Yikes, sky dad...morals are absolute, though

[ding]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

 

[G.T.]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

 

[ding]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

 

[G.T.]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

 

[ding]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

 

[G.T.]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

yeah, useless because its self evident and nobody needs it spewed weirdo

 

[ding]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

 

[ding]

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

yeah, useless because its self evident and nobody needs it spewed weirdo

But you believe morals can be anything we want them to be, GT. That morals are relative and not absolute. That just isn't the case.

 

[G.T.]

So when a comet smashes into a planet and destroys everything, the comet is immoral?

Morality does not exist outside of agency

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

 

[G.T.]

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

yeah, useless because its self evident and nobody needs it spewed weirdo

But you believe morals can be anything we want them to be, GT. That morals are relative and not absolute. That just isn't the case.

Dont tell me what I believe first off...just ask.

The op clearly states that Im with Harris. He bases morals on the concept of suffering. In short, and not doing it clear justice, a moral choice is that which leads to the least suffering of cognitive beings.

 

[ding]

No, neither is the earth's core going cold one day or the sun going supernova one day or even death itself.

Moral laws apply to moral beings and the behavior of moral beings. As people we make choices and perform actions. Those choices have consequences. The outcomes of those consequences are probabilistic in nature, but taken as whole they provide us with feedback on our choices and actions. Viewed objectively we can see that certain behaviors lead to better outcomes than others. It doesn't matter what we think is right because right is. Right exists on its own. That's why societies that behave with virtue are more orderly and harmonious than societies that behave without it. It is the natural order because it exists independent of man. Man does not decide what is right. Man discovers what is right.

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

 

[ding]

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

yeah, useless because its self evident and nobody needs it spewed weirdo

But you believe morals can be anything we want them to be, GT. That morals are relative and not absolute. That just isn't the case.

Dont tell me what I believe first off...just ask.

The op clearly states that Im with Harris. He bases morals on the concept of suffering. In short, and not doing it clear justice, a moral choice is that which leads to the least suffering of cognitive beings.

I've had more than enough "discussions" with you on this subject to know your beliefs on moral relativity, GT.

Am I wrong? Do you believe morals are absolute? Or relative? That they can be anything we say they are?

 

[G.T.]

I dont like your posts because theyre usually tautological and go without saying. That was 99% of this one.

In the post before it, you said morals exist outside of humans. All I did was hone that language and corrected it to say that morals do not exist outside of thinking agents, hence the comet analogy. Morals are conceptual, not metaphysical.

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

 

[G.T.]

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

yeah, useless because its self evident and nobody needs it spewed weirdo

But you believe morals can be anything we want them to be, GT. That morals are relative and not absolute. That just isn't the case.

Dont tell me what I believe first off...just ask.

The op clearly states that Im with Harris. He bases morals on the concept of suffering. In short, and not doing it clear justice, a moral choice is that which leads to the least suffering of cognitive beings.

I've had more than enough "discussions" with you on this subject to know your beliefs on moral relativity, GT.

Am I wrong? Do you believe morals are absolute? That they can be anything we say they are?

You dont know what I believe even though you just quoted it. The brilliant conversationalist, aka waste of anyones fuggin time. Again and again.

 

[ding]

Your failure to comprehend what I am saying is not my fault. You make too many assumptions which are wrong. I usually just ask when I'm not sure.

The reality is that you can't actually find an error with anything I say. You just find perceived errors in how I say it.

Your argument that my posts are tautological is bullshit. I walked you through my reasoning in a simple, orderly and logical fashion. Show me where my logic was wrong. You can't.

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

 

[ding]

tautology - Dictionary Definition

Tautology is useless restatement, or saying the same thing twice using different words.

yeah, useless because its self evident and nobody needs it spewed weirdo

But you believe morals can be anything we want them to be, GT. That morals are relative and not absolute. That just isn't the case.

Dont tell me what I believe first off...just ask.

The op clearly states that Im with Harris. He bases morals on the concept of suffering. In short, and not doing it clear justice, a moral choice is that which leads to the least suffering of cognitive beings.

I've had more than enough "discussions" with you on this subject to know your beliefs on moral relativity, GT.

Am I wrong? Do you believe morals are absolute? That they can be anything we say they are?

You dont know what I believe even though you just quoted it. The brilliant conversationalist, aka waste of anyones fuggin time. Again and again.

You didn't say I was wrong, GT. Was I wrong?

 

[G.T.]

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

bye, ding. have a blessed saturday im moving my brother

 

[hobelim]

Anyway anyone who may subscribe to one or another of those beliefs is already living in their own hologram completed disconnected from and unrelated to actual reality which to them

Which is pretty much what any magical thinker says about all other magical thinkers who share differing magical beliefs.

Some people believe in things that never actually happened, have no idea about what is actually taking place and have hope and expectations for things that will never occur.

One person does not have to be a magical thinker to notice that another person who maintains irrational beliefs in their head is living within parameters and according to perceptions that create a false reality.

In your own self programmed hologram anyone who finds something of value in writings that you have dismissed as magical bullshit has to be a magical thinker because in your magical world you are the smartest person and any revelation that suggests otherwise will cause your own imaginary reality to crash like a flawed computer program written by a moron.


Thats why you still can't admit that there are teachings of great value hidden in those stories. If you did, you would have to go back to the drawing board and apparently, just like anyone religious person in a state of cognitive dissonance, you have chosen to hide behind obstinate stupidity because you lack honesty and are just too much of a coward, terrified that your petty little world will fall apart.

 

[night_son]

Just wanted to thank you both for an excellent read. Having read the entire conversation as an uninvolved though not impartial observer, allow me to commend each of you for the running imagery of the two of you evolving each other through the facets of your highly entertaining disagreements. I believe you have taught each other extensively.

G.T.

You seek a true believer? My take on God's moral fluidity is much different from your own yet quite simple: God is God. That is it. For this true believer typing words to you on the internet God's moral choices do not dictate my own rather it's his words and actions, kinda; I'm human he is God he can do whatever without my approval 'cause I am the created not the creator. He's infallible. I can't know/comprehend/see all of what he might be; maybe someday.

See God is more a do as I say not as I do kind of entity and I accept that. I can take his moral fluidity or situational application as not relative because I do not apply his actions as dictate or much more importantly examples I should follow in my own daily existence. Do you follow?

In my belief system or interpretation thereof God can commit genocide all day, even though I inherently know it is wrong to do so because God created me to live as peacefully as can with others of my kind--all of mankind. However, much like God--and this is a huge personal takeaway--all behaviors become conditional when faced with situations such as survival of family, children, society, temptation etc. so we're right back to distinctions and contradictions and grey areas. Been pondering them some decades now.

I see that you are searching hard for answers to what is ultimate good and evil and why God does specific things and why Christians believe and/or teach tenets you might find contradictory to what our God does. Why burn a fellow human at the stake you might ask? How could a so-called Christian empire do such a thing? Is it because God could also do as he pleased in the moment so men follow suit?

I would say absolutely not. It's a conversation for another thread but I believe I've just rolled into socio-political dynamics from ancient times up and that really does not fit into a God's behavior discussion like you might think. We mortal men are at our worst when trying to edit the behaviors of large herds of our own kind.

Burnings at the stake had nothing to do with God and everything to do with men playing at being God in order to control a large populace. That and because men almost always get between God and his message (super important). Men want to be IT. They want to lead and be important and claim to hear God's voice when really its almost always ego talking or so I hope.

Good luck in your search . . .

 

[hobelim]

tautologicaL means true, dumbass. jesussss christ

Morals are not constructs, GT. They exist in and of themselves. If they were constructs they could be anything we construct them to be. Outcomes prove they are not anything we want them to be.

morals are not concepts? they exist in and of themsevles? in what form??

Laws of nature. Which in the context of this discussion are laws which govern the behaviors and actions of moral beings. Which in the context of this discussion are beings that have knowledge of good and evil.

i tried to describe the concept of descriptive vs prescriptive to you before and im not trying that again.

this is where i buh bye you, again.

Morals are prescriptive because we don't get to decide what is right and wrong. Right and wrong exist as an absolute which means we don't get to decide. We only get to discover.

You play word games more than anyone I know. Speak in english, dude.

Is it right or wrong to claim that God became a man? Is it right or wrong to worship the work of human hands?

Is it right or wrong to seek spiritual life from God by eating something made by human hands that has no life and is not God?

Is it right or wrong to teach others that the way to eternal life is defiantly doing that with God has promised results in death?