Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God does not follow the first principle of mo

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 11:09:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion.

God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.

God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.

Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

Yet those of the Abrahamic cults, Christians, Muslims and other believers, do not reject this cowardly and immoral God.

Why not?

Regards
DL

This clip shows the first five principles of morality.

http://blog.ted.com...

This clip shows what some think of God killing children.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 11:10:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Silly frog.... thinking that objective morality exists.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 11:14:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hmm. I have not watched your video, or look this topic up, but I will answer because that is what people of the internet do.

So god ( apparently, haven't looked it up. )kills children and rapes mary.

WHAT'S NEXT!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!??????????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?

Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 11:14:30 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Hmm. I have not watched your video, or look this topic up, but I will answer because that is what people of the internet do.

So god ( apparently, haven't looked it up. )kills children and rapes mary.

WHAT'S NEXT!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!??????????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!

Rape? Who said rape?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:26:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 11:10:31 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
Silly frog.... thinking that objective morality exists.

Where did I say that?
I just showed a standard that is damned near universal.

Regards
DL
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:28:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Please tell me how that makes it objectively moral.

I'm not seeing it.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 12:54:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?

Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Morality from evolution=/= Objective morality. Objective morality is one which cannot be altered and is forever stagnant- otherwise it would be subjective. Morality from evolution is altered by various mutations in the genetic code, and is thus not objective.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 1:43:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 1:40:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
lol @ Darwin's knobber...evolution brings us morality too. Why don't animals have morality then??

They do... A parent not killing their son is an example of morality.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 1:44:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 1:40:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
lol @ Darwin's knobber...evolution brings us morality too. Why don't animals have morality then??

How on earth are you in the medicinal field? Don't you have to take first grade biology to get into there?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 2:39:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 2:33:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Having grown up on a farm I've seen plenty of animals kill their young, so that's not an argument for morality.

I never said that the morality was objective. Sometimes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to kill your young.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 2:54:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 2:39:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 2:33:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Having grown up on a farm I've seen plenty of animals kill their young, so that's not an argument for morality.

I never said that the morality was objective. Sometimes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to kill your young.

lol...ok then how can you tell it's morality??
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 2:54:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 2:39:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 2:33:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Having grown up on a farm I've seen plenty of animals kill their young, so that's not an argument for morality.

I never said that the morality was objective. Sometimes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to kill your young.

lol...ok then how can you tell it's morality??

Well... you see, medic who doesn't understand medicine, by that logic, nothing that humans do can be considered a reflection of morality. You really need to rethink your logic.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 3:26:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 3:13:42 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 2:54:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 2:39:18 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 2:33:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Having grown up on a farm I've seen plenty of animals kill their young, so that's not an argument for morality.

I never said that the morality was objective. Sometimes, it is evolutionarily beneficial to kill your young.

lol...ok then how can you tell it's morality??

Well... you see, medic who doesn't understand medicine, by that logic, nothing that humans do can be considered a reflection of morality. You really need to rethink your logic.

Wow so you know more about medicine than I do, too?? lol...You're a trip, and fos.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 3:38:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 11:09:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

God is not subject to the questionable morality of man.

The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion.

How do you know that His act wasn't ultimately one of compassion?? How can a society who has allowed the legal slaughter of over 50 million babies, frown upon the idea of God ordering death??

God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.

God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.

Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

Yet those of the Abrahamic cults, Christians, Muslims and other believers, do not reject this cowardly and immoral God.

Why not?

Man is no better than God, and cannot sit in judgement. Besides, if there is no God then there is no objective means of determining that killing is wrong.

Regards
DL

This clip shows the first five principles of morality.

http://blog.ted.com...

This clip shows what some think of God killing children.

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 12:28:31 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Please tell me how that makes it objectively moral.

I'm not seeing it.

If we did not care for our young as a species, we would go extinct.
If, when you as a baby reached for your mom's tet, if she refused you, would you be here?
Tet here represents you being fed in whatever fashion. No you would not be here.
In fact, if your grandmother had not made care her default position, your mother would not have been there for you.

Then moral, immoral, amoral would not matter as we would not be here to label anything or ask if anything was moral.

Regards
DL
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:16:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:14:48 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
If we did not care for our young as a species, we would go extinct.

So?

If, when you as a baby reached for your mom's tet, if she refused you, would you be here?
Tet here represents you being fed in whatever fashion. No you would not be here.

So?

In fact, if your grandmother had not made care her default position, your mother would not have been there for you.

So?

Then moral, immoral, amoral would not matter as we would not be here to label anything or ask if anything was moral.

So?


Regards
DL

I'm still not seeing the objective part.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:16:14 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/5/2012 4:14:48 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
If we did not care for our young as a species, we would go extinct.

So?

If, when you as a baby reached for your mom's tet, if she refused you, would you be here?
Tet here represents you being fed in whatever fashion. No you would not be here.

So?

In fact, if your grandmother had not made care her default position, your mother would not have been there for you.

So?

Then moral, immoral, amoral would not matter as we would not be here to label anything or ask if anything was moral.

So?


Regards
DL

I'm still not seeing the objective part.

In fact, any morality that depends on our existence as a species is by nature subjective.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:30:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 12:54:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?

Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Morality from evolution=/= Objective morality. Objective morality is one which cannot be altered and is forever stagnant- otherwise it would be subjective. Morality from evolution is altered by various mutations in the genetic code, and is thus not objective.

Thank your evolution and that of your parents because if they were not in that morality, you would not be here complaining about the terms.

If our stagnating mind set changed, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:34:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 1:40:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
lol @ Darwin's knobber...evolution brings us morality too. Why don't animals have morality then??

They may not call or see it as that but they, like us, know enough by instinct to keep our species going and it would not without that first principle of morality.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 4:40:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 2:33:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Having grown up on a farm I've seen plenty of animals kill their young, so that's not an argument for morality.

Growing up on the farm, you will know that that is hardly a natural environment a cow can hardly be blamed for not feeding it's young when the young is removed to be fed in some faster way.

I know, they are on the tit for a while but you know what I mean.

Regards
DL
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:04:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:30:55 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:54:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?

Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Morality from evolution=/= Objective morality. Objective morality is one which cannot be altered and is forever stagnant- otherwise it would be subjective. Morality from evolution is altered by various mutations in the genetic code, and is thus not objective.

Thank your evolution and that of your parents because if they were not in that morality, you would not be here complaining about the terms.

If our stagnating mind set changed, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

Lol. The whole point of evolution is that stuff changes. We are not the "pinnacle" of anything. If our morality changed, it would be for the better (cause it would have been positively selected for).
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:23:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 3:38:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 10/5/2012 11:09:34 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

God is not subject to the questionable morality of man.

How can you be sure of that?
Did he whisper in your ear?

Further. If A & E had the moral sense that God has, and he said they did, why would you think he thinks differently from mankind?


The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion.

How do you know that His act wasn't ultimately one of compassion?? How can a society who has allowed the legal slaughter of over 50 million babies, frown upon the idea of God ordering death??

Apples and oranges. God is a deadbeat dad who used genocide when he had the power to cure instead of kill.

God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.

God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.

Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

Yet those of the Abrahamic cults, Christians, Muslims and other believers, do not reject this cowardly and immoral God.

Why not?

Man is no better than God, and cannot sit in judgement. Besides, if there is no God then there is no objective means of determining that killing is wrong.

If God is no better than man, what right does he have to judge us?
And we do have an objective means of determining that killing each other is wrong.
Just answer a simple question. As one of the objects, would you like to be killed or like to kill someone else?


Regards
DL

This clip shows the first five principles of morality.

http://blog.ted.com...

This clip shows what some think of God killing children.



Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:33:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:16:14 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 10/5/2012 4:14:48 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
If we did not care for our young as a species, we would go extinct.

So?

If, when you as a baby reached for your mom's tet, if she refused you, would you be here?
Tet here represents you being fed in whatever fashion. No you would not be here.

So?

In fact, if your grandmother had not made care her default position, your mother would not have been there for you.

So?

Then moral, immoral, amoral would not matter as we would not be here to label anything or ask if anything was moral.

So?


Regards
DL

I'm still not seeing the objective part.

Not surprising.
Objective is described as something existing freely or independently from the thoughts of a conscious entity or subject.

Morality can only exist in the mind.

So morals are subjective.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:36:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 4:24:00 PM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:


In fact, any morality that depends on our existence as a species is by nature subjective.

Oops. I replied to your other post before seeing this one. I agree.
Great minds think alike.

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2012 5:47:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:04:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 4:30:55 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:54:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?

Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Morality from evolution=/= Objective morality. Objective morality is one which cannot be altered and is forever stagnant- otherwise it would be subjective. Morality from evolution is altered by various mutations in the genetic code, and is thus not objective.

Thank your evolution and that of your parents because if they were not in that morality, you would not be here complaining about the terms.

If our stagnating mind set changed, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

Lol. The whole point of evolution is that stuff changes. We are not the "pinnacle" of anything. If our morality changed, it would be for the better (cause it would have been positively selected for).

I do not agree here. The environment and the competition for it is what determines if a change is good or not in terms of how well the existing gene pool can deal with it.

If morals are subjective then it is subject to the environment.

Take our first principle. We care for our young when the environment provides enough resources for us to do so.
If a family or group live in an environment where finite resources are already feeding the numbers of people in the group, then to give care to a new member says that an older member will go hungry and die. The moral thing to do then would be to go to the harm side and kill the baby. Harsh yes but the alternative is to take the oldest or least productive and kill him or her.

Regards
DL
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2012 12:49:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/5/2012 5:47:35 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 5:04:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 4:30:55 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:54:01 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/5/2012 12:23:18 PM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 10/5/2012 11:19:20 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
How has this "first principle of morality" been objectively proven?

Through logic and common sense.

If we do not care for our children, they will die and so will our species.

Regards
DL

Morality from evolution=/= Objective morality. Objective morality is one which cannot be altered and is forever stagnant- otherwise it would be subjective. Morality from evolution is altered by various mutations in the genetic code, and is thus not objective.

Thank your evolution and that of your parents because if they were not in that morality, you would not be here complaining about the terms.

If our stagnating mind set changed, we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

Lol. The whole point of evolution is that stuff changes. We are not the "pinnacle" of anything. If our morality changed, it would be for the better (cause it would have been positively selected for).


I do not agree here. The environment and the competition for it is what determines if a change is good or not in terms of how well the existing gene pool can deal with it.

Did I ever argue with you on this point?

If morals are subjective then it is subject to the environment.

Yup....

Take our first principle. We care for our young when the environment provides enough resources for us to do so.

That's a really crappy way of looking at it. Resources are finite, and therefore animals have to make choices on ways to allocate them. Whichever way is most evolutionarily beneficial will be positively selected for. This way can easily violate "first principles" in that if feeding another child will require too much parental investment and a heavy strain of resources, then the child will be killed.

If a family or group live in an environment where finite resources are already feeding the numbers of people in the group, then to give care to a new member says that an older member will go hungry and die. The moral thing to do then would be to go to the harm side and kill the baby. Harsh yes but the alternative is to take the oldest or least productive and kill him or her.

Right.... thus proving that your "first principles" is nonsense.

Regards
DL
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."