End3 Has Some Unfinished Business With The Redneck Prof.

[RipVanWinkle]

End: Who do you think you're kidding? No one. And most importantly not yourself, even though  your knowledge may be at a subconscious level.  Rip

[sdelsolray]

End3 is full of shit.

[Ravenstar]

"I don't think we really know what we would do put in certain situations"

 

umm.. I do.  I know I'm perfectly capable of killing in immediate self-defence.. or especially, in defence of my child,  otherwise… no go. I'd rather die than become a murderer.

 

I may be able to take out someone who was an imminent threat of perpetrating a genocidal action… if I was ever in the position to do so.

 

​There's no question in my mind about this… whatsoever.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

*Note to self:  Never, under any circumstances, mess with Ravenstar's daughter.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Addendum:  You probably shouldn't mess with Ravenstar either.

[Guest end3]

To begin with, End3, you are simply being dishonest (or conveniently forgetful).  You DID say in the thread that is now locked (Subjective Morality...) that there WAS an Objective Morality and that we should all be subjected to it.  In that context, you meant that said Objective Morality was god.  You can be honest and admit that or I can pull a BAA and go back and find the scripture and verse in which you said it.  Nonetheless, now you are trying to throw the word "if" into the equation as though it had been there all along; as in "if" there was an Objective Morality (god) and "if" that Objective Morality (god) were standing next to me and "if" that Objective Morality (god) said "Kill all the Jews"... then, and only then, would you do it... but in the meantime, you're just content to have subjective faith that your Objective Morality (god) is objectively moral.

 

Secondly, I don't think the word "spin" means what you think it means in the context in which you used it.  According to the Israelites, god (objective morality) was standing right there telling them to commit genocide.  According to the writings of Hitler, god (objective morality) had told him to annihilate the Jews.  According to the boys who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center, allah had commanded them to kill infidels, and more specifically, Americans.  For you to make the statement that you would, without reservation, do as your Objective Morality commanded is no different from the ancient Israelites, the Nazis, the jihadists, or ISIS. 

 

Nobody is spinning your words but you.

 

All that notwithstanding, the point I'm trying to get you to realize is that objective morality does not require subjective faith.  It requires objectivity, which is why it is called "objective" morality.  Granted, different situations may require different responses, but genocide is never going to be one of them for one who is objectively moral.

 

You simply cannot say that you have no intentions of becoming a mass murderer so long as you are willing to blindly follow the "objective morality" (god) through your "subjective perceptions" (faith); because you have no way of knowing from one day to the next what your "objective morality" might command you to do.

Yes, what else would Objective Morality be tied to?

I have no problems with what I have said. There can be an Objective Morality, i.e. God, that I have not seen. I BELIEVE there is an absolute truth. All I have is faith that the Bible describes God physically WITH humanity at one time. There is nothing confusing about this ideology.

 

Again, you say we have subjective beliefs, which we do, yet you wish to lump me in with the Hitler, ISIS, et al. That's absurd.

 

With that, we may have a good feel for some of the absolutes, but what I am talking about is how immediate decisions effect the outcome many outcomes removed from the original.

 

Again, it appears you are not understanding. All I have is faith in the NT directives UNLESS God should show up in my presence and say bring your gun.

 

This is not confusing and please quit attempting to turn my words and beliefs into something totally different.

 

Thank you.

[Guest end3]

End you won't demonstrate because you cannot.  You know I am right.  You may not want to admit it but you can't demonstrate anything different.

 

God ordering genocide in the Bible was evil.  No circumstances can change that.  You know you will lose if you try so you do not try.

You know that's not true. For example, if I have two groups, one absolutely good and one absolutely bad, if I remove the absolutely bad, there is only absolute good. Quit being short sighted.

[Guest end3]

End: Who do you think you're kidding? No one. And most importantly not yourself, even though  your knowledge may be at a subconscious level.  Rip

End: Who do you think you're kidding? No one. And most importantly not yourself, even though  your knowledge may be at a subconscious level.  Rip

No idea what you are trying to convey except mild criticism. Please feel free to describe your stance.

[Guest end3]

End3 is full of shit.

You and BDP are related? Equally impressive.

[Guest end3]

*Note to self:  Never, under any circumstances, mess with Ravenstar's daughter.

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

Addendum:  You probably shouldn't mess with Ravenstar either.

Mother bear like.

[Guest end3]

So all of you...gall, you Prof, MM, Ravenstar I believe, all say morality really doesn't require a standard. Can any of you please explain how you derive a morality that ultimately achieves a certain moral end?

[Fweethawt]

Wow...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I believe I've explained this to you once before, End3.  I don't like being lied to; from that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others.  I don't like being robbed; from that I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal.  I don't like being beaten; I shouldn't beat others.  We've gone over the whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing already.  It doesn't require faith to have a moral standard; it only requires a bit of objective thought. 

 

As to me, or anyone else, likening you to ISIS or Hitler, it is most certainly NOT absurd, given that you claim you would follow orders even if that meant killing.  Your faith in your "objective morality" (god) is no different from the faith jihadists place in their "objective morality" (allah).  Y'all just happen to call the same imaginary "standard" by a different name.

[Guest end3]

I believe I've explained this to you once before, End3.  I don't like being lied to; from that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others.  I don't like being robbed; from that I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal.  I don't like being beaten; I shouldn't beat others.  We've gone over the whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing already.  It doesn't require faith to have a moral standard; it only requires a bit of objective thought. 

 

As to me, or anyone else, likening you to ISIS or Hitler, it is most certainly NOT absurd, given that you claim you would follow orders even if that meant killing.  Your faith in your "objective morality" (god) is no different from the faith jihadists place in their "objective morality" (allah).  Y'all just happen to call the same imaginary "standard" by a different name.

Yes, we're done. thx.

[mymistake]

 

End you won't demonstrate because you cannot.  You know I am right.  You may not want to admit it but you can't demonstrate anything different.

 

God ordering genocide in the Bible was evil.  No circumstances can change that.  You know you will lose if you try so you do not try.

You know that's not true. For example, if I have two groups, one absolutely good and one absolutely bad, if I remove the absolutely bad, there is only absolute good. Quit being short sighted.

 

 

 

What the heck?  I know what I said is true.  You can't have two groups of absolute anything in the real world because ideals don't exist.  Your failure at debate doesn't make me short sighted.

 

Nope, God ordering Amalikite babies to be slaughters was an evil act.  Amalikite babies could not be absolutely bad.  They were babies.  I said you couldn't demonstrate and so far you have not.

[mymistake]

So all of you...gall, you Prof, MM, Ravenstar I believe, all say morality really doesn't require a standard. Can any of you please explain how you derive a morality that ultimately achieves a certain moral end?

 

I never said morality doesn't require a standard.

 

I think I have explained it before.  Does any of this seem familiar?  Humans evolved to survive in small groups called families.  We developed empathy to help us imagine what it is like to be in somebody else's shoes.  Our brain is hard wired to see that which helps families as good and that which hurts families as evil.

 

Do you not understand? 

[duderonomy]

No one has to follow this link. It's in the too long; didn't read category, trust me.  I just thought E3 could use some more ammo. 

 

http://christianthinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

 

Just sayin'     The first thing I noticed was that if the argument was valid, then God was true. But then I remembered that if God wasn't true, then the argument was just a silly way of explaining away God's acts of murder against the innocent, as documented in His own Book. If He exists.

 

I remember when my great great great great great great (go back 6,000 years or so) grandad Adam took that bite of that forbidden fruit, and his eyes were opened, and he knew good from evil, just like the song says, "Way down in my heart". 

 

So then according to the Bible, we can know good from evil without God, because we are now like God?  Holy Answers In Genesis, Batman!

[Ravenstar]

Even higher animals rarely kill their own species (infanticide aside, but that's another issue). Tigers don't go around killing other tigers just for the hell of it. In 'combat' for the right to mate male animals frequently ritualize the fight so no one gets fatally wounded.

 

Why would it be different for humans? It's not evolutionarily sound to murder one's own species when you are a social animal, much less genocide.

 

Golden rule, it works. There is some form of it in almost every human society, or there wouldn't be society.

 

It's not rocket science - it's common sense.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

We're done, End3?  Already?  Come on, man, where's your fighting spirit?

[bornagainathiest]

We're done, End3?  Already?  Come on, man, where's your fighting spirit?

 

It's not about fighting spirit, Prof.

 

I reckon it's about where and how End obtains his morality.  You see he declared himself done when replying to what you posted here...

 

I believe I've explained this to you once before, End3.  I don't like being lied to; from that information, I can extrapolate that I shouldn't lie to others.  I don't like being robbed; from that I can extrapolate that I shouldn't steal.  I don't like being beaten; I shouldn't beat others.  We've gone over the whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing already.  It doesn't require faith to have a moral standard; it only requires a bit of objective thought. 

 

As to me, or anyone else, likening you to ISIS or Hitler, it is most certainly NOT absurd, given that you claim you would follow orders even if that meant killing.  Your faith in your "objective morality" (god) is no different from the faith jihadists place in their "objective morality" (allah).  Y'all just happen to call the same imaginary "standard" by a different name.

 

You presented an evolutionary model of moral behavior that builds itself up by observation, comparison and self-reflection, right?  But End's preferred model of moral behavior (Christianity) is the opposite of that.  It's fixed, absolute and handed down to him as a complete package.  All he needs to do is to obey it.  He doesn't need to think for himself about consequences.  He doesn't need to think for himself about the value of life.  He doesn't need to think for himself about ethical behavior.  He just accepts (by faith) that whatever the Bible says is true, right, moral and ethical.  

 

This (the simple requirement to obey) is what's so appealing to him.

He doesn't need to put any work into this because he's already got the perfect blueprint for moral and ethical behavior in the Bible.  Ask yourself these questions, Prof.  In your experience, does End usually shy away from a penetrating moral question or does he square up to it, answer it, learn from it and change accordingly?  Does he usually try and deflect such a question or does he welcome it as a chance to examine his own morality?  Is he adaptable, flexible and resilient or is he inflexible, stubborn and unchanging?

 

Now, if you think about your answers and compare them to this question...

 

How does an amoral person recognize the morality/immorality of a command they are given?

 

...can you see where I'm going with this argument?

.

.

.

Yes.  Exactly.

 

Imho End isn't an immoral person... he's more likely an amoral one.  He clearly doesn't embrace evil and wrongdoing for their own sake, as a wicked, corrupt and immoral person would.  No.  Instead he struggles to make moral judgments for himself and by himself - transferring that burden elsewhere.  He seems to lacks the ability to do as you suggested - to learn and evolve his own morality for himself and by himself, using observation, comparison and self-assessment.  

 

Which might explain why he needs an absolute moral standard handed down to him, which he can just...obey.

Going with that pre-packaged standard massively simplifies and eases his moral workload, delivering him from a multitude of difficult moral dilemmas.  End's "We can't know" mantra fits this explanation perfectly.  Who else but a perfectly moral God can know all the answers to our moral questions?  So why should he bother trying to fathom anything out when it's all done for him?  Don't think - just obey!

 

And this is what is so worrying, Prof.

End doesn't seem to understand what we can clearly see.  That Yes, immoral people do indeed do terrible things.  But so do amoral people.  Because they struggle to distinguish for themselves what is right and wrong, amoral people do as End seems to be doing - looking elsewhere for a moral standard to follow.  Amoral people fail to question their chosen moral standard and instead opt to just follow it and obey it.  They put their faith in it because they lack the necessary skills to examine it critically and dispassionately.  

 

They cannot question their standard's morality, because they need a working moral compass of their own to do so.

 

The example of Doeg the Edomite is relevant here.

When we read it, can we tell if he was an immoral man or an amoral one?  Did he kill because he enjoyed it or because he was following orders?  And what of the king's officials?  It seems that their moral compasses were working well enough to know that they'd been given an immoral command.  But not Doeg's?

 

1 Samuel 22 : 16 - 19.

 

16 But the king said, “You will surely die, Ahimelek, you and your whole family.”

17 Then the king ordered the guards at his side: “Turn and kill the priests of theLord, because they too have sided with David. They knew he was fleeing, yet they did not tell me.”

But the king’s officials were unwilling to raise a hand to strike the priests of theLord.

18 The king then ordered Doeg, “You turn and strike down the priests.” So Doeg the Edomite turned and struck them down. That day he killed eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod.

19 He also put to the sword Nob, the town of the priests, with its men and women, its children and infants, and its cattle, donkeys and sheep.

[TheOutsider]

Yes, what else would Objective Morality be tied to?

I have no problems with what I have said. There can be an Objective Morality, i.e. God, that I have not seen. I BELIEVE there is an absolute truth. All I have is faith that the Bible describes God physically WITH humanity at one time. There is nothing confusing about this ideology.

 

I don't really think the problem is that it's confusing, so much as troubling, or disturbing. The moment you surrender power to some other being, whether or not it's just a figment of your imagination, you run the risk of something going horribly wrong, and sometimes there is a body count. And you're responsible. No "God" is going to bail you out. And while that's enough of a deterrent for most people, it falls apart as soon as you know "God" told you to do something.

 

Again, you say we have subjective beliefs, which we do, yet you wish to lump me in with the Hitler, ISIS, et al. That's absurd.

 

Not from where I'm standing, I, at least, realize while morality is subjective, killing others because of beliefs is as close to objectively wrong as anything can be. I can say with absolute confidence, if "God" revealed himself to me and told me to murder people because they are evil, I would refuse. Morality is subjective. Authority (perceived or otherwise) is not morality. I would judge "God" to be evil, or as close as anything can get, depending on your point of view.

 

What would you do?

 

And the scenario isn't whether or not "God" would order that, the scenario is that he did order that. Cause he has (according to Teh Hurrly Babblez!).

 

With that, we may have a good feel for some of the absolutes, but what I am talking about is how immediate decisions effect the outcome many outcomes removed from the original.

 

I can't know the future, neither can you. Not that I think you think you can.

But what if in that above scenario, a distant descendent of one of the people "God" would have me (or you) kill would end up making some groundbreaking, truly revolutionary discovery about something?

 

Or maybe they would be the next tyrant that would make Hitler look like a true humanitarian saint?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, the same person has an equal opportunity to be either or perhaps both?

 

What if "God" told you that up front?

 

Again, it appears you are not understanding. All I have is faith in the NT directives UNLESS God should show up in my presence and say bring your gun.

 

There lies the problem. From what I can tell, if some celestial, or otherwise, being claiming to be your god comes up to you and tells you to murder folk. From what I can gather, you would happily do it with bells on. Because "God" is good [<loop ad infinitum]. That's why you are being lumped in with Islamic terrorists. You seem to be failing to take the stand that unquestioning obedience to "God", much less anything, is just wrong, objectively or not. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Your position (At least in so far as you have communicated it, and to the best of my ability to understand it) is on a razors edge between harmless and catastrophically dangerous. One lapse in judgement, one bad passing thought, and a strong feeling, you might just think "God" really want's you to do something very bad. Do I think that's going to happen? No, I really hope not. But it's not far fetched, plenty of people have killed (or worse) because "God told them to". Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

And I presume you believe "God" can do no wrong? If only because that's rather typical among believers. Feel free to correct me on that, but then you will have to admit "God" is not good, and in fact, may very well be evil. And please, spare me that "greater good" brand bullshit.

 

Unless you don't actually believe "God" exists, and therefore he is unable to come to you and give you any of these orders of murder or whatever, in which case, why haven't you clarified that? That would be a critical piece of information missing from the discussion. And I could see how that wold make you think everyone is confused about this.

 

This is not confusing and please quit attempting to turn my words and beliefs into something totally different.

 

Thank you.

 

You aren't making it easy to reach another conclusion. At least for me. And again, I don't think it's a matter of confusion, at least on our part. This is how I see your position. And If I am another one that "just doesn't get it", please, enlighten me. But it seems to me like you are just one order from "God" away from going on a killing spree. Though I hope we never find out.

 

I think that's the problem here. You might try addressing that instead of dismissing it. It's nothing personal, I just think you hold a potentially dangerous position. And went further on to express it on a public forum. There might be a reason no one is just nodding in agreement with you.

[Guest end3]

Even higher animals rarely kill their own species (infanticide aside, but that's another issue). Tigers don't go around killing other tigers just for the hell of it. In 'combat' for the right to mate male animals frequently ritualize the fight so no one gets fatally wounded.

 

Why would it be different for humans? It's not evolutionarily sound to murder one's own species when you are a social animal, much less genocide.

 

Golden rule, it works. There is some form of it in almost every human society, or there wouldn't be society.

 

It's not rocket science - it's common sense.

The point is, the Christian God is portrayed in absolutes. Within that, if He was here on Earth, then it makes since to me that an absolute would have to be maintained.....that is, no sin or atonement. He being present, there was immediate judgment to maintain that state. Our current state is the Golden Rule as you say, but that is not an absolute state of no sin or atonement. It's more of a voluntary/to the best of our ability state. Now, when Christ comes back per the story, then I would expect it to return to some absolute.

 

And as I said, as it makes sense in the "voluntary state" that God would say don't exact justice on my behalf as I am the judge and you are not.

[mymistake]

 

The point is, the Christian God is portrayed in absolutes. Within that, if He was here on Earth, then it makes since to me that an absolute would have to be maintained.....that is, no sin or atonement. He being present, there was immediate judgment to maintain that state. Our current state is the Golden Rule as you say, but that is not an absolute state of no sin or atonement. It's more of a voluntary/to the best of our ability state. Now, when Christ comes back per the story, then I would expect it to return to some absolute.

 

And as I said, as it makes sense in the "voluntary state" that God would say don't exact justice on my behalf as I am the judge and you are not.

 

 

Portrayed in absolutes by God's very own propaganda.  Get it now?  God's own word is what tells you that God is good.  You assume it is true.  So God is no different then Kim Jong Un.  When Kim Jong Un's propaganda machine tells you that Kim Jong Un is good do you believe it?  North Korean propaganda says that KJU doesn't crap.  Do you assume that is true?

 

If Kim Jong Un or God were to tell me to commit genocide then I would tell either one of them to shove it.  For at least one of them you would answer "Yes my glorious leader!".  In North Korea Un is God so really how is what you do different?

[bornagainathiest]

Since this thread is still active I was wondering if End3 would like to answer two questions about the 1 Samuel 22 passage I cited?

 

In your own words End, would you please tell us why King Saul's order to kill the eighty-five priests was an immoral one?

 

And in your own words, would you please tell us why Saul's officials refused to carry out that order?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Ravenstar]

 

Even higher animals rarely kill their own species (infanticide aside, but that's another issue). Tigers don't go around killing other tigers just for the hell of it. In 'combat' for the right to mate male animals frequently ritualize the fight so no one gets fatally wounded.

 

Why would it be different for humans? It's not evolutionarily sound to murder one's own species when you are a social animal, much less genocide.

 

Golden rule, it works. There is some form of it in almost every human society, or there wouldn't be society.

 

It's not rocket science - it's common sense.

The point is, the Christian God is portrayed in absolutes. Within that, if He was here on Earth, then it makes since to me that an absolute would have to be maintained.....that is, no sin or atonement. He being present, there was immediate judgment to maintain that state. Our current state is the Golden Rule as you say, but that is not an absolute state of no sin or atonement. It's more of a voluntary/to the best of our ability state. Now, when Christ comes back per the story, then I would expect it to return to some absolute.

 

And as I said, as it makes sense in the "voluntary state" that God would say don't exact justice on my behalf as I am the judge and you are not.

 

There is no absolute…(and no evidence of it- at all, not even a hint) perfection does not exist in nature... anywhere… as far as we can see. Growth, change, decay, transformation, reaction… this is the state of the universe. That is reality. Perfection/absolutes supposes a static state, and christians are quick to say that nature itself testifies to a god - but nature is NOT static, in fact stasis would render the universe void. It could not exist, period. 

 

The universe (and everything in it, including us) could not have formed at all… in a static state - so the whole, 'it happened after the fall' thing is ridiculous.

 

The best you could hope for is a state of equilibrium - which is actually possible for short periods of time in chemistry and physics. But these are still dynamic… not static.

 

Of course 'god' is portrayed in absolutes - he was invented by men who, as is apparent, are terrified of a world where chaos is more the norm than anything. Where certainty is impossible - because… cause and effect, change, transformation, decay, etc… 'god' (absolute) is a security blanket against the terror of the unknown.

 

I am always shocked by people's desire for revenge - that is where this notion of 'justice' comes from, it isn't justice - it's vengeance. It's fucking sick. Addicted to punishment… an entire culture of sadomasochists. Crikey, no wonder religious people exhibit huge amounts of passive-agressiveness.

 

So, before you claim there is a state of absolute anything, you need to form a testable hypothesis that an absolute state is possible and then you need to show that not only is it possible but it does exist, 'cause I don't buy it. It's made up.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Even higher animals rarely kill their own species (infanticide aside, but that's another issue). Tigers don't go around killing other tigers just for the hell of it. In 'combat' for the right to mate male animals frequently ritualize the fight so no one gets fatally wounded.

 

Why would it be different for humans? It's not evolutionarily sound to murder one's own species when you are a social animal, much less genocide.

 

Golden rule, it works. There is some form of it in almost every human society, or there wouldn't be society.

 

It's not rocket science - it's common sense.

The point is, the Christian God is portrayed in absolutes. Within that, if He was here on Earth, then it makes since to me that an absolute would have to be maintained.....that is, no sin or atonement. He being present, there was immediate judgment to maintain that state. Our current state is the Golden Rule as you say, but that is not an absolute state of no sin or atonement. It's more of a voluntary/to the best of our ability state. Now, when Christ comes back per the story, then I would expect it to return to some absolute.

 

And as I said, as it makes sense in the "voluntary state" that God would say don't exact justice on my behalf as I am the judge and you are not.

 

There is no absolute…(and no evidence of it- at all, not even a hint) perfection does not exist in nature... anywhere… as far as we can see. Growth, change, decay, transformation, reaction… this is the state of the universe. That is reality. Perfection/absolutes supposes a static state, and christians are quick to say that nature itself testifies to a god - but nature is NOT static, in fact stasis would render the universe void. It could not exist, period. 

 

The universe (and everything in it, including us) could not have formed at all… in a static state - so the whole, 'it happened after the fall' thing is ridiculous.

 

The best you could hope for is a state of equilibrium - which is actually possible for short periods of time in chemistry and physics. But these are still dynamic… not static.

 

Of course 'god' is portrayed in absolutes - he was invented by men who, as is apparent, are terrified of a world where chaos is more the norm than anything. Where certainty is impossible - because… cause and effect, change, transformation, decay, etc… 'god' (absolute) is a security blanket against the terror of the unknown.

 

I am always shocked by people's desire for revenge - that is where this notion of 'justice' comes from, it isn't justice - it's vengeance. It's fucking sick. Addicted to punishment… an entire culture of sadomasochists. Crikey, no wonder religious people exhibit huge amounts of passive-agressiveness.

 

So, before you claim there is a state of absolute anything, you need to form a testable hypothesis that an absolute state is possible and then you need to show that not only is it possible but it does exist, 'cause I don't buy it. It's made up.

 

Interesting thoughts R. Makes me think of, if the Universe were actually a singularity, then what was that? A void? A non-existent? Seems like that is the question....

 

To the revenge thing. You were the one threatening people if they were to harm your daughter? Seems like there is no need for a "fear based revengeful God" to come up with the same result.

 

I'll think about the absolute anything question. I actually enjoy those type questions. Thanks R.