(January 27, 2016 at 2:24 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: So Drich what is "moral" according to you. At this point I don't know what behaviour you are arguing for/against.

explained in the OP in greater detail in post 29

(January 27, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 1:47 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Spoken like a true sociopath. You see in the case of Osama, he used the same moral system you propose, which instead of being built on empathy its built on absolute morals. You see if you use empathy and reason to try to see out another eyes, and then use rational thinking to reason out how to treat them. This works well for a moral system to go through your daily life, and works well when combined with moral utilarianism to apply to larger situations. Unfortunately your Bible falls flat on both counts because it causes suffering on a personal level by stifling expression and on a larger level causes division just like what you named above. Morality utilitarian system ground in rational thought and empathy has the precise opposite effect. It encourages unity for the betterment of everyone and free expression.

What part of EMPATHY is a Propaganda controlled response do you not get?

I gave several examples where society THIS SOCEITY has taken away all basic human rights to several different groups of people and has or is working to obliterate them!

This is NO Different than what Osama did. That's what Empthay is! It's sympathy for those in whom you've been trained to identify with. Take away their humanity with mindless propaganda and all empathy ceases.

Empathy is not a propaganda controlled response, if it was then it would not appear in all societies. The examples you described are examples of the suspension of empathy. Also sympathy and empathy are separate things, empathy is the ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of others. If you notice, all attempts in the past to wipe out others groups were followed with dehumanizing propoganada, that not manipulating empathy, its trying to make it go away all together. What's more is that your morality system openly brags about murdering entire groups and is proud of it.
You make it clear in this statement that you have never experienced empathy before, as you defined as sympathy for those you've been trained to identify with. Did you know that children as young as 3 understand that when you hit someone else it hurts? And that this has been present in every culture where children have been observed. Now of course through how your raised this basic empathy is turned off, but its easy to discover again if you try to understand another person from a rational point of veiw. However I can't help but feel that discribing empathy to you is like describing color to a blind man.

@ Dritch

Just assuming for the sake of argument, that there is a god (and that is a rather big assumption), at what point in time have people ever agreed about what god's righteousness is? Man's conception of god's will appears as variable over time as man's morals. You may argue that you know, but I fail to see how your view is superior to that of other Christians here and now, elsewhere, or past. If the standard is unknowable, than it is of no practical use.

You see, the extreme variability of man's understanding of god's will suggests that god's will is an idea created by man to bolster particular men's views of morality and nothing more. It's better to leave god out of it, as then we can discuss what morality is best in a rational manner.

I suggest this standard: on any given moral question the rule should be that which a person who is not yet born and does not yet know what his race, gender, sexual orientation, or place in society will be would consider to be the best rule. Applying this standard requires dispassion and reason, and would result in fairness. I will not hold my breath for the standard to be applied though because our morality is not entirely born of reason. It is a product of empathy, which is why our moral standards are higher with regard to those we know or can otherwise identify with, than it is with regard for those we don't know or can't identify with. The "other" is always given less rights be it because they differ in income, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, language, profession, or dress. Biblical morality demonstrates this clearly. Hebrews are expected to treat those they identify with (other Hebrews) better than those they don't (everyone else). The adult male Hebrews writing the OT naturally give more rights to adult male Hebrews. The adult Christian men writing the NT naturally give more rights to adult Christian men. Naturally, they denigrated the rights of Jewish men who rejected Christianity.

Far from behaving better when applying god's standard, people use god's standard to justify their lack of empathy for others. Thus, the differing standards for: the chosen people versus all other people; my gender versus other genders; people of my faith versus people of other faiths; people of different incomes versus people of my income and so on. Selfish people have used god's standard to justify everything from socialism (easily justified by Jesus's teachings) to capitalism (easily justified based on god's obvious preference).

(January 27, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 2:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't pay attention to the opinions on morality of some Christian who justifies slavery and prays for others to get cancer and AIDS.

And I don't pay attention to the opinions on morality of some douche who pretends he does not directly benfit from slavery daily, and makes up a false accusation that others pray for cancer and AIDS.

You know you've done that. I understand your god doesn't like lying cunts ... you'd best stop while you're behind.

(January 27, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Drich Wrote: Oh, wait.. my response does show that I do indeed pay attention to said person's morality if I can list things I find morally objectionable. I guess I'm a hypocrite who is afraid to speak topically, but wants to get my two cents into the mix... Oh wait that's just you.

Oh, hey, a "NO U" argument.

I'm not speaking topically here because you're an idiot who doesn't merit serious consideration. Matt 7:6, Dumbfuck.

Hey cool. Sign me up! Is this like the old Columbia record thing? I get the first 40 morals free, get to examine them, return the ones I don't like for other morals. Really nifty!

(January 27, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Drich Wrote: The question then becomes how do you know you did not grow up in a society as bad if not worse than the Nazis or anyone else you look at as being way/unquestionably evil?

Well you can't know is the honest answer. You can only compare your behaviour against that which has gone before and make a relative judgement (e.g. it was wrong to stone adulterers to death and now it isn't). It would be some fucked up world that tried to reverse that trend eh?

So Drich, give us an example of what you are arguing for at least. What absolute moral is there in your bible that us heathens don't adhere to today that you think we should?

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

(January 27, 2016 at 11:45 am)Drich Wrote: All of these people followed their 'pop morality' to it's logical end. How is the modern westerner any different? What about your system of belief transcends what other generations will deem 'immoral?' and if you do not have this absolute morality, then how are you in a position to judge ANYONE Else's system of right and wrong?

It's called "reality," and it's what I hold every potential moral claim up to in deciding whether it is or is not true.

Let's use your example of homosexuality for this: the claim that homosexuality is immoral simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, if one keeps in mind the real world. It causes no actual harm (that couldn't also be inflicted by straight couples, meaning to focus on gays there would be special pleading) nor any deleterious social consequences such that it should stand. In fact the sole reason at the core of why it was considered immoral for so long is that god doesn't like it... and examining that claim up against reality casts serious doubt on whether such a being even exists, and even if he did, his pronouncements aren't simply automatically moral truisms. Thus, unchanging, objective reality disproves the moral claim that homosexuality is bad.

You say that a changing view on this issue is a sign of ineffective "pop morality," but I'd suggest it's a little thing called "learning," and that as we gained the ability to collect demographic data such that the wild claims people made about the gay community could be measured and tested, we learned that actually, those claims were largely factually wrong. The moral view regarding that issue didn't change for no reason, Drich, and it'd be a huge oversimplification to say otherwise; what actually happened, both via a gay community refusing to stay closeted and increased research that this afforded, was that the lies told by religious ideologues and conservative fraudsters were no longer able to stand unchallenged, and those of us who value truth over fantasy changed our views to fit the evidence once we were all afforded the ability to see it. It wasn't some arbitrary shuffle of morals: the lies your side told got shouted down by the truth.

I sometimes wonder Drich if, owing to your obvious sociopathic tendencies (taking your posts on this forum and others as the benchmark) whether you are capable of understanding what people mean when they invoke empathy? Or care? Or love?

This is not a personal attack rather more just an observation. I have over the years tended to conclude your posts contain as much malice as anything else, and an intense need to gain a 1 up at all costs. These of course are traits usually found in sociopaths.

In just wondering what sort of arguments or debates are worthwhile, or whether we bother to engage? I look forward to your answer to my query in my previous post.

(January 27, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Drich Wrote: actually no. I do not seek to contrive a morality from the bible. I simply look at and accept the sin and evil in my life and have sought and receive atonement for those sins. Which affords me the freedom to live apart from the law God uses to identify sin.

My behavior then becomes my direct offering of Love to God. I try and live what others may identify as a 'moral' life not because it is right, and I receive anything for it. I do so simply because it is the closest thing I can do to emulate the righteousness God has identified in the bible, as an expression of my faith and love towards him. "Right or wrong" be damned.

That is the difference between living a morality based life and living an atonement based life. If one understands atonement, then he knows their is no right we can do that can off set the wrong. So life ceases about trying to be right/moral, and becomes about seeking God.

This 'atonement based' lifestyle of yours is just another variant of pop morality. It isn't different in any way. You live according to what you consider the virtuous thing to do, which is cleave to God. That's just another arbitrary set of morals.