Carobit YouTube Discussions Conversation: Bigjerre shoots himself in the foot

Your Connection

guest
Log out
Log in or Sign Up

Site Navigation

Home
Forum Home
Closed Conversations

For Members

Support
Feedback
Member Search
Carobit Mail

Helpful Links

Smilies
Formatting
Preview

Originator:	Pino Carafa	Printable Version
Title:	Bigjerre shoots himself in the foot

Back to YouTube Discussions

Attachments Add Attachment

Checked out by: Pino Carafa on: 2008/07/10 06:30:24

BJ.doc (Check out) (Undo Checkout) (Delete)

History

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2008/07/10 06:30:06
ha!

From: Pino Carafa	On: 2008/07/10 06:30:40
Very recently, we were treated to a big video by a big man called Bigjerre Bigjerre claims he has found the “absolute PERFECT description of actual atheist morality” What follows, however, tells us a lot more about Bigjerre than it does about Atheists and so-called “Atheist morality”. Whatever THAT may be. Please allow me to explain. Bigjerre tells us that Atheists, no exceptions (and it is important to note that he stresses that point), are immoral. But … wait a moment. In the introduction to his video, Bigjerre tells us that he used to be an Atheist. Please take a moment to allow this to sink in. Bigjerre says: “All Atheists are immoral” Bigjerre says: “I used to be an Atheist” At the very least, Bigjerre is admitting that he used to be immoral. But things are much worse than that. Normal human beings have an innate sense of morality. Our recent evolutionary history shows our humanoid and primate ancestors as gregarious species. We have come to depend on living in groups and bands, and in order for these to function effectively, the members in those groups must be compelled to cooperate with the others. This is what Bigjerre does not understand. Evolution does not work by implanting into a person’s mind philosophical ideas about morality. It simply isn’t that clever. So instead, it compels us to behave morally. And it achieves this by evolving emotional responses guiding one’s own behaviour in a group, and one’s response to behaviour exhibited by others in that group. We behave “morally” by virtue of these emotional responses. We don’t do things that are “wrong” because they “feel” wrong. We do things that are “right” because they “feel” right. A normal human being shows instinctive revulsion toward the things that normal human beings find clearly morally unacceptable. We feel that people who fail to take another person’s feelings into account are revolting. We feel a sense of moral outrage when we feel that somebody is acting “unfairly”, or when we see that somebody is treated that way. We feel guilty when we behave “selfishly”. It feels “wrong” to achieve one’s goal by coldly calculated acts of extreme violence, and we instinctively judge people who do this as morally reprehensible. We instinctively feel that such behaviour must be “punished”. And as our “bands” and “groups” evolved into ever more complex “societies”, we found that our innate, instinctive moral attitudes were not nuanced enough to deal with those complexities. So we formalised them, and expanded on them. This is what is known as “law”. And as these “laws” became more and more convoluted and abstract, they became further and further removed from our innate morality. That is why we often feel that “the law is an Ass”, and that is why laws are often quite arbitrary. We “innately” understand that we have to establish rules of the road that are designed to enhance road users’ safety. But even though the intention is based on such innate understandings, the actual implementation is not. In some countries the traffic is instructed to drive on the left, whilst in others it is instructed to drive on the right. Choosing a side to drive on is necessary. But the actual choice of “left” or “right” is arbitrary. Now then At this stage, you may be left wondering what this has to do with Bigjerre’s video. I’ll be delighted to explain that now Bigjerre says that atheists are immoral. I just explained that normal humans have an innate moral sense, and where this moral sense comes from. Being immoral means that one is lacking in this innate moral sense. This is not unusual. Many people are born with disabilities. Human reproduction, alas, is not perfect. The problem though is that one cannot grow out of a birth defect. What was that statement again, Bigjerre? Oh. Yes. I remember: “I used to be an Atheist” Well, he may not be an Atheist anymore, but atheism and immorality are not inter-dependent. Even if we accept his claim that atheism is immoral, we also know that some people who are not atheistic are nonetheless immoral. Just think of Muslim suicide bombers And that Bigjerre is still immoral now is perfectly clear. Just look at his prediction of what life will be like if Atheism were to rule the world. Without “God’s Law”, according to Bigjerre, it will be perfectly normal for people to go on killing sprees and just murder everyone in their path. Why does he predict this? Simple. He only “knows” that killing is wrong because his “God” told him so. He “knows” this at an “intellectual” level. He “knows” it because he has “learned the rules”. But he doesn’t “get it”. He doesn’t feel it “in his gut”, like a normal person would. He doesn’t feel this instinctive revulsion at the idea of going out and murdering people. He doesn’t feel any of these normal, human, emotions. And of course, a mental birth defect does not leave any clearly visible marks. He doesn’t know any better. He thinks that this is “normal” We, emotionally healthy people, look just like him. There is no distinguishing feature that singles him out from other people. And if we look the same on the outside, one can understand why he assumes that we are just as empty as he is on the inside, too. So, quite naturally, he projects his own inability to feel empathy with others on to everybody else. The problem is that he will never understand that this is not normal. At best, he will learn that his emotional emptiness is uncommon in the same way he learnt morality from his Bible. Just words on a page. Something to commit to memory, but not something he could ever understand. But he’ll always remain what he is today: A psychopath Of course that is really sad, but there’s nothing we can do about it. All we can do is count ourselves lucky. Thankfully, he has found another obsession. An obsession with an imaginary God. An imaginary God that tells him that “killing people is bad”. He’ll never get it, of course. He’ll never understand WHY God doesn’t like him killing people. But even though he cannot empathise with others, he is still able to feel the emotional drive to save his own skin. And that will cause him to behave. Praise his non-existent LORD. Just shows you that religion CAN be good for something, eh?

Enter your comments here

As a guest you will only be able to see what a comment posted by you would look like by clicking the Preview button. You can't actually participate by posting comments to this conversation.

Number of viewers: 7