The last three
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: The last three
You need to dumb down your language.

Most Christians I know do not really read the bible, or much of anything for that matter.

You are talking above his head.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
12-07-2013, 12:34 PM
RE: The last three
Why don't we just agree that there is no objective morality, that morality is, in fact, a man made concept, and the best we can hope for as human beings is a mutually-agreed upon morality. Murder is wrong because it deprives another of a right we expect to be honored for ourselves. Period. It's really not complicated. There is no "absolute" at work here, except the absolute recognition that each of us is human and, as such, equal.

He may ask by what standard do I hold that human beings are equal. My answer: Clearly not the Bible's! Humans 1, God 0 on that front.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 01:00 PM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 11:36 AM)Nahli Wrote:  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.

His assertion that animals don't have some form of morality is baseless. For instance, I recently wrote a blog article mentioning the origins of morality in primate society. Start from the fifth paragraph.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 06:30 PM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 12:34 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Why don't we just agree that there is no objective morality, that morality is, in fact, a man made concept, and the best we can hope for as human beings is a mutually-agreed upon morality. Murder is wrong because it deprives another of a right we expect to be honored for ourselves. Period. It's really not complicated. There is no "absolute" at work here, except the absolute recognition that each of us is human and, as such, equal.

He may ask by what standard do I hold that human beings are equal. My answer: Clearly not the Bible's! Humans 1, God 0 on that front.

My personal opinion not filtered for the Creationist.
The Creationist may need something close to an absolute to help them step away from the (supposedly) solid position they think they have and need.

Total Equality: No facet of a Sentient, Rational, Creative Being's gender, orientation, physical status, mental status, religion,lack of religion or any other quality may be used as an excuse for negatively different treatment.
Strive To Perform More Right Actions Than Wrong Actions
Right Actions: Those actions which on the average a Sentient, Rational, Creative Being would want enacted upon themselves.*
Wrong Actions: Those actions which on the average a Rational, Creative Being would not want enacted upon themselves.*
*Though there may be exceptions it is only through wisdom that one may come to know them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 06:35 PM
RE: The last three
(12-07-2013 01:00 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(12-07-2013 11:36 AM)Nahli Wrote:  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.

His assertion that animals don't have some form of morality is baseless. For instance, I recently wrote a blog article mentioning the origins of morality in primate society. Start from the fifth paragraph.

Rational persons don't require a pedestal to hold them selves up upon. bSome other people do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2013, 10:15 PM
RE: The last three
So lets wrap this up.
___________________
Their next reply:
You said: “They are taught that pain is good or that to murder and eat people is good, it is not natural, it is not moral”

How do you know that? How do you know that you are not natural, and you are not moral and the standard they are using is the correct standard and your standard is the flawed one?

You said: 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.
I say: As the person who likes to inflict pain, if I can’t get my jolly doing that, you are morally wrong for not allowing that. Do you get what I am stabbing at here?
How do we determine whose reasoning is the righteous one?

Me:
I say again. Go to the base. The unaltered pure morality. The morality of children.

Them:
1. I've known children who have put their siblings in a washer and kill them. That is pure?
2. So if the population of Children kill each other then I am right?
#1 happened in the USA by the way

Me:
Please site your source for #1, all sources I could find held the action to be unintentional. Just because a child has pure morality does not mean that they have wisdom. In #2 you ask if you are right, what is it you are attempting to reference by this?

By the way, when you put forth the following hypothetical.
"I say: As the person who likes to inflict pain, if I can’t get my jolly doing that, you are morally wrong for not allowing that. Do you get what I am stabbing at here?"
Was the assumption that the person only has one source of joy in the world? In addition if that is the position you already invalidated the person as they would then lack the required empathy to properly function in a way that they would still retain their self.

Them:
Was the assumption that the person only has one source of joy in the world? Yes! As the person who enjoys to inflict pain on others, that is my only source of joy. And I say, you are morally wrong for not allowing it. Youre basis for the standard of morality is: " The unaltered pure morality of children." Since we are using the pure morality of children, my childrens' morality are like mine as they did the same to each other when they were 3 and 1. So based on that standard, it is ok to inflict pain on people.

Me:
You could not back up #1, you should have admitted that. Instead in response you turned the situation hypothetical. Sadly you did so in such a manner as to invalidate your current position. You are now turning the situation into a total impossibility. A person with only a single method for experiencing pleasure could not live long enough to be born. Their brain chemistry would not function sufficiently. So neither the "you" or the exampled "children" could exist. Further even if they could survive such a massive difference they would not likely even qualify as functionally human.

Were we in person I would at this point happily shake your hand and thank you for a wonderful debate. I would then ask you if you wished to continue or move to a different topic at a later time.

Sadly I can not shake your hand or gesture otherwise in appreciation for this discussion.
On the positive however, this is the internet. I can still thank you sincerely. I can still commend you on your effort. Best of all I can still invite you to continue if you wish to, we can move to a different topic if you like.

Them:
It doesn’t matter if I site sources or not. I don’t need to give you evidence because you only appeal to your own senses and reasoning to prove your senses and reasoning(vicious circle). Making you the ultimate authority; judge of what is evidence and what is not. When I reason in this fashion you can see we get NO WHERE fast. However, God is my ultimate authority. He is also whom I appeal to for absolute laws of morality(virtuous circle by transcendental reasoning). You want to scamper off because you cannot resolve whose standard of morality is right and whose is wrong. Yours or mine when I said: “Yes! As the person who enjoys to inflict pain on others, that is my only source of joy. And I say, you are morally wrong for not allowing it. Youre basis for the standard of morality is: " The unaltered pure morality of children." Since we are using the pure morality of children, my childrens' morality are like mine as they did the same to each other when they were 3 and 1. So based on that standard, it is ok to inflict pain on people.”
The thing is when dealing with this issue we need to find out who is the standard or ruler, by which we will measure whose morality is right. Which God commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is why it is not ok to harm others for joy. The command given by God is not arbitrary, but universal, unlike the proposal in the aforementioned hypothetical. I urge you to repent of your sins against God while He has given you TIME. You are without excuse as mentioned in Romans 1. You know of his invisible qualities(Absolute Truth, Morality, Logic, etc) and He knows you use them as I exposed in our conversation. Chances are, this isn’t the first exposition in your life.

Me:
Sadly it looks as if you you do not wish to continue our debate. Worse yet you have been reduced to lying. I never instanced my own senses as evidence, neither did I use my reasoning as example. Circular logic did not come into play on my part. I further did not claim authority. Honestly you didn't use circular logic either, you used non-logic.
What further saddens me is that though you claim god as your ultimate authority, you have shown that he is not. Instead you have propped up the bible, a book written by people, translated by people, edited by people, interpreted by people, defended by people, held up by people that had parts added to it by people, that had parts removed by people, that people used as excuse for murder (for reasons such as, disease, birth defect, poor mental health, birthmarks, warts, moles and asking questions) , torture, rape, incest, slavery, gender discrimination, ethnic discrimination, religious discrimination (even against fellow christians), and genocide. Further the persons that wrote or performed actions of translation, editing etc etc can not be shown to have possessed wisdom in the slightest, only a bias against others. If god were your authority you would instead follow and set a better example. You would act toward others with equality, not see the believer as inherently better.
I do not need to remove my self from the situation because of a lack of moral resolution. I do not need to be anyone's superior. I was simply enjoying a debate. My pursuit was just that simple joy. I neither need nor care to convert you or anyone else. You choice is your own, though were you to keep it that way we might have been better friends.If you would have it my friendship is yours. In this I did not need to be right, I'm sorry you did. Why do you feel the need to be better? Why can you not just be?If your god commands you to love your neighbors, why do you not come to me with love? You could come and by love, appreciate me for who I am, seeing in me my goodness, my compassion, my equal love for all others. I do not call you wrong, in fact I can say that you are a passionate and devout follower of your god. I have in most all cases followed the example of your god quite well, in some cases, such as accepting and loving others I may have surpassed your god. For I love all equally, without exception, I call none abomination, no matter their action. I call none evil either, I simply sight that they lack wisdom, or empathy, and therefor perpetrate wrong actions against others.
Your god may posses the qualities of absolute truth, morality, logic, etc, but they are not exampled in the bible. In the bible it says god breaks promises (lies), causes suffering (immoral) calls bats birds and whales fish (logic) and much more. This is because it's writers were not god, but people. If you were to try to follow not the book but the ideas people say the book espouses you would be far closer to the idea of god.
I will therefor hope that your god gives you the strength and wisdom to follow it and not a poorly written book. I also offer my council, my advice, my friendship, my love, my wisdom and anything else that I can to help you. May you better yourself for yourself.
I intend not insult to you, I have harshly judged a book, perhaps also a faith. However no person is a book, and no person is their faith. Please do not think I mean to insult or belittle you. I only wish to be of aid, as would a friend, a sibling or parent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: