Lawmakers From The Great Theocracy Of Utah Looking To Block Porn On Cell Phones
from the pron dept
When we've talked in the past about government attempting to outright block pornography sites, those efforts have typically been aimed at sites hosting child pornography. Blocking child porn is a goal that's impossible to rebel against, though the methods for achieving it are another matter entirely. Too often, these attempts task ISPs and mobile operators with the job of keeping this material out of the public eye, which is equal parts burdensome, difficult to do, and rife with collateral damage. Other nations, on the other hand, have gone to some lengths to outright block pornography in general, such as in Pakistan for religious reasons, or in the UK for save-the-children reasons. If the attempts to block child porn resulted in some collateral damage, the attempts to outright censor porn from the internet resulted in a deluge of such collateral damage. For this reason, and because we have that pesky First Amendment in America, these kinds of efforts attempted by the states have run into the problem of being unconstitutional in the past.
But, as they say, if at first you don't succeed, just try it in an even more conservatively prudish state again. Which brings us to Utah, where state Senator Todd Weiler is leading the effort to purge his state of any access to porn on mobile devices.
Utah Senator Todd Weiler has proposed a bill to rid the state of porn by adding Internet filters and anti-porn software on all cell phones and requiring citizens to opt-in before viewing porn online. It's to save the children, he says. Weiler successfully pushed an anti-porn resolution through the state Senate earlier this year, declaring porn a "public health crisis." He now hopes to take his movement a step further by making it harder for Utah citizens to have access to digital porn.
"A cell phone is basically a vending machine for pornography," Weiler told TechCrunch, using the example of cigarettes sold in vending machines and easily accessed by children decades ago.
This is where we'd usually talk about how this sort of thing is almost certainly unconstitutional, not to mention how easily circumvented the attempt would be. And both of those remain true for this case. But I would like to instead focus on the lazy analogies Weiler chooses to make and let them serve as an example of how easily twisted people's opinions can become if you simply add "saving the children" to the goals of a particular piece of legislation.
Let's start with the quote above, although I promise you there is more from Senator Weiler that we'll discuss. He claims that a cell phone is basically a porno vending machine, like a cigarette vending machine. The only problem with his analogy is how wildly untrue it is. A cigarette vending machine has no other purpose than, you know, vending smokes. A cell phone, on the other hand, has a few other purposes. Like playing video games, for instance. Or serving as a music device. Or making god damned phone calls. A claim that a phone is simply a vending machine for porn shows either a tragic misunderstanding of basic technology or, more likely, is simply a veiled hate-bomb at the internet itself. Regardless, it is not upon government to decide how our property is used lawfully. And it isn't on government to parent children. We have people for that. They're called parents.
But Weiler wasn't done.
The senator says England was successful in blocking porn on the Internet. Prime Minister David Cameron pushed legislation through in 2013 requiring U.K. Internet service providers to give citizen's the option to filter out porn.
The good Senator must have a strange definition for success, because the UK law is easily circumvented, has managed to censor all kinds of educational and informational non-pornography sites and material, and was created by a lovely chap who was later arrested on charges of child pornography himself. If one wishes to draw upon the success of something in order to push his own interests, that something probably shouldn't be a complete dumpster fire.
Local Utah ISPs are already calling the plan unrealistic and comparing it to censorious governments that I am certain Senator Weiler would recoil from. Not that this matters, I guess, since Senator Weiler fantastically admits that he has no idea how this will all work under his law.
Weiler says he doesn't know how it would work but just wants to put the idea out there and that his main concern is kids looking at porn.
"The average age of first exposure to hard-core pornography for boys is eleven years old," he said. "I'm not talking about seeing a naked woman. I'm talking about three men gang-raping a woman and pulling her hair and spitting on her face. I don't think that's the type of sex ed we want our kids to have."
Look, I usually like to back up my rebuttals to these types of things with facts and figures, but I just don't have them in this case. That isn't going to stop me from declaring that the average first exposure to pornography is an eleven year old boy seeing exactly three men gang-raping a woman is a line of bullshit so deep that the Utah Senate certainly must provision knee-high boots to its membership for such a thing to even be suggested. And this should tell you everything you need to know about Senator Weiler's plans: he doesn't know how successful it's been elsewhere, he doesn't know how it works, and he's willing to sell it to the public on the basis of a scary lie.
Oh, and it's unconstitutional, so screw your law altogether.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: government, mobile phones, porn, porn filters, porn license, todd weiler, utah
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As a little reminder...
Utah.
As for '...the type of sex ed we want our kids to have.'
From Wikipedia
-25 states require abstinence to be stressed.
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin
In his shoes I'd spend more time worrying about the actual sex-ed the kids in his state were getting rather than the theoretical 'education' some hypothetical 11-year old might be getting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But among the more common reasons and demographic scenarios for divorce involve lower levels of education and income, getting married too young, lack of equality in the relationship, and abuse.
I don't see Weiler championing jobs programs and free education and raising the age for marriage and preventing spousal abuse if he's really concerned about marriages being ruined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fairly specific
That is distressingly specific. Do you suppose he has a link?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My two wives
Marrying my underage cousin
Big Salamanders on spring break
Lets see if we can get Trump to also put a fence around the great state of Utah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fairly specific
So, if you want to find what he's talking about, go to your favorite porn site and search for gang bang and I think you'll find it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's GOOD - I'm sure most women and all children want their fathers to be working. That was what you meant, right? They are without fathers on welfare? ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That is...oddly specific.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
When we do it though we're doing it according to the Holy Scriptures of our All-Knowing, All-Powerful, and most important to this discussion All-Moral God, and as such we're absolutely in the right telling those reprobates to stop being so immoral and get their act together, and if that takes passing laws to make it illegal to do otherwise then that's just the price of upholding righteousness and combating sin wherever it may be found.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As a little reminder...
I don't understand your point here. Is this supposed to be a giant ad hom attack against the whole state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm.
As a resident of Utah i have to point out that cigarette vending machines have more then one purpose, They are a great place to go if you want to avoid the missionaries and hopefully state Senator Todd Weiler, so bonus package.
And probably as good place as any to post pornographic photo of people in garments. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sad, sad state of affairs, and tells us nothing about whether porn causes anything. Porn providers would like to think that it causes something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
The inadmissibility comes from the 100 years between when the 'books' were 'written' (more accurately spoken) and the compilation of the bible. The method of recording information back then (scribes who made corrections when THEY though it necessary and/or proper when they were in the process of recording word of mouth testimony, which 100 years later was only "I heard he said"), the exclusion of several books (Mary Magdalene in particular though I have hear of others censored by the 'church' at that time), and then the fact that there are several versions of said bible out there with no conclusive evidence as to which might be...well correct would be improper as there were no recordings of the actual events depicted in that good book with multiple versions of the same events, it would be very hard to say which would be 'correct' without a lot of faith which everybody else has a perfect right to discount.
Even with all of the above, I respect each individuals right to worship in any manner they wish. I am continually amused at the Abrahamic religions wrangling with each other when they worship the same god.
I draw the line when others try to foist religion of any kind upon me...though I don't mind a bit of discussion...sometimes. The more adamant they are, the less I listen. When I break off conversation, I do it with a statement of respect for their beliefs, if only they would keep it to themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Can I get a three?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: As a little reminder...
As for the 'underlying reasons' I mentioned, that's basic biology/psychology. Take a bunch of hormonal teenagers just finding out about sexuality and what it involves. Then tell them that doing anything about those new urges of theirs with someone else is 'sinful' and to be avoided.
The hormones and the urges from them are still there, but they are told not to do anything about them with anyone else outside of marriage. Put those two together and a high rate of porn usages isn't exactly surprising; it acts as a release valve for said urges, can be done privately, and doesn't involve anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I draw the line when others try to foist religion of any kind upon me...though I don't mind a bit of discussion...sometimes. The more adamant they are, the less I listen. When I break off conversation, I do it with a statement of respect for their beliefs, if only they would keep it to themselves.
For the most part that's how I try to do it, 'I don't care what your religion is, believe whatever you want and as long as you keep it to yourself I don't really care.'
If someone wants to try to convert others to believe the same then I see that as opening up their claims to discussion and examination, and now they need to present evidence backing up their claims if they want to be taken seriously, and if they go even further and try to force others to convert or otherwise follow their religious dictates and rules then the gloves really come off and they'd better expect some hefty pushback, as I see freedom from religion as just as if not more important than the freedom of religion. If you expect others to respect your right to believe as you wish you'd better be willing to extend that right to others in turn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I bet he even believes in the theory of the round earth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
It is a different story when some jerk in a bar iterates "well Jesus said" and quotes the bible. Even though I was taught long ago that forbidden discussion in bars (this was taught to me as a new worker in a bar) included sex, religion and politics as those topics almost always turned into a fight. So the challenge is to get that jerk to understand both that he has no idea what Jesus might actually have said (oh, were you there?) and to keep any fight from happening. (This perspective may never be expressed by an employee. As a patron matters are different, though knowing these rules can certainly help to reduce unwanted reactions). No fights yet.
My brand of religion is still exclusive to me, so far as I know, and I wish to keep it that way. Those that caused the Big Bang know what I'm talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The average age of first exposure to hard-core killing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
or in the UK for feigned save-the-children reasons but actually for establishing a surveillance system to better control the population.
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Regarding porn involvement as a negative...
Western culture is generally easy about sexuality, a product of The Church being uneasy about sexuality and influencing culture for fifteen-plus centuries. And as a result expressions of sexuality, including porn, serve not just for its prurient functions but also as an expression of liberty.
Hence, Spain's stripping years after the fall of Franco's regime, in which gratuitous sex scenes in otherwise mainstream Spanish cinema were included in celebration of finally being free of Franco's strict censorship regimen.
Denmark, similarly has the most extensive rights to free speech, and so Danes are pretty proud that their nation features the greatest, most diverse selection of available porn. They also sex up their movies because they can.
Here in California we celebrate California v. Freeman which explicitly enshrined the right to create pornographic film and video, and to have performers engage in sexual acts for the process. As a result California is the porn capital of the world and shows that if anti-porn pushes too hard in a society that wants free speech, you may end up with law that specifies that you can make porn, and what kind of porn you can make.
Which is something that a lot of prudish legislators would rather not explicitly on the books.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The average age of first exposure to hard-core killing...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Regarding porn involvement as a negative...
Western culture is generally uneasy about sexuality...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Regarding porn involvement as a negative...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or in the UK for feigned save-the-children reasons and for the next level of intelligence up ostensibly for establishing a surveillance system to better control the population, but actually to make sure that certain images involving a pig never reach the public....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
But tell me, why do you cry for fairness, justice, morals and right and wrong in a world that is just a cosmic accident? Where the strong survive? Where it is eat or be eaten? These things don't exist in your world view yet you want them. You want the benefits of God without God.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/taking-back-astronomy/the-universe-confirms-the-bibl e/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Please keep up the good work. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The average age of first exposure to hard-core killing...
Anecdote time:
I was just now shopping for books and one of the reviews about a book about the 100 years war read (from memory):
I was told it was teen literature but I don't think it is because there were sex scenes.
This book undoubtedly contained plenty of battlefield scenes including axes in faces, arrows through abdomen and swords through limbs and this guy doesn't think it's suitable for his teen son because of the sex.
To be honest on a guttural level I get it. I'm as much steeped in popular culture as the next guy and every book gets better after adding some graphic violence. On a human level it still is weird though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: As a little reminder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
After all, pretty much the entirety of the Flat-Earther movement is based explicitly on literal interpretations of the bible that those people are using as their justification for believing the earth is flat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I don't get what you're asking about how I justify slavery. I don't justify it because it isn't just.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
If society wants slaves, they can have them. If they don't, they can outlaw them. But there is no right or wrong to it. The founding fathers would be wrong when they said we had inalienable rights. Inalienable rights would come from outside ourselves. In your world, there is no outside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendover, Nevada, is only 125 miles from Salt Lake, so if this goes through, expect a lot of Salt Lake residents to drive the 125 miles to Wendover to buy prepaid cell phones there, where the sellers are not subject to Utah laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
At least now you are starting to understand your own world view and see that your morals are baseless. The part you still don't understand is the reason you even know there is right and wrong is because God has revealed it to us. If there was no God, you would not have this belief that there is some kind of right and wrong because there wouldn't be such a thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
We are more or less indentured servants today. We go into debt for cars, houses, boats, etc and we work to pay them off even though we don't directly work for our debt holders. But guess what happens when you don't pay a debt? You may even have your wages garnished or assets seized and handed over to the debt holder. Is that immoral? Or is it immoral not to pay your debts?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
It's you who are having trouble seeing things from other people's perspective. Can you not see how silly your statements would appear to some one who doesn't accept your premise that there is a god or, even if they accepted that there is one, that it's anything like you say it is?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I don't see how we're going to be able to come to any agreement about anything when you have such a revisionist sense of history. The slave owners of the south in the US too considered themselves benevolent caretakers.
And that's quite ridiculous to argue that voluntarily taken debt is anything like slavery. I bet you're one of those crazies that consider taxation theft and want to abolish the IRS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Benefits like his endorsement of slavery, rape, genocide...? Thanks, but no thanks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Said the guy linking to answersingenesis, LOL! You can't make this up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Projection the senator does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Well, the slaveholders in the US based it on.... the bible. Bummer, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I didn't say it was slavery, only similar in that your wages can be garnished and then you are in effect working for the debt holder.
Technically, anything taken by force is theft. But no, I am fine with taxes up to a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Said the lying jackass who accused others of lying. Imagine that. And no, you can twist this all the way you want. Owning people as PROPERTY and being able to get away with beating them to death (as long as they don't die in two days) is not, was not and won't ever be intentured servitude.
But thanks for showing your true colors (not that we didn't expect this).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
But while we're using the bible as our primary source. If it was really just indentured servitude that all those biblical slavery laws were talking about, then why was the punishment for beating your slave to death just a fine and not execution as it was for the crime of murder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Actually, evolution is pretty much the most repeatedly proven scientific (!) theory ever. And no, noone who cares about the truth gives a damn about theist clowns like you covering their ears going "Na na na na na, I can't hear you".
Most funny of course is that even if you clowns could muster the intelligence to disprove evolution, this would not do ONE BIT to prove your god exists. Tough shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
The only question remaining is: Idiot or Troll?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Evolution as a scientific theory of what has and will happen on this planet does not purport to offer any claims about what is moral. It's only a description of what was, is, and what will be. And almost no one you'll ever meet claims to derive their morals from it. It'd be like trying to derive your morals from the laws of thermodynamics. But we've already been through this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
By kicking the two people out of the garden who learned about it? Nice and friendly god you have there. Also, how would they have known it was wrong to eat from the tree if by definition only the fruit would make them aware that what they did was wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
No, the real question is how far you are willing to twist yourself into a pretzel to deny that your oh so moral god specifially endorses slavery (and rape, genocide and...) and that people following this somehow weren't true christians.
That just won't fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Faith is what you clowns have, believing stuff without evidence. Science has plenty of evidence so you just fail again. No surprise there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
You say "faith in science" - I don't think that means what you think it means. Science doesn't require faith. That's because when presented with objective evidence, science WILL change, based on the evidence.
Don't believe me? They used to say don't eat eggs - they're bad for you (cholesterol and all that). Diets have changed, and lo and behold, the stand about eating eggs has changed as well.
Tell me, if I could prove to you that god doesn't exist, would you change your faith as a result?
Before you say "no, I wouldn't change my faith" and make a (bigger) ass out of yourself, understand that is the difference between faith in an imaginary man and science - one will change based on empirical evidence and the other cannot because it'll piss off god.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
So given you can base evil on anything you like (your words), the real question is, what was god justifying this on? (unless you want to debate as to whether or not bashing babies against is/isn't evil)
His fragile ego?
Did he just feel like being a dick that day?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I would absolutely change my views if presented with real facts, not theories, that disproved the bible. But nobody has come up with that yet.
If you want to see what scientific evidence really points toward, read the book Evolution's Achilles Heals. Or remain willfully ignorant. Seems if you are really interested in evidence you would read this book to see the other side rather than take one sides word for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prudish Utah
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
So you are saying you can derive your morals from anything you wish then? You can justify any actions as being moral because nobody can really argue they aren't. That is exactly what I am trying to show you. Evolutionist's talk about justice, fairness, morals as if they were a real thing. They are just dreams of a cosmic accident in your world view.
In fact, why shouldn't people use religion to exercise dominion over others? Would that not go right along with Darwin's theory? Sure you can get upset about it. Even try to exercise your own dominion if you can. In the end non of it matters, it is just each trying to propagate their own bloodline. Or maybe not?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
That in and of itself shows how weak your faith is...but then again, I can't really take that statement at face value, since there's plenty of of inaccuracies in the bible (that have been examined by several theologians), that should convince you to question its accuracy altogether.
When you don't even believe your own, why should I have faith that you'll believe anything? (hint: I don't)
And just a protip on Evolution's Achilles Heels - a PhD in an unrelated subject doesn't make you an expert on the origins of the universe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Child Marriage
The early eighties saw a moral panic due to Repressed Memory Therapy (a dubious use of hypnosis to resurface repressed memories and as we discovered, add suggestions by the therapist) which lead to the McMartin preschool trial and the scare over Satanic Ritual Abuse.
Before that we were less concerned about presexualizing our kids, and throughout the twentieth century, Christian marriages to girls as young as nine years old were acceptable and practiced. (Which, yes, included obligating them to their bridal duties.)
It was only in the nineties that US state laws were revised to preclude child marriage except in special cases, say, when overseen by a family judge. But until recently, some states had no lower age.
Sadly, of course, we've swung the other way, now with parents freaking out and kids going to jail for playing doctor or experimenting around below the Romeo-and-Juliette window. Our scare about teen sexting is influenced by the SRA scare. It's one of the reasons that brass boobs aren't allowed on Facebook and sex in video games (already rated for adults) is frowned upon.
I can't speak for the UK or the EU, but yeah, forcing children into marriages before they could legally consent is a long standing tradition with church backing here in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/137-9.htm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
As for the book, each chapter was written by a PHD in that area. Read it for yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Genetic information is increased all the time. If you are infected with a retro-virus, the virus inserts it's DNA into yours. It actually gets spliced into your code in a way that if it was a cell that turns into a gamete would be passed onto your offspring. This is in fact so common that humans have millions of strings of deactivated genes in our genome that got there from retro-virus infection of our ancestors.
And you might try to say that "that's not new information" because it's just the encoding for a virus, not for something useful and it's deactivated anyway. But that's where mutation comes in.
Suppose a virus injected AGCTCGA into your genome and this does nothing. But then your gametes are hit with some environmental radiation and that T flips to an A, so now your offspring has AGCACGA, which 98% of time is usually a useless mutation that does nothing, 1.8% of the time is harmful, but like 0.2% of the time is a new and beneficial trait.
And retro-viruses aren't even the only way in which we get wholly new code in our genome. Sometimes organisms get whole extra copies of entire chromosomes by accident. One such example of this is downs syndrome, which is generally bad, but that's because of which chromosome it is. Getting an extra copy of a chromosome isn't always bad for every chromosome for every organism. And once you have that extra chromosome, you've got room for that one to mutate independently of the first one and after long enough those 2 are serving entirely different purposes.
It's you who needs to learn about evolution. Try learning about it from some one who knows how it works some time. I've just tried to humor you and already in the first piece of information about it found an inaccuracy. You also forget how many christians there are that ACCEPT evolution. It's catholic dogma that evolution is true as decreed by the pope. You can't learn about something if the only examples you read about are strawman versions of a theory.
And you can't just say "but your sources are biased too" because it's not even a matter of being biased. The source you linked says "Evolutionists believe this thing and look how it's wrong" but that book is wrong about what evolutionists think not just about why they think that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How evolution works.
Across many many generations, advantages that could utilize land prevailed until later species still no longer returned to the sea.
And yes, we have extensive species histories as to this process and more than a few science shows that explain it.
As for genetics, we actually have established predictability, and the astounding similarity that humans have to our other hominid cousins. We've even located where one of our genes fused together, which is why we have twenty-three to their twenty-four.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
All I was saying with that was that a mass murderer is going to say and do whatever he wants and it is neither the fault or implication of religion or science.
"Would that not go right along with Darwin's theory?"
It would have nothing to do with darwin's theory. His theory is only a description of "how things tend to go" not a prescription for "how things ought to go".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Yes...just ask the bible:
Romans 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Show me somewhere in there (anywhere, actually) where there's a disclaimer about "true facts" (hint: there isn't one)
And trying to disprove evolution doesn't actually prove the existence of god does it? I mean, you can poke holes in evolution all you want, but does that make god any more plausible? You seem to think they are mutually exclusive. But I have not seen any proof that god exists. You got some that you want to share, or are you just guessing?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Kind of a dickhead thing to do, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Yup...primitives who were trying to figure out where the rain came from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Child Marriage
And those same churches were also extremely prudish - which is exactly the point I was trying to make.
The key issue here is people in authority making one set of rules for everyone else - whilst living by a quite different set themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The sperical earth model is Helenist circa 600 BCE
The Earth being a flat disc surrounded by water was a model before that, and was commonly regarded in the early middle ages, though dismissed by scholars within and outside of the Church.
The Church like any other hierarchical organization never lined notions that might challenge its authority, hence the whole messy Galileo affair. Heliocentrism was a religious controversy into the 20th century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hitler's master race.
Social Darwinism was the notion that we could treat our fellows brutally so that they'd evolve to become stronger through natural selection, but that was ignoring one of humanity's greatest strengths, our ability to organize and cooperate. Really, it was an excuse for industrialists to treat their labor like shit. Kinda like Randian revivalist objectivism today.
There are plenty of species who function better than we do as solitary specimens. Human strength is in our ability to organize and collaborate to solve collective problems (e.g. barn raising). But that requires acknowledging that everyone is a part of that collective, and deserves respect, acknowledgement and reciprocity.
You can derive your morals from wherever, but it really depends on the outcome you wish, the society you want to make. I want a society with advanced tech and hundreds of kinds of beer and cheese for everyone where all the hard work is done by robots. Even if that dooms the human species to a plump and sleepy physique.
It's one of the things I don't understand from those who justify extrajudicial torture: even if it does make us safer, we now live in a society that doesn't recognize do process, and who tortures (doesn't minimize harm). That's not a society I would condone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Sure you are free to not accept my beliefs. I am merely pointing out that you don't fully understand the evolutionist's world view that anything and everything goes. You don't have to like it, but you really don't have a leg to stand on to condemn it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Please elaborate on the magnitude of your understanding of the world's religions - how many have you studied as much as your bible?
Because in order to understand why you're right and they're wrong, you would need to evaluate both sides of the argument, no? Or did the bible tell you you're right and they're wrong?
Please elaborate! We're all trying to be less willfully ignorant and understand why PhD's who say the bible is right are more qualified to do so than the multitudes more who say evolution is right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Even if your morals had objective backing (and I don't believe that they do) it wouldn't help me to stop others from harming people. People who wish to do harm will likely do so whether there's an objective morality or not.
And my morals being subjective doesn't stop me from finding like-minded people and banding together to help put those who would violate those morals in jail.
"Today slavery isn't ok, yesterday it was." And your 'objective' morals had nothing to do with that change and everything to do with people who wanted slavery to end working to end it in the country and trying to convince other people to do so as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
The fact is, there is no absolute truth with god.
Consider this - you have an infallible being, who can't even ensure that the book about him doesn't contain errors. Not for nothing, but isn't that a lot of leeway you're giving to someone who should hire better biographers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
And you don't understand how evolution is independent from morals.
It's like you're saying:
"Sure you are free to not accept my beliefs. I am merely pointing out that you don't fully understand the geo-centrists world view that anything and everything goes. You don't have to like it, but you really don't have a leg to stand on to condemn it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Hebrew servants were to be set free after seven years, and even then there was a trick that would allow them to be enslaved for life(Exodus 21:2-6)[1]. Non-hebrew slaves were just that, slaves, considered property that could be beaten to death so long as it took them a few days to die(Exodus 21:20-21)[2], and able to be sold and passed down as any other form of property(Leviticus 25:44-46)[3].
You might be able to get away with this kind of slavery apologetics with some people, but some of us have actually read the book and know what it actually says, not what you want it to say.
Quick refresher on the verses in question:
[1]
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
[2]
21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
[3]
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
And you're right, there is no objective morals without god. And since I don't think there is a god, or at least not the god you would describe, I don't think there are objective morals. And there is no problem with this. You're right that I don't have an objective moral basis to convince people not to do bad things or to convince people what things are bad. I can only try to convince them in other ways. I can only band together with like minded people who also wish people who not harm one another. And really nothing would change if there were an objective moral truth. Obviously you think there is one would not help you convince me not to do something you thought was bad since I don't believe your morals are objective. It wouldn't help you convince a muslim who believes different things about their god. And it sure doesn't stop plenty of christians who also supposedly believe in an objective moral truth from doing bad things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Not so, because if you have a reason for why something isn't acceptable that's not likely to change from day to day. Murder for example isn't considered wrong because some dude in the sky said it was, it's considered wrong because it causes serious harm and people don't want to die, hence it's in their best interest to create a society where killing is considered wrong.
On the other hand if you get your 'morals' from said dude in the sky then you have to accept that if tomorrow they declare 'Rape, murder, kicking old ladies... all that stuff I said was wrong yesterday is perfectly moral from today onward' then all of that is now moral and right.
(And if your counter-argument is anything along the lines of 'My god wouldn't do that', the list of 'sins' that were to result in execution listed in your book are too numerous to list, and if it can be ordered once it can be ordered again, unless I suppose you care to argue that your god was wrong the first time and only learned otherwise later on.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
http://www.theonion.com/article/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int-1778
Good Read, and I thought gravity was a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I understand how morals and evolution are interdependent. If evolution is true, morals are made up. It is that simple. What I find, like the many here, people who believe in evolution with cry for justice and fairness and talk about right and wrong as if there is some absolute to any of those. If we are a cosmic accident, those are whatever individuals or societies say they are. That includes genocides, slavery and the whole gambit of horrors.
If you were born during a time any of these were going on in a country that was doing them, you would most likely think they were fine and even participate. If you truly understood the bible, you would see these things were never ok.
If you want to understand the bible, find a bible believing church and join a bible study. You will find we are not evil, firebreathing creatures that we are made out to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
But I don't understand...way up here you wrote:
I would absolutely change my views if presented with real facts, not theories, that disproved the bible. But nobody has come up with that yet.
But you won't entertain any other views because you have been saved by grace and studying other religions would be a waste of time.
In short, you're not nearly as open minded as you think you are. But again, that isn't surprising. And that's why your faith isn't science - as I said previously, science can change based on new facts. You, by your own admission, don't feel the need to consider anything other than what your glowing pigeon tells you.
Just walk away. You're out of your league here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Kind of like the man who beats his wife, but loves her just the same?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
So when evil runs rampant all you can do is say "but I believe you're wrong even if you don't believe you're wrong", which is all I can say either.
"If you were born during a time any of these were going on in a country that was doing them, you would most likely think they were fine and even participate."
This is simply not true. There's a good chance I would be too terrified to speak up in such a society, but I was raised in a culture of religion and I have rejected that and have adopted morals that object to various stances that the religious people of this country often adhere to. If people who didn't adhere to your objective morality never spoke up about perceived injustice, we wouldn't have had this amazing push for the rights of gay people to get married. After all, the culture in this country was very anti-gay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Christians come in 40,000 flavors.
Anonymous Coward is born again, which is to say he went through an identity crisis and found coping methods in his current belief system, so of course he is invested in retaining his current position.
Faith is a position of deferment, a surrender of his own agency for that of a higher authority, in this case, a specific church and a specific interpretation of Judeo-Christian scripture. There is no accomodation for further reason or consideration on that basis.
But not all Christians are like that. By far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It always amazes me how non-believers pretend to know the bible.
The fact is that all of their holy rituals ends up being the same psychological techniques used by the most abusive regimes in history. At that point holiness ceases to be relevant and the only distinguishing factor between those of a given faith, and anyone else, is the willingness of both sides to be bigots.
It breaks down like this:
Agnostics don't know. Atheists are sure your wrong. Christians don't know, but you can't be in their cool kids club unless you say they do. Jews don't know, but unless you say they do you can't fuck one of them. Muslims don't know, but if you don't swear they do they will kill you. Hindu's are too confused to give a fuck what you think. Buddhists don't know, and they are just fine with that. Physicists DO know, but since you treated those guys like shit in school they won't take your calls. And that my friend, is why YOU don't know.
Personally I prefer zoroastrianism, which is Christianity before Christ fucked it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It always amazes me how non-believers pretend to know the bible.
Depends on the atheist and depends on the claim made. You can say 'I don't believe you' without saying 'I believe you're wrong', so a more accurate statement would probably be something along the lines of 'By definition no atheist believes the claim of the existence of a deity of any sort, and some of them will go a step farther and claim that no such thing exists.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Morals and evolution
Reciprocity is a fundamental of cooperative groups. It's an instinct we share with most mammals to regard our own, at least to not regard them as hostile. Cooperation is a powerful force multiplier, and allows small pack animals to prey on even large fauna that are capable of fighting back.
One of the problems with divine command remains that there are too many authorities claiming theirs is the one true god (And all others are false). When so many churches claim extra ecclesiam nulla salus, who is to say which one is correct? How many other denominations of Christianity does your church declare are false and damned to eternal Hellfire?
From an external point of view, it's also conspicuous that an awful lot of churches are far more interested in the continued subjugation of women (e.g. denial of contraception and abortion access, not to mention tiny details like speaking in church) and the persecution of gays. Contrast to the wars against poverty and hunger, both of which have become only auxiliary to missionary projects. (If someone is starving, they'll convert to whatever you demand for a modicum of food.)
Regardless of what morals think I am or am not capable of holding without belief in a deity, I want a society in which there is no position I would resent being in. And that means I want a social equality beyond that which is advocated by those who speak for the majority of Christendom. (Who do not necessarily represent accurately what Christians actually believe. 95% of Catholic women in the US use contraceptives much to the chagrin of the USCCB. Women and the Church do not get along much.)
It turns out that the Religious Right here in the US like the pro-hatred guy who wants to build walls and ban Muslims. (Not that you had much in the way of better choices.) I don't know how that reflects on the position of the Church you devoted your faith.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Does your god endorse the CIA extrajudicial detention and interrogation program? the CIA drone strike programs in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The NSA surveillance state? The FBI police state?
I suspect you know your bible less and apologies more. Every faith functions on interpretations of scripture, selections of which ones are more important than others, decisions of what is allegory, and what is literal.
They have to, lest you think firebombing a city or annihilation of the entire world might be just.
Who do you let make those decisions for you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I wish more evolutionists would be honest about their world view and just admit morals shift with the wind. But most evolutionists don't really understand this and before today you didn't either. So my mission was accomplished.
You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to like me. Heck, maybe Christians are just using Darwin's theory to control others so they can propagate their genetics? I mean, if evolution is true, there would be nothing wrong with that since there is nothing to measure wrong against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
I wish more evolutionists would be honest about their world view and just admit morals shift with the wind. But most evolutionists don't really understand this and before today you didn't either. So my mission was accomplished.
You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to like me. Heck, maybe Christians are just using Darwin's theory to control others so they can propagate their genetics? I mean, if evolution is true, there would be nothing wrong with that since there is nothing to measure wrong against.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Morals and evolution
Bingo! You get it. Evolution excuses individuals or groups perpetrating heinous acts on other individuals or groups! You finally get it. Sure those groups can fight back, even recruit other people groups to join in. You know, like maybe in a world war? All perfectly fine in the world of evolution. Glad you get it. From now on, when you are sitting around complaining about things not being fair, you will remember this and realize that you are absolutely right, it isn't fair in the world of Darwin
But there will be a time and place where justice prevails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
You do understand that that isn't normal, yes? For most of us, we're not living in constant fear of divine reprisal lest we sin. For most of us, we carry on our lives and regard others, even strangers, as fellow citizens only because they are part of a common society. When we do wrong, it is typically not out of menace but insecurity or desperation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
As I noted in another comment by getting your morals from a 'god' your beliefs would require you to accept that if your deity of choice said tomorrow that murder, rape and kicking old ladies was now moral and good that this would be true. That those actions would indeed be moral because your source of 'morality' said they were.
Contrast this to a system where what is good and bad is not determined by what one person says, but by the reasons behind it. Where murder is seen and treated as wrong not because someone says it is but because people realize that death sucks, and if you don't want to be murdered it's in your best interest not to live in a society that allows murder. If you don't want to be a slave it's in your best interest not to live in a society that allows it and so on.
I wish more evolutionists would be honest about their world view and just admit morals shift with the wind.
Coming from someone who has tried to excuse both slavery and the brutal murder of infants so far, and who would be forced to accept that something like murder can absolutely be moral so long as your god of choice says it is, that's just a little rich.
As for morals 'shifting like the wind', that's your shtick, not that of 'evolutionists'(a term that makes as much sense as calling someone who believes in relativity an 'Einsteinien', especially given there are plenty of religious individuals who also accept evolution). Morals based upon things like 'Life is generally good, death is generally bad' and 'Suffering is to be avoided when possible' are pretty solid, and not likely to change as the core ideas behind them aren't likely to change any time soon in any society that values life and well-being.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Morals and evolution
You made a leap of logic that I did not.
You'll have to explain it in step by step detail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
I am not living in constant fear of divine reprisal. Quite the opposite, I am living in the knowledge that I have already faced judgement and been forgiven. My salvation is assured.
Yes, I understand this isn't normal because society as a whole has rejected God. The bible says broad is the path to destruction and narrow is the path to salvation. Unfortunately most people choose the broad path.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. – Penn Jillette
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fairly specific
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Morals and evolution
You can turn to any nature show and have the narrator explain how animals ensure the survival of their genetic line. The biggest killer of black bears are other black bears. Males will kill other male's cubs. The african lion, when it reaches maturity, will attempt to drive off or kill an alpha male to take it's pride. If successful, it will then kill any cubs to bring the females into heat so he can have his own cubs.
Why wouldn't this apply to people? We aren't special. If someone can advance their life, their goals, their genetics, then lying, cheating, stealing and even murder is on the table. Maybe society bands together to try to stop this behavior. Or maybe society bands together and attempts to take over the world. All perfectly acceptable and natural in your world whether you care to admit it or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Those who base their 'morals' on divine command are the ones who's 'morals' can shift on a whim(literally), those of us that base our morals on more solid ground aren't 'making it up as we go', we start with basic principles and work from there, it's really not that difficult so long as you're not looking at things through a sociopathic, short-term-only lens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Not a 'works and deeds' brand christian then I take it, which brings up the question as to why you're trying to claim that those that don't share your beliefs have no reason to be good/moral, as though you have the high ground there. I mean if it doesn't matter what you do so long as you convert and ask forgiveness before death, if being a good person is meaningless if you aren't also a convert, then what reason do you have to be a decent person? You've already been 'saved' after all, what does it matter if you're good to those around you or a total jerk, worst case you can just ask for forgiveness of your master later and be forgiven.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
I've mentioned the edges in several comments, but in more simple terms some of the core ideas are:
1. Life is generally preferable to death.
2. Health is preferable to sickness.
3. I don't care to suffer, and my sense of empathy and compassion means I don't like to see other people suffer or cause them to do so.
4. If I wouldn't want it to happen to me I should neither do it to someone else, or promote it doing so.
Very simple concept that I'm guessing pretty much everyone can agree on, and I base my morality on taking them and applying them to the world and people around me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
As for last minute repentance, it can happen. Look at the thief on the cross with Jesus. He repented and was saved minutes or hours before death. But do you really think a person who lives like hell and thinks they will repent on their deathbed will even mean it if they repent? Or if they will even bother? You can't fool God, you can confess with your mouth if your heart believes different. I certainly don't begrudge the last minute pardon, but I imagine it is extremely rare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
It is easy for you to say these things since you live in a time and place where these morals are common. Had you been born in another time and place you might believe completely differently. That is the problem with taking your morals from society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
So long as you ignore the 'empathy' and 'compassion' bits maybe, and assuming I was a particularly stupid sociopath who hadn't caught on that humans are social animals and someone excluded for acting contrary to the well-being of those around them isn't going to be very well off.
Again you assume sociopathic motivations of everyone other than you. Are you really so blinded by your beliefs that the only possible value you can see in others is due to your religion? Is the idea that life and well-being of others is important not because of what they can do for you but because suffering is bad and other people matter just a foreign concept to you? You've already admitted that you don't put much worth on being good as it's not important in the slightest without belief, and your comment certainly don't give the impression that you consider others to be of much value either outside of what little value your book assigns them.
If that is really how you see the world I hope you never lose your faith, not for your sake but for the sake of everyone around you, as I imagine you would turn into an absolute monster if you did, as unlike me you don't seem to value others beyond what they can do for you, continually claiming that without a god anything is acceptable so long as you can get away with it.
Had you been born in another time and place you might believe completely differently. That is the problem with taking your morals from society.
You're right, I might have believed that killing unbelievers or unruly children was a good thing, enslaving anyone not in my tribe was perfectly fine, or that the brutal murder of infants was a just action. Someone with a book like yours really shouldn't be tossing the 'If you lived in a different time and place you might think differently' stone.
Is that really the best you can do? 'If you lived elsewhere/when you might hold different beliefs'? Yes, quite possibly, but I could just as easily say the same as you, does that mean your beliefs can be brushed aside as well?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
This is a troll, stop feeding him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Christians come in 40,000 flavors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
But you knew that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The natural order
Josef Mengle, the angel of death who conducted human experiments, died old and free, having escaped justice his entire life.
It happens. But it being awful doesn't mean that there's some invisible thing to make it all better. It means that happened and we get to feel awful about it. Same with torture and drone strikes and police brutality. All of that stuff sucks.
But no one is going to Hell for any of it. You can pretend and believe all you want, but there is no indication anywhere of Hell or divine justice or anything but what is here.
That desire for change is what causes us to strive for a better world. It's not a divine thing. Eons of evolution have created an ape with a hypertrophied cerebellum for the specific purpose of organizing to create a better world where children rarely die in car crashes or of polio or from remote-control warfare.
A human being that is godless doesn't necessarily we take terrible things sitting down. It means she considers material solutions for prevent those terrible things.
A godless person doesn't go without greater purpose, but finds it in the society she lives in, rather than the musings of some ancient scholars.
I understand how it can be terribly frightening for ordinary people to consider that life might be meaningless, that the universe doesn't even notice our us or even the blue speck we live on. Some people have to make believe in the supernatural because that is the only way they can cope with such solitude.
But for those of us who cannot trust that some invisible parent is there to kiss our booboos and make everything all better, the world we build is here. Our purpose in life is here. The heaven we hope for is here.
No freebies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
You merely showing you complete ignorance and dishonesty. Again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Except when god commands it in the rest of his holy book. Yeah, makes pefect sense. Or are you now trying to pull "the law changed with Jesus" which will chuck out the 10 commandments as well as your ludicrous origin story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
And failed miserably. Which was to be expected of course, but since your being way out of your league here all you have to fall back on is lies, mischaracterisations and dishonesty.
Funny how your morals derived from god don't stop you from violating his commands ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Let's see, measuring against your god who specifially endorses slavery, rape, the murder of innocent infants, genocide... anything we've come up with compares quite good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Set the guy taking his morals from a god who specifially endorses slavery, rape, the murder of innocent infants, genocide...
And then you claim to be no sociopath. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Or got to hell for all eternity. How very moral of you. LOL!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Right, you can go through life and rape, torture and kill people (without god stopping you despite being omnipotent and stuff) and then on your death bed repent, and you'll go to heaven.
How very moral of your god, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't think "evolutionists" think the way you think they do.
Had you been born in Afghanistan or Jemen, you certainly would believe completely differently.
You fail again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Decalogue is not a very good source of morality. It's a popular one, but it does make some very specific demands of faith and thought, around which people are often incapable. It also conspicuously doesn't preclude rape, child abuse, usury / graft, or letting your neighbors starve to death or freeze from the elements.
The ethic of reciprocity on its own does more than that, but it doesn't have the Yahweh-only provision that Hang-tenners are hot to work in there somewhere.
Also Judaeo-Christian authority and its aversion to human sexuality has a direct hand in the sexual hangups of pretty much the entire western world (and much of the east).
I'd rather the people around me had morality on no basis, or morality on their own bases than had no morality at all unless it was dictated to them by another authority. That latter category are the kind that will engage in torture and genocide for god and king. The former sort might actually object.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The natural order
1. If you don't believe as I do, something bad will happen to you when you die.
2. You must give a percentage of what you make/earn in life to the church.
3. You must spread your beliefs, forcibly if necessary.
Look at the breakdown, and these are round numbers;
7 Billion people on the planet. Only 3.3 Billion of them are estimated to be Christian, or associated with a derivative of Christianity. Does that mean over half the people on the planet are going to hell? How about Muslims? If you ask them, Christians are the one's going to hell. Who's right?
Muslims killing Christians, Christians killing Muslims.. just seems like every time there is a major difference between religions, a lot of people end up dead. Seems counter-intuitive to the whole purpose of religion...
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read and spin, then do it again, and not a thing will change
Uh, yes they most certainly have. There are no facts that have disproven the existence of God, but disproving the biblical stories upon which the premise of Christ is built is trivially easy. Take the story of Exodus, for instance. That story has been disproven through Israeli archaeology.
Fun thing about Christ is that he tied the legitimacy of his claims to the Old Testament. If the Exodus story is a lie, Christ's claims are as well. And that should be the end of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]