tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post115991480723068684..comments2024-03-27T00:15:41.321-07:00Comments on Kill The Afterlife: Theist: Naked Women Worse than BombsAaron Kinneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-36425428776608897052008-04-21T14:32:00.000-07:002008-04-21T14:32:00.000-07:00you have completely misquoted and misunderstood th...you have completely misquoted and misunderstood this man's means. <BR/><BR/>Of course, you would have to be a Genius I suppose, to understand that the people who are getting killed by the bombs are those immoral assholes he's, duh, out to get. So of COURSE he thinks nude women are worse than bombs. Why would you waste your already pathetic time arguing that?<BR/><BR/>"This guy's wrong on all accounts, of course". Um, No, he's not, of course. What accounts? What's the plural concept here? Are you that dumb? He can't be WRONG, he stated an opinion, and furthermore there was only one account! aahhh<BR/><BR/>Destroying Morality is worse than destroying immoral people. What is so confusing about that to you, whether you agree with him or not? I think the concept here is quite clear, and you're just too fucking stupid to understand it, and thus felt the need to be a close minded bigot with nothing better to do than type about nude women because you can't see any in real life. :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-71964635599977832412008-04-14T00:53:00.000-07:002008-04-14T00:53:00.000-07:00I like women they are main in my life :)I like women they are main in my life :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-35835991397029672522007-05-16T07:50:00.000-07:002007-05-16T07:50:00.000-07:00thank you very much. th ework is very goodthank you very much. th ework is very goodAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160689154294753862006-10-12T14:39:00.000-07:002006-10-12T14:39:00.000-07:00Say no to christ, Now THAT is a fuckin success sto...Say no to christ, <BR/><BR/>Now THAT is a fuckin success story! Wow. And you know it feels so good too to hear it from a woman because these testimonies from men are a dime a dozen comparatively. <BR/><BR/>Honestly, Christianity enslaves both genders, but women much more so (no surprise there; see my latest blog post). So the liberation that a woman can feel from ditching Gawd is potentially much greater than that felt by a liberated man. <BR/><BR/>You fucking rock, SNTC. We gotta spread the liberation for all humankind, men and women alike, so that they can be friendlier and more fulfilled and, of course, have better sex! <BR/><BR/>By the way, this may be subjective, but the sex Ive had with atheists is always WAYYY better than the sex I had with Christians. BY FAR! :DAaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160674315929441522006-10-12T10:31:00.000-07:002006-10-12T10:31:00.000-07:00Aaron said:"I tried the cross for about 17 years. ...Aaron said:"I tried the cross for about 17 years. I was a Christian most of my life. It didnt help me, in fact, I was miserable and a self-hater. Since I ditched the cross, Jesus, etc... Ive found such more profound meaning and happiness in my life. Since I took responsibility for myself I have become a much more successful, aware, awe-inspired and loving person. My social circles grew, I got closer to my friends and found more meaningful relationships. Since becoming an atheist, I have found happiness unknown to me from any time in my Christian past. I love life! :)"<BR/><BR/>That is exactly how I feel about my deconversion. I am free of all the guilt and shame that was forced on me for being a female. I am free of all the sexual guilt and shame that I felt for not being able to live up to gawds standards of impossibile virgin marry standards. I am free from the hate I felt towards others that werent like me. I am free of enslavement to my husband who never wanted a slave in the first freaking place(he has always been an atheist). Our relationship has grown since I unloaded all the baggage my christian uprbringing loaded me down with and the sex is unfucking believible now. :D <BR/>My relationship with my children is of understanding and unconditional love and not of over baring control and full of conditions. For the longest time I felt like the worst mother in the world and almost hated my kids. Now I love them unconditionally with every part of my being. I no longer question my mothering and it has given my kids a sense of security that I had never seen in them before. They completely trust me now.<BR/><BR/>Ok I dont have time to proof read I have to get to the gym and I'm late, sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160672287157658262006-10-12T09:58:00.000-07:002006-10-12T09:58:00.000-07:00Hi allI have skimmed through the post as I really ...Hi all<BR/><BR/>I have skimmed through the post as I really don't have the patience to fully read all posts. Adult ADD?? <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the bible means what it says about women. If you understand the history and the pagans, than you know that what the bible says about women is how it was meant. And it is no suprise that the bible, karan, and the tarah blame women for causing men to lust and want sex. Afterall it was Eve who introduced sex to Adam and caused the fall of man-kind. There is a reason it is said that we are all born of sin except Jesus, who was born of a virgin and no sinful act was committed. <BR/><BR/>MAn, is it frustrating that christians are so damn ignorant that they dont even understand what the original sin was. <BR/><BR/>OK, if nudity causes men to do horrible things, how come indigenous women run around naked all day and the men do not rape them? <BR/><BR/>Nudity and porn do NOT cause rape and all the other societal ills that christians claim. It is sexual repression on top of men getting the idea that women are property and only good for one thing and they get that idea from their stupid holy scripts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160670717688955542006-10-12T09:31:00.000-07:002006-10-12T09:31:00.000-07:00Tyler,Wait, Aaron, for the record, you said that i...Tyler,<BR/><BR/><I>Wait, Aaron, for the record, you said that it's morally acceptible to refuse service to someone on the basis of their race? </I><BR/><BR/>What I said is that refusing to engage in trade with anyone for any reason is not in itself immoral. That includes refusing to trade your product or service for someones money on the basis of their race. <BR/><BR/>Tyler, here is my counter question: Do you believe that it is moral to be FORCED to interact or trade with another person, even if you dont want to? <BR/><BR/>Tyler, would you deny that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone? <BR/><BR/><I>Your statement included nothing preventing using forced labor in China. That was my point.</I><BR/><BR/>Well Tyler there were a lot of things that I didnt "prevent" in my example. Just because I said "no X no Y no Z" in my example doesnt mean that you can start including additional factors. You strawmanned me plain and simple. <BR/><BR/>Why dont I just strawman you in your "refusal of service" example to include the person of another race to also be a felon and holding a gun? Puh-leaze! <BR/><BR/><I>I'm not creating a straw man,</I><BR/><BR/>Yes you are, and Ill prove it in the next sentence:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm saying that it would be wrong to make millions of dollars investing in a company that uses coerced labor.</I><BR/><BR/>I totally agree. You see Tyler, this is MY point: Coercion is wrong. You CHANGED my example just now, by inserting coercion. If I am to agree with you in the insertion of coercion into the example, then I will also say that it is wrong. <BR/><BR/>Coerced labor is slavery. Slavery is wrong. Coercion in ALL ITS FORMS is wrong. <BR/><BR/>Tyler, any time you ever insert a coercive factor into any example we are playing with, then I will of course state that it is immoral. I am the most anti-coercion person you will ever meet. <BR/><BR/>That is why I support a persons right to refuse service based on whatever reason they choose. For it is immoral to force that person to trade or interact with another against his will. <BR/><BR/>Will you next argue that it is wrong to refuse to serve a person in your restaurant if he comes in the place naked, or drunk, or smelling like garbage? <BR/><BR/><I>I was qualifying your statement.</I><BR/><BR/>No, you changed my example to INSERT a coercive clause that I deliberately left out.<BR/><BR/><I>If you'd said that there's nothing inherently wrong with making billions of dollars in the market, I would have agreed with you. </I><BR/><BR/>Good. So you might be a moral person after all :)<BR/><BR/><I> You'd see that I believe that sin is true and it limits the possibility of really understanding the world.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you believe in Original Sin? If not, then how is sin acquired? And more importantly, how do you define the word "sin"? <BR/><BR/><I>According to the Bible, youre not supposed to listen to ANYONES interpretation of it, even your own!!!<BR/><BR/>WTF? That makes no sense whatsoever.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes it does: Lean not into thine own understanding, but trust in the LORD. Its in the Bible.<BR/><BR/><I>Uh, no. For example:<BR/><BR/>Being a racist: Immoral.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. Being a racist is stupid and unjustified. Why dont you explain to me why favoring one skin color over another is in itself immoral? Can you do so without inserting coercive clauses? Ive already explained that I believe that COERCION is wrong. <BR/><BR/>I do not believe that being a "racist" is immoral any more than being a "heterosexual" is immoral. It is merely a preference.<BR/><BR/><I>Misrepresenting the arguments of another: Immoral</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, since it is a lie and lies are coercive. You, for example, were immoral when you strawmanned me and inserted factors into my examples that I didnt originally include, and then you tried to pass it off as my own argument when it fact it was not. That was a lie, and that was immoral.<BR/><BR/><I>Sacrificing particular needs for the good of the whole: moral.</I><BR/><BR/>EEEEEEEW!!!!! That is DISGUSTING! Why dont you explain to me why you think this is so? I couldnt possibly disagree more. <BR/><BR/>Tyler, if every individual sacrificed their needs for the good of the "whole" then nobody's needs would be met! You cant secure the "whole" of a group by destroying the primacy of the rights of the individuals, for the individuals are the foundation of the whole. <BR/><BR/>The ONLY way to meet the needs of the "whole" is to secure first and foremost the rights and needs of its core components: the individuals. <BR/><BR/>That is why capitalist (individualist) countries are so much better off than socialist (collectivist) countries. That is why individualism brings happiness and prosperity, while collectivism brings only misery and misfortune. <BR/><BR/><I>Well, here's a start. I believe that the universe is sustained by a loving God.</I><BR/><BR/>And what is your loving God sustained by?<BR/><BR/><I>Secondly, I believe that it's crucial to constantly reevaluate your understanding of the world and to hold your conclusions humbly, humans are more than fallible. </I><BR/><BR/>Does that include your belief in God?<BR/><BR/><I> I haven't noticed a trace of self-doubt or humility in the anti-Christians who've posted here. </I><BR/><BR/>I dont give humility to ancient superstitions nor to the people who champion them. If you want to see me be humble or exercise some self-doubt, then watch me interact with and observe the natural world and the science we use to understand it. :)<BR/><BR/><I>That smacks of wannabe megalomania to me, contemplating the cross helps me remember that I'm not God. You could use some of that.</I><BR/><BR/>I tried the cross for about 17 years. I was a Christian most of my life. It didnt help me, in fact, I was miserable and a self-hater. Since I ditched the cross, Jesus, etc... Ive found such more profound meaning and happiness in my life. Since I took responsibility for myself I have become a much more successful, aware, awe-inspired and loving person. My social circles grew, I got closer to my friends and found more meaningful relationships. Since becoming an atheist, I have found happiness unknown to me from any time in my Christian past. I love life! :)<BR/><BR/><I>Thirdly, I believe in Original Sin. </I><BR/><BR/>Ahhhh, so you DO believe in original sin. Wow. Okay Tyler, here is a question for you: Do you believe that it is moral or immoral to assign blame and guilt to a person for an action that they did not commit? <BR/><BR/><I>If you don't understand what I meant by that when I wrote it before, read it again; it wasn't that convoluted. If I'm mistaken about my clarity, ask me a specific question about it. There's a chance I'll come back and read your answer. I have a lot more patience for assholes who jump to unjustified conclusions with less than careful language than sandalstraps, being one myself. </I><BR/><BR/>Hey Tyler, Im glad you decided to stick around for now. I am enjoying the conversation with you, more so than Sandalstraps since you are willing to at least pick a position and present it. With you, the conversation seems to be moving along a bit better. <BR/><BR/>Looking forward to your reply!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160599293367787982006-10-11T13:41:00.000-07:002006-10-11T13:41:00.000-07:00Sandalstraps,I'm afraid to say that this discussio...Sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>I'm afraid to say that this discussion is no longer constructive, and as such is not worth the time and energy that I have invested in it.</I><BR/><BR/>How convenient you step out once I call you to task and to provide some substance to your particular version of "non-theistic christianity"! <BR/><BR/><I>A degree of charity is needed if someone is to ever understand the views of another, and this conversation (though, not necessarily the persons involved in it) no longer has any charity.</I><BR/><BR/>I stopped giving out charity to you when it was clear that you would provide none to me. Charity is not in the form of social pleasantries Sandalstraps, but in substance or currency of the matter at hand, in this case, religion and philosophy. You would give me nothing regarding your beliefs other than a mere label. The contents of your worldview were kept away from me the entire time. <BR/><BR/>I, on the other hand, gave you lots of charity. I laid out plainly my position and what my specific beliefs were. <BR/><BR/><I>Simply put, gentlemen, this is no way to discuss anything, much less such complex subjects.</I><BR/><BR/>That fact had already become clear to me when you told me that an unexplainable personal revelation of yours was the basis for your alleged Chrisitan beliefs, despite the fact that everything we talked about in regards to Christianity (except the existence of God/Jesus) you basically said you didnt believe in.<BR/><BR/><I>You began our converstaion with certain assumptions - decidedly uncharitable assumptions - about Christians. Similarly I began this conversation with uncharitable assumptions about anarchism. However, my assumptions, in the course of our conversation, have been shelved so that I can attempt to construct the most charitable possible interpretation of your various positions. That you have been unwilling or unable to return the favor speaks to the fruitlessness of further dialog.</I><BR/><BR/>Well maybe if you offered some of your Christian beliefs and justifications to actually be examined, then our side wouldnt have had to keep offering positions in your stead. My assumptions and claims presented in regards to your beliefs were only an attempt to figure out what portions of Xtianity you subscribed to... apparently you dont subscribe to much of it. <BR/><BR/>Youre like a nihilist who wants to conveniently wave the Christian flag.<BR/><BR/><I>Feel free to retreat to your comfortable world-view, even as you revile others for doing the same thing. But do not feel free to dictate to anyone the way in which they ought to be religious.</I><BR/><BR/>At least us atheists were willing to PRESENT our worldview beyond the mere label of it. <BR/><BR/><I>Consider this to be a summary termination of this conversation. I will not participate in it again, and I would not consider it worth Tyler or Amy's time to participate either.</I><BR/><BR/>Fine. Good luck with your faith. If most Christians act like you do, I imagine that it will be very hard to spread the faith any more.<BR/><BR/><I>I find it incredulous that two people who have never seriously studied religion have the intellectual and morall arrogance to attempt to define the parameters of religious observance for three people who have devoted their lives to critical inquiry in the subject, and wo have studied theology and religion on a post-graduate level. This is akin to the fundamentalist attempting to tell the biologist what makes for good science. </I><BR/><BR/>Youre saying this to Blacksun, who spent many years as a preacher, and to myself, who spent many years in the Lutheran Church and youth group and Bible study. <BR/><BR/>I think that the reason you think we dont "seriously study" religion is because throughout our exchange in here, you refused to present a CHRISTIAN POSITION for us to study! You refused to satisfy my requests for the specifics of your beliefs, and merely rejected my literal Christian offers instead. <BR/><BR/>How the fuck can anyone, christian or otherwise, study anything YOU believe or WHY you believe it? You cant even present it. I like talking with fundies and calvinists much better actually, since they can put some meat on the goddamn debate table. They, like me, have substance to examine, unlike you, who can only offer vapor. <BR/><BR/>Youre the one retreating, not me or Blacksun. When called to task, you decline to participate. I imagine that you would act in the same isolationist way when chalenged with evangelizing or helping "save" some non-Christian souls, huh? <BR/><BR/>I told you repeatedly that I think youre a nice person Sandalstraps. I gave you many emotional appeals as one human to another to help me understand your beliefs. I think I was more considerate to you as a person than you were to me. You only wanted to spin this thing around in circles, while I wanted the discussion to get SOMEWHERE. <BR/><BR/>You are part of the reason that Christianity is dying in the West. Good riddance to your ridiculous belief system. You would be a better man if you rid yourself of it, because you would be more likely to stand for something with some fucking substance to it. This is another instance in where your "non-theistic Christian" worldview failed miserably to stand up for itself.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160523265023638822006-10-10T16:34:00.000-07:002006-10-10T16:34:00.000-07:00sandalstraps,I don't think it's rancorous to ask t...sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/>I don't think it's rancorous to ask that your philosophy be subject to natural law. I never dismissed Hume, only dismissed the idea that we don't live in a causal universe. If you can show me one example of an uncaused event, I take back everything. But I'm quite certain you can't. <BR/><BR/>To deny causality is like denying the sky is blue. I think you are retreating because you don't like the implications of my arguments.<BR/><BR/>It's often difficult for those who espouse relativistic ideas to learn that there are absolutes. Again, I think it takes a certain amount of humility to submit to natural law. You ask me for epistemic humility, but you have none before nature.<BR/><BR/>You can't retreat behind your "post-graduate" education. If you are wrong, then I don't care how much education you have. Me, I'm an engineer by training. Scientists like to be wrong, because it means we learned something.<BR/><BR/>Please show me I'm wrong, and why, and I'll agree with you.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160520903187030722006-10-10T15:55:00.000-07:002006-10-10T15:55:00.000-07:00I'm afraid to say that this discussion is no longe...I'm afraid to say that this discussion is no longer constructive, and as such is not worth the time and energy that I have invested in it.<BR/><BR/>A degree of charity is needed if someone is to ever understand the views of another, and this conversation (though, not necessarily the persons involved in it) no longer has any charity. Each comment made is <EM>a priori</EM> assumed to be the product of worthless thinking, and each person reading each comment is as such reading the comment <EM>against</EM> the author instead of reading it <EM>with</EM> the author, trying to understand what the author may really be saying.<BR/><BR/>This has become abudantly clear when David Hume, one of the greatest empirical philosophers (along with Hobbes one of the "fathers" of modern empirical thinking) is reduced by someone whose world-view and criticism of Christianity is indebted to him - yes, if there were no David Hume or Thomas Hobbes, there would be no Blacksun, any course in the history of philosophy should convince you of that! - to "intellectual masterbation"!<BR/><BR/>Simply put, gentlemen, this is no way to discuss <EM>anything</EM>, much less such complex subjects.<BR/><BR/>You began our converstaion with certain assumptions - decidedly uncharitable assumptions - about Christians. Similarly I began this conversation with uncharitable assumptions about anarchism. However, my assumptions, in the course of our conversation, have been shelved so that I can attempt to construct the most charitable possible interpretation of your various positions. That you have been unwilling or unable to return the favor speaks to the fruitlessness of further dialog.<BR/><BR/>I regret that this must end with rancor, but there is simply no use making any more comments if the intended readers of said comments will make no attempt to understand them.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to retreat to your comfortable world-view, even as you revile others for doing the same thing. But <EM>do not</EM> feel free to dictate to <EM>anyone</EM> the way in which they ought to be religious.<BR/><BR/>Consider this to be a summary termination of this conversation. I will not participate in it again, and I would not consider it worth Tyler or Amy's time to participate either.<BR/><BR/>I find it incredulous that two people who have never seriously studied religion have the intellectual and morall arrogance to attempt to define the parameters of religious observance for three people who have devoted their lives to critical inquiry in the subject, and wo have studied theology and religion on a post-graduate level. This is akin to the fundamentalist attempting to tell the biologist what makes for good science.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160515137561915732006-10-10T14:18:00.000-07:002006-10-10T14:18:00.000-07:00Look what Blacksun just said!!! do see that there ...Look what Blacksun just said!!!<BR/><BR/><I> do see that there is an impasse. It involves the unwillingness of some commenters here to be subject to the laws of nature. I do have epistemic humility. My own understanding of the universe is subordinate to its laws, which I can only attempt to discover, not modify. Neither I nor you nor Hume or any sacred scripture can ever change that. They are the ultimate, and if I may borrow from theism, they are god. (With a small 'g') </I><BR/><BR/>Hell yeah! HELL YEAH! :DAaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160507643796115872006-10-10T12:14:00.000-07:002006-10-10T12:14:00.000-07:00Tyler,Dude, things happen sometimes, but don't go ...Tyler,<BR/><BR/><I>Dude, things happen sometimes, but don't go telling your friends that you have no moral compunction against hooking up with their girlfriends. Honestly!</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. No person owns anyone else. Everyone is always looking and comparing their situation to what they could have with someone else. We are all free agents. Whatever loyalty you may think you have from your friends on this issue is only valid until it's not. And I speak from having been on all three sides of this equation. (The one who leaves, the one who's left, and the interloper.)<BR/><BR/><I>Amen. That's neither here nor there, though.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, it is. Because if you say amen to my earlier statement on strategy, then you can't go back to a rigid and unchanging morality based on written rules.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm no genetic expert, but from what little I understand, the thrust of genetics and evolution in general is the survival of the species, not any particular individual within the species.</I><BR/><BR/>Correct. You are no genetic expert. See Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene", Pinker "The Blank Slate," etc. There is no group selection. That has been officially debunked.<BR/><BR/><I>I am suggesting that "prosperity and dominance" aren't our only "innate genetic imperatives."</I><BR/><BR/>If they weren't, we would quickly cease to be at the top of the food chain. It's only the luxury of civilization that's allowed us to concern ourselves with anything other than brute survival.<BR/><BR/>sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>because our own perceptions are limited, so the narratives we weave from them are similarly limited.</I><BR/><BR/>That's why we have independent confirmation by multiple observers. This tired critique of science does not hold water.<BR/><BR/><I>Hume argued that we cannot say with any certainty that anything caused anything else, a statement necessary for any scientific theory</I><BR/><BR/>Bollocks. We live in an entirely causal universe. Raising the question of whether causality exists is intellectual masturbation. Name one example to me of an uncaused event...you can't. (Other than the big bang, which is beyond our ability to penetrate.) You might just as well posit that the universe is unreal and we are living in a simulation.<BR/><BR/>I do see that there is an impasse. It involves the unwillingness of some commenters here to be subject to the laws of nature. I do have epistemic humility. My own understanding of the universe is subordinate to its laws, which I can only attempt to discover, not modify. Neither I nor you nor Hume or any sacred scripture can ever change that. They are the ultimate, and if I may borrow from theism, they are god. (With a small 'g')BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160502499138631122006-10-10T10:48:00.000-07:002006-10-10T10:48:00.000-07:00Sandalstraps:Aaron,I'm sorry that once again you a...Sandalstraps:<BR/><BR/><I>Aaron,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that once again you are victimized by my ability to far too easily get distracted by Blacksun. Believe me, I am aware that I owe you are more thorough consideration of morality in general and the specific question of sexuality and pornography. Please accpt this IOU. After my son, who is home from preschool today, takes his nap, I hope to revisit our conversation, as we ought to wrap it up before too long</I><BR/><BR/>No problem. Im sure we'll get around to it. And I still have no real idea what your views on sexual morality even ARE, and since you dont take the Bible too seriously... er, I mean... LITERALLY, this will certainly be a crazy ride!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160502162430490652006-10-10T10:42:00.000-07:002006-10-10T10:42:00.000-07:00Tyler,Aaron:I will still maintain that the Abraham...Tyler,<BR/><BR/><I>Aaron:<BR/><BR/>I will still maintain that the Abrahamic Holy Books (OT, NT, and Quran) all state in no uncertain terms what they expect by way of sexual activity from their adherents.<BR/><BR/>That's all fine and good, but you aren't in a position to maintain that literalism is the proper relationship to these texts for a believer in any of these religious traditions. That's the whole point, man!</I><BR/><BR/>Point taken. But to counter that, is ANYONE in a position to maintain ANY kind of interpretaton about the Bible? Who, a preacher? Why, because he says so? I can get ordained right this second if I want to. I would contend that I am in no better or worse position to interpret that crazy book to say whatever the fuck I want it to say any more than anyone else is, even the Pope and Jerry Falwell. <BR/><BR/><I>Shit, dude. That's over the line. That's exactly what Amy needs, the power of some guy's logic to free her into her innate feminity. I know this is your blog and everything. Say whatever the fuck you want. If you want to portray yourself as some heroic liberator of women, go ahead. Just don't expect to fool anyone.</I><BR/><BR/>No Im not trying to portray myself as any liberator of women. Im just calling a spade a spade. If you told a political prisoner to stop justifying his imprisonment a la 1984 or something, I wouldnt attack you personally like you just did with me. Lets focus on whether or not the Bible denigrates women, and lets not have an argument over whether or not I view myself as some liberator of women. I do not, nor did I claim to. Im not expecting to fool anyone as you contend. Rather, I am trying to stop people from being fooled by a fairy-tale book.<BR/><BR/><I>At least I'm trying to figure out exactly what you mean by coercion haha!</I><BR/><BR/>Coercion is basically person A forcing his will/desires onto person B irrespective of person B's will/desires. In one word: Force. Do you understand now?<BR/><BR/><I>It seems to me that if you really cared about facts and the truth, you'd be more careful about locking yourself into a position so rigidly.</I><BR/><BR/>Fuck that. If you and Sandalstraps and Amy cared so much about facts and truth, youd be more likely to claim a position as true! All you three have done in here is given me such a re-interpreted mishmash of liberal Christianity that I dont think Id even know WHAT to believe even if I WANTED to be saved by Jesus right this second! <BR/><BR/>If you wanna know about facts and truth, why dont you try to discover and adopt some? <BR/><BR/><I>There are a lot of positions out there.</I><BR/><BR/>But not many true ones. <BR/><BR/><I>There are a lot of arguments! How do you know you've heard all of the good ones!</I><BR/><BR/>Got some that you think I havent heard of?<BR/><BR/><I>You keep misrepresenting our arguments, too. What kind of passion for reason and truth is that?</I><BR/><BR/>No, I keep trying to IDENTIFY your arguments, as well as compare them with arguments that I used to present back when I was a Christian. But so far Ive made no progress. All I know is that you three believe in Jesus Christ/God and the afterlife. However, you have yet to identify anything more than that. You are smoke and mirrors! <BR/><BR/>If you dont start taking some firm stands on some of these things, then why do you get mad when I try to help you do it? How am I supposed to know what any of you are saying? How am I supposed to evaluate for myself the truth of your claims, when the ONLY CLAIM YOU EVER MAKE is "thats open to interpretation"?????? What are you, a nihilist? <BR/><BR/>Can you tell me WHY you believe in Jesus Christ? Can you tell me why you believe in the afterlife? Can you give me an argument of your own that says "atheism is wrong and Xtianity is right because...." Can you tell me if you believe in the 10 commandments? Do you believe in original sin (so far youve kindof half-assed indicated that you dont, but I cant really tell!!) ??? <BR/><BR/>I assume youve read my latest post directed at Sandalstraps. Im having a real tough time with both of you because you are both all smoke and mirrors. Help me engage you in discussion Tyler, please!! :)<BR/><BR/><I>Did you really laugh out loud while you wrote that? Just curious. Most people tend to use that as a sort of indication of vague good-humoredness. That bothers my inner language-nazi, but it's not that big of a deal. I'm fighting a losing battle, it seems. I was hanging out with a girl who said "OMG" in actual conversation.</I><BR/><BR/>Usually, but not always, when I type LOL I actually do laugh out loud. And in this case, yes I did LOL! ;-)<BR/><BR/><I>If you did it because (hypothetically) I was black and you're a racist, than I'd say it is immoral.</I><BR/><BR/>So its immoral for me to snub you if I dont like your race but its not immoral for me to snub you if I am, say, in too grumpy of a mood to talk to you?<BR/><BR/><I>Let's say you are a black person and you went into a diner in Mississippi. I own the diner and don't like black people. It's illegal for me to deny you service on account of the color of your skin, (explain that law to me, Aaron!) but I just tell my waiters to walk past you with their noses in the air. Is that immoral? It's virtually the same situation.</I><BR/><BR/>Not really. In actuality, it is IMMORAL to make a law that says "you must serve person X regardless of their feature Y." Being a racist is repugnant, distasteful, stupid, and anti-social. And using force (coercion) on any person for ANY reason is immoral. Whether I want your money or hate your skin color, mugging you is immoral. <BR/><BR/>But what about consentual interaction/trade? Is it immoral for me to refuse to sell you a meal because you are wearing no shirt? How about if you arent the right kind of football team fan and its football night at the local pub, would it be immoral for me to refuse service to you? Would it be immoral for me to refuse to hire a man at a hooters restaurant? Now it may be stupid and rude, but would it be "immoral" for me to refuse to engage in voluntary trade with you for any given reason that I choose, including skin color? <BR/><BR/>The stupidity comes in when I say "I refuse to trade or interact with you because of arbitrary feature X," but the immorality comes in when a man with a gun says "you are being forced to perform or endure action X."<BR/><BR/>There is a difference, and I think you are having trouble distinguishing between immorality and stupidity.<BR/><BR/>Is it immoral for a Christian newspaper to refuse to sell advertizing space to an atheist? <BR/><BR/><I>I said this already, but who are you to tell me what the proper way to interpret scripture is?</I><BR/><BR/>According to the Bible, youre not supposed to listen to ANYONES interpretation of it, even your own!!! And I shouldnt listen to yours either. So where does that get us? Thats because the Bible is a wonderfully crafted book of lies and brainwashing. Its allegedly the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK IN THE WORLD yet it has the LEAST CLEAR MESSAGE ever written! Cant you see the forest for the trees Tyler???<BR/><BR/><I>There are thousands of years of fierce debates over the best way to understand the first two chapters of Genesis.</I><BR/><BR/>Boy doesnt THAT little fact help out the books credibility??? :P<BR/><BR/><I>There's a whole lot going on in that text than you realize. It is a pretty ridiculous assumption to make that the author of the text wanted solely to give a historical account of the creation. If you actually read Genesis, you'd see that there are two different creation accounts in the first two chapters.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh believe me Tyler, I am acutely aware of the inconsistencies between the two stories in the first two chapters of Genesis. I am also acutely aware of the multiple versions of the ten commandments that God creates, as well as the inconsistent recitations of those commandments later on by Jesus, as well as the conflicting resurrection stories, etc. etc. ad NAUSEUM. <BR/><BR/>The problem here Tyler, is that YOU are aware of these issues in the Bible just as I am, but YOU Are not aware that the book is a big fat lie - a make believe story. You are clearly not a stupid person Tyler. You got a good head on your shoulders. Can you not see that you believe in just one of countless silly ancient superstitions? <BR/><BR/><I>If historical accuracy was as an important a goal for these texts as you seem to think, one might imagine that people would have realized this by now, huh? Maybe you're missing something, Aaron.</I><BR/><BR/>The most important book in the world should contain a bit of historical accuracy. And if historical accuracy is NOT an important goal for the Bible, as you claim, then why the hell should you believe in the historical account of Jesus Christ, or of Noah, or of Adam and Eve, or of the mere EXISTENCE of God itself? <BR/><BR/>What else is the Bible BESIDES a historical account of Gods creation of, and involvement in, mans existence? A message to man on how he should act? Well neither of these options work, since you already admit that its a shitty historical record, and since you admit that no two Christians can barely agree on any message it gives, and since it provides multiple and conflicting directives for conduct, and since it makes NO JUSTIFICATION for the truth of its most important claim (God exists), what the hell is the book good for? It has failed utterly in doing anything other than confuse humans and cause problems. <BR/><BR/><I>Your little list is pretty shaky, man:</I><BR/><BR/>No, its rock solid. Your interpretation of it is shaky ;) allow me to elaborate: <BR/><BR/><I>Making a trillion dollars through shrewd investment decisions? Moral.<BR/><BR/>Not if you are knowingly aiding and abetting the coerced labor of teenagers in China, right?</I><BR/><BR/>Note that my statement included nothing of aiding coerced labor in China. You are changing premises to fit your desired conclusion. In other words, this is a straw man. <BR/><BR/>So let me assume both your coerced labor premise and my shrewd business permise and examine each. Making shrewd business decisions to get rich? Moral. Using coerced labor to get rich? Immoral. <BR/><BR/><I>Becoming a herion junkie? Moral (although very stupid).<BR/><BR/>Even if the vast majority of junkies resort to theft to feed their habit? </I><BR/><BR/>Again, you inserted extra premises to make the statement fit your desired conclusion. This is another strawman. <BR/><BR/>Now, nevermind the fact that the government and drug-war are what make drugs so expensive that people need to steal for their habits. Lets focus on drug usage and theft to support it. Being a junkie is not immoral. Stealing is. For example, I could be a huge heroin junkie but I could be rich, and therefore dont need to steal. That would be moral. Or, I could be a totally sober person, but a kleptomaniac. That would be immoral. <BR/><BR/>And since you didnt actually oppose my claims that being rich or being a junkie, in and of themselves, is not immoral, then I assume that you have no real beef with my claim that the sole deciding factor in regards to the morality of an interaction or action is whether or not coercion was at play? <BR/><BR/>I mean, after all, you had to insert a coercive premise into each of my moral examples just to try to make them look immoral. So I can only assume that you agree with me? You implied as much, even with your strawmen.<BR/><BR/>It doesnt look to me like you get your history, reality claims, or morality from the Bible at all. So what the hell DO you get from your Bible? Why do you believe it? What evidence convinced you to have "faith" in the Bible anyway? Why do you believe in the resurrection story if you dont seem to believe in much else the book claims? Why are you so seemingly unable to identify, much less justify, your particular brand of Christianity?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160499048887102792006-10-10T09:50:00.000-07:002006-10-10T09:50:00.000-07:00Sandalstraps,RE: Your conversation with Amy.There ...Sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>RE: Your conversation with Amy.<BR/><BR/>There are many points I'd like to make about the content of the Bible, and especially about the relationship between the Bible and the religions which use it (in one of three major forms) as their sacred scripture. However, I can't do a comprehensive treatment of that subject here. Instead I can simply say this as a basic consideration:<BR/><BR/>As Amy has already anticipated, you are borrowing the assumptions of a particular kind of Christianity - historically not the most common form, and rationally certainly not the best articulation - and making it the normative one. This is particularly true in view of your comments concerning the role of the Bible in the life of believers, hinting that each passage of the Bible should be binding on all who claim it as scripture, in any historical or cultural setting.</I><BR/><BR/>Thats the problem with that worthless book, Sandalstraps (no offense). Every time you try to address the books claims from an atheistic perspective; every time you try to do an internal critique; every time you try, as an atheist (and former Christian), to say "the bible says 'x'", your opponent or another Christian will say "thats just one interpretation!" and they shift the goalposts or change what the damn book is supposed to be saying! I am soooooooooo sick of this convenient little feature of that nursery rhyme book. Just yesterday I argued with another Christian where we were both busting out Bible passages to support our own arguments. You can make that goddamn book say almost anything you want! And every time you try to attack the book, you can just respond by "reinterpreting" it! <BR/><BR/>I think that that fact alone destroys much of the books credibility. Something so inspired and important shouldnt be so impossible to understand or ascertain its message.<BR/><BR/><I>This view, which is not uncommon among Christians, ignores that the cannonical Bible is a product of the religion which claims it as its sacred text, and not the other way around. As such, as concerns the relationship between Christianity and the Bible, Christianity formed the Biblical canon, deciding which works made it in, and what their role in the canon should be. </I><BR/><BR/>And the smoke-and-mirrors show contniues. The Bible appears even more worthless after ingesting that statement.<BR/><BR/><I>This - especially as the epistemic and moral assumptions of the universal church shifts - makes the relationship between Christianity and the Bible a much more complicated one than either you or the fundamentalists suggest.</I><BR/><BR/>And much less useful and applicable in real life, as well as much less reliable and credible.<BR/><BR/><I>So, for someone like Amy, it is quite possible that progressive revelation makes stories about Jesus' compassion toward women more binding on believers than certain Tanakh (the Hebrew term for what Christians call the Old Testament) passages which you might cite. Not that those passages should be striken from scripture, as they remind us of our Judaic heritage. But that heritage is not a uniformly good one. Vis a vie the role of women in society, in fact, like many other cultures, it is a particularly bad one. But a Christian is not bound, simply by being a "person of the book," to hold that our checkered past, permanently preserved in sacred scripture, must be continually repeated.</I><BR/><BR/>What else are Christians free to ignore? The ten commandments? The book of Romans? What other decrees is Amy able to pick and choose from? How about the part where she believes in Jesus Christ? <BR/><BR/><I>There is a wealth of literature, theology, and particularly scriptural exegesis offered by feminist theologians dealing with this subject. As Amy is a feminist training to become a Presbyterian (USA) minister, I'm sure she can provide you with an excellent reading list on the subject. As for me, I highly recommend Johanna W.H. an Wijk-Bos' Reformed and Feminist: A Challenge to the Church. It is a short, easy read by the Dora Pierce Professor of Bible and Professor of Old Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Both Amy and I have studied under her, and I know that I have been profoundly impacted by her teaching and her writing.</I><BR/><BR/>Im sure that Johanna's book "A Challenge to the Church" is a great read, but I just recently finished off C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, and it was a chore and a half LOL. I just bought the Catholic Catechism and Im starting to tear into that, which is at least more entertaining that Lewis was. I will put this book on my list of books to read though. :)<BR/><BR/>However, youve got to try to see it from my perspective, you know? Watching a handful of Christians blow the Bible around like smoke rings. I cant touch the damn thing because the smoke just dissapears or moves somewhere else every time. Its more slippery than a slip-n-slide! The mental contortionism that you perform to justify or rationalize these unambiguously incorrect, superstitious, immoral, and ignorant messages from that book just make my head spin. <BR/><BR/><I>I mention this to say that someone who knows the Hebrew scriptures better than almost anyone alive, and considers them to be important for the Christian life, is also a feminist and an activist for the equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. And she would see no contradiction there. It all has to do with the way in which you approach the role of scripture. Neither Amy nor Johanna advocate getting rid of it, but neither do they fail to make critical moral distinctions between passages which build up women and passages which tear down women.</I><BR/><BR/>LMFAO! The WAY IN WHICH I APPROACH SCRIPTURE?????? I think the way in which you and Amy approach scripture needs some re-evaluation. Maybe you should try approaching it from a perspective that doesnt automatically assume that its true while figuring out how to twist it to force-fit into your reality.<BR/><BR/>The way in which I approach scripture compared to you and Amy is far more healthy and honest, intellectually. Care to remind me again why you believe in the Bible and call yourself a Christian when all you do is re-interpret the damn thing to fit the unavoidable facts of reality? <BR/><BR/>How long will you mold the Bible like play-dough to make it fit into the square and round holes of the world, etc, until the book itself bears no resemblance to what it looked like when you first laid your hands on it? Metaphorically, the Bible has no discernible shape or texture when its in your hands. Its jello. <BR/><BR/><I>Proof-texting without any stated mode of interpretation or appreciation for context is as unseemly coming from an atheist or a skeptic as it is coming from a fundamentalist.</I><BR/><BR/>You got it wrong. That sentence should read, "using any stated mode of interpretation or appreciation for context to facilitate one's proof-texting is as intellectually dishonest coming from a liberal Christian as it is coming from a materialistic scientist" <BR/><BR/>Sandalstraps, you are a very nice person, obviously. Forgive me for acting a bit frustrated now. But when we both start writing books at each-other here, and the entire dialogue involves me trying to identify and attack your position(s) while you only spend your time moving your position across the field like smoke or a ghost, and never making a concrete stand, is rather frustrating.<BR/><BR/>Lets get down to it, my man: You still havent given me one good reason WHY you believe in Christianity or the afterlife. You havent given me a single justification or reason for your belief. When pressed, you only stated that you are unable to do so because of personal experience. <BR/><BR/>Now Im sure that you are a smart and rational guy most of the time. But your actions and dialogue with me in here so far comes off to me like you are simply crazy and deluded when it specifically comes to your faith. Can you possibly imagine the exasperation that YOU would feel if you were in my shoes and you were conversing with a man who believed in Santa Claus and he acted exacly as you are in regards to Santas existence? He cant explain why or how he believes in Santa? He will shift Santa lore/doctrine every time you try to attack it? <BR/><BR/>Sandalstraps, if you want to defend your faith in here, or explain to me why I am wrong and why the afterlife and Jesus are real, youre going to have to take a goddamn stand and defend one goddamn Christian position or another. Pick an interpretation, lay it out, and stick with it. <BR/><BR/>I mean this in a respectful way, but: You havent been evangelizing. You havent even been performing proper apologetics. You havent been spreading the faith whatsoever as far as I can see. All youve done is given, in my opinion, a very good smoke-and-mirror illusion show. Maybe Im jaded or biased, but to me it looks like an impartial observer would be scoffing at Christianity after reading this ongoing comment dialogue.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160486480825599632006-10-10T06:21:00.000-07:002006-10-10T06:21:00.000-07:00Tyler,When you say... empiricism can never prove t...Tyler,<BR/><BR/>When you say<BR/><BR/><EM>... empiricism can never prove that empiricism gets to, or can get to the whole of the truth. It might be able to, but you can't prove it empirically; you don't have good reasons to believe it's the case; it's a faith-like decision in that sense.</EM><BR/><BR/>you answer Blacksun's objection to me better than I would have.<BR/><BR/>Blacksun,<BR/><BR/>Truth, simply put, is rarely a binary principle. Anyone with any understanding of science ought to know that. Empiricism takes (apparently) shared phenomenological experiences and attempts to incorperate them into a narrative which orders those experiences. It succeeds insofar as it can help order the experiences which we call empirical ones. But it is as limited as any other attempt to order our experiences into a coherant narrative - limited, because our own perceptions are limited, so the narratives we weave from them are similarly limited.<BR/><BR/>Of course, pure empiricism, as David Hume pointed out, is a fair amount more limited than that. On the basis of empiricism alone we can say very, very little. Hume argued that we cannot say with any certainty that anything <EM>caused</EM> anything else, a statement necessary for any scientific theory. This is because, while we can experience events in sequence, we can never empirically experience a cause. We simply experience one event, then the next event. They become linked as we reflect on our experiences, and such reflection lies outside pure empiricism.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying this to say that modern science is <EM>more flawed</EM> than other attempts to order our experience. In fact, I am like you beholden to the epistemic assumptions of our culture. But I acknowledge that, something which is necessary for intellectual honesty.<BR/><BR/>Empiricism is a very good axiomatic system. That is, if you start with certain assumptions, axioms which cannot within the system be challenged (these axioms concern fundamental things like what we mean by "truth" or "knowledge," and how those are to be obtained) you can build from those assumptions a consistent system which helps order our experiences. But empiricism is not the <EM>only</EM> such system, nor is it the only such system which is internally consistent.<BR/><BR/>The conflict between us stems in part from a difference not in our ability to reason (though there may be some difference there, as your willingness to see a contradiction in my thinking where none exists simply because you do not understand or care to understand the subtlty of my position indicates that you readily see my reasoning as defective, and I am tempted to return the favor) but from a difference in starting points. And our starting points are fundamental, axiomatic. They undergird the whole system, and cannot be questioned from within the system.<BR/><BR/>This is the most charitable way that I can think of to tell you that we are at an impasse. As I've said before - though it seems beyond hoping - some epistemic humility would do you some good. You are not nearly alone in needing that, as many great minds (sometimes including my own) want for the very same thing.<BR/><BR/>Aaron,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that once again you are victimized by my ability to far too easily get distracted by Blacksun. Believe me, I am aware that I owe you are more thorough consideration of morality in general and the specific question of sexuality and pornography. Please accpt this IOU. After my son, who is home from preschool today, takes his nap, I hope to revisit our conversation, as we ought to wrap it up before too long.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160440470451796782006-10-09T17:34:00.000-07:002006-10-09T17:34:00.000-07:00sandalstraps, When you defend yourself against suc...sandalstraps, <BR/><BR/><I>When you defend yourself against such a charge by reiterating the primacy of empiricism you only make my case for me.</I><BR/><BR/>What case? Are you really making the claim that the process of science and the gathering of empirical evidence is open to dispute?<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, you seem to value institutions of higher learning which rely on those methods.<BR/><BR/>I seem to have caught you in a contradiction. Either you think empirical methods work, or you don't.<BR/><BR/>If you don't then I have nothing further to add.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160433263467964342006-10-09T15:34:00.000-07:002006-10-09T15:34:00.000-07:00Alas, again, no time at present to make good on al...Alas, again, no time at present to make good on all of my promises. I'll have to be brief, triaging my major concerns before I come back later to deal with what's left. Sorry about that. Such is the nature of blog discussions.<BR/><BR/>Aaron,<BR/><BR/>RE: Your conversation with Amy.<BR/><BR/>There are many points I'd like to make about the content of the Bible, and especially about the relationship between the Bible and the religions which use it (in one of three major forms) as their sacred scripture. However, I can't do a comprehensive treatment of that subject here. Instead I can simply say this as a basic consideration:<BR/><BR/>As Amy has already anticipated, you are borrowing the assumptions of a particular kind of Christianity - historically not the most common form, and rationally certainly not the best articulation - and making it the normative one. This is particularly true in view of your comments concerning the role of the Bible in the life of believers, hinting that each passage of the Bible should be binding on all who claim it as scripture, in any historical or cultural setting.<BR/><BR/>This view, which is not uncommon among Christians, ignores that the cannonical Bible is a product of the religion which claims it as its sacred text, and not the other way around. As such, as concerns the relationship between Christianity and the Bible, Christianity formed the Biblical canon, deciding which works made it in, and what their role in the canon should be. <BR/><BR/>This - especially as the epistemic and moral assumptions of the universal church shifts - makes the relationship between Christianity and the Bible a much more complicated one than either you or the fundamentalists suggest.<BR/><BR/>So, for someone like Amy, it is quite possible that progressive revelation makes stories about Jesus' compassion toward women more binding on believers than certain <EM>Tanakh</EM> (the Hebrew term for what Christians call the Old Testament) passages which you might cite. Not that those passages should be striken from scripture, as they remind us of our Judaic heritage. But that heritage is not a uniformly good one. <EM>Vis a vie</EM> the role of women in society, in fact, like many other cultures, it is a particularly bad one. But a Christian is not bound, simply by being a "person of the book," to hold that our checkered past, permanently preserved in sacred scripture, must be continually repeated.<BR/><BR/>There is a wealth of literature, theology, and particularly scriptural exegesis offered by feminist theologians dealing with this subject. As Amy is a feminist training to become a Presbyterian (USA) minister, I'm sure she can provide you with an excellent reading list on the subject. As for me, I highly recommend Johanna W.H. an Wijk-Bos' <EM>Reformed and Feminist: A Challenge to the Church</EM>. It is a short, easy read by the Dora Pierce Professor of Bible and Professor of Old Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Both Amy and I have studied under her, and I know that I have been profoundly impacted by her teaching and her writing.<BR/><BR/>I mention this to say that someone who knows the Hebrew scriptures better than almost anyone alive, and considers them to be important for the Christian life, is also a feminist and an activist for the equal treatment of gays, lesbians and transgendered persons. And she would see no contradiction there. It all has to do with the way in which you approach the role of scripture. Neither Amy nor Johanna advocate getting rid of it, but neither do they fail to make critical moral distinctions between passages which build up women and passages which tear down women.<BR/><BR/>Proof-texting without any stated mode of interpretation or appreciation for context is as unseemly coming from an atheist or a skeptic as it is coming from a fundamentalist.<BR/><BR/>Blacksun,<BR/><BR/><EM>Not if they are determined empirically.</EM><BR/><BR/>You only value empiricism because of your cultural context. That is my primary point concerning your being beholden to your cultural context, and especially to Hobbes. When you defend yourself against such a charge be reiterating the primacy of empiricism you only make my case for me.<BR/><BR/><EM>Are you arguing that the bomber's opinion of human nature/evolutionary psychology should be considered on a par with the latest research from the best Western institutions?</EM> <BR/> <BR/>I am saying no such thing. But I <EM>am</EM> saying that even those great Western instituitions would do well to exhibit some epistemic humility.<BR/><BR/>I have to go now, so again I'll have to apologize, and post-pone living up to my obligations here.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160419995012655542006-10-09T11:53:00.000-07:002006-10-09T11:53:00.000-07:00Tyler Simons, Aaron, isn't it immoral to be rude?N...Tyler Simons, <BR/><BR/><I>Aaron, isn't it immoral to be rude?</I><BR/><BR/>No. Lets use an example. Lets say you and I pass each-other on the sidewalk. You ask me "hey pal, how do I get to 1st street?" And I take one glance at you, stick my nose in the air, and walk away without saying a word to you. Was I rude? Yes. Was I immoral? No. You offered an interaction opportunity with me, and I declined it with distaste. That is not immoral. What it is, is not very considerate. Thats all.<BR/><BR/><I>How do you describe manners except as how one should behave?</I><BR/><BR/>Like dont chew with your mouth open or burp at the dinner table or pick your nose in front of other people? Those are manners. Those are not crimes. Those are not immoral actions, but actions that involve appearance and attractability and socialibility and politeness. <BR/><BR/><I>An opinion about how one should behave implies a moral judgment, it seems to me.</I><BR/><BR/>Not always. Sometimes they are moral judgements, sometimes they are judgements involving merely the adherence to social norms or customs, which in and of themselves are not moral or immoral. And even sometimes, actions are judged on their intellectual merit. Is it stupid to make an ugly face at a pretty girl who likes you? Sure! Is it immoral? No. <BR/><BR/><I>I think it's immoral to be unwise, too. Don't you agree?</I><BR/><BR/>Most definitely I do NOT agree, my friend.<BR/><BR/><I>Don't we, as humans, have some kind of obligation to think critically about our perspective in order to conform it to reality?</I><BR/><BR/>No, but we have an incentive to think critically, which is different. Surely, it is BETTER to think critically about reality, but it is not IMMORAL to fail to do so. <BR/><BR/><I>You seem to think that it's somehow wrong for Strapple to "steadfastly [hold] on to something that [he doesn't] seem to have good reasons to hold on to." What are your good reasons for feeling this way?</I><BR/><BR/>I do indeed think it is "wrong" to do that, but for reasons OTHER than moral/immoral. I think its wrong to do so because its STUPID. I am critical of stupidity for reasons of utility and merit. But I am critical of immorality for reasons of principle. Tyler, it is wrong and EVIL to, say, invade a country and bomb its citizens and take its resources, even IF it is beneficial for us to do so. Now, on the other hand, it is NOT immoral for a person so waste his life savings by donating it to the Red Cross, even if it IS stupid for him to do so.<BR/><BR/>The crux of whether or not an action is moral or not involves one thing and one thing only: whether it was coerced or not. If the action was coerced or coercive, then it is immoral. If no coercion was at play, then it is moral. Period. <BR/><BR/><I>Your moral code seems one-sided to me. Freedom from coercion seems to sum it up. Freedom-from. This is a wholly negative moral code.</I><BR/><BR/>More or less, yes. :)<BR/><BR/><I>You may or may not have good reason for keeping it this way, but I'm tempted to look for a positive side to a moral code, to look for virtues like honesty, compassion, courage, love and justice. How does your moral code account for impressively good behavior?</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Define good behavior. I define good behaviour as consensual behavior. How do you define it? <BR/><BR/><I>Don't you think that reason is somehow a virtue? It seems like you do, sometimes.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure it is. But reason includes within it the concept of "self-ownership." Indeed, self-ownership is axiomatic to all of us. And self-ownership is the foundation to my moral framework. <BR/><BR/>Now, the failure to use reason adequately in and of itself is not "immoral", but it may be "Stupid". Only when the failure to reason ends with the application of coercion does "immorality" come in to play. I mean, if I do a math error and mis-balance my checkbook, was that an evil act? No. But if I fail to reason during a bar argument with you, and then I punch you in the face, was that evil? Yes. <BR/><BR/><I>Doesn't a Dorothy Day or Ghandi or Martin Luther King somehow have a higher moral status than someone who just chugs along, trying one's best not to coerce anybody?</I><BR/><BR/>LOL, what else did Day or Ghandi or King do other than chug along all day trying to stop coercion?<BR/><BR/><I>You probably could, as an anarchist, say that people like that were fighting the coercion present in the political structure. There seems to be a difference, though, between trying to extract oneself from participation in a coercive society and actively working to eliminate coercions present in society as a whole. How do you account for this?</I><BR/><BR/>I dont know where you got the idea that I am against heroes. I love heroes. I have lots of them! Heroes are individualists to the core. Thats WHY we worship them in the first place. <BR/><BR/>Now, lets say person A is a non-coercive regular old eddy punchclock. He just chugs along and doesnt hurt anybody. But then person B is non-coercive just like person A, but person B also spends most of his time trying to stop others from doing coercive acts, like a crime fighter or whatever. Well, is one person "better" than the other? Maybe. But can either of these people be chastized, or condemned in any way? No. They are both respectable and honorable. Maybe person B is just higher performing and just MORE admirable. Person A is respectable and admirable, but person B is a HERO.<BR/><BR/>To use another analogy, I think that the Mustang GT is a GREAT car, but the Dodge Viper is even BETTER. But to be sure, both cars are good. <BR/><BR/>Individualism is all about individual acheivement for the selfish satisfaction of one's values. Individualism embraces stratification as a natural result of differences in performance ability. I wholly embrace the valuing of people for factors other than, and in addition to, their moral correctness.<BR/><BR/><I>I like good reasons as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure they can do as much as you seem to want. While I'm committed to a mutual reflective conversation with as many human participants as possible so that we might share our reasons for believing what we believe about the world and the way it should be, I'm not so sure that you'll ever get everybody to agree on first principles from which to argue. I'm pretty confidant that you'll never get everyone to sacrifice their own personal convictions about the truth for a collective mutual approach to the truth. I don't necessarily believe that you'd ever get everyone to reflect critically on their moral and metaphysical outlooks and put these reflections into practice consistantly. In short, I'm not a utopian.</I><BR/><BR/>Im not a utopian either, Tyler. Its funny how you said that you dont think Ill ever get everybody to agree on first principles. You are right; I probably wont. Especially not in this lifetime or generation. However, there were times when people said "youll never convince everyone that the world is round!" or "youll never get people to support democratic voting!" Yet now they are the majority views in todays world. <BR/><BR/>Whether or not people pay lip service to, or even consciously acknowledge, the principle of self-ownership, is not as relevant as whether or not they practice it. And already in the world today the vast majority of interactions between people involves a mutual and strict adherence to self-ownership. In fact you and I are adhering to it right now in this discussion. Look at all the interactions you do in a day, and see how many of them are anarchistic and based on mutual recognizance of, and adherence to, self-ownership. You may be surprised how common these individualist and anarchistic ideas are already present in your life. <BR/><BR/><I>We're selfish bastards, humans.</I><BR/><BR/>Fuck yea, isnt it great? And our greatest heroes are the MOST selfish! (yes that includes Ghandi and ML King)<BR/><BR/><I>A lot of times I think that the competetiveness and violence that humans show goes above and beyond any naturalistic "survival of the fittest" explanation.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, news flash Tyler: Violence is NOT competitive. Violence is anti-competitive. It is an attempt to COERCIVELY REMOVE the competition from the playing field. <BR/><BR/>Competition is cooperation. Now theres a mind-blowing statement! :D<BR/><BR/><I>We're too good at succeeding and grinding our competetors into the dirt in the process.</I><BR/><BR/>Destroying a soda company by producing a superior competitive product is competition, and it is moral, and it is cooperative. Soda company A cooperated with soda company B specifically by competing with it. They agreed to a game of "who can produce the best?" and one of them lost. <BR/><BR/>Now, if soda company A decided to get some mercenaries and destroy the headquarters of soda company B, then that would be immoral, anti-competitive, anti-cooperative, etc...<BR/><BR/><I>You see bitter power struggles in moral philosophy departments, for which good reasons for moral codes are the very lifeblood. Anarchists steal their friends girlfriends. This is the essence of my understanding of Original Sin. It might be explainable by means of nature, it might be, as Reinhold Niebuhr believed, spiritual. I'm not sure. I don't think our sinful state exists because Eve got Adam to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That's pretty ridiculous. There's a whole lot to be taken from the first few chapters of Genesis. A literal explanation for the origin of Sin is probably the stupidest possible thing to take from it. Thinking about how the Rabbis defined the knowledge of good and evil as the root of all sin, that's pretty interesting, but neither here nor there.</I><BR/><BR/>Wow. I seem to meet more and more Christians nowadays who totally reject Genesis. Forgive me Tyler, but why the heck are you a Christian if you reject the creation story and, more importantly, the fall of Adam and Eve??? Trippy.<BR/><BR/><I>What are your good reasons for thinking that good reasons are so important for morality?</I><BR/><BR/>The only thing that is important to morality as far as I can see is principles based on reality. We are all autonomous agents, and we need to pattern our "right/wrong" behavior definitions accordingly. It is right to act within the individual autonomous agents framework that reality provides, and it is wrong to attempt to violate it (violate self-ownership). Thats all there is to it. Its actually rather simple. <BR/><BR/>Consentual premarital orgies? Moral. <BR/>Raping your wife? Immoral. <BR/>Making a trillion dollars through shrewd investment decisions? Moral.<BR/>Stealing a dollar? Immoral.<BR/>Driving a competitor out of business through superior products and prices? Moral.<BR/>Framing your competitor in an insider trading scam? Immoral.<BR/>Becoming a herion junkie? Moral (although very stupid).<BR/>Spiking someone's orange juice with a little vodka? Immoral.<BR/><BR/>Is this starting to make sense now?Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160417274910585042006-10-09T11:07:00.000-07:002006-10-09T11:07:00.000-07:00Sandalstraps,You make more use of "coersion" than ...Sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>You make more use of "coersion" than I would. I don't mean that as insult, but instead as a reflection on the ways in which we use language. Tyler and I both place much more narrow parameters on what that word can mean, and as such have other ethical principles to do the work which you have "coersion" do. As such, as you suspected, we are not all that far apart, at least on a surface level reading.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I do use that word a lot. No insult taken BTW. However, I could say in return that christians use the word "sin" more often than I would haha! <BR/><BR/>Seriously though, because I subscribe to a fact-based individualist morality, and that Im a materialistic atheist and a market anarchist, you can imagine that, to me, the paramount deciding moral factor in any action or interaction between two or more subjects is the will; the self-ownership; the self-determination; the "consent" to the interaction. So that word becomes kind of a favorite word for me.<BR/><BR/><I>You place "consent" and "coersion" in opposition to each other, in part in the recognition that coersion represents a kind of violence in its violation of the will. I wonder, however, what criteria must be met for there to be sufficient "consent" for an act to be a morally appropriate one.</I><BR/><BR/>As much as is deemed appropriate by the involved parties. <BR/><BR/><I>To what extent must consent be well informed? Does one, in other words, have a moral obligation to inform someone of all possible consequences of a particular activity in order to obtain their consent? Or all probable consequences, all reasonably forseeable consequences? Does one have a moral obligation, further, to ensure that the person whose consent one is trying to obtain fully understands the information they receive concerning the possible or probable consequences of the activity for which one is trying to obtain consent? </I><BR/><BR/>Well, sure. But when two adults are dealing with each-other, the other adult usually figures most of those things out on their own. Intellect does come in to play here to where, for example, if I warn you, Sandalstraps, not to put your hand in the boiling pot of water than Im using to make pasta, I can assume that as an adult you already understand the consequences of scalding hot water on your own skin. I dont think I would be morally guilty for failing to inform you of that consequence. However, if we are to engage in a business deal, and I create for myself some kind of trap door so that I can unfairly take advantage of you in business, then obviously I would be morally guilty. <BR/><BR/>Informed consent has to do with, obviously, information. Now, it is true that all known info must be shared by both parties. Does it have to happen regardless, or does it only have to happen "upon request"? Im not totally sure, but it is obvious that <I>deliberately</I> witholding information is just the same as lying, which is immoral and coercive. <BR/><BR/>But I dont see how your questions present any problems for my moral framework. It just seems that you desire some kind of clarification. Well Sandalstraps, you have a credit card do you not? Did you read the contract that you entered into when you got the credit card? I didnt read mine (LOL). See, the credit card company gives a disclosure, they give you APR rate info, they let you know all the clauses and exceptions and shit in their printed materials. Then you likely breeze through it, and sign up for the card, and then when you have a dispute, you want to sue them, but you cant because you signed a contract not to, so who is responsible then? The credit card company? No...<BR/><BR/>You see, these kinds of things that you questioned, and that I described, already take place today in every facet of society. Consent is your name on the dotted line. Disclosure is informed consent. 99.9% of all interactions between individuals and companies already happen according to the moral framework that I presented anyway. You probably barely even notice it because it works so well, and wheels that dont squeak dont get paid much attention to.<BR/><BR/><I>In other words, are these sorts of considerations made when one is, in evaluating a given situation, distinguishing between consent and coersion?</I><BR/><BR/>Yup!<BR/><BR/><I>That's all I'll ask for a moment, as any other possible questions and comments depend on working out that issue.</I><BR/><BR/>I hope I answered your questions adequately! :)<BR/><BR/><I>Also, I promise that I will shortly start to advance my own moral concerns, especially as they deal with distinguishing between healthy and unhealthy behavior in general, and sexual behavior in particular.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds good, Im looking forward to it.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160416245685308982006-10-09T10:50:00.000-07:002006-10-09T10:50:00.000-07:00Amy,Thank you for your thoughtful and amicable inp...Amy,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your thoughtful and amicable input. <BR/><BR/><I>You state "Abrahamic theism (not general theism), however, does indeed equate sexuality as immoral (unless performed by two married people of opposite sex), and violence as perfectly fine if God wants it to happen." In this manner, you are allowing the fundamentalist interpretation that you find so repugnant to define what is Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>In this sense, I think its more "literal," but we can use the word "fundamental" if you wish. <BR/><BR/><I>In your argument, it becomes the norm, and even something necessary to practicing any of the Abrahamic faiths.</I><BR/><BR/>Well it IS in fact the norm because its what is clearly stated in the OT and the NT and the Quran. But have I argued that it is necessary for all practitioners of the Abrahamic faiths? No. Although to be fair, I will admit that I probably implied it or seemed to assume it in my writing...<BR/><BR/><I>By making this blanket statement, you ignore the reality of Reform Judaism (which has no such prohibition against premarital sex) and the Metropolitian Community Church (a Christian denomination that was formed in order to affirm and minister to the LGBT population) and the experience of Queer Theologians, among others. All of these groups define themselves as within the Abrahamic traditions; and yet, the model you have created discounts their existence.</I><BR/><BR/>Point taken. Well, I dont try to discount their existence, and Im sorry if it comes off that way. I will happily admit right here and now that you can be gay or have premarital sex and still be a practitioner of the Abrahamic faiths. But I will still maintain that the Abrahamic Holy Books (OT, NT, and Quran) all state in no uncertain terms what they expect by way of sexual activity from their adherents. Accordingly, if a Christian or Muslim is participating in homosexual premarital orgies, they can still be a Christian or Muslim, but they ARE doing something that is forbidden by the holy books of their religions.<BR/><BR/><I>In this manner, you are participating in another logical fallacy - the straw man argument. You are allowing the position of "Abrahamic Theism" to be defined by its weakest, most outrageous, thinkers and interpreters.</I><BR/><BR/>No, Amy. Don't get too carried away with your spinzone here. <STRONG>It is the Jews for Jesus, the homosexual preachers, and the Muslims that have premarital sex, who are the "weakest, most outrageous, thinkers and interpreters."</STRONG><BR/><BR/><I>Indeed, there are some Christianities that do present themselves in the manner which you have described; there are also many Christianities that do not.</I><BR/><BR/>I totally agree.<BR/><BR/><I>Any true discussion of these issues needs to recognize that there are as many belief variants within the Abrahamic traditions as there are believers. </I><BR/><BR/>True, but how many translations of the Bible say that a man can fuck another man in the ass? How many translations of the Bible say that slavery is wrong, or that a womens consent is paramount in sexual matters? <BR/><BR/>My point is that while there may be many variants of believers, there is not nearly as much variance found within these holy books that these superstitions are based on. And a believer in a particular faith doesnt always have to follow, or even correctly interpret, all the rules of said faith in order to be counted among the faithful.<BR/><BR/><I>In addition, I would call attention to the comment of Paul Quillman (who seems to have been overlooked, as he chimed in before the discussion got particularly heavy). Here is another voice representing the alternate Christianities that are cut out when Christianity is presented as something monolithic and uniform. </I><BR/><BR/>Ahh, thank you for pointing that out. Yea, once Sandalstraps and Blacksun got in here things got moving along quickly. Well, all I can say is that for each instance that Paul Quillman came up with regarding Jesus respecting women, I can easily come up with two or more examples of women being disrespected (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html): being traded like cattle or property, being raped, being given off to save some angels, having sex with their father, being cursed simply for being a woman, being "unclean" for a week or more when she merely MENSTRUATES! How horrid. <BR/><BR/>Amy, Im assuming you are a woman (no big leap of faith there). Do you have any children? Lets imagine that you do for a minute. Now, dont take this the wrong way, but do you consider yourself unclean for a week or two after you give birth? Leviticus 12:1-5 says that a woman is unclean for 7 days after she births a boy, and 14 days after she births a girl. How lovely! Girls are twice as dirty as boys, worth half as much, and are essentially property according to the Bible. <BR/><BR/>So what do you think of Lev 12:1-5? or maybe Lev 18:19 where it says that menstruating women must not be looked at? Do you protect your friends from looking at you during your cycle? This is some very evil shit in this book, Amy. <BR/><BR/>Do you or do you not follow the directives given in Leviticus concerning the "dirtiness" associated with the body functons of females? Why or why not? <BR/><BR/>Now, who is "weakest, most outrageous, thinkers and interpreters" here, the fundie who says "Women are worth half as men! It says so in the Bible!" or the liberal who says "thats open to interpretation"? <BR/><BR/>Amy you gotta stop defending the chains that hold you down, and start unshackling yourself. No woman is worth less (or more) than a man by mere fact of her sex organs.Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160408971232281152006-10-09T08:49:00.000-07:002006-10-09T08:49:00.000-07:00sandalstraps,Our own ideas are just as beholden to...sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/><I>Our own ideas are just as beholden to our cultural and historical context as everyone else's.</I><BR/><BR/>Not if they are determined empirically. That's why the scientific method is a unique tool. No matter what your perspective, you can remove the subjectivity and cultural bias from your experiment. This is done through confirmation by multiple researchers through publication and peer review. This removes any hint of relativism, and is the only way of getting to the truth of the matter.<BR/><BR/>While by no means yet complete, the scientific analysis of consciousness and brain function provides a lot better representation of human nature than that which can be derived from cultural sources.<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that the bomber's opinion of human nature/evolutionary psychology should be considered on a par with the latest research from the best Western institutions?BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160395156195581732006-10-09T04:59:00.000-07:002006-10-09T04:59:00.000-07:00Blacksun,I apologize that at this moment I don't h...Blacksun,<BR/><BR/>I apologize that at this moment I don't have the time to do justice to your thoughtful comments. As such, this comment may appear to be a dismissal out of hand. Rest assured that it is not. However, time, and the limitations inherant to this format must somewhat short-circuit what would have been - if we had met in, say, a college philosophy course - a very long and interesting conversation.<BR/><BR/><EM>Hobbes most famous quote about the "war of all against all" is often used to deride self-interested morality.</EM><BR/><BR/>I'm not wielding that quote as a rhetorical weapon against you. I am instead using the whole of <EM>Leviathan</EM> - one of the most interesting and important Western philosophic works, and possibly the best work written by a British philosopher - to say that your view of human nature and human interactions is beholden to Hobbes, and a particular aspect of Hobbes which I find both flawed and problematic.<BR/><BR/>I wrote a couple of intersting papers comparing and contrasting the politics of Hobbes and Aristotle, and how they derive their politics from their view of human nature. I can't revisit the entire argument of those papers here, but I'll see if I haven't posted them at some point on the Internet, so that I can provide a link to them in the event that you are interested.<BR/><BR/>Of course, just because I write something doesn't mean that it is true. I mention that here not because you are bound to come to my conclusions, either<BR/><BR/>a.) that, as a product of culture and history, your view <EM>is</EM> beholden to Hobbes in some subtle but important ways, or <BR/><BR/>b.) that the areas in which your view is beholden to Hobbes are problematic areas for Hobbes, in which he fundamentally misjudged human nature and interpersonal relationships.<BR/><BR/><EM>In terms of genetic competition, the rules are what they are, and not decided by you, me, or Hobbes.</EM><BR/><BR/>I agree. But, of course, that doesn't mean that either you, I, Hobbes, or anyone else has <EM>correctly</EM> identified such rules, or even the nature of the game. In fact, as I'm sure you know, there have been some interesting developments in game theory concerning cooperation.<BR/><BR/><EM>Black and white mentalities about morality might prevent this type of unlikely shift from competition to cooperation.</EM><BR/><BR/>So far I haven't seen anyone advocating such a moral theory. I have been advocating for a situational/consequentialist moral theory, in which the context of one's actions and the consequences of said actions determines their moral value, with many more available options than just "right" or "wrong." Tyler has been advocating for more of an Aristotelean "virtue" ethic, wherein the moral value of a particular action depends on its participation in a particular virtue. Again, in this theory, there are many more available options than "right" or "wrong," or as you put it, "black and white."<BR/><BR/>That said, something is not true merely because you declare it. If you hold that moral theories have a particular adverse consequence - especially if such a belief is not commonly held - you ought to offer some sort of argument for why that must be or probably is the case. It looks like we are doing philosophy here, and in philsophy, in general, blanket declarations do not fly, unless they pertain to commonly known facts, which your statement, independent of its as yet undetermined truth-value, is not.<BR/><BR/><EM>The real relativist position is the one advocated by Tim, where the culturally contrived point of view of a lunatic bomber is given equal weight to that of objective naturalistic morality.</EM> <BR/><BR/>I'm not so sure that a degree of relativism is such a bad thing, but even assuming that it is, there is something you should understand <EM>right now</EM>, before we go any farther with this:<BR/><BR/><EM>Your views</EM> are also a product of your culture, and are unique to your cultural situation. That, by itself, does not make them either right or wrong. But it is an incontrovertable fact. Alas, if that is not plain to you, I don't have the time at the moment to build an argument sufficient to convince you otherwise. But, consider it safe to say that no one thinks or acts in any way outside of a cultural/social context. We modern Westerners, with our certainty in self-evident absolutes, are no different. Our own ideas are just as beholden to our cultural and historical context as everyone else's.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160334144441193232006-10-08T12:02:00.000-07:002006-10-08T12:02:00.000-07:00sandalstraps,Hobbes most famous quote about the "w...sandalstraps,<BR/><BR/>Hobbes most famous quote about the "war of all against all" is often used to deride self-interested morality.<BR/><BR/>But that's not what I'm advocating. In terms of genetic competition, the rules are what they are, and not decided by you, me, or Hobbes.<BR/><BR/>What I am advocating as the basis for self-interested morality is simply rational agency for each individual. This means each person is primarily responsible for their own prosperity. Therefore it is up to them to determine what is the correct approach to a given situation. It may be direct cooperation, it may be friendly competition, it may be all-out war. There is no right or wrong answer, and what was right today, may change tomorrow. For example, a previous enemy or rival may be brought to heel to become an ally in a different situation.<BR/><BR/>Black and white mentalities about morality might prevent this type of unlikely shift from competition to cooperation.<BR/><BR/>I am not advocating relativism--because in my scenario, we remain true to one thing: the innate genetic imperative for prosperity and dominance. And there are many ways to achieve that goal. I would argue that if everyone were acting as a rational agent, there would be far less strife and agony in the world.<BR/><BR/>The real relativist position is the one advocated by Tim, where the culturally contrived point of view of a lunatic bomber is given equal weight to that of objective naturalistic morality.BlackSunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15591731325290405256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11975474.post-1160308703910046562006-10-08T04:58:00.000-07:002006-10-08T04:58:00.000-07:00Blacksun,I don't think that you understand the sub...Blacksun,<BR/><BR/>I don't think that you understand the subtlty of Tyler position. He is not advocating a sort of mindless return to rote moral values, as you seem to be suggesting (it is very difficult to put Tyler into some easily identifiable camp, so you can stop responding to him as though he's just like every other "rube" who carries the label "Christian" - seriously, I thought we were past this), nor is he denying the complexities of inter-personal relationships. Rather he is saying that, in the midst of such complexities, it still makes sense to speak of moral duties, and especially of positive moral duties.<BR/><BR/>To bring what I think that he's saying into your self-interested terminology, he's saying that people guided merely by self-interest have misjudged their own interests. That is, those who have an entirely competitive view of human interactions and seek to fully participate in such competition with as few checks on negative behaviors and no imperatives for positive behaviors will ultimately produce a worse result for themselves than those who behave more cooperatively.<BR/><BR/>He acknowledges your point about our competitive nature, even before you make it, when he says<BR/><BR/><EM>We're selfish bastards, humans. A lot of times I think that the competetiveness and violence that humans show goes above and beyond any naturalistic "survival of the fittest" explanation. We're too good at succeeding and grinding our competetors into the dirt in the process. You see bitter power struggles in moral philosophy departments, for which good reasons for moral codes are the very lifeblood.</EM><BR/><BR/>He simply rejects that as being the best way to operate, and thinks that as such it is open to criticism from people who see human nature as more than just immediate (and often misinformed) competitive self-interest.<BR/><BR/>Or, to put it another way, the Hobbesian view of human nature is neither the only one nor the best one, as it totally fails to account for some <EM>other</EM> fundamental human behaviors, such as cooperation and altruism. To say this is not to say that humans are <EM>principally</EM>, much less <EM>exclusively</EM> defined by such positive terms, a point which Tyler also implicitly acknowledges when he points to exceptional moral examples (Gandhi, Mother Theresa, etc.) as the exception rather than the rule. <BR/><BR/>But such figures do exist, and they exist absent the sort of agendas that you and one of your (perhaps implicit) apparent mentors Hobbes posit for all human beings. And, in terms of correctly identifying self interest, they seems to be healthier, happier, and more fulfilled people than the likes of us, who toil in this purely competitive world.Sandalstrapshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303641009581382217noreply@blogger.com