neocortex:


How about criminal christian and pastors in jail, do they lack religious foundation ?

PastorAIO:


Can you make another daft statement that is even stupider than this one? If you can I'll give you a prize.

KingEbukasBlog:

neocortex:


Its funny how the mouthpiece os "god" runs from simple questions.

PastorAIO:


Can you make another daft statement that is even stupider than this one? If you can I'll give you a prize.

KingEbukasBlog:

KingEbukasBlog:


I asked you : "What is evil and what makes what you see as evil evil" . You said :



I gave you this piece and asked you if Mao was evil or good - this excellently relates to your definition



For someone who has been calling me a poor thinker after responding to so many of your puerile questions . I expected at least an answer to prove you had brains that process your thoughts before you type them .

And you ended up posting this



And all you did was throw the question back at me But somehow just somehow The King is the poor thinker

Gerrahia mehn . I thought you've something mysteriously good off ya sleeves . You are just like the rest .

PastorAIO ... that's how I leave the atheist in a quagmire

DeepSight:


I really don't know why Dr. Homer inveigled that question into the question of necessary evils. Perhaps on account of his opposition of the propitiatory sacrificial death of the lamb which carries away the sins of men. If that is the case, I wholly support him on that score. The murder of Jesus of Nazareth by a jealous and sadistic mob and establishment could never form an atonement for the sins of men before God. If anything, it heaps on, and increases the sins of men. Be ye not deceived for God is not mocked: whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. If Jesus' death was destined as a sacrifice for sins, his words on the cross (and also at Gethsemane) would be illogical. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. Eli Eli. . . why hast thou forsaken me? If it be possible, let this cross pass over my head.

Having said all that, yes, Jesus' death was necessary to the extent that he was always going to die anyhow. The manner and timing, and the import given to the event, is what is at issue.



It is very evil.
By the way, I hope you know that I verily agree with Messrs Homer & Co on the lamentable evil nature of Yahweh of the Old Testament. Do not subscribe to imported religion blindly my brother - to such an extent that you attempt to justify the patently barbaric.

It sounds to me as though you would have justified the atlantic slave trade as well, seeing as the white man came bearing a gun in one hand and the bible in the other.

KingEbukasBlog:


Wait ... you didn't notice I requited your own style of responding to my questions

DeepSight:


Oh no complaint, good Dr; save that it stands in contradiction to your previous arguments on moral subjectivity. And no, I do not have the energy to go seeking out the links and quotes. Do that yourself. You surely recall the thread of Mr. Troll on moral subjectivity and the ensuing thread where all of these issues were thrashed out.

Joshthefirst:
If you think you can hold yhwh to moral standards or put him on trial then you certainly have to examine your way of thinking.

thehomer:


My way of thinking has been examined and I can hold him to moral standards.

thehomer:


Not true. I know that rape and genocide are bad ideas. You think they are good ideas. Please show me the hypocrisy.

Tufanja:


Only without time, truth is constant.

sonOfLucifer:

beautiful nonsense.

Kay17:


Isn't there a relatively greater good in raping the last and unwilling woman on earth so she can reproduce future generations?

Similarly self defence involves murder albeit justified because of a relatively greater good.

Joshthefirst:
Your way of thinking has not been examined as you still think you can hold him to moral standards. I don't need to explain, as I enjoy the futile back and forth we've been having for some time now.

AgentOfAllah:


It is absurd that anyone should mistake moral subjectivity for moral apathy. Then again, absurdity is the forte of the religiously inclined

PastorAIO:


Can you make another daft statement that is even stupider than this one? If you can I'll give you a prize.

thehomer:


You have tried explaining your aberrant thought processes and failed at defending your immoral God. You're talking about moral standards as if your immoral monster God is moral.

Joshthefirst:
are you a moral subjectivist?

Logicbwoy:



no.... a moralist subjective

Joshthefirst:
I'm only asking him so he'll state his position and not accuse anyone of misrepresentation.

If he is a subjectivist then he has no stance to judge the subjective views of others unreasonable or irrational. That is hypocrisy.

Joshthefirst:
are you a moral subjectivist?

thehomer:


What is a moral subjectivist?

Joshthefirst:
someone who believes that right and wrong are only concepts of our various subjective views.

Joshthefirst:
someone who believes that right and wrong are only concepts of our various subjective views.

PastorAIO:


I'm fine thank you. I return the salutations. (albeit with a slight bit of trepidation).

I noticed that there is some distance between where I'm coming and where Plaetton and others are coming from with the relativity of morality thing

Funny thing is… I believe I already understand you on this morality issue

Your tendency to throw petulant tantrums do not help if you want to convince me of anything.

Perhaps I should take a risk and try to explain relativity to you (at least as I understand it).

Relativity is the position that we will observe different values for an event depending on our perspective.

There are various kinds of values for various kinds of attributes.

There are physical values like 6 feet or 5 feet for the physical attribute of Height.

There are physical values like 1 hour or 20 minutes for the physical attribute we call time.

There are Moral values like Good, better, or evil for Ethical attributes. These are not measured into precise units like physical attributes.

The fact that all over the world at various points in history moral values are variable demonstrates that Moral values are relative. Ie. An event is assigned a different moral value by different people observing it from different perspectives.
From our perspective today, we consider rape to be a vile nasty evil thing. However it is evident that the writers of the Old testament did not think so.

Now, this issue of relativity is different from the issue of Subjectivity or Objectivity. These often get mixed up and that could be where a lot of problems lie for people trying to understand my position.

Let us look at a physical attribute such as Time. Now Einstein has proven to the world that Time is relative. Time is relative to the speed at which the observer is moving. Of course we do not see that because we all pretty much move at the same speed. Even the guy in a fast car and the guy walking on the street are not going to notice any significant difference in the measurement of time.

However for an observer approaching the speed of light Time will slow down considerably. I can't go into details plus I believe you are already familiar with the work of Einstein.

My point is that how you perceive Time depends on the locality (a speed range being a locality) you perceive it from. People who share a locality will measure these attributes to be the same. People in different localities will measure Time differently. These are OBJECTIVE facts.

Relativity is an objective fact.

Someone like you that argues for a fixed Sense of Morality for all peoples throughout all ages is like someone that argues that Time is always measured the same regardless of the speed of the observer even though observers moving at various speeds have recorded their observations and we can all see the difference.[quote]

No. Not at all.

Besides there is a difference between holding to moral objectivity and arguing for a "fixed sense of morality for all peoples throughout all ages" - I really don't know where you whipped that out from. Indeed your saying so just shows me what I suspected already: namely that you do not understand my point of view at all.

To drum it into a single line I would say that what is morally right or wrong cannot and should not depend solely on the feeling or view point of the individual moral agent. If that were the case, then there should be no conception of morality or immorality at all. There could only be deeds in an amoral world.

[quote]Let me return to the temperature example. (though I admit it is probably not a good example).
You argue that someone touching a 100 degree celsius object will feel the same temperature. that is not true. A simple experiment.

Make three buckets of water. One hot, one room temperature, and the third one cold. Put one hand in the hot bucket and the other in the cold bucket for 3 minutes. Then remove them and put them both in the room temperature bucket. Then tell me if the hand that was once in the hot bucket doesn't find the medium bucket colder than the hand that was in the cold bucket. They sense temperature differently depending on where they are coming from.

Furthermore Temperature is relative to pressure. A volume of gas with a fixed amount of heat energy will have one temperature in a high pressure container and a different temperature in a lower pressure container.

However moral attributes cannot be measured by any objective barometer. We depend on our subjective sense of morality.

So the only way one can argue these issues is to demand your interlocutor to give a moral appraisal of a situation (such as rape).

However, as with the case with Time where everyone on this planet is pretty much moving within a common range of speed, we are discussing with ourselves and we all belong more or less to a common cultural milieu. We have all been brought up to believe that Rape is evil (I hope).

To truly test this though we have to go to a different set of people from a different cultural context at a different time in history. And what do we find. We find that not only do they rape wantonly, but there is no hint of shame in the actions. There is even no sense that the feelings of the woman matter when justice is brought to bear on the matter of rape.

DeepSight:



There is indeed. However you are not really clear on the subject. At least I can't decipher what exactly you are saying, perhaps I am just rather thick.

I strongly doubt it.

Go look in the mirror Ol' boy.
Besides do not imagine I imagine it possible to convince you of anything. Nor am I interested in so doing.

Nothing wrong with the above. It's obvious, hardly needs to be mentioned.

DeepSight:



Fair enough, but detracts nothing with respect to the discussion on moral values.

This is false. No society has ever existed on the above principle.
In fact, it is impossible for any society so to do.

This is irrelevant.

PastorAIO:


Your words not mine. It remains a possibility.

My opinion on the subject is that Morality evolves over time, and it is relative. What is good in one instance is not necessarily good in another instance and vice versa.

I was always under the impression that you were arguing for an objectively determined Moral system that was absolute and fixed.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Good lord!! I couldn't possibly imagine any of your imaginings. My brain cells would explode if I even thought to attempt.

One can't be too obvious these days. The way people get misconstrued is quite alarming. You wouldn't want that to happen to me, dear chap, would you?

PastorAIO:


Dude, you're the one that brought temperature in as an analogy. You said everybody will feel the same temperature. I denied it and now you say my rebuttal detracts nothing.

Your analogy adds nothing to you point is what you should be saying.

All these measurements and evaluations that I've mentioned are all relative. Then I moved on to morality and demonstrated that Morality too is similarly relative to the observer.

Dude, it's much easier to shut me up than that. All you have to do is produce the machine that we use to objectively measure morality. Since it is done in every society that ever existed (according to you), it should not be too difficult. What is the machine that they use to objectively measure morality in Lagos Island. Or your village, if you want to make it really personal.

Let me patiently explain it's relevance to you. You claim to have a machine, or a gadget with which to objectively measure morality. Although you are yet to produce the machine I will take you word for it for now. Me, I say such a machine does not exist and the only way you can gauge the morality of an action is by engaging an interlocutor. But all that is done then is find an agglomeration of subjective viewpoints and then you brush it a little and dust it a little and then claim it is an objective viewpoint.

That will not work for me.