|
Post by rizdek on Apr 1, 2023 16:44:05 GMT
Yes. That is how I define murder. If it was justified, I wouldn't call it murder. When someone produces the evidence that some killing was actually a justified killing...then I would no longer consider it murder. Wouldn't you consider unjustified killing wrong? So it's objectively immoral and doesn't matter what any of us consider. Each person decides what they think is justified killing...iow, you might consider all the factors in some incident and conclude it was justified and I would consider it not justified. You would not call it murder, I would. But once you've decided it was unjustified killing, wouldn't you then consider it was immoral? Or don't you think morality exists at all and there really isn't anything that is right or wrong? That's not a challenge question, I'm just trying to figure where you're coming from.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 1, 2023 20:33:00 GMT
All morality is artificial. Nature doesn't concern itself with pesky ideas like morality, only humans who seek to control others.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Apr 1, 2023 21:24:18 GMT
So it's objectively immoral and doesn't matter what any of us consider. Each person decides what they think is justified killing...iow, you might consider all the factors in some incident and conclude it was justified and I would consider it not justified. You would not call it murder, I would. But once you've decided it was unjustified killing, wouldn't you then consider it was immoral? Or don't you think morality exists at all and there really isn't anything that is right or wrong? That's not a challenge question, I'm just trying to figure where you're coming from. Morality is a product of biological intelligence. It isn't found on the moon, for instance. The concept of right and wrong wouldn't exist without conscience and conscience doesn't exist where there's no biological intelligence. Morality exists but so does a ruler. A measurement can be right or wrong, but the ruler itself is neither because it's a just a flat stick with lines on it. We can objectively say that something is subjective, but we can't subjectively determine anything to be objective.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Apr 1, 2023 21:24:52 GMT
All morality is artificial. Nature doesn't concern itself with pesky ideas like morality, only humans who seek to control others. Have you never seen a bird defend its nest or an elephant mourn?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Apr 1, 2023 21:33:07 GMT
All morality is artificial. Nature doesn't concern itself with pesky ideas like morality, only humans who seek to control others. Have you never seen a bird defend its nest or an elephant mourn? What are you smoking?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Apr 1, 2023 21:56:03 GMT
All morality is artificial. Nature doesn't concern itself with pesky ideas like morality, only humans who seek to control others. Have you never seen a bird defend its nest or an elephant mourn? I have seen animals act out of self-interest, like defending a nest, mourning, eating another animal's babies, eating their own babies, taking from their own kind, throwing the weakest chick out of the nest. Morals are cultural, artificial, created by people want to control others.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Apr 1, 2023 22:59:10 GMT
Have you never seen a bird defend its nest or an elephant mourn? What are you smoking? Blocked.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 23, 2023 2:12:00 GMT
All morality is artificial. Nature doesn't concern itself with pesky ideas like morality, only humans who seek to control others. You've heard of natural selection? Depending on circumstances nature might "select" organisms that cooperate over organisms that do not. In such cases nature doesn't create morality. Morality just happens and nature might select it.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 28, 2023 16:38:51 GMT
Have you never seen a bird defend its nest or an elephant mourn? I have seen animals act out of self-interest, like defending a nest, mourning, eating another animal's babies, eating their own babies, taking from their own kind, throwing the weakest chick out of the nest. Morals are cultural, artificial, created by people want to control others. Morals are indeed cultural, which is why they are natural. Culture is what happens when people group together in societies and gravitate towards a set of values and practices which makes society function as harmoniously as possible. We are social animals, we cannot help but do this - and it is to the benefit of the individual, because it is to the benefit of the community. If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Hence, morals arise as a matter of nature.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 13, 2023 20:37:23 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? There can be no objective morality from God either, since strictly speaking, something objective means divorced from the preferences of any personality. And any god seen as alternatively jealous, loving, angry, vengeful etc is very definitely a personality with preferences.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 13, 2023 20:43:04 GMT
It would appear from various records that the world was a very brutal place before modern religion (for example Judaism) began reforming it. The god of the Bible did not "invent" slaughtering infants. If Genesis is to be believed God certainly came up with the notion of a world-wide genocide all on his own. Good job it is just a myth, eh?
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 14, 2023 1:47:43 GMT
Morality is what the biggest person in the room says it is.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2023 14:27:11 GMT
It would appear from various records that the world was a very brutal place before modern religion (for example Judaism) began reforming it. The god of the Bible did not "invent" slaughtering infants. If Genesis is to be believed God certainly came up with the notion of a world-wide genocide all on his own. Good job it is just a myth, eh? I do not myself believe that evil is prevalent in modern times, with the possible exception of the Nazis. I have seen reports of rather evil occult practices but have no first hand observations. Good job there is no rampant evil since there is nothing you could do about it, eh?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2023 19:44:27 GMT
If Genesis is to be believed God certainly came up with the notion of a world-wide genocide all on his own. Good job it is just a myth, eh? I do not myself believe that evil is prevalent in modern times, with the possible exception of the Nazis. I have seen reports of rather evil occult practices but have no first hand observations. Good job there is no rampant evil since there is nothing you could do about it, eh? The long-term abuse of children by many within the Catholic church or the current war crimes of Russia might justifiably be deemed 'evil' if one were to go looking. As for doing anything about it, I probably would not bother any alleged supernatural with pleas for intervention, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2023 21:35:21 GMT
I do not myself believe that evil is prevalent in modern times, with the possible exception of the Nazis. I have seen reports of rather evil occult practices but have no first hand observations. Good job there is no rampant evil since there is nothing you could do about it, eh? The long-term abuse of children by many within the Catholic church or the current war crimes of Russia might justifiably be deemed 'evil' if one were to go looking. As for doing anything about it, I probably would not bother any alleged supernatural with pleas for intervention, that's for sure. Too bad your way isn't working. Or is it? Who made you judge, by the way?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 15, 2023 20:18:45 GMT
The long-term abuse of children by many within the Catholic church or the current war crimes of Russia might justifiably be deemed 'evil' if one were to go looking. As for doing anything about it, I probably would not bother any alleged supernatural with pleas for intervention, that's for sure. Too bad your way isn't working. Or is it? Who made you judge, by the way? I have no idea what you think 'my way' is. And assuming you can explain, who made you the judge of it? But I think most people are perfectly capable of judging the actions of some in the RC church and of the Putin regime either on their own account or by noting the views of the legal system, victims and most of the international community.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 16, 2023 0:44:31 GMT
Too bad your way isn't working. Or is it? Who made you judge, by the way? I have no idea what you think 'my way' is. And assuming you can explain, who made you the judge of it? But I think most people are perfectly capable of judging the actions of some in the RC church and of the Putin regime either on their own account or by noting the views of the legal system, victims and most of the international community. It has come to my attention time and time again in our exchanges that you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be. Therefore I must keep your opinions at a distance until I can verify them elsewhere. I am aware that many people believe that child abuse is "characteristic" of the Catholic Church or Catholicity. It is often their opinion that the requirement for celibacy causes or worsens the problem. There are three points. One is that there are numerous people who abstain from sex without any requirement to do so. The second is that child abuse exists almost everywhere, regardless of party, denomination, geography, income level, or any other factor. To say that it is "characteristically" a Catholic problem is not immediately obvious as you perhaps think. The third point is that there are many in the laity who are embarrassed that their church requires celibacy of the clergy and not of them and hope to abolish the rule. They might embellish stories. My own opinion is that it is not my problem, and if Catholics want to abolish the requirement for celibacy, good luck with that. You said, "If Genesis is to be believed God certainly came up with the notion of a world-wide genocide all on his own. Good job it is just a myth, eh?" I countered, "Good job there is no rampant evil since there is nothing you could do about it, eh?" Having perhaps lost the point that the God of the Bible "invented" cruelty. You went wandering off on tangents about what child abuse might occur in in the Catholic Church and how evil Putin might be. Neither of those problems in any way compares to the "rampant" evil the Bible describes, that God finds necessary to eliminate by excessive means. Even if every claim of child abuse is true, some might not be, it is still far from worldwide rampant evil. The Crimea has been a focus of military conflict several times in history. I do not pretend to know which 'side" has any claim at this point. You asked, " ... who made you [Arlon] the judge of it?" Nobody did, and I do not act like one. You are the one who wants to claim Putin is "evil" in the sense of ancient Bible times evil. You may show us why now, if you like. Even if you could, it would still not be the worldwide rampant evil God addressed.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 16, 2023 20:20:58 GMT
It has come to my attention time and time again in our exchanges that you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be. Therefore I must keep your opinions at a distance until I can verify them elsewhere. Condescension noted. But verification, or substantiation is always good, as I have only lately reminded you, just when you failed to provide any in another exchange. (And still haven't) That's when I pointed out the evil of child abuse within the RC church and the current depredations of Putin - both of which are, or have been, rampant and widespread. Make your mind up. It was only recently that you assured us that "The god of the Bible did not "invent" slaughtering infants." which seems fairly cruel. In fact I merely chose two glaring of examples of 'rampant evil' that you deny currently exist today. Shall I include the severely repressive North Korean regime which lets its population starve and spends money on missile testing instead? Or the natural evil of Covid? Individually maybe not. But my argument does not depend on things to be taken in isolation. More important here is the fact that, apart from the unique mythical flood, supposedly sent to wipe populations out everywhere (even in places who would, presumably, never have heard of the vengeful deity and his preoccupations in the first place) the rest of the Bible's massacres, rapes & etc were fairly localised affairs. I am however pleased that even you consider the 'God of Love's actions were "excessive". They were, to put it mildly. But I did not say that child abuse makes up the totality of evil in the world, it is enough just to provide several (or many) examples. And when one considers why the alleged Flood was initiated, Genesis is quite vague ("GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen 6:5) so one is not exactly sure what was going on. I am sorry you do not know (although in fact you do often pretend to). Perhaps some reading up on international law on invasion and massacre of civilians etc might help. So then when you said: "you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be." and "Too bad your way isn't working" they were not really judgements? No, I am the one merely claiming that Putin's war is a contemporary rampant evil (in this case across a wide area of one of Europe's largest countries) something widespread and largely unchecked, and moreover the world is not largely devoid of evil (or 'misfortune' as Isiah might say) as you claimed which, is, still, the point. The evil of a deity which orders the mass killing of men women and children (one example "Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant..." 1 Samuel 15:3) is not of a different order of result to that of Putin's offensive, which has achieved exactly the same of results, also by design. It depends on whether one is considering the genocide of the supposed flood, which is certainly unique in scope, or the more localised slaughters Jehovah authorised and which have more foundation in historical events. I would suggest that since the former is entirely mythical (you know that, right? That there is no scientific evidence?) the comparison to modern events of that creation yarn is moot. Of course if you want to absolutely insist that your alleged God is capable of much greater ("excessive") evil than is ever found today, ultimately I can live with that - even if many believers may choke on their holy wafers... But if "evil is [not] prevalent in modern times", which all you originally baldly claimed, then why do the religious go on about it so much?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 17, 2023 0:38:12 GMT
It has come to my attention time and time again in our exchanges that you are less than the master of factual reality that you imagine yourself to be. Therefore I must keep your opinions at a distance until I can verify them elsewhere. Condescension noted. ... ... I fail so see where you "substantiated" any such thing. Why do I need to substantiate things and you do not? The means of "substantiation" I used was "what everyone knows and is not contested." Everyone knows and it is not contested that there were Deists numerous enough to warrant historical mention, and likely more who are Deists but escaped notice. In comparison should I have to "substantiate" that there was a Vietnam War either? Which side was right is contested, but everyone knows and it is not contested that some war occurred. If I mentioned the Vietnam War would you say, "Can you substantiate that this 'Vietnam War' of which you speak ever really happened?" You shouldn't contest me because it is something everyone knows. It was for example on TV. Now can your claims be "substantiated" as known by all and uncontested? Certainly not. And I could find no other substantiation whatsoever. I am aware that there are some people who believe child abuse is "characteristic" of Catholics, but it is not universally accepted that the problem is especially greater than anywhere else. Is celibacy the cause of the problem? Are nuns also child abusers? Does celibacy only make males a problem? Are there people who for whatever reasons remain celibate without any requirement who also abuse children? These are all valid questions, unlike your, "You have not substantiated ..." I suppose most people believe that child abuse exists. It is the placing of special blame that can be and is disputed. I submit then that not everyone knows and it is much contested that child abuse is a characteristically Catholic problem. Knowing as much as you do about substantiation, perhaps you can make your case better? I realize how difficult it will be for you because not all cases are reported, and some reports could be false. I already mentioned my standing which is that if the Catholics want to remove the requirement for celibacy of the clergy, good luck to them. It is also not universally accepted that Putin is evil. As with Vietnam, everyone can see there is a war, but choosing sides is not as automatic as you appear to believe. Again, perhaps you have held back your great skills of substantiation? May we see those now? Are you just lowest ranking military who automatically believes anyone not on your side is evil? I don't believe they would let people in the military like that. So it appears more obvious with your every post that you have no idea what you are talking about. On one hand you want to complain that the God of the Bible was unusually cruel, and on the other admit that you might be just as cruel solving problems that are not even obvious.
No, you have not "substantiated" anything whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 17, 2023 10:54:59 GMT
Condescension noted. ... ... I fail so see where you "substantiated" any such thing. Why do I need to substantiate things and you do not? Please quote where I have not substantiated something and I will be happy to help. In the case of Putin for instance the scope and scale of his geo-political ambitions are evidenced by his own words and actions. Covid circled the world & etc Here you appear to be arguing a. a point which appeared on a different thread (its on 'Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways to Prove the Existence of God') and b. a fact which I have never in fact contested. What you ought to be saying here is that evil is necessarily a subjective term as it would far more fruitful. Child abuse as a widespread and persistent phenomenon has been very amply demonstrated (and admitted by the church). "The report estimates that 216,000 children were abused by Catholic priests between 1950 and 2020, and that accounting for abuse by other Catholic church employees increases the total number to around 330,000. Around 80% of the victims were boys." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#:~:text=The%20report%20estimates%20that%20216%2C000,of%20the%20victims%20were%20boys. See what I did there? All that it is necessary for me to say (as I remain disputing your original point that "that evil is [not] prevalent in modern times") to all this is that child abuse as a widespread and persistent phenomenon has been very amply demonstrated (and admitted by the church) and fits the description of a 'widespread evil' for many while all the other examples I have suggested still apply. I hope that helps.. Indeed but that is not a point I have made. (In fact many Christians I have debated with have denied that the cruel and vengeful God of the OT is evil either since the mass killings of men women and children were 'justified'. I am pleasantly surprised you have not tried that) However the vast majority of the international community are against Putin's actions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_and_intergovernmental_reactions_to_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine Hey, see what I did there once again? It was you who called the actions of your God of Love 'excessive' was it not? You, not being a judge of anything ? And where do I admit that I might be 'just as cruel solving problems'? Please quote me.
|
|