# Hopefully the world improves after the Superbowl



## JFS (Jan 30, 2013)

Because god is apparently busy with important matters like sports.  Maybe he can squeeze in some charity work before March Madness starts.

http://www.clickorlando.com/Poll-So...ents/-/1637238/18326300/-/tracnt/-/index.html



> Asked if they believe God plays a role in who wins, 27% of Americans said yes. Poll results varied among regions and religions: 36% said yes in the South, 28% in the Midwest, 20% in the Northeast and 15% in the West.
> 
> Among nonwhite Christians and white evangelicals, 40% and 38% said yes, respectively; 29% of Catholics and 19% of white mainline Protestants also responded that God plays a role.
> 
> ...





See you UGA fans, Bama fans are just more righteous than you.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> Because god is apparently busy with important matters like sports.  Maybe he can squeeze in some charity work before March Madness starts.
> 
> http://www.clickorlando.com/Poll-So...ents/-/1637238/18326300/-/tracnt/-/index.html



I don't believe God plays a role in sports scores, maybe in the safety of players etc, but not who wins or looses.





> See you UGA fans, Bama fans are just more righteous than you.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jan 30, 2013)

Some Christians believe God controls every little thing including good & evil.
Most Christians believe God can help with their finances.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I don't believe God plays a role in sports scores, maybe in the safety of players etc, but not who wins or looses.




So when they get hurt was it because of Ssss..ss...sss....sssssATAN?!?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 31, 2013)

Or they get hurt because they didn't Tebow it enough.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Or they get hurt because they didn't Tebow it enough.




That's what I figured.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> So when they get hurt was it because of Ssss..ss...sss....sssssATAN?!?



No, usually when they get hurt it's because they run into each other really hard.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> That's what I figured.



That's not sss.sssatan though.. That's god himself, punishing for a sin of omission.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's not sss.sssatan though.. That's god himself, punishing for a sin of omission.



How do you know this?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jan 31, 2013)

I definitely don't... since I don't believe there is a god himself. 


If long prayers are had before the game to ask god to keep players from being hurt... and he is answering prayers when games are completed with no injuries... what is happening when they do get hurt? Based on my previous knowledge, it could be paying for the sin of omission... not Tebowing enough... or on the correct knee.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

I thought Ra was in charge of the NFL?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> I thought Ra was in charge of the NFL?




I couldn't find any Egyptian NFL players.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I definitely don't... since I don't believe there is a god himself.
> 
> 
> If long prayers are had before the game to ask god to keep players from being hurt... and he is answering prayers when games are completed with no injuries... what is happening when they do get hurt? Based on my previous knowledge, it could be paying for the sin of omission... not Tebowing enough... or on the correct knee.



Sports injuries are Eve's fault, really Satan's fault for tempting her.  I wonder, in The Garden of Eden do all the field goal attempts go through the uprights?  Even the 85 yarders?  I guess you wouldn't really call them "attempts".  I suppose in The Garden of Eden every play is a touchdown.  Does everybody win?

Football sucks in the Garden of Eden......


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I couldn't find any Egyptian NFL players.



Gotta admit an NFL player, in full uniform, pads and helmet, under the lights, appears to the unwashed masses as a Pharoah figure.  All sons of RA!


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Sports injuries are Eve's fault, really Satan's fault for tempting her.  I wonder, in The Garden of Eden do all the field goal attempts go through the uprights?  Even the 85 yarders?  I guess you wouldn't really call them "attempts".  I suppose in The Garden of Eden every play is a touchdown.  Does everybody win?
> 
> Football sucks in the Garden of Eden......



Favorite go-to pass route is the "Slant!"


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> Favorite go-to pass route is the "Slant!"




"Hail Mary".  Every play.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> "Hail Mary".  Every play.



Nah, the "Big Ben" offensive formation is way too obvious.  Easily defended.

The "slant" gives different denominations the flexibility they desire while pushing the agenda!


----------



## revrandyf (Jan 31, 2013)

To those who want to ridicule and poke fun because you don't believe in God...or because any explanations don't satisfy all your objections and answers...that's OK....God believes in you and one day you will know.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

revrandyf said:


> To those who want to ridicule and poke fun because you don't believe in God...or because any explanations don't satisfy all your objections and answers...that's OK....God believes in you and one day you will know.



Is it OK with you that I "ridicule and poke fun" at Ra because I do not believe in him?  Would you join me in that activity?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

revrandyf said:


> To those who want to ridicule and poke fun because you don't believe in God...or because any explanations don't satisfy all your objections and answers...that's OK....God believes in you and one day you will know.



Are you sure it's OK.  I don't want to do anything that's not OK.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Are you sure it's OK.  I don't want to do anything that's not OK.



Isn't _everything_ ok? No? Says who?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Isn't _everything_ ok? No? Says who?



I do me, you do you.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I do me, you do you.



Except for murdering someone, you don't want folks doing that.

..... and stealing, you don't want anyone stealing all your stuff.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Except for murdering someone, you don't want folks doing that.
> 
> ..... and stealing, you don't want anyone stealing all your stuff.



That would be me doing you. Or someone else doing me.....


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> That would be me doing you. Or someone else doing me.....



And that's OK, right?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And that's OK, right?



What did I say?




ambush80 said:


> I do me, you do you.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> What did I say?



Yes, and then I gave you exceptions to your rule.


Is it ok if I steal from you? That's doing me.

Of course not, so your, "I do me, you do you" rule is not a very good one.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, and then I gave you exceptions to your rule.
> 
> 
> Is it ok if I steal from you? That's doing me.
> ...



No....Stealing form me would be you doing me, not you doing you.

Do whatever you want to yourself.


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> No....Stealing form me would be you doing me, not you doing you.
> 
> Do whatever you want to yourself.



Why can't I do whatever I want to anybody I want? Why is that not ok? Are you special or something? 

You wouldn't care if I crushed a rock when I get home would you? Why would you care if I ran over a bunch of people just the same? The only difference in people and rocks is consciousness.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why can't I do whatever I want to anybody I want? Why is that not ok? Are you special or something?
> 
> You wouldn't care if I crushed a rock when I get home would you? Why would you care if I ran over a bunch of people just the same? The only difference in people and rocks is consciousness.



You can try all that.  Watch what happens...


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> You can try all that.  Watch what happens...



There would be repercussions, but that's not what we are discussing.


And I can actually do all that, not just try it. Is that OK with you?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

I would prefer you do the right thing because you know better, not because you're afraid of Odin.  But if that's the best you're capable of then by all means be good because you're afraid of Odin.  Just don't try to use Odin as a rationale for social policy.  

We need not go round and round again about Instinctive Morality or The Golden Rule but here is an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

If there is a fantasy football team draft, can I select Joe Montana as Quarterback?  
I have already selected The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders as moral support!  Or, would that be immoral support?

Heavenly comes to mind....


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

WTM45 said:


> If there is a fantasy football team draft, can I select Joe Montana as Quarterback?  I have already called the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders as moral support!  Or, would that be immoral support?



How about a Joe Montana/Mike Vick/Dan Marino/John Elway/Tom Brady Garden of Eden blend.

The Cowboy's cheerleaders leadeth me unto great sin.


----------



## GTHunter007 (Jan 31, 2013)

JFS said:


> See you UGA fans, Bama fans are just more righteous than you.



Not really...they just put in the work and prep instead of praying for divine intervention.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 31, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I would prefer you do the right thing because you know better, not because you're afraid of Odin.  But if that's the best you're capable of then by all means be good because you're afraid of Odin.  Just don't try to use Odin as a rationale for social policy.
> 
> We need not go round and round again about Instinctive Morality or The Golden Rule but here is an interesting article on the subject:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



great article


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

bullethead said:


> great article



I like this part:

_"The institutions of modernity often question and experiment with the way activities are assigned to moral spheres. Market economies tend to put everything up for sale. Science amoralizes the world by seeking to understand phenomena rather than pass judgment on them. Secular philosophy is in the business of scrutinizing all beliefs, including those entrenched by authority and tradition. It’s not surprising that these institutions are often seen to be morally corrosive. "_


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

This part too:

_"Moral realism, as this idea is called, is too rich for many philosophers’ blood. Yet a diluted version of the idea — if not a list of cosmically inscribed Thou-Shalts, then at least a few If-Thens — is not crazy. Two features of reality point any rational, self-preserving social agent in a moral direction. And they could provide a benchmark for determining when the judgments of our moral sense are aligned with morality itself.

One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things.

The other external support for morality is a feature of rationality itself: that it cannot depend on the egocentric vantage point of the reasoner. If I appeal to you to do anything that affects me — to get off my foot, or tell me the time or not run me over with your car — then I can’t do it in a way that privileges my interests over yours (say, retaining my right to run you over with my car) if I want you to take me seriously. Unless I am Galactic Overlord, I have to state my case in a way that would force me to treat you in kind. I can’t act as if my interests are special just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can persuade you that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe just because I happen to be standing on it.

Not coincidentally, the core of this idea — the interchangeability of perspectives — keeps reappearing in history’s best-thought-through moral philosophies, including the Golden Rule (itself discovered many times); Spinoza’s Viewpoint of Eternity; the Social Contract of Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke; Kant’s Categorical Imperative; and Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance. It also underlies Peter Singer’s theory of the Expanding Circle — the optimistic proposal that our moral sense, though shaped by evolution to overvalue self, kin and clan, can propel us on a path of moral progress, as our reasoning forces us to generalize it to larger and larger circles of sentient beings."_

"The egocentric vantage point of the reasoner"

That's good way to describe morality that came from hearing "God's " word.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 31, 2013)

Another gem:

_"The science of the moral sense also alerts us to ways in which our psychological makeup can get in the way of our arriving at the most defensible moral conclusions. The moral sense, we are learning, is as vulnerable to illusions as the other senses. It is apt to confuse morality per se with purity, status and conformity. It tends to reframe practical problems as moral crusades and thus see their solution in punitive aggression. It imposes taboos that make certain ideas indiscussible. And it has the nasty habit of always putting the self on the side of the angels." _


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 31, 2013)

Cain must have been using deer antler spray.  Made him go blitzkreig on his brother.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 1, 2013)

Obviously the superbowl won't change anything around this world.

Richer players and people who like to sit around and watch others play the game and make millions, something they wished they could do.

My opinion.....who's playing in the superbowl? Who cares about something that won't change a thing? Most everyone watching are gonna sit around condemning and judging others and not doing much else to change the world.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 1, 2013)

Or we can sit in front of our computers and condemn and judge others because we thing they are condemning and judging others.

Yes, I am judging you...


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things.



And there it is, the big fat assumption that is always made in naturalistic morality.

"In some cultures they love their neighbor, in others, they eat them"

Who's better off?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things.


And BTW, the parts in red are a complete condradiction.

You can't say two people would be better off if they treat each other respectfully, then a couple sentences later say that one of the people would be better off if they didn't.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And BTW, the parts in red are a complete condradiction.
> 
> You can't say two people would be better off if they treat each other respectfully, then a couple sentences later say that one of the people would be better off if they didn't.


_
 Originally Posted by ambush80 View Post
One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things._

Google "Prisoner's Dilemma".


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And there it is, the big fat assumption that is always made in naturalistic morality.
> 
> "In some cultures they love their neighbor, in others, they eat them"
> 
> Who's better off?



I'm not going to try help you understand why eating each other is a loser in the long run.  Just don't eat each other because Odin said so.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> _
> Originally Posted by ambush80 View Post
> One is the prevalence of nonzero-sum games. In many arenas of life, two parties are objectively better off if they both act in a nonselfish way than if each of them acts selfishly. You and I are both better off if we share our surpluses, rescue each other’s children in danger and refrain from shooting at each other, compared with hoarding our surpluses while they rot, letting the other’s child drown while we file our nails or feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys. Granted, I might be a bit better off if I acted selfishly at your expense and you played the sucker, but the same is true for you with me, so if each of us tried for these advantages, we’d both end up worse off. Any neutral observer, and you and I if we could talk it over rationally, would have to conclude that the state we should aim for is the one in which we both are unselfish. These spreadsheet projections are not quirks of brain wiring, nor are they dictated by a supernatural power; they are in the nature of things._
> 
> Google "Prisoner's Dilemma".



Two positives don't equal a negative. If I might be better off stealing your TV, and you would be better of stealing my TV, then we wouldn't be worse off for stealing each others TV's.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 1, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> I'm not going to try help you understand why eating each other is a loser in the long run.



Because you can't, without just assuming that we shouldn't. You have to, at some point in the evolutionary process, assume that we need or want or should live by a moral code. There is no reason you can give that is objective, or justified in any way, other than it's just the way you think things should be.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Two positives don't equal a negative. If I might be better off stealing your TV, and you would be better of stealing my TV, then we wouldn't be worse off for stealing each others TV's.





stringmusic said:


> Because you can't, without just assuming that we shouldn't. You have to, at some point in the evolutionary process, assume that we need or want or should live by a moral code. There is no reason you can give that is objective, or justified in any way, other than it's just the way you think things should be.



You either didn't read or didn't understand that article.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 1, 2013)

String,

What it really comes down to is that you want me to concede that morals MUST have come from a creator.  You might as well make the argument that the spots on a brook trout MUST have come from a creator and I suppose that ultimately you do, despite all the arguments that indicate that they could have just as well developed naturally; by trial and error.  I will concede that I might be wrong.  Can you?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 2, 2013)

Momma say, "Foosball is da debil!"


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 2, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> String,
> 
> What it really comes down to is that you want me to concede that morals MUST have come from a creator.  You might as well make the argument that the spots on a brook trout MUST have come from a creator and I suppose that ultimately you do, despite all the arguments that indicate that they could have just as well developed naturally; by trial and error.  I will concede that I might be wrong.  Can you?



The oldest  recorded example of moral change that I have been able to find comes from the Emperor Ashokan of what is now India. The change which influenced a civilization was not brought about by trail and error, but by empathy and remorse. 

So perhaps empathy and remorse are thought and learned out of trial and error? Hum?? What accounts for an Iraqi one day being a towel head and then another day an ally or a Vietnamese a Gook and then a Vietnamese again? Trial and error? It just comes natural?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> String,
> 
> What it really comes down to is that you want me to concede that morals MUST have come from a creator.  You might as well make the argument that the spots on a brook trout MUST have come from a creator and I suppose that ultimately you do, despite all the arguments that indicate that they could have just as well developed naturally; by trial and error.  I will concede that I might be wrong.  Can you?



I'm merely pointing out the fact that in naturalistic morals, the only justification for anyone following a set of moral values is someone, or a group of people, assume a "shouldness", or a way things should be done. 

In a sense, it's no real justification at all, and in reality doesn't work, hence the quote "In some cultures they love their neighbor, in others, they eat them". One culture says that eating their neighbor is ok, in another, they say it's not ok, who's right? 

In order for a person to be onticly wrong, or _really_ wrong, there must be a moral law giver. I'm not asking you to admit that it is my God, or any other religions god, but that there must be an ultimate judge that is the determing factor on moral law.

When you make a moral judgement on someone, which at some point we all do, your judgement must be true, and it cannot be true only because you think it's true. There must be a decider, and humans cannot be it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 4, 2013)

I don't think there must be any decider of morals. I think right and wrong is nearly all cultural. One culture loves they neighbor and another eats them. We say that eating them is wrong because it is our culture that it's wrong. That doesn't make me feel like they're right, it's still wrong to me, but there is no ultimate judge of right or wrong. I think part if not the whole reason that ambush or anyone feels that eating thy neighbor is wrong is because it's part of our culture... and that culture has been greatly influenced by the bible. Whether you accept it or not it has. I still have some of the morals influenced from the bible, not because the bible tells me so, but because it's how I feel at this point. Just like being born in another country may have changed my religious upbringing, being born here has shaped my morals as well.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't think there must be any decider of morals. I think right and wrong is nearly all cultural. One culture loves they neighbor and another eats them. We say that eating them is wrong because it is our culture that it's wrong. That doesn't make me feel like they're right, it's still wrong to me, but there is no ultimate judge of right or wrong. I think part if not the whole reason that ambush or anyone feels that eating thy neighbor is wrong is because it's part of our culture... and that culture has been greatly influenced by the bible. Whether you accept it or not it has. I still have some of the morals influenced from the bible, not because the bible tells me so, but because it's how I feel at this point. Just like being born in another country may have changed my religious upbringing, being born here has shaped my morals as well.



"We say that eating them is wrong" 

Is it?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm merely pointing out the fact that in naturalistic morals, the only justification for anyone following a set of moral values is someone, or a group of people, assume a "shouldness", or a way things should be done.
> 
> In a sense, it's no real justification at all, and in reality doesn't work, hence the quote "In some cultures they love their neighbor, in others, they eat them". One culture says that eating their neighbor is ok, in another, they say it's not ok, who's right?
> 
> ...



Do you realize how complicated you are making things with this line line of reasoning? You position actually makes morals MORE arbitrary. Which God? Where do you dervie its morality from? In the end you get the EXACT same thing.  MAN interpreting what is right and wrong.  Unless this Moral law giver comes here and set us straight,  you will have man deciding for this law giver. Period, no if, ans, or buts about it.  So if that is not likely to happen lets save a step and cut it out completely.  We need not pick a diety to before we subscribe our man-interpreted  "morals". All we need is LOGIC.

We are a species best suited for interaction with one another in a society.  We can survive without one another but our species doesn't flourish.  So if our species is better in a society with peaceful cooperation than it is necessary to produce rules that nuture such a society. Morality is a poor prerequisite for these rulse becuase they are arbitrary even within the same culture. It becomes necessary to draw upon logic to pruduce the most beneficial circumstances that our species can flourish. There is absolutely no other way.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> "We say that eating them is wrong"
> 
> Is it?



We say it is... because we think it is wrong. If there is no ultimate judge, your judge, my judge, anyone who ever thought there was or wasn't an ultimate judge... then it's all up to us. Me, you and ambush probably all agree that it's wrong... but it's wrong because we think it's wrong.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Do you realize how complicated you are making things with this line line of reasoning? You position actually makes morals MORE arbitrary. Which God? Where do you dervie its morality from? In the end you get the EXACT same thing.  MAN interpreting what is right and wrong.  Unless this Moral law giver comes here and set us straight,  you will have man deciding for this law giver. Period, no if, ans, or buts about it.  So if that is not likely to happen lets save a step and cut it out completely.  We need not pick a diety to before we subscribe our man-interpreted  "morals". All we need is LOGIC.
> 
> We are a species best suited for interaction with one another in a society.  We can survive without one another but our species doesn't flourish.  So if our species is better in a society with peaceful cooperation than it is necessary to produce rules that nuture such a society. Morality is a poor prerequisite for these rulse becuase they are arbitrary even within the same culture. It becomes necessary to draw upon logic to pruduce the most beneficial circumstances that our species can flourish. There is absolutely no other way.



Our logic isn't influenced by our culture? We can use logic all we want to. It's still going to be influenced by our opinions.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 4, 2013)

The power outage was God telling Ray Lewis to start a church.
Ray will come forth with his plans very soon.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Do you realize how complicated you are making things with this line line of reasoning? You position actually makes morals MORE arbitrary. Which God? Where do you dervie its morality from? In the end you get the EXACT same thing.  MAN interpreting what is right and wrong.  Unless this Moral law giver comes here and set us straight,  you will have man deciding for this law giver. Period, no if, ans, or buts about it.  So if that is not likely to happen lets save a step and cut it out completely.  We need not pick a diety to before we subscribe our man-interpreted  "morals".


Like I said, I'm not asking anyone to worship any certian God. We are talking about a moral law giver, it matters not which one at this point in the conversation, only that there is one.



> All we need is LOGIC.


I would be better off with your TV, logically speaking, would you have a moral objection to me stealing it?



> We are a species best suited for interaction with one another in a society.  We can survive without one another but our species doesn't flourish.  So if our species is better in a society with peaceful cooperation than it is necessary to produce rules that nuture such a society. Morality is a poor prerequisite for these rulse becuase they are arbitrary even within the same culture. It becomes necessary to draw upon logic to pruduce the most beneficial circumstances that our species can flourish. There is absolutely no other way.



Where are you finding the grounds to make these assumptions?

Again, these kinds of assumption are where evolutionary morals hit a wall. At the core, these assumptions are always there.

YOU think that humans are better off under those circumstances, that doesn't mean I do, who's right? Who's moraly justified in their position?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We say it is... because we think it is wrong. If there is no ultimate judge, your judge, my judge, anyone who ever thought there was or wasn't an ultimate judge... then it's all up to us. Me, you and ambush probably all agree that it's wrong... but it's wrong because we think it's wrong.



So whatever I think is how things are?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Our logic isn't influenced by our culture? We can use logic all we want to. It's still going to be influenced by our opinions.



Logic cannot be influenced by culture. It spans all cultures. Logic cannot lead to an opinion, it can be your opinion that the logic is true or false, but in itself does not produce an opinion. It might produce a theory that you have an opinion of, but logic if used properly, should be able to nullify opinions.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 4, 2013)

String just told you why your logic is based on your opinions of how humans function better. I'm just saying that logic has basis in opinions. Some of logic can be based more on facts than others, but when we're talking about moral grounds I don't really think the majority is fact...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So whatever I think is how things are?



Yes.. You are your own judge of what is right and wrong. You can think them however you'd like and to you, your right can be your right, your wrong your wrong.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Like I said, I'm not asking anyone to worship any certian God. We are talking about a moral law giver, it matters not which one at this point in the conversation, only that there is one.



Until a diety shows up you will always have man being the moral law giver. I cannot help you understand. 



> I would be better off with your TV, logically speaking, would you have a moral objection to me stealing it?


A society would not exsist without having an objection to this behavior.   It would be chaos and nothing flourishes with chaos.



> Where are you finding the grounds to make these assumptions?


Logic, based on historical evidence. Our world would not be as it is today without the mutual cooperation of people working in their own self interests. Again if you cannot see this and understand this, I cannot help you. 



> Again, these kinds of assumption are where evolutionary morals hit a wall. At the core, these assumptions are always there.
> 
> YOU think that humans are better off under those circumstances, that doesn't mean I do, who's right? Who's moraly justified in their position?



I'm right. History has proven that. Our world did not get the way it is with any specific diety's guiding principles.  It did it solely with mans mutual cooperation.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> String just told you why your logic is based on your opinions of how humans function better. I'm just saying that logic has basis in opinions. Some of logic can be based more on facts than others, but when we're talking about moral grounds I don't really think the majority is fact...



My logic is not of my opinion, it is of fact. Logic has a basis in fact and knowns.  Logic with its basis in opinion, is faulty logic.  

Fact: We do not know god exists, anyone assigning a diety the title of moral law giver is a man arbitrating which god, and what rules that diety has.  

Fact: Our society has progressed. Not one diety can be directly attributed to this progress. It can be directly attributed to men acting in their own self interests, bettering their own condition, in mutual cooperation with others. History has shown that men when allowed to do so with minimal interference, can produce desirable effects for society, and thus far has been the best process for improving mans overall condition. 

Fact: Tyranny, force and coercion, are in direct contrast with mutual cooperation. They have done more dmage to mans condition, and are undesireable for progress. 

These are not opinions. History is proof.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Yes.. You are your own judge of what is right and wrong. You can think them however you'd like and to you, your right can be your right, your wrong your wrong.



hmmmm, I think I can fly. I think I'll go jump off this building.......


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> A society would not exsist without having an objection to this behavior.   It would be chaos and nothing flourishes with chaos.


At the core of your argument still lies huge assumptions. You assume it's morally not acceptable for an orderly society not to exist. You also assume chaos to be morally wrong and objectionable.




> Logic, based on historical evidence. Our world would not be as it is today without the mutual cooperation of people working in their own self interests.


So? What if our world wasn't like it is today? I'm not really sure where you're going with this.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Like I said, I'm not asking anyone to worship any certian God. We are talking about a moral law giver, it matters not which one at this point in the conversation, only that there is one.



Not only can you not produce this giver of moral law but please stop trying to assert that there is one unless you have some sort of evidence or you can pick up the bat-phone and have it show up.

ZERO evidence of a universal moral law giver.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> At the core of your argument still lies huge assumptions................



I have yet to see a better example of a H U G E assumption than someone that basis every argument around an invisible being that exists only in their mind. There is not even a core to base an argument around.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 4, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> At the core of your argument still lies huge assumptions. You assume it's morally not acceptable for an orderly society not to exist. You also assume chaos to be morally wrong and objectionable.



I am not assuming anything, especially what is morally acceptable.  Where you get that I have no idea.

It is our very nature, as humans to form societies.  We, as individuals, benefit from orderly societies.  There is a certain formula that allows us to form a more efficient and orderly society which maximizes the potential for peace, and prosperity.  Both of which are desireable to the strengthening and advancing, the human condition. 

Through trial and error, us humans, in effort to make our own lives better, have discovered this formula. It is quite simple really,  and the further we stray from its principles, the more strain it places on all of us. Many good men have echoed these principles in varing ways.  Jefferson, Paine, Madison, Friedman, to name a few. 

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will,is to prevent harm to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant...The only part of the conduct, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.  in the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."-John Stuart Mill   

Morals do not cuase orderly societies but are the mere bi-product of cultures within a society.  



> So? What if our world wasn't like it is today? I'm not really sure where you're going with this.



It isn't so.....


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 4, 2013)

My reasoning tells me that listening to a voice from the sky telling me to tie up and sacrifice my son is immoral.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 4, 2013)

If anyone needs help understanding why eating each other is a loser in the long run then God help you.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> My reasoning tells me that listening to a voice from the sky telling me to tie up and sacrifice my son is immoral.



Well he didn't sacrifice his son, did he? Didn't an angel come to him and tell him it was just a test of his obedience? Course you probably didn't know that. HELLO! And I thought you were much more informed on the bible.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I'm right. History has proven that. Our world did not get the way it is with any specific diety's guiding principles.  It did it solely with mans mutual cooperation.



Yeah what we got from man's mutual cooperation is global warming, plastic, pampers and black holes in the atmosphere that haven't always existed....we're brilliant. Turn a perfect world into a ticking time bomb. WOW!
Oh wait....who is making the rain forests disappear? Well it has to be man. Who has oil spills?...uh man. Brilliant just brilliant. Landfills? who created those? Styrofoam, who created that? Alrighty then, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and you make a good point....


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have yet to see a better example of a H U G E assumption than someone that basis every argument around an invisible being that exists only in their mind. There is not even a core to base an argument around.



According to who? One theory is as good as another. It's just a matter of opinion. Prove to me where 'we' came from? A fish, an ape...where? I talk to people who think we came from fish as much as you think you know where we came from. I can't prove it to you, or them, and you can't prove it to me or them, and they can't prove it to you or me....sooo there ya go.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> According to who? One theory is as good as another. It's just a matter of opinion. Prove to me where 'we' came from? A fish, an ape...where? I talk to people who think we came from fish as much as you think you know where we came from. I can't prove it to you, or them, and you can't prove it to me or them, and they can't prove it to you or me....sooo there ya go.



It is fact that 'we' came from an ape-like ancestor. That is not opinion. That is not belief. That is not theory. That is fact.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> According to who? One theory is as good as another. It's just a matter of opinion. Prove to me where 'we' came from? A fish, an ape...where? I talk to people who think we came from fish as much as you think you know where we came from. I can't prove it to you, or them, and you can't prove it to me or them, and they can't prove it to you or me....sooo there ya go.



One side has and uses evidence to make it's conclusions while the other literally has nothing but their imagination.


----------



## JFS (Feb 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> YOU think that humans are better off under those circumstances, that doesn't mean I do, who's right? Who's moraly justified in their position?



Isn't that typically settled by societal convention?  The same disagreement could be settled differently in different cultures.  Or even differently at different times in the same culture.


----------



## Four (Feb 5, 2013)

Creationists 1 Science 0


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 5, 2013)

We need a like button for posts like that Four!


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 5, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> Yeah what we got from man's mutual cooperation is global warming, plastic, pampers and black holes in the atmosphere that haven't always existed....we're brilliant. Turn a perfect world into a ticking time bomb. WOW!
> Oh wait....who is making the rain forests disappear? Well it has to be man. Who has oil spills?...uh man. Brilliant just brilliant. Landfills? who created those? Styrofoam, who created that? Alrighty then, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and you make a good point....



This is painful to even read.   I'm sorry to be so harsh but, please, this is bad.  I mean really bad.  I know you mean well and all that, but this is off the deep end.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 5, 2013)

black holes in the atmosphere.........


----------



## Four (Feb 5, 2013)

Why is it everything that is bad that happens is the failure of humans, but everything that good happens is gods will/love.

What a terrible parent.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 5, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I am not assuming anything. Where you get that I have no idea.


I get it from here......



> It is our very nature, as humans to form societies.  We, as individuals, benefit from orderly societies.  There is a certain formula that allows us to form a more efficient and orderly society which maximizes the potential for peace, and prosperity[/COLOR].  Both of which are desireable to the strengthening and advancing, the human condition.



The word "benefit" in the first highlighted sentence is subjective, again, YOU think we benefit from an orderly society, YOU think it's desireable.

What if I don't think it's desireable? Who's right? What do we look to to find the answer? Where do we turn? 

There has to be an ultimate right and wrong, a moral law giver.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 5, 2013)

JFS said:


> Isn't that typically settled by societal convention?  The same disagreement could be settled differently in different cultures.  Or even differently at different times in the same culture.



I've quoted this a couple times already in this thread, and I'll try to make this the last time I do, for repetitive reasons.

"In some cultures they love their neighbors, in others, they eat them"

Who's right?

A society getting together and "deciding" that eating your neighbor is morally ok, is about the same as a society getting together and "deciding" that people can fly. Societal convention doesn't set the standards for moral justification.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is fact that 'we' came from an ape-like ancestor. That is not opinion. That is not belief. That is not theory. That is fact.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I've quoted this a couple times already in this thread, and I'll try to make this the last time I do, for repetitive reasons.
> 
> "In some cultures they love their neighbors, in others, they eat them"
> 
> ...





ambush80 said:


> If anyone needs help understanding why eating each other is a loser in the long run then God help you.



Clueless......


----------



## JFS (Feb 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I've quoted this a couple times already in this thread, and I'll try to make this the last time I do, for repetitive reasons.
> 
> "In some cultures they love their neighbors, in others, they eat them"
> 
> ...



String, that's not very compelling.  People want to think their morals are somehow grounded in authority and not choice, but that's all it is, collectively determined and enforced choice.   I have no desire to eat my neighbors (they are old and kind of bony anyway), but that doesn't make it morally absolute.   Besides- if any societal convention allows killing people, I'm not sure I see what happens after someone is dead as somehow more morally absolute than the initial killing.  Heck, in some conditions if you were stuck in the Andes you might even think it is acceptable.  

My liberal NJ friends would tell you it's always wrong to kill someone.  Me, I just impose conditions on the when.  If they said to me 

"A society getting together and "deciding" that KILLING your neighbor is morally ok, is about the same as a society getting together and "deciding" that people can fly. Societal convention doesn't set the standards for moral justification"

I'd say meh, sometimes people need killing.  Same with everything else you mentioned.  Doesn't require 15 commandments to sort this out.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> A society getting together and "deciding" that eating your neighbor is morally ok, is about the same as a society getting together and "deciding" that people can fly. Societal convention doesn't set the standards for moral justification.



They do set it for themselves... We as a society set it for ourselves.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> A society getting together and "deciding" that eating your neighbor is morally ok, is about the same as a society getting together and "deciding" that people can fly. Societal convention doesn't set the standards for moral justification.



And yet scattered throughout the world there are villages (societies if you will) of people that practice cannibalism. Within those societies they do not call a meeting and discuss the morality of these meals...it has been done for thousands of years and is considered an acceptable practice. They don't bat an eye...unless it's in their potatoes....Their God says it's perfectly fine to eat the body of their enemy or captive prisoner or missionary trying to tell them why their God is wrong.
Society trying to decide people can fly is not a moral issue in any sense. Swing=Miss


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

JFS said:


> String, that's not very compelling.  People want to think their morals are somehow grounded in authority and not choice, but that's all it is, collectively determined and enforced choice.


And that seems to be the point in which we differ. I simply see no justification in enforcing "whatever the crowd comes up with" sort of speak, IMO, that's immoral in and of itself. I think there must be a moral authority for humans to even make moral judgements at all. 




> I have no desire to eat my neighbors (they are old and kind of bony anyway), but that doesn't make it morally absolute.   Besides- if any societal convention allows killing people, I'm not sure I see what happens after someone is dead as somehow more morally absolute than the initial killing.  Heck, in some conditions if you were stuck in the Andes you might even think it is acceptable.
> 
> My liberal NJ friends would tell you it's always wrong to kill someone.  Me, I just impose conditions on the when.  If they said to me
> 
> ...



And I would agree, sometimes people do need killing. Although I would not agree that sometimes people need to be murdered for the fun of watching someone die, and to me, unless there is an ultimate authoritative figure, or moral law giver, there is no justification for telling someone that murdering for the fun of it is wrong because the possibility is always there for them to say "says who?"

Dang that was a long sentence.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Clueless......



Very good argument ambush. Now, do you want to provide some evidence for your position, or would you like to continue to dumb the conversation down a little more?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> They do set it for themselves... We as a society set it for ourselves.



Again, I'm saying societies have no authority to do that, if at the same times morals are to be justified. You, me, or societies cannot simply make things up and they be true. Hence the "societies cannot decide people can fly" analogy.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Society trying to decide people can fly is not a moral issue in any sense. Swing=Miss



That wasn't the point. See above post.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

It goes something like this(obviously simplified)

Society: Murding people because you like to see them die is immoral.

Stringmusic: I like murding people because I like to see them die. I'm going to go murder someone right now.

after the murder.......

Society: You're wrong for murdering that person.

Stringmusic: Says who, I can do whatever I want.

Society: We say it's wrong.

Stringmusic: pffffffftttt   Your point? Who made you an authoritive moral figure?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, I'm saying societies have no authority to do that, if at the same times morals are to be justified. You, me, or societies cannot simply make things up and they be true. Hence the "societies cannot decide people can fly" analogy.



People can fly is not a moral issue...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And that seems to be the point in which we differ. I simply see no justification in enforcing "whatever the crowd comes up with" sort of speak, IMO, that's immoral in and of itself. I think there must be a moral authority for humans to even make moral judgements at all.



Yet the crowd came up with your religion and your god and you attempt to enforce it because the crowd tells you to. 

We make our own moral judgements. They seem fine to us now but in 100 , 200 years some time in the future we'll look back on us and ask ourselves the same questions we ask of others.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> People can fly is not a moral issue...



I know. That wasn't my point.

The point is, societies cannot simply make things up.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> We make our own moral judgements.



Yes we do, the question is, are our moral judgements justifiable? Because if they're not, those judgements don't mean a hill of beans.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I know. That wasn't my point.
> 
> The point is, societies cannot simply make things up.



Of course they can. They've made up gods FOREVER. Not just yours.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes we do, the question is, are our moral judgements justifiable? Because if they're not, those judgements don't mean a hill of beans.



Morals have changed a lot over the last several hundred years. Homosexuality, treatment of women.... A lot of topics. Things that used to be fine aren't any more because we change our morals, not because the ultimate judge changes its mind.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Of course they can. They've made up gods FOREVER.



Are all those gods real? No? I thought if societies said something, it was true. Wait a minute, if societies make up gods, and they're not real, how can they make up the rules for morality, and those rules be real (justified)?

Quite a conundrum, huh?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Morals have changed a lot over the last several hundred years. Homosexuality, treatment of women.... A lot of topics. Things that used to be fine aren't any more because we change our morals, not because the ultimate judge changes its mind.



People have changed, and what people will and will not accept as morally right or wrong have changed, morals have not changed. Murdering a infant because it's fun has always been morally wrong, at any point in time.

The fact that people view morals differently, at different times, does not show that there is not a moral law giver.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

Although I agree, murdering infants being immoral is still an opinion.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are all those gods real? No? I thought if societies said something, it was true. Wait a minute, if societies make up gods, and they're not real, how can they make up the rules for morality, and those rules be real (justified)?
> 
> Quite a conundrum, huh?



That's right, none of them are "real." Not any more real than we make them. Our morals (current or past) are real because we make them as real as we feel like. They are as real as the made up gods were to our ancestors and your made up god is to you.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Although I agree, murdering infants being immoral is still an opinion.



Exactly, it is an opinion and has no justification outside of a moral law giver. This is one of the reasons I've come to the logical and rational conclusion that there is a moral law giver, I don't believe murdering an infant is a matter of opinion. For me to be able to tell someone that murdering an infant is wrong, I must be able to argue why I think it's wrong, and give justification to why it is wrong. Because we(society) say so just doesn't cut it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> That's right, none of them are "real." Not any more real than we make them. Our morals (current or past) are real because we make them as real as we feel like. They are as real as the made up gods were to our ancestors and your made up god is to you.



The next time you hear of a shooting like the one in Sandy Hook, and you think to yourself, "man, what that guy did is wrong" just remember that he's not really wrong, his morals were just different than yours.


That doesn't sound good, does it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Exactly, it is an opinion and has no justification outside of a moral law giver. This is one of the reasons I've come to the logical and rational conclusion that there is a moral law giver, I don't believe murdering an infant is a matter of opinion. For me to be able to tell someone that murdering an infant is wrong, I must be able to argue why I think it's wrong, and give justification to why it is wrong. Because we(society) say so just doesn't cut it.



But because your imaginary friend that you only know in your head says so, now THAT cuts it.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The next time you hear of a shooting like the one in Sandy Hook, and you think to yourself, "man, what that guy did is wrong" just remember that he's not really wrong, his morals were just different than yours.
> 
> 
> That doesn't sound good, does it?



I understand the way it sounds. It doesn't make me uncomfortable though.

Men doing things with boys wasn't always as wrong as we view it currently.

They are both against my morals, and yours too I would assume. We share a lot of morals but not because there is an unseen ultimate moral law writer.


----------



## Four (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Exactly, it is an opinion and has no justification outside of a moral law giver. This is one of the reasons I've come to the logical and rational conclusion that there is a moral law giver, I don't believe murdering an infant is a matter of opinion. For me to be able to tell someone that murdering an infant is wrong, I must be able to argue why I think it's wrong, and give justification to why it is wrong. Because we(society) say so just doesn't cut it.



Wouldn't that just be a matter of the Moral Law giver's opinion? Or specifically, your interpretation of a book allegedly written by somebody inspired by a moral law giver?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

Four said:


> Wouldn't that just be a matter of the Moral Law giver's opinion? Or specifically, your interpretation of a book allegedly written by somebody inspired by a moral law giver?



Yes, however, in my case the law giver is perfect.


----------



## Four (Feb 6, 2013)

Meh, Nvm


----------



## JFS (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> The next time you hear of a shooting like the one in Sandy Hook, and you think to yourself, "man, what that guy did is wrong" just remember that he's not really wrong, his morals were just different than yours.



If the god of the bible has no problem killing children and infants, and he is your perfect law giver, than I think you have to admit your morals sometimes permit this.


----------



## Four (Feb 6, 2013)

JFS said:


> If the god of the bible has no problem killing children and infants, and he is your perfect law giver, than I think you have to admit your morals sometimes permit this.



I was thinking the same thing.. I think its reasonable to argue for objective morality, or MAYBE a law giver...

But if you did, why on earth would it be the god of the christian bible? What a terrible person, fiction or otherwise.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

JFS said:


> If the god of the bible has no problem killing children and infants, and he is your perfect law giver, than I think you have to admit your morals sometimes permit this.


Nice straw man. 


Four said:


> I was thinking the same thing.. I think its reasonable to argue for objective morality, or MAYBE a law giver...
> 
> But if you did, why on earth would it be the god of the christian bible? What a terrible person, fiction or otherwise.



I knew the conversation would eventually lead to this.


----------



## Four (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I knew the conversation would eventually lead to this.



Here is a different angle, Socrates style! 

Is your god explaining morality, or creating it?

So is something moral by virtue of god saying it is, or is god just pointing out something that is objectively true..

For example, if god said it was immoral to shave my armpits... would that make it immoral? Or would god never say that, because it's objectivity not immoral, and god recognized it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 6, 2013)

Four said:


> Here is a different angle, Socrates style!
> 
> Is your god explaining morality, or creating it?
> 
> ...



I think the answer to your question is both. God both created and explains morality. 

I believe God made the earth, man, and the parameters for man to live by, thereby creating morals. He explains morals by His word, a relationship with Him, and even giving us the ability to use reason and logic to come to certian moral conclusions.

I hope I've come close to answering this properly. You've officially made my head hurt with that.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I know. That wasn't my point.
> 
> The point is, societies cannot simply make things up.



At the very core it is based off of instinct and learning. Animals possess certain qualities that are deemed as morals by humans. Like us (animals) these things have been deemed as good or bad...rewarded or punished...as the herd, group or society sees fit. They have gotten to these universal rules as a result of trial and error and what is or is not acceptable. Sorry but there is no Ultimate Moral Giver that pre-programmed animals including 'US' animals.


----------



## Four (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I think the answer to your question is both. God both created and explains morality.
> 
> I believe God made the earth, man, and the parameters for man to live by, thereby creating morals. He explains morals by His word, a relationship with Him, and even giving us the ability to use reason and logic to come to certian moral conclusions.
> 
> I hope I've come close to answering this properly. You've officially made my head hurt with that.



You did, the answer i heard was that something is moral because god made it moral, not because god knows its moral.

So i might say that "murder is immoral" but i am just referencing morality. God might say "murder is immoral" and it is, because he said it.

So morality isn't objective to God... because it truly is god's creation to do with what he will. Meaning god can say that red hair is immoral, or hiccups, etc.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 6, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Very good argument ambush. Now, do you want to provide some evidence for your position, or would you like to continue to dumb the conversation down a little more?



Furthermore, cannibalistic cultures will tell you that whatever god(s) they worship condone(s) their behavior.  Would you tie up your son and place him on a sacrificial altar if God told you to?  If your answer is "yes" than I fear that your moral compass is broken.  

It's one thing to argue that god gave us the capacity to reason morality.  You could make the same argument that god put the spots on a trout or the facets on a banana so it would fit in our hand "just so".   Baseless.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Furthermore, cannibalistic cultures will tell you that whatever god(s) they worship condone(s) their behavior.


Are they right? Is eating their neighbors acceptable morally? Quite obvious the answer is no, I have justification for that answer, where is yours?



> I fear that your moral compass is broken.


Agian, by what grounds do you have the right to say my moral compass is broken, for any reason? Just because you think someone's moral compass is broken does not make it so.



> Baseless.



This is my 37th post in this thread, I've given a reasonable and logical argument for my position, you may not agree with it, but please don't call it baseless, that's just silly. 

If anything, I do have a "base" for my argument, a moral law giver, IMO, without that, all other moral arguments are baseless, no matter how much reason and logic are applied.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

Four said:


> So morality isn't objective to God... because it truly is god's creation to do with what he will. Meaning god can say that red hair is immoral, or hiccups, etc.



I kind of agree, but I don't think God gives moral rules to live by arbitrarily, or irrational morals, He created us and knows how we need to conduct ourselves.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are they right? Is eating their neighbors acceptable morally? Quite obvious the answer is no, I have justification for that answer, where is yours?


Now explain why you THINK the answer is "no".




stringmusic said:


> Agian, by what grounds do you have the right to say my moral compass is broken, for any reason? Just because you think someone's moral compass is broken does not make it so.


Yours is not broken but then again neither is another persons because they can find a way to justify their morals that do not agree with yours.





stringmusic said:


> This is my 37th post in this thread, I've given a reasonable and logical argument for my position, you may not agree with it, but please don't call it baseless, that's just silly.
> 
> If anything, I do have a "base" for my argument, a moral law giver, IMO, without that, all other moral arguments are baseless, no matter how much reason and logic are applied.



Your argument is that there is a Moral Law Giver and in 37 posts, along with the thousands of posts in other threads, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence....let alone anything concrete that any such being exists. You have not proven there is a Base that you can build your argument from. Simply implying it is there does not count. Inserting any make believe base sounds like the whole argument works, but it does not unless you are now going to show us evidence that your base exists.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Are they right? Is eating their neighbors acceptable morally? Quite obvious the answer is no, I have justification for that answer, where is yours?
> 
> 
> Agian, by what grounds do you have the right to say my moral compass is broken, for any reason? Just because you think someone's moral compass is broken does not make it so.
> ...



He can't say your moral compass is broken.. He can say your moral compass doesn't point the same direction that his does. Because he has his own compass and you have yours. Influenced by similar things but since they lie in each of your minds they are different and neither is wrong, just different.

Why is cannibalism quite obviously wrong?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> This is my 37th post in this thread, I've given a reasonable and logical argument for my position, you may not agree with it, but please don't call it baseless, that's just silly.



Yeagh, um, noooooo.....

Your entire "Logical" (which its not by the way) starts with a huge unproveable assumption.  You have no leg to stand on.  You have not given one shred of logic that lends credence to your theory of an moral law giver. All you have done is ignore the logic of others and insert your belief. It is baseless and I'm not being silly.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I get it from here......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again none of what I'm saying is an assumption the proof is right in front of your eyes.

1. Look at all human civilizations throughout history, has man benefited from organizing itself into societies? The answer is a blatant YES!

2.  Throughout history which societies have been the most prosperous and succesful (successful meaning making life better/easier/longer/healthier)? The ones that encourage the peaceful cooperation among men. 

3. do they have a common diety denominator? NO! As a matter of fact common belief does not equate to equal success. 

4. Until a being greater than man shows up and reveals themselves to man, Man is the ultimate arbiter on this planet. You belief stem DIRECTLY from mans arbitration of YOUR own belief.  Like it or not, believe it or not, it is 100% true. 


These are FACTS. Facts that can be drawed upon to make a logical conclusion.  Were are ours?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Again none of what I'm saying is an assumption the proof is right in front of your eyes.
> 
> 1. Look at all human civilizations throughout history, has man benefited from organizing itself into societies? The answer is a blatant YES!
> 
> ...



Be careful, at times I have been countered with NO direct responses for the sound arguments made in my posts but instead with 3 laughing smileys rolling on the floor. Consider yourself warned about such in depth rebuttals!!! lolol


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Be careful, at times I have been countered with NO direct responses for the sound arguments made in my posts but instead with 3 laughing smileys rolling on the floor. Consider yourself warned about such in depth rebuttals!!! lolol



LOL.  String is good at making me think I'm not being clear.  But everytime I go back and read my arguements, they seem bright as day to me.  How he can't see the logic, and then throw blatantly assumptive arguments out there, and call them logic, makes me wonder. Is the logic too strenuous?  Is there something I missed that gives credence to this mythical creature he calls a moral law giver?  Is he unable? Or is he unwilling, knowing that if he admits man needs no moral authority other than himself, that it somehow shakes his faith?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now explain why you THINK the answer is "no".


Because God has given the right to life, and eating someone(before they're dead) takes that right away.



> Yours is not broken but then again neither is another persons because they can find a way to justify their morals that do not agree with yours.


Ok, you think everyone's morals are right. You are definitely entitled to that belief.




> Your argument is that there is a Moral Law Giver and in 37 posts, along with the thousands of posts in other threads, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence....let alone anything concrete that any such being exists. You have not proven there is a Base that you can build your argument from. Simply implying it is there does not count. Inserting any make believe base sounds like the whole argument works, but it does not unless you are now going to show us evidence that your base exists.



My argument reveals a moral law giver, it's the conclusion, not the premise. In this particular discussion, I'm not arguing for the existence of God.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> He can't say your moral compass is broken.. He can say your moral compass doesn't point the same direction that his does. Because he has his own compass and you have yours. Influenced by similar things but since they lie in each of your minds they are different and neither is wrong, just different.



Law of non-condradiction, meaning, murdering a child for fun is wrong, always. If one person thinks it's ok, and another does not, one is right and the other is wrong, they cannot both be right.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Yeagh, um, noooooo.....
> 
> Your entire "Logical" (which its not by the way) starts with a huge unproveable assumption.  You have no leg to stand on.  You have not given one shred of logic that lends credence to your theory of an moral law giver. All you have done is ignore the logic of others and insert your belief. It is baseless and I'm not being silly.



Again, the moral law giver is the conclusion, not the premise.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Because God has given the right to life, and eating someone(before they're dead) takes that right away.



Says who? Man! thats who! No god has EVER come done an announced this to the world!  It doesn't even claim that in that book you so revere! 



> My argument reveals a moral law giver, it's the conclusion, not the premise. In this particular discussion, I'm not arguing for the existence of God.



You haven't made an arguement for a moral law giver! All you have done is vainly ingored the evidence that man does not need one!


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Again none of what I'm saying is an assumption the proof is right in front of your eyes.
> 
> 1. Look at all human civilizations throughout history, has man benefited from organizing itself into societies? The answer is a blatant YES!
> 
> ...



Those highlighted words are assumptions, do you not see that? You can tell someone life is better if they don't steal, but to me, there has to be a better reason than "because society says so".


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Again, the moral law giver is the conclusion, not the premise.



Its a very bad one.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Be careful, at times I have been countered with NO direct responses for the sound arguments made in my posts but instead with 3 laughing smileys rolling on the floor. Consider yourself warned about such in depth rebuttals!!! lolol


Yes, bullet, these are great sound arguments from you and ambush.



bullethead said:


> I have yet to see a better example of a H U G E assumption than someone that basis every argument around an invisible being that exists only in their mind. There is not even a core to base an argument around.





ambush80 said:


> If anyone needs help understanding why eating each other is a loser in the long run then God help you.





bullethead said:


> It is fact that 'we' came from an ape-like ancestor. That is not opinion. That is not belief. That is not theory. That is fact.





bullethead said:


> One side has and uses evidence to make it's conclusions while the other literally has nothing but their imagination.



I've decided not to respond to silly posts anymore, these are intellectual topics, and if the discussion cannot be had through intelligent and adult like conversation then the discussion will not be had by me.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Says who? Man! thats who! No god has EVER come done an announced this to the world!  It doesn't even claim that in that book you so revere!


You're continuing to mix two different arguments. If you want to argue the merits of the bible, that's fine, start a thread, but that is not what we are arguing here. 



> You haven't made an arguement for a moral law giver! All you have done is vainly ingored the evidence that man does not need one!



I've made a very clear argument for a moral law giver, you just don't want to say so. I've accepted the evidence that man doesn't need a moral law giver and challenged that evidence by saying that society doesn't justify morality. Would you like to explain why society is an authority on morality?


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Those highlighted words are assumptions, do you not see that? You can tell someone life is better if they don't steal, but to me, there has to be a better reason than "because society says so".



No they are not. Name a society throughout history that proves otherwise.  Name a society that the majority of its citizenry prosperred were they were subjugated to coercion and tyranny, were theft and violence were, an acceptable part of their society.  You can't.  There are plenty of examples throughout history but none of them last.  Why? The dissention is too much for any social fabric to bear. It breaks down becomes anarchy and tyranny.  Those of which are NOT desireable to the human condition.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I've made a very clear argument for a moral law giver, you just don't want to say so. I've accepted the evidence that man doesn't need a moral law giver and challenged that evidence by saying that society doesn't justify morality. Would you like to explain why society is an authority on morality?



Where? Society is not the authority on morality, that is a culture concept. There is no moral authority or absolutes!!!!!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Law of non-condradiction, meaning, murdering a child for fun is wrong, always. If one person thinks it's ok, and another does not, one is right and the other is wrong, they cannot both be right.



They can with no ultimate right and wrong and no ultimate morality.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> No they are not. Name a society throughout history that proves otherwise.  Name a society that the majority of its citizenry prosperred were they were subjugated to coercion and tyranny, were theft and violence were, an acceptable part of their society.  You can't.  There are plenty of examples throughout history but none of them last.  Why? The dissention is too much for any social fabric to bear. It breaks down becomes anarchy and tyranny.  Those of which are NOT desireable to the human condition.



That is great explanation of how societies survive. I don't think it addresses how a person tells right from wrong though.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Where? Society is not the authority on morality, that is a culture concept. There is no moral authority or absolutes!!!!!



Yes, we've went over this before. Even though you believe in moral absolutes you will not admit that they exists. I don't really feel like going down that road again.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> They can with no ultimate right and wrong and no ultimate morality.



But there is a right and wrong, you've admitted as much earlier in this thread when I brought up the "murdering for fun" scenario.


----------



## JFS (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That is great explanation of how societies survive. I don't think it addresses how a person tells right from wrong though.



I think there are inherent human traits that we have derived over the years, the rest is education.  So learning right from wrong can be direct (kid gets his butt kicked for stealing), indirect (parents instruct not to steal) or intuitive (kid has empathy for the people he takes things from).

But none of that is absolute (commune doesn't recogize private property so not wrong to take, or it's a permited act against someone outside your society, e.g. stealing is ok when it is plundering some other society's stuff).


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But there is a right and wrong, you've admitted as much earlier in this thread when I brought up the "murdering for fun" scenario.



I believe I said that I BELIEVE it is wrong. That I agree with you that it's wrong. Not that it is an ultimate truth decided by something larger than our own brains and our own society.

I believe that there are things that I/we feel are wrong, wronger than wrong. Horrible... but that doesn't mean that someone or something else decided it was wrong.


----------



## JFS (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> But there is a right and wrong, you've admitted as much earlier in this thread when I brought up the "murdering for fun" scenario.




Sure- holding, spearing, roughing the passer, and unsportsmanlike conduct are wrong too.  We don't need a divine authority for that.  We do need a common set of rules to act by if we want to get the most out of our collective activity.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

JFS said:


> I think there are inherent human traits that we have derived over the years, the rest is education.  So learning right from wrong can be direct (kid gets his butt kicked for stealing), indirect (parents instruct not to steal) or intuitive (kid has empathy for the people he takes things from).
> 
> But none of that is absolute (commune doesn't recogize private property so not wrong to take, or it's a permited act against someone outside your society, e.g. stealing is ok when it is plundering some other society's stuff).



One is steal faced with the problem of right and wrong. A kid may get his butt kicked for stealing, and he may not steal anymore, that doesn't mean that stealing is wrong or immoral, it just means the kid didn't like getting a beating. Same with the parents instructing the kid not to steal, the "because we say so" may work for a child, but not so much for a thief who doesn't care what society thinks.

Good point on the intuitive, and I totally agree. Empathy very well points toward how one knows right from wrong. We could argue how humans obtained that intuition, but that is a different argument.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I believe I said that I BELIEVE it is wrong. That I agree with you that it's wrong. Not that it is an ultimate truth decided by something larger than our own brains and our own society.
> 
> I believe that there are things that I/we feel are wrong, wronger than wrong. Horrible... but that doesn't mean that someone or something else decided it was wrong.



I'm not trying to not have a conversation with you, but I've went down this wormhole with Bishop before and I really don't want to go there again, at least not today.

I'll just say this, just because someone thinks murdering a baby for fun is ok, doesn't make it ok. That's why I've been arguing for moral justification this entire time.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

JFS said:


> Sure- holding, spearing, roughing the passer, and unsportsmanlike conduct are wrong too.  We don't need a divine authority for that.  We do need a common set of rules to act by if we want to get the most out of our collective activity.



You're right, we do need a set of rules to live by, I'm not saying we don't. I am arguing for the justification of those rules.

Football rules need not apply.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not trying to not have a conversation with you, but I've went down this wormhole with Bishop before and I really don't want to go there again, at least not today.
> 
> I'll just say this, just because someone thinks murdering a baby for fun is ok, doesn't make it ok. That's why I've been arguing for moral justification this entire time.



And just becuase YOU AND I find it morally reprehensible doesn't make it so.


----------



## JFS (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> One is steal faced with the problem of right and wrong.



Well that's what is being taught, and that teaching generally is more effective when there is some reinforcement.

You could easily have a society that didn't prohibit stealing.  The strongest get to take and keep what they can.  If so taught the strongest who get to take stuff likely would not view it as "wrong", unless they had empathy for the weak or the society looked at the rule and decided the collective good was better served by prohibiting such behavior.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> That is great explanation of how societies survive. I don't think it addresses how a person tells right from wrong though.



By learning from other and realizing that if they want to be a part of a particular society they better adhere to their principals.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 7, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> And just becuase YOU AND I find it morally reprehensible doesn't make it so.



Almost Exactly. It doesn't make it so ---- TO US. It can't go just one way.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not trying to not have a conversation with you, but I've went down this wormhole with Bishop before and I really don't want to go there again, at least not today.
> 
> I'll just say this, just because someone thinks murdering a baby for fun is ok, doesn't make it ok. That's why I've been arguing for moral justification this entire time.



I may be wrong with my history --- but didn't shakespeare have intimate relations with boys? Was it morally unacceptable in that time? I may be mistaken, but I don't think it was. It was ok. It is now not morally acceptable. Why? Not because a god said so or made it that way.. it's because we've decided that is WRONG. Women have rights now when in the past it was socially and morally accepted that they did not. Men have been enslaved for quite a bit of human history. Of course the people who were enslaved probably never like it, but the slave owners and their kind didn't find it morally wrong. We now do. 

We now think their  morals were unjustified... but that's because they were THEIR MORALS. NOT OURS or YOURS. Morals belong to people, not anything universal. You say (maybe indirectly) that god's morals or idea or view of morals changed  after the OT... Have they changed more over time?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

Well, I've thrown about everything I got in the arsenal. I don't know where else we can go on this topic, without it being repetitive.

I've got twice as many posts as the second person in this thread, maybe someone else will chime in soon. I'm not sure why this forum is so slow these days, but I wish it would pick up.

Enjoyed the conversation fellas, but I'm about done with this one


----------



## JFS (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Enjoyed the conversation fellas, but I'm about done with this one



OK, but read this before you go, it's a good recap:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Because God has given the right to life, and eating someone(before they're dead) takes that right away.


When? Which God? Show us......




stringmusic said:


> My argument reveals a moral law giver, it's the conclusion, not the premise. In this particular discussion, I'm not arguing for the existence of God.


Nowhere does your argument even come close to giving us a clue that any sort of being exists let alone that there is a moral law giver.
I think you are confused here in that you seem to be grading your own tests and are convinced your answers are sufficient. It is us you have to convince with overwhelming evidence and you have not done so. Nothing that you claim is evidence has pointed to anything other than humanity in human nature.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2013)

Another read:
http://www.skeptictank.org/files/human/morality.htm


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

JFS said:


> OK, but read this before you go, it's a good recap:
> 
> http://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response



Thanks, I'll try to read that tonight.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Another read:
> http://www.skeptictank.org/files/human/morality.htm



I'll try to read this too.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Another read:
> http://www.skeptictank.org/files/human/morality.htm



An excerpt from the article:

                      THE SOURCE OF MORALITY

     But does this completely solve the problem posed by the
theist?  No, it does not.  For the question can still be raised as
to how it is possible for human beings to behave morally, agree on
moral rules and laws, and generally cooperate with each other in
the absence of any divine impetus in this direction.  After all,
haven't modern philosophers, in particular analytical 
philosophers, argued that moral statements are basically emotional
utterances without a rational base?  And haven't they split "is" 
irrevocably from "ought" so that no foundation is even possible?
In the light of this, how is it that human beings manage to agree,
often from culture to culture, on a variety of moral and legal
principles?  And, of more interest, how is it possible for legal
and moral systems to improve over the centuries in the absence of
the very rational or theological footing that modern philosophers
have so effectively taken away?  Without some basis, some
objective criteria, it isn't possible to choose a good moral 
system over a bad one.  If both are equally emotive and
irrational, they are both equally arbitrary -- making any
selection between them only a product of accidental leanings or
willful whim.  No choice could be rationally defended.

     And yet, seemingly in spite of this problem, human beings do
develop moral and legal systems on their own and later make
improvements on them.  What is the explanation?  From whence do
moral values come?

     Let's imagine for a moment that we have the earth, lifeless 
and dead, floating in a lifeless and dead universe.  There are
only mountains, rocks, gullies, winds, and rain, but no one
anywhere to make judgements as to good and evil.  In such a world
would good and evil exist?  Would it make any moral difference if
a rock rolled down a hill or if it didn't?  Richard Taylor in his 
book, Good and Evil, has argued effectively that a "distinction 
between good and evil could not even theoretically be drawn in a
world that we imagined to be devoid of all life."

     Now, following Taylor, let's add some beings to this planet.  
However, let us make them perfectly rational and devoid of all
emotion, totally free of all purposes, needs, or desires.  Like
computers, they simply register what is going on, but they make no
moves to ensure their own survival or avoid their own destruction.
Do good and evil exist now?  Again, there is no theoretical way in
which they can.  These beings don't care what goes on; they merely 
observe.  And thus they have no rationale for declaring a thing
good or evil.  Nothing matters to them and, since they are the
only beings in the universe, nothing matters at all.

     Enter Adam.  Adam is a man who is fully human.  He has
deficiencies, and hence needs.  He has longings and desires.  He
can experience pain and pleasure and often avoids the former and
seeks the latter.  Things matter to him.  He can ask of a given
thing, "Is this for me or against me?" and come to some
determination.

     At this point, and only at this point, do good and evil
appear.  Furthermore, as Taylor argues, "the judgements of this 
solitary being concerning good and evil are as ABSOLUTE as any
judgement can be.  Such a being is, indeed, the measure of all
things:  of good things as good and of bad things as bad. . . .
No distinction can be made, in terms of this being, between what
is merely good for HIM and what is good ABSOLUTELY; there is no
higher standard of goodness.  For what could it be?"  Apart from 
Adam's wants and needs, there is only that dead universe.  And,
without him, good and evil could not exist.

     Now let's bring another being into the picture, a being who, 
though having many needs and interests in common with Adam, has
some that differ slightly.  We will call her Eve.  Interesting
things begin to happen at this point.  For, on the one hand, we
have two people with similar aims who are capable of working
together for a common cause.  On the other hand, we have two
people who need to compromise with each other in order that each
will be able to satisfy the other's unique desires.  And so a 
complex interpersonal relationship develops, and rules are
established to maximize mutual satisfaction and to minimize the
effects of evil.  With rules, we now have right and wrong.  And
from this basic recognition of the need for cooperation
ultimately come laws and ethics.

     But now let us suppose that these two people come to a fierce
disagreement over the best way to perform a desired action.  The
two argue and seem to get nowhere.  And then Adam pulls his trump
card.  He says to Eve, "Wait a minute.  Aren't we forgetting about 
God?"  And to this Eve replies, "Who?"  Adam now has his opening 
and proceeds to go into a long explanation about how all moral
values would be arbitrary if it weren't for God; how God was the 
one who made good things good and bad things bad; and how our
knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral
must be based on the absolute moral standards established in
heaven.  Well, this is all new to Eve, and so she asks Adam, who
seems to know so much about it, to provide a little more detail on
these absolute standards.  And so Adam goes into another long
explanation about the laws of God and God's punishments for 
disobedience, until he arrives at the issue which started the
whole discussion in the first place.  And thereupon Adam
concludes, "And so you see, Eve, God says to do it MY way!"  Such
is the manner in which appeals to divine absolutes settle moral
and other disputes between people.


----------



## JFS (Feb 7, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I'll try to read this too.



Mine has cannibals.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 7, 2013)

JFS said:


> Mine has cannibals.



LOL, didn't realize the links were darn near the same.
Like minds........


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

Todays headlines:
http://news.yahoo.com/accused-witch-burned-alive-papua-guinea-012307648.html


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

JFS said:


> Mine has cannibals.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Todays headlines:
> http://news.yahoo.com/accused-witch-burned-alive-papua-guinea-012307648.html



What are you trying to say by posting that?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What are you trying to say by posting that?



Lesson in Morals


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Lesson in Morals



How?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> .....maybe someone else will chime in soon......



What's up, String!   You did some good work here.  Any time the final comments evolve to "show us your God," we can pretty much assume the discussion has ended.

I do believe a "godless" person can be just as moral as a person with God.  However, I do not understand who determines where the lines of moral are to be applied.  For instance, the article posted previously presented a case with no beings.  If there is no God, in a universal perspective, humans, ants, elephants, rocks, water, dirt, and everything else are pretty much equal, and none have greater value than the other.  I have difficulty understanding how a uniform sense of right and wrong can be established.  That does not exclude atheists from valuing humans over dirt, it just means that any declaration of "moral" would have to be completely subjective.

I understand the counter argument is to say morals are arbitrary based on societal standards.....but, why?  Is it not engrained in all of us to value each other more than dirt?  Is that a product of evolution, or a soul?

And, eventually, that is where the discussion ends.....as it always does.

Wish I could jump in more often, new job has me a bit limited.....I've been looking over my shoulder the whole time I typed this


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

Did you actually READ the article?

Either culture/society/or some other God has influenced these people to think killing witches and eating parts of witch doctors is OK or your God gave them these Ultimate Moral Laws.



> A mob stripped, tortured and bound a woman accused of witchcraft, then burned her alive in front of hundreds of horrified witnesses in a Papua New Guinea town, police said Friday. It was the latest sorcery-related killing in this South Pacific island nation.
> 
> Bystanders, including many children, watched and some took photographs of Wednesday's brutal slaying. Grisly pictures were published on the front pages of the country's two largest newspapers, The National and the Post-Courier, while the prime minister, police and diplomats condemned the killing.
> 
> In rural Papua New Guinea, witchcraft is often blamed for unexplained misfortunes. Sorcery has traditionally been countered by sorcery, but responses to allegations of witchcraft have become increasingly violent in recent years.





> Kepari Leniata, a 20-year-old mother, had been accused of sorcery by relatives of a 6-year-old boy who died in a hospital on Tuesday.
> 
> She was tortured with a hot iron rod, bound, doused in gasoline, and then set alight on a pile of car tires and trash in the Western Highlands provincial capital of Mount Hagen, national police spokesman Dominic Kakas said.
> 
> ...





> In other recent sorcery-related killings, police arrested 29 people in July last year accused of being part of a cannibal cult in Papua New Guinea's jungle interior and charged them with the murders of seven suspected witch doctors.
> 
> Kakas could not immediately say what had become of the 29 since their first court appearances last year in the north coast province of Madang.
> 
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What's up, String!   You did some good work here.  Any time the final comments evolve to "show us your God," we can pretty much assume the discussion has ended.
> 
> I do believe a "godless" person can be just as moral as a person with God.  However, I do not understand who determines where the lines of moral are to be applied.  For instance, the article posted previously presented a case with no beings.  If there is no God, in a universal perspective, humans, ants, elephants, rocks, water, dirt, and everything else are pretty much equal, and none have greater value than the other.  I have difficulty understanding how a uniform sense of right and wrong can be established.  That does not exclude atheists from valuing humans over dirt, it just means that any declaration of "moral" would have to be completely subjective.
> 
> ...




You just summed up in one post what took me about 50.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> What's up, String!   You did some good work here.  Any time the final comments evolve to "show us your God," we can pretty much assume the discussion has ended.
> 
> I do believe a "godless" person can be just as moral as a person with God.  However, I do not understand who determines where the lines of moral are to be applied.  For instance, the article posted previously presented a case with no beings.  If there is no God, in a universal perspective, humans, ants, elephants, rocks, water, dirt, and everything else are pretty much equal, and none have greater value than the other.  I have difficulty understanding how a uniform sense of right and wrong can be established.  That does not exclude atheists from valuing humans over dirt, it just means that any declaration of "moral" would have to be completely subjective.
> 
> ...



Whenever someone basis their entire argument around a God yet cannot produce such a being to back up anything they claim....the conversation is over before it started.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did you actually READ the article?



Yes, I read most of it.

Were these people morally right or wrong?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Whenever someone basis their entire argument around a God yet cannot produce such a being to back up anything they claim....the conversation is over before it started.


I tried to get out of this conversation for fear of being repetative, but here it goes agian.....

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7612714&postcount=132


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, I read most of it.
> 
> Were these people morally right or wrong?



To me, I'd say wrong.

Other people that live in that culture seem to think otherwise.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I tried to get out of this conversation for fear of being repetative, but here it goes agian.....
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7612714&postcount=132



I don't know how things work where you live but where I come from if you make a statement, accusation or claim you have to be able to back it up in order to be credible.

You say there is a moral law giver and have not been able to go one step beyond that claim in order to back it up any further.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> To me, I'd say wrong.
> 
> Other people that live in that culture seem to think otherwise.



Law of non-condradiction.

You can't think it's wrong, while at the same time they think it's right, and both of you be correct.

So, who's right?

That's where the moral law give comes in. Do you now see how a moral law giver is the conclusion, and not the premise?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I tried to get out of this conversation for fear of being repetative, but here it goes agian.....
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7612714&postcount=132



Then don't you have to show us how you have come to that conclusion?


----------



## Four (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I tried to get out of this conversation for fear of being repetative, but here it goes agian.....
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=7612714&postcount=132



I am a moral law giver. I give myself morals and apply them in my life.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Law of non-condradiction.
> 
> You can't think it's wrong, while at the same time they think it's right, and both of you be correct.
> 
> ...



No.
Because there is no universal ultimate moral laws.
There is no giver.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Law of non-condradiction.
> 
> You can't think it's wrong, while at the same time they think it's right, and both of you be correct.
> 
> ...



I'd wager that you and your moral law giver always agree on everything huh??? It's the others that are wrong??


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2013)

Four said:


> I am a moral law giver. I give myself morals and apply them in my life.



Yes.  Which is the way it has to be if there is no uniform code.

I do believe you guys are probably very moral people, who are good to those around you, friends, loved ones, etc. I know many atheists who are more "moral" than many of the Christians I have encountered in my life.

I think String's point, and mine, is that your sense of morality "must" be subjective.  It's not that your morality is non-existent, it's just variable from one object to another, and that object's perspective.  And, from beyond our perspective, they are irrelevant because we have no greater universal value than a particle of dust floating in a galaxy far away.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

Did the moral law giver forget to give the laws to some people?


----------



## Four (Feb 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  Which is the way it has to be if there is no uniform code.
> 
> I do believe you guys are probably very moral people, who are good to those around you, friends, loved ones, etc. I know many atheists who are more "moral" than many of the Christians I have encountered in my life.
> 
> I think String's point, and mine, is that your sense of morality "must" be subjective.  It's not that your morality is non-existent, it's just variable from one object to another, and that object's perspective.  And, from beyond our perspective, they are irrelevant because we have no greater universal value than a particle of dust floating in a galaxy far away.



I was just kinda poking fun at string, saying there is a moral law giver does not always imply that the law giver is a deity.. it could be me!

These are just words we are using, string defines morality as something akin to "adherence to gods will" or some such. which naturally any atheist is going to reject.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2013)

Four said:


> I was just kinda poking fun at string, saying there is a moral law giver does not always imply that the law giver is a deity.. it could be me!
> 
> These are just words we are using, string defines morality as something akin to "adherence to gods will" or some such. which naturally any atheist is going to reject.



String, JB,

If God/Yeshua/Jesus told you to tie up your son and put him on an altar for sacrifice would you do it?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> String, JB,
> 
> If God/Yeshua/Jesus told you to tie up your son and put him on an altar for sacrifice would you do it?



Why would God ask me to do that?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> String, JB,
> 
> If God/Yeshua/Jesus told you to tie up your son and put him on an altar for sacrifice would you do it?



I would probably see a psychiatrist, because I was hearing things.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Did the moral law giver forget to give the laws to some people?



Some folks think Obama is "good," some think he is "evil."  We have no uniform sense of morality when it comes to politics, so the conclusions will vary.  Much like the rest of life if there is no basis for determining the value of one action over the other.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Law of non-condradiction.
> 
> You can't think it's wrong, while at the same time they think it's right, and both of you be correct.
> 
> ...



Bullet, who's right? You or them? Is it ok to burn a "witch" or not?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, who's right? You or them? Is it ok to burn a "witch" or not?



I asked the Ultimate Law Giver.....still waiting for the Ultimate Answer.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Some folks think Obama is "good," some think he is "evil."  We have no uniform sense of morality when it comes to politics, so the conclusions will vary.  Much like the rest of life if there is no basis for determining the value of one action over the other.



Right.
Where does the UMLG fit in since world wide morals vary so greatly?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Bullet, who's right? You or them? Is it ok to burn a "witch" or not?



I can honestly say the answer depends on where I live,culture, society, upbringing.

Too many variables and there are actually places where stuff like that is deemed acceptable.

No clear Law....no clear law giver.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

I can only give my opinion based on where I live and how I was raised with societies influence.

In the USA that certainly seems frowned upon. In New Guinea....obviously not so much.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why would God ask me to do that?



He's done that kind of thing before.



JB0704 said:


> I would probably see a psychiatrist, because I was hearing things.



If you were convinced it was God, would you do it?

You guys quit dancing and answer the question.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I can honestly say the answer depends on where I live,culture, society, upbringing.



Now we are back to the law of non-condradiction. The answer doesn't depend on where you live, or your culture, because two differing answers cannot both be correct. You are going in circles.

It is either ok to burn someone because you think they are a witch, or it's wrong. It can't be both.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> He's done that kind of thing before.


And for good reason, but now there's no reason for Him to ask it again.



> You guys quit dancing and answer the question.



I'm not answering your loaded question.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Now we are back to the law on non-condradiction. The answer doesn't depend on where you live, or your culture, because two differing answers cannot both be correct. You are going in circles.
> 
> It is either ok to burn someone because you think they are a witch, or it's wrong. It can't be both.



No string, THAT is EXACTLY how the world works. There obviously is no ultimate moral law or ultimate moral law giver. It is acceptable in some places and not in other places.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

Who is the Ultimate Law of Non-Contradiction Giver?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> And for good reason, but now there's no reason for Him to ask it again.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not answering your loaded question.



He's changed his mind before too.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No string, THAT is EXACTLY how the world works. There obviously is no ultimate moral law or ultimate moral law giver. It is acceptable in some places and not in other places.



So, logic is not used in morality?

The acceptance or denial of morals has no bearing on the validity of them. If you decide tomorrow that setting people on fire is funny that doesn't make it morally right.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Who is the Ultimate Law of Non-Contradiction Giver?



It's logic.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So, logic is not used in morality?
> 
> The acceptance or denial of morals has no bearing on the validity of them. If you decide tomorrow that setting people on fire is funny that doesn't make it morally right.



You and I can agree on that because of other influences in our lives.
Had you and I been born in some jungle to the same tribe we might be dancing around a flaming witch doctor of the opposing tribe right now never questioning it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You and I can agree on that because of other influences in our lives.
> Had you and I been born in some jungle to the same tribe we might be dancing around a flaming witch doctor of the opposing tribe right now never questioning it.


I've already explained this as well....


stringmusic said:


> The acceptance or denial of morals has no bearing on the validity of them. If you decide tomorrow that setting people on fire is funny that doesn't make it morally right.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

So, Bullet, now that we know that you and the "witch" burners cannot both be correct, and even if they think they are correct that doesn't make what they did morally right, were they right or wrong in burning that woman?

Could you also justify your answer please?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So, Bullet, now that we know that you and the "witch" burners cannot both be correct, and even if they think they are correct that doesn't make what they did morally right, were they right or wrong in burning that woman?
> 
> Could you also justify your answer please?



You say both can't be right. I say they can.

Lets go this route....
Tell me why you and I say burning the witch or cannibalism is morally wrong. Tell me where you and I got these rules.
I know for certain some God didn't sit me down and talk to me about it.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Tell me why you and I say burning the witch or cannibalism is morally wrong.



Is that moral only applied to you, or do you put that judgement on everybody equally?

Reason I ask is that you guys seem to judge the morality of God quite often.  If you do believe morality is relative to society, or whatever, how could God's morality be judged by you?


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is that moral only applied to you, or do you put that judgement on everybody equally?
> 
> Reason I ask is that you guys seem to judge the morality of God quite often.  If you do believe morality is relative to society, or whatever, how could God's morality be judged by you?



It is impossible for an atheist to judge the morality of god. How do you judge the morality of something that you don't believe in?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Is that moral only applied to you, or do you put that judgement on everybody equally?
> 
> Reason I ask is that you guys seem to judge the morality of God quite often.  If you do believe morality is relative to society, or whatever, how could God's morality be judged by you?



The reason I and others judge the morality of the God of the Bible is because his followers tell us that their God is THE UMLG and yet within the stories of the Bible it is shown time after time that their God does immoral acts.
The God of and followers of the Bible are perfect examples of "Do As I Say....Not As I Do". Where is leading by example? If "God" can do one thing and then the opposite and are both are deemed moral because he is the moral law giver then how can there be an Ultimate judgement between two cultures doing the same but opposite things?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You say both can't be right. I say they can.



Why are you throwing logic out the window?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> It is impossible for an atheist to judge the morality of god. How do you judge the morality of something that you don't believe in?


Happens all the time in here.

Example A:


bullethead said:


> The reason I and others judge the morality of the God of the Bible is because his followers tell us that their God is THE UMLG and yet within the stories of the Bible it is shown time after time that their God does immoral acts.
> The God of and followers of the Bible are perfect examples of "Do As I Say....Not As I Do". Where is leading by example? If "God" can do one thing and then the opposite and are both are deemed moral because he is the moral law giver then how can there be an Ultimate judgement between two cultures doing the same but opposite things?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Happens all the time in here.
> 
> Example A:



When ALL a believer has is the stories in the Bible because there are no examples anywhere else that they can use to hold a conversation the non-believers are forced to use these things as a means to continue conversation in terms the believers can understand.

If we want to have a discussion about who is tougher... Mighty Mouse or Hong-Kong-Phooey  we are going to have to use the comic books to decide which one it is. NONE of it means we believe in any of it, just that it would be the only tools that could help us discuss the matter further with someone that is convinced that one of those is actually tougher than the other one.

Layman's terms: We have to play along.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why are you throwing logic out the window?



Why do you overlook the fact that there are people that live in cultures where this stuff is not deemed as acceptable and there are people that live in cultures where this stuff is perfectly acceptable?

Your problem is that you live in a certain culture, therefore YOURS is right.
If you lived in some bushman tribe in the Congo you might be sitting around a boiling pot of Neighbor Stew discussing how morally wrong it is for those nit-wit Americans not to eat all those slow moving plumpers on their jazzies at the mall.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why are you throwing logic out the window?



Logic tells me, that if I was a missionary tied to a stake ready to be burned alive and I told my bushman captors that I have an invisible friend up in the sky and he says what they are about to do is morally wrong, I'd probably be cooked to a medium-well consistency and enjoyed while they laughed at my god while praising their own that told them it was perfectly fine to eat me...morally of course.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Why do you overlook the fact that there are people that live in cultures where this stuff is not deemed as acceptable and there are people that live in cultures where this stuff is perfectly acceptable?
> 
> Your problem is that you live in a certain culture, therefore YOURS is right.
> If you lived in some bushman tribe in the Congo you might be sitting around a boiling pot of Neighbor Stew discussing how morally wrong it is for those nit-wit Americans not to eat all those slow moving plumpers on their jazzies at the mall.





bullethead said:


> Logic tells me, that if I was a missionary tied to a stake ready to be burned alive and I told my bushman captors that I have an invisible friend up in the sky and he says what they are about to do is morally wrong, I'd probably be cooked to a medium-well consistency and enjoyed while they laughed at my god while praising their own that told them it was perfectly fine to eat me...morally of course.





stringmusic said:


> Why are you throwing logic out the window?



It's a direct and simple question bullet.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's a direct and simple question bullet.



Logic tells me not everything reduces down to just one.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Logic tells me not everything reduces down to just one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction



> In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.



Why are you throwing logic out the window?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

Dialetheism

Graham Priest advocates the view that under some conditions, some statements can be both true and false simultaneously, or may be true and false at different times. Applied universally, without specified conditions or axiomatic restrictions, this dialetheism will cause every statement, to explode, to become true.

As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

The Law of Non Contradiction is not a universal law; it's a mathematical axiom, which means it is a precondition for the application of classical logics. If any statement cannot be evaluated exclusively as true or false, then it is, by definition, not a logical statement, and thus cannot be used.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Dialetheism
> 
> Graham Priest advocates the view that under some conditions, some statements can be both true and false simultaneously, or may be true and false at different times. Applied universally, without specified conditions or axiomatic restrictions, this dialetheism will cause every statement, to explode, to become true.
> 
> As is true of all axioms of logic, the law of non-contradiction is alleged to be neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the grounds that any proof or disproof must use the law itself prior to reaching the conclusion. In other words, in order to verify or falsify the laws of logic one must resort to logic as a weapon, an act which would essentially be self-defeating



Wow, never heard of this, thanks for pointing it out to me.

However, this new word is barely older than I am, while the law of non-condradiction has been around since Aristotle and is one of the three basic laws of logic. Also, you should read the "critism" of dialetheism on the wiki link.

Can you give me some examples of dialetheism?

Can you explain to me how dialetheism applies to my question?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The Law of Non Contradiction is not a universal law; it's a mathematical axiom, which means it is a precondition for the application of classical logics. If any statement cannot be evaluated exclusively as true or false, then it is, by definition, not a logical statement, and thus cannot be used.



How is the LNC not universal?

I think your trying to apply something to my question that shouldn't be applied.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Wow, never heard of this, thanks for pointing it out to me.
> 
> However, this new word is barely older than I am, while the law of non-condradiction has been around since Aristotle and is one of the three basic laws of logic. Also, you should read the "critism" of dialetheism on the wiki link.
> 
> ...



Our entire conversation is filled with examples.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Our entire conversation is filled with examples.



And you've just now decided to let me know?

Will you post some of the examples?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

Hmmmm, since cannibalism is actually legal in many places (usually murder or defiling a human body is the actual charge...not cannibalism) I guess that the Law of Non-Contradiction means that it is morally A-Ok and must have been given 2 Thumbs up by a universal moral law giver.
Sounds good to me.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Hmmmm, since cannibalism is actually legal in many places (usually murder or defiling a human body is the actual charge...not cannibalism) I guess that the Law of Non-Contradiction means that it is morally A-Ok and must have been given 2 Thumbs up by a universal moral law giver.
> Sounds good to me.



What?

You're argument is that if I murder someone in GA, that it's wrong, but put me in Cambodia, and somehow it's ok that I murder.

I say that the law of non-contradiction proves your assertion not to be logical.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> What?
> 
> You're argument is that if I murder someone in GA, that it's wrong, but put me in Cambodia, and somehow it's ok that I murder.
> 
> I say that the law of non-contradiction proves your assertion not to be logical.



Nope, didnt say anything about murder.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Nope, didnt say anything about murder.



Now you're just being difficult. 


Insert cannibalism, i.e. eating people alive, i.e. murder if you want.


Either way, you've said as much just a little up the page.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

The law of non-contradiction then proves that it is not immoral nor illegal to eat the body of an already deceased person in order to survive. Therefore that moral thumbs up must have come from an Ultimate Moral Law Giver.
It is logical for me to conclude that your God is fine with cannibals in survival situations.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

I guess what it is boiling down to is that there is the Law of Non-Contradiction yet there are examples where this law does not fit entirely and even when it does fit the two opposing sides still are left with providing proof that "their" point is the right point.

Is cannibalism in order to survive a result of a Moral Law Giver or Evolutionary Survival of the Fittest? Gotta be one or the other right??


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The law of non-contradiction then proves that it is not immoral nor illegal to eat the body of an already deceased person in order to survive.



How?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How?



It has happened and deemed legal, therefore if it is legal it is not illegal. 
It is morally wrong to sit down at a fine restaurant and order a filet of Rick, but go down in a plane and suddenly Rick (killed on impact and frozen solid) is now OK to eat a week later when no rescue crew has shown up.
So do the morals change depending on situation or culture or do they not change and it has always been OK to eat other people but as a society "we" decided it would be better not to. Remember there are tribes that still eat people and it is perfectly legal for them to do it.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It has happened and deemed legal, therefore if it is legal it is not illegal.
> It is morally wrong to sit down at a fine restaurant and order a filet of Rick, but go down in a plane and suddenly Rick (killed on impact and frozen solid) is now OK to eat a week later when no rescue crew has shown up.
> So do the morals change depending on situation or culture or do they not change and it has always been OK to eat other people but as a society "we" decided it would be better not to. Remember there are tribes that still eat people and is if perfectly legal for them to do it.





I don't know if it's me, or you, but I'm not understanding what point you're trying to make. Maybe because if friday afternoon and I'm ready to go home. I don't usually post in here on the weekends, so maybe we can pick this up Monday. Have a good weekend and thanks for the conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 8, 2013)

I think what your missing is that even with the Law of Non-contradiction you still have a hard time proving which is right.


----------



## hunter rich (Feb 8, 2013)

bullet head said:


> When ALL a believer has is the stories in the Bible because there are no examples anywhere else that they can use to hold a conversation the non-believers are forced to use these things as a means to continue conversation in terms the believers can understand.
> 
> If we want to have a discussion about who is tougher... Mighty Mouse or Hong-Kong-Phooey  we are going to have to use the comic books to decide which one it is. NONE of it means we believe in any of it, just that it would be the only tools that could help us discuss the matter further with someone that is convinced that one of those is actually tougher than the other one.
> 
> Layman's terms: We have to play along.



I think the whole atheist/believer conversation about god is kind of like the old saying - "Don't try to teach a pig to dance, it waists your time and irritates the pig."


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 11, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Now we are back to the law of non-condradiction. The answer doesn't depend on where you live, or your culture, because two differing answers cannot both be correct. You are going in circles.
> 
> It is either ok to burn someone because you think they are a witch, or it's wrong. It can't be both.



There is no universal law to contradict so there is no question regarding which one is right and which one is wrong.. It's ALL OPINION. Just like plenty of people are CERTAIN through their faith that their own god is real and yours is wrong. It's not right and wrong.


----------



## Asath (Feb 12, 2013)

“In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.”

Indeed.  But Logic concerns a seeking of truth, while Morality is nothing of the sort.  

The two things are mutually exclusive by definition.  One might as well try to apply formal logic to a bowl of Jell-O.  Morality is purely emotional, and responds to logical thinking in no shape or form.

Morally, Western society had no problem, for example, with the marrying of 13 year-old girls (and younger), as recently as the early 1900’s.  Witches were burned and persecuted and tortured, by upright, God-fearing Protestants in this Country well into the late 1700’s.  Young boys, and especially young girls were sent to institutions and placed under the care of medical ‘experts’ for the sin of ‘self-abuse’ up until the 1920’s.  Witness, as well, Prohibition and McCarthyism, among thousands of examples of fear, ignorance (and yes – Belief) trumping logic and common sense.

There is NO ‘logical’ basis of morality, since morality is in and of itself illogical and ever-changing.  The natural world has no concept of morality to lend us, except for the obvious – the strong eat the weak.  The quick and the strong survive to reproduce, and the slow and the weak face extinction.  THAT is the morality of Nature, pure and simple.  The logic of that is clear.

Any and all attempts to add to that, or somehow mollify it by adding weak human whining (‘IT ISN”T FAIR!), have failed miserably.  

Human ‘morality,’ far from being some sort of given, absolute and objective construct, is something that can be easily shown to differ wildly from society to society, from era to era, and from culture to culture – always, and even now.

Logic is an if:then series of propositions.  Logic and morality are not contradictory statements unless one holds a principal of morality to be absolutely true, which no single one is.  Moral judgments are just that – judgments made at a certain time and place, and in a certain society at a certain time – they are not, nor have ever been objective ‘truths' that can be held up to ‘logical’ processes.  

In pure logic, morality is absurd.  In even a cursory review of history, morality is absurd.  In view of the various uses of ‘morality’ by modern society, from the most liberal to the most fundamentalist, morality is absurd.  It simply doesn’t exist as a single thing.  

If you doubt this, then try this on – the Birkenstock-wearing, Volvo-driving Vegan sitting next to you at the tavern will argue, passionately, that killing a deer is Immoral.  They are right.  So are you.  Logic?  Out the window.  This is passion, and emotion – not objective truth.  That, in short, is ‘Morality.’  It is entirely in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 12, 2013)

I wish it didn't take me 11 pages to say it like that!!!
Yes, naysayers....I'm giving props when and where they are due.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 13, 2013)

Asath said:


> “In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.”
> 
> Indeed.  But Logic concerns a seeking of truth, while Morality is nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...



I think our morality helps to shape our logic. Logic isn't purely based on truth. It was somewhat logical to Einstein that splitting an atom releases tons of energy. It is not logical to me that splitting something so small creates so much. That just means I don't understand it the same way. I think that truth should be a big part of logical but not completely. I don't argue that splitting an atom doesn't create the energy that man has seen the devastation from, I believe it, it's just not a logical conclusion I would draw.


----------



## Four (Feb 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think our morality helps to shape our logic. Logic isn't purely based on truth. It was somewhat logical to Einstein that splitting an atom releases tons of energy. It is not logical to me that splitting something so small creates so much. That just means I don't understand it the same way. I think that truth should be a big part of logical but not completely. I don't argue that splitting an atom doesn't create the energy that man has seen the devastation from, I believe it, it's just not a logical conclusion I would draw.



I think you're confusing something being logical, to something making sense to you.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 13, 2013)

No.. I don't think so. My logic is my logic. I use my logic, you use your logic. Our logic may bring us to the same place sometimes. Truth can mean your logic is wrong but that doesn't mean that you didn't use logic to come to a conclusion. That would mean that no one in the world has complete logic if logic could be based on nothing but truth.


----------



## Four (Feb 13, 2013)

It's not Your logic or My Logic. its


Syllogistic logic
Mathmatical logic
Boolean logic
Formal Logic
Informal logic

etc

That's not to say that you could not develop your own system of logic, but its a bit more than just going "uhhh yea that sounds about right"

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/whatislogic.php



> § L01.1 A preliminary definition
> 
> The term "logic" came from the Greek word logos, which is sometimes translated as "sentence", "discourse", "reason", "rule", and "ratio". Of course, these translations are not enough to help us understand the more specialized meaning of "logic" as it is used today.
> 
> ...


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 13, 2013)

Four said:


> That's not to say that you could not develop your own system of logic, but its a bit more than just going "uhhh yea that sounds about right"



Sweet!  Since logic tells us how we "ought" to reason, I am goig to invent my own system....

Jaybeanistic logic:  This system of logic tells us that we ought to reason the way jb0704 does, and everyone else is lame.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Feb 14, 2013)

Four, it's quite controversial. So tell me how you use logic and which logic it is to reason that there is no god? And specifically how that gets you more than "that sounds about right."


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Sweet!  Since logic tells us how we "ought" to reason, I am goig to invent my own system....
> 
> Jaybeanistic logic:  This system of logic tells us that we ought to reason the way jb0704 does, and everyone else is lame.



Now just to get it peer reviewed and published.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2013)

Four said:


> Now just to get it peer reviewed and published.



Do I get to determine who my logical "peers" are? Or is there a professional body who gives itself such authority ?  

That would be a lot of fun though, just to see the looks I would get when submitting a well researched paper which attempted to prove my way of looking at things is right......and they are lame.


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Do I get to determine who my logical "peers" are? Or is there a professional body who gives itself such authority ?
> 
> That would be a lot of fun though, just to see the looks I would get when submitting a well researched paper which attempted to prove my way of looking at things is right......and they are lame.



You can determine who your logical peers are... but depending on who you choose other people might not take you seriously. 

Generally peer review happens from professional journals in the field for which the paper is submitted..

1. Submit a paper to a recognized journal (Nature, etc) 
2. The journal contacts experts in the field/topic for which the paper is written, generally 3-5 people.
3. The experts contacted read and review the form and content of the paper and submits the review to the journal editor
4. Then the journal either accepts, rejects, or accepts with changes.

It might take a couple tries until you get published, and you can only have a paper submitted to one journal at a time. Turn around on submitting papers can be 3-9 months.

goodluck!


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 14, 2013)

Four said:


> You can determine who your logical peers are... but depending on who you choose other people might not take you seriously.
> 
> Generally peer review happens from professional journals in the field for which the paper is submitted..
> 
> ...



Hmmmm......perhaps I can submit to my fella AAA dwellers for a pre-review, so as I can work out the kinks before it get's circulated.  

I have spent a lot of time researching peer reviewed docs, but never tried gettin' one published.  Could be a lot of fun!  I just wish I still had access to the databases I had when I was in school.........


----------



## Four (Feb 14, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Hmmmm......perhaps I can submit to my fella AAA dwellers for a pre-review, so as I can work out the kinks before it get's circulated.
> 
> I have spent a lot of time researching peer reviewed docs, but never tried gettin' one published.  Could be a lot of fun!  I just wish I still had access to the databases I had when I was in school.........



Yea they're so freaking expensive to get access to...


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> It's a direct and simple question bullet.



I never get answers, either.  I'm happy to know....'he ain't just pickin' on me'....lol


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 15, 2013)

JB0704 said:


> Do I get to determine who my logical "peers" are? Or is there a professional body who gives itself such authority ?



No you don't git to choose...are you kiddin'? lol

There's bullies that always make you think....'why's everybody pickin' on me'....come to find out, they make everyone feel that way. No matter what you believe, they are a naysayer...and you're the idjit....lol. It's a free for all for everyone, except Christians...lol


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 15, 2013)

mtnwoman said:


> No matter what you believe, they are a naysayer...and you're the idjit....lol.



Until Jaybeanistic logic is approved as the way folks "ought reason."  On that glorious day, everybody who doesn't think like me will be declared lame


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 15, 2013)

Four said:


> Yea they're so freaking expensive to get access to...



I noticed I got locked out about a year after I graduated.  I was hoping the library would be an alumni perk, but, oh well......


----------



## Asath (Feb 15, 2013)

"So tell me how you use logic and which logic it is to reason that there is no god?"

Gladly.  As Follows:

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur; Or: What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.

Or, more directly stated -- Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

In pure logic, this is stated, usually, as follows: Either an empty evidentiary set is permissible or it is not (law of the excluded middle). If an empty evidentiary set is permissible, then P may be accepted without evidence. However, Q may also be accepted without evidence. not-P, also, can be accepted without evidence.

So, in short, putting forward the proposition that there is a god of some sort, without providing any direct and verifiable evidence of the truth of this is simply an assertion.  This becomes what is known as an empty evidentiary set.  

If one is able, within one's own mind, to accept an assertion without proof that it is true, then one is also forced, logically, to accept the counter-assertion that it is not true without any evidence, for, failing that, one has violated one's own self-constructed 'logic.'  One empty evidentiary set cannot be valid if ALL such sets are not also valid.  Otherwise one has assumed the role of a mythical (illogical) god oneself, and may simply invent one's own truth as is convenient. Even within the empty evidentiary set of the assertion of a mythical god, this ability is said to be proscribed to mere men.

An assertion made without evidence that it has validity in demonstrable fact, then using that assertion to attempt to construct further 'Logical' arguments fails immmediately by the fallacy of the False First Premise (Non Sequitur, or Modus tollens, as the case may be).  This is usually compounded by a large number of further fallacies, beginning with the Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person), in which the speaker is attacked at the expense of the argument being made.  This is usually followed, in short order, by the Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition), the fallacy that since it has been believed for a long time, it must be true; the Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers), the fallacy that since a large number of people believe something it must be true; the Petitio principii (begging the question), in which that which one tries to prove is assumed as proof of itself (a form of circular argument); which perpetuates itself in the fallacy of Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument), in which it is asserted that since something is cited elsewhere (also undemonstrated itself, as the Bible), it is thus true and proves itself; then is often compounded by the fallacy of Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority), in which famous persons or persons in authority are shown to believe something as 'proof' of the veracity or validity of the argument.

Don't be mad.  All religions from the beginning of time have used these (false) arguments, and hundreds more.  They've all fallen, as your own also will, before progress, and have become merely quaint myths that students fail to study properly, else they wouldn't keep perpetuating them.

So, to restate: Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

That is just simple logic.

PROVE your First Premise to be true.  That is the basis of logic.  Otherwise all that follows from that premise is false.  If you cannot do so, then, first, one would do well to quit while one is behind, and go back to the beginning, and find out just what the heck they were thinking when they told you what to believe.  No doubt your teacher's intentions were good, but their information was, unfortunately, nonexistent.  One might also, representing a position that cannot be defended factually, logically, or intellectually, begin asking more questions and making fewer statements.  Truth has never been established by someone who woke up one morning and suddenly "saw the light" that the rest of us somehow missed.  Trust me on that one.

Also: Be aware of the Argumentum ad nauseum, of which everyone who has observed politicians is certainly aware -- this is the logical fallacy of trying to make something true by repeating it endlessly until one's opponents simply give up in disgust.  It doesn't mean that you have won, it simply means that we've washed our hands of you, and decided to ignore the screaming child without granting him the lollipop he so desperately desired.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 16, 2013)

For Argumentum ad nauseum see: stringmusic; Argument for a moral law giver.


----------

