- 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: Over Half of Democrats Don't Believe in Hell or the Devil
Posted on 7/25/23 at 8:48 am to RCDfan1950
Posted on 7/25/23 at 8:48 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
It seems that the argument re 'Morality' is what subjective basis that a particular Morality rest upon. IMO, a Morality based on the Idea of Love. But only for those who have experienced the 'Feeling of Love' - as one who had never experienced Love would not have such as a potential basis. Or for those who have experienced Love, but reject it as undesirable given that Love requires self-Love sacrifice. Think Lucifer (It's Idea) of absolute narcissism, such being a zero-sum-game, from Lucifer's POV.
So in effect, there are only two Bases upon which a particular Morality may be established: One being Love of The Whole, the Other being Self Love. With all degrees of relative manifestation between those two basic Principles. With the consequences of a particular bearing witness to said Morality's 'success'.
"Love" in a purely materialist universe is no more authoritative or profound than "morality."
0
Posted on 7/25/23 at 8:53 am to wackatimesthree
quote:The definition of morality, Stanford 2002
Unless you want to change the word "morality" to mean something other than its dictionary and common use. if you define it as, "Whatever society says," or "the majority social more of the time," then o.k.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 8:54 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:30 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
I’m not trying to be controversial or agree, but even I find it hard to believe there is something special when little kids get abused & killed daily on this earth. I am blessed to be here and thankful to my creator but my family is #1.
The more that children are blanketed, loved and accompanied by an involved, GOD-fearing, patriarchal nuclear family, the far less likely it is that they will be exposed to people who wish that child ill will or harm.... and, the far more likely that child is to grow up and be successful.
Bad stuff still happens no matter what, though. GOD is within us all, but Satan is within the world, which is his. Those bad people will sometimes find their way in to you kids' lives no matter what, because Satan is tenacious and cunning, but the more vigilant that parents are (and the more vigilant we teach our children to be), the less likely it is to happen. The great deceiver never rests, is fueled by anger and hatred, and exists only to cause GOD's creation (mankind) to suffer and turn away from GOD.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:34 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Ah you subscribe to biblical “morality”.
Morality is individual, unless you just drift with the crowd.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:35 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:
They don't believe in any consequences in the Afterlife, makes sense they don't want any consequences in their Earthly existence.
So you believe the only reason to be a good person is due to fear of something you dont even know exists?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:35 am to AggieHank86
I didn't say you couldn't find a philosophy book that would define morality the way you wanted. I said the word isn't used that way, and it's not.
In addition to the first dictionary definition below, what I'm mainly referring to is the common usage of the word.
Again, if it became popular enough to accept stealing from one another (and if you doubt that's possible, ask Target how their San Fransisco locations are doing), and someone stole from you, you would feel moral outrage over it.
You wouldn't conclude that you were the one who was morally wrong for objecting to society's accepted values.
And surely that has occurred to you. According to your definition, people who opposed slavery in 1850 were morally wrong for opposing that which society sanctioned as being morally correct.
Matter of fact, anyone who has ever protested what non-pinheads clearly see as injustices accepted by society were evil according to your definition. Whether it was slavery or women's suffrage or child labor or anything else. According to you, the only people who stimulate society to progress are evil people.
Everyone on planet Earth knows that is not true.
Your insistence on this ends in absurdity (and you don't have to travel very far to get there, either) and as a result, it does not make you look smart. It makes you look like a moron, frankly.
You're going to tell us that Harriet Tubman was the one who was morally evil?
Go ahead and say it.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
In addition to the first dictionary definition below, what I'm mainly referring to is the common usage of the word.
Again, if it became popular enough to accept stealing from one another (and if you doubt that's possible, ask Target how their San Fransisco locations are doing), and someone stole from you, you would feel moral outrage over it.
You wouldn't conclude that you were the one who was morally wrong for objecting to society's accepted values.
And surely that has occurred to you. According to your definition, people who opposed slavery in 1850 were morally wrong for opposing that which society sanctioned as being morally correct.
Matter of fact, anyone who has ever protested what non-pinheads clearly see as injustices accepted by society were evil according to your definition. Whether it was slavery or women's suffrage or child labor or anything else. According to you, the only people who stimulate society to progress are evil people.
Everyone on planet Earth knows that is not true.
Your insistence on this ends in absurdity (and you don't have to travel very far to get there, either) and as a result, it does not make you look smart. It makes you look like a moron, frankly.
You're going to tell us that Harriet Tubman was the one who was morally evil?
Go ahead and say it.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
mo·ral·i·ty
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 9:46 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:38 am to Esquire
quote:
God could blink and stop him if he wanted
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:39 am to hubertcumberdale
quote:
So you believe the only reason to be a good person is due to fear of something you dont even know exists?
No one is a universally good person without outside influence of some type, regardless of what you think.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:44 am to wackatimesthree
quote:No. I am telling you that under the mores of Southern antebellum slaveholding society, slavery was considered to be entirely moral and that oppising it was considered to be either immoral or amoral. 21st century Western society has different moral/ethical rules, and both of US (I hope) find human chattel slavery to be abhorrent. Your problem is the inability to step outside the society in which we were raised and to analyze the matter in a detached manner. It is just a form of observational bias.
You're going to tell us that Harriet Tubman was the one who was morally evil?
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 9:49 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:Not everyone agrees with the narrative set forth by people who assume a godless view of the world.
This tripe got an upvote
quote:Yes, I realize how speaking the truth from God is "foolishness" to those who are perishing.
Foo, again, I appreciate your sincerity, but deep down you MUST realize how bat shite insane this paragraph is …
Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. -1 Cor. 1:22-24
quote:Likely not. I don't assume every animal species was alive at the same time in the very beginning, though it's possible. Just because I don't believe in gradual macro evolution (molecules-to-man) doesn't mean I don't believe that genetic changes occur within animals (micro evolution).
Arguendo, I will assume that this guy was designed rather than evolved. He was not designed to eat ferns.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:57 am to AggieHank86
quote:
No. I am telling you that under the mores of Southern antebellum slaveholding society, slavery was considered to be entirely moral and that oppising it was considered to be either immoral or amoral. 21st century Western society has different moral/ethical rules, and both of US (I hope) find human chattel slavery to be abhorrent. Your problem is the inability to step outside the society in which we were raised and to analyze the matter in a detached manner
I'm not the one trying to twist myself into a pretzel attempting to have this both ways.
You just said Harriet Tubman wasn't immoral, then you say she was "considered" immoral. This is correct, but you seem to be arguing the opposite...that the two are interchangeable.
No one up until this very moment has said anything about anyone being "considered" anything.
Harriet Tubman WAS considered immoral at the time, but she wasn't immoral. And that's the whole point—the two are not interchangeable. Whatever society says at the time is right does not actually make it right.
And Harriet Tubman was right not because our current society says she was right, she was right because kidnapping and owning and abusing and raping and forcing other human beings to labor on threat of physical harm or death is wrong.
It's ACTUALLY wrong, it's not just "considered" wrong at the time.
If society swung back the other way and it again became popular to conclude that slavery is o.k. again, it would still be wrong, regardless of how society "considered" it to be.
That's my position, let's check yours.
T or F, if society hypothetically again decided that slavery was morally correct and those opposing it were evil for interfering with other citizen's property rights (which was the majority opinion back then, it wasn't that those people were amoral, they were immoral b/c they were violating property rights), as they did back in the 1800s, you would agree that slavery was moral and opposing it was immoral.
T or F?
Again, if we're talking about norms and mores, fine. But that's not the same as morality as anyone on planet Earth understands it, except the 1% or so we call psychopaths.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 10:08 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 9:57 am to BengalOnTheBay
quote:
So to say God created Lucifer is technically true, but a distortion of the situation.
If you believe God can do anything then it isn't technically true, it is true.
The thing some people are walking right past and not realizing here is that either God isn't all powerful or he chooses to allow these things to happen. One or the other is absolutely true.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:00 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
The thing some people are walking right past and not realizing here is that either God isn't all powerful or he chooses to allow these things to happen. One or the other is absolutely true.
Yes. God can be all powerful and yet choose to suspend influence or the exercise of power any time He chooses. Being all-powerful doesn't obligate God to exercise that power 100% of the time.
The Epicurean Dilemma has been debunked a few thousand times at this point.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 10:06 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:08 am to wackatimesthree
quote:No, I was saying that I do not consider her to have been immoral. upon rereading, I do see that this may not have been clear. Apologies.
You just said Harriet Tubman wasn't immoral, then you say she was "considered" immoral. This is correct, but you seem to be arguing the opposite...that the two are interchangeable.
quote:To 21st century Western me, that would be immoral. To someone living in that hypothetical society, it would not.
T or F, if society hypothetically again decided that slavery was morally correct and those opposing it were evil for interfering with other citizen's property rights (which was the majority opinion back then, it wasn't that those people were amoral, they were immoral b/c they were violating property rights), as they did back in the 1800s, you would agree that slavery was moral and opposing it was immoral. T or F?
You think that morality is rendered from a supernatural deity and remains fixed, and I think that it evolves to serve the needs of a given society. You could do a thousand hypos, and the answers would not change.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 10:10 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
You think that morality is rendered from a supernatural deity, and I think that it evolves to serve the needs of a given society. You could do a thousand hypos, and the answers would not change.
Then why should people currently living be held responsible for the immoral deeds of their ancestors if the immoral deeds were considered moral or necessary at the time?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:11 am to AggieHank86
quote:
To 21st century Western me, that would be immoral. To someone living in that hypothetical society, it would not.
You think that morality is rendered from a supernatural deity, and I think that it evolves to serve the needs of a given society. You could do a thousand hypos, and the answers would not change.
What I think is that in your quest to deny all possibility of a supernatural deity, you accept absurdity.
It is absurd to say that if in 5 years slavery came back into vogue it would be moral just because it was popular again.
And you know it.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The definition of morality, Stanford 2002
"normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people."
All? Sounds like Stanford is trying to edge this out of the "subjective" category, and in normal use the two definitions they used are at least equal in frequency, and it's probably weighted towards the latter.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:13 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:
The thing some people are walking right past and not realizing here is that either God isn't all powerful or he chooses to allow these things to happen. One or the other is absolutely true.
Again, this concept negates free will. God created the angeps with free will. Some chose to rebel against Him and His Creation in an attempt to corrupt it. Some human beings choose to be evil, or commit evil acts (well, all of us do in some way or another).
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:14 am to Revelator
quote:
Then why should people currently living be held responsible for the immoral deeds of their ancestors if the immoral deeds were considered moral or necessary at the time?
The better observation is that people who opposed such things were, by Hank's own definition, necessarily immoral.
Hank will not admit it, but there is no other conclusion from his reasoning that people like Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, and Herbert Parsons were evil, immoral people.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The better observation is that people who opposed such things were, by Hank's own definition, necessarily immoral.
Oh I understand his premise that there is no such things as morals that come from a deity, I’m just stating that his side doesn’t even follow his belief that morals are determined by the dictates of each societies agreed upon standards.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News