Tragic Scenarios And Christian Morality

[YY4Me133]

Surprisingly, many christians who say they're against suicide did not condemn the people who jumped from the WTC towers to avoid burning to death. It seems as though many christians are just as situational as the rest of us are, they just deny it.

[Tarynus]

To take Craig's example &... make it less gruesome;

Say your elderly relative is lying in a hospital bed & is hooked up to a life-support machine, they cannot move because they feel intense pain if they do & they are begging you to make it stop; do you keep that person alive with a marginal chance of them getting better or turn the machine off to end their suffering?

[YY4Me133]

@Tarynus People have the right to refuse medical treatment, so the hospital should disconnect the machine, if the patient requests it. In fact, if the person named a medical surrogate, and that surrogate requested discontinuation of treatment, including providing nutrition and fluids, the hospital is supposed to comply. The surrogate might have to deal with a hospital "ethics" board, to let them (the hospital) off the hook, but it can be done.

[ciaochowbella]

@YY4Me133 If a hospital deems you "mentally incompetent", they can continue medical treatment against your will.

That very thing happened to a friend of mine. She was dying. She had no chance of recovery. However, when she requested that the hospital discontinue treatment, they decided she was incoherent (she wasn't) and continued to treat her for 5 more agonizing, horrible days. She had DNR and a living will. The hospital ignored her to get the money for the treatments.

[YY4Me133]

@ciaochowbella I'm sorry to hear that happened. There's no excuse for it. What I wrote was from personal experience. I was the medical proxy, and had to deal with the doctors and ethics board, but I threatened to sue individuals, as well as the hospital and nursing home, if my friend's wishes were not honored. We won.

[Khyrid]

Life trading really screws up our concepts of morality. I think the train analogy people agree with because the killing is done by the train and isn't up close and personal even though a person pulls the switch. As with the doctor his job is to help people and he's right next to you physically cutting out your organs agianst your will. It seems the amount of horror we feel differs on the nature of the killing and affects our moral judgments. 

[lordnuck33]

what was the song called

[lordlacolith]

@lordnuck33 "The Hand That Feeds" by Nine Inch Nails

[MunkyDrag0n]

Christians, if you try to take this channel down, then you will prove yourselves to be un-American. The Constitution says people can say whatever they want in public. The Constitution, according to you guys, is based on the teachings of God. You should respect your God's decision or go to the same Hell you want us to go to. When you die you will go to heaven and we will rot in Hell. For now, we are on Earth, so shut the f**k up!

[ritchloui]

Is there not something sinister about a religion with a central sacrament of human sacrifice and cannibalism? What intelligible guidance is possible from such a superstition that worships invisible super-beings and serves up a moral landscape of archetypal dichotomies; Godly/ungodly, holy/unholy, moral/immoral, sacred/profane, good/bad etc.

[cjlilc35]

heu every good christian out there on you tube help me take this dumb ass channel down and put a stop to it flag all there videos like i did this stuff is stupid and i dislike these stupid ass idiots for making this channel so lets put a stop to it and report each one of there videos

[eleminatus]

@cjlilc35 hmm.. amusing.. how is this stuff stupid?

[lqwis]

@cjlilc35 Your view is laughable. You are ignorant and immature if you believe that any 'good Christian' should attempt to prevent others from expressing their opinions, opinions expressed as an act of free will as your God granted to everybody. With the ignorance and lacking intelligence you clearly demonstrate, no wonder you believe in God. Grow up.

[Minkki82]

@cjlilc35 You're eather a troll or not a true Christian. Doesn't God ask for people to obey the law of the land? (its in the bible if you've read it) So if free speach is granted by your constitution, you trying to kill free speach is you going against the will of God.

Also I doubt that any actual god would need you guys to fight for him over the internet.

[atheistram]

@cjlilc35 if you do that it's censorship.

[Shavarnarak]

I don't think I'd want to be that caller's friend.

I get his point, but he still seems a little TOO eager to bash his 'friends' head in with rocks.

[Freemmaann]

A third option: Try to get your friend out of the car, extinguish as best as you can and scream for help, atleast you won't feel guilty for the rest of your life.

[UnderlordZ]

Wait...he said the friend is stuck in a burning car, but I have a rock. Why can't I smash the window and pull my friend out?

[S201676]

@UnderlordZ

The point of the scenario is that there is absolutely no way to save or rescue your friend, leading to the question of actively killing him quickly or letting him die slowly and painfully.

[UnderlordZ]

@S201676 But the rock presents an oppurtunity to rescue him. He never said my friend was on fire yet; only that the car was. If that's the case, I should be able to smash the window and drag him out with relatively little harm.

Now if he WAS already burning, yes, I'd be merciful and kill him quickly to keep him from having to suffer, but the initial argument was only that the car was on fire, not my friend.

[S201676]

@UnderlordZ

Perhaps the caller could have been a bit clearer, but you get the point of the situation and probably can come up with a better worded equivalent in your mind.

[fireflygirl246]

I can not agree with this scenario that it would be ok to kill my friend in this scenario. I would instead disregaurd the first premis that there is no way to help the friend and instead do all that I could to save them. including smashing in the wind and helping get my friend out that way even if it means I would get burned too.

[DestAeval]

@fireflygirl246

Milady, I believe that disregarding any of the premises of any given scenario defeats the purpose of giving the scenario in the first place.

For example, I could just disregard the premise that anyone was actually stuck in the burning car, and then there wouldn't be a problem... well I guess a burning car is a problem, but it's not much of a problem (in comparison).

[fireflygirl246]

@DestAeval What I ment was my morals would tell me that I would have to help my friend and not give up on them. Even if it appears there is no way to help them I would still have to try. So I would not believe it was not possiable to help them and my only option was to kill them, the car being on fire and the person being traped are the known facts of the senario, you don't know you cant get them out until you try its an unknow, that is why I disregarded it.

[patrickledford420]

@fireflygirl246 well, if you did absolutely know that there was know way out (hypothetical, i know we can not KNOW that there is no hope) what would you do? i personally think that i could not go through with it even though i would want my freind to not suffer but i would not call someone immoral for doing either choice.

[fireflygirl246]

@patrickledfor well lets change the scenario to a different situation. If my friend was injured or was about to suffer a long painful death I for the next few hours and there was nothing that could be done, I would end there life if they asked. if my friend asks me to in the car situation I might do it but not until I was convinced that there was no hope, so if the fire was out and they were still alive but badly burned and they don't want to live, i might do that for my friend

[ShadowstepSH]

NIN ftw

[vooooom]

This is my major qualm with any sort of dogma, religious or otherwise. Huge lack of inflexibility and a dulling of the rational mind. People need to be their own judges and stop deferring to their set cookie-cutter beliefs. A cookie-cutter belief can't take into account the situation or the unique personality of the individual.

[dcr10391]

Now if it were a baby, instead of a friend, in the scenario mentioned by the caller; Christians shouldn't object to that. It says in their Holy Book that bashing infants heads in with rocks is a potential source of happiness. Why wouldn't they want to? :D

[polopowers1]

God is Virtue not moralality.Like the atheist experience has said in the past morality needs at least two individuals to exist.God before all creation was Virtue morality took its origin from Virtue.Virtue answers to no one.God is holy, just ,wisdom, majesty, glory. before creations of enitys.Therefore situations discussed about God should never be subjective.This gives the atheist circumstantial righteousness.Of course their morality would be" better" because they have no virtue.

[WitnessmyPerfectio]

@polopowers1

I'm an atheist and I haven't sent anybody to be tortured forever lately.

I am more moral than your sun deity.

[MiserereMe]

What? Ever tried listening to what people are saying? It's not an easy solution, you need to take it as you go along. In a fast emergency situation you try to do the best you can to save as many as you can and know how to save. You don't think when you're being ethical, you act. Atheistic ethical behaviour is what's in us all, religions claim that it's not.

But if Buddha teaches all the same things that Jesus did 700 years later, and Mohammed 600 years later, what does that tell you?

[megenoita]

LOL...we can explain why bashing someone's head in is bad, lol. Amazingly foolish men talking...this is a great example of how foolish atheist morality is. I encourage everyone to watch this video!

[Peeteer01]

lol you know why 90% of the black community believes in God...? Because spend one day in a witches house in little Haiti(Miami), little Havana(Miami), New Orleans, New York...lots of places in the world...I dare you to start playing with them and watch you get lifted into the air and get thrown out of the window!...I have seen a witch cast a spell and the person next door was slaughtered with a knife....but then go to the church right across the street and there casting out demons from thewitch

[rumble54daddyo]

What a charming anecdote.

Unconvincing, but sweet and charming.

I don't believe you.

Hey, YOU made the assertion -- not me. You made the claim.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. Always. Forever and ever, amen. }=>D

[Peeteer01]

I DARE YOU LOL I JUST DARE YOU LOL....I PROMISE JUST COME TO MIAMI 1 DAY JUST COME AND I WILL PROVE IT TO YOU! I will take you straight into a witches house talk about her like she can't do a thing I bet you'll beat till you can move your lips...gosh some people are just soo close minded find i real witch I bet everything I said will become reality...lol this is not a game...these things are foreal..I am not telling you I am daring you to do it I DARE YOU LOL....Ask anyone from those hoods..

[Pinage]

Would you care to expond upon that?

Was this person whom the witch cursed slaughtered immediately following the casting of the spell?

Were they killed by their own hand; someone else's; accidentally?

Details, man. Details!

[Peeteer01]

lol yea man immediately...it became another one of those 1million crimes in Miami that doesn't make the news :/ that's why Miami still has a rep for being such a touristy place haha....lol nah man but I used to be an athiest but after I saw some of the things I have seen...mostly in church to like I saw my friend...she had one leg shorter than the other since she was born...they prayed for it and it literally grew in front of 6,000 people's eyes lol..just don't show it because people call it

[Peeteer01]

tv magic..so I am like whatever whats the point...lol believe me or not but, I am an M.I.T. alumni so I know I am not going crazy..lol just yesterday another on of my friends from Nigeria the first day he came...my pastor prophesied over him (God Speaking)...names of all his family members and what they were going through and said call them today because God is going to deliver them...I don't know about you but unless you experience it you couldn't understand it lol.

[Pinage]

You certainly don't write like an M.I.T. alumni.

I might understand it if you'd care to explain it. I mightn't agree with your conclusion but at the very least I might know what you're talking about.

[Peeteer01]

lol what? Is this class? Who in the world actually tries to write when they don't have to... lol.... but i don't know she uses herbs (well looked like some type of herbs) and bones and crap but she was probably a satanist..she got a machete it went through the wall and came back... lol even lil wayne in like 2 of his songs he talks about that crap haha...

[Pinage]

If people didn't make an effort to write literately in our every day life we would have a hard time communicating.

It is for that reason that I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say.

The way in which you are writing gives me the impression that you are poorly educated - not a university graduate.

[WitnessmyPerfectio]

@Peeteer01

This claim, just like every other claim you've made so far, is highly compressed bullshit. You don't write like an M.I.T. alumni, in fact, you write like with the eloquence and coherence of somebody who would flunk out of trade school!

[Eric3575]

LOL wow!

[TheSoSoAgnostic]

LOL One word on the whole 1st page about the video (I think - it could go other way). Usually I'm in that fight! Nice change for me.

I hope I am never in a situation in which I am morally bound to bash my friend's skull in with a rock.

[FitoSaav]

Y'all shut up? or take it somewhere else?

Trying to watch the show

-eats popcorn-

[godlessmessiah]

morality doesnt come from religion and thats easy to prove.

The answers to all scenarios in life are not located in the bible. it touches on only so many events and explanations as how to combat them, so when something happens in life that isnt in the bible, do people act immoral and evil and vile?

no,ofcourse not.

you dont need a holy book to be moral.

also, morals existed before religion (worth a mention)

[Speegs23]

You are presenting a host of presuppositions you need to qualify, what is morality? Why do you desire it? You also present what you presuppose the Bible to be, some sort of text book for living which it is not but has often been misrepresented as.

[jebman18]

jeff dee is 48 years old. He looks so much younger. I woulda said about late 20s.

[AndreaZ64]

You can theorize about these theoretical and complicated dilemma's all you want, but I don't think I can predict now what I would do in such a situation. I can't imagine crushing my friends skull, but who knows?

I do not believe all christians would make the same decision either. Christian morality is very ambiguous to say the least and most of the time it is very weak because it totally depends on a submission to the will of the master. And this particular master likes killing and slavery etc.

[TheFifthApes]

I guess I'd have to be asked to do it by the person burning alive... but then I'd have to deal with the law...

[AndreaZ64]

Yeah, I thought about that too. But even then... My god... crushing the skull of someone you love? Imagine what you would actually have to do. And perhaps you wouldn't get it right the first time...

I don't want to think about it anymore.

[Naposim1337]

sweet jesus. Blinded by faith is bad. Blinded by atheism is bad.

[TheFifthApes]

How can you be blinded by atheism?

Can you be blinded by the absence of a blindfold?

[DudeSpectre]

brilliant :)

[Speegs23]

What the hell is "morality" is the midst of the despair of relativism? From where is it discerned> You speak of nonsense and hubris, if Christianity is false then how can you declare them immoral when your sense of morality is derived from their philosophy? Hypocrite.

[ciaochowbella]

The morality that Christians claim as theirs existed before it was codified in the old testament. Morals are based in the biological need for cooperation among humans and don't come from some deity.

Name one moral act a religious person will perform that a non-religious person will not.

[Speegs23]

What is morality? What does religion have to do with it, you live in a culture shaped by christian ethics, biology is simply survival of the fittest, what incentive is there to care for the weak?

You may have a universal conscience which inclines you to think outside yourself but that flies in the face of 'biology", if you take Darwinistic thinking to its natural and full logical conclusion.

[ciaochowbella]

These sound like questions you need to answer for yourself. These are some of the posers we all have to answer for ourselves.

BTW, being concerned for another creature hardly "flies in the face of biology". Ever heard of symbiosis? Protecting ones pack, herd, tribe is useful and necessary to survival. There are many species of animal that live in groups for the benefit of all the group members. Offspring are often weak, yet it is in the best interest of the group to see them survive.

[Speegs23]

Offspring are often devoured by their own species.

Why doesn't humanity? i guess in the case of abortion it can be argued man does.

What inclines this survival instinct? how does an unplanned universe make goo animate, senient and intelligent with mere chemical reactions?

If i am glorified chemical reactions working simultaneously what value does humanity have over a glass of water? So complexity equals worth? Then not all men are equally valuable at that and should be weeded out.

[ciaochowbella]

So you're saying that you must have some external reason for existence or you existence means nothing?

How unfortunate for you.

It's very simple. If you think you matter, you do. If you think you don't, you don't. You don't need an external justification for existence. Your mere presence justifies your existence.

Why does the obvious escape so many?

[Speegs23]

That is indefensible, you exist but your purpose as a lifeform is subject to your own diagnosis. You really place a premium on the myth of your own autonomy.

What is autonomy while were at it? What criteria constitutes being my own master, so i think I'm a unicorn then I'm a unicorn?

No, that just isn't so.

I can think all i wish but it doesn't make it so.

Ican think a host of fallible things and they aren't justified by the thought of them.

[ciaochowbella]

If everything is based on perspective, then, yes, your purpose as a lifeform is subject to your own opinion. However, that doesn't change the fact that your mere existence justifies your existence.

I never mentioned autonomy......you're assuming again. However, once again, you decide the perameters of autonomy. Personally, because we are all interconnected and interrelated, no one and nothing is autonomous.

[Speegs23]

Its built into your view, i'm trying to get you to recognize that presupposition.

So evolution is qualified on the basis of empiricism so how do you prove humanity is valuable empirically?

Many people are saying humanity is destroying the planet and is better off dead, how do you counter their assertions since they use empirical evidence, no matter how twisted, to justify that view?

[ciaochowbella]

Once again, you're assuming you have a grasp on my ideas and beliefs when you simply do not.

And once again, the mere fact of existence is justification for existence. Value is in perception.

Why should I justify a view you seem to have drawn from out of left field? It has nothing to do with anything I've mentioned.

[ciaochowbella]

Also, throughout history, humans have also killed their young occasionally for various reasons.

[Speegs23]

Ok so is that wrong? Is it merely a pragmatic choice? Does it matter? Why protect people now but not then? Its all cultural perception? So therefore relative? Why is only science not bound by perception and relativism? Why is that lone discipline the priesthood of the human condition? So if I hypothesize in text book it can bee taken at face value and be correct until proven false but if i philosophize it is applicable only to perception? So many presuppositions to tackle.

[ciaochowbella]

Since when was science not bound by perception and relativism? EVERYTHING is bound by perception and relativism.

You really are action packed with your own presuppositions.

[Speegs23]

Then how can it be trusted? one man's reality is as truthful as another's.

Yes I have presuppostions, I never denied it, and I'm analyzing how the darwinian worldview is not compatible with relativism however, it itself assets absolutes.

[ciaochowbella]

How is the Darwinian worldview not compatible with relativism? How does it assert absolutes?

What are you wishing to trust?

[Speegs23]

Are you not familiar with the doma of moden evolutionary thought? All tenants are facts, not open for debate or challenge, no room on the block for counter views, Darwin or the highway and those who don't subscribe to macro evolutionary models are delivered ad hominems and discredited as insignificant.

[Speegs23]

Edit: dogma and modern are the typoed words.

[ciaochowbella]

You're confusing the dogma of creationists with those who believe in evolution. Creationists are the ones who aren't open to debate and challenge. Evolution, because it is science, is constantly being questioned and challenged. This is the nature of scientific study.

[Speegs23]

No my dear, i politely disagree, all that is different is the worldview, one declares absolute authority to God the other to man. Science is as unapologetic as the vatican to rescind fallacy.

Evolutionists are often on a religious crusade against those that disagree with their worldview.

Hitchins, Harris and Dawkins certainly are but under the banner of humanism or science they fool some into thinking they are irreligious.

[ciaochowbella]

So what is your point?

[Speegs23]

We've come full circle, what is the point of anything? i am the determiner of my own worth and existence assumes a certain amount of autonomy yet I did wish myself into existence but now i determine my purpose?

All is relative in meaning and therefore nothing really meaningful because my meaning can counter or trump your meaning, so social darwinism is suitable as it merely practices what nature, we presume, does already so why restrain it.

Nihilism wins, humanity is nothing.

[ciaochowbella]

LOL......if you think that is how it is, then that is how it is.

Enjoy that!

[Speegs23]

Yeah, i'm afraid that's just a bit lazy.

Thinking something does not legitimize it or transform it into reality.

[Speegs23]

Why is Darwin more trusthworthy than theism if it is relative to perspective? Why is the theist treated as an anti-intellectual or mentally unstable? That isn't compatible with relativistic philosophy.

[ciaochowbella]

Evolutionary theory is considered more trustworthy because there is scientific proof for its existence. SOME theists are considered anti-intellectual and unstable, but certainly not all.

Again, you're trying to make it all black and white. It's much more nuanced than you seem to realize.

[Speegs23]

Again, the presuppostions of that are not tackled. So empiricism alone is the final authority of all in the universe? Man himself is the final authority of all? I'm aware of how nuanced it is, i'm still dealing with presuppositions here because you seem to think this conversation was entered on neutral grounds, it was not; we need to widdle down to a commonality, identify the divergent suppostions and see how they have led to different analysis and views.

[ciaochowbella]

You assume too much and are dragging ideas and suppositions into this discussion that weren't imposed. You are assuming you know what I think and believe when you really, really have no idea.

For my part, this conversation WAS entered into with neutrality. It's unfortunate that you can't seem to manage that.

[Speegs23]

What I have uncovered is presuppositions you haven't even considered present but have used just the same.

For instance feigning neutrality, i assure you you were not neutral when you came to the conversation, you had your views and were not a blank slate.

Besides assumptions are merely perception according to what you've stated, what does it matter what i perceive or suppose since its a private truth? To think i have no idea is meaningless since all is relative.

[ciaochowbella]

Fine.

Enjoy your nihilism.

[Speegs23]

I'm not a nihilist, but your worldview leads to it, that's all i was exposing, the natural conclusion of relativism which leads to social darwinism which is first legitimized by adopting man as the final authority of the human condition, unaccountable to anything but themselves as you've stated by making yourself subject to private truth as the final indicator of reality.

[ciaochowbella]

You still have no grasp of my worldview.

Thank you for assuming all sorts of things that are untrue.

Enjoy your day.

[Speegs23]

What is truth in a relative world, you make no sense.

[ciaochowbella]

You're the one not making sense. AND you're assuming things you don't know diddly about.

Enjoy your suppositions and assumptions. They only reflect your worldview.

[Speegs23]

its all in your head, your perceptions affect me in no way, reality is what you make of it, remember?

Just because you dont know what you believe nor why you believe it doesn't mean you've been misunderstood, its just that fact about you has been pointed out.

[ciaochowbella]

Wow.

Someone got his toes stepped on.

Now you resort to baseless accusations. Strawman much?

[Speegs23]

Not really, anyone paying remote attention realize you had circles run around you, perhaps your cluelessness to this fact is one of the many reasons you are a weak debater with little grasp of the fats of philosophy and worldview and the epistemological, anthropological and ontological arguments that are used to define them.

[ciaochowbella]

You're an overly verbose pedant who thinks tossing multisyllabic words around means you are intellectually superior or have a better grasp of concepts.

It doesn't and you don't.

Once again, your assumptions and presuppositions reflect YOUR worldview, not mine. You don't have the slightest inkling of how I view the world.

BTW, you need to get laid in the worst possible way. Go get some nookie and relax.

[Speegs23]

No, i just know what I'm talking about, that's the difference between the two of us.

[ciaochowbella]

Not when you're talking about me. You don't know me, you've not bothered the slightest attempt at understanding my worldview. You merely made assumptions based upon ideologies you've heard about. I promise you, skippy, you are way off base about me.

[ciaochowbella]

Oh, and you still need to get laid in the worst possible way.

[1RationalMind]

So do I.

Allons-nous, mon cher?

[ciaochowbella]

Memphis was very, very good to me........

But I can always use another roll in the hay.

Vous le vous coucher avec moi, mon amant?

[1RationalMind]

Vous le vous coucher avec moi, mon amant?

Oui...

Très certainement le feu ma femme!

[ciaochowbella]

Manifique!

I'll get the whips!

*extends delicate claw for extended and enthusiastic smooching*

[Speegs23]

Too often as you did with science, superiority is claimed without qualification.

[Speegs23]

And by no means am i mean spirited, and I think my tone has conveyed that, but I marvel at the seeming claim to neutrality so many secular philosophies and persuasions seem to banally operate within; too often behaving as if their ideas were beyond the rebuke of their own methods, that their methods were the final authority and not subject to dogma and presuppositions.

I am much more inclined to discuss with an agnostic then an atheist for the agnostic has truthfully conceded they don't know.

[ciaochowbella]

Secular philosphies are entirely subject to their own methodology. Of course method is influenced by dogma and presupposition.

And I'm not agnostic or atheist.

You certainly do assume many facts not in evidence.

[Speegs23]

When was it claimed you were either? i was addressing the content of this video and the worldview expressed by its makers.

I think the facts assumed with lack of evidence is an error very much present in secularism at large at this time, i've merely asked questions.

[Speegs23]

And what is conscience if we are but chemical organisms but a socially engineered behavior, secularism doesn't exist in a vacuum and without presupposition.

Where did the biological needs come from? Randomness designed them? fastened an intellect? If so then what a futile descent into nihilism for all is random and without value, merely perception.

If I am but another rung on the fossil record why does my existence matter? I'm soon to be an outdated species; pursuit of pleasure is my chief end

[ciaochowbella]

What is the point you wish to make here?

Are you supposing there is a divine designer or are you a nihilist?

[Speegs23]

Well there's a big difference there, if there's design then this conversation has merit if not then it need not be discussed, how can life have meaning outside of design.

Happy accidents have presuppositions.

[ciaochowbella]

You're supposing that creation is all one way or another......either accident or design. Why can't it be a bit of both? Why can't there have been something or someone that set things all in motion KNOWING that if left alone the system would create a whole plethora of life through evolution? It's obvious from even the most cursory glance at nature that there wasn't a "design" involved, however that doesn't mean there wasn't an instigator.

[Speegs23]

That doesn't make any sense, how does a lifeless universe design life?

So are you vouching for deism? A divine watch maker that winds it up and turns it loose, the very cruelty many atheists were claiming of the Chrisitan God?

For argument's sake even if evolution exists on a macro level and not merely micro, by your own admission it would be designed and not chance.

That is unqualified hubris to say state it is "Obvious" there is not "design", an "instigator" can't be nothingness.

[ciaochowbella]

I never said it was lifeless nor did I say it was designed.

I'm not vouching for anything. I'm just tossing out possibilities. BTW, even if there WAS a creator, why would it have some vested interest in the day to day doings of life?

However, evolution is not a supposition. It is fact.

If this planet was designed, then why is so little of it habitable? If human are designed, why do we have vestigal organs?

[Speegs23]

But what is pleasure, what if it pleases me to destroy others? Is it not my right to partake in that? What worth does a soon to be evolutionarily outdated species have? What is justice but a societal constraint and cultural puton? What is mercy but a predication of the feeble to save themselves from the strong? What is anger but a chemical reaction? What is love when lust is far more suited to reproduction? What is crime but denial of my desires? These questions are not satisfied by atheism

[ciaochowbella]

Are you saying that religion answers those questions? I never said atheism answered anything. I merely said that morality isn't based in religion. It is based in the human need for cooperation.

[Speegs23]

I'm saying it takes an equal if not greater leap of faith to say nothingness spawned the complexity and diversity of everything then it does to acknowledge that a planner appears to have constructed things.

[ciaochowbella]

If there was a planner, he was crap at it as evidenced by the flaws in the "design" of not just the planet, but every creature on it.

I still cannot understand why there can't be a middle ground here. Why must it be nothingness or a creator?

Also, it always baffled me that humans supposed their creator, if it exists, is eternal. Why would you think that? Everything else dies....why not God?

[jacobromu]

thou shalt not mix fabrics

[Kuba022]

Did the caller say that puonding somebody's head with a rock is better way to go in that situation? How exactly is it better? Your friend is going to die anyway, but if you bash his head with a rock you will have to live with that.

[wOoL87]

It's about the lesser of two evils. Watch how your friend burns very painfully or try to kill him fast. IMO a rock isn't a tool to easily kill someone, you have to pulpify the poors guy's head -- as I mentioned above a gun would be a better tool of choice.

[PuzzleBox83]

Or you would have to live with the fact that your friend is suffering a painful death of burning and instead of putting him out of his misery you decided to let him continue that way in a slow and painful death. What if he/she asked you to them out of their misery? Could you live with yourself knowing you went against a dying persons last wish?

[Kuba022]

If he asked, and I could do it in a quick way, I would. But not with a rock. I agree with wOoL87, a gun would probably be better.

Anyway, to me it doesn't matter if my death will be quick and painless or long and painful. In my opinion the worst part of suffering isn't the pain. It's the mark in your psyche that will torment you for the rest of your life. If your life is about to end very soon, the suffering becomes irrelevant.

[oneeyednarn]

"If your life is about to end very soon, the suffering becomes irrelevant."

Speak for yourself. Given the choice I'll choose absence of pain thank you very much.

[Kuba022]

Phrases like "to me it doesn't matter" or "in my opinion" might be a subtle indication that I was, in fact, speaking for myself ;)

[99minerkc]

Thou shalt NOT kill!!

[utukkuxul]

Nice that that was written just a few minutes before God had Moses kill something like 10,000 Israelites.

[unquenchablefire]

I believe what you were discussing were Dr. Marc Hauser's Moral Dilemas. One of the interesting conclusions of these dilemas was that religion had almost no effect on what participants viewed as moral. Very interesting stuff.

[wOoL87]

Replace rock with "a gun and a bullet through his brain" and then I agree that it's more humane.

[no1saphead]

unreal scenario's..Why bother with them.

[wOoL87]

Because to analyze our sense of morality. Isn't it strange that in one case we kill somebody and think of it as good (coup de grâce) and in others as bad (patient in the waiting room).

They are quite interessting to think about. I for one don't think of them as "moral dilemmas" because I(!) have a rule of thumb in which I decide when it's good and when it's bad to let somebody die.

[wOoL87]

The "I" is important, because in such matters all it boils down to is our sense of morality and what we prefer in a situation. There is no universality solution to be found here. Everybody makes up his own solutions, but we can talk about them.

[KLinZ3]

Why are they on a couch? What happened to the studio? Not that it's relevant to the discussion...just curious.

[justwordsonthescreen]

budget cuts

[dawn0293]

the studio is closed for the summer so they are broadcasting from Matt's house.

[3R3MITE]

The studio is under construction at the moment and should be good to go some time next month if everything is still as they said it would be.

[BananaHurricane]

Situations like that, I could come up with an answer as to what I would do. But I really have no way to verify whether I truly would do something unless I was in that situation myself.

[ObakeOnna]

It's moral dilemmas like these that really bring out the nature of our genetic morality. From an evolutionary point of view, there isn't much to be gained from an inborn readyness to commit euthanasia. Especially when that could mess with the inhibition to kill members of the same group. Even though killing somebody swiftly (as opposed to letting them die slowly in agony) would make the most sense and be the most merciful thing to do, our own "moral instincts" can prevent us from acting.

[Pedroskini]

The caller's example is quite grotesque, but brings up a very interesting question. However, a more likely scenario is euthanasia. If I am diagnosed with a terminal disease that will result in a very prolonged, painful death, I rather have a lethal injection instead of putting myself and family through unnecessary pain and financial stress. But people of religious views will oppose such a decision !

[hellshade2]

they say burning to death is the absolute worst way to die

[leifey]

i'm sure starvation and being crushed slowly aren't exactly fun either:)

[hellshade2]

well dying any way is not my idea of fun, so let's just leave it at that ;)

[rickelmonoggin]

As I understand, people who 'burn to death' usually die first from smoke inhalation. Not sure if that's such a barrel of laughs either though.

[Walabio]

¡Howdy, oh hellshade!

I am Craig from California.

[utukkuxul]

Well you must be very proud of yourself

[Walabio]

We seem to be off on the wrong foot:

Zerothly, Hellshade knows me as Walabio - not Craig.

Firstly, I am not proud of these dark scenarios, but we need to look them squarely in the eye, because of the need to set up policies:

A an example some babies are born without brains. When one looks into their eyes, one sees nothing and they soon die. Other babies need organs. It is disturbing, but the logical thing to do is to cut up the anencephalic baby for organs.

[daddyleon]

Well... instead of a rock... say gun. ;"-}

[TheOtherSide100]

It's like that scene in the movie "The Great Waldo Pepper," when his friend crashes his stunt plane, gets trapped and catches on fire. Waldo takes the propeller off the plane and gives his best friend a swift hit in the head while he's screaming for help.

WWRRD (What Would Robert Redford Do)

[Kille24sthlm]

I heard this song live today! NIN is so awesome! Just like the atheist experience is. Love this show.

[GodMarley666]

a Morton's fork

[MrHoover3000]

I wish someone would bash my head in with a rock the next time I have to take my mother to church. It would be more merciful.

[darkdestiny0002]

Indeed my friend indeed... Lol^^

[dunndudebemelol]

Shame