Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. Your OP describes objective morality. In my mind nothing you have just said can be said about objective morality without it being by faith. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. In your third paragraph, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. Without sarcasm, killing is killing. And this is my point. It was moral to oppose Hitler, but your saying that wholesale killing is then moral? Honestly, I can't tell whether you are using sarcasm. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Your OP describes objective morality. In my mind nothing you have just said can be said about objective morality without it being by faith. One can never get to objective anything through faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Your OP describes objective morality. In my mind nothing you have just said can be said about objective morality without it being by faith. One can never get to objective anything through faith. I believe that, but I am understanding objective morality as near equivalent to absolute morality....that which is true every time. How may we predict that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Author Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. Your OP describes objective morality. In my mind nothing you have just said can be said about objective morality without it being by faith. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. In your third paragraph, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. Without sarcasm, killing is killing. And this is my point. It was moral to oppose Hitler, but your saying that wholesale killing is then moral? Honestly, I can't tell whether you are using sarcasm. Thx. My overall point is that wholesale killing is immoral, End3. Atrocities such as those committed by both Nazi and Jew (remember the Amalekites) should never be conducted or condoned by any rational, objective human being. But this brings us back to your statement that "if god decides on genocide... that's a different story". Both Nazi and Jew thought they were doing "god's will". Yet, both committed horrific atrocities. So, with that clarified, would you care to comment on the first, second, and fourth paragraphs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 End completely skipped over this, Prof. Posted 31 December 2014 - 04:04 PM end3, on 31 Dec 2014 - 6:37 PM, said: I've already answered that. God hasn't told me to kill someone. Let me ask you this. So is there moral evolution? end3, on 31 Dec 2014 - 5:47 PM, said: If God were to decide on genocide, then that would be different....it's His creation.So it was a sin in my mind for him to cheat and not a sin choosing to undermine Hitler.I don't understand why God would choose to wipe out a people. That is why it would be called faith. No, you answered it without answering it. First you say that saving lives would be moral; then you backtrack and say that if god decides on it, then it's different. You understand that the Nazi's believed (subjectively) that they were doing god's will in exterminating the Jews. Hitler, himself, mentioned several times that he was doing the lord's work. So, which is it? Is committing a god-ordained genocide moral? Or is saving lives moral? Answer these questions first; then later we can talk about moral evolution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You'd like him to commit himself and answer your questions, right? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 5, 2015 Author Super Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2015 ^^^Thanks BAA. End3, any comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 When you put someone on ignore Prof, it gives you the option to view the post anyway. I am choosing not to view he and NZ's posts. I did look at one of NZ's and commented....but that was the only time. I like discussing but I do not like to be harassed....makes me feel bad. So thank you, but I will pass at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 . . . I do not like to be harassed.... Nobody twists your arm and makes you visit here. Gee you bring your genocide/Christian/Woman hating/racist opinions here knowing full well that it will be disliked but it is harassment when we express our dislike of your opinions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 When you put someone on ignore Prof, it gives you the option to view the post anyway. I am choosing not to view he and NZ's posts. I did look at one of NZ's and commented....but that was the only time. I like discussing but I do not like to be harassed....makes me feel bad. So thank you, but I will pass at the moment. MM covered this already but I have to say... crybaby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 5, 2015 Author Super Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2015 When you put someone on ignore Prof, it gives you the option to view the post anyway. I am choosing not to view he and NZ's posts. I did look at one of NZ's and commented....but that was the only time. I like discussing but I do not like to be harassed....makes me feel bad. So thank you, but I will pass at the moment. What does any of that have to do with the fact that you ignored my original question? BAA was just bringing it back to my attention. Was I on "ignore" whenever I first asked it? If not, then please answer it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Hey Prof! Look what you wrote a while back... Posted 24 December 2014 - 09:31 AM end3, on 24 Dec 2014 - 03:21 AM, said: MM,You're going to have to get BAA and the Prof to explain their view. BAA just keeps saying I can't know blah blah...some stupid shit, because I say everything is subjective....AFTER saying that I would gladly discuss objective reality via science. He and Prof decline that offer because they say I can't do that to their standard. Idiots. This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion. I did so. I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively. You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written." Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it." I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards. YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality. For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie. You are bearing false witness against me. Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest? It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself. . . . Your last line seems appropriate here, wouldn't you agree..? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 5, 2015 Author Super Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2015 Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. I assume you are talking these paragraphs 1-4? Please let's just go with the first one for now. 1) You know right from wrong without faith how? If knowing right from wrong involves doing what is best for others, how do you know that without faith? Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Fooking Jesus on a pogo stick. Yep all of Northern Europe is a barbarian wasteland because without faith nobody can tell right from wrong. So they rape and murder as often as they want! Oh if only Jesus could save them! Never mind that the murder rates per capita in the most atheist countries are much smaller than murder rates in in the most Christian states of the US. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state In 2011 the murder rate per 100,000 was Denmark 1 Finland 2 Germany 1 Netherlands 1 Norway 2 Sweden 1 Alabama 6.2 Georgia 5.6 Louisiana 11.1 Mississippi 7.8 We should turn it around. How can you know right from wrong when you have faith? If you have a preacher and a holy book telling you that evil is good then how can you figure out that evil is not good? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 5, 2015 Author Super Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. I assume you are talking these paragraphs 1-4? Please let's just go with the first one for now. 1) You know right from wrong without faith how? If knowing right from wrong involves doing what is best for others, how do you know that without faith? Thanks, Because I can see that if someone lies to me it either hurts me or makes me angry. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others. I can see that if someone robs me, I lose things that are valuable and am inconvenienced. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal from others. I can see that if someone beats me half to death, I am in pain and will incur medical expenses and maybe even sustain injuries that affect me the rest of my life. From this information, I can extrapolate that kicking people's shit in should only be done when they really deserve it. Are you starting to see a pattern here? It doesn't require a single pico-Liter of faith to simply, as you would put it, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which, incidentally, is what Schindler did for the Jews. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This is why End's morals have gone out the window. End would not want someone to degrade him by pretending to love him just so he might convert to another religion. End wouldn't want people to judge him as bad or wrong because he didn't have the same beliefs, and try to 'fix' him. If End went through a traumatic experience with a group and escaped from it, he wouldn't want people from that group coming to try to bring him back, especially in a place that's supposed to be a refuge. I would say End has very little understanding of 'do unto others'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. I assume you are talking these paragraphs 1-4? Please let's just go with the first one for now. 1) You know right from wrong without faith how? If knowing right from wrong involves doing what is best for others, how do you know that without faith? Thanks, Because I can see that if someone lies to me it either hurts me or makes me angry. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others. I can see that if someone robs me, I lose things that are valuable and am inconvenienced. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal from others. I can see that if someone beats me half to death, I am in pain and will incur medical expenses and maybe even sustain injuries that affect me the rest of my life. From this information, I can extrapolate that kicking people's shit in should only be done when they really deserve it. Are you starting to see a pattern here? It doesn't require a single pico-Liter of faith to simply, as you would put it, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which, incidentally, is what Schindler did for the Jews. I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 5, 2015 Author Super Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. I assume you are talking these paragraphs 1-4? Please let's just go with the first one for now. 1) You know right from wrong without faith how? If knowing right from wrong involves doing what is best for others, how do you know that without faith? Thanks, Because I can see that if someone lies to me it either hurts me or makes me angry. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others. I can see that if someone robs me, I lose things that are valuable and am inconvenienced. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal from others. I can see that if someone beats me half to death, I am in pain and will incur medical expenses and maybe even sustain injuries that affect me the rest of my life. From this information, I can extrapolate that kicking people's shit in should only be done when they really deserve it. Are you starting to see a pattern here? It doesn't require a single pico-Liter of faith to simply, as you would put it, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which, incidentally, is what Schindler did for the Jews. I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true. Thank you for reinforcing my point. Because I may not know what would be best for another, I use what is best for me to extrapolate what might be best. And, generally, the outcome is positive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. Ahhh, this would explain why you can't understand basic moral arguments and tendency toward bigotry. Most people have feelings and can understand how to treat others based on how things make them feel. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If faith is necessary for making moral decisions how did humanity survive before the OT was written? If faith is necessary for making moral decisions why was the Good Samaritan good without being a xian? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If faith is necessary for making moral decisions how did humanity survive before the OT was written? If faith is necessary for making moral decisions why was the Good Samaritan good without being a xian? Faith is supposed to encourage morality, but when the beliefs are held so high that they trump basic morals, they stifle 'do unto others'. Hence "you're a sinner going to hell because you don't believe the same as I do" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site. It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey. I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos. Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective. Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process. In which case, not everything is subjective (oops). Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword. Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated. It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity. Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East. We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there. With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT. I assume you are talking these paragraphs 1-4? Please let's just go with the first one for now. 1) You know right from wrong without faith how? If knowing right from wrong involves doing what is best for others, how do you know that without faith? Thanks, Because I can see that if someone lies to me it either hurts me or makes me angry. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others. I can see that if someone robs me, I lose things that are valuable and am inconvenienced. From that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal from others. I can see that if someone beats me half to death, I am in pain and will incur medical expenses and maybe even sustain injuries that affect me the rest of my life. From this information, I can extrapolate that kicking people's shit in should only be done when they really deserve it. Are you starting to see a pattern here? It doesn't require a single pico-Liter of faith to simply, as you would put it, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which, incidentally, is what Schindler did for the Jews. I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true. Thank you for reinforcing my point. Because I may not know what would be best for another, I use what is best for me to extrapolate what might be best. And, generally, the outcome is positive. We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views? I digress Prof. Adios amigo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 We're assuming your moral compass is good for everyone? What is your standard, your subjective views? I digress Prof. Adios amigo. Dude, you should listen to Jesus. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, whatever your subjective view of how you want to be treated is, treat others that way. Kind of ironic how the 'sinners' get it but these fundies are clueless. That's why they shit on everyone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I don't believe we may make one single moral decision based on our feelings and expect that would be best for another. I could submit hypotheticals, but that would be minutia. Basically we can't predict what would be best for another because we can't see in their future but what we CAN do is offer a what we would consider to be objective morality to that one decision in hopes that the moral outcome will remain true. So then, pray to Jesus (which is, in the end, our own imagination) and make a moral decision based on what Jesus (yourself) wants. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts