Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

Religion Board



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
Latest users (3): christmouth, darkestrogue, ecomp, anonymous(7).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #85611 - majormayor ONLINE (33 minutes ago) [-]
gnome child
#85604 - darkestrogue ONLINE (4 hours ago) [-]
Are there any religions that are just like "i believe in humans and what they can do"?
User avatar #85610 to #85604 - theluppijackal ONLINE (37 minutes ago) [-]
A religion like that would generally be pantheistic, a sort of 'God is all' Gaia type of faith.
#85615 to #85610 - darkestrogue ONLINE (25 minutes ago) [-]
but not all humans are worth shit
User avatar #85616 to #85615 - theluppijackal ONLINE (23 minutes ago) [-]
I'm not here to argue philosophy
You asked if there was a religion like that and I answered
#85618 to #85616 - darkestrogue ONLINE (22 minutes ago) [-]

thank you
User avatar #85605 to #85604 - wallbuilder (3 hours ago) [-]
That'd be more of a philosophy/ideal/way of life than a religion.
#85606 to #85605 - darkestrogue ONLINE (3 hours ago) [-]
then i put forth the idea that religions are fucking stupid
User avatar #85612 to #85606 - majormayor ONLINE (32 minutes ago) [-]
Because they presumably don't appease to you?
#85613 to #85612 - darkestrogue ONLINE (26 minutes ago) [-]
well, they cause the majority of wars, which in itself is pretty bad

its divided entire countries
there have been genocides in its name
oh and that whole thing with hitler
User avatar #85614 to #85613 - majormayor ONLINE (25 minutes ago) [-]
>majority of wars
Ha ha. No. I wonder how you still think that.
I doubt religion was his sole motivation.
#85617 to #85614 - darkestrogue ONLINE (23 minutes ago) [-]
yes yes we all know everyone wants oil and power blah blah blah

and yet still religion throws hate around the world. Most major conflicts may evolve into other reasons but they start with hate. Like the suunies and the shiites.
like the iraqi people recently

like north and south vietnam

like china recently

theres a lot that it causes, doesnt mean it stays the sole motivation
User avatar #85607 to #85606 - wallbuilder (3 hours ago) [-]
While I agree with you, I'd never bother saying it. People will just get pissed, which is reasonable considering that we're denying a fundamental part of their reality.
#85608 to #85607 - darkestrogue ONLINE (3 hours ago) [-]
then maybe they should reevaluate their reality if it makes them so angry
#85580 - lulzfornigeriagirl (15 hours ago) [-]



24th, AUGUST, 2014
User avatar #85575 - jewishcommunazi ONLINE (16 hours ago) [-]
Are there any actually good arguments for either theism or atheism?
User avatar #85601 to #85575 - cleverguy (10 hours ago) [-]
-God is a maximally great being (if God was not maximally great, he would not be God)
-a maximally great being is a necessary being (required in every possible universe)
~God needs to be necessary to exist as God
-God is not a necessary being (the universe can exist as it does without God) ((disputed))
-God does not exist

this is my train of thought and why i don't believe in God
#85577 to #85575 - lulzfornigeriagirl (15 hours ago) [-]
Obviously not. Stay agnostic.
User avatar #85593 to #85577 - ecomp (13 hours ago) [-]
That is not a valid religious position.
#85603 to #85593 - thedeadpidgeon (7 hours ago) [-]
Religious agnosticism is basically a denial to take any of the proposed positions as true because there is no reason to take one. You could consider that in itself to be a position. However, you could also consider it a form of atheism, depending on whether you consider atheism a lack of belief in a god or the belief in the absence of a god.
User avatar #85596 to #85593 - lulzfornigeriagirl (13 hours ago) [-]
I gotta say I really hate your picture. Fuckin stoners.
User avatar #85597 to #85596 - ecomp (13 hours ago) [-]
That is the intended reaction.
User avatar #85581 to #85577 - thelegendneverdies (15 hours ago) [-]
Aren't you some type of special snowflake deist?
User avatar #85584 to #85581 - lulzfornigeriagirl (15 hours ago) [-]
Also I'm not entirely made of water molecules and a couple millimeters long.
User avatar #85583 to #85581 - lulzfornigeriagirl (15 hours ago) [-]
Agnostic theist/deist.
User avatar #85588 to #85583 - ribocoon (13 hours ago) [-]
What would you say is the difference between deism and atheism?
User avatar #85589 to #85588 - lulzfornigeriagirl (13 hours ago) [-]
Why don't you google it?
User avatar #85590 to #85589 - ribocoon (13 hours ago) [-]
I like to think a personal response is more accurate than whatever Wikipedia tells me
jk im just lazy
User avatar #85592 to #85591 - ribocoon (13 hours ago) [-]
what if I give you some cheesecake?
User avatar #85594 to #85592 - lulzfornigeriagirl (13 hours ago) [-]
I hate cheescake.
User avatar #85552 - therealsuperderpy (23 hours ago) [-]
#85573 to #85552 - youregaylol (16 hours ago) [-]
Aloha Snackbar
User avatar #85558 to #85552 - schnizel ONLINE (21 hours ago) [-]
User avatar #85566 to #85565 - therealsuperderpy (21 hours ago) [-]
User avatar #85567 to #85566 - schnizel ONLINE (21 hours ago) [-]
User avatar #85571 to #85523 - marinepenguin ONLINE (17 hours ago) [-]
While I do not condone the killing of the mentally disabled in any way, looking at it from a purely financial and progressive point of view, people who are disabled and completely rely on others to live or do even menial tasks are a drain on everyone around them (from a purely financial standpoint). In most ancient societies and tribes when a child was born mentally or physically deficient they were tossed aside and left for dead, because they knew that valuable resources would have to be used to keep them alive and care for them that could otherwise be used for other things. Nowadays our morals and ethics have changed, and our compassion for people in these circumstances have changed to the point that we willingly spend our money and resources on keeping them alive, attempting to educate them, and make them have the best quality of life that they possibly could. Although, there is a chance that in the future we could not only help prevent these kinds of mental illnesses and physical defects, we could very possibly eradicate them as medical science progresses.
#85526 to #85523 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
Well, if he is going to come out like a fucking mutant that needs to be feed by another person every single day, what's the point of his life really? To be a parasite?
Well, if he is going to come out like a fucking mutant that needs to be feed by another person every single day, what's the point of his life really? To be a parasite?
User avatar #85578 to #85526 - lulzfornigeriagirl (15 hours ago) [-]
Exactly, my bosnian nigga gets it right again.
User avatar #85602 to #85578 - schnizel ONLINE (8 hours ago) [-]
Thas rite
#85527 to #85526 - dehumanizer (08/21/2014) [-]
With the same logic we have to terminate all female babies too you know.
User avatar #85579 to #85527 - lulzfornigeriagirl (15 hours ago) [-]
We need women for making kids and birthing them. Till that day you speak of when we manufacture babies in labs, your gonna have to need them.
User avatar #85528 to #85527 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
#85533 to #85528 - dehumanizer (08/21/2014) [-]
Because women do nothing to contribute society and infact they only bring it down. Eventualy they will become obsolete after babies start beeing created in labs and the deprograming of the reproduction function coded in our brains. It will be a glorious day!
User avatar #85569 to #85533 - feelythefeel (19 hours ago) [-]
Didn't you just get finished trying to paint Dawkins as a monster?
#85600 to #85569 - youregaylol (13 hours ago) [-]
game recognize game
monster recognize monster
User avatar #85534 to #85533 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
They gib the pussy b0ss
User avatar #85536 to #85535 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
Never gib up b0ss
#85537 to #85536 - dehumanizer (08/21/2014) [-]
>implying im trying
User avatar #85538 to #85537 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
Never gib up b0ss
#85540 to #85538 - dehumanizer (08/21/2014) [-]
why it never works and i always end up getting hurt
User avatar #85541 to #85540 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
#85543 to #85541 - dehumanizer (23 hours ago) [-]
wish i knew, i try to blame the jews
User avatar #85544 to #85543 - schnizel ONLINE (23 hours ago) [-]
but never gib up goy
#85545 to #85544 - dehumanizer (23 hours ago) [-]
the pain is enevadable
User avatar #85546 to #85545 - schnizel ONLINE (23 hours ago) [-]
But class is for men
#85547 to #85546 - dehumanizer (23 hours ago) [-]
And i am just a boy...
User avatar #85548 to #85547 - schnizel ONLINE (23 hours ago) [-]
nigga you r aryan
User avatar #85564 to #85549 - schnizel ONLINE (21 hours ago) [-]
We wreck it
User avatar #85555 to #85549 - schnizel ONLINE (22 hours ago) [-]
Nigga I can't even get myself a job, but never give up, when I conquer bosnia i will gib y a nice waifu
#85559 to #85555 - dehumanizer (21 hours ago) [-]
What do you propose?
User avatar #85553 to #85549 - schnizel ONLINE (22 hours ago) [-]
With schnizel, everything is poosbile
#85554 to #85553 - dehumanizer (22 hours ago) [-]
So you're gonna get me a gf?
User avatar #85550 to #85549 - schnizel ONLINE (23 hours ago) [-]
You can do the impossible, think the unthinkable
#85551 to #85550 - dehumanizer (23 hours ago) [-]
Not really....
Not really....
#85529 to #85528 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
dehumanizer is anti female
User avatar #85530 to #85529 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
#85531 to #85530 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
because he can't get a gf (his words not mine).
User avatar #85532 to #85531 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
#85521 - anonymous (08/21/2014) [-]
You need to login to view this link
In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.   
tips fedora
You need to login to view this link

In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence.

tips fedora
User avatar #85522 to #85521 - schnizel ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
hory shit
#85514 - thedeadpidgeon (08/21/2014) [-]
I haven't been on in a couple weeks. Has the shitstorm finally ended?
User avatar #85557 to #85456 - rebornpooper (22 hours ago) [-]
That's what you get for being unoriginal.
User avatar #85570 to #85563 - rebornpooper (18 hours ago) [-]
It's true.
User avatar #85586 to #85570 - garymotherfingoak (14 hours ago) [-]
ur mom's a true...uuuhhhh..........
#85587 to #85586 - rebornpooper (13 hours ago) [-]
Your momsa true a-whore.
User avatar #85539 to #85444 - Nahyon ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
#85524 to #85444 - dehumanizer (08/21/2014) [-]
Can we abort gay babies too?
User avatar #85520 to #85444 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
Since when was this a controversial opinion? He's certainly not the first one to have this opinion. In fact many catholics and protestant whom are usually pro-life support the abortion of people with down syndrome.

Note that he isn't saying that all people with down syndrome should be aborted. He is pro-choice in general, the down syndrome aspect just gives more reasoning to the aborting. Many women do not have an abortion because they happened to be 16 year old sluts, they're generally adult women whom already have a daughter and are having an abortion for many reasons such as financial unstability.

People with Down Syndrome as much as people want to deny it places a heavy burden on others. They require a lot of care and attention, they are extremely prone to heart diseases and cancer so they're more expensive medically and financially, they often need therapy for their mental and motoric stimulation, their education are more expensive due to special programs and with shit like minimum wage and welfare they're very unlikely to ever get employed. So all the problems and burdens that come with having children are multiplied and thus so is the reasoning behind an abortion decision.
User avatar #85561 to #85520 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE (21 hours ago) [-]
I believe stem cells and gene therapy and eugenics can cure downs syndrome
User avatar #85562 to #85561 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (21 hours ago) [-]
Eugenics isn't possible because DS has no heritability. With stem cells you're still stuck with that extra chromosome and i'm not sure about gene therapy yet since it's relatively new.
#85574 to #85562 - youregaylol has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #85542 to #85520 - eight (08/21/2014) [-]
I don't understand how people just don't "get" this.

People below say that sure they will be mocked, but who isn't mocked in their lives? How can you even begin to compare getting mocked for some trivial matter such as a bad hair day compared to something that makes you mentally and physically different forever. It's rude to minimize the effect it has and it's even worse to actually make a comparison to a generally normal, healthy person. It's insulting to the sufferers of the condition. Want to find out what it's really like, find someone with downs and have a conversation, if even possible.
On top of physical issues that Kanade mentions, they also have a higher chance of suffering from mental issues and it's not a surprise as to why.
User avatar #85519 to #85444 - cleverguy (08/21/2014) [-]
dawkins says a lot of stupid-non pc shit, but he's a brilliant biologist and that's what he should be known for
User avatar #85518 to #85444 - theluppijackal ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
Honestly, I was so sure that was a prody article of dawkins. No. Fucking legit.
#85517 to #85444 - theluppijackal ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
My thoughts?

holy fucking crap
'abort it and start over'
he's talking about the fetus like it's a broken down car.
People with downs are just as capable of joy. Talking about how people might mock him, that's like saying not to bring a girl into the world because she might be raped. [Related analogy considering how that tweet arose. Even as a person that's against abortion_ to an extent_, abortion should definitely, definitely be allowed for rape.]

Regardless of the ethical view of abortion, that's a helluvah fucking stance to take.
User avatar #85511 to #85444 - princessren ONLINE (08/21/2014) [-]
I think abortion, atleast in regards to babies born with defects, should only be an option if the baby is literally going to suffer their whole life, have to live artificially etc.
but I don;t think people with down syndrome fit into that category , they can still live full and happy lives, as many do.
I mean sure it's not going to be perfect, or like everyone else, and they will get bullied but who hasn't
I don't like the idea of ending all their potential happiness just because they have such an aliment that by no means ensures them a life of suffering
There was a guy who worked part time helping out in the high school doing odd jobs who had down syndrome, and he was nice and everyone loved him, so to think he would of never gotten the chance to exist just because of it...just seems harsh
I also don't like how Dawkins blatantly put it atleast in the title like he is the sole judge of what is moral and immoral
User avatar #85499 to #85444 - eight (08/21/2014) [-]
A sensitive topic, but I can understand his reasoning. Someone with down syndrome won't usually be able to live a normal life. They will be mocked. They will be laughed at and they likely won't experience the many pleasures that a healthy person is able to. They are aware this happens and I can't imagine they appreciate it very much.
It might be less cruel to not allow them to be born at all.

This condition doesn't just affect the sufferer, it affects the caregivers lives as well. It's really a shitty situation either way, but I think preventing the baby from being born would be the lesser of two evils.

Dawkins is promoting what he thinks is the most moral action, he's not saying it to be crude, but people seem to take it that way.
#85448 to #85444 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
It's not really surprising that someone who devalues human life would subtly support eugenics, which I'm not entirely opposed too. I'm just honest about my reasoning while the "pro choice" crowd lie to themselves.

The truth is abortion is the termination of a human life, I don't try to deny that. It is also an effective means of population control, more specifically a means to control ethnic minorities who have a tendency to over breed. I also support the idea of eugenics in theory, but to be honest as someone who aspires to be a doctor and is currently enrolled in medical school I'm in an ethical dilemma.

On one hand I think there is merit to the idea that society would benefit from actively endorsing positive genetic traits and discouraging negative genetic traits, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to harm someone who is in my care. Besides anybody in the medical field who is associated with abortions is reviled, I wouldn't want any part of that.
User avatar #85458 to #85448 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
Now I know what bad genetics are, but good genetics? That way lies pseudoscience and the sort of atrocities you really don't want to be caught up in.
#85460 to #85458 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
It's not really pseudoscience to observe genetic advantages in certain groups.
User avatar #85462 to #85460 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
such as?
#85463 to #85462 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
I'm not really sure what you're asking, do you want examples of genetic advantages? I mean that's something that deals with basic evolutionary biology, homo sapiens developed differently according to their needs.

Are you one of those people who think race is just a skin color?
User avatar #85464 to #85463 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
Yes that is what I was asking for. Obviously not, are you one of those people that take skull measurements as a sign of intelligence?
#85465 to #85464 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
You're confusing me with a German doctor from the 1930's because I recognize the scientific fact that different races have advantages over other races? That seems like an emotional reaction.

Lets start with something basic that you would learn in high school. Genes respond to local diseases, for instance most africans have a higher resistance to malaria than non africans. That is a genetic advantage.

This is pretty simple stuff.
User avatar #85467 to #85465 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
You're confusing me with someone that doesn't know what they're talking about. That seems like a yadda yadda yadda so if you want to talk then please would you stop condescending. Yes that is debatably a positive gene trait, though any highschooler would also have remembered that that specific resistance is caused by partial sickle cell disease, a harmful condition if you live in an area where you are unlikely to catch malaria, such as europe.
#85468 to #85467 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
If you're going to continue to be this hostile I'm not going to continue, I have to turn in my share of a group project on Friday and I don't have the energy to coddle your ego or handle your rage.

If your argument is that there are no positive genetic traits between races then I will confidently state that you know nothing, and although I wasn't condescending before I will try to do my best to do so now if you expect me to educate you on evolution. I've said it many times on here before, I never aspired to be a teacher.
User avatar #85471 to #85468 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
Staying on topic, that is a misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is that negative genes can be medically very evident, while positive genes are usually at best subjectively positive. I politely invite you to give me an objectively favourable gene and prove me wrong.
#85473 to #85471 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
Usually finding specific genetic traits is based on the society looking, meaning that is it based on the environment, so in that sense there usually is no "objective" favorable gene, only what genes a specific society needs. This is evident in the difference between slow twitch muscle fiber and fast twitch muscle fiber, but more on that in a second.

The sickle cell thing didn't disprove that there are genetic advantages between races, if anything it reaffirmed it. The African is more adapt in their own environment, they still have an advantage, in another environment they wouldn't have an advantage.

Comparing differences in slow twitch muscle fiber and fast twitch muscle fiber, one is good for endurance and the other good for power, slow twitch muscle fiber is more common among africans while fast twitch is more common in europeans.

In one environment the african succeeds, like in running, and in another the european succeeds, like in a strength sport, such as power lifting. I'm not saying that it's impossible for a black man to out lift a white man or for a white man to out run a black man, the truth is environment is the major factor and the current racial groups have been effected by social hierarchy rather than genetic purity, but on a certain scale it is true that certain racial groups will have a natural inclination for certain activities, barring social environment.
User avatar #85475 to #85473 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
RE: sickle cell. That's not a genetic advantage between two races. The africans aren't better than a european for this trait, it just mitigates the harm caused by selecting forces. I can just as easily redefine it that being homozygous dominant for SC is a sub-optimal genotype in africa while being heterozygous in an area without that selective force is sub-optimal. The muscle thing is indifferent in societies that don't require high physicality unless you're trying to breed athletes which is a frivolous use of eugenics. Subjectively positive: the african runs better and the caucasian etc lift better. Neither are always more conducive to improving the human experience so neither are objectively positive.
I remain unsold about the validy of positive selection eugenics. The only scientific validity in eugenics is in negative selection, selecting against those genes which are harmful. Post more case studies though if you like, I welcome the prospect of being shown to be wrong.
#85477 to #85475 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
I never used the word "better", I said that they had an advantage in certain areas of life, which is a fact. I mean I guess they would be "better" at resisting certain african diseases, but they would be "worse" at surviving in europe. The point is they still have a genetic advantage, not something universal that I'm claiming establishes a "master race" or anything like that, but something that places them in a better position than others in a certain situation.

Whether or not you claim it's frivolous it would still be eugenics. Also why reserve physical advantage to athletes, wouldn't society benefit from citizens with higher endurance or strength? I'm sure the military would benefit from it as well, this would be a positive thing for society. I've already conceded that there usually is no objective positive, I never made that claim, only that there are distinct genetic advantages between races.

I have no case studies to show you, as far as I'm concerned everything I've said is basic knowledge. If you don't agree with that I'm sorry, but there you go.
User avatar #85493 to #85477 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
I feel that the definitions are a bit muddy at this point. Could you give a brief and possibly specific outline of what your eugenics program actually entails?
#85495 to #85493 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
I don't really have a eugenics program that I endorse if that's what you're asking, I agree that a eugenics program could possibly benefit society as a whole, but I don't really endorse it outright.

Anyway I'm tired and I didn't expect a long conversation to arise from my post, so I'm going to call gg and get to bed.
#85447 to #85444 - hesekiel (08/21/2014) [-]
I don't really see how that's "immoral".
User avatar #85446 to #85444 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
It's more or less parallel to my own ethos, but it's a pragmatic approach to offspring that I recognise many won't have. It's prefectly natural for me to want my children to have as few restrictions starting in life as possible. Dawkins argues that abortions aren't ethically wrong and I would agree on paper save the problem of learned cultural revulsion which I find hard to over come. Would I allow my offspring to be hampered right from the start just to save my vestigial "soul"? I hope not; sometimes life just has hard choices and it feels like we should just accept one's vicissitudes rather than stepping into the void ourself.
User avatar #85449 to #85446 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
There is a difference in allowing your offspring to be born with hindrances and not allowing your offspring to be born if it would have a hindrance. Of course one wishes to have a healthy baby, but is it immoral to allow a baby to be born with down syndrome? That is the real question--not is abortion moral, but is it immoral to allow a mentally handicap person to be born?
#85453 to #85449 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
That's a bad question, because morality is just moralising; it doesn't make it right. He can't be immoral because he doesn't accept their morality in the first place, therefore can't conform to it and be immoral. Immorality implies tacit belief in the rules while still breaking them, a sensation any sinner knows.
I would avoid bringing a damaged child into the world if I could; for its own sake and mine the same as if it was physically damaged. Why would I allow a beautiful new mind be tormented by it's own restrictions just to save my own conscience? How is it meant to care for me in my old age like I do for my parents or even care for itself if I die? I don't want to bring a burden into this world, cruel as that may sound. I don't hate the handicapped, I just recognise that it's not something I want for my children.
User avatar #85459 to #85453 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
Well you're making some assumptions, such as morality is decided by popular agreement and nothing more. That's sketchy. Furthermore, you say you wouldn't want to make a child suffer just to make your conscience clear. Perhaps your conscience is a moral guider and not just a culturally imposed thing. I don't see overwhelming evidence to say conscience is just culturally programmed.

Finally, how do you decide that halting any suffering is better than letting it live and also experience all the joys of life? Is being mentally handicapped really so bad as to say its impossible for that person to find enjoyment and pleasure in life? When does joy outweigh suffering? And lastly is it our job in the moral community to maximize pleasure, or to minimize suffering? The two are not the same. And is it even these two options, or something different?
User avatar #85461 to #85459 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
Morality is entirely defined by popular agreement which is why it can change. A couple centuries ago it was immoral for a woman to go out without a hat on in the west, now who gives a damn. The muslims still hold that idea, so who's wrong here? It's either morally indifferent or wrong to not wear a hat depending who you ask. Morality, like language, is a fluid thing. The conscience is just one of the enforcers of morality, that reinforces an evolutionary pack mentality that has aided humans. It is no direct line to the correct answers which is evident in those people who can commit atrocities and feel no remorse. The conscience can rationalise anything provided it is trained that way. This is a matter of the mitigation of exceptional suffering. Life necessarily contains suffering, but I refuse to perpetuate the lottery of severe disability just to stay in line with the tribe's opinion du jour.
User avatar #85466 to #85461 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
I would disagree that morality is based on popular agreement. Cultural relativism doesn't hold up to me. There are core principles in every culture for a very long time, it is the practice of those principles that are culturally influenced.

Here are some examples: 1. Hindi think its wrong to eat cows. Western world sees no moral objection. This is a case of cultural relativism.

But this isn't the case when you actually observe it. Hindi believe in reincarnation, and that cows are higher creatures along the reincarnation cycle. Thus that cow could be your honorable grandma. Hindi believe eating grandma is wrong, so they don't eat cows. Westerners also believe eating grandma is wrong. They agree on principle, not on practice.

Example 2: Your example of women wearing hats. The principle is that one should handle him or herself with modesty, honor, and respect. It is held to be respectful to wear a hat in one culture, but there is no tie to that in another. "Wearing of a hat" is not right or wrong, it is by what's behind it--being honorable is a moral obligation. Both cultures thus agree that it is morally good to be honorable.

Cultural memes occur, but it is not the case that moral principles change at their roots.
User avatar #85469 to #85466 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
You have simply collided two facts about hinduism without actually understanding them. The cow isn't so much a literal reincarnation of a hindu's grandmother as a representation of female kindness. While they do believe in reincarnation it is a far less literal reincarnation than buddhists. If it was, how could they reconcile eating anything? No, the cow in hinduism is a paganistic nature idol because it provides milk like the mother.
Besides, I think we have reached an impasse first because this is off topic and secondly you seem to believe in things that I just don't. There is no morality without humans therefore it is defined by humans is the skinny of what I consider true.
User avatar #85470 to #85469 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
Right, and as the cow is a holy figure it is more likely for a righteous person to be reincarnated as that being. The other creatures they would care less about because they weren't righteous people.

How do you argue that morality doesn't exist without humans? Do you mean to assert that there is no possible universe where another creature other than human beings can be moral creatures? What of aliens on another planet? Can they not do morality?
User avatar #85472 to #85470 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
*sighing* yes fine
'There is no morality without thinking creatures like, but not necessarily limited to, humans capable of moralising in the first place. If there are aliens and if they are thinking creatures and if they are moralising beings then I doubt their morality looks anything like ours save those parts based on parsimonious group co-operation behavious'
User avatar #85474 to #85472 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
That last part is just a clever way of getting around my main objection--that principles hold no matter what. I'm guessing you'll take the parts "based on parsimonious group co-operation behaviors" to be something like murder is wrong? Here is a list (but not necessarily an exhaustive one) of the morals that I think are basic principles which you can treat as moral axioms:
1. Fidelity (keeping promises)
2. Murder is wrong (though this is difficult because murder is already a loaded word, meaning "killing of someone innocent")
3. Honesty (being truthful)
4. Non-malevolence (it is wrong to harm others)
5. Holding oneself with honor (that is, following all of the above as virtues).

Any of these 5 can be broken and still be moral in the right circumstances. For instance, lying to a Nazi about hiding Jews is ok because it helps you follow through on some other moral principles.

I will hold that these 5 are principles that are universal to all moral beings and that you will not find a culture that values vices as virtues. That is, you won't find a culture that says killing the innocent is morally obligatory in every sense or that lying is obligatory in every sense. These cannot be budged by society.

Would you grant that?
#85451 to #85449 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
" That is the real question--not is abortion moral, but is it immoral to allow a mentally handicap person to be born? "

If it is immoral I would also say that birthing a child in a poor family is also immoral, or that having children that will face any kind of hardship is immoral.

And it might be immoral, but it can't stop at just DS. When we go down this road and set this precedent we will have to think about abortion in a completely different way. Instead of just a convenient escape for irresponsible women we'll also have to look at it from the child's perspective in regards to his/her environment.
User avatar #85457 to #85451 - nimba (08/21/2014) [-]
Ultimately it can only be the decision of each set of parents. I have my own opinion but I also believe that children are basically their parents' property, who have large freedoms over how a child is raised and that that should extend to screening out those progeny whose lives are likely to be substantially worse through no fault of their own if they wish. To me this is a much more ethical abortion than simply not wanting a child at all, which sounds callous.
#85439 - anonymous (08/20/2014) [-]
#85525 to #85439 - dehumanizer (08/21/2014) [-]

you're posting on the wrong broad
#85452 to #85439 - youregaylol (08/21/2014) [-]
This was posted a few days ago, can't you find a new may may to spam.
User avatar #85445 to #85434 - Cambro (08/21/2014) [-]
Really interesting read. I side with Helen De Cruz here (who I actually sat in seminar with this past winter) that more research needs to be done. Being the sample group is 5 and 6 year olds, the results are not really that surprising and furthermore can be interpreted in either direction--that non-religious children are imaginatively stunted, or that religious children are more likely to be deluded. But back to De Cruz, she is right to say that they need to be provided with psuedoscientific stories as well. Furthermore, what the stories were are not cited. Were the fantasy stories like King Arthur, something happening long ago in the past? Perhaps the children will be less inclined to see fiction as reality should the magical stories happen in modern times. That is something that I just don't know about, so I can't make a fair judgment about this study. Very interesting though.
#85423 - theluppijackal ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
“Well! Father, I am a sinner; I have tremendous sins. How can I possibly feel part of the Church?” Dear brother, dear sister, this is exactly what the Lord wants, that you say to him, “Lord, here I am, with my sins.” Is one of you here without sin? Anyone? No one, not one of us. We all carry our sins with us. But the Lord wants to hear us say to him, “Forgive me, help me to walk, change my heart!” And the Lord can change your heart.”
-Pope Francis, Church of Mercy
User avatar #85420 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
Jesus Christ, (literally) rebornpooper. You figuratively kicked brBritish ass. Sorry British but I must admit to lrefering reborns arguments to yours here man no hate
#85582 to #85420 - lulzfornigeriagirl has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #85432 to #85420 - ribocoon (08/20/2014) [-]
I may have missed it
#85428 to #85420 - hesekiel (08/20/2014) [-]
What are talking about?
#85414 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]

GODDAMMIT, even though Francis is a socialist wannabe he's still my favorite Pope. Please let him live longer.
#85433 to #85414 - alekksandar (08/20/2014) [-]
Too bad that Catholicism is heresy.

Pope isn't a Godsend, Jesus is.
#85438 to #85433 - hesekiel (08/20/2014) [-]
"Catholicism is heresy"
Says the clericalfascist.
#85426 to #85414 - hesekiel (08/20/2014) [-]
"socialist wannabe"
Christianity and socialism are sorta related.
#85417 to #85414 - theluppijackal ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
**theluppijackal cries into my tea**
Why this?
User avatar #85409 - acemcgunner (08/20/2014) [-]
Some morning thoughts on Jesus -

Jesus is a lot of things: God, Man, Savior, Friend, King, Lord; the list can go on and on and on, but one that catches my attention in the Gospels is His existence as The Divine Interruptor.

Jesus consistently stops people's progression. He causes many to change course. He makes conversations shift.

Allow Christ to interrupt your destructive thoughts today. Invite Jesus to bring physical healing to your illness. Look for God to turn your world for good. Expect Him to be, very simply who He is: a Divine Interruptor in your world.

My children interrupt. Constantly. And what's amazing about their interrupting - I routinely engage whatever it is they want to do or talk about! I have found, however, if I don't acknowledge them, eventually they'll stop or move on. Acknowledge Jesus in your day today. Engage His will in your life. John 1:12-13 clearly states that you were born of God's will, and that He has given us the ability, the power, the right to become children of God - the implications of which are far and wide.

Receive the authority Christ has put in your life today. Don't allow your world to 'move on' without the influence of Jesus. Engage Him. Think about Him. Read the bible, and expect God to speak to you, for you. It's amazing how quickly one can drown out the voice of God if you choose to listen to other voices.

Look for Christ The Interruptor today.
User avatar #85379 - cognosceteipsum ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
Forgive me father for I have sinned. I lusted after other non-digital women while my one true woman, Gabrielon, already exists. She was angry but I think she forgave me for she saw that my intentions were pure.
#85380 to #85379 - dehumanizer (08/20/2014) [-]
>having positive relations with women
User avatar #85366 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
People keep talking about the atheists coming to this board and being annoying, I must not be seeing the same board because I don't even see really any posts about atheism, or the posts being annoying.
User avatar #85371 to #85366 - Conquistador (08/20/2014) [-]
This board seems to be dying off.
User avatar #85373 to #85371 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
Yeah kind of. I think syrian drained the board of people who were generally interested in contributing with the board, and it may not really recover for a long time.
User avatar #85375 to #85373 - Conquistador (08/20/2014) [-]
He chased away some. But it also felt like he sparked conversations for those who stayed/showed up.

Also seems like he drew in more anti-semites too.
User avatar #85376 to #85375 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
He drew some attention I think, but I think it did a lot more long term harm then it did good.
User avatar #85377 to #85376 - Conquistador (08/20/2014) [-]
Eh, I see good and bad in it. I enjoyed all the arguments and shit.
User avatar #85367 to #85366 - cleverguy (08/20/2014) [-]
people are just going into withdrawal without a real atheist circle jerk to complain about

they just don't understand why there aren't atheists acting uncivil on the internet
User avatar #85368 to #85367 - marinepenguin ONLINE (08/20/2014) [-]
If they want to see a REAL atheist circlejerk they should go to r/atheism, that place can get absolutely cringey at times.
User avatar #85369 to #85368 - cleverguy (08/20/2014) [-]
i've never been there. i thought it got taken down or something
#85408 to #85369 - thebritishguy (08/20/2014) [-]
It's pretty damn euphoric, every now and then there's something interesting though. The "faces of atheism" which everybody loves started on there.
#85357 - lulzfornigeriagirl (08/20/2014) [-]




24, AUGUST, 2014
#85360 to #85357 - hesekiel (08/20/2014) [-]
So many possibilities and not a single one would make sense, especially in correlation to you.
User avatar #85352 - gayobliteratorhere (08/20/2014) [-]
I will delete this account
#85435 to #85352 - anonymous (08/20/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
 Friends (0)