- 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: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:37 pm to ReauxlTide222
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:37 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Honestly nothing of note. I really enjoy the music and find that I can take a lot away from the stories and lessons taught. And never had a bad experience with anyone. Meaning I never felt like anyone urged me to be or think a certain way or else.
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I always think knowing where someone's perspective is coming from is part of the equation often missed on message boards and social media in general.
1
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:38 pm to Flats
quote:To success
What are you comparing to?
To situations and stimuli that a human has the ability to take information from.
quote:I think about what people before me have experienced and what I have experienced and I make a judgement call using as much information as I can.
How do you determine that Choice A is better than Choice B without some sort of standard?
Posted on 8/31/26 at 3:45 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
To success
Success of what? My success or your success? What if they're mutually exclusive? The second you claim one choice is "better" than the other you're admitting there's an objective standard that we aim for. Humans can't give us objective morality.
quote:
I think about what people before me have experienced and what I have experienced and I make a judgement call using as much information as I can.
Serial killers can do that. Hell, dogs probably do that.
You keep describing pragmatism, not morality. IF (and that's a big if) we share a goal of what we want society to look like, then pragmatism can lead us in that direction. But that pragmatism says nothing about the shared goal, whether it's a good one or not. Your average suicide bomber may be very pragmatic.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 4:10 pm to Flats
quote:Success of the outcome my decision led to.
Success of what?
quote:Describe a situation where I’d be in a real pickle as it relates to the standard we’re dancing around. I hate when y’all start this intentionally obfuscated stuff.
My success or your success? What if they're mutually exclusive? The second you claim one choice is "better" than the other you're admitting there's an objective standard that we aim for. Humans can't give us objective morality.
quote:What is the significance of this post?
Serial killers can do that. Hell, dogs probably do that.
quote:What’s the difference?
You keep describing pragmatism, not morality.
quote:How does it not?
But that pragmatism says nothing about the shared goal, whether it's a good one or not.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 4:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
I don’t think I even cited the murder rate.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 4:19 pm to bgtiger
You cited things much less important.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 4:27 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Question about this - what is your internal justification or purpose for being a decent person?
I don't try and find/establish objective morality as I don't think it exists (even if I were to accept the Christian worldview).
Instead I look at what I think is the historical driving force behind moral frameworks: what behaviors lead to a prosperous, safe, and stable society? There is a reason why you don't see a prosperous society/culture that has legalized murder, theft, etc. Allowing certain behaviors lead to an environment people don't like, and why would people want to live in an environment they don't like?
Now, of course, things like murder and theft are obvious, and corporate tax rates are much more murky. But its very easy to see how a species of primates who became extremely intelligent would create societies that favored social stability and economic prosperity.
Whether its objectively good or not that we should have societies that disallow murder is irrelevant to the reality that we will create those exact societies.
Christian apologists will be quick to point out the historical instances where societies have abandoned these more obvious moral principles (not completely, but just disallowed these moral principles from applying to certain demographic of people), and they're very correct. What they miss, however, is their God committed himself, or commanded, his followers to commit similar atrocities in the Old Testament.
At least atheists can point to past historic injustices and attempt to argue against them. Christians aren't even allowed to disagree with the behaviors or commandments of their God.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 4:35 pm to DCtiger1
quote:Thanks for asking, and I agree
Interesting, thanks for sharing. I always think knowing where someone's perspective is coming from is part of the equation often missed on message boards and social media in general.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 4:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
For most of history, chattel slavery was (and still is, in some societies) considered morally permissible...
"As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness."
Leviticus 25:44-46
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 4:48 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then why have the basic tenets of morality been seen near universally with populations that have never interacted with each other, with the vast majority never interacting with this "objective truth" to consume the content of that truth?
They aren't really the basic tenets of morality though. At best, those "universal" ideals are tied to simple biological realities that have flowed since the beginning of life.
Living organisms tend to want to persist, and they will do whatever they need to to continuously navigate and continue their existence. This isn't "morality," inasmuch as it is simple risk management. Sometimes this presents at scale, because in social species risk has social implications.
But this doesn't make things "right" or "wrong." Even existence isn't necessarily "right" or "wrong," from a non-moral perspective.
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:24 pm to Azkiger
quote:What does a Christian have to say about this as it pertains to this thread’s topic?
As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness."
Leviticus 25:44-46
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:28 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
They aren't really the basic tenets of morality though. At best, those "universal" ideals are tied to simple biological realities that have flowed since the beginning of life.
Taking your argument at face value, that's a tomato:tomato scneario..
quote:
But this doesn't make things "right" or "wrong."
We just applied those standards to reinforce this
quote:
Living organisms tend to want to persist, and they will do whatever they need to to continuously navigate and continue their existence.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:30 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What does a Christian have to say about this as it pertains to this thread’s topic?
I don't think you want an honest conversation about this "gotcha." It's not really one.
The second problem is that you can't bring up a single bible passage, then actually not engage in a biblical conversation about it. What you're wanting to do is impose rational/modern standards on ancient things and pat yourself on your back. It doesn't work like that.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You need to explain why majority opinion creates a moral obligation to go along with the majority, rather than the minority
Majority:miniority has nothing to do with this. That's only existed in large part for 100 or so years. Human society goes back 8-12k years.
quote:
For most of history, chattel slavery was (and still is, in some societies) considered morally permissible if not morally noble.
Same as the Bible.
quote:
To say that we've evolved past that is to say that there is some objective standard out there that states that chattel slavery is morally wrong, since you have to have a standard in order to compare an action against to say it's "good" or "bad".
Society has done this
The Bible failed to do this
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Taking your argument at face value, that's a tomato:tomato scneario..
So you'd say morality is written into our biological reality or no?
quote:
We just applied those standards to reinforce this
Living organisms tend to want to persist, and they will do whatever they need to to continuously navigate and continue their existence.
By assuming that existence is "good." Is it? Why?
This post was edited on 8/31/26 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:32 pm to Freauxzen
quote:Then what are we even talking about?
This isn't "morality," inasmuch as it is simple risk management. Sometimes this presents at scale, because in social species risk has social implications.
But this doesn't make things "right" or "wrong." Even existence isn't necessarily "right" or "wrong," from a non-moral perspective.
It’s like y’all play pigeon chess with this stuff.
If it is the human condition to want to persist, and over time, humans have figured out the best way for everyone to persist, wouldn’t these strategies be moral?
Y’all make me feel like I’m being taught by Chuck from Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:33 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
What you're wanting to do is impose rational/modern standards on ancient things and pat yourself on your back. It doesn't work like that.
My version of morality doesn't work like that
The Bible 100% works like that
You're arguing against the stance of morality being universal and created by God, unless you want to argue the Bible has no play on "modern standards"
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:35 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
So you'd say morality is written into our biological reality or no?
No. It's human/societal created and disseminated via various institutions (including religions).
That's why you see both universality in basic morality across societies that never interact with each other and development of morality in other areas over time (see: slavery)
quote:
By assuming that existence is "good." Is it? Why?
Society has imprinted "good" on this because it creates less friction in society and allows society to develop. This is disseminated via various institutions (including religion)
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:38 pm to Freauxzen
quote:How in the absolute frick can you read my posts in this thread and conclude I don’t want to have an honest conversation?
I don't think you want an honest conversation about this "gotcha."
quote:I can’t quite explain it well enough to try, but I sense you’re just bitching out with this post here. I know I need a little help in these conversations, and I hate that it’s the case. But I might need you to explain the above quoted part for me. How am I doing that? Or better yet, I’m doing that…..compared to what? Are we all not doing that?
The second problem is that you can't bring up a single bible passage, then actually not engage in a biblical conversation about it. What you're wanting to do is impose rational/modern standards on ancient things and pat yourself on your back. It doesn't work like that.
Posted on 8/31/26 at 5:42 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
How in the absolute frick can you read my posts in this thread and conclude I don’t want to have an honest conversation?
I fear, and I hope that I'm wrong, that they're about to do the "why are you attacking Christianity?" move to avoid discussion.
It's a dishonest tactic I see all the time.
1. Claim morality is universal and from God/the Bible
2. When you point out issues with this, from the Bible, they say "you can't cite the Bible"
3. When you push further, it's "why are you attacking Christianity?" or some form of martyrdom
So they set the rules where this must be discussed through a lens of Christianity, but questioning that ends up as an "attack". This is the "all or nothing" thing you got annoyed with earlier.
Page 17 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News