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.
See more
See less

Homophobic Trump...

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Correct. Now, let's use a little math. Suppose I grant that all of the people who have committed all of the atrocities over time are not just "millions" but total a billion people over the years. Since the total number of people killed by all recorded atrocities is estimated to be less than a billion, that seems a pretty safe number. Science estimates that the current population of the earth represents approximately 7% of the total population of homo sapiens who have ever lived. Since we have a population of 7.7B today, this means an estimated 110B people have ever lived. So these terrible people represent less than 1% of the human population.
    You are off by an order of magnitude Carp. Just look at the crime statistics every year for example. A large percentage of human beings are despicable. And look at all the wars and killing done throughout history. Fighting and killing have been an integral part of human society until very recently in fact. Not to mention enslavement, rape, torture, stealing, etc.


    I'm going to leave it to you. If you can show where I made that claim or assertion, by all means show it. Otherwise - you're just trolling.
    Carp it is my subjective opinion of what you have been doing. Who are you to dictate what I think about you in my own mind or what I have observed?

    You are welcome to your position, Sparko. And I don't believe I said anything about "biblical inaccuracy." Again - you have misrepresented what I have actually said. I have no idea if you do this intentionally. But if you disagree - by all means point to the post where I said "the bible is not accurate."
    yes you did:
    What we can show is that no original copies exist, so what we have is the output of unknown copyists in multiple fragments. What we can show is that the original writings were in ancient Aramiac and ancient Hebrew, so the versions we have have also been through the hands of multiple translators - and the outputs of these translators are not 100% aligned (which is normal for translations) and subject to the subjective selection of particular words or phrases when two languages do not 100% align (which they never do)
    Again, textual criticism shows that what we have today is over 90% accurate from the original manuscripts. And the parts we are not sure of are not significantly important. If you want to know how we can know that, study some textual criticism of the bible.



    My moral claims are my moral conclusions are about my moral process. The claims about the meta-ethical issues are about objective reality.
    More Green is not Blue.




    It's neither "good" nor "bad" - it merely is. Wanting it to be different is irrelevant. Morality is what it is.
    More Green is not Blue



    Yes - they have. I am one of them - for the most part. But I think highly of Jesus because of his moral positions - I don't think highly of Jesus' moral positions because Jesus reputedly said them.
    Tomato, Tomahto



    Yes - they have. Out of curiosity, can you point, exactly, to where Jesus is documented as saying "reject the homosexual - for they are sinful and their actions immoral?"
    I have never said that is what I believe, Carp. Nor that I believe Jesus ever said that.



    No. My morals were originally taught in a Christian context, that is true. My morals are influenced by the Christian context, that is true. But my morals are not "based" on Christian morals - and I have explicitly rejected "Christian morals" that I have found to be immoral.
    Again more post-hoc rationalization.


    Then by all means follow the herd, Sparko. I have not said "don't follow the herd." I have said "engaging in a rational discussion about moral conclusions with a 'follow-the-herd' moralist is a pointless exercise - rationality is not their basis for moral conclusions. 'What the herd thinks' is."
    gee thanks for your permission! I feel all better now.



    I don't believe I have ever said "Sparko should care about what Michel thinks, so I have no response.
    Every time you argue with me you are telling me I should care what you think.


    [
    No. I said that my first moral codes were accepted on the basis of authority.
    See you follow the herd.


    That is what a child does. Then, as we learn to reason, some of us change. Some people simply keep transferring their moral framework to other authorities - which is basically what you and Seer apparently do. Some of us begin examining our moral conclusions critically, retaining those that make sense and rejecting those that do not.
    Then what you do is decide which morals you like or don't like, then come up with reasons to keep or throw them away. But the reasoning comes AFTER you have already decided which you want to keep or dismiss. Post-hoc.

    Here's the deal, Sparko. A small boy may be made to memorize the multiplication tables. They simply memorize it because they are told to. Then, as they gain skill in mathematics, they learn the theory that underlies the table, and begin to be able to expand on that fundamental to more complicated math. But initially, it was just rote memorization because "the teacher said so." Their understanding of math grows and becomes their own. They go beyond rote - and begin to think for themselves.

    You and Seer are kind of stuck in "rote." You cannot determine if X or Y is moral without looking it up in the book. You cannot discuss the merits - or the consequences - or the rational alignment of this moral conclusion with that one. All you can do is check to see "what does the book say?"
    What we are doing is saying that our creator knows what is best for us and we follow his commands.

    I'm not sure why you are resistant to this. On one hand you seem to be proud of it. On the other you seem to be fighting that this is the case. You value the book. Embrace it. Own it. If it's what you truly value, then so be it. The only thing it does (for me) is inform me about what kind of discussion is and is not possible. For example, my discussion about genome was a complete waste of time. I should have known better. It was an argument based on consistency between moral positions, and examining the roots of the moral proscription. None of that matters to you, at least as far as I can tell. The ONLY thing that matters is "what does the book say."

    Right? A thing is moral if the bible says it is moral - and immoral if the bible says it is immoral. Is that not your position?
    The bible is just the written record that contains God's revelation to men. It is God we follow. I know you don't believe in God or in the Bible's accuracy, but we do, and it is our morals, so deal with it. Stop trying to tell us what we should do or how we should think. You are being inconsistent.




    Wow - that is an amazing twisting of what I actually did say, Sparko. I don't think I am even going to waste a moment trying to clear up your almost complete misrepresentation of my position and statements.
    more green is not blue.



    Wow - that is an amazing twisting of what I actually did say, Sparko. I don't think I am even going to waste a moment trying to clear up your almost complete misrepresentation of my position and statements.
    more green is not blue.


    Please cite the exact place where I said "you shouldn't use god as the basis for your subjective morals."
    What the hell have you been doing all this time Carp????? sheesh. Sometimes I think you are on drugs or something. Or two completely different people responding to various posts. Do you have a split personality? Or Alzheimers?



    Please show exactly which part of that paragraph told you what you like and don't like.
    more green is not blue.


    Meanwhile, I can show you exactly in this post where you are telling me what I want and don't want. It's the emphasized part. You do this on a regular basis.
    more green is not blue.

    Preaching? Sparko - if I tell you "cows are mammals," does that constitute preaching? Morality is subjective/relative. That is its nature. It is for me. It is for you. It is for everyone. Claijing it is otherwise without actually being able to defend that position just seems silly to me.
    Preach it brother!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      It's like he is looking for certain keywords and if you use them, his entire reasoning process gets shorted out and he blathers about "Green is not Blue" and ignores the rest of the argument. He is not even reading what we write at this point, just looking for keywords to respond to. Or maybe it is a self-defense mechanism so he can save face when he can't deal with the argument.
      I'm actually looking for an understanding of the points being made. But you and Seer have only one point you keep returning to over and over and over again: Moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective. You have dozens of ways of saying it:

      1) It's just your opinion (which is what subjective means)
      2) It's not real (which means "it's not absolute/objective")
      3) It's not actual (which means "it's not absolute/objective")
      4) It's made up (which is what you apparently think "subjective" means - though that is not true)
      5) It doesn't tell is what is moral or not (which means what is actually/really moral - see 2) and 3)

      And the list goes on and on and on. The two of you have ONE argument: moral relativism/subjectivism is bad/useless/false because its not absolute/objective. In other words: green is bad/useless/false because it's not blue."

      And then you appear to get frustrated and take off on personal attacks - which seems to me to be largely a waste of time. Not to mention telling me what I want, think, and now you're asserting what I do and do not read. I actually read every word of what you write - usually twice, and then I write my response.

      Whether or not you believe that is largely irrelevant to me. If you need to resort to these baseless assertions because you cannot sustain your argument - the problem is yours - not mine.
      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 seer View Post
        Right, moral reasoning tells you what is moral for you, as it does for the Maoist.
        Correct.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Which means it practically tells us nothing about what is moral since contradictory moral position can both be true.
        Opposing relative/subjective moral positions can both be true without contradiction. They cannot both be true absolutely/objectively. So congratulations, you just found another way to complain "green is not blue."

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        When we start arguing about "your truth" or "my truth" we have effectively given up the idea of truth.
        No - we have recognized that there are relative truths - and there are absolute/objective truths. Morality can only be the former - and not demonstrably the latter. So - more green is not blue."

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Human rights are true for you, killing dissidents is true for the Maoist.
        And a final complaint that green is not blue.

        Really, Seer - do you have ANY other response...? We know oral relativism is not absolute and moral subjectivsm is not objective. You're not reporting anything I have not already agreed with. So what?

        To which you will again remind us that moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective...
        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 seer View Post
          Right, like when you keep accusing us of magical thinking? Got it...
          "Magical thinking" occurs when someone proposes a solution to a conundrum they cannot otherwise solve by inserting a being with magical properties that can overcome the problem. I would say resorting to "god did it" when confronted with all of the obstacles facing someone trying to assert "certain moral knowledge" on the basis of the bible constitutes "magical thinking."

          That is a commentary on your argument - not your person. I have not told you you're not that bright. I have not told you that you feel a need to be superior to compensate, or any of the other personal digs you and MM and Sparko and others of your general discussion disposition tend to resort to.

          Like I said - it's your right to resort to them if you wish. It's no skin off my nose. A man cannot be defiled by what comes out of someone else's mouth - only by what comes out of his own.
          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
            I'm actually looking for an understanding of the points being made. But you and Seer have only one point you keep returning to over and over and over again: Moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective. You have dozens of ways of saying it:

            1) It's just your opinion (which is what subjective means)
            2) It's not real (which means "it's not absolute/objective")
            3) It's not actual (which means "it's not absolute/objective")
            4) It's made up (which is what you apparently think "subjective" means - though that is not true)
            5) It doesn't tell is what is moral or not (which means what is actually/really moral - see 2) and 3)

            And the list goes on and on and on. The two of you have ONE argument: moral relativism/subjectivism is bad/useless/false because its not absolute/objective. In other words: green is bad/useless/false because it's not blue."

            And then you appear to get frustrated and take off on personal attacks - which seems to me to be largely a waste of time. Not to mention telling me what I want, think, and now you're asserting what I do and do not read. I actually read every word of what you write - usually twice, and then I write my response.

            Whether or not you believe that is largely irrelevant to me. If you need to resort to these baseless assertions because you cannot sustain your argument - the problem is yours - not mine.
            Because that isnt what we are saying or doing. It is what you are reading. We are merely trying to point out that you are inconsistent in your views, and that if you ARE correct then your logical reasoning for your moral views is nothing but window dressing. Because no matter what, the result is an entirely subjective moral value.

            Let's say math was subjective.

            I can come up with a formula that shows 4+1=410 and you can come up with a formula that proves 4x1=41 - and neither of us is objectively right or wrong. Both answers are subjectively correct to each of us. You arguing that my formula is wrong would be nonsense. As would me complaining that you shouldn't use multiplication to get your result. What method we each used wouldn't matter. UNLESS the result was objective. If math is objectively true then the method to reach an answer matters a great deal.

            So you complaining about what "formula" we use to come up with our moral outlook is just nonsense if indeed morals are subjective. Because even if we used your method we could easily come up with a different result than you. The end result is subjective so the method to reach that result doesn't really matter to anyone but themselves. So trying to argue that their method is inferior or wrong is nonsense, unless the result is an objective result.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Opposing relative/subjective moral positions can both be true without contradiction. They cannot both be true absolutely/objectively. So congratulations, you just found another way to complain "green is not blue."
              If opposite truths or moral truths don't contradict themselves then what does?


              Really, Seer - do you have ANY other response...? We know oral relativism is not absolute and moral subjectivsm is not objective. You're not reporting anything I have not already agreed with. So what?

              To which you will again remind us that moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective...
              Yes, I will remind you that moral reasoning tells us nothing about morality.
              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
                "Magical thinking" occurs when someone proposes a solution to a conundrum they cannot otherwise solve by inserting a being with magical properties that can overcome the problem. I would say resorting to "god did it" when confronted with all of the obstacles facing someone trying to assert "certain moral knowledge" on the basis of the bible constitutes "magical thinking."
                It is an ad hominem point Carp, don't pretend it isn't.
                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
                  You are off by an order of magnitude Carp. Just look at the crime statistics every year for example. A large percentage of human beings are despicable. And look at all the wars and killing done throughout history. Fighting and killing have been an integral part of human society until very recently in fact. Not to mention enslavement, rape, torture, stealing, etc.
                  I have looked at the statistics, and provided them to you. I don't lump every little crime into "atrocities." Every person on the planet (I'm reasonably sure) has eventually done something even they consider immoral. And you are confusing "illegal" with "immoral." Smoking pot is not "immoral." It is illegal. If you focus on the moral issues, my numbers are within the ballpark. If you think otherwise, by all means present your data and I'll look at it.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Carp it is my subjective opinion of what you have been doing. Who are you to dictate what I think about you in my own mind or what I have observed?
                  Your opinion is duly noted. When you can cite where/how that actually happened, I'll respond further.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  yes you did:
                  Read it again, Sparko - and tell me exactly where it says the bible is inaccurate." You have added that to my message.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Again, textual criticism shows that what we have today is over 90% accurate from the original manuscripts. And the parts we are not sure of are not significantly important. If you want to know how we can know that, study some textual criticism of the bible.
                  I have. And 90% accurate (even if I were to accept it) is not "moral certainty." It's 90% accurate. So a claim of "moral certainty" in the face of all of this is simply unsustainable - hence "magical thinking." We cannot achieve certainty of meaning when we have 100% of the text, it was written in our own language, we know who the authors are, and we have a surrounding body of their work. Even THEN, there is wide debate on "meaning." You simply cannot sustain or defend a claim of "certainty." THAT is what I have said - not that the bible is "inaccurate." I have said nothing about biblical accuracy.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Tomato, Tomahto
                  As I noted to Seer, if you can make this comment - and truly do not understand the distinction I made, then it is a bit clearer by you do not understand my points and are going in circles. There is a significant distinction between "I admire the man because of the moral positions he espoused," and "I hold my moral positions because the man espoused them." The second is "follow the herd" mentality. The first is not.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  I have never said that is what I believe, Carp. Nor that I believe Jesus ever said that.
                  OK, then can you point to me to the exact place where Jesus labeled homosexuality and homosexual acts as "sinful?"

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Every time you argue with me you are telling me I should care what you think.
                  Umm.. no. I put forward my positions and why I hold them. I refute the positions put forward when I find them wanting. What you do with that information is up to you. In the moral sphere, because morality is inter-subjective as well as subjective, I hope to convince and achieve alignment. When I don't, ignore, isolate/separate, and contend are the fall-back positions. It's what we all do.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  See you follow the herd.
                  I followed the herd (past tense). All children do. As we mature, we either gain the ability to think independently, or we continue to "follow the herd."

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Then what you do is decide which morals you like or don't like, then come up with reasons to keep or throw them away. But the reasoning comes AFTER you have already decided which you want to keep or dismiss. Post-hoc.
                  You and Seer continually repeating this lie doesn't make it true, Sparko.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  What we are doing is saying that our creator knows what is best for us and we follow his commands.
                  What you are doing is projecting the writings of long since dead men you can't identify, whose original writings are lost, the copies of whose works had to be translated for you, onto a being you call god and claiming that gives them the status of "absolute/objective" and gives them authority. You cannot sustain this position rationally. Since I believe this being exists only in the minds of humans, what you are ACTUALLY doing is following what you think this small herd of men thought was moral and immoral.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  The bible is just the written record that contains God's revelation to men. It is God we follow. I know you don't believe in God or in the Bible's accuracy, but we do, and it is our morals, so deal with it. Stop trying to tell us what we should do or how we should think. You are being inconsistent.
                  None of which you can show to be true, Sparko. That's the point. To defend this position you MUST engage in circular reasoning, as I outlined.

                  What you are doing is projecting the writings of long since dead men you can't identify, whose original writings are lost, the copies of whose works had to be translated for you, onto a being you call god and claiming that gives them the status of "absolute/objective" and gives them authority. You cannot sustain this position rationally. Since I believe this being exists only in the minds of humans, what you are ACTUALLY doing is following what you think this small herd of men thought was moral and immoral.

                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  What the hell have you been doing all this time Carp?????
                  I've been pointing out the differences between how you arrive at moral conclusions and how I do - and the impact on our ability to discuss moral conclusions. There is not a single place where I have said "do it differently." I HAVE said that I find it lacking in reason - that I find it an indefensible position. AT no point have I said "change it." Do what you wish with it. Other than the inter-subjective part of morality - it has no impact on me. And for that part, we already have a mechanism for handling the disconnect: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                  The rest of your post had no content, so I'll end there.
                  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


                  • [QUOTE=carpedm9587;621502]I have looked at the statistics, and provided them to you. I don't lump every little crime into "atrocities." Every person on the planet (I'm reasonably sure) has eventually done something even they consider immoral. And you are confusing "illegal" with "immoral." Smoking pot is not "immoral." It is illegal. If you focus on the moral issues, my numbers are within the ballpark. If you think otherwise, by all means present your data and I'll look at it.

                    [quote] I am not just talking about attrocities Carp. I am talking about your claim about people valuing life, liberty, property etc. - They don't. They haven't. Or our world wouldn't be as screwed up as it is and always has been.

                    Your opinion is duly noted. When you can cite where/how that actually happened, I'll respond further.



                    Read it again, Sparko - and tell me exactly where it says the bible is inaccurate." You have added that to my message.
                    What was your point for claiming it was translated by multiple people and from fragments and the originals were not around if not to claim it is not accurate? Your entire point to me was that I should not use the bible because of that. Really Carp, your semantic games are getting old.


                    I have. And 90% accurate (even if I were to accept it) is not "moral certainty." It's 90% accurate. So a claim of "moral certainty" in the face of all of this is simply unsustainable - hence "magical thinking." We cannot achieve certainty of meaning when we have 100% of the text, it was written in our own language, we know who the authors are, and we have a surrounding body of their work. Even THEN, there is wide debate on "meaning." You simply cannot sustain or defend a claim of "certainty." THAT is what I have said - not that the bible is "inaccurate." I have said nothing about biblical accuracy.
                    I said 90% accurate and the rest is not anything of importance. Just misspellings, word orders, numbers, etc. So yeah the bible is very accurate and I can trust what it says on morals 100%




                    As I noted to Seer, if you can make this comment - and truly do not understand the distinction I made, then it is a bit clearer by you do not understand my points and are going in circles. There is a significant distinction between "I admire the man because of the moral positions he espoused," and "I hold my moral positions because the man espoused them." The second is "follow the herd" mentality. The first is not.



                    OK, then can you point to me to the exact place where Jesus labeled homosexuality and homosexual acts as "sinful?"
                    You do realize I believe Jesus is God, right?






                    You and Seer continually repeating this lie doesn't make it true, Sparko.
                    If you want to accuse me of lying you need to substantiate it in the post where you make the accusation. And any further accusations need to be taken to the padded room. You have been warned. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...orum#faq_lying



                    What you are doing is projecting the writings of long since dead men you can't identify, whose original writings are lost, the copies of whose works had to be translated for you, onto a being you call god and claiming that gives them the status of "absolute/objective" and gives them authority. You cannot sustain this position rationally. Since I believe this being exists only in the minds of humans, what you are ACTUALLY doing is following what you think this small herd of men thought was moral and immoral.
                    That is your opinion. You cannot prove God doesn't exist and you sure can't show that the bible is inaccurate.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Because that isnt what we are saying or doing. It is what you are reading. We are merely trying to point out that you are inconsistent in your views, and that if you ARE correct then your logical reasoning for your moral views is nothing but window dressing. Because no matter what, the result is an entirely subjective moral value.
                      Read what you just wrote, Sparko. It says, "that's not what we're doing" and then you turn around and do exactly what I described all in one paragraph. You cannot show a single inconsistency - you can simply repeat, over and over, you're not consistent. If I am not consistent, Sparko - specifically WHAT is inconsistent? And try to avoid telling me that moral relativism/subjectivsm isn't absolute/objective.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Let's say math was subjective.
                      It's not. I cannot even imagine this hypothetically.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      I can come up with a formula that shows 4+1=410 and you can come up with a formula that proves 4x1=41 - and neither of us is objectively right or wrong. Both answers are subjectively correct to each of us. You arguing that my formula is wrong would be nonsense. As would me complaining that you shouldn't use multiplication to get your result. What method we each used wouldn't matter. UNLESS the result was objective. If math is objectively true then the method to reach an answer matters a great deal.
                      Now listen very very carefully, Sparko. I'll type this slowly.

                      I...have...never...said...your...moral...conclusio ns...are...absolutely...objectively...wrong. Never. Not once. Not ever. I would be completely inconsistent if I did so - and I would agree with you that I am being inconsistent. It has NEVER happened. YOU and Seer have - on many occasions - added that to my meaning. It is not my thought. It is not part of my argument. It is not my belief.

                      So I am not going to defend words someone else puts in my mouth.

                      If you think otherwise - show me the post where I have said or implied this. If history repeats itself - you will have added it to my post - as you did the claim that I said the bible is inaccurate.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      So you complaining about what "formula" we use to come up with our moral outlook is just nonsense if indeed morals are subjective.
                      I have not complained about your choice of formula. I have pointed out the consequences of your choice of formula - and I have pointed out the inconsistency of suggesting that a conclusion that is reached irrationally or non-rationally is "just as good" as a conclusion that is reached rationally when the issue is subjective. I have pointed out that you and Seer do not function that way in any other part of your life - so your argument is inconsistent.

                      Do you have the right to make your conclusions irrationally or non-rationally? Absolutely. Do you have a prayer of convincing me that is a good process? Not in the least. Do you have a prayer of defending your moral positions to me? Since I value reason in arriving at my moral conclusions - no. Not a prayer.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Because even if we used your method we could easily come up with a different result than you.
                      Yes - you could. Morality is, after all, subjective. But if you arrived at your conclusions rationally, we could explore them rationally and determine where the disconnect is - and whether or not there is a possibility of alignment. Since they are not - that avenue of discussion is closed.

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      The end result is subjective so the method to reach that result doesn't really matter to anyone but themselves.
                      So you again remind us that subjective/relative morality is not absolute/objective. And then you wonder why I prefer "green is not blue" is a shorter way of writing that?

                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      So trying to argue that their method is inferior or wrong is nonsense, unless the result is an objective result.
                      No - This is where you jump the rails. Reason is applied to both subjective and objective conclusions. I have shown this repeatedly. If your statement here is correct, the implication is

                      a) apply reason to objective conclusions
                      b) any approach is fine for subjective ones.

                      This is what your statement says. So - your choice of a house was subjective. There is no "objectively" better house. Which house is better depends on whether you want to minimize maintenance, maximize luxury, want too have enough rooms to raise a family of six, believe stucco is more attractive than vinyl siding, what city you would prefer to live in, whether or not you value being close to family, and the list goes on and on and on. The choice of a house is entirely subjective. By your argument - there is no difference between examining these various issues and making a reasoned choice, or putting the addresses of all of the houses on sale in a large hopper and pulling one out randomly.

                      You and I BOTH know the process matters - for both objective and subjective decisions. You make this argument over and over again - and yet you do not LIVE this claim in your every day life. And yes - I am "guessing" on the latter one, but I am reasonably certain you did not choose who to marry, your house, your car, or your profession randomly. If I am wrong - and you actually believe that no process can be shown to be superior for subjective conclusions, and you actually live your life this way - by all means correct me. The idea is so far fetched I think I will probably ask to have it verified by someone that knows you.
                      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 seer View Post
                        If opposite truths or moral truths don't contradict themselves then what does?
                        Seer says "I like pizza." Michael says "I hate pizza." They are opposing relative/subjective statements. Both can be true - and without contradiction - because they do not apply to the same person.

                        So when you complain that opposite moral truths are contradictory - you can ONLY be doing so from the assumption that morality has to be absolute/objective - because there is NO conflict if morality is actually relative/subjective. So, you are essentially complaining that relative/subjective morality cannot be true because then conflicting moral conclusions could both be true which would mean they are not absolute/objective. Strip it down, and your complaint is that morality cannot be relative/subjective because then it's not absolute/objective. You went right back to "green is not blue."

                        Seer - it's all you and Sparko have. You don't have ANY other argument - and you seem chronically unable to see that you aren't making an argument - you are reminding us what it means for something to be relative/subjective versus absolute/objective.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Yes, I will remind you that moral reasoning tells us nothing about morality.
                        And right back to green is not blue....
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2019, 04:30 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 seer View Post
                          It is an ad hominem point Carp, don't pretend it isn't.
                          No. But if you feel insulted - so be it. I'm not going to dress up sloppy thinking because someone is insulted that I conclude they engage in sloppy/magical thinking.

                          And on this I'll leave the last word to you. The exchange is pointless.
                          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
                            I am not just talking about attrocities Carp. I am talking about your claim about people valuing life, liberty, property etc. - They don't. They haven't. Or our world wouldn't be as screwed up as it is and always has been.
                            Oh horse hockey. Your "all men are sinful" and "all men are as filth before god" thinking is getting in the way of common sense. You don't even live as if this is true. The vast majority of actions you take every day are premised on the assumption that you can mostly trust the people in this world. Every morning you get up and (hopefully) brush your teeth. From the creation of the ingredients in that toothpaste to its presence in your bathroom cabinet, do you have ANY idea how many human hands it passed through? How many people COULD have done something to it to cause you harm? But you squeeze that stuff into your mouth without a thought. You eat food that has passed through countless hands (many of them probably illegal immigrants) without a thought. You go down the road at 60 miles an hour and pass vehicle after vehicle traveling at 60 miles an hour in the opposite direction by a matter of feet - largely unconcerned that one of them will intentionally swerve to kill you (and themselves). Your every day is FILLED with acts of trust in your fellow person - as are all of our actions every day. And the vast majority of the time - we're right. Every now and then - someone breaks that trust, and tampers with that Tylenol bottle. Or fails to put that protective software on the plane to save a few bucks. And why are we so outraged by it? Because it challenges the general bond of trust in our fellow humans that we all live by.

                            If the world were so screwed up - you'd be living in a deep forest, creating your own food, and staying as far away as possible from your fellow man. You don't even live according to THIS claim you are making. You spout about the evil of humanity, and then go blithely about your life intrinsically believing that you can trust most things made by and supported by your fellow humans.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            What was your point for claiming it was translated by multiple people and from fragments and the originals were not around if not to claim it is not accurate? Your entire point to me was that I should not use the bible because of that. Really Carp, your semantic games are getting old.
                            My point was exactly the point I made - not the point you have turned it into (you do this frequently). My point was that "claims of certainty" in the face of the reality about the Christian bible are not defensible. I used the U.S. constitution as a comparison. So why do you make this claim you cannot defend? Because you have a magical god who can overcome ALL of those problems and give you "inerrant truth." So if this is true, why is it there are so many version of this "inerrant truth" in existence? You are going to tell me "sinfulness." God can overcome all of these other things, but "sinfulness" stops him cold.

                            Oh..and by the way, if "sinfulness" keeps humanity from perfectly grasping inerrant truths - it means it prevents YOU from grasping them to0. So your claims to moral certainty - they kind of just vaporized.

                            ETA: BTW, the fact that a "claim of certainty" is not defensible is exactly why I have no said anything about the "accuracy of the bible." I can no more pierce this veil of uncertainty to make absolute statements about accuracy than you can.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            I said 90% accurate and the rest is not anything of importance. Just misspellings, word orders, numbers, etc. So yeah the bible is very accurate and I can trust what it says on morals 100%
                            Sorry, Sparko, but you cannot rationally defend this position. There is simply no way of doing so. See my notes above...

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            You do realize I believe Jesus is God, right?
                            Yes - I know what you believe.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            If you want to accuse me of lying you need to substantiate it in the post where you make the accusation. And any further accusations need to be taken to the padded room. You have been warned. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...orum#faq_lying
                            Sparko - you are making a statement about my motivations. You cannot know my motivations. I am the only one who knows those, and I have shared them to/with you. Can can choose to not believe me if you wish, but when you state them as a fact, you are repeating a groundless assertion that the one person in a position to know the truth has testified is not true. That is a lie. Period. If pointing out that you need to continually lie about me in this way is counter to TWeb rules, then kick me off the service. If pointing out a lie when it is repeatedly and falsely uttered is against Tweb rules - then this is not the kind of place I thought it was.

                            Alternatively, you can simply stopping asserting this outright lie and move on. You cannot know my motivations - and you cannot show that my reasoning is "post-factum" to my conclusions. It's a lie. Period. Stop repeating it - or get used to being called out for doing so.

                            ETA: but if you ARE going to kick me off for calling you on your repeated and groundless assertions about my motivations and inner processes, you might at least have the dignity to return my donation. I donated it on the assumption that this was a basically honorable forum. However, I leave that choice to your conscience.

                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            That is your opinion. You cannot prove God doesn't exist and you sure can't show that the bible is inaccurate.
                            I won't bother with the biblical inaccuracy issue since I have never said a word about it. Should you not have to adhere to your own standards, Sparko - and show where I have?

                            As for the rest, I have also made no bones about belief in god being a matter of faith - because we are talking about a magical being whose existence (or nonexistence) cannot be shown by logic or science. So the claim "you can't prove me wrong" is a little hollow. I cannot prove unicorns don't exist either. I cannot prove Isis, Allah, or any of these gods don't exist either. I can't even prove there are no leprechauns on the furthest planet in the universe from earth. If someone wants to believe any of these things - they are free to. If they want to convince me about arguments that depend on them, they had better have something better than "you can't prove I'm wrong."

                            But not the entirety of that post is "opinion." It is an objective fact that you cannot rationally sustain your claims. However, it is my conclusion that your "herd" is these unknown men and not "god." I can definitely show that your are following this collection of unknown men. I cannot prove that this collection of unknown men weren't "magically inspired" by the god you cannot show actually exists.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2019, 04:42 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

                              And right back to green is not blue....
                              Let's try again, you referenced outcomes and of course outcomes are the only thing that counts in IMHO, so...

                              1. Carp reasons = human rights are a moral good.

                              2. The Maoist reasons = killing dissidents is a moral good.

                              3. Seer take scripture at face value = human rights are a moral good.

                              As far as outcomes reasoning doesn't doesn't change outcomes, it may in fact make outcomes worse, as with the Maoist.
                              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 seer View Post
                                Let's try again, you referenced outcomes and of course outcomes are the only thing that counts in IMHO, so...
                                Then that is your problem - and why you are not actually following my arguments. You are trying to force them into the only thing you care about: outcomes. I have said little/nothing about outcomes.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                1. Carp reasons = human rights are a moral good.
                                No. "human rights" are a thing. Morality is about categorizing action. Michel could reason that "honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good."

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                2. The Maoist reasons = killing dissidents is a moral good.
                                Quite possible.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                3. Seer take scripture at face value = human rights are a moral good.
                                Again - if you make moral statement about "things" - I find that odd. Morality is about choices of action. Aligning this statement with my adjustments for the first one would yield, "Seer interprets his translated copies of copies of copies of the original Christian bible to conclude honoring/respecting/protecting the basic human rights of liberty, life, happiness is a moral good.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                As far as outcomes reasoning doesn't doesn't change outcomes, it may in fact make outcomes worse, as with the Maoist.
                                First - you can only make the statement "worse" from a reference point. The Maoist conclusion seems "worse" to me. It seems "worse" to you. It seems "worse" to anyone who adopts our moral framework or one like it. It seems "worse" from the perspective of the moral frameworks expressed by most cultures and societies. The Maoist will not see it as "worse." They will likely see it as "better"

                                As for your conclusion - I have never said anything about "outcomes." I would be inconsistent to take an absolute position on outcomes, begin that I understand morality to be relative/subjective. My comments have been about process, and the consequences of applying or not applying reason.

                                In your scenario above - if I and the Maoist have both applied reasoning to arrive at our conclusions, we have a methodology available to explore the disconnect. We can determine if the problem is a difference in premises - or if it is a failure in the chain of reasoning. Either way, as long as we used reasoning - there is a significantly higher likelihood (barring rational error) that our moral conclusions will actually align with our underlying valuing. The alignment of conclusion to valuing is more likely in a rational process than an irrational or non-rational process. This is an objectively true reality.

                                That does not mean there is a guarantee that either of us will convince the other. That will only happen is a) we can influence one another's valuing, or b) we can find a flaw in the structure of the reasoning. But the opportunity for dialogue exists. And if alignment doesn't happen - we will resort to ignore, isolate/separate, or (more likely) contend.

                                As the Maoist and I engage in our rational discussion, you will be sitting by the side pointing to your bible repeating, "but the book says X." It is all you CAN do. You cannot make a reasoned argument - and you have essentially no hope of alignment. ALL you can do is ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. But (based on your own posts) that is a safer place for you - because it eliminates any chance that the Maoist might actually convince you. Locked into your "what does the book say" thinking, you cannot be swayed.

                                But it is not just the Maoist who cannot sway you. Neither can the person who finds bigotry buried in your moral conclusions. Neither will the person who finds any form of inequity buried in your moral conclusions. You will cling to those, because you cannot possibly be wrong. You have the absolute moral certainty of your god behind you. Except you cannot even begin to rationally defend that claim - as I have shown multiple times.

                                You claim 100% moral certainty. You claim inerrant moral truths. But you point to the same bible that other Christian sects point to - and you do not all agree on its meaning. How can this be, asks, Michel, if you have "inerrant moral truths" with "100% certainty?" Sinfulness gets in the way, you will likely respond. Really? Sinfulness prevents the human heart from adhering to gods inerrant moral truths? Makes the human person blind to some of them?

                                So how do you know your own sinfulness is not making you blind to some of those inerrant moral truths?

                                And the "moral certainty" just collapsed....
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-21-2019, 05:04 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                149 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                397 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                371 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X