Does anyone else find it interesting that the only thing Canuck find immoral about child molestation is religious dogma? Canuck can think of NO OTHER reason to not stick his prick inside a child.

Perhaps physical harm should come into the discussion.
Perhaps psychological harm should come into the discussion.
Perhaps consent should come into the discussion.

Canuck is arguing from the standpoint that physical, logical and moral truths are absolute and only God can be offered as a cause for absolute truths.

This is a variation of the Cosmological Argument which simply states that everything which exists requires a cause (in this case, absolute truths), and only a god (himself uncaused) can be proposed as a solution to infinite regress and why something exists rather than nothing. (This variation is known as the argument from contingency)

As with all cosmological arguments, we will find Canuck's logical flaw in the relationship between his premises and his conclusion. Other flaws may be pointed out by the lack of support for said premises.

Essentially, Canuck argues from the premise that absolute truths require a cause because everything requires a cause. However, in order to reconcile this with the counterargument that a god would also require a cause, Canuck makes an exception to his own rule, thereby negating his initial premise. Therein lies the logical fallacy.

In terms of supporting the premises to begin with, Canuck and many before him have failed to provide a reason why we should expect everything, especially abstract concepts like logic, to require a cause, or why we should assume that any exception to the general rule of causation should be called "God".

There is.
Well, not a cult, but the Chinese government.

Thats the point hes making. Absolute authority.
Why shouldn't you cause physical or psychological harm to a child? What dictates that?

God sent Jonah to call Ninevah to repentance.
God was not just sending Jonah to say "you're all screwed, just thought I'd let you now."
He was sending a prophet to turn them from their wicked ways, which if they did not do, he would destroy the city.
And, we know only the words that Jonah proclaimed, and Jonah was an imperfect prophet, who wasn't too happy when Ninevah repented.
(Disclaimer: This is what I understand, but I'm not always right)



Well, I can't remember the last time we had a more active thread on PSC. maybe the Trash Talk one.

What ever happened to hollisterb?!

Well played, but with one minor difference.

The Chinese are technically worse than that. They kill non-first-born children and first born females. That isn't exactly the best method ever of ensuring the survival of your culture.

I'd let this topic drop overall, though. It isn't worth the circular arguments that it generates. Everyone's opinions are too strong on the matter. Its best to just get back to choppin'

That's an interesting question. It isn't that I or anybody else has an absolute answer, but why would god frown on such an action? What went through God's head when deciding on any moral standards? It is interesting that we see a pattern in most cases of generally accepted morality. Causing pain is generally seen as a bad thing almost across the board. If God were behind it, we wouldn't see a pattern like this unless he had something on which to base his decisions. What was it? Pre-existing absolutes, maybe? It would seem rather odd to invent a moral law against causing pain unless he himself could feel pain and recognize it as "bad" when he himself would have had to invent the concept of "bad" to begin with.

Or maybe God just doesn't exist and we should consider Ethics an area of knowledge yet to be refined scientifically, like most areas of knowledge used to be. Is it any surprise that AGAIN the religious are holding back the pursuit of objective knowledge? Physics, cosmology and biology have been attacked by churches of all faiths over the centuries each claiming different versions of what they thought to be "Truth", and all turned out to be wrong. And here we go again. Just like churches once fought to define the architecture of the cosmos, and just how hey fight to define the origin of speciation, they have always fought to define moral standards based on the same intuitions, the same teachings, and the same damn books that have failed time and time again.

i think hollisterb is cooked and eaten by NGSP

The answer is 42. Resistance is useless!!!

What dictates that? Not the word of god.
No matter how you "interpret" it, it actually was morally acceptable in the bible to physically harm a child for disobedience (and I'm not talking about spanking).

We no longer think keeping other people as slaves is moral, but in the bible this was the norm (and not just in the Old Testament, as Jesus made reference to slaves and how they should obey their masters).

So it seems like you have 2 choices here.
Accept the stoning of children and the keeping of slaves, or accept the fact that morals evolve over time and are not absolute and unchanging.

Of course you can always pick and choose which moral standards to follow and pretend the other ones don't exist, but then you certainly can't hold up the bible as the basis of moral absolutes.

I did.

Canuck, what about bearing false-witness? You claim that anyone who does not believe you must associate themselves with the immorality of child-molestation. Our testimonials prove (whatever it means to "prove") that you're wrong, yet you continue to perpetuate the lie.

And you didn't choose child-molestation at random. You chose it because you knew most people consider it among the most immoral actions there are. You wanted your antagonists to be viewed and to view themselves as such, and want so for the purpose of religious conversion.

Where do YOU stand morally?

canuck???

.. Waiting for Gado ..

.. ah em, I mean canuck ..

and while we're waiting, I just want it known that I love Canuck's presence on this site. No sarcasm.
The threads that truly bring this site down are ones like "Chain Reaction" and its twin brother, "Word Association". The absolute death of brain function.

Agreed, and this sort of thread reveals the diversity the world has to offer. The faithful to the faithless, the tolerant to the intolerant, the open-minded to the close-minded.

I simply disagree with the following Canuck's site asserted:

"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist."

The site allows visitors the option of accepting all but one premise before jumping to the conclusion, but it is the most important premise in the argument.

Makes you wonder why the Canuck's site is afraid to ask:

"Do you believe that only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist?"

But, again we are just viewing diversity. The intellectually honest and the intellectually dishonest.