Good and evil are religious constructs

[maquiscat]

i did rebuttal

Neither

rtrewtgRGF

nor

sent from my google smart fridge using tapatalk

are rebuttals. The first is randomly thrown together letters, and the other is an auto append from Tapatalk. Now if the letters are supposed to be an initialism of some sort, it is not a standard one thus it is upon you to explain their meaning.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Neither

nor


are rebuttals. The first is randomly thrown together letters, and the other is an auto append from Tapatalk. Now if the letters are supposed to be an initialism of some sort, it is not a standard one thus it is upon you to explain their meaning.

look for previous posts

 

[TypicalRussian]

I distilled your post down to its essence.

top comedy

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Good and evil are religious constructs.

I believe this.

If you're an atheist, good is relative to the person. Same with evil. What's good for one person, could be an act of evil to another for example. So to an atheist, there is no good or evil.

If you believe in good or evil, you're at least a little religious.

The label "atheist" is a religious construct.

Right and wrong is a social construct, but also an instinct that evolution has given us in order to survive. We do not normally kill people since that is bad for survival of our species. On the other hand, killing specific people in defense or in some cases of war is done to save a society.

We punish wrong doers again as a preservation of our species.

There is indeed subjectiveness of right and wrong, but some core elements are pretty much universal (among sane people).

 

[devildavid]

top comedy

 

[TypicalRussian]

i have a feeling this is boomer humor

 

[devildavid]

i have a feeling this is boomer humor

It's from the 90's.

 

[TypicalRussian]

It's from the 90's.

what does
Remember Bowling Green! Remember Atlanta! Remember Sweden!

mean?

 

[devildavid]

what does
Remember Bowling Green! Remember Atlanta! Remember Sweden!

mean?

You really were born yesterday.

 

[TypicalRussian]

You really were born yesterday.

I dont remember what you are reffering to in the news

 

[devildavid]

I dont remember what you are reffering to in the news

Think idiot Trump and his lackeys.

 

[TypicalRussian]

Think idiot Trump and his lackeys.

2019 Dayton shooting - Wikipedia

antifa loons killing 10

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Good and evil are religious constructs.

I believe this.

If you're an atheist, good is relative to the person. Same with evil. What's good for one person, could be an act of evil to another for example. So to an atheist, there is no good or evil.

If you believe in good or evil, you're at least a little religious.

I don't necessarily agree. It depends on your definition of religious though.

I do think it is necessary to believe in an objective morality to have a concept of good or evil, because to have good or evil you must have an objective measure of each.

I go by what's naturally ordered/disorded.

for example, Sodomy and contraception are grave evil because the human body is naturally ordered towards sexual reproduction, that is good, and misuse of the sex act for pleasure and not creation is therefore disordered and a debasement of the good.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Good and evil is relative to every person. You can't possibly believe all the world's religious people unanimously agree on what's good and what's evil. You can't even get two Christians to agree on that.

It's irrelevant what all the religious people say. good and evil is objective because we can say how the human person is naturally ordered. therefore behavior contrary to this order is evil.

humans are ordered towards cooperation, so theft and dishonest is disordered. sex is ordered towards reproduction so any facilitation of lust without procreation is disordered. humans are ordered towards life and so murder is disordered. etc

 

[devildavid]

I don't necessarily agree. It depends on your definition of religious though.

I do think it is necessary to believe in an objective morality to have a concept of good or evil, because to have good or evil you must have an objective measure of each.

I go by what's naturally ordered/disorded.

for example, Sodomy and contraception are grave evil because the human body is naturally ordered towards sexual reproduction, that is good, and misuse of the sex act for pleasure and not creation is therefore disordered and a debasement of the good.

If sex didn't give pleasure the human race would have gone extinct long ago.

 

[devildavid]

It's irrelevant what all the religious people say. good and evil is objective because we can say how the human person is naturally ordered. therefore behavior contrary to this order is evil.

humans are ordered towards cooperation, so theft and dishonest is disordered. sex is ordered towards reproduction so any facilitation of lust without procreation is disordered. humans are ordered towards life and so murder is disordered. etc

Is capitalism objectively immoral?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If sex didn't give pleasure the human race would have gone extinct long ago.

Yes, sex for procreation is good.

Sex with contraceptive measures to prevent procreation is debased behavior.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Is capitalism objectively immoral?

capitalism is merely a fancy term for how any given society of people interact when given the free choice to do so. it is not a system in and of itself. It can be immoral, for example, pornography is gravely evil and also very profitable, so are drugs.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It's irrelevant what all the religious people say. good and evil is objective because we can say how the human person is naturally ordered. therefore behavior contrary to this order is evil.

humans are ordered towards cooperation, so theft and dishonest is disordered. sex is ordered towards reproduction so any facilitation of lust without procreation is disordered. humans are ordered towards life and so murder is disordered. etc

Nothing you just said proves that the religious have any shred of objective morality. If you interview 10 religious people about the morality of various scenarios you'll get 10 different sets of morality, even among Christians.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nothing you just said proves that the religious have any shred of objective morality. If you interview 10 religious people about the morality of various scenarios you'll get 10 different sets of morality, even among Christians.

Morality is objective, the fact people self servingly differ from objective morality does not disprove this.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Morality is objective, the fact people self servingly differ from objective morality does not disprove this.

Yet you have no evidence of moral objectivity. Christianity has HUNDREDS of denominations all with wildly differing interpretations of literally everything.

You WANT morality to be objective because that would comfort you, you don't have any evidence to support that.

 

[zyzygy]

Yes, sex for procreation is good.

Sex with contraceptive measures to prevent procreation is debased behavior.

No, it isn't.

 

[zyzygy]

Morality is objective, the fact people self servingly differ from objective morality does not disprove this.

Morality is subjective.

 

[maquiscat]

look for previous posts

Let's review the thread of posts:

there is no such thing as neutral when talking about this stuff. If you do nothing, you are good

No.

If there is a child on fire doing nothing when you should save the child, put out the fire and get medical help is evil.

The world is far more complex than you want it to be.

that is doing someting, not nothing

You no read very good. Let me simplify his example for you a bit.

If there is a child on fire doing nothing, is evil.

Unless you are trying to make the argument that no one truly ever "does nothing".

rtrewtgRGF

Try using your words.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

sent from my google smart fridge using tapatalk

rtrewtgRGF

sent from my google smart fridge using tapatalk

Nope, doesn't match. Try again, either a translation or an actual rebuttal.

i did rebuttal

i did rebuttal

Neither

rtrewtgRGF

nor

sent from my google smart fridge using tapatalk

are rebuttals. The first is randomly thrown together letters, and the other is an auto append from Tapatalk. Now if the letters are supposed to be an initialism of some sort, it is not a standard one thus it is upon you to explain their meaning.

No actual rebuttals in there. Even a "see post #45667 for the rebuttal" would be something.

BUt just to be sure, let's look at everything else that you have posted since Tim's post:

No.

If there is a child on fire doing nothing when you should save the child, put out the fire and get medical help is evil.

The world is far more complex than you want it to be.

that is doing someting, not nothing

That post is where you made your initial misunderstanding. Tim said that doing nothing instead of this specific something, and then you said it as doing nothing. At best a misunderstanding, at worse a strawman. Let's try again...

Yes.

In that circumstance doing nothing would be evil.

So sometimes you have to do something to not be evil.

Sometimes you have to do nothing to not be evil.

It is more complex than you want it to be. Unlucky.

it is no evil:lamo

That's not a rebuttal, but an unsubstantiated claim. That's not even valid logic off a faulty premise.

Maybe further down.....nope no other posts until the one that says look for previous posts. So no rebuttal. If you have one that comes after Tim's post #57, please supply the post number. Or even better quote it.

 

[maquiscat]

The label "atheist" is a religious construct.

Incorrect. While it can be claimed that religious is a social construct, you either believe that there is one or more gods or you believe that there are no gods. The first is the label theist, and the second is atheist. Neither is tied to any specific religion or spirituaity. In fact, the label theist does not require the worship of any given deity, just a belief that they exist. By definition, theism can exist without religion.