Why shouldn't human remains be raffle prizes?

[animist]

Latest post of the previous page:

I have a sort of thought forming in my (?) mind that I can't answer: this is an ethical question - are ethics a form of democratic will?

surely there should be discussion over what people's ethical objections really amount to in a case like this, and most people's opinions are pretty half-baked and confused (as also they are over whether, say, they consider themselves religious). One Jason supporter said something like "Dead people are still people" - well, no, they ain't!

Do/should we go along with the majority, even when that majority will be formed from those with the strongest opinions (i.e. mostly religious people and humanists - unfortunately there are a few more of them than there are of us!) Or should we use even human bones to gather the most scientific/cultural information that we can?

no, we should not simply go along with the majority, whatever than means; and yes, of course we should use human bones to obtain information

Programme on radio earlier about Lindholm Man, the body in the peat bog sufficiently well preserved to tell us a great deal about his culture. He was a Celt from about 2000 years ago who, apparently, succumbed to a ritualistic murder/execution. How should he be treated? As a museum curiosity or should he be interred? If the latter with xtian or some sort of (pseudo) druidic ceremony?

I don't think that Lindholm Man and other similar ancient human remains are mere "curiosities" but important scientific discoveries, and whyever should they be reburied? Let them continue to teach us

[Dave B]

Programme on radio earlier about Lindholm Man, the body in the peat bog sufficiently well preserved to tell us a great deal about his culture. He was a Celt from about 2000 years ago who, apparently, succumbed to a ritualistic murder/execution. How should he be treated? As a museum curiosity or should he be interred? If the latter with xtian or some sort of (pseudo) druidic ceremony?

I don't think that Lindholm Man and other similar ancient human remains are mere "curiosities" but important scientific discoveries, and whyever should they be reburied? Let them continue to teach us

I meant "curiosities" in terms of the view of the majority of the public. Later I came to think that that was insulting to those members of the public who feel some sort of real connection with our predecessors, whether emotional or academic. I remember picking up pieces of flint and bronze on archaeological sites and feeling that link even through inanimate objects - I was the first human to touch the object in 4000 years or more. It was tempting to put one-self in the position of the ancient crafts-person, imagine how they felt, what ambitions they might have had.

There used to be strong pressures, from the god-botherers, on archaeology to re-inter human remains. Personally I agree that those remains have an important place in education, in comparative history etc. If only to indicate that there are societies and cultures on Earth now every bit as "uncivilised" as those of thousands of years ago! And the drive is still the same. politics and religion.

[Tetenterre]

Like most others here, I don't give a monkey's what happens to my bones when I die (I've donated the entire corpse to medical science, but I'll never know ...). That said, I don't really see the point of pissing off other people just for the hell of it (quite happy to do so if I think it will achieve something) and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with abiding, within reason, by other people's wishes for the remains of their "loved ones" of any species.

[Alan H]

That said, I don't really see the point of pissing off other people just for the hell of it (quite happy to do so if I think it will achieve something) and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with abiding, within reason, by other people's wishes for the remains of their "loved ones" of any species.

+1

[Dave B]

Like most others here, I don't give a monkey's what happens to my bones when I die (I've donated the entire corpse to medical science, but I'll never know ...). That said, I don't really see the point of pissing off other people just for the hell of it (quite happy to do so if I think it will achieve something) and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with abiding, within reason, by other people's wishes for the remains of their "loved ones" of any species.

Also +1.

Certainly agree with not pissing off other people without very good reason. If others want the remains of their ancestors treated with respect that is a good reason for not tampering with them. Though the non-aborigine American archaeologists have battled with this question for decades.

In Bahrain there was a place called "Hamalla" - a "City of the Dead". It was literally square miles of graves going back over a thousand years and still in use. Archaeologists had to get a license for every grave they wanted to open, many of the local families could trace their ancestry back hundreds of years and name the "occupants" of each family grave. If a grave could not be traced to a living family excavation was allowed, but nothing was to be taken away and the grave returned to as near original condition as possible. That place almost certainly contained the island's whole human history - a terrific resource that had to be treated with great respect.

[OT - thought I would look on Google Earth for Hamalla - blimey, seems to be built over now! About half the island is now built on or in the process of being developed. When I was there in 1970 there were two "cities" and one of those almost empty of people. How things change!]

[animist]

+0.5. Dave, I completely agree with your feelings about this Bahrain site, which embodies a whole community's feelings about their ancestors. But let's go back to the OP. What was the provenance of this skull? I guess that Weird and Wonderful had obtained it, I know not how exactly of course, but in a legitimate way - which suggests that it had no special value for any particular person. So my answer to the question remains that there is no reason, prima facie, why human remains should not be raffle prizes

[YouCanCallMeDave]

Serious question. This blog by a 12 year old bone collector has got me thinking. In it he argues that it is unethical to offer a human skull as a raffle prize but, imo, he hasn't made a convincing argument that it is unethical as opposed to merely insensitive. I wondered what anyone else thought?

One of the great problems with Humanisms tenet of moral relativism is that there are no objective absolute right from wrongs . Therefore since nothing is truly objectively wrong as based on a moral standard higher than Mans desires, everything is permissible to do ...........even the raffling off of human remains for financial gain or smoking the cremated remains at a Party should one desire.

Now, this idea of moral relativism on the surface looks quite appealing since it offers great(er) freedom for autonomous living............but in reality, not One Humanist would truly want to live in a world where this popularized philosophy is widespread and without restraint, for, it is the making of anarchy starting with the desire and urge to behave as One wants in Society. This brings me to the point that such a Humanist ideal is essentially hypocritical since the Humanist WANTS to outwardly apply moral relativism ion his life yet the same Humanist vehemently objects when Another APPLIES the same moral relativism ideals onto Another who then becomes the Victim.

So, what happens is this : Moral Relativism is demanded but objective Absolute Moral Standards are expected from Others toward Ourselves. That's hypocrisy, unsound, and illogical. Conversely, the teaching of the Bible which says :' Do unto Others (treat them) as you would want to be treated ' is not hypocritical, is sound, and follows perfect logic as well as harmony amongst People.

[Dave B]

[YouCanCallMeDave]

Wake up and smell the truth ; it will be good for you. Don't sleep your life away.



"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." [Atheist Voltaire} . Graduated Forest Animals called Humans commit atrocities in the name of Humanistic Moral Relativism .

[Dave B]

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." [Atheist Voltaire}

He was probably talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Though the early Church of England has things to answer for as well.

[YouCanCallMeDave]

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." [Atheist Voltaire}

He was probably talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Though the early Church of England has things to answer for as well.

He probably was thinking of the Inquisition atrocities from the RCC . Today though, our Culture is squarely based on Humanist thought and behavior rendering it morally deplorable at every turn because of the primary thrust of Humanism : Man pleasing himself anyway he chooses instead of living based on the loving protective moral mandates of his Creator . Therefore, atrocities will be rampant.

[Alan H]

He probably was thinking of the Inquisition atrocities from the RCC . Today though, our Culture is squarely based on Humanist thought and behavior rendering it morally deplorable at every turn because of the primary thrust of Humanism : Man pleasing himself anyway he chooses instead of living based on the loving protective moral mandates of his Creator . Therefore, atrocities will be rampant.

I see you've not actually learned anything about humanism.

[YouCanCallMeDave]

He probably was thinking of the Inquisition atrocities from the RCC . Today though, our Culture is squarely based on Humanist thought and behavior rendering it morally deplorable at every turn because of the primary thrust of Humanism : Man pleasing himself anyway he chooses instead of living based on the loving protective moral mandates of his Creator . Therefore, atrocities will be rampant.

I see you've not actually learned anything about humanism.

Ive learned ALOT about Humanism. I used to be a Humanist . I understand Humanism not only from a worldview/origins view , but also the consequences that occur in any society that is based on Humanist sociological principles . I believe you only have a surface level understanding of the Faith that you follow.

[Altfish]

Why is it nearly ALL creationists claim that they used to be an atheist, a humanist or some other form of non-believer?

But they have 'seen the light'

[Alan H]

He probably was thinking of the Inquisition atrocities from the RCC . Today though, our Culture is squarely based on Humanist thought and behavior rendering it morally deplorable at every turn because of the primary thrust of Humanism : Man pleasing himself anyway he chooses instead of living based on the loving protective moral mandates of his Creator . Therefore, atrocities will be rampant.

I see you've not actually learned anything about humanism.

Ive learned ALOT about Humanism. I used to be a Humanist . I understand Humanism not only from a worldview/origins view , but also the consequences that occur in any society that is based on Humanist sociological principles . I believe you only have a surface level understanding of the Faith that you follow.

Not that you've been able to demonstrate.

[kbell]

Serious question. This blog by a 12 year old bone collector has got me thinking. In it he argues that it is unethical to offer a human skull as a raffle prize but, imo, he hasn't made a convincing argument that it is unethical as opposed to merely insensitive. I wondered what anyone else thought?

One of the great problems with Humanisms tenet of moral relativism (snip)

Thank you for responding but as your first premise is wrong, I won't read any further. Moral relativism isn't a tenet of humanism and here's a good article by a humanist philosopher on the problems of relativism. But thanks anyway.

[Dave B]

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." [Atheist Voltaire}

He was probably talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Though the early Church of England has things to answer for as well.

He probably was thinking of the Inquisition atrocities from the RCC . Today though, our Culture is squarely based on Humanist thought and behavior rendering it morally deplorable at every turn because of the primary thrust of Humanism : Man pleasing himself anyway he chooses instead of living based on the loving protective moral mandates of his Creator . Therefore, atrocities will be rampant.

What you say does not excuse the religious faction of humanity from the inhumanities committed in its name. The Christian churches have their origin in either the RCC or Eastern Orthodoxy. The former has an appalling record for a globally organised institution claiming that it works for peace and goodwill.

I know little about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Where are the real roots of your sect, "Dave"?

Don't forget that the religious members of governments and the armed forces have sponsored a great deal of the historical and present suffering in this world. American politicians and generals are particularly prone to calling for their "God" to aid them in defeating the enemy. For "defeating" here read "killing". A religious war is being fought, right now, in the Middle East. Not a secular war, except in the case of the plutocrats (lobbying those oh-so-religious congressmen no doubt) wanting to keep their access to the oil income from this area - they probably support the churches as well.

[YouCanCallMeDave]

Why is it nearly ALL creationists claim that they used to be an atheist, a humanist or some other form of non-believer?

But they have 'seen the light'

Because they got saved from their lifestyle sins which a Humanism culture promotes . Yes, they saw the light of their misdeeds, immorality, rebellion, self centered living, and arrogance .

All of us are creationists whether we care to admit it or not because the alternative is so untenable that nothing made a universe out of nothing , or, an impersonal Force made a Universe out of nothing .

[YouCanCallMeDave]

He probably was thinking of the Inquisition atrocities from the RCC . Today though, our Culture is squarely based on Humanist thought and behavior rendering it morally deplorable at every turn because of the primary thrust of Humanism : Man pleasing himself anyway he chooses instead of living based on the loving protective moral mandates of his Creator . Therefore, atrocities will be rampant.

What you say does not excuse the religious faction of humanity from the inhumanities committed in its name. The Christian churches have their origin in either the RCC or Eastern Orthodoxy. The former has an appalling record for a globally organised institution claiming that it works for peace and goodwill.

I know little about Eastern Orthodoxy.

Where are the real roots of your sect, "Dave"?

Don't forget that the religious members of governments and the armed forces have sponsored a great deal of the historical and present suffering in this world. American politicians and generals are particularly prone to calling for their "God" to aid them in defeating the enemy. For "defeating" here read "killing". A religious war is being fought, right now, in the Middle East. Not a secular war, except in the case of the plutocrats (lobbying those oh-so-religious congressmen no doubt) wanting to keep their access to the oil income from this area - they probably support the churches as well.[/quote]

You make another misconception using atheist declarations concerning the Christian Faith . What you fail to consider is that many atrocities are done in the NAME of God but aren't OF God. Someone who professes to be a Christian doesn't automatically mean they are a genuine One. Atrocities commited in the name of God don't line up with Gods 10 Commandments and Jesus' teachings on how to live . If youre going to try to defame the Christian Faith, then you have to take the actual constructs , ideologies , and principles of the Christian Faith and show how THEY are detrimental to society by those who follow them. Can you though ?

Conversely, we can take the very ideologies and constructs of Secular Humanism based on their general widespread accepted affirmations and show a direct link to the atrocities that have occurred in societies that promote it as well as todays many social ills.

[YouCanCallMeDave]

I see you've not actually learned anything about humanism.

Ive learned ALOT about Humanism. I used to be a Humanist . I understand Humanism not only from a worldview/origins view , but also the consequences that occur in any society that is based on Humanist sociological principles . I believe you only have a surface level understanding of the Faith that you follow.

Not that you've been able to demonstrate.

Id expect this sort of a reply coming from yourself because you must defend Humanism at all costs even when its shown to be fallacious concerning a worldview, origins, sociological implications, and abberant lifestyle choices that harm others. In fact, there isn't anything I could possibily demonstrate to get you to consider because you've resigned to not wanting to drink the water . At this point, only your life coming to an end would make you feel and know otherwise.

[Altfish]

Why is it nearly ALL creationists claim that they used to be an atheist, a humanist or some other form of non-believer?

But they have 'seen the light'

Because they got saved from their lifestyle sins which a Humanism culture promotes . Yes, they saw the light of their misdeeds, immorality, rebellion, self centered living, and arrogance .

All of us are creationists whether we care to admit it or not because the alternative is so untenable that nothing made a universe out of nothing , or, an impersonal Force made a Universe out of nothing .

Wow, you managed to get the 'quoting' right - have a gold star!!
However, I notice on the two posts that followed you messed it up again.

"Dave", no matter what you claim, you were never a Humanist, you don't even know what it means. If your life was full of "... misdeeds, immorality, rebellion, self centered living, and arrogance." you were no humanist. That sounds more like the Westboro Baptist Church mob.