Atheists: does God exist?

[Mock Turtle]

Well, to be honrst being dogmatic is in the broad sense not limited to religion.

Hi there. Did I say it was? But in this context it is about morality and the definitions of good and bad behaviour, and where for many of the religious, evil is some peculiar designation and often just labelling the person over the action. Hence why I mentioned the 'no change' option that such implies and which is hardly useful when it is not true either. Given that people do change, even those who have committed horrific crimes.

 

[EconGuy]

The objectifying of a human.

So we can make for easy reading....

I asked the question, "why is pre-marital sex immoral", and your reply is above.

My response:

Why is objectification or lust immoral? What about it? What's the harm?

Please don't take my questions above as approval of objectifying others, merely, I want to know what you think specifically is wrong about it, I mean, what is "objectification"? What does it look like? How would I know it when I see it? Or is it a thought crime?

My second question is, can't consensual sex can be a way for two people to express healthy emotions and desires for each other? In a healthy relationship sex can be a mutual act of intimacy and exploration, not (always) just a one-sided use of another person's body, can't it?

If not, why?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I think that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and even within the confines of marriage there's a narrow line as to what's respectful and inconsequential.

In my rare forays into history and anthropology, the configuration of the family is related to the sexual division of labor and stuff like that.

Something about a matrilinear social culture within a patrilinear political culture.

This did cause some controversy back in the early 1700s.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm curious, what is it about this act that you believe is morally wrong?

Culture.

Twenty countries still allow rapists to marry their victims to escape criminal prosecution, according to the UN’s annual state of world population report.

Russia, Thailand and Venezuela are among the countries that allow men to have rape convictions overturned if they marry the women or girls they have assaulted.
‘Marry your rapist’ laws in 20 countries still allow perpetrators to escape justice

So you are permitted to rape someone as long as you marry them afterwards.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The KKK is a Christian organization

Actually, their history strikes me as more interested in promoting divisions between people by falsely posing as part of the group.

Emma Simms used critical thought and the good old fact check.

Too many gullible people take the word of outside agitators as gospel.

The Story of the Ku Klux Klan in America and in Iowa

The Beginnings of the Klan In 1865, after the Civil War, some white people in the South decided to form a group to protect themselves and to terrorize black people. Black people, who had been slaves before and during the war, became free after the...

www.iowapbs.org

There were many other ways that the Klan upset people. One was to stride silently in uniform into a church, and deposit money at the altar. One black congregation in Centerville, a coal-mining town in southeastern Iowa, received $100 this way. Many of the church’s members thought that the Klan was their friend after that.

Friend or Enemy?​

But one woman, Emma Simms, didn’t think so. Emma wrote to the national office of the NAACP about her concerns. Robert Bagnall, an NAACP official, wrote back to her explaining that the Klan tried to gain favor with some groups, in order to separate them from their allies. Specifically, in Centerville, they tried to separate the blacks and the Jews. They planned to isolate first the Jews and later deal with the blacks. So Emma had a letter she could take and read to people who had been fooled by the gift from the Klan.

 

[EconGuy]

Culture.

Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?

Twenty countries still allow rapists to marry their victims to escape criminal prosecution, according to the UN’s annual state of world population report.

That, of course is horrible, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion I was having.

Russia, Thailand and Venezuela are among the countries that allow men to have rape convictions overturned if they marry the women or girls they have assaulted.

Again, truly horrible, but I'm not sure why you've posted this?

So you are permitted to rape someone as long as you marry them afterwards.

Not where I live.

 

[DNB]

Because being dogmatic as to some things being evil is the worst option - often then not allowing for change to occur.

And even children learn to be moral, even if they aren't necessarily initially.

Wisdom defines morality - one either has it, or they don't

 

[DNB]

So we can make for easy reading....

I asked the question, "why is pre-marital sex immoral", and your reply is above.

My response:

Why is objectification or lust immoral? What about it? What's the harm?

Please don't take my questions above as approval of objectifying others, merely, I want to know what you think specifically is wrong about it, I mean, what is "objectification"? What does it look like? How would I know it when I see it? Or is it a thought crime?

My second question is, can't consensual sex can be a way for two people to express healthy emotions and desires for each other? In a healthy relationship sex can be a mutual act of intimacy and exploration, not (always) just a one-sided use of another person's body, can't it?

If not, why?

Both parties objectify each other - you're a piece of meat at that point

 

[Nakosis]

Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?

Yes.

That, of course is horrible, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion I was having.

Culture is what determines our morality.

Again, truly horrible, but I'm not sure why you've posted this?

Because you were asking what makes something immoral.

Not where I live.

Sure, because of the culture you were raised in.

 

[EconGuy]

Both parties objectify each other - you're a piece of meat at that point

So two people the day before they are to be married see meat, but after they are married they see each other?

I'm sorry, but that's more silly religious dogma.

As I said, objectification and a loving relationship can both happen in or out of marriage.

 

[EconGuy]

Yes.

I said: "Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?"

Your answer is above.

That's like saying the law is what makes stealing immoral.

Culture is what determines our morality.

I'd argue that people of different cultures can share the same morals because morals are based on values that people across culture can share. It's just that cultures tend to extend to geographic boundaries beyond which creating consequences for immoral behavior becomes more difficult. Most wester countries share similar values and moral systems despite having different (though similar ) cultures. However, there are many radically different cultures that can share similar values and of course, as you've already pointed out, some that are very different.

Because you were asking what makes something immoral.

That's true, but that was in the context of the conversation I was attempting to have with DNB.

Now, that I understand the context of your reply, I'll say that "culture" certainly contributes to ideas of right and wrong, but those cultures are built, fundamentally on shared value systems. So, conceptually, we can "peel" back something like culture and find something closer to the root, again, that being the fact that we tend to share similar values. Not the same, many people disagree on things and over time we learn how the things we value effect people in the real world. We have the opportunity to change and make things better, sometimes we succeed and other times we fail, that said, despite what many insist is a lawless time in history, is actually quite the opposite. However, the speed of information is faster than it's ever been and people are made much more aware of bad things that happen in our nation and the world.

But generally speaking, people are less violent, women are less oppressed than they've ever been.

 

[Nakosis]

I said: "Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?"

Your answer is above.

That's like saying the law is what makes stealing immoral.

The law is generally based on what people feel is moral. However because of democracy it is a more universal take on morality.

I'd argue that people of different cultures can share the same morals because morals are based on values that people across culture can share. It's just that cultures tend to extend to geographic boundaries beyond which creating consequences for immoral behavior becomes more difficult. Most wester countries share similar values and moral systems despite having different (though similar ) cultures. However, there are many radically different cultures that can share similar values and of course, as you've already pointed out, some that are very different.

That's true, but that was in the context of the conversation I was attempting to have with DNB.

Now, that I understand the context of your reply, I'll say that "culture" certainly contributes to ideas of right and wrong, but those cultures are built, fundamentally on shared value systems. So, conceptually, we can "peel" back something like culture and find something closer to the root, again, that being the fact that we tend to share similar values. Not the same, many people disagree on things and over time we learn how the things we value effect people in the real world. We have the opportunity to change and make things better, sometimes we succeed and other times we fail, that said, despite what many insist is a lawless time in history, is actually quite the opposite. However, the speed of information is faster than it's ever been and people are made much more aware of bad things that happen in our nation and the world.

But generally speaking, people are less violent, women are less oppressed than they've ever been.

The question then would be were do those values come from.

 

[EconGuy]

The law is generally based on what people feel is moral. However because of democracy it is a more universal take on morality.

Respectfully, you missed my point (or I did a poor job explaining), but the point was, it's not the law that makes something right or wrong, the law is an expression of a human value system. Values--->Morality--->Right/laws, in this order.

The question then would be were do those values come from.

Where do systems of measurement come from? We create them. Why? because they are useful. And while measurement isn't a perfect analogy to morality, it is in some ways. It is a system that humans created in order to solve a problem and attempt to realize certain outcomes.

For example, just as every person could benefit from not being moral and instead did whatever they wanted, with respect to measurement, every person would similarly benefit to claim that the 20 gallons of gas they just pumped was not a system they recognized and instead wanted to pay for 1 gallon. So why don't people claim that 20 gallons is really 1 gallon? Because they know society has settled on what a gallon is and endorse a system of enforcement for people who cheat.

So why do people agree on systems of measurement when every person would be better off ignoring the rules? Because enough people have been convinced to learn and support the enforcement of that system to the benefit of society and in turn the people in it.

Like morality, it is simply a social convention that is useful. We created the system of measurement subjectively, meaning that the length in space that we call 1 foot wasn't chosen arbitrarily, it was chosen because it is useful for measuring certain things, but 1 foot isn't something that exists objectively, out there, it is subjective.

This is also true of games. Take baseball, the system was created and agreed upon. Every player would benefit from cheating and yet the overwhelming majority of players follow the rules, despite the fact that cheating can be worth 10's or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

And what happens to players that cheat? When caught, they are punished or banished from the group. It's a made up system and yet it works, and all for a silly game. Imagine what humans could do if the lives and well-being of others was on the line! But, of course, we don't have to imagine, those systems exist!

The question then would be were do those values come from.

Simple, as a result of human experience, processed though reason, wisdom, intelligence and empathy.

Of course we all experience life a little differently, but when it comes to the worst things, pain, suffering, sickness, societal chaos, insecurity, we all very much wish to avoid that which is why the worst things are often universally valued by people of virtually all cultures. We can say that we value avoiding these states wherever possible....This is where we get ideas of freedom and liberty. These ideas say that we can experience life as we want as long as it doesn't harm others or yourself. Now that was a bit overly simplistic, so if you want to break that down more let me know.

Experience--->values--->morals--->rights/laws.

Culture could be said to be the amalgamation or the expression of all of these things together. In retrospect, your answer wasn't wrong, just imprecise.

All created by humans to attempt to realize a particular state of affairs.

Why are things still messed up?

Human greed, inability or unwillingness to enforce rules/ laws, a lack of wisdom, knowledge and understanding that thankfully has become better over time and has consistently lead to a better world when taken as a whole.

-Cheers

 

[Nakosis]

Respectfully, you missed my point (or I did a poor job explaining), but the point was, it's not the law that makes something right or wrong, the law is an expression of a human value system. Values--->Morality--->Right/laws, in this order.

Yes, morality then laws. we agreed there I think.

Where do systems of measurement come from? We create them. Why? because they are useful. And while measurement isn't a perfect analogy to morality, it is in some ways. It is a system that humans created in order to solve a problem and attempt to realize certain outcomes.

Ok, so why are some outcomes valued over others?

For example, just as every person could benefit from not being moral and instead did whatever they wanted, with respect to measurement, every person would similarly benefit to claim that the 20 gallons of gas they just pumped was not a system they recognized and instead wanted to pay for 1 gallon. So why don't people claim that 20 gallons is really 1 gallon? Because they know society has settled on what a gallon is and endorse a system of enforcement for people who cheat.

So why do people agree on systems of measurement when every person would be better off ignoring the rules? Because enough people have been convinced to learn and support the enforcement of that system to the benefit of society and in turn the people in it.

Ok, right the support of certain values.

Like morality, it is simply a social convention that is useful. We created the system of measurement subjectively, meaning that the length in space that we call 1 foot wasn't chosen arbitrarily, it was chosen because it is useful for measuring certain things, but 1 foot isn't something that exists objectively, out there, it is subjective.

This is also true of games. Take baseball, the system was created and agreed upon. Every player would benefit from cheating and yet the overwhelming majority of players follow the rules, despite the fact that cheating can be worth 10's or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

And what happens to players that cheat? When caught, they are punished or banished from the group. It's a made up system and yet it works, and all for a silly game. Imagine what humans could do if the lives and well-being of others was on the line! But, of course, we don't have to imagine, those systems exist!

However, if the rules were different, then anyone not following these other rules would be cheating. So the choice of what is right and wrong in this case is completely arbitrary right. As long as everyone agrees then it doesn't matter what the rules are.

Simple, as a result of human experience, processed though reason, wisdom, intelligence and empathy.

Of course we all experience life a little differently, but when it comes to the worst things, pain, suffering, sickness, societal chaos, insecurity, we all very much wish to avoid that which is why the worst things are often universally valued by people of virtually all cultures. We can say that we value avoiding these states wherever possible....This is where we get ideas of freedom and liberty. These ideas say that we can experience life as we want as long as it doesn't harm others or yourself. Now that was a bit overly simplistic, so if you want to break that down more let me know.

Experience--->values--->morals--->rights/laws.

Ok, we are down to experience. So why should I agree to your rules if my experience is different?
For example, I have had a bad experience with extra-marital sex. Are you saying it is correct for me to seek laws which punish extra-marital sex?

Culture could be said to be the amalgamation or the expression of all of these things together. In retrospect, your answer wasn't wrong, just imprecise.

All created by humans to attempt to realize a particular state of affairs.

What state of affairs? A world free of extra-marital sex?
I mean if our experiences are different then will would want a different state of affairs.
So how do we decide who gets the particular state of affairs they want?

Why are things still messed up?

Human greed, inability or unwillingness to enforce rules/ laws, a lack of wisdom, knowledge and understanding that thankfully has become better over time and has consistently lead to a better world when taken as a whole.

-Cheers

It would seem, different experiences, different values, different morals, a disagreement of rights/laws.