The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Arhael
It was their twisted opinion and, while for them it is common sense, for majority it is nonsense and atrocity. The simple truth is that, if person is evil by nature, he will be evil no matter what the believes are.

Here is one of examples with common scenario.
Boy and girl start dating each other. Their bond becomes so strong that they can't leave without each other and bless god for finding each other.
He happened to be jewish, she - muslim. I think there is no need to list all the possible consequences.
But aren't they both human? Aren't they both beings of the god? Why can't they be happy like everyone else? [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're still not grasping. I don't choose to believe in God because it makes me all warm and fuzzy. I believe in God based on things I've experienced, mixed with very convincing Judaic arguments. Do I know God exists? Absolutely not. Do I think I'm right? For me and nobody else. I don't need to defend religion because it's not for everybody. Not every has the same experiences or the same kind of knowledge. Most people are ignorant and close minded, whether religious people or atheists. I'm not sure how you can say my beliefs are comforting to me. To state that implies I choose something based on comfort level, an argument I've addressed above.

You look to a higher power for answers over mortals, you said? Your (frankly understandable) disdain for humans has turned your proverbial gaze Godward. Such a faith in humans is impossible for you. Faith in your god is not. To pick one would be less satisfactory than the other. You've settled on the one that pleases your desires most. Fellow mortals or immaterial deity? I admit, it's an attractive choice.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What I believe doesn't please me because I believe it based on what I perceive to be certain facts or at least, damning evidence. I don't "choose" to maintain my belief in god, it just is. If there was damning evidence that God didn't exist, I would accept that evidence all the same, so there's no need to rationalize anything. None of what you said has the least bit of accuracy to it. I think you made one generalized argument and stuck with it.

It's been tough to convey in to text. To get across that what I'm describing as "satisfaction" and "pleasure" isn't the same kind of sensation that I would use, say, the word... "gratification" for. It's not a conscious, acknowledged sensation. I've been trying to describe the subtle side to indulging one's endless list of preferences. The quiet, enigmatic feeling you don't actively recognize. I know I never have. I've only ever identified it ex post facto, sometimes as soon as mere seconds afterward, even if at that second it's been replaced by regret. It's that permeating sense of contentment that the conclusions you've come to are the sensible conclusions. The logical conclusions. The realistic conclusions. It's not the overwhelming joy of physical sensations; it's that quiet, stealthy joy that you've reached an appropriate and fulfilling paradigm.

You have. So have I. I've been describing a piece of it to you. For me it reeks of cynicism and hopelessness, but depressing as it is, I can't shake the feeling of whisper-quiet contentment and satisfaction that I've "figured my world out". Modestly I admit that I probably haven't, but my admission and modesty soothe my ego and assure me that I've concluded the right thing. And doing that pleases me.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
This is ideally my point when you start talking about entrusting humans with morals and common sense.

They can. Depends how devout they are to their religion. I will counter that example by pointing out that if both parties were devoted to their religion, even in the most basic sense, they wouldn't have even started dating outside of their religion. I wasn't ever remotely religious until this year and I've never in my life considered marrying outside the faith.

Yes, if they are devoted, they would not start dating. However, it doesn't protect them from having feelings for each other. Love is an accident. Their devotion will prevent them from dating. However, the worth thing that might happen is that they won't be able to love anyone else after. Happiness replaced by rationality, love replaced by planning.

I've been trying to describe the subtle side to indulging one's endless list of preferences.

DS, people do things because they think it is the best option. If you choose Subway over Jimmy Johns, it is because you would be more pleased ("experience more utility"😉 by eating at Subway.

By definition, the decision that you make is the one that you thought, at the moment of action, would be the least-bad.

[quote]DS, people do things because they think it is the best option. If you choose Subway over Jimmy Johns, it is because you would be more pleased ("experience more utility"😉 by eating at Subway.

By definition, the decision that you make is the one that you thought, at the moment of action, would be the least-bad.

[/quote
I don't know what people you're referring to because people often make the bad/stupid choice. Are you saying the choice that pleases people makes it the right choice for them? If I go on a MCDs binge because I crave the Quarter Pounder with cheese more than anal sex, I made the right choice although while temporarily pleasing, I am killing my body?

People crave short-term satisfaction. A five year old child would rather have some candy now, than think what they will want twenty years further on in their life.

What annoys me the most, is that people base their morals on what is in these holy teachings. You don't need a book or scripture to teach you morals, you can gain them quite easily without those teachings.

What annoys me the most, is that people base their morals on what is in these holy teachings. You don't need a book or scripture to teach you morals, you can gain them quite easily without those teachings. [/B]

Really? Perhaps we should look at the barbarianism of various cultures before monotheism came about? You're Monday Morning quarterbacking after thousands of years of data. And your point becomes moot when you realize how the entire German nation followed the insanity of one man and his genocidal campaign.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

DS, people do things because they think it is the best option. If you choose Subway over Jimmy Johns, it is because you would be more pleased ("experience more utility"😉 by eating at Subway.

By definition, the decision that you make is the one that you thought, at the moment of action, would be the least-bad.

I don't know what people you're referring to because people often make the bad/stupid choice. Are you saying the choice that pleases people makes it the right choice for them? If I go on a MCDs binge because I crave the Quarter Pounder with cheese more than anal sex, I made the right choice although while temporarily pleasing, I am killing my body?

Given that you chose the quarter pounder, we can conclude that you thought at the moment of decision that the burger would be more pleasurable than the sex. This says nothing about the appropriateness of the decision, or the long-term consequences. At 8:22 your brain preferred burgers to anal sex.

That is a value-neutral statement.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Really? Perhaps we should look at the barbarianism of various cultures before monotheism came about? You're Monday Morning quarterbacking after thousands of years of data. And your point becomes moot when you realize how the entire German nation followed the insanity of one man and his genocidal campaign.

Originally posted by Zampanó
We've been over this; the argument that morals are divinely inspired is vacuous because
[list][*]We see moral heathens
[*]There are practices we find morally abhorrent endorsed by biblical passages
[list=1][*](like slavery)[/list]
[*]Even today, some allegedly divine systems proscribe awful destructive tortuous rituals
[list=1][*](Female Circumcision)
[*](regular circumcision, too)[/list][/list]

I didn't say morals that are divinely inspired are necessarily better, but its what I would prefer to humans deciding what's common sense and what isn't. Furthermore, you'll have to elaborate on those specific examples you just gave. Specifically, female circumcision and in what "bible" that's stated.

Hey nerds!? Would this actually work?

Water would eventually evaporate away without a constant source of replenishment (I.E. oceans, mountain ice, etc).

That's the first thing that comes to mind. I'm sure there's some other, more dweeb answer. Zamp will know it.

So all we'd need for infinite energy is a tap (and a portal gun).

mmm

Science here I come! To the Trollcave!

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Really? Perhaps we should look at the barbarianism of various cultures before monotheism came about? You're Monday Morning quarterbacking after thousands of years of data. And your point becomes moot when you realize how the entire German nation followed the insanity of one man and his genocidal campaign.

And yet the Jews wiped out the babylonians because it was their 'chosen land'. Christians slaugtered Muslims in the Crusades for 'holy land'. Islamic extremists justify suicide bombings due to religious Jihad.

It doesn't exactly make Religion better at deciding morals. We're humans. They used justification from holy teachings. I'd rather look at the world and decide that killing is wrong myself, than base it on what a book tells me to think.

I would rather believe in an invisible pink unicorn, which is just as likely to exist as God is.

Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
And yet the Jews wiped out the babylonians because it was their 'chosen land'. Christians slaugtered Muslims in the Crusades for 'holy land'. Islamic extremists justify suicide bombings due to religious Jihad.

It doesn't exactly make Religion better at deciding morals. We're humans. They used justification from holy teachings. I'd rather look at the world and decide that killing is wrong myself, than base it on what a book tells me to think.

I would rather believe in an invisible pink unicorn, which is just as likely to exist as God is. [/B]

Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
And yet the Jews wiped out the babylonians because it was their 'chosen land'. Christians slaugtered Muslims in the Crusades for 'holy land'. Islamic extremists justify suicide bombings due to religious Jihad.

It doesn't exactly make Religion better at deciding morals. We're humans. They used justification from holy teachings. I'd rather look at the world and decide that killing is wrong myself, than base it on what a book tells me to think.

I would rather believe in an invisible pink unicorn, which is just as likely to exist as God is.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I believe in a pink and a blue unicorn. They're magical sociopaths.

A blue and pink invisible unicorn.. Damn. Sounds badass

Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
I would rather believe in an invisible pink unicorn, which is just as likely to exist as God is.

"Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing" -Psalm 139:16

^^ DNA?

Aren't DNA a set of codes/information that make up who we are as individuals? It seems very likely that our codes were writting by an intelligent source (God) rather than by an unitelligent source. If I went to a remote island and seen "Sidious66" carved on a stone, I wouldn't assume that the information got there by accident. Same way with DNA, I do not believe it happened to write itself, which is why I believe in a creator

If you do not believe in God then that is your choice and right. You probably have reasons why you don't believe in him, just like others, such as myself, have reasons why they do believe in him. But when you compare one's belief in God to believing in a invisible pink unicorn, you come off as insulting.

Surprisingly, I agree. If we could not start insulting religion that would be great.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I didn't say morals that are divinely inspired are necessarily better, but its what I would prefer to humans deciding what's common sense and what isn't.

Furthermore, you'll have to elaborate on those specific examples you just gave. Specifically, female circumcision and in what "bible" that's stated.

What is female genital mutilation, you ask? It's exactly what you're thinking of:

The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.[4] Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.[5] Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it.

Why is it done?

The practise is carried out by some communities who believe it reduces a woman's libido.

FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.[1]

This is not a core tenant of a mainstream belief system. I am not saying that many monotheistic believers will support the practice. Notably, Judaism prohibits female circumcision. However, this is done in the name of religion still today. This issue cured me of cultural relativism; it is barbaric and wrong. People who practice this are doing real lasting harm to the children they are mutilating.

I would argue that any divinely inspired code of conduct would include some measure of protection against cauterization of the body "made in its image."

(A more damning indictment of morality found within the Old Testament, specifically, is that it endorses or dictates slavery in many different places, while our own sense of morality is disgusted by the idea of slavery at all.

Christopher Hitchens has a detailed examination of the Israelites treatment of the Caananites but I can't remember the details and refuse to get references for an online debate anymore.)