Originally posted by tabibito
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIf morality is indeed part of the evolutionary model (and I increasingly think so), then it does indeed have an objective target: the same one evolution itself has. Evolution always moves a species to better adaptation to its environmental niche. That is an objective target, albeit not an absolute one (since it is always changing). Since everything else about us is associated with evolution, I don't see how one can avoid morality also being part of the evolutionary process. However, I have to admit I have not given that a great deal of thought.
Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostIf morality is indeed part of the evolutionary model (and I increasingly think so), then it does indeed have an objective target: the same one evolution itself has. Evolution always moves a species to better adaptation to its environmental niche. That is an objective target, albeit not an absolute one (since it is always changing). Since everything else about us is associated with evolution, I don't see how one can avoid morality also being part of the evolutionary process. However, I have to admit I have not given that a great deal of thought.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut what is your point, the Western World grew and thrived with male dominance. Just as primates thrive with male dominance. What is your problem?But we had social cohesion with male dominance and the West thrived. So what is your beef?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostNo, just part of your constantly shifting "argument".
Comment
-
What? You think perhaps that Christians (or even just Church-men) should be deprived of a say over the kind of society they live in?1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
I have no idea where you are getting this idea of equal rights. From our monkey ancestors? The fact is the West thrived and created the greatest civilization in world history with the greatest scientific advancement while being largely male dominated. Remember your argument was about social cohesion - and we had that. And it could be argued that the feminist movement undermined social cohesion, and the single most important institution in society, the two parent family with biological children.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 Mountain Man View PostOnce again, the problem is moral obligation. If morality (however you wish to define that term) is nothing more than the end result of natural processes, then we have no more obligation to live morally than the chimpanzees.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThere might be pragmatic reasons for behaving morally, but that's not the same as saying that we have an obligation to be moral, because there are also pragmatic reasons for behaving immorally, so pragmatism can not be our guide.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSomebody might say that it is in our best self-interest to adopt a moral life-style. But clearly, that is not always true: we all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality. Moreover, if one is sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier [...] then one can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgencehttps://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-...od-without-godThe 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 PostIn the Marcos example, assuming he actually saw his actions as moral (he could also have been functioning against his own moral code), he reached "contend" and his power let him win that contention - until he couldn't. That didn't make his actions moral to the majority of humanity - it simply meant he won the contention - until he didn't.
Last edited by Mountain Man; 03-18-2019, 07:59 AM.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSo? If your worldview is true then why shouldn't everybody strive for the same? To accumulate as much money and power as possible so that we can live however we please? For every pragmatic reason you can name for living morally, I can name a pragmatic reason for living immorally.
This is why in my debates with atheists and agnostics I always try to treat them with charity and civility and not engage in name-calling or insults or even just interruptions. I think that is uncivil discourse. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...elicals/#_ftn1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chuckles View PostYou seem to always use William Lane Craig in discussions on these topics. Here is a quote by him that perhaps would interest you:
Now, do you have anything to say about the topic? Or are you just here to nanny as usual?Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostHe's welcome to his opinion on that point.
Now, do you have anything to say about the topic? Or are you just here to nanny as usual?
Since it is certainly not the first time you point to it I can point to what I have already written about it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post470485
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chuckles View PostWith regard to the topic I will say that you'r welcome to your opinion on that point.
Since it is certainly not the first time you point to it I can point to what I have already written about it:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post470485Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostAnd people can continue reading that thread to see my devastating rebuttal. So if you have nothing else to add, I'll let my previous replies on the topic stand.
The only thing I have to add is that I find the discussions with Carpe on these topics rather interesting and strange at the same time. I completely disagree with him with regard to his idea that subjectivity is a solution. And then reading the ideas he usually promotes on this forum with regard to how we should treat other people I find him to be much closer to the idea that we should act according to the golden rule than some of the people promoting God given objective standards. Ironic in many ways.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostSo? If your worldview is true then why shouldn't everybody strive for the same?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostTo accumulate as much money and power as possible so that we can live however we please?
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostFor every pragmatic reason you can name for living morally, I can name a pragmatic reason for living immorally.
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
The rest of this quote is essentially more objection that "green is not blue." It says nothing except to object that moral subjectivism/relativism isn't absolute/objective. We already know that. It's not an argument, as I have noted multiple times.Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-18-2019, 10:38 AM.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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 03:46 PM
|
19 responses
110 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 11:17 AM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 01:52 PM
|
2 responses
36 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 07:45 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
59 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Yesterday, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
22 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:04 AM
|
51 responses
255 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 09:43 AM
|
Comment