Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A thought about our significance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Oh boy, this is tough, I know you're not idiot Sparko, but why you can't see the illogic of the above is beyond me. I've explained it a million times, so I'm going to leave it for the time being and perhaps someone else will have mercy on me and try to see if they can point out your error.
    This is your typical response. You pretend like you are so much smarter than everyone else that you won't even bother to explain why they are wrong. The truth is you are a moron who doesn't grasp the concepts involved, you know you are a moron, and in order to save face want to pretend you are not a moron while running away leaving it to others to hopefully bail you out.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roy View Post
      And slaughtering Amelekites is perceived as a moral good to seer.
      and yet if neither is an objective moral good or a moral wrong, then you have no stance from which to judge them other than personal preference. The Nuremberg trials were a complete sham.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        and yet if neither is an objective moral good or a moral wrong, then you have no stance from which to judge them other than personal preference. The Nuremberg trials were a complete sham.
        We do have a stance from which to judge others. We do it all the time: from our own moral framework. What we lack is "universal" stance to judge others from. But we don't need one. If you stick a knife in your neighbor while he is sleeping, I will judge your act immoral. If you disagree with me, I will appeal to the community and the communal moral norm. If the moral norm aligns with mine, the community will act to protect itself against you and you "differing" moral framework. If the community norm aligns with the you, then I had better find a new community to live within pretty soon, because my life is at risk in a community that does not have a proscription against such killing. Most of the time, the communal moral norm will align with mine. When it doesn't, we have genocides of one kind or another.

        Eventually, the moral norm reverts because a society that does not value and protect life is a self-contradiction (existentially).
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          We do have a stance from which to judge others. We do it all the time: from our own moral framework. What we lack is "universal" stance to judge others from. But we don't need one. If you stick a knife in your neighbor while he is sleeping, I will judge your act immoral. If you disagree with me, I will appeal to the community and the communal moral norm. If the moral norm aligns with mine, the community will act to protect itself against you and you "differing" moral framework. If the community norm aligns with the you, then I had better find a new community to live within pretty soon, because my life is at risk in a community that does not have a proscription against such killing. Most of the time, the communal moral norm will align with mine. When it doesn't, we have genocides of one kind or another.

          Eventually, the moral norm reverts because a society that does not value and protect life is a self-contradiction (existentially).
          So the next time someone like you or Roy brings up how evil God was to order the deaths of women and children, we can just laugh at you and your quaint subjective moral sense.

          If morals are truly nothing but subjective opinions, then that pretty much destroys the entire liberal framework of victimization and offenses. They can't go around protesting civil war monuments or punching Nazis and complaining about microaggressions or anything else because it is just their opinion. Nobody is actually doing anything wrong. It is no different than if you like chocolate ice-cream and I don't.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            So according to seer, murdering children is both universally and objectively wrong and objectively good.
            No according to Seer God's commands can never be morally wrong. That still does not change your moral insanity Roy...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              So the next time someone like you or Roy brings up how evil God was to order the deaths of women and children, we can just laugh at you and your quaint subjective moral sense.
              You'll be chuckling at someone else. I've never made that argument, nor am I likely ever to. I'm atheist, remember? Why on earth would I accuse a god I don't think exists of "being evil?" It's always struck me as one of the more ridiculoous arguments put forward by atheists.

              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              If morals are truly nothing but subjective opinions, then that pretty much destroys the entire liberal framework of victimization and offenses. They can't go around protesting civil war monuments or punching Nazis and complaining about microaggressions or anything else because it is just their opinion. Nobody is actually doing anything wrong. It is no different than if you like chocolate ice-cream and I don't.
              So, two things. First, we actually can protest civil war monuments (not sure about the rest), or support gay rights, because it is what we believe to be the moral thing to do - and we wish to work to convince the majority of our country to incorporate it into their moral framework. So far, we seem to be doing OK because the tide is turning on how society views homosexuality and (increasingly) civil war monuments. You (presumably) will (and do) work to accomplish the opposite.

              Second, you and Seer both have the "ridicule" or "trivialization" thing down pat. You don't seem to realize that it's not much of an argument. Comparing a moral code to choosing ice cream is somewhat akin to comparing the peck on the check one frenchperson gives to another with the passionate kiss exchanged in the middle of lovemaking. Anyone with experience of both would know there is a world of difference between the two - though the physical action is the same. So yes, morality is a form of opinion. But it is an opinion based on deeply held, core values - not ice cream. As such, is it not easily changed, and not changed at a whim, as I think you well know.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2018, 01:28 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                But the fact that you keep going there is an argument from outrage, Seer - not reason.
                OK, so you don't think that gassing Jewish Children is unreasonable. Got it...



                Your interpretation, Seer. Another is that the bible contains old/new law - and Jesus came forth to put forward a new law, based on love and not legality. If you take every "law" in the bible as absolute, then why are you not folowing these:
                • When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." Deuteronomy 25:11-12
                • "If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him ... and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband ... the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water ... this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot." Numbers 5:11-31
                • "The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk." Exodus 23:19
                • When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence." Deuteronomy 22:8
                • And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even." Leviticus 15:19-21


                I could continue - but you should get the point. The OT (and NT) contain some amazing requirements and laws. They are in the definitive guide to morality, according to you. So why are you not following all of them? Perhaps, because as society evolves, some moral proscriptions become a bit odd. Women menstruating is no longer seen as a sign of being "unclean," and women are no longer seen, generally, as subservient to men. So we systematically set aside all of the rules that require special treatment for such a woman.
                Where did I say every OT law was in force in the NT? You do know that homosexality is still sin in the NT. As are murder, theft, fornication, adultery, orgies, idolatry, prostitution, drunkenness, lying, etc...

                No - what I say is that universal moral truths simply don't exist, period. The statement is not conditional. A moral framework is always subjectively derived. Even yours. You can point to a moral framework that is enshrined in a book and elect to align yours to that for whatever reason you may have, but your moral framework is subjective and you have elected to align it to that particular moral framework for whatever reassons you may have (i.e., god says so). You will also be aligning it to your interpretation of that framework - but you will (of course) declare it is the only correct interpretation.
                Carp if my belief that adultery, for instance, is universally wrong, and it was wrong according to the law of God, then I am aligned to a universal moral truth.


                You also keep going back to math - but I have already shown that morality has nothing in common with math - except that you are trying to leverage that math IS based on absolute truths to claim that morality is as well. When you can show me another way that moraity is like math OTHER than absoluteness (which you have refused to even try, and I have to admit I think it's because you know you cannot), then perhaps you can make a case for your analogy. Until then, it is clear to me that "law" is a better analog to "morality" - and it has none of the problems you keep ascribing to subjective morality.
                You missed the point, even if we subjectively could never figure out correct math answers that would not bear on or change universal mathematical truths. Just as if we could never figure out universal moral truths would not tell us if they exist or not. It does not logically follow.


                Not exactly. Slaughtering Jews is perceived as a moral good (presumably) to Nazis. Decapitating journalists is perceived (presumably) as a moral good to extremist Muslims. That does not make it a "moral good." It is perceived as a moral ill by most of the rest of us. There is no "absolute/objective" moral position because that is not how subjective moral frameworks work - they are not objective, by definition. So what establishes the moral norm for the individual is based on what they value. What establishes the moral norm for a community is the collective frameworks of the individuals. Moral codes that show strong cohesion are expressed in the communal moral codes. Those that do not are not and become the subject for discussion, persuassion, and (often) discord.
                That does not change anything I said.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  You'll be chuckling at someone else. I've never made that argument, nor am I likely ever to. I'm atheist, remember? Why on earth would I accuse a god I don't think exists of "being evil?" It's always struck me as one of the more ridiculoous arguments put forward by atheists.



                  So, two things. First, we actually can protest civil war monuments (not sure about the rest), or support gay rights, because it is what we believe to be the moral thing to do - and we wish to work to convince the majority of our country to incorporate it into their moral framework. So far, we seem to be doing OK because the tide is turning on how society views homosexuality and (increasingly) civil war monuments. You (presumably) will (and do) work to accomplish the opposite.

                  Second, you and Seer both have the "ridicule" or "trivialization" thing down pat. You don't seem to realize that it's not much of an argument. Comparing a moral code to choosing ice cream is somewhat akin to comparing the peck on the check one frenchperson gives to another with the passionate kiss exchanged in the middle of lovemaking. Anyone with experience of both would know there is a world of difference between the two - though the physical action is the same. So yes, morality is a form of opinion. But it is an opinion based on deeply held, core values - not ice cream. As such, is it not easily changed, and not changed at a whim, as I think you well know.
                  So basically if modern society decides that pedophilia is morally OK, then it becomes "good"? And if you disagree, then your opinion doesn't matter, cuz there is nothing ACTUALLY wrong with pedophilia, it is just that our current society thinks it is wrong and some future society might not.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    OK, so you don't think that gassing Jewish Children is unreasonable. Got it...
                    I don't do this often, but,

                    Really, Seer? After everything I've said, that's what you came away with? Your comment is both disengenuous and, quite frankly, ridiculous. You simply continue to underscore my point.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Where did I say every OT law was in force in the NT? You do know that homosexality is still sin in the NT. As are murder, theft, fornication, adultery, orgies, idolatry, prostitution, drunkenness, lying, etc...
                    I see - so it IS possible to pick and choose from what is in the bible - especially if it is in the OT. So let's focus on the NT, shall we?
                    • The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak. 1st Corinthians 14:34
                    • You should not use outward aids to make yourselves beautiful, such as the way you fix your hair, or the jewelry you put on, or the dresses you wear. - 1st Peter 3:3
                    • So if your eye—even your good eye—causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away. Matthew 5:29
                    • And if your hand—even your stronger hand—causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. Matthew 5:30
                    • Don’t swear an oath at all. Matthew 5:34 (puts a new twist on the Pledge of Allegiance)
                    • But I say to you, Do not resist the evil man [who injures you]; but if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too. Matthew 5:39
                    • Give to those who ask, and don’t refuse those who wish to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42
                    • When you pray, go to your room, shut the door, and pray to your Father… in that secret place. (Matthew 6:6)
                    • Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where moths eat them and rust destroys them, and where thieves break in and steal. (Matthew 6:19)
                    • Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5:32
                    • If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters… he cannot be My disciple. Luke 14:26


                    So, are we to assume that you consider all of these to be moral absolutes that all Christians must follow? And I presume, from what you have said, that any sect that does not strictly enforce these requirements is promoting immorality? I know for a fact that there is wide disagreement on the meaning, application, and even requirement for these injunctions.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp if my belief that adultery, for instance, is universally wrong, and it was wrong according to the law of God, then I am aligned to a universal moral truth.
                    No - you are aligned to the subjective moral code of this god (if he/she/it exists) as you understand it. And you have subjectively determined to make that alignment by valuing this god above all other things. If/when you decide this god does not exist, your moral code will likewise shift because you will no longer value this being.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    You missed the point, even if we subjectively could never figure out correct math answers that would not bear on or change universal mathematical truths. Just as if we could never figure out universal moral truths would not tell us if they exist or not. It does not logically follow.
                    No, Seer, I did not miss the point. I pointed out (again) the flaw in your analogy to mathematics. Until you deal with that flaw - the rest of the analogy simply fails and I cannot trust anything you deduce from it. As I have noted, several times, moral codes are more analogous to legal codes. I listed the similarities: they both deal with differentiating "ought" and "ought not" action, they both can be codified in various ways, they both are expressed by communities, they both typically reflect consequences to violation. Legal systems are by no means "objective" and there is no conflict/contradiction. I've seen no one claiming "legal systems are irrational and absurd because two countries could have opposite laws." Yet moral systems, which are closely analogous, are accused of this exact problem. Yet no one can seem to explain why that is true of the one and not of the other. And you keep dodging this question, insisting that moral codes are more like mathematics with no basis except your insistence.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    That does not change anything I said.
                    Actually - it corrects what you said to what actually occurs.
                    Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2018, 01:59 PM.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      So basically if modern society decides that pedophilia is morally OK, then it becomes "good"?
                      Depends on your definition of "pedophilia." If you mean, "immoral sex between an adult and a young person," then it is immoral by definition of those words (tautologically). If you mean "sex between an adult person and a person below the age of X is immoral," there is already wide variation in X around the world. Our culture seems to have put this magic line around "18," though some states place the age of consent around 16. That being said, "child marriages" in the U.S. are not uncommon and most states merely require parental permission, which is readily given in many religions. Many cultures see a human as achieving maturity and ready for sexual activity when they are sexually mature (i.e, puberty). For some it happens when the young man makes his first kill. So there is wide agreement on what is permissible (25 year old with 20 year old), wide agreement on what is not permissible (25 year old with 2 year old), and an area of gray in the middle (25 year old with 15 year old). Each culture makes that call on the basis of their cultural norms and history.

                      If changes happened to our culture that caused us to see post puberty humans as "mature," then we would cease to see sex between a 25 year old and a 15 year old as "pedophilia." I cannot imagine any circumstance, given the harm involved, that would cause any of us to see sex between a 25 year old and a 2 year old as moral. This appears to be yet another appeal to outrage.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      And if you disagree, then your opinion doesn't matter, cuz there is nothing ACTUALLY wrong with pedophilia, it is just that our current society thinks it is wrong and some future society might not.
                      "Actually" (all caps, mind you), in your sentence, is an inappropriate substitute for "objectively" or "universally." If we insert the words you ACTUALLY mean, your sentence becomes "there is nothing universally/objectively wrong with pedophilia." To that I must say "yes" since a subjective moral framework cannot appeal to an objective reality. It does not exist.

                      Actually, however, means "in reality," not "universally" or "objectively." So you are missusing the word. In my moral framework, there is something ACTUALLY wrong with pedophilia. There is nothing universally/objectively wrong with pedophilia because there is no objective/universal norm against which to make this assessment. That does not mean most of us humans have not derived a moral code in which it is wrong...actually.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Depends on your definition of "pedophilia." If you mean, "immoral sex between an adult and a young person," then it is immoral by definition of those words (tautologically). If you mean "sex between an adult person and a person below the age of X is immoral," there is already wide variation in X around the world. Our culture seems to have put this magic line around "18," though some states place the age of consent around 16. That being said, "child marriages" in the U.S. are not uncommon and most states merely require parental permission, which is readily given in many religions. Many cultures see a human as achieving maturity and ready for sexual activity when they are sexually mature (i.e, puberty). For some it happens when the young man makes his first kill. So there is wide agreement on what is permissible (25 year old with 20 year old), wide agreement on what is not permissible (25 year old with 2 year old), and an area of gray in the middle (25 year old with 15 year old). Each culture makes that call on the basis of their cultural norms and history.

                        If changes happened to our culture that caused us to see post puberty humans as "mature," then we would cease to see sex between a 25 year old and a 15 year old as "pedophilia." I cannot imagine any circumstance, given the harm involved, that would cause any of us to see sex between a 25 year old and a 2 year old as moral. This appears to be yet another appeal to outrage.



                        "Actually" (all caps, mind you), in your sentence, is an inappropriate substitute for "objectively" or "universally." If we insert the words you ACTUALLY mean, your sentence becomes "there is nothing universally/objectively wrong with pedophilia." To that I must say "yes" since a subjective moral framework cannot appeal to an objective reality. It does not exist.

                        Actually, however, means "in reality," not "universally" or "objectively." So you are missusing the word. In my moral framework, there is something ACTUALLY wrong with pedophilia. There is nothing universally/objectively wrong with pedophilia because there is no objective/universal norm against which to make this assessment. That does not mean most of us humans have not derived a moral code in which it is wrong...actually.
                        You just used a lot of words to just say, "Yes, you are correct"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          You just used a lot of words to just say, "Yes, you are correct"
                          Now that made me chuckle......but no, I didn't.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Now that made me chuckle......but no, I didn't.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                !

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X