Monday, March 31, 2008
Since I go thru the trouble of writing this all up, I figure I'll just make it a blogspot rather than bury it in a combox. Responding to the Jolly Nihilist here. He talks a good game, but he canNOT keep his grubby little fingers off the cookie jar.
You had said:
This type of authoritarianism—I call it moral narcissism—is the point of comparison.
Then where are your cries of "atheofascist" over The Dawkins' calling child abuse immoral? Why restrict this to the Abrahamic religions? There are nearly as many targets for your "-ofascist" label as there are religions out there. Why engage in such special pleading?
Well, on to your post:
However, I am doing no such thing
OK, so relativism is neither better nor worse than authoritarianism.
What's your argument, then, for choosing one over the other? Just whatever you feel like that day, or most days? Whether you have the wherewithal to inflict your ideas upon others or not?
Because it makes no sense for one to be coercive with respect to things about which one is ignorant.
This falls victim to the constant problem that your worldview provides you no way to say OUGHT. It's all just IS.
It may make no sense, but so what? Maybe Joe feels like it. Where's the prescriptive power in your statement? Why SHOULD Joe do that which makes sense? There's a reason we call these questions "moral" questions, as opposed to "arithmetic" or "fluid dynamics", you know.
If these are just opinions on your part, again, where's the prescriptive power? Why SHOULD anyone agree?
Why even make such statements? Why not just think them and be done with it? I'm serious.
it makes no sense for laws to be religiously derived.
1) Go start your own country and see how far you get with that.
2) Oh, the USSR already tried that. Well, maybe you can do better than they did.
3) On what basis would you argue that atheism would be able to justify laws of religious freedom? Humans have no universal rights on atheism. Freedom is not a mandate on atheism.
Recognition of moral ignorance does not forbid formulation of moral opinion.
If only your camp would extend such courtesy to ID and not deny ID-ers tenure, a voice, etc, all the while thinking they were ignorant.
Does that work anywhere else? Recognition of ignorance in particle physics does not forbid formulation of opinion on black holes.
Recognition of chemical ignorance does not forbid formulation of opinion on whether I should mix ammonia and bleach and inhale the results, does it?
That's special pleading.
Your case is badly frayed here; I'll give you some asides here for the sundry peripheral questions.
Been wondering something - Where are these "Christofascists"? Compared to the very large number of Islamofascists, they are a speck if they exist at all. And their modus operandi is so different from jihadists as to warrant the serious question - why the "-ofascist" at the end of the appellation?
You need to point these people out and give a good reason to think they're acting in accord with a doctrine that could reasonably be thought to be of Christ; otherwise you're engaging in poisoning the well. Showing that their numbers even approach that of jihadists would help your case as well. It needs the help.
I am sure some Christians would beg to differ vis-à-vis sex toys.
Any idea what their argument would be?
Neither do I.
And sorry, I don't know what "felching" means, nor am I inclined to look it up on the Internet. If you care, you can email me.
True, your religion might preach equality in god’s eyes, but, on Earth, one gender clearly seems meant to dominate.
Your "seems" does not an argument make.
One need only remember the commandment addressing covetousness, which lumps thy neighbor’s wife in with that same neighbor’s ox and ass.
You have completely abandoned your original field of discourse on this topic, that of the "wives, submit to your husbands", since I provided you the context.
You're battered so you retreat to the OT, moving the goalposts. What will happen next time you're corrected? Are you going to cite the 1st Charter of the Woodsgrove, Montana Mountain Man Armed Enclave and try to say I'm bound by it? Please.
This is not a “clean break” from the Islamic misogyny you excoriate.
Deal with the hypothetical all you want. The Bible denies such hypotheticals - God doesn't change, can't be any other way. It's like asking me if God can microwave a burrito so hot that He can't eat it.
Presumably, when that verse was written, god knew quite well that some of his followers would misuse it in the context of hysterical hunts for witches
You're the one who's so fond of freewill. What's wrong if God is a fan of it too?
Man, God just can't win - you won't give Him credit either way!
What's He supposed to do? Zap them out of existence as soon as they start to think a wrong thought about the meaning of the Bible?
Besides, this is just one more moral judgment - you're trying to convince me that these hunts and these Scriptures which supposedly underpin them are morally objectionable. This dog only comes out when the meat is stinky enough, it would seem.
Knowing that god is also omnibenevolent
What does that word mean?
What gave you the idea that God is "omnibenevolent"?
it is not even clear from the Bible whether the creator of the universe is aware of Australia.
B/c it's not mentioned in the Bible? Wow - a ZINGER of an argument!
You've done better, JN. But always nice talking to you.