Listen man. Have you thought at all about what the word would be like if the preponderance of it’s citizens even attempted to operate their lives in the manner you have here suggested? I will say again. If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then all of life is meaningless. When we understood this as a nation we soared. Now that we don’t we’re dying a grotesque death. The fact that we don’t see this is a direct result of it being the case.
[quote]pat wrote:
[/quote]
If morality weren’t a real thing, then no one can do you any harm. So technically I could do anything I wanted to your or your family and it’s ok, because there is no morality. Any harm you therefore perceive is incorrect for I thought it was ok and therefore it is. If morality does not exist, I can do you no wrong. If morality does not exist, then nobody can do anybody any harm.
You haven’t been clear at all. You have been all over the place. Now you’re dragging emotion into the question. Who said anything about being happy? You can be delusionally happy for any reason at all, being happy does not make morality. You can be happy about being raped, that doesn’t make the rape morally justifiable.
But in your world there is no morality, so I take it anybody can sleep with your wife and there would be no harm to it, right? Any 'feeling’s you have about it are just therefore misplaced.
Anything goes. [/quote]
- Again, no. You are trying to equate morality with interpersonal relationships ( and the emotion “love”). If morality is non-existent and we live in a society, then we still have to obey the laws of that society. The laws are in place to protect the populace from the disruption of the herd, if people are allowed to plunder their neighbors home it would lead to anarchy, so whether or not you feel like taking your neighbors stuff laws prevent it. Laws and “morality” differ wildly by region, you may think something is immoral, yet it is perfectly legal (abortion for instance), however if you should try to perform an abortion on your neighbor because you knocked her up cheating on your wife (you sly dog) and she says "No’ and you try to do it anyway, you go to jail. See the conflict between morality and law. Abortion = Legal, abortion = immoral, forced abortion= illegal & immoral, needless to say it’s a puzzle.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Listen man. Have thought at all about what the word would be like if the preponderance of it’s citizens even attempted to operate their lives in the manner you have here suggested? I will say again. If there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then all of life is meaningless. When we understood this as a nation we soared. Now that we don’t we’re dying a grotesque death. The fact that we don’t see this is a direct result of it being the case.[/quote]
Tiribulus,
At no point do I say I am in favor of any of the “evil” things people do. In fact I feel very strongly that laws are in place to keep people in check. You must hate secular humanism and the idea that people are able to be good and decent without any deity watching over them, have you considered that allowing people the responsibility of determining their own morality makes them better and more productive people?
My brothers are both atheists (I am not), and a few years back we were in Ireland burying our mom, I mentioned that being an atheist seems like a pretty free and easy way to go, no concerns about a lake of fire etc. My older brother pointed out that for an atheist this life is all you get, so how you are remembered and what you do here is what is important. It sounds a bit hokey but I think it makes the point that “morality” is something we learn externally and process internally. for him making sure that his kids pass on the “your grandpa was awesome” stories outweighs the need for a “supra human court”, people don’t need god or religion or really anything but good role models to be good people.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
pat wrote:
If morality weren’t a real thing, then no one can do you any harm. So technically I could do anything I wanted to your or your family and it’s ok, because there is no morality. Any harm you therefore perceive is incorrect for I thought it was ok and therefore it is. If morality does not exist, I can do you no wrong. If morality does not exist, then nobody can do anybody any harm.
- Well that makes no sense. Harm and morality/immorality are not always directly related, even in your little thought bubbles. I suggest you first re-read what you have written then re-read what I wrote, then tell me where I say that doing harm to someone is okay. Even without morality, me kicking your ass up and down the road does you harm, even if I am doing it “morally” it can cause you harm. Morals are manufactured guidelines for society, fractured orbital bones are actual harm. Without “morality” as we see it today we still live in relatively close proximity to our neighbors, civility for the greater good still prevails (again based on our cultural norms.)
You haven’t been clear at all. You have been all over the place. Now you’re dragging emotion into the question. Who said anything about being happy? You can be delusionally happy for any reason at all, being happy does not make morality. You can be happy about being raped, that doesn’t make the rape morally justifiable.
But in your world there is no morality, so I take it anybody can sleep with your wife and there would be no harm to it, right? Any 'feeling’s you have about it are just therefore misplaced.
Anything goes.
- Again, no. You are trying to equate morality with interpersonal relationships ( and the emotion “love”). If morality is non-existent and we live in a society, then we still have to obey the laws of that society. The laws are in place to protect the populace from the disruption of the herd, if people are allowed to plunder their neighbors home it would lead to anarchy, so whether or not you feel like taking your neighbors stuff laws prevent it. Laws and “morality” differ wildly by region, you may think something is immoral, yet it is perfectly legal (abortion for instance), however if you should try to perform an abortion on your neighbor because you knocked her up cheating on your wife (you sly dog) and she says "No’ and you try to do it anyway, you go to jail. See the conflict between morality and law. Abortion = Legal, abortion = immoral, forced abortion= illegal & immoral, needless to say it’s a puzzle.
[/quote]
Ugh, reading your stuff is so painful. Bad, good, anarchy, protection, justification, laws, etc. are all non-existence without natural moral law. None of it exists, in the little fictional world you have created for yourself.
Let’s try this. Prove that morality does not exist, that it’s a man made construct. By ‘prove’ I mean, make a logical argument that actually proves your point. If you use examples, please make sure they have some relevance.
**Note: the train wreck picture is a metaphor of your arguments, or lack there of so far and what presume to soon be a train wreck assult on logic with your upcoming argument that morality is a man-made construct. The only thing, pushing you further into the rabbit hole is ego I can imagine. I don’t blame you, I am being a cocky fuck, but damn, your begging for it. It’s hard to resit. Besides, I have to gird myself with something. I have face-palmed so much in this thread, it’s left an imprint.
But go ahead, prove there is no such thing as morality… And pretty please, with sugar on top try to use some logic doing it.
Pat,
Can you prove morality is a “natural law”? If you raised a group of random one year old children in a habitat like you do monkeys, with no exposure to humans would they develop morals or would they act like animals?
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:<<< “evil” >>><<< good and decent <<<>>> better and more productive <<<>>> free <<<>>> <<<>>> “awesome” <<<>>> need <<<>>> good role models <<<>>> good people.[/quote]Without a supra human court beyond which there is no appeal none of these words have any meaning beyond the current disposition of the person on whose lips they are currently found.
That is good which brings glory and honor to the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. That is evil which offends and dishonors the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. Being such, He is alone qualified and authorized to command whatever we think, do or say and to exact consequence if we don’t. What we do in this life IS important indeed. It will follow us for all eternity. One more time.
Every last syllable I have typed in these forums, including the preceding, was boring mainstream publicly accepted truth when this country was launched. It no longer is and we are gurgling out our last expiring breaths as I type this. To Christians, like the ones who populated the church in the 17th to 19th centuries on this continent, this is so utterly fundamental as to simply be taken without saying.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,
Can you prove morality is a “natural law”? If you raised a group of random one year old children in a habitat like you do monkeys, with no exposure to humans would they develop morals or would they act like animals? [/quote]
No, I asked you first. You answer, then I will again answer this, since you missed it the dozen or so times I have already done this.
Pat,
so you have no answer? amazing. I should have just asked you this first.
Tell me when/where they will develop morality?
Do you know why we don’t charge a 5 year old as an adult when they commit a crime? Because they do not truly know wrong from right, they are incapable of this until society teaches them, we know this to be true so how do you expect this “Natural Law” to happen to these infants with no role modeling, no language, no teaching etc.?
That is good which brings glory and honor to the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. That is evil which offends and dishonors the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. Being such, He is alone qualified and authorized to command whatever we think, do or say and to exact consequence if we don’t. What we do in this life IS important indeed. It will follow us for all eternity. One more time.
Every last syllable I have typed in these forums, including the preceding, was boring mainstream publicly accepted truth when this country was launched. It no longer is and we are gurgling out our last expiring breaths as I type this. To Christians, like the ones who populated the church in the 17th to 19th centuries on this continent, this is so utterly fundamental as to simply be taken without saying.
[/quote]
-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. If you use religion as your basis for morality your argument is already damaged.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,
so you have no answer? amazing. I should have just asked you this first.
Tell me when/where they will develop morality?
Do you know why we don’t charge a 5 year old as an adult when they commit a crime? Because they do not truly know wrong from right, they are incapable of this until society teaches them, we know this to be true so how do you expect this “Natural Law” to happen to these infants with no role modeling, no language, no teaching etc.?
[/quote]
I have an answer. You don’t, if you will peruse the thread you will see it has already been answered, and repeated many times. You’re failure to read, or understand is your problem, not mine. If you wish to see, the proof is in the pudding go look through my previous posts in this thread. I have answered this question to pittbull and to you. You’re failure to grasp is your problem not mine.
Prove morality is a man made concept. This is your claim back it up. Then, and only then will I bother to repeat myself.
I have explained it on page 2, page 3, and through out. Starting on page 3 are the more detailed proofs. You can also look at what Kamui has written about it, if you don’t want to take my word for it.
I have fulfilled my burden many times over. Relativism denies reality, ignores the facts, and is plain flat wrong.
Now you have to prove it exists despite the overwhelming logical evidence to the contrary. I can only imagine that this perpetual avoidance to do so, is a tacit admision you are either wrong, or you don’t have shit. You aren’t going to succeed by consistently throwing red herrings in my face in order to avoid answering. All you have done is present red herrings, not one shred of logic either disproving the arguments I have supported, nor proving anything you are trying to claim. All you are doing is trying to divert. It’s weak, and I am not falling for it.
Either way, it’s time to put up, or shut up. Morality is man made? It’s not really real? PROVE IT
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. [/quote]
How can it do that when immorality is relative?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. [/quote]
How can it do that when immorality is relative?
[/quote]
OOPs, I forgot to " " it, I usually put “immoral” in quotes, but the idea is that the actions that are called “immoral” by religions are also being practiced by religions or were practiced by religions. Morality is man made but it doesn’t mean you can’t subscribe to a moral platform. My argument is more that morality is man made and not that it’s necessarily relative (although they do seem very similar).
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That is good which brings glory and honor to the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. That is evil which offends and dishonors the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. Being such, He is alone qualified and authorized to command whatever we think, do or say and to exact consequence if we don’t. What we do in this life IS important indeed. It will follow us for all eternity. One more time.
Every last syllable I have typed in these forums, including the preceding, was boring mainstream publicly accepted truth when this country was launched. It no longer is and we are gurgling out our last expiring breaths as I type this. To Christians, like the ones who populated the church in the 17th to 19th centuries on this continent, this is so utterly fundamental as to simply be taken without saying.
[/quote]-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. If you use religion as your basis for morality your argument is already damaged.[/quote]Are those your children in your avatar?[/quote]Please believe that I intend no ill or disrespect to you or your family by this line of discourse. You love them and you’re proud of them. As well you should be. Which is why they’re in your avatar.
I want you to tell the people reading this thread that you would consider it moral that your children (who are good lookin kids btw) be used as sex toys by a group of adults if only a sufficient percentage of the populous in which you lived found it to be so. As they begged in terrified pain for you to make it stop that you would tell them that Daddy is in no position to call something wrong that the majority of his neighbors do not. The cultural norm is for you to be treated like this and far be it from Daddy to impose his individual morality on a society that disagrees. Without wince inducing semantic contortion. Tell us that.
tiribulus,
yes they are.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. [/quote]
How can it do that when immorality is relative?
[/quote]
OOPs, I forgot to " " it, I usually put “immoral” in quotes, but the idea is that the actions that are called “immoral” by religions are also being practiced by religions or were practiced by religions. Morality is man made but it doesn’t mean you can’t subscribe to a moral platform. My argument is more that morality is man made and not that it’s necessarily relative (although they do seem very similar).[/quote]
Some of those things may not be immoral in that religion. The other things do not prove that a religion is ‘immoral,’ even if those things are judged to be immoral by the tenets of the religion. In fact, because those tenets exist for you to borrow, so that you might judge religions as ‘immoral,’ suggests that they are not. And, out of the two, I’d much rather have a system that has the tools to identify if it’s going/gone wrong, then one that can adopt whatever it needs on the fly to justify its actions.
Pat,
I read your definition of morality- “Simple, that which is evil is evil despite whether one thinks it is or not…What morality is, is inexpressible in language but actions demonstrate various aspects of morality”
- It is a very strange definition, like the famous quote “I can’t define pornography but I know it when I see it.” It is bullshit by the way, you can’t define something by saying it is undefinable. A natural law should be constant and immutable, neither of which define morality.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That is good which brings glory and honor to the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. That is evil which offends and dishonors the holy God who is the designer and maker of all. Being such, He is alone qualified and authorized to command whatever we think, do or say and to exact consequence if we don’t. What we do in this life IS important indeed. It will follow us for all eternity. One more time.
Every last syllable I have typed in these forums, including the preceding, was boring mainstream publicly accepted truth when this country was launched. It no longer is and we are gurgling out our last expiring breaths as I type this. To Christians, like the ones who populated the church in the 17th to 19th centuries on this continent, this is so utterly fundamental as to simply be taken without saying.
[/quote]-Unfortunately organized religion has proven its immorality over and over and over. If you use religion as your basis for morality your argument is already damaged.[/quote]Are those your children in your avatar?[/quote]Please believe that I intend no ill or disrespect to you or your family by this line of discourse. You love them and you’re proud of them. As well you should be. Which is why they’re in your avatar.
I want you to tell the people reading this thread that you would consider it moral that your children (who are good lookin kids btw) be used as sex toys by a group of adults if only a sufficient percentage of the populous in which you lived found it to be so. As they begged in terrified pain for you to make it stop that you would tell them that Daddy is in no position to call something wrong that the majority of his neighbors do not. The cultural norm is for you to be treated like this and far be it from Daddy to impose his individual morality on a society that disagrees. Without wince inducing semantic contortion. Tell us that.
[/quote]
Tiribulus,
I think I already answered this, so again… something being considered moral doesn’t make it so, that is the crux of my argument.
Plus there is this:
“far be it from Daddy to impose his individual morality on a society that disagrees”
- if I have my own morality why wouldn’t I act in a way commensurate with my beliefs? People constantly impose their “morality” on others, which is why we have crime, war etc. Just because someone says something is “moral” doesn’t make it so to anyone but them. If we all have different “moralities” it stands to reason that they can’t all be “Natural Laws” doesn’t it? Then you get down to the meat of the matter, which morality is right, well the obvious answer is “Mine” of course, much like you would say yours, or your church’s.