Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Jelrak_TB]

This is the bit I don’t get.

It’s been a hot day. I’ve been working in the garden most of the day and I’ve got one eye on the time. When it reaches beer o’clock it’s down tools and I’ll grab a cold one from the fridge, sit on the steps of the deck and have a well-earned drink. Now I’m drinking the beer because I’m thirsty. And gee, that first one tastes just great. But I know that if I drank a beer every time I was thirsty, then I wouldn’t be doing myself any good.

After that first beer, I’ll have another. This time , not because I’m thirsty but because, well damn it, I do like drinking beer. Later on maybe I’ll have a couple of g and t’s while I’m cooking a fat steak with a lot of creamy sauce and there will certainly be a bottle of wine involved at some point.

Now I don’t get a little drunk and stuff myself with a lot of unhealthy food on a daily basis. But I certainly do enjoy it on occasion. Not so much that it does me harm but hey, life is short and I like to enjoy myself as long as I’m not doing myself any damage. And I do know where that line needs to be drawn.

So the beer and the wine and the steak serve two purposes. They are literally food and drink but they also give me a lot of pleasure – as long as I don’t take it to extremes. I could drink water and have a lettuce sandwich and they would serve to quench my thirst and satisfy my hunger. But I’m not of a mind to live like a hermit.

It’s the same with sex. It serves two purposes. It gets women pregnant and it’s great way to spend some quality time with someone with whom you have an emotional attachment. Now I’ve got two children. So you could say I’ve used it for the first purpose just twice in my life. The rest of the time I’m doing it because of the second purpose. And, just like having those beers and the fat steak with a bottle of wine every now and then, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. And whether I am married or not is irrelevant.

My good Bradski, did you think that by making me both hungry and thirsty, my mind might stray to other things and thereby lower my guard…?

I would suggest that there is a difference between a long-term commitment and a short-term one. For in the former very little difference might exist between being married or non, while in the latter it is quite a different affair…for in choosing to keep sex off the table one must be creative in accumulating other mutual interests and topics of conversation…considerations which clearly must needs be set aside when the prize might be had for half the effort…

…now, good neighbor, about that extra steak I see on your grille…

 

[Bradski]

I’m sorry Bradski. I really meant it. What do you think was the first cause?

Don’t know. The maths is waaay above my pay grade to even understand the what happened after it started let alone how it started.

A christian takes his christianity with him wherever he goes. So, for example, a “christian” senator who votes pro choice is pretty much a hypocrite. He could vote as such if he believes it to be correct, but then he shouldn’t call himself a christian.

You are suggesting that there are hardly any Christians at all. Almost all Catholics have used or are using contraception. Most support SSM. The majority see no problem with abortions in certain circumstances. Keep taking those percentages away from the total number of potential Catholics and you hardly have any left.

How do we move in different circles? Don’t children going to catholic school learn about God? Did you tell them it was just a lot of rubbish???

My kids were both taught about God in their respective Catholic schools. They didn’t feel it was relevant. I’d say that almost all of their peers felt the same. Australia is quite a secular country. God doesn’t make an appearance down here in the same way as He does in say America. He’s not mentioned in our national anthem, He’s not on our money, we have had atheist Prime Ministers and senior ministers (and gay senior ministers)and no-one raises an eyebrow. You don’t have to mention Him when swearing allegiance to the country if you become a citizen either (and they dropped having to pledge allegiance to the queen some time back as well. I had to wait for that, and for God to be optional, before I could become Australian).

We just had a leadership spill (again) in the government here. The outgoing PM made a short speech (through gritted teeth) before finally leaving office and his last words were: ‘…and may God bless Australia’. That came as a shock to me. It was the first time I had ever heard anyone utter such a phrase. It just doesn’t happen and my immediate reaction was: ‘That sounded very American’. It’s something you expect POTUS to say. But an Aussie politician? In passing, he is a Catholic with a very strong faith and was thinking of becoming a priest before he entered politics.

Truth be known, almost the whole country was glad to see the back of him.

Bradski - scientists don’t agree with each other. Imagine christians! There are fundamental christians who can PROVE the earth is only 6,000 years old. I’ve seen this on a religious station. It’s fun stuff. Let them be happy. The genesis account of the creation taking place is 7 days is symbolic, of course.

It would be funny if they kept their nonsensical beliefs to themselves. If they want to teach this garbage to kids, then I have a serious problem with it.

Yes. It is quite a team. And look what a good job they’ve done! And getting better all the time. We’re selling baby parts now as a business.

That’s hardly representative of the world as it is now. No more so than Catholic priests raping children is representative of the church. If you want to take extreme examples and use them as examples of things going to hell in a hand basket then the tone of the discussion will spiral downwards.

PLEASE answer my question.

My apologies, I’ve been bouncing around a few posts. If I haven’t answered it yet, to which question are you referring?

 

[Rau]

Indeed. And I’m still waiting for a reasonable argument that it is. Other than ‘it damages your soul’ and ‘it really annoys God’. If the defence is going to rest on those two propositions, then the jury is in, the verdict given and the case dismissed.

Those reasons would be meaningful to you under other circumstances, but in your current circumstances you must declare them unreasonable.

For me, the nature of the act demands that it belongs in a permanent relationship. The fruits of the act are bound together, so I find it false reasoning to think about its purposes as entirely separable. A lack of commitment in the context of an act that, at its core, cooperates with God in the creation of children / souls - regardless of how the act might be thwarted - grates. The idea that children might be created absent a committed father (or mother), or even without knowledge of their father, seems horrendous.

When taken in isolation, it may well be that for some individuals, there is no recognizable ill consequence from pre-marital sex. But in general, there are foreseeable risks and ill consequences and it does not seem to be a positive practice.

Apologies for the reference to God, and I understand that may disqualify my thoughts from admission at the Atheist’s convention. . But that issue which divides us will always impede us in debate.

 

[Bradski]

I would suggest that there is a difference between a long-term commitment and a short-term one. For in the former very little difference might exist between being married or non, while in the latter it is quite a different affair…for in choosing to keep sex off the table one must be creative in accumulating other mutual interests and topics of conversation…considerations which clearly must needs be set aside when the prize might be had for half the effort…

In a long term relationship (let’s say a couple has been together for many years and has raised a family), then the fact that they may or may not be married is irrelevant. Signing a piece of paper 40 years ago, or not as the case may be, obviously has no harmful or beneficial effect that one could point to.

We can then go to the other extreme and suggest that a one night stand, or even a knee trembler (if I may be so coarse) in the back alley of a club with someone you have just met and you are both drunk might be a long way from being a good idea.

Between those two extremes are an infinite number of scenarios which would need examining individually in their own right. My point is this: You cannot make a blanket statement: ‘having sex without being married is harmful’ that will cover all contingencies. It obviously isn’t harmful in the first instance and possibly could be in the second.

Just like the command ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ mentioned earlier, you need to examine the circumstances and offer reasonable arguments to back up how that statement is applicable in that particular circumstance.

…now, good neighbor, about that extra steak I see on your grille…

Grab yourself a beer and we can discuss sport, politics, life, the universe and everything while they’re cooking.

 

[Bradski]

When taken in isolation, it may well be that for some individuals, there is no recognizable ill consequence from pre-marital sex. But in general, there are foreseeable risks and ill consequences and it does not seem to be a positive practice.

I have a tendency to agree with this to a certain extent.

Apologies for the reference to God, and I understand that may disqualify my thoughts from admission at the Atheist’s convention. . But that issue which divides us will always impede us in debate.

Hey, I’m the guest here. You can’t apologise for mentioning God.

But as I’ve tried to explain, if you feel that it does annoy God and harms your soul, then that’s an excellent reason for you not to do it. I’m sure you could convince other serious Christians using that as a basis for them not doing it as well. But to offer it as a blanket statement to cover everyone is not acceptable. You are going to need reasonable arguments. It is harmful because…

And if you fill in the dots, you are going to have to describe a particular scenario and then the injunction becomes relative only to that scenario.

 

[Rau]

…And if you fill in the dots, you are going to have to describe a particular scenario and then the injunction becomes relative only to that scenario.

I’m not sure if that’s right. Our behaviour sets an example for others.

 

[Bradski]

I’m not sure if that’s right. Our behaviour sets an example for others.

So if I use myself as an example, I could say that sex outside of marriage is fine because my wife and I suffered no problems at all. If the girl who had the one night stand got pregnant or the guy caught an STD, then their example would show that it could cause problems. Who is right?

Well, we both are. One size does not fit all.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

MC: "Gotta say that the logic of “if there are bad things in the world, God is implied” is completely illogical, and is a HUGE leap of faith. The concept of evil is more easily defined as the things we don’t want done to us, or others. The worse the indiscretion, the more evil we perceive it to be. Those ideas can and do exist without God. To say that I need God in order to know that killing, stealing, etc, is bad is to give away your common sense to a man in the sky. We know it’s bad because we can see the effects it has on people everyday…

I searched the whole thread for Arthur Leff and didn’t see his name, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned.

In a series of articles (you can find Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law online via Yale Law School) Arthur Allen Leff, a former Yale Law Professor, examined and challenged your atheist friend’s statement which I will rephrase as “I don’t need God to know what is right and wrong” and showed that it is provably false. Without going into the entirety of the article cited above, the basic argument boils down to this.

In a world without God

1. You tell me that murder is bad.
2. I say to you “Says Who” (Leff prefers the idiomatic “Sez Who?” for effect).
3. You say (and we will use your friend’s argument) “It’s bad because we can see the bad effects it has on people.”
4. I say “Why are those effects bad?”
5. You can say a lot, but eventually you will say, “They are bad because I define them as bad.”
6. I will then say, “I don’t agree with you. I define what is bad differently, and there is no logical way you can prove to me that the things you think are bad are actually bad, without invariably, inevitably, ineluctably inserting an unprovable axiomatic statement that X is bad because I say it is, somewhere in your proof.”

Leff liked to say: you can try all you want, but you can’t ever prove that napalming babies is bad. This Leff calls the “Great Sez Who?”

Now in a world with God (which fortunately is the one we do live in)

1. You say “Killing is Bad.”
2. I say “Says Who?”
3. You say “God.”

The underlying axiom here is, of course, is a statement that God is the arbiter of what is, and isn’t good because He is, well, God. And this is true statement as it comes from God. This might seem tautological so maybe the better way to think of it is: in a God-centric universe, God makes the Rules, and the first rule is: God makes the Rules, including what is/isn’t a tautology.

Without an absolute arbiter, which can only be God, you are left with everyone acting like their own little god, and creating their own rules and their own (a)moral universes.

Anyway, I recommend reading the article cited by Leff as he is a much better writer than I am.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

And it leads to the first question: “why would this activity be harmful for an unmarried couple and harmless for a married one”? You should be aware that in testing procedure only one parameter can be modified at a time. In our case it means that the ONLY difference is the “married” vs. “unmarried” status. Everything else should be equal.

Yet is there not a reason that the dessert might be served only after the vegetable have been finished? For in skipping ahead to dessert is not the appetite for healthier fare reduced? Given that individuals are generally anxious to accumulate experiences, are not some things to be considered worthy of the wait? Should not some appetites be tempered in favor of arriving at the best possible result? For is the wine to be consumed immediately upon the crushing or should one not at least defer until its proper time to be able to properly enjoy its full flavor…?

Next observation. The paperwork does not create commitment. One can be faithfully committed to a relationship without going through the ceremony. Now you might ask, why NOT go through with the ceremony, if both parties are committed. The answer is simple: it is none of our business. The only thing that matters is the commitment, with or without the legal or religious ceremony. Where is the “harm” for the unmarried couple, which is absent for the married one?

Aside from a quiet sense of completion and commitment? Yet I am willing to concede that a long-term relationship is likely sufficiently synonymous with marriage so as to reduce our disagreement to little more than semantics.

The issue is much more relevant with a relationship younger than a year.

You might object that it is more “difficult” to stray when one is married, but that does not seem to be the case. As I said: “the paper does not create commitment”. In the very religious Victorian era infidelity was rampant, though well hidden. According to a story, a member of the House of Lords was asked if he would permit his daughter to read “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”. He answered: “of course I would let her read it. But I would not let my gardener to read it”.

Such is of as little apparent relevance as claiming that during the same era the majority of surgeons were against the practice of washing hands between surgeries and so therefor today we should be heeding their advice. The question is whether attempts at harm reduction should be exercised once any such possibilities might be identified.

Different cultures had different norms. In the medieval German culture pre-marital sex was not just strongly encouraged, it was expected. The bride was supposed to be visibly pregnant, to provide evidence that the couple is fertile. No nonsense about having two virgins try to figure out what should be put where. This reminds me of another excellent joke, but I don’t dare to tell it… someone might get upset about it.

If this is to be considered a fair argument then so equally should be any example which might demonstrate a cultural preference in favor of its opposite…

Based upon the rest of your post you seem to equate unmarried sex with uninhibited bed-hopping. Of course such behavior MIGHT carry risks, but taking risks does not equal harmful result. The question was not about which behavior MIGHT carry more risks, rather which result WILL be inherently harmful.

Ah, well it was my impression we were after potential harm, and not the guaranteed variety…for where might one guarantee harm outside of setting one’s self on fire?

Yes, this is another POSSIBILITY. As long as both parties agree and accept this, there is no harm. Actually, the courtship ritual is a two-edged sword. When the “final harbor” - the marriage is reached, people rend to lower their hair - so to speak - and the procedure might degenerate into a ho-hum ritual.

Quite possibly…yet given the preponderance of possibilities, the only guarantee against STDs not protected against by condoms is abstinence, where might be the harm in erring on the side of caution?

And herein lies another misconception. The greatest confidence is given to someone who has tried and tested several partners, and who KNOWINGLY stays in a faithful relationship, precisely because they KNOW the value of their current partner. The otherwise normal and ever-present curiosity of “how would it be with someone else?” is absent, because they both are aware of the greatness of the current relationship.

Well this is a fair example…yet in knowing one’s current partner by way of a comparison of previous exploits, might one not equally be presented with a double-edged sword? For is it not possible to have discovered that one’s preferred model had in actual fact been the fourth relationship rather than one’s current prospect?

There is the atavistic desire to “own” someone, body and “soul”, to keep them for one’s exclusive “use”, as if having had prior relationship would wash off the “farina” from the wings of the “maiden”. Nonsense. Sex is not instinctive, it needs to be learned and practiced. No one would expect a future violin player just to pick up the violin and the fiddlestick and become a Yehudi Menuhin. Practice makes perfect in every facet of life.

The practical side of well practiced sex seemingly pales in comparison to the deeper aspects of being well versed in conversation, attaining common activities and passions, and cultivating mutual respect. Much of which might seemingly be set aside in favor of a more consistent pressure to progress from base to base in pursuit of the home run…

 

[Bradski]

I’ll try to get to Leff’s article later. But in the meantime…

In a world without God

1. You tell me that murder is bad.
2. I say to you “Says Who” (Leff prefers the idiomatic “Sez Who?” for effect).
3. You say (and we will use your friend’s argument) “It’s bad because we can see the bad effects it has on people.”
4. I say “Why are those effects bad?”
5. You can say a lot, but eventually you will say, “They are bad because I define them as bad.”
6. I will then say, “I don’t agree with you. I define what is bad differently, and there is no logical way you can prove to me that the things you think are bad are actually bad, without invariably, inevitably, ineluctably inserting an unprovable axiomatic statement that X is bad because I say it is, somewhere in your proof.”

Leff liked to say: you can try all you want, but you can’t ever prove that napalming babies is bad. This Leff calls the “Great Sez Who?”

It fails when it gets to point 5. It seems obvious to me that you CAN define what a bad effect is. Especially if it’s napalming babies. Is there anyone at all who couldn’t offer up a reasonably argument why that is bad without having to resort to: ‘Well, it just is’? If I asked anyone if they minded me burning their child, we know what the obvious answer would be. If we were to ask why they objected, do you really think the answer would be a shrug of the shoulders and I mumbled: ‘Well, I dunno. I just think it’s a bad idea is all’.

Now in a world with God (which fortunately is the one we do live in)

1. You say “Killing is Bad.”
2. I say “Says Who?”
3. You say “God.”

The underlying axiom here is, of course, is a statement that God is the arbiter of what is, and isn’t good because He is, well, God. And this is true statement as it comes from God.

So who decides how we interpret what God is meant to be telling us? ‘Killing is Bad’ simply prompts the question: ‘In what circumstances?’. And there are an infinite number of scenarios where killing may, or may not be, justified. Does God explain what we should do in every single one of those scenarios or do we have to make that call ourselves?

Well, the obvious answer is that we have to do so. Because you are left having to say: ‘It’s wrong in this particular case because I believe that God thinks so’. And if someone else says:’ It’s right in this particular case because I believe that God thinks so’ then we haven’t made much progress.

What needs to be done is a case put forward that doesn’t include someone’s opinion on what God thinks but does include reasonable arguments as to what harm is being done.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In a long term relationship (let’s say a couple has been together for many years and has raised a family), then the fact that they may or may not be married is irrelevant. Signing a piece of paper 40 years ago, or not as the case may be, obviously has no harmful or beneficial effect that one could point to.

Agreed…

We can then go to the other extreme and suggest that a one night stand, or even a knee trembler (if I may be so coarse) in the back alley of a club with someone you have just met and you are both drunk might be a long way from being a good idea.

Again we are of the same thinking…

Between those two extremes are an infinite number of scenarios which would need examining individually in their own right. My point is this: You cannot make a blanket statement: ‘having sex without being married is harmful’ that will cover all contingencies. It obviously isn’t harmful in the first instance and possibly could be in the second.

Your point is fairly received.

My own is simply that given there is rarely a means of covering all contingencies, the majority, or even a sizable minority, of cases should suffice for consideration…

Just like the command ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’ mentioned earlier, you need to examine the circumstances and offer reasonable arguments to back up how that statement is applicable in that particular circumstance.

Fair enough…and here might also be where another distinction might lie: for in offering my opinion I have no interest nor requirement that it become a command. My opinion that pre-maritial sex may be, on the balance of probabilities, more harmful than abstinence is simply that. Your rational decision to behave otherwise is up to you and largely none of my concern…we may disagree and yet remain neighbors…however my daughters will still be cautioned against the potential motivations of your sons…just in case…

Grab yourself a beer and we can discuss sport, politics, life, the universe and everything while they’re cooking.

Thank you my good Bradski…and if you don’t mind I like my steak medium rare…and leave some room…I have brought dessert…!

 

[Rau]

So if I use myself as an example, I could say that sex outside of marriage is fine because my wife and I suffered no problems at all. If the girl who had the one night stand got pregnant or the guy caught an STD, then their example would show that it could cause problems. Who is right?

Well, we both are. One size does not fit all.

The goodness or otherwise of a human act can’t depend on actual after the fact consequences. These cannot be known at the time we make our choices. The only factors are those at the time the choice is made.

 

[Bradski]

The goodness or otherwise of a human act can’t depend on actual after the fact consequences. These cannot be known at the time we make our choices. The only factors are those at the time the choice is made.

But we can go back and say that the decision as was made in the first instance, in those particular circumstances, turned out to be correct. If years back you had said that harm would accrue if I slept with my partner at that time, then you would have been wrong. That in itself proves that you cannot make blanket statements such as: ‘Sex outside marriage is harmful’. It only takes one example to require you to say: ‘Sex outside marriage is harmful unless…’.

In my case you would have to say that: ’Sex outside marriage is harmful unless the two people in question happen to have been Bradski and his partner’.

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

I’ll try to get to Leff’s article later. But in the meantime…

It fails when it gets to point 5. It seems obvious to me that you CAN define what a bad effect is. Especially if it’s napalming babies. Is there anyone at all who couldn’t offer up a reasonably argument why that is bad without having to resort to: ‘Well, it just is’?.

You are certainly free to define what you think is bad and establish your own moral universe in a God-less Universe, but you can’t prove what you think is bad is actually bad, and that includes napalming babies in that Universe.

You assert in the quote above that it is “obvious to me that you can define what a bad effect is” but I note you don’t attempt to prove this obviousness to me or attempt to actually define a bad effect. You in effect resort to “Well, it just is”. You assume that I must accept your unstated, unprovable assumption: that what you think is bad (theft, murder, etc). But I don’t have to accept what you think is bad, is actually bad. The only way you can make me obey (not accept but obey) the precepts of the moral universe you have created is through state action or other exercise of force. Might makes right.

This is not some idle conversation, we certainly live day-to-day in a world where abortion is legal, and indeed seemingly defined as an “absolute good” by a subset of our society. While another subset (which includes myself) define it as an absolute evil, and there is no logical system (if we exclude an appeal to God’s authority) that either side can use to prove that their position is better than the other. If you look at the recent news in the ongoing societal debate over gay marriage you will see that one side has resorted to using state action to enforce it’s moral code over the other.

Well, the obvious answer is that we have to do so. Because you are left having to say: ‘It’s wrong in this particular case because I believe that God thinks so’. And if someone else says:’ It’s right in this particular case because I believe that God thinks so’ then we haven’t made much progress.

Leff is one of the two reasons not only why I abandoned agnosticism, but why I left a protestant faith and converted to Catholicism.

A moral Universe not only requires God, but one Universal Church, the Catholic Church, established by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Quoting Fritz Tuttle: “God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church.” Otherwise we get the Universe in your quote: where all people attempt to define God’s Word in the way they like (which is indistinguishable from an amoral Universe absent God).

Now as a human institution the Church isn’t perfect (with, and I think I am presenting this correctly, but please correct me, and my apologies if I’m not, the exception of the rare times Papal Infallibility on a matter of doctrine has been invoked), and in particular, the humans with in it have from time-to-time (including recently with the sex abuse cases in the US and elsewhere) made grave moral (and indeed criminal) errors. But the Arc of the Holy Spirit is long, and it bends towards perfection.

I certainly don’t expect you, or any non-Catholic to accept my world view, nor, per Leff is there any external logical framework I could use to prove that the moral Universe I’ve chosen (God acting through his Church on Earth) is better than yours, nor could you prove that your moral Universe is better than mine. But this is the logical framework within which I live, and which was my personal response to Leff’s dilemma. Leff remained an agnostic until the day he died, to the best of my knowledge, though, I believe, always troubled by his view of the abyss.

I think that you either end up staring into the abyss or you choose to view the world in a way that is something akin to what Christian (not Catholic) apologist, C.S. Lewis, wrote in his book The Silver Chair, “Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things–trees and grass and sun and moon and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that in this case, that the made up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones.”

Best

 

[Bradski]

You are certainly free to define what you think is bad and establish your own moral universe in a God-less Universe, but you can’t prove what you think is bad is actually bad, and that includes napalming babies in that Universe.

You assert in the quote above that it is “obvious to me that you can define what a bad effect is” but I note you don’t attempt to prove this obviousness to me or attempt to actually define a bad effect.

Let’s start with what generally causes harm. Physical and/or psychological. What you are actually saying to me is that you could not, without reference to God, come up with a reasonable argument that says that burning children is wrong. I don’t believe that for one minute. It’s as simple as me asking you if you think it’s wrong to cause someone physical harm for your own pleasure.

If you agree that it’s wrong, then we have a basis for deciding what is right and what is wrong. If you disagree, then the technical term for you would be a psychopath.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Not everyone is reasonable. As I said, I am probably unreasonable myself in a lot of decisions I make. But…there are reasonable arguments and we all are in a position to recognise them. By recognising them, and accepting them, we become reasonable people. And again, quoting something from scripture and using arguments from authority do not constitute reasonable arguments. If you want them to stand on their own and be accepted, they must be based on reasonable arguments.

Most of those rules are about God. And the rest are pretty much universal and not specific to Christianity. And need some qualification.

Take ‘Thou Shall Not Kill’. Well, that sounds OK, but you’re going to end up a vegetarian and unable to protect yourself and your family if the Barbarians are at the gate. So there needs to be a reasonable discussion as to how that should be interpreted in various scenarios. There will be reasonable arguments for and against killing in different circumstances. If you are simply going to say: ‘Nope, not allowed in any circumstances’, then no-one is going to listen to you and your rule, as it stands, becomes worthless.

Same with sex. If you say: ‘Nope, not allowed in any circumstances (except within a marriage and as long as it’s open to procreation)’ then the same thing is going to happen. People will not listen. All these rules, all these ‘moral absolutes’ are contingent upon the situation. Calling them objective is meaningless unless you discuss them in context. And they then become relative to the situation.

As there are an infinite number of scenarios, it is obvious to me that each has to be decided on its merit. By, you guessed it, reasonable arguments.

Bradski, I don’t usually debate atheists. It’s not logical unless they’re really searching and you’re not because you depend so much on human reasonableness and you know how I feel about that and your mind is not going to be changed.

Before I was a christian, I was a secular type person such as yourself. I didn’t become christian till I was about 30. I can only say I understand things better now and it has made a big difference in my life. Okay. Hurray for Fran.

But you never answer my question. What do you make of how all this started? Are we going somewhere after we leave this life? What’s it all about Bradski?

I mean, the posting keeps going back to debating the final authority, or lack thereof, but you can’t get to there from here. We’re stuck here.

I think God has blessed you Bradski
And you may not even know it

Fran

Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel
luckily
City of Blinding Lights
U2

 

[Rau]

But we can go back and say that the decision as was made in the first instance, in those particular circumstances, turned out to be correct. If years back you had said that harm would accrue if I slept with my partner at that time, then you would have been wrong. That in itself proves that you cannot make blanket statements such as: ‘Sex outside marriage is harmful’. It only takes one example to require you to say: ‘Sex outside marriage is harmful unless…’.

In my case you would have to say that: ’Sex outside marriage is harmful unless the two people in question happen to have been Bradski and his partner’.

This is only because you equate morality, or goodness, as case by case based on outcome. Thus, from your perspective, actual, discernible harm is a prerequisite for immorality.

Why would having sex before marriage warrant an assessment as “correct”? What makes it good?

 

[Bradski]

This is only because you equate morality, or goodness, as case by case based on outcome. Thus, from your perspective, actual, discernible harm is a prerequisite for immorality.

Why would having sex before marriage warrant an assessment as “correct”? What makes it good?

How could something that caused no harm be described as immoral? Can you give me an example of something you consider harmless that you also consider to be immoral?

And I haven’t said that having sex outside of marriage is ‘correct’. I am saying that a blanket statement that is wrong is not possible.

 

[Rau]

How could something that caused no harm be described as immoral? Can you give me an example of something you consider harmless that you also consider to be immoral?

And how does an outcome devoid of recognizable harm ensure morality of the act? And what is harm in your worldview other than what you define it to be? *. Seems to me if we can define this with reference to nothing but ourselves, it ought equally to apply to animals.

And I haven’t said that having sex outside of marriage is ‘correct’. I am saying that a blanket statement that [it] is wrong is not possible.

Only because you define ‘wrong’ in such a way as to make a “correct” blanket statement impossible! You rely on outcomes which are inherently varied (not to mention elusive to predict).*

 

[Bradski]

But you never answer my question. What do you make of how all this started? Are we going somewhere after we leave this life? What’s it all about Bradski?

Enjoy your time here, Fran. It is short. But we will both live on. In our children. And their children. You have a direct genetic line stretching all the way back to the beginning of life, billions of years ago. With a lot of luck, it will stretch on as far into the future.

You won the biggest lottery there is in that you have been given some time here to contemplate all that. Isn’t that enough? Isn’t that more than anyone could possibly hope for? To be part of all this?

It’s the best prize of all. To want more seems almost greedy. You are a small sentinent part of the universe, a tiny part of the whole, yet you want to outlast it. The galactic roll of the dice has given you a chance to live and yet you want to actually cheat death.

I guess it’s understandable. No-one wants to leave the party. No-one wants to have to leave loved ones. Everyone wants another chance. A second life. Wouldn’t it be great? Well, personally speaking…no.

You play your part to the best of your abilities and there will be no opportunity to see anyone after the curtain comes down. This is not the dress rehearsal. This is it. Make it count.