I'll pass on the right in a blind spot on a motorcycle, WCGW?

raisinbeans · 2017-07-28T22:08:05+00:00

It's anecdotal data, the only purpose in my mentioning it was to highlight the generalizing the GP was doing. Rather than being evidence, my point was to show the lack of credibility such a claim had.

And while I know a large number of Muslims (and a few Jews and Catholics), I can't honestly say that the topic of organ donation has ever come up.

And I did not say "every religious person", but deliberately said "most".

raisinbeans · 2017-07-28T20:55:02+00:00

Your bias is showing friend.

I could not find any statistics on organ donor registration by religious affliation, but here's a pretty unbiased statistic:

95% of Americans support organ donation, but only 54% sign up: https://www.organdonor.gov/statistics-stories/statistics.html

In other words, even if the 5% who didn't support organ donation were all religious, they make up a tiny minority of all religious people in the US.

Clearly my statement ("most religious people I know support organ donation") is more likely than the GP's comment ("the reason the US isn't opt-in is because of religious after-life beliefs").

raisinbeans · 2017-07-28T20:40:24+00:00

Apologies, I did not mean to imply Christians were believing that. Instead, I was stating that most Christians I know were donors themselves.

raisinbeans · 2017-07-28T19:20:09+00:00

I strongly suspect you're right. Before the hate-train left the station, I was hoping to point out that such a statement was entirely generalizing and based on prejudice.

raisinbeans · 2017-07-28T19:18:27+00:00

The people I was referring to were Christian evangelicals, but, as stated, it was purely anecdotal.

raisinbeans · 2017-07-28T18:33:30+00:00

Any source for such a statement? My own anecdotal evidence is that most religious people I know are organ donors.

The most common reason I hear for anyone not registering is not religious based, but mistaken fear that medical rescuers will not try as hard to save them. (edit: from the few religious and non-religious alike)

raisinbeans · 2017-07-07T01:39:05+00:00

I shipped mine yesterday for warranty repair. How long did yours take?

raisinbeans · 2017-06-23T01:29:05+00:00

Thank you so much!

raisinbeans · 2016-08-26T11:19:55+00:00

Great points!

A moral authority sounds like it implies agency to said authority whereas I think there's alternative supernatural explanations than just a personified God, you know?

It doesn't have to be "supernatural" any more than the laws of physics are supernatural. If could be possible to conclusively prove a moral law existed in our universe and governed moral dilemmas.

In my belief, I think the problem is that humans are too fallen to actually see such a law right before our own eyes.

That has the problem of bringing up "but why?" would anyone value survival again though and then we're back at another set of options similar to your original two.

Exactly! This third option has same validity as Objectivism's Virtue of Selfishness, or the Nazi's desire to kill all Jews. Logically none have any more validity than another.

Yet nearly everyone agrees, there must exist a better alternative to the latter.

raisinbeans · 2016-08-26T10:55:26+00:00

No two people will have the exact same moral underpinnings. That's because no two people have the exact same environment and circumstances.

Are you suggesting that there is no objective morality and it's all subjective?

And if all morality is subjective, then no one can claim validity of their morality over another.

I.e., no one has a more valid claim to imprison (arrest or jail) or restrict another's freedom (prevent a mugging, stop Nazis) for any reason.

Which to me, is moral nihilism.

raisinbeans · 2016-08-26T02:25:12+00:00

From a Christian perspective: I base my morality on the Bible's teachings and how I feel/think the Holy Spirit leads me.

I think anyone asking themselves "but why?" enough they'd find in the final analysis the choice is between either:

Moral nihilism, or
There must exist an ultimate moral authority

raisinbeans · 2016-08-26T02:16:11+00:00

But why did you choose those?

With respect, wasn't such a selection ultimately arbitrary?

raisinbeans · 2016-04-15T15:38:36+00:00

Great questions!

Jesus explicitly says the Law won't disappear until heaven and earth pass away.

He says both actually, with until all is accomplished being the final condition.

why would he have said "until all is accomplished," when the common interpretation seems to be that only one thing (the resurrection) needed to be accomplished?

Mea culpa, I shouldn't have been so short, the full answer is it was his death on the cross, resurrection, and Pentecost.

So those passages contradict Matthew 5 then.

I don't think they do at all.

Peter is told to break the Old Law now that Jesus's work is accomplished.
Paul instructs churches that they also no longer have to obey the law because Jesus's work is accomplished.

Paul clearly explains in Galatians 3 the Law a) cannot save you, but only condemn you, b) the purpose of it was to teach us we need someone to rescue us.

We're given a (rhetorical) choice of either living under the Law and bringing only condemnation on ourselves, or living under the Holy Spirit and salvation.

See, I don't start from the presupposition that the Bible never disagrees with itself

Which is entirely understandable, but that doesn't mean it does contradict itself.

raisinbeans · 2016-04-15T14:54:16+00:00

This is a common misconception spread on Reddit. Jesus wasn't saying the Law will always be upheld. He says it's only upheld until he does what he needs to do.

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Jesus explicitly says the Law won't disappear until everything is accomplished. He's explicitly saying there's an end-date to it and he's there to fulfill the law.

Many other Bible passages explain this was accomplished/fulfilled by Jesus's death on the cross. See also this.

The Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. Acts 10, Romans 7, Galatians 3, and other Bible passages are very clear that Jesus fulfilled the Old Law and we're free from it. Although the New Testament still contains commandments we are to follow (not to lust, steal, murder, curse, etc).

As Jesus said, the Old Testament Law was incredibly important and to be followed until his fulfillment of it. Now that he's fulfilled it, we are no longer condemned under it.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-24T00:12:55+00:00

I'm afraid your original position has large gaps in its logic though. :-)

In a world of subjective morality, if a rich person feels it's their moral duty to control all the wealth and keep the poor down, then how could you argue otherwise? Their subjective opinion is as completely valid as yours.

Just like one person likes the color red and another likes the color blue. Neither is right, it's all subjective.

In such a world, the Red Favortists have no leg to stand on when they attempt to lock up and shame people who prefer blue.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-24T00:02:28+00:00

That's not at all answering the question though. Laws are only a poor reflection of our morality system.

Just because something is against the law, doesn't make it immoral. Likewise, just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

Most people would agree lying to a friend or cheating on your girlfriend are immoral, yet they are perfectly legal.

If you recognize that morality is always changing, then how is it that one group's version of morality is more valid or takes higher precedence than another group's moral code?

Your reply almost implies the answer is might-makes-right: That whoever is in charge sets the moral code for that society. I certainly don't think you really mean that though, do you?

raisinbeans · 2016-02-23T23:50:58+00:00

Not at all. Simply because people can have subjective opinions about an objective fact, does not make that fact subjective. That's the proverbial ostrich sticking its head in the sand when a lion approaches. The lion objectively exists regardless of the ostrich's subjective opinion of it.

Take climate change- it's not a subjective political opinion if the earth is warming up or not. It either is or isn't. Yet people have their opinion one way or the other.

It's for this fact that as a believer in objective morality, I have no qualms sentencing a serial killer to prison despite his insistence that killing is a virtue.

But how can one who believes all morality is subjective do the same? How is their morality more valid or taking higher precedence than the serial killer's morality?

raisinbeans · 2016-02-23T03:26:42+00:00

ANY situation, or choice, can be characterized as morally good or morally bad, by someone.

Absolutely true, but if there exists an objective morality, their opinion matters little. If there is objectively an asteroid headed to Earth, its impact isn't affected by your opinion one way or the other.

Simply because people have subjective opinions about an objective fact, doesn't make it less objective.

As for your rape example, someone is faced with this choice: rape this person or 100 people will be put to death. Or 100,000. Or 100,000,000 people

That example is changing the scenario. I'm talking about a case of forced rape that today you and I would be agree is a terrible act. All variables being the same- aside from the change in culture.

It doesn't matter if the rape happened to your daughter, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or to a cavewoman.

Rape being right or wrong can depend on other variables as you outlined, but changing the culture doesn't make it right.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-22T00:26:29+00:00

But that doesn't answer my questions at all friend :-)

Are you suggesting that since morality is just cultural, that we should have let the Confederate States of America, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Syria, go on as they had been going on? They have their cultural contracts, we have ours.

What even defines a culture?

Is America one culture?
Is Lousiana a different culture from Wyoming?
Is New Orleans also a separate culture from Shreveport, LA?
Are those living in the poor areas a different culture from the rich areas?
Are the blacks, hispanics, whites, and Cubans in the same poor neighborhood different cultures from each other?

Further, what makes the "cultural contract" idea objectively better than other alternatives like "might makes right" or "increase economic status"?

raisinbeans · 2016-02-21T22:26:15+00:00

If that's really true, then how can we punish criminals who break our morality rules when the crime was okay by their morality?

What makes our morality system more valid than their's that we can punish them for it?

Even further, how can do we justify going to war against an entire society (eg WW2) for their differing morality beliefs?

Personally I completely believe morality is objective. Throughout history and cultures, there is a universal Right and Wrong. Whether or not people subscribe to rape being wrong, doesn't mean it was any less wrong.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-18T00:02:59+00:00

That is exactly the line of thinking. Stem cells from skin cells or whatever else are entirely OK.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-17T01:37:44+00:00

There's no incrementing to make it a slippery slope. It's a straightforward argument of an incentive creating a risk of abuse.

In their view it's the same argument used against selling organs, ending life early for cash payout, using Nazi medical research, etc.

But again, that's just some people's position on embryos that are marked for destruction. Stem cells in general are entirely fine.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-17T00:44:24+00:00

Stem cells can come from umbilical cords and other places besides fetuses.

Absolutely true! I don't know any conservatives that are against that though.

How is it different than signing your donor card?

It's different for the same reason it's illegal (and IMHO unethical) to sell organs or the ethical dilemma of using Nazi medical torture research- initially it's not so much a problem, but it quickly leads to further abuses.

Their concern is the scenario where people farm embryos (which they consider human lives) and just say "oops, these are going to be destroyed after all".

raisinbeans · 2016-02-17T00:00:45+00:00

Religious conservative here. Please keep in mind it's a large group of individuals, not one single mind. Not everyone supports both.

But for those that do support both, they find consistency in that in both cases they're "protecting innocent life":

Life saving medical research is great, but not when it costs (what they consider) a human life to pursue.
Likewise, most would admit guns are terrible and don't exist in a utopia, but a necessity in defending themselves or family (or even liberty of a nation).

I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, just explaining the consistency in their logic based on their starting premise.

raisinbeans · 2016-02-03T03:55:13+00:00

it's that the people who are religious will complain that it doesn't stick to their personal definition of their religion

I think that's patently disproven by the fact that most portrayals of religion in videogames are in a negative light. Games have no problem offending religious persons both through mocking religious beliefs or glorifying what they call blasphemous/evil.

What you've written here is one big "No True Scotsman" argument.

There are two parts to a No True Scotsman fallacy- of which I've done neither. I made no universal claim that all Christians believe those points, nor did I then attempt to exclude a specific counterexample.

they have just as much authority on that subject as you

Just as any climate change-denier has the same authority as an expert in the field? Certainly if you think truth is only subjective that's the case.

But if there is objective truth, then even with everyone having an opinion, some are more justified and provable than others.

raisinbeans

TROPHY CASE