Christians: bad for society.

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, but are "extremely harsh punishments against rapists" the best social policy? I mean, the basic thrust of that seems merely retributive, not aimed at restoring anything to a better outcome.

Even further, the real issue is that life at conception is just a ridiculous idea that is mostly propounded in religious circles. The idea makes no sense as the issues of personhood are way way way more complex than life at conception even allows for. The idea breaks down at the most basic level of understanding of human development.

It may be the best way to prevent them from doing it again, many rapists end up being repeat offenders.



The idea is when in doubt, choose life. I don't know when exactly begins and someone is now a person so I'm going to err on the side of life.

And the problem is that many of these efforts to hurt sexual criminals so deeply also hurt relatively innocent individuals, a point gotten at in some articles of the economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/14165460? ... d=14165460
http://www.economist.com/node/14164614? ... d=14164614

Ultimately, the degree to which we as a society have tried to deal with sex offenses is to the point of cruel and absurd. Now, it may be true that rapists are all bad apples, but "we should punish them" doesn't seem like anything but knee-jerk thinking on that matter.


There is no reasonable doubt. The idea of life at conception leads us to a few incoherencies, as there is not a strong correspondence between a sperm-egg combination and a person, as seen with identical twins (one combination, but two people) and chimeras (two combinations, but one person), both of which incoherent if the sperm-egg combination is a person. Even further, given that the vast majority of sperm-egg combinations already die, we have an existing incoherency if we treat them as persons, as then many acts of unprotected sex are ways to involve oneself in with the death of a person. Most people don't take this so seriously at all though. Finally, there is just remarkably little resemblance between a clump of cells and a person, so it is just ridiculous from that point alone.

The inherent problems with religion in general is the interwoven fantasies of unsubstantiated superpowers and the regulations for living derived from that imaginative nonsense. It is pretty obvious that the bulk of these regulations come from the social relationships of primitive tribes who had been totally ignorant of the physical realities of the universe and the planet on which we developed. The requirements for social order of these groups are radically different from that of modern society and the childish outlook of the whole concept would be highly comic if it had not resulted in basically insane vicious tragedies. It is well past time for mankind to throw off this idiotic nonsense and face the real problems of living in the real world with its own horrifying dangers. If we don't manage this in the relatively near future human survival is in real doubt.

I don't think you can ask whether the 'child' is guilty and still claim to understand the suffering that a woman goes through when pregnant by a rapist. Firstly, it's not a child; secondly, it is half-formed from the genetic material of the rapist, not some 'innocent,' uninvolved third party; thirdly, pregnancy is awful enough for many women when it's a wanted zef, much less the offspring of a rapist.

If I ever had the misfortune to become pregnant by a rapist, I would have an abortion as soon as I could and would feel nothing but relief that the ordeal was over; if such abortions were someday made illegal, I would obtain one anyway. I would drink pennyroyal tea (risking liver damage), and if that didn't work I'd cut out my own uterus with my dissecting kit and lidocaine stolen from the hospital. I would never, ever allow a rapist to reproduce using my body and, even worse, mixing my DNA with his. The very thought is nauseating.

While I'd be the last to defend a child-rapist-murderer, there needs to be some finer discrimination in what, exactly, a 'sex offender' is. From the first article, quote:
...at least five states require registration for people who visit prostitutes, 29 require it for consensual sex between young teenagers and 32 require it for indecent exposure. Some prosecutors are now stretching the definition of “distributing child pornography” to include teens who text half-naked photos of themselves to their friends.

How dangerous are the people on the registries? A state review of one sample in Georgia found that two-thirds of them posed little risk. For example, Janet Allison was found guilty of being “party to the crime of child molestation” because she let her 15-year-old daughter have sex with a boyfriend. The young couple later married. But Ms Allison will spend the rest of her life publicly branded as a sex offender.

That's just insane. Putting an 18-year-old boy on a list that forbids him from entering schools for getting caught having consentual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend is puritanical at best.

I hate child rapists, but I both hate and fear those with a crusade to purge the world through criminal justice even more. (You can imagine how much I would then loath the Catholic church given both comments though, as it manages to have both traits.)

Your argument is based on the assumption that essence and existence are the same thing. Supposing physical parts upon God seems quite silly considering that he is from a philosophical point of view; timeless, all powerful and immaterial. The disproof of your position is in the article; 'for a mind can cease to think its complex thoughts and contemplate something else instead'. One need not confuse the mind with its thoughts.

The self-contradictory nature of what you are supposing comes out when it is analysed further. For instance if we hold that God and morality are arbitrary then there would be situations where God could do immoral things. However, this would mean that God was not worthy of worship; which by definition would mean he wasn't God. We can then suppose that God is simple. Since if God were complex, morality would be separate from his nature and this is contradictory to the nature of God.

Btw. All of this was in the articles I posed; you did not address these things; yet you attack me when I post them in their entirety.



No, because it would be subject to the world and therefor not objectively correct.



You are once again arguing that objective morality is subject to an element of subjectivity. This cannot be the case, since it is objective since it is correct regardless of subjectivity. This is what is meant when I say 'all possible worlds'.

You still have not answered my points I bought up on page five. It does seem that you have no interest in discussing the matter.

'I would contend that in matters of less importance that the use of conventional subjective morality would suffice to prove the argument. However the assertion here is that one billion people on this planet hold beliefs that are bad for society; the burden of proof must be high. It is still you who must establish how what you are saying is objectively true. You have so far not argued this in any non-evasive way.'

heya 91-
did you see the question I asked? (page before this, IIrc)

Well... that's kind of the problem with simplicity, but I am not sure what you are getting at.

Actually God is construed in many different ways, and even Craig supports that God is in time, only that he was timeless before creation.

I didn't confuse the mind with thoughts, so you aren't rebutting anything. Cognitive science is the science of how the mind works, and the issue is that any working mind needs complicated processes. So... basically, in order to have the complicated thoughts, a complicated mind must generate them.



I already gave you good reasons to oppose simplicity. I gave multiple reasons, even, so "saying we can suppose he is simple" doesn't work. So, if you can't suppose this, which I argued that you cannot, then you have the modified Euthyphro, and thus you fail. You can't assume the failure of my attack without a real rebuttal, and you cannot hold that I have engaged in a contradiction when I didn't.


They were a LOT shorter.


Objectively correct refers back to observors. It is objectively correct in this world. Being "subject to the world" fails because we don't hold to this in other contexts. For instance, if I asked how many planets there were, that'd vary by the world, but it would be objective for each world.


Umm... the problem is that your "all possible worlds" isn't something you've justified, especially since you haven't really gotten a grasp on the meaning of "subjective" vs "objective". Your points are special thinking on the matter of ethics. AKA, you are making ad hoc justifications. They don't work. You are using terms in a very very unorthodox manner, and my examples of physical objects illustrate this.


No, I really don't have interest. Your points are mostly irrelevant to the situation, as you are trying to use a huge philosophical hammer to crush points where I don't need many assumptions, and where I could even use YOUR theology against itself. And well... that's exactly what I intended in the first place.


I don't accept any of your claims here. I don't think that any point on the burden of proof entails meta-ethical discussion. I don't think that I have to establish my claims as objectively true. Finally, none of your arguments is sufficient for arguing that I can't actually use objective truth claims for my argument, because I can just steal your objective truth claims on a few points in this whole matter and still arrive at my position. As such, I find this all just a game. I have facts on my side. These facts don't work with your theological claims, or even your theology in general. Therefore, I win.

Yes this is pretty much my view.

Sorry, I went over it in my haste; my mistake.

Being immaterial, He has no physical parts and therefor no need of complicated processes.



Not you haven't.

You have not dealt with the example I gave you of how God being complex would be contradictory. So I will give you another one. If God was composite, then he would exist of separate parts. Two things do not simply join together of their own volition. Therefor God would have a cause. This would be counter to the concept of God; since God is the cause of causes. Therefor God is not composite.

Just like the last example you didn't address: 'For instance if we hold that God and morality are arbitrary then there would be situations where God could do immoral things. However, this would mean that God was not worthy of worship; which by definition would mean he wasn't God.'



Yes once again like with your chair metaphor you have mistaken object for moral value. This is not the first time you have made this mistake. If one argued that it was morally wrong for a chair to exist in a room. Then it would be wrong for it to exist in any room. Regardless of subjective context such as time and place.



Yes I actually have. So I will do it AGAIN. For something to be objectively true in the moral sense; it must be true in all places and all times; regardless of context. If it did not exist in this way it would be SUBJECT to something. This is what is meant by 'all possible worlds'



Look at your choice of words here. It kind of proves my argument; which I will restate AGAIN.

Since you are arguing that Christians are bad for society. You would need to establish how this is the case. This would need to be done in a way that existed in a way that was true regardless of what they thought. Any evidence that you introduced against them in your view could be held by them to be good. Since according to the laws of subjective truth; what is true and good for you may not be considered true and good by someone else. Therefor; in order to refute this position you would need to argue that your claim was true in an objective sense.

You however have argued that the subject is BAD for something, this is a value (moral) statement. If you based this position in social-psychological or evolutionary ethics then the most you could argue is that Christianity is useless to society (see the article I posted on page 4 for this supposition). Since you have argued that the subject is bad; it would need to exist in an objective and not a just personal sense (or else the most you could argue is that Christians are in your view bad for society).

You therefor need to establish objective grounds for this supposition. However; all you have done is attack the basis for any objective grounds at all. This works DIRECTLY AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENT.

However when I look at your last post. You use the world 'I' repeatedly. For instance; 'I don't accept any of your claims here. I don't think that any point on the burden of proof entails meta-ethical discussion.' This is itself a subjective statement that according to you cannot be objectively true. Therefor you loose.

Immateriality has nothing to do with cognition. Complicated processes are the requirement of cognition, not just a matter foisted on us by the brain. Even logic diagrams are complicated if they have to have complicated outputs, and God has complicated outputs.


I already did that. If you want me to repost then I can, but I did so on page 6, below a post by Sand.


I don't care if God being complex is contradictory. God just isn't simple. Composite doesn't mean "separate parts", nor does it mean that parts had to be joined together. You're not arguing against any reasonable position.


Wait? That's your argument? It just fails. It doesn't even address anything. I mean, I have no reason to buy the first premise at all, that is that God would do immoral things if morality were arbitrary, or even that God would do immoral things if elements of his character were arbitrary. God is defined as good, period.


91, the problem is that you don't know the terms you are using. I am trying to give you examples, but you've handled the manner in such an ad hoc manner that you are immune to correction.


No, all possible worlds means A LOT of things.

Subjective means "depending upon the perceiver". Objective means "observer independent". You are defining these issues in an unorthodox manner. As such, I don't buy your assertion, and that's what it is. You haven't justified your position.


No, I do not have to establish meta-ethics every time I use ethical language, I am sorry. I need to appeal to common grounds with those around me so that way they understand my position, and where it comes from. These common grounds can be very extensive, so I need no work here.

Even further, I could accept any number of ethical systems as true. I don't care about this debate. I've already made that much clear.

I don't accept your requirement as necessary.


I've already addressed this claim. This is not a moral statement, and the values can easily be regarded as presupposed in the statement, thus making the claim valid.


Actually, I've only attacked your basis for objective grounds. I don't care about objective grounds. I don't commit to all of the things you continue to assert I must. I just don't accept them. Because I don't accept these claims from you, nothing you say is relevant. I've made my case in reference to facts taking certain common value judgements for granted. That's just that. I didn't make these statements in an effort to get into a larger debate on ethics. Even further, I certainly have no interest in something as masturbatory as meta-ethics. I've gone through my meta-ethical stage. I've made arguments similar to yours. I don't regard them as relevant at this point. Especially since you aren't really contesting my point, you're just contesting my language. I know you are a moral realist. Do these facts tell us that Christianity is good for society, or bad for society, moral realist? If you want to argue that, go right ahead. I am not going to spend so much time on a point that I feel is linguistic more than anything else.


"burden of proof" is short-hand for a set of commonly referred to norms. You have no f*****g clue, and I have no interest in trying to educate you.

I'm done, 91. If you want to argue whether the facts about Christian behavior pointed out are good or bad, go right ahead, but I am not going to argue meta-ethics with you. I am simply uninterested in the topic. I can pull all sorts of BS on you if I felt like it, but frankly, I am not interested even as a joke. If this is all you have to talk about, I am done. You didn't win. You can say you did, but frankly, if you have to assert your own victories, then you aren't winning.

Cognition is brain work and brains are material entities. There is no consciousness or cognition without a material engine to do the function.

ruveyn

That's begging the question of materialism. I'll tend to agree with you, but the idea of an immaterial processing system isn't impossible. The issue is that the logical requirements of cognitive processing, as found by cognitive science, are such that there is no simplicity in the matter.

No it isn't. It is a statement of fact. Show me any cognition that does not require a material agency, engine or substrate to manifest itself in the world. I await with bated breath.

ruveyn