Reality and Morality

[Skylar]

I'll go with Cornell:

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critical Appraisal and Analysis - Critically Analyzing Information Sources - LibGuides at Cornell University


Consider yourself educated by the above.

Same problem as before. You'r not actually reasoning. You're cutting and pasting words. That's something a computer could do. But understanding the arguments, being able to apply them, synthesis them with other ideas....that's something only people can do. And you choose not to. Nor can you defend your claims, as it doesn't seem you really understand what you're parroting.

That's the difference.

Worse, often your quotes are non-sequiters, having nothing to do with what you're replying to. Like your first Cornell quote. What does 'reputation' have to do with this discussion? Nothing.

You're just cutting and pasting at seeming random. And I don't even think you know why.

 

[Skylar]

That's a testimonial. Not evidence, reason, or logic.

Meaning that your argument only works if we already agree with you. If we don't, then you have nothing but your subjective beliefs.

Truth is always true.

But how do you know what you believe is truth? After all, folks of other faiths who believe just as surely that they are right contradict you.

Is God telling them some other 'truth'? Or are they merely delusional? And if they latter.....what distinguishes delusional religious faith from accurate religious faith....and how would you know the difference?

God's greatest gift to mankind: free will.

So if you can choose to believe....anything..... it must be truth, because God gave us free will?

OR was your answer a complete and utter non-sequiter not even remotely related to my question?

"So if you can choose to believe....anything..... it must be truth, because God gave us free will?"

That plus God's second most important gift, the one pictured on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.....

The cloak on which God sits is in the shape of a cerebrum.

Intelligence.

And if I use my intellegence and freewill to disagree with your claims of truth.....then my conclusion must be truth, because I used my intelligence and free will to determine it?

You clearly didn't think your argument through, did you? You're demonstrating yet again the difference between being able to mechanically cut and paste words......and understanding the content of what you just pasted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'll go with Cornell:

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critical Appraisal and Analysis - Critically Analyzing Information Sources - LibGuides at Cornell University


Consider yourself educated by the above.

Same problem as before. You'r not actually reasoning. You're cutting and pasting words. That's something a computer could do. But understanding the arguments, being able to apply them, synthesis them with other ideas....that's something only people can do. And you choose not to. Nor can you defend your claims, as it doesn't seem you really understand what you're parroting.

That's the difference.

Worse, often your quotes are non-sequiters, having nothing to do with what you're replying to. Like your first Cornell quote. What does 'reputation' have to do with this discussion? Nothing.

You're just cutting and pasting at seeming random. And I don't even think you know why.

So....your belief is that the selection of quotes and sources that I provide is at random?

That you identify you as a fool, no?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Truth is always true.

But how do you know what you believe is truth? After all, folks of other faiths who believe just as surely that they are right contradict you.

Is God telling them some other 'truth'? Or are they merely delusional? And if they latter.....what distinguishes delusional religious faith from accurate religious faith....and how would you know the difference?

God's greatest gift to mankind: free will.

So if you can choose to believe....anything..... it must be truth, because God gave us free will?

OR was your answer a complete and utter non-sequiter not even remotely related to my question?

"So if you can choose to believe....anything..... it must be truth, because God gave us free will?"

That plus God's second most important gift, the one pictured on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.....

The cloak on which God sits is in the shape of a cerebrum.

Intelligence.

And if I use my intellegence and freewill to disagree with your claims of truth.....then my conclusion must be truth, because I used my intelligence and free will to determine it?

You clearly didn't think your argument through, did you? You're demonstrating yet again the difference between being able to mechanically cut and paste words......and understanding the content of what you just pasted.

Each of us uses our best judgment, based on intelligence and free will.

I find your faulty.

 

[Skylar]

What does 'copy and paste' mean?

Let wikipedia be your guide:

Cut copy and paste - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Why would it be a pejorative?

Because you're not actually reasoning. You're parroting.

I'll go with Cornell:

1. Citing an authority with an established reputation is better, of course, than citing someone whose credentials are not so lofty. (http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/mla/practical_guide.shtml)

2. What has been pejoratively referred to as ‘simply cut and paste,’ is, in fact, carefully chosen to substantiate a point. Is the information covered fact, opinion, or propaganda? Facts can usually be verified; opinions, though they may be based on factual information, evolve from the interpretation of facts.(Critical Appraisal and Analysis - Critically Analyzing Information Sources - LibGuides at Cornell University


Consider yourself educated by the above.

So, you were able to copy and paste a definition of copy and paste.

That makes you, rather, pointless, right?

Now you're getting it. Political chic doesn't really have much to add to a conversation as she doesn't really reason much. She repeats words. But she doesn't understand them. She copy and pastes....but doesn't know what copy and pasting is. With most of her replies being non-sequiter word salad. Having absolutely nothing to do with what she's replying to.

Every poster has their schtick. You've discovered hers.

 

[Hollie]

That's a testimonial. Not evidence, reason, or logic.

Meaning that your argument only works if we already agree with you. If we don't, then you have nothing but your subjective beliefs.

Truth is always true.

But how do you know what you believe is truth? After all, folks of other faiths who believe just as surely that they are right contradict you.

Is God telling them some other 'truth'? Or are they merely delusional? And if they latter.....what distinguishes delusional religious faith from accurate religious faith....and how would you know the difference?

God's greatest gift to mankind: free will.

So if you can choose to believe....anything..... it must be truth, because God gave us free will?

OR was your answer a complete and utter non-sequiter not even remotely related to my question?

"So if you can choose to believe....anything..... it must be truth, because God gave us free will?"

That plus God's second most important gift, the one pictured on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel.....

The cloak on which God sits is in the shape of a cerebrum.

Intelligence.

You do realize that the painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was, you know, a painting, right?

It was impressionist art. Are you thinking that the gawds had something to do with the painting? And like so many Western images of the jeebus as a tall, fair skinned Caucasian, do we now have an accurate image of jeebus Sr.?

 

[Skylar]

Each of us uses our best judgment, based on intelligence and free will.

I find your faulty.

But why would I care what you find? You don't do much more than copy and paste ideas you don't seem to understand. Nor, it seems, have even read.

You can't answer questions about your own claims. You can't shore up any of the holes in your own argument. You can't really even hold a conversation.

So why would your subjective opinion matter to me....or anyone?

 

[Skylar]

It was impressionist art. Are you thinking that the gawds had something to do with the painting? And like so many Western images of the jeebus as a tall, fair skinned Caucasian, do we now have an accurate image of jeebus Sr.?

Hollie...its a non-sequiter. Her response is essentially random. You're trying to glean meaning from it, as if she had a point. She really doesn't.

 

[Hollie]

It was impressionist art. Are you thinking that the gawds had something to do with the painting? And like so many Western images of the jeebus as a tall, fair skinned Caucasian, do we now have an accurate image of jeebus Sr.?

Hollie...its a non-sequiter. Her response is essentially random. You're trying to glean meaning from it, as if she had a point. She really doesn't.

You're right, Skylar. I've noticed that when you drill down on her attempt at argument via copy and paste, she gets frantic and the copying and pasting becomes "shot gunning" and gets less and less relevant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Each of us uses our best judgment, based on intelligence and free will.

I find your faulty.

But why would I care what you find? You don't do much more than copy and paste ideas you don't seem to understand. Nor, it seems, have even read.

You can't answer questions about your own claims. You can't shore up any of the holes in your own argument. You can't really even hold a conversation.

So why would your subjective opinion matter to me....or anyone?

I see your problem with 'cut and paste'...

" A valid objection to this selection of sources may be the type of audience being addressed. Is the ‘pasted selection’ aimed at a specialized or a general audience? Do you find the level ‘over your head’ or is this source too elementary?"
Cornell, Ibid.

It is both over your head, and you don't have the educational background that I have.
Therefore, you can't draw on the number and variety of sources that I can.

 

[Skylar]

You're right, Skylar. I've noticed that when you drill down on her attempt at argument via copy and paste, she gets frantic and the copying and pasting becomes "shot gunning" and gets less and less relevant.

Seriously. The 'reputation' quote? I don't think she even read that before she posted. That's how utterly irrelevant her responses are to what she's responding to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right, Skylar. I've noticed that when you drill down on her attempt at argument via copy and paste, she gets frantic and the copying and pasting becomes "shot gunning" and gets less and less relevant.

Seriously. The 'reputation' quote? I don't think she even read that before she posted. That's how utterly irrelevant her responses are to what she's responding to.

I can't find a single thing you've been correct about.

I respect your right to be stupid.

 

[Skylar]

You're right, Skylar. I've noticed that when you drill down on her attempt at argument via copy and paste, she gets frantic and the copying and pasting becomes "shot gunning" and gets less and less relevant.

Seriously. The 'reputation' quote? I don't think she even read that before she posted. That's how utterly irrelevant her responses are to what she's responding to.

I can't find a single thing you've been correct about.

I respect your right to be stupid.

Which demonstrates the uselessnes of your ability to find. You don't think much, PC. You regurgetate. You parrot. And you don't seem to understand what you're repeating.

If you can't even glean the meaning out of the words YOU are apeing, we can hardly be surprised when you fail utterly to comprehend the meaning of mine.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're right, Skylar. I've noticed that when you drill down on her attempt at argument via copy and paste, she gets frantic and the copying and pasting becomes "shot gunning" and gets less and less relevant.

Seriously. The 'reputation' quote? I don't think she even read that before she posted. That's how utterly irrelevant her responses are to what she's responding to.

I can't find a single thing you've been correct about.

I respect your right to be stupid.

Which demonstrates the uselessnes of your ability to find. You don't think much, PC. You regurgetate. You parrot. And you don't seem to understand what you're repeating.

If you can't even glean the meaning out of the words YOU are apeing, we can hardly be surprised when you fail utterly to comprehend the meaning of mine.

1. "Seriously. The 'reputation' quote? I don't think she even read that before she posted."
Would you like to see my notes on the books I quote?


2. "If you can't even glean the meaning out of the words YOU are apeing,"
So....how come I run circle around you?
Rammed that 'cut and paste' thing down your throat, huh?

And you really looked stupid claiming that the quotes I choose are at random....

Now....Calm down, take a deep breath....and hold it for about 20 minutes.

 

[MaxGrit]

God's standard is the only standard that matters because he's the ultimate Judge of all things.

That's a testimonial. Not evidence, reason, or logic.

Meaning that your argument only works if we already agree with you. If we don't, then you have nothing but your subjective beliefs.

Truth is always true.

But how do you know what you believe is truth? After all, folks of other faiths who believe just as surely that they are right contradict you.

Is God telling them some other 'truth'? Or are they merely delusional? And if they latter.....what distinguishes delusional religious faith from accurate religious faith....and how would you know the difference?

Good questions. I learned truths from the teachings of God the Holy Spirit.

God blessed me with knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

The reality is that many people are deluded by the devil.

 

[MaxGrit]

It was impressionist art. Are you thinking that the gawds had something to do with the painting? And like so many Western images of the jeebus as a tall, fair skinned Caucasian, do we now have an accurate image of jeebus Sr.?

Hollie...its a non-sequiter. Her response is essentially random. You're trying to glean meaning from it, as if she had a point. She really doesn't.

You're right, Skylar. I've noticed that when you drill down on her attempt at argument via copy and paste, she gets frantic and the copying and pasting becomes "shot gunning" and gets less and less relevant.

she knows what to say to retarded morons.

 

[Inevitable]

Morality in all cases is based on empathy. To say morality comes from religion is false. Religion demands obedience not morality. Often times people use religion to justify immoral acts. Claiming they were simply following the rules.

Empathy allows us to be sensitive to the suffering of others and thus our morality is objective and it is based on science.

Morality comes from God. His perfect being enables us to know about what perfect morals are.

Empathy is a part of morality, therefore morality cannot be based on empathy. Another way to put it is that you can only say that empathy is good because there already existed a moral standard to define good and bad.

Morality doesn't come from God. Good and bad are very subjective. There are different religions, cultures, and social constructs that dictate what is good or bad. If a supreme God controlled that it would be exactly the same across the board. I personally believe God is supreme and singular. But you are saying there are hundreds of different gods because there are hundreds of different moralities.

Morality comes solely from man. It is a result of empathy strictly. And empathy is science. Religion often gets into dehumanizing people who aren't obedient. Thus in some ways religion is immoral.

 

[Inevitable]

5. Reason, science, philosophy, supports a lot of things. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
Dennis Prager, a lecture.

a. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.

I reject both positions out of hand. I don't lie, cheat, steal, kill, or otherwise engage in dickish behavior because it is wrong to harm another human being and I don't need human-made laws nor commandments from on-high to make that decision.

Which is the more moral person, an atheist who does unto others as he would have done unto himself or the true believer who only refrains from evil because of fear of the afterlife?

As far as this notion that "if God does not exist, then everything is permitted," is concerned, atheists hardly hold the corner on the evil market. Any number of evil action are condoned by the Abrahamic religions in the name of serving God. Occasionally some mental gymnastics need to be used to allow that which is expressly prohibited, but given enough motivation, anyone can rationalize anything. The Catholic church's action in the Americas or Cromwell in Ireland, or how southern slaveholders used the Bible as justification for holding Africans in bondage. In other instances, the religious texts themselves give permission (or outright call for) actions that are evil on their face. Genocide in Canaan, for example, was expressly called for by Yahweh.

Who is the more moral person, no one or nobody?

You're only deceiving yourself about your morality. All men are evil by nature. Without God and his goodness, all men would freely always choose to sin because he loves sin due to his sin nature.

You should know that all things good are from God alone.

Sin has nothing to do with morality. To sin is to disobey God. Sin has only to do with disobedience. So even if someone sins or isn't "good" by your standard doesn't mean that person is immoral.

God's standard is the only standard that matters because he's the ultimate Judge of all things.

That is obedience not morality.

 

[Skylar]

God's standard is the only standard that matters because he's the ultimate Judge of all things.

That's a testimonial. Not evidence, reason, or logic.

Meaning that your argument only works if we already agree with you. If we don't, then you have nothing but your subjective beliefs.

Truth is always true.

But how do you know what you believe is truth? After all, folks of other faiths who believe just as surely that they are right contradict you.

Is God telling them some other 'truth'? Or are they merely delusional? And if they latter.....what distinguishes delusional religious faith from accurate religious faith....and how would you know the difference?

Good questions. I learned truths from the teachings of God the Holy Spirit.

And if someone else says the same thing...but disagrees with you..what then?

 

[Inevitable]

God's standard is the only standard that matters because he's the ultimate Judge of all things.

That's a testimonial. Not evidence, reason, or logic.

Meaning that your argument only works if we already agree with you. If we don't, then you have nothing but your subjective beliefs.

Not to mention it is an appeal to authority which is fallacy.

Most religious people don't really bother to understand what morality truly is. In The United states, a nation consisting mostly of Christians, has a very different morality today than it did 200 years ago. It also has a very different morality than the colonists that were here 400 years ago. These are all Christians for the most part. To go further the United states has a different morality than Ethiopia does. Ethiopia is a Christian theocracy.

That means religion is dictated by morality