»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 stinkz: Tiefling: Demonstrate why a self-centered person without empathy and compassion would want to obey Christianity. Why are you trying to prove that immoral people would want to follow your morality? That would be proving that your morality is in fact immoral. What about a psychopath? They have, through no fault of their own, a psychological disorder which makes it impossible for them to empathise with others. How would they become Christian? Why would they become Christian? Unless you think that some miracle will take place curing their disorder when they become Christian, there seems to be little reason to imagine them sharing in the moral motivation factor of Christianity, even if they believed the spiritual aspect of it. Basically: How can a religious belief in God morally-motivate someone who does not already wish to follow a code of morality? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 fatpie: Stinkz does suggest that "the sun will rise tomorrow" is logically necessary too. No, I set up the same conditions you did. Obviously astrological events would cause the sun not to rise. fatpie: There is no inbuilt moral code - and, importantly, this NOT their fault! First off, I have no reason to believe that these people, who appear to not have any remorse anymore, did not have a heart at one point, like everyone else. It seems much more logical to me to believe that their heart was corrupted by immoral action, or bad teaching. Secondly, I'm sure that, since God is just, he will take into account all of the biological factors and what-not that may have prevented him from being moral. C. S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce is a fictional story which portrays some of his ideas about this. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie: Doesn't sound so different from my view when you put it like that. The difference is, you arbitrarily choose what "ought" to be done. I trust in the Moral Law. fatpie: Isn't God a rather unnecessary addition though? I have not added Him to any moral argument. I do attribute rational morality to a mind, if that's what you're asking. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: First off, I have no reason to believe that these people, who appear to not have any remorse anymore, did not have a heart at one point, like everyone else. It seems much more logical to me to believe that their heart was corrupted by immoral action, or bad teaching.
Secondly, I'm sure that, since God is just, he will take into account all of the biological factors and what-not that may have prevented him from being moral. C. S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce is a fictional story which portrays some of his ideas about this. Does it contain psychopaths? Psychopaths do not choose to be that way. They have a mental illness. Their are, however, treatments for it. Some people with this kind of problem have been given medication which seems to instantly make them better people. I am not quite sure how it works and I believe it has side-effects like drowsiness, but there is no doubt that these people act as more socially acceptable human beings when medicated! (Just to confirm - the medication does not make them less active or zombie-like. It actually makes them more moral!) Treatment Developments
In the last decade, neurobiological explanations have become available for many of the traits of psychopathy. For example, impulsivity, recklessness/irresponsibility, hostility and aggressiveness may be determined by abnormal levels of neurochemicals including monoamine oxidase (MAO), serotonin (5-HT) and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), triiodothyronine (T3), free-thyroxine (T4), testosterone, cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and hormones of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axes (W.H.J.M., unpublished data). Other features like sensation-seeking and an incapacity to learn from experiences (Lykken, 1995) might be linked to cortical underarousal (Martens, 2000, 1997; Zuckerman, 1994). Sensation-seeking could also be related to low levels of MAO and cortisol and high concentrations of gonadal hormones, as well as reduced prefrontal grey matter volume (Raine, 1996; Raine et al., 2000; Zuckerman, 1994). Many psychopaths can thus be considered, at least to some degree, victims of neurobiologically determined behavioral abnormalities that, in turn, create a fixed gulf between them and the rest of the world. It may be possible to diminish traits like sensation-seeking, impulsivity, aggression and related emotional pain with the help of psychotherapeutic, psychopharmacological and/or neurofeedback treatment. Long-term psychotherapeutic treatment (at least five years) seems effective in some categories of psychopaths, in so far as psychopathic personality traits may diminish (Dolan, 1998; Dolan and Coid, 1993; Sanislow and McGlashan, 1998). Psychotherapeutic treatment alone may be insufficient to improve symptoms. Psychopharmacological treatment methods may help normalize neurobiological functions and related behavior/personality traits (Martens, in press, 2001, 2000). Lithium is impressive in treating antisocial, aggressive and assaultive behavior (Bloom and Kupfer, 1994; Sheard et al., 1976; Tupin et al., 1973). Hollander (1999) found that mood stabilizers such as divalproex (Depakote), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and neuroleptics have documented efficacy in treating aggression and affective instability in impulsive patients. To date there have been no controlled studies of the psychopharmacological treatment of other core features of psychopathy. Cortical underarousal and low autonomic activity-reactivity can be substantially reduced with the help of adaptive neurofeedback techniques (Martens, 2001; Raine, 1996). You'd be amazed how hard that information was to find. Many people use the word "psychopath" in conversations on the internet and often it is simply used to describe someone who is acting immorally. Anyway to reply more directly to your post - your first suggestion that these people have acted wrongly due to poor teaching seems odd when we consider that medication can allow them to act more morally. On the subject of biological problems it might be asked: (i) Why God would put such a cruel biological stumbling block as to deny someone the ability to empathise with others? (ii) Why should someone suffering from a psychopathic personality disorder decide to become Christian (and mean it)? (iii) Why should God choose one person to be saved over another solely because they are on pharmaceutical treatments? (This question presumes that psychopath being treated is far more likely to accept a Christian moral code and MEAN it, than a psychopath who is not being treated. An important worry is that someone may not get treatment and not be 'saved' simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time). I admit we are shifting the topic a bit, but I am sure you will admit that this is an awkward issue which needs addressing before we move on... posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: Fine, then substitute what I said for "the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees." rofl, that requires logic. The fact that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees requires a proof. Did you even take geometry?  stinkz: "I don't want to be murdered" cannot turn into "do not murder" without the inclusion of a moral imperative, like "do unto others as you would have them do to you." lol, I don't suppose you noticed that I've been repeatedly posting the moral imperative, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." So, thanks for proving my point for me. stinkz: Because something coincides with my selfish desires, is it therefore moral? NO. I never made that claim anywhere. Where are you getting this nonsense from? An action is not immoral if it falls within the moral code. I never said an action is moral if a selfish person wants to do it. stinkz: Why are you trying to prove that immoral people would want to follow your morality? Wow. Clueless. I said I was trying to prove that people without empathy and compassion would want to follow this moral code. An immoral person is one who violates this moral code (ie, one who does not follow this moral code). Nowhere did I try to prove that an immoral person (one who doesn't follow this moral code) would want to follow this moral code. You've really managed to confuse yourself, stinkz. Read a little slower next time. stinkz: Tiefling: Stinkz says that if morality is not based on compassion and empathy, then it is based on nothing I did not say that, at all. I'm saying that YOUR morality, if it is indeed not based on empathy and compassion, is not based on anything at all So now you recognize that Christian morality is not based on compassion and empathy. stinkz: Don't tell me you're gunna start one of your numbering systems based on such a mistake. Awwwww, do premises and conclusions hurt your lil head?  stinkz: You aren't saying "my morality is right because it is logical." woo-hoo, you're right! Good job, stinkz! *wild applause* You're right, I am not saying that my morality is right because it is logical. Here's the conversation that lead us to this tangent: Tiefling: So it's impossible, in your opinion, for atheists and agnostics to understand morality? stinkz: They can understand the morality of humanity in the same way everyone should. Tiefling: And in what way is that --- the blind faith way? I don't see any other justification for your "traditional morality." stinkz: Traditional Morality needs no justification in the way you mean it. Tiefling: Blind faith. You feel that anyone who doesn't subscribe to your moral code can't understand morality, and you feel your moral code needs no justification. stinkz: Your position requires as much or more blind belief as mine. All I have been demonstrating is that godless morality requires logic, not faith. And you have never attempted to prove that Christian morality has any basis other than blind faith. Given a choice between logic and blind faith, why should we choose blind faith? stinkz: Obviously a morality which simply tells people to follow their selfish desires would be the most "logical," in this regard. lol. No, it's not. "Do whatever you want" isn't a moral code. It's the absence of morals. I should keep count of how many more times I have to post this before you get it. stinkz: Tiefling: If it were definitively proven tomorrow that the Christian god does not exist, then what would make homosexualiy immoral? The fact that Traditional Morality says so. Haha, nice. In typical Christian fashion, you resort to circular reasoning when your back is against the wall. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie: On the subject of biological problems it might be asked: Each of these proposed questions would indeed be tangential, and probably should be picked up in another thread, for knn's sake. A simple answer to these kinds of questions is impossible, and will most likely require delving deeply into philosphy and Theology. fatpie: Why God would put such a cruel biological stumbling block as to deny someone the ability to empathise with others? Why not ask the bigger question, "why does God allow pain or stumbling blocks at all?" fatpie: Why should someone suffering from a psychopathic personality disorder decide to become Christian (and mean it)? Perhaps the process of salvation is a bit deeper than mere profession, and deals with the state of a persons spirit, rather than the state of his biology. fatpie: Why should God choose one person to be saved over another solely because they are on pharmaceutical treatments? Moral action has never been a prerequisite for God's choosing. As knn has repeatedly pointed out, Saul was quite the fiend, before his conversion. Moreover, morality is not a requirement for salvation! posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: rofl, that requires logic. Obviously. Logic alone. Tiefling: lol, I don't suppose you noticed that I've been repeatedly posting the moral imperative, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." So, thanks for proving my point for me. You have posted the imperative. You have failed to prove that it is logical. You have claimed "Do not harm others" is logical because "I do not want to be harmed." But this is untrue, unless an imperative is assumed. You cannot assume your moral imperative when trying to establish whether or not it is logical. Tiefling: I never made that claim anywhere. Where are you getting this nonsense from? Exactly as I suspected. You have not claimed that your moral code is logical. You have merely shown that it will be liked by immoral people. Yet, you still seem to believe that your morality is somehow more "rational" simply because more people will naturally (given a certain government system) follow it. That position is nonsense. Tiefling: So now you recognize that Christian morality is not based on compassion and empathy. Exactly. Christian morality (if there is such a thing) is based on traditional morality. Compassion and empathy are a part of that morality. I'm sure that even compassion and empathy, if they were set up as gods, would eventually become demons. It may be harder to have compassion for someone who is repulsive than for someone who is cute. If compassion were the final authority, then a cuter person DESERVES more than a repulsive person. This is obviously an immoral stance. Tiefling: Awwwww, do premises and conclusions hurt your lil head? Attempting to argue with you is becoming quite silly. You hardly comprehend anything at all, and merely skim my post for parts that you can make snide remarks at. Tiefling: You're right, I am not saying that my morality is right because it is logical. So, when you said that you couldn't see any justification for "traditional morality" beyond faith, you weren't implying that your morality was better, in this regard, at all. Your morality requires the same amount of faith. And, as I said before, it is a faith in oneself, or a particular society, rather than humanity. Tiefling: All I have been demonstrating is that godless morality requires logic, not faith. And you have never attempted to prove that Christian morality has any basis other than blind faith. Given a choice between logic and blind faith, why should we choose blind faith? Are you taking a step backwards, here, by claiming that we should choose your morality because it is logical again? I sure hope not. The choice is not between logic and blind faith, really. It is a choice between the rational Moral Law and one's own selfishness. Selfishness isn't any more "logical" than traditional morality. One's own desires cast no light on which of those desires are better than others. The dignity or virtuousness of one's actions is decided elsewhere. Someone, because of selfishness, may choose to follow your half-morality, because it benefits them more. But they are no better, and no moral rational, for doing so. Tiefling: lol. No, it's not. "Do whatever you want" isn't a moral code. It's the absence of morals. "Do what is in my best interest" could be considered a moral code as much as your code can. We are defining morality. You cannot arbitrarily decide what can and cannot be considered moral. My point stands, "Do what is in my best interest" is more logical for your atheist to follow than "Do to others as I would want them to do to me." Tiefling: Haha, nice. In typical Christian fashion, you resort to circular reasoning when your back is against the wall. Again, you call my reasoning circular baselessly. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: stinkz: Fine, then substitute what I said for "the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees." rofl, that requires logic. The fact that the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees requires a proof. Did you even take geometry? Er.. I don't know if Stinkz didn't know this either. Something does not have to be 'a priori' truth in order to be necessary truth. "Water is H2O" is 'a posteriori', but it is still a necessary truth. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: fatpie: Why God would put such a cruel biological stumbling block as to deny someone the ability to empathise with others? Why not ask the bigger question, "why does God allow pain or stumbling blocks at all?" A simple answer to your proposed question would be 'because God wishes to test our faith. However, in the case of the psychopath it seems to be rather unfair test since it involves not being sufficiently able to grasp moral codes in the first place. A more specific question would be needed for the title - but to be honest I'm at a loss to what question could be used if we are to make it obvious to those visiting the thread what the point of the discussion is *shrugs* How about "Is a 'psychopathic personality disorder' an unfair stumbling block to accepting Christianity?" fatpie: Why should someone suffering from a psychopathic personality disorder decide to become Christian (and mean it)? Perhaps the process of salvation is a bit deeper than mere profession, and deals with the state of a persons spirit, rather than the state of his biology.[/quote] There does not tend to be much 'spirituality' in a person without empathy. fatpie: Why should God choose one person to be saved over another solely because they are on pharmaceutical treatments? Moral action has never been a prerequisite for God's choosing. As knn has repeatedly pointed out, Saul was quite the fiend, before his conversion. Moreover, morality is not a requirement for salvation![/quote] I don't see how Saul could be converted if he was a psychopath. (This would probably be Knn's cue to say that Saul of Tarsus WAS a psychopath because otherwise he could not have killed so many people. However, I think we all agree that people can quite easily be cold-blooded killers without a biological inability to empathise.) So anyway, main point of this post is to ask for a possible title for a new thread where we could possibly move these last few posts on this subject. Anyone else got any ideas? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Tiefling: rofl, that requires logic. Obviously. Logic alone. Your posts are getting sillier and sillier. You said earlier: stinkz: A statement that is logical "on its own" is one like "A triangle has 3 sides." What are the reasons that a triangle has three sides? There are none. It just does.
A statement that is logical, but not "on its own" is one like, "The sun will rise tomorrow" (if the laws of physics are not broken, and if some unknown astronomical factor isn't involved). And I demonstrated that the sides of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees isn't logical "on its own." stinkz: You have claimed "Do not harm others" is logical because "I do not want to be harmed." But this is untrue, unless an imperative is assumed.  Ok, so what imperative do I have to assume in order to prove that I don't want to be harmed?Tiefling: You have not claimed that your moral code is logical. You have merely shown that it will be liked by immoral people. You still don't get it. Wow. If my moral code says that eating ice cream is immoral... then people who eat ice cream are immoral. If my moral code says that harming others is immoral... then people who harm others are immoral. stinkz: Attempting to argue with you is becoming quite silly. You hardly comprehend anything at all, and merely skim my post for parts that you can make snide remarks at. I don't need to skim your posts for those parts. Your posts are full of comments at which I can make snide remarks. Really, it's rare to see so much contiguous crap coming from one person. You manage to surprise me each time you post. stinkz: Tiefling: You're right, I am not saying that my morality is right because it is logical. So, when you said that you couldn't see any justification for "traditional morality" beyond faith, you weren't implying that your morality was better, in this regard, at all. Your morality requires the same amount of faith. 
I just spelled out for you what I was proving --- that this moral code is based on logic, and that Christianity is blind faith. I even went back through this thread and picked out the quotes that lead us to this ridiculous tangent. And you still don't get it. stinkz: If compassion were the final authority, then a cuter person DESERVES more than a repulsive person. Wow. You have one twisted sense of compassion. stinkz: Again, you call my reasoning circular baselessly. Do I? Then tell me what "traditional morality" is based upon. You have already stated that it is not compassion, empathy, or logic. What else? stinkz: Are you taking a step backwards, here, by claiming that we should choose your morality because it is logical again? I sure hope not. Given a choice between logic and blind faith, which should we choose? Are you really trying to claim that it is blind faith to choose between logic and blind faith? stinkz: The choice is not between logic and blind faith, really. It is a choice between the rational Moral Law and one's own selfishness. What is rational about "traditional morality"? stinkz: Someone, because of selfishness, may choose to follow your half-morality, because it benefits them more. lol, and you don't see anyone using Christianity simply to benefit themselves? I guess you haven't heard of television evangelists or Hitler. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie: So anyway, main point of this post is to ask for a possible title for a new thread where we could possibly move these last few posts on this subject. Anyone else got any ideas? How about "The Problem of Pain." Tiefling: Ok, so what imperative do I have to assume in order to prove that I don't want to be harmed? You don't need an imperative to prove that you don't want to be harmed. You need an imperative to get from this premise to the moral "Don't hurt others." Tiefling: Do I? Then tell me what "traditional morality" is based upon. You have already stated that it is not compassion, empathy, or logic. What else? Well, since you evidently didn't read before... I will quote myself from earlier in this thread. stinkz: It is based on the common thread which runs through all of humanity's ancient moral writings. Tiefling: Given a choice between logic and blind faith, which should we choose? Are you really trying to claim that it is blind faith to choose between logic and blind faith? Now were getting to the crux of the problem. Here you have claimed that your morality is better because it is logical. Your morality is "logical" because it fits with people's selfish desires. Therefore, you are claiming that it is better to believe your morality, because it coincides with selfishness. Or a better way of stating it would be, "my morality is better because it is in my own best interest." Choosing a morality for this reason is absurd. There can be no "moral" reason for choosing between separate moralities. And, in the way you mean it, there can be no "logical" reason, either. Tiefling: What is rational about "traditional morality"? It is a rational moral system. It takes the axioms discovered by humanity ("Thou shalt not kill" -torah "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you" -Confucious, etc.) as the basis for rational, moral thought. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stupid fags can burn in hell fags fags fags are dick sucking strays posted by fags suck |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stop trying to look hateful to invalidate the Christian viewpoint, whoever you are. I don't know why people like him are always trying to make the moral position against homosexuality (which is held by many Christians) look hateful. Hatred is as morally wrong as homosexuality, and perhaps even more so. Before you get mad, Tiefling, I don't really think you posted that last thing. It's just funny that that is the only reply after my last post to you. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Before you get mad, Tiefling, I don't really think you posted that last thing. It's just funny that that is the only reply after my last post to you. No, wasn't me. I couldn't post something like that even in jest. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: I don't know why people like him are always trying to make the moral position against homosexuality (which is held by many Christians) look hateful. Hatred is as morally wrong as homosexuality, and perhaps even more so. Would you agree that there can be a difference btw the concept/position of Christianity and Christians themselves? Christianity may be against hatred, but many christians demonstrate hatred. It seems many agree that even though Jesus would disagree with / be against homosexuality, he would still love the person. Love the sinner, hate the sin. But what portion of christians could do the same? Christians seem to try and set themselves to a higher /"True" moral standard. But why aren't there more christians who are walking ideals of their beliefs? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 August 2008, 04:48 php B.B. |