pop morality

[Drich]

The facts don't have a filter, Drich. That the Nazi claims regarding the Jews were factually wrong, both at a genetic, societal, and historical level, does not change depending on where I was born. Considering the verifiable data would lead one to the conclusion that the Nazis were wrong;

Disagree. This Maybe from your perspective now, from your current culture. But how could you come to a different conclusion if the 'verifiable' data simply lends it's self to the propaganda? What you don't seem to get or acknowledge is this was not just the general population, but this country's whole scientific community not only accepted these facts, they help shape and model nazi Germany align itself to with these facts. Not only that, at the time they were the world's authority on leading edge of genetics and evolutionary theory. What they discovered then, is still the basis or foundation to what we know today, minus the superiority aspect which it itself maybe propaganda. How then if you were living in that society would be able to 'look at the facts' any differently than the scientists who lived then?

that someone might be indoctrinated into failing to do that in favor of dealing in their inculcated preconceptions is not a failure for what I'm suggesting any more than someone disagreeing with your biblical morality is a failure for yours.

How is it that you still do not understand that I am NOT setting up the bible's morality as being better than any other version? MAYBE I'm offering an alternative to any form of morality. MAYBE I have found all forms of morality to be wanting/share a critical flaw.

If I tell you that my moral framework comes from a rational consideration of the facts, saying "yeah, but what if someone didn't rationally consider the facts, huh?" is not a rebuttal of that framework.

That is why I never said the Nazi's did not rationally consider the facts.
I'm saying that government owned all that was known and they Were legitmatly the best of the best the world had to offer at that time, and they released or shaped the facts that demanded the course of action those people took.

So in turn, all anyone need do to own you, and people like you, is to control the facts. Or rather pre-package 'facts' in the 'rational bundle' you have been train to look for, and they can manipulate not only your sense of morality, but how you think or view the world around you?

Can you not see how this is akin to the absolute power the church of the dark ages had on people? But, rather pledging allegiance to God, you pledge allegiance to science? And all anyone need do is control 'science' and people like you jam in line to get measured for their knee high boots. Why? because you all assume science can't ever be bought. (*Cough Global warming/climate change) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...74ffc6988d

No glasses. No biases. You look at the facts, that which can be verified, not "the facts according to X, Y, and Z."

So is the planet warming because of man made carbon emissions or not? will the purchase of the "carbon credit" offset the sky from falling?

Are you just going to ignore everything that I said, while attempting to refute what I said? At the time that being gay was considered immoral, that moral claim was wrong. There was, at that time, as now, a moral claim regarding homosexuality that is right, but society then was not accepting of that claim. Now, happily, we have moved on to accept the correct claim. What determines which claim is correct? The facts! Were one to consider the claims made about homosexuality as justification for calling it immoral 50 years ago, what you would find is that not a one of them aligns with the evidence: they all relied upon things that are objectively wrong. How can you have a morally valid conclusion if the justification for it is literally incorrect?

Again i point to post 25, answer that hypothetical.

Why, without just asserting that it's god's opinion, is homosexuality wrong?

Wrong according to whom?
Kill God/God does not exist= Why, without just asserting that it's God's opinion, is homosexuality wrong.
Again if you remove the absolute in an equation then you can represent the variables any way you like, which brings us back to the question I've been asking since the OP. without the absolute God offers what in soceity allows you to keep from making an evil turn. You claim 'science' is your answer. I've shown you where science has been manipulated both in the past and in present day to represent what a given government wanted to tell/try and sell the public on.

So then if your anti corruption fail safe has shown to be unreliable how then can you know that your 'moral values' are safe?

if you want to put that logic and reason to the test I ask you to answer the 'hypothetical' I asked crossless1 a few posts back.

Why bother? All it's going to be is "I've found a single piffling possible exception to what you're saying, therefore the entire argument is invalid."

Yes I can see why you were voted best debater 4 years running now, you always take on the topics and never run from a serious challenge

Except, again, I don't accept that whatever culture deems moral, is moral. I'm appealing to the objective reality that these cultures coexist in. Do you disagree that we live in a real world that doesn't change depending on what we think of it?

*Cough carbon emissions=global climate change.. Ohhh, nooooooesss we never lives in a world, that would dare misrepresent 'the facts' in order to force change how/what we think.

Reality. It'll always be there to correct us. Were the claims of a Jewish conspiracy that Hitler used to justify the holocaust true, or false?

they were based in truth, and largely verifiable. It was indeed Jewish controlled banks that was the direct cause of german poverty, and their was verifiable scientific fact that pushed a wedge of separation between humanity. Which is exactly my point. If information is packaged in such away as the population has been trained to accept and process it, then all one need do is float information down that channel and without some sort of absolute, stating otherwise that information can change society completely.. Good bad or indifferent will largely depend on who is left to judge, and what influences their perception of 'morality.'

Why, they were false, and hence, any moral claim made on the basis of them were similarly false. Were the claims made about the sub-humanity of the Aboriginal people that white settlers used to justify their mistreatment of them true, or false? Oh, they were false too: turns out that genetically there wasn't a great amount of difference between the settles and the Aborigines. Therefore, how could a moral claim made on those bases be true, if the bases themselves weren't? It's like if you were to make a moral judgment on the idea that people can grow back limbs: it's okay to dismember people, since they'll just grow back their limbs like a starfish, right?

But again, you are missing the big picture... You can only say they were false because our grandfathers won the war! If they won the war this would all be absolute unquestionable undeniable fact!!!

You want to believe that 'fact' is your absolute. that Fact is your anchor like God is mine. The problem? Facts are bent all the time to fit how it is we want to live. (hole in ozone, Global cooling, global warming, the jews are the cause of all of our problems, the indians are killing and raping our settlers in the west, black people are meant to serve...) all of those were undeniable scientific/ scientific backed facts in their time, that now only because soceity has moved past those ideas do you have the benefit of saying yeah they were not true/false facts, but again and here's the part you are missing in ALL you arguments. What if you lived then when those 'facts' were the only knowable truth? How then could a 'fact driven person' not make an evil/immoral decision if all facts supported the evil in question?

Where you fail in your 'the facts are your absolutes' argument is you are under the impression that you are in/you live in a society that is in the final stages of enlightenment where all facts known to you now are the same as absolute truth.. the problem with that besides that it is foolishly naive, is we have proof that our facts are just as corrupt if not more so than those of previous generations. Why? Because all of this scientific research costs butts loads more money than it did.. So then where does the money come from and why?

... Except that people verifiably do not grow back their limbs, we're biologically incapable of that. Given this, in what sense would a moral idea based on an untrue statement be correct?

But we weren't talking about anything so obvious that people could experience were we? What the Nazi's did was provide absolute proof that the Jews controlled the banks incharge of the reparations Germany had to pay for WWI. They provided news stories and eye witness accounts of Jews throwing people out of their homes/foreclosing on them. the provided real accounts of Jewish people acting on the behalf of the reparations act (leaving that part out) as the leading cause too the great depression the people were made to endure for an entire generation. Then again were shown scientific fact from the world's authorities on genetics that what they were doing was just apart of their evolutionary nature as 'human roaches.' Again if a society is based solely on facts presented in a certain 'official way' to define truth, then how easy would it be to control what and how people think?

Also, how is "my morality is based on whatever god thinks," any better than the "my morality is based on society," claim that you're deriding here?

Again not my claim, if you would pull you head out of the sand long enough you would see that. You are so quick to judge so quick to formulate an opinion so quick to assume you know what my position is, you've missed the whole argument completely.

Again, ALL Morality is BAD! Even the Morality of the Church. we can see how 'moral' the church can be by looking at the dark ages, the inquisition, or even to the west borough baptist now. ALL Morality contains sin. Because ALL Morality judges one sin/act greater or less than another. when infact the purpose of God's law is to identify sin in everyone so we would seek atonement rather than works based morality for our righteousness.

being moral=living and accepting some measure of sin.
God's standard is to be sinless. something we can not do, therefore we must seek another way to righteousness other than our acts/actions/moral behavior of any kind. Because again the only acceptable form of moral behavior is to be absolutely sinless, as Jesus was this equals righteousness. This is offered to us when we accept what has been done to atone for our sin.

So if you are still paying attention, your question might then be: so, why does God's righteousness get to trump your morality? Because it's God's righteousness is the standard that He will use to judge all 'moral'/unatoned people by.

Oh, and you can't just assume your conclusion or make a circular argument, nor can you present claims you can't demonstrate, in justifying the difference. So go right ahead: how are god's opinions superior to society's?

I can see a strawman, does that count?