There's Probably No Dawkins...

[73109]

Let's just say his views on homosexuality leave much to be desired.

[Ħ]

edit: I also don't blame Dawkins for his "visceral loathing" after doing some research on Craig. I don't want to get anyone pissed, so I won't say anything, but he really is...well...I don't like what he has to say on Christian morality issues.

Please, my skin is as about as thick as hardened titanium mounted upon 3 layers of kevlar. I'd be delightfully interested in hearing your objections to his view on "Christian morality issues."

He'll have to resort to subjectivity on that one, as would Dawkins.

[Omega]

Let's just say his views on homosexuality leave much to be desired.

I wish not to be indiscreet, but - out of curiosity - are you a homosexual?

[73109]

No, I am not.

May I ask why you ask though?

[Ħ]

Let's try to derive morality from Darwinism, shall we?

Um...erm...homosexuality...it's good...good because...because if the homosexuals get together, then the gene for homosexuality will die off!  Yeah, that's it!  An increase of offspring in the longterm!

amidoinitrite?

[73109]

I find it funny that not once have I taken a shot at your beliefs in this thread, but I have been asked if I am a homosexual (presumably because only gays have an interest in homosexual matters) and have had a prominent scientific theory that has been supported enough to make it nearly fact, made fun of. I find that somewhat odd.

[Ħ]

I'm an ass.  What can I say?

But I wasn't taking a crack at homosexuality here.  My point is that if you adopt the perspective that we are just here for no real reason at all, then your positions on ethical issues are ultimately arbitrary.

[73109]

I completely agree with you. That's a first.

edit: You could also say that evolution has given us an innate moral code, but from a philosophical, meta-ethical stand point, I agree. Any value call I make on morality is completely and utterly arbitrary.

[Ħ]

So uh...what do we do now?

[73109]

You could read my edit.

[Nigerius Rex]

I'm not familiar with the gent in question,  but it seems to me that if it's his program,  then the people in attendance will be his followers and supporters, and therefore not particularly receptive to contrary points of view.  Nobody loves a good debate more than me,  but I don't think I'd be interested in taking on somebody on their home turf,  where I'd automatically be dismissed and used as a source of ridicule for people not willing to openly consider anything I say.  Doesn't sound like much fun, if you ask me.

This is also why I don't understand why liberals agree to bother dicking with Limbaugh, Hannity or O'Reilly.  Even if you're right, you're still held up to be a retard.

On the contrary, my local church recently hosted a debate where we had an atheist and a theist. Everyone was respectful toward each other and it went rather well. I think what is important for a successful debate with opposing parties, is to set clear rules and enforce them, and stop being so blatantly boistrous that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

[XJDenton]

I suspect none of the members of said meeting were as extreme as the ones Barto mentioned though.

[73109]

I wanted to continue this. Intelligent conversation was making my day less shitty.

[Omega]

I wanted to continue this. Intelligent conversation was making my day less shitty.

Sure. What do you wish to talk about?

[73109]

Well, why exactly did you want to know if I was gay?

[Omega]

Well, why exactly did you want to know if I was gay?

Well, you brought it up and it led me to believe you were gay. It was genuinely out of curiosity.

[73109]

No. Gay rights are my biggest political issue though, and when it comes to debates and the like, I can't take anyone who believes what Craig does seriously.

[Omega]

No. Gay rights are my biggest political issue though, and when it comes to debates and the like, I can't take anyone who believes what Craig does seriously.

So gay rights are your biggest issue so Craig = joke?

wut?

[73109]

TO ME...anybody who links homosexuality to a genetic defect (as if it were wrong) and then goes on to talk about how gays should not participate in homosexual behavior because it is against what their God says and says gays are like alcoholics and drug addicts who can just stop their actions is a vile and disgusting person.

Can you take a disgusting person seriously?

[Omega]

TO ME...anybody who links homosexuality to a genetic defect (as if it were wrong) and then goes on to talk about how gays should not participate in homosexual behavior because it is against what their God says and says gays are like alcoholics and drug addicts who can just stop their actions is a vile and disgusting person.

Can you take a disgusting person seriously?

I don't think it is a genetic defect, but my religious convictions lead me to see homosexual acts as sinful. That doesn't mean that I go around calling gays sinners or anything ridiculously similar to that in any conceivable way. I would equate the sinfulness of a homosexual act to that of infidelity or adultery. Do I go around and beat these people for sinning? Nah, not really (ok there was this one time... ). Everybody deviates from moral perfectness. For some, striving for moral perfectness is harder than others. I would include gays in that category, being that their bodies lust for a patently sinful action.

[73109]

See, that is where I have a fundamental issue. To be honest, I've debated this here before, lost my cool, and got banned, so here we go...Debate v.2.0 v not being a dick:

I understand that your religious doctrines tell you that it is a sinful act, but don't you think that if we are all "God's children" we should be treated as equals? How is it that who you are attracted to makes you any more moral than what someone else is attracted to? The one thing that religion got right was its laws stating that we needed to treat everybody with love, kindness, and respect, and to me, religious homophobia goes against all of that.

[Omega]

See, that is where I have a fundamental issue. To be honest, I've debated this here before, lost my cool, and got banned, so here we go...Debate v.2.0 v not being a dick:

I understand that your religious doctrines tell you that it is a sinful act, but don't you think that if we are all "God's children" we should be treated as equals? How is it that who you are attracted to makes you any more moral than what someone else is attracted to? The one thing that religion got right was its laws stating that we needed to treat everybody with love, kindness, and respect, and to me, religious homophobia goes against all of that.

You are projecting a false dilemma. Equality does not trump the moral law. In other words: Catholicism will not accept homosexuality as a moral act in order to fulfill a misinterpreted or misrepresented view of equality. It would be like accepting murder as moral simply to be equal to the psychopathic murderer whose intrinsic nature it is to kill.

When Catholicism stresses equality, it is essentially asserting that every human being has equal dignity and should be treated with such no matter actions taken or background. Just because the homosexual is attracted to other men does not mean it is morally acceptable to consummate their homosexual desire just as it would be sinful for a murderer, a sadist, a pedophile or a zoophile to consummate their sinful desires.

[73109]

I understand that. My problem is...being an atheist (and through this, I believe there is no defined moral code,) I believe we are all born 100% equal to each other, and it is our duty to retain that equality at all costs, because if we don't, we get rid of the one fundamental thing all of us are born with. In not allowing gays to get married, the government (and the religious) are infringing on what I feel to be the most basic human right...the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't fuck with others.

[Omega]

I understand that. My problem is...being an atheist (and through this, I believe there is no defined moral code,) I believe we are all born 100% equal to each other, and it is our duty to retain that equality at all costs, because if we don't, we get rid of the one fundamental thing all of us are born with. In not allowing gays to get married, the government (and the religious) are infringing on what I feel to be the most basic human right...the right to do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't fuck with others.

You yourself state that you adhere to no moral code. Have you taken the time to reflect on the repercussions of such a worldview? By your own worldview, there is no true difference between Pol Pot and Mother Teresa. You disallow yourself to make moral claims because you have no set values of what ought to be. You cannot, for example, objectively state that genocide is wrong. With such a worldview, you are left with nothing but a mindless ocean of subjectivity and the hopelessness of nihilism. Thus the value judgments that you are making right now as we speak (figuratively speaking) are completely devoid of all meaning through a nihilistic lens, rendering your objections to the equality of anything moot.

[73109]

I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.

[73109]

I might want to add something here. What I believe in isn't so much nihilism, as it is existentialism (in that you create your own ideas of what morality is and what life should be.)

A nihilist would say it doesn't matter and any moral code you try to put on anything is worthless and dumb.

An existentialist would state that you create your own moral code and that is what you should abide by. Therefore, it avoids the nihilistic perspective of "Nothing Matters. Stop trying." If the moral code I set for myself is different than yours (being the royal yours) I can still find you to be immoral because the moral code that I set up for myself is what I feel to be the morality that the world should abide by.

[El Barto]

Ω:  Between your use of intrinsically (referring to psychopathy), and their bodies lust for a patently sinful solution,  you make it sound as if you view homosexuality as a physical, rather than psychological issue.  Care to elaborate?

And no, I'm not gay either.

[Dark Castle]

I'd just like to add I'm Catholic and am totally okay with gay people and believe they deserve every right we have.  Thats all, I'm not educated in this matter other than my opinion 

[Omega]

I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.

Is than not rendering our world into a mindless ocean of subjectivity (and who is to say that Hitler had a moral code? All his actions indicate that he actually lacked a moral code to begin with)?

Through this worldview, you can "feel right" about a matter all you want but then you are quite precariously reducing morality to either non-existence or subverting it to total individual subjectivity, which would inevitably result in unspeakable crimes that could be justified by any individual. Surely you would understand this if an individual were to "feel" that murder or necrophilia is "right" or within a "moral" code he established, it would be universally and objectively condemned as immoral.

All this ultimately leads to the conclusion that if you eliminate objective morality, then any and all acts or crimes would be deemed as acceptable in any given culture that has "subjectified" or eliminated morality. There would be no discernible difference between say rape and charity.

[Omega]

Ω:  Between your use of intrinsically (referring to psychopathy), and their bodies lust for a patently sinful solution,  you make it sound as if you view homosexuality as a physical, rather than psychological issue.  Care to elaborate?

I'm sorry if I made it sound that way. It was certainly not my intention. I very much so view homosexuality as a psychological state of being or, well, "issue".

And no, I'm not gay either.

 

[TheOutlawXanadu]

I don't blame Dawkins for not debating Craig because Craig fucking murders everyone he debates with.

I totally get why Dawkins should still do it though. It's good to see points from both sides raised if only to give people more to think about. Me... I've seen both those guys talk quite a bit, and I don't think I would have anything to gain from it.

[73109]

I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.

Is than not rendering our world into a mindless ocean of subjectivity (and who is to say that Hitler had a moral code? All his actions indicate that he actually lacked a moral code to begin with)?

Through this worldview, you can "feel right" about a matter all you want but then you are quite precariously reducing morality to either non-existence or subverting it to total individual subjectivity, which would inevitably result in unspeakable crimes that could be justified by any individual. Surely you would understand this if an individual were to "feel" that murder or necrophilia is "right" or within a "moral" code he established, it would be universally and objectively condemned as immoral.

All this ultimately leads to the conclusion that if you eliminate objective morality, then any and all acts or crimes would be deemed as acceptable in any given culture that has "subjectified" or eliminated morality. There would be no discernible difference between say rape and charity.

I agree...and with everything you say. Fundamentally, there is no difference between raping a 5 year old, and giving her a hug. So?

[Omega]

I actually agree. The point is, while my moral code is no better than yours or Hitler's for that matter, it is still my moral code and because it is my own personal moral code, I feel that I am "right" in my choices. Now, there is not and objective "right" in any of these things, but because I think I'm right, and other moral choices are then "wrong" I can still be pissed off when people break what I feel to be the correct moral code.

Is than not rendering our world into a mindless ocean of subjectivity (and who is to say that Hitler had a moral code? All his actions indicate that he actually lacked a moral code to begin with)?

Through this worldview, you can "feel right" about a matter all you want but then you are quite precariously reducing morality to either non-existence or subverting it to total individual subjectivity, which would inevitably result in unspeakable crimes that could be justified by any individual. Surely you would understand this if an individual were to "feel" that murder or necrophilia is "right" or within a "moral" code he established, it would be universally and objectively condemned as immoral.

All this ultimately leads to the conclusion that if you eliminate objective morality, then any and all acts or crimes would be deemed as acceptable in any given culture that has "subjectified" or eliminated morality. There would be no discernible difference between say rape and charity.

I agree...and with everything you say. Fundamentally, there is no difference between raping a 5 year old, and giving her a hug. So?

Not sure if serious... 

[73109]

I'm completely serious. I mean, even to me, I think raping a child is deplorable...by my standards. Then again, who am I to allocate good vs. bad morality outside my own. Welcome to moral relativism.

[Omega]

I'm completely serious. I mean, even to me, I think raping a child is deplorable...by my standards. Then again, who am I to allocate good vs. bad morality outside my own. Welcome to moral relativism.

Do you not see danger or folly in such a miserable worldview?