Media Leave "South Park" Creators Out to Dry

[blindsage]

Stovocore

That is only because you are p'tahk!

 

[zDom]

This is going a bit off topic but I reckon I need to answer these.

So you’re only good because of the fear of retribution????

I’m good, simply because it’s the right thing to do.

You are inferring a bit much and setting up a straw man to set aflame.

I merely said "could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife."

I didn't say I would; I said I COULD. And nowhere in that short, flippant comment did I state or even hint that my behavior is restrained ONLY because of the fear of retribution.

I could just cross that single consideration off the list, so to speak.

Those who advance this argument specifically admit to being sociopaths.

Something to think about.

And this is a somewhat harsh implication that you should think about reserving for someone who actually says what you think I said.

Again, I didn't say that consequences in an afterlife were the only thing that kept me from otherwise reprehensible behavior.

I'm not going to take this any further and hijack the thread, but I'm sure with a little thought we could come up with at least a short list of things that are specifically prohibited in Christianity and hence may have consequences in the afterlife that could be done on occasion without making me a bad person, Mr. Morgan, or a sociopath, Mr. Hands.




Reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill.

 

[Empty Hands]

Reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill.

So because you wrote "could" instead of "would", we have all wildly misconstrued you somehow? Come now. I "could" never embrace murder and wanton harm to others as an example, whether God or society were to punish me for it.

You also put no qualifiers in your post, so how are we to know you meant skipping church on Sundays and working on the Sabbath instead of murder and rape?

We can't comprehend what you don't write, especially when you make blanket statements.

Lastly, someone who is only constrained in their actions by fear of punishment and not empathy or other concerns is a sociopath. It's the very definition of the term. It is the logical conclusion to someone claiming they could do whatever they wanted if they did not fear punishment. I did not claim you were a sociopath (reading comprehension?) as I have no way of knowing, but that is what the argument you put forward implies.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Right and wrong are socially-accepted rules, norms, and taboos that vary based on the society, although some norms and taboos appear to be universal or nearly so.

It is a difficult case to prove or disprove that organized religion is the basis for the rules of society. Animals such as primates seem not to have religions, and they have social rules, norms, and taboos, so perhaps the rules came first. In any case, it is beyond doubt that religions (all major religions) have informed and shaped human civilization and the rules expected of members of society.

Some would claim that by not believing in any religion, one would be morally free of the rules that govern most religions (thou shalt not kill, etc) and thus would choose to do so without repercussion. Clearly, though, all societies forbid acts such as murder regardless of whether or not they are theocracies or secular.

Others claim that religionists behave inside the rules of society only because they fear retribution by their deity. This might be true of some religions, but most many religions offer rules as guidelines by which one should live their lives, with redemption and punishment for belief or non-belief, not acts while living.

Likewise, one might consider the infamous quote of Aleister Crowley (and later, the Church of Satan) "Do as thou shalt shall be the whole of the law," as being selfish, base, and mean. Some enlightened souls see no problem with the statement, and believe it to mean that we are free to behave as we wish; no rule, no law, no threat of eternal damnation, can stop us from doing as we please. But this freedom puts the responsibility for our actions on ourselves. No institution, no religion, no diety, no government can be held to blame for what we do or fail to do that contributes to or damages society as a whole.

A sociopath understand the rules of society and chooses to disregard them.

A psychopath does not understand the rules, and cannot therefore obey them.

There is currently no term for a person who understands the rules of society, understands that they are free to obey them or not, and chooses intentionally to obey them through enlightened self-interest; some call them objectivists.

 

[Ken Morgan]

"And sometimes I wish that I could believe there is no God. Then I could embrace doing whatever I want without thought of consequence in an afterlife."

Reading comprehension seems to be a dying skill.

Nope, I'm correct, I stand by what i said. Anything else is semantics, but whatever.

I'm speaking and reading goodish english....
FSM help my students if I don't!!

 

[Empty Hands]

There is currently no term for a person who understands the rules of society, understands that they are free to obey them or not, and chooses intentionally to obey them through enlightened self-interest; some call them objectivists.

No, some still call them "sociopaths." At least the way I understand the way you phrased it.

Sociopaths don't just "disregard the rules of society", they have not internalized empathy in any way. Most of us don't just avoid murder because we'll go to jail; most of us avoid murder because it would be deeply upsetting and damaging to us. Think for instance of what many veterans go through after returning from war - and those enemy soldiers weren't innocent unarmed victims, they had every chance to fight back, and the soldiers on both sides are programmed not to see their enemy as individuals. Beyond that, most of us have absolutely no desire to torture someone, to deprive them of food, to kill without reason or rape. It would be very difficult to do for most of us under normal circumstances. Most of us are great at harming others by benign neglect or blindness, but very bad at directly harming others by active malignance.

So if the only reason that someone goes along with the social contract and foregoes random murder is "enlightened self interest", then they are still a sociopath.

Note, that this is not necessarily a pejorative term. It's what you are born with, and you have no choice in the matter. If you are a sociopath and you choose to act in a moral manner through self-interest or logic or anything else, then I would still describe you as a good person. Indeed, you might actually be a better person than the rest of us because whether to randomly murder or not is an actual choice for you. For most of us it isn't, and most of us don't deserve much credit for not doing something we really don't want to do.

That said real sociopaths are more common than most people think, and not good people to get involved with. They are more common than people think because most people think of sociopaths as criminals, but most are not, and are deterred by the threat of punishment. Most of them though have no interpersonal loyalty or real sense of ethics, and will screw another person over in a heartbeat if it gets them something out of it and the possibility of punishment or retribution is low. About 1% of the population are estimated to be sociopaths.

 

[zDom]

Those who advance this argument specifically admit to being sociopaths.

Something to think about.

As you are addressing my post, directly, I think it is reasonable to infer that you are suggesting that it is something I think about.


As Bill points out,

A sociopath understand the rules of society and chooses to disregard them.

The comment was made regarding afterlife, hence God's laws — which may or may not correspond to society's rules.

Therefore your comment was completely irrelevant to my statement and offensive in it's implication.

Who is to say, based on my single statement, that I'm not joyfully complying with society's rules and yet have a problem with some of God's?

Most of them though have no interpersonal loyalty or real sense of ethics, and will screw another person over in a heartbeat if it gets them something out of it and the possibility of punishment or retribution is low. About 1% of the population are estimated to be sociopaths.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am extremely loyal and have a sense of ethics that in most cases exceeds that dictated by society's rules. I certainly hope I am mistaken in thinking you were suggesting that I should consider the possibility that I am a sociopath based on a rhetorical statement couched in hypothetical language.


Your original statement was erroneous and the implication was inflammatory.

 

[zDom]

So because you wrote "could" instead of "would", we have all wildly misconstrued you somehow? Come now. I "could" never embrace murder and wanton harm to others as an example, whether God or society were to punish me for it.

You also put no qualifiers in your post, so how are we to know you meant skipping church on Sundays and working on the Sabbath instead of murder and rape?

We can't comprehend what you don't write, especially when you make blanket statements.

"We all"? (see Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice))

under a list of Fallacious Arguments http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#force

And yes, wildly misconstrued me.

In fact at this point I am considering filing a complaint with the moderators.

Seems that at some point I must have offended you and you have been looking for an opportunity to exploit.

I carefully choose my words. If I had specifics in mind, I would have named them.

In fact, working on the Sabbath is something that causes me some concern — not against the law, but I would feel better about doing it if I could be assured there were no God who would be asking me about it later.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, some still call them "sociopaths." At least the way I understand the way you phrased it.

It's a valid point. However, we define people by the way they manifest themselves. A person may be an intense racist, sexist, hate-monger, liberal, or any number of equally horrible things and never chose to display those beliefs; one might argue they are still racist, sexist, etc, but how would one know and how would one go about proving it? So basically we're stuck with classifying people based on how they behave.

If a person returns a found wallet because they believe their religion bids them to do 'good deeds', what does that mean? The end is served; society is not damaged.

If a person likewise does it because they fear heavenly retribution if they do not, then what? What if they do it because they fear the law? Or if they simply believe that it is 'right' to return the wallet?

And what of the person who realizes that they could take the contents of the wallet, deposit it into the nearest trash can, and walk away enriched; but they choose not to do so. Not because it is the 'right' thing to do, but because their enlightened self-interest informs them that such acts encourage others to do likewise, which can benefit them in the long term (or for a variety of other reasons which have nothing to do with 'right' or 'wrong').

In the end, the person gets their wallet back. The mental deliberations of the returner may matter to some; to society it does not.

 

[zDom]

Nope, I'm correct, I stand by what i said. Anything else is semantics, but whatever.

I'm speaking and reading goodish english....
FSM help my students if I don't!!

I stand by mine.

I certainly hope you make clear to your students the difference between could and would.


Could is used to express the conditional possibility or ability.

Would is used to express choice or possibility.

How often I see otherwise intelligent people go completely overboard when they hear "could" and believe they are hearing "would." It's NOT just semantics. They have different meanings.

The ability to do an action doesn't mean the choice will be made to do that action.


Am I going to have to do a search on these board to find where I have offended you, Ken? Or will you just tell me?

 

[Empty Hands]

It's a valid point. However, we define people by the way they manifest themselves.

I agree with your point here. That's what I was getting at in that sociopaths are not necessarily bad people, and could even be considered better people if they choose to act morally.

People are complex beings anyway. Some of us might take that wallet on occasion, but still love our kids fiercely and help little old ladies across the street.

This discussion does underlie my problem though with the argument that the religious are more moral than the non-religious because they fear God's punishment. Like the person who refrains from murder because they fear going to jail, that lack of action does not come from a place of morality. True morality is uncoerced.

 

[Empty Hands]

In fact at this point I am considering filing a complaint with the moderators.

Seems that at some point I must have offended you and you have been looking for an opportunity to exploit.

I can't even recall any specific posts you have made before today.

I was not calling you a sociopath. I did say though that sociopathy was implied by the argument you made. I can't make it any more clear than that. You can notify the mods if you like, but I have made no personal attack on you.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Am I going to have to do a search on these board to find where I have offended you, Ken? Or will you just tell me?

Offended?? Nope, sorry I didn't mean to make that impression, my apologies if I came across that way. I just love a good religion vs. atheism debate!!
Cart before the horse.

 

[zDom]

Ok great — glad to hear it isn't personal, Hands and Ken. And I love a good argument: but please argue with what I have actually said (usually very carefully selected words).

I still disagree with some of your arguments.

Off topic here so I'll just stop.

 

[Sukerkin]

Just a quick "Well done" for sorting that out for yourselves, gentlemen :bows with respect:.

I was skim reading through thinking "Oh dear, this could go South very quickly!" and dusting off my Moderator hat ... and then was heartily pleased to see misconceptions cleared up and things honourably resolved.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This discussion does underlie my problem though with the argument that the religious are more moral than the non-religious because they fear God's punishment. Like the person who refrains from murder because they fear going to jail, that lack of action does not come from a place of morality. True morality is uncoerced.

I agree with the second statement, but I am not convinced that all religious people follow religious laws because they fear their Creator's retribution.

Some have made a conscious, thoughtful, and some would say loving decision to place themselves under the command of a being they see as intensely loving, greater than themselves, and One who has a particular plan for their lives. That may seem like an alien concept to some, and I get that. But for those who have made such decisions and can abide by them, they seem to me to be very fulfilled, happy, and sometimes transcendent persons, filled with grace and love; I've met some that seem to shine with it; they don't strike me as being fearful of God's wrath, but rather peaceful in His loving embrace.

 

[Bruno@MT]

As an atheist, I don't think you can actually blaspheme, and you certainly can't be guilty of heresy.

Actually, yes, you can. It all depends on who sets the rules. When the Catholics 'ruled' Europe in the dark ages, they were the ones who could declare someone a heretic. The personal opinion of said person was of no importance. Your status is determined by the ones setting the rules and definition of guilt, not yourself.

 

[Empty Hands]

I agree with the second statement, but I am not convinced that all religious people follow religious laws because they fear their Creator's retribution.

No they don't, and I didn't mean to make this implication. Some people clearly do the right thing because they are moved to, either by God's love or their own empathy.

Some people though explicitly DO make the argument that without God's punishment, they could do whatever they wanted to do. It is those people I wonder about.

 

[zDom]

No they don't, and I didn't mean to make this implication. Some people clearly do the right thing because they are moved to, either by God's love or their own empathy.

Some people though explicitly DO make the argument that without God's punishment, they could do whatever they wanted to do. It is those people I wonder about.

I can see how you misunderstood my comment.

Reading the above, I get the sense of a person just itchin' to do horrible things, but fearful of damnation.

Consider this verse:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21, KJV)

Skip the murder but consider some the rest of this list:

How many of us, honestly, have fornicated? Had some dirty sex? Discussed what you would like to do with the hot blonde waitress? Had more than a couple nights of drunkenness?

Where does forgiveness stop and being shut out of the kingdom of God begin? Getting drunk once? Five times? Once per month?

Admittedly "whatever I want" was a bit wide but it was more of a rhetorical device than an actual deep-seated desire.

Either way — was what said really more disturbing that someone who, if they knew religious stuff was for real, would embrace and worship a supernatural being bent on the destruction and eternal damnation of all mankind?

I was attempting to respond to that idea in similar terms, off the cuff. I guess what I was trying to convey is, "It must be nice to really not worry about the fate of your soul after death."

But I do have concerns. Are the fire and brimstone preachers right? Because I drank bourbon Saturday night and didn't go to church Sunday morning, am I damned despite what I believe?

Or are the "once saved always saved" preachers correct?

Or... am I believing in a fairy tale that is causing me to think about concerns that don't matter at all?

Are you atheists really THAT sure there ISN'T a creator?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Are you atheists really THAT sure there ISN'T a creator?

Yes.