Morality is all in your mind.

[Cypress]

Because they are exactly the same thing. One is far more damaging to the person than the other but the effect is largely the same. Both unnecessary genital mutilation for cultural reasons.

I have never heard anyone draw an equivalency between circumcision routinely practiced at American hospitals, and female genital mutilation practiced by some tribes in Sudan.

I'm not going to argue with you over the FACT that Southern Christians relied on the Bible as support for Slavery and the Bible (both OT and NT) are largely silent or accepting of slavery.

Nowhere does the New Testament say to follow the example of hypocritical, cruel, or exploitative Christians. It says to follow the example of Christ.

Just not gonna let you get away from that reality.

Also getting pretty tired of your non-stop special pleading.

Only an infinitesimally tiny percentage of Christians between Medieval Christendom and today ever owned slaves.

If you want to hold all of world Christianity responsible for slavery, then it's entirely fair to say atheists are the biggest supporters of slavery in human history. The Gulag was nothing if not a vast system of forced labor. The Cultural Revolution wasn't any better. Khmer Rouge turned all of Cambodia into a giant forced labor camp.

 

[Daylight63]

I have never heard anyone draw an equivalency between circumcision routinely practiced at American hospitals, and female genital mutilation practiced by some tribes in Sudan.

Then you are woefully uneducated. As I said, one is probably far more psychologically damaging than the other but your CONTINUAL reliance on special pleading wont' help you here. Both are genital mutilation for cultural reasons.

They are the same.

Only an infinitesimally tiny percentage of Christians between Medieval Christendom and today ever owned slaves.

More special pleading. And need I remind you the Bible itself is quite accepting of slavery.

If you want to hold all of world Christianity responsible for slavery, then it's entirely fair to say atheists are the biggest supporters of slavery in human history. The Gulag was nothing if not a vast system of forced labor. The Cultural Revolution wasn't any better. Khmer Rouge turned all of Cambodia into a giant forced labor camp.

So long as you admit that CHRISTIANS USING CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS JUSTIFIED the practice thereof. And so long as you admit that CHRISTIANS IN THE NAME OF GOD murdered countless thousands of people during the crusades which lasted HUNDREDS of years.

I am uncertain why you use, as your example, a faith whose adherents FAILED SO CONSISTENTLY to follow their own "moral rules". Almost as if there is no such thing as objective morality to anyone.
Least of all religious people.

If you want to complain about the "evils" of atheism, be willing to accept the evils of religion.
Something that is quite good from Christianity that YOU seem to have missed is Matthew 7:3

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Then you are woefully uneducated. As I said, one is probably far more psychologically damaging than the other but your CONTINUAL reliance on special pleading wont' help you here. Both are genital mutilation for cultural reasons.

They are the same.

Female genital mutilation and circumcision are not remotely the same in terms of their effect.

Circumcision is largely a cosmetic procedure, not mutilation, whereas female genital mutilation is morally perverted mayhem.

Calling them the same and meaning it is probably indicative of insanity.

 

[Cypress]

Then you are woefully uneducated. As I said, one is probably far more psychologically damaging than the other but your CONTINUAL reliance on special pleading wont' help you here. Both are genital mutilation for cultural reasons.

They are the same.



More special pleading. And need I remind you the Bible itself is quite accepting of slavery.



So long as you admit that CHRISTIANS USING CHRISTIAN TEACHINGS JUSTIFIED the practice thereof. And so long as you admit that CHRISTIANS IN THE NAME OF GOD murdered countless thousands of people during the crusades which lasted HUNDREDS of years.

I am uncertain why you use, as your example, a faith whose adherents FAILED SO CONSISTENTLY to follow their own "moral rules". Almost as if there is no such thing as objective morality to anyone.
Least of all religious people.

If you want to complain about the "evils" of atheism, be willing to accept the evils of religion.
Something that is quite good from Christianity that YOU seem to have missed is Matthew 7:3

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

Christian priests and preachers can be wrong. Look at Patriarch Kirill's support of Putin's ruthless war on Ukraine.

If you desire to paint all Christians worldwide and all of Christian history with the stain of white slave owners in the American South and Caribbean, then it's perfectly fair and consistent to paint all atheists as being responsible for the vast systems of slavery and forced labor In the atheist states of USSR, communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Christian priests and preachers can be wrong. Look at Patriarch Kirill's support of Putin's ruthless war on Ukraine.

If you desire to paint all Christians worldwide and all of Christian history with the stain of white slave owners in the American South and Caribbean, then it's perfectly fair and consistent to paint all atheists as being responsible for the vast systems of slavery and forced labor In the atheist states of USSR, communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

It's perfectly fair to paint humanity in general as a highly deficient species.

We atheists and religious people as well
both have far too great a psychotic demographic.

I feel that the religious people cause more damage, however.

Religious values, particularly those that anticipate an afterlife,
are at the heart of America's obscene tolerance for human suffering.
More civilized nations have far fewer religious people and far more humanitarian values.

Despite having much larger populations, for example, both China and India have far fewer incarcerated people than we do.
The Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, getting progressively worse in that order, have little influence in India and China.

 

[Diogenes]

Morality is all in your mind.--Diogenes​

But obviously not in yours. You've never evolved to that level of human conceptualism.

I try not to entertain primitive beliefs.

I'd as soon kill you as look at you, if I I could get away with it.

 

[Daylight63]

Christian priests and preachers can be wrong.

Oh, I fear we are now entering the world of the "No True Scotsman". Apparently the Special Pleading didn't work.

If you desire to paint all Christians worldwide and all of Christian history

I do not. I don't know why you suggest that. But Christianity BY DEFINITION has never ever ever found murder to be a morally neutral or good thing. Yet Christians by the thousands for hundreds of years murdered people specifically in the name of God.

The point I'm making (and I'm so sad that I have to keep reminding you) is that religious faith does NOT indicate any sort of objective moral truth. It never has and it never will.

In fact religion is WORSE when it breaks its own rules because those rules we are assured are moral absolutes.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I try not to entertain primitive beliefs.

I'd as soon kill you as look at you, if I I could get away with it.

Have you ever actually killed anybody, numbnuts?
You have the aura of a creampuff to me...a really pathetic one.


I definitely have, more than a half century ago,
and I had far, far less grievance with them
than I do with a miserable punk like yourself.

I can't ascertain any attribute in you that isn't seriously deficient.
Do you have any?
I doubt it very much.

Too many "people" like you is why America has become such a dumpster fire.

 

[Daylight63]

Female genital mutilation and circumcision are not remotely the same in terms of their effect.

No one said the were!!! My god where do you guys get these points you debate against? I never said anything even REMOTELY Like that.

But what they ARE is the exact same thing: genital mutilation for cultural reasons

Which is what I was attempting to discuss with Cypress but he, like you, seems to be reading someone else's posts and assuming I said that which I EXPLICITLY SAID THE OPPOSITE OF.

Circumcision is largely a cosmetic procedure, not mutilation,

Word parsing and special pleading. Mutiliation is mutiliation.

whereas female genital mutilation is morally perverted mayhem.

Agreed. It is infinitely more horrible. I never said otherwise.

But if you actually READ THE PART OF THE THREAD I WAS RESPONDING TO and actually read my WORDS you will see what my point was.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

No one said the were!!! My god where do you guys get these points you debate against? I never said anything even REMOTELY Like that.

But what they ARE is the exact same thing: genital mutilation for cultural reasons

Which is what I was attempting to discuss with Cypress but he, like you, seems to be reading someone else's posts and assuming I said that which I EXPLICITLY SAID THE OPPOSITE OF.



Word parsing and special pleading. Mutiliation is mutiliation.



Agreed. It is infinitely more horrible. I never said otherwise.

But if you actually READ THE PART OF THE THREAD I WAS RESPONDING TO and actually read my WORDS you will see what my point was.

OK. Perhaps I didn't get your point (no pun intended).

 

[Diogenes]

Have you ever actually killed anybody, numbnuts?
I definitely have, more than a half century ago,

Cool story, Grambo.

 

[Daylight63]

OK. Perhaps I didn't get your point (no pun intended).

Thank you. I never meant to downplay the horrors of female genital mutilation but technically speaking it is the same thing.

Now there's also some degree of "control" put on women through female genital mutilation but it is still of a same essence for the purposes of the point I was making to Cypress.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Thank you. I never meant to downplay the horrors of female genital mutilation but technically speaking it is the same thing.

Now there's also some degree of "control" put on women through female genital mutilation but it is still of a same essence for the purposes of the point I was making to Cypress.

The main difference, I believe, is that the surgical removal of clitorises destroys sexual physical pleasure where
circumcised males still seem to enjoy fucking their brains out.

Many women don't experience orgasm from vaginal stimulation alone and require being jump-started with cunnilingus or some kind of clitoral stimulation.

At least back in my day--I don't know what goes on with kids now.

 

[Daylight63]

The main difference, I believe, is that the surgical removal of clitorises destroys sexual physical pleasure where
circumcised males still seem to enjoy fucking their brains out.

Again, the effects are demonstrably different while still being the same "class" of action. Culturally mandated/approved genital mutilation for no actual reason other than cultural norms.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Again, the effects are demonstrably different while still being the same "class" of action. Culturally mandated/approved genital mutilation for no actual reason other than cultural norms.

At one point circumcision was believed to be more sanitary than an intact foreskin.

European white people have started to stray away from it,
but many American women find the circumcised penis to be more aesthetically pleasing.
I knew girls in college who were freaked out by intact foreskins, or so they said.

Perhaps you can pole the JPP broads on the issue.

 

[Cypress]

Oh, I fear we are now entering the world of the "No True Scotsman". Apparently the Special Pleading didn't work.



I do not. I don't know why you suggest that. But Christianity BY DEFINITION has never ever ever found murder to be a morally neutral or good thing. Yet Christians by the thousands for hundreds of years murdered people specifically in the name of God.

The point I'm making (and I'm so sad that I have to keep reminding you) is that religious faith does NOT indicate any sort of objective moral truth. It never has and it never will.

In fact religion is WORSE when it breaks its own rules because those rules we are assured are moral absolutes.

It's just the same logic you used: All Christians responsible for Confederate slavery, then all atheists responsible for the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, the Khmer Rouge.

Now, my opinion in this exchange is not based on some bible thumping view of Western history...

Even the mainstream, moderate, reputable Encyclopedia Britannica reports that, whatever you think about Christianity, it did represent a cultural shift in the west that resulted in the diminishment of slavery and the reduction of child infanticide, as I illustrated years ago.

Now, the mainstream, midde-of-the-road, milquetoast, highly reputable Encyclopedia Britannica reports almost exactly everything I ever told you about this topic:

-Judeo-Christian ethics were something new and influential in western history.

-For whatever it's faults were, Judeo-Christian ethics was a significant cultural shift in the west, including the diminishment of slavery and the end of the practice of infanticide.

-The Greeks and Romans emphasized a different set of values than Christian ethics emphasized.

-For the Greco-Romans ethics were something one chose to do as a matter of practical reasoning. The Greeks and Romans did not think of a distinctively moral realm of conduct.

-For christians, ethics were legalistic, they were morally and theologically binding and immutable. That was a new kind of metaphysical vision of ethics in the west.

^^ That is what I have consistently written and that is what Encyclopedia Britannica reports.

 

[Daylight63]

Even the mainstream, moderate, reputable Encyclopedia Britannica

Appeal to authority. Similar to special pleading and no true scotsman, this is not serving your point well.

reports that, whatever you think about Christianity, it did represent a cultural shift in the west that resulted in the diminishment of slavery and the reduction of child infanticide, as I illustrated years ago.

So how do you know there is anything even remotely like an "objective" moral truth? Because the example you give (Christianity) is not it. OBVIOUSLY.

Can I also ask you: can YOU think of a reason why murder would be a bad thing? Or did someone have to TELL you? If it is the latter do you ever wonder why they said murder was bad? Can you even possibly think of a reason why?

 

[Cypress]

It's perfectly fair to paint humanity in general as a highly deficient species.

We atheists and religious people as well
both have far too great a psychotic demographic.

I feel that the religious people cause more damage, however.

Religious values, particularly those that anticipate an afterlife,
are at the heart of America's obscene tolerance for human suffering.
More civilized nations have far fewer religious people and far more humanitarian values.

Despite having much larger populations, for example, both China and India have far fewer incarcerated people than we do.
The Semitic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, getting progressively worse in that order, have little influence in India and China.

I think jerks and sleaze bags are approximately equally distributed among humans.

I don't judge all Christians based on what a Confederate slave owner did in 1850, anymore than I judge all atheists based on what Stalin and Mao did.

Nothing I've read in the New Testament says to follow the example of hypocritical Christians. It says to follow the example of Jesus. Jesus never encouraged anyone to buy slaves, and none of his disciples and evangelists ever bought slaves.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Even the mainstream, moderate, reputable Encyclopedia Britannica reports that, whatever you think about Christianity, it did represent a cultural shift in the west that resulted in the diminishment of slavery and the reduction of child infanticide, as I illustrated years ago.

But the Christian fallacy that life has absolutely value regardless of it's lack of quality
is responsible for the horrific amount of human misery that Christians are willing to tolerate.

To me, it's unforgivable, an abomination, and thus my lack of tolerance for religion.
Seriously, that's the primary reason for my intense disdain of it.

 

[Daylight63]

I don't judge all Christians based on what a Confederate slave owner did in 1850, anymore than I judge all atheists based on what Stalin and Mao did.

How do you know slavery is bad?

Nothing I've read in the New Testament says to follow the example of hypocritical Christians. It says to follow the example of Jesus.

Except the Bible gives advice to SLAVE OWNERS. How to treat a slave.

That's tacit approval.

ERGO: Christianity has no rule against slavery. It is not an objectively moral evil in Christianity.