Conquer Club

jonesthecurl wrote:Rocks, stars, quarks, photons, earthworms, toenails, and black holes do not have morals. Humans have morals. They are a human thing.

First of all, lumping a number of odd things together isn't a good way to make an argument.

Second, I recommend not starting off with the philosophy of the photon. Objects that travel at exactly the speed of light have an interesting view of the universe.

Third a black hole is simply a special region of space time with unique properties depending on how you define space time and whether it warps or moves.

So get off your progressively snotty high horse and start comparing like to like. Having intelligence might be one factor. So don't include earth worms, but do include dolphins, whales, and elephants.

tzor wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:Rocks, stars, quarks, photons, earthworms, toenails, and black holes do not have morals. Humans have morals. They are a human thing.

First of all, lumping a number of odd things together isn't a good way to make an argument.

Second, I recommend not starting off with the philosophy of the photon. Objects that travel at exactly the speed of light have an interesting view of the universe.

Third a black hole is simply a special region of space time with unique properties depending on how you define space time and whether it warps or moves.

So get off your progressively snotty high horse and start comparing like to like. Having intelligence might be one factor. So don't include earth worms, but do include dolphins, whales, and elephants.

"Progressively snotty"?

But seriously, I did delete a bit about non-human animals, also hypothetical inhabitants of other worlds. Partly because I like my posts to be short, and partly because the argument was already going all over the place.
But OK, let's deal with that. Do dolphins have morals (and if so where do they come from)? Do they have souls? Should they convert to Christianity?

Do you need language before you can have morals?

Incidentally, I'm not progressively snotty - my allergies have eased off a lot since I moved to California.

Someone might have already asked this but:

What is the difference between moral decisions made in a context of infinity vs. a context of 0-100 years?

Are decisions based in the infinite time frame somehow more important? If anything decisions in the shorter time context frame should be assumed to be more important as the infinity is unknown (it's called faith for a reason) where as the here and now consequences can be estimated with a reasonable amount of accuracy.

To kick off a fun example can I ask the question. How should homosexuality be approached under your moral framework? (I urge you to speak freely, I shall not call you a homophobe or other derogatory name, you are free to assume your own position and I respect that - even if I may not share your views).

Lootifer wrote:Someone might have already asked this but:

What is the difference between moral decisions made in a context of infinity vs. a context of 0-100 years?

Are decisions based in the infinite time frame somehow more important? If anything decisions in the shorter time context frame should be assumed to be more important as the infinity is unknown (it's called faith for a reason) where as the here and now consequences can be estimated with a reasonable amount of accuracy.

To kick off a fun example can I ask the question. How should homosexuality be approached under your moral framework? (I urge you to speak freely, I shall not call you a homophobe or other derogatory name, you are free to assume your own position and I respect that - even if I may not share your views).

I often forget all my conclusions about morality and ethics and all that shit, and it's because in my mind they are actually unimportant. Your question is only a starting point to realize that it's non-sense and absurd and relative.

Seriously, it doesn't matter. Or maybe at least to me. Maybe because I don't even mind people doing what they want, like being homosexual? Do we really have anything against people using their anus anyway they like? I don't think so, and I think it's only the minority now, just give it a couple of decades and it would be normal. Actually, I'm wrong but I like to think I'm right.

It's all relative. 100 years or eternity, water or sulfuric acid, our sky or the core of the earth, what we see or what we don't see. We assign the meaning.

jonesthecurl wrote:

tzor wrote:So get off your progressively snotty high horse ...

"Progressively snotty"?

Yes, you can tell in the way they whinny at you.

jonesthecurl wrote:Do you need language before you can have morals?

I'm not sure. I don't think so. However, it's pretty hard to articulate them without a language.

As Francis of Assisi once said, "Proclaim the Gospel. When necessary, use words." In a like manner morals can be propagated by actions, not words.

shickingbrits wrote:Good. So then there are no atheistic morals.

As such, atheists either have none, at least the possibility exists, or they are founded in other areas. I know that many forms of atheist exist, but in the west, would you say atheists mainly adhere to a "scientific" explanation of creation?

Since there are no morals inherent to the board game Risk, and we are all Risk players, does that mean that everyone here is a pedophile?

tzor wrote:As Francis of Assisi once said, "Proclaim the Gospel. When necessary, use words."

I really hope he communicated that in a game of Charades.

Jones,

The difference is similar to a person who shows up to a dance knowing it is a dance compared to one who showed up having no idea.

Lootifer,

A homosexual should be approached just as heterosexual is. Do onto others as you would have them do o to you. I certainly wouldn't want anyone hating on me because I love women.

Would I call a homosexual gay or fag? Sure, if they were calling me that. Which is actually quite common. Would I call a non-homosexual gay or fag? If they were representing the non-homosexual meanings of the term.

I once called Arron Brookes brother n***a. I didn't mean it in the negative sense, but as friend, amigo, and that's how he took it. He could have taken it any way he wanted, but that would have been taking it not as it was meant.

Mets,

Being there is a God, and therefore we are intended products and each product must be of God, the morals that follow are inherent.

In atheism, there are no morals inherent, and are therefore derived or not from other beliefs. The main beliefs that they are derived from, or not, in a western context is science. The implications of scientific theory on morals would suggest results which we do not classify as morals.

Is risk absent of morals?

shickingbrits wrote:The main beliefs that they are derived from, or not, in a western context is science.

Which of the major Western moral philosophers derived their moral beliefs from "science?"

inb4 heidegger

Which of the major western philosophers are atheists?

shickingbrits wrote:Which of the major western philosophers are atheists?

Since you don't understand his question, why not have him explain it to you? In your religious splinter, it's not immoral to seek truth, is it?

If he understands his question, then he can answer it.

In my view, science without God cannot produce a major philosopher.

shickingbrits wrote:If he understands his question, then he can answer it.

In my view, science without God cannot produce a major philosopher.

And how does your truth-seeking religious sect find evidence of the underlined?

My truth-seeking religious sect would find evidence by saying that a person who can't make a rational decision in regards to the big bang being God, couldn't very well be trusted to make rational decisions elsewhere.

Kind of hard to build a house of cards on thin air.

shickingbrits wrote:Jones,

The difference is similar to a person who shows up to a dance knowing it is a dance compared to one who showed up having no idea.

Well, we are all born without knowing how to dance. Someone gave you a book entitled "all the dance moves you will ever need, PS you are going to hell if you use any others". There are many similar books which often contradict each other, and there are even editions of your one which have been edited differently.

I didn't buy any of the books, and I'm still at the dance.

shickingbrits wrote:Which of the major western philosophers are atheists?

Here, let me google that for you.
As an exercise for the googler, you can determine which ones are western, and why you think that is in any way relevant.

shickingbrits wrote:Which of the major western philosophers are atheists?

How many of them are of your sect?

Metsfanmax wrote:Since there are no morals inherent to the board game Risk, ...

Of course there are. Thou shall not multi being but one of them. Thou really ought not to deadbeat being another.

jonesthecurl wrote:I didn't buy any of the books, and I'm still at the dance.

Disco is the devil's dance, I'll tell ya.

why do you guys keep humoring shickingbrits?

he's a troll, just let him baste in his own trollery

Army of GOD wrote:why do you guys keep humoring shickingbrits?

he's a troll, just let him baste in his own trollery

--Andy