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

[G.T.]

Whose says they do? The author of this piece claims they come from God.

But if morality comes from neither, what is morality and where does it come from?

It can come from neither, *and* have an unknown origin, *and* still be relatively universal. Life doesn't have to be so simplistic as to require explanation for every little detail, "or else: God," but for sure we should continue to seek answers and understanding.

But my opinion?

Evolution is where morals come from. A mother is given the basic instinct to protect her child because Reproduction is a necessary means for species survival, and that basic instinct has evolved as man's intelligence has evolved to realize that each child is safer and has a better chance of survival if we're all, for the most part, non-violent towards one another.

Inside of non violence is a whole slew of other branched-off morals, because most "amoral" acts lead to some form of violence.

What are amoral acts and why is violence evil or wrong? Or is it?

I told you why violence is evil or wrong, because it impedes the reproduction of our species, one of the very basic survival instincts. And, being the very intelligent species that we are, over time we have gathered, through said intelligence combined with said survival instinct (source: Nature) the most (or close to the most) ideal cohabitation norms. now, violence to stop impending GREATER violence is an analytical choice. We can perform said analysis because of our evolved brains.

And here we are, today.

amoral acts fall within the discussion of reason when you start from basic instinct and branch out. you come to the conclusion of most "amoral" acts by analytically looking at each acts' consequences, and having a human brain allows you such analysis.

 

[martybegan]

That's your sensitivity training showing. I'm not going to apologize for your choice to be offended.

You dont have to. It still doesnt change the fact that calling religous texts "fairy tales" is being an asshole.

In your opinion.

Not just mine. Calling religon fairy tales will make many people consider you an asshole.

 

[G.T.]

A good example of humans using deductive reasoning to conclude what's a-moral is fathers who abandon their children.

Sometimes supermoms pick up the slack, but there's plenty of data out there if you care to look at the negative impacts of a fatherless household. You don't need Religion, you need those studies and those studies alone regarding how the kids turn out, to let you know if it's "moral" or not to abandon your kids.

 

[G.T.]

You dont have to. It still doesnt change the fact that calling religous texts "fairy tales" is being an asshole.

In your opinion.

Not just mine. Calling religon fairy tales will make many people consider you an asshole.

Do I seem worried about it? No, that would be you.

 

[G.T.]

Humans are smart.

It was considered moral to sacrifice humans to Gods. Then, when our species grew intelligent enough to realize, "hey, the sun comes up whether we kill someone or not," we reverted back to our instinctual survival-of-the-species to determine that it's not such a good idea. In this case, the human brain's ability to reason superceded a Religious belief to establish a "moral."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I told you why violence is evil or wrong, because it impedes the reproduction of our species, one of the very basic survival instincts. And, being the very intelligent species that we are, over time we have gathered, through said intelligence combined with said survival instinct (source: Nature) the most (or close to the most) ideal cohabitation norms. now, violence to stop impending GREATER violence is an analytical choice. We can perform said analysis because of our evolved brains.

But you didn't tell me why violence is evil or wrong. In fact, you went on to say that violence may be employed to prevent greater violence, whatever that means. Hence, violence is clearly not evil or wrong in and of itself. Violence is a tool, a function of morality. What is the underlying moral precept telling us when violence serves morality and when it doesn't?

 

[G.T.]

I told you why violence is evil or wrong, because it impedes the reproduction of our species, one of the very basic survival instincts. And, being the very intelligent species that we are, over time we have gathered, through said intelligence combined with said survival instinct (source: Nature) the most (or close to the most) ideal cohabitation norms. now, violence to stop impending GREATER violence is an analytical choice. We can perform said analysis because of our evolved brains.

But you didn't tell me why violence is evil or wrong. In fact, you went on to say that violence may be employed to prevent greater violence, whatever that means. Hence, violence is clearly not evil or wrong in and of itself. Violence is a tool, a function of morality. What is the underlying moral precept telling us when violence serves morality and when it doesn't?

I-N-S-T-I-N-C-T & i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e, are how we come to the underlying moral precepts. I said that already. You didn't comprehend.


The underlying tools are instinct and intelligence.

 

[G.T.]

But you didn't tell me why violence is evil or wrong. In fact, you went on to say that violence may be employed to prevent greater violence, whatever that means. Hence, violence is clearly not evil or wrong in and of itself. Violence is a tool, a function of morality. What is the underlying moral precept telling us when violence serves morality and when it doesn't?

The big-ened part......you really can't surmise what I mean there?

WWII, anyone?

 

[uscitizen]

The most rational thing to do is assume Singer speaks for all atheists.

Perhaps he is speaking for a sect of the Morman church?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I told you why violence is evil or wrong, because it impedes the reproduction of our species, one of the very basic survival instincts. And, being the very intelligent species that we are, over time we have gathered, through said intelligence combined with said survival instinct (source: Nature) the most (or close to the most) ideal cohabitation norms. now, violence to stop impending GREATER violence is an analytical choice. We can perform said analysis because of our evolved brains.

But you didn't tell me why violence is evil or wrong. In fact, you went on to say that violence may be employed to prevent greater violence, whatever that means. Hence, violence is clearly not evil or wrong in and of itself. Violence is a tool, a function of morality. What is the underlying moral precept telling us when violence serves morality and when it doesn't?

I-N-S-T-I-N-C-T & i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e, are how we come to the underlying moral precepts. I said that already. You didn't comprehend.


The underlying tools are instinct and intelligence.

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?

 

[G.T.]

But you didn't tell me why violence is evil or wrong. In fact, you went on to say that violence may be employed to prevent greater violence, whatever that means. Hence, violence is clearly not evil or wrong in and of itself. Violence is a tool, a function of morality. What is the underlying moral precept telling us when violence serves morality and when it doesn't?

I-N-S-T-I-N-C-T & i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e, are how we come to the underlying moral precepts. I said that already. You didn't comprehend.


The underlying tools are instinct and intelligence.

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?

It's not absolute only because we're not at the peak of intelligence, whatever that may be.

We CONTINUE to evolve and become more intelligent, and guess what?

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.

 

[G.T.]

try asking yourself why, something that you feel is "moral," is moral.

usually it's going to boil down to the survival instinct of the species, and our ability to critically analyze action and consequence.

It's relative, sure, and it's relative because we're getting smarter and our conditions in general are ever-changing.

 

[Avatar9]

Where in the bible does it say to kill unbelievers?

The Dark Bible: Atrocities

Perhaps you should have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the subject beforehand?

In your second point, that would never happen

Why not? Catholic priests are already 10 times more likely to molest your son than the general populace as it is and they all listened when the pope told them to kill all the Muslims, go to war against the Protestants, and and give the church a bunch of money.

And the current pope is already known to be a protector of pedophile priests.

Churches give a moral compass, it is up to people to follow it or not.

Then they don't get their morals from religion as was originally claimed, but only their ethical condemnations of certain acts when in public.

 

[G.T.]

Why shouldn't I punch tommy in the arm?

Because if I proclaim that punching people in the arm is OK, then I will be punched in the arm on occasion!

What's the harm in punches in the arm?

Nothing, until people begin retaliating due to the anger it has incited. Tommy got mad and punched my mouth, my mouth started bleeding and I told my Dad. Dad had a word with Tommy, Tommy told his dad and Tommy's dad saw my dad in the parking lot. Tommy's dad was losing so he pulled a knife. My dad got poked in the gut. Dad died.

moral of the story? It's probably wrong to have ever punched Tommy in the arm in the first place.


Religion didn't develop that for me. My ability to reason (intelligence) combined with my Natural instincts (Survival of the species) did.



There's a reason "self defense" is considered moral and legal, but walking up to a dickhead because he's a dickhead and punching his face is illegal.

 

[Avatar9]

I told you why violence is evil or wrong, because it impedes the reproduction of our species, one of the very basic survival instincts. And, being the very intelligent species that we are, over time we have gathered, through said intelligence combined with said survival instinct (source: Nature) the most (or close to the most) ideal cohabitation norms. now, violence to stop impending GREATER violence is an analytical choice. We can perform said analysis because of our evolved brains.

But you didn't tell me why violence is evil or wrong. I

Instinct does not recognize any such concepts, only the whether the outcome is beneficial or not.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Neither Warren Jeff nor generations of pedophile priests are atheist.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I-N-S-T-I-N-C-T & i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e, are how we come to the underlying moral precepts. I said that already. You didn't comprehend.


The underlying tools are instinct and intelligence.

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?

It's not absolute only because we're not at the peak of intelligence, whatever that may be.

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.

We CONTINUE to evolve and become more intelligent. . . .

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?

 

[G.T.]

I-N-S-T-I-N-C-T & i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-c-e, are how we come to the underlying moral precepts. I said that already. You didn't comprehend.


The underlying tools are instinct and intelligence.

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.

We CONTINUE to evolve and become more intelligent. . . .

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

 

[nitroz]

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, FUCK OFF!

 

[NGSamson]

Morals don't come from Religion.

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.