|
Author
|
Topic: Morality without god
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 701 of 1221 (693596)
03-18-2013 3:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 698 by Faith
03-17-2013 6:05 PM
|
|
The Bible does not condone slavery, it merely gave laws for treating slaves humanely. That's what "condone" means. Really, look it up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 698 by Faith, posted 03-17-2013 6:05 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 705 by Faith, posted 03-18-2013 3:53 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 703 of 1221 (693598)
03-18-2013 3:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 702 by Tangle
03-18-2013 3:16 PM
|
|
CS writes: I don't consider that ant behavior to have anything to do with morality. Morality is about intentional decisions that I'm just not seeing those ants doing. Like, if you programmed a robot to sacrifice itself to save your life then I would consider that amoral as well.
Ants, termites, bee etc altruistic behaviour is obviously not moral behaviour but it is an example how evolution can create behaviours that benefit the group at the expense of the individual. Yeah, okay, I guess in that sense it "has something to do with" morality.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 702 by Tangle, posted 03-18-2013 3:16 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 706 of 1221 (693601)
03-18-2013 3:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 705 by Faith
03-18-2013 3:53 PM
|
|
Making the best of, i.e. providing rules for, an inevitable situation is "condoning" it as the word is defined:
quote:
condone
/kənˈdōn/
Verb
Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.
Approve or sanction (something), esp. with reluctance.
Synonyms
forgive - pardon - remit - excuse - absolve - overlook
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 705 by Faith, posted 03-18-2013 3:53 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 742 of 1221 (693667)
03-19-2013 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 741 by NoNukes
03-19-2013 10:33 AM
|
|
Re: ...slaves to the instinct for surviva...l
I imagine that Africans shackled in the bottom of a ship on their way to a place from which they could never return home would have felt obliged to kill themselves or allow themselves to be killed if only they could have had available an advanced copy of Double Star from which to read this pearl of wisdom. Weren't they already slaves before the ships got there? They'd've needed the book back at "home"...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 741 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2013 10:33 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 765 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2013 1:52 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 768 of 1221 (693705)
03-19-2013 3:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 765 by NoNukes
03-19-2013 1:52 PM
|
|
Weren't they already slaves before the ships got there? They'd've needed the book back at "home"...
How does that make your Heinlein quote any less ridiculous? It doesn't, I was just nitpicking your criticism. You said they'd need the book on the boat, but really they'd have needed it before then. The quote seems to be equivocating the word "free". That is, if someone frees some slaves then they're not really going to be "free". That don't make much sense to me, but I was never that good with profundity.
It turns out that you can actually enslave free people by force. We have plenty of historical evidence for that. Well if you enslave them then they're not free, what it seems to be saying is the one's who refuse to not be free will end up choosing to be killed. That is, the people who allowed themselves to be enslaved weren't willing to die for their freedom, and, I suppose, they weren't really "free".
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 765 by NoNukes, posted 03-19-2013 1:52 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 797 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2013 2:49 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Welcome and debate...
This is why I have begun to move away from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and toward an ideal of "Do unto others as they would like you to do unto them". This way, instead of treating people how you want to be treated, you are treating people how THEY want to be treated. I want you to give me all your money. There's always exceptions. The thief who wants you to let them out of jail so they can get more stuff. The meth addict who's been tricked by addiction into wanting to slowly destroy their body. We shouldn't follow your rule with them.
In the case of a sadist, this would be an individual who would want pain and degradation inflicted upon them because that is their enjoyment. Is this how they should then treat others, even those who do not share their enjoyment of pain? Well, according to the Golden Rule, that is the proper way for these individuals to treat others. This is one area where a flaw in logic on this idea really shines forth, but you can think of other examples where the "Rule" will break apart. Sure, the masochist (not sadist) breaks the logic of the rule. What are the other examples?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 771 by Rahvin, posted 03-19-2013 4:15 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 772 of 1221 (693710)
03-19-2013 4:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 771 by Rahvin
03-19-2013 4:15 PM
|
|
Re: Welcome and debate...
One person might like financial assistance to get through a rough time; another person may not accept such assistance. One person might like it if I gave him an apple pie; another person might be allergic to apples, or just not like the taste. The "Golden Rule" falls apart the moment that you try to strictly apply its literal wording, but the spirit of the rule, which can be expressed in far more accurate ways, is still great advice. I see, 'cause yeah: I wouldn't want someone to give me assistance that I didn't want and I wouldn't want someone to give me food that I was allergic to... so I wouldn't have someone do those things unto me and therefore according to the rule I shouldn't do them unto others.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 771 by Rahvin, posted 03-19-2013 4:15 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 951 of 1221 (694151)
03-22-2013 1:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 949 by Faith
03-22-2013 1:17 PM
|
|
The main difference is no doubt the personal relationship with God. If you know of a religion other than Christianity that fosters a personal relationship with God let me know. Catholicism.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 949 by Faith, posted 03-22-2013 1:17 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 956 by Faith, posted 03-22-2013 2:40 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 961 of 1221 (694162)
03-22-2013 3:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 956 by Faith
03-22-2013 2:40 PM
|
|
Even the Popes don't have a relationship with God, they have a relationship with "Mary" though.  Who do you think you are that you can speak for other people like this? Your arrogance is astounding and you should be ashamed of yourself. How can you possibly have any idea whatsoever about what kind of relationship the Pope, or any other person has for that matter, has with God? You've got yourself so high up on a pedestal its no wonder that you can't get anything right. You're completely full of yourself, I doubt if you've even left any room for God.
And as I understand it Catholics are told that even Christ is unapproachable except through "Mary" so where's their relationship with God? That is an incredibly stupid thing to say. There is no Catholic doctrine that has anything to do with that at all. If fact, here's something that says the exact opposite: From Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II on the Holy Spirit (May 18, 1986):
quote:
And at the same time that same man in his own humanity receives as a gift a special "image and likeness" to God. This means not only rationality and freedom as constitutive properties of human nature, but also, from the very beginning, the capacity of having a personal relationship with God, as "I" and "you", and therefore the capacity of having a covenant, which will take place in God's salvific communication with man. Against the background of the "image and likeness" of God, "the gift of the Spirit" ultimately means a call to friendship, in which the transcendent "depths of God" become in some way opened to participation on the part of man. The Second Vatican Council teaches: "The invisible God out of the abundance of his love speaks to men as friends and lives among them, so that he may invite and take them into fellowship with himself".
So, are you capable of admitting that you were wrong?
But of course Catholicism does retain at least the outlines of Christianity although they've corrupted it all, so that they would have the idea of a personal relationship with God at least and if some Catholics do manage to be saved through that Christian influence in spite of the obstacles the Roman church puts in their way, then they are Christians. And this is exactly what I expected you to say. "Catholics are not Christians unless my point needs them to be Christian." You'll say whatever you have to say in order to try to save face. You have no honesty.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 956 by Faith, posted 03-22-2013 2:40 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 962 of 1221 (694163)
03-22-2013 3:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 960 by Faith
03-22-2013 3:04 PM
|
|
You know nothing but you think you know everything...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 960 by Faith, posted 03-22-2013 3:04 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 966 of 1221 (694167)
03-22-2013 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 964 by Faith
03-22-2013 4:19 PM
|
|
Re: You heard wrong
As for the Pope's having a relationship with God the impression one gets from many statements made by many Popes, quote:
This means not only rationality and freedom as constitutive properties of human nature, but also, from the very beginning, the capacity of having a personal relationship with God, as "I" and "you", and therefore the capacity of having a covenant, which will take place in God's salvific communication with man.
What's wrong with you?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 964 by Faith, posted 03-22-2013 4:19 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 976 by Faith, posted 03-22-2013 8:15 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 968 of 1221 (694170)
03-22-2013 5:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 967 by ooh-child
03-22-2013 4:43 PM
|
|
Re: You heard wrong
Catholics (both practicing & recovering but seriously
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 967 by ooh-child, posted 03-22-2013 4:43 PM | | ooh-child has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 971 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2013 6:07 PM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
I dont think you actually understand how debating works. Heres how. When I present you with an argument, you then respond to the specifications of the argument, to show why it is not valid. Perhaps you should take your own recommendation... From Message 407:
quote:
You havent shown what the standard for morality is or is not. Until you can do this you have no right or wrong, muchless morality or morals
You've been repeating this in this thread for almost six weeks now and I've been continually asking you why not since Message 70. You still haven't explained why, you just keep repeating it.
There's also Message 209 and Message 310 that you nevered bothered addressing.
Pharoah mentality was not tampered with. Well, what do you think it means that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart"? Sounds to me like the Lord changed the Pharaoh's mind for him.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
Well, what do you think it means that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart"?
Sounds to me like the Lord changed the Pharaoh's mind for him. It is metaphorical in its content. What makes you think it is metaphorical? Seriously, I know your position in this debate requires it, but what is it from the actual story that suggests that this is a metaphor? Because if I acutally read it, it doesn't come off as a metaphor at all. Check it out: Take a look at Exodus 10:
quote:
1 Then the Lord said to Moses, Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them 2 that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the Lord.
God is basically saying that he's showing off. After the locusts, the Pharaoh's pretty much done:
quote:
Ex. 10: 15 They covered all the ground until it was black. They devoured all that was left after the haileverything growing in the fields and the fruit on the trees. Nothing green remained on tree or plant in all the land of Egypt. 16 Pharaoh quickly summoned Moses and Aaron and said, I have sinned against the Lord your God and against you. 17 Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the Lord your God to take this deadly plague away from me.
The Pharaoh was convinced by this plague, it could have all been over. But instead:
quote:
18 Moses then left Pharaoh and prayed to the Lord. 19 And the Lord changed the wind to a very strong west wind, which caught up the locusts and carried them into the Red Sea. Not a locust was left anywhere in Egypt. 20 But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
The Lord hardened the Pharaoh's heart so that the Pharaoh wou not let his people go so that the Lord could deal harshly with the Egyptians so that Moses could tell his children and grandchildren all about it so that they would know he was the Lord.
Pharoah made his own decisions, but it is contributed to God because asked him to choose. Pharoah made his own choice The Pharoah admitted that he had sinned and was done with the whole plague thing. But that wouldn't have made an awesome enough story for the Lord. So instead, the Lord changed the Pharaoh's mind so that the Lord could keep on with the plagues and make himself look like a badass. You know, for bragging rights... for the children. That's how the story reads. What in the story suggests that hardening his heart is a metaphor rather than being an interference with the Pharaoh's free will? And don't just repeat yourself about the Pharaoh making his own decision. Follow your own advice about addressing an argument in a debate. Show us something from the story that supports your position.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Is it logically possible that God was trying to Show off or demonstrate a point, sure. But how much sense does it make to give someone free will, then pull it away at the last moment? Well, the Lord character is, actually, a self-admitted jealous god.
If God is actually God, he could have simply freed the children by miracle, then performed miracles, exclusively in the wilderness. Or maybe he would have just kept his people out of slavery in the first place!.. who can really say?
But there is always two sides to every story correct? So from a rational standpoint, given the WHOLE context, it is more reasonable to assume that Gods actions through patience and longsuffering, only served to harden his heart further. So you're stepping outside of the story to rationalize this, which I guess is okay. But there's nothing in the story that suggests that the heart-hardening was metaphorical and that the pharaoh did have free will. The problem for you is that it contradicts what you believe about the Lord character from other stories. Fair enough, I guess, but not at all convincing.
Everything he is doing is for them, not him. ... If I am ever in a situation where my children need my physical attributes to protect them, it should be obvious that my goal is to use those abilites to PROTECT them, not to say to the opposing party, LOOK WHAT I CAN DO. Well, how jealous are you? The Lord is willing to punish up to four generations of children because their parents had another god before him. I don't think we can say that he's doing that "for the children". And jealousy is self-serving by definition.
ts called the majority of the story. Look very closely at these passages Exodus, 7:4, 13, 14, 16, and 22. Exodus 8:9-10, 15, 19, 25, 28, 32. Exodus 9:2, 7, 12, 17, 21, 27, 34-35. 10:3-4, 10, 11, 16, 17, 20 24. Exodus 11:1, 9. 12:31-32. !4:5 I'm not digging all that up. Just tell me your point. If you're trying to show where the pharaoh hardened his own heart, then I agree there were times in the story when he did do it by his own free will. But that's beside the point that later the Lord did remove the Pharaoh's free will so that he could inflict more plagues. As was mentioned above, he even outlined his plan before he enacted it.
Hows that for starters, Catholic scientist? Pretty good! Thanks.
|
™ Version 4.2
