Claiming Moral Authority

DrSkeptix · November 7, 2012, 5:31am

[quote]pat wrote:

Both keep track of time, which ultimately is the point, so they are relevant to each other, as if you follow one over the other, then things do not line up cleanly.

When when I said moved, I meant around the days of the week, not the days themselves. Fixed calender days move around the days of the week.[/quote]

I think I understand you, but things do line up, for centuries. The dates may change–the 14th of Nissan is not always a Monday, nor is it always April 22–but Saturday is always Saturday. Sabbath is always Sabbath, it does not move by a recount. Even when the Roman calendars added extra days, the days of the week reverted to the familiar named days of the week. For example, the Hebrew-Babylonian calendar respects a 19 year cycle wherein a leap month is added periodically, but days of the week remain unchanged in name and sequence.

Here is your confusion:

[quote]pat wrote:

For instance, if you put in the 14th of Nissan in a Gregorian calendar converter you get:
14th of Nisan, 5773 = Mon, 25 March 2013

If the 14th of Nissan is a fixed Sabbath day, it’s a Monday.
[/quote]

Edit: The confusion I caused is where I meant to say that “the 14th of Nisan will occasionally and predictably fall on a Saturday.” (Meaning predictably, but not always.)

The 14th of Nisan is not a fixed date according to the Gregorian calendar; it is determined by the new moon preceding the vernal eqinox. NO relation whatsoever to Gregorian calendars. In the use of the religious term, the Passover of Nisan 14 is a cessation, a shabat from work and and usual activity. But it is not a Sabbath unless it starts on a Friday night–Shabat.

DrSkeptix · November 7, 2012, 2:05am

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…no one, that is, with the sole exceptions of Magellan and his crew.

[/quote]

In the interests of impeccable accuracy that should be, “Magellan’s crew.” What was left of it, that is.[/quote]

Well then, Magellan was killed at the Battle of Mactan, Phillipines, 27 April 1521–by his reckoning. However, Mactan clearly lies to the west of what would become the International Dateline, so he would have been unaware that he had “lost a day” by traveling west. I do not know if the day he died was a Wednesday, as we mark it, or a Tuesday, as he thought it, but it definitely was not a peripatetic Sabbath, as Pat might have it.[/quote]

It’s interesting that when the 18 members of Magellan’s crew straggled into Seville after having been given up for dead that in spite of the tremendous hardships and length of time at sea their timekeeping was impeccable - except for the fact that they did not foresee the necessity for the International Date Line concept.

By the way, Magellan did an awful lot of morality claiming on that voyage.[/quote]

The Victoria’s landfalls in the Atlantic in1522:
July 9: Reaching Santiago, Cape Verde.
September 6: Victoria returns to Sanlucar, completing the circumnavigation.
September 8: Victoria arrives at Seville.

As it turns out, July 9 was a Sunday. When the crew of the VIctoria arrived in Santiago, they were confused: they thought it was a Saturday July 8, and the city should have been busy with people. But it was in fact a Sunday, and the city was empty.
So our friend Pat is not the only person in history to have confused his Sabbaths!

(Try William Manchester, A World Lit Only by Fire.)

pittbulll · November 7, 2012, 10:27am

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]

OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]

And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]

the opposite of bad ?

[/quote]

And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]

IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas
[/quote]

And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]

No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?

pittbulll · November 7, 2012, 10:29am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

No I feel Rape, Murder and slavery are wrong. I am not sure what you want
[/quote]

Why are they wrong?[/quote]

I am not sure what you want , but here is your fodder , they are wrong because they hurt another[/quote]

Correct, how then could that be based on personal preference, or relative to how you feel about something? You’re personal morality cannot trump the results of your decisions. Simpy deciding something isn’t bad doesn’t make it, not bad. [/quote]

WTF

pat · November 7, 2012, 5:16pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

No I feel Rape, Murder and slavery are wrong. I am not sure what you want
[/quote]

Why are they wrong?[/quote]

I am not sure what you want , but here is your fodder , they are wrong because they hurt another[/quote]

Correct, how then could that be based on personal preference, or relative to how you feel about something? You’re personal morality cannot trump the results of your decisions. Simpy deciding something isn’t bad doesn’t make it, not bad. [/quote]

WTF[/quote]

I don’t get it, where’d I lose you?

pat · November 7, 2012, 5:23pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]

OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]

And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]

the opposite of bad ?

[/quote]

And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]

IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas
[/quote]

And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]

No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?
[/quote]

The sure sign of a floundering argument without hope are comments like this. Pitt, you’ve painted yourself into a corner. No need to get all ugly about it. You’re the one who started with the ridiculous relative morality crap. You’re called and you have no answer, it’s that simple. Either that, or prove your claim.

hungry4more · November 8, 2012, 4:02am

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]

OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]

And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]

the opposite of bad ?

[/quote]

And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]

IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas
[/quote]

And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]

No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?
[/quote]

Pittbull, the point is, obviously, a serial killer, for example, doesn’t believe the same way as you. Why is your premise of not hurting others right, and his of “Do whatever I feel like doing” wrong? If there IS, in fact, some higher code of right and wrong, good and bad, one of you IS wrong. How can you be so sure you’re in the right? Or are you?

Dude, I get that these sound like stupid basic questions. They are basic, but absolutely necessary to ask. Simple =/= stupid.

pittbulll · November 8, 2012, 12:25pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

No I feel Rape, Murder and slavery are wrong. I am not sure what you want
[/quote]

Why are they wrong?[/quote]

I am not sure what you want , but here is your fodder , they are wrong because they hurt another[/quote]

Correct, how then could that be based on personal preference, or relative to how you feel about something? You’re personal morality cannot trump the results of your decisions. Simpy deciding something isn’t bad doesn’t make it, not bad. [/quote]

WTF[/quote]

I don’t get it, where’d I lose you?[/quote]

The whole statement makes no sense, the best statement I can get out of it is “Simpy deciding something isn’t bad doesn’t make it, not bad.” ? This is even a double negative

pittbulll · November 8, 2012, 12:26pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]

OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]

And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]

the opposite of bad ?

[/quote]

And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]

IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas
[/quote]

And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]

No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?
[/quote]

The sure sign of a floundering argument without hope are comments like this. Pitt, you’ve painted yourself into a corner. No need to get all ugly about it. You’re the one who started with the ridiculous relative morality crap. You’re called and you have no answer, it’s that simple. Either that, or prove your claim.[/quote]

You will have to excuse me , I some times get caught in trying to converse with people that have no interest in conversing . IMO they are trolling

pittbulll · November 8, 2012, 12:31pm

Remember Pat this is not opinion I asked for proof

pat · November 8, 2012, 5:30pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Remember Pat this is not opinion I asked for proof [/quote]

First, I provided the logical argument that makes it true. If you cannot tell the difference I cannot help you. I have proven that morality exists outside the human mind, in that good or evil does not reside there. If it did, anything could be good and anything could be evil, depending on how you feel about it. Clearly that is not the case. If it were, there would be no good or evil, there would just be actions that irrelevant with regards to their affect. That is not opinion, that is fact. The evidence that it is fact is in the attempt to prove it wrong. I cannot help you determine fact from opinion. That’s something you have to figure out on your own.

I can say the Declaration of Independence was signed July 4,1776, you can simply say, well that’s your opinion, but that doesn’t make it so.

Second, I have asked you to prove your moral relativity theory and you haven’t even tried. I can only imagine the reason is you cannot.
You just keep saying things are wrong and then you run into these land mines where it breaks down completely and still refuse to accept the fact that moral relativity is a logical impossibility. That’s not opinion, it’s a fact. You cannot make something moral by sheer will of desire. You can choose to be moral or immoral, but you cannot choose what is moral or immoral, period.

pat · November 8, 2012, 5:47pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

No I feel Rape, Murder and slavery are wrong. I am not sure what you want
[/quote]

Why are they wrong?[/quote]

I am not sure what you want , but here is your fodder , they are wrong because they hurt another[/quote]

Correct, how then could that be based on personal preference, or relative to how you feel about something? You’re personal morality cannot trump the results of your decisions. Simpy deciding something isn’t bad doesn’t make it, not bad. [/quote]

WTF[/quote]

I don’t get it, where’d I lose you?[/quote]

The whole statement makes no sense, the best statement I can get out of it is “Simpy deciding something isn’t bad doesn’t make it, not bad.” ? This is even a double negative [/quote]

It was supposed to be. I’m seriously not getting where your lost.

pittbulll · November 9, 2012, 11:40am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Remember Pat this is not opinion I asked for proof [/quote]

First, I provided the logical argument that makes it true. If you cannot tell the difference I cannot help you.

[/quote]

I will agree with you that you can not help me with your opinion that morals are fixed and never change . I still belive morals are not fixed , they are molded by pressures on society.

I will say some morals have stood the test of time

pat · November 9, 2012, 5:41pm

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Remember Pat this is not opinion I asked for proof [/quote]

First, I provided the logical argument that makes it true. If you cannot tell the difference I cannot help you.

[/quote]

I will agree with you that you can not help me with your opinion that morals are fixed and never change . I still belive morals are not fixed , they are molded by pressures on society.

I will say some morals have stood the test of time
[/quote]

Prove it.

BrianHanson · November 9, 2012, 7:43pm

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]

OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]

And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]

the opposite of bad ?

[/quote]

And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]

IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas
[/quote]

And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]

No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?
[/quote]

The sure sign of a floundering argument without hope are comments like this. Pitt, you’ve painted yourself into a corner. No need to get all ugly about it. You’re the one who started with the ridiculous relative morality crap. You’re called and you have no answer, it’s that simple. Either that, or prove your claim.[/quote]

moral relativism is a tough argument to win or lose. 1500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were the norm in the bulk of the world, 150 years ago our own super evolved nation had slavery. Right now in parts of the world “honor killings” are accepted and believed to be the will of god.

Morals are not constant, good and bad (or evil if you prefer) will be different 100 years from now, trying to develop a permanent moral code is a waste of time. We develop laws for safety (don’t steal, kill, assault, rape etc) but telling people what to feel or think is ridiculous.

pat · November 9, 2012, 7:55pm

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
^

Lol, if you’re anything like what you post, I don’t doubt it. I guess what I meant is that I don’t know where you think good and bad comes from and if you think there are some acts that are bad no matter who, what, or when. [/quote]

OK:) I do not think bad comes from any where . I think bad is the opposite of good :)[/quote]

And what’s “good?” What you say is good?[/quote]

the opposite of bad ?

[/quote]

And what’s “bad?” What you say is bad?[/quote]

IMO the definitions of good and bad are the largest two categories that encompass reality besides the grey areas
[/quote]

And who defines the definitions of “good” and “bad?” You?[/quote]

No I let Satan , where the fuck you get these questions your 2 year old kid ?
[/quote]

The sure sign of a floundering argument without hope are comments like this. Pitt, you’ve painted yourself into a corner. No need to get all ugly about it. You’re the one who started with the ridiculous relative morality crap. You’re called and you have no answer, it’s that simple. Either that, or prove your claim.[/quote]

moral relativism is a tough argument to win or lose. 1500 years ago slavery and human sacrifice were the norm in the bulk of the world, 150 years ago our own super evolved nation had slavery. Right now in parts of the world “honor killings” are accepted and believed to be the will of god.

Morals are not constant, good and bad (or evil if you prefer) will be different 100 years from now, trying to develop a permanent moral code is a waste of time. We develop laws for safety (don’t steal, kill, assault, rape etc) but telling people what to feel or think is ridiculous. [/quote]

Not it’s not a tough argument to lose, it’s a losing argument. The point is as in your example, slavery and human sacrifice were still immoral even if accepted. Can you logically make an argument that these practices were morally good simply because they were accepted?

Moral relativism has been debunked for centuries. At least the last two. The act, being moral or immoral is NOT based on acceptance.

This is very amateurish reasoning. Well people did it, so it must have been good at the time? Really? Ask the slaves what they thought? The problem with relativism is it disregards the victim. The victim is irrelevant when the moral system is relative. so you technically have to make the case that some people’s personal values are more important than another’s. Good luck with that one, because in the end you’ff find yourself justify the most evil of actions.

The third Reich with the support of the German people thought it was a damn good idea to rid themselves of Jews, Gays, Catholic and various assortment of undesirables. In a morally reltive system, this is ok. It is morally just.

Let’s see you make that argument. Go on, this ought to be good.

For crying out loud I wish people would think sometimes.
The only impetus I can see for advocating a case for moral relativism is so that one can justify their own abominations. You don’t have to be a better person, you can just will your own evil to be right. Simple but wrong.

hungry4more · November 10, 2012, 12:14am