[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think if you believe in God , then you have to believe , he created the sciences as the operating system[/quote]
That is an interesting analogy. I like it.[/quote]
Science isn’t so much the operating system as it is the read-only viewer. Science isn’t reality, it’s a way of viewing it.[/quote]
Well that is true, but I was interpreting it as what I believe he meant which was that the objects of science…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
[/quote]
Yup, and it worked too 
Oh no, no weaseling here. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s all arbitrary based on societal norms that evolved from, uh, I guess thin ass air, in your case.
So then the answers is ‘yes’. Fucking your mom and making you watch is not a ‘bad thing’. Or would you prefer "Making loving’ or ‘Doing it’?
[/quote]
… I’m not “mad” because you said something and I got offended by it, It’s more like I’m annoyed that you pose a question where neither “yes” nor “no” are adequate answers, seemingly aware of this while you did it.
Yes, it’s not a “bad” thing, but it’s also not a “good” thing. It’s just a “thing”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, things have been smooth thus far. Though, I don’t think calling my world view a ‘philosophy’ by its own right is accurate. I outright reject the idea of labelling things as “good and evil” and instead withhold creating any judgement on a particular circumstance that is not the natural logical progression of said situations general utility given the situations context. If anything I would call my world view the lack of a philosophy, the “belief in non-belief” so to speak. [/quote]
That would be ‘utilitarianism’, not nihilism. [/quote]
But he’s “not a utilitarian, just so we’re clear.”
[/quote]
I am not sure he knows what he is. It sounds to me like he read some garbage from Nietzsche and has kind of adopted it as his own outlook, in lieu of actual experience. But experience will come and annihilate these notions. Pain has a nasty way of revising paradigms. It’s the ultimate neutralizer. You can only understand it, when you have experienced it.
Even Nietzsche couldn’t out smart his own reality, which sucked. He died a bitter, psychotic, piece of shit. [/quote]
What I said sounds very close to utilitarianism, but there’s something else to utilitarianism. A very subtle, yet incredibly important difference. Utilitarianism still depends on “should” statements. It’s still about deriving a universal rule from a personal preference. The “ought” from the “is”, so to speak. I used the word “utility”, but I said nothing about deriving a rule from this principle and I excluded the “good/evil” dichotomy. As soon as you do this, context takes a back seat.
For example, if one makes it a moral rule that a gain in net utility is good, and that which results in a net gain for a large amount of people is worth a net loss for an individual, then you’ve just justified gang rape. If you make no such rule, you can just look at the situation and see a few sick individuals in need of some kind of psychological analysis.
A utilitarian takes utility and makes a moral statement out of it. I look at utility just as utility.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
[/quote]
Yup, and it worked too
Oh no, no weaseling here. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s all arbitrary based on societal norms that evolved from, uh, I guess thin ass air, in your case.
So then the answers is ‘yes’. Fucking your mom and making you watch is not a ‘bad thing’. Or would you prefer "Making loving’ or ‘Doing it’?
[/quote]
… I’m not “mad” because you said something and I got offended by it, It’s more like I’m annoyed that you pose a question where neither “yes” nor “no” are adequate answers, seemingly aware of this while you did it.
Yes, it’s not a “bad” thing, but it’s also not a “good” thing. It’s just a “thing”.[/quote]
Bullshit, you got busted and you know it. Suck it up and cope.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Well, things have been smooth thus far. Though, I don’t think calling my world view a ‘philosophy’ by its own right is accurate. I outright reject the idea of labelling things as “good and evil” and instead withhold creating any judgement on a particular circumstance that is not the natural logical progression of said situations general utility given the situations context. If anything I would call my world view the lack of a philosophy, the “belief in non-belief” so to speak. [/quote]
That would be ‘utilitarianism’, not nihilism. [/quote]
But he’s “not a utilitarian, just so we’re clear.”
[/quote]
I am not sure he knows what he is. It sounds to me like he read some garbage from Nietzsche and has kind of adopted it as his own outlook, in lieu of actual experience. But experience will come and annihilate these notions. Pain has a nasty way of revising paradigms. It’s the ultimate neutralizer. You can only understand it, when you have experienced it.
Even Nietzsche couldn’t out smart his own reality, which sucked. He died a bitter, psychotic, piece of shit. [/quote]
What I said sounds very close to utilitarianism, but there’s something else to utilitarianism. A very subtle, yet incredibly important difference. Utilitarianism still depends on “should” statements. It’s still about deriving a universal rule from a personal preference. The “ought” from the “is”, so to speak. I used the word “utility”, but I said nothing about deriving a rule from this principle and I excluded the “good/evil” dichotomy. As soon as you do this, context takes a back seat.
For example, if one makes it a moral rule that a gain in net utility is good, and that which results in a net gain for a large amount of people is worth a net loss for an individual, then you’ve just justified gang rape. If you make no such rule, you can just look at the situation and see a few sick individuals in need of some kind of psychological analysis.
A utilitarian takes utility and makes a moral statement out of it. I look at utility just as utility.[/quote]
Uh no., simply an act or decisions value is determined by how many positive or negative outcomes reached a larger or smaller populous.
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You don’t have to have memorized the Bible to know what’s in it. You just have to have read it at least once.
I’ll demonstrate what I’m talking about by issuing a challenge: Please find the passage in the Bible that refers to not working on Sunday. Have fun. [/quote]
I know that the bible doesn’t specifically say “no Sunday labour”, it’s called the “Sabbath” and I know that some people say the Sabbath is Saturday, since that is the actual seventh day whereas Sunday is the first… the actual day itself is unimportant. The point is why does any such day need to be where working can earn you a spot in Hell?
[quote]
This is very keen insight, and I genuinely mean that. That word, “should” is VERY important to this discussion or any discussion of morality. We are going to return to it later. But first, part of the problem is that you insist upon applying your idea of what’s fair, and even what is “logical” to the acts in question. In other words, you would assume the role of God. But you are not God. You are TigerTime. If you are God, then you are good. Now I’m not saying you are bad by any means, or even that you are not a good guy. But if you are God, you are the very essence of good. You define “good.”
Now, because you define what is good (define here meaning “embody”), then what you will for your creation will NOT be arbitrary, but logical, as your will is a product of your nature. At the risk of pressing the point, since your nature is absolutely unadulterated, perfect goodness, then you will logically will for us to do good acts, which also must be good, as you could will nothing else. [/quote]
Does logic work differently in God’s head? Assuming objective morality then yes, God is free to make homosexual acts immoral, but why will for such a thing? Actually it looks like you get into that later in this post so I guess I’m heading there now…
[quote]
Before we proceed, you seem to imply that people go to hell just for being homosexual (if I’m wrong let’s just drop it as it’s not important to my ultimate point). This is not at all true according to almost any Christian denomination. The act of homosexuality falls under the category of fornication, and it is this that can get you in trouble. Understand, that puts homosexuality on equal footing with sex before marriage and adultery, to name a couple. [/quote]
Yes, by “homosexuals” I am referring to non-celibate homosexuals.
[quote]
Are you getting it yet? [/quote]
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[quote]
Well, here’s where that lovely, insightful word, “should” comes into play most importantly. If certain acts are cause for removal from God’s presence (as this is what Hell actually is), and if God is the essence of good, and could thereby will nothing that is not-good, then logically, not arbitrarily, that removal must necessarily be “fair.” It cannot be anything other than fair, definitionally.
Now just because YOU happen not to be able to see why certain acts are considered “bad” does not mean that they automatically become neutral or good.
That, my friend, is the forest. That careworn, dogeared old book that used to belong to your grandfather? It’s the map. [/quote]
This sounds suspiciously similar to “God works in mysterious ways…”
Then I suppose the question becomes; why is God such a being that homosexual acts separate one from him? Isn’t all sex a symbol of mankind’s separation from God? Why does God care if we are separate from him with a same sex partner vs. an opposite sex partner?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
[/quote]
Yup, and it worked too
Oh no, no weaseling here. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s all arbitrary based on societal norms that evolved from, uh, I guess thin ass air, in your case.
So then the answers is ‘yes’. Fucking your mom and making you watch is not a ‘bad thing’. Or would you prefer "Making loving’ or ‘Doing it’?
[/quote]
… I’m not “mad” because you said something and I got offended by it, It’s more like I’m annoyed that you pose a question where neither “yes” nor “no” are adequate answers, seemingly aware of this while you did it.
Yes, it’s not a “bad” thing, but it’s also not a “good” thing. It’s just a “thing”.[/quote]
Bullshit, you got busted and you know it. Suck it up and cope.[/quote]
Busted? Even if what you said offended me, are you saying it’s impossible to not want something to happen without labelling it immoral?
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh no., simply an act or decisions value is determined by how many positive or negative outcomes reached a larger or smaller populous.
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm
[/quote]
… Are you a utilitarian?
Great, so rule utilitarianism is slightly more consistent than act utilitarianism. It’s still far from perfect. The “regression argument” still applies to it, for example. Why “must” we do that which results in the most utility? The only honest answer I can see aside from “cus GAWD says so!” is “because it’s my (and other’s) personal preference.”
Well, great, but why do you feel the need to justify your preferences? Simply preferring to do things that result in the most utility is enough reason to do that which results in the most utility as far as I’m concerned. And by not making it a rule, you can not do that which results in the most utility for occasions where such an outcome is not preferred without the fear of being logically inconsistent.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hah. I just caught it.
Iago.
If you intended that, it was certainly clever. [/quote]
Hmm so you do know the story =)
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, baby, you have NOT read the Bible several times if AT ALL. That much is plainly obvious.
Rarely do I agree with Mak on PWI but he was dead-on correctomundo in regards to you speaking with forked tongue, Geronimo.[/quote]
I’ve read the bible twice in it’s entirety and then in bits and pieces since. I really don’t see what I’ve said that suggests I haven’t even read the book once… -_-
My guess is this is an accusation you guys make often simply to make your opponents out to be too ignorant to have a valid point.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
You don’t have to have memorized the Bible to know what’s in it. You just have to have read it at least once.
I’ll demonstrate what I’m talking about by issuing a challenge: Please find the passage in the Bible that refers to not working on Sunday. Have fun. [/quote]
I know that the bible doesn’t specifically say “no Sunday labour”, it’s called the “Sabbath” and I know that some people say the Sabbath is Saturday, since that is the actual seventh day whereas Sunday is the first… the actual day itself is unimportant. The point is why does any such day need to be where working can earn you a spot in Hell?
[/quote]
So you couldn’t find it, eh? Please refer to this post and refrain from pulling the victim card in the future when you are accused of not having read the Bible as you claimed.
On top of that, your question is answered in the very post you are responding to. More below.
[quote]
[quote]
This is very keen insight, and I genuinely mean that. That word, “should” is VERY important to this discussion or any discussion of morality. We are going to return to it later. But first, part of the problem is that you insist upon applying your idea of what’s fair, and even what is “logical” to the acts in question. In other words, you would assume the role of God. But you are not God. You are TigerTime. If you are God, then you are good. Now I’m not saying you are bad by any means, or even that you are not a good guy. But if you are God, you are the very essence of good. You define “good.”
Now, because you define what is good (define here meaning “embody”), then what you will for your creation will NOT be arbitrary, but logical, as your will is a product of your nature. At the risk of pressing the point, since your nature is absolutely unadulterated, perfect goodness, then you will logically will for us to do good acts, which also must be good, as you could will nothing else. [/quote]
Does logic work differently in God’s head? Assuming objective morality then yes, God is free to make homosexual acts immoral, but why will for such a thing? Actually it looks like you get into that later in this post so I guess I’m heading there now…
[quote]
Before we proceed, you seem to imply that people go to hell just for being homosexual (if I’m wrong let’s just drop it as it’s not important to my ultimate point). This is not at all true according to almost any Christian denomination. The act of homosexuality falls under the category of fornication, and it is this that can get you in trouble. Understand, that puts homosexuality on equal footing with sex before marriage and adultery, to name a couple. [/quote]
Yes, by “homosexuals” I am referring to non-celibate homosexuals.
[quote]
Are you getting it yet? [/quote]
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[quote]
Well, here’s where that lovely, insightful word, “should” comes into play most importantly. If certain acts are cause for removal from God’s presence (as this is what Hell actually is), and if God is the essence of good, and could thereby will nothing that is not-good, then logically, not arbitrarily, that removal must necessarily be “fair.” It cannot be anything other than fair, definitionally.
Now just because YOU happen not to be able to see why certain acts are considered “bad” does not mean that they automatically become neutral or good.
That, my friend, is the forest. That careworn, dogeared old book that used to belong to your grandfather? It’s the map. [/quote]
This sounds suspiciously similar to “God works in mysterious ways…”
Then I suppose the question becomes; why is God such a being that homosexual acts separate one from him? Isn’t all sex a symbol of mankind’s separation from God? Why does God care if we are separate from him with a same sex partner vs. an opposite sex partner?[/quote]
Are you serious? For all your eulogizing of logic one would think you’d acknowledge it when it is staring you in the face.
Either you did not understand the argument or you are being deliberately obtuse.
I presented the final point in the form of a syllogism.
Here it is one more time, typing slowly:
God, creator of all things, is good. He is the absolute, pure essence of good, and there is no part of him that is not good.
Because God’s essence is good, he could not, by definition, will any act that was not good. (please refrain from questioning God’s omnipotence here, as engaging in an act that was not good would make God something other than God. Remember, he is definitionally good.)
Therefore, any act God wills must also be good, because his will flows from his nature.
Therefore, what God has decreed morally good, being perfectly in accordance with his nature, is rational, NOT ARBITRARY.
Now, Hell is the state of separation from God.
Because acting in opposition to the will of God is acting in opposition to what is good, those who choose to act in opposition to God are FAIRLY and RATIONALLY sent to Hell. (I do not personally claim to know who is and who is not sent to Hell, for the record.)
That’s it. That’s the answer to your question. Don’t like it? Attack the premises. Find the flaw in the argument. But no more straw men about what is going on in God’s head and your not seeing the earthly consequences of certain so-called sins. Those are moot points. The reasoning is plain and clear and rational and, ahem, black and white. Indeed your own idea of heaven and hell is the capricious one, based solely on your own desires.
So either address the presented premises or admit you are just trolling.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hah. I just caught it.
Iago.
If you intended that, it was certainly clever. [/quote]
Hmm so you do know the story =)[/quote]
Shakespeare’s my main man, man. Othello is one my favorite plays, but I prefer King Lear, who, incidentally, said:
Nothing will come of nothing.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
For example, if one makes it a moral rule that a gain in net utility is good, and that which results in a net gain for a large amount of people is worth a net loss for an individual, then you’ve just justified gang rape. If you make no such rule, you can just look at the situation and see a few sick individuals in need of some kind of psychological analysis. [/quote]
No. Sorry. You can’t.
If you have no rules and there is no good or bad, you can’t even call these rapists “sick,” because that implies a value judgement (now you’ll try and explain how it doesn’t).
With the worldview you are proposing, the most you can hope to say about these guys is that they are doing what they are doing.
Period.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Uh no., simply an act or decisions value is determined by how many positive or negative outcomes reached a larger or smaller populous.
http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd/ethics/util.htm
[/quote]
… Are you a utilitarian?
Great, so rule utilitarianism is slightly more consistent than act utilitarianism. It’s still far from perfect. The “regression argument” still applies to it, for example. Why “must” we do that which results in the most utility? The only honest answer I can see aside from “cus GAWD says so!” is “because it’s my (and other’s) personal preference.”
Well, great, but why do you feel the need to justify your preferences? Simply preferring to do things that result in the most utility is enough reason to do that which results in the most utility as far as I’m concerned. And by not making it a rule, you can not do that which results in the most utility for occasions where such an outcome is not preferred without the fear of being logically inconsistent.
[/quote]
To apply one ethical philosophy to all circumstances is ignorant. Different circumstances require different approaches. In emergency situations it may be necessary to be utilitarian for you need to make the decision that has the best outcome for the most people. If you have time you may be able to take a utilitarian and Golden rule approach.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Ok, so can I like fuck your Mom and make you watch? After all, it’s not a ‘bad thing’?[/quote]
Behold, the championed “maturity” of my elders…[/quote]
Instead of weaseling out of answering yet again, why not entertain his question as logical exercise, however absurd it may appear?
Pat and I, at least, can answer with a simple “no.”[/quote]
He’s not asking for an answer, he’s just trying to irk me with this sort of nonsense.
[/quote]
Yup, and it worked too
Oh no, no weaseling here. There is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s all arbitrary based on societal norms that evolved from, uh, I guess thin ass air, in your case.
So then the answers is ‘yes’. Fucking your mom and making you watch is not a ‘bad thing’. Or would you prefer "Making loving’ or ‘Doing it’?
[/quote]
… I’m not “mad” because you said something and I got offended by it, It’s more like I’m annoyed that you pose a question where neither “yes” nor “no” are adequate answers, seemingly aware of this while you did it.
Yes, it’s not a “bad” thing, but it’s also not a “good” thing. It’s just a “thing”.[/quote]
Bullshit, you got busted and you know it. Suck it up and cope.[/quote]
Busted? Even if what you said offended me, are you saying it’s impossible to not want something to happen without labelling it immoral? [/quote]
Yep busted. It got your gourd, it was meant to.
I wouldn’t over analyze it to much. I’d friggin kill anyone who tried to hurt my mother… It’s a natural protective response.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tig, baby, you have NOT read the Bible several times if AT ALL. That much is plainly obvious.
Rarely do I agree with Mak on PWI but he was dead-on correctomundo in regards to you speaking with forked tongue, Geronimo.[/quote]
I’ve read the bible twice in it’s entirety and then in bits and pieces since. I really don’t see what I’ve said that suggests I haven’t even read the book once… -_-
My guess is this is an accusation you guys make often simply to make your opponents out to be too ignorant to have a valid point. [/quote]
Saying ignorant ass shit like this:
"I know that the bible doesn’t specifically say “no Sunday labour”, it’s called the “Sabbath” and I know that some people say the Sabbath is Saturday, since that is the actual seventh day whereas Sunday is the first… the actual day itself is unimportant. The point is why does any such day need to be where working can earn you a spot in Hell? "
Makes it difficult to believe you know anything about the bible you haven’t picked up on www.athiestcirclejerk.org.
The bible makes no mention of Saturday Sabbath either, nor did it ever make mention of anyone violating it going to hell. Don’t believe me?
Give me the book and verse and I will email you a cookie.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?
So is that it, T2?
Or are you just taking a TigerTime-Out?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
No… I still don’t see the logical justification for sending homosexuals to Hell.
[/quote]
Uh, where in the bible does it say homosexuals are going to hell?[/quote]YEAH, WHAT IDIOT THOUGHT THAT UP?!??!! Tell em Patty.