On Nature, morality, and God

[ForEverAfter]

I didn't realize we were arguing.

What, did you think we were playing tennis?

(To say "defeated in argument" does not imply that we are having an uncivilized debate.
Sort of like how delusional doesn't start with "dill"... Check your dictionary.)

I do believe that mammals are born with a conscience. Simply my opinion.

Right and wrong is not the same from community to.community. Those decisions were made over time from interaction we with others.

So, just to flesh out your theory/opinion, how are morals communicated/sustained/upheld within animal communities?

...

meth,

Just going to keep ignoring the Ravi Zacharis thing, are you?

 

[methamaniac]

Forever,
Ok fine,
I figured objective good and objective evil
where implied by Ravi. Dont see why you would interpret any other way unless you had alternative motive.
what's your theory again havnt caught it

AND
I have poured my heart out on this dam thread
What specifically u want me to answer????

 

[Dystopia35]

Seriously? Wow I mispelled a word 3 times the other day. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Dystopia35]

Within some animal communities such as dolphins and some primates, if the moral code is not followed by an individual,that individual can be thrown out of the community.

 

[methamaniac]

^^^^^
So what if that dolphin comes back with an m--16 and blast rest of community?


No answer required

 

[ForEverAfter]

Within some animal communities such as dolphins and some primates, if the moral code is not followed by an individual,that individual can be thrown out of the community.

But you said all mammals, didn't you? What about rats?

Or are you going to change your beliefs (flip-flop) again?

I have poured my heart out on this dam thread
What specifically u want me to answer????

It always seems to be some vague conspiracy of people being intentionally difficult towards you.

I've specified twice already what I want you to answer.

You may read, but you don't comprehend.

I'll state the question, for a third time:

if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver

Like the government? Or must we "posit" God? If so, why?

...

Seriously? Wow I mispelled a word 3 times the other day. What does that have to do with anything?

My point is that you don't seem to have a comprehensive understanding of the English language, so you should probably check the dictionary before making linguistic objections like your limited interpretation of the word "argument". That's all.

 

[methamaniac]

Ad hominem ( sorry personal attacks)
Dont do shit for not having theory.

Your premise ( basis for argument/ theory/ whatever you would like to call it)
was an apple and orange example.
I pointed out its not like apples and oranges.
Itz not subjective. It needs to be across the board and set in stone.
Our government bad example because you can go back and revise.
Again
Have u seen " the obselete man"
I harp back to that cause nobody seems to get that government can bs corrupt or minds can change .
Do you read my posts??????

Ok now ,
We've got to the point where you lay out your elegant theory chicken nugget.
ps im the only one getting threads shut down

 

[ForEverAfter]

We've got to the point where you lay out your elegant theory chicken nugget.

No, we haven't.

And, there's no need to be patronizing.

...

You're still not answering the question adequately...

Stop clinging on to the apples and oranges comment. That wasn't my premise. I was differentiating between preferential good and objective moral good, for the sake of clarity.

If we assume moral "law" (regardless of whether or not it is amendable, as you pointed out), why must we posit God?
As Dystopia has repeatedly stated, morality isn't consistent across all species\communities\eras. Like governmental law, it appears to be amendable/adaptive.

im the only one getting threads shut down

I wonder why that is...

It always seems to be some vague conspiracy of people being intentionally difficult towards you.

I've had threads shut down in the past, so have many members of this forum. If you're having a lot of threads shut down, rather than assuming that you're being treated unfairly, you should attempt to consider why that is. The moderators of P&S have been quite supportive of you, considering: your stubbornness/ unfaltering arrogance; the extraordinary amount of personal attacks you have delivered upon other members; and the dismissive, ignorant and cyclical nature of your debating style.

The evolution thread should have been shut down.

If you don't want your threads to be shut down, treat people with more respect and stop blatantly ignoring/avoiding the generous responses you receive.

Basically, stop acting like a baby.

 

[Abject]

You're not even appreciative of ForEverAfter talking to u like a real person instead of a troll

 

[methamaniac]

Sir,
You dont really treat anyone with respect so that is kinda hypocritical for you to even say.

AND whining about grammar just about makes anyone on internet want to puke

And my point is precisley that it isnt set in stone so you have no objective moral law.
period end of that debate.
Go ahead an argue otherwise or make fun of me or what not, but debating that is futile because the fact it can change by definition makes it subjective.
If your moral laws are subjective just say so,
What bothers you by this.
Im not trying to be a complete jerk, or I wouldn't even ask. I would just make fun of your superior /elitist attitude we can all easily make out.

And I still dont see why the hell somebody needs to shut down a discussion thread in a forum setting like this.
ALL ONE would have to do is click the button at top and walk away. Im not holding a gun to anyone's head to post or stick around.
THIS ain't the only thread in town.
I made a thoughtful thread and have been having decent discussion up til now

I take your lack of theory as no theory.
Thats ok. You dont have to comment or be right about everything

 

[Abject]

And I still dont see why the hell somebody needs to shut down a discussion thread in a forum setting like this.
I made a thoughtful thread and have been having decent discussion up til now

lolol

 

[ForEverAfter]

I take your lack of theory as no theory.

Answer the following question, and I will explain what I think about morality as it pertains to nature.

If we assume moral "law" (regardless of whether or not it is amendable, as you pointed out), why must we posit God?

...

And I still dont see why the hell somebody needs to shut down a discussion thread in a forum setting like this.
ALL ONE would have to do is click the button at top and walk away. Im not holding a gun to anyone's head to post or stick around.

I've done you the courtesy of engaging in your discussions, despite you being considerably discourteous towards me and others.

No, nobody is holding a gun towards my head.
Sometimes, I guess, I get caught up in a cycle of unrealistic optimism/expectations with people.
I have more faith in you than perhaps I should, in other words. I'd really like you to prove me wrong, but - sadly - it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

Also, honestly, trying to have a civil discussion with you is an exercise in patience/discipline.
(I am learning how to better communicate in difficult circumstances, by trying to communicate with someone who is acting like a troll.)

You dont really treat anyone with respect so that is kinda hypocritical for you to even say.

I was once a moderator on this site. I've been a member for 13 years. I've stayed up all night counselling people.
I have treated you with more respect than you deserve (on this thread).

I would just make fun of your superior/elitist attitude

You ask yourself questions, then promptly answer them.
You tell people they're stupid when they're being saintly patient towards you.

I haven't had any threads closed down for years.
The last one was a thread in which I misguidedly attempted to start a civilized discussion about sex with minors.
Unsurprisingly the entire forum turned against me, started a witch hunt, and called me a paedophile.

In retrospect, I shouldn't have started the thread in the first place.
I had unrealistic confidence in my ability to overcome close-minded ignorant hate-mongering and actually get "somewhere".
(Read: arrogance or optimism, depending on your orientation.)

 

[methamaniac]

Look,
I havent cried foul here like you are making out.
Im not complaining about any post
Say whatever the hell you want
I will point out ad hominem attacks when used as diversion in respect to argument
I dont care how courteous people are to me, I'm not easily offended
If they are sincerely courteous I am back.
I have took the time to answer questions that I posed and gave my personal opinion on the two whole thread I have had in forum.
One which has now been shut down.
Its great you help folks with their demons,
It really is
But I would suggest that having a place for addicts or ex addicts or even people with problems is not a place you want to shut them off from or suppress their thoughts in anyway.
You take what you want and leave what you dont.
You cant compare it to a live discussion where nobody can leave. That my friend, would be an apple an orange comparison.
Now Im done with this discussion at this point.
Im choosing to leave the thread.
which is way it should be.
If I want to return remains in my hands.
The way it should be.

PS I will answer your question out of courtesy
You must posit a moral law giver
I stated this from beginning
like my other thread instead of refuting point you ask me about the moral law giver I propose and then you attack the straw man when your theory fails
and fails hard
If you go back and read my message in making thread I asked
are you the moral law giver or nature?
I said I didnt subscribe to either.
And stated why the former two where unreliable.
And backed it up rather strongly.

Then told why my morals stem from something immutable.
Whether or not I obey them or not
dueces
Have fun arguing subjective morals can be objective

 

[Dystopia35]

You sir don't understand the word opinion. I said in the beginning that I did not claim to have all of the answers. I used words like may or possibly. Never once did I say that it is a solid theory. Not to mention you have not contributed anything to this thread. All you did was bash everyone else's. I'm done.
Talking to you is useless. Goodbye

 

[methamaniac]

Dystopia,
Dont let him keep from u from posting your opinion
as I said an honest opinion can never b wrong.
The very fact that he deletes his own posts is telling.
We may disagree on things but I respect your right to express your opinion

 

[ForEverAfter]

I never prevented anyone from expressing their opinion. I trimmed a bunch of posts off the end of this thread because the person I was having a discussion with hit a wall and removed all their posts, presumably due to embarrassment, leaving just mine. Since I was responding directly to their comments, what remained no longer made any sense... and Dystopia and I came to an agreement via PM.

If you'd like to post your opinion, meth, go right ahead.

You never answered the question.

Ravi Zacharis concluded, based on false logic - in the abstract you provided - that if there are moral laws, there must be God. Since you posted this, I'd like you to explain it. If you can't explain it, then it makes no sense.

 

[methamaniac]

^^^^^^
To the hopelessly confused I guess all things look confusing
Go back and reread the quote.
for the THIRD time now
YOU HAVE TO ASSUME A MORAL LAW GIVER
Not God---- You dont HAVE to postit GOD
Something has to be a definer
and this something cant change or
no matter how much in seems concrete
it will crumble if stressed.

If you dont choose God fine...was never my point.
Im putting you in the strawman hall of fame.....
no worries, you were always the front runner.

In origional questions I stated, and have repeated, my premise (theory) of the two choices are nature and YOU if dont choose God, gods , something with supreme authority.
I laid a foundation for why both fail.

YOU argued that government could be law giver.
But that idea died in its infacy but I guess you
missed the funeral
( again FOURTH time now go watch (the obsolete man on youtube will do you good)
Because I pointed out they could be corrupt, lie, change laws, etc etc

Then in an act of futility, you showed us your inabilty to concieve a simple idea and refute it,
as well as a handicap of not having own theory

You decided to contruct a strawman to attack me and my idea as an answer of your only real idea----a lack of a theory.
Well done.
I can not possibly refute a theory that doesnt exist now can I?
Absolute golden genuis----
note: used sarcasm in attempt to stop repeating myself. We'll seee if it works
Personally makes no differece who the person is

 

[ForEverAfter]

Go back and reread the quote.
for the THIRD time now

Read the quote, again, yourself.

"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question"?

If you don't think he's talking about God, you don't understand your own abstract... which isn't particularly surprising.

...

As for me not having a "theory", I'd like you to respond to the above - properly - and then I will state my position on morality. In all fairness, though, this is your thread... and you demanded responses, which I've provided you with. You defined what the discussion was going to be about, and I've discussed it within your parameters. I don't see why I need to explain my position on morality as it pertains to nature, or what you expect to gain from it, but I will.

Just respond to the above, first, without all the insults and sarcasm and carrying on.

Why do we have to posit God, according to the abstract you provided?

You seem to disagree with the abstract (from what you've said)...?

 

[methamaniac]

If I wanted to change the man's words I would/could have done that.
I borrowed from him to set foundation of moral law giver theory.
How does this fail?
Because you assumed God or because you assumed God

Bullcrapping often happens accidentally in a debate/ discussion I am aware of this

But if you bullcrap repeatedly
makes one a bullcrapper

 

[ForEverAfter]

Stop calling me names, meth.
It doesn't upset me, it just makes you look childish.

...

So, just to clarify: you're saying that you "borrowed" a bit of his logic, but you don't agree with what he was saying?

Even though you only (loosely?) "borrowed" from him, you're making the same false conclusion as he, via different means.
Let's "change the man's words", as you said, for the sake of argument, and take out the part about God.

1. If we assume moral law, then we must assume a moral law giver. (The logic isn't rock solid, here, but I'm not going to question it.)

2. If we assume a moral law giver, and - according to you...

(the idea) that government could be law giver... died in its infacy... Because I pointed out they could be corrupt, lie, change laws, etc etc

(Again, the logic isn't clear, but ignoring that.)

...then, what other option is left, other than God?

In other words aren't you saying that (for the reasons you've specified) we must logically "posit God" anyway?

...

And, if so, isn't that a direct contradiction with what you said here:

You dont HAVE to postit GOD

...

I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely don't understand.

It appears as if you are directly contradicting yourself.

Call me stupid, again, or "hopelessly confused" if that makes you feel better.

Doesn't it say in the Bible, though, Thou Shalt not Judge?