Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel.

[wellz6]

Yes.
The purpose of the act is for the creation and generation of new humans. Muddling with that act so as to remove the fruit of the action but keeping only the sensual experience is immoral.

There isn't just one purpose for it. In addition to reproducing, it's also meant for pleasure between the two people, that's why it feels good. If a married couple is using a condom because they can't afford more children then you think it's immoral for them to make love and enjoy each other?

 

[Der Eisbär]

You are ashamed that they can provide you a scientific understanding of the cosmos? How we got here?

The problem is religious people just generally hate science because it basically nullifies there lifelong beliefs. Science is right whether people like it or not.

Lol. Smh if you think science nullifies my beliefs. I sware atheists are never going to mentally evolve past the 90s.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Well... of course the "subjectivity of moral believes has something to do with the strength with which they are held".
That's the point of them being subjective.

It's a bit odd that someone would say otherwise, as you did.


"With religion it's belief in a deity and the revelation of that deity's moral dictats through some sort of scripture, with humanism it's the belief in the primacy of man and man's happiness."

That's not the case at all. Catholic natural theology is not solely supported by the words in Scripture. Saying it is so exposes a misunderstanding to the reality of the situation... which would make me wonder why one would talk to certainly on a matter that they don't seem to have much of a grasp on at all.

Natural Theology, and I shouldn't have to even say this, is not the same as Divine Command Theory.

You misread and misquoted me. I said:

"subjectivity of moral beliefs has nothing to do with the strength with which they are held"

And I maintain that.

And if you want to talk philosophy more formally, I'm drawing my contention that objective morality as you seem to be defining it is impossible, based mostly on the work of David Hume. In a nutshell:

"Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

If you were to accept that morals are not conclusions of reason, then how could they be objective?

Regarding the blog post you cited, interesting stuff, but I disagree with his contention that Catholic theology is somehow wholly in accordance with natural law and would represent the good even without scripture. He specifically brings up sexual mores, which is about the worst example you could use. What is natural in any way about restricting the sexual activities of individuals to one mate for life, or having a separate clerical caste that is forbidden to have sex with anyone? Are you seriously contending that these are features of natural law that would arise in the absence of Christianity? I think the existence of stable pre-Christian societies with polygamy alone would be enough to invalidate that line of reasoning. You can't simply derive morality from scripture and then claim that all that derived morality is in accordance with natural law and thus not a product of scripture. That's ludicrous and wholly disingenuous.

 

[Der Eisbär]

That's a silly thing to say.
Like, if I wouldn't have just said that you were taking my type very serious to begin with. It's just a way to mock me... which is fine, it's not new or anything.

But yes, to the point, the nature of the sexual act produces another human being. The most important thing that two people could possibly do. Nothing is more imporant than that act. To block the result of that act in mere search for the sensual pleasure that is tied to that act is immoral.

But, by all means... bang your head on a desk and refer to me as "this guy" with a sneer.

Dude... never go full retard.

The most important act a person can do is create more people? Like what in the fuck is wrong with you man? As someone who believes in God myself, your value set is so fucked I genuinely feel bad for you.

Life is for living and enjoying your time here. Not breeding endlessly.

So in your mind, the most important thing in life is reproducing. So then your offspring reproduce, then they reproduce, and on and on. To what end??? What is the point???

 

[drstrangelov]

It's an obvious troll job by Hitchens, but it's sooooo spectacularly executed. He was this brilliant guy who obvious recognized the problems with this argument. Motherfucker was just sitting around some den of iniquity with Salman Rushdie, talking about "bet I can make a generation of neck beards hate mother Theresa" and it worked.

 

[JonesBones]

You do know Bruce Lee wasn't religious and didn't believe in god?

http://youtu.be/02D_sMlowGU?t=2m49s

I know about Bruce Lee. How is that relevant? Lee was above all systems. Religion, science, whatever. Science has become a new system that knows everything, and will save us all. It just shows humans want something to cuddle next to. To protect them, and have authority. It is more slavery.

Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.

There is no method to reality.

 

[LionExMachina]

Yes.
The purpose of the act is for the creation and generation of new humans. Muddling with that act so as to remove the fruit of the action but keeping only the sensual experience is immoral.

Pure arrogance.

 

[JonesBones]

Dude... never go full retard.

The most important act a person can do is create more people? Like what in the fuck is wrong with you man? As someone who believes in God myself, your value set is so fucked I genuinely feel bad for you.

Life is for living and enjoying your time here. Not breeding endlessly.

So in your mind, the most important thing in life is reproducing. So then your offspring reproduce, then they reproduce, and on and on. To what end??? What is the point???

The only value I can see in breeding, is that keeps supplying the world with younger women.

 

[ultramanhyata]

That was painful to watch. If you want to discredit Dawkins and Harris you can do much better than citing that hack.

And another science cultist throws his tomato... Dawkins refuses to debate him. Shermer agreed to a debate years ago but refuses to commit to a time and place. I guess Sheldrake's PhD from Cambridge, in biochemistry, isn't a valid scientific credential in their eyes.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I'm guessing this is where you show me how the money was spent/wasted?

Sure you want to choose the red pill?

 

[LionExMachina]

People like this guy is the reason why i take religious people less seriously than I used to.

Thanks to the internet I get to read quotes from religious people like this guy who have opened my eyes to how backwards and ignorant religious people can be.

condom use = immoral

Overpopulation and the suffering and squalor that comes with it = Moral.

Then we can deploy Mother Teresa and fund some convents!

Religion is a racket.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Pure arrogance.

How so?

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Overpopulation and the suffering and squalor that comes with it = Moral.

Then we can deploy Mother Teresa and fund some convents!

Religion is a racket.

We're not bursting at the seems with overpopulation.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

There isn't just one purpose for it. In addition to reproducing, it's also meant for pleasure between the two people, that's why it feels good. If a married couple is using a condom because they can't afford more children then you think it's immoral for them to make love and enjoy each other?

There is a main and clearly obvious purpose for it: progeny.

 

[MC Paul Barman]

You misread and misquoted me. I said:

"subjectivity of moral beliefs has nothing to do with the strength with which they are held"

And I maintain that.

And if you want to talk philosophy more formally, I'm drawing my contention that objective morality as you seem to be defining it is impossible, based mostly on the work of David Hume. In a nutshell:

"Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."

If you were to accept that morals are not conclusions of reason, then how could they be objective?

Regarding the blog post you cited, interesting stuff, but I disagree with his contention that Catholic theology is somehow wholly in accordance with natural law and would represent the good even without scripture. He specifically brings up sexual mores, which is about the worst example you could use. What is natural in any way about restricting the sexual activities of individuals to one mate for life, or having a separate clerical caste that is forbidden to have sex with anyone? Are you seriously contending that these are features of natural law that would arise in the absence of Christianity? I think the existence of stable pre-Christian societies with polygamy alone would be enough to invalidate that line of reasoning. You can't simply derive morality from scripture and then claim that all that derived morality is in accordance with natural law and thus not a product of scripture. That's ludicrous and wholly disingenuous.

I didn't misquote you... I intentionally changed what you said to show that it's obvious that a subjective morality is based on the strength by which someone holds it. How is that even questionable?

It's not ludicrous or disingenuous at all. And, to be honest, I can't make much sense of what you're trying to get across. Where did he say "Catholic theology is wholly in accordance with natural law and would represent the good even without scripture"?

I think you're taking what I said, alittle sprinkling from his blog.... and just shooting out some objection. Like I said, "I think that", maybe I'm missing something.

 

[vcmmafan]

Pure arrogance.

Huh?

 

[ajwbjj87]

Hitchens is a war monger, who cheerleaded the Iraq War, and never admitted he was wrong. Also pushing for an invasion of Iran till the day he died.

Not sure how this relates to Mother Thereasa being a giant fraud?

 

[MC Paul Barman]

Dude... never go full retard.

The most important act a person can do is create more people? Like what in the fuck is wrong with you man? As someone who believes in God myself, your value set is so fucked I genuinely feel bad for you.

Life is for living and enjoying your time here. Not breeding endlessly.

So in your mind, the most important thing in life is reproducing. So then your offspring reproduce, then they reproduce, and on and on. To what end??? What is the point???

I never said "it's the only important thing" a person could do. I just said the most important. I don't think it's all that outlandish of an idea. In the absence of sexual reproduction you don't have much of anything else.

If life is for living and enjoying your time here.... then I'd be interested in seeing how you square that with most lives throughout history, as well as anyone you actually know. Sure, it's great when things are going swimmingly and nary a concern, but life is rarely like that. There's suffering, despair, and turmoil.
And, paradoxically, it's usually through suffering that we have the greatest opportunity to grow as an individual.


I get the whole acting shocked and swooning with internal turmoil when you see someone like me who has a view so opposed to yours... but you might want to consider keeping in hold the more emotive "OMG, how do you believe such a thing... aye aye aye". Theatrics and incredulity don't really help.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I didn't misquote you... I intentionally changed what you said to show that it's obvious that a subjective morality is based on the strength by which someone holds it. How is that even questionable?

Perhaps we're speaking past each other. I am arguing that all morality is essentially subjective, and so calling morality objective or subjective doesn't lend or detract any strength from it. What lends strength to individual moral beliefs is only the strength with which the individual holds them.

It's not ludicrous or disingenuous at all. And, to be honest, I can't make much sense of what you're trying to get across. Where did he say "Catholic theology is wholly in accordance with natural law and would represent the good even without scripture"?

I was referring to this paragraph:

The tendency to confuse the natural and the supernatural can be found not only in the opponents of natural law theory but also in some of its friends. On the one hand there are critics of Catholic sexual morality who suppose that it is grounded merely in scripture, or tradition, or the authority of the popes. And on the other hand there are well-meaning orthodox Catholic writers who at least seem to suppose that Catholic sexual morality can only be understood and defended in theological terms -- in terms of the

 

[FinalFight]

I know about Bruce Lee. How is that relevant? Lee was above all systems. Religion, science, whatever. Science has become a new system that knows everything, and will save us all. It just shows humans want something to cuddle next to. To protect them, and have authority. It is more slavery.

Man, the living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system.

There is no method to reality. — Do not reduce reality to a static thing and then invent methods by which to reach it.

Matter and the need for security. - In science we try to find ultimate matter, but the more we split up matter, the more we find other matter. We find movement, and movement equals energy: movement, impact, energy, but no things. Things came about, more or less, by man's need for security. You can manipulate a thing, you can play fitting games with it. These concepts, these somethings can be put together into something else. “Something" is a thing, so even an abstract noun becomes a thing.

Any quotes from Bruce Lee regarding his views on science? Or are you trying to assume Bruce Lee was "above" science because of his philosophical ideas?