I already listed several examples of how religion can be used to justify
racism.
>JB <Please explain to me WHY "consciousness" gives anyone a
>>"right" to anything.
>
>RS <<Because it does.>>
>
>Well, I couldn't have asked for a clearer demonstration of my central thesis
>than this! I ask a philosophical question, and get "because it does" in
>return. No offense, but any five-year-old knows this is a non-argument that
>gets nowhere with mom or dad. "Because it does"? Let's play with that awhile.
What do you want me to say? I am telling you what I know and feel in my
heart. I simply don't feel the need to look for any reason beyond the simple
fact that others have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and awareness like
myself. In fact, your inability to understand this simple concept makes you
look like a more than slightly amoral person. And your behavior in this debate
is reinforcing that notion.
Perhaps you are someone who needs to have an all-powerful, all-seeing father-
figure hanging over your shoulder every minute of every second of every day
in order to make sure that you behave responsibly. I am not so limited. So
don't project your shortcomings onto me, don't cut my arguments and quote me
out of context to convince yourself that you're winning, and don't fling your
petty sarcasm at me just because you know that you really aren't winning. I
have no patience for that kind of immature behavior.
>Q. Mr. Hitler, why does your system give you the right to genocide?
>A. Because it does.
And the vast majority of people (religious or not) disagree with Hitler's
philosophy.
>Q. Mr. Bundy, why do your beliefs give you the right to kill co-eds?
>A. Because they do.
Ditto.
>Q. Mr. Simpson, how can you deny guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence?
>A. Because I can, man.
Ditto.
>See how it works? I've told you your system is subjective, and therefore not
>transcendent or applicable to anyone but yourself.
What is that supposed to mean? Are you claiming that my moral system is
ineffective; that I am incapable of behaving morally? If so, you'd damned
well better provide some evidence. And if not, you have admitted that I have
a non-transcendent moral system that works.
>You have answered only with
>"because it does." Well, EVERYONE can make that argument, even when the system
>is the exact opposite of yours. And you are powerless to put up an argument
>against them.
No, I'm not. I am quite capable of putting up an argument against people who
have no respect for others' rights, and fortunately, the vast majority of
people I am likely to find (regardless of their spiritual beliefs) will back
me up.
>That's the whole point. Now, I am personally glad you have borrowed moral
>capital and have used it to purchase what looks like a sound moral system. But
>it is going to show up on your credit report.
Once again, you come up with this phantom claim that I have "borrowed moral
capital". Whatever company you are representing in trying to claim this debt
had better have a damned good lawyer, because my paper trail shows quite
clearly that I have not borrowed a single thing. Now stop making claims that
are unsupported by any evidence, or I am going to end this debate and quit
wasting time.
><<OK, then, let me ask you this: If you did not believe that there was a
>God, would you be motivated to behave in what you consider a moral way?>>
>
>I honestly don't know.
Then perhaps you should spend some time thinking about it before you presume
to pass judgement on others.
>I would be a profoundly different person. Remember
>Dostoevsky's dictum: "If God does not exist, then anything is permissible."
If you believe that, then you are a truly sick person, and I hope you get
some help. I, for one, do not believe in God, and I don't believe that "anything
is permissible". And if your morality is dependent on the existence of God,
then I can say with absolute certainty that my morality is far stronger than
yours.
><<So what? Morality can come from other sources>>
>
>YES!
>
><<and they don't have to be
>supra-natural ones, as I have demonstrated.>>
>
>NO!
You just don't get it. I've done the best I can, but you just don't get it.
I wish I could use something more effective than words to convey my point,
because words can be distorted and misinterpreted. But until you are able
to read my arguments with an open mind, I'm just wasting time.
>"Because it does" is not a demonstration.
And why is "Because God said it's wrong" any better? Or "Because I'll
go to Hell if I misbehave?" Sooner or later, *any* moral system has to
start with a subjective assumption. That's just the way it is. Sometimes
that subjective assumption is supernatural in nature -- sometimes it is
not. Why can you not make the small leap of understanding required to
see the other side of it? Are you that afraid of challenging your beliefs?
><<You're the one mixing apples and oranges, by trying to extract moral codes
>from a scientific theory.>>
>
>Ex-squeeze me? I'm doing precisely the opposite, showing you the futility of
>extracting a moral code from a scientific theory.
Then you're preaching to the choir, Jim. I, as well as almost every other
person I know, have never tried to use science as a moral system, any more
than I would try to use a pasta fork to loosen a lug nut. That was never what
it was intended for, and anyone who tries to do that with it is either stupid
or deliberately dishonest.
><<So you truly believe that the Judeo-Christian belief system is the only one
>that can teach people to care for one another? Are you really that ignorant?>>
>
>Ouch, there's that vituperation again. I never said this, of course.
Yes you did. You said that my moral system "borrows" from the Judeo-Christian
belief system, which is a clear implication that my belief in the wrongness
of murder must be Judeo-Christian in origin. And that is simply wrong.
>I only
>said that is probably where you are borrowing from, even though you don't know
>it. Well, now you know it.
I know that you have continued to make a claim for which there is no evidence.
I have no time to debate irrational people, so this will be my final message on
this thread. Either you'll get my point or not. If you don't, it's your own
loss.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.