Source of ethics, and morality

[Czernobog]

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

I agree. There is certainly nothing of interest nor importance being discussed here.

...and yet you keep responding. Seems we're, at least, important enough to you, and your fellow theists for you to take as much time as you need to convince us that we aren't important.

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

I agree. There is certainly nothing of interest nor importance being discussed here.

...and yet you keep responding. Seems we're, at least, important enough to you, and your fellow theists for you to take as much time as you need to convince us that we aren't important.

Actually, I do get some small pleasure out of exposing bigots.

Well, you should run along, and get on that, then...

 

[Brynmr]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

 

[Czernobog]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

 

[Boss]

Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

How have you drawn the conclusion there is "clearly no God?" I want to see your evidence there is clearly no God because I don't think such evidence exists. I think this is YOU trying mostly to convince yourself of your belief that no God exists. I will admit, there is no evidence for any particular perception of God over another. But clearly, something beyond the physical must exist.

Physics itself is proof of God. Here's the paradox. The very first laws of physics state that matter cannot create matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Yet matter and energy exists. How? The physical universe cannot have created itself. It's this dichotomy that causes man to contemplate something beyond the physical.

 

[ding]

Thank you. I totally concur with their findings.

Then, perhaps you would like to comment on the rest of my OP?

Not really interested other than wondering where you got your information from. What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

.

What atheists believe and do hold no interest for me.

surly the same is said reverently of your god for them as well ... in your church.

.

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

How did you make the leap in logic from, "What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church" to "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort?"

That was a quite a leap.

 

[ding]

Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

How have you drawn the conclusion there is "clearly no God?" I want to see your evidence there is clearly no God because I don't think such evidence exists. I think this is YOU trying mostly to convince yourself of your belief that no God exists. I will admit, there is no evidence for any particular perception of God over another. But clearly, something beyond the physical must exist.

Physics itself is proof of God. Here's the paradox. The very first laws of physics state that matter cannot create matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Yet matter and energy exists. How? The physical universe cannot have created itself. It's this dichotomy that causes man to contemplate something beyond the physical.

It seems that he believes that since science cannot prove the existence of God then that must mean there is no God. That or he believes since God has no revealed Himself to him there can be no God. The flaw in his logic is obvious to everyone but him. Czernobog is practicing critical theory which is the the practice of criticizing everything that you don't believe to validate what you do believe. He is confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is criticizing what you do believe to test its validity. He has never done that with his beliefs. If he had he would know that he has no scientific basis for his beliefs. He would know that the scientific principle of falsifiability precludes him from proving something does not exist. In effect, he must take it on faith that God does not exist. Kind of ironic, huh?

 

[ding]

So none of you can define 'evil' yet you all have so much to say about it. Odd.

Well, isn't that rather the point? The concepts of good and evil are entirely subjective, making any sort of definitive definition of the terms, not relevant to each other, rather difficult.

Ok then why would it be universally accepted that someone with a gun who murders 43 2nd grade innocent school children has committed an evil act?

I would submit that it wouldn't. Clearly the someone who did that didn't think it was evil. Or, are you suggesting that some people do evil for the sake of evil? I present to you Hitler, and the NAZIs who thought it was not at all evil to kill 400,000 men, women, and children.

Then you are one of those people who have an irrational fear of taking a position on anything. This makes you a tool of all manner of moral depravity and oppressive ideologies. I find that many of the alt-Left have this phobia.

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

Objective truth is universal. Subjective truth is not. Objective truth withstands the test of time. Subjective truth does not. You are confusing relative morals for absolute morals. Absolute morals state that slavery is wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong. So the flaw in your argument is using relative morals as a test for universal morals. The error you are trying to prove is not in morality. The error is in your presentation of morality. Men can and have justified just about any dumbass behavior. They might even have a majority of people convinced they are right, but since error cannot stand, the flaw in the rationalization will always reveal itself eventually. Natural Law is discovered and once discovered it will be known that it was always true and will always be true. Natural Law will not need a rationalization that a wrong is right and will hold men accountable to highest possible standard. That is how you will know you have discovered it. There won't be a higher standard that exists.

 

[Boss]

It seems that he believes that since science cannot prove the existence of God then that must mean there is no God. That or he believes since God has no revealed Himself to him there can be no God. The flaw in his logic is obvious to everyone but him. Czernobog is practicing critical theory which is the the practice of criticizing everything that you don't believe to validate what you do believe. He is confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is criticizing what you do believe to test its validity. He has never done that with his beliefs. If he had he would know that he has no scientific basis for his beliefs. He would know that the scientific principle of falsifiability precludes him from proving something does not exist. In effect, he must take it on faith that God does not exist. Kind of ironic, huh?

It is indeed ironic. Something else that is ironic is how atheists often make the assumption that no physical evidence of a spiritual entity means anything other than a spiritual entity is not physical. This is because, in an atheist's mind, they can't imagine a God (or anything) beyond the physical.

Even the very context of the word "exist" has a different meaning for an atheist. The only "exist" they can comprehend is physical. If it isn't physical, it doesn't exist... ergo, God doesn't exist because God isn't physical.

 

[ding]

What makes you believe atheists are important enough to even be discussed at my church? Have you ever attended my church?

Wow. I like this guy's church. "Atheists? Fuck them. We don't give even a single fuck about anyone not already converted, or at least not begging to be converted. We gotta work at it? Fuck that. Too much effort,"

I actually kinda wanna attend a service at this guy's church. Sounds like it would be fun.

Actually, you assign far too much importance to yourself and other atheists. In spite of what you appear to wish, you are not really the subject matter you would like to be.

Well, good. Feel free to take your imaginary magic skyman, and run along..

I agree. There is certainly nothing of interest nor importance being discussed here.

...and yet you keep responding. Seems we're, at least, important enough to you, and your fellow theists for you to take as much time as you need to convince us that we aren't important. Although I do agree. Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

No one said you are unimportant. We are saying we don't need to convince you of anything. Please believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

 

[Brynmr]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

I see your head is stuck so far up your sick ideology that it's no wonder you're unable to comprehend what's being said to you.

 

[ding]

It seems that he believes that since science cannot prove the existence of God then that must mean there is no God. That or he believes since God has no revealed Himself to him there can be no God. The flaw in his logic is obvious to everyone but him. Czernobog is practicing critical theory which is the the practice of criticizing everything that you don't believe to validate what you do believe. He is confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is criticizing what you do believe to test its validity. He has never done that with his beliefs. If he had he would know that he has no scientific basis for his beliefs. He would know that the scientific principle of falsifiability precludes him from proving something does not exist. In effect, he must take it on faith that God does not exist. Kind of ironic, huh?

It is indeed ironic. Something else that is ironic is how atheists often make the assumption that no physical evidence of a spiritual entity means anything other than a spiritual entity is not physical. This is because, in an atheist's mind, they can't imagine a God (or anything) beyond the physical.

Even the very context of the word "exist" has a different meaning for an atheist. The only "exist" they can comprehend is physical. If it isn't physical, it doesn't exist... ergo, God doesn't exist because God isn't physical.

I couldn't get Czernobog to admit that something he built could be used as evidence. Imagine that.

 

[ding]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

I see your head is stuck so far up your sick ideology that it's no wonder you're unable to comprehend what's being said to you.

We teach our military that when they are trapped behind enemy lines to evade,escape, deny. These are the same tactics he uses here because he sees us as the enemy. He is not capable of having an honest discussion because he will not concede any thing no matter how overwhelming the argument is against him. He plays little games to create plausible deniability in his mind. His deceit is willful.

 

[Czernobog]

Since there is clearly no God, even discussing the idea of an imaginary God being the author of morality is neither interesting, nor important, as the conclusion is self-evident. No God, so morality comes from self, or, at best, from a cultural agreement.

How have you drawn the conclusion there is "clearly no God?" I want to see your evidence there is clearly no God because I don't think such evidence exists. I think this is YOU trying mostly to convince yourself of your belief that no God exists. I will admit, there is no evidence for any particular perception of God over another. But clearly, something beyond the physical must exist.

Physics itself is proof of God. Here's the paradox. The very first laws of physics state that matter cannot create matter and energy can't be created or destroyed. Yet matter and energy exists. How? The physical universe cannot have created itself. It's this dichotomy that causes man to contemplate something beyond the physical.

Two problems with your statements. First, is a lack of understanding of scientific research. "There is no God" is the default null position of research. It does not require "evidence"; it is the default position. To adjust to the position of "There is a God" requires objective evidence. Thus, it is not the responsibility of anyone to "prove" there is no God. That is the given. it is the responsibility of those who claim that God exists to provide evidence of that exstence.

The second problem is that you are relying on Euclidean physics to make your claim that matter, and energy cannot be created from nothing. When you move past Euclidean physics, into quantum physics, suddenly all of those preconceptions fall away. The concept of a creator depends on a universe that has a begining, and an ending. However, the current quantum theories suggest that it has neither. There is no logical or metaphysical obstacle to completing the conventional temporal history of the universe by including an atemporal boundary condition at the beginning. Together with the successful post-Big-Bang cosmological model already in our possession, that would constitute a consistent and self-contained description of the history of the universe.

As Stephen Hawking once proposed, "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end, it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

 

[ding]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

 

[ding]

So, God is always moral, and ethical? He cannot command man to do anything that is immoral? That is your contention?

My personal belief is, God doesn't have any reason to command humans.

Why would an omnipotent God have to command anything?

I'm confused. You believe in an omnipotent God, but you don't believe he has any expectations of people? Based on this, I presume you are not a Christian?

You are wrong Bobo. God is incorporeal and we are not separate entities from God. We are like a cell within a body and some cells may be cancerous. Of course, I simplified things in a great deal for illustration.

If we are not separate entities from God, would we ourselves be evidence of God?

 

[Czernobog]

It seems that he believes that since science cannot prove the existence of God then that must mean there is no God. That or he believes since God has no revealed Himself to him there can be no God. The flaw in his logic is obvious to everyone but him. Czernobog is practicing critical theory which is the the practice of criticizing everything that you don't believe to validate what you do believe. He is confusing critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is criticizing what you do believe to test its validity. He has never done that with his beliefs. If he had he would know that he has no scientific basis for his beliefs. He would know that the scientific principle of falsifiability precludes him from proving something does not exist. In effect, he must take it on faith that God does not exist. Kind of ironic, huh?

It is indeed ironic. Something else that is ironic is how atheists often make the assumption that no physical evidence of a spiritual entity means anything other than a spiritual entity is not physical. This is because, in an atheist's mind, they can't imagine a God (or anything) beyond the physical.

Even the very context of the word "exist" has a different meaning for an atheist. The only "exist" they can comprehend is physical. If it isn't physical, it doesn't exist... ergo, God doesn't exist because God isn't physical.

This is because we live in the physical universe. Once you leave that behind, then all that matters is one's feelings. Once God becomes a "spiritual being" that does not require evidence, then whatever one feels is the correct image of God, is, in fact, the correct image of God. You can no more disprove the pagan's God, and Goddess than you can the pantheon of Hinduism, or the God of Islam. It is all equally possible, once you abandon the realm of reason, and evidence.

I prefer to remain rooted in the realm of reason.

 

[Czernobog]

Your personal attack aside, your conclusion lacks a logical foundation. You asked why the idea of killing 43 2nd graders would be universally considered evil. I merely pointed out the flaw in your question. What evidence do you have that the opinion is universal?

For the same reason robbing a bank would be universally considered wrong by all but the thieves. Obviously the perps and people too cowardly to take a moral stand on anything, would have a differing opinion. There is no flaw in my argument. The flaw is your relativism.

"By all but..." implies with their very words, that the moral principle is not universal. By definition, any principle that is universal would be held without exception. As soon as you are able to list exceptions, that negates the claim that the principle is universal.

Qualifier was made. You're struggling now with semantics. This is another popular device used by the alt-Left defending their perverted ideology.

Semantics, my ass. Universal, by definition, does not require a qualifier,. because there are no exceptions. That is kinda the meaning of universal.

I see your head is stuck so far up your sick ideology that it's no wonder you're unable to comprehend what's being said to you.

I understood perfectly what you are trying to say. The problem is that what you are trying to say is nonsense. "There are morals that are universal...except to those who don't agree with them..."

 

[Brynmr]

We teach our military that when they are trapped behind enemy lines to evade,escape, deny. These are the same tactics he uses here because he sees us as the enemy. He is not capable of having an honest discussion because he will not concede any thing no matter how overwhelming the argument is against him. He plays little games to create plausible deniability in his mind. His deceit is willful.

The alt-Left's willingness to use every cheap deceptive trick in the book to support their perverted ideology, is legend.

 

[Czernobog]

We teach our military that when they are trapped behind enemy lines to evade,escape, deny. These are the same tactics he uses here because he sees us as the enemy. He is not capable of having an honest discussion because he will not concede any thing no matter how overwhelming the argument is against him. He plays little games to create plausible deniability in his mind. His deceit is willful.

The alt-Left's willingness to use every cheap deceptive trick in the book to support their perverted ideology, is legend.

alt-left?!?! That's funny!

 

[sealybobo]

A good comparison between absolute morals versus relative morals would be abortion. We know it is wrong to unjustifiably end a human life. Everyone agrees with this. We also know from science that human life begins at conception when a genetically distinct new human being comes into existence. No one can argue against this scientific fact. Absolute morals would inform us that it is wrong to end this human life regardless of circumstance. Relative morals on the other hand require the dehumanization of this human life, to justify the ending of this it. It has been done in a variety of ways. We see this type of rationalization being made on almost every issue were there is a conflict between absolute and relative morals. In effect moral relativity surrenders to absolute morality because it needs to justify wrong as right.

Life just isn't that precious

I would say that life, especially beings that know and create, is the most precious gift in the universe. It is most certainly the rarest.

I think stars are the most amazing things. We come from stars that died and flung their guts into the universe long before our star was even born.

And every star probably has life surrounding it. Before earth it's possible Mars had life. And there may be life in europa

You will eventually discover that God knew your energy before space and time were created. Eastern religions have a belief that life is a forgetting and death is a remembering. I believe they are probably right.

You hope. Believe and hope are not the same