The last three
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2013, 10:55 AM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2013 11:08 AM by Nahli.)
The last three
This is the last three posts from a conversation I am having with a creationist. My methods and tactics are for sure not the standard, I am curious though what people might think of them. (Yes I know my thought process is, not normal.)

My Post:
You asked before if it were, "ABSOLUTELY wrong to Murder", and I told you. Murder is unjust. Or if you prefer a more standard definition. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Now you as of a "UNIVERSAL standard", is the term unjust not standard? I stated that murder is against the will of a governing power, no matter what that power be. Was that not comprehensible? There are many ways to say the same but I imagine that you are aiming for a deeper why. You aim for the roots, yes?

Very well. Does the ant want to die? Does the lion, the fish, the bird, the ape? Do they lay down and give in to that animal that seeks to eat them? Of course not, but animals can not hold malice as can a Sentient, Rational, Creative Being. Nor can they hold empathy as can a Sentient, Rational, Creative Being. Animals can desire to avoid punishment, but can they care and empathize? We do not know. Let us move on. You can care, (unless you are broken in some way), you can empathize. When you were young, if someone hurt you, you did not like it. If you saw someone get hurt, they showed signs they did not like it. You evolved to recoil from pain, to fight against death. It is hard wired into you. Now because you are so great that you can empathize you can look beyond your self and your kin to the larger world around you. You know that hurt and pain are bad because you have felt them. By that and the experiences around you, you know others feel the same. The pain of loss is strong, and the fear of death is strong. From those the mind takes over and death becomes a thing of pain and loss a hurt for all those that are connected to the loss. That pain comes from a natural death, one that is likely without blame. Much like the pain of a scrapped knee, it is bad. However when that pain has a more tangible cause it is worse. Were someone to take sandpaper and scrape your knee with the same severity you get not only the physical pain but an emotional pain and shock. You mind reels, you know by your empathy that they know by their empathy how much they hurt you. The unwise may seek vengeance, for now they have the power of emotion. Rage to buffer them from their empathy, that they may inflict harm back. The harm they return will not just be equal to the physical pain, it will equate the pain of both the physical and the emotional. Such an escalation is how it can be said that a murderer feels justified. Now those outside the situation, or those who are wise will see from a better perspective. perhaps the initial action was one unknown or performed in error or by a lack of wisdom. From the outside or from the point of wisdom can be seen the truth of the actions, their unjustness, the lack of equality. From wisdom can be seen the empathy that should have been, that would have been. For just as the person knew that they did not want pain, they knew the other did not want pain. There was nothing just here. You likely want now to know, what killing is just? That is easy as well, and as before the wise can see it. No person wishes harm brought to them. However were there though one consumed with hate. Or one who had twisted their mind so that they saw others as less than a Sentient, Rational, Creative Being, and not equal in empathy. Then such a person would not care for those they hurt or killed. Such a person could be locked away, yes. Such a person could also be killed, and killed justly. For the governing power grants the end of such a persons presence among other persons. I mentioned being locked away and death very closely there, and I make a point in that. Both take the person away from the majority. Both bring about an end, both are akin to death. Those who retain their empathy will come to guilt. Those who lose their empathy will come to hate and be consumed by it. Those with guilt live on, they persist for they still hold their minds. Those with hate or who reduce others below empathy, the person they were and the mind they once held are lost already. What is in some ways most sad is that some are brought up to lose themselves. They are taught to hate and that some are below their empathy. Those taught are not always lost though, they did not lose themselves freely and so may find themselves again. If you want a far far more simple version. You do not want what you do not want, and by your empathy you treat others in kind. Replicate that for every person who holds themselves and you have a universal (Of, affecting, or done by all peopleor things in the world or in a particular group. (Those who hold themselves.)) absolute (A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.(You do not want what you do not want, and by your empathy you treat others in kind.)).

Their Reply:
I understand that your keyboard is working properly but you are supplying non answers. I asked you based on what UNIVERSAL STANDARD of morality is murder wrong, and you gave me the definition of murder which was: "urder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one HUMAN BEING by another." Answer that question. Based on what standard of morality should i not slay my fellow human?

My Response:
If you read all of what I wrote and did not understand it I am sorry. Please, if there are parts in particular that I can try to simplify or explain differently please let me know. I will try.
I not only gave you the standard of morality for not committing murder, I also gave you the origin of said morality.

If you do not wish to hear and or understand an answer that is far outside of the held beliefs of one group or another, you can say that as well.
If you do not or can not accept that there can be an origin for morality that is far outside of the held beliefs of one group or another, you can say that as well.
If the idea that morality comes, or could come from a source that is not the biblical god in either not permitted or not acceptable to you, you can say that as well.
I will hold none of those against you as they are your beliefs.

::At the end there I give them an out. Why? I don't want or need to corner or fluster anyone. I just want to get people to think.::
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nahli's post
12-07-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: The last three
Their Answer:
you gave no such origin of morality. Animals don't have morality because they do not judge. You don't see animals with any sort of judicial system. You cannot pin down where morality comes from because you know that morality comes from God. Absolute laws of morality are Universal, invisible and Unchanging. I keep asking you to produce morality outside the Bible and you can't. because there is none. If you believe otherwise please produce it without supplying a non answer.

My Reply:
I am sorry that you have difficulty with that which is outside your preconception. I will try again though.

You do not want what you do not want, by your empathy you treat others in kind. That is the same for every person who retains a functional mind and by this you have a universal (Of, affecting, or done by all peopleor things in the world or in a particular group. (Those who hold themselves.)) absolute (A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.(You do not want what you do not want, and by your empathy you treat others in kind.))
Morality comes from within, not without. It is learned, but not from any book. Morality is first learned as a child and only then is it untainted. It is later in life that society alters morality, for the worse. Hate of a group is not natural to children. Children must be taught to see gender, orientation, physical status, mental status, religion, lack of religion or any other quality as an excuse for negatively different treatment. Children have the most pure morality, If you want proper morality use that of the child. They forgive readily. They rarely seek vengeance. They accept all peoples.They are giving. They are honest with their feelings, intents and desires. I could go on but I imagine you see my point.
No book is needed for morality, hence young children of every land and nation hold the same morality. Society has not yet influenced and warped their morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: The last three
tl;dr

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 11:50 AM
RE: The last three
Fucking muffs. If he sees someone drowning, he'd throw 'em a rock. Dodgy

Yet he is not wrong. You have too many words in there to be debating a creationist. Can't say as I see your point, either.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
12-07-2013, 11:55 AM
RE: The last three
They came back with:
I would disagree there are tribes in india where people inflict pain on each other and tribes in africa where cannibalism is ok. is that moral? question 2: why isn't hurting people the proper thing. So far all you have said is they might not like it... But someone does like it and they don't like being stopped. Who is right from a moral stand point. Try not to beg the question

I said in reply:
In those tribes they must be taught such, as I said it is the children's morality that is pure. They are taught that pain is good or that to murder and eat people is good, it is not natural, it is not moral. I said they do not like it, I never said might. Please do not change my words. Just because you expect me to use the tactics of others does not mean I will. You can not always fight the last war. Now if you are speaking of a person who has come to enjoy inflicting pain that is different. As I said a person does not want what they do not want. This means that they do not want to be inflicted upon by an outside source. If the person who enjoys inflicting pain inflicts it upon you and you do not like that, then that person is morally in the wrong. If on the other hand for whatever reason you did want what was offered, in that case the action does not break morality you gave consent. Now before you call giving consent to pain sick or wrong remember, you consent to and choose hell by turning from the proper path in your religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 11:58 AM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking muffs. If he sees someone drowning, he'd throw 'em a rock. Dodgy

Yet he is not wrong. You have too many words in there to be debating a creationist. Can't say as I see your point, either.

I will say this to you and the poster above you. If he is a good Creationist and has bead the Bible, then my short writing is nothing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking muffs. If he sees someone drowning, he'd throw 'em a rock. Dodgy

Yet he is not wrong. You have too many words in there to be debating a creationist. Can't say as I see your point, either.

If the rock hits their head and knocks them out then they wont suffer when they drown.
Duh.
I'm obviously a compassionate person Johnny. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like earmuffs's post
12-07-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 11:58 AM)Nahli Wrote:  
(12-07-2013 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking muffs. If he sees someone drowning, he'd throw 'em a rock. Dodgy

Yet he is not wrong. You have too many words in there to be debating a creationist. Can't say as I see your point, either.

I will say this to you and the poster above you. If he is a good Creationist and has bead the Bible, then my short writing is nothing.

There shall be no beading of the Bibles.

Besides, creationists don't read the Bible, silly. They get that shit from their minister, or online.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 12:12 PM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 11:50 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking muffs. If he sees someone drowning, he'd throw 'em a rock. Dodgy

Yet he is not wrong. You have too many words in there to be debating a creationist. Can't say as I see your point, either.

Oh and the point was empathy and the survival mechanism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 12:14 PM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 12:02 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(12-07-2013 11:58 AM)Nahli Wrote:  I will say this to you and the poster above you. If he is a good Creationist and has bead the Bible, then my short writing is nothing.

There shall be no beading of the Bibles.

Besides, creationists don't read the Bible, silly. They get that shit from their minister, or online.

Yeah I have no clue where that B came from. Lame finger I must suppose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: