Morality and Belief in God

[Omega Man]

Nobody has "dodged" this self-appointed arbiter, that is merely their continuing diversion tactic; apparently the only way they can convince themselves of their "perpetual victories".

I find myself rather amused by it all.


OM

 

[AGENT J]

Nobody has "dodged" this self-appointed arbiter, that is merely their continuing diversion tactic; apparently the only way they can convince themselves of their "perpetual victories".

I find myself rather amused by it all.


OM

and another dodge, lying about you dodging wont fool anybody it just further exposes your inability to support your proven wrong claims as they get destroyed by facts over and over again.
ill keep asking you and watching you run again and again much to my delight LMAO

Fact remains by definition morals are subjective
If you disagree simply list one factually objective moral and prove it . . .one . . thanks:2wave:

 

[Omega Man]

Self-appointed arbiters can never – will never – acknowledge the answers which others provide. Their biases are stronger than their desire for a balanced intellect. Now that I have clearly identified their careworn tactic, I have no further use of its intellectual dishonesty.


OM

 

[William Rea]

and another dodge, lying about you dodging wont fool anybody it just further exposes your inability to support your proven wrong claims as they get destroyed by facts over and over again.
ill keep asking you and watching you run again and again much to my delight LMAO

Fact remains by definition morals are subjective
If you disagree simply list one factually objective moral and prove it . . .one . . thanks:2wave:

List of things never produced...

1. An Immaterial.
2. An objective moral.
...

 

[AGENT J]

Self-appointed arbiters can never – will never – acknowledge the answers which others provide. Their biases are stronger than their desire for a balanced intellect. Now that I have clearly identified their careworn tactic, I have no further use of its intellectual dishonesty.


OM

aaaand another failed and desperate dodge, awesome!!! LMAO
Fact remains by definition morals are subjective

If you or anybody disagrees simply list one factually objective moral and prove it . . .one . . thanks

 

[AGENT J]

List of things never produced...

1. An Immaterial.
2. An objective moral.
...

and one never will. been asking in two different threas with over like 2000 posts. The total of like 6 posters (3 people cause at least 2 are socks) can NEVER list one and prove it and the rest of us just point this fact out. Its hilarious.

 

[Quag]

Everything is of the mind; therefore, everything is subjective.
If everything is subjective, then nothing is objective.
So your point about morality is nugatory.

No everything is not of the mind your point is as usual pointless.

This is a description of morality; a description is not an argument that reaches sources.
Therefore, this argument from description is not an argument for subjectivity.
Different flora and fauna at different times/places have different characteristics, but these differences do not point to different biology.

It is part of the argument not the whole. Try to keep up.

Actions are objective, and morality is the measurement of those actions.
VINLO's criteria for moral significance are objective. They apply universally across all actions.

No morality is not the measurement of actions. It is a subjective value some people place on some actions. You have no objective measurement of morality.
You can objectively measure the force of an action, the time it takes, the speed it occurs at etc etc. You cannot obejctiely measure morals because there is no objective measurement for morals.

 

[Quag]

Once leadership is assumed and rules and guidelines implemented in a collective-effort to survive, it is no longer wholly subjective


OM

Why/how does leadership implementing rules and guidelines make them no longer subjective?
Rules and guidelines are also not neccesarily morals.
Leadership doesnt necessarily decide upon a soceities morality that can come from the people not just the leadership. The leadership is often the follower of societal changes in morals no the instigator.

 

[Angel]

No everything is not of the mind your point is as usual pointless.



It is part of the argument not the whole. Try to keep up.



No morality is not the measurement of actions. It is a subjective value some people place on some actions. You have no objective measurement of morality.
You can objectively measure the force of an action, the time it takes, the speed it occurs at etc etc. You cannot obejctiely measure morals because there is no objective measurement for morals.

That point you call pointless is your point, although you don't even recognize it.

Well, where's the rest of your argument then? Why keep it a secret?

But you see "a subjective value some people place on some actions" is just that: a "measurement of actions."

Your argument appears to be that morality is subjective because morality is subjective.

 

[Quag]

That point you call pointless is your point, although you don't even recognize it.

Well, where's the rest of your argument then? Why keep it a secret?

But you see "a subjective value some people place on some actions" is just that: a "measurement of actions."

Your argument appears to be that morality is subjective because morality is subjective.

The subjective value some people place on some actions is not a measurement but an opinion.
You dont even attempt to refute what I said or back up your own claims then pretend I havent made an argument.

 

[Omega Man]

Why/how does leadership implementing rules and guidelines make them no longer subjective?
Rules and guidelines are also not neccesarily morals.
Leadership doesnt necessarily decide upon a soceities morality that can come from the people not just the leadership. The leadership is often the follower of societal changes in morals no the instigator.

In your culture, are you allowed to murder your fellow human being? Is not ensuring the collective survival of your species a moral obligation?


OM

 

[RAMOSS]

In your culture, are you allowed to murder your fellow human being? Is not ensuring the collective survival of your species a moral obligation?


OM

Yes, it's known as 'stand your ground laws'.

 

[Omega Man]

Yes, it's known as 'stand your ground laws'.

I said murder, not defend yourself.


OM

 

[RAMOSS]

I said murder, not defend yourself.


OM

You don't know the florida stand your ground laws , and how it gets applied very well, do you.

 

[Omega Man]

You don't know the florida stand your ground laws , and how it gets applied very well, do you.

Sure I do. Do you? It's a self-defense law. And again, I said murder, not self-defense.


OM

 

[RAMOSS]

Sure I do. Do you? It's a self-defense law. And again, I said murder, not self-defense.


OM

In many cases, people get away with murder by invoking the stand your ground laws.

 

[Omega Man]

In many cases, people get away with murder by invoking the stand your ground laws.

Not according to the law they don't.


OM

 

[RAMOSS]

Not according to the law they don't.


OM

You don't know Florida Man.

 

[Quag]

In your culture, are you allowed to murder your fellow human being? Is not ensuring the collective survival of your species a moral obligation?


OM

That didnt actually adress my question. Why/how does leadership implementing rules and guidelines make them no longer subjective?
As to murder

The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder
What is murder depends on the soceity. In some societies at certain times people could kill others with impunity.
When the Maori killed the moriori in the Catham islands the Maori didnt consider it wrong, the Moriori would have disagreed.
When certain civilizations practised human sacrifice they dodnt consider it murder, in the modern western world we would disagree.
etc etc...

 

[Omega Man]

That didnt actually adress my question. Why/how does leadership implementing rules and guidelines make them no longer subjective?
As to murder

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/murder
What is murder depends on the soceity. In some societies at certain times people could kill others with impunity.
When the Maori killed the moriori in the Catham islands the Maori didnt consider it wrong, the Moriori would have disagreed.
When certain civilizations practised human sacrifice they dodnt consider it murder, in the modern western world we would disagree.
etc etc...

First off, allow me to reiterate that morality is not wholly objective, nor is it wholly subjective. The common good is an example of objective morality, thus my question about murder. If rules and guidelines were instilled to ensure collective survival of a species – the common good – then those are not subjective rules. Secondly, not all rules are objective, nor in the common good; especially those which infringe upon the individual. No individual has a moral obligation to sacrifice themselves for others.


OM

 

[Quag]

First off, allow me to reiterate that morality is not wholly objective, nor is it wholly subjective. The common good is an example of objective morality, thus my question about murder. If rules and guidelines were instilled to ensure collective survival of a species – the common good – then those are not subjective rules. Secondly, not all rules are objective, nor in the common good; especially those which infringe upon the individual. No individual has a moral obligation to sacrifice themselves for others.


OM

What is the common good is subjective in itself. Anything based upon the common good will also be subjective.
Heck the USA is going through an election today and both sides believe they are working for the common good. Imagine the situation in countries with more than 2 parties?
One society can decide an act is murder while another decides it is not (even within a society there can be disagreements)
A society that has rulers deem human sacrifice is not illegal has deemed it to not be murder. The population may consider human sacrifice immoral but as the rulers make the laws human sacrifice cannot be murder as it is not illegal.

 

[devildavid]

Sure I do. Do you? It's a self-defense law. And again, I said murder, not self-defense.


OM

Murder is a subjective term for killing that assumes wrong doing. It is decided differently what it is according to culture and history.

In effect you are asking, is doing something wrong doing something wrong?

 

[devildavid]

What? "Circle around the answer?" So you're saying unless I agree with whatever ridiculous response to my question is offered, I'm just... "circling around the answer." It doesn't matter that no real explanation was offered. Any rebuttal I provide to the absurd examples that have been given are "circling".

RAMOSS offered a situation of a morally significant unconscious, unintended action. Except it included conscious intent, so it didn't apply.

devildavid offered a situation of morally significant unconscious, unintended action. Except it, as far as I can tell, requires someone be insane. Either that or they hold God responsible. In the first case, insanity is the only condition for escaping my moral assignation paradigm, which only proves the rule. In the second case, God is responsible and therefore it is not an unintended, unconscious action.

Quag simply repeated them and then insisted that yes, people could think the elderly lady asleep on the bus passing gas is committing a moral action. That is absolutely, utterly absurd and he knows it. Nobody does that in real life.

The only real response to my rebuttal to these situations so far has been "yeah they do!" Alright, if it's so common, find me a real-life example. If they are right, it should be easy. There should be plenty of examples that spring to mind. Of course, Quag, RAMOSS, and devildavid all ignore that request because they can't think of any, and they never will, because it doesn't happen.

My example does not require someone to be insane. Unless you equate all irrational thinking with insanity.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

This is another "Belief in God" prophecy. Whether the giver of this prophecy has the real gift, or a false "gift," will be revealed next week, and then in 2020.

"I heard the Lord speak, “I have extended an olive branch of peace to the United States of America and will extend Donald Trump’s presidency into a second term by the power of my right hand....The Lord spoke to me again, “As a sure sign of these things coming to pass there will be a wave of conservatives elected during the midterm election in November 2018, it will be Breaking News. They will carry the House and the Senate and I will uproot, replant and rebuild the nation. I will tie the three branches of government together for a person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Three are even better, for a triple-braided cord is not easily broken. I will no longer allow your President to stand on his own. Even now I have called others to come along side and help bring the nation back from the dead and they will take their seats in the coming days.”

"I saw the House of Representatives stay in the hands of the Republicans and will move much more to a conservative position. I could see into the Senate and saw the Republicans gain 9 seats, those that took their place were considerably more conservative then those who had previously been there. I heard the Lord say, “Yes, nine will be a sign; a sign that righteousness has been birthed in the nation and earth.” I saw three constitutional conservatives were appointed to the Supreme Court by President before 2020."

-Prophet Charlie Shamp https://www.destinyencounters.com/n...5UR_gS6Ff2ejkn51UJdvtPKLbe_3sLqeUocfEHLXyj5KY

Mega :failpail:

No worries. That guy will continue to rake in tons of money, which is of course his main goal.

The real purpose of my reply here is to show you acknowledging how wedded to the Republican party your brand of Christianity is. That righterreport website you like to use is another great witness.

 

[Logicman]

The real purpose of my reply here is to show you acknowledging how wedded to the Republican party your brand of Christianity is. That righterreport website you like to use is another great witness.

As opposed to being wedded to a gaggle of left-wing morons? That's my alternative?

If the Democratic Party ever comes up with a decent conservative candidate I'd consider voting for them. But you haven't had one in ages. Ages.

In the meantime, there are no perfect people. You've never voted for one either.