(That’s not to say that there aren’t atheists who will make a passionate defense of a moral system that they claim is both objective and secular.  I don’t happen to believe that their positions are logically coherent...)
- nowiser

My value system is secular, but I wouldn’t claim it’s objective.  I do everything out of pure self-interest.  I like the idea of living in a world of people who treat one another well - it sounds like a good place to live.  That’s my standard of “good.” Moreso I would like my offspring to live in such a world.  It’s an abstract satisfaction, sure, but I would not claim it is altruistic.

Logically I cannot expect to live in such a world and go kicking other people in the head all the time.  Nor would that engender that kind of world for my children.  Hence, paddling in the general direction I went the boat to go.

Thrival -

Let’s clear up at least one misconception here so we can move the arguement/discussion onto new ground, okay?

As you have quoted over and over, at some point nowiser said:

“Pederasty, murder, incest, rape, none of these things are --inherently-- bad.�

...and you’ve been beating your head againsty the wall trying to figure it out ever since. In simple terms, he’s not talking about the same thing you are. You are trying to assign a morasl value to the act, nowiser is pointing out that humans define moral values. When he says there is notrhing inherently bad about them, he means that they are bad because we, as a society and a race, have decided they are bad. Nature (or God) didn’t make that decision. Murder, for instance, has no meaning to wolves or bears or alligators. It is a concept that we invented and defined. As a society we have come to the conclusion that to harm others is a bad thing for society as a whole and is such deemed “bad” or “immoral”. God has absolutely nothing to do with the equation.

thrival,

Swine: you need to have a chat with BF Skinner. It’s always been about rewards and punishments. Idealism, freedom and the virtues all hail from another place. Humans don’t have enough brains to invent them.

I know some modern behaviourists, and eliminative materialists such as the Churchlands.  Though they dismiss the notion that we can talk about “minds” independent of behaviour they don’t dismiss that there are behaviours that aren’t responses to rewards and punishment.  They grant that classical conditioning is a strong learning mechanism, but they don’t dismiss operant learning, and other mechanisms that don’t necessarily require reward or punishment. 

It’s odd that people who dismiss the notion of mind are willing to accept that learning occurs without sticks and carrots, while you who is a proponent of the soul (which can be simply described as the mind plus) would dismiss a more robust notion of behavioural acquisition.

Neither do I find your so-called scientific evidence to be unbiased.

And how is that?  Why is it biased?  I’ll give you that humans cannot do anything without bias.  But science is, by and large, an honest endeavor, even in spite of the quacks out there.  Scientists try as hard as they can to remove their own biases and even then they note their biases in a self-critical manner.  Religion, on the other hand, is made of fairy tales.  It is nothing but pure bias, with no criticism.  When people try to criticize, there’s no way to support a rebuttal anyway, because there’s no evidence that every single person in the world, regardless of language, nationality, descent, paradigm can observe.  That is why I choose the path of genuine trying.  It’s why I gave up the unquestionable god in favor of an honest approach.  I don’t know any more than you do whether or not there is a god, and I’m owning up to that.  But I’m not gonna waste my time worshipping a god when I have no idea what the right way to worship him might be, or if he even exists to begin with.  I’ll focus on what I see and experience, and with that I must be content.  It’s all that’s available to me.

...although none of your friends seem to object in any but a token way, except Shana, who likes to point the finger at me for pointing out your inconsistencies.

I only point because I care.  And because I think inherent morality is a load of hooey.  Inherent anything, really--the supposition of inherent dignity is a major flaw in the United Declaration of Human Rights.  (But I like human rights in and of themselves.)

(warning: gratuitous lovefest below)
----------
DoF, you’re killing me with the tree. That was super cool. GM, as always, you find the most obvious mistake in our arguments.  I love SEB!  Hug you, too, Brock!  Awwwww!

I don’t know any more than you do whether or not there is a god, and I’m owning up to that.  But I’m not gonna waste my time worshipping a god when I have no idea what the right way to worship him might be, or if he even exists to begin with.

It is very refreshing to hear such a logical point of view.

PS. I can’t keep up with this thread but it’s been very entertaining!
PPS. Hugs and diapers for everyone!

It’s odd that people who dismiss the notion of mind are willing to accept that learning occurs without sticks and carrots. . .
--SocSwine

I always wondered about that.  I find Skinner’s theories spookily fascinating.  Especially the studies about “shaping” complex behaviors by reinforcing approximations of the desired behavior.

I’m not sure that mind, or “I” is anything more than an -effect- of numerous physical processes.  And abstract thought and emotions may not -seem- to be conditioned, because they can’t be simplified down to immediate and specific behaviors that follow immediate and specific reinforcers, but isn’t it possible that even these incredibly sophisticated behaviors and affective responses are actually just ‘shaped’ by various reinforcers? 

I mean, how likely would we be to engage with Thrival, et al, if we didn’t receive some kind of affective reinforcement for it-- a little glow when we ‘perform well,’ a textual nod of acknowledgment when we understand what someone else has written. . .

The behaviorists have what seems to be a fairly grim view of consciousness, but I can’t say that I entirely reject it.  In many ways, it has explanatory power.

I don’t know what it is about this thread that’s got me de-lurking, but I just want to add my 2¢ to this discussion about good and bad as a social construct - not that I have much hope that Thrival will get it, but still - here goes.

The following statements assume that no anal or vaginal penetration is performed, basically that the child suffers no physical damage during the hypothetical situations.

The western/occidental child who becomes a victim of a pedophile will most likely suffer from a number of mental setbacks combined with the possible physical damage. I may be wrong, but my impression is that most pedophile attacks primarily consists of having the child stroke (and possibly fellate) the adult, and actual vaginal/anal penetration is mostly confined to violent rape situations, such as an attack outside of a known situation or location.
The mental scarring will occur from such as the following (I’m assuming a known assailant here - violent rape as mentioned above adds the physical damage to all of this):

1. Guilt - This may actually be the biggest of them all, because these adult predators seem to be very skilled in passing the blame onto the victim. This may be intentional and used to silence the child, or it may be implied by actions or words from the pedophile (I believe it can be similar to the feelings of divorce children, that they are to blame for their parents breakup). The guilt may also be increased if the attacks should be discovered and the attacker jailed/punished by law.
2. Keeping secrets - Closely related to the guilt issue, the pedophile either actively threatens the child with harm (physical or otherwise), or implies that it will be better if noone was to discover “their little secret”. And keeping things locked up in this way can lead to social difficulties and suspicion against others in later stages of life.
3. General confusion and disorientation - The child (depending on age) is probably unaware of exactly what is happening and why, but only that it feels wrong and/or unpleasant.

With a male child and a male attacker, there could arise problems such as gender confusion and insecurity about own sexuality later in life - and please note that this is not meant to be construed as an “explanation” for homosexuality. Of course the same confusion may arise when the child and adult are of different gender too, but I’d believe it to be more common when they are of the same gender.

If we now look to the pacific island boy who does NOT experience sex with an adult an entirely other set of problems may arise.
He and the society cannot see him as a complete and mature adult, since he’s been missing out on the essentials needed to become a man.
This could lead to the child being excluded from his society, not getting a wife etc.
He might even experience lesser growth and slower transition to his adulthood due to his own expectations of what’s supposed to happen - or rather not happen. Somewhat similar to the african tribesman who’s living happily until the day he learns that the medicine man has cast a curse on him, then he crawls into his hut and dies - a sort of psychosymatic reaction.

All of this means basically that pedophilia towards the occidental child is unnecessary and cruel i.e. BAD, while pedophilia towards the pacific island boy is necessary for his passage into manhood and acceptance in society i.e. GOOD. All a matter of frame of reference - or values as social constructs instead of universal absolutes.

P.S. I know I missed some points I’d wanted to make here, but most of this was formulated while on the bus without writing utensils.

P.P.S. English is not my first language, so if I’m unclear on something, please do not hesitate to call me on it.

Hi Laage!  Good for you for unlurking! 

Let me say, first, for somebody who’s using English as a second language, you’re remarkably coherent.  Actually, let me amend that.  Even if your first language was English, I’d consider you remarkable coherent.

Your assessment also seems pretty accurate (at least to me).  I think that I might add a few other negative impacts to your first list, like social stigmatization of the victim; ie: the victim, upon growing older, may realize “holy crap, Uncle George was a total perv.  What a jerk, I can’t believe he did that to me.” The victim then gets on with his/her life, perhaps with a slightly less trusting attitude toward people, but otherwise comparatively psychologically healthy.

Then they share their experience with a friend or family member who begins insisting that the victim must be incredibly ‘damaged’ by their experience, that they must have nightmares, severe and persistent anxiety, etc.

So what does the victim do at that point?  Feel guilty for not being sufficiently traumatized?  I mean, if they’re not totally wrecked, does it mean that they ‘liked’ it?  That they were ‘asking’ for it, or that there’s something ‘wrong’ with them?

We have a remarkable capacity, in this society, for nurturing someone into extreme sickness.

But that’s just my two cents.

It’s also interesting to note that there are societies that engage in ritual tatooing, as part of the initiation into adulthood, and that the process is always quite painful, and sometimes lethal.

To someone who is completely ‘outside’ of the particular culture, such rituals probably look very much like the sadistic torture of children.

Again, welcome to SEB.

Hi Laage,
I agree with nowiser; well said.
Welcome and don’t be shy!

Welcome, Laage--great comment, and well spoken!
More of the delurking, please!

Thank you for the warm welcome all.

One of the points I’d missed in the first case scenario is also one of the most obvious: Feelings of betrayal, the entire idea that the adults are supposed to know better, but still chooses to do harm - or an altogether too common occurrence where pedophilia and incest is combined that there are adults in the vicinity who chooses NOT to interfere, either due to fear of social stigma if such shameful things should be brought to light, or just plain fear of the assailant.

All of these issues are of course so closely bound to one another that it’s hard to extricate one from the other.

Dang, I’d really like an edit button here…

I’d just like to add that I agree with you Nowiser, but I think that in many cases you can skip the friend or family member entirely.
Consider the victim you mentioned, growing older and coming to terms with his/her experience - then, all of a sudden, here’s Oprah or Dr. Phil speaking of pedophilia and the immense damage it does to the victims, add to that an article or two in a popular magazine. Then it’s easy to start to wonder, “What’s wrong with me, why am I not feeling scarred and violated? Did I actually enjoy this experience and/or bring it upon myself?â€?

Mental health has become such a hot topic that it’s difficult to have a rational discussion about it, exactly because of the modern idea of the egg-shell fragile mind.

I’d say that “Just deal with it!â€? is a cruel and insensitive response in a number of cases, but in a lot of other cases the compassionately framed equivalent may actually be more appropriate than years of therapy and administered psychopharmaceuticals.

And speaking of painful rites of initiation, it has it value in societies where there’s no such thing as adolescence but only the immediate transition from child to adult. It shows the community at large that the new adult has both the physical and mental strength to fend for himself - I’ve only heard of such rites in association with males – so I’m making a lazy assumption (i.e. not googling it) that it’s primarily a male phenomenon, though a case could be made for equal rites for females considering the painful process of childbirth.

Mental health has become such a hot topic that it’s difficult to have a rational discussion about it, exactly because of the modern idea of the egg-shell fragile mind.
- Laage

I knew that Laage was trouble the moment he showed up

Recently I saw an article about villagers in Aceh who were telling “Post Traumatic Debriefers” (who showed up to help them talk through the tsunami trauma) to “get lost!” Seems they didn’t feel helped by being asked to talk it all through again.  But living in a remote area as they did, they probably weren’t up on the need to always have your brain massaged by a shrink anytime major events happen.

I’ve come to the conclusion that atheists will never understand morality even while they pretend to act that way, reason being they can’t even hold to standard usage (as swine would say)/word definitions like “perverse.” For example, gays are insulted when the word is applied to them, so we should adjust the meaning for them. Our culture has “evolved” beyond mosaic law, we don’t stone gays anymore. (Even the word ‘gay’ has changed, to describe them.) Then again, greece and rome fell (decadent cultures.) Since gays don’t reproduce, the ‘gene’ should have died out. So we can only conclude it’s a learned behaviour.

nowiser: sure, you describe the animal kingdom and its behaviour very well. Don’t you think we “evolved” beyond that with our bigger brains and opposable thumbs? Otherwise Hitler was perfectly justified in his behaviours, just acting out ‘another dimension of human possibilities’ (sic.)

Swine: Vedanta describes the human as a trinity-- physical, mental and emotional bodies, all made of different subatomic stuff but inhabiting and interpenetrating the 3D plane. The soul is the emotional body, specifically an animal spirit we’re responsible to train. It handles things like memory and unconscious body processes but can’t reason. If not for our mental bodies we’d all behave just like the animals. However you explain the dynamics, the fact is we can direct our behaviours because we have the capacity and exercise it daily, pointless to deny it, so devolving back to murder, pederasty, rape, incest is not an option and could never be defined as progressive. Inherently bad for US, YES, because we know better.

OF COURSE Intelligent Design qualifies as a theory. There are so many holes in your arguements (notwithstanding the countless mortals who repeat them), it’s even most likely, despite your difficulty getting your mind around it.

In fact as much as you claim to want to further life (why, I can’t imagine, since the only meaning you think it has is what you give it) you’re actually closer to drags and manacles. Those people who ‘believe’ in God, dare to consider the impossible, often make significant discoveries, free energy just one example. So go on, tell us how impossible it is, how many scientists have ‘proven’ it to be so, because there are thousands of us who know otherwise. When you finally learn enough to understand it, you’ll say it ‘evolved’ too. You fancy yourselves intelligent but what you’re doing is engaging in intellectual justifications for your feelings and/or perversions. God can be discovered. When He reveals Himself, it will blow your mind. People who’ve had such experiences aren’t necessarily at a point where they can demonstrate it to others yet, and yes some people are just imagining things, i.e. GW said God told him to invade iraq and would be an easy win. But of course that’s just a manipulation to get the christian right on his side of the war. Don’t think yourselves to be any less dangerous to life and culture with your humanistic justifications for every form of “natural” depravity. Human reasoning is inherently limited, supernatural intrusions and revelations do happen, and when they do, civilization experiences quantum leaps. I think you must all really believe in psycho-surgery because you seem to have successfully amputated the whole right part of your brain, without having to pay a doctor.

I’ve come to the conclusion that atheists will never understand morality even while they pretend to act that way,

And that makes you feel really superior, doesn’t it, Trivial?

Remember, pride in your book is a sin ...

{the} reason being they can’t even hold to standard usage (as swine would say)/word definitions like “perverse.� For example, gays are insulted when the word is applied to them, so we should adjust the meaning for them.

The reason being that your brain just can’t wrap itself around the concept that homosexuality is not PERVERSE except in your little godbook. 

Animals display homosexual activity. Tell me how that’s supposed to be a learned behavior.

And people certainly CAN and DO reproduce even if they’re gay, as we well know from people who lived a lie (got married, had children) or who have had children before they realized they were gay, or who have taken advantage of low- or high-tech methods to reproduce.  Not only that, but genetic tendencies can get passed on through generations without necessarily being expressed.

Perverse, stubborn idiocy, however, seems to be very clearly expressed and passed on in certain eddies of the gene pool, as one can observe right here in this thread.

Just a thought on the initiation rites mentioned by Laage:
I was reminded of the Zuni, a native society in the southwestern U.S.  To the outsider, it appears that only men participate in religion (ex. rituals) but in reality, women are considered religious simply by existing.  They have a concept I’ll refer to as “raw” and “cooked"--the men must be cooked by rituals to become Zuni adults, while the women are born cooked (their rituals are things their bodies do naturally like menstruation and childbirth).  Interesting tidbit, kinda confirms your statement, and makes me wonder why we’re so willing to label women in other cultures “oppressed.”

Anyway, now onto Thrivizzle’s comments:

As for the bit about animals: evolution never said we weren’t animals anymore.  That was the Christians.  It’s an inconsistency: how can animals be innocent and outside of salvation when they do so many of the things you condemn as evil?

But even ackowledging that we are animals does nothing to justify what Hitler did.  It may help us to understand it, but it doesn’t prevent us from condemning it.

Once again, you give us a weak rebuttal completely lacking in evidence that ID is a theory, or that any of the other claims you make are true.
You were starting to make some sense...why have you reverted back to the offensive?  For as much as you say you want to understand us, you don’t really seem to try.

Oh Trivial! You were showing so much promise and then that steel trap you call a brain snapped shut while your fingers once again found purchase in your ears and your mouth started jabbering away with choruses of, “I’m right and you’re all doodyheads! I’m right and you’re all doodyheads!”

Most sad of all, you believe your gullibility and credulousness is actually a sign of your superior intelligence and knowledge. Let me know when you make your first million off of one of those “free energy” devices you seem to think are so effective. Watch out when bending over for the soap around Sai Baba, however, or you may find yourself on the receiving end of one of those acts you consider to be perverse.

but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know where a penis does and doesn’t belong. I’ll admit one is worst than the next, but neither are ‘normal’ from a design (reproduction) POV.

So according to YOUR alleged “laws of Nature” ironically created by a “Supernatural” invisible being, then KISSING certainly does not fit into your very narrow supernatural world you reside in?

What makes you think your mouth “belongs” lip latched onto another? How is kissing “normal” from a design POV? Your mouth was designed to facilitate speech and consume nourishment.
What a horrible life you must lead being afraid of some invisible non existent bogeyman that can see, hear, even know every thought in your head 24/7 and can at any time she/he/it sees fit “Smite You” into an eternal damnation of your body magically burning infinitely in some equally mythical supernatural hell. *shudder* This to you & to most all religiously deluded individuals is somehow “satisfying & comforting” gives your life meaning and a moral compass?  How truly horrible.

Seems to me ALL of your problems are Supernatural in nature *LOL* so why not at least try to reside in this natural world you speak of complete with its natural laws?
Why do you feel compelled to reside in some supernatural world? It certainly can not be because of the preponderance of the evidence leads you there as there is not a single shred of such evidence that has ever been verified by anybody.
Logically speaking you obtained your disturbed world view, your religious bent simply through your Geographical locale on this planet we call Earth. Religion is spread somewhat like a disease of the mind, if you look at religion from a geographical template then you can see this fact quite clearly.
In Saudi Arabia odds are about 99.9% that you will be some shade of Muslim.
In the Philippines odds are some shade of Christian, In Japan either Agnostic or Shinto, China 98% Atheist, India high probability of being Hindu, USA 75% chance of being some shade of Christian and fortunately that percentage is shrinking every year by approx. 1% since 1990.
But you get the gist, you become what those of authority around you proselytize, not what is true, more provable, more verifiable than any other religious dogma, just simply what you “Believe” to be and have been indoctrinated into usually from an early age.

The only cure for this extremely aggressive and debilitating mind plague is higher education, it has been positively proven well beyond reasonable doubt that the higher the education, higher the general IQ the less likely one is to believe in Magic & Invisible Supernatural bogeymen. Thus you unfortunately are a product of a society that through whatever mind plague they are infected with have largely abandoned Factual reality in favor of faith in Supernatural entities & as the very name implies do not exist in the natural world but only in the mind. Technically this is the very definition of “Psychosis” as without any question your contact with reality is lost or highly distorted.

I personally fail to see how becoming a Delusional Psychotic is in anyway a goal one should seek to achieve.

OF COURSE Intelligent Design qualifies as a theory. There are so many holes in your arguements (notwithstanding the countless mortals who repeat them), it’s even most likely, despite your difficulty getting your mind around it.

NO, ID is not now nor will it ever become a “Scientific Theory”.

Please indulge all of us stupid Atheist with all of the verifiable/Falsifiable evidence/data that can be tested, repeated in a lab setting, experiments & observations of which repeatedly come to the same conclusions over & over that allegedly prove the supposed hypothesis of ID, which of course is just rebadged Creationism no matter how much IDiots jump up and down saying Nuh Uh.

I dare you to simply name ONE iddy biddy shred of verifiable repeatable & conclusive evidence that can even bring ID/Creationism to the position of “Hypothesis”.
Forget Theory for now, just shoot for Hypothesis.

ID/Creationism is nothing but a poor “Argument” against the Theory of Evolution of which in 150 years has yet to be disproved, even though it has been by far the most challenged Theory in all of Science of which it has passed all test thrown at it with flying colors thus making it the most proven theory in all of Science.
ALL of the life Sciences are based entirely & solely on Evolutionary Theory and have been for over 100 years. This fact is not likely to change.

Ok, I’ll bite,

Thrival vents…
I’ve come to the conclusion that atheists will never understand morality even while they pretend to act that way

Atheists have only one thing in common; lack of belief in gods. You can not expect any two people to agree about what is and what is not “moral”, let alone two atheists. I see nothing immoral about two guys or two gals being in love and wanting to spend their life together twiddlin each other’s naughty bits. What I do find terribly immoral is one group of people commanding what another group can or can not do with their lives.

...they can’t even hold to standard usage (as swine would say)/word definitions like “perverse.â€?…

...Even the word ‘gay’ has changed…

The meaning of words change over time - deal with it already! Just think how I felt the first time I heard my 13 year old daughter was “tripping”!   I adapted.

OF COURSE Intelligent Design qualifies as a theory.

Since you have so many problems with the meaning of words, I’d really like to know how you define the word theory.

...the only meaning you think it [life] has is what you give it…

My experience shows this is true.

When He reveals Himself, it will blow your mind.

Your statement is backwards. When your mind is blown you see god.

...supernatural intrusions and revelations do happen, and when they do, civilization experiences quantum leaps…

Just think of that million bucks you could have if only you could prove this!

I think you must all really believe in psycho-surgery because you seem to have successfully amputated the whole right part of your brain, without having to pay a doctor.

I use the right side of my brain to create music or design software. How do you find accepting every cockamamie story presented to you as being creative? Oh yeah, must be that language problem again!

Thrival: Free energy, eh?

Got a working model?

N.B: A working model does not involve a black box with flashing lights to distract from the hamster running on the wheel inside.

Creationists have as much business teaching science as flat-earthers have piloting airliners or child molesters have working in day care - bad science KILLS PEOPLE

I don’t understand the point of the debate, I guess. The Bible describes, clearly and in abundant detail, a sadistic, malevolent, evil god-thing, with plenty of the ugliest human character traits and emotions - just the sort of being that would have designed, for pleasure, the shrike, the Ebola virus, traumatic insemination in insects… for Biblical literalists, there is no conflict whatsoever between “intelligent design” and pointless hideous suffering.

There is a world of thoughts on how to intermingle evolution with xtianity. check out this one,
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html
between age-day theorists and deistic big-bang a world of people that are truly atheist/agnostic bandage themselves in the comfort of “I can be both!” to greater or lesser extents well.

For some babble scholars today the earth celebrates its 6002 birthday as they reckon their teapot finished creating this world on Monday, 23rd October, 4004.
I only mention this because some years ago I put this ‘fact’ in my phone diary as ammunition for someday in the future.