So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[Mountain Man]

I think we can safely say that "wanting to have sex with your sister" comes under the heading of "socially unacceptable behavior" as per above.

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

[JimL]

[box]If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

No, he is not just doing something/acting unfashionably. We learned that such activity is harmful to individuals, to families and to society which is why we have dubbed them immoral, not just because they are commands from god. In other words our morals are based on reason, not willy nilly commands from above.

[Mountain Man]

No, he is not just doing something/acting unfashionably. We learned that such activity is harmful to individuals, to families and to society which is why we have dubbed them immoral, not just because they are commands from god. In other words our morals are based on reason, not willy nilly commands from above.

Try opening your peepers and actually reading, Jimmy. That objection is addressed in the paragraph I quoted:

"Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, 'The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,' then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably."

[JimL]

Try opening your peepers and actually reading, Jimmy. That objection is addressed in the paragraph I quoted:

"Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, 'The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,' then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably."

But the taboo's are not rooted in simple custom or habit, they are rooted in reason, which then becomes custom or habit, which is why you stated that they may not be biologically or socially advantageous.

[Mountain Man]

But the taboo's are not rooted in simple custom or habit, they are rooted in reason, which then becomes custom or habit, which is why you stated that they may not be biologically or socially advantageous.

Right, but that doesn't actually make such behaviors immoral, merely socially undesirable. All it takes is a simple change in social perspective, and any taboo associated with them evaporates. We saw this with homosexuality, and I wouldn't be surprised to see pedophilia similarly embraced within the next couple decades, assuming society continues on its current road to hell.

[Cow Poke]

But the taboo's are not rooted in simple custom or habit, they are rooted in reason, which then becomes custom or habit, which is why you stated that they may not be biologically or socially advantageous.

Speaking of taboos, Jimmy (and it's plural, not possessive) have you given up defending NAMBLA?

[Tassman]

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...d-without-god/

The most evident “herd mentality” is that which blindly follows imaginary entities as propagated by the likes of WL Craig or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. It’s always a problem when one set of divinely-based objective beliefs contradicts another set of “objective beliefs”...given that they were all created by men in the first place.

[JimL]

Speaking of taboos, Jimmy (and it's plural, not possessive) have you given up defending NAMBLA?

Have you stopped beating your wife, CP?

[Cow Poke]

Have you stopped beating your wife, CP?

Kinda ashamed that you ever defended NAMBLA, perhaps? Or are you doubling down.

[One Bad Pig]

The most evident “herd mentality” is that which blindly follows imaginary entities as propagated by the likes of WL Craig or Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. It’s always a problem when one set of divinely-based objective beliefs contradicts another set of “objective beliefs”...given that they were all created by men in the first place.

...as opposed to your beliefs, which were not?

[Tassman]

...as opposed to your beliefs, which were not?

ALL “beliefs” originated via men, where else would they come from?

[Sparko]

You’re a laugh a minute, Sparko.

No definition of mental illness can adequately specify precise boundaries for the concept of ‘mental disorder.’ But, as previously argued, the common psychological criteria for what constitute a mental disorder is: ‘IF such thoughts result in significant distress [i.e. emotional distress] or impairment of personal functioning’ [i.e. socially unacceptable behavior] then they are categorized as a mental disorder. This would include uncontrollable sexual urges that meet the above criteria. Do you really think this is referring to sex with one’s wife?

I have no idea what your wife is like. But you sure act insane. Your definitions keep changing from post to post, you can't seem to make a coherent argument, the arguments you do make are so laughable that I make sure not to be drinking anything while reading your posts, lest I spew it all over my keyboard.

I think we can safely say that "wanting to have sex with your sister" comes under the heading of "socially unacceptable behavior" as per above.

You just keep piling on conditions out of the blue, don't you? Now you add "socially unacceptable" to the mix. OK well Homosexual sex was socially unacceptable for centuries, I guess that means it was a mental illness all that time, right? They were all mentally ill until recently, right? And I guess if pedophilia ever becomes socially acceptable, it will no longer be a mental illness?

[Sparko]

Well, if you have no control over what you do, then that sounds like mental illness, no?

If it's consensual, then it's not out of control behavior.

really? So an alcoholic or drug addict who consensually gets drunk every night or shoots up is not out of control?

Abnormal is a social term, not conforming to social norms is not necessarily a mental illness.

When it comes to having sex with children, Jim? I already said it could also be due to them being evil. So I guess you agree?

That is not necessarily a mental illness. I actually knew incestuous siblings back in high school and they were otherwise perfectly sane and happy.

Yeah because having sex with your sister is completely sane.

I know someone who is a paranoid schizophrenic. When he isn't having an episode he seems perfectly sane and happy. Another guy I knew had Trichotillomania, except for him constantly pulling out his hair, he was perfectly sane and happy.

[One Bad Pig]

ALL “beliefs” originated via men, where else would they come from?

Your line of argument regarding such appears to be that, since our beliefs are allegedly from men, we should discard them in favor of yours ...which are also from men. That's not an especially compelling argument. It also begs the question.

[Tassman]

Your line of argument regarding such appears to be that, since our beliefs are allegedly from men, we should discard them in favor of yours ...which are also from men. That's not an especially compelling argument. It also begs the question.

That’s not my “line of argument” at all. ALL beliefs originated via men. Do you have any alternative suggestions as to where they might originate?