Atheists are the moral ones

[cnm]

All this fuss over a Pew Research Poll of - what? - 700 people? - 800? - uhhhhh, yeah... now there's a Statistically Significant sampling of the population of the US.

So what does the sample size have to be for you to consider it statistically significant?

 

[Steinlight]

You are the one who cited the president as a moral authority, saying he called enhanced interrogation torture, and this somehow validates the claim that enhanced interrogation is torture and is immoral.

The president doesn't need to be a moral authority to define when torture according to US Code has taken place, that is what he did. I don't know where you're going with that straw man.

Just because something isn't regularly practiced , doesn't mean it isn't accepted by the community. The majority of the community support the idea of the right to self defense, but most individuals don't encounter a position where they have to defend themselves. It doesn't mean that self defense is recognized as moral and legitimate.

It is practiced often and is recognised as moral. Your straw men must be tired of being beaten so thoroughly.

The majority of Americans support waterboarding, and thus by your community norms standard, the practice is moral.

No, the majority of Americans are quite immoral as they support practises outside communtiy norms.

Those cases mean nothing without context. Can you cite a case where a US Court has banned the use of waterboarding for US Military or Intelligence Officials or prosecuted and convicted them?

The prosecutions of Japanese for waterboarding demonstrate the expression of American community norms.

When Obama said in such a contrived and fake manner that the, "We tortured some folks", he mentioned nothing about them violating US Code, and in fact the Obama Administration has made a point, to the contrary, that they won't prosecute the CIA or anyone in it who employed these tactics. He didn't make an objective legal statement. He just gave a moral opinion that isn't shared by the majority of people in the American community. His "moral point of view" if you want to call it that is outside the community norm. Those Japanese cases never said waterboarding across the board is illegal. I challenge you provide such language in the ruling of any of the cases of any of the japanese you cite.

Self defense, another example that destroys your "community norms" standard for morality as defined by the regular practice of the practice. Very few are ever the victim of a violent crime, much less do they engage in the act of self defense. There are 1.2 million instances approximately of assaults and murder in the United States in 2012. Lets assume that there are 1.2 million victims, and not there are repeat victims which is often the case. Even if we assume that each one of these victims engaged in an act self defense(which they didn't, but I will grant you to be generous), than persons who engage in an act of self defense are less than a percent.
FBI mdash Table 1

Thus your standard that self defense is moral based on the fact it is "regularly practiced" by the community, is bunk, since it is very rare.

However, I would argue self defense is moral, despite the fact is is not regularly practice by the community. Because the morality of an act isn't defined by the frequency by which it occurs in the community.

And this leads to a greater point. Morality by "community norms", whether it is defined by majority opinion, or legal code, court ruling, or whether it is invented in the contrived mind of a leftist like yourself, is subjective and can change, and often does. Thus it isn't a objective moral position, it is just a subjective preference. Morality is separate from the law, opinion, or personal practices.. They can intertwine, but they are wholly separate concepts. That is why morality is an objective concept.

There are much better arguments, particularly objective moral arguments against torture, one's I support, that you didn't employ and could have, because from your rigid secular left perspective, you can't effectively employ them.

 

[cnm]

Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.

Come now, they were doing god's work.

 

[asaratis]

You talk in circles.

The 'torture' of GITMO detainees in the war against radical Islam was not performed by "the community". Torture is not commonplace throughout the community.

Therefore it is not a community norm and is immoral in your community.

Partially correct.

'Torture' for fun, revenge, punishment or eventual murder is inhumane and immoral. It is not condoned.

'Torture' to obtain information that will lead to mitigation of deadly terrorism against the community is quite logically condoned.

 

[asaratis]

the atheists I read here don't have faith that there is no God....they tell us without a doubt there is no God....ask them...

No different from the hyper-Christians who tell us without a doubt that god exists. They have no proof, only faith.

....and Atheists have no proof that He does not, only faith.

 

[cnm]

There are much better arguments, particularly objective moral arguments against torture, one's I support, that you didn't employ and could have, because from your rigid secular left perspective, you can't effectively employ them.

You will make any unsupported assertion you feel like while dismissing any argument that confounds you in order to maintain your delusion of morality. I understand you have to do that, but that is all it is, delusion.

You can't seem to understand that morality is subjective because it is the expression of community norms, you are too rigid. That's okay, someone has to do it.

I mean at one point it was entirely moral to sell your daughter into slavery and wipe out competing tribes for the glory of god. Well, for the Israelites, anyway, but since then community norms and therefore morals have changed.

 

[cnm]

'Torture' to obtain information that will lead to mitigation of deadly terrorism against the community is quite logically condoned.

Only by immoral sadists.

 

[cnm]

But look, if you guys want to defend torture as moral behaviour, well, don't let me stand in your way. You know your own natures best, I'm sure. Hard to say you'd be wrong about them and you just know Snarlin' Dick will approve.

 

[hipeter924]

There are much better arguments, particularly objective moral arguments against torture, one's I support, that you didn't employ and could have, because from your rigid secular left perspective, you can't effectively employ them.

You will make any unsupported assertion you feel like while dismissing any argument that confounds you in order to maintain your delusion of morality. I understand you have to do that, but that is all it is, delusion.

You can't seem to understand that morality is subjective because it is the expression of community norms, you are too rigid. That's okay, someone has to do it.

I mean at one point it was entirely moral to sell your daughter into slavery and wipe out competing tribes for the glory of god. Well, for the Israelites, anyway, but since then community norms and therefore morals have changed.

Steinlight is a xenophobe, pretty much everything you say to him goes through one ear and out the other. It is like debating with Geert Wilders with his ear muffs on.

 

[asaratis]

Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.

Come now, they were doing god's work.

No. They were quite logically killing off the barbarians that drunk the Mohammed Kool-Aid and taken oaths to kill all who would not drink with them. The Christians were defending their community against maniacal rapists and murderers. It was a matter of self preservation...kill or be killed.

Thank God they succeeded....more than once....with the weapons of the day.

Today, with access to WMDs and electronic communications, it's a whole new ballgame. I condone any sort of torture used against a radical Islamist.

Kill ALL Radical Muslims!!!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.

Come now, they were doing god's work.

No. They were quite logically killing off the barbarians that drunk the Mohammed Kool-Aid and taken oaths to kill all who would not drink with them. The Christians were defending their community against maniacal rapists and murderers. It was a matter of self preservation...kill or be killed.

Thank God they succeeded....more than once....with the weapons of the day.

Today, with access to WMDs and electronic communications, it's a whole new ballgame. I condone any sort of torture used against radical Islam.

So these "barbarians" invaded the U.K. and western Europe and these French and English Christians had to defend their homeland, correct?

 

[Steinlight]

Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.

Come now, they were doing god's work.

The idea that Christians were responsible for all those deaths, and the Muslims for none, is absurd especially if you understand the initiation of the Crusades in a historical context. They were not an aggressive war, but a war of liberation of historically Christian lands that were conquered by Muslims in the 7th and 8th Century. It is funny how Christians are deemed aggressors, ye the Muslims, who nearly entered the heart of Europe at the Battle of Tours and had conquered Spain, are poor victims, is absurd.

 

[TooTall]

Yes, I believe atheists are more moral.

On a fundamental level, they do what is right because it is right. When an atheist does charity work or gives to a charity, there is no ulterior motive. Religious people do it because of the reward promised or the threat of burning in hell.

Did a religious person tell you that or did you just make that up?

 

[asaratis]

'Torture' to obtain information that will lead to mitigation of deadly terrorism against the community is quite logically condoned.

Only by immoral sadists.

Wrong. You seem to lump radical Islam (a theocracy-driven band of maniacs sworn to kill all that do not convert to their 'religion' and live by their rules) in with all other transgressions and threats against a community. It is neither immoral nor sadistic to kill them or torture them for information that will spoil their efforts. It is rather stupid not to.

Of course, the 'politically correct', bleeding heart liberals that think only they understand morality and only they can determine what the community morals should be will disagree. That is understandable. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Steinlight]

There are much better arguments, particularly objective moral arguments against torture, one's I support, that you didn't employ and could have, because from your rigid secular left perspective, you can't effectively employ them.

You will make any unsupported assertion you feel like while dismissing any argument that confounds you in order to maintain your delusion of morality. I understand you have to do that, but that is all it is, delusion.

You can't seem to understand that morality is subjective because it is the expression of community norms, you are too rigid. That's okay, someone has to do it.

I mean at one point it was entirely moral to sell your daughter into slavery and wipe out competing tribes for the glory of god. Well, for the Israelites, anyway, but since then community norms and therefore morals have changed.

The fact of your lack of a response to my recent post where I dissected your morality based on "community norms", those norms which you have speciously defined, speaks for itself. It doesn't really have a leg to stand on.

I realize very well if we accept your line of argument that morality is subjective. That is why I disagree with it, if morality is relative, it doesn't exist. Acts are just preferred or not prefferred based on the time and place. Sorry, I can't get behind this idea of jungle law, where right and wrong is just what one can get away with on Earth. I don't think it the case. Nor do I think this moral relativist world view provides a healthy grounding for a society. So from a philosophical and practical perspective, I reject moral relativism.

 

[Steinlight]

But look, if you guys want to defend torture as moral behaviour, well, don't let me stand in your way. You know your own natures best, I'm sure. Hard to say you'd be wrong about them and you just know Snarlin' Dick will approve.

The fact is, by your own standard of morality by "community norms", enhanced interrogation is moral.

 

[Steinlight]

This is where the weakness and lack of courage of moral relativism is exposed. Responses by these people are reduced to, "well, that's like your opinion man".

 

[asaratis]

Between 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 people were killed by Christians during the Crusades from 1095 to 1291.

Come now, they were doing god's work.

No. They were quite logically killing off the barbarians that drunk the Mohammed Kool-Aid and taken oaths to kill all who would not drink with them. The Christians were defending their community against maniacal rapists and murderers. It was a matter of self preservation...kill or be killed.

Thank God they succeeded....more than once....with the weapons of the day.

Today, with access to WMDs and electronic communications, it's a whole new ballgame. I condone any sort of torture used against radical Islam.

So these "barbarians" invaded the U.K. and western Europe and these French and English Christians had to defend their homeland, correct?

No. You should read up on the history of the Crusades....or stop your intentional distortion of what happened.

 

[Steinlight]

You are the one who cited the president as a moral authority, saying he called enhanced interrogation torture, and this somehow validates the claim that enhanced interrogation is torture and is immoral.

The president doesn't need to be a moral authority to define when torture according to US Code has taken place, that is what he did. I don't know where you're going with that straw man.

Just because something isn't regularly practiced , doesn't mean it isn't accepted by the community. The majority of the community support the idea of the right to self defense, but most individuals don't encounter a position where they have to defend themselves. It doesn't mean that self defense is recognized as moral and legitimate.

It is practiced often and is recognised as moral. Your straw men must be tired of being beaten so thoroughly.

The majority of Americans support waterboarding, and thus by your community norms standard, the practice is moral.

No, the majority of Americans are quite immoral as they support practises outside communtiy norms.

Those cases mean nothing without context. Can you cite a case where a US Court has banned the use of waterboarding for US Military or Intelligence Officials or prosecuted and convicted them?

The prosecutions of Japanese for waterboarding demonstrate the expression of American community norms.

When Obama said in such a contrived and fake manner that the, "We tortured some folks", he mentioned nothing about them violating US Code, and in fact the Obama Administration has made a point, to the contrary, that they won't prosecute the CIA or anyone in it who employed these tactics. He didn't make an objective legal statement. He just gave a moral opinion that isn't shared by the majority of people in the American community. His "moral point of view" if you want to call it that is outside the community norm. Those Japanese cases never said waterboarding across the board is illegal. I challenge you provide such language in the ruling of any of the cases of any of the japanese you cite.

Self defense, another example that destroys your "community norms" standard for morality as defined by the regular practice of the practice. Very few are ever the victim of a violent crime, much less do they engage in the act of self defense. There are 1.2 million instances approximately of assaults and murder in the United States in 2012. Lets assume that there are 1.2 million victims, and not there are repeat victims which is often the case. Even if we assume that each one of these victims engaged in an act self defense(which they didn't, but I will grant you to be generous), than persons who engage in an act of self defense are less than a percent.
FBI mdash Table 1

Thus your standard that self defense is moral based on the fact it is "regularly practiced" by the community, is bunk, since it is very rare.

However, I would argue self defense is moral, despite the fact is is not regularly practice by the community. Because the morality of an act isn't defined by the frequency by which it occurs in the community.

And this leads to a greater point. Morality by "community norms", whether it is defined by majority opinion, or legal code, court ruling, or whether it is invented in the contrived mind of a leftist like yourself, is subjective and can change, and often does. Thus it isn't a objective moral position, it is just a subjective preference. Morality is separate from the law, opinion, or personal practices.. They can intertwine, but they are wholly separate concepts. That is why morality is an objective concept.

There are much better arguments, particularly objective moral arguments against torture, one's I support, that you didn't employ and could have, because from your rigid secular left perspective, you can't effectively employ them.

 

[Steinlight]

Of course if America wants to have the sort of community where torture is a norm it would appear as though there is some support for it among the religious part of the population.

That part of the population upset Saddam was torturing Iraqis when there were Americans available just as capable of doing the job. If not better. Really, they're quite immoral.

The level of cognitive dissonance is amazing. In one sentence, you say morality is defined by community norms. However, when the community in question disagrees with you, they are immoral. Mind boggling.