren't you?

. . . or else we'd be stuck living in ancient times. There are imperatives that change over time, such as human sacrifice going from acceptable (and actually, considered necessity to satisfy the "Gods," ironically) to repugnant.....

burning people at the stake going from acceptable, to repugnant....

disallowing minorities and women voting right from acceptible, to repugnant

hitting your kids

teachers hitting your kids (mostly was the Religious ones, ironically)

public lynchings

segregation

You're babbling cultural relativism, shifting cultural norms or mores. Such things have nothing to do with absolute, universal imperatives. You don't even comprehend the categorical distinction between the two. The latter entails to an established philosophical/theological construct. The whole point to the assertion that ultimate truth and morality are grounded in an absolute, immutable and universal imperative is that shifting cultural norms and mores do not necessarily reflect the same, that the former is the means by which we understand the utility or the validity of the latter!

In any event, not all of your complaints are even valid. Spanking children is necessarily wrong or evil? Segregation is necessarily wrong or evil? The imposition of the loss of life or limb as a punishment for criminality is necessarily wrong or evil? Really?

where were the universal imperatives, then?

Apparently, they're in your head given your insinuation that these things are in fact bad or wrong or evil despite the fact that at one time or another, in one place or another, they were thought to be acceptable. What is the basis for your assertion now? It cannot be mere human intelligence. Intelligent people disagree about what is morally right and wrong all the time. Ultimately, though it flies right over your head, you're merely arguing that at any given time might (or majority opinion) necessarily makes right.

Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves."

And the context:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.​

In short, it is God, not the State, that ultimately dictates the terms of good and evil. Paul is not telling the followers of Christ that they may give that which belongs to God to the State or even obey the State should it demand evil from them, though they be sheep for the slaughter should they refuse to obey evil directives from the State.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . Romans 1:18-22).​

Other than your opinion, what is the authority for your morality, on what basis do you think to assert the shifting ruminations of your limited intelligence?

*Crickets chirping*

 

[daws101]

wtf? So you think if there was no Religion, that Catholics would.. what? All be evil anarchists?

No, there are other sets of morals. Your statment was morals don't come from religion. Some morals do, probably not yours though.

You made a blanket statment that isn't correct.

I disagree. I think it's totally correct. In my opinion, the Religions were written BASED ON man-made, man-invented, morals. I'll let you know when I get proof otherwise.

since religion is man made, then logically any idea, including "morals" would be man made...there is no credible proof that "god" made anything or even exists.
belief in god does not prove that"god" exists only that the belief does.

 

[bodecea]

Wonder if thees guys were catholic ?

Jesse Dirkhising | Newsnet 14

Jesse Dirkhising

13 year old Arkansas boy abducted and raped to death by 2 homosexuals

BENTONVILLE — Rope bound Jesse Dirkhising’s hands to the ends of a baseball bat, and duct tape secured his mouth, which had a pair of underwear shoved inside.

Joshua Macabe Brown propped pillows under the 13-year-old’s midsection and sodomized him with several items, Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Balfe said Wednesday during opening statements in Brown’s capital murder and rape trial.

Wait a minute....We were led to believe that this story was kept hush hush because the news outlets don't report about crimes committed by homosexuals. How did you find out about it?

Well, A guy I work with is super gay. He has an eye for color, and that's why we work together. Any way, he is from the community ware it happened and he told me about it. I never herd about it until I googled it up and looked.

How odd...considered it was in the news a lot...when it happened.

 

[rdean]

It ain't atheists taking multiple and child brides.

Or singing with choir boys.

 

[daws101]

Wonder if thees guys were catholic ?

Jesse Dirkhising | Newsnet 14

Jesse Dirkhising

13 year old Arkansas boy abducted and raped to death by 2 homosexuals

BENTONVILLE — Rope bound Jesse Dirkhising’s hands to the ends of a baseball bat, and duct tape secured his mouth, which had a pair of underwear shoved inside.

Joshua Macabe Brown propped pillows under the 13-year-old’s midsection and sodomized him with several items, Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Bob Balfe said Wednesday during opening statements in Brown’s capital murder and rape trial.

Wait a minute....We were led to believe that this story was kept hush hush because the news outlets don't report about crimes committed by homosexuals. How did you find out about it?

Well, A guy I work with is super gay. He has an eye for color, and that's why we work together. Any way, he is from the community ware it happened and he told me about it. I never herd about it until I googled it up and looked.

what is super gay?
does he have a pink spandex suit with a giant teal G on it?

 

[Avatar9]

Can anyone show me a quark that carries a moral charge (positive or negative) that can be objectively measured to determine the moral value of a given item, act, or scenario?

There are no absolute moral values. Nobody can provide an objective and scientific means to determine the moral value of an act. Moral instincts emerged because they are beneficial. See: moral instinct, evolutionary psychology, reciprocal altruism, evolution of instinctive behaviors.

Because we are sentient and relatively intelligent beings, we are also capable of becoming moral agents. That is, we are capable of philosophy. We can refine our ethics and influence the development of our personal morals in accordance with out philosophies and societal influences. However, to assign a value of good or bad to wither instincts or to social ethics (the rules people agree to, explicitly [as with codified law] or implicitly [as with social norms and manners] in a society) is an artificial and subjective construct.

In short, it is God, not the State, that ultimately dictates the terms of good and evil.

No, it's people. God said genocide was okay (see: conquest on Canaan) and killing those who don't believe in your religion was a moral commandment. People, collectively and as individuals, decided otherwise and tend to throw that part of the bible out because their own morals and ethics disallow such things. People might seek to attribute this to some deity or another in order to claim some authority (especially when speaking for or attempting to inflict their morality upon others), but saying the dog farted doesn't change the fact that it was you.

 

[Woyzeck]

Let us turn back before it's too late
By Rabbi Moshe Averick
08/31/2011
Jewish World Review


One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential "intellectual elite" of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was "just wrong." Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University — a world-famous philosopher of "ethics" — responded as follows:

"I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You're trying to put words in my mouth. "​

Singer went on to explain that he is a "consequentialist." For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical. In an article entitled "Heavy Petting," Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children "ethics" at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my "plea" to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

LINK

The pseudo-intellectualism of the barbaric and depraved on display. . . .

If the only thing stopping you from thinking child molestation is a-okay is the expectation of eventual punishment after you're dead and not, say, the fact that it's disgusting on several levels because it's child molestation, you're a pretty fucked up human being.

 

[Moonglow]

Let us turn back before it's too late
By Rabbi Moshe Averick
08/31/2011
Jewish World Review


One can reasonably predict that as the infatuation with skepticism and atheism grows among the influential "intellectual elite" of our society, so too will their readiness to embrace more radical changes in moral values. Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting --- including the sexual molestation of children.

No doubt, this assertion will appear preposterous to some atheists, and will spark outrage. Yet the logical and philosophical consequences of atheists' belief systems are inescapable. When asked by journalist William Crawley if he thought that pedophilia was "just wrong." Professor Peter Singer of Princeton University — a world-famous philosopher of "ethics" — responded as follows:

"I don't have intrinsic moral taboos. My view is not that anything is just wrong…You're trying to put words in my mouth. "​

Singer went on to explain that he is a "consequentialist." For the benefit of the philosophically challenged let me explain "consequentialism" in a nutshell: If you like the consequences it's ethical, if you don't like the consequences it's unethical. Thus, if you enjoy child pornography and having sex with children it's ethical, if you dislike child pornography and having sex with children it's unethical. In an article entitled "Heavy Petting," Singer likewise gave his stamp of approval to bestiality. As a reward for producing such pearls of wisdom, he has been granted the privilege of teaching our children "ethics" at an Ivy League university. Moreover, he is by no means the only atheistic philosopher industriously engaged in greasing the precarious slope on which Western society totters. Hence, my "plea" to atheists, for the philosophical groundwork for the acceptance of pedophilia has already been put in place by such philosophers.

LINK

The pseudo-intellectualism of the barbaric and depraved on display. . . .

is that why the Catholic clergy has so many child rapers?

 

[G.T.]

There are no absolute universal imperatives. . . .

Once again, that is an irrational, inherently self-contradictory statement. You're a slow learner, aren't you?

. . . or else we'd be stuck living in ancient times. There are imperatives that change over time, such as human sacrifice going from acceptable (and actually, considered necessity to satisfy the "Gods," ironically) to repugnant.....

burning people at the stake going from acceptable, to repugnant....

disallowing minorities and women voting right from acceptible, to repugnant

hitting your kids

teachers hitting your kids (mostly was the Religious ones, ironically)

public lynchings

segregation

You're babbling cultural relativism, shifting cultural norms or mores. Such things have nothing to do with absolute, universal imperatives. You don't even comprehend the categorical distinction between the two. The latter entails to an established philosophical/theological construct. The whole point to the assertion that ultimate truth and morality are grounded in an absolute, immutable and universal imperative is that shifting cultural norms and mores do not necessarily reflect the same, that the former is the means by which we understand the utility or the validity of the latter!

In any event, not all of your complaints are even valid. Spanking children is necessarily wrong or evil? Segregation is necessarily wrong or evil? The imposition of the loss of life or limb as a punishment for criminality is necessarily wrong or evil? Really?

where were the universal imperatives, then?

Apparently, they're in your head given your insinuation that these things are in fact bad or wrong or evil despite the fact that at one time or another, in one place or another, they were thought to be acceptable. What is the basis for your assertion now? It cannot be mere human intelligence. Intelligent people disagree about what is morally right and wrong all the time. Ultimately, though it flies right over your head, you're merely arguing that at any given time might (or majority opinion) necessarily makes right.

Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2 Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgment to themselves."

And the context:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.​

In short, it is God, not the State, that ultimately dictates the terms of good and evil. Paul is not telling the followers of Christ that they may give that which belongs to God to the State or even obey the State should it demand evil from them, though they be sheep for the slaughter should they refuse to obey evil directives from the State.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . Romans 1:18-22).​

Other than your opinion, what is the authority for your morality, on what basis do you think to assert the shifting ruminations of your limited intelligence?

*Crickets chirping*

Cultural relativism as it pertains to what? Wether certain acts were considered moral or not, i.e. the topic of discussion, at the time. Your contention that there are absolute universal imperatives (as revealed through philosophy and theology) is bunk, A: because, as I've been saying, Religion is simple philosophy and not divine in any way so "philosophes and priests" are one in the same,(except I'd argue one's a liar) and B: because if theology reveals universal absolutes than why have morals shifted over time (and yes, norms and mores are on the moral to amoral scale of justice, there's not a disctinction in practice between the two), C: nothing, at all, is imperative unless you're ceding the point, MY point, that we arrive at "what's moral" based on species survival instinct, or else....................imperative to WHAT, exactly? Please answer, imperative to WHAT? Therein you find that "imperative" applies to "survival" and means of survival is revealed to us through instinct and intelligence, and ALSO shifts over time. Since we're sentient, our morals have a lot to do with sociology, as a result.


Don't talk to me of limited intelligence when this OP is something YOU thought to post, it's abso-*******-lutely ridiculous. Further, don't talk of my limited intelligence when you need a Religious text to acquire your morals. Hopefully science DOESNT somehow disprove God, otherwise, idiots like you who were lemmings to the cause, shall it be false, would truly in your hearts have no moral compass. Ut-oh, for that day.

And I told you already, that my morality comes from my survival instincts and my ability to read and interpret my environment (intelligence). It came from the evolutionary process. Morals are not determined by might or majority opinion, they are determined by the most intelligent inarguable opinion and that opinion is usually inherantly survivalist, and survivalist is now sociological since human civilization rules the earth. In other words, our morals come from the (still not perfected thought process) of: what's the most ideal means of co-habitation?


The Golden rule? Do unto others as you wish done unto you? Discovered through the realization that hey, revenge is a *****, AND HEY, I'd like to be treated nicely and fairly because it MAKES LIFE EASIER! How 'bout that.

 

[editec]

Atheism doesn't lead to pedophilia.

Atheism leads sleeping in on Sundays.

 

[jillian]

another nutcase o/p...

psycho

 

[bodecea]

Atheism doesn't lead to pedophilia.

Atheism leads sleeping in on Sundays.

True.