is this right that Pre-marital sex is ok

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was that there are "evils" that can be associated with sex outside of marriage. It isn't a form of sexual repression, it's a smart decision if you ask me.

Ok, let's break this down.

You say this:
Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was that there are "evils" that can be associated with sex outside of marriage.

Here is me saying essentially the same thing:

Originally posted by Digi
There are harmful acts of pre-marital sex, and plenty of people not "ready" for it.

So, we both understand this point, though the fact that I admit this went unacknowledged in your replies.

However, my point doesn't end there.

Originally posted by Digi
But in a mutually amicable relationship where the emotional, physical, and even spiritual well-beings of the people are enhanced, and no evil comes out of it, I've never had anyone show me, objectively, where the harm/evil/suffering is.

This is the much larger point. Your response was this:

Originally posted by TacDavey
This depends on what you consider "evil". I, for one, think that the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies, divorce, STDs and the like paint plenty of pictures as to why sex is something you are suppose to take very seriously, and in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for.

This post is entirely a strawman in relation to my post. Because, one, it paints a picture of only bad results of premarital sex. Which is selective bias in order to try to make a point. It fails. And two, in saying "in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for," you're asserting something that is a tangent to the central point. I don't disagree with that statement. Of course it's not a bad goal. But neither is it the only "good" goal.

You also ignore entirely the vast amounts of guilt that the Church's views create. People try to repress sexual thoughts, desires, and actions, often in personally destructive ways. If we're listing potential evils, you have to turn it both ways. Obviously this isn't always the case, but to ignore it is willful ignorance of an avoidable evil.

So let's recap:
- You haven't addressed the problems with repressing sexual desires.
- You haven't provided evidence that premarital sex is always bad, or even usually bad.
- Or where the inherent bad is in the many, many cases where no discernible harm comes of mutually amicable premarital sex.
- You haven't conceded that abstaining can be good or bad for some, or that being more sexually permissive can be both good or bad depending on the situation, a point that should be blatantly obvious from a common sense perspective, and only becomes obscured when you try to adhere to an inflexible dogma.

So, I know what your point is. But if you're going to engage me, address mine as well.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are alluding to the idea that there isn't "evils" within sex in marriage?

Not at all.

Originally posted by Digi
This post is entirely a strawman in relation to my post. Because, one, it paints a picture of only bad results of premarital sex. Which is selective bias in order to try to make a point. It fails.

I don't think so. The point was to point out the reasons why premarital sex was a bad idea, so obviously listing the reasons it was a bad idea was what was needed to make the point. I never, at any point, said that these problems are always there nor did I allude to the idea that premarital sex can't have positive effects.

Originally posted by Digi
And two, in saying "in no way is waiting for marriage/only having one partner a bad goal to shoot for," you're asserting something that is a tangent to the central point. I don't disagree with that statement. Of course it's not a bad goal. But neither is it the only "good" goal.

I guess I misunderstood. You said that the church, by teaching that sex should be in marriage, was sexually repressing people. Which sounds to me like you are saying that telling people they should only have sex in marriage is wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
You also ignore entirely the vast amounts of guilt that the Church's views create. People try to repress sexual thoughts, desires, and actions, often in personally destructive ways. If we're listing potential evils, you have to turn it both ways. Obviously this isn't always the case, but to ignore it is willful ignorance of an avoidable evil.

Guilt? Why is the fact that people may feel guilty listed as a reason against any sort of action? Should I avoid speaking out against stealing because it would make thieves feel guilty?

As for people who are personally destructive, I would say that isn't the church's fault, and there are likely ways of coping with it that don't involve premarital sex.

Originally posted by Digi
- You haven't addressed the problems with repressing sexual desires.

Above.

Originally posted by Digi
- You haven't provided evidence that premarital sex is always bad, or even usually bad.

In fact I listed some of the reasons premarital sex could be bad. I never said, at any point, that it always was.

Originally posted by Digi
- Or where the inherent bad is in the many, many cases where no discernible harm comes of mutually amicable premarital sex.

The fact that the negative results of something aren't always there means nothing. Many bad actions can be done without negative consequences coming about.

Originally posted by Digi
- You haven't conceded that abstaining can be good or bad for some, or that being more sexually permissive can be both good or bad depending on the situation, a point that should be blatantly obvious from a common sense perspective, and only becomes obscured when you try to adhere to an inflexible dogma.

Not a lot I can say about this without specific examples. Though it sounds like you are claiming there are problems that can ONLY be fixed by premarital sex, which I doubt.

Digi

But how is it inherently bad? Where is the evil, when the bad that occasionally comes from premarital sex is a situational thing, not an ingrained part of the practice? Because, make no mistake, the vast majority of cases of premarital sex hurt no one, ever.

Also, on the guilt aspect of it. No guilt is present in regards to sex as a default position. But, for many, if you introduce divine edicts that it is evil and suddenly the guilt, and therefore suffering, is present. Are there ways to cope? Sure. But at its core, you're still creating guilt where none was initially present. It's a net negative. Wouldn't it be healthier for all if we just said that you should be ready for sex emotionally, premarital or not, and left it at that?

Needless archaism wrapped in divine clothes. I'm not advocating some sort of sexual anarchy, just pointing out where the religious approach to sex is outdated.

Omega Vision

Pre-marital sex restrictions were ways of controlling birth rates and preventing the spread of STDs. They're no longer necessary for those purposes so it's just hidebound nonsense.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Pre-marital sex restrictions were ways of controlling birth rates and preventing the spread of STDs. They're no longer necessary for those purposes so it's just hidebound nonsense.

I thought it was more about having stable social groups rather than birth rates? I thought it was literally a sex-agreement to ensure stable production of offspring? I thought I was an out-growth of property exchange?

It may have its origins in people "falling in love" and that love bond lasting longer than the 2-3 years. Some people romanticized that idea and the extension was permanent mating.

Originally posted by Digi
...the vast majority of cases of premarital sex hurt no one, ever.

I disagree. It seems that "pre-marital" sex is one the biggest problems for humans and their relationships. We just aren't monogamous enough. If the desire for sex were out of the equation, I am quite sure we would be much more monogamous.

I believe arranged marriages last much longer than volitional ones. It's more about society that keeps people together...not the desire for sex. The desire for sex is the main problem and shows up as the #1 problem, on all real lists on relationship failures, that I could find. (sexual dysfunction to cheating).

If people did not have sex until they were sure they wanted to spend the rest of their life with the person they started ****in', I am quite sure relationships would like much longer. We just can't do that, as humans. Religion be dammed.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought it was more about having stable social groups rather than birth rates? I thought it was literally a sex-agreement to ensure stable production of offspring? I thought I was an out-growth of property exchange?

It may have its origins in people "falling in love" and that love bond lasting longer than the 2-3 years. Some people romanticized that idea and the extension was permanent mating.

I disagree. It seems that "pre-marital" sex is one the biggest problems for humans and their relationships. We just aren't monogamous enough. If the desire for sex were out of the equation, I am quite sure we would be much more monogamous.

I believe arranged marriages last much longer than volitional ones. It's more about society that keeps people together...not the desire for sex. The desire for sex is the main problem and shows up as the #1 problem, on all real lists on relationship failures, that I could find. (sexual dysfunction to cheating).

If people did not have sex until they were sure they wanted to spend the rest of their life with the person they started ****in', I am quite sure relationships would like much longer. We just can't do that, as humans. Religion be dammed.
Monogamy is a rare mutation in nature.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
But how is it inherently bad? Where is the evil, when the bad that occasionally comes from premarital sex is a situational thing, not an ingrained part of the practice? Because, make no mistake, the vast majority of cases of premarital sex hurt no one, ever.

I disagree that the vast majority of premarital sex is harmless. It may not always be physically harmful, but, as dadudemon pointed out, much of the breakdown of marriage and family we've seen recently has been attributed, in part, to premarital sex. There was a study I heard of that said that people who have sex before they get married are 30% more likely to get divorced.

Originally posted by Digi
No guilt is present in regards to sex as a default position. But, for many, if you introduce divine edicts that it is evil and suddenly the guilt, and therefore suffering, is present. Are there ways to cope? Sure. But at its core, you're still creating guilt where none was initially present. It's a net negative. Wouldn't it be healthier for all if we just said that you should be ready for sex emotionally, premarital or not, and left it at that?

But again, why is creating guilt where none was before treated as a reason not to do something? As with my example before, with me speaking out against stealing and thus making a thief feel guilty. In that example, I would say creating guilt where there wasn't any before was a positive thing, not a negative. The simple act of creating guilt is not necessarily a negative thing at all.

Originally posted by Digi
Needless archaism wrapped in divine clothes. I'm not advocating some sort of sexual anarchy, just pointing out where the religious approach to sex is outdated.

Outdated, maybe, in the sense that it isn't widely practiced anymore. But I would say that, religious reasons or no, the past generations had the right idea in this case.

TacDavey

Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe the study you are talking about is one of cohabitation before marriage, rather than not

...

So, it is apparent that religion can play a positive role in helping marriages last. I think the most important thing for a marriage to last (from a secular sense) is for both people to be selfless and kind with each other as much as often.

Ah, thanks. Yeah, that must have been what I was thinking of. You should do my research for me more often. shifty

Bardock42

Originally posted by TheBigManRevo
is it right that Pre-Marital sex is ok

It is, glad I could clear that up for you. Enjoy!

Digi

You guys aren't getting it. Nothing you've said is justification for a dogmatic position against premarital sex. Pointing to the possible negative consequences doesn't suffice, because that would be justification for making all kinds of innocuous, everyday acts, sins and wrongful actions.

Is it the right choice for everyone? No, of course not. But is it wrong in an a priori sense? No, of course not. How is it so hard to grasp that right decisions are often a spectrum of possibilities, not a single path? At best, the view that premarital sex is wrong is painting with too broad a brush. At worst, it creates tension, guilt, and vitriolic reactions to natural tendencies and desires, villifies entire swaths of the population who neither intend to harm anyone nor actually harm anyone, and discount different approaches to sexuality that don't place as much importance on marriage, lifelong monogamy, and religion.

So, the stats are interesting, and reinforce my idea that we should instruct our youth to be cautious and to wait for sex until they're ready in every sense. But they don't support the disrespectful and repressive belief that premarital sex should be condemned or even looked down upon.

...

And frankly I'm a little shocked at Tac's unwillingness to really deal with anything negative that comes about as a result of religion. How many people are thrown out by their parents for doing something not aligned with their religious beliefs? How many are ostracized by friends and family for the same? How many struggle constantly between beliefs and inherent tendencies, thoughts, desires, and logic? How much depression and violence does that tension create? These are not hypothetical questions. They exist. And they could be avoided by removing the dogmatic aspect of religion's approach to sex.

Brushing it off with "well, there's ways to cope" or "they shouldn't feel that way" does not deal with reality. It just assumes that everyone should think like you do, and if they don't, their religion-induced problems aren't worth acknowledging.

It's a spectrum, boys. And, imo, everything I listed is exponentially worse than letting people have their sexual freedom.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Digi
Pointing to the possible negative consequences doesn't suffice, because that would be justification for making all kinds of innocuous, everyday acts, sins and wrongful actions.

Are you not familiar with religion? Lots of things you'd classify as "innocuous everyday acts" are counted as sins. Masturbating. Swearing. Looking at women. Having angry thoughts. Failing to grow figs.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Digi
Is it the right choice for everyone? No, of course not.

Bam. This is all I would ask you to admit. Anything above and beyond that would be obnoxious, on my part.

This is how I usually roll: if a religious teaching about what not to do is backed by science, I generally support it. If it is not, I don't.

Examples -

Premarital sex. Seems for many people (maybe even most), it shouldn't be practiced. Is that practical? NOPE! Only people with ultra-self-control can do it. So in terms of pragmatism, it is almost impractical. So for those that can and research shit, good for them. For those that can't, beware and try your best in your committed relationships.

Word of Wisdom (Mormons): Seems very logical and easy to understand. The 'rules' are supposed to be almost completely based off of science and very little on interpretation. The only gray area I am aware of is taking a medication or treatment that has bad side effects for your health. You must prayerfully consider it. Something like pain-meds, chemotherapy, etc. Coffee? Tons of positives and tons of negatives. Avoid that shit. Why drink coffee, anyway? There are plenty of better ways to "wake-up" in the morning like a good night's sleep and a decent breakfast. I am not too sure about the tea thing. Mormons speculated about the caffeine being the problem. That's okay for some but, really, it has been clarified that it is more about the health stuff. If you have a caffeine addiction, you should probably switch to decaf and I think this would be in line with the WoW. It's up to the individual. smile

Porn: Sorry, but I do not agree with the research. I have seen 3 different families torn apart but a man's porn addiction (only 1 was Mormon). I have personally been responsible for a portion of the report for 2 different people at work being fired over their addiction (seriously, leave that shit at home). I just do not know about this area as it seems destructive to some. Ban all of it? NO! I just don't think some people can handle it and they take it out of control. It is hard (pun?) to imagine a pious, kind, loving, spiritual person who has a routine porn habit, even if controlled. Maybe it is due to that type of person being associated with self-control and a master of his instincts rather than the other way around. Bottom-line...the occasional viewing is harmless. As long as you control yourself and don't let ti rule your life, rub one out. Make sure to clean up and wash yours hand. sick

Generally, though, if one is trying to lead a pious life (any of the major religions), they should control themselves.

Gay Marriage: This is one a where I disagree with the teaching. I think any consenting adult should be able to marry however and whomever they want. This applies to multiple marriages, as well. If a woman wants to marry 3 men and they all consent, let them. If 5 men and 6 women want to have a massive marriage relationship, let them. If a man and a man want to get married, let them. Also, let the adopt as the research shows that children do fine.

Those are just some areas that come to mind about "religious rules"

Originally posted by Digi
So, the stats are interesting, and reinforce my idea that we should instruct our youth to be cautious and to wait for sex until they're ready in every sense.

I agree, here, as well. However, that's just not pragmatic/doable. Kids...lack self-control. The best people like you and I can do is instruct them to not be idiots and wrap that shit up. I am always very quick to instruct my nephews and younger male cousins to use a condom. My sister and aunts do NOT like it because they think that they should not have to make those decisions until they are married. That's in a perfect world, however. It is best that they hear it from me rather than from their doctor after they have contracted and STD or gotten a girl preggo.

Digi

Not a ton to disagree with there, though my points were mostly stemming from my debate with Tac, not dudemon. Seems like the big thing dudemon and I disagree on is the degree to which premarital sex is potentially harmful. Nearly everyone I know has had more than one sexual partner in their lifetime, and the majority of them are in completely healthy, committed relationships. The others are just single - they aren't dysfunctional in any way. Some I know have even rushed into marriage and regretted it, and it has nothing to do with premarital sex.

We know society's getting more liberal with sexual beliefs, and that includes a spike in divorce rates. But are we really worse off than we were 50 years ago? It seems to me like the liberation has been collectively healthy, especially for women.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you not familiar with religion? Lots of things you'd classify as "innocuous everyday acts" are counted as sins. Masturbating. Swearing. Looking at women. Having angry thoughts. Failing to grow figs.

Right. And each of those is just as ridiculous, as I'm sure you're aware (from the clearly over-the-top fig reference, if nothing else). Again, it's rigid dogma creating needless suffering in the world.

red g jacks

Originally posted by dadudemon
If people did not have sex until they were sure they wanted to spend the rest of their life with the person they started ****in', I am quite sure relationships would like much longer. We just can't do that, as humans. Religion be dammed. but what if you wait until marriage just to find out that person is a shitty lay. and then you're stuck with that forever.

H-Q7b-vHY3Q

Bardock42

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Failing to grow figs.

Oh I see how it is, going right for the fig thing. That's low...

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
You guys aren't getting it. Nothing you've said is justification for a dogmatic position against premarital sex. Pointing to the possible negative consequences doesn't suffice, because that would be justification for making all kinds of innocuous, everyday acts, sins and wrongful actions.

I don't know what you mean here. It isn't like we are suppose to kill or beat people who have premarital sex. The Bible simply teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree. Sure, not every case of premarital sex hurts people, but there are tons of negative effects that have already been listed. Am I saying premarital sex should be outlawed, and those who practice it be thrown in jail? No. Not at all. I'm simply saying that it would be better for everyone if there was less premarital sex in the world, and I don't think I am hurting ANYONE by saying "you shouldn't have premarital sex".

Originally posted by Digi
Is it the right choice for everyone? No, of course not. But is it wrong in an a priori sense? No, of course not. How is it so hard to grasp that right decisions are often a spectrum of possibilities, not a single path? At best, the view that premarital sex is wrong is painting with too broad a brush. At worst, it creates tension, guilt, and vitriolic reactions to natural tendencies and desires, villifies entire swaths of the population who neither intend to harm anyone nor actually harm anyone, and discount different approaches to sexuality that don't place as much importance on marriage, lifelong monogamy, and religion.

Again, I disagree with the notion that premarital sex harms no one. As I said before.

Originally posted by Digi
So, the stats are interesting, and reinforce my idea that we should instruct our youth to be cautious and to wait for sex until they're ready in every sense. But they don't support the disrespectful and repressive belief that premarital sex should be condemned or even looked down upon.

No one is saying people who have premarital sex should be looked down upon.

Originally posted by Digi
And frankly I'm a little shocked at Tac's unwillingness to really deal with anything negative that comes about as a result of religion. How many people are thrown out by their parents for doing something not aligned with their religious beliefs? How many are ostracized by friends and family for the same? How many struggle constantly between beliefs and inherent tendencies, thoughts, desires, and logic? How much depression and violence does that tension create? These are not hypothetical questions. They exist. And they could be avoided by removing the dogmatic aspect of religion's approach to sex.

I don't think I'm unwilling to deal with negative aspects of religion. I have admitted time and time again on this forum that there have been evils that have come about in the name of religion. As I said before, it's not the religions fault. If someone throws their kid out of the house, or ostracize someone who doesn't share their religion, it is the INDIVIDUAL who is causing the harm, not the religion. It is a common trend to blame the religion for the wrongs of the individual.

Also, why is this relevant?

Originally posted by Digi
Brushing it off with "well, there's ways to cope" or "they shouldn't feel that way" does not deal with reality. It just assumes that everyone should think like you do, and if they don't, their religion-induced problems aren't worth acknowledging.

I don't know why you say that. I did not intend to brush it off. I was merely denying the argument you seemed to be making that premarital sex was the one and only way to solve the problem, or that someone who hurts themselves when they don't have premarital sex can't get help in any other way than to have premarital sex. Which is false.

Originally posted by Digi
It's a spectrum, boys. And, imo, everything I listed is exponentially worse than letting people have their sexual freedom.

Using a term like "sexual freedom" sends the wrong message as to my stance. If someone goes around sleeping with anything that moves would you not say that's the wrong decision? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if everyone started doing that? Wouldn't you say it would be a good idea to teach our kids that's wrong? And wouldn't you say the world would be better off if people didn't behave in that manner?

Even if that example doesn't do it for you, pick one that does. That's all that is being said about premarital sex. It's teaching people not to do something they consider harmful, and for good reason.

Bardock42

I think we should teach people how to be safe when they have sex and to consider whether they truly want it and pressuring people is wrong.

If they know these things, and follow them, and still want to have sex with everything consensual that moves, I don't see anything wrong with it, perhaps we shouldn't even encourage it.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Using a term like "sexual freedom" sends the wrong message as to my stance. If someone goes around sleeping with anything that moves would you not say that's the wrong decision? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if everyone started doing that? Wouldn't you say it would be a good idea to teach our kids that's wrong? And wouldn't you say the world would be better off if people didn't behave in that manner?

Maybe this is just more of a reflection of how sheltered I am, but I've never seen someone so adamantly against free love.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by inimalist
Maybe this is just more of a reflection of how sheltered I am, but I've never seen someone so adamantly against free love.

There is no such thing as free love. wink

inimalist

i feel for you

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by inimalist
i feel for you
No, I feel for you.

Bardock42

And I'd feel both of you up.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. It isn't like we are suppose to kill or beat people who have premarital sex. The Bible simply teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree. Sure, not every case of premarital sex hurts people, but there are tons of negative effects that have already been listed. Am I saying premarital sex should be outlawed, and those who practice it be thrown in jail? No. Not at all. I'm simply saying that it would be better for everyone if there was less premarital sex in the world, and I don't think I am hurting ANYONE by saying "you shouldn't have premarital sex".

"The Bible teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree."

Then you are complicit in the societal denigration of those who advocate more liberal sexual views. To say that you wouldn't want to do it or advocate it is different than calling it wrong, because then it becomes a judgement.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Again, I disagree with the notion that premarital sex harms no one. As I said before.

And I disagree with the notion that monogamy harms no one. So why not call neither right/wrong and just let people choose without labeling one a sin?

Originally posted by TacDavey
No one is saying people who have premarital sex should be looked down upon.

Oh, plenty are. How can you separate "What you do is wrong, a sin, etc." and not imply "You are wrong, sinful, etc." The answer is, you can't.

What do you think the reaction would be if I told my largely-Catholic family that I've engaged in one night stands and not regretted it? Do you think I'd be looked down upon? Even if I told you that my family is, by Christian standards, quite liberal? The answer should be staggeringly obvious.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I'm unwilling to deal with negative aspects of religion. I have admitted time and time again on this forum that there have been evils that have come about in the name of religion. As I said before, it's not the religions fault. If someone throws their kid out of the house, or ostracize someone who doesn't share their religion, it is the INDIVIDUAL who is causing the harm, not the religion. It is a common trend to blame the religion for the wrongs of the individual.

Fair point, and I partially agree. It's a slippery slope sometimes, and it is also hard to differentiate the two because many peoples' beliefs are so much a part of them that they can't be faithfully separated.

However, take religion away from those same people...how much of the same behavior do you think would be present? I don't know and you don't know exactly, but we can be damn sure some of the discrimination would disappear.

I'm trying hard not to lead this to gay marriage either, but many of the same arguments could be made about it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Using a term like "sexual freedom" sends the wrong message as to my stance. If someone goes around sleeping with anything that moves would you not say that's the wrong decision? Wouldn't it be a bad thing if everyone started doing that? Wouldn't you say it would be a good idea to teach our kids that's wrong? And wouldn't you say the world would be better off if people didn't behave in that manner?

Straw man. What you're talking about here isn't sexual freedom, it's being destructively slutty. Obviously the world wouldn't be better if we were all masochistic sexual sociopaths, but this is NOT what would happen if we lowered the cross-ward from our breasts on the issue of sex.

The average age of lost virginity in the US is around 17. We're already in a world that, in practice, places very little importance on monogamy. And while it's not perfect in many ways, we have progressed socially in terms of acceptance of races, philosophies, and creeds as well as overall crime rates (despite what media coverage might have us believe). And the world isn't burning down around us. Not all of that can be attributed to the sexual revolution of the last 50 years or so, but we also must concede that increasing sexual freedoms hasn't made us go into some sort of bohemian nosedive.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
"The Bible teaches it's wrong, and I tend to agree."

Then you are complicit in the societal denigration of those who advocate more liberal sexual views. To say that you wouldn't want to do it or advocate it is different than calling it wrong, because then it becomes a judgement.

This sounds like semantics. I believe it is a harmful practice and that people would benefit if there was less of it.

Originally posted by Digi
And I disagree with the notion that monogamy harms no one. So why not call neither right/wrong and just let people choose without labeling one a sin?

Because if monogamy harms someone, it's a very rare or very specific circumstance which I still argue can be solved without doing away with monogamy. The problems posed by premarital sex are much more prevalent and much more common.

Originally posted by Digi
Oh, plenty are. How can you separate "What you do is wrong, a sin, etc." and not imply "You are wrong, sinful, etc." The answer is, you can't.

I'm sure there are people out there who are. What I was saying is that no one HERE is saying that.

And it's actually pretty easy to separate people from actions. I love my little brother. If he were to steal something, I would disapprove of that action. I would think it's wrong, but I would not look down on my little brother or feel he should be treated any differently than I have always treated him.

Originally posted by Digi
What do you think the reaction would be if I told my largely-Catholic family that I've engaged in one night stands and not regretted it? Do you think I'd be looked down upon? Even if I told you that my family is, by Christian standards, quite liberal? The answer should be staggeringly obvious.

If your family were to disown you or look down on you for that then, no offense, but they are in the wrong. Their religion, however, is not in the wrong because of what THEY do.

Originally posted by Digi
Fair point, and I partially agree. It's a slippery slope sometimes, and it is also hard to differentiate the two because many peoples' beliefs are so much a part of them that they can't be faithfully separated.

However, take religion away from those same people...how much of the same behavior do you think would be present? I don't know and you don't know exactly, but we can be damn sure some of the discrimination would disappear.

I'm trying hard not to lead this to gay marriage either, but many of the same arguments could be made about it.

Maybe, but as I said in another thread before, if you took an example of a rape, and removed the rape victim, you can be pretty sure the rape would not happen. So, in that sense, isn't the rape victim partially to blame for the whole thing?

Obviously not. In the same way, while some of the discrimination may not be there without the religion, it is still not the religions fault for the discrimination because the religion does not tell that individual to discriminate. That is a choice they make on their own.

Originally posted by Digi
Straw man. What you're talking about here isn't sexual freedom, it's being destructively slutty. Obviously the world wouldn't be better if we were all masochistic sexual sociopaths, but this is NOT what would happen if we lowered the cross-ward from our breasts on the issue of sex.

That's not what I was saying.

My point was that teaching people that sex within marriage is the better way to do things is not "sexually repressing" people any more than teaching them not to have sex with everything that moves is "sexually repressing" people.

Originally posted by Digi
The average age of lost virginity in the US is around 17. We're already in a world that, in practice, places very little importance on monogamy. And while it's not perfect in many ways, we have progressed socially in terms of acceptance of races, philosophies, and creeds as well as overall crime rates (despite what media coverage might have us believe). And the world isn't burning down around us. Not all of that can be attributed to the sexual revolution of the last 50 years or so, but we also must concede that increasing sexual freedoms hasn't made us go into some sort of bohemian nosedive.

I don't believe I ever said that allowing premarital sex to continue will cause the world to burn down around us. And the fact that we, as a society, don't value monogamy is completely irrelevant to whether or not we SHOULD value monogamy.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
My point was that teaching people that sex within marriage is the better way to do things is not "sexually repressing" people any more than teaching them not to have sex with everything that moves is "sexually repressing" people.

Telling them it is the only appropriate way and that they'll be tortured in hell for doing otherwise is.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously not. In the same way, while some of the discrimination may not be there without the religion, it is still not the religions fault for the discrimination because the religion does not tell that individual to discriminate. That is a choice they make on their own.

...because their religions tells them that those people are bad.

If you really want to use rape as a metaphor here religious people are rapists and religion is a deeply vile person who is telling people to become rapists. But we shouldn't use anything as emotionally charged as rape anyway.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...If you really want to use rape as a metaphor here religious people are rapists and religion is a deeply vile person who is telling people to become rapists. But we shouldn't use anything as emotionally charged as rape anyway.

In trying to stress your point, you only left yourself sounding stupid. Saying all religions are the same is like saying all people are the same. The reason general advice on this topic doesn't work is because people are different. Some people should wait, while others should not.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In trying to stress your point, you only left yourself sounding stupid.

My point that rape metaphors are a bad way to think about religion is stupid? Okay.

I'll also note that nowhere was it said that "all religions are the same". The two things I said are contiguous.

Shakyamunison

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
My point that rape metaphors are a bad way to think about religion is stupid? Okay.

I'll also note that nowhere was it said that "all religions are the same". The two things I said are contiguous.

I know what you meant.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Telling them it is the only appropriate way and that they'll be tortured in hell for doing otherwise is.

No it isn't. If people were forced into not having premarital sex you might have something. The religion merely teaches that it's wrong. A lot of things, not just religion, do this. It isn't repressing someone to teach them what you believe to be right. Otherwise, parents are some of the most repressive people around.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
...because their religions tells them that those people are bad.

Wrong. The religion (Christianity in this case) makes it very clear that you should always separate the person from the action. It also stresses that you should love your enemies, you should not look down on people, and that you are not to harm others. So if anyone does this, even if they do it in the name of religion, it is not the religion doing it, it is them. In fact, they are doing exactly what the religion tells them not to.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really want to use rape as a metaphor here religious people are rapists and religion is a deeply vile person who is telling people to become rapists. But we shouldn't use anything as emotionally charged as rape anyway.

What? That isn't even remotely accurate. You basically said that religion commands it's followers to do those evils which is blatantly false.

I wasn't comparing religion to rape, by the way. I was using the rape example as a way to show how the blame was being misplaced.

Digi

Well, we're not making any progress. Couple parting shots:

- By trying to say "it's the person, not the religion" you deny religion's massive influence on individuals. We could take that to its logical extreme and say that nothing that is done is due to a particular societal influence....it's just the person. Which removes all outside influence ever, which is naturally absurd. If you want to absolve religion of all the evil perpetrated in the name of monogamous values, go for it. I think you're deluding yourself and glossing over inherent problems in the religious dogma surrounding monogamy.

- I hope I live to see the Christian mentality on sex toppled in my lifetime - given our progress in the last few decades, I think it's a legit possibility.

- I honestly don't think your view of premarital sex matches reality. I look around at, largely, people having premarital sex and I'm like "where's the problem?" Even statistics on divorce rates don't really represent a "decline" but simply a shifting view of marriage. Maybe you don't think a sexually free society would be a bunch of slutty sociopaths, but clearly you have a somewhat dystopic view of the results of such a mentality. And I'm telling you, straight up, it's not true in most cases.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Wrong. The religion (Christianity in this case) makes it very clear that you should always separate the person from the action. It also stresses that you should love your enemies, you should not look down on people, and that you are not to harm others. So if anyone does this, even if they do it in the name of religion, it is not the religion doing it, it is them. In fact, they are doing exactly what the religion tells them not to.

In other words: "I don't hate you, I hate who you are."

Yeah, that sounds like progress.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The religion (Christianity in this case) makes it very clear that you should always separate the person from the action.

WRONG!

You don't get to tell them what their religion belives, they get to define that. There are many kind of Christianity.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
- By trying to say "it's the person, not the religion" you deny religion's massive influence on individuals. We could take that to its logical extreme and say that nothing that is done is due to a particular societal influence....it's just the person. Which removes all outside influence ever, which is naturally absurd. If you want to absolve religion of all the evil perpetrated in the name of monogamous values, go for it. I think you're deluding yourself and glossing over inherent problems in the religious dogma surrounding monogamy.

If a societal influence tells someone to do something and they do it then it is partially their fault. Religion doesn't do that, however, as I have already explained. You didn't respond to my reasoning behind separating religion from these actions, you basically just responded with "I know you don't think religion is to blame, but actually it is." Which is far from a valid response.

Originally posted by Digi
- I hope I live to see the Christian mentality on sex toppled in my lifetime - given our progress in the last few decades, I think it's a legit possibility.

And I will wish for the opposite, for reasons mentioned before.

Originally posted by Digi
- I honestly don't think your view of premarital sex matches reality. I look around at, largely, people having premarital sex and I'm like "where's the problem?" Even statistics on divorce rates don't really represent a "decline" but simply a shifting view of marriage. Maybe you don't think a sexually free society would be a bunch of slutty sociopaths, but clearly you have a somewhat dystopic view of the results of such a mentality. And I'm telling you, straight up, it's not true in most cases.

It's hard to believe that you see the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies diseases and divorce rates as a positive shift in our societal views. Both myself and dadudemon have provided reasons behind why premarital sex is problematic. You have responded with "I don't see it" and "I'm telling you your wrong."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In other words: "I don't hate you, I hate who you are."

Yeah, that sounds like progress.

No, I can bring up the example of my little brother again. If my little brother stole something, I would consider the action wrong. I don't like stealing. I love my little brother, however. I would prefer that my little brother stop stealing things, but that doesn't change the fact that I love the kid.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WRONG!

You don't get to tell them what their religion belives, they get to define that. There are many kind of Christianity.

Lol. Alright. I suppose I was talking about my Christianity, which is the most common form of Christianity. I would think that if someone held different views from Christianity it would technically not still be Christianity but a different religion that is similar.

Bardock42

Originally posted by TacDavey
Lol. Alright. I suppose I was talking about my Christianity, which is the most common form of Christianity. I would think that if someone held different views from Christianity it would technically not still be Christianity but a different religion that is similar.

You are a Catholic? Hmm, wouldn't have thought so.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
If a societal influence tells someone to do something and they do it then it is partially their fault. Religion doesn't do that, however, as I have already explained. You didn't respond to my reasoning behind separating religion from these actions, you basically just responded with "I know you don't think religion is to blame, but actually it is." Which is far from a valid response.

Do you not see the picket signs in the news? Religion can and does create hate.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's hard to believe that you see the mass amount of unwanted pregnancies diseases and divorce rates as a positive shift in our societal views. Both myself and dadudemon have provided reasons behind why premarital sex is problematic. You have responded with "I don't see it" and "I'm telling you your wrong."

Again, you're reverting to a strawman. "So unwanted pregnancies are good?!" Of course not. Don't insult my intelligence.

All this shows is that we need to do a better job preparing people for sex. It does not justify the idea that premarital sex is bad.

I don't see divorce as a bad thing, btw. It's unfortunate, but often the best course of action for couples who made honest mistakes or who have changed too much to reconcile a marriage. I think the stigma that used to exist surrounding divorce was harmful, especially to women, who did not have the financial options they do today. It's a form of freedom, of liberation.

Also, dudemon's stats had nothing to do with pregnancies, only divorce. Take a look at some national statistics. If memory serves, teen pregnancy rates have declined steadily since about 1990. So unless I'm mistaken, you're actually dead wrong about that claim.

But we're getting to the heart of my argument. I see personal freedom as progress. And yes, that includes the personal freedom to make bad decisions. Not sinful decisions, mind you...the concept of "sin" is ridiculously dogmatic, and leaves no room for shades of grey and "sinful" acts that can and do end with increased happiness for all. But as long as their choice isn't harming another willfully, and it's not when someone decides to have sex, there's no inherent wrong.

Betty really likes Steve. They have sex. Both enjoy it. No STD's, no babies, no lost innocence, etc. They break up, mutually or otherwise. They both get over it, and go on to have loving lives with other partners. Where's the sin?

That's is not an exception, btw. It's modern society in the last 20 years. There's no STD epidemic or outbreak of unwanted pregnancies (no more so than any other time, that is). And divorce rates are only a harbinger of doom to those who think it signals the collapse of society or something. All it does is collapse your idea of what we should live like. We'll be just fine.

It's a bad decision for some. It's not for many. The fact that you continue to try to use the broadest brush possible to label it "bad" wholistically is mind-numbing.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I can bring up the example of my little brother again. If my little brother stole something, I would consider the action wrong. I don't like stealing. I love my little brother, however. I would prefer that my little brother stop stealing things, but that doesn't change the fact that I love the kid.

Hate the sin, love the sinner, right? I was fed that line too growing up.

Problem is, in practice, this doesn't happen. Too often it's "hate the sin AND the sinner." Or the "sinner" feels shunned. Go ahead and blame the person, not the religion. I won't even disagree with that this time. But my point is, the only thing a religion is good or bad for is the affects it has on people. So it could be morally perfect in theory, but if it's not in practice, it needs to change its method of teaching

Originally posted by TacDavey
Lol. Alright. I suppose I was talking about my Christianity, which is the most common form of Christianity. I would think that if someone held different views from Christianity it would technically not still be Christianity but a different religion that is similar.

Do you really think yours is the only Christianity?

Mindset

No, it's not ok.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a Catholic? Hmm, wouldn't have thought so.

Ah, no. I suppose Catholicism is the more common "Christian" religious view if memory serves. So I suppose I'm not the MOST common form.

Originally posted by Digi
Do you not see the picket signs in the news? Religion can and does create hate.

No. People create hate. They just do it in the name of religion some times. If I burned down hospitals and picketed funerals and shouted that I was doing this all in the name of Atheism. Would you say atheism causes hate? Or would you look at atheistic views, see that what I'm doing is completely separate from what it means to be an atheist, and deduce that I'M creating hate?

Originally posted by Digi
Again, you're reverting to a strawman. "So unwanted pregnancies are good?!" Of course not. Don't insult my intelligence.

All this shows is that we need to do a better job preparing people for sex. It does not justify the idea that premarital sex is bad.

I don't see divorce as a bad thing, btw. It's unfortunate, but often the best course of action for couples who made honest mistakes or who have changed too much to reconcile a marriage. I think the stigma that used to exist surrounding divorce was harmful, especially to women, who did not have the financial options they do today. It's a form of freedom, of liberation.

Divorce can hurt others, though, especially in cases where a child or children are involved. You almost make it sound like divorce is something we should be proud of. It's something we are suppose to try to avoid.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, dudemon's stats had nothing to do with pregnancies, only divorce. Take a look at some national statistics. If memory serves, teen pregnancy rates have declined steadily since about 1990. So unless I'm mistaken, you're actually dead wrong about that claim.

Teen pregnancies have been going down, but from what I read, that's because in the past teenage girls were actually getting married and having kids. Today, most teenage pregnancies come from unwed teenagers and most are unwanted.

http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-statistics.html

There are other states there that paint more pictures as to why teenage pregnancy is a bad thing.

Originally posted by Digi
But we're getting to the heart of my argument. I see personal freedom as progress. And yes, that includes the personal freedom to make bad decisions. Not sinful decisions, mind you...the concept of "sin" is ridiculously dogmatic, and leaves no room for shades of grey and "sinful" acts that can and do end with increased happiness for all. But as long as their choice isn't harming another willfully, and it's not when someone decides to have sex, there's no inherent wrong.

I don't think I ever said I don't believe people should be free to make mistakes. Nor does Christianity, either. You make it sound like I'm trying to make premarital sex illegal. Which I'm not. And I'm fully aware that some acts don't always lead to negative consequences. That, by itself, isn't justification of the act though. There are plenty of acts that would be considered wrong, but don't ALWAYS hurt those involved.

Originally posted by Digi
Betty really likes Steve. They have sex. Both enjoy it. No STD's, no babies, no lost innocence, etc. They break up, mutually or otherwise. They both get over it, and go on to have loving lives with other partners. Where's the sin?

As I said, if Joe steals an apple from a vender, and the vender doesn't even realize it's gone, sells the apple for twice what it was worth and returns the money to the owner, everyone in this example came out on top. No one was hurt. Does that make stealing okay?

The simple fact that you can provide an example of the action not hurting anyone is not, by itself, valid justification of the action.

Originally posted by Digi
That's is not an exception, btw. It's modern society in the last 20 years. There's no STD epidemic or outbreak of unwanted pregnancies (no more so than any other time, that is). And divorce rates are only a harbinger of doom to those who think it signals the collapse of society or something. All it does is collapse your idea of what we should live like. We'll be just fine.

I don't think so. The vast majority of teenage pregnancies, according to the article, are unintended. Also, according to this page, Chlamydia
has almost doubled since 1997.

http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm

Originally posted by Digi
It's a bad decision for some. It's not for many. The fact that you continue to try to use the broadest brush possible to label it "bad" wholistically is mind-numbing.

Once again, I reject the idea that premarital sex is mostly harmless. From what I've seen, the current state of sexual health, children born into a family that actually wants them, and divorce rates are not the best they have ever been.

Originally posted by Digi
Hate the sin, love the sinner, right? I was fed that line too growing up.

Problem is, in practice, this doesn't happen. Too often it's "hate the sin AND the sinner." Or the "sinner" feels shunned. Go ahead and blame the person, not the religion. I won't even disagree with that this time. But my point is, the only thing a religion is good or bad for is the affects it has on people. So it could be morally perfect in theory, but if it's not in practice, it needs to change its method of teaching

You started by saying that you don't disagree with the idea that it's the person and not the religion, then ended by saying the religion is at fault because it's teaching it's messages wrong.

Even when you say you aren't blaming the religion, you seem to be blaming the religion. The religion and the person are two different things. The religion cannot be held accountable for something the person does, unless the religion specifically says to do it.

Originally posted by Digi
Do you really think yours is the only Christianity?

I know there are other religions that fall under the title of Christianity, but I don't know if they really should be called Christianity. Especially since there are some of them that hold beliefs that are fundamentally different.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
Divorce can hurt others, though, especially in cases where a child or children are involved. You almost make it sound like divorce is something we should be proud of. It's something we are suppose to try to avoid.

It can, sure. But time was, people would stay in marriages because they didn't have other options. The family would be no healthier for it in a loveless relationship.

Smaller brush, dude. Nobody wants divorce. Nobody plans for it to happen. But when it needs to happen in a relationship, it needs to happen. No one's saying kids aren't burned sometimes because of it, but would they be less scarred if that couple stayed together?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Teen pregnancies have been going down, but from what I read, that's because in the past teenage girls were actually getting married and having kids. Today, most teenage pregnancies come from unwed teenagers and most are unwanted.

http://www.teenhelp.com/teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-statistics.html

Sobering stuff, no doubt. But you still can't seem to separate "premarital sex" from "being appropriately cautious." The latter is an adult response to the problem. The former is killing an ant with a bazooka.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The simple fact that you can provide an example of the action not hurting anyone is not, by itself, valid justification of the action.

Ah, here is the absolute heart of my argument. The fact that I can provide an example of it being good isn't justification by itself. I agree. But what it means is that there is a scenario where no bad comes of it, and even some good. Therefore, we can't say premarital sex is bad, period. We can only say it's bad when it is irresponsibly executed.

And is it irresponsibly executed? Sure, of course. But not by all. Problem is, there aren't stats to track people who just have sex with no negative consequences. All we do is monitor the teen pregnancies and bad stuff. It's impossible to say in what percentage a good or bad outcome is happening. Because everyone has sex. A lot. If horrible consequences were the norm, those stats you quoted would be absurdly higher. So we're dealing with a lot of bad consequences, but also a ton of good or neutral consequences. Therefore, premarital sex isn't bad, in and of itself.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Once again, I reject the idea that premarital sex is mostly harmless. From what I've seen, the current state of sexual health, children born into a family that actually wants them, and divorce rates are not the best they have ever been.

This sort of thing deals almost exclusively with children (< 21) having sex. I agree that it's kinda sad. But saying "Hey guys, wait until you're 21 and can stand on your own two feet financially and judge character better, or these things happen" achieves the same result as "only have married sex." Of course, both are somewhat impotent to get their point across with youth, who will continue to make bad decisions, but the latter is an unreasonable solution for many, making the former much better.

The key term is "mostly bad." "A lot" still doesn't equal "mostly." And you underestimate the number of people there are, and what your stats tell us. They tell us that there are irresponsible people out there that need help. They don't tell us that the practice of premarital sex is bad.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You started by saying that you don't disagree with the idea that it's the person and not the religion, then ended by saying the religion is at fault because it's teaching it's messages wrong.

Even when you say you aren't blaming the religion, you seem to be blaming the religion. The religion and the person are two different things. The religion cannot be held accountable for something the person does, unless the religion specifically says to do it.

Simple misunderstanding. I never agreed with you that the religion is blameless. I only set it aside for a moment, or agreed with you for the sake of the argument, to make a larger point.

So, is it the person, not the religion? Yes. But the person is a complex series of influences, among them religion. And for many, religion is the primary decision-making tool in their intellectual arsenal, especially religions based on faith that teach dogmatic beliefs (i.e. most of them). And that is the blind, faith-based mentality that allows people to set aside their humanity to hate in the name of a God or belief system.

So sure, it's the person in a technical sense. But religion plays a much, much larger role than you're willing to admit.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I know there are other religions that fall under the title of Christianity, but I don't know if they really should be called Christianity. Especially since there are some of them that hold beliefs that are fundamentally different.

That's...well, that's amusing and somewhat naive imo. "I am the only right Christianity" is egotistical, for one, and arbitrary, for another. Appealing to numbers or age of the religion does nothing. It's like saying Chinese is the "correct" language because it's spoken the most and has deeper roots than English.

The list of Christian sects that have deliberately antagonistic views toward premarital sex is long.

...

Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it is a force for good.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
It can, sure. But time was, people would stay in marriages because they didn't have other options. The family would be no healthier for it in a loveless relationship.

Smaller brush, dude. Nobody wants divorce. Nobody plans for it to happen. But when it needs to happen in a relationship, it needs to happen. No one's saying kids aren't burned sometimes because of it, but would they be less scarred if that couple stayed together?

I agree that if divorce needs to happen, it should happen. But, as you seem to agree, it's something we should try to avoid. And I would say there would be less divorce if there was less premarital sex.

Originally posted by Digi
Sobering stuff, no doubt. But you still can't seem to separate "premarital sex" from "being appropriately cautious." The latter is an adult response to the problem. The former is killing an ant with a bazooka.

That's because premarital sex, just by being what it is, is not a very cautious act. It's possible for two people to be "appropriately cautious" outside of marriage, but that's the vast minority.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah, here is the absolute heart of my argument. The fact that I can provide an example of it being good isn't justification by itself. I agree. But what it means is that there is a scenario where no bad comes of it, and even some good. Therefore, we can't say premarital sex is bad, period. We can only say it's bad when it is irresponsibly executed.

Then we can also say that about stealing, right? I provided an example in which someone stole, no bad came of it, and some good actually did come of it. That fits the same criteria that you just provided. So, since stealing can also fit into the same category, I would say making this distinction doesn't get us anywhere.

Originally posted by Digi
And is it irresponsibly executed? Sure, of course. But not by all. Problem is, there aren't stats to track people who just have sex with no negative consequences. All we do is monitor the teen pregnancies and bad stuff. It's impossible to say in what percentage a good or bad outcome is happening. Because everyone has sex. A lot. If horrible consequences were the norm, those stats you quoted would be absurdly higher. So we're dealing with a lot of bad consequences, but also a ton of good or neutral consequences. Therefore, premarital sex isn't bad, in and of itself.

The stats ARE high, though. And they seem to be going up as time goes on.

Originally posted by Digi
This sort of thing deals almost exclusively with children (< 21) having sex. I agree that it's kinda sad. But saying "Hey guys, wait until you're 21 and can stand on your own two feet financially and judge character better, or these things happen" achieves the same result as "only have married sex." Of course, both are somewhat impotent to get their point across with youth, who will continue to make bad decisions, but the latter is an unreasonable solution for many, making the former much better.

That specific study deals with teens. That doesn't get premarital sex over the age of 21 off the hook. All the stats provided outside that study are not limited to kids. I would say it is unreasonable to make premarital sex illegal. I would not say it is unreasonable to teach premarital sex as a bad decision. I would certainly not claim that teaching something like that is "sexually repressing" people.

Originally posted by Digi
The key term is "mostly bad." "A lot" still doesn't equal "mostly." And you underestimate the number of people there are, and what your stats tell us. They tell us that there are irresponsible people out there that need help. They don't tell us that the practice of premarital sex is bad.

That's because most examples of premarital sex are irresponsible. Which is why it's a problem.

Originally posted by Digi
Simple misunderstanding. I never agreed with you that the religion is blameless. I only set it aside for a moment, or agreed with you for the sake of the argument, to make a larger point.

So, is it the person, not the religion? Yes. But the person is a complex series of influences, among them religion. And for many, religion is the primary decision-making tool in their intellectual arsenal, especially religions based on faith that teach dogmatic beliefs (i.e. most of them). And that is the blind, faith-based mentality that allows people to set aside their humanity to hate in the name of a God or belief system.

But don't you see that it is the mentality that is the problem and not the religion? The mentality that see's religion, and decides to do something horrible in it's name. THAT is the problem, and THAT does not come from religion, it comes from individuals.

If you have the group of people who do terrible things in the name of a religion. And then you have the group of people who DON'T do terrible things in the name of the religion. What is the difference between the two groups? What is the reason why some of them do wrong and some of them do not? Do they have different religions? No. So tell me. What is the difference between the two groups, Digi?

The answer is the people.

Originally posted by Digi
So sure, it's the person in a technical sense. But religion plays a much, much larger role than you're willing to admit.

It plays a role, sure. A rape victim plays a pretty significant role in a rape happening. The point is who is at fault? Who has done something wrong? The rapist or the victim? Both were needed for the terrible thing to happen.

Religion plays a role in people using religion for hate, obviously. But the religion is not at fault. The religion has done nothing wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
That's...well, that's amusing and somewhat naive imo. "I am the only right Christianity" is egotistical, for one, and arbitrary, for another. Appealing to numbers or age of the religion does nothing. It's like saying Chinese is the "correct" language because it's spoken the most and has deeper roots than English.

The list of Christian sects that have deliberately antagonistic views toward premarital sex is long.

I never said my Christianity was the correct one. Though, obviously, I do believe my religion to be the correct one, otherwise I wouldn't believe in it.

My point before was simply that if you have a religion that believes in a big blue god with four arms that loves everything, and a religion that believes in a big red god with two arms that wants everything to die, they both probably shouldn't be called the same thing.

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it is a force for good.

It can be good. I never said otherwise. It can also be very destructive.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
I agree that if divorce needs to happen, it should happen. But, as you seem to agree, it's something we should try to avoid. And I would say there would be less divorce if there was less premarital sex.

Perhaps. But there's a lack of a causal connection here where you're making a logical leap. Is there more divorce because there's more premarital sex? Or are we more liberal and accepting as a society (especially with women compared to decades ago), thus leading to more premarital sex, and more divorce? I'd argue that saying that both have increased isn't sufficient to draw a causal link, and it's just as possible that the causal link lies with the increased financial and personal freedom women have.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's because premarital sex, just by being what it is, is not a very cautious act. It's possible for two people to be "appropriately cautious" outside of marriage, but that's the vast minority.

Vast minority?! Do you know how many people there are? How much sex there is? A lot /= majority.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Then we can also say that about stealing, right? I provided an example in which someone stole, no bad came of it, and some good actually did come of it. That fits the same criteria that you just provided. So, since stealing can also fit into the same category, I would say making this distinction doesn't get us anywhere.

Not the same at all. With stealing, there's malicious intent. We can't control outcomes to many things. So the only reasonable judge of morality is intent. If I try to murder someone and accidentally cure cancer, it's wrong. With sex, there's no malicious intent. It's often loving, in fact. A loving or harmless intent that ends badly isn't wrong. It's unfortunate, but it isn't morally wrong, it's not a "sin" as you define it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's because most examples of premarital sex are irresponsible. Which is why it's a problem.

Most examples past 21? I beg to differ. By that time, people are adults.

Because, to be clear, you and I are pretty lock-step about teens and sex. That's the wrong place to take a liberal stance, because the dangers are more obvious.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It plays a role, sure. A rape victim plays a pretty significant role in a rape happening. The point is who is at fault? Who has done something wrong? The rapist or the victim? Both were needed for the terrible thing to happen.

Religion plays a role in people using religion for hate, obviously. But the religion is not at fault. The religion has done nothing wrong.

Well, religion isn't a person, so sure, ok, whatever, "religion" has done nothing wrong. That's not the point. The point is, the intensity with which people believe religion allows them to justify hatred. Because show me a faith-based blind adherence that is absolute in its strength and faithfulness, and I'll show you a person capable of any atrocity in the name of a God.

Only a few forces can inspire that kind of reaction, and have that destructive potential. Because take away the hate generated by a religious mentality, and you're only left with a few big world hatreds: race, ethnicity, gender, country.

Again, just look at the news. Take religion away and countless homosexuals wouldn't be shunned, repressed, ostracized, and threatened. Same mentality, same approach, same justification, just not as severe. Take away religion and the problem goes away.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It can be good. I never said otherwise. It can also be very destructive.

Only when you go in the back door.

fdog

TheBigManRevo

after all that Talking is it right or wrong

Digi

Originally posted by TheBigManRevo
after all that Talking is it right or wrong

Yes.

Mindset

It's not ok, and Digi has herpes as an effect of pre-marital sex.

I know because I gave it to him.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
Perhaps. But there's a lack of a causal connection here where you're making a logical leap. Is there more divorce because there's more premarital sex? Or are we more liberal and accepting as a society (especially with women compared to decades ago), thus leading to more premarital sex, and more divorce? I'd argue that saying that both have increased isn't sufficient to draw a causal link, and it's just as possible that the causal link lies with the increased financial and personal freedom women have.

Vast minority?! Do you know how many people there are? How much sex there is? A lot /= majority.

Not the same at all. With stealing, there's malicious intent. We can't control outcomes to many things. So the only reasonable judge of morality is intent. If I try to murder someone and accidentally cure cancer, it's wrong. With sex, there's no malicious intent. It's often loving, in fact. A loving or harmless intent that ends badly isn't wrong. It's unfortunate, but it isn't morally wrong, it's not a "sin" as you define it.

Most examples past 21? I beg to differ. By that time, people are adults.

Because, to be clear, you and I are pretty lock-step about teens and sex. That's the wrong place to take a liberal stance, because the dangers are more obvious.

Well, religion isn't a person, so sure, ok, whatever, "religion" has done nothing wrong. That's not the point. The point is, the intensity with which people believe religion allows them to justify hatred. Because show me a faith-based blind adherence that is absolute in its strength and faithfulness, and I'll show you a person capable of any atrocity in the name of a God.

Only a few forces can inspire that kind of reaction, and have that destructive potential. Because take away the hate generated by a religious mentality, and you're only left with a few big world hatreds: race, ethnicity, gender, country.

Again, just look at the news. Take religion away and countless homosexuals wouldn't be shunned, repressed, ostracized, and threatened. Same mentality, same approach, same justification, just not as severe. Take away religion and the problem goes away.

Only when you go in the back door.

fdog

I don't think its that big a jump considering the study earlier that apparently found that couples staying together before marriage were more likely to get divorced. And I'm sure the increased freedom women have accounts for some of the increase in divorce, but not nearly all, since its not like women are the only ones who want divorces.

You would say the majority of all sex that goes on in the world is done with the appropriate caution?

Then stealing is alright as long as you mean well? Certainly you wouldn't say those who kill in the name of God are okay, even though they may mean well.

What does it matter if they are adults? Adults don't make irresponsible decisions?

And if you remove the rape victim from the equation you stop the rape as well. That shows nothing. If you remove all the merchandise from a store you WOULD stop people from stealing it. But that doesn't mean the merchandise is what's causing people to steal, and it doesn't change the fact that the thief was the problem.

Sorry about the set up. I'm actually responding from my phone.

Astner

What I'm curious about is not so much what people think about premarital sex, but rather your feelings regarding your partner saving him- or herself for you? If not, then what's preferable. How many men or women would you prefer your partner to have had before you?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
And if you remove the rape victim from the equation you stop the rape as well. That shows nothing. If you remove all the merchandise from a store you WOULD stop people from stealing it. But that doesn't mean the merchandise is what's causing people to steal, and it doesn't change the fact that the thief was the problem.

I'm not sure why you keep making this comparison. These are people who are being told by their religion (their religion, not yours) that they should do these things. If you tell someone to commit rape and they do then you are strongly at fault.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by TacDavey

Then stealing is alright as long as you mean well? Certainly you wouldn't say those who kill in the name of God are okay, even though they may mean well.

How exactly do you steal with good intentions?

I would say murdering under the assumption of the existence and will of a supposed supernatural being doesn't fall under good intentions...it falls under stupidity.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not sure why you keep making this comparison. These are people who are being told by their religion (their religion, not yours) that they should do these things. If you tell someone to commit rape and they do then you are strongly at fault.

And I already admitted that this does not apply to religions that do specifically demand such things.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
How exactly do you steal with good intentions?

I would say murdering under the assumption of the existence and will of a supposed supernatural being doesn't fall under good intentions...it falls under stupidity. I gave an example earlier of a guy who stole something, sold it for more than it cost and gave the money back to the vender. And good intentions and stupidity can exist at the same time. You can have a stupid action done with good intentions.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by TacDavey
And I already admitted that this does not apply to religions that do specifically demand such things.

I gave an example earlier of a guy who stole something, sold it for more than it cost and gave the money back to the vender. And good intentions and stupidity can exist at the same time. You can have a stupid action done with good intentions.
I don't see what's bad about that. Inconvenient for the vendor, but not "bad".

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think its that big a jump considering the study earlier that apparently found that couples staying together before marriage were more likely to get divorced. And I'm sure the increased freedom women have accounts for some of the increase in divorce, but not nearly all, since its not like women are the only ones who want divorces.

To each their own then. I see increased divorce rates as a product of our evolving disposition toward marriage. The idea that it's sacred by God is false, imo, and acts as an irrational deterrent to divorce. Again, as stated, nobody wants divorce, but it's also not a bad decision for many who got into marriage for the right reasons and found the situation wanting.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You would say the majority of all sex that goes on in the world is done with the appropriate caution?

Yes. No question whatsoever. If it weren't, we'd have a LOT more problems than we do now.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Then stealing is alright as long as you mean well? Certainly you wouldn't say those who kill in the name of God are okay, even though they may mean well.

We're about to get into some grey matter in morality where you and I disagree on fundamental aspects of reality, which will make discussion difficult. With the universe as a causal, inevitable progression of events, I don't hold anyone morally morally culpable for their actions. Any punishment, in my ideal system, is to prevent probable harm based on past action, not as "punishment" for anything.

So technically, within my morality, there's no "blame" or wrongdoing. As such, the idea of "sin" is unfathomable to me. But in a system that punishes as a form of teaching or detterent, yes, a person who thinks they are doing right by murdering, truly, is not at moral fault. However, they would need to legitimately believe that. And society would also be justified in detaining such a person to prevent further harm to anyone else.

More colloquially, yes, something like stealing can be "good" in the right context and with the right intention. It probably flies in the face of what you want to believe, but there's much less black & white in morality than most religions try to paint.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What does it matter if they are adults? Adults don't make irresponsible decisions?

Obviously this is a loaded question, almost beyond answer that won't lead to one of your predetermined conclusions. But your analogies are flawed, especially in reference to rape victims. Removing a person essentially removes them from existence. Removing a religion does nothing bad in and of itself. It's the difference between removing a person and removing a potentially destructive influence. You're trying to equate religion with a rape victim, and I can't abide that line of thinking.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't see what's bad about that. Inconvenient for the vendor, but not "bad".
To clarify, assuming in this scenario the thief steals the item with the intention to make the vendor more money than he could sell it for normally and give it back to the vendor, then the bad part--if there is one--isn't the theft itself but the fact that the thief went around the vendor and didn't consult him. In that case it's at worst a dick move--or a case of being irrational and not proposing the plan to the vendor to make the vendor more money.

TD, you seem to have a very consistent approach to morality: "That's bad because it's bad, but just in case you don't believe me let me list a few potential consequences that might happen a lot according to these sketchy statistics and nebulous studies I can quote"

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
To each their own then. I see increased divorce rates as a product of our evolving disposition toward marriage. The idea that it's sacred by God is false, imo, and acts as an irrational deterrent to divorce. Again, as stated, nobody wants divorce, but it's also not a bad decision for many who got into marriage for the right reasons and found the situation wanting.

I'm sure it is a product of our evolving disposition towards marriage and sex. The difference is you seem to think this evolution is positive where as I view it as mostly negative. I do think divorce shouldn't be seen as evil in every circumstance. I do, however, see it as something that should be avoided to the best of our abilities. Which means that I view the increase in divorce rates as a negative development, not a positive one.

Originally posted by Digi
Yes. No question whatsoever. If it weren't, we'd have a LOT more problems than we do now.

That's the thing, though. We have A LOT of problems right now. Which you seem to want to avoid admitting. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the teen pregnancy statistics.

Originally posted by Digi
We're about to get into some grey matter in morality where you and I disagree on fundamental aspects of reality, which will make discussion difficult. With the universe as a causal, inevitable progression of events, I don't hold anyone morally morally culpable for their actions. Any punishment, in my ideal system, is to prevent probable harm based on past action, not as "punishment" for anything.

So technically, within my morality, there's no "blame" or wrongdoing. As such, the idea of "sin" is unfathomable to me. But in a system that punishes as a form of teaching or detterent, yes, a person who thinks they are doing right by murdering, truly, is not at moral fault. However, they would need to legitimately believe that. And society would also be justified in detaining such a person to prevent further harm to anyone else.

More colloquially, yes, something like stealing can be "good" in the right context and with the right intention. It probably flies in the face of what you want to believe, but there's much less black & white in morality than most religions try to paint.

You don't hold people morally responsible for their actions? So a blood thirsty murderer is just as moral to you as someone who sacrifices themselves to save another? This makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by Digi
Obviously this is a loaded question, almost beyond answer that won't lead to one of your predetermined conclusions. But your analogies are flawed, especially in reference to rape victims. Removing a person essentially removes them from existence. Removing a religion does nothing bad in and of itself. It's the difference between removing a person and removing a potentially destructive influence. You're trying to equate religion with a rape victim, and I can't abide that line of thinking.

I think you are missing the point of the example. This isn't about whether it's okay to remove one thing or the other. This is about seeing what the cause of a problem is. My rape victim example was meant to show that removing the rape victim WAS one way of stopping a rape from happening. But that doesn't mean the rape victim is the cause of the rape. You seemed to suggest that, since removing the religion may remove the hate, thus the religion was responsible for the hate. But that's not what that shows at all, since removing the rape victim would stop the rape as well, yet the rape victim was not responsible for the rape at all.

If you don't like the rape example, I also gave a thief and merchandise example which works just as good. Removing the merchandise from the store WOULD stop thefts from happening. But that DOES NOT mean that the merchandise was responsible for the thefts.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To clarify, assuming in this scenario the thief steals the item with the intention to make the vendor more money than he could sell it for normally and give it back to the vendor, then the bad part--if there is one--isn't the theft itself but the fact that the thief went around the vendor and didn't consult him. In that case it's at worst a dick move--or a case of being irrational and not proposing the plan to the vendor to make the vendor more money.

TD, you seem to have a very consistent approach to morality: "That's bad because it's bad, but just in case you don't believe me let me list a few potential consequences that might happen a lot according to these sketchy statistics and nebulous studies I can quote"

I don't know what you mean here. My point was that stealing can produce good and it can be done with good intentions. Does that mean stealing is okay? No, it doesn't. Just because it's possible for something to produce good does not automatically mean that the action isn't bad.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sure it is a product of our evolving disposition towards marriage and sex. The difference is you seem to think this evolution is positive where as I view it as mostly negative. I do think divorce shouldn't be seen as evil in every circumstance. I do, however, see it as something that should be avoided to the best of our abilities. Which means that I view the increase in divorce rates as a negative development, not a positive one.

I don't necessarily agree. Is the divorce rate higher because we're less moral (though divorce isn't immoral)? Or is it because women used to have to stay in broken marriages because they wouldn't have been able to support themselves otherwise, or would be shunned by their peers?

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's the thing, though. We have A LOT of problems right now. Which you seem to want to avoid admitting. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the teen pregnancy statistics.

Oh good God. This after I went out of my way to admit that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this issue when it comes to teens. I'm talking about emotionally stable adults having premarital sex. I am not talking about immature teens making mistakes.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You don't hold people morally responsible for their actions? So a blood thirsty murderer is just as moral to you as someone who sacrifices themselves to save another? This makes no sense to me.

This is not an immediately intuitive idea, so let me try to explain.

If you're holding a ball and drop it, what happens? It falls to the floor. There is no choice, it's simply an inevitable reaction given the laws of reality.

Humans are no different, we're just far more complex. We're governed by the same laws, made of the same material, as the rest of the universe. Reality has to be causal, deterministic, or else we violate the laws of physics every time we make a choice. Therefore, every single action, including those that we normally label good/bad/etc. is simply a determined inevitability given the causes that preceded it.

I can no more "blame" a murderer than I can blame a ball for dropping to the floor.

In academic terms, this is called "no-fault determinism." It's a thing, not just something I'm making up. And in it, "freedom" means something along the lines of "the decision is your own, not forced upon you by someone else through coercion, violence, etc." I bring up the definition of freedom because it will become relevant in a moment.

A common complaint to this system is that it absolves criminals. However, advocates of such a system do not espouse that we do not detain or punish criminals. But the motivation for the punishment is different. If we can identify patterns or tendencies that lead to crime, we should take steps to prevent it because crime inherently strips the freedom or happiness of others (the choice no longer becomes theirs, as with murder for example). Further, if there is a crime or a history of crime, detainment (prison, fines, etc.) is advisable to prevent further loss of freedom or happiness for others that the criminal may harm.

So to give a more direct answer, within such a system of morality, actions can be good/bad, but people cannot. And the idea of "sin" becomes obsolete. We can then judge an action based on the intent of the action, whether it intends to rob another of happiness or freedom, and can act accordingly. But the person is blameless - a ball dropping to the floor...meant to be understood and helped if possible.

It's a remarkable worldview. Once it really sinks in, you see that everything in reality is exactly as it has to be given the causes that preceded it. We're then free to accept all of reality as beautiful. And any system of crime prevention and punishment is built solely on promoting the happiness and freedom of all, not based on punishment, retribution, vengeance, etc.

It's really a much higher form of love, imo, than that espoused by most religions, that break reality into warring factions of good and evil.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I think you are missing the point of the example. This isn't about whether it's okay to remove one thing or the other. This is about seeing what the cause of a problem is. My rape victim example was meant to show that removing the rape victim WAS one way of stopping a rape from happening. But that doesn't mean the rape victim is the cause of the rape. You seemed to suggest that, since removing the religion may remove the hate, thus the religion was responsible for the hate. But that's not what that shows at all, since removing the rape victim would stop the rape as well, yet the rape victim was not responsible for the rape at all.

If you don't like the rape example, I also gave a thief and merchandise example which works just as good. Removing the merchandise from the store WOULD stop thefts from happening. But that DOES NOT mean that the merchandise was responsible for the thefts.

Both the rape victim and merchandise are not actively encouraging the crime. If you think religion is impotent to influence people one way or another, you're blind. And if you think that anyone whose religion influences them toward evil isn't actually practicing the "true" religion, you're naive. Religion is whatever people believe; it's a tool. And it is often a tool for good, but often a tool for bad actions as well.

I just read a story of (another) gay teen who committed suicide. What do you want to bet his discrimination was religiously motivated? And what do you want to bet that there'd be less homosexual suicides if there wasn't justification for that hatred in the Bible?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. My point was that stealing can produce good and it can be done with good intentions. Does that mean stealing is okay? No, it doesn't. Just because it's possible for something to produce good does not automatically mean that the action isn't bad.

You're looking for an absolutist statement. Asking the question "Is stealing bad?" is creating a false dichotomy. Either it is or it isn't. And that's not how life works. Is stealing bad? Sometimes. It depends on multiple factors. But that answer doesn't sit well with most theists, who want to create unwavering maxims like the Commandments that fail to account for all factors of an action.

We can all devise a situation in which we would steal for a greater good, where the intentions and outcomes are purely noble. Or, if you can't, you don't have much imagination. The same can be said for any crime or "sin." Which gets back to my central point, that nothing is bad a priori. It's all contextual.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the teen pregnancy statistics.

About how they're nothing interesting by historical standards in the US or about how the US is still at twice the level of any country rest of the Western world?

Omega Vision

Originally posted by TacDavey

I don't know what you mean here. My point was that stealing can produce good and it can be done with good intentions. Does that mean stealing is okay? No, it doesn't.
My point is that in this scenario you can't point out where the bad actually is short of saying "it's just bad".

That's not my claim. My claim is that if the action produces good and is done with good intentions then you're hard pressed to call it bad.

Now if you can point to one part of this scenario where the thief does something wrong (besides just saying "stealing" because that would be affirming the consequent) then by all means, go ahead.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
I don't necessarily agree. Is the divorce rate higher because we're less moral (though divorce isn't immoral)? Or is it because women used to have to stay in broken marriages because they wouldn't have been able to support themselves otherwise, or would be shunned by their peers?

Like I said, I'm sure that accounts for some of the increase, but I doubt that counts for all of it. Especially since, again, there was an article earlier that made a direct connection between living with someone before marriage and increased chances for divorce.

Originally posted by Digi
Oh good God. This after I went out of my way to admit that you and I are pretty much in agreement on this issue when it comes to teens. I'm talking about emotionally stable adults having premarital sex. I am not talking about immature teens making mistakes.

Ahem, you said the majority of sex in the world. And even removing the teen examples, I still wouldn't say the majority of all sex that happens is appropriately cautious, though I suppose it depends on what you consider appropriately cautious. I do not see the third date and a condom as appropriately cautious.

Originally posted by Digi
This is not an immediately intuitive idea, so let me try to explain.

If you're holding a ball and drop it, what happens? It falls to the floor. There is no choice, it's simply an inevitable reaction given the laws of reality.

Humans are no different, we're just far more complex. We're governed by the same laws, made of the same material, as the rest of the universe. Reality has to be causal, deterministic, or else we violate the laws of physics every time we make a choice. Therefore, every single action, including those that we normally label good/bad/etc. is simply a determined inevitability given the causes that preceded it.

I can no more "blame" a murderer than I can blame a ball for dropping to the floor.

In academic terms, this is called "no-fault determinism." It's a thing, not just something I'm making up. And in it, "freedom" means something along the lines of "the decision is your own, not forced upon you by someone else through coercion, violence, etc." I bring up the definition of freedom because it will become relevant in a moment.

A common complaint to this system is that it absolves criminals. However, advocates of such a system do not espouse that we do not detain or punish criminals. But the motivation for the punishment is different. If we can identify patterns or tendencies that lead to crime, we should take steps to prevent it because crime inherently strips the freedom or happiness of others (the choice no longer becomes theirs, as with murder for example). Further, if there is a crime or a history of crime, detainment (prison, fines, etc.) is advisable to prevent further loss of freedom or happiness for others that the criminal may harm.

So to give a more direct answer, within such a system of morality, actions can be good/bad, but people cannot. And the idea of "sin" becomes obsolete. We can then judge an action based on the intent of the action, whether it intends to rob another of happiness or freedom, and can act accordingly. But the person is blameless - a ball dropping to the floor...meant to be understood and helped if possible.

It's a remarkable worldview. Once it really sinks in, you see that everything in reality is exactly as it has to be given the causes that preceded it. We're then free to accept all of reality as beautiful. And any system of crime prevention and punishment is built solely on promoting the happiness and freedom of all, not based on punishment, retribution, vengeance, etc.

It's really a much higher form of love, imo, than that espoused by most religions, that break reality into warring factions of good and evil.

But if murder is an action that is an inevitability then there isn't really any choice going on, is there? You spoke of "freedom" and the ability to choose, but it doesn't sound like there are any choices at all. You have no more control over your actions than a ball has control over dropping?

Originally posted by Digi
Both the rape victim and merchandise are not actively encouraging the crime. If you think religion is impotent to influence people one way or another, you're blind. And if you think that anyone whose religion influences them toward evil isn't actually practicing the "true" religion, you're naive. Religion is whatever people believe; it's a tool. And it is often a tool for good, but often a tool for bad actions as well.

And again, I did say that any religion that DOES teach such evils is obviously to blame. But if you have a religion that says "love your enemies as yourself" and then someone goes out and bludgeons their enemies to death in the name of that religion, can you honestly place any of the actual fault with the religion?

Originally posted by Digi
I just read a story of (another) gay teen who committed suicide. What do you want to bet his discrimination was religiously motivated? And what do you want to bet that there'd be less homosexual suicides if there wasn't justification for that hatred in the Bible?

And what do you want to bet that the Bible doesn't teach we should be hateful towards gay people? And how much do you want to bet that those who ARE hateful towards gay people are doing the opposite of what the Bible commands?

If I said "Don't steal that apple" and then someone goes and steals the apple and claims to have done it because of me, how much actual fault should be placed on me?

Originally posted by Digi
You're looking for an absolutist statement. Asking the question "Is stealing bad?" is creating a false dichotomy. Either it is or it isn't. And that's not how life works. Is stealing bad? Sometimes. It depends on multiple factors. But that answer doesn't sit well with most theists, who want to create unwavering maxims like the Commandments that fail to account for all factors of an action.

We can all devise a situation in which we would steal for a greater good, where the intentions and outcomes are purely noble. Or, if you can't, you don't have much imagination. The same can be said for any crime or "sin." Which gets back to my central point, that nothing is bad a priori. It's all contextual.

I'm fully aware that stealing can be "good" in specific circumstances. Does that mean we should teach or children to steal? As long as they intend to do something good with what was stolen? No. Even if your intentions are good that doesn't mean you can run around taking things that aren't yours. Good intentions do not make an action good.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
About how they're nothing interesting by historical standards in the US or about how the US is still at twice the level of any country rest of the Western world?

I don't know what you mean here. What does the fact that the US is twice that of other countries have to do with what we were talking about? And what do you mean it isn't historically interesting?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My point is that in this scenario you can't point out where the bad actually is short of saying "it's just bad".

In this scenario everyone came out on top. There was no harm done. Does that mean as long as we intend for an outcome like that one we can go around stealing whatever we want? No.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's not my claim. My claim is that if the action produces good and is done with good intentions then you're hard pressed to call it bad.

Now if you can point to one part of this scenario where the thief does something wrong (besides just saying "stealing" because that would be affirming the consequent) then by all means, go ahead.

As I said, in this specific example there was no harm done. That doesn't mean that stealing things is a good idea or the right idea. Just because it's possible for a specific example of stealing to produce no harm, that doesn't mean stealing is an acceptable practice. And just because I do something with good intentions does not mean I am not doing something wrong. That's the point I was making.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like I said, I'm sure that accounts for some of the increase, but I doubt that counts for all of it. Especially since, again, there was an article earlier that made a direct connection between living with someone before marriage and increased chances for divorce.

Correlation /= Causation. It's an old maxim, but true enough here. You have no way of knowing this. You're just interpreting it to suit your opinion.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ahem, you said the majority of sex in the world. And even removing the teen examples, I still wouldn't say the majority of all sex that happens is appropriately cautious, though I suppose it depends on what you consider appropriately cautious. I do not see the third date and a condom as appropriately cautious.

I've made it quite clear that I was excluding teens in my defense of premarital sex, and you tried to call me out on teen sex. So, "ahem," do get your facts straight.

And yes, it would depend on one's definition. If you're emotionally stable enough to handle it, and many are, your example of 3rd date sex isn't the worst thing in the world. Not the right choice for many, but also not inherently bad.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But if murder is an action that is an inevitability then there isn't really any choice going on, is there? You spoke of "freedom" and the ability to choose, but it doesn't sound like there are any choices at all. You have no more control over your actions than a ball has control over dropping?

Yes, exactly. But that's why I defined what I meant by freedom. There's no such thing as freedom of choice as understood by most Christians. It's incompatible with a deterministic universe.

So freedom in no-fault determinism isn't your idea of free will, but rather "Is the choice your own?" If an outside influence forces a decision upon you, through coercion, force, violence, blackmail, etc. it is robbing you of your freedom. Your choice may be determined according to the laws of reality, but it should be your own. For a simple example: "I want vanilla ice cream." "No, you'll get chocolate or I won't go to the movie with you." Silly, but you get the idea. More soberly, we could return to the example of rape for an obvious escalation of this idea.

i.e. You don't want {insert choice}. But somebody forces it upon you, directly or indirectly. Or: you want {choice} but somebody prevents you. It's a loss of freedom without ever having to approach the Christian idea of free will.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And again, I did say that any religion that DOES teach such evils is obviously to blame. But if you have a religion that says "love your enemies as yourself" and then someone goes out and bludgeons their enemies to death in the name of that religion, can you honestly place any of the actual fault with the religion?

There's also passages on stoning, violence, slaughter, and arbitrary punishments for things we barely consider crimes anymore. It's all about interpretation, and yours is not the only one.

It just highlights the problem of following a centuries old book, written by numerous people with little-to-no connection between them, over the course of centuries, with even more centuries of editing, cuts, revisions, and translations.

I would be willing to bet that 99% of philosophy or morality books that have come out in the last decade are less capable of inspiring evil than the Bible.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And what do you want to bet that the Bible doesn't teach we should be hateful towards gay people? And how much do you want to bet that those who ARE hateful towards gay people are doing the opposite of what the Bible commands?

I hear that "not lying with another man" line thrown around a lot. Again, it's just about what you want to believe. They aren't doing what you think the Bible commands, but you don't have a monopoly on interpretation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If I said "Don't steal that apple" and then someone goes and steals the apple and claims to have done it because of me, how much actual fault should be placed on me?

None, but this is nowhere near analogous to the epic, complex, often ambiguous messages in the Bible. If the Bible was this straightforward and non-contradictory, we wouldn't have this problem.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm fully aware that stealing can be "good" in specific circumstances.

A good start...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Does that mean we should teach or children to steal? As long as they intend to do something good with what was stolen? No. Even if your intentions are good that doesn't mean you can run around taking things that aren't yours. Good intentions do not make an action good.

Sure they do. Good intentions don't guarantee the results of the action will be good, it could end up as bad, but if there is TRULY only good intentions, where is the fault?

To answer your question, I'd teach my kids to constantly monitor their own motivations, and to avoid actions that would be considered selfish at the expense of someone else. To say "don't ever steal" would be far too absolutist. I would want to have them think critically about their decisions, not give them unbending rules to follow.

Originally posted by TacDavey
In this scenario everyone came out on top. There was no harm done. Does that mean as long as we intend for an outcome like that one we can go around stealing whatever we want? No.

But most stealing isn't with good intentions. In fact, almost none of it is. You seem to think that by admitting stealing can be good, that you're giving a free pass for people to steal all the time. That is far from the case.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said, in this specific example there was no harm done. That doesn't mean that stealing things is a good idea or the right idea. Just because it's possible for a specific example of stealing to produce no harm, that doesn't mean stealing is an acceptable practice. And just because I do something with good intentions does not mean I am not doing something wrong. That's the point I was making.

Perhaps, but you are blameless because of your noble intent.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. What does the fact that the US is twice that of other countries have to do with what we were talking about?

The other vastly more sexually liberal parts of Western world (almost all of it) have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than the United States. Only Canada and Russia are even close and both of them have about half the American teen pregnancy rate.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And what do you mean it isn't historically interesting?

The rate of teen pregnancy in the US appears to be neither particularly high or low by historical standards since reliable records have been available. Compared to the 80s and 90s it is extremely low. The peak seen in the 90s was part of an increase that goes back at least to the 70s so its arguably atypical. Before the 70s records only seem to be available for "birth rate", which is dramatically lower than it used to be but can involve various factors (such as increased abortion).

dadudemon

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
WRONG!

You don't get to tell them what their religion belives, they get to define that. There are many kind of Christianity.

I agree. Some Christian sects/faiths are very judgmental and teach it. Others go as far as to call the judging "sinful". The NT admonishes against being judgmental and states that you will be judged based on how harshly you judged.

Basically, it harkens back to the "glass house concept".

If I were to judge someone for premarital relations, I would come under condemnation for having a perverted potty mouth. Hypocrisy and self-righteousness are stupid, imho.

dadudemon

Originally posted by Digi
Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it is a force for good.

I would add in just two words to this:

"Anyway, sex is awesome, exciting, stress-relieving, builds stronger bonds between people, and promotes love. Practiced responsibly, in a marriage or not, it a force for good."

A pessimist could re-write what you wrote as follows:

"Anyway, sex is addictive, time-consuming, detrimental to otherwise healthy relationships, stress-causing, and routinely promotes hatred. Practiced responsibly, it can still create large amounts of stress: both physiological and financial."

dadudemon

Originally posted by Astner
What I'm curious about is not so much what people think about premarital sex, but rather your feelings regarding your partner saving him- or herself for you? If not, then what's preferable. How many men or women would you prefer your partner to have had before you?

This is a good question and I like it.

My answer is: it depends on the person. People are different (I know, captain obvious). It may be much more sacred/romantic for one person to save themselves for you over another. Just depends on the personality of the person.

When I get home, I'll comment on this a bit more in detail. Since I am at work, I must censor what I would say.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by TacDavey

In this scenario everyone came out on top. There was no harm done. Does that mean as long as we intend for an outcome like that one we can go around stealing whatever we want? No.
Why isn't it? I don't necessarily disagree with you--indeed we can't be sure how things will turn out--but I want to know you're doing more than just saying "it's bad because it's bad" or at least I want you to admit that that's what you're doing.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
Correlation /= Causation. It's an old maxim, but true enough here. You have no way of knowing this. You're just interpreting it to suit your opinion.

I'm not just interpreting it without any link whatsoever, though.

Originally posted by Digi
I've made it quite clear that I was excluding teens in my defense of premarital sex, and you tried to call me out on teen sex. So, "ahem," do get your facts straight.

And yes, it would depend on one's definition. If you're emotionally stable enough to handle it, and many are, your example of 3rd date sex isn't the worst thing in the world. Not the right choice for many, but also not inherently bad.

I didn't say it was the worst thing in the world. I said it wasn't appropriately cautious.

Originally posted by Digi
Yes, exactly. But that's why I defined what I meant by freedom. There's no such thing as freedom of choice as understood by most Christians. It's incompatible with a deterministic universe.

So freedom in no-fault determinism isn't your idea of free will, but rather "Is the choice your own?" If an outside influence forces a decision upon you, through coercion, force, violence, blackmail, etc. it is robbing you of your freedom. Your choice may be determined according to the laws of reality, but it should be your own. For a simple example: "I want vanilla ice cream." "No, you'll get chocolate or I won't go to the movie with you." Silly, but you get the idea. More soberly, we could return to the example of rape for an obvious escalation of this idea.

i.e. You don't want {insert choice}. But somebody forces it upon you, directly or indirectly. Or: you want {choice} but somebody prevents you. It's a loss of freedom without ever having to approach the Christian idea of free will.

Obviously you and I disagree on the subject of free will, but this seems to be getting a little off topic. Perhaps a discussion for another thread.

Originally posted by Digi
There's also passages on stoning, violence, slaughter, and arbitrary punishments for things we barely consider crimes anymore. It's all about interpretation, and yours is not the only one.

Obviously I believe it to be the right one, though. The simple fact that there can be other interpretations means nothing. Any real research into the Bible will show that stoning and violence, while done at one point long long ago, are not suppose to be practiced anymore, and that the Bible clearly states that you are not suppose to judge anyone, and that you are not suppose to hate anyone for any reason.

Any group of people who look at the Bible and come away with the idea that we are suppose to hate ANYONE is either not properly reading/studying the Bible, or is deliberately twisting a passage to give them an excuse to hate.

once again, their fault.

Originally posted by Digi
I hear that "not lying with another man" line thrown around a lot. Again, it's just about what you want to believe. They aren't doing what you think the Bible commands, but you don't have a monopoly on interpretation.

Like I said, the fact that there are those interpreting it differently, I would say incorrectly, doesn't mean anything. I see the message from the Bible, and the message from Christianity specifically, as pretty straight forward.

Originally posted by Digi
None, but this is nowhere near analogous to the epic, complex, often ambiguous messages in the Bible. If the Bible was this straightforward and non-contradictory, we wouldn't have this problem.

I don't see it as ambiguous or contradictory. At least not in terms of hate or evil. It says, very blatantly, don't do it.

Originally posted by Digi
A good start...

Sure they do. Good intentions don't guarantee the results of the action will be good, it could end up as bad, but if there is TRULY only good intentions, where is the fault?

The fault is you cannot take something that isn't yours. That action is unfair to the person who is having their thing taken. Even if you mean well, that fact is you are taking someone's property without their consent. It's an invasion of their rights.

Originally posted by Digi
To answer your question, I'd teach my kids to constantly monitor their own motivations, and to avoid actions that would be considered selfish at the expense of someone else. To say "don't ever steal" would be far too absolutist. I would want to have them think critically about their decisions, not give them unbending rules to follow.

It may be true that there are some cases when stealing would be acceptable, but those cases would not be acceptable based off of what the thief's intentions were. In fact, I would say there are practically no examples of where stealing is good, but rather it may be the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by Digi
But most stealing isn't with good intentions. In fact, almost none of it is. You seem to think that by admitting stealing can be good, that you're giving a free pass for people to steal all the time. That is far from the case.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying that the simple fact that stealing can produce good, does not mean stealing itself is good. It's a wrong action that can produce a good effect.

Originally posted by Digi
Perhaps, but you are blameless because of your noble intent.

I disagree. You are still infringing on someone's right to own their own property and not have it forcefully removed from their possession. Even if your intentions were good, even if the end result was good, that doesn't give you the right to decide what someone does with something THEY own.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The other vastly more sexually liberal parts of Western world (almost all of it) have much lower rates of teen pregnancy than the United States. Only Canada and Russia are even close and both of them have about half the American teen pregnancy rate.

I'm still not sure what this proves. So there are more pregnant teens in America. That does nothing to refute the fact that teenage sex is harmful.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The rate of teen pregnancy in the US appears to be neither particularly high or low by historical standards since reliable records have been available. Compared to the 80s and 90s it is extremely low. The peak seen in the 90s was part of an increase that goes back at least to the 70s so its arguably atypical. Before the 70s records only seem to be available for "birth rate", which is dramatically lower than it used to be but can involve various factors (such as increased abortion).

According to the article I posted earlier, the rate of teenage pregnancies alone has not increased, but the rate of unintended teenage pregnancy has since a while back people were actually getting married and having kids while still teenagers.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why isn't it? I don't necessarily disagree with you--indeed we can't be sure how things will turn out--but I want to know you're doing more than just saying "it's bad because it's bad" or at least I want you to admit that that's what you're doing.

I'm saying it's bad because you are infringing on someones right to decide what they want to do with their own property. Even if nothing but good comes out of it, the fact still remains that you have no right to decide for someone else what to do with something THEY own.

Omega Vision

^We agree there, but then how does this apply to premarital sex where both are consenting?

Who's rights are being infringed on there?

TacDavey

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^We agree there, but then how does this apply to premarital sex where both are consenting?

Who's rights are being infringed on there?

No ones. That wasn't the point of my connection. My point was that just because good CAN come out of something, that doesn't make the thing right. It doesn't even make the thing not bad, which Digi seemed to suggest when he made the point that there are cases where premarital sex produces good.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
According to the article I posted earlier, the rate of teenage pregnancies alone has not increased, but the rate of unintended teenage pregnancy has since a while back people were actually getting married and having kids while still teenagers.

They don't have any numbers (or mention any sources) to make a comparison with so that's down to little more than speculation in my book.

I have two major reasons to doubt the claim without better backing:
There were (and are) significant social pressures that would push a pregnant teenager to marry as soon as possible and pretend the child was conceived while married which skews the numbers an unknowable amount.
You need to fit the substantial increase in teen pregnancies into a less than two year window, and since marriage records don't show 18 or 19 as the typical age of marriage for women that is virtually impossible.

Not to mention that I don't think married 18-year-olds raising children is any better than unmarried ones.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You need to fit the substantial increase in teen pregnancies into a less than two year window, and since marriage records don't show 18 or 19 as the typical age of marriage for women that is virtually impossible.

Forget this point.

The minimum age was 18. The average age was just over 20. Since there is much more room for skew toward a higher number the typical age had to be less than twenty (unless no one ever married after 22).

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
I didn't say it was the worst thing in the world. I said it wasn't appropriately cautious.

"Worst thing in the world" is just a figure of speech. I will, however, oblige your exactitude from here on out.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously you and I disagree on the subject of free will, but this seems to be getting a little off topic. Perhaps a discussion for another thread.

No, we're staying enough on-topic, let's pursue this. Do you have reason to believe the universe isn't deterministic? It's very relevant to concepts of morality and sin, so I don't think we'd even be leaving the core of our topic by discussing it.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously I believe it to be the right one, though. The simple fact that there can be other interpretations means nothing. Any real research into the Bible will show that stoning and violence, while done at one point long long ago, are not suppose to be practiced anymore, and that the Bible clearly states that you are not suppose to judge anyone, and that you are not suppose to hate anyone for any reason.

Any group of people who look at the Bible and come away with the idea that we are suppose to hate ANYONE is either not properly reading/studying the Bible, or is deliberately twisting a passage to give them an excuse to hate.

once again, their fault.

Ok, let's say this: your interpretation of religion isn't at fault. Many are. I don't give a sh*t about the "good" people when it comes to religious intolerance. You're probably a pretty decent dude in real life. However, my issue is with the institution of religion as a whole which, yes, creates hatred in many. Because, remove your religion and you'd still be a good person, more or less. I'm sure you were raised ok, or had influences that led to your current state. However, remove religion from those persecuting in the name of their God, and there would be less suffering in the world. Unequivocally, without doubt, less suffering.

People are at fault, that's been your whole point. But people create religion. They believe in it and they follow it. It helps guide their lives. People are at fault, but people are religious. You cannot remove one from the other.

I'm interested in what I see in the world. Not academic Christian philosophy saying "well, all that bad they're doing isn't religion's fault." Because while you're saying that, thousands of Christians are hating other races, creeds, and lifestyles because of their God. Your insistence doesn't change reality, it just means you're unwilling to admit religion's hand in suffering.

Because what you're saying is: if a person reads a Bible passage and because of it does something good, it's religion's doing. But if they read a Bible passage and do something bad as a result, it isn't religion's doing. Please tell me you see the flaw.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I disagree. You are still infringing on someone's right to own their own property and not have it forcefully removed from their possession. Even if your intentions were good, even if the end result was good, that doesn't give you the right to decide what someone does with something THEY own.

You lack imagination. Is there no scenario in which you would steal? Kill? A diabetic woman is addicted to sweets. She's seeking help but is struggling. Steal her cookies so she lives? No, of course not. Because bad actions are bad, and can't be good even if the outcome is good.

Steal from a thief to return it to the original owner? Steal from corrupt officials Robin-Hood style who are technically lawful but stripping the poor of hope?

Or grey area. Steal from a moral, decent middle-class family to help feed your starving child? That's not 100% one way or the other, and shows the ridiculousness of trying to set absolutes like "stealing is bad." Because sometimes, it obviously is. Other times it obviously isn't. And sometimes it isn't obviously anything, like this most recent example.

Let's kick it up a notch. A terrorist is holding the button to a bomb that would kill hundreds of innocents. You're holding a gun. Kill him before he presses it?

But killing is bad.

And now back home. Two emotionally stable adults have premarital sex. No babies, STD's, or emotional scars.

But sex is bad before marriage.

I do the last one a fair amount. Am I in sin? Are you arrogant enough to make that proclamation about someone who is doing nothing to harm anyone? I'm interested.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by TacDavey
No ones. That wasn't the point of my connection. My point was that just because good CAN come out of something, that doesn't make the thing right. It doesn't even make the thing not bad, which Digi seemed to suggest when he made the point that there are cases where premarital sex produces good.
Which is essentially saying nothing useful.

The way I see it there are a few reasons why an act can be wrong: done for the wrong intentions, has bad consequences, infringes on another's rights (and for the sake of argument lets assume we both agree that people have certain rights, like the right to property and the right not to be used).

But if none of these things apply, as is the case with plenty of casual pre-marital sex, then where is the fault? Is it the mere possibility of something wrong happening? If that's the case then the list of things that are "wrong" increases to encapsulate all but the most innocuous of acts like buttering bread.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
"Worst thing in the world" is just a figure of speech. I will, however, oblige your exactitude from here on out.

And I was using it as such. As in "Worst thing in the world" = "Super Super terrible". That's what you meant, right?

Originally posted by Digi
No, we're staying enough on-topic, let's pursue this. Do you have reason to believe the universe isn't deterministic? It's very relevant to concepts of morality and sin, so I don't think we'd even be leaving the core of our topic by discussing it.

Well, hey, you're a moderator, so if you're fine with it I guess I'm in the clear.

While I would say that actions or events are influenced by past events, I see no reason to think that past events demand something happen with no possibility for different outcomes.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, let's say this: your interpretation of religion isn't at fault. Many are. I don't give a sh*t about the "good" people when it comes to religious intolerance. You're probably a pretty decent dude in real life. However, my issue is with the institution of religion as a whole which, yes, creates hatred in many. Because, remove your religion and you'd still be a good person, more or less. I'm sure you were raised ok, or had influences that led to your current state. However, remove religion from those persecuting in the name of their God, and there would be less suffering in the world. Unequivocally, without doubt, less suffering.

But I've already shown why that simple fact is not enough to lay fault on one thing or another. Just because removing something from an problem situation solves the problem does not mean that thing is what was at fault.

I could just as easily say that removing people's hateful attitudes towards others would also produce less suffering in the world. The difference is my example actually is the direct cause of the pain and suffering. Your example is suggesting to remove a player from the problem, but not the cause.

Originally posted by Digi
People are at fault, that's been your whole point. But people create religion. They believe in it and they follow it. It helps guide their lives. People are at fault, but people are religious. You cannot remove one from the other.

I disagree. Religion and people are not the same. Religion is something people can believe in and people can use and its a big part of their lives, in most cases, but it's still it's own separate thing independent of those that follow it. In the same way feminism is it's own set of beliefs. If I went around claiming to be a feminist, yet thought all women should not be allowed to vote and that hey should never leave the kitchen, that doesn't mean feminism is adopting those views, it means that I'm not really a feminist. Because me as a person and the feminist belief system are two separate things.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm interested in what I see in the world. Not academic Christian philosophy saying "well, all that bad they're doing isn't religion's fault." Because while you're saying that, thousands of Christians are hating other races, creeds, and lifestyles because of their God. Your insistence doesn't change reality, it just means you're unwilling to admit religion's hand in suffering.

No, what it means is that thousands of people are claiming to be Christians while ignoring what it means to actually be one.

Sticking with the example above, if I went around claiming to be a feminist all the while trying to get women's right removed, would you think feminism was breading evil? Or would you think I wasn't actually a feminist, even though I claimed to be and even went to all the meetings? Heck, maybe I even thought I WAS a feminist.

Originally posted by Digi
Because what you're saying is: if a person reads a Bible passage and because of it does something good, it's religion's doing. But if they read a Bible passage and do something bad as a result, it isn't religion's doing. Please tell me you see the flaw.

That really depends on what the verse is you are reading though. If the verse says "Help the homeless" and because of reading and being taught that verse you go out and help the homeless then I would say the religion played a role. If the verse says "don't kill your neighbor" and you go out and kill your neighbor, then I WOULDN'T say religion was the cause.

Following that same train of thought, if the verse says "Kill your neighbor" and because of being taught that way and learning that religion you go out and kill your neighbor then I WOULD see it as religion's fault, at least to some degree.

Originally posted by Digi
You lack imagination. Is there no scenario in which you would steal? Kill? A diabetic woman is addicted to sweets. She's seeking help but is struggling. Steal her cookies so she lives? No, of course not. Because bad actions are bad, and can't be good even if the outcome is good.

That doesn't make the action good, it makes it the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by Digi
Steal from a thief to return it to the original owner?

I wouldn't really consider this stealing.

Originally posted by Digi
Steal from corrupt officials Robin-Hood style who are technically lawful but stripping the poor of hope?

Like I said. Doesn't make stealing good. Just makes it the lesser of two evils. And, by the way, that's assuming that in this hypothetical situation stealing was literally the only way of solving the problem.

Originally posted by Digi
Or grey area. Steal from a moral, decent middle-class family to help feed your starving child? That's not 100% one way or the other, and shows the ridiculousness of trying to set absolutes like "stealing is bad." Because sometimes, it obviously is. Other times it obviously isn't. And sometimes it isn't obviously anything, like this most recent example.

Like I said. That doesn't mean forcefully taking an innocent families property away from them is good. It means the alternative was worse.

Originally posted by Digi
Let's kick it up a notch. A terrorist is holding the button to a bomb that would kill hundreds of innocents. You're holding a gun. Kill him before he presses it?

But killing is bad.

I don't think I ever said killing in self defense or in defense of others was bad.

Originally posted by Digi
And now back home. Two emotionally stable adults have premarital sex. No babies, STD's, or emotional scars.

But sex is bad before marriage.

I do the last one a fair amount. Am I in sin? Are you arrogant enough to make that proclamation about someone who is doing nothing to harm anyone? I'm interested.

This comes back to whether or not premarital sex is harmful. Once again, just because it's possible for an action to produce no harm, doesn't mean said action isn't wrong.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which is essentially saying nothing useful.

The way I see it there are a few reasons why an act can be wrong: done for the wrong intentions, has bad consequences, infringes on another's rights (and for the sake of argument lets assume we both agree that people have certain rights, like the right to property and the right not to be used).

But if none of these things apply, as is the case with plenty of casual pre-marital sex, then where is the fault? Is it the mere possibility of something wrong happening? If that's the case then the list of things that are "wrong" increases to encapsulate all but the most innocuous of acts like buttering bread.

There is obviously a line to draw. If the chance of harm being done is one in two hundred billion then I would have a hard time calling the action wrong. That being said, that doesn't mean that the potential risk of harm isn't still a valid reason to consider an action wrong. If there is a 9 in 10 chance that an action will kill 100 children, with the remaining 1 chance doing no harm, the action would obviously be wrong even though it isn't a certainty that the action will produce harm.

Omega Vision

Originally posted by TacDavey

There is obviously a line to draw. If the chance of harm being done is one in two hundred billion then I would have a hard time calling the action wrong. That being said, that doesn't mean that the potential risk of harm isn't still a valid reason to consider an action wrong. If there is a 9 in 10 chance that an action will kill 100 children, with the remaining 1 chance doing no harm, the action would obviously be wrong even though it isn't a certainty that the action will produce harm.
Good thing premarital sex is nothing like that example. You're really grasping for it now.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, hey, you're a moderator, so if you're fine with it I guess I'm in the clear.

While I would say that actions or events are influenced by past events, I see no reason to think that past events demand something happen with no possibility for different outcomes.

Yes, but how or why? I know you don't believe your actions are deterministic, I'm looking for a justification for that belief.

Because we're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, subject to the same rules. What allows us to defy the physical laws of the universe? And "A soul" or "God's Will" are red herrings; I'm talking about actual causal mechanisms or logical justifications.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This comes back to whether or not premarital sex is harmful. Once again, just because it's possible for an action to produce no harm, doesn't mean said action isn't wrong.

You're still thinking in absolutist terms. You start with "{X} is bad." Then, no matter what, X is bad. Even when X is good, X is bad. The good is an exception, but doesn't change that the action is inherently bad. I named like 4 examples where 99% of normal, moral people would either steal, kill, or seriously consider those actions, and would do so with a clear conscience. There's dozens more examples we could name if pressed. And they'd be justified for having a clear conscience, because morality is not as black and white as you're attempting to paint it.

Your beliefs are a dogma, though, and you're clinging strongly to them.

All I'm trying to get you to admit is "X can be good or bad." And that even if X is usually bad, when it is good, it is good. We're a bit torn on the ratio of good/bad in this particular instance, but I'm speaking more in general at this point.

Originally posted by TacDavey
There is obviously a line to draw. If the chance of harm being done is one in two hundred billion then I would have a hard time calling the action wrong. That being said, that doesn't mean that the potential risk of harm isn't still a valid reason to consider an action wrong. If there is a 9 in 10 chance that an action will kill 100 children, with the remaining 1 chance doing no harm, the action would obviously be wrong even though it isn't a certainty that the action will produce harm.

Another strawman. This scenario is set up to be bad either way. There are many scenarios where there is no moral dilemma or inherent risk, but that still involve an action that's normally considered wrong.

The fact that you admitted to being willing to kill in the situation I described earlier admits as much. Killing isn't wrong when it isn't wrong. Neither is anything. It's a spectrum, not black and white. I'm quite sure you possess the intellectual nuance to distinguish between good and bad even with actions you try to avoid. I think you're probably just afraid to do so because you see it as a slippery slope, or in defiance of your beliefs. It is neither.

Because all of your hedging - "There may be another solution" or "the action is still wrong" even when you can't point to the evil in the situation - is dodging. We can conceive of situations where it is the only option, and it is the necessary action to steal, kill, etc. The fact that it's a vast minority of the time doesn't change that fact, and completely annihilates the statement "X is wrong, period." It's not. Grow past such polarized thinking.

And with something like sex we can remove the "vast minority of the time" since we know that sex is often an awesome, fun, loving endeavor. Whatever the ratio may be, your assertion that it's wrong, de facto, does not hold up to common sense.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
Yes, but how or why? I know you don't believe your actions are deterministic, I'm looking for a justification for that belief.

Because we're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, subject to the same rules. What allows us to defy the physical laws of the universe? And "A soul" or "God's Will" are red herrings; I'm talking about actual causal mechanisms or logical justifications.

I see no reason to believe this is the case. I don't know what you mean by the physical laws of the universe. Why do the physical laws of the universe demand choices cannot be made freely?

Originally posted by Digi
You're still thinking in absolutist terms. You start with "{X} is bad." Then, no matter what, X is bad. Even when X is good, X is bad. The good is an exception, but doesn't change that the action is inherently bad. I named like 4 examples where 99% of normal, moral people would either steal, kill, or seriously consider those actions, and would do so with a clear conscience. There's dozens more examples we could name if pressed. And they'd be justified for having a clear conscience, because morality is not as black and white as you're attempting to paint it.

And I believe I responded to each of your examples. In them, I admitted that the choice had to be made, but I did not then consider stealing good, I considered it the lesser of two evils, because you ARE still doing someone else harm. You are still taking someone else's property without their permission. So the thing that makes stealing wrong in every other sense is still there, it's just outweighed by the wrong that would happen if you didn't steal.

Originally posted by Digi
Your beliefs are a dogma, though, and you're clinging strongly to them.

All I'm trying to get you to admit is "X can be good or bad." And that even if X is usually bad, when it is good, it is good. We're a bit torn on the ratio of good/bad in this particular instance, but I'm speaking more in general at this point.

If X= something that can be good or bad then I would agree. In this case, I don't think stealing is ever good, it's just preferable over worse bads.

Originally posted by Digi
Another strawman. This scenario is set up to be bad either way. There are many scenarios where there is no moral dilemma or inherent risk, but that still involve an action that's normally considered wrong.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making, though. I was saying that it's possible for an action to have a chance at not producing harm and still being wrong, such as the example I gave.

Originally posted by Digi
The fact that you admitted to being willing to kill in the situation I described earlier admits as much. Killing isn't wrong when it isn't wrong. Neither is anything. It's a spectrum, not black and white. I'm quite sure you possess the intellectual nuance to distinguish between good and bad even with actions you try to avoid. I think you're probably just afraid to do so because you see it as a slippery slope, or in defiance of your beliefs. It is neither.

Like I've been saying. I would admit that stealing or killing is something that occasionally has to be done. That doesn't mean the action is right, it just means it has to be done to avoid a worse outcome.

Though, I don't think the killing example is even the same, since it was done in self defense/defense of others. I would say killing an INNOCENT person was always wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
Because all of your hedging - "There may be another solution" or "the action is still wrong" even when you can't point to the evil in the situation - is dodging.

I believe I have pointed to the evil in everything I have claimed to be wrong, that wasn't obvious at least.

Originally posted by Digi
We can conceive of situations where it is the only option, and it is the necessary action to steal, kill, etc. The fact that it's a vast minority of the time doesn't change that fact, and completely annihilates the statement "X is wrong, period." It's not. Grow past such polarized thinking.

My response to this would be the same as above. It's still bad, just better than the alternative.

Originally posted by Digi
And with something like sex we can remove the "vast minority of the time" since we know that sex is often an awesome, fun, loving endeavor. Whatever the ratio may be, your assertion that it's wrong, de facto, does not hold up to common sense.

You keep asserting this and I keep rejecting it. The difference is my rejections of this idea have been backed up. Yours have just been assertions.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
I see no reason to believe this is the case. I don't know what you mean by the physical laws of the universe. Why do the physical laws of the universe demand choices cannot be made freely?

It's not a concept most are brought up with, so we instinctively fight against it. let me try another example. Hopefully it helps.

Say you're getting ice cream. You have two choices: chocolate and vanilla. For whatever reason, you pick vanilla. Now rewind the universe to 5 minutes before the choice of vanilla and play the scenario out again. You don't have knowledge of the choice you made on the first iteration.

What flavor will you choose in the second iteration? Vanilla. Run it again? Vanilla. Run it a thousand times. Vanilla. Why? Because your body and mind's response to the choice is determined based on the influences that came before it. You have a choice, of course. However, whatever the outcome is, that's what it had to be, given the causes before it. You couldn't have picked chocolate.

Whatever neural processes you went through to reach vanilla were following specific rules, even if we're unaware of them. And to say you could have chosen either vanilla or chocolate is to say that you have the power to override the physical laws of the universe at a whim.

So it's "free" in the sense that you, and only you, made the decision. No one was holding a gun to your head telling you to pick one. It was entirely Tac's decision. But it was the only decision you could have made.

It should also be noted that there's quite a bit of evidence of just this phenomenon. We actually make decisions before we become aware of them. Our awareness of the decision is a response to the decision, not a precursor. So, we have testable evidence that shows us that choices we make are simply our bodies responding to stimuli. Conscious thought - what we generally perceive to be controlling our decisions - actually has little or nothing to do with it.

Make sense? Determinism is really the only logical view of the universe, imo. Even if unseen forces are affecting us, religious or otherwise, their influence would still need to be causal. Most religious concepts of free will are incoherent; unable to hold up to common sense, much less testing and physics.

Originally posted by TacDavey
You keep asserting this and I keep rejecting it. The difference is my rejections of this idea have been backed up. Yours have just been assertions.

Heh. Let's be clear, we're both stating opinions. One of us isn't factually correct. We're not dealing with an objectively measurable phenomenon, since we're dealing in the realm of human morality, suffering, freedom, etc.

With stealing and killing, it's not analogous to sex, and I'll explain why in a minute. But with stealing/killing, we probably just have to get rid of the words "right" and "wrong." Because, sure, the scenarios I provided are, in your words, necessary but not "right" in the sense that someone is still hurt. That's reasonable enough. Nobody wants to kill/steal if they can avoid it.

The point with sex is, sometimes, often times (again, with mature adults, not kids), no one is hurt. Even in the best cases of stealing, someone is hurt. but that's not the case with sex. Regardless of whether you think that they get hurt 1% of the time or 99%, you can't say it's the same thing. The potential for harm alone does not constitute right or wrong action, especially where none is intended, because the potential is there for literally anything we do.

Arhael

A girl believed pre-marital is not ok. She kept her decency waited for the one. She got 20, 25, 30. Resisted her temptations. Preserved herself for the right one. And then she found him. And now she is married and now it's gonna happen. He turned out to be impotent. Ups.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
It's not a concept most are brought up with, so we instinctively fight against it. let me try another example. Hopefully it helps.

Say you're getting ice cream. You have two choices: chocolate and vanilla. For whatever reason, you pick vanilla. Now rewind the universe to 5 minutes before the choice of vanilla and play the scenario out again. You don't have knowledge of the choice you made on the first iteration.

What flavor will you choose in the second iteration? Vanilla. Run it again? Vanilla. Run it a thousand times. Vanilla. Why? Because your body and mind's response to the choice is determined based on the influences that came before it. You have a choice, of course. However, whatever the outcome is, that's what it had to be, given the causes before it. You couldn't have picked chocolate.

Whatever neural processes you went through to reach vanilla were following specific rules, even if we're unaware of them. And to say you could have chosen either vanilla or chocolate is to say that you have the power to override the physical laws of the universe at a whim.

So it's "free" in the sense that you, and only you, made the decision. No one was holding a gun to your head telling you to pick one. It was entirely Tac's decision. But it was the only decision you could have made.

It should also be noted that there's quite a bit of evidence of just this phenomenon. We actually make decisions before we become aware of them. Our awareness of the decision is a response to the decision, not a precursor. So, we have testable evidence that shows us that choices we make are simply our bodies responding to stimuli. Conscious thought - what we generally perceive to be controlling our decisions - actually has little or nothing to do with it.

Make sense? Determinism is really the only logical view of the universe, imo. Even if unseen forces are affecting us, religious or otherwise, their influence would still need to be causal. Most religious concepts of free will are incoherent; unable to hold up to common sense, much less testing and physics.

So you're saying that we are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains? We're just kind of running on a track like a train?

If we have no real control over our actions or thoughts, then isn't the person who thought up this idea just running on predetermined stimuli as well, and if this is the case, then how can you trust that the idea is valid? If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?

Originally posted by Digi
Heh. Let's be clear, we're both stating opinions. One of us isn't factually correct. We're not dealing with an objectively measurable phenomenon, since we're dealing in the realm of human morality, suffering, freedom, etc.

With stealing and killing, it's not analogous to sex, and I'll explain why in a minute. But with stealing/killing, we probably just have to get rid of the words "right" and "wrong." Because, sure, the scenarios I provided are, in your words, necessary but not "right" in the sense that someone is still hurt. That's reasonable enough. Nobody wants to kill/steal if they can avoid it.

The point with sex is, sometimes, often times (again, with mature adults, not kids), no one is hurt. Even in the best cases of stealing, someone is hurt. but that's not the case with sex. Regardless of whether you think that they get hurt 1% of the time or 99%, you can't say it's the same thing. The potential for harm alone does not constitute right or wrong action, especially where none is intended, because the potential is there for literally anything we do.

I did admit that the potential for harm, by itself, is not justification for calling something wrong. In the same way, though, the potential for NO harm also does not constitute right or wrong actions, as again, an action that has a 9 out of 10 chance of harming children is not right, even though there is a 1 out of 10 chance no one get's hurt.

The degree to the potential for harm is relevant to determining if an action is right or wrong, and I have already provided my reasoning behind thinking premarital sex is more harmful than not.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?

The soundless of arguments is dependent on their content not their creator. You're probably the first person I've seen to make an ad hominem argument without hostility.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The soundless of arguments is dependent on their content not their creator. You're probably the first person I've seen to make an ad hominem argument without hostility.

I don't think I said otherwise. I was not claiming that the argument was invalid because of the person who made it, but because of how it was made.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
So you're saying that we are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains? We're just kind of running on a track like a train?

If we have no real control over our actions or thoughts, then isn't the person who thought up this idea just running on predetermined stimuli as well, and if this is the case, then how can you trust that the idea is valid? If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?

This critique has been worked on by people for a while now, with at least some modest success, though it does appear the scientists are the first to acknowledge the limitations of their work.

To be more specific, we know this because human behaviour is quite adequately explained by appealing only to physical processes of the brain. I would contend, the onus is on you to propose a type of behaviour that not only cannot currently be explained via physical mechanisms, but in fact, can never be explained by appealing to materialist understandings of human behaviour. Were you correct, it should be simple to point to human behaviours that are and will forever be impossible to describe by appealing to neuronal activity. Don't feel rushed, I''l wait.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I said otherwise. I was not claiming that the argument was invalid because of the person who made it, but because of how it was made.

ok, so your critique leaves 2 possible outcomes:

a) because the brain is deterministic and all truths are simply the result of such determinism, it is impossible to know anything as truth, therefore not only are scientific and materialist conclusions called into question, but so are all conclusions humans have ever come to, including those of philosophy and religion, making everything solipsistic and arguing against the ability of humans to ever know real truths.

b) because human behaviour isn't deterministic, we can trust scientists because they aren't simply deterministic.

for some reason, you try to set Digi up to answer a), when your position, b), is not even internally consistent and in fact argues against itself in this context.

This does nothing to refute the ridiculously fallacious assertion that something being deterministic has no ability, over time, to understand something that is deterministic. Modern theories of learning and memory being facilitated through long term potentiation in the hippocampus would be models of how this could occur. You are correct, all positions are biased based on previous experience, but given the universe isn't radically different at time A and B (so long as A and B are only differ in something like hundreds of thousands of years, and we don't include the first epochs of the universe), such a pattern seeking build up of contingent experiences with the environment almost necessitates at least some greater understanding of the universe at time B than A. and in terms of bias, what I said above applies; the more beings that have compiled a history of contingent learned relationships between things in the universe that agree on a theory about how things behave would be quite powerful evidence, unless there is a reason to believe perception is wrong in these instances (like optical illusions and the like).

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I said otherwise. I was not claiming that the argument was invalid because of the person who made it, but because of how it was made.

No, its explicitly ad hominem.

Your argument is that we cannot trust "the stimuli" where you have already established "the stimuli" as standing for the thinker. You failed to address the quality of the argument itself.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
This critique has been worked on by people for a while now, with at least some modest success, though it does appear the scientists are the first to acknowledge the limitations of their work.

To be more specific, we know this because human behaviour is quite adequately explained by appealing only to physical processes of the brain. I would contend, the onus is on you to propose a type of behaviour that not only cannot currently be explained via physical mechanisms, but in fact, can never be explained by appealing to materialist understandings of human behaviour. Were you correct, it should be simple to point to human behaviours that are and will forever be impossible to describe by appealing to neuronal activity. Don't feel rushed, I''l wait.

I don't think I need to do this in order for the point I was making before to be valid, though, as I wasn't actively arguing something outside of physical human brain activity, but rather pointing out a potential flaw in the Digi's original premise.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so your critique leaves 2 possible outcomes:

a) because the brain is deterministic and all truths are simply the result of such determinism, it is impossible to know anything as truth, therefore not only are scientific and materialist conclusions called into question, but so are all conclusions humans have ever come to, including those of philosophy and religion, making everything solipsistic and arguing against the ability of humans to ever know real truths.

b) because human behaviour isn't deterministic, we can trust scientists because they aren't simply deterministic.

for some reason, you try to set Digi up to answer a), when your position, b), is not even internally consistent and in fact argues against itself in this context.

I wasn't arguing any position at the time. I was simply pointing out what I thought to be a flaw in the initial reasoning.

Originally posted by inimalist
This does nothing to refute the ridiculously fallacious assertion that something being deterministic has no ability, over time, to understand something that is deterministic. Modern theories of learning and memory being facilitated through long term potentiation in the hippocampus would be models of how this could occur. You are correct, all positions are biased based on previous experience, but given the universe isn't radically different at time A and B (so long as A and B are only differ in something like hundreds of thousands of years, and we don't include the first epochs of the universe), such a pattern seeking build up of contingent experiences with the environment almost necessitates at least some greater understanding of the universe at time B than A. and in terms of bias, what I said above applies; the more beings that have compiled a history of contingent learned relationships between things in the universe that agree on a theory about how things behave would be quite powerful evidence, unless there is a reason to believe perception is wrong in these instances (like optical illusions and the like).

This doesn't seem to solve the problem, though. Even if you build up knowledge about something that doesn't change the fact that you have no real control over what conclusions you draw from that knowledge or even how that knowledge is interpreted. In the end, you are still left with the fact that this idea is the result of forces that are outside of your control.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, its explicitly ad hominem.

Your argument is that we cannot trust "the stimuli" where you have already established "the stimuli" as standing for the thinker. You failed to address the quality of the argument itself.

The problem I pointed out with the argument could be made with any other person as an example other than the thinker and still be valid. Make no mistake. I'm not saying the problem with the argument rests with the thinker. I'm saying there is a problem with the argument, and was using the thinker to illustrate and prove it.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
The problem I pointed out with the argument could be made with any other person as an example other than the thinker and still be valid. Make no mistake. I'm not saying the problem with the argument rests with the thinker. I'm saying there is a problem with the argument, and was using the thinker to illustrate and prove it.

You proved nothing. You barely even managed to create the beginnings of an argument. A deterministic mind is no more or less trustworthy than a free one.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't think I need to do this in order for the point I was making before to be valid, though, as I wasn't actively arguing something outside of physical human brain activity

nonsense, of course you are.

it makes no sense to point out that Digi's method is erroneous without suggesting there is another way. If the only way people can know things is through their experiences, and this is a flaw, but there are no other ways to do it, how does your criticism make any sense? You are inherently suggesting a different way of knowing, one that must be different than a materialist/deterministic view of the brain.

Originally posted by TacDavey
but rather pointing out a potential flaw in the Digi's original premise.

well, you might have to explain why it is a flaw though. You have pointed out an aspect of Digi's argument (his conclusion comes from available evidence, not on a priori decisions), not what is inherently problematic about it.

I certainly wouldn't call using one's senses to know reality a flaw...

Originally posted by TacDavey
I wasn't arguing any position at the time. I was simply pointing out what I thought to be a flaw in the initial reasoning.

man, you ran away from this one fast... why not just say "whoops" instead of this type of dodging, it was a bad argument, happens to the best of us.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This doesn't seem to solve the problem, though. Even if you build up knowledge about something that doesn't change the fact that you have no real control over what conclusions you draw from that knowledge or even how that knowledge is interpreted. In the end, you are still left with the fact that this idea is the result of forces that are outside of your control.

?

think about what you are saying.

this is essentially arguing that the only reliable knowledge is that which we are innately aware of without any experience of the world. Like, guess how we learn that the muscles to move our eyes correspond to changes in our gaze position? sensory experience! guess how we learn to make noise in order to communicate desires? sensory experience!

I'm really having trouble thinking of innate knowledge that has no basis whatsoever in experience. Like, we don't "know" to breath or have our heart beat, those are reflexive and we only learn that we must maintain them by sensory experiences of their cessation. How would we ever know to eat, or that eating would satiate hunger, if we had never experienced food? even things like innate fears of objects like snakes or spiders require the experience of those stimuli before we would have any knowledge of being afraid of them.

At just a very basic level, what you are saying is nonsense.

Further, if you don't extend your point to its logical conclusion, you are basically arguing for being blinded by your own biases. If you aren't letting your experience of stimuli determine what you believe, you are believing something in direct contradiction to what you can see. This is blatant lunacy.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
So you're saying that we are really nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains? We're just kind of running on a track like a train?

If we have no real control over our actions or thoughts, then isn't the person who thought up this idea just running on predetermined stimuli as well, and if this is the case, then how can you trust that the idea is valid? If the idea was born not from the thinker, but from stimuli that we have no real control over, how can you trust those stimuli to make a logically sound theory?

Well, inamilist and Sym are doing well enough showing problems with this line of thinking.

But basically, it matches with evidence. All human behavior is explainable via empirical, deterministic processes, and we have direct evidence to suggest that our conscious awareness of reality has next to nothing to do with our reactions and behaviors.

As in said, it's a burden of proof thing at this point. My model matches evidence. The burden is on you to show why I'm wrong. Because, frankly, if empiricism could be defeated so easily by an armchair philosopher, it would not be what it is today.

And besides being an ad hominem attack, as Sym mentioned, the beauty of science is that it shows us how reality works. Someone formed this idea because they observed it. But instead of being formed simply by a rogue thought, it came about because of controlled and repeated tests that show us how the universe works.

Because the "predetermined stimuli" that help a person form this opinion are the literal workings of the universe. It's the most trustworthy conclusion we have, by a large margin. You're acting as though being a product of causes that preceded you is bad. That is exactly what you are, at all times.

Of course, we could devolve this into an argument of subjective reality, where none of us can claim to know anything with absolute certainty. But not only does that make EVERYONE impotent to form an opinion, it denies that empirical evidence still suggests probability of likelihood in an inherently uncertain world. This is also a strength of science, because we work with data and facts, but unlike religions that have to make excuses when something in their doctrine is disproven, refinement of knowledge is built into the system.

Still, at a basic level, I feel like denial of determinism is something akin to denial of gravity, to use my earlier ball example. You drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We're just complex balls, with different forces interacting - not just gravity. But the outcomes are every bit as inevitable. To say that determinism doesn't exist, to me, is literally the same as saying the ball didn't have to fall. It's utterly nonsensical. It matches evidence, common sense, and if it weren't true, we'd be violating causality with literally every action or thought we make. If you want to believe that the rest of the universe works according to set rules, but humans can ignore those rules entirely, be my guest. To me, that's crazy talk.

So try to strip any emotional response out of this. We don't want to think of choice as an illusion - it's a natural instinct. But what people don't usually realize is that, determined or not, we can't predict our actions or anyone else's, so life is every bit as spontaneous and exciting with or without a Christian's idea of free will.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I did admit that the potential for harm, by itself, is not justification for calling something wrong. In the same way, though, the potential for NO harm also does not constitute right or wrong actions, as again, an action that has a 9 out of 10 chance of harming children is not right, even though there is a 1 out of 10 chance no one get's hurt.

The degree to the potential for harm is relevant to determining if an action is right or wrong, and I have already provided my reasoning behind thinking premarital sex is more harmful than not.

Well then here is where we disagree. Take out children and immature idiots, and you're left with maybe a few hundred thousand acts of sex a day in the country, most of which are contributing directly to love, or at least harmless gratification and stress relief, in our society. And the fact that most out-of-wedlock babies happen to people who probably shouldn't be having babies, is the biggest reason obscuring the fact that cared-for, loved children of single parents have functionally equivalent opportunities in the country.

A normal, rational adult shouldn't have to be labeled as sinful or wrong because some teenagers can't keep it in their pants.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You proved nothing. You barely even managed to create the beginnings of an argument. A deterministic mind is no more or less trustworthy than a free one.

That's what I was saying, though. A mind that has no free will cannot truly be trusted to produce logical ideas, because the idea's it produces are simply predetermined and the person thinking of the idea has no control over making it.

Originally posted by inimalist
nonsense, of course you are.

it makes no sense to point out that Digi's method is erroneous without suggesting there is another way. If the only way people can know things is through their experiences, and this is a flaw, but there are no other ways to do it, how does your criticism make any sense? You are inherently suggesting a different way of knowing, one that must be different than a materialist/deterministic view of the brain.

Obviously I was suggesting there was an alternative, but I never actually went into what that alternative was. I was pointing out a flaw, not providing another solution. It's possible to do one and not the other.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, you might have to explain why it is a flaw though. You have pointed out an aspect of Digi's argument (his conclusion comes from available evidence, not on a priori decisions), not what is inherently problematic about it.

I certainly wouldn't call using one's senses to know reality a flaw...

It isn't about using senses, it's about idea's and thinking. Senses will tell us what things smell like and what color something is. Ideas are different. They require us to create something, sometimes using sensory data. The problem I see with the way Digi is claiming it is set up is that the act of creating an idea or theory is not something based on our critical thinking or intuitiveness. Any idea we make will be an idea we were always going to make and is not controlled by us. We didn't actually make the idea, so why should we trust an idea that was born, not from our rational thought, but from stimuli that we have no real control over?

Originally posted by inimalist
?

think about what you are saying.

this is essentially arguing that the only reliable knowledge is that which we are innately aware of without any experience of the world. Like, guess how we learn that the muscles to move our eyes correspond to changes in our gaze position? sensory experience! guess how we learn to make noise in order to communicate desires? sensory experience!

What? How was I saying that at all? I said that ideas formed from predetermined stimuli cannot be truly trusted to form a logically valid truth. I didn't say idea's formed from sensory data could not be trusted to form a logically valid truth.

Originally posted by Digi
But basically, it matches with evidence. All human behavior is explainable via empirical, deterministic processes, and we have direct evidence to suggest that our conscious awareness of reality has next to nothing to do with our reactions and behaviors.

As in said, it's a burden of proof thing at this point. My model matches evidence. The burden is on you to show why I'm wrong. Because, frankly, if empiricism could be defeated so easily by an armchair philosopher, it would not be what it is today.

None of that solves the problem I posed, though. Even with supposed evidence, you still have to get around the problem if the argument is to succeed.

Originally posted by Digi
And besides being an ad hominem attack, as Sym mentioned

It wasn't an ad hominem. The point could have been made using any other person and any other idea and still be saying the same thing I was saying. The point being made was not about the person, it was about how the system was supposedly set up.

Originally posted by Digi
, the beauty of science is that it shows us how reality works. Someone formed this idea because they observed it. But instead of being formed simply by a rogue thought, it came about because of controlled and repeated tests that show us how the universe works.

But it came about whether the guy wanted it to or not. It wasn't born from his rational thinking, it was born from a set of predetermined variables. It was always going to come about. Logic had nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Digi
Because the "predetermined stimuli" that help a person form this opinion are the literal workings of the universe. It's the most trustworthy conclusion we have, by a large margin. You're acting as though being a product of causes that preceded you is bad. That is exactly what you are, at all times.

That's what I disagree with though. And I never said it was "bad", I said it couldn't be trusted to form logical ideas because logic plays no role in the idea's birth.

Originally posted by Digi
Of course, we could devolve this into an argument of subjective reality, where none of us can claim to know anything with absolute certainty. But not only does that make EVERYONE impotent to form an opinion, it denies that empirical evidence still suggests probability of likelihood in an inherently uncertain world. This is also a strength of science, because we work with data and facts, but unlike religions that have to make excuses when something in their doctrine is disproven, refinement of knowledge is built into the system.

Still, at a basic level, I feel like denial of determinism is something akin to denial of gravity, to use my earlier ball example. You drop a ball, it falls to the ground. We're just complex balls, with different forces interacting - not just gravity. But the outcomes are every bit as inevitable. To say that determinism doesn't exist, to me, is literally the same as saying the ball didn't have to fall. It's utterly nonsensical. It matches evidence, common sense, and if it weren't true, we'd be violating causality with literally every action or thought we make. If you want to believe that the rest of the universe works according to set rules, but humans can ignore those rules entirely, be my guest. To me, that's crazy talk.

Once again, though, that doesn't solve the problem I posed earlier. If we are forced by outside influences to make predetermined ideas, how can we truly trust those idea's to be logical when logic played no part in their birth?

Originally posted by Digi
Well then here is where we disagree. Take out children and immature idiots, and you're left with maybe a few hundred thousand acts of sex a day in the country, most of which are contributing directly to love, or at least harmless gratification and stress relief, in our society. And the fact that most out-of-wedlock babies happen to people who probably shouldn't be having babies, is the biggest reason obscuring the fact that cared-for, loved children of single parents have functionally equivalent opportunities in the country.

A normal, rational adult shouldn't have to be labeled as sinful or wrong because some teenagers can't keep it in their pants.

Only one of my stats was concerning teenagers. The rest of my points have not been focused on youth, they apply to everyone.

Digi

Tac, you're actually close to hitting on some relevant points about the subjective filter through which we perceive reality. However, you're focusing on an irrelevant aspect of it, and also only selectively applying it.

Let me try to build up to an answer to your question. Because I see where your head's at, and it's a tough concept to wrap around, but not impossible.

How do we build our perception of reality? Our senses. Whatever we think or believe, it's a result of that. And, if we want to know something better, how do we do it? We study it, we scrutinize it, we look more closely, and we form a better understanding of it.

Second part: Not to flirt with tautology, but whatever the universe does, however it acts, is exactly how it functions. So in observing the universe, we are perceiving a form of truth.

So you want to know why our senses are trustworthy, and thus why empirical testing in a deterministic world can be trusted? Because we are perceiving truth. Our minds might imperfectly interpret what we observe, meaning we can't be 100% certain of anything. But we can get closer to the truth by observing reality.

So the causal, deterministic forces behind our perceptions are universal truths that we are able to observe in some manner. They are the only way we actually have of knowing reality - otherwise thought and belief wouldn't even exist.

The alternative is, you just make stuff up that has no basis in reality. Which sounds better to you?

...

I'd also pose a challenge to you: what's the logical alternative to determinism? How is there NOT some cause behind each action, whether larger human actions or infinitesimal atomic reactions? How does something happen, ever, with no prior cause? Or, perhaps more specifically, how can we violate the cause/effect rules of the universe to make a choice that is incongruent with every cause leading up to the decision? If every synapse in your brain fires in such a way that you're going to pick vanilla, and nothing changes in brain state, how do you pick chocolate? And again, we know that the decision is made before you are aware of it.

How anyone perceives reality as anything but deterministic boggles my mind. How do they imagine anything functions? I guess the physical laws that make sure we have planets and stars and solar systems and oxygen and water and life stop working once they try to affect some fleshy carbon lifeforms.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
Tac, you're actually close to hitting on some relevant points about the subjective filter through which we perceive reality. However, you're focusing on an irrelevant aspect of it, and also only selectively applying it.

Let me try to build up to an answer to your question. Because I see where your head's at, and it's a tough concept to wrap around, but not impossible.

How do we build our perception of reality? Our senses. Whatever we think or believe, it's a result of that. And, if we want to know something better, how do we do it? We study it, we scrutinize it, we look more closely, and we form a better understanding of it.

Second part: Not to flirt with tautology, but whatever the universe does, however it acts, is exactly how it functions. So in observing the universe, we are perceiving a form of truth.

So you want to know why our senses are trustworthy, and thus why empirical testing in a deterministic world can be trusted? Because we are perceiving truth. Our minds might imperfectly interpret what we observe, meaning we can't be 100% certain of anything. But we can get closer to the truth by observing reality.

So the causal, deterministic forces behind our perceptions are universal truths that we are able to observe in some manner. They are the only way we actually have of knowing reality - otherwise thought and belief wouldn't even exist.

The alternative is, you just make stuff up that has no basis in reality. Which sounds better to you?

But, if we are to form ideas and theory based off of those universal truths, don't we have to make a choice about how we apply the information we learn from the universe? It's up to us to use that information to create theories and ideas, but we have no real control over what theories and ideas we make out of that information. Unless you want to claim that the stimuli that control our actions will always take the information and make a universally truthful theory. Which I see no reason to assume they would do, and which obviously isn't the case, considering how many theories and ideas there are swimming around the world.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd also pose a challenge to you: what's the logical alternative to determinism? How is there NOT some cause behind each action, whether larger human actions or infinitesimal atomic reactions? How does something happen, ever, with no prior cause? Or, perhaps more specifically, how can we violate the cause/effect rules of the universe to make a choice that is incongruent with every cause leading up to the decision? If every synapse in your brain fires in such a way that you're going to pick vanilla, and nothing changes in brain state, how do you pick chocolate? And again, we know that the decision is made before you are aware of it.

How anyone perceives reality as anything but deterministic boggles my mind. How do they imagine anything functions? I guess the physical laws that make sure we have planets and stars and solar systems and oxygen and water and life stop working once they try to affect some fleshy carbon lifeforms.

Well, obviously I personally would say there is more to us than just our fleshy carbon bodies.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
But, if we are to form ideas and theory based off of those universal truths, don't we have to make a choice about how we apply the information we learn from the universe? It's up to us to use that information to create theories and ideas, but we have no real control over what theories and ideas we make out of that information. Unless you want to claim that the stimuli that control our actions will always take the information and make a universally truthful theory. Which I see no reason to assume they would do, and which obviously isn't the case, considering how many theories and ideas there are swimming around the world.

Fair enough, though I'd point out that your objection here isn't to determinism itself, but to the idea of it in humans.

I'm still waiting on what the plausible alternative to determinism is, and how it works in a ways that defies causality.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Well, obviously I personally would say there is more to us than just our fleshy carbon bodies.

And we're back to burden of proof. Again, all human behavior can be explained via biological and neurological phenomenon. We know you believe in a soul, but to me that's nonsense without something to back it up, either logically or empirically.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously I was suggesting there was an alternative, but I never actually went into what that alternative was. I was pointing out a flaw, not providing another solution. It's possible to do one and not the other.

That is really just a cop out though, isn't it?

You are implicitly suggesting that there is not only an alternative, but superior way of knowing the universe that is not reliant on "deterministic stimuli". For your criticism to have any validity, you have to show that your way produces superior results. If something is flawed, but still the best, it is hardly a criticism to point out the flaws. That we only experience the universe through imperfect sensory apparatuses is true and interesting in itself, but barring some other and better way, how is it a "critique" to point out that it is imperfect?

Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't about using senses, it's about idea's and thinking.

oh this will be good...

Originally posted by TacDavey
Senses will tell us what things smell like and what color something is. Ideas are different.

this is easily shown to be wrong, as your two sentences are not even internally consistent.

There are many ways to define what a sense is, but the definition you are using includes an identification of what the stimuli is, not simply the experience of it (which I actually agree with, but I'm sure your next post will require me to explain why it actually doesn't matter which definition we use). This is evident from both of your examples: "What things smell like" and "What colour something is" require much more than the primary sensory cortex to know. To know something is red, you have to have an "idea" (to use your term) of what red is in the first place. Similarly with smell. If you know what something's smell is, you have an idea about it. Thus, by your own definitions, sensory experiences are ideas.

alright, next sentence...

Originally posted by TacDavey
They require us to create something, sometimes using sensory data. The problem I see with the way Digi is claiming it is set up is that the act of creating an idea or theory is not something based on our critical thinking or intuitiveness.

a) intuitiveness? ok, so, this is exactly what I meant by innate knowledge that you brushed aside. What possible intuitiveness does a human have that doesn't come from sensory experiences of the world. How we control our muscles and move comes from sensory experience ffs.

b) critical thinking skills develop over childhood as children go through developmental stages that encourage different types of interactions with the environment. critical thinking itself will not develop in isolation of external stimuli, and in fact, requires it. The entire foundation of what any individual's "critical thinking" capacity entails is derived from their interaction with external stimuli. Your cart is on the wrong end of your horse, critical thinking is a result of sensory experience.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Any idea we make will be an idea we were always going to make and is not controlled by us. We didn't actually make the idea, so why should we trust an idea that was born, not from our rational thought, but from stimuli that we have no real control over?

easy. we live in a universe where things are fairly constant. If i drop a ball, it falls at a predictable speed given gravity. our "rational thinking" is largely based on such contingencies in nature.

Think of it this way. Imagine you went into a universe where all sensory experiences were changed. Something producing the effect of "hot" or "cold" on your skin was not related to its temperature. Colour no longer signified borders between objects. You know, not simply "the laws of physics" work differently, but the qualities of stimuli work entirely differently from how they do in our universe.

If what you are saying is true, you would suggest a person could be taken from our universe and dropped in this one, and they would be capable of making rational decisions within that universe. Really think about this, how could that be possible? If the sensation of falling had no relation to what you know the sensation of falling to indicate, how could you even begin to rationally choose things in this universe?

Originally posted by TacDavey
What? How was I saying that at all? I said that ideas formed from predetermined stimuli cannot be truly trusted to form a logically valid truth. I didn't say idea's formed from sensory data could not be trusted to form a logically valid truth.

so sensory data that isn't predetermined? how would you define this?

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
Fair enough, though I'd point out that your objection here isn't to determinism itself, but to the idea of it in humans.

I'm still waiting on what the plausible alternative to determinism is, and how it works in a ways that defies causality.

And we're back to burden of proof. Again, all human behavior can be explained via biological and neurological phenomenon. We know you believe in a soul, but to me that's nonsense without something to back it up, either logically or empirically.

My alternative would be a soul. I would say that logical theories and ideas created by humans are only really possible if there is more to us than preset actions running on a track. If you want to hold that there is no free will or choice, then you cannot hold that there are truly logical theories or ideas, and as such you would be admitting that the theory that we have no free will is itself not logical. The alternative is to admit we have free will and choice, which would indicate that there is more to us than the physical parts we can observe, since these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will.

Originally posted by inimalist
That is really just a cop out though, isn't it?

You are implicitly suggesting that there is not only an alternative, but superior way of knowing the universe that is not reliant on "deterministic stimuli". For your criticism to have any validity, you have to show that your way produces superior results. If something is flawed, but still the best, it is hardly a criticism to point out the flaws. That we only experience the universe through imperfect sensory apparatuses is true and interesting in itself, but barring some other and better way, how is it a "critique" to point out that it is imperfect?

Because it's imperfect? If something is flawed, you don't need to have a better solution in order to point out that it's flawed. If I point out a fallacy in an argument, but don't offer an argument supporting something else, that doesn't change the fact that the first argument was fallacious. Or to put it simply, I don't have to tell you that 2 + 3 = 5 in order to tell you that 2 + 3 = 7 is wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
this is easily shown to be wrong, as your two sentences are not even internally consistent.

There are many ways to define what a sense is, but the definition you are using includes an identification of what the stimuli is, not simply the experience of it (which I actually agree with, but I'm sure your next post will require me to explain why it actually doesn't matter which definition we use). This is evident from both of your examples: "What things smell like" and "What colour something is" require much more than the primary sensory cortex to know. To know something is red, you have to have an "idea" (to use your term) of what red is in the first place. Similarly with smell. If you know what something's smell is, you have an idea about it. Thus, by your own definitions, sensory experiences are ideas.

That's stretching it quite a bit. At the very least, you are not using "idea" in the same way I was. I'm talking about something we create, not something we experience. Even if it is based off of things we experience, it's still something we piece together ourselves personally.

Originally posted by inimalist
a) intuitiveness? ok, so, this is exactly what I meant by innate knowledge that you brushed aside. What possible intuitiveness does a human have that doesn't come from sensory experiences of the world. How we control our muscles and move comes from sensory experience ffs.

b) critical thinking skills develop over childhood as children go through developmental stages that encourage different types of interactions with the environment. critical thinking itself will not develop in isolation of external stimuli, and in fact, requires it. The entire foundation of what any individual's "critical thinking" capacity entails is derived from their interaction with external stimuli. Your cart is on the wrong end of your horse, critical thinking is a result of sensory experience.

Sensory experience plays a role, sure. I never said it didn't. I'm talking about what we DO with the sensory experiences.

Originally posted by inimalist
easy. we live in a universe where things are fairly constant. If i drop a ball, it falls at a predictable speed given gravity. our "rational thinking" is largely based on such contingencies in nature.

This still doesn't solve my problem. Think of all the ideas and theories that exist in the world. If what you are saying is true, then they are all nothing but predetermined theories and ideas that the person was forced to create. Yet they can't all be right. So that right there shows that these predetermined theories do not necessarily produce truths.

Originally posted by inimalist
Think of it this way. Imagine you went into a universe where all sensory experiences were changed. Something producing the effect of "hot" or "cold" on your skin was not related to its temperature. Colour no longer signified borders between objects. You know, not simply "the laws of physics" work differently, but the qualities of stimuli work entirely differently from how they do in our universe.

If what you are saying is true, you would suggest a person could be taken from our universe and dropped in this one, and they would be capable of making rational decisions within that universe. Really think about this, how could that be possible? If the sensation of falling had no relation to what you know the sensation of falling to indicate, how could you even begin to rationally choose things in this universe?

I actually see absolutely no reason to think someone placed in that position wouldn't be able to make decisions or choices. It would be very confusing for them, and they would likely have a hard time getting around, but I see no reason why their ability to think rationally would be taken away simply because color doesn't mean the same thing in that world. It would be no different than you or me suddenly loosing all our senses. Would we suddenly loose the ability to think rationally? No. Why would we?

Originally posted by inimalist
so sensory data that isn't predetermined? how would you define this?

I think the confusion is the world stimuli. I'm not necessarily talking about sensory information when I say that. I'm talking about experiences in general. The past things that make us do things.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
My alternative would be a soul. I would say that logical theories and ideas created by humans are only really possible if there is more to us than preset actions running on a track. If you want to hold that there is no free will or choice, then you cannot hold that there are truly logical theories or ideas, and as such you would be admitting that the theory that we have no free will is itself not logical. The alternative is to admit we have free will and choice, which would indicate that there is more to us than the physical parts we can observe, since these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will.

Oh, I like something you said here: "these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will."

So, you admit that, minus a soul, free will doesn't exist. And...what is your evidence for a soul exactly?

But see, even that isn't satisfactory to me, because even if a soul exists, how does it affect anything if not causally? The presence of a soul does not, by itself, invalidate determinism. It just provides another mechanism to act in a causal manner.

Basically I'm asking you how anything can work if not causally. I don't think you're fully grasping the idea that you're claiming that humans can violate physics with our choices. A soul, though entirely unproven and essentially an appeal to magic/authority/etc., would only give us something not possessed by other animals. It wouldn't change the fact that we exist in a universe governed by physical laws that even our bodies must adhere to.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because it's imperfect? If something is flawed, you don't need to have a better solution in order to point out that it's flawed. If I point out a fallacy in an argument, but don't offer an argument supporting something else, that doesn't change the fact that the first argument was fallacious. Or to put it simply, I don't have to tell you that 2 + 3 = 5 in order to tell you that 2 + 3 = 7 is wrong.

well, there is a difference between "offering a critique" and "pointing out a flaw", but this is entirely semantic and uninteresting, so whatever

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's stretching it quite a bit. At the very least, you are not using "idea" in the same way I was. I'm talking about something we create, not something we experience. Even if it is based off of things we experience, it's still something we piece together ourselves personally.

Sensory experience plays a role, sure. I never said it didn't. I'm talking about what we DO with the sensory experiences.

a) you are simply moving the goalposts here. Any part of cognition that I demonstrate as being based on sensory experience you can simply say, "oh, not that part".

b) I'm sort of a pedant with this brain stuff, so could you explain what part of this process you are talking about when you say "what we do". This sounds like you are making an appeal to dualism, some sort of ghost in the shell argument. Is that it? You think the soul is this little guy in your head turning sensory information into these new and different experiences? lol, the soul is the thalamus.

Originally posted by TacDavey
This still doesn't solve my problem. Think of all the ideas and theories that exist in the world. If what you are saying is true, then they are all nothing but predetermined theories and ideas that the person was forced to create. Yet they can't all be right. So that right there shows that these predetermined theories do not necessarily produce truths.

you just changed the entire parameters of the debate. You said, initially, that you couldn't trust things based on "predetermined stimuli", now, it is simply, "they do not necessarily produce truths"

ok, conceded; what is better? whats the fix? if there is no better way, what is your point?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I actually see absolutely no reason to think someone placed in that position wouldn't be able to make decisions or choices. It would be very confusing for them, and they would likely have a hard time getting around, but I see no reason why their ability to think rationally would be taken away simply because color doesn't mean the same thing in that world. It would be no different than you or me suddenly loosing all our senses. Would we suddenly loose the ability to think rationally? No. Why would we?

well, there are two problems.

1) of course we would. How would a person with no sensory experience, say, get away from a fire, or reason through a puzzle? or wait, is this like your "ideas", "rational thought" doesn't mean anything I can prove doesn't fit with your point...

2) that isn't remotely comparable to the scenario I described. This person still lives in a world where there memories all follow a reliable contingency between stimuli and the way we process and interpret them. Their problem is they are receiving no input. The scenario I described is that the input is so foreign that our brain has no ability to interpret it in a meaningful way. For you to say, "oh ya, of course they can reason" is like you saying "oh ya, of course I can speak a language I don't understand".

additionally, you seem to be assuming that "rationality" is this thing removed from direct contextual experience. This is that dualism thing again... Like, really, what aspect of human consciousness would you like to have explained through neurological means?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I think the confusion is the world stimuli. I'm not necessarily talking about sensory information when I say that. I'm talking about experiences in general. The past things that make us do things.

so memory? please, don't be afraid to go into specifics with your theories of human cognition and behaviour here, I think I can keep up.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Digi
Oh, I like something you said here: "these parts all by themselves do not allow for true free will."

So, you admit that, minus a soul, free will doesn't exist. And...what is your evidence for a soul exactly?

But see, even that isn't satisfactory to me, because even if a soul exists, how does it affect anything if not causally? The presence of a soul does not, by itself, invalidate determinism. It just provides another mechanism to act in a causal manner.

Basically I'm asking you how anything can work if not causally. I don't think you're fully grasping the idea that you're claiming that humans can violate physics with our choices. A soul, though entirely unproven and essentially an appeal to magic/authority/etc., would only give us something not possessed by other animals. It wouldn't change the fact that we exist in a universe governed by physical laws that even our bodies must adhere to.

Except the soul isn't bound by physical restrictions. A brain functions like a machine. A soul does not. It's a spiritual element, not a physical one. I would say a soul is the only way truly logical ideas and theories can be produced. I assume you believe logical theories and ideas can be produced, so the only explanation I can see is a soul.

Though this is really irrelevant to the initial debate isn't it? There are other theories about the world besides determinism are there not? The point was whether or not determinism was a valid reason supporting premarital sex, not whether we have souls or not.

Originally posted by inimalist
a) you are simply moving the goalposts here. Any part of cognition that I demonstrate as being based on sensory experience you can simply say, "oh, not that part".

I don't know what you mean here. I don't think I'm saying what you think I'm saying. I fully accept that theories and ideas are based on sensory experience.

Originally posted by inimalist
b) I'm sort of a pedant with this brain stuff, so could you explain what part of this process you are talking about when you say "what we do". This sounds like you are making an appeal to dualism, some sort of ghost in the shell argument. Is that it? You think the soul is this little guy in your head turning sensory information into these new and different experiences? lol, the soul is the thalamus.

I'm talking about when we form a theory or idea. We don't sense a theory or idea, we create it based off of what we sense. It's still up to us how to piece the information together, which is why there are so many different ideas and theories in the world. The problem is that if we have no free will, we don't choose how we create theories and ideas, so we cannot trust that the theories and ideas we create will be geared toward truths.

Originally posted by inimalist
you just changed the entire parameters of the debate. You said, initially, that you couldn't trust things based on "predetermined stimuli", now, it is simply, "they do not necessarily produce truths"

That isn't changing the debate, that's basically saying the same thing. We can't trust predetermined ideas and theories because predetermined ideas and theories don't necessarily produce truths.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, conceded; what is better? whats the fix? if there is no better way, what is your point?

Initially, my point was to respond to Digi's claim about premarital sex, which was being defended at one point by determinism. So I pointed out the flaw I saw in determinism.

Originally posted by inimalist
1) of course we would. How would a person with no sensory experience, say, get away from a fire, or reason through a puzzle? or wait, is this like your "ideas", "rational thought" doesn't mean anything I can prove doesn't fit with your point...

There would obviously be things they wouldn't be able to rationally do. That doesn't mean all rational thought is taken from them. They would still be able to rationally think about a number of things that don't involve that world specifically. Perhaps they think about the multiverse theory as a possible explanation for how this world exists.

Originally posted by inimalist
2) that isn't remotely comparable to the scenario I described. This person still lives in a world where there memories all follow a reliable contingency between stimuli and the way we process and interpret them. Their problem is they are receiving no input. The scenario I described is that the input is so foreign that our brain has no ability to interpret it in a meaningful way. For you to say, "oh ya, of course they can reason" is like you saying "oh ya, of course I can speak a language I don't understand".

That isn't correct. All it means is that they cannot produce any theories about the sensory data of that world. It does not mean they suddenly become unable to think rationally. Actually, they might very quickly learn that the sensory data is off, and thus produce an idea that they are in a world where the sensory data is different than their own. Sounds pretty rational to me.

Originally posted by inimalist
additionally, you seem to be assuming that "rationality" is this thing removed from direct contextual experience. This is that dualism thing again... Like, really, what aspect of human consciousness would you like to have explained through neurological means?

The part that can produce logical theories that are not predetermined or run on a set track.

Originally posted by inimalist
so memory? please, don't be afraid to go into specifics with your theories of human cognition and behaviour here, I think I can keep up.

I'm talking about everything that determinism claims run our lives.

inimalist

lets focus on this:

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm talking about when we form a theory or idea. We don't sense a theory or idea, we create it based off of what we sense. It's still up to us how to piece the information together, which is why there are so many different ideas and theories in the world. The problem is that if we have no free will, we don't choose how we create theories and ideas, so we cannot trust that the theories and ideas we create will be geared toward truths.

So, I'm going to try a "black box" model of cognition just to make sure I understand what your position on this is.

This first part represents what I believe both of us agree is a deterministic, physical system of the brain, where we have physical stimuli (sound waves, photons, chemicals, pressure changes, etc) interacting with our sensory organs (skin, tongue, nose, ears, eyes), moving into the brain, first to the perceptual system, then onto memory systems and forming what would be these "low level" perceptual "ideas" or whatever you call them, such as "red" or "rose". This conscious experience is influenced by the continuing flow of information from the perceptual system and the memory systems, but also informs new memories. In very broad terms, this is known as the bottom-up perceptual system, as it is almost entirely reliant on the stimuli that is incoming into the brain from the world around us:

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8596/fig1p.jpg

Further, we both agree that this "bottom-up" perception influences, but is not solely responsible for our theories and ideas, so we can add them to the model, being influenced by conscious experience and memory, and themselves influencing how we consciously experience things:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/4884/fig2a.jpg

Additionally, we agree that there is at least another influence on theories and ideas, one that is responsible for some type of broader organization of very simple environmental contingencies (fire is hot) into larger theories about the universe (heat can be used as a source of power for machines). So, lets call this thing X. I'm going to present both of those models then describe where I think we disagree:

inimalModel:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4122/inimal.jpg

TacModel:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/9536/taci.jpg

ok, so, the main differences:

a) X in my model is contained within the brain, physical and deterministic. X in your model is outside the brain, non-physical and non-deterministic.

b) The influence of "deterministic stimuli", or the "physical world" on X is much smaller in your model than in mine. I would suggest X is as much a product of the physical world as our ideas and thoughts are influenced by X, whereas you suggest that X has a much stronger influence on our ideas than the physical world does on X, as it is not a product of the physical world (actually, I'm not even sure if the smaller arrows are necessary, possibly the one from memory, but you have continuously argued for some type of "innateness" to X).

c) The arrows highlighted in red in your model are unexplainable by appealing to physical laws of the universe.

so, to show my model is superior, I would have to:

a) show that X is contained within the brain

b) show the bottom-up system is as influential on X as X is on the formation of ideas

c) show that the influence of X on conscious experience and on the formation of theories and ideas can be explained physically

before we go further, let me know if this seems like an accurate appraisal to you. I want to know what I'm arguing for, so I don't spend the time explaining something just for you to say "well, sure, that is physical, but this other ambiguous thing I can't define isn't".

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
Except the soul isn't bound by physical restrictions. A brain functions like a machine. A soul does not. It's a spiritual element, not a physical one. I would say a soul is the only way truly logical ideas and theories can be produced. I assume you believe logical theories and ideas can be produced, so the only explanation I can see is a soul.

Ok, so your hypothetical soul might not be bound by physical restrictions, but the body and mind still are. So how does the soul compel the body to defy causality? I don't see this as being able to be reconciled. Either it is a causal entity, or it is impotent to affect the body/mind because the body and mind remain bound by the laws of reality.

You've still done nothing to explain how something, anything, happens that isn't deterministic. And in doing so, you're essentially claiming that choices happen that have no cause or reason whatsoever.

Also, there's no evidence for a soul whatsoever, etc. but you seem to be ignoring that. Your argument, as such, amounts to "well, magic, therefore not science."

Originally posted by TacDavey
Though this is really irrelevant to the initial debate isn't it? There are other theories about the world besides determinism are there not? The point was whether or not determinism was a valid reason supporting premarital sex, not whether we have souls or not.

Debate something long enough, as we've been doing, and you eventually start to get to the heart of your disagreements. And for us, it's worldview and determinism/free will. When we talk about morality, we're discussing different things because of our differing worldviews. The conversation will necessarily devolve to this, because we disagree on fundamental aspects of reality that influence literally every aspect of our opinions. I can't debate morality with you when I disagree with your approach to it. That led us here.

inimalist

lol, I just showed the girl I'm seeing my models....

this has produced the most sever fight we have had in our relationship to this point...

I think this is a good thing.. smile

Digi

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I just showed the girl I'm seeing my models....

this has produced the most sever fight we have had in our relationship to this point...

I think this is a good thing.. smile

Ha. I'm always surprised at the varied objections people come up with against determinism. My brother and I fought over it once too. We seem almost hardwired to hate it for whatever reason, despite the fact that it has no net affect our ability to experience joy in life (and the discovery of "choice" even if we know the possibility of multiple options to be illusory).

It took me a couple years and some reading into philosophy of the mind (which involves a lot of layman's neuroscience) to really start coming around to abject materialism. Even discarding the idea of a soul, the idea of consciousness as a separate, non-physical entity is a tempting one.

But like, even minus the neuroscience that you're ready to pounce with, how the universe, or even non-physical aspects of religious dogmas, operate in any way that isn't causal is completely beyond me. If we proved a soul tomorrow, it would still need to follow some kind of logical pattern to interact with the physical world or it wouldn't make sense. I think I probably instinctively always thought that, even when I was Christian.

inimalist

Originally posted by Digi
Ha. I'm always surprised at the varied objections people come up with against determinism. My brother and I fought over it once too. We seem almost hardwired to hate it for whatever reason, despite the fact that it has no net affect our ability to experience joy in life (and the discovery of "choice" even if we know the possibility of multiple options to be illusory).

It took me a couple years and some reading into philosophy of the mind (which involves a lot of layman's neuroscience) to really start coming around to abject materialism. Even discarding the idea of a soul, the idea of consciousness as a separate, non-physical entity is a tempting one.

But like, even minus the neuroscience that you're ready to pounce with, how the universe, or even non-physical aspects of religious dogmas, operate in any way that isn't causal is completely beyond me. If we proved a soul tomorrow, it would still need to follow some kind of logical pattern to interact with the physical world or it wouldn't make sense. I think I probably instinctively always thought that, even when I was Christian.

actually, it was a neuroscience argument, lol

she got really upset about the arrow from "perceptual system" to "conscious experience"... she had a good point, but hell if I'll back down!

EDIT: but, no, I totally agree in general. arguments against determinism seem to be more knee jerk than coherent in some grand theory. Thankfully, I actually don't come across many people who are dualists in what I do, so I don't have a lot of experience with the whole free will debate thing.

Digi

lol, oh. Yeah, ok. I don't know the exact argument, but from that description I can imagine the nature of it.

My only gripe is that you have a dividing line between the physical world and the brain.

Also, for f*ck's sake, send some of the brainy atheists to the American midwest.

inimalist

Originally posted by Digi
lol, oh. Yeah, ok. I don't know the exact argument, but from that description I can imagine the nature of it.

dude, it got out of control... she got like seriously pissed, almost went home at one point

Originally posted by Digi
My only gripe is that you have a dividing line between the physical world and the brain.

as i tried to explain to her... *ahem*... Its more a model that eases communication about the subject than something that represents a proper biological or neurological model.

I actually agree, in a lot of ways, individuals and the environment can be seen as interacting elements of a singular system, but in terms of the way I wanted to frame the debate, it sort of made sense to be like "here are the stimuli, here are the processes of the brain".

Originally posted by Digi
Also, for f*ck's sake, send some of the brainy atheists to the American midwest.

they're all mine

Digi

Lol on all counts. In seriousness though, I hope you don't break up over cognitive science. Would make a decent story though.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
before we go further, let me know if this seems like an accurate appraisal to you. I want to know what I'm arguing for, so I don't spend the time explaining something just for you to say "well, sure, that is physical, but this other ambiguous thing I can't define isn't".

I'm not so sure I agree on what you need to do to prove the stance superior. Proving that X is inside the brain or physical wouldn't seem to me to show the stance superior, since I assumed that was what determinism was claiming the whole time. So really all that would show was what I assumed you were already claiming.

To solve the problem I posed you would need to show that X can produce logical theories, not simply show it can physically produce theories. Even if you showed that there was a place in the brain that manufactures ideas, it wouldn't solve the problem.

The problem comes from our apparent inability to influence the creation of these ideas/theories. It isn't even so much about whether or not the X is physical or non-physical. It's about whether we can control X or not. I argue that if we cannot control X, we cannot trust X to produce logical truth.

So you need to provide some reason as to why we can trust X to produce logical truths. Not simply show that X is inside the brain.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so your hypothetical soul might not be bound by physical restrictions, but the body and mind still are. So how does the soul compel the body to defy causality? I don't see this as being able to be reconciled. Either it is a causal entity, or it is impotent to affect the body/mind because the body and mind remain bound by the laws of reality.

You've still done nothing to explain how something, anything, happens that isn't deterministic. And in doing so, you're essentially claiming that choices happen that have no cause or reason whatsoever.

Also, there's no evidence for a soul whatsoever, etc. but you seem to be ignoring that. Your argument, as such, amounts to "well, magic, therefore not science."

Actually, whether or not we have a soul is irrelevant to the main point of whether or not we have free will. That's what's relevant to the debate at hand. Free will. Not whether we have a soul or not.

You made the claim that we do not have free will. I challenged it. So at this point it is up to you to reconcile the potential problem I posed, or concede that the point supporting premarital sex based off of our lack of free will is not viable.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
To solve the problem I posed you would need to show that X can produce logical theories, not simply show it can physically produce theories.

...

So you need to provide some reason as to why we can trust X to produce logical truths. Not simply show that X is inside the brain.

I'm not sure I understand... It isn't enough to show where all theories come from, I have to show that some of those theories fit with the universe?

Like, you realize I haven't claimed human perception leads to remarkably accurate understanding of the world. Surely it provides the best we have to go on in most cases, but by in large, I don't trust a lot of what individuals think about random things.

This is one of the advantages of science. It is not a single person, but many, not only at the experimental level (very few experiments are done with a team of a single individual), but also at the peer review and external replication levels as well. Single brains, sure, do not necessarily produce rational thought, but when many people with relevant expertise follow a self correcting method that is frequently improved upon, we can come to a very reliable, and demonstrably correct, understanding of the universe.

You want me to prove something, in this case, that I haven't argued for...

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure I understand... It isn't enough to show where all theories come from, I have to show that some of those theories fit with the universe?

Like, you realize I haven't claimed human perception leads to remarkably accurate understanding of the world. Surely it provides the best we have to go on in most cases, but by in large, I don't trust a lot of what individuals think about random things.

This is one of the advantages of science. It is not a single person, but many, not only at the experimental level (very few experiments are done with a team of a single individual), but also at the peer review and external replication levels as well. Single brains, sure, do not necessarily produce rational thought, but when many people with relevant expertise follow a self correcting method that is frequently improved upon, we can come to a very reliable, and demonstrably correct, understanding of the universe.

You want me to prove something, in this case, that I haven't argued for...

But that's the thing that has to be proven in order to rectify the problem I posed.

The problem doesn't go away by increasing the number of people working on it either. Because the problem would still exist in all of the theories and corrections they might make.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
But that's the thing that has to be proven in order to rectify the problem I posed.

The problem doesn't go away by increasing the number of people working on it either. Because the problem would still exist in all of the theories and corrections they might make.

I'm not really sure what to say...

this is sort of the point where, if you want there to be any conversation, you have to present something else.

All scientists admit what you have pointed out is a flaw. period. is the conversation over now or are you going to tell us what you think the answer is?

or in terms of the theory formation stuff, if the models I made aren't describing what you are talking about, can you do it? Like, would explaining how you come up with a "theory of how light switches work" be a both complex and accurate enough theory that people have? if not, why not, specifically. Tell me what is different between the theories you are talking about and that.

Digi

Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, whether or not we have a soul is irrelevant to the main point of whether or not we have free will. That's what's relevant to the debate at hand. Free will. Not whether we have a soul or not.

You made the claim that we do not have free will. I challenged it. So at this point it is up to you to reconcile the potential problem I posed, or concede that the point supporting premarital sex based off of our lack of free will is not viable.

Ok, so let's go through your progression.

Me: What's the alternative to determinism?
You: A soul (your verbatim response). Without which, free will isn't possible (paraphrased this time).
Me: Provide any reason to believe in a soul
You: A soul is irrelevant to the main point.

Feel free to jump through a few more logical hoops to justify this to yourself. Personally, smells like BS to me.

You're also creating a false dichotomy in your challenge to me, and shifting burden of proof improperly, and supposing there's only one justification for believing premarital sex is ok. Let me try to tackle them one at a time:

False Dichotomy and Reiteration of Justification
- The false dichotomy has to do with "either prove to me this or concede I'm right." Common sense informs us that there is often more than one reason to justify something, perhaps several. The fact that you are reverting to this suggests to me you're still approaching morality as a right/wrong world of absolutes, not a spectrum where we can apply broad rules to situations that have nothing in common. I've actually provided more than one in our long discussion, so it feels tiresome to reiterate. However...
- Setting aside free will/determinism for a moment, one could justify premarital sex on purely sociological grounds, as I as did earlier. I outlined several situations in which no harm ever comes of sex ("Sally and John have sex. They enjoy it. Horray for Sally and John!" wink

and your comeback was to try to paint premarital sex as an a priori bad act, when it is not. It's only bad when it's bad, and with proper caution and emotional preparedness, it's a good, loving, fun act. Your view of acts is very black and white, based on the concept of sin, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Nothing is inherently bad if it hurts no one, there is no ill intent, etc. You might as well say kissing before marriage is a sin because it has the potential to emotionally harm others, or give them mouth herpes or something. But you precious book says nothing about it, so you don't take a stand on it. This isn't an analogy - it's literally the exact same thing. But because your dogma creates an arbitrary line at vaginal insertion, you're against it.
- To me, your view is ****ing sick because it's needlessly damning. You can exercise and teach caution, care, love, etc. without creating guilt for acts that are harmless. I've seen people cry in guilt because they masturbate, I've seen people emotionally torture themselves because they engage in premarital acts that hurt no one except a mythical deity in the sky. Because, to them, it is wrong. You can argue that this is the wrong way to interpret it, but how do you expect people to react when their desires lead them one way, they can't see the rational harm in it, but their religion tells them they are wrong, God is displeased, there's a possibility of hell, etc. etc. It perpetuates needless guilt and suffering, and that you can't see that is tragic.

Dodging and Moving the Goalposts
- I'm still waiting on a reason to think we have a soul. Which, according to your own words, is what grants us free will.

Burden of Proof
- We can confirm the existence of a material, physical world, and know that it operates based on physical laws that govern the universe and its workings. We're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, and our bodies operate by the same physical laws. The burden of proof is upon you to provide the supernatural element by which we defy causality. Otherwise, you're just talking shit without the slightest justification.
- We know the physical processes of the mind can account for human behavior. We know that we actually make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them, that the physical processes of a decision and action are in motion prior to awareness of the decision, thus confirming that the physical underpinnings of life are all that is needed for us to function. Awareness is secondary - a byproduct - but not intrinsic to choices. These are facts that support my claim. What the hell do you have?

Your objection
- What you have is an objection to the way we form thoughts, not an objection to determinism itself. You haven't provided one iota of reason to suggest we aren't entirely causal, determined beings.
- You also haven't acknowledged that both inamilist and I provided the answer to your objection before you made it. Essentially what you're talking about is our subjective interpretation of reality, which means we can never know anything with 100% certainty. Yes, absolutely true. Because the objective truth of reality is filtered through our subjective perceptions and minds, whether determined or otherwise, we can't be 100% absolutely certain of anything. Religion, science, our own existence, nothing.
- The problems with that are two-fold, however, if you use it as a defense for religion. One, it applies equally to everyone, so if you want to use it to knock our theories - sorry, our facts - you must also concede that you yourself cannot know anything for certain, and that your own ideas are on equally tenuous ground (or more so, given lack of evidence).
- Second problem, in order to function in reality, we have to assume that we can at least approximate reality and how it works. So when we see a desk in front of us, we can be reasonably sure it exists, and we are viewing the universe in some truthful way. Determined or not, our perception of reality has to approximate reality unless you subscribe to some sort of philosophical anarchism. So, in a determined universe, we can still observe the universe as it exists, so when we test that universe, we can come up with how it works. It's literally how science works. Your questioning of our determinism might as well question the entire history of scientific progress. Like, if we don't have a grasp on at least some aspects of reality, how does the iPhone exist?
- Being determined doesn't invalidate our experiences, our perceptions, our knowledge. It's just the process by which the universe works.

...

Please, run that ice cream story through your head a few more times that I proposed earlier. If you can tell me why you don't pick vanilla every time, I'll be impressed. Why would the ball not fall? How can anything in existence not be causal? How can the universe include elements that defy its other laws? As it is, you would always pick vanilla, so...good luck.

I also want to say that I think I'm more moral because I don't blame, I don't judge, I don't consider anyone to be in sin. I work toward happiness and freedom without labels on actions or people. Some of that is true of you or most people, but the fact that you still exist in a polarized world of good and evil means you haven't entirely move past that type of thinking yet. If you want a slightly less abrasive take on this idea - since I know this conversation isn't all roses - check out some Taoist philosophy, which is essentially a deterministic philosophy (as is most Buddhism). It's where I first encountered this idea, before being introduced to it by more secular philosophers.

Arhael

Assuming a person got divorced and that pre-marital sex is not ok. What about both health and mental problems that develop due to not having sex?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not really sure what to say...

this is sort of the point where, if you want there to be any conversation, you have to present something else.

All scientists admit what you have pointed out is a flaw. period. is the conversation over now or are you going to tell us what you think the answer is?

or in terms of the theory formation stuff, if the models I made aren't describing what you are talking about, can you do it? Like, would explaining how you come up with a "theory of how light switches work" be a both complex and accurate enough theory that people have? if not, why not, specifically. Tell me what is different between the theories you are talking about and that.

That's the thing I've been trying to get across, though. It doesn't matter what I think is the answer. Digi provided an argument that was flawed. Meaning it cannot be used to support his stance until the flaw is rectified. Which was the whole point. The main point of the current topic is premarital sex. Not determinism. Determinism was used as a reason to support his side. So if determinism is shown to be a flawed line of reasoning, then what needs to be accomplished as far as the premarital sex debate is accomplished. This isn't a debate about determinism. What my stance on souls or free will is is irrelevant to the debate about premarital sex. If you want to debate free will/determinism/other possible explanations it belongs in another thread. It would ONLY be relevant if you wanted to make the claim "My stance is flawed, but since you aren't providing an alternative, it's right." Which is obviously not logically valid.

Originally posted by Digi
Ok, so let's go through your progression.

Me: What's the alternative to determinism?

And right there is where the problem is. My alternative is irrelevant. I shouldn't have even brought it up. The main topic is premarital sex. Not determinism. Determinism was one of YOUR points and I pointed to the fact that one of YOUR points was flawed. This isn't about my stance on a subject I didn't bring up. If I can show that Determinism is a flawed line of reasoning, then your support of premarital sex using determinism is no longer valid. That's as far as this topic on this specific debate needs to go.

Furthermore, even if I did supply a counter argument to determinism and it ended up being invalid, that doesn't fix the flaw in YOUR version, so in the end it still can't be used to support premarital sex.

Any way you look at it my alternative to determinism is irrelevant. You either have to rectify the flaw in your argument, or admit that the argument, and as such it's support of your side, is flawed.

Originally posted by Digi
False Dichotomy and Reiteration of Justification
- The false dichotomy has to do with "either prove to me this or concede I'm right."

With all due respect, this sounds like a better representation of your side.

"Prove to me your view of free will is right, or concede that determinism is right."

This is obviously a flawed line of reasoning. All I need to do as far as the premarital sex debate is concerned is your our support point is flawed. And I don't have to provide an alternative in order to do this. Once again, I don't need to prove that 2 + 3 = 5 in order to show that 2 + 3 = 7 is wrong.

Originally posted by Digi
Common sense informs us that there is often more than one reason to justify something, perhaps several. The fact that you are reverting to this suggests to me you're still approaching morality as a right/wrong world of absolutes, no t a spectrum where we can apply broad rules to situations that have nothing in common. I've actually provided more than one in our long discussion, so it feels tiresome to reiterate. However...
- Setting aside free will/determinism for a moment, one could justify premarital sex on purely sociological grounds, as I as did earlier. I outlined several situations in which no harm ever comes of sex ("Sally and John have sex. They enjoy it. Horray for Sally and John!" wink

and your comeback was to try to paint premarital sex as an a priori bad act, when it is not.

I already responded to this point, however. Just because you can create a hypothetical situation in which no harm would come of an action, doesn't make said action right. Furthermore, simply because there is a chance that an action won't hurt anyone doesn't mean the action is right either.

Does this fact thus show premarital sex is wrong? No. But it does show that premarital sex cannot be defended with this point. You will have to provide another reason supporting your side because the simple fact that it is possible to come out of an action with no one being hurt does not make the action good or even acceptable. It's acceptable or not based on other reasons.

Originally posted by Digi
It's only bad when it's bad, and with proper caution and emotional preparedness, it's a good, loving, fun act. Your view of acts is very black and white, based on the concept of sin, and does not hold up to scrutiny. Nothing is inherently bad if it hurts no one, there is no ill intent, etc. You might as well say kissing before marriage is a sin because it has the potential to emotionally harm others, or give them mouth herpes or something.

This is another point I have already responded to. I fully admit that the simple fact that harm is possible is not justification to consider the act wrong. In the same way, the simple fact that it might NOT cause harm is also not justification for considering it right. There are levels.

Originally posted by Digi
But you precious book says nothing about it, so you don't take a stand on it. This isn't an analogy - it's literally the exact same thing. But because your dogma creates an arbitrary line at vaginal insertion, you're against it.

- To me, your view is ****ing sick because it's needlessly damning

This is starting to sound more like a personal attack on me and my religion rather than a logical debate point. It doesn't help either side to be insulting or disrespectful, so I would appreciate if we could keep this debate civilized.

Originally posted by Digi
. You can exercise and teach caution, care, love, etc. without creating guilt for acts that are harmless. I've seen people cry in guilt because they masturbate, I've seen people emotionally torture themselves because they engage in premarital acts that hurt no one except a mythical deity in the sky.

Once again, I disagree that these acts hurt no one. Furthermore, if they torture themselves or react in this way then they need help. No one is saying people should emotionally torture themselves. Not you, not me, not the Bible.

Originally posted by Digi
Because, to them, it is wrong. You can argue that this is the wrong way to interpret it, but how do you expect people to react when their desires lead them one way, they can't see the rational harm in it, but their religion tells them they are wrong, God is displeased, there's a possibility of hell, etc. etc. It perpetuates needless guilt and suffering, and that you can't see that is tragic.

There is nothing wrong with feeling guilty. Furthermore, your asserting that this guilt is needless is assuming that premarital sex is okay. Which is the topic of this debate.

Originally posted by Digi
Dodging and Moving the Goalposts
- I'm still waiting on a reason to think we have a soul. Which, according to your own words, is what grants us free will.

And I still hold to the idea that this is irrelevant. I shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. The only thing I need to do concerning this specific debate is show that your defense point is flawed. Which I believe I have done.

Continued...

TacDavey

Continued...

Originally posted by Digi
Burden of Proof
- We can confirm the existence of a material, physical world, and know that it operates based on physical laws that govern the universe and its workings. We're made of the exact same stuff as the rest of the universe, and our bodies operate by the same physical laws. The burden of proof is upon you to provide the supernatural element by which we defy causality. Otherwise, you're just talking shit without the slightest justification.

I'm not the one who made the point about determinism. You are. You made the claim, so YOU back it up. I pointed to a flaw in determinism. It is up to YOU to rectify this flaw. If you cannot, then you must admit that determinism is a flawed line of reasoning, and as such cannot be used to defend premarital sex.

Originally posted by Digi
- We know the physical processes of the mind can account for human behavior. We know that we actually make decisions before we have conscious awareness of them, that the physical processes of a decision and action are in motion prior to awareness of the decision, thus confirming that the physical underpinnings of life are all that is needed for us to function. Awareness is secondary - a byproduct - but not intrinsic to choices. These are facts that support my claim. What the hell do you have?

I have a flaw in your reasoning. One that you have yet to rectify. Which is all I need.

Originally posted by Digi
Your objection
- What you have is an objection to the way we form thoughts, not an objection to determinism itself. You haven't provided one iota of reason to suggest we aren't entirely causal, determined beings.

In fact I have. I pointed to the fact that if we ARE we wouldn't be able to form logical theories or truths. If you are willing to accept this, then you would have to, at the same time, accept that the idea that we are causal, determined beings is itself not a logical theory. It's just a predetermined theory. One of many, in fact.

Originally posted by Digi
- You also haven't acknowledged that both inamilist and I provided the answer to your objection before you made it. Essentially what you're talking about is our subjective interpretation of reality, which means we can never know anything with 100% certainty. Yes, absolutely true. Because the objective truth of reality is filtered through our subjective perceptions and minds, whether determined or otherwise, we can't be 100% absolutely certain of anything. Religion, science, our own existence, nothing.
- The problems with that are two-fold, however, if you use it as a defense for religion. One, it applies equally to everyone, so if you want to use it to knock our theories - sorry, our facts - you must also concede that you yourself cannot know anything for certain, and that your own ideas are on equally tenuous ground (or more so, given lack of evidence).

This would only be true if I accepted that determinism was true. Which I have made very clear that I do not.

Originally posted by Digi
- Second problem, in order to function in reality, we have to assume that we can at least approximate reality and how it works. So when we see a desk in front of us, we can be reasonably sure it exists, and we are viewing the universe in some truthful way. Determined or not, our perception of reality has to approximate reality unless you subscribe to some sort of philosophical anarchism. So, in a determined universe, we can still observe the universe as it exists, so when we test that universe, we can come up with how it works. It's literally how science works. Your questioning of our determinism might as well question the entire history of scientific progress. Like, if we don't have a grasp on at least some aspects of reality, how does the iPhone exist?

We don't have to know logical truths about the universe to function in it. We have to know SOME things, sure. Like a desk being in front of you, or that fire is hot. This doesn't apply to everything, though, or even most things, because if it did, there would be a lot of people who could not function in reality considering how many different ideas and theories that exist in the world.

Originally posted by Digi
- Being determined doesn't invalidate our experiences, our perceptions, our knowledge. It's just the process by which the universe works.

It doesn't invalidate our experiences. It does, however, invalidate our theories, as I have pointed out.

Originally posted by Digi
Please, run that ice cream story through your head a few more times that I proposed earlier. If you can tell me why you don't pick vanilla every time, I'll be impressed.

It's not about what you would do, it's about what's possible to do. If you like vanilla and not chocolate then you'll probably always pick vanilla. You claim that vanilla is the only choice POSSIBLE to make. I disagree.

Originally posted by Digi
Why would the ball not fall?

It would always fall because of gravity. This doesn't prove anything, though, because I reject the idea that a ball reacting to gravity is the same as a person's conscious mind.

Originally posted by Digi
How can anything in existence not be causal?

I suppose, in a sense, you could say it still is causal if you consider free will to be a cause. An uncaused cause is not a logical contradiction.

Originally posted by Digi
How can the universe include elements that defy its other laws?

I don't think it does.

Originally posted by Digi
I also want to say that I think I'm more moral because I don't blame, I don't judge, I don't consider anyone to be in sin.

This isn't a "who is more moral" debate. Saying something like this seems to hold no other purpose that putting me down and lifting you up. We should stick to the debate at hand instead of going down the "I'm better than you" road.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's the thing I've been trying to get across, though. It doesn't matter what I think is the answer. Digi provided an argument that was flawed. Meaning it cannot be used to support his stance until the flaw is rectified. Which was the whole point. The main point of the current topic is premarital sex. Not determinism. Determinism was used as a reason to support his side. So if determinism is shown to be a flawed line of reasoning, then what needs to be accomplished as far as the premarital sex debate is accomplished. This isn't a debate about determinism. What my stance on souls or free will is is irrelevant to the debate about premarital sex. If you want to debate free will/determinism/other possible explanations it belongs in another thread. It would ONLY be relevant if you wanted to make the claim "My stance is flawed, but since you aren't providing an alternative, it's right." Which is obviously not logically valid.

would you participate in such a thread?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
would you participate in such a thread?

Sure. If you want I'll add my 2 cents to the thread.

Ascendancy

As to pre-marital sex:

Countries like the U.S. that have reverted to as a whole to teaching only abstinence and ignoring proper sex education have higher teen and unwanted pregnancy rates and much higher rates of STDs.

Countries that have proper sexual education, have open lines of communication between parents and children, and do not beat the idea into people that sex is an evil, dirty thing have much lower accidental pregnancy rates, lower STD rates, and lower incidences of sexual assaults.

It is clear that humans have a propensity toward sexual desire once they become sexually mature. What is wrong is not being honest about this. If people are taught that one, sexual desire is natural and healthy, and two, that no one has ever died from not having an orgasm and that there is nothing wrong with deciding to wait to have sex because there are pretty powerful attachments that come along with it then certainly we'd have a healthier society as a whole.

Right and wrong are a matter of morality. Sexual drive is a matter of biology and people should be given the facts to make intelligent decisions and the support of those around them.

In regards to religion's stance on this it depends entirely on the religion, no?

Bat Dude

Originally posted by Ascendancy
As to pre-marital sex:

Countries like the U.S. that have reverted to as a whole to teaching only abstinence and ignoring proper sex education have higher teen and unwanted pregnancy rates and much higher rates of STDs.

Countries that have proper sexual education, have open lines of communication between parents and children, and do not beat the idea into people that sex is an evil, dirty thing have much lower accidental pregnancy rates, lower STD rates, and lower incidences of sexual assaults.

It is clear that humans have a propensity toward sexual desire once they become sexually mature. What is wrong is not being honest about this. If people are taught that one, sexual desire is natural and healthy, and two, that no one has ever died from not having an orgasm and that there is nothing wrong with deciding to wait to have sex because there are pretty powerful attachments that come along with it then certainly we'd have a healthier society as a whole.

Right and wrong are a matter of morality. Sexual drive is a matter of biology and people should be given the facts to make intelligent decisions and the support of those around them.

In regards to religion's stance on this it depends entirely on the religion, no?

America hasn't "as a whole", as you say, "reverted" to teaching abstinence. I remember being in school (graduated high school last year) and they NEVER taught abstinence. It was always "use a condom", "use birth control", "be safe", etc.

I think if people could control themselves and keep their hands off each other for more than a couple minutes there would be less unexpected pregnancy and less STDs.

As a Christian, of course I believe that sex is meant for a man and woman in marriage. There wouldn't be such emotional attachments involved in sex if that weren't the case.

If you want to know why there are STDs and teen pregnancy and etc., look no further than the media. Casual sex is glorified in tv shows, music and movies. When the media stops pushing sex in everything they put out, we'll see a difference in the pregnancy and STD rates. Sadly, that's NEVER gonna happen.

Ascendancy

Yes, your high school reflects the entire nation. Most people attend public, not private institutions and part of the last administration's actions were to push abstinence and not true sex education. I have to say that the saddest thing is that it is most often Christians who spout the "if people just had self-control" mess. If people had proper sex education they would have an understanding of healthy sexuality and that is something that is not given at most schools. Most religions fail to speak to people as humans. They simply say, "don't do this, don't do that" instead of remembering that people actually have thoughts and emotion that need to be understood.

Glad to see that your religion puts you in the right though and that your high school experience speaks to that of the entire country. Whatever was I thinking looking at the facts?

Arhael

Blaming schools for not giving sex education, when it is parent's primary role. Careless parents are the main problems. Children are thought morals from parents on first place. And if parents don't teach morals, no school will help.

Ascendancy

Well, fact is a lot of parents can't be there to reinforce everything. Some parents work multiple jobs just to get by because they are in single parent homes. They do what they can, but regardless the extra push given by a multi-part sex education class in schools works. You hear something enough it starts to stick. Besides that no matter how close a parental relationship is most kids still have some discomfort discussing sexuality with their parents. Having someone giving a well-developed sex education program is nothing but a positive.

Let's also not forget the fact that some parents refuse to discuss it because of their beliefs. Should kids go unprepared because their parents won't broach the discussion with them? The rate of STDs and STIs in the U.S. is ridiculous and something needs to change. I'm not blaming schools, I'm blaming those who pushed sex education out of schools.

Ascendancy

Watching a special on AIDS and HIV and one thing that happened to come up is a number of states that still mandate an "Abstinence Only" sex education policy. Just sad considering that the information is available but not allowed to be taught.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Watching a special on AIDS and HIV and one thing that happened to come up is a number of states that still mandate an "Abstinence Only" sex education policy. Just sad considering that the information is available but not allowed to be taught.

hmm Obviously the issue is that Christian are weak willed.

Arhael

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm Obviously the issue is that Christian are weak willed.
Or simply see life whole different way...

Lord Lucien

Nope, they're weak-ass queers.

Ascendancy

http://i.qkme.me/3pcgqh.jpg

atv2

No it's never ok. We are to flee from fornication. The way things are going we are programmed to seeing this as the "REALITY" just as making gay marriage ok.

Digi

Forgot about my conversation with Tac on determinism earlier in this thread. Still boggles my mind how people cling to magical versions of free will that defy causality. We have far too high an estimation of ourselves in relation to the rest of the universe.

Clearly he wasn't convinced at my defense of determinism, but I rather think any burden of proof is on those who would suppose something outside material reality.

It's a flaw in my debating, both written and in person, that I tend to take the defensive on issues where I'm not the one making the burdened claim, allowing my opponent to make demands without being forced to similarly justify his/her position. I have yet to correct this, and it frustrates me.

Originally posted by atv2
No it's never ok. We are to flee from fornication. The way things are going we are programmed to seeing this as the "REALITY" just as making gay marriage ok.

This barely makes sense. We're programmed how? To see what as reality? And how does any of this tie into gay marriage?

immaturerainbow

I'm not the most religious person. I do believe there is a higher powers, yes.

I believe sex is right when you are ready. It's your choice when you are ready. I wish I would have waited until I met the current guy I'm with because now I'm having sex with someone I love and not someone I'm sexually attractive to.

Digi

Originally posted by immaturerainbow
I'm not the most religious person. I do believe there is a higher powers, yes.

I believe sex is right when you are ready. It's your choice when you are ready. I wish I would have waited until I met the current guy I'm with because now I'm having sex with someone I love and not someone I'm sexually attractive to.

You're not sexually attractive to him?!

Jk, of course, that last sentence of yours is just awkwardly worded. wink

BlackZero30x

Originally posted by Digi
This barely makes sense. We're programmed how? To see what as reality? And how does any of this tie into gay marriage?

I don't mean to step into someones post but I think he means biologically programmed to reproduce. As for the gay marriage tie the only thing I can think of is someone that is gay would be wired differently biologically then someone that is straight.....at least as far as reproduction goes that is.

EDIT: thats the only thing I could determine from it.

immaturerainbow

Originally posted by Digi
You're not sexually attractive to him?!

Jk, of course, that last sentence of yours is just awkwardly worded. wink

This is the stance of most religious people though. And it's pretty uncontroversial. I'd go one step further and say that it doesn't require love to be "right." To me, sexual chemistry is part of a relationship, and can invigorate people or cause a relationship to stagnate. Obviously there's other factors, and more important ones, in relationships, that determine whether or not you're good together. But sex is still a significant part.

So, like, if I have no sexual chemistry with a girl, I want to find out. Not right away, but pretty early in the relationship. Probably before I'm "in love" (though it depends on the situation). It's a relevant point to spending your life with someone, or even committing to them for a significant period of time. And it's also healthy - burnt calories, mood enhancement, etc. - when done responsibly.

To put this into practice, I'd probably regret a one-night stand or helping someone cheat, but wouldn't regret having sex on one of the first few dates with a girl that I'm really interested in. Mind you, I wouldn't think the one-night stand is morally wrong (the cheating becomes murkier) but I'd personally regret it because I know it can be more.

Curse my way with words.. But yes, I am very sexually attracted to him. We didn't wait a month to sleep together as bad as it sounds, but it didn't ruin our relationship as some people often says it does.

I do regret sleeping around like I did. I really wish I could take the majority of the men I have slept with back. Not because I wish Ryan was my first, but because sex with them really wasn't enjoyable. I was just pressured into doing something I honestly did not want to do, but didn't have the guts to turn them down.

Digi

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I don't mean to step into someones post but I think he means biologically programmed to reproduce. As for the gay marriage tie the only thing I can think of is someone that is gay would be wired differently biologically then someone that is straight.....at least as far as reproduction goes that is.

EDIT: thats the only thing I could determine from it.

Eh, maybe. But I don't concern myself with trying to decipher ambiguous posts that are poorly explained. If the poster wants us to respond to his points, he needs to elucidate them better.

Digi

Originally posted by immaturerainbow
Curse my way with words.. But yes, I am very sexually attracted to him. We didn't wait a month to sleep together as bad as it sounds, but it didn't ruin our relationship as some people often says it does.

I do regret sleeping around like I did. I really wish I could take the majority of the men I have slept with back. Not because I wish Ryan was my first, but because sex with them really wasn't enjoyable. I was just pressured into doing something I honestly did not want to do, but didn't have the guts to turn them down.

This is a completely reasonable position. You did nothing wrong, imo, but would take back some of the actions, which is understandable.

I'm glad you're with a "right" guy now, btw. Cheers.

thumb up

Peach

Why did I just read through this entire thread.

The part that bugs me about the "premarital sex is bad because of unwanted babies" thing...people who make that argument seem to forget one very important fact. There are unwanted pregnancies within marriages, as well. Not every married couple is ready to have children at every point in their marriage. Maybe they don't want kids now, or maybe they don't want them at all, but just because someone's married doesn't mean the "okay time for babies!" switch has flipped to "ON".

Also divorce is not necessarily a bad thing. Yes, if there are kids involved, it can be stressful and harmful to them. However, want to know what's more stressful and harmful to a kid? Watching their parents try and stay together for the child's sake when they really should not be together.

There's also the fact that sex is a large part of relationships. It's going to happen, likely frequently. Why would anyone want to decide to spend their life with someone without first finding out if they're sexually compatible or not? It's not even so much a thing like "so-and-so is bad at sex", but rather "so-and-so has completely different sexual likes and dislikes than I do". Having sex with someone should be fun and enjoyable. But if two people aren't compatible it can turn into a chore, where it's just frustrating because someone's needs aren't going to be fulfilled, and that sort of thing can eventually lead to resentment within the relationship.

Premarital sex is not necessarily a bad thing. The lack of sex ed, as well as the flat-out lies fed to people and the guilt brought on by the idea that all premarital sex is bad, however, is. And that sort of attitude can be very detrimental to relationships.