Posting to Ethics may be wasted effort

The Marquis

i would just like to direct you to the thread he is talking about (i cleaned up the other one)

lady hasnt made a rational post AT ALL that i have seen

she is using my section to carry a personal vendetta against a group she hates and quite frankly i think i have been MORE than nice about it

i gave her 3 warnings to stop posting things like this
** It's a identifable demonic spirit? Like Aids it mutates and changes the host?

Just say the devil made me do it? Good people don't blame God

i then had to split the thread

there was another thread which i "butched" simply because it was a bible lecture

that would be the sum total of the cleaning up i have done in ethics with the exeption of deleting out a requist for a member to cyber with another member
i would also like to add that the thread everyone is complaining about if i had been another mod would have been closed as soon as it had been opened but i couldnt see a reason to as much as PERSONALLY the topic turns my stomic
Originally posted by The Marquis
In the interests of a fair hearing, and giving credit to the fact the most western ethics have their roots in Judaic religion anyway, how can we possibly disregard their input? I agree with you insofar as the likes of whatsupyall having a say... he doesn't say anything, merely shouts a lot. But we have to ask ourselves... where is Tony1? Where is Ekimlaw? where is Chris, in ethics? Are we driving away those who have an intelligent opinion simply because they post from a religious point of view? Do they not debate in ethics much because they know they will be dismissed as christian?

very nicely said. we are being asked to lobotomize our thoughts when posting in ethics. one needs to look at the big picture in order to fully understand an issue and if religion happens to be a factor, discuss it without fear of censorship!

Originally posted by Asguard
so no god said so in ethics anymore

Last edited:

Originally posted by zanket
In the Ethics, Morality, & Justice forum the moderator said:
Originally posted by Asguard
oh and in responce to the NURMOURSE posts in this thread that quite frankly i couldnt give a dam about ...
And he deleted all the posts in the thread except his own.
oh man.
u gonna get so fired.
i wouldnt wanna b in ur shoes.
good luck!
hopfully all ull get is chewed out.
actually, i dont kno much about moderating so u might surprisingly get a pat on the back 4 a job well don!
I have to agree with The Marquis on this one.

How can you possibly keep religion out of ethics? Most of our morals and ethics are derived from our religous upbringing. It shaped the way some of us think. Just because Im an atheist doesnt mean I didnt get my way of thinking from religion.

Good point. I don't mind an ethics/morals discussion swaying into religion even though I'm not religious. The topic will likely come back into line on its own anyway.
The Marquis

The question I have for you, Tiasa, is this. In the interests of a fair hearing, and giving credit to the fact the most western ethics have their roots in Judaic religion anyway, how can we possibly disregard their input?
In all honesty, you cannot disregard their input. But in an ethical consideration I would hope they could argue something about the real process of what the religion instructs.

I suppose that to me its the difference between exploring why God might say, "Thou shall not kill" as opposed to screaming that God says it, that makes it an ethical device. There needs to be some reason in ethics, and shouting a priori declarations is merely a starting point, and does not, imho, represent a coherent argument. That God abhors homosexuality, for instance, is clear in the Bible. But then again, that Law was handed down while the Jews were wandering about in the desert. Alongside Laws against sodomy, God also put a number of restrictions on casual sex and other wastes of seed. When you're in the desert for forty years, reproducton and sanitation are important. It makes logical sense in its context.

As a counterpoint, Leviticus 21 includes a scathing tantrum by God about the handicapped. The end result is that they shall not profane what the Lord has made holy. We obviously don't hold to the Bible on that count because it's kind of an absurd notion that only makes sense in the context that God wills their handicap, and some viewed disability as the manifestation of God's wrath and punishment of the future generations as prescribed elsewhere in the Bible. In the modern day, though, compassion is the rule of thumb, and beyond Jesus' forgiveness the only way Christians can argue against homosexuality is to raid the Pauline evangelism and hold this preacher's word up as if it was the Law of God.

We cannot avoid religion as a dimension of ethics, but religion cannot claim an ethical perspective without some reason or logic. Otherwise, it's merely a circular chain of assumptions that have nothing to do with the reasons for ethics.

"Homosexual laws" (closed) is one of the questionable topics, and I invite anyone to peruse it and help me figure out where the logic and reasoning of the Biblical ethic is in that topic.

I think there's a tremendous difference between those aspects of religion that we cannot avoid in ethical considerations, and those present in said topic.

And welcome to your new identity. I shall bear in mind that you have a prior history. As to T1, Ekimklaw and others, though, I think their a priori religious assertions really didn't add up to a tremendous amount of ethical logic.

I remember one person telling people angrily that they didn't understand the Bible and therefore shouldn't comment on it. To the other, he also wrote once, "Who says I'm a Christian?" Despite his numerous assertions of what the Bible really means, he could never explain where he got this insight. In the end, his meltdown was not pretty in any sense.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Posting in any section has the same problems lately. For example, Prosoothus may be wrong in some of his ideas when posting in Physics & Maths, but that's no excuse for the losers to pour out of the woodwork and start throwing around insults. Lately any serious discussion in General Philosophy turns into a spawning pool for adolescents to discuss masturbation. Religion is seeing re-runs of the same old same old, which is why I no longer partake in discussions there so much; I've said everything I have to say on the subject months ago, nothing new has been added that I've seen.

Ethics was going the way of General Philosophy, and personally I'm glad a moderator is putting a stop to that.
i think that the function of a moderator on a science discussion forum might be different from a 'normal' forum.

Chairmen and moderators of a scientific forum or speaker session are supposed to lead and stimulate discussion.