|
rudatron posted:The metaphor explicitly casts the attainment of knowledge as a bad deed deserving of punishment. The snake is the good guy. The snake tempts mankind with knowledge of its death.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Read Voltaire and Hume then get back to me. If your point is that we can arrive at morally abhorrent views through secular means then you are right but then I don't think anyone here has suggested that we can't or that it's exclusively the domain of religion. Death cults and racists exist. So what? Is your defense of religion just that it's possible for secularism to be equally bad? How do we best find the most productive ways for humans to cooperate? You can base it on the Bible which has numerous objectionable passages. Or we can craft a document with evidence and reasoned arguments such as the humanist manifesto. I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything in it but right off the bat it doesn't condemn anyone or condone slavery and misogyny. If I'm going to give my children a document to inspire their moral compass I would rather give them that than the Bible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Willful ignorance is immoral.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The snake tempts mankind with knowledge of its death. Like I said, he's the good guy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Bates posted:If your point is that we can arrive at morally abhorrent views through secular means then you are right but then I don't think anyone here has suggested that we can't or that it's exclusively the domain of religion. Death cults and racists exist. So what? Is your defense of religion just that it's possible for secularism to be equally bad? Hey thats fine you're still ignoring God. My main thing is people ignoring history and pushing western enlightenment narratives. Rudatron, death comes outside of the garden.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Willful ignorance is immoral. That's simply not true. A society that doesn't know how to wage war would be a moral society than our own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
I feel mildly vindicated; again the religious apologists fail, completely, to understand why the anarchists, socialists and liberals in Spain, Mexico, France, Italy were so hostile to the catholic church. It's basically pining for the symbols without understanding their context and the ideologies they helped reinforce. Historical context is only good when it helps your apologetics, never when it's actually against you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
The Catholic Church was absolutely an enemy of the Left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:That's simply not true. A society that doesn't know how to wage war would be a moral society than our own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
How does that make sense? If no harm is done that absolutely is better than if harm is done, regardless of intent. If I fantasise about killing someone that's massively different from actually murdering them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:I feel mildly vindicated; again the religious apologists fail, completely, to understand why the anarchists, socialists and liberals in Spain, Mexico, France, Italy were so hostile to the catholic church. It's basically pining for the symbols without understanding their context and the ideologies they helped reinforce. They have no argument besides "god makes me feel good because I fear nihilism" and "we need religion to control people." It's pathetic. We can all hope the Catholic Church doesn't survive this cycle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Does the technical inability to commit evil absolve someone of the intent to commit evil? I don't think so, if you're willing, then you're just as bad as someone both willing and able. No the person who manages to achieve evil is far worse than the person who doesn't, regardless of intent in either case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Does the technical inability to commit evil absolve someone of the intent to commit evil? I don't think so, if you're willing, then you're just as bad as someone both willing and able. A society that doesn't know how to wage war is necessarily one that doesn't have the intent to wage war. I'll take the metaphor one step further and say a society that doesn't know about war is as moral as a society that knows about war but never wages it. E: the "knowledge of good and evil" includes knowledge of the concept of war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
rear end struggle posted:Capitalism drove colonialism. But you're right besides that. It's obviously a huge and complex issue mostly driven by greed, but trying to claim it was a secular movement is stretching. Crowsbeak posted:The third Republic had a monarch? Because one secular government formed in 1870 totally was the impetus behind the colonialism that started centuries before that. poo poo colonialism started before there was the first fully secular (in name at least) government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It's obviously a huge and complex issue mostly driven by greed, but trying to claim it was a secular movement is stretching. Also the third republic only started veering towards the hard secularism of modern France in the 20th century. The first governments of the third were largely conservatives and monarchists who couldn't agree on who should be the king. All the way to the interwar period the implication that a presidential candidate was an atheist was sufficient to hurt him massively in the polls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The metaphor explicitly casts the attainment of knowledge as a bad deed deserving of punishment. The snake is the good guy. The bad deed isn't the attainment of knowledge. The bad deed, among the two creations walking in the backyard with the creator of the cosmos, was disobeying God's one specific command because either they knew better than God via some creature, or, God's lying to them to deny them something to which they think themselves entitled, also via the testimony of not-God. Yeah, God wasn't loving around when he said eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death. They serpent conned them by saying it would make them gods, and guess what it didn't do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
Committing an action requires two things - means, and intent. Those aren't equivalent things. All 4 combinations of having/not having means or intent are possible, they're independent variables. What makes a person/society 'bad' is whether they would do something, not whether they can do something. If a society does not know war, but would be willing to commit it if it learned it, is a bad society.TomViolence posted:How does that make sense? If no harm is done that absolutely is better than if harm is done, regardless of intent. If I fantasise about killing someone that's massively different from actually murdering them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Also the third republic only started veering towards the hard secularism of modern France in the 20th century. The first governments of the third were largely conservatives and monarchists who couldn't agree on who should be the king. All the way to the interwar period the implication that a presidential candidate was an atheist was sufficient to hurt him massively in the polls. But they were still a secular government. One that practiced imperialism. Also the thing that drove imperialism of the 19th century was a desire to secure resources for Capital.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:The bad deed isn't the attainment of knowledge. The bad deed, among the two creations walking in the backyard with the creator of the cosmos, was disobeying God's one specific command because either they knew better than God via some creature, or, God's lying to them to deny them something to which they think themselves entitled, also via the testimony of not-God. Yeah, God wasn't loving around when he said eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death. They serpent conned them by saying it would make them gods, and guess what it didn't do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
A society that doesn't have a concept of war is a good society. Such a society would never be willing to wage war because they had no idea it existed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Knowledge of a concept is separate from the approval of a concept. If, theoretically, they would approve of war after learning the concept, they were always bad, even if they do not know. So if, say, Adam raped Eve after eating the fruit, then he was always a rapist, even before he ate the fruit, because he always had that intent to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:But they were still a secular government. One that practiced imperialism. Also the thing that drove imperialism of the 19th century was a desire to secure resources for Capital. It's a pity imperialism was invented in the 19th century. Also this completely ignores multiple aspects of french imperialism, which always worked hand in hand with catholic missions and french interference in Ottoman politics in particular was more or less always justified on religious grounds. The july monarchy was more secularist than the early third republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:It's a pity imperialism was invented in the 19th century. Oh wow now you're suggesting the secular drive to conquer was earlier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Knowledge of a concept is separate from the approval of a concept. If, theoretically, they would approve of war after learning the concept, they were always bad, even if they do not know. In that scenario, if Adam had no conception of rape before eating the apple, then he was a better person before eating it. You can't have the intent to do something before you have knowledge of what you intend to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:In that scenario, if Adam had no conception of rape before eating the apple, then he was a better person before eating it. You can't have the intent to do something before you have knowledge of what you intend to do. It's still possible to do an evil act you have no concept of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Not if you don't have knowledge of evil actions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
Yet it is obviously the case that mere knowledge of an evil act is not sufficient to commit evil. The majority of human beings are not rapists, even if they are aware of what rape is. Therefore, knowledge does not create crime. Therefore, there must be some other factor, let's say Q, that preceded his knowledge of rape, but after attaining the knowledge, motivated him to rape, so that (Q + knowledge = rape). What, exactly, are you going to call 'Q', if not 'intent'?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
It doesn't matter because if there is no knowledge then there is no rape. E: and no, I would call "Q" intent. I'd probably think of a more appropriate word that doesn't require knowledge. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
If I shoot someone, and miss, and they live, are you suggesting I have not committed a crime? Because that's what you're suggesting when you say that 'no rape' is the only metric that matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Shooting at someone is evil. If you didn't know about shooting then you would never be a person who shoots at someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
You said that the 'only thing that matters' was that 'no knowledge = no rape' - the implicit assumption being that the morality of all actions can be judged by consequences alone. That's not a moral system shared by society or by other human beings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
A society that could never rape is exactly as good as a society that knows about rape but nobody is ever raped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Kant would say "ought implies can". That's convincing to me. If you were never tempted to rape or wage war, you not raping or waging war is morally perfectly neutral: as moral as the sheep refusing to eat lions, or as moral as the lion eating sheep - no praise, no blame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
The issue is that we're not talking about 'temptation'.The Kingfish posted:A society that could never rape is exactly as good as a society that knows about rape but nobody is ever raped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
The first post on this page contains the word "tempt". Kingpin says a society which has no means to consider war should be praised for not considering war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Also the third republic only started veering towards the hard secularism of modern France in the 20th century. The first governments of the third were largely conservatives and monarchists who couldn't agree on who should be the king. All the way to the interwar period the implication that a presidential candidate was an atheist was sufficient to hurt him massively in the polls. It's strange how much resistance there is to the idea that more secular trends towards more progressive. I've never argued that religions only hurt things, or that secularism has a perfect track record. The point is that there is enough evidence that encouraging secularism, and discouraging spiritualism, makes populations far more likely to be progressive. Religions have far too many problems in so many varieties that they ultimately provide more resistance to progressive ideology than aid. This is actually important, because if we want to move entire countries to the left, discouraging religion is something that will actually help on a large scale. This doesn't mean outright bans on any religion. It means a shift in media and culture, and on a governmental level actually enforcing tax codes. No churches should ever directly endorse politicians, and this goes for Democrats and Republicans. If a priest says that Obama is a Muslim infiltrator from the sermon, or that Mitch McConnell doesn't represent real Christians, then they lose their tax status. This poo poo is never enforced despite Southern churches being massive political vehicles. I know that Black Churches have a history of busing and helping their constituents vote, but this is far outweighed by the overwhelmingly conservative trend of churches in general. It's 2017, we can start replacing those programs with secular ones that don't fill their constituents with false hope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:The bad deed isn't the attainment of knowledge. The bad deed, among the two creations walking in the backyard with the creator of the cosmos, was disobeying God's one specific command because either they knew better than God via some creature, or, God's lying to them to deny them something to which they think themselves entitled, also via the testimony of not-God. Yeah, God wasn't loving around when he said eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death. They serpent conned them by saying it would make them gods, and guess what it didn't do. God hates freedom to the point where he will absolutely mass kill humans for doing things that he doesn't like. The fact that people can read the Bible and think, hmm, God is the good guy and the one worth worshipping, is why Christianity is inherently fascistic. If Jesus were truly egalitarian he would have done more than walk and talk. He would have gone to Rome and freed the slaves, giving them control of their means of production.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:he would have done more than walk and talk What, dying doesn't count now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:What, dying doesn't count now? If he's God, he didn't really die, now did he? It's a phony sacrifice. When the revolutionary sacrifices himself to bomb a czar, he is done. He only lives in the memory of others. When Jesus dies, who cares? He's God. Unless, of course, you believe that Jesus' death means God no longer exists and that God, too, is dead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Rudatron, death comes outside of the garden. Death occurred in the garden all the time, otherwise nobody would be able to eat. You could maybe say that animal death didn't occur in the garden, but there was undeniably death all the same. Bolocko posted:What, dying doesn't count now? Countless people die every single day. It's really nothing special.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 12:43
|
|