Atheists: does God exist?

[McBell]

No, you meant adieu

nope.
I meant ado.

a·do​

noun​

a state of agitation or fuss, especially about something unimportant.​

Your not understanding the insult is a you problem.

 

[McBell]

...there's a lot of emptiness going one, and it ain't coming from me.

Your denial took a bit longer than the normal schedule.
Goood job.

 

[DNB]

Most if not all of your religious dogma comes from a book or some interpretation of that book by trusted clergy (from a pulpit). Nothing in nature that you think points to a god points to a specific god including one that is intolerant of "sin" and who issues commandments from outside the universe.

Sure it does. That is very meaningful evidence regarding the naturalistic evolution of a moral sense. It's the prelinguistic phase of moral evolution, which begins in the animal kingdom prior to the advent of man.

Maybe you should take that question seriously and try to find an answer to it. What were the ideas offered? You have no reason but faith to believe the religious dogma you believe, man created the idea of gods, some institutions have been beneficial to man but not organized, politicized Abrahamic religion, it is the Christian and not the humanist who has been left behind in his intellectual and moral evolution, such religions are becoming increasingly unpopular and irrelevant in people's lives, and whereas once it was the unbeliever who was cast in the role of the immoral outsider it is now the religious zealot playing that part as this thread demonstrates.

Ask yourself what part of that you think others like and why, and do so with an open mind. You might benefit from that.

Many people do. I do. I decide that for myself based in the intuitions of my conscience.

And you do as well when you accept somebody else's list that shalts and thou shalt nots. YOU chose to follow those rules assuming that you could have done otherwise.

That is not wisdom. That's spinelessness. One needs to pick his battles wisely, but it is not wisdom to avoid all conflict. "Grant me the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed, the courage to change that which can be changed, and wisdom to know the difference."

See below for more on this. Meekness is NOT a virtue. It is a type of poverty of character. It is not the same as humility or politeness or generosity. It's being a doormat and not standing up for what one ought to stand up for. Casper Milquetoast was meek. Milton from Office Space was meek. Gary Cooper's movie persona was humble, not meek. Caine from Kung Fu was humble, not meek.

I suspect that your definition of hedonism is the pursuit of happiness and satisfaction. Along with life and liberty, that's actually considered a worthy pursuit according to the Declaration of Independence, and I agree.

I've been called a hedonist by many believers simply because I live outside of religion, which is often described as an immoral attempt to live a libertine life free from accountability and to rebelliously establish myself as a god. I leave that guilt trip to those willing to believe it. I'm anticipating a morning of leisure with my wife and dogs in our home followed by an afternoon of bridge at the bridge club and a nice dinner afterward with another couple followed by a return home to watch the sun go down on our terrace while watching the news, Jeopardy, Kimmel and Colbert's monologues, and then music videos over wine. I'm certain that you disapprove.

Christianity is all about getting you to sacrifice your own pleasure for others. You're to raise a slew of children however impoverished that makes you and them, and to give to the church until it hurts. You're to forsake pleasure that costs money and to feel guilty about spending money on yourself. As I said, I leave that to people that will buy into that mindset.

Turing the other cheek is foolish advice, as is loving enemies. It just invites further violence. It's begging for it. Better advice would be to try to negotiate a peace and walk away if that turns out to be impossible. And if he takes another shot at you, at least cover your face if not hit back in self-defense. Turn the other cheek is what you tell a slave to do when you strike him. So is loving enemies. What did you think all of that talk about being longsuffering and meekness being a virtue was for? It's what you tell people that you are exploiting who you want to stand down and accept their lot as God's will, for their reward comes after death if they'll just be good slaves (or subjects or wives) and take whatever is dished out to them and smile throughout. Once again, I leave that to those willing to see such behavior as virtuous. I don't:

• "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte
• "If you want to control a population and keep them passive ... give them a god to worship" ~ Noam Chomsky

The people advising you to think and live like that are not your friends. They are not concerned with your best interests. They're concerned with their own and those of the church. That's why they advise you to scrimp and tithe generously. That's why they advise you that meekness is a virtue.

Meekness is a virtue. Weakness is weakness.
Inspired men wrote the Bible, who minds were changed by God's intervention into their lives. They recited what they were told, and were endowed with wisdom, insight, and revelation.
You're a rebel.

 

[DNB]

nope.
I meant ado.

a·do​

noun​

a state of agitation or fuss, especially about something unimportant.​

Your not understanding the insult is a you problem.

Try as you like, you meant, adieu

 

[Mock Turtle]

Morality is not based on pragmatism - it doesn't develop. It is a matter of the heart.

A bit sad then if we had to stick with what many religions seem to think as to such then (in their origins) - chopping off hands, stoning to death, etc., or all the usual ones associated with how to treat females (differently than males, for example). At least with a morality that evolves with progress we get such as which suits the times. And such could be seen more as a convergence - bringing the variously different religious beliefs together.

Because morality is good, there is a direct correlation with its efficacy and practicality. But predominantly it stems from wanting to do what is just, fair, and edifying.

Perhaps, but that doesn't then mean that morality hasn't evolved. Even now, where we still have the likelihood of our species destroying itself - because of all the conflicts remaining within and between societies - we could develop further with regards morality. We still tend to have the 'our group' morality rather than seeing all humans much the same and as to deserving as good a life as all others, and hence promoting that which will bring this about.

Sacrificing one's life for another is antithetical to practicality for both parties. Donating money to a foreign cause also offers no direct benefit to the donor.
There are beneficial purposes for all good deeds, but that requires a spiritual understanding of the nature of righteousness and its source.

Devoid of religious beliefs, many will likely come up with the same basic morality as the religions do - absent some of the ones more based on dogma than much else, and which tend to divide us. Like having to dress a certain way, not allowing criticism of a particular belief, treating non-believers differently, or other such issues, for example.

 

[F1fan]

1) Does an abstract concept dictate its own content?

No, by definition abstract concepts are products of human brains. The abstractions are non-living so can't do anything.

2) Can abstract concepts be classed?

Sure, such as fictional characters, or car designs.

I think we can answer 1) pretty straightforwardly. Since an abstraction is a product of sentience we may conclude that abstractions do not dictate their own content...even if the sentience that did the abstracting says it does. That would be a logical fallacy and unrealistic and is in no way reflective of anything I said or implied.

This is why the idea of God doesn't carry any more significance than the idea of superheros. I've heard in debates that God as an idea isn't the same because so many believe it is what religious traditions say. Observation suggests it's humans acting as a sort of puppetmaster for abstractions called God. We don't see anything n reality that correlates to the many ideas in the category of "god".

Of note, and in relation, since human beings cannot directly derive reality -mentally or physically- and are limited in their communicative abilities via languages etc., all human thought is abstract in one way or another. Even the fundamental reality of existence can only be scientifically abstract since we cannot directly experience what our science is telling us. Science is ultimately built upon abstractions.

We can see our own cat eating and drinking, and tearing up the couch, and it exists independently of our brains. But if we are in a creative writing class and have to write a story about our pet we will create an abstract story about the real cat. The story isn't the cat. What science describes about nature, like physics, is descriptive, and uses words. As Krishnamurti said, "the word is not the thing." So we humans have to navigate a world where we engage with real things, and with minds that can confuse real from abstract.

Also of note, I think, is that we can pretty safely say that the content of anything derived from human thought did not dictate itself. The content - trash or not - has no say so in the information it contains. Unless you believe that we are the content that we think about?

The notion of "I am what I think and believe" isn't something I like. To my mind these are folks a little too absorbed in their own illusory narrative. We all have ideas about ourselves, identity concepts, etc. Some folks are heavily idealistic and have identities built on many, many concepts. Religious extremists are an example of a"self" being taken over by rigid concepts, and as a result are quite empty as moral beings. In esence they became agents for ideas, and lack the fluidity to consider ideas that contradict what they believe.

As for 2), that takes a bit more thought.
Hmmm....️‍I think they can. Lets list a few abstractions ; (Numbers(mathematics), subatomic particles, logical concepts, theories...gosh, some would say the entire universe is an abstraction.

Well the universe itself is a real material thing. Numbers and what they mean are what humans created. Even theories are abstractions but they are designed to represent what is true about the universe. A photo of a cat is not the cat, but it shows something that exists. Our minds have to learn these nuances. With disinformation exploiting emotions of a population that lacks skilled thinking we see more and more people believing false things are true. With AI it's going to get worse.

My concern is there will be more people unable to discern real from fake, and also unable to make sound decisions. We are seeing it already with creationists and Trump supporters. Both of these should be rejected by an intelligent and rational society. A world that has more complexity and threats will likely lead to some bad outcomes. I like the abstraction noted in Better Call Saul, "a chimp with a machinegun."

So, can those abstractions be separated into classifications? I think so.
Numbers: real, complex, imaginary, rational, natural...
Subatomic particles: leptons, baryons, mesons....subject to change
Logical concepts : Informal, Formal, Symbolic...
Etc.

Indeed. It's much like biological classification.

What is meant by class, or classification?
"Classification theory, principles governing the organization of objects into groups according to their similarities and differences or their relation to a set of criteria. Classification theory has applications in all branches of knowledge" According to Britannica as is aptly suitable to how I've used the word. Books have been written on this theory but of course we've got to mostly stick with the simple concepts here due to space and time restraints.
To sum up...perhaps you'll agree,
1) Abstractions do not dictate their own content.
2) Abstractions can be classified.
Should I choose to answer more of your reply these conclusions will be relevant. That's why I hope we can agree on them.

This looks accurate to me.

 

[F1fan]

Morality is not based on pragmatism - it doesn't develop. It is a matter of the heart.

Do you think the Bible offers morality for believers? It doesn't have a heart. The KKK is a Christian organization, it doesn;t have a heart. What you are citing is individuals who have hearts, and make their own moral judgments. This is what atheists do. The danger of religious extremists is that they rely too heavily on dogma to dictate their morals, so slavery can be justified. Genocide can be justified, as the Christian Nazis showed us. Morality doesn't always serve our own ends, it is a complex and intellectual and intuitive process. I mention intuition because we can often observe a crime and understand that it is wrong. We can see a drowning child and risk our life to save it as an impulse. If a Klan member saw a drowning black child drowning they may resist their own moral intuition and do nothing. That is the power we give to dogma.

Because morality is good, there is a direct correlation with its efficacy and practicality.

Like owning slaves and eliminating Jews, free labor and pure blood.

But predominantly it stems from wanting to do what is just, fair, and edifying.

Yet we see religious extremists blur morality with their dogmas. Look at ISIS and their acts against Westerners. Were the 9-11 attacks just and fair? These religious actors believed in their moral ideals.

Sacrificing one's life for another is antithetical to practicality for both parties.

Most humans have an impulse to help others. The root cause is likely how the human brain evolved to be cooperative and reciprocate. You seem to be an exception, and would fail to act to help a stranger out of inconvenience.

Donating money to a foreign cause also offers no direct benefit to the donor.

Unless it's to a democracy that is fighting a threat of allies, as we see in the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

There are beneficial purposes for all good deeds, but that requires a spiritual understanding of the nature of righteousness and its source.

Tell us what you think this means. What is "spiritual understanding", and how does it differ from the justifications used by the Confederacy and Nazis.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Morality is not based on pragmatism - it doesn't develop. It is a matter of the heart.

I agree that morality in its most evolved form is based in one's moral intuitions, but there is an element of pragmatism involved after that in the rendering of those intuitions into rules for conduct.

Getting one's do's and don'ts from a book with an accompanying threat for noncompliance and an offer of reward for submission isn't morality at all. That's how it works before we develop a mature conscience, where mom and dad substitute for the book and its god as the source of rules, punishments, and rewards.

Meekness is a virtue.

No, it's not. Meekness is excessive submissiveness based in fear and a lack of self-confidence. It is a poverty of spirit that renders one a doormat. This is what meekness looks like:

Contrast that with this. This man is NOT meek. He's soft-spoken, gentle, polite, and humble, but he's not a doormat nor any of the other terms I used to describe Milton:

As I explained, the Sermon on the Mount is advice to the exploited to keep them from rising up against their exploiters. I'll repeat my words again here:

"Turing the other cheek is foolish advice, as is loving enemies. It just invites further violence. It's begging for it. Better advice would be to try to negotiate a peace and walk away if that turns out to be impossible. And if he takes another shot at you, at least cover your face if not hit back in self-defense. Turn the other cheek is what you tell a slave to do when you strike him. So is loving enemies. What did you think all of that talk about being longsuffering and meekness being a virtue was for? It's what you tell people that you are exploiting who you want to stand down and accept their lot as God's will, for their reward comes after death if they'll just be good slaves (or subjects or wives) and take whatever is dished out to them and smile throughout."

You are not being advised to be a Caine. You are being advised to be a Milton.

Inspired men wrote the Bible

The people who wrote the Bible made a lot of mistakes. They didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night. They didn't know that slavery was immoral. There is nothing inspired about any of it.

You're a rebel.

Yes, I am. I have rejected much of what I was asked to embrace, including parenthood, religion, patriotism, and American life.

My wife is just like me. She was always known as the rebel in her conservative Christian family. She left home young and traveled the country in a RV with a boyfriend. She moved from Michigan to California, which was resented on two levels - leaving the family and worse, going to the sin capital - and eventually to Mexico, also to the horror of her family. She experimented with psychedelics (as did I, but before we knew one another). She's a liberal and an atheist, which is also an affront to her family.

But we're the happier ones. We live as we like where we like free of most of the burdens others impose upon themselves. Not having to deal with family is a huge plus (I only have a sister and her son, but she's got a few dozen sibs, cousins, and nieces and nephews plus their spouses). For example, we never bought into the Christmas consumerism and so don't go gift or card shopping. They all do that for each other, and her brother still sends us a card every year, but it's usually an update on how their year went with pictures of minor grandchildren and great-grandchildren - who's playing hockey and who is in glee club.

And this vexes the others. They lived life like they were supposed to but aren't happy. Neither of my wife's sibs are happily married. And we broke all of the rules. We were supposed to pay for that, but lived and still live lives they envy. They resent our happiness. They mostly shun her, which used to hurt her, but she got over that decades ago. And none have ever visited us here in Mexico, either due to fear, resentment, or both, but that's no loss. They would just disapprove of us and Mexico in front of us instead of from a few time zones away.

So yes to being a rebel. They'd prefer that we were meek and submissive like they were and are. But as I said, that is not a virtue. We stood for what mattered to us and lived life our way.

 

[EconGuy]

I guess you've decided to move on?

Morality is not based on pragmatism

No, but it is pragmatic. That is, if we are interested in things that are universal, or nearly universal in the realm of morality, its the idea that the vast majority of us want to be free of suffering and misery, period full stop. Everything else, can be pragmatically built on those foundations.

Now, of course, in a world of almost 8 billion people there are those that might choose to suffer, so what we're really talking about here is an overwhelming consensus. Those that do value pain and suffering aren't well. They are, ironically, in pain and suffering.

Does this lead to problems?

Of course, all moral systems have problems. None are perfect, it takes work.

But, if we adhere to the idea that any moral statement or action based on a falsehood is wrong, then we are left with the same claim (I think) you have been making. That being that, and I'm going to paraphrase here a bit, all we have left to do is understand the implications of our moral actions and declarations. You called it wisdom, or moral wisdom which to me is knowledge and experience combined. I can get on board with that.

Thus all we need is a system similar to scientific falsification to evaluate moral claims. If something is false, then by definition it cannot be true. The problem is and always has been for secular and spiritual moral systems alike. Choice. People have to chose to believe and adhere to these systems. Claiming one is "objective" is a selling point, nothing more. Objective morality, is just a catch phrase meant to appeal to our intuition and I admit it's very compelling, especially if you've never been offered a well thought out secular system (like the one I'm offering). Ironically, the biggest selling point to spiritual morality is that it absolves the person from having to do the hard work of understanding what a moral system is and why it matters. Objective moral systems based on unchanging god given standards are the peak of intellectual laziness. And for that I can see the appeal.

My plea to anyone that reads this is, don't be lazy.

But, back to it... We know that we don't have all of the knowledge and experience it takes to create perfect moral systems and this is why morality evolves and changes. That's why when we look back toward our human infancy we can see the mistakes we made. It is a pragmatic system for change that allows for the opportunity (even if people choose not to take it) to get closer to meeting the goal of avoiding suffering and misery.

Again, the problem is choice.

Ironically, our moral philosophies lead us roughly to the same place. But yours is fixed and unchanging, something you see as a feature and I see as a bug. You would say that your moral ideas are objective and as we learn things that we may have thought were moral and later learn are not, you'd simply claim that your moral system was in agreement all along, it was just that we didn't understand it's true meaning. If it can't tell us how to shortcut our mistakes, then it's similar to the system I'm proposing, but worse. I embrace a system that acknowledges our flaws and seeks continual improvment though the embrace and promotion of knowledge and wisdom with respect to universal notions that all humans share to derive value statements and the moral systems we create, instill and maintain.

-Cheers

 

[EconGuy]

No, it's not. Meekness is excessive submissiveness based in fear and a lack of self-confidence. It is a poverty of spirit that renders one a doormat.

Dam, well said. Bravo.

 

[EconGuy]

Sacrificing one's life for another is antithetical to practicality for both parties. Donating money to a foreign cause also offers no direct benefit to the donor.

Do I detect a bit of Rand's Objectivism? Hmmm?

 

[EconGuy]

1) Does an abstract concept dictate its own content?

If you don't mind me jumping in here...Here's is me playing devils advocate...

Abstract concepts (like justice, beauty, or love) derive their meaning from their internal definitions and the relationships between their constituent parts. For example, the abstract concept of "justice" implies things like fairness, impartiality, and the protection of rights. Understanding the concept itself gives us a framework for its content, does it not?

Truly, I'm more inclined to agree with you, but you have some good insights into the topic I wanted to challenge and get your response.

2) Can abstract concepts be classed?

Sure:

Here are a few ways to classify abstract concepts:

• Metaphysical Concepts: These deal with fundamental ideas about existence, reality, and being. Examples include time, space, causality, mind.
• Ethical Concepts: These concern values, right and wrong, moral codes. Examples include justice, virtue, responsibility, good and evil.
• Aesthetic Concepts: Dealing with beauty, art, and appreciation. Examples include harmony, elegance, sublimity.
• Logical and Mathematical Concepts: These underpin fields of reason and calculation. Examples include number, sets, axioms, infinity.
• Social and Political Concepts: These govern human interactions and the organization of societies. Examples include democracy, liberty, power, authority.
  
  

just my .02,

Cheers

 

[EconGuy]

There are beneficial purposes for all good deeds, but that requires a spiritual understanding of the nature of righteousness and its source.

I can dismantle that claim by simply asking the question:

Why?

 

[DNB]

A bit sad then if we had to stick with what many religions seem to think as to such then (in their origins) - chopping off hands, stoning to death, etc., or all the usual ones associated with how to treat females (differently than males, for example). At least with a morality that evolves with progress we get such as which suits the times. And such could be seen more as a convergence - bringing the variously different religious beliefs together.

Perhaps, but that doesn't then mean that morality hasn't evolved. Even now, where we still have the likelihood of our species destroying itself - because of all the conflicts remaining within and between societies - we could develop further with regards morality. We still tend to have the 'our group' morality rather than seeing all humans much the same and as to deserving as good a life as all others, and hence promoting that which will bring this about.

Devoid of religious beliefs, many will likely come up with the same basic morality as the religions do - absent some of the ones more based on dogma than much else, and which tend to divide us. Like having to dress a certain way, not allowing criticism of a particular belief, treating non-believers differently, or other such issues, for example.

The point that you're missing, is that you're not recognizing that there are several types of people in this world: the broader spectrum being good and evil.
You are placing the sentiments of both the good and bad into one average - the wicked are immoral, they do not detract from the potential of the righteous.
Those that are spiritual are not developing their morality - it never changes - it is maturing and identifying what is right and wrong that defines the code.

Many adults have changed their ways from their adolescent years - principles of morality did not change, but the person's perspective on what was the better choice, and why.

 

[DNB]

Do you think the Bible offers morality for believers? It doesn't have a heart. The KKK is a Christian organization, it doesn;t have a heart. What you are citing is individuals who have hearts, and make their own moral judgments. This is what atheists do. The danger of religious extremists is that they rely too heavily on dogma to dictate their morals, so slavery can be justified. Genocide can be justified, as the Christian Nazis showed us. Morality doesn't always serve our own ends, it is a complex and intellectual and intuitive process. I mention intuition because we can often observe a crime and understand that it is wrong. We can see a drowning child and risk our life to save it as an impulse. If a Klan member saw a drowning black child drowning they may resist their own moral intuition and do nothing. That is the power we give to dogma.


Like owning slaves and eliminating Jews, free labor and pure blood.

Yet we see religious extremists blur morality with their dogmas. Look at ISIS and their acts against Westerners. Were the 9-11 attacks just and fair? These religious actors believed in their moral ideals.

Most humans have an impulse to help others. The root cause is likely how the human brain evolved to be cooperative and reciprocate. You seem to be an exception, and would fail to act to help a stranger out of inconvenience.

Unless it's to a democracy that is fighting a threat of allies, as we see in the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

Tell us what you think this means. What is "spiritual understanding", and how does it differ from the justifications used by the Confederacy and Nazis.

Why do you keep using charlatans, hypocrites, reprobates, and the depraved to make your point? Are you oblivious to the concept of wolves in sheep's clothing?
You're asking me to defend the sentiments of a KKK member, simply because he claims to identify himself as I do: a Christian???

Morality comes from God, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation, let alone the cognizance to even protest a crime, if we weren't endowed with that spiritual faculty (image of God).

 

[DNB]

I agree that morality in its most evolved form is based in one's moral intuitions, but there is an element of pragmatism involved after that in the rendering of those intuitions into rules for conduct.

Getting one's do's and don'ts from a book with an accompanying threat for noncompliance and an offer of reward for submission isn't morality at all. That's how it works before we develop a mature conscience, where mom and dad substitute for the book and its god as the source of rules, punishments, and rewards.

No, it's not. Meekness is excessive submissiveness based in fear and a lack of self-confidence. It is a poverty of spirit that renders one a doormat. This is what meekness looks like:

Contrast that with this. This man is NOT meek. He's soft-spoken, gentle, polite, and humble, but he's not a doormat nor any of the other terms I used to describe Milton:

As I explained, the Sermon on the Mount is advice to the exploited to keep them from rising up against their exploiters. I'll repeat my words again here:

"Turing the other cheek is foolish advice, as is loving enemies. It just invites further violence. It's begging for it. Better advice would be to try to negotiate a peace and walk away if that turns out to be impossible. And if he takes another shot at you, at least cover your face if not hit back in self-defense. Turn the other cheek is what you tell a slave to do when you strike him. So is loving enemies. What did you think all of that talk about being longsuffering and meekness being a virtue was for? It's what you tell people that you are exploiting who you want to stand down and accept their lot as God's will, for their reward comes after death if they'll just be good slaves (or subjects or wives) and take whatever is dished out to them and smile throughout."

You are not being advised to be a Caine. You are being advised to be a Milton.

The people who wrote the Bible made a lot of mistakes. They didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night. They didn't know that slavery was immoral. There is nothing inspired about any of it.

Yes, I am. I have rejected much of what I was asked to embrace, including parenthood, religion, patriotism, and American life.

My wife is just like me. She was always known as the rebel in her conservative Christian family. She left home young and traveled the country in a RV with a boyfriend. She moved from Michigan to California, which was resented on two levels - leaving the family and worse, going to the sin capital - and eventually to Mexico, also to the horror of her family. She experimented with psychedelics (as did I, but before we knew one another). She's a liberal and an atheist, which is also an affront to her family.

But we're the happier ones. We live as we like where we like free of most of the burdens others impose upon themselves. Not having to deal with family is a huge plus (I only have a sister and her son, but she's got a few dozen sibs, cousins, and nieces and nephews plus their spouses). For example, we never bought into the Christmas consumerism and so don't go gift or card shopping. They all do that for each other, and her brother still sends us a card every year, but it's usually an update on how their year went with pictures of minor grandchildren and great-grandchildren - who's playing hockey and who is in glee club.

And this vexes the others. They lived life like they were supposed to but aren't happy. Neither of my wife's sibs are happily married. And we broke all of the rules. We were supposed to pay for that, but lived and still live lives they envy. They resent our happiness. They mostly shun her, which used to hurt her, but she got over that decades ago. And none have ever visited us here in Mexico, either due to fear, resentment, or both, but that's no loss. They would just disapprove of us and Mexico in front of us instead of from a few time zones away.

So yes to being a rebel. They'd prefer that we were meek and submissive like they were and are. But as I said, that is not a virtue. We stood for what mattered to us and lived life our way.

Conforming to the conventions of this world is neither moral or immoral - depends on intent and what you do conform to. Don't believe that you and your wife have acted with impunity just because you have not suffered direct consequences for your immediate decisions in life. You won't have your family to face on Judgment Day, it will be your Maker.

 

[ppp]

Why do you keep using charlatans, hypocrites, reprobates, and the depraved to make your point? Are you oblivious to the concept of wolves in sheep's clothing?
You're asking me to defend the sentiments of a KKK member, simply because he claims to identify himself as I do: a Christian???

We accept that you are a Christian for exactly the same reason that we accept that you are a Christian. Simply because that is how you identify yourselves and because you both belong to a tradition of peoples who claim that their beliefs correspond to the correct interpretation of the Bible. There is no other standard.

 

[DNB]

I guess you've decided to move on?


No, but it is pragmatic. That is, if we are interested in things that are universal, or nearly universal in the realm of morality, its the idea that the vast majority of us want to be free of suffering and misery, period full stop. Everything else, can be pragmatically built on those foundations.

Now, of course, in a world of almost 8 billion people there are those that might choose to suffer, so what we're really talking about here is an overwhelming consensus. Those that do value pain and suffering aren't well. They are, ironically, in pain and suffering.

Does this lead to problems?

Of course, all moral systems have problems. None are perfect, it takes work.

But, if we adhere to the idea that any moral statement or action based on a falsehood is wrong, then we are left with the same claim (I think) you have been making. That being that, and I'm going to paraphrase here a bit, all we have left to do is understand the implications of our moral actions and declarations. You called it wisdom, or moral wisdom which to me is knowledge and experience combined. I can get on board with that.

Thus all we need is a system similar to scientific falsification to evaluate moral claims. If something is false, then by definition it cannot be true. The problem is and always has been for secular and spiritual moral systems alike. Choice. People have to chose to believe and adhere to these systems. Claiming one is "objective" is a selling point, nothing more. Objective morality, is just a catch phrase meant to appeal to our intuition and I admit it's very compelling, especially if you've never been offered a well thought out secular system (like the one I'm offering). Ironically, the biggest selling point to spiritual morality is that it absolves the person from having to do the hard work of understanding what a moral system is and why it matters. Objective moral systems based on unchanging god given standards are the peak of intellectual laziness. And for that I can see the appeal.

My plea to anyone that reads this is, don't be lazy.

But, back to it... We know that we don't have all of the knowledge and experience it takes to create perfect moral systems and this is why morality evolves and changes. That's why when we look back toward our human infancy we can see the mistakes we made. It is a pragmatic system for change that allows for the opportunity (even if people choose not to take it) to get closer to meeting the goal of avoiding suffering and misery.

Again, the problem is choice.

Ironically, our moral philosophies lead us roughly to the same place. But yours is fixed and unchanging, something you see as a feature and I see as a bug. You would say that your moral ideas are objective and as we learn things that we may have thought were moral and later learn are not, you'd simply claim that your moral system was in agreement all along, it was just that we didn't understand it's true meaning. If it can't tell us how to shortcut our mistakes, then it's similar to the system I'm proposing, but worse. I embrace a system that acknowledges our flaws and seeks continual improvment though the embrace and promotion of knowledge and wisdom with respect to universal notions that all humans share to derive value statements and the moral systems we create, instill and maintain.

-Cheers

Morality never changes, it's only man's maturity process that brings him closer to the objectivity of the principle. In other words, if all people were at the same maturity level, they would all conclude the same facts about what is and what isn't moral.

 

[DNB]

Do I detect a bit of Rand's Objectivism? Hmmm?

never heard of him?

 

[DNB]

I can dismantle that claim by simply asking the question:

Why?

It builds character