Teenage Wildlife

IMPORTANT: Use your registry nickname as your username when logging in to Conversation Piece!


Free for All
   >> Coffee Shop
Thread views: 2762 Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 09:44 AM
The atheist's view on Kevin Underwood, US cannibal  

Recently an American named Kevin Underwood was caught with a murdered 10 year old girl in his apartment. The girl was chopped into pieces. According to Underwood, he was planning to eat her. Underwood was a cannibal. The atheist must accept what Underwood has done. Why?

The atheist has no moral authority to appeal to. The atheist might disagree with what Underwood has done, and feel that Underwood's actions are "wrong," but Underwood simply disagrees with the opinions of the atheist. Who is to say whose opinions are right?

The atheist does not believe that human life is sacred. Atheists must accept and embrace the world they claim to believe in, a world where animals, including men, kill and eat each other.





krettis
(cracked actor)
04/17/06 09:52 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

Oh really? Like the atheist has no morals or standards to live by.

In reply to:

The atheist does not believe that human life is sacred.


Speak for yourself :)

In every occasion I'm ready for a funeral.


Pablo-Picasso
(acolyte)
04/17/06 09:54 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: krettis]  

Yeah Dizzy's theory is really flawed in this one. He seems to be struggling to come up with interesting subjects these days, hence his illogical argument about Beltene's legitimacy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrated Discography
Bassman
Helden

to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 10:09 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: krettis]  

In reply to:

Oh really? Like the atheist has no morals or standards to live by.


No, most atheists have their own opinions about what is moral. Kevin Underwood has differing opinions, however. When the lion takes down a zebra, can the zebra say, "I feel this whole thing is wrong"? Without a standard, we are all animals, picking and choosing our own way.





krettis
(cracked actor)
04/17/06 10:20 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

You're missing a piece of the puzzle.
Someone who believes in a God does see the human race as the highest standard (besides God)
An atheist simply does not see god as the highest standard. That doesn't mean the views of human versus animal are totally different.


In every occasion I'm ready for a funeral.


Vanessa_Y
(crash course raver)
04/17/06 11:04 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: krettis]  

Right. Just because an atheist doesn't believe the bible or that god is the highest standard does not mean he had a total disregard for human life. It doesn't mean that he/she thinks eating a fellow human being, especially that of a child, is right.


"I suppose if I were a lot older--like 40 or 50--I'd be a wonderful sugar daddy to some little queen down in Kensington. I'd have a houseboy named Richard to order around."DB, 1976




to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 11:14 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: Vanessa_Y]  

In reply to:

It doesn't mean that [the atheist] thinks eating a fellow human being, especially that of a child, is right.


No, most atheists are against cannibalism. Men like Kevin Underwood are in favor of it. Can the atheist claim that his opinion holds more weight than the cannibal's? No.



riley
(crash course raver)
04/17/06 11:32 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

Morals can sometimes be instinctive.. a necessary trait in animals that require co-dependence to survive. Trying to say belief in god provides morals is fucking stupid as belief in god also provides people with 'moral justification' to be self righetous arseholes.



to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 11:48 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: riley]  

In reply to:

Trying to say belief in god provides morals is fucking stupid


riley, there really is no reason for you to claim that this American murderer of the little girl acted incorrectly. To what or whom do you appeal?



Pablo-Picasso
(acolyte)
04/17/06 11:51 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

there really is no reason for you to claim that this American murderer of the little girl acted incorrectly.


Idiot.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrated Discography
Bassman
Helden

to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 11:53 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: Pablo-Picasso]  

But you need to state a reason for this crime to be heinous, Pablo, that is where you will be tripped up every time.



Pablo-Picasso
(acolyte)
04/17/06 11:56 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

No, you justify why it isn't heinous? Make a case that you could explain to the parents of the girl, why the cannibal had done nothing wrong. When you have done that, then we will talk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrated Discography
Bassman
Helden

krettis
(cracked actor)
04/17/06 11:57 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

No, most atheists are against cannibalism. Men like Kevin Underwood are in favor of it. Can the atheist claim that his opinion holds more weight than the cannibal's? No.



Yes. With solid good arguments. Cannibalism is in a country like the U.S. only a tool for people who can't handle their own frustration and sick games of power.

In every occasion I'm ready for a funeral.


to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 11:58 AM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: Pablo-Picasso]  

I believe what he did was evil, do you? Explain why you do.



to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 12:00 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: krettis]  

In reply to:

Yes. With solid good arguments. Cannibalism is in a country like the U.S. only a tool for people who can't handle their own frustration and sick games of power.


But Underwood has arguments of his own that he believes are solid and good. Whose argument is better? And why?




to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 12:01 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

Does anyone at TW believe that cannibalism and murder are wrong? To what moral standard do you appeal? Your own?



krettis
(cracked actor)
04/17/06 12:07 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

But Underwood has arguments of his own that he believes are solid and good. Whose argument is better? And why?


It's not whose argument is better. It's which side has the most arguments and so are easier to work with. I think Underwood hasn't got many.
Secondly, we first must define what 'human' is and 'civilisation'. The western society has defined these two words. And therefore it's not the atheist whose moral standards are more valuable than Underwood's; it's the society.
It's not civilized to hurt another person, and inhuman not having any empathy towards the child.

In every occasion I'm ready for a funeral.


to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 12:08 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

All of TW seems weak, terrified, and afraid. You rail against the murder of a child but you fail to consider that Kevin Underwood, the murderer, had his own perspective on the matter. Don't his opinions count as well as yours? Why not?



to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 12:10 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: krettis]  

In reply to:

It's not whose argument is better. It's which side has the most arguments....


But Underwood isn't tallying arguments. He does his own thing.




GodlessWonder
(kook)
04/17/06 12:12 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

That, you dumb illogical moran, is because cannbalism is both morally wrong, criminally wrong and psychologically wrong. It is wrong, regardless of whether you believe in God. In fact I don't see what that has to do with Jack Shit anyway. A non-believer simply doesn't believe in God, it doesn't make them stark raving mad.

Shut up, or I'll cut you up and put you in my freezer. I've run out of ice-lollies and there's plenty of space.

" I'm looking for backing for an unauthorized auto-biography that I am writing. Hopefully, this will sell in such huge numbers that I will be able to sue myself for an extraordinary amount of money"- David Bowie

Dara
(acolyte)
04/17/06 12:13 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

Does anyone at TW believe that cannibalism and murder are wrong?


I believe they are intrinsically wrong, in and of themselves.

Are you saying that the only good reason for believing murder is wrong because (a) God (yours) said so, or at least you believe he, she or it did. Even if your God did forbid murder, it is not the fact that God forbids it that makes it wrong. Rather it is the fact that it is wrong that makes your God forbid it (if he's a half decent God). The alternative is to suggest that your God forbids murder for no good reason. In which case, what use is God?

Slan leat,

Dara

"Irish as well, you see. Home of God himself" - Noel Gallagher on U2

to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 12:19 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: Dara]  

In reply to:

I believe they are intrinsically wrong, in and of themselves.


But Kevin Underwood does not concur with your beliefs. His feelings are valid too, just as yours are. If not, why not?





to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 12:24 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

All of TW is cowering in fear now. You can't seem to articulate why your values count more than the murderers and cannibals of the world.



Pablo-Picasso
(acolyte)
04/17/06 12:29 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

An individuals beliefs and practices are valid as long as they do not impeach on the liberty or freedom of others. Irrespective of religion and law there is a moral code which most people live by.
You seem to be implying that it is a lack of god in this persons life which has led to him having a disregard for the mortality of others. Well, what of serial killers or even leaders of armies who justify their killing in God's name? Your argument is flawed and it is not up to us to give reason why it is wrong for this person to kill, it is up to you, as you brought the subject up, to give a water tight case of why he is right. I don't think you can though.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrated Discography
Bassman
Helden

riley
(crash course raver)
04/17/06 12:35 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

Do you really want a history lesson on the ethics of religion and belief? Moral relativity can exist when a priest is about to bugger a kid.. he'll just tell himself 'god forgives' to justify his own disgusting behaviour.. and women burned alive were being 'saved' by their murderers. I've already explained why morals [and sometimes immorality; eg killing in self defence] are necessary.. we are a social species.. now perhaps you could explain to me why you completely ignored this point and persisted in attacking atheists in general? I consider persecution to be immoral.. you don't. Why is this? Because you need to justify your choice to indulge in immorality by qualifying it with 'god'.. worse than that you used the tragedy of a child murder to attack a group of people while pretending to be teaching morals. Hypocricey at it's finest. Atheists have no such luxury with morality.. something is either immoral or it is not- there is no negotiating actions with imaginary beings.

krettis
(cracked actor)
04/17/06 12:42 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

To_Dizzy, there are a lot of countries which keep religion and politics separated. Now, do you see a lot of activity in canibalism in those countries?
The U.S. , which has a lot of trouble keeping those two separately and in a way looks like Iran, has a cannibal.
Now with your logic that would mean that those who fear God are cannibals.

In every occasion I'm ready for a funeral.


Hannibal_Lecter
(wild eyed peoploid)
04/17/06 12:48 PM
Food glorious food new [re: to_dizzy]  

Too Dizzy, you raise many valid points to which TW has no reply. Look at the number of times Krettis has replied to this thread already with his badly-phrased and ill-conceived arguments! Admit it, Krettis: you're hysterical.

It still saddens me that many an honest cannibal faces persecution from outmoded moral codes. Many so-called atheists subscribe strictly to Christian values on the purity of marriage, the evil of abortion etc., making them mere 'Closet Christians'. And many Christians, hypocritically, partake in cannibalism every time they go to mass and believe in the literal transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ - at least certain denominations do.

To detractors I simply say that cannibalism is like a religion to *me*, and I deserve the same civil rights and freedom to practise my religion as any citizen. I pay my taxes.

Curiously, I have a sudden urge to become a missionary in Wales. Any takers?


Honestly pianocraft,sometimes I think you've never met a real junkie;the things you say about Bowie in his cocaine era, are hilarious
~Cucumber

Dara
(acolyte)
04/17/06 01:05 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

But Kevin Underwood does not concur with your beliefs. His feelings are valid too, just as yours are. If not, why not?


There is no proof here on either side. There is no evidence that any moral principle is real. However, most people would prefer to live in a society where certain moral principles are accepted and encoded as law: thou shalt not murder little girls being one of them.

Saying you believe Y because X says so doesn't prove anything, or even necessarily strengthen your case, regardless of whether X is your God, your Dad or your dog.

Slan leat,

Dara

"Irish as well, you see. Home of God himself" - Noel Gallagher on U2

krettis
(cracked actor)
04/17/06 01:19 PM
Your submission was worth a lot! new [re: Hannibal_Lecter]  

In reply to:

Too Dizzy, you raise many valid points to which TW has no reply. Look at the number of times Krettis has replied to this thread already with his badly-phrased and ill-conceived arguments! Admit it, Krettis: you're hysterical.


Badly-phrased, yes. Ill-conceived, I didn't think so. It's interesting what the motives are to eat someone. But in the atheist-christian/buddhist/whateverreligion perspective you get nowhere.
And alter-ego, the poor 'I agree whatever he says'-statement really holds position... not.

And for being hysterical: am not!
*Runs circles in the room and pulling out his hair* NOT!!

In every occasion I'm ready for a funeral.


to_dizzy
(electric tomato)
04/17/06 03:43 PM
Re: The atheist's vie.... new [re: Dara]  

In reply to:

There is no proof here on either side.




You guys say that no one has the right to impose their values of sexuality, God, worship upon you, but when a man like Underwood hits the news, then you start talking about what is "intrinsically wrong." What suddenly gives you that right?

What Kevin Underwood has done is intrinsically wrong, evil. He has violated the law of God. But you people do not get to pick and choose what is intrinsically wrong, according to your personal taste.



riley
(crash course raver)
04/17/06 04:01 PM
'you people'.. new [re: to_dizzy]  

If you need a fucking book to tell you the difference between right and wrong.. you need to be kept away from society permanently.



strangeDivine
(acolyte)
04/17/06 05:17 PM
God is nowHERE new [re: to_dizzy]  

to_dizzy,

Disregarding received wisdom from trans-mundane sources for the sake of argument, there is nothing "intrinsic" that makes human life more valuable than anything else in the universe, aside from our subjective assessment of ourselves (and that assessment is as valid as anything else we might hold onto in this world). A virus doesn't defer to our supposed superiority, it just attacks. If a bear rips off your arm in the middle of the woods, can you take it to the Nature Criminal Court? No.

Human rights are invented by humans to make life in an inhospitable world more viable. These rights vary from culture to culture, and change over time (in the West, we no longer draw and quarter criminals...), but the impulse to create some rules, and to enforce them, is universal. The most "primitive" societies extant today have simple forms of law and order that are much more effective even than our complex legal systems (modern urban populations just aren't manageable, really).

We are social animals. Just you try to live on your own in the middle of the Amazon. You may be able to survive, but there is a huge chance that you won't. And human children are nigh helpless for an incredible amount of time; without compassionate caretakers, humans would die before reaching maturity, and the species would become extinct. The laws of nature dictate that we treat each other with relative compassion and work together to a large extent because, aside from our tool-making capacity and "superior" brains, we aren't adapted for survival on our own...we're not like cats.

Evolutionarily speaking, compassion does indeed serve a purpose; and sociopathy is the exception rather than the rule. The cannibal, of course, could argue that he is just doing what is proper to his nature--and that may be the case!--but he is outnumbered, by evolutionary necessity.

That's my answer, and I'm not even an atheist.

I got nothing in my head. I quit thinking in 1952.--Charles Manson

Pablo-Picasso
(acolyte)
04/17/06 05:21 PM
Re: God is nowHERE new [re: strangeDivine]  

And a truly great answer too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustrated Discography
Bassman
Helden

strangeDivine
(acolyte)
04/17/06 06:17 PM
Re: God is nowHERE new [re: Pablo-Picasso]  

In reply to:

And a truly great answer too.


Thank you. It's quite obvious to me that God exists and doesn't exist, so I must play Devil's advocate both ways. And to_dizzy's anti-atheist argument is a classic that never gets better with repetition. Saying that society would crumble in the absence of organized religion is as strange as claiming that organized religion must necessarily create oppressive social phenomena like the Spanish Inquisition. When the space-time continuum rends and I enter an alternate reality that is truly black and white, perhaps I'll change my mind.


I got nothing in my head. I quit thinking in 1952.--Charles Manson

th0mas
(acolyte)
04/17/06 06:21 PM
Re: God is nowHERE new [re: strangeDivine]  

Oh yes... reading this answer at the bottom of this thread creates a feeling like shitting for the first time since last week - a feeling of great relieve.


Come and buy my tanks

Claude
(big brother)
04/17/06 06:31 PM
Re: In the name of God! new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

The atheist does not believe that human life is sacred. Atheists must accept and embrace the world they claim to believe in, a world where animals, including men, kill and eat each other.


Do you think we can kill in the name of God???




----------------------
Claude

guiltpuppy
(cracked actor)
04/18/06 04:40 AM
Re: The atheist's view on Kevin Underwood, US cann new [re: to_dizzy]  

I think it's wrong that he didn't fuck the girl first!



Dara
(acolyte)
04/18/06 07:07 AM
Official TW Post of the Week new [re: strangeDivine]  

In reply to:

It's quite obvious to me that God exists and doesn't exist


Bravo: that brings the noble art of fence-sitting to new heights!

Also, I haven't given out one of these in a while, so by the power vested in me by the one true God (known to mere humans as Evan) I hereby confer on your previous fog-busting post to this thread an Official TW Post of the Week award. Which is an award that both exists and does not exist.

Slan leat,

Dara

"Irish as well, you see. Home of God himself" - Noel Gallagher on U2

strangeDivine
(acolyte)
04/18/06 09:50 AM
Re: Official TW Post of the Week new [re: Dara]  

In reply to:

Bravo: that brings the noble art of fence-sitting to new heights!


Thank you Dara. Take this as you will, but I speak from a position of mystical gnostic inner illumination which renders the question "Does God exist" as silly as "Would you rather shop at Wal-Mart or K-Mart?" There is no difference, because I believe in a complete unified reality which transcends all dualistic notions. As an occultist, though, I'm likely to work with anthropomorphic beings such as gods, angels and demons, but the question of their objective existence is profoundly irrelevant to the work, all things being one. It doesn't even matter whether other people are a figment of my imagination.

In reply to:

Also, I haven't given out one of these in a while, so by the power vested in me by the one true God (known to mere humans as Evan) I hereby confer on your previous fog-busting post to this thread an Official TW Post of the Week award. Which is an award that both exists and does not exist.


This is a true honor! And to receive it so shortly after becoming an acolyte, no less! I'm really, really glad that the things I say occasionally make sense to people and provide food for thought. If I can say something comprehensible and helpful only once a month, I will still feel as though I'm doing my job. Here's to a bright future for TW!



I got nothing in my head. I quit thinking in 1952.--Charles Manson

Claude
(big brother)
04/18/06 09:58 AM
Re: Official TW Post of the Week new [re: Dara]  

Seconded!

----------------------
Claude

Strawman
(acolyte)
04/18/06 10:12 AM
Re: Official TW Post of the Week new [re: strangeDivine]  

In reply to:

I'm really, really glad that the things I say occasionally make sense to people and provide food for thought.


Even though you go right 'round the houses to get to the point, your prose certainly nurtures the ol' brain cells, Greg.

Well done.

And Low? Heavily influenced by Neil Diamond's work in the late 60s - P2C.

FIFA WORLD CUP 2006

power2charm
(kook)
04/20/06 02:47 AM
What would Hannibal do? new [re: to_dizzy]  

to_dizzy:

In reply to:

The atheist has no moral authority to appeal to.


and

strangegreg:

In reply to:

Human rights are invented by humans to make life in an inhospitable world more viable. These rights vary from culture to culture, and change over time


are both correct. In the absence of God, the morality of man shifts according to culture and necessity. God's morality is unchanging, and that's a great comfort. But man's morality may change, but will do so rather slowly and incrementally.

Interestingly, secular morality is political and demands our participation. It is exciting that you and I get to have our say and defend our grounds for what is moral. In this regard, you will recall that I alone argued against the practice of cannibalism on moral grounds in an earlier thread regarding the German case where the victim assented to being killed and eaten.

What are Kevin Underwood's grounds in favor of cannibalism? They will need to be stronger than his own peculiar desires if they are to find purchase among his fellow humans.

With God, we would not need to ask the question why is it moral because the presumption is that He already did, and He is omniscient and did it better than we ever could.

But in a Godless universe we do need to ask why, and in a way that makes secular morality more dynamic and, in a sense, more sacred. We birth it and we protect it, and it may come to pass that we someday abandon it for something else. But not without a struggle.

____
Kid, you've paid your dues...dues and dues. ~J. Tweedy

Beltene
(acolyte)
05/29/06 10:16 PM
The little girl that didn't want to be eaten new [re: to_dizzy]  

In reply to:

You guys say that no one has the right to impose their values of sexuality, God, worship upon you, but when a man like Underwood hits the news, then you start talking about what is "intrinsically wrong." What suddenly gives you that right?


The fact that his victim did not have a choice in the matter.

If his victim was someone who is of legal age and who gave him their consent then it would not be considered "intrinsically wrong".

For example, that German cannibal approached a middle aged person who wanted to be eaten by him and that's why he should not be considered an evil monster.

My ass belongs on your face.

guiltpuppy
(cracked actor)
05/30/06 04:15 AM
Re: What would Hannibal do? new [re: power2charm]  

In reply to:

But in a Godless universe we do need to ask why, and in a way that makes secular morality more dynamic and, in a sense, more sacred. We birth it and we protect it, and it may come to pass that we someday abandon it for something else. But not without a struggle.



I don't know, I think that "why" and "morality" (as conventionally defined) are pretty much incompatible in a secular framework. You can do it with more complex subjects, arguing them down to certain axioms, but beyond that you just end up with a lot of circular reasoning.

Morality is ideological, and ideologies are emergent, not constructed. We can argue them, and argument can play a role in their alteration (if their structure allows for it, and most existing ones do -- overly stable ideologies have mostly stagnated out of existence), but we don't get to define their parameters. The very notions of "definition" and "parameter" are ultimately ideological in nature!

Anyway, this is becoming rapidly tangential. Murder is wrong, and you're free to question it, but you won't find any answers more salient than that statement itself. And if you do have an equally fundamental disagreement with that statement, then you must be operating under a different ideology, which means you don't have a sufficiently common formal basis to compare anything; you'd be as successful attempting to solve the equation "4 * cos(x) + 3.11x = The hair about Beltene's beaver is sopping, sopping wet because of it."

Vote for me: TW's Top Fag!


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
Previous threadView all threadsNext thread*Threaded Mode
Jump to

Teenage Wildlife Davie Bowie | Email Us! Forums powered by WWWThreads v5.1.5perl

Teenage Wildlife Home Page Bowie's music Info on Bowie Other Media Have your say! Search the Site Help me!


Toolbar (Interact)

Etete Systems