I am a good person and I don't need a god for that

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Interaktive, Apr 1, 2023.

  1. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no sound way to define consequences without a reference to good or evil.
     
  2. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good thing that doesn't matter and no one said otherwise. The challenge was to define it without reference to GOD, which you just did.
     
  3. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I explained Natural Law. Now you can explain to us how it was set in motion. Like I said before, such intelligent systems require intelligent design.
     
  4. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why does the proposed intelligent designer explicitly and repeatedly violate (and demand that others violate) said natural law?
     
  5. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's His card table, His deck of cards, and He is dealing.

    You just play the hand you were dealt.
     
  6. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is why religious ethics can be lame. You can break ethics at anytime by just saying God told you to do it. Since no one can disprove or disprove your experience you get yo go ahead and marry a bunch of 15 year olds (for example).
     
  7. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are going back on your previous claims about morality and setting an entirely different standard.
     
  8. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have no reading comprehension and I don't know what to do about it.
     
  9. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry that I'm willing to address our previous posts and you are not. I don't know what to do about that.
     
  10. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prove my beliefs either one way or the other. You can't.
     
  11. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was never the intent. YOU provided a SECULAR morality here that makes no appeal to religion. Shall I apologize for agreeing?
     
  12. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I did not.

    Prove me right, prove to me that it's not the guy with the biggest stick and the most brawn that wins, but it's the guy with the biggest heart that wins. If there is anything less obvious through your vast experience and observation of nature, please, do tell.
     
  13. Dirty Rotten Imbecile

    Dirty Rotten Imbecile Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rocky II?
     
  14. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You literally just argued for a different basis for morality based on consequences. Why do you now disagree with the following?

     
  15. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah. And I asked you how you suddenly determine that it's not the guy with the biggest stick that wins. All of nature says the biggest stick always wins. Belief in the fact that the exact opposite is true is a leap of faith. There's nothing intuitive about it.
     
  16. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You think it is the biggest stick that wins? Weird that you changed your mind on that. I disagree.

    Unless you understand social species.

    There's nothing intuitive about the way that you are wildly contradicting yourself.
     
  17. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have comprehension and possibly retention problems. I don't know how to address that. I wish I could help you.
     
    Trixare4kids likes this.
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are constantly contradicting yourself on this. You won't even acknowledge what you previously wrote here:

    "I gotta disagree. Morality is as fixed as the laws of motion. -"Do not do to others that which you would not have them do to you"-

    The way I see it all actions including inaction have consequences. There can be either, and only, positive or negative consequences or, most often, a combination of the two. Any action that causes material harm to another sentient being is wrong. Material harm is always some manner of theft- murder is theft of life, coersion is theft of free will, fraud is theft of the right to be told the truth. Emotions, as inflicted upon each other as they may or may not be, do not constitute material harm."

    Can I interest you in going back to agreeing with the above?
     
  19. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    12,181
    Likes Received:
    11,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You've read Mills. Brilliant mind.

    Looking at the consequences to determine your morality is a slippery slope. We can say stealing is morally wrong, but the thief that never gets caught wouldn't say it is. For them, getting caught would be the thing to avoid as far as consequences go.
     
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For Mills, it was never about getting caught. It was about the objective consequences -- the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
     
  21. Green Man

    Green Man Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2023
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    1,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, so you need a moral compass. Without one how could you determine good consequences from bad consequences. But, the law concerning not harming others was written in stone. Twice. So, the law is fixed.

    I don't know who Mills is. Perhaps I read someone that read Mills. The other day I heard that Jordan Peterson said something brilliant- "The Bible is not just True, it is way truer than that. It is the precondition for being True".
     
  22. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,117
    Likes Received:
    30,613
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Mills and Bentham were the two main philosophers of utilitarianism. They believed that morality consisted in doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Bentham even thought this could be done mathematically. Bentham also, based on this philosophy, stood against the Christians of his day, arguing for gender equality.
    There was no truth before the Bible was written? 2+2 did not equal 4 before then? Odd.
     
    Dirty Rotten Imbecile likes this.
  23. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Protons consist of twobupbquars and a down quark.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  24. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,377
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2023
    Overitall likes this.
  25. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    12,181
    Likes Received:
    11,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trial and error can teach one about consequences. For instances, a child could stick their hand over a lit stove and the consequences would, hopefully, teach them not to do that again. Is there a moral that can be derived from that? Perhaps, that pain is not something you like and it follows that others wouldn't like it either. But then, what about a sadist/mashochist? Pain is enjoyable for them.
    Mills wrote a paper on the "Do no harm principle". Something which I believe arose from the Hippocratic oath.
     

Share This Page