jlstinger

Okay, let's go over this one more time. Every human being has worth and significance, because, to borrow a phrase, "they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights". I do not rape or kill because of fear of hell or prison but because it is wrong. And that is not determined by cultural acceptance but by an objective truth that's transcends you and I. It is not right for me to inflict pain or death upon someone else simply beacuse I want to, which by the way is completely consistent with my worldview. Your philosophy on the other hand is some kind of cosmic tit for tat and while the subjects of child rape and serial murder, which seems to be an obssesion of yours since you've brought it up at least three times now, may be unpleasent for you, you are left without moral judgement on these crimes since you see morality as merely a mechanism to maintian a nice society and to be good for goodness sake. Now I've answered your question again, please be so kind as to answer my question from the original post. Why are child rape and serial murder bad?

So they have worth because you feel they have worth? Adolph Hitler felt that some people had worth and that a lot of others didn't and there in lies the rub with moral relativism. If there is no objectve truth outside of you and me then the men with the most guns decide who has worth. Which falls right in line with Darwinian philosophy, survival of the fittest or in this case, the most well armed. It appears that the altruistic release of endorphines supercedes the survival instinct in a lot people, which is counterintuitive to Darwinian philosophy. When a soldier throws himself on a grenade to protect his buddies at what point does the blind random programming of altruism take a back to seat to the survival instinct? What would cause a person to turn their back on material wealth and comfort to spend a lifetime toiling in anonymity to serve those less fortunate, a rush of endorphines? I hardly think so. What is the right thing?

Goodnight, ladies. It's been fun! We'll have to do this again sometime.

I see your POV and it seems like I might understand it better than you do. But calling me silly doesn't make your arguments any better.

Well, well, must have hit a nerve. I've already stated my belief that human beings have inherent worth and significance. I'm still waiting for your answer as to why the things you stated above are wrong. It is your belief system that fails to actually live what you proclaim to believe. For if we came from nothing and are bound for nothing then why the audacity to believe we should have some significance in the interim. True morality is doing the right thing even at great personal sacrifice. Like the Christian leaders who opposed slavery and brought about the end of the practice. Not merely a convoluted attempt at circular reasoning. I do good things so so good things will happen to me, that's not morality!

So, in abbreviated form, your reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the system, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

<P> </P><P> </P> <P>So we agree that killing adults and raping children is wrong. Why? Is it wrong because it doesn't gel with a nice society or is there more to it? Perhaps killing adults and raping children is wrong because of the inherent worth and significance of our fellow human beings, which transcends living in a nice society. If torturing babies for fun was suddenly an acceptable practice within our culture would that make it morally acceptable?</P> <P>If my only purpose is to propagate my genes into the next generation, nothing more nothing less, then why is anything wrong?</P> Morality is a pesky little bugger and it seems most athiest live their lives by some moral code, yet if there is no objective truth outside of ourselves or our nice society, then living that way seems to me to be rather irrational. Just a thought...

I find it interesting all of the talk from atheists about good and bad, right and wrong. It seems to me these terms are meaningless outside of a theistic worldview. If we are the product of random cosmic and chemical chance to somehow talk about living as a good human being wreaks of the highest form of arrogance. Somehow atheist seem to miss this point. Why be a good human?

I'm currently in the 2nd month of my 6 month "physician supervised diet", and if I have any problems with my ins. company at the end of the 6 months, I'm seriously considering a trip south of the border. Have any of the guys on here had your lap band placed in Mexico? thanks, John