Moral philosophy transplanted from Disney thread

[Guest]

On 5/4/2023 at 12:50 PM, rkbabang said:

 

"I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy."

--Donald Trump

 

If a woman let's you do it then it is not a violation of the non-aggression principle to grab her by the pussy.  I have no problem with sexual contact between consenting adults.

 

If he broke any laws and was not punished that is a problem with our legal system not my values.

 

So if a boss does that to an employee (and it's not illegal in that country) then it's okay? 

 

What I'm saying is that your values are more or less random. They aren't "good" or "bad". Your mere opinion about an act determines if it's "good" or "bad" to you. So, rape can be good if one believes it to be so in that case. 

[DooDiligence]

The name of this thread should be changed to philosophical circle jerk.

[rkbabang]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:24 PM, DooDiligence said:

The name of this thread should be changed to philosophical circle jerk.

Amen.  He just can’t believe that there’s no absolute arbiter of good and bad. He keeps saying so it’s just your opinion and I keep saying yes, you’ve got it. Over and over again. 

[flesh]

On 5/3/2023 at 11:28 AM, stahleyp said:

 

Why not be aggressive though if we evolved to be that way (at least for those of us who are so lucky)? Or to tie it back to the "beautiful slave" why should a stud not have as many sexual partners as he can instead of having one so that everyone else can have a partner too? We have finite resources. If you are powerful and aggressive, it only makes sense to take what you can (as long as you feel the constant conflict is worth it). Someone, say Trump, might actually enjoy the constant conflict - his brain is just randomly wired that way.

 

My point is that if there is no Moral North Star, it is silly to not be aggressive when you benefit from it - even at the expense of others. At the end of the day, there is no "right or wrong" anyway beyond our subjective opinions about it. 

 

It doesn't take much to have a Moral north star. If you can grant me that it's better to eat steak than to have your arm repeatedly broken every day for your entire life. This combined with an evolved psychology is all we need to get there. 

 

Using a genes eye view looking to replicate itself. My genes want to replicate themselves, my kin share some of my gene's so my genes want them to replicate as well and so on decreasingly through those that share my genes. Therefore it is good that my genes don't die and that they replicate. My instinct/morality is to ensure that happens to varying degrees depending on the degree of relatedness. Also, to some degree, at the group level/multi level, those that are better at cooperating and planning for the future outperform those who aren't so they are selected for. This could be RichardGibbons metal balls/laws/norms/incentive constraint disincentive systems incrementally tweaked over time. It's at this level that rkkabang is claiming his law principal of non agression or non coercion applies. 

 

I could go on but I think this gets us there. 

 

1. It's better to have your arm broken than to be skinned alive. We could run tests and ask people their pain level to confirm. We could measure their bodily reactions as well. Heart rate, blood pressure, adrenalin, fmri's,whether or not they asked you to kill them and get it over with. etc. Is it subjective if all evidence points towards being skinned alive is worse than getting your arm broken? From all known perspectives? 

 

2. Genes want to replicate themselves and you share genes with those related to you. Those people who help your genes/kins genes replicate are also valuable to a lesser degree. Is this subjective thought/reasons? Do you choose your sex drive subjectively at all times throughout your entire life? Is it subjective that women are more likely to choose symmetric and large men, costly energetically, and therefore unconscious evidence of good genes when they ovulate, but don't care when they aren't ovulating?

 

We need laws norms that align with 1 and 2 in order to get the most out of us. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:24 PM, DooDiligence said:

The name of this thread should be changed to philosophical circle jerk.

 

 

The value you add never ceases to amaze. 

[Guest]

On 5/13/2023 at 7:26 PM, rkbabang said:

Amen.  He just can’t believe that there’s no absolute arbiter of good and bad. He keeps saying so it’s just your opinion and I keep saying yes, you’ve got it. Over and over again. 

 

If there is no absolute good or bad, why do you feel your values are the "right" ones? You seem to think someone's "opinion" on slavery can be "wrong" because it violates a principle that  you value - but they may not.

 

How can an opinion about a subjective topic ever be "wrong"? Can someone have a "wrong" favorite ice cream?

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, flesh said:

 

It doesn't take much to have a Moral north star. If you can grant me that it's better to eat steak than to have your arm repeatedly broken every day for your entire life. This combined with an evolved psychology is all we need to get there. 

 

Using a genes eye view looking to replicate itself. My genes want to replicate themselves, my kin share some of my gene's so my genes want them to replicate as well and so on decreasingly through those that share my genes. Therefore it is good that my genes don't die and that they replicate. My instinct/morality is to ensure that happens to varying degrees depending on the degree of relatedness. Also, to some degree, at the group level/multi level, those that are better at cooperating and planning for the future outperform those who aren't so they are selected for. This could be RichardGibbons metal balls/laws/norms/incentive constraint disincentive systems incrementally tweaked over time. It's at this level that rkkabang is claiming his law principal of non agression or non coercion applies. 

 

I could go on but I think this gets us there. 

 

1. It's better to have your arm broken than to be skinned alive. We could run tests and ask people their pain level to confirm. We could measure their bodily reactions as well. Heart rate, blood pressure, adrenalin, fmri's,whether or not they asked you to kill them and get it over with. etc. Is it subjective if all evidence points towards being skinned alive is worse than getting your arm broken? From all known perspectives? 

 

2. Genes want to replicate themselves and you share genes with those related to you. Those people who help your genes/kins genes replicate are also valuable to a lesser degree. Is this subjective thought/reasons? Do you choose your sex drive subjectively at all times throughout your entire life? Is it subjective that women are more likely to choose symmetric and large men, costly energetically, and therefore unconscious evidence of good genes when they ovulate, but don't care when they aren't ovulating?

 

We need laws norms that align with 1 and 2 in order to get the most out of us. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know if it's better to eat steak than to have you arm broken. I'm not trying to be difficult here but someone who is a hardcore vegan may very much disagree with you. What if someone enjoys pain? What if they enjoy pain and are vegan?

 

My point is that your Moral North Star is basically arbitrary unless God is, at some level, trying to direct us. Seriously, how can a sack of skin and bones know more than another sack of skin and bones about something unfalsifiable?   

 

Look at a (seemingly) large portion of society today. Many of them are 100% convinced that teaching young children sexual topics is the "right" thing to do. Is their view correct? 

 

In your eyes, what makes something immoral?

 

 

[Ross812]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:24 PM, DooDiligence said:

The name of this thread should be changed to philosophical circle jerk.

 

I'll quote my response when this started in the Disney thread 10 weeks ago:

 

On 3/3/2023 at 2:31 PM, Ross812 said:

Jesus, not this again. Cue the circular reasoning in 3. 2. 1...

 

Every morality related post on COBF ends up as a circular argument between  @stahleyp and whoever chooses to engage at the time. 

 

@stahleyp what is your goal of engaging? 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Ross812 said:

 

I'll quote my response when this started in the Disney thread 10 weeks ago:

 

 

Every morality related post on COBF ends up as a circular argument between  @stahleyp and whoever chooses to engage at the time. 

 

@stahleyp what is your goal of engaging? 

 

To show people that slavery is morally neutral (indeed, everything is) or better said:

 

“Without God all things are permitted.” ― Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

Also to show that it is irrational to believe that anything is "wrong" if a society deems it as okay since there is no standard by which to measure. 

 

Do you agree?

 

 

 

[ValueArb]

1 hour ago, stahleyp said:

 

To show people that slavery is morally neutral (indeed, everything is) or better said:

 

“Without God all things are permitted.” ― Fyodor Dostoevsky

 

Also to show that it is irrational to believe that anything is "wrong" if a society deems it as okay since there is no standard by which to measure. 

 

Do you agree?

 

 

 

Without God good people do good things and bad people do bad things, it takes God to convince good people to do bad things.

 

Morality is something we understand without requiring God, we all understand the concept of treating others as they wish to be treated and expecting them to treat us as we wish to be treated. 
 

And the slave certainly doesn’t regard slavery as morally neutral, that’s for sure. Owning another person is clearly one of the most immoral acts humans can perform, because it violates bodily autonomy.

Edited May 15, 2023 by ValueArb

[DooDiligence]

2 hours ago, Ross812 said:

 

I'll quote my response when this started in the Disney thread 10 weeks ago:

 

 

Every morality related post on COBF ends up as a circular argument between  @stahleyp and whoever chooses to engage at the time. 

 

@stahleyp what is your goal of engaging? 

 

his goal is to troll

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, DooDiligence said:

 

his goal is to troll

 

No, it's not. I have 3 young kids and have limited time. If that was a "goal" it would be very, very sad. I'm trying to help people understanding morality and, by extension, reality better.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

Without God good people do good things and bad people do bad things, it takes God to convince good people to do bad things.

 

Morality is something we understand without requiring God, we all understand the concept of treating others as they wish to be treated and expecting them to treat us as we wish to be treated. 
 

And the slave certainly doesn’t regard slavery as morally neutral, that’s for sure. Owning another person is clearly one of the most immoral acts humans can perform, because it violates bodily autonomy.

 

That is sort of true but not a full view of the underlying issue.

 

I contend that "good" or "bad" cannot exist without God existing. Literally anything we deem as good would be "good" without God. Literally anything. If Nazis would have won WWII we would be thanking Hitler for doing the "good" thing. If the South would have won, we would be doing what's "right" by having slaves. It matters not how the slave regards morality. The slave owner has an equal opinion about the topic. Why weigh the slave's view more? Do you believe that morality is, ultimately, just various opinions?

 

The "Golden Rule" that you're speaking of us is nice for social interactions but is not a moral claim or a moral necessity for morality. You can treat others how they like to be treated but that does not make it moral. 

 

 

[ValueArb]

25 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

That is sort of true but not a full view of the underlying issue.

 

I contend that "good" or "bad" cannot exist without God existing. Literally anything we deem as good would be "good" without God. Literally anything. If Nazis would have won WWII we would be thanking Hitler for doing the "good" thing. If the South would have won, we would be doing what's "right" by having slaves. It matters not how the slave regards morality. The slave owner has an equal opinion about the topic. Why weigh the slave's view more? Do you believe that morality is, ultimately, just various opinions?

 

The "Golden Rule" that you're speaking of us is nice for social interactions but is not a moral claim or a moral necessity for morality. You can treat others how they like to be treated but that does not make it moral. 

 

 

 

The problem with relying on God as a moral authority is which god and under what basis should we accept their authority?

 

The Christian god advocates for slavery, yet we know it is wrong. So how can we accept that god as a moral arbiter?

 

And the reason we know Slavery is wrong is it violates bodily autonomy. Would you be willing to become a slave under biblical rules? IE that allowed your master to beat you whenever they wanted, as long as you didn’t die within a couple of days? If you don’t want to accept being a slave then you cannot impose it upon others. 

 

And winning wars doesn’t make anyone a moral arbiter. Southerners used the Bible to justify slavery before the civil war, clearly they were wrong. As was Hitler.

[RichardGibbons]

At this point, it's extremely clear what's happening.

 

1. Stahleyp asserts that there's no morality without God.

 

2. Someone shows that there actually can be a morality without God.

 

3. Stahleyp doesn't address #2, but rather retreats to the position that morality is, by definition, only derived from God.

 

4. Stahleyp advances to #1 again, pretending the refutation in #2 doesn't exist and #3 implies that therefore morality cannot exist except as dictated by a deity.

 

So really, it isn't an interesting discussion any more, because pretty well everyone involved in the discussion understands that their position is irrefutable.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, ValueArb said:

 

The problem with relying on God as a moral authority is which god and under what basis should we accept their authority?

 

The Christian god advocates for slavery, yet we know it is wrong. So how can we accept that god as a moral arbiter?

 

And the reason we know Slavery is wrong is it violates bodily autonomy. Would you be willing to become a slave under biblical rules? IE that allowed your master to beat you whenever they wanted, as long as you didn’t die within a couple of days? If you don’t want to accept being a slave then you cannot impose it upon others. 

 

And winning wars doesn’t make anyone a moral arbiter. Southerners used the Bible to justify slavery before the civil war, clearly they were wrong. As was Hitler.

 

 

Where, exactly, does God advocate for slavery in the Bible. I hear this quite often but can't say I've ever seen it. People almost always quote Moses - not God. 

 

Violating bodily autonomy makes something immoral? Interesting. Surely you are against drunk driving laws then? 

 

I might accept being a slave if that was what cultured determine was an inappropriate action. Don't you think it's arrogant to think that "we know what's right and wrong and other cultures were wrong" based on some magical morality? Perhaps they would also "know" that we're wrong if still alive? Who's right?

 

What makes someone a moral arbiter then?

[Guest]

14 hours ago, RichardGibbons said:

At this point, it's extremely clear what's happening.

 

1. Stahleyp asserts that there's no morality without God.

 

2. Someone shows that there actually can be a morality without God.

 

3. Stahleyp doesn't address #2, but rather retreats to the position that morality is, by definition, only derived from God.

 

4. Stahleyp advances to #1 again, pretending the refutation in #2 doesn't exist and #3 implies that therefore morality cannot exist except as dictated by a deity.

 

So really, it isn't an interesting discussion any more, because pretty well everyone involved in the discussion understands that their position is irrefutable.

 

1) That is somewhat true. We can have social rules and goals and call that morality. I'm saying that it isn't true in any real sense though. It is more akin to fashion or mannerism than any "ought to do" or "ought not to do".  We make the rules and anything can be "good" if we deem it as such. It's all about framing. Eliminating "undesirables" is "good" for human genetics, for instance. Or eliminating other tribes can be "good" for long term peace. Literally, anything can be "good" if we frame it as such. 

 

2, 3, and 4 can be answered like this.

 

Let's say we invent a time machine and drop off a board game to people 500 years ago (Society A), 1,000 years ago (Society B) and 5,000 years ago (Society C). Each of those societies would create their own rules, right? Would it make sense for Society A to judge B and C? Each one create their own rules! 

 

It is irrational to think that slavery is "wrong" beyond today's popular opinion if there is no moral authority that supersedes all cultures/times/etc. Each society, ultimately, just makes up their own rules to the game. By what bases do we have to judge them? Our "reason" and "culture"? They have that too!

Edited May 16, 2023 by stahleyp

[Ross812]

35 minutes ago, stahleyp said:

 

1) That is somewhat true. We can have social rules and goals and call that morality. I'm saying that it isn't true in any real sense though. It is more akin to fashion or mannerism than any "ought to do" or "ought not to do".  We make the rules and anything can be "good" if we deem it as such. It's all about framing. Eliminating "undesirables" is "good" for human genetics, for instance. Or eliminating other tribes can be "good" for long term peace. Literally, anything can be "good" if we frame it as such. 

 

2, 3, and 4 can be answered like this.

 

Let's say we invent a time machine and drop off a board game to people 500 years ago (Society A), 1,000 years ago (Society B) and 5,000 years ago (Society C). Each of those societies would create their own rules, right? Would it make sense for Society A to judge B and C? Each one create their own rules! 

 

It is irrational to think that slavery is "wrong" beyond today's popular opinion if there is no moral authority that supersedes all cultures/times/etc. Each society, ultimately, just makes up their own rules to the game. By what bases do we have to judge them? Our "reason" and "culture"? They have that too!

 

This started on the Disney thread and protecting children from the liberal agenda of the day. You are arguing on a forum full of rich people trying to get richer. There is that whole parable about a rich man trying to get into heaven is like a camel fitting through the eye of a needle, so you are clearly following the parts of the message you like and skimming over the other less convenient lessons.   

 

On second thought, Mary was 12-16 when she had Jesus and I recited the verse from the Bible about when a girl is ready for marriage (12-14); so your definition of a child is influenced by society - not God. You keep bringing up a circular argument about slavery - and how can we believe it is immoral if not for God, but Jesus had nothing to say on the matter and the old testament is full of slavery. If slavery was wrong according to Christianity, it should say something pretty explicitly in the 775k word text.  So your feelings on who is considered a child, the morality of slavery, and pursuit of wealth are all influenced by the society you live in.

 

Which God or interpretation of God does morality come from? You say you studied all the religions and Christianity made the most sense to you. The devout Muslim doesn't drink or loan money with interest as they are sins in their religion and there are good reasons these are viewed as sins. Consider for a moment, there are Jew, Hindus, and Muslims who are far more intelligent and rational than yourself who have reasoned their way into their beliefs. Who is right? If only one is the way to eternal life - I hope Christianity is the way for your sake - though most (all) Christians follow the lite version today - so who knows. Maybe they are all right - but that would mean religious morality is influenced by culture because surely God didn't make different rules for different groups if there is a moral north star. Maybe they are all wrong... 

 

 

 

  

[ValueArb]

1 hour ago, stahleyp said:

 

 

Where, exactly, does God advocate for slavery in the Bible. I hear this quite often but can't say I've ever seen it. People almost always quote Moses - not God. 

 

Violating bodily autonomy makes something immoral? Interesting. Surely you are against drunk driving laws then? 

 

I might accept being a slave if that was what cultured determine was an inappropriate action. Don't you think it's arrogant to think that "we know what's right and wrong and other cultures were wrong" based on some magical morality? Perhaps they would also "know" that we're wrong if still alive? Who's right?

 

What makes someone a moral arbiter then?

 

Attributing the nasty parts of the bible to the (likely mythical) Moses instead of God brings the obvious question, how do you know? How can you tell which instructions were written at the lords behest, and which were from men that god disagrees with. And why would god allow HIS book to portray HIS instructions incorrectly? If you believe this, then you believe the bible has little to do with gods instructions or wishes and is just a bunch of stories men wrote.

 

Roads are shared resources, it's reasonable to have limited rules on how they are to be used, especially when someone expressing their bodily autonomy by drinking endangers many others bodily autonomy by driving.

 

Slavery has never has never been moral because no slaves would have ever chosen slavery unless their other choices were even more dire. A just god should know this and should have made not owning slaves a commandment in the bible. And no one gets to "accept" being a slave, that's not the definition of slavery.

 

As for who is a moral arbiter, the god of the bible can't be because he is so clearly immoral, committing genocide, murdering women, children and babies, endorsing slavery, and condemning people to eternal torture simply for not believing in him, or even never having the opportunity to believe in him. This is the part from Exodus 21, that Moses wrote under gods advisement.

 

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.

..

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

 

and in Leviticus, he made it even clearer.

"44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

 

And in the new testament, which moses didn't write.

 

Ephesians 6:5
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
Colossians 3:22
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
1 Peter 2:18
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

Edited May 16, 2023 by ValueArb
cut down for clarity

[ValueArb]

2 hours ago, stahleyp said:

 

1) That is somewhat true. We can have social rules and goals and call that morality. I'm saying that it isn't true in any real sense though. It is more akin to fashion or mannerism than any "ought to do" or "ought not to do".  We make the rules and anything can be "good" if we deem it as such. It's all about framing. Eliminating "undesirables" is "good" for human genetics, for instance. Or eliminating other tribes can be "good" for long term peace. Literally, anything can be "good" if we frame it as such. 

 

2, 3, and 4 can be answered like this.

 

Let's say we invent a time machine and drop off a board game to people 500 years ago (Society A), 1,000 years ago (Society B) and 5,000 years ago (Society C). Each of those societies would create their own rules, right? Would it make sense for Society A to judge B and C? Each one create their own rules! 

 

It is irrational to think that slavery is "wrong" beyond today's popular opinion if there is no moral authority that supersedes all cultures/times/etc. Each society, ultimately, just makes up their own rules to the game. By what bases do we have to judge them? Our "reason" and "culture"? They have that too!

 

You seem to struggle with the most basic understanding of basic human morality or what morality actually is. Your understanding would grow significantly if you would just think about consent or put yourself into other peoples shoes. It has nothing to do with "anything can be good".

 

Eliminating "undesirables" isn't good for them, so it doesn't matter how "good" it is for human genetics, its still immoral.

 

Eliminating another tribe is immoral because they don't want to be murdered and won't consent to it. It might be beneficial to the victorious tribe, but it's still immoral.

 

Whether societies changes the rules of a board game is a LEGAL, not MORAL, question. Societal rules are laws, not morals. There have been many societies that explicitly made slavery legal, but it was always immoral because the slaves would not choose it.

Edited May 16, 2023 by ValueArb

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Ross812 said:

 

This started on the Disney thread and protecting children from the liberal agenda of the day. You are arguing on a forum full of rich people trying to get richer. There is that whole parable about a rich man trying to get into heaven is like a camel fitting through the eye of a needle, so you are clearly following the parts of the message you like and skimming over the other less convenient lessons.   

 

On second thought, Mary was 12-16 when she had Jesus and I recited the verse from the Bible about when a girl is ready for marriage (12-14); so your definition of a child is influenced by society - not God. You keep bringing up a circular argument about slavery - and how can we believe it is immoral if not for God, but Jesus had nothing to say on the matter and the old testament is full of slavery. If slavery was wrong according to Christianity, it should say something pretty explicitly in the 775k word text.  So your feelings on who is considered a child, the morality of slavery, and pursuit of wealth are all influenced by the society you live in.

 

Which God or interpretation of God does morality come from? You say you studied all the religions and Christianity made the most sense to you. The devout Muslim doesn't drink or loan money with interest as they are sins in their religion and there are good reasons these are viewed as sins. Consider for a moment, there are Jew, Hindus, and Muslims who are far more intelligent and rational than yourself who have reasoned their way into their beliefs. Who is right? If only one is the way to eternal life - I hope Christianity is the way for your sake - though most (all) Christians follow the lite version today - so who knows. Maybe they are all right - but that would mean religious morality is influenced by culture because surely God didn't make different rules for different groups if there is a moral north star. Maybe they are all wrong... 

 

 

 

  

 

I understand your point about the parable the camel and eye of the needle. I don't disagree but I do think it's about what one is focused on (and Jesus didn't say it was impossible). 

 

Sorry but I don't remember the verses you're talking about. Where does it say 12-14? 

 

Regarding slavery, plenty of people have mentioned "The Golden Rule" on here. Since that was popularized by Jesus, how, exactly, would slavery be okay if one is following that? Why is slavery "wrong" in the first place if societies make up the rules in the first place? 

 

I'm very open minded to who gets into heaven and all of that. I don't think God makes up different rules for different groups. I'm saying that some groups follow God and some don't. The Bible says that God wrote His rules on the human heart after all. In my opinion, I think when we do something we know is wrong (and I've done that) we are going against God's will.

 

As far as Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism goes...I can break that down. Christianity is, as you are probably aware, a branch of Judaism. The only real difference is that Christians believe Jesus was resurrected and Jews do not. Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah since they do not think he meets the criteria as they understand it.

 

Islam is (sort of) also a branch of Judaism. I see no reason to believe it's true and I have probably heard nearly every argument for it. My foundation is that moral truth exists and there is a way we "ought" to act beyond our opinion or social norms. Mohammed married a 6 year old (Aisha) when he was 50 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. (multiple Islamic sources for that if you want me to look them up) Muslims claim Mohammed was the standard of morality...I disagree. 

 

Regarding Hinduism, my wife was raised Hindu and I've gone to various Hindu festivities. In my (humble opinion) I see little reason for it to be true (no evidence Ganesh was real, for instance). However, it does have reincarnation which is an interesting concept. There is some academic research to support that as a possibility (mostly through the work of Ian Stevenson). 

[Ross812]

1 hour ago, stahleyp said:

Sorry but I don't remember the verses you're talking about. Where does it say 12-14? 

On 3/14/2023 at 1:16 PM, Ross812 said:

 

Ezekiel 16:7-8:

7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare.

 

8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.

 

Summarized: If there is grass on the field, play ball. This is pedophilia by today's mores... You are picking and choosing which parts you like and asserting it is the moral north star.

 

1 hour ago, stahleyp said:

I understand your point about the parable the camel and eye of the needle. I don't disagree but I do think it's about what one is focused on (and Jesus didn't say it was impossible). 

 

"Indeed it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" Luke 18:25. Jesus says - "You got a snowball's chance in hell" and you take that to mean: "so there's a chance!"

 

Rather than argue this point, which is inconvenient for us living in a capitalist society, teachers (preachers) search for a way to soften the blow. Demonstrated by your response - "its more about what one is focused on." 

 

The same can be said for your repeated questions about slavery. You interpret slavery as being wrong due to conflicting with your interpretation of the golden rule. The bible is chock full of references to slavery and has the old testament Hebrew laws regarding slavery as highlighted by @ValueArb. The Bible has been used to both support and condemn slavery according to the morality of the day. Why did Jesus not denounce the practice if it is indeed amoral in God's eyes?         

 

2 hours ago, stahleyp said:

As far as Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism goes...I can break that down. Christianity is, as you are probably aware, a branch of Judaism. The only real difference is that Christians believe Jesus was resurrected and Jews do not. Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah since they do not think he meets the criteria as they understand it.

 

Islam is (sort of) also a branch of Judaism. I see no reason to believe it's true and I have probably heard nearly every argument for it. My foundation is that moral truth exists and there is a way we "ought" to act beyond our opinion or social norms. Mohammed married a 6 year old (Aisha) when he was 50 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. (multiple Islamic sources for that if you want me to look them up) Muslims claim Mohammed was the standard of morality...I disagree. 

 

Regarding Hinduism, my wife was raised Hindu and I've gone to various Hindu festivities. In my (humble opinion) I see little reason for it to be true (no evidence Ganesh was real, for instance). However, it does have reincarnation which is an interesting concept. There is some academic research to support that as a possibility (mostly through the work of Ian Stevenson). 

 

I am sure the other religions look at the practice of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Christian Christ to be pretty crazy too. As for Mohammed and Aisha - yeah I have read the debate. The rules were the same in Mohammed's day as in Ezekiel's and Jesus's - a woman (girl by today's standards) is old enough to marry once she is through puberty. There is also some discrepancy about how old she actually was - hadiths (similar to the Jewish Talmud) says she was somewhere between 9 and 19 when married. Regardless, there were what we would consider child marriages going on left and right in both Jesus's and Mohamed's time. 

 

I too studied all the religions and came to the opposite conclusion as you. They are either all right - religion is the map, not the territory (God) or they are all wrong - God is a construct to advance social harmony.   

  

[DooDiligence]

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ValueArb said:

 

You seem to struggle with the most basic understanding of basic human morality or what morality actually is. Your understanding would grow significantly if you would just think about consent or put yourself into other peoples shoes. It has nothing to do with "anything can be good".

 

Eliminating "undesirables" isn't good for them, so it doesn't matter how "good" it is for human genetics, its still immoral.

 

Eliminating another tribe is immoral because they don't want to be murdered and won't consent to it. It might be beneficial to the victorious tribe, but it's still immoral.

 

Whether societies changes the rules of a board game is a LEGAL, not MORAL, question. Societal rules are laws, not morals. There have been many societies that explicitly made slavery legal, but it was always immoral because the slaves would not choose it.

 

Do you enjoy being condescending? Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me what morality is then? We'll see who knows more about moral reality. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ross812 said:

 

 

"Indeed it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God" Luke 18:25. Jesus says - "You got a snowball's chance in hell" and you take that to mean: "so there's a chance!"

 

Rather than argue this point, which is inconvenient for us living in a capitalist society, teachers (preachers) search for a way to soften the blow. Demonstrated by your response - "its more about what one is focused on." 

 

The same can be said for your repeated questions about slavery. You interpret slavery as being wrong due to conflicting with your interpretation of the golden rule. The bible is chock full of references to slavery and has the old testament Hebrew laws regarding slavery as highlighted by @ValueArb. The Bible has been used to both support and condemn slavery according to the morality of the day. Why did Jesus not denounce the practice if it is indeed amoral in God's eyes?         

 

 

I am sure the other religions look at the practice of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Christian Christ to be pretty crazy too. As for Mohammed and Aisha - yeah I have read the debate. The rules were the same in Mohammed's day as in Ezekiel's and Jesus's - a woman (girl by today's standards) is old enough to marry once she is through puberty. There is also some discrepancy about how old she actually was - hadiths (similar to the Jewish Talmud) says she was somewhere between 9 and 19 when married. Regardless, there were what we would consider child marriages going on left and right in both Jesus's and Mohamed's time. 

 

I too studied all the religions and came to the opposite conclusion as you. They are either all right - religion is the map, not the territory (God) or they are all wrong - God is a construct to advance social harmony.   

  

 

Ross...please tell me you're joking. That passage in Ezekiel is about Jerusalem!

 

I don't think I'm wrong about the wealth topic (though I might be). Jesus goes on to tell the rich young man that "“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.” Jesus says "if you want to be perfect" then to do that. The fact that Jesus gave qualified it with perfection, makes me believe that one can still make it to heaven without perfection (since Jesus is the only perfect one after all). I do think it's immoral to hoard wealth and "sell your soul" to get more of it. We ought to not make money a god - though I think many do.

 

Regarding slavery, maybe Jesus did mention it and it was never written down? Maybe slavery (in the sense of the time) wasn't immoral? I don't have a great answer to that. I simply tried to weigh theism vs atheism on an equal scale - not just bashing theism over another. If God doesn't exist, how can a moral standard exist beyond a society? 

 

Ohhh, there is a hadith that says she was 19? I have never read that. Care to cite it?

 

It's interesting that you've researched various religions too and that we came to different conclusions. Do you agree that if a game has no actual rules that each society makes it up as they see fit then?