|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 4:51:26 GMT
Religious morality is the position of having a fixed set of declarations which are unchanging, and handed down from a moral authority thousands of years ago, who declares the difference between "right" and "wrong", so that we may please God. Secular humanist morality is the position of being willing to consider and apply new evidence, and grow based on what we've learned from past mistakes, so that we may determine the difference between "good" and "bad", in order to benefit mankind. Anyone want to challenge either of these definitions? Nah, Cap'n. I don't wish to challenge your definitions. I was a secular humanist from about age 15 to age 45, and my memories of it are surprisingly clear, almost as if it happened yesterday. Somehow I was expecting you to put up a little more of a fight. 
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 9, 2019 4:53:00 GMT
lol question. I wish I could figure out a theophobiac thought process. It’s gotta be more fun than a roller coaster I know you are not Catholic and don't appear to like speaking for others and vice versa, even 'theophobiacs' however is it possible for you to expand a little on exactly what is wrong with this statement? With your alleged and self touted total knowledge of the Bible maybe you can put us and the whole Catholic Church right on this point? You have to ask clusium (resident Catholic)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 9, 2019 4:58:34 GMT
Nah, Cap'n. I don't wish to challenge your definitions. I was a secular humanist from about age 15 to age 45, and my memories of it are surprisingly clear, almost as if it happened yesterday. Somehow I was expecting you to put up a little more of a fight.  Maybe some other time, when it matters. 3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years, some of them in very gruesome ways, and what are people harping about nowadays? Blackface, that's what. A white guy going to a party in blackface, more than thirty years ago. BIG DEAL! As to the definitions you provided......they'll do for now. I'll sit back and let the other split hairs with you about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 9, 2019 8:35:49 GMT
Somehow I was expecting you to put up a little more of a fight.  Maybe some other time, when it matters. 3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years, some of them in very gruesome ways, and what are people harping about nowadays? Blackface, that's what. A white guy going to a party in blackface, more than thirty years ago. BIG DEAL! As to the definitions you provided......they'll do for now. I'll sit back and let the other split hairs with you about it. 3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years? Where do you come up with that?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 9, 2019 8:45:18 GMT
Maybe some other time, when it matters. 3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years, some of them in very gruesome ways, and what are people harping about nowadays? Blackface, that's what. A white guy going to a party in blackface, more than thirty years ago. BIG DEAL! As to the definitions you provided......they'll do for now. I'll sit back and let the other split hairs with you about it. 3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years? Where do you come up with that? From Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I spoke about her in a thread I started on this board several days ago. This woman is an actress. She's bold. She's dynamic. And she's lying her head off about everything except the twelve years. That much is true. The world is going to be a very different place in twelve years. At long last I now have a timeline I can work with. I fully realize that this isn't going to make much sense to you, and that's okay. It's not your fault.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 13:45:52 GMT
3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years? Where do you come up with that? From Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I spoke about her in a thread I started on this board several days ago. This woman is an actress. She's bold. She's dynamic. And she's lying her head off about everything except the twelve years. That much is true. The world is going to be a very different place in twelve years. At long last I now have a timeline I can work with. I fully realize that this isn't going to make much sense to you, and that's okay. It's not your fault. Oh, it makes sense. It's just stupid and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 9, 2019 14:46:55 GMT
I know you are not Catholic and don't appear to like speaking for others and vice versa, even 'theophobiacs' however is it possible for you to expand a little on exactly what is wrong with this statement? With your alleged and self touted total knowledge of the Bible maybe you can put us and the whole Catholic Church right on this point? You have to ask clusium (resident Catholic) Ask me what?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2019 20:47:43 GMT
You have to ask clusium (resident Catholic) Ask me what?
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 9, 2019 22:48:03 GMT
Genesis chapter 38, verse 9, is where it is taught that contraceptive is a sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 10, 2019 0:52:47 GMT
3/4 of the world's population are going to be dead in less than twelve years? Where do you come up with that? From Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I spoke about her in a thread I started on this board several days ago. This woman is an actress. She's bold. She's dynamic. And she's lying her head off about everything except the twelve years. That much is true. The world is going to be a very different place in twelve years. At long last I now have a timeline I can work with. I fully realize that this isn't going to make much sense to you, and that's okay. It's not your fault. It sounds exciting. I wonder if it'll be a natural disaster...volcanic material issuing from thousands of cracks in the earth. Maybe the earth's magnetic field will collapse allowing harmful solar flares to get through drowning all of life in radiation. Perhaps it'll be something from on high, where swarms of meteors and/or comets will rain down fire and brimestone. Maybe a huge celestial body will come out of nowhere, crash into, or disrupt the orbit of, the earth forming yet another moon. Perhaps it'll be huge seismic activity causing gigantic tidal waves to wash away everything within a hundred miles of the coast on every continent. Or will humans do it to themselves with a nuclear war? Maybe it'll be a the rapture or some other divine catastrophic intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Feb 10, 2019 0:54:15 GMT
Genesis chapter 38, verse 9, is where it is taught that contraceptive is a sin. Come on, he just swerved to avoid a child and took a spill into the dirt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Feb 10, 2019 1:37:24 GMT
The main difference is that secular humanism is short sighted. Secondly, people tend to grade their own papers higher than some others would.
Notice that the "people" passed no fault divorce laws about half a century ago and the meaning of marriage was gone long before same sex marriage was considered equal to it. Perhaps you blame that on a "rise" in religiosity while admitting the truth that more people are less religious.
Most "religious" people, not counting many "Christians" of course, are more circumspect because of their religion.
That means they earn more income, are better educated, and have more stable marriages and family life than atheists and "fundamentalist" Christians who have no rules, no circumspection, and do not "fear" any god.
At some point the military atheist Trump supporters and the "Christian" atheist Democrats will have to wake up to the fact that their growing debts are insane.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 10, 2019 1:45:17 GMT
From Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I spoke about her in a thread I started on this board several days ago. This woman is an actress. She's bold. She's dynamic. And she's lying her head off about everything except the twelve years. That much is true. The world is going to be a very different place in twelve years. At long last I now have a timeline I can work with. I fully realize that this isn't going to make much sense to you, and that's okay. It's not your fault. It sounds exciting. I wonder if it'll be a natural disaster...volcanic material issuing from thousands of cracks in the earth. Maybe the earth's magnetic field will collapse allowing harmful solar flares to get through drowning all of life in radiation. Perhaps it'll be something from on high, where swarms of meteors and/or comets will rain down fire and brimestone. Maybe a huge celestial body will come out of nowhere, crash into, or disrupt the orbit of, the earth forming yet another moon. Perhaps it'll be huge seismic activity causing gigantic tidal waves to wash away everything within a hundred miles of the coast on every continent. Or will humans do it to themselves with a nuclear war? Maybe it'll be a the rapture or some other divine catastrophic intervention. Personally, I don't believe there will be a rapture before SHTF begins. People have gotten ugly with me over it, but I've told them that if they see a rapture on their TV news, it will be a FAKE rapture.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 10, 2019 4:33:05 GMT
Genesis chapter 38, verse 9, is where it is taught that contraceptive is a sin. I don't understand what that has to do with contraception, and in any case it was seen as a good thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 10, 2019 4:50:31 GMT
Genesis chapter 38, verse 9, is where it is taught that contraceptive is a sin. I don't understand what that has to do with contraception, and in any case it was seen as a good thing! No it wasn't/
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 10, 2019 6:11:55 GMT
Genesis chapter 38, verse 9, is where it is taught that contraceptive is a sin. I don't understand what that has to do with contraception, and in any case it was seen as a good thing! It didn't have to do with contraception in and of itself (and even if it did we're talking about the highly fallible pull out method). The 'sin' was he was expected to carry on his brother's name/line by fathering a child with his widow and he wouldn't complete the deed.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 10, 2019 6:41:17 GMT
I don't understand what that has to do with contraception, and in any case it was seen as a good thing! No it wasn't/ tl:dr
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 0:19:44 GMT
I would consider a bad person to be a person who intentionally does bad things for selfish reasons. Someone who knowingly commits actions that cause harm to individuals or society because they care more about themselves than the well being of others. Or an unempathetic person who has no regard for the well being of others, as demonstrated by their action or inaction. I think any of those definitions work to classify someone as a "bad person".  Maybe if you give me an example? By the way, I'm not certain that the secular humanist view is necessarily more flexible at any given time. I just think it's capable of evolving (changing over time) and that it is therefore not static like the religious view. We are actually covering two topics here I will do my best. Topic 1. I look at people being born as babies ( NOT like religious people do butt similar in that they have a combination of nature and nurture...a baby does not do bad things ) What happens to them is a delicate and intricate balance of nature and nurture. ie a psychiatric potential maniac, with careful upbringing might be able to be deflected from such behaviours as could a completely fucked up person with a horrendous childhood, end up being an amazing person doing good. There is NO rule here. Even the worst criminals who may have ALL kinds of psychiatric issues, sometimes do 'good' things. ie No-one is ALL bad. Okay several things here: 1) When I say "bad person", I'm not talking about a person who is incapable of reasoning, or understanding the difference between right and wrong. An infant (or young child), or a mentally handicapped person who doesn't understand the consequences of their actions is someone I wouldn't describe as "bad". They are naive, helpless, ignorant, innocent, and in some cases "sick" or disabled. But not bad people. When I talk about someone as a bad person, I'm referring to someone who IS capable of reasoning, and chooses to act in the selfish way that is detrimental to well-being, as opposed to the selfless way that is beneficial to well-being. Someone who understands the difference between good and bad, and chooses bad (for their own selfish reasons). That is a bad person! 2) With that in mind, I don't care that a bad person sometimes does good things. Only when the good they do outweighs the bad can you describe them as a good person. But if they are a convicted rapist or murder who also happened to donate money to a children's hospital for cancer research, they're still a bad person! Because donating money to sick children doesn't reverse the harm you've cause in society by raping and murdering people. And most likely acts of goodness by bad people are self-serving methods of redemption from guilt, rather than true atonement. Turning yourself in as a murderer or rapist, and then paying restitution for the rest of your life to the families of your victims would be an act of atonement. But doing random acts of goodness to make yourself feel better about being a shitty example of a human being does not suddenly make you a good person (or even a neutral person). You're still a bad person, who just happens to do good things sometimes. 3) None of us are perfect and we all make mistakes. Human beings are animals which evolved from lower, social animals who were both predators and prey. We have have a complex social structure, are tribal by nature, are naturally drawn to people we perceive as "like us", and naturally fearful and/or aggressive towards people who we perceive as different from us. But, we also have larger brains, are capable of reasoning and learning from the mistakes made in history. We can understand complex facets of the human brain and the human condition by studying psychology, sociology, and philosophy. And having the ability to reason, weight the consequences of our actions, and recognize the value of a society that works towards well-being means that we have the ability to see the bigger picture, empathize with others, temper emotion with logic, and choose to act in the good way way most of the time. And I would describe most people as "basically good". That is to say that we are good people most of the time (or strive to do good rather than bad), and we happen to occasionally do bad things that we oftentimes later regret and try to atone for. In most people, the good outweighs the bad, and true acts of atonement can be accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 13, 2019 1:58:50 GMT
We are actually covering two topics here I will do my best. Topic 1. I look at people being born as babies ( NOT like religious people do butt similar in that they have a combination of nature and nurture...a baby does not do bad things ) What happens to them is a delicate and intricate balance of nature and nurture. ie a psychiatric potential maniac, with careful upbringing might be able to be deflected from such behaviours as could a completely fucked up person with a horrendous childhood, end up being an amazing person doing good. There is NO rule here. Even the worst criminals who may have ALL kinds of psychiatric issues, sometimes do 'good' things. ie No-one is ALL bad. Okay several things here: 1) When I say "bad person", I'm not talking about a person who is incapable of reasoning, or understanding the difference between right and wrong. An infant (or young child), or a mentally handicapped person who doesn't understand the consequences of their actions is someone I wouldn't describe as "bad". They are naive, helpless, ignorant, innocent, and in some cases "sick" or disabled. But not bad people. When I talk about someone as a bad person, I'm referring to someone who IS capable of reasoning, and chooses to act in the selfish way that is detrimental to well-being, as opposed to the selfless way that is beneficial to well-being. Someone who understands the difference between good and bad, and chooses bad (for their own selfish reasons). That is a bad person! 2) With that in mind, I don't care that a bad person sometimes does good things. Only when the good they do outweighs the bad can you describe them as a good person. But if they are a convicted rapist or murder who also happened to donate money to a children's hospital for cancer research, they're still a bad person! Because donating money to sick children doesn't reverse the harm you've cause in society by raping and murdering people. And most likely acts of goodness by bad people are self-serving methods of redemption from guilt, rather than true atonement. Turning yourself in as a murderer or rapist, and then paying restitution for the rest of your life to the families of your victims would be an act of atonement. But doing random acts of goodness to make yourself feel better about being a shitty example of a human being does not suddenly make you a good person (or even a neutral person). You're still a bad person, who just happens to do good things sometimes. 3) None of us are perfect and we all make mistakes. Human beings are animals which evolved from lower, social animals who were both predators and prey. We have have a complex social structure, are tribal by nature, are naturally drawn to people we perceive as "like us", and naturally fearful and/or aggressive towards people who we perceive as different from us. But, we also have larger brains, are capable of reasoning and learning from the mistakes made in history. We can understand complex facets of the human brain and the human condition by studying psychology, sociology, and philosophy. And having the ability to reason, weight the consequences of our actions, and recognize the value of a society that works towards well-being means that we have the ability to see the bigger picture, empathize with others, temper emotion with logic, and choose to act in the good way way most of the time. And I would describe most people as "basically good". That is to say that we are good people most of the time (or strive to do good rather than bad), and we happen to occasionally do bad things that we oftentimes later regret and try to atone for. In most people, the good outweighs the bad, and true acts of atonement can be accomplished. Wow, that is a lot of words for saying not very much. It comes down to,( if you are NOT a religious person who believes in Gog given objective or ultimate morality,) WHO decides if someone is a bad person who does good things or a good person who does bad thing? and how?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 13, 2019 2:12:57 GMT
Okay several things here: 1) When I say "bad person", I'm not talking about a person who is incapable of reasoning, or understanding the difference between right and wrong. An infant (or young child), or a mentally handicapped person who doesn't understand the consequences of their actions is someone I wouldn't describe as "bad". They are naive, helpless, ignorant, innocent, and in some cases "sick" or disabled. But not bad people. When I talk about someone as a bad person, I'm referring to someone who IS capable of reasoning, and chooses to act in the selfish way that is detrimental to well-being, as opposed to the selfless way that is beneficial to well-being. Someone who understands the difference between good and bad, and chooses bad (for their own selfish reasons). That is a bad person! 2) With that in mind, I don't care that a bad person sometimes does good things. Only when the good they do outweighs the bad can you describe them as a good person. But if they are a convicted rapist or murder who also happened to donate money to a children's hospital for cancer research, they're still a bad person! Because donating money to sick children doesn't reverse the harm you've cause in society by raping and murdering people. And most likely acts of goodness by bad people are self-serving methods of redemption from guilt, rather than true atonement. Turning yourself in as a murderer or rapist, and then paying restitution for the rest of your life to the families of your victims would be an act of atonement. But doing random acts of goodness to make yourself feel better about being a shitty example of a human being does not suddenly make you a good person (or even a neutral person). You're still a bad person, who just happens to do good things sometimes. 3) None of us are perfect and we all make mistakes. Human beings are animals which evolved from lower, social animals who were both predators and prey. We have have a complex social structure, are tribal by nature, are naturally drawn to people we perceive as "like us", and naturally fearful and/or aggressive towards people who we perceive as different from us. But, we also have larger brains, are capable of reasoning and learning from the mistakes made in history. We can understand complex facets of the human brain and the human condition by studying psychology, sociology, and philosophy. And having the ability to reason, weight the consequences of our actions, and recognize the value of a society that works towards well-being means that we have the ability to see the bigger picture, empathize with others, temper emotion with logic, and choose to act in the good way way most of the time. And I would describe most people as "basically good". That is to say that we are good people most of the time (or strive to do good rather than bad), and we happen to occasionally do bad things that we oftentimes later regret and try to atone for. In most people, the good outweighs the bad, and true acts of atonement can be accomplished. Wow, that is a lot of words for saying not very much. It comes down to,( if you are NOT a religious person who believes in Gog given objective or ultimate morality,) WHO decides if someone is a bad person who does good things or a good person who does bad thing? and how? It's strange that you should ask this when I literally just gave you the answer in my last response. Perhaps I said more that you think, and you simply didn't catch it. Who decides? Every member of society who can engage in reason individually and collectively decides. Because whether or not someone causes harm to individual's or society is not a subjective opinion; it's an objective fact. They either have, or they haven't! Bad people can be objectively judged as bad by examining the collective effect of their actions and intentions. And "quantity of harm" and "quality of harm" can objectively be measured against the "quantity of good" and "quality of atonement". Either the good someone does outweighs the harm, or the reverse is true. Generally speaking (there are always rare exceptions) life is preferable to death, joy is preferable to suffering, pleasure is preferable to pain, health is preferable to sickness. These are objective truths barring a conflict between two of these paradigms. Which means it's easy to determine whether or not someone's actions combined with their intent results is "good" or "bad" for individuals and society. It's not a matter of belief that a serial killer is bad for individuals and societies; it's a matter of fact. Now, do we all have an equal ability to evaluate these things when it comes to other people? No. And the human factor is where the judgment becomes subjective. Some people are more qualified, and have more information than other people. This naturally puts them in a better position to judge harm verses good. But the point is with all of the relevant information, the judgement becomes objective. The difference between what is good and what is bad is objective if your basis for morality is well-being. The judgement of an individual is subjective based on what information you possess, your reasoning ability, and whether you are a moral person.
|
|