- 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 9/1/26 at 2:18 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/1/26 at 2:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I don't. You do. I was just demonstrating your hypocrisy.
You want to remove the actual evidence from the discussion. Why
quote:I'm being internally consistent. You are not. You have no grounding for what you claim.
No. The Bible itself isn't noteworthy. The same applies to basically any religious text. You're just doing the martyr thing here.
The Bible was only specifically referenced because I know who you are.
The Bible is noteworthy as it makes truth claims that correspond with reality, particularly in grounding morality and reason, itself. Obviously you disagree, but you are wanting to pick and choose what you will accept as evidence for morality.
quote:"More important" is a value judgement you are making, and no one here has made you the arbiter of what is and is not "important". That's just you being arbitrary.
Only if you ignore the more important aspects of the development. You're free to do this, but you'd be engaging in bad analysis and would be wrong there, too.
quote:Nope. That's an accurate analysis of your claims based on the language you are using. If you disagree, you need to be more careful with what you say.
You're now engaging in a straw man.
quote:"Nuh uh". See? i can do that, too
Your straw man is circular, yes.
My argument is not that straw man, though.
ALL truth claims will eventually hit a spot where cannot appeal to anything greater or more authoritative, and your claims are not exempt from that. That's some basic reasoning, though.
quote:Perhaps you are the one who isn't understanding it. Try looking in the mirror on this. If everyone else in wrong and you are the only one who is right, that should give you some pause to reconsider, even if you are actually right (you aren't).
Is there like a handbook where y'all are given these bad arguments? This is the 3rd time this irrelevant argument has been attempted ITT
quote:It doesn't matter whether it is the trial or the error. Both the trial and the error presuppose there is an actual standard you are moving toward.
You're assuming it's not in the "error" part of trial and error.
And this method has done better than the Bible on things like slavery, as shown earlier.
Even your use of the word "better" here in relation to slavery presupposes an objective moral standard in regard to slavery that we can measure "progress" against. You haven't demonstrated that there is an objective standard, but have only asserted there are better and worse actions, presupposing a standard.
You are smuggling in a lot of assumptions and pretending like we should take them for granted. We shouldn't. You need to justify your claims about morality.
quote:I'm beginning to think you don't understand what a straw man is.
Again, you're back to your straw man
1
Posted on 9/1/26 at 5:15 am to FooManChoo
"Their chattle slavery wasn't exactly like the chattel slavery America practiced."
Okay, cool. But it's still chattel slavery.
Also, FYI, a lot of the points you made also apply to American slavery. Legally you couldn't kill a slave in most southern states. So saying the Bible also disallowed it is weak sause.
Trying to argue the same God who drowned children, targeted them in the 10th plague of Egypt, ordered the Hebrews to kill child POWs, somehow had a kind version of chattel slavery is laughable to the point of being cartoonish.
Okay, cool. But it's still chattel slavery.
Also, FYI, a lot of the points you made also apply to American slavery. Legally you couldn't kill a slave in most southern states. So saying the Bible also disallowed it is weak sause.
Trying to argue the same God who drowned children, targeted them in the 10th plague of Egypt, ordered the Hebrews to kill child POWs, somehow had a kind version of chattel slavery is laughable to the point of being cartoonish.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 5:51 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I don’t interpret deontology to mean this. Kantian deontology… sure. But deontology encompasses more than just Kant.
It does but the alternative versions I've seen, and perhaps this is just a lack of understanding on my part, seem to just be utilitarianism with a different coat of paint. For example, trying to create a hierarchy of moral duties so that you can ignore lesser moral duties (like telling the truth) when greater moral duties (saving a life) conflict. To me, that swings wildly towards the utilitarian side of the "do the ends justify the means?" axis. These moral duties suspiciously mimic the ends, and seem to be what are what's used to justify the means.
I get the effort behind these alternate versions. I myself tried to find a middle ground and couldn't. My take on the issue is to judge those people who are unfortunate enough to encounter these sorts of moral dilemmas with grace instead of demanding they fall onto one side of the aforementioned axis.
My book is fiction, light fantasy.
My comments are generally edited because of typos. I access TD 90+% while on my phone and for the life of me I can't type on a phone worth a crap. But I'm glad something i said helped you with a philosophical issue you were struggling with.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 5:58 am to VooDude
Being a "Cristian" is so simple, even a kid in 1st grade can understand it.
#1 Love your God
#2 Love your neighbor as yourself
All the rest of it is to distract you, make you fear, or make you drop some coin in the collection plate. If you can not follow these 2 simple thoughts you should not call yourself Christian. Known lots of pious acting folks in the front rows of church who will rob you blind.
#1 Love your God
#2 Love your neighbor as yourself
All the rest of it is to distract you, make you fear, or make you drop some coin in the collection plate. If you can not follow these 2 simple thoughts you should not call yourself Christian. Known lots of pious acting folks in the front rows of church who will rob you blind.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 6:10 am to VooDude
"I could be wrong, smart enough to realize I know nothing. But why do you think you’re right?"
I am by no means a perfect Christian, and do not even profess to be an "excellent person with high moral standards". I wake up everyday and struggle to do the right thing. I believe there is a God. This universe did not come into being on its own. I also believe God sent his "son" in the form of a man to be a light to us to show us the way. No other figure in history has had such an effect on the world. His teachings and the writings of those who knew him, followed him and distributed his words after his death (and resurrection) remain a cornerstone of our civilization, our laws and our moral character.
One can choose to believe or not to believe, God gives us free will. It doesn't cost one anything to do so, and considering the alternatives, it is a heck of a deal. Ask yourself this. Had you rather spend the remainder of your life believing that God and his son Jesus exists, then die (which is inevitable) to find out that you were right OR to spend your life denying his existence and find out you were wrong?
It is not a difficult question, and if you see the same morality as those Christians, why would it be so difficult to believe in God? The greatest lie the Devil ever told was convincing people that God does not exist.
I am by no means a perfect Christian, and do not even profess to be an "excellent person with high moral standards". I wake up everyday and struggle to do the right thing. I believe there is a God. This universe did not come into being on its own. I also believe God sent his "son" in the form of a man to be a light to us to show us the way. No other figure in history has had such an effect on the world. His teachings and the writings of those who knew him, followed him and distributed his words after his death (and resurrection) remain a cornerstone of our civilization, our laws and our moral character.
One can choose to believe or not to believe, God gives us free will. It doesn't cost one anything to do so, and considering the alternatives, it is a heck of a deal. Ask yourself this. Had you rather spend the remainder of your life believing that God and his son Jesus exists, then die (which is inevitable) to find out that you were right OR to spend your life denying his existence and find out you were wrong?
It is not a difficult question, and if you see the same morality as those Christians, why would it be so difficult to believe in God? The greatest lie the Devil ever told was convincing people that God does not exist.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 6:28 am to DocYatesVA
quote:
This universe did not come into being on its own.
I don't think anyone intelligent is arguing the universe caused itself to exist. That's impossible. If it doesn't exist it cant cause itself to do anything.
quote:
No other figure in history has had such an effect on the world.
Mohammed. There are neaely as many Muslims in the world as Christians despite having a 600 year later start.
quote:
His teachings and the writings of those who knew him, followed him and distributed his words after his death (and resurrection) remain a cornerstone of our civilization, our laws and our moral character.
How many US laws can you name that are based on Jesus' teachings?
quote:
One can choose to believe or not to believe
Disagree. Belief isn't a choice. I can no more force myself to believe in God than I can Bigfoot. There are complex subconscious mechanics that determine belief. If something doesn't make sense to you, you can't just flip a switch and believe it.
quote:
Had you rather spend the remainder of your life believing that God and his son Jesus exists, then die (which is inevitable) to find out that you were right OR to spend your life denying his existence and find out you were wrong?
That would indeed suck. Unfortunately, there are thousands of different religions one can be wrong about. So no matter what, this dilemma exists for everyone.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 6:36 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 6:29 am to FooManChoo
quote:
a form of permanent slavery was allowed in ancient Israel, but it wasn't like the slavery practiced in America that we think of when we think of typical chattel slavery, where the owners could do just about anything they wanted to their slaves, who were considered not just property, but property with no human rights.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 6:31 am to Azkiger
quote:
There are more Muslims in the world than Christians.
This isn’t true. Not yet anyway.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 6:34 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I just responded to that. It wasn't the same sort of slavery
So that form of slavery is moral?
quote:
The Bible provides an objective standard to judge actions by.
And that objective standard judges slavery as permissible.
quote:
"Society" (which society, and at what time in history?) does not.
Society has developed a standard where slavery is not permissible.
quote:
They cannot say what is objectively and universally right or wrong.
Slavery = universally and perpetually right, objectively.
*ETA: the kind-hearted, "good" version of slavery, obviously.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 6:42 am
Posted on 9/1/26 at 6:34 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
This isn’t true. Not yet anyway.
Good catch, they're like 2-3% behind globally. I'll correct my post. Thanks.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:00 am to Azkiger
quote:quote:I don't think anyone intelligent is arguing the universe caused itself to exist. That's impossible. If it doesn't exist it cant cause itself to do anything.
This universe did not come into being on its own.
This is ultimately where my conversation with the intern at work landed. I didn’t even argue for a Christian god. I just said there has to be some intelligence that caused the first event. His response was that he’s ok with not having an answer and believing nothing caused it. Very unsatisfying.
I also suggested that it’s arrogant to assume that just because he (or you or I) can’t understand something, it can’t be true or possible. But I realize this is a very convenient response that can also be used against my own arguments.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:13 am to Azkiger
quote:
For example, trying to create a hierarchy of moral duties so that you can ignore lesser moral duties (like telling the truth) when greater moral duties (saving a life) conflict. To me, that swings wildly towards the utilitarian side of the "do the ends justify the means?" axis.
I absolutely understand where you’re coming from. But would you agree that there are situations involving genuinely competing moral duties? And if so, don’t we necessarily need some principle for determining which duty takes precedence, or which moral value is most important to preserve?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:16 am to FooManChoo
quote:Sure, there just doesn’t need to be an original standard to be able to compare. Or that original standard can be deemed worse than a new one after trial and error has occurred.
Standards are needed to make any comparison meaningful
quote:By observing outcomes and then making decisions that increase the human experience.
How can you say something is "right" or "wrong" if you don't have a standard to compare an action to in order to make such a judgement?
God’s standards are fricking heinous, are they not?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:22 am to FooManChoo
quote:Men could be set free after 7 years but women and children remained property. If the man admitted he loved his family and wanted them to leave with him he was treated like cattle.
Yep, a form of permanent slavery was allowed in ancient Israel, but it wasn't like the slavery practiced in America that we think of when we think of typical chattel slavery, where the owners could do just about anything they wanted to their slaves, who were considered not just property, but property with no human rights.
Why are you lying?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:52 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I just said there has to be some intelligence that caused the first event. His response was that he’s ok with not having an answer and believing nothing caused it. Very unsatisfying.
There’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t know.”
1. Science has provided countless answers to things once attributed to deities and other forms of the supernatural. To date, there’s no irrefutable evidence of supernatural entities intervening in the Universe. However, we discover natural explanations for things every day.
Thinking we will just have to live in the moment without knowing the full story on Mystery X but that future generations may figure it out is a lot more reasonable than attributing it all to a supernatural entity just to have an answer.
2. Some things may be beyond our comprehension. A bunch of cows standing in a pasture during a storm don’t understand why they’re getting wet - and will never know why. It’s beyond their capacity to figure it out. But rain is still a natural phenomenon whether the cows understand it or not.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:58 am to 4cubbies
quote:
I just said there has to be some intelligence that caused the first event.
Wouldn't an "intelligence" capable of such a feat be even more grand than the thing (universe) it created and therefore require even more justification for its existence?
quote:
His response was that he’s ok with not having an answer and believing nothing caused it. Very unsatisfying.
I agree. If his current guess is that "nothing caused it" then that's nonsensical and shows a lack of understanding of the word "nothing".
At the end of the day it seems we're either stuck with an infinite regress or we have an uncaused first cause. And, unfortunately, both sound logically absurd.
I do agree with your friend. I am fine with an "I don't know". But I'm not going to say that "nothing" did something
.Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:04 am to Azkiger
quote:
I don't think anyone intelligent is arguing the universe caused itself to exist.
Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Alan Guth, and Edward Tryon to name a few. I see atheists claim this on the regular, citing "quantum mechanics" as a basis for it.
Of course, the phenomenon we see with quantum mechanics takes place in an environment in which time, space, and matter DO exist, so it's obviously a complete apples and oranges comparison that holds no water. But there are no lengths that people will stop at to deny a Creator if they don't want to be confronted with one.
quote:
That's impossible. If it doesn't exist it cant cause itself to do anything.
That's correct. And if from nothing else, we now know from the BVG Theorum that it is mathematically impossible for the universe to have existed past-eternal (we knew that from simple logic before, but for those who denied it—and many did—now we have mathematical proof).
So there had to be a creation event and science tells us that there was no way that could have happened naturally. A singularity means that there was no time, no space, and no matter. There was no matter upon which natural forces could have acted, and no time or space to provide an environment for action.
And yet, those who wish to deny a Creator will still hold to a "Science of the Gaps" wishcast instead of just admitting that the most likely explanation given what science tells us is that a Supernatural Being with volition who exists outside time and space and matter made a choice to create the universe.
quote:
Mohammed. There are neaely as many Muslims in the world as Christians despite having a 600 year later start.
Yes, but Mohammed was a military conquerer. Almost 30 military campaigns and around 50 additional expeditions. His influence on history is more like Alexander the Great or Ghengis Kahn or Napoleon.
Jesus was a blue collar tradesman who never fought a single battle, never travelled more than 200 miles from where he was born, had only a three year spiritual ministry, yet we've found more (extra-Biblical) writings about him than the emperor of Rome (Tiberius) during his lifetime, and in the modern world our calendar still revolves around his life.
I agree, Mohammed left his mark on history. But it's not as big a mark, and he expended a whole lot more effort to accomplish it.
quote:
How many US laws can you name that are based on Jesus' teachings?
Lots if you take that idea seriously, which would take a thread of its own.
quote:
Disagree. Belief isn't a choice. I can no more force myself to believe in God than I can Bigfoot. There are complex subconscious mechanics that determine belief. If something doesn't make sense to you, you can't just flip a switch and believe it.
Ah, but you can internally manufacture thought process to deny what you don't want to accept emotionally. People do it ALL. THE. TIME. And there's plenty of research on it...in fact, I would argue that the basis for modern psychology itself is the study of suppressed acceptance of the facts. Freud, Jung, etc.
quote:
there are thousands of different religions one can be wrong about.
Sure, just like there are (literally) an infinite number of wrong answers to a math problem and only one correct answer. Am I to disregard the problem on that basis?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:05 am to 4cubbies
quote:
But would you agree that there are situations involving genuinely competing moral duties? And if so, don’t we necessarily need some principle for determining which duty takes precedence, or which moral value is most important to preserve?
Absolutely, I just don't see much of a difference between what you're describing and utilitarianism.
It could be my lack of intelligence or imagination, but it seems to me that the hierarchy of competing duties looks suspiciously like rank-ordering suffering to avoid/happiness to target that utilitarianism is defined by.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:07 am to Azkiger
quote:
At the end of the day it seems we're either stuck with an infinite regress or we have an uncaused first cause. And, unfortunately, both sound logically absurd.
Pardon the interruption, but how is the uncaused first cause logically absurd? To the contrary, it’s the only logical conclusion.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:17 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
how is the uncaused first cause logically absurd?
It isn't. It breaks none of the rules of logic. He just doesn't want it to be true. I think what he means is that it's "unlikely," not that it's actually logically contradictory. At least I hope that's what he means...because it obviously violates no laws of logic.
An infinite regress, on the other hand, does. It resolves in logical absurdity in several hypotheticals. And like I posted before, mathematically we now know it can't be the case.
quote:
it’s the only logical conclusion.
Given the information we currently have from science and mathematics, this is the correct answer.
Page 20 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News