[LordPomposity]

oh please you don't need to be in a cult to love thermonuclear weapons.

You do need to stop worrying.

That's a strange thing to say.

[Kosh]

Currently the US is attempting a cultural victory, while sitting on its military so nobody will attack.  We just have to wait for their cities to flip.

You heard that saying about glasshouses and stones?

As horrible as this story offends our sense of right and wrong... I can remember offhand about a dozen stories about the US that offend just as much.

At least we tried to get better. Wrong is wrong. 

This is probably going to cause friction, but it needs to be said that it wouldn't be the first time a court has presumed that a woman had consentual sex, realised she was in trouble, and accused her partner of rape to evade punishment. Hell, it wouldn't even be the first time it actually happened.

Under sharia law it is always assumed consensual (and therefore illegal) unless proven otherwise by testimony from 5 or so male relatives, in otherwords impossible to prove. Particularly in this case since the attacker was a relative.

Now, not to be outdone let's look at another part of the third world from a couple of years ago

NAIROBI, Kenya — The mistaken belief that albino body parts have magical powers has driven thousands of Africa's albinos into hiding, fearful of losing their lives and limbs to unscrupulous dealers who can make up to $75,000 selling a complete dismembered set.

Mary Owido, who lacks pigment that gives color to skin, eyes and hair, says she is only comfortable when at work or at home with her husband and children.

"Wherever I go people start talking about me, saying that my legs and hands can fetch a fortune in Tanzania," said Owido, 36, a mother of six. "This kind of talk scares me. I am afraid of going out alone."

Since 2007, 44 albinos have been killed in Tanzania and 14 others have been slain in Burundi, sparking widespread fear among albinos in East Africa.

At least 10,000 have been displaced or gone into hiding since the killings began, according to a report released this week by the International Federation for the Red Cross and Crescent societies.

Anyone want to start the uranium enrichment now or later?

This is a bad thread.

Then dont post in it.

[Scotty]

At least we tried to get better. Wrong is wrong.

Thank you for demonstrating why your opinion on morality should never be taken seriously again.

Good day.

[Bobboau]

and it's just as right as yours, you can't judge him, he isn't different there are no races, we are all human.

[SypheDMar]

... there are no races, we are all human.

Chudat.

[Bobboau]

actually, **** the snipe sarcasm for a moment.

this is a perfect example and opportunity of me to elaborate upon what I was discussing here. Why is this situation the way it is? Why does this culture consider this to be right and just? Because in their culture the Koran is the most perfect thing in reality and it's teachings are a mandate from god. It all comes down to the assumption that their book is right and perfect. it's not. If rather than relying upon a prewritten 'perfect' law they were forced to judge the situation based the situation, they would not have made the choice they did. the ultimate goal of this culture's values is spiritual improvement, if there is no spirit, then the things being done here serve no purpose and only contribute to bring sorrow and pain to millions. I do not think that this scenario should be considered an example of a well made moral code.

now on the other hand if there is a god named Allah and Mohamed is his prophet and the Koran is perfect, then this is the way things should be. but this moves the discussion outside of the realm of simple moral relativism and into the realm of truth. is there a god named Allah? is Mohamed is his prophet? and is the Koran is perfect? these are statements that have a truth value, (even if we don't know what it is) so that means this system of morality has a truth value as to it's legitimacy.

[Mikes]

now on the other hand if there is a god named Allah and Mohamed is his prophet and the Koran is perfect, then this is the way things should be. but this moves the discussion outside of the realm of simple moral relativism and into the realm of truth. is there a god named Allah? is Mohamed is his prophet? and is the Koran is perfect? these are statements that have a truth value, (even if we don't know what it is) so that means this system of morality has a truth value as to it's legitimacy.

... and that truth value is subjective and depends on who raised you (mostly). So how does that help anyone?

The problem when you approach god with "truth" is that by necessity any (successful) belief system puts their higher being outside the means of potential scientific scrutiny by definition.
Nowadays it's kinda one of the prerequisites for supernatural belief to "survive"

If you wanted to somehow remedy the situation you would have to start somwhere, somehow with education, tolerance and critical thinking.... 
... but then when you look at education in the US and the rise of fundamentalism a new dark age seems to be more likely then people coming to their senses.

Heck, with fundamentalism running rampant in the Air Force ( http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2011/10/huffington-post-air-force-academy-cadets-decide-they-must-pretend-to-be-fundamentalist-christians/) Nuke may get his wish eventually... although I doubt he would agree with their motivation LOL.

[Bobboau]

outside of scientific scrutiny, means never interferes with reality, means deistic god, means not this particular god.

[Mikes]

outside of scientific scrutiny, means never interferes with reality, means deistic god, means not this particular god.

Your powers of logic do not concern a belief in a god who is so allpowerful that he "transcends" reality, i.e. can't be found when you look for him, but certainly exists, does his "work" and whatever else the argument in support of belief in him requires.
In other words: You are wrong because you don't believe in whatever God the party you argue with believes in.

I.e. Any proof or argument against the existence of god will simply be met with pity that you do not understand the magnificence of god while any number of events in the real world will be arbitrarily interpreted as the "work" of god.

See... the problem is that you just don't "want" to see gods work you poor sinner! And this is entirely your fault too! ... if only you were a bit more open minded...  and don't you forget he LOVES YOU! How can you not love someone back who LOVES you?! You bad bad person you! You're gonna burn in hell!!! ...... (but he still loves you :coughs:)


The most hilarious responses are still given by Muslims on western talkshows who a) want to promote or defend their religion and b) realize that several core beliefs are so not political correct in western culture (all that woman hating, stoning, etc.) and c) squirm and cringe around the issue everytime someone on TV points out that little fact. (yeah we do that in Muslim countries, yeah yeah because it's the holy law there... BUT *OF COURSE* not here... we never do that in *YOUR* country... duh.)

[Bobboau]

the question I have to you then is this:

if, hypnotically, at some point in the future, science determines the universal set of laws that govern all actions large and small slow and fast light and supermassive in the universe, and a means to track the location and velocities of all elementary particles in the universe and all other properties that they might have. would the supernatural not then be revealed by a disconnect between what the laws say they should do, and what it is found that they do do?

I am not suggesting that this could be plausible, but if it were to occur, would that not scientifically prove, if not god at least the supernatural? and if all this came to be but we did not find discrepencies, then would that not DISprove the existence of the supernatural, including all gods?

but before we go on too far of a tangent, do you accept what I said, that the morality of that culture is based on faith in the religion, and if the religion is false then the morality system is baseless?

[Mikes]

if, hypnotically, at some point in the future, science determines the universal set of laws that govern all actions large and small slow and fast light and supermassive in the universe, and a means to track the location and velocities of all elementary particles in the universe and all other properties that they might have. would the supernatural not then be revealed by a disconnect between what the laws say they should do, and what it is found that they do do?

No matter how much you know, you can't abolish the "unknown" as a concept and that will always be where religion will find their Gods.

Even if your understanding of the universe is perfect (and mind you, Hawkings and the rest of our leading physicists have come to doubt that gaining a perfect understanding of the universe may be possible while trapped in the human condition - we just don't have the means to explore/observe or explain the behavior of particles past a certain point and can't even conceptualize how we would be able to yet - let alone find out what THESE particles consist of.)...

How can science compete with the sheer power of limitless imagination? You can always imagine a little more...  and that's where people find God. 

(And if you do manage to outright prove scripture wrong then, depending on how fundamentalist the religion in question is, scripture will be regarded as a metapher... or in the more fundamentalist religions just trump any proof by default: The puzzle will always be why you are wrong. How such a proof can exist despite all the faithful "knowing" that it is false.... quickly followed by a supernatural justification etc.)

but before we go on too far of a tangent, do you accept what I said, that the morality of that culture is based on faith in the religion, and if the religion is false then the morality system is baseless?

As any somewhat decently designed or evolved religion is inherently not verifiable (that's the whole point of a religion!) that is a somewhat moot point.

I.e. If you can without doubt disprove a religion, it would cease to exist... the religions that still exist anyways have learned to adapt to that fact and are quite resistant to any kind of logic that threathens their existence.

[Ravenholme]

Not the same article, but another example of the topic title.

A report in Saudi Arabia has warned that if Saudi women were given the right to drive, it would spell the end of virginity in the country.

The report was prepared for Saudi Arabia's legislative assembly, the Shura Council, by a well-known conservative academic.

Though there is no formal ban on women driving in Saudi Arabia, if they get behind the wheel, they can be arrested.

Saudi women have mounted several campaigns to try to overturn the ban.

Aside from the practical difficulties it creates, they say it is also illogical as in trying to keep them under family control and away from men, it actually
puts them in daily contact with a male driver.

The issue has received huge international attention.

Some Saudi women feel it has attracted too much interest, obscuring other equally important issues.

As part of his careful reform process, King Abdullah has allowed suggestions to surface that the ban might be reviewed.

This has angered the conservative religious elite - a key power base for any Saudi ruler.

Now, one of their number - well-known academic Kamal Subhi - has presented a new report to the country's legislative assembly, the Shura.

The aim was to get it to drop plans to reconsider the ban.

The report contains graphic warnings that letting women drive would increase prostitution, pornography, homosexuality and divorce.

A Saudi woman who has campaigned for women drivers told the BBC that the report was completely mad.

She said the head of the Shura had assured women campaigners that he was still open to hearing the case for lifting the ban.

So, eh, discuss.

[Bobboau]

No matter how much you know, you can't abolish the "unknown" as a concept and that will always be where religion will find their Gods.

Even if your understanding of the universe is perfect (and mind you, Hawkings and the rest of our leading physicists have come to doubt that gaining a perfect understanding of the universe may be possible while trapped in the human condition - we just don't have the means to explore/observe or explain the behavior of particles past a certain point and can't even conceptualize how we would be able to yet - let alone find out what THESE particles consist of.)...

like I said, completely hypothetical, I am challenging the premise that the supernatural cannot possibly fall under the microscope of science under any circumstance.

and that's where people find God.

god of the gaps can only live inside the gaps, in my hypothetical schenario, there would be no gaps left.

As any somewhat decently designed or evolved religion is inherently not verifiable (that's the whole point of a religion!) that is a somewhat moot point.

I.e. If you can without doubt disprove a religion, it would cease to exist... the religions that still exist anyways have learned to adapt to that fact and are quite resistant to any kind of logic that threathens their existence.

so you agree that the moral system's validity is pinned to the belief in the deity? yes? that it would absolutely be invalid if I could somehow disprove that particular god. I'm not claiming that I can, but asking that if I could would that invalidate the moral code?

[Mikes]

like I said, completely hypothetical, I am challenging the premise that the supernatural cannot possibly fall under the microscope of science under any circumstance.

god of the gaps can only live inside the gaps, in my hypothetical schenario, there would be no gaps left.

I would argue that you are hypothesizing the even conceptually impossible. No matter how much you can explain, there will always be someone who asks.... "but what else is there", "who made it all", "what was before", "what comes after". Imagination is limitless and as I said.... you can't abolish the unknown:  The concept of the known automatically begets the concept of the unknown. It's 2 sides of the same coin, can't have one without the other, not even hypothetically.

so you agree that the moral system's validity is pinned to the belief in the deity? yes? that it would absolutely be invalid if I could somehow disprove that particular god. I'm not claiming that I can, but asking that if I could would that invalidate the moral code?

Personally I find what we know about the nature, origin and evolution of all the various religions already a conclusive proof that religion does not require the existence of any supernatural being and therefore with high confidence every single religion is no more or less valid than any other. Creating religion is a very human (if arguably stupid) thing to do... Gods really have nothing to do with it. I.e. "Real Gods" are purely optional as far as explaining the phenomenon of "religion" goes to the point that the existence of an actual God as outlined in any of our religions - and Christianity really is no different from Islam, the Olymp or the Norse Pantheon in that regard -  is outright absurd.

You will have a snowflakes chance in hell of communicating that idea or any other idea that disproves anyones "belief" to anyone who "believes". That's the whole point of religion:  Holding and spreading "belief".

You have to realize that a belief system is a system that has persisted and evolved over (sometimes) thousands of years, despite being not true.
As with any product of a long evolution it is perfectly suited to survive in the environment that it evolved in, which is human society.

[Bobboau]

again, I am not saying that I can do it, but if I could would that in an absolute seance, falsify the moral code?

if you do not accept the god then the moral code fails?

[deathfun]

and it's just as right as yours, you can't judge him, he isn't different there are no races, we are all human.

What about NASCAR D:

As for the moral code... it becomes a matter of perspective. Morality changes from person to person
For example, I don't find it immoral to end someones life when they're sitting in a hospital bed with no chance of surviving. Others will say that it was not my choice to make, regardless of whether or not HE asked me to do it. They would describe it as having no moral integrity as a life is a life.

That isn't to say I don't value someones life. I will never kill unless all options have been exhausted (such as someone trying to kill me, and the only way to survive is to kill him)

Morals are based off of perspectives introduced to us through various means most notably religious texts. Other notable mentions are definitely how we were raised, and our surroundings.

You cannot falsify the moral code.

[Mikes]

again, I am not saying that I can do it, but if I could would that in an absolute seance, falsify the moral code?

if you do not accept the god then the moral code fails?

For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will  that question kind of answers itself, right?
(Although even then, I'm sure, you would have someone point out that even without a god *their* moral code is necessary for society to function and without it there would be anarchy yada yada, ... as some kind of last ditch defense. The problem with proving someones moral reference system wrong is that you would force them to reevaluate their previous actions...  which is something that human beings inherently shy away from... so even then, you may not convince anyone because convincing them would mean they would have to admit that they were wrong)

.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)

So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.

In reality any kind of proof against the existence of god is likely to simply be ignored however.
(You realize that from the official position of the catholic church it is the atheist who chooses to ignore an essential part of "reality": God )

[NGTM-1R]

Then dont post in it.

**** that. Stop posting childish, bigoted tirades demanding the destruction of the heathens like you're ****ing Michelle Bachmann. Then the badwrongstupid will be significantly reduced.

[Bobboau]

For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will  that question kind of answers itself, right?

I think so, yes, but then I would simply answer the question with a 'yes' when asked.
my whole point is that if the assumptions that the moral system are built upon are false then the system is false. if you do not believe the assumptions then you can not simply allow the fact that they believe it to justify their actions. if they are wrong (factualy) then they are wrong (morally).

.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)

So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.

Hold it a second here, what you are saying here is that morals are not completely subjective and that there is a common criteria which could be used for one person to judge the actions of any other person regardless of cultural influences, or perhaps more accurately, to judge the morality of those influences, of that culture. if a culture has somehow worked it's self against one of those 'common reference points' then it has put it's self into opposition to common human morality. at least on that one specific point.

[QuantumDelta]

again, I am not saying that I can do it, but if I could would that in an absolute seance, falsify the moral code?

if you do not accept the god then the moral code fails?

For absolute morals that are derived from Gods will  that question kind of answers itself, right?
(Although even then, I'm sure, you would have someone point out that even without a god *their* moral code is necessary for society to function and without it there would be anarchy yada yada, ... as some kind of last ditch defense. The problem with proving someones moral reference system wrong is that you would force them to reevaluate their previous actions...  which is something that human beings inherently shy away from... so even then, you may not convince anyone because convincing them would mean they would have to admit that they were wrong)

.... in practice, you may also find.... that most moral codes have at least some common reference points.
(Social scientists even talk of a "faculty for morals" similar to how linguists talk of a faculty for language/grammar. I.e. a basic sense of being able to tell right from wrong appears to be intrinsic to the human condition and may be a product of our evolution. How that faculty develops after birth is mostly in the hands of the parents of course.)

So if you were able to disprove god (which you can't due to how god is defined) you may be able to remove the justification of a specific religious moral code, but that would not necessarily mean that *everything* prescribed in that moral code is suddenly allowed. Taking another humans life against their will for example is pretty much universally regarded as wrong in our socities and religions.

In reality any kind of proof against the existence of god is likely to simply be ignored however.
(You realize that from the official position of the catholic church it is the atheist who chooses to ignore an essential part of "reality": God )

"God" didn't write any morals, people did, and then attributed it to a fictional character because they thought it would carry more weight with the brainwashed masses (who'da thunk it did?).

Common moral codes occur because we are in a common society, you will find that segregation, and general degrees of culture separation lead to ENTIRELY different morals. If you haven't had enough evidence of that in this thread then you should consider reading 1984, or versing yourself a little more in tribal and third world cultural 'values'. They are very different to 'ours'.

God is not "defined", which is why s/he is so hard to disprove. It's quite difficult to prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist, especially when you don't know what you're looking for precisely.
And, you realise from a Psychiatrists point of view it is religious people that are /ACTUALLY/ mentally unhealthy? Escaping from reality and relying on fiction to support their view of the world and prevent themselves from falling into ego-collapse?

So don't start.