Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Abnormal Behavior...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abnormal Behavior...

    It seems that if materialism/atheism is true no behavior could rightly be considered abnormal. Not homosexuality, pedophilia, not transgenderism, not bestiality. If psychologically there is no objectively right way for a human to act or be, what behavior couldn't be considered normal for our species? Certainly things like murder or rape, though practiced less, would have to be considered normal.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Just to get it out of the way now, the counterargument is going to be "anything that threatens the survival of the species".
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      It seems that if materialism/atheism is true no behavior could rightly be considered abnormal. Not homosexuality, pedophilia, not transgenderism, not bestiality. If psychologically there is no objectively right way for a human to act or be, what behavior couldn't be considered normal for our species? Certainly things like murder or rape, though practiced less, would have to be considered normal.
      That's correct. We determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, but we make these determinations, like sins, via reason, not through the revelations of an imagined deity.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        Just to get it out of the way now, the counterargument is going to be "anything that threatens the survival of the species".
        Which is another way of saying by way of reason.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          Just to get it out of the way now, the counterargument is going to be "anything that threatens the survival of the species".
          Why would that be abnormal? If there was a genetic predisposition towards our own destruction, it wouldn't be good, but abnormal? As a matter of fact if the majority thought/acted that way those who sought to preserve the species would be the abnormal ones.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            That's correct. We determine what is normal or abnormal behavior, but we make these determinations, like sins, via reason, not through the revelations of an imagined deity.
            I have no idea what that means Jim, what reason? Whose reason?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I have no idea what that means Jim, what reason? Whose reason?
              The same reason you use when trying to decide whether what you are about to do is right or wrong. You could choose wrongly, correct? But as a society we make learned decisions and codify them. All of what we decide to be abnormal behaviors do not come from you bible, right? Where do you think they come from?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                The same reason you use when trying to decide whether what you are about to do is right or wrong. You could choose wrongly, correct? But as a society we make learned decisions and codify them. All of what we decide to be abnormal behaviors do not come from you bible, right? Where do you think they come from?
                Well having grown up in the Christian west I believe Scripture had a heavy influence on our moral thinking. And learned decisions? Like what the Maoists did?
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  Just to get it out of the way now, the counterargument is going to be "anything that threatens the survival of the species".
                  How does any of it threaten the survival of the species? Animals kill, rape, and engage in many questionable sexual practices among their own species on a regular basis. None of it threatens them on a larger scale, and there have been atheists who have defended rape from an evolutionary perspective. Obviously I think it's wrong, because I believe in objective morality, but I don't see how they have any basis to claim that "reason" or "survival" justifies not behaving in certain ways.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Well having grown up in the Christian west I believe Scripture had a heavy influence on our moral thinking. And learned decisions? Like what the Maoists did?
                    No one, from this side, is arguing that the moral beliefs of christianity, or religions in general for that matter, are not based on reason. Your side argues that, that they simply are as a result of gods moral nature, but that's not my argument.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by LeaC View Post
                      How does any of it threaten the survival of the species? Animals kill, rape, and engage in many questionable sexual practices among their own species on a regular basis. None of it threatens them on a larger scale, and there have been atheists who have defended rape from an evolutionary perspective. Obviously I think it's wrong, because I believe in objective morality, but I don't see how they have any basis to claim that "reason" or "survival" justifies not behaving in certain ways.
                      Do you think the animals, because of not knowing, or not understanding gods moral code, are immoral for not abiding it? We thinking beings use reason to decide what kind of behavior's are in our best interests as a community living together. That's how "reason" justifies our moral codes of behavior.
                      Last edited by JimL; 04-21-2019, 07:52 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Why would that be abnormal? If there was a genetic predisposition towards our own destruction, it wouldn't be good, but abnormal? As a matter of fact if the majority thought/acted that way those who sought to preserve the species would be the abnormal ones.
                        In the survival of the species genetic predisposition towards our own destruction would be counter to the survival of the species therefore wrong, as is normal through out the history of humanity is determined to be moral, dominant, and the species survives.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Do you think the animals, because of not knowing, or not understanding gods moral code, are immoral for not abiding it? We thinking beings use reason to decide what kind of behavior's are in our best interests as a community living together. That's how "reason" justifies our moral codes of behavior.
                          Immorality doesn't make sense to apply to animal behavior(which I know is not your argument either).

                          So, if enough people decided that pedophilia was in the best interest of a community, there would be no moral objection to it? What connection does that have to reason? As a more moderate example, there are many people today who argue that the world is overpopulated. Wouldn't reason and self-interested survival suggest that we should kill people(whatever group may have undesirable traits that we as a society dictate) until our numbers balance out? In other words, why was Thanos wrong, if reason is the only means to judge moral actions.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by LeaC View Post
                            Immorality doesn't make sense to apply to animal behavior(which I know is not your argument either).
                            Why not? Would human beings who are ignorant of your gods moral code be immoral for not abiding it?
                            So, if enough people decided that pedophilia was in the best interest of a community, there would be no moral objection to it?
                            No, but if for some "reason" pedophilia was deemed to be in the best interests of society, then it would probably be considered to be normal. But of course that is silly, because we know that would actually contradict sound "reason."

                            What connection does that have to reason? As a more moderate example, there are many people today who argue that the world is overpopulated. Wouldn't reason and self-interested survival suggest that we should kill people(whatever group may have undesirable traits that we as a society dictate) until our numbers balance out? In other words, why was Thanos wrong, if reason is the only means to judge moral actions.
                            No,that wouldn't be "reasonable" as those people, or groups of people are part of the whole community. What we do is use birth control, have less children than we used to, allow women to have control over their own bodies, abortion etc.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Why not? Would human beings who are ignorant of your gods moral code be immoral for not abiding it?
                              So... you really are arguing that animal behavior is "immoral?" Would humans who disagree with your interpretation of reason be likewise immoral?

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, but if for some "reason" pedophilia was deemed to be in the best interests of society, then it would probably be considered to be normal. But of course that is silly, because we know that would actually contradict sound "reason."
                              "But of course that is silly" ? How do we know this, according to sound reason? You can't just dismiss a moral claim as silly, that's not a logical argument for immorality.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No,that wouldn't be "reasonable" as those people, or groups of people are part of the whole community. What we do is use birth control, have less children than we used to, allow women to have control over their own bodies, abortion etc.
                              So then all society needs to do is define certain groups of people as existing outside of society, and then there's no moral problem. Are you going to force women to use birth control and have fewer children and get abortions? If we know that the world is overpopulated and that if X number of people being born will lead to global extinction, then how is it not "reasonable" to balance the population through murder? You know it's not, I know you do, but you've yet to make an argument based on sound, irrefutable reason as to why that would not be acceptable.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              161 responses
                              510 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X