- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you support government or Christian’s in the United States?
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:42 pm to Prodigal Son
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:42 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Why are you so angry at something that “doesn’t exist?”
I've rarely seen anyone spend so much energy on something that they claim to not believe exists, and the ones that I have seen spend that much energy on it do so because they get paid for it.
1
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:44 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
There is no such thing as objective morality.
If there is no God as defined by the dictionary definition above, that is correct.
If there is a God by that definition, then there is.
By definition.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 9:47 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Yes, we all already know you and about 4-5 other posters here would kill innocent babies if you believed God spoke to you and commanded you to do it.
By the way,
If posters here really believed that God had spoken to them and commanded them to kill innocent babies, there's a whole lot more than 4-5 of them that would do it.
It would be easier to count the ones who wouldn't.
The hard part of that equation would be imagining a situation in which people really, truly believed that.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:08 pm to wackatimesthree
The definition of a god is irrelevant to my statement.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:10 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
The definition of a god is irrelevant to my statement.
No it isn't.
If an ultimate moral authority exists and the moral nature of that authority is unchanging, then there is such a thing as objective morality.
This post was edited on 4/16/24 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:15 pm to Snipe
You're a dumbasse and an assehole. Or did you make up that ignorant thread on purpose?
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:19 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
quote:
unchanging
That isn't what objective means.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 10:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Would you care to explain why you're making this claim or how it can be true, or should we just continue to trade "Yes it is," and "No, it isn't"?
quote:
That isn't what objective means.
It's relevant, though.
But let's define terms. Not merely "objective," but let's define "objective morality."
Objective morality is commonly understood to be the idea that right and wrong exist factually—that some actions and beliefs are inherently good or inherently bad, and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in or what your opinion might be.
If there is an unchanging, transcendent, ultimate, universal moral authority, then anything that contradicts the character of that moral authority is inherently morally wrong and anything that harmonizes with it is inherently morally right.
If you disagree with that I would ask you to explain.
Posted on 4/16/24 at 11:54 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
quote:
Would you care to explain why you're making this claim or how it can be true, or should we just continue to trade "Yes it is," and "No, it isn't"?
That's up to you. If your replies continue to be nothing more than "no it isn't" followed by attempts to redefine words, that's all you're going to get.
quote:
It's relevant, though.
Incorrectly defined terms aren't relevant to what I posted.
quote:
But let's define terms.
No.
The terms have long been defined, and I'm not interested in you redefining them to make your points.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 6:46 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
That's up to you. If your replies continue to be nothing more than "no it isn't" followed by attempts to redefine words, that's all you're going to get.
LOL.
My replies have been more than that from the beginning, including in this last post.
Look. it's clear that you are not interested in a discussion and that you have no basis for what you're claiming, and you're simply trolling.
Have fun with that.
With somebody else.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 6:47 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:06 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
God determines morality
Pretty tough for an entity that doesn’t exist in reality.
quote:
only thing objectively moral to anyone
There is no objective morality - in reality. You guys constantly want to exist in a fantasy land. Embrace reality.
quote:
You have no agreement on possibly the single most important term in the discussion.
You are confusing a definition with attributes. By your logic, if you or Prodigal Son or Revelator disagree about an attribute of “God”, then you aren’t talking about the same “God”. That’s just idiotic.
quote:
If God doesn't exist, then people decided to kill innocent babies on their own. You can't blame a God who doesn't exist.
Another straw man fallacy. Y’all are really great at ginning those up, I’ll be honest. I already assert there is no God and are no gods as described in the Bible so your point is moot.
Let’s try to delve into reality for a minute. In reality, those Israelites never killed Canaanite babies en masse because the conquer of Canaan is just a fantasy. All the archaeological and historical evidence demonstrates there was no mass exodus of Israelites from Egypt and there was no conquer of Canaan. The Israelites were simply a sect of Canaanites that already existed in the land.
quote:
If no ultimate moral authority exists, who are you to tell those people they were being immoral when they decided to kill innocent babies?
Great question. I am me. If enough like-minded people employing the same moral relativism exist, then my morality on the subject of baby killing would be equal to the consensus, and therefore I’d have authority and a leg on which to stand to say “No! Baby killing is wrong!”
quote:
So really, no matter which way you look at it, your efforts to appeal to ridicule to try to show that someone was being immoral fall flat.
I’ll continue to ridicule when it is deserved.
Ask yourself this… how could anyone have known right and wrong before the Christian god existed, if the Christian god is where morality comes from? Why did the ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians have laws against thievery, false witness, and murder? Why did the scribes who wrote exodus around 400BC have to copy the code of Hammurabi?
Objective morality doesn’t exist. Morality does exist though. Morality is determined by cultural and social norms and is based on the “golden rule”. An action is moral if it promotes a net positive, happiness, and well-being and/or decreases unnecessary suffering. Ok but can we agree on what is happiness and well-being? There is a field of study for that which is called “Ethics”. Look it up.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 7:13 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:11 am to Texas Yarddog
Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability
To lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here
Tool
God (a spirit) is here for the individual, not the nation. Proper spirituality requires going inside yourself, not cleansing a nation.
To lift an eye to heaven, conscious of his fleeting time here
Tool
God (a spirit) is here for the individual, not the nation. Proper spirituality requires going inside yourself, not cleansing a nation.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:14 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Morality is determined by cultural and social norms
Then slavery can be moral.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:15 am to Powerman
Don't be ridiculous. It's a ludicrous proposition that the OP presents.
No one on the state or federal level is pushing for anything like the persecution of Christians.
So many Evangelical/Protestant types have a persecution complex.
No one on the state or federal level is pushing for anything like the persecution of Christians.
So many Evangelical/Protestant types have a persecution complex.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:15 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Then slavery can be moral.
Indeed. If there is no objective morality, nothing is objectively wrong.
Slavery, Racism, Murder, Rape. Just depends on your culture.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:25 am to Pelican fan99
I could see a plausible scenario where some states could move to jeopardize the tax-exempt status of churches, but that would also affect Black Churches. Synagogues and Mosques et al. The politician that would advocate it though would not be long in politics though.
Now, church run schools, maybe more plausible because they take government grants .....and so many of you think school vouchers are a good thing.
Now, church run schools, maybe more plausible because they take government grants .....and so many of you think school vouchers are a good thing.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:37 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Objective morality doesn’t exist.
It does if there is an objective moral standard. I understand that you want to spite God by claiming that He does not exist, but basic logic dictates that if He does, there is objective morality.
quote:
Morality does exist though. Morality is determined by cultural and social norms and is based on the “golden rule”. An action is moral if it promotes a net positive, happiness, and well-being and/or decreases unnecessary suffering.
Here we go. Here's the word salad nonsense bullshite attempt at eating your cake and having it too.
Sure, morality exists. If there's no objective morality then morality is whatever anybody thinks it is. You gave your definition above, now I'll give mine. Morality is comeuppance. Someone as arrogant and self-important as yourself being punched in the face would be a moral action on the attacker's part.
And there's absolutely no logical reason to accept your definition over mine.
Ted Bundy's definition of morality included torturing and killing young women, the speculation being that he was trying to in some way avenge wrongs he perceived to have been done him by his mother. There is no reason to say his version of morality is righter or wronger than yours or mine.
Every time you post your little simp "gotchas" about killing babies you contradict yourself. You clearly think that's immoral. But according to your own definition above, it can't be immoral. It was a commonly, if not universally, accepted practice in tribal warfare at the time.
It wasn't immoral by your definition or the Bible's.
The fact that you harp on it like you do proves you don't even believe your own bullshite.
It's pretty easy to get to that with people who claim that there is no objective morality, btw.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 7:42 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
My replies have been more than that from the beginning, including in this last post.
No, they haven't.
You're trying to conflate objective with unchanging. That isn't what objective means. If you can't admit that, there is no discussion to be had.
Objective morality does not exist. It doesn't matter to me if you agree with that or not.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:25 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
It does if there is an objective moral standard
Well, there isn’t. And if you are using your Bible as your “objective” standard, you will be in a bind as it is NOT objective on many issues. For instance, should we sacrifice our firstborn children as burnt offerings? It says to do so, and it also states not to do so. “God” says he commanded the Israelites to sacrifice their firstborn (to defile them) and it also says he did not command them to sacrifice their children. He accepted the sacrifice of Saul’s 7 sons and he accepted the sacrifice of Jepthah’s daughter while Ahab’s sacrifice of his firstborn was said to be detestable. The book as a whole is simply not objective at all, even if it were authoritative, which it isn’t.
quote:
Someone as arrogant and self-important as yourself being punched in the face would be a moral action on the attacker's part.
Yes, let the anger flow. Use that unobjective morality!
do you bring the peace of Jesus, or do you bring the sword of Jesus? 
quote:
Every time you post your little simp "gotchas" about killing babies you contradict yourself. You clearly think that's immoral. But according to your own definition above, it can't be immoral
Wrong. According to my definition, consensus cultural norms would be that killing babies does NOT promote the wellbeing of the babies, therefore the action of killing babies would be immoral.
quote:
It was a commonly, if not universally, accepted practice in tribal warfare at the time.
Don’t you think maybe “God” could have or should have addressed that issue, and maybe things like slavery? Nope, according to the Bible, slavery is objectively moral and righteous. If you beat the shite out of your slave such that you knock out his eyeball, you must set him free. The rules are all there.
quote:
The fact that you harp on it like you do proves you don't even believe your own bullshite.
The fact that you argue for the existence of “God” proves you don’t believe in him.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:27 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Thomas Sowell's brilliant essay on "First Principle (or Premise, I can't remember) proves what is evident in this thread. Such being that once one CHOOSES their First Principle, all perspectives/assessments flow from that subjective basis.
Squirrel denies the existence of God, and therein the/his idea of an objective Morality ceases to exist. The idea of a Nature-based (non-Spiritual/God) then becomes the default and derivative principle, from which all other rationalizations flow. The merciless efficiency of Mother Nature's "survival of the fit(test) cannot be denied, albeit if the Biblical narrative of "sewn in corruption, raised incorruptible" applies...than said Process is merely a seemingly 'Natural' evolutionary 'means to an end', of the which the ultimate end is the realization by self-aware entities that they are (may be) the product of Self Aware Energy. All is Energy, and the FACT that we are self-aware is proof sufficient that Energy (in complex entity manifestations) can be and is Self Aware. "I am, the I Am", is the Biblical definition of God. With "God is Love" and "God is Light" both not far behind.
The existence of God is simply whether or not the total Energy Reservoir of the which ALL potential therein flows...IS SELF AWARE. I.e., that said Energy Reservoir has a form of complex unity that reflect it's 'volume'. We - our 'volume' - are relatively very small ("Children"), albeit as Decarte affirmed, "I know that I am".
Although belief/non-belief in God in regard to the Individual is a subjective choice, from which all rationalizations flow from, there is little doubt of what non-belief will ultimately result in. Such being the default of a spiritually-non-existent Mother Nature as the ultimate authority, and the competition and predicted Biblical narrative of "wailing and gnashing of teeth". The opposite (absolute moral authority based on the idea of Absolute Unity via a Spiritual God/Love), is the only Idea sufficiently powerful enough to unify Humanity in a way that results in a/the state of 'Heaven'. Heaven being the Spiritual Ideal, of total spiritual unity in all of the supposedly disunified and competing 'Parts'.
Squirrel gets my respect for his extraordinary efforts and knowledge of the theological history of Belief in God, but given argument of Energy being essentially Self Aware, then unless and until Squirrel or others can discredit the rationality of said argument, the their points and this 'debate' is simply egotistical folly. And there remains but for each individual to experience the consequences of their Belief/Non-Belief. "By their fruits ye will know them", and I suspect that non-believers may experience and even 'worship' Love as the highest value, but the disunifying power (Evil?) of the which will then be manifest in the simple minds of the human species, will destroy the fertile ground wherein love may grow and bear the fruit of 'Heaven'.
It's either-or. There is no middle ground. Either God (Spiritual Awareness) innately exist in/as Energy, or it doesn't. With Heaven or Hell flowing from that subjective choice.
(Edit for minor bs. I did it again. Thank Jesus for Mercy
)
Squirrel denies the existence of God, and therein the/his idea of an objective Morality ceases to exist. The idea of a Nature-based (non-Spiritual/God) then becomes the default and derivative principle, from which all other rationalizations flow. The merciless efficiency of Mother Nature's "survival of the fit(test) cannot be denied, albeit if the Biblical narrative of "sewn in corruption, raised incorruptible" applies...than said Process is merely a seemingly 'Natural' evolutionary 'means to an end', of the which the ultimate end is the realization by self-aware entities that they are (may be) the product of Self Aware Energy. All is Energy, and the FACT that we are self-aware is proof sufficient that Energy (in complex entity manifestations) can be and is Self Aware. "I am, the I Am", is the Biblical definition of God. With "God is Love" and "God is Light" both not far behind.
The existence of God is simply whether or not the total Energy Reservoir of the which ALL potential therein flows...IS SELF AWARE. I.e., that said Energy Reservoir has a form of complex unity that reflect it's 'volume'. We - our 'volume' - are relatively very small ("Children"), albeit as Decarte affirmed, "I know that I am".
Although belief/non-belief in God in regard to the Individual is a subjective choice, from which all rationalizations flow from, there is little doubt of what non-belief will ultimately result in. Such being the default of a spiritually-non-existent Mother Nature as the ultimate authority, and the competition and predicted Biblical narrative of "wailing and gnashing of teeth". The opposite (absolute moral authority based on the idea of Absolute Unity via a Spiritual God/Love), is the only Idea sufficiently powerful enough to unify Humanity in a way that results in a/the state of 'Heaven'. Heaven being the Spiritual Ideal, of total spiritual unity in all of the supposedly disunified and competing 'Parts'.
Squirrel gets my respect for his extraordinary efforts and knowledge of the theological history of Belief in God, but given argument of Energy being essentially Self Aware, then unless and until Squirrel or others can discredit the rationality of said argument, the their points and this 'debate' is simply egotistical folly. And there remains but for each individual to experience the consequences of their Belief/Non-Belief. "By their fruits ye will know them", and I suspect that non-believers may experience and even 'worship' Love as the highest value, but the disunifying power (Evil?) of the which will then be manifest in the simple minds of the human species, will destroy the fertile ground wherein love may grow and bear the fruit of 'Heaven'.
It's either-or. There is no middle ground. Either God (Spiritual Awareness) innately exist in/as Energy, or it doesn't. With Heaven or Hell flowing from that subjective choice.
(Edit for minor bs. I did it again. Thank Jesus for Mercy
)This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 8:36 am
Page 4 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News