Kay 17:
Your orange and human example, I don't agree to it.

My examples added to yours, prove that morality is beyond mere principles, it goes beyond to application to reality and even understanding of the rules. Jesus himself found an eye for an eye principle faulty. Jesus made a field day with Mosiac laws, why becuase Jesus' perception of them in his own days/his reality, was different.

Sabbaths seem absurd. Unbelievers/sinners had natural entitlement to salvation. New Testament focussed more on poor people, rather than kings and priests.

I will also say that mathematics is not merely principles, it goes beyond to application in reality. As for Jesus finding an "eye for an eye" faulty, that's inaccurate as Jesus did not come to abolish the law, He came to fulfill it besides I fail to see how Jesus and the Mosaic laws fit into our discussion.

Mr anony:
Yes some actions are truly good or truly evil e.g.
1. It is truly evil to rape women for fun.
2. It is truly evil to torture babies for fun.
3. It is truly good to forgive offenses.
4. It is truly good to save a child from drowning

Do you notice what you did there? For what you consider as being truly evil, you attached reasons i.e you said they were for fun but for what you consider as being truly good, you didn't. Is there a reason for that?

How about:
It is truly good to forgive offenses for money.
It is truly good to save a child from drowning for money.

Does that make the forgiveness or child rescuing no longer truly good?

Mr anony:
And this illustrates my point exactly. Morality like rationality is not something that we evolved but something that stands by itself

As I said before, morality is not independent of what happens to the person while rationality is. e.g if humans had evolved the gene for producing vitamin C, it won't be immoral to deprive someone of vitamin C but however humans evolved, 200 apples would still be more than 2 apples.

mazaje:

You know these things yet you still go about defending the bible and many of such actions in the OT?. . .

Another red herring. I'll ask you to start a thread and show the verses where they are endorsed. By the way, are you now suddenly endorsing objective morality?

Mr anony: This is simply you jumping from an is to an ought. The effects of actions on other animals doesn't place a demand on an individual to act in any particular way towards it.

Well, it does for you to be a moral being.

Mr anony:
God

I'm assuming you're talking about the Christian God. How could humans have derived their morality from such a blood thirsty tribal God?

thehomer:

Do you notice what you did there? For what you consider as being truly evil, you attached reasons i.e you said they were for fun but for what you consider as being truly good, you didn't. Is there a reason for that?

How about:
It is truly good to forgive offenses for money.
It is truly good to save a child from drowning for money.

Does that make the forgiveness or child rescuing no longer truly good?

An action cannot be called a moral action if it isn't done for a reason. For instance you would blame a man who deliberately bumps into you and be more willing to pardon one who was shoved into your path without his intention. You can't just blurt out "bumping into people is wrong" without providing context.

What you are failing to realize is that in the exact same context, the exact same moral principles apply regardless of societal or individual bias,
To torture a baby for fun is always morally wrong everywhere and every time in the same way 2+2=5 is wrong . . .and this is despite whatever contrary opinion a person might hold on the matter.

thehomer:
Well, it does for you to be a moral being.

No it doesn't and you haven't shown how it does.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Christian God. How could humans have derived their morality from such a blood thirsty tribal God?

here we go again. Your perception of God does not determine His nature

Mr anony:
An action cannot be called a moral action if it isn't done for a reason. For instance you would blame a man who deliberately bumps into you and be more willing to pardon one who was shoved into your path without his intention. You can't just blurt out "bumping into people is wrong" without providing context.

So is it truly good to forgive offenses for money?
Is it truly good to save a child from drowning for money?

Mr anony:
What you are failing to realize is that in the exact same context, the exact same moral principles apply regardless of societal or individual bias,

Is it moral to give milk to someone who is lactose intolerant?

Mr anony:
To torture a baby for fun is always morally wrong everywhere and every time in the same way 2+2=5 is wrong . . .and this is despite whatever contrary opinion a person might hold on the matter.

It cannot be in the same way that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong because as I've said before, they're in different categories and it is a category error to make that comparison. One is mathematically wrong, the other is morally wrong.

Mr anony:
No it doesn't and you haven't shown how it does.

Would a moral being torture babies for fun?

Mr anony:
here we go again. Your perception of God does not determine His nature

Not my perception, but what is already written in the Bible about him. Unless what is written in the Bible is wrong, I don't see how it is my perception being wrong and not your perception being wrong.

thehomer:

So is it truly good to forgive offenses for money?
Is it truly good to save a child from drowning for money?



Is it moral to give milk to someone who is lactose intolerant?

A deliberate attempt to miss the point. My answer was quite clear

It cannot be in the same way that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong because as I've said before, they're in different categories and it is a category error to make that comparison. One is mathematically wrong, the other is morally wrong.

They are wrong in the same sense that they are both objectively wrong.

thehomer:
Would a moral being torture babies for fun?

Is man a moral being?

Not my perception, but what is already written in the Bible about him. Unless what is written in the Bible is wrong, I don't see how it is my perception being wrong and not your perception being wrong.

Yawn. your perception.

Mr anony:
A deliberate attempt to miss the point. My answer was quite clear

If it was that clear, then surely you could use that to answer the question.

Mr anony:
They are wrong in the same sense that they are both objectively wrong.

Let's see. How do you determine what is objectively wrong for you to classify it as such? e.g is homosexuality objectively wrong?

Mr anony:
Is man a moral being?

Generally speaking, yes.

Mr anony:
Yawn. your perception.

Yet the Bible agrees with me about what that God did.

ooman:

This is a very wrong view of evolution and survival of the fittest. Evolution does not occur in individuals but in the whole population. A whole population become extinct or become built by natural selection of survival traits.
So survival of the fittest does not mean intra-species war.
.

True but the individual is the starting point for evolution since it's the survival of its traits that make evolution of populations possible. Survival of the fittest means intra or inter species for competition for needed resources e.g shelter, food

thehomer:

If it was that clear, then surely you could use that to answer the question.

Let's see. How do you determine what is objectively wrong for you to classify it as such? e.g is homosexuality objectively wrong?

Homosexual sex is objectively morally wrong in the same way incest is objectively morally wrong.

thehomer:

Generally speaking, yes.

Then you have answered your question. You have agreed that a moral being can torture babies for fun. . . . unless of course you think man would never torture babies for fun.

Yet the Bible agrees with me about what that God did.

whatever rocks your boat.

Mr anony:
Homosexual sex is objectively morally wrong in the same way incest is objectively morally wrong.

How have you managed to determine this? And you never responded to my question on the lactose intolerant person.

Mr anony:
Then you have answered your question. You have agreed that a moral being can torture babies for fun. . . . unless of course you think man would never torture babies for fun.

No I haven't because as I said, the person who tortures babies for fun isn't being moral. You're just ignoring the fact that man can also be an immoral being. Just as man is a being with sight yet we have people who cannot see. This is one of the reasons why morality isn't like mathematics. Morality is on a spectrum from more moral to immoral but the answer to 2 + 2 isn't on such a spectrum.

Mr anony:
whatever rocks your boat.

Not what rocks my boat but what is written in the Bible about the Christian God.

^^^ You have been amongst the most notorious strict materialist atheists on this forum. You have insisted several times, that man is nothing but an animal, an ape. Please, please, please and please, kindly tell me what on earth is wrong with an animal acting as animals do, only doing it smarter?

Deep Sight:
^^^ You have been amongst the most notorious strict materialist atheists on this forum. You have insisted several times, that man is nothing but an animal, an ape. Please, please, please and please, kindly tell me what on earth is wrong with an animal acting as animals do, only doing it smarter?

Asked and answered.

thehomer:

Humans don't derive their moral precepts from other animals so comparing what animals do with respect to trying to discover moral ideas is a waste of time.

thehomer:
How have you managed to determine this? And you never responded to my question on the lactose intolerant person.

Because God made man's genitals in such a way that they fit a woman's genitals perfectly for the purpose of bringing offspring. The act of sex is a sacred act and it is validated through the institution of marriage between a husband and wife.
Acts like adultery, prostitution, fornication, pornography, homosexual sex, bestiality etc are an abuse of the sacredness of sex.

About your lactose question, my comment on context has addressed it sufficiently.

thehomer:
No I haven't because as I said, the person who tortures babies for fun isn't being moral. You're just ignoring the fact that man can also be an immoral being. Just as man is a being with sight yet we have people who cannot see. This is one of the reasons why morality isn't like mathematics. Morality is on a spectrum from more moral to immoral but the answer to 2 + 2 isn't on such a spectrum.

And once again you have agreed that a there are objectively correct and incorrect answers to moral questions as there are objectively correct and incorrect answers to mathematical questions. Torturing babies for fun is immoral just like 2+2=5 is unmathematical

thehomer:

Asked and answered.

thehomer:

Humans don't derive their moral precepts from other animals so comparing what animals do with respect to trying to discover moral ideas is a waste of time.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

POSITIVELY hilarious escapism! Laughable!

Never knew you had a CV as a court jester. Olodo!

Mr anony:
Torturing babies for fun is immoral j

And the veritable clown does not realize that animals do this. Tomorrow, he will claim to be an apostle of logic.

Simple logic.

1. Animals do this.

2. According to him, humans are animals.

He then complains when humans do this.

Because, of course, he says that we are different!

Notwithstanding the fact that all about us, humans "commit" these actions everyday!

This guy is a court jester!

Mr anony:
Because God made man's genitals in such a way that they fit a woman's genitals perfectly for the purpose of bringing offspring. The act of sex is a sacred act and it is validated through the institution of marriage between a husband and wife.
Acts like adultery, prostitution, fornication, pornography, homosexual sex, bestiality etc are an abuse of the sacredness of sex.

He also made it fit the rectum, mouth, hand and even genitals of other animals. Last time I checked, people don't have to be married to have sex and for some reason, God was fine with marriage between a man and multiple wives. Sex is sacred in what sense? Sacred like prayer?

Mr anony:
About your lactose question, my comment on context has addressed it sufficiently.

No it didn't.

Mr anony:
And once again you have agreed that a there are objectively correct and incorrect answers to moral questions as there are objectively correct and incorrect answers to mathematical questions. Torturing babies for fun is immoral just like 2+2=5 is unmathematical

Is there a spectrum of right and wrong answers to 2 + 2?

Deep Sight:



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

POSITIVELY hilarious escapism! Laughable!

Never knew you had a CV as a court jester. Olodo!

This is the recourse of the ignorant who have no response.

Deep Sight:
And the veritable clown does not realize that animals do this. Tomorrow, he will claim to be an apostle of logic.

Simple logic.

1. Animals do this.

2. According to him, humans are animals.

He then complains when humans do this.

Because, of course, he says that we are different!

Notwithstanding the fact that all about us, humans "commit" these actions everyday!

This guy is a court jester!

Lol, I quite like how the chap can shift from position to position as it suits him. I think this quote by G.K. Chesterton about The Modern Revolutionary describes him quite well.

The modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . .

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself...

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Deep Sight:

And the veritable clown does not realize that animals do this. Tomorrow, he will claim to be an apostle of logic.

Simple logic.

1. Animals do this.

2. According to him, humans are animals.

He then complains when humans do this.

Because, of course, he says that we are different!

Notwithstanding the fact that all about us, humans "commit" these actions everyday!

This guy is a court jester!

All you're doing is just committing the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that animals do it doesn't make it appropriate for humans to.

Humans commit these actions everyday? Everyday do you have humans eating their partners after copulation?

You're just being a buffoon.

Mr anony:
Lol, I quite like how the chap can shift from position to position as it suits him. I think this quote by G.K. Chesterton about The Modern Revolutionary describes him quite well.

The modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . .

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself...

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.
In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.
Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

I don't know. It looks to me like it fits the description of Christians. Unless you think Christians aren't "modern people" in any way.

Ah orthodoxy. Like any word better describes Christian dogma.

thehomer:
He also made it fit the rectum, mouth, hand and even genitals of other animals. Last time I checked, people don't have to be married to have sex and for some reason, God was fine with marriage between a man and multiple wives. Sex is sacred in what sense? Sacred like prayer?

Remember you said we don't draw our morality from the actions of animals. Secondly, you'll have to look up what sacred means in a dictionary.

No it didn't.

What did you understand my comment to be about and in what ways do you think that it didn't address your question?

Is there a spectrum of right and wrong answers to 2 + 2?

Is there a spectrum of right and wrong moral answers for torturing babies for fun?

thehomer:

I don't know. It looks to me like it fits the description of Christians. Unless you think Christians aren't "modern people" in any way.

Ah orthodoxy. Like any word better describes Christian dogma.

Lol, I didn't expect you to agree that it describes you.

Mr anony:
Remember you said we don't draw our morality from the actions of animals. Secondly, you'll have to look up what sacred means in a dictionary.

Yes. Is there a contradiction? I know what it means. You're using the word in a strange way.

Mr anony:
What did you understand my comment to be about and in what ways do you think that it didn't address your question?

Your comment didn't say anything about it.

Mr anony:
Is there a spectrum of right and wrong moral answers for torturing babies for fun?

Yes. Taking care of babies for fun is more moral than torturing them for fun. Now is there a spectrum of right and wrong answers to the question of 2 + 2?

@DeepSight. . . .and here is what I think a good description of Pastor AIO

"We know that we know nothing," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge --
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute --
"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Mr anony:
Lol, I didn't expect you to agree that it describes you.

It describes people as a group not a person.