[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway your argument presupposes positive and negative outcomes, so circumlocute as you may, you are not going to be able to escape the fact that you have some idea of right and wrong. Arguing otherwise is stupidity, because you’ve already stated that if God would send someone to hell for engaging in homosexual activity he is a big meanie and you will take your toys and go home.
If you really believed in the squishy post-modern relative morality you purport to, you wouldn’t be so up in arms about God being all arbitrary about his judgments. Indeed, according to what you’ve just stated, the two of you are actually in accordance!
[/quote]
Post-modern relative morality? I am a moral nihilist. The only internally consistent form of morality is relative morality and since it’s relative, it’s pointless. It’s much more unambiguous to just describe what is going on and it’s affect on you.
For example, I could say “your God is immoral”, but this is non-cognitive so I instead say “I find your God to be cruel” which is a statement not dependent on a moral framework. [/quote]
Here:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No, they are very different. Burning your hand is tautologically painful, being gay or working on Sunday requires absolutely no pain or suffering unless some sadistic “God” is going to arbitrarily define these things as worth punishment. I mean, what if God decided that wearing shirts made of mixed fibers or eating shellfish was a sin? That would be ridiculous… wouldn’t it? [/quote]
Game’s up, bub.You’re getting tangled up in your own web of sophistry. You are in dire need of some context of your own, which explains your silly, narcissistic worldview.
So which is it? Is God “sadistic” and “arbitrary” in meting out punishment, or is it all supposed to be arbitrary in the first place, in which case God is just doing whatever he feels like?
You used the word “noble” in one of your first posts on this thread. How does that word even square with a “moral nihilist’s” worldview? Nobility assumes honor, which assumes a moral standard.
I’m not even close to done yet but are you sure you want to keep going?
[/quote]
… Are you delusional? These words don’t depend on a moral framework. I view your God as sadistic because he seems to receive joy from causing pain to others. This is a factual statement, not a moral statement. You CAN view sadism as immoral, but the word isn’t predicated on morality. =/
“Arbitrary” is a moral word? Seriously? To be honest, you’re the first person I’ve ever spoken to that considers “arbitrary” to be a moral word…
You’re putting the cart before the horse. These words have their own meanings, autonomous of morality.[/quote]
So let me get this straight. You are claiming that the word “arbitrary” does NOT assume a standard?
Do you even know what the word means? [/quote]
A “standard” and a “moral standard” are not the same thing. Don’t pretend like you don’t know that. [/quote]
Rest assured that I meant “moral standard.” Unlike you, I am not afraid of clear speaking because I have enough context in the form of experience, study, and discernment that I am secure in my convictions.
Referring to certain people being subjected to eternal torment for the choices they made in their lives, you said that God was “arbitrary” and you sarcastically used the word “noble,” earlier, as well, which I notice you left out of your earlier post. You CAN’T use these words in that context without referring to morality. Period. If you were logically consistent or capable of ever giving a single inch of territory, you would have the honor to admit this.
Instead though, your MO is to attempt to send your opponent on a wild goose chase by having him “define” terms instead of simply addressing his points. You add caveats and addendums to your every explanation, rending meaning from all important words until you have defined them out of existence. What we’re left with is a thin gruel of claptrap tediously spiced with ambiguity. Thus you protect yourself from any accountability, ever. Indeed I have yet to see you make a definitive statement about anything at all (calling yourself a “moral nihilist” is the opposite of definitive). You’re not a Christian, but you “never said” you were an atheist is your smug response when called out, of course without explaining what it is you actually are.
I know why that is, though. Because I know what you are, even if you don’t know yourself (and I suspect you don’t). You are a coward, afraid to take a firm stand on anything because you would then be held accountable and your decision would contain within itself the possibility that you might just fail. Don’t let it bother you too much, though. “Coward” is just a social construct, a product of current circumstances, at best problematic to society at large from a utilitarian viewpoint but ultimately nothing more than the symptom of a greater ill.
cough cough
I will say this, your idealism will not get you very far in the real world. It won’t serve you, even from a utilitarian point of view. Indeed it will ultimately work against you. It is about the least practical philosophy I’ve ever heard of, which is ironic in that it assumes that the only happiness to be had would come from a utilitarian/materialistic assessment of benefits and liabilities.
[/quote]
Paragraph by paragraph.
If you meant “moral standard” then you are wrong, plain and simple. The word arbitrary means “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.” << does this definition sound like it’s predicated on morality to you? Also, afraid of clear speaking? What am I unclear on? Just because I don’t have a black-and-white cookie cutter view on life doesn’t make it unclear. You find something unclear about me saying moral frameworks are a hollow construct used to describe (usually) utility and happiness? You can disagree with it, but this is not an ambiguous position. “Morality” is just the imposition of personal preferences into universal rules.
I ignored you bringing up the word “noble” before because I didn’t think you were serious. I mean, you even admit to understanding that I used the word sarcastically… that’s really all that needs to be said about that. =/
It’s worth pointing out that one can refer to something without outright accepting it. For example, you probably don’t believe in evolution. So, every time you refer to evolution, even if it’s only sarcastically, would it be logical for me to say that you therefore accept evolution? Obviously not. -_-
Wow. Are you honestly complaining that I asked you to define your terms? Never, in any debate I’ve been in OR seen has anybody actually complained because one party wanted to clarify the terms being used before proceeding… Would you rather I just make an assumption before addressing your points so we can spend 20+ pages blindly arguing, what would amount to, semantics?
If you’re so butt hurt that you can’t pin me down, then how about you stop with the assumptions and actually ask me what my positions are before launching into a tirade? You want to know my religious belief? Well none of you have actually asked, just assumed. And after seeing how quickly irrelevant information can get you written off on this thread can you blame me for not giving out any more information then absolutely necessary? You only have yourselves to blame.
Lol. I’m a “coward” for not answering questions nobody has asked? I’ve answered every question you have asked honestly. Even after saying I wasn’t atheist, nobody asked me what I was because you guys aren’t looking for what I think, rather, you’re trying to make me fit into your idea of what you want me to think. You guys are quickly becoming the whiniest people I’ve ever debated and I believe this is a big part of why.
… I’m not a utilitarian, just so we’re clear.[/quote]
LOL at your accusing me of making assumptions regarding your beliefs and in the same post assuming I do not “believe in” evolution. This highlights exactly what I am talking about. I have absolutely no problem with evolution. I am Catholic and my church is in no way fearful of honest scientific inquiry, indeed we welcome it. For all your intelligence, and you clearly are smart, your narcissism and impatience ultimately cloud your discernment of the truth. Go back through my posts. I haven’t assumed word one about you. I have asked question after question, attempting to squeeze blood from a stone, apparently, and I have observed your dialog with others.
Now, back to the semantic three card monty game you started earlier. I know exactly what arbitrary means. Again, stop assuming everyone else is stupid and wipe the drool from your own chin. When you use the word arbitrary in a manner that suggests a practice that is unfair, it ASSUMES A STANDARD FOR FAIRNESS MUST EXIST. This is why the idea of moral nihilism is so preposterous, because in the final assessment you are not even able to argue a position with any amount of certainty, and your assertions can never be any more or less good than anyone else’s. And if there happens to be a God and he has an assertion of his own, well, your assertion means jack shit compared to his, because he made the rules,(which can neither be fair, nor unfair, only “utilitarian constructs”) so he wins.
Trust me, there’s not butt-soreness going on here.The reason I haven’t asked you what your actual beliefs are is that I don’t care. You’ve already demonstrated that you’ve built your logical framework on a foundation of sand. I have no interest in suffering through another two foot long block of gibberish. Anyway your laughable definition of heaven and hell earlier on told me all I need to know about your “beliefs.”
[/quote]
You’ll do well to notice I didn’t say you definitely don’t believe in evolution, I said PROBABLY. And it was just an example to illustrate a point. This is what I’m talking about. You take relatively small things, twist them, them blow them entirely out of proportion. My point had nothing to do with whether you actually believe in evolution or not, you just chose to focus on that so you’d have something to complain about.
You know, when I originally talked about God arbitrarily defining homosexuality and working on the Sabbath to be sins I wasn’t talking about arbitrary vs. “fair”, I was talking about arbitrary vs. logical. In fact, now that I’ve looked back on what was said I see that in the very same post I mentioned God being arbitrary I specifically said that, “It isn’t a matter of “what is fair” relative to working on Sunday or being gay. That would be like me asking what is the fair way to treat people who work on Monday and are celibate?”
I actually went out of my way to tell you that by “arbitrary” I DON’T mean “as opposed to fair”.
I’m saying that these rules don’t seem to have any logical base. Why does God care if some of us are homosexual? What’s it to him? Why does God care if we work on Sunday? He took that day off (perhaps not literally) so now we’ll go to hell if we don’t do the same?