The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2011, 04:52:43 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-leaves-god-thanksgiving-speech-riles-critics-173023786.html
::)
-
How evil.
He truly is a devil.
::)
-
As a black women I kick myself everyday because i voted for obama never again will i listen to brainwashed democratic plantation blacks. Im free now and im voting republican 2012
-
As a black women I kick myself everyday because i voted for obama never again will i listen to brainwashed democratic plantation blacks. Im free now and im voting republican 2012
lol, the comments on that article are horrible.
-
Fuck thanking God. Instead, why not take the time thank my parents, my friends, my teachers, my local law enforcement officials and firefighters, and so on? People who matter. People who are real.
Obama, please learn to give thanks to the one who really matters. Your invisible friend who you praise when things go your way, but seem to excuse when things do not. Do that. Forget everyone else. Did you pray to mommy and daddy for that new bicycle you wanted, or God? Exactly. Score one for God.
-
sososososososo silly. Incredibly silly. Outrageously silly.
We need an atheist (a calm atheist not one of those bitter ones) as president.
-
sososososososo silly. Incredibly silly. Outrageously silly.
We need an atheist (a calm atheist not one of those bitter ones) as president.
Never going to happen.
The Republican machine is so powerful that any president who claimed to not believe in God or NOT be a Christian (or variation thereof) would be buried under ads such as
"How can we rely on an immoral, godless person to lead us?"
And
"Our motto is 'in God we Trust' So how can we trust someone who doesn't trust God?"
-
$10 bucks say that the majority of those comments are republicans or people paid by said republicans to spam.
-
Amazing. No one noticed the spam bot.
-
sososososososo silly. Incredibly silly. Outrageously silly.
We need an atheist (a calm atheist not one of those bitter ones) as president.
Fuck that, we need a militant agnostic.
-
Amazing. No one noticed the spam bot.
I think it's a republican funded spam bot designed to find stories about Obama and then write something negative about it in the hopes of making us think that most people don't like him for this.
-
sososososososo silly. Incredibly silly. Outrageously silly.
We need an atheist (a calm atheist not one of those bitter ones) as president.
I honestly don't care if the leader of the country is religious or not, so long as they act along secular lines and don't try to force religiosity on the government.
DEIT: And if they follow similar political values to myself. I'd rather have a pious Clement Atlee as Prime Minister than an atheistic Margaret Thatcher.
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
Because without the objective morality imposed by God, morality becomes completely subjective. Which means people would be able to choose their own morals. Which means rampant murder, rape, prostitution, drugs, theft, etc.
-
Must...not...feed...trolls...
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
Because without the objective morality imposed by God, morality becomes completely subjective. Which means people would be able to choose their own morals. Which means rampant murder, rape, prostitution, drugs, theft, etc.
what is a laws
-
sososososososo silly. Incredibly silly. Outrageously silly.
We need an atheist (a calm atheist not one of those bitter ones) as president.
Fuck that, we need a militant agnostic.
(http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o318/Lathandus/Sup.jpg)
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
Because without the objective morality imposed by God, morality becomes completely subjective. Which means people would be able to choose their own morals. Which means rampant murder, rape, prostitution, drugs, theft, etc.
How can God be objective? The entire basis of his morality is "do what I tell you".
Not only does he not follow his own rules, he doesn't even enforce his morality.
I declare that God's morality is subjective!
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
Because without the objective morality imposed by God, morality becomes completely subjective. Which means people would be able to choose their own morals. Which means rampant murder, rape, prostitution, drugs, theft, etc.
How can God be objective? The entire basis of his morality is "do what I tell you".
Not only does he not follow his own rules, he doesn't even enforce his morality.
I declare that God's morality is subjective!
It's pretty fucking objective for us when we don't need to think shit about what's right.
But then again, what is a laws
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
Because without the objective morality imposed by God, morality becomes completely subjective. Which means people would be able to choose their own morals. Which means rampant murder, rape, prostitution, drugs, theft, etc.
How can God be objective? The entire basis of his morality is "do what I tell you".
Not only does he not follow his own rules, he doesn't even enforce his morality.
I declare that God's morality is subjective!
God Himself is not objective, but as His will is the Absolute will, His morality is the Absolute morality. It is therefore objective from our perspective.
what is a laws
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
No, objective morality creates laws.
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
No, objective morality creates laws.
This is nonsense and you are nonsense I bid you adieu sir
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
No, objective morality creates laws.
This is nonsense and you are nonsense I bid you adieu sir
So the creation of laws is an entirely arbitrary process, then? ???
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
No, objective morality creates laws.
This is nonsense and you are nonsense I bid you adieu sir
So the creation of laws is an entirely arbitrary process, then? ???
No, they're created upon the principle of the social contract where
a) it is ensured that people have some inherent rights
b) it is ensured that people cannot remove those rights from other people
It's based on mutual agreement, not an objective force.
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
No, objective morality creates laws.
This is nonsense and you are nonsense I bid you adieu sir
So the creation of laws is an entirely arbitrary process, then? ???
No, they're created upon the principle of the social contract where
a) it is ensured that people have some inherent rights
b) it is ensured that people cannot remove those rights from other people
It's based on mutual agreement, not an objective force.
How could there be mutual agreement without objective morality?
-
A laws is the imposition of the objective morality onto a group of people. Obviously if objective morality didn't exist, laws couldn't either (leading to the consequences stated above).
But laws create objective morality. ???
No, objective morality creates laws.
This is nonsense and you are nonsense I bid you adieu sir
So the creation of laws is an entirely arbitrary process, then? ???
No, they're created upon the principle of the social contract where
a) it is ensured that people have some inherent rights
b) it is ensured that people cannot remove those rights from other people
It's based on mutual agreement, not an objective force.
How could there be mutual agreement without objective morality?
With a unison of people with subjective views wanting to secure their own inherent rights.
In fact, there is no morality without a social contract, because with absolute freedom, good and bad are meaningless.
-
Screw Locke and his retrobutional style of government. That's so unChristian.
-
Fuck thanking God.
Irony?
-
God Himself is not objective, but as His will is the Absolute will, His morality is the Absolute morality. It is therefore objective from our perspective.
But God's words (which translate his morality) is rather subjective. Let's take a look at the 10 commandments.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- So does this mean we can have other Gods below you? And equal to you?
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
-Does this mean clouds? Rocks? plants? Animals? Fungus? Fish? etc...
I mean, does this mean that we can't make any pictures of anything that exists anywhere except on the land?
Or does it mean Angels, the pearly gates, hell, etc...? And what is that "in the water under the earth"? Does he not want us to take pictures of wells?
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
-Who is to say what is or isn't in vain? God surely isn't giving instructions on the subject.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
-Ok, so which day is the sabbath? We say it's Sunday but how do we know that's really the say? Is it an arbitrary day out of the 7 day week that we chose? Or did God say "Today is the Sabbath. Start here"?
5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
-How do should one honour thy father and thy mother? Probably however you feel they would want. Many claim this is a "do what your parents tell you" but what if they tell you to sin? Should you honour them? Or should you stop them and that honours them by helping to save them from sin?
6. Thou shalt not kill.
- This is a big one. Does it mean end a life? Does the animals we eat, the plants we harvest count? Does hunting for sport but not food/clothing count? What about the bugs we kill by accident or on purpose? Or what about all the bacterial that our bodies kill on a daily basis?
Or does it mean only intentional kills?
Or does it mean only intentional kills between humans?
And if it's only intentional kills between humans, what about in self defense? Or defense of your homeland? Or defense of God? Or when God says to do it?
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
-Does that mean I can't have that 3some?
8. Thou shalt not steal.
-Sure taking directly from a person is stealing but what else? What about more abstract terms like legal loopholes and high taxation and copying data from someone's computer? Or their identity? Do those count?
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-What if it saves his life? If I were to tell the truth about my neighbour and it causes him to be murdered, am I guilty of allowing it or does God give me a pass because I followed his commandments?
10. thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-So now God is telling us we can't even want something? What if my neighbour is selling it or will sell it?
I don't know about you but it seems subjective to me.
-
It's all subjective, silly pants.
As an atheist I have way better morals than some Christians I know. Some Christians think they can do whatever they like as long as they go to church on Sunday. Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong. Remember, we made god in our image, not the other way around. And we have a constitution. Any president of any faith or lack of faith still has to follow the country's rules. Ultimately, being Christian brings absolutely no benefit to the presidential table.
-
It's all subjective, silly pants.
... Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong.
If the morals are inherent how are they subjective?
-
It's all subjective, silly pants.
... Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong.
If the morals are inherent how are they subjective?
Don't be dumb.
Humans as a whole have inherent morals. These morals can range from strict to loose, antisocial (atypical) humans have them not at all, and morals can change based on upbringing.
-
It's all subjective, silly pants.
... Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong.
If the morals are inherent how are they subjective?
Don't be dumb.
Ski is a lot of things.....dumb isn't one of them. I would watch who you were caling names around here, and what board you are doing it in.
-
It was a pretty dumb question of anyone to ask. Stay on topic, warpuppy.
-
Don't be dumb.
Humans as a whole have inherent morals. These morals can range from strict to loose, antisocial (atypical) humans have them not at all, and morals can change based on upbringing.
If morals are arbitrary as you have just stated, then they are not inherent.
-
Uh, I never said morals were based on a personal whim, but they are an essential characteristic of humans. However, the flavor of morals can vary from person to person making it subjective. Example: everyone knows it's wrong to murder someone in cold blood (unless you're an atypical sociopath), but not everyone thinks polygamy is wrong.
Learn your definitions plx.
-
inherent (adj): existing in someone as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
If morals come in differing flavours and are "subjective," they are not "inherent" or "absolute." You are arguing for learned or "relativistic" morality. If "sociopaths" exist, is there sense of social-mores less correct than yours? If so why?
Unless you are inventing a whole new social-philosophic vocabulary to suit your whim, I believe you are the one who might brush up on her definitions.
Are you attempting to argue that some morals are inherent and some are culturally-subjective (if so, I might agree)? But if so, why do you state "It's all subjective"?
-
I am stating that morals in the most basic sense are inherent otherwise humans would have never survived as a community. What those morals are would be subjective to the individual. And sociopaths have no morals or sympathy and it wouldn't be viewed as a personality disorder if they were normal... because morals of some kind are an inherent trait.
Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: \-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerēre
Date: 1581
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit
-
If "what those morals are" is subjective to the individual, how do we know the sociopath's mores are not simply different ("subjective") than yours? Which is correct? On what basis do you make this claim?
-
If "what those morals are" is subjective to the individual, how do we know the sociopath's mores are not simply different ("subjective") than yours? Which is correct? On what basis do you make this claim?
Neither is correct.
You can only judge them based on ability to survive and reproduce.
In our current society, a sociopath would have a difficult time surviving and reproducing while other people don't.
In a post apocalyptic society where law is unheard of and death is common, a sociopath may be more able to survive than others.
-
Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."
-
If "what those morals are" is subjective to the individual, how do we know the sociopath's mores are not simply different ("subjective") than yours? Which is correct? On what basis do you make this claim?
What's it like being so blatantly argumentative?
If society as a whole sees sociopathy as a personality disorder, does that not mean something is disorderly? A breakdown of inherent law? Or do you think I'm basing this off personal beliefs? Do you agree with sociopathy? If sociopathy were typical human nature do you think we would have culture and community?
Sociopaths do not have morals. There's nothing subjective about it. What is subjective is the idea of polygamy, same-sex marriage, clothing, abortion.
Now if god's will is so objective, why are there so many different Christian sects?
-
Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."
It's pretty simple. Honest. Look at any culture's constitution. Most have the same basic guidelines with variances from culture to culture.
Basic morals are inherent (an essential human characteristic) but the details vary depending on the individual which would make it subjective. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.
-
Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."
It's pretty simple. Honest. Look at any culture's constitution. Most have the same basic guidelines with variances from culture to culture.
Basic morals are inherent (an essential human characteristic) but the details vary depending on the individual which would make it subjective. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.
Just say that it's in our genetic makeup to desire social groups and thus have adapted a set of very basic behaviors implanted in our brains to assist us in achieving stable social groups. Guilt is a big one.
-
Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."
It's pretty simple. Honest. Look at any culture's constitution. Most have the same basic guidelines with variances from culture to culture.
Basic morals are inherent (an essential human characteristic) but the details vary depending on the individual which would make it subjective. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.
Just say that it's in our genetic makeup to desire social groups and thus have adapted a set of very basic behaviors implanted in our brains to assist us in achieving stable social groups. Guilt is a big one.
Right...
Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: \-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerēre
Date: 1581
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit
-
My question becomes which of the morals (if any) are you prepared to say are inherent, and which are subjective? You seem to be willing to admit that some morals are objective, but then say that "it is all subjective." If there are some morals which are objective, how did you come to this conclusion?
How do you keep subjectivism from devolving logically into a nihilism (like Lord Dave) or completely relativisitic morality?
As a moral objectivist (I actually prefer universalist, but I'm trying not to introduce new terms for you), I would say that certain morals are objective. I'm not qualified to speak on behalf of the myriad of Christian sects.
-
The obvi ones are objective, obvi. Y'know, the rules that are present in almost every society. Treat people within your community with general respect, don't murder in cold blood, don't steal, etc. Subjective ones would be same-sex marriage, dancing, circumcision, y'know the ones that vary. I'm not pulling this out of my rear as you seem to think. Any general knowledge of human society and history will tell you this basic truth.
As you believe, some moral judgements are universal, but not ALL of them.
lulz that universalism would be a foreign concept to me. Are you becoming a troll, dear moderator?
-
Geese don't kill each other, but orangutans do, does that mean geese have higher morals then orangutans?
-
Geese don't kill each other, but orangutans do, does that mean geese have higher morals then orangutans?
What are you trying to say?
-
Morals are inherent to geese?
-
Are you a moral objectivist, Wardogg?
-
Philosophy is not one of my stronger subjects. Does that mean I think geese have high morals?
-
As an atheist I have way better morals than some Christians I know.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH WOW YOU DID NOT JUST GO THERE
The only way you would ever have "better morals" than anyone else would be that you follow objective moral guidelines, which in our society means laws - and even then it only applies to your own society and its established laws. The people you're comparing yourself to would have to be criminals for you to be "better" than them.
And no, morals aren't inherent. Every human is born without morals, and only when they integrate into society do they gain morals, as morals are a product of the social contract. Humans in their state of nature only wish to gain their own good, and as such they don't have morals at all. By abandoning their state of nature they agree to certain principles that ensure that one's own rights and freedoms to some extent are secured. For example, murdering would no longer be considered acceptable. These basic principles are the foundation for the social contract which enables humans to live in a society or in commune.
But let's look at this from your angle. If some morals are inherent as you say, then how is it that there are people that act against these morals? Did their inherent morality stop working at some point?
Philosophy is not one of my stronger subjects. Does that mean I think geese have high morals?
Moral objectivists believe that morals are objective. Simple as that.
Orangutans and geese haven't established any moral guidelines for their own, therefore you can't treat their actions on a moral principle, unless you believe that some or all morals are objective and not up to subjective interpretation.
EDIT: OH OH OH OH OH OH CHECK THIS OUT
The obvi ones are objective, obvi. Y'know, the rules that are present in almost every society. Treat people within your community with general respect, don't murder in cold blood, don't steal, etc. Subjective ones would be same-sex marriage, dancing, circumcision, y'know the ones that vary. I'm not pulling this out of my rear as you seem to think. Any general knowledge of human society and history will tell you this basic truth.
LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS SHIT
[...]are objective[...]
[...]the ruls that are present in almost every society[...]
DID YOU CATCH THAT YET?
[...]objective[...]
[...]almost[...]
OH
SNAP
ARGUMENT INVALIDATED
-
When I say I have better morals, I mean I don't treat other people like shit as some Christians do. I was merely pointing out that for Christians, god's will is supposed to be law. I follow this principle better than some people of the faith even though I am atheist. Which is what this discussion was originally about. You don't have to be religious to have morals.
If it's not an inherent trait, why has every society come up with similar moral guidelines? Some people will cheat and steal, etc. because morality is also subjective. But I know that you seem like a bitter person, so you'll just keep arguing for your cause without anything to back it up. You can not look at humanity as a whole and say that moral values are not an essential characteristic.
-
When I say I have better morals, I mean I don't treat other people like shit as some Christians do. I was merely pointing out that for Christians, god's will is supposed to be law. I follow this principle better than some people of the faith even though I am atheist. Which is what this discussion was originally about. You don't have to be religious to have morals.
Treating people like shit is a non-issue if all morality is subjective.
If it's not an inherent trait, why has every society come up with similar moral guidelines?
Because such moral guidelines are essential in securing one's rights and freedoms within a society, like I already explained.
Some people will cheat and steal, etc. because morality is also subjective.
No, they do this because morality isn't inherent. Inherent morals can't be up to interpretation.
But I know that you seem like a bitter person, so you'll just keep arguing for your cause without anything to back it up.
Oh hello, pot. Where's kettle this fine morning?
You can not look at humanity as a whole and say that moral values are not an essential characteristic.
They're only essential for societies and communities to function. I suggest you read up on Hobbes to learn more.
-
As you believe, some moral judgements are universal, but not ALL of them.
Are they universal objectively, or have they become universal only as part of some social contract?
lulz that universalism would be a foreign concept to me. Are you becoming a troll, dear moderator?
Well, you seem to be mixing terms, I think I may be forgiven for thinking that you might be unfamiliar with the correct use of some of them. However, rereading what I wrote, it may be read with a good deal more condescension than I intended, and for that I apologize.
I believe morality is objective. I believe that some certain mores are inherent, though I do not believe that it would much matter if they were proven not to be (hence objective morality). These are the Noachide laws. I also believe in the existence of subjective social-contracts.
-
I am beginning to think that the ability to empathize is inherent. But then we still have to say that morals would derived from such characteristics.
-
I am beginning to think that the ability to empathize is inherent. But then we still have to say that morals would derived from such characteristics.
Precisely. Empathy is a God-given trait, and therefore, since our entire sense of morality is derived from empathy, it is ultimately derived from God.
-
Blanko- I would post historical constitutions but I'm not on my computer and my phone makes me lazy.
Roundy- If we all have empathy (except for atypical people) and thus morals, why would it matter if the president is an atheist or not?
-
Rooster, you need to read up on some elementary principles of philosophy. Well, unless your purpose is to entertain others at the cost of your pride.
I'm not even trying to be offensive. This is genuine advice.
Also: ITT: dancing and circumcision are moral issues.
-
Blanko- I would post historical constitutions but I'm not on my computer and my phone makes me lazy.
ok I'll wait
Roundy- If we all have empathy (except for atypical people) and thus morals, why would it matter if the president is an atheist or not?
Because your country is so fucking Christian that it's best for the common good of your people that the president upholds a Christian facade.
-
I am beginning to think that the ability to empathize is inherent. But then we still have to say that morals would derived from such characteristics.
Precisely. Empathy is a God-given trait, and therefore, since our entire sense of morality is derived from empathy, it is ultimately derived from God.
In which case, God is an asshole for not giving it to certain people.
-
Rooster, you need to read up on some elementary principles of philosophy. Well, unless your purpose is to entertain others at the cost of your pride.
I'm not even trying to be offensive. This is genuine advice.
Also: ITT: dancing and circumcision are moral issues.
>implying opinions here effect my pride. ::)
Circumcision and dancing are moral issues depending on who you ask. It's true. I've read it.
But what elemementary principles do I need to read up on? I like that people assert ridiculous things to me- like confusing definitions. If inherent means an essential characteristic or habit and even if morals were just a social contract of every society- wouldn't that make morals inherent to humanity? Or does everyone really love arguing semantics so much that we'll just keep going in circles for no reason?
-
I am beginning to think that the ability to empathize is inherent. But then we still have to say that morals would derived from such characteristics.
Precisely. Empathy is a God-given trait, and therefore, since our entire sense of morality is derived from empathy, it is ultimately derived from God.
In which case, God is an asshole for not giving it to certain people.
Oh yes some people being different makes God an asshole. Lack of empathy is a distinct advantage in many areas. If anything he simply makes people what they need to be.
Funny that a person like yourself sees empathy as a necessary thing.
-
Raist is a sociopath.
-
>implying opinions here effect my pride. ::)
Considering some of your reactions here... yep, I am implying that. Good luck proving your point.
Circumcision and dancing are moral issues depending on who you ask.
lol
But what elemementary principles do I need to read up on?
Let's start with inherence, morals, moral agency, moral issues, semantics, objective and subjective. That should let us make some progress here, hopefully.
If inherent means an essential characteristic or habit and even if morals were just a social contract of every society- wouldn't that make morals inherent to humanity?
No, it wouldn't. It would go against the very definition of inherence.
-
Philosophy is such a waste of time.
Some of my reactions? Please. You don't know my actual reactions through the intarwebz. Good luck proving your point.
Morals seem pretty inherent to me just as aggressiveness, language, and religion are inherent to humans.
I'd like to know how Mirriam-Webster is leading me so astray with these definitions. It really seems like some of you are just muddying things up to prove... something? I really don't even know what some of you are arguing about. I just think morals are inherent, but arguing about philosophy is ultimately pointless making this all a giant waste of time.
PS: dancing is wrong and bad, not being circumcised is wrong and bad. This is a moral issue. Just because you're a crazy liberal does not mean this isn't a question of morality.
-
>argue about philosophy
>claim arguing about philosophy is pointless
Yeah, just leave this board if you have nothing better to contribute.
-
Well it's particularly annoying when people tell me I'm wrong without actually enlightening me. Debate doesn't hurt my pride since it's only a learning experience and I'm not an insecure teenager who's above learning. As far as I can tell the only thing anyone else is contributing to this thread is telling me I'm wrong. Am I wrong?
This would be a little less pointless if someone would actually discuss something with me rather than pick apart my posts to tell me I'm wrong. This is just a horrible troll attempt so far. Blanko I'll ignore at this point cause he's just sexist.
-
We're not only telling you you're wrong, we're explaining why you're wrong, which is what debate is about. We are enlightening you, we're telling you how you could further your knowledge on the subject matter.
If you're unable or unwilling to understand the concepts we're dealing with then you have no one to blame but yourself. Again, perhaps a board that isn't focused on what you consider to be "a waste of time" would be more suitable for you.
And don't start with the OH HE DISAGREES WITH ME HE MUST BE TROLL AND SEXIST, there are more suitable boards for that as well.
-
PP told me what words to look up, unless Mirriam-Webster is wrong then I'm confused. all you've said is that I'm wrong and try to tell me what to do. No one is actually enlightening me or even attempting to do so.
-
I told you to read up on Hobbes which is quite essential for understanding what my arguments are about. Evidently you have not yet done so.
-
You're useless.
-
No, rooster, that is not how debates work.
-
>separation of church and state
Seems like Obama is doing it right.
-
That doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean. But I agree that "God" has no place in government.
-
What does a thanksgiving speech that's supposed to address the public have to do with the government?
-
Raist is a sociopath.
Only for you. :-*
-
America was founded as a Christian nation and is still a Christian nation. Obama used God in his speachs and debates to get elected. However, once he did, it became very clear that he is in fact just a common athiest. Atheism in society is tantamount to Satinism. Without the moral codes instilled by God then the country would be left to nothing but anarchy. 2012 is too far away. To save America, I say we impeach now before it's too late.
Why does one need to believe in God to have morals?
Because without the objective morality imposed by God, morality becomes completely subjective. Which means people would be able to choose their own morals. Which means rampant murder, rape, prostitution, drugs, theft, etc.
That's not true at all. Countries with a majority of atheists tend to be more "successful" in terms of less homicides suicides and so on...
-
What I find funny, is if this is true, then the only thing keeping christians from raping and pillaging people for the sheer fun of it is that Big Brother is watching them. ;D
-
What I find funny, is if this is true, then the only thing keeping christians from raping and pillaging people for the sheer fun of it is that Big Brother is watching them. ;D
I find it horrifying, but we can only hope that their cult will continue to (mostly) suppress their powerful urges to rape and eat children. :-\
-
Apparently, God was mentioned in his written address, and the last 2 presidents have done the same thing on at least one occasion. But Fox throws a shit fit over this one, I wonder why.