- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Pornography is not conservative
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:18 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:18 pm to Azkiger
quote:The dilemma is whether or not morality (that which is "good") is arbitrarily chosen/loved by the gods/God or whether or not that which is good is an objective reality apart from the gods/God and is why they/He chose/loves it. The point is to say that either that which is good is arbitrary and based on capriciousness and whimsy, or it is a universal standard apart from God that God must abide by.
It may very well be inherently subjective.
See: The Euthyphro Dilemma
Theists will avoid one of the horns by saying that Morality doesn't come from God's own whims, it originates within his own nature.
Sounds cool, but now apply that dilemma to his own nature. Did he determine his own nature or not? If he did it's subjective, and if he didn't morality lies beyond/outside of him.
It seems you cannot reason yourself to objective morality, you can only assert it to be so.
The point of drawing attention to morality--that which is good--as being part of God's very nature is to say that it is neither arbitrary (horn #1) nor independent from God (horn #2).
When you try to move down a level to making the same argument about God's nature, it just doesn't work. Because God's nature isn't arbitrary, but it is a necessary aspect of who God is. It's also not something that exists apart from God, so when you alter the dilemma, you're just playing word games.
It's like saying, "can God stop being God? If so, then He's not omnipotent!" Being omnipotent doesn't mean that God can do anything conceivable, including the nonsensical or illogical, but that God can do all that He wills to do and that which is consistent with His own perfect nature.
Likewise, God's nature is not something that exists apart from Him, nor is it something that He caused to come about, just like nothing caused God and God did not cause or create Himself: He--including His nature--is eternal.
So yeah, secret option number 3 (that which is good is that which conforms to God's perfect and holy nature) is the solution to the dilemma.
1
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:18 pm to Revelator
quote:
Aliens could simply be manifestation of demonic beings.
But aren't men and wouldn't be subject to Flat's definition of the word objective.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:22 pm to Flats
quote:
I am, you just don’t like the answers.
Link to you answering my question of...
quote:
God is either the source of his own nature, or he isn't. Right? Is there a third option I'm missing?
Link to you answering my question of...
quote:
Any topic? He could tell me which color is objectively the best?
quote:
It’s a strange argument for an atheist but it’s hardly new.
What's even stranger is how you've gleamed that from what I've been asking of you.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The point of drawing attention to morality--that which is good--as being part of God's very nature is to say that it is neither arbitrary (horn #1) nor independent from God (horn #2).
Horn #1: God determines what is right or wrong.
Horn #2: That determination is made independent of God.
You said moving down a level and applying it to God's nature doesn't work.
Why can't I ask whether or not God was involved in determining his own nature (much like the aforementioned dilemma asked about God's involvement in determining morality)?
quote:
It's like saying, "can God stop being God? If so, then He's not omnipotent!"
No, it's literally asking whether or not God had a hand in determining his own nature.
Posted on 7/19/21 at 11:38 pm to Azkiger
It's late, we're way off topic, and I've had a few too many to drink. Spending just as much time correcting typos as I am typing.
I do agree with the OP at the most basic level. Pornography is not conservative.
I do agree with the OP at the most basic level. Pornography is not conservative.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:00 am to Azkiger
quote:It may be rational to give your own feelings a lot of weight in the decision-making process, however arbitrarily picking your own feelings over other reasons/standards is not rational, which is my point.
If you're seeking personal pleasure through your own behaviors, it's absolutely rational to give how you feel during/after your behavior a lot of weight
Like I've said before when talking about morality: it's not that the atheist has no moral standard, it's that he cannot justify his moral standard without God. It is arbitrary at its core even if there are reasons for acting "morally", because there is no objective reason to adhere to one particular moral standard over another moral standard in their worldview. Same thing applies here.
quote:This is why I'm going deeper than the surface-level discussion of merely having a reason for acting "morally" for the athiest. It may be reasonable to act "rightly" according to your emotions if your emotions are your standard for "right" action, but it is not reasonable to choose your emotions as your standard of right action in the first place when there are many other equally-valid standards to adhere to. How do you pick which one is the best? If there is no standard for "best", then all are equal, and if all are equal, then choosing any is done arbitrarily.
Yes, but I never argued the reasons were self evident, only that they weren't arbitrary - like someone rolling dice or throwing darts.
In other words, if you ask "why?" enough times, you get to the point of arbitrariness if there is not an objective standard to appeal to.
quote:Perhaps I wasn't clear with that one sentence you plucked out from my post. You can still be arbitrary even with a reason if the reason doesn't distinguish the choice from any others. That's why I gave the example that I did. A teacher can have a reason for seeking order yet have no reason at all for the method of obtaining it. There is a reason behind the decision to have order while not having a reason for how the order is implemented. That's what's happening here with morality: people have reasons to to act "morally", yet are arbitrary in the standard that they choose to determine what constitutes "moral" action. You see the reason for wanting morality as proof of rationality in morality apart from God while I'm pointing out the arbitrariness/irrationality of the particular standards people are choosing apart from God.
Arbitrary adj. - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Whim noun. - a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.
Unusual or unexplained aren't really words to describe someone adhering to a rational system.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:08 am to MAADFACTS
quote:This is a pertinent point of discussion because the issue at play is whether or not morality is objective or subjective. If it is subjective, anyone can call anything "immoral" for whatever reason they like. They may not have a logical reason to be correct in doing so, but they can make the claim. That's what the left (and more and more on the right) is doing.
Right, but the “woke” movement is acting directly in opposition to the more widespread agreed upon belief that we judge people according to their time. Calhoun was a great Senator. If he was a senator now he’d be a moral monster. Times changes morals and also are perspective on the morals of previous eras. The left wants to throw away everything constantly and the right wants to conserve everything.
They have thrown away the concept of objective morality (along with truth, generally) and now claim that history is not what it was, or that it should be judged in light of their own current beliefs rather than within the context of its day. The moral relativism they adhere to allows them to do this (though, not rationally). If you deny moral absolutes then you are already on the path to what the left is doing today.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:12 am to Azkiger
quote:"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death." -Exodus 21:16
You don't think the Bible allowed you to buy slaves from foreign nations (what America did)? You don't think those foreign pagan nations only accepted slavery applicants?
shite like this is why it's so hard to take you seriously.
Whether this was adhered to strictly or not by the people of Israel, it was deemed a sin. The people of Israel did a lot of things they were commanded not to do.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:35 am to Azkiger
quote:Because we must have a reason for what is. You demand it from me (and rightly so), so you must also provide a reason for what is according to your worldview.
Your question is loaded.
Why do they have to "come from" anywhere?
Specifically, the materialist says that all that exists is matter and particular things. If that's true, then immaterial laws of logic have no basis in that worldview. They clearly exist, so the materialist has a problem there and they have to explain where they come from in a claimed materialistic world.
The dualist is someone who believes in both the material and immaterial, and therefore they have to explain where those things come from and how they interact together. Do immaterial laws come from the material world (which would really be materialism), or does the material come from the immaterial (this is the issue that Plato had to deal with and couldn't successfully reconcile it)? Or, are they both eternally existent? If they are, how do they come together? How does a material being grasp the immaterial? It's important to discuss these things.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:49 am to Azkiger
quote:That's not exactly how the dilemma is worded, and for good reason. The whole point of horn #1 is to call out the arbitrary nature of God's determining what is right or wrong, as if God could just as easily have said that rape and murder are moral and giving to the poor is immoral. The attack is on the capriciousness of the gods, or God, for this discussion.
Horn #1: God determines what is right or wrong.
Horn #2: That determination is made independent of God.
Since the focus is on the arbitrariness of God determining what is right and what is wrong, refuting the arbitrariness resolves the dilemma. God isn't arbitrary in His determination of right and wrong, but right and wrong are determined by God's very nature, which cannot be other than what it is and it doesn't change. Therefore what is good is good necessarily, and what is bad is bad necessarily, not because God had some random thought one day to determine right and wrong arbitrarily and He could just as easily declare the opposite to be true.
quote:Because it's nonsensical. God is, by definition, eternal. By asking where His nature came from (whether He was involved in its creation) is essentially the same thing as asking where God came from when God didn't come from anywhere.
You said moving down a level and applying it to God's nature doesn't work.
Why can't I ask whether or not God was involved in determining his own nature (much like the aforementioned dilemma asked about God's involvement in determining morality)?
God didn't have a part in the determining of His own nature because His nature wasn't at some point determined: it has been eternally existent. That doesn't make God dependent on His nature because His nature is not separate from Himself.
quote:Like I said, it's word games that don't make sense. You might as well ask if God created Himself.
No, it's literally asking whether or not God had a hand in determining his own nature.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:58 am to CarRamrod
Posted on 7/20/21 at 12:59 am to Flats
quote:
You said something earlier about finding common ground and for political pragmatism I don’t disagree. However, common ground is difficult when any issue of morality boils down to “morals that secular humanists believe in are ok to codify, but if Christians believe in something that’s at odds with secular humanism then it’s off the table because the Constitution says so.” The majority is fine when they have it, when they don’t the courts are supposed to step in.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. If your evangelical morals make it difficult to find common political ground that's your problem to figure out.
You need us more than we need you. No one is asking you to abandon your beliefs. And most of the people in this thread would go to war to protect your right to live and practice as you so choose.
Perhaps there is some overlap in the doctrines of Federalism/limited government. Rather than advocating for socially conservative policies at the national level, and forcing social policy upon citizens that hold other beliefs, the evangelical conservatives could embrace the notion of having less laws so that more people could have the freedom to live life as they see fit. Even if you disapprove of their lifestyle.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 1:26 am to BeepNode
quote:
Conservatism needs to change from morality to simply being for freedom and minding your own business. That would be much more popular.
That's Libertarianism. And Libertarians have never won shite.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 2:00 am to RantardoMontalbon
quote:
Rather than advocating for socially conservative policies at the national level
So, we tried that and now we have gay marriage, pride month, and trannies acting like they're normal and we're the mentally ill.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 2:35 am to Maytheporkbewithyou
quote:
So, we tried that and now we have gay marriage, pride month, and trannies acting like they're normal and we're the mentally ill.
Well, you failed. Congratulations, you're human like the rest of us after all.
Pull up your panties and carry on.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 5:58 am to RantardoMontalbon
quote:
Well, you failed. Congratulations, you're human like the rest of us after all.
Pull up your panties and carry on.
Muh COnstitutional Republik.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 6:01 am to Flats
quote:
That's not a trivial question and certainly not one I could break down into 2 bullet points, but if the word means anything at all there must be an element of actually conserving, shouldn't there? For me that means looking at what's worked, like the nuclear family just to name one thing. It certainly rejects "change" as some automatic good.
I would agree, and I would also say that the original functional idea of this country—the idea to be conserved with regard to public policy and the proper function of government—is that government should be as limited as possible and citizens should have as much freedom and assume as much responsibility as possible. I would add in at this point that federalism was another huge aspect of this idea.
Heck, when the US was still a colony there was no such thing as prison. Why? Because they didn't want to expand government to the point that they had to have a government program to take care of prisoners. They didn't want to have to collect public taxes to pay for it.
So they had two classifications of crimes: misdemeanors and high crimes. The misdemeanors were punishable by fines or being racked in the public square. They split the fines with citizens who informed on offenders. They did this again to reduce the need to collect public funds to pay a law enforcement department, so they monetized snitching on neighbors.
For high crimes there was only one sentence. Death. Again, so they didn't have to collect public funds to house criminals long term.
So they had a primitive jail that the accused stayed in for a few days or weeks while a trial happened, and then they were either hung or acquitted and went free.
Those are some of the ideas that the country was founded on that conservatives would ostensibly seek to conserve.
Sure, you can add family and community and other concepts that pre-date the founding of the country—no argument with that—but I was specifically talking about ideals unique to the history of this country with regard to public policy.
I agree it would have been more clear had I defined it that specifically from the outset, I suppose I assumed that was implied.
This post was edited on 7/20/21 at 6:20 am
Posted on 7/20/21 at 6:02 am to DesScorp
quote:
That's Libertarianism. And Libertarians have never won shite.
And (as this thread has shown), they seem to save their more visceral arguments for those on the right, rather than those on the left, which I always find interesting.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 6:09 am to anc
Only a thread about porn could garner a 25 page thread on Poli board.
Posted on 7/20/21 at 6:14 am to MAADFACTS
quote:
Interesting. The thing is, part of the reason I find arguments for God so unconvincing is that all of them are based on human reasoning and logic games, and I don’t really think human beings have the capacity to fully understand the universe as a material thing, let alone a being that contains the universe and is is capable of calling it into being. A being like that would several orders of magnitude greater than ourselves, and therefore our logical would be less applicable to it than a photon’s perspective on Faulkner. That’s a very dumb analogy. But to make my stance more complicated still, if such a being exists, and is aware of us, and cares about the goings on here as much as theists claim - I cannot believe that it’s primary interest is in our orgasms and how we have them. I realize this is a contradiction because it’s using human reason, and not even reason but baser intuition, but I still find that conclusion unavoidable.
Human beings don't need the capacity to understand the universe or God to reason that there likely is one.
Again, this is the fallacy of, "We can't know everything, therefore we can't know anything."
Plus, it's self contradictory. If we can't reason well enough to determine the likely existence of a God, we can't reason well enough to reason the unlikely existence of a God.
Finally, if materialist atheism is correct, we literally can't trust reason at all. To tell us anything. because reason itself is an illusion in that context. So is free will. So is self-consciousness, because there is no self. It's all an illusion kicked up by random neuro-chemical impulses.
As for God caring about orgasms and how we have them, that's as reductionistically disingenuous as saying that people should stop caring about how rapists like to get off because what do you care what turns someone else on?
It's very obviously not about the orgasms, it's about the intentions behind them and the relationship that it places the individual in with their Creator.
Page 25 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News