- 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 10:21 am to Revelator
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:21 am to Revelator
quote:They should not. I say this here all the time.
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?
3
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
They should not. I say this here all the time.
Good to hear
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:24 am to AggieHank86
quote:Why not? If society today believes that it's immoral to benefit from injustices and immorality of the past (according to today's standards), then such benefits would have to be considered "immoral", right?
They should not. I say this here all the time.
The road of subjectivism leads to absolute absurdity.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:31 am to AggieHank86
It’s not possible for immoral man,
absent Devine inspiration, to set a standard of morality that’s not based on immoral standards.
absent Devine inspiration, to set a standard of morality that’s not based on immoral standards.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 11:31 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:31 am to wackatimesthree
quote:Under the rules of THEIR society, absolutely YES.
The better observation is that people who opposed such things were, by Hank's own definition, necessarily immoral.
You act like this is a huge “gotcha.” It is the very ESSENCE of evolved morality. No one argues that point.
The fact that I might not LIKE elements of the morality of a different society does not change the fact that they ARE the morality of that society, any more than would my preference for gravity at 9.4 rather than 9.8
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:35 am to FooManChoo
quote:Some feel exactly that way. Fortunately, the majority of rational people do not agree, hence it is not the accepted “morality” of our culture/society.
If society today believes that it's immoral to benefit from injustices and immorality of the past (according to today's standards), then such benefits would have to be considered "immoral", right?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
It is the very ESSENCE of evolved morality. No one argues that point.
Why did you use the modifier "evolved"?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:41 am to Revelator
quote:
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.
Yeah, I know. I think pointing out what I pointed out is an even better way to illustrate that point.
Only a moron would say any of those people were immoral.
In one breath Hank will say that morality is defined and determined entirely by how popular an idea is in a society at the time, then turn around and say that Harriet Tubman was only "considered" immoral.
(I will give Hank credit for going full moron in the interest of not impeaching his claims by claiming that if society decided tomorrow that slavery was moral again, it would be. That took a strong stomach for looking like an idiot.)
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:43 am to Flats
quote:Because most people who reject the notion of objective morality received from some supernatural entity … see morality as something that evolves within a given society.
Why did you use the modifier "evolved"?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:Currently, however a lot more people believe that such a thing is the "moral" thing to do today than believed it even a few years ago.
Some feel exactly that way. Fortunately, the majority of rational people do not agree, hence it is not the accepted “morality” of our culture/society.
It's feasible that in a short amount of time, it would be "moral" to discriminate against straight white men because of the perception of our position on top of the oppression pyramid, and if that happens, those of us who fit that category should keep our mouths shut and accept how immoral we are, otherwise we are being even more immoral by fighting against what society has deemed "moral".
And it doesn't have anything to do with rationality. If we cared about rationality, we would abandon subjective moral standards entirely, or acknowledge their subjectivity and accept that we're really just talking about "might makes right" in society. When you reject God as the source for objective moral reasoning, you become irrational in your thinking.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:44 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Under the rules of THEIR society, absolutely YES.
You act like this is a huge “gotcha.” It is the very ESSENCE of evolved morality. No one argues that point.
The fact that I might not LIKE elements of the morality of a different society does not change the fact that they ARE the morality of that society, any more than would my preference for gravity at 9.4 rather than 9.8
Nice try Hank, but mores and norms are not morality.
Morality concerns itself with "ought," not "is."
It's not a "gotcha," it's something a 10 year old can understand. You and the squirrel just hate God so much you can't admit it.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Because most people who reject the notion of objective morality received from some supernatural entity … see morality as something that evolves within a given society.
"Changes," sure but the word "evolves" implies a value judgement. That what is considered acceptable by today's society is somehow better than what was considered acceptable 500 years ago.
That can't be, though, if the only authority is the popularity of a proposition in society. There's no value judgement possible if that is the case.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:49 am to wackatimesthree
quote:Why the vitriol? There are two distinct theories on the nature of morality, and we accept opposite theories.
I will give Hank credit for going full moron in the interest of not impeaching his claims by claiming that if society decided tomorrow that slavery was moral again, it would be. That took a strong stomach for looking like an idiot.
I accept the theory that is based upon facts and observation. You accept the theory based upon emotion and superstition. I don’t blame you for that. It takes a strong mind to discard childhood indoctrination.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:50 am to AggieHank86
quote:
hence it is not the accepted “morality” of our culture/society.
Who cares about morality of society?
Puritans.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:51 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
The Epicurean Dilemma has been debunked a few thousand times at this point.
Not really. If you see a baby laying alone on the side of the road you aren't obligated to help it. But should you? Hopefully that is obvious even with free will.
"To preserve free will" is always an argument against the Dilemma but God could keep the free will of man in tact without disease, natural disasters, death during childbirth, etc and he chose not to.
"His motives/actions are unknowable" is both potentially true and kind of a cop out.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
reject the notion of objective morality received from some supernatural entity
BTW, you're hinting at the other common red herring that materialists always try in this discussion.
This isn't about epistemology. It's not about whether or how people know what is wrong or right.
It's about whether those terms have any meaning beyond personal preference or societal popularity.
Everyone on Earth acts like they do, save the psychopaths. Even the materialists like yourself.
Why do you think 99% of the population—including the people who claim otherwise—act as though "right" and "wrong" have actual meaning beyond just personal preference and/or societal popularity?
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:Facts and observation cannot get to an "ought", but only a "what".
I accept the theory that is based upon facts and observation. You accept the theory based upon emotion and superstition. I don’t blame you for that. It takes a strong mind to discard childhood indoctrination.
That's why you are irrational in your thinking on this matter.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:53 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:Everyone should. All laws are in essences moral codes. We judge everything in society in terms of morality. From tax codes to SCOTUS appointments to elections, there are things we view as "wrong" that we fight against culturally and even politically.
Who cares about morality of society?
Puritans.
Everyone cares about morality of society. Not everyone has thought through it long enough to realize that they care.
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:55 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Who cares about morality of society?
Puritans.
Everyone should
Morality is individual, God isnt punishing you because your neighbor is a shite head.
quote:
Everyone cares about morality of society.
As long as I can shoot people, I don't really care.
This post was edited on 7/25/23 at 11:00 am
Posted on 7/25/23 at 10:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
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.
The issue here is that you're talking to people who aren't aware that their being raised within a certain framework and having a certain set of moral principles doesn't mean that everyone naturally has that set of principles because of God. Read any history book about societies outside of the Christian/Roman Catholic purview, the morals of various societies throughout history are wildly different.
Page 9 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News