ISIS!

  On 5/27/2015 at 4:13 AM, luke viia said:

its strange to me to see secular atheists arguing in favor of moral absolutism, when that is precisely the position most religions take...don't quite get it.

Well actually wherever religion claims "moral absolutism" I would argue that they mean "fiat morality," wherein being "moral" is just a game-theory strategy to get into heaven.

(this, of course, doesn't detract from the myriad religious people who act morally independent of any divine commandment)

If someone is good to others simply to gain everlasting bliss...is that morality? I mean, if those same people learned that God actually wanted them be cruel to others, then they would do that to get into heaven, no? Is that morality? Or rather would morality instead be defying a God that wanted us to do things we didn't consider fair and just?

Anyway, I'm still waiting for a good rebuttal to Euthyphro's Dilemma.

I don't think you would be accurately representing most religious people, if that's your argument. They generally believe in their holy laws without context, for example the 10 commandments. That is an absolute moral standard for Christians - it cannot be overridden regardless of context, and while they falter and do not constantly adhere to it, they admit their moral shortcomings and still hold the standard as absolute. By their perspective, it is not selfish behavior, and to characterize all religious morality as self-serving ticket-to-heaven hypocrisy is totally inaccurate. As a dude with a grandpa that was cool as shit and also a Lutheran pastor (who gave me his stamped copy of The Teachings of Buddha before he died), I can attest that he was not selfishly motivated by his belief in the absolute morality of his religion. So, say what you will, I think you're making unjustified and false assumptions, so whoopdie friggin doo, here we are. Don't have time to solve an ancient moral dilemma tonight, soz dude.

FWIW the only moral system I would consider universal is the golden rule. That's a goodie. I'm not totally ruling out moral objectivism, but it ain't me baby.

  On 5/27/2015 at 4:52 AM, luke viia said:

I don't think you would be accurately representing most religious people, if that's your argument. They generally believe in their holy laws without context, for example the 10 commandments. That is an absolute moral standard for Christians - it cannot be overridden regardless of context, and while they falter and do not constantly adhere to it, they admit their moral shortcomings and still hold the standard as absolute. By their perspective, it is not selfish behavior, and to characterize all religious morality as self-serving ticket-to-heaven hypocrisy is totally inaccurate. As a dude with a grandpa that was cool as shit and also a Lutheran pastor (who gave me his stamped copy of The Teachings of Buddha before he died), I can attest that he was not selfishly motivated by his belief in the absolute morality of his religion. So, say what you will, I think you're making unjustified and false assumptions, so whoopdie friggin doo, here we are. Don't have time to solve an ancient moral dilemma tonight, soz dude.

I didn't "characterize all religious morality as self-serving ticket-to-heaven hypocrisy is totally inaccurate"...i explicitly said that

  On 5/27/2015 at 4:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

(this, of course, doesn't detract from the myriad religious people who act morally independent of any divine commandment)

 

but you are saying exactly what i was saying:

adhering to the 10 commandments

why adhere to the 10 commandments?

because God said so?

or because, independent of God, they are moral things to do?

This was my whole point...this is Euthyphro's Dilemma (as I linked to above)

are the 10 commandments moral because God said so?

or because they are inherently moral?

this isn't an ancient moral dilemma...it's not a moral dilemma at all

it is the problem of "what makes the 10 commandments moral?"

TL:DR =

the punchline of Euthyphro's dilemma is that--

purely from a logical standpoint--

God can't be a moral arbiter

My apologies, I didn't see the part in parentheses, did you add that after the fact? I'm writing this on the bus, probably just missed it. My bad. Your first statement in that post definitely suggests you were speaking of all religious claims wrt moral absolutes ("wherever religion claims "moral absolutism" I would argue that they mean "fiat morality," wherein being "moral" is just a game-theory strategy to get into heaven."), so that's what I took the rest of the post as, too.

Regarding the thing I said about mis-characterization, what's your initial point then? That some religious people are self-serving? Of course. So are people of all beliefs. That really isn't an argument against religion, just against selfishness. And I agree, self-serving behavior is probably not something to be heralded as a moral action - but it can still be beneficial to all parties. Maybe I want to get with a good old Christian girl, so I volunteer at a church soup kitchen or something. I get laid, she's happy, the people are fed, what's to lose? Nothing, but was it moral? A question for the ages. I don't have the answer, though I suspect it is "no."

Christians may adhere to the 10 commandments because God said so; some may do it because they believe it is the right moral choice in general. It doesn't matter. The people I'm speaking of are absolute in their belief - the reason behind it is irrelevant here. Euthyphro's dilemma is unrelated (though interesting). I'm trying to discuss whether there is such a thing as objective morality, and how we could know it when we see it. My point earlier was that most religions adhere to their own form of moral absolutism - and as you've said in this thread, you also believe there is a correct answer to all moral problems, or possibly a few equally correct answers. So my question is: in what way can we claim one moral system is absolutely "the truth"? That's the main issue I have with moral absolutism, it has no serious or acceptable answer to that problem. You have mentioned empirical evidence a few times throughout this thread; how is looking back at a trolley dilemma, for example, evidence of a correct moral position? Minimal harm done? The right people killed? The innocent suffered less? If they're all innocent, perhaps the correct answer is not intervening at all, killing everyone and absolving oneself of any part in the natural course of their lives? You can argue in favor of utilitarianism, you can argue that you decided your position followed kant's categorical imperative, but none of that makes it objective. It makes it your defensible position, no more no less.

blah, this post is way too winding, I'm barely making sense. Long day. I have to eat and go to bed asap. I probably won't be back in here for a while, too much shit on my plate. cheers limpy.

Are there any other atheists in this thread that thinks most of the world fights over something that only exists in their minds? I have long since given up trying to estimate the ridiculousness of it all.

Maybe you should start a 'religious person murders unarmed atheist' thread rather than filling this one up with inane irrelevant shite

  On 5/26/2015 at 8:31 PM, goDel said:

Do any of you anti-islam nutbags realise that there's a strong relation between authoritarian regimes and the kind of barbarisms you are wailing against? It's not the religion but the type of regime. Take away the religion, keep the authoritarian regime, and see how much of it is still left.

lol, the type of regime is called a Theocracy. You cannot separate the religion from the regime. Take away the religion and they would have no justification for their policies, and no support for enacting them.

  Quote

 

I thought you liberated atheists understood that institutionalised religion is nothing but an instrument for those in power to control the masses. Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that it's not the religion which blocks the road to democracy in the middle eastern countries, but those in power?

Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that the religion is a big part of what keeps them in power?

  On 5/26/2015 at 10:54 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

I support the FSA just like Anonymous does because that's how fucking rad I am

 

but once again if you think any of the FSA funding got to ISIS you need to fuck off with your conspiracy theory bullshit

 

I never said ISIS haven't managed to get their hands on weapons that were meant for others. They also stole US supplied Iraqi army weapons and vehicles, that doesn't translate into 'US arms ISIS'. Saying the US funded ISIS implies deliberate intent, it doesn't rule out incompetence.

  On 5/27/2015 at 2:23 AM, goDel said:

Lol

 

But it is in the context of quantum reality. The correct answer is influenced by the measurement itself. Or, as a metaphor, by the person who tries to answer the moral dilemma. (Moral objectivism might be a pretty contradictory notion)

 

Also, what if you could create a moral dilemma where, if you take all conditions into account, there is no correct answer. And if you had a correct answer, it could be proven that the set of conditions was incomplete? Wouldn't that be the death of moral objectivism?

why are you bringing quantum mechanics into a discussion on morality? you are Deepak Chopra and I claim my five pounds.

isis are only assholes if they are being observed

*awaits more relpies from craze while he catches up to al the posts he's missed*

  On 5/27/2015 at 12:19 PM, Rubin Farr said:

Are there any other atheists in this thread that thinks most of the world fights over something that only exists in their minds? I have long since given up trying to estimate the ridiculousness of it all.

• Projection bias — the tendency to unconsciously assume that others share the same or similar thoughts, beliefs, values, or positions.

Some people think that everyone essentially believes the same basic stuff, and that the model of the world that we all have in our head is more-or-less the same. It's not. It's simply not. Do whatever it takes to reconcile yourself with that fact.

  On 5/27/2015 at 7:51 PM, goDel said:

*awaits more relpies from craze while he catches up to al the posts he's missed*

I've replied to all I need to for now Mr Chopra.

  On 5/27/2015 at 3:12 PM, caze said:

 

I never said ISIS haven't managed to get their hands on weapons that were meant for others. They also stole US supplied Iraqi army weapons and vehicles, that doesn't translate into 'US arms ISIS'. Saying the US funded ISIS implies deliberate intent, it doesn't rule out incompetence.

 

thats like the cia created al qaeda thing. no, we helped Afghanistan in a war with the russians. they decided all by themselves to become terrorists

  On 5/27/2015 at 2:37 PM, Timothy Forward said:

Maybe you should start a 'religious person murders unarmed atheist' thread rather than filling this one up with inane irrelevant shite

  On 5/27/2015 at 3:12 PM, caze said:

 

I never said ISIS haven't managed to get their hands on weapons that were meant for others. They also stole US supplied Iraqi army weapons and vehicles, that doesn't translate into 'US arms ISIS'. Saying the US funded ISIS implies deliberate intent, it doesn't rule out incompetence.

 

while the us might not have directly funded isis (i don't have evidence that they did), isis only exists because the us allowed its rise by funding "moderate rebels" (aka terrorists) in syria - while being perfectly aware of the possible outcome, which they predicted in 2012 and desired for geostrategic reasons, as shown by this declassified document (thanks ehrlichman) http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

  On 5/28/2015 at 1:51 AM, marf said:

 

they (al qaeda) decided all by themselves to become terrorists

i really don't think so

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:08 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

while the us might not have directly funded isis (i don't have evidence that they did), isis only exists because the us allowed its rise by funding "moderate rebels" (aka terrorists) in syria - while being perfectly aware of the possible outcome, which they predicted in 2012 and desired for geostrategic reasons, as shown by this declassified document (thanks ehrlichman) http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

They don't only exist because of US actions, that's just one of many reasons, and almost certainly not the most important one; and even in terms of funding/arms for the FSA, if that hadn't happened at all, then neither you nor I are in a position to claim with any certainty whether ISIS would have gotten weapons elsewhere, or what exactly would have happened instead - for all we know ISIS may have developed faster.

It's totally cool to go fight for IS if you are a Swedish citizen. No law against it whatsoever.

http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.2725944-inga-atal-vacks-mot-svenska-is-hemvandare

As much as I like Swedish idealism, it tends to go overboard sometimes, which that case proves.

But still, a lot of countries could a learn a thing or two about humanism from Sweden. Like when the Swedish premier minister says Sweden should be a humanitarian superpower, you'd never hear a Danish politician say that for example, not even on the far left wing. But I guess immigration policy is also starting to become more of a concern in Sweden (which is also warranted, foreign fighters can't be acceptable anywhere).

  On 5/28/2015 at 1:51 AM, marf said:

 

  On 5/27/2015 at 3:12 PM, caze said:

 

I never said ISIS haven't managed to get their hands on weapons that were meant for others. They also stole US supplied Iraqi army weapons and vehicles, that doesn't translate into 'US arms ISIS'. Saying the US funded ISIS implies deliberate intent, it doesn't rule out incompetence.

 

 

thats like the cia created al qaeda thing. no, we helped Afghanistan in a war with the russians. they decided all by themselves to become terrorists

 

that's true, when Carter referred to them as 'deeply religious' people committed to fighting communism, in no way did the CIA intervening or the US political system try to exacerbate their religious extremism to fight the atheistic communists. If you think this happened you are a batshit conspirtard asshole and for your entire life you will be ridiculed

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:18 PM, caze said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:08 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

while the us might not have directly funded isis (i don't have evidence that they did), isis only exists because the us allowed its rise by funding "moderate rebels" (aka terrorists) in syria - while being perfectly aware of the possible outcome, which they predicted in 2012 and desired for geostrategic reasons, as shown by this declassified document (thanks ehrlichman) http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

 

They don't only exist because of US actions, that's just one of many reasons, and almost certainly not the most important one; and even in terms of funding/arms for the FSA, if that hadn't happened at all, then neither you nor I are in a position to claim with any certainty whether ISIS would have gotten weapons elsewhere, or what exactly would have happened instead - for all we know ISIS may have developed faster.

 

lol, you win first prize for best logic in thread

here's a clip of your gal Kim Kagan echoing similar logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMPmIRrdrBQ

but in all seriousness, trying to downplay the idea that the US basically caused ISIS to to rise out of a power vacuum makes you an apologist for US imperialism, which honestly is just a strange thing for anyone to do at this point, out of curiosity why would you be interested in downplaying what's extremely obvious to anyone with even a remote understanding of foreign policy?

Do you have any information or proof that the FSA at any time was actually fighting the more extremist sects of the rebels or ISIS? IF you do please provide it because everything you've said above is just kind of a weird assumption on your part

  On 5/28/2015 at 9:45 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 5/28/2015 at 7:18 PM, caze said:

 

They don't only exist because of US actions, that's just one of many reasons, and almost certainly not the most important one; and even in terms of funding/arms for the FSA, if that hadn't happened at all, then neither you nor I are in a position to claim with any certainty whether ISIS would have gotten weapons elsewhere, or what exactly would have happened instead - for all we know ISIS may have developed faster.

lol, you win first prize for best logic in thread

Yes, I do. You, sadly, take last price in the reading comprehension prize. It might be interesting for people to note that I didn't put a probability on that eventuality.

  Quote

 

 

but in all seriousness, trying to downplay the idea that the US basically caused ISIS to to rise out of a power vacuum makes you an apologist for US imperialism, which honestly is just a strange thing for anyone to do at this point, out of curiosity why would you be interested in downplaying what's extremely obvious to anyone with even a remote understanding of foreign policy?

Calling me an apologist for US imperialism just reinforces the fact that you struggle with reading comprehension. I've been at pains to lay out the times, and the degree, to which western intervention in the middle east has been disastrous for the region (not just now, but stretching back to the fall of the Ottoman empire). You seem to view the world in a very naive, black and white, manner; with the US always playing the villain. The world is more complicated than that.

  Quote

 

 

Do you have any information or proof that the FSA at any time was actually fighting the more extremist sects of the rebels or ISIS? IF you do please provide it because everything you've said above is just kind of a weird assumption on your part

The original point of the FSA was to fight the Syrian government, not ISIS (which didn't exist at the start of the Syrian conflict), nor their precursors, nor Al Qaeda. US officials may have hoped arming the FSA would have a bonus knock-on effect of debilitating extremists, though as I said already, their incompetence (the US I mean, not the FSA) made that highly unlikely (having said that, secular FSA forces do still control some of Syria, so they have been effective in halting their spread to some degree).

"ISIS Moron" brags on social media, giving away his position. 22 hours later, his building destroyed by US war planes.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/moron-brings-us-air-strike-himself-200427331.html#zrJEEsa