Joined: Jan. 2012
|Quote (onlooker @ Nov. 05 2012,14:56)|
|I was just catching up over at The Skeptical Zone after a couple of days cleaning up from Sandy, and I saw a reference to something I thought was too offensive even for UD to host. Turns out I was wrong.|
Here's Mung explaining how he'd justify an omnibenevolent god allowing rape:
|I never argued that God allows rape because He values free will. If I were to make some sort of assertion, it would be that God allows rape because there’s nothing evil about it. So now what?|
So now what? So now I know that I was correct in choosing to ignore Mung on every UD thread. He's as ignorant as Joe, no more intelligent, but as thoroughly unpleasant and ethically challenged as Barry. Quite the combination there.
Certainly an odd one for an objective-morality jockey to peddle. Turns out rape ain't so bad, which just leaves child molestation and murder. Or maybe they aren't evil either.
It would be useful if this objective morality were packaged in an unequivocal and accessible form. Maybe WJM will pop up and defend Mung, who at least is avoiding the dreadful fate of the 'subjective-moralist', of having no rational basis for their morality ... I expect there's a wider context to Mung's remarks, but I can't be arsed finding what it is.
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.
The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G