5 ms·

Feel better? So back to your original comment about moral toolboxes--what would belong in yours? How do they get there? What morals do you think others should

Feel better? So back to your original comment about moral toolboxes--what would belong in yours? How do they get there? What morals do you think others should follow?

gnaritas 13y ago
> Feel better? Do you? Do you need to go pray now? > So back to your original comment about moral toolboxes--what would belong in yours? How do they get there? What morals do you think others should follow? Reality based morality like secular humanism, not ignorance passed down from iron age savages who didn't know fuck all about the world and thought Gods made things happen.
- c0achmcguirk 13y ago
  > Reality based morality like secular humanism, not ignorance passed down from iron age savages who didn't know fuck all about the world and thought Gods made things happen. Sounds pretty arbitrary. How do you choose the right morals? Coin toss? Can you say someone else is wrong?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > Sounds pretty arbitrary. As opposed to fairly tales, please, you don't get to accuse reasoning as arbitrary while following nonsense made up by savages from the iron age. If anything is arbitrary, it's the shit you call divine.
    - c0achmcguirk 13y ago
      I noticed you're ignoring my questions. Perhaps you're noticing your dilemma? I'll type slower to help you follow along: How do you choose the right morals? Coin toss? Can you say someone else is wrong?
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        I did not ignore it, I clearly said secular humanism[1] and later said reasoning which is how it works. Rather than asking me more stupid questions I've already answered, go look up how secular humanism arrives at such answers, they are there. Morality should be reasoned about, not blindly accepted from the demands of ancient savages. You have a brain, try and use it. At the very least, pay attention when your questions are answered so you don't foolishly keep repeating them due to a lack of reading comprehension. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
        c0achmcguirk 13y ago
        But you didn't answer the questions. You should spend less time on insults and more on thinking through your answers. How do you choose the RIGHT (as in, not wrong) morals? In a dispute between two very smart secular humanists who have different morals is there a RIGHT moral code and a wrong one? Can you say someone else is "wrong" given your understanding of morality?
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Once again, I did answer the question, you're just too lazy to see it. You should spend more time reading what I gave you. There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong; right and wrong are agreements between people and what's considered right and wrong change over time and must be worked out through reason and debate. Had you spent an ounce of effort reading the link I gave you, you wouldn't still be asking the same questions since the whole point of secular morality is to answer those questions. If you think right and wrong can be defined by ignorant people from thousands of years ago, you're being foolish. If you think God defines right and wrong, you're just beyond help.
        c0achmcguirk 13y ago
        Are you being consistent here? I've known no atheist who actually believes the nonsense that "right and wrong are agreements between people." They don't actually live their life that way when talking about girls not being able to go to school in Afghanistan or whether it was okay for the Marquis de Sade to torture women for pleasure. How does the atheist impose his moral code on another with consistency when they say with their mouths that "there's no such thing as absolute right and wrong?" In other words, what would the atheist argue to punish Hitler? After all, German society had redefined humanity to exclude Jews. Hitler was acting consistently within his society's moral code. My worldview (Christian Theistic Worldview, btw) absolutely has no problem saying Hitler was wrong. Right and wrong make sense given the Christian's set of axioms. Not so with the atheist who relies on links to Wikipedia sites: "But Mr. Judge, Hitler wasn't wrong per se, I just disagree with his reasoning as per secular humanism which is TEH AWESOME!!!!111" How would you characterize your beliefs on the existence of non-material things? Do you believe in a ghost or spirit? Are there non-material objects that exist given your view of the world? For example, is there such a thing as a "law" that governs our thoughts or the natural world? PS: Why the need for insults? I think we can both learn from each other, but your mocking tone is a bit much.

Feel better? So back to your original comment about moral toolboxes--what would belong in yours? How do they get there? What morals do you think others should follow?

gnaritas 13y ago

> Feel better? Do you? Do you need to go pray now? > So back to your original comment about moral toolboxes--what would belong in yours? How do they get there? What morals do you think others should follow? Reality based morality like secular humanism, not ignorance passed down from iron age savages who didn't know fuck all about the world and thought Gods made things happen.

c0achmcguirk 13y ago
> Reality based morality like secular humanism, not ignorance passed down from iron age savages who didn't know fuck all about the world and thought Gods made things happen. Sounds pretty arbitrary. How do you choose the right morals? Coin toss? Can you say someone else is wrong?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > Sounds pretty arbitrary. As opposed to fairly tales, please, you don't get to accuse reasoning as arbitrary while following nonsense made up by savages from the iron age. If anything is arbitrary, it's the shit you call divine.
  - c0achmcguirk 13y ago
    I noticed you're ignoring my questions. Perhaps you're noticing your dilemma? I'll type slower to help you follow along: How do you choose the right morals? Coin toss? Can you say someone else is wrong?
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      I did not ignore it, I clearly said secular humanism[1] and later said reasoning which is how it works. Rather than asking me more stupid questions I've already answered, go look up how secular humanism arrives at such answers, they are there. Morality should be reasoned about, not blindly accepted from the demands of ancient savages. You have a brain, try and use it. At the very least, pay attention when your questions are answered so you don't foolishly keep repeating them due to a lack of reading comprehension. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
      - c0achmcguirk 13y ago
        But you didn't answer the questions. You should spend less time on insults and more on thinking through your answers. How do you choose the RIGHT (as in, not wrong) morals? In a dispute between two very smart secular humanists who have different morals is there a RIGHT moral code and a wrong one? Can you say someone else is "wrong" given your understanding of morality?
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Once again, I did answer the question, you're just too lazy to see it. You should spend more time reading what I gave you. There's no such thing as absolute right and wrong; right and wrong are agreements between people and what's considered right and wrong change over time and must be worked out through reason and debate. Had you spent an ounce of effort reading the link I gave you, you wouldn't still be asking the same questions since the whole point of secular morality is to answer those questions. If you think right and wrong can be defined by ignorant people from thousands of years ago, you're being foolish. If you think God defines right and wrong, you're just beyond help.
        c0achmcguirk 13y ago
        Are you being consistent here? I've known no atheist who actually believes the nonsense that "right and wrong are agreements between people." They don't actually live their life that way when talking about girls not being able to go to school in Afghanistan or whether it was okay for the Marquis de Sade to torture women for pleasure. How does the atheist impose his moral code on another with consistency when they say with their mouths that "there's no such thing as absolute right and wrong?" In other words, what would the atheist argue to punish Hitler? After all, German society had redefined humanity to exclude Jews. Hitler was acting consistently within his society's moral code. My worldview (Christian Theistic Worldview, btw) absolutely has no problem saying Hitler was wrong. Right and wrong make sense given the Christian's set of axioms. Not so with the atheist who relies on links to Wikipedia sites: "But Mr. Judge, Hitler wasn't wrong per se, I just disagree with his reasoning as per secular humanism which is TEH AWESOME!!!!111" How would you characterize your beliefs on the existence of non-material things? Do you believe in a ghost or spirit? Are there non-material objects that exist given your view of the world? For example, is there such a thing as a "law" that governs our thoughts or the natural world? PS: Why the need for insults? I think we can both learn from each other, but your mocking tone is a bit much.