(September 10, 2012 at 12:28 am)greneknight Wrote:

(September 10, 2012 at 12:25 am)padraic Wrote: Of course not,as I said, you are a sly little bastard. I'm starting to like you.

You prefer me to that little twerp ("that other greneknight") in Christian Forums?

---

(September 10, 2012 at 12:27 am)Brunitski Wrote: Call me a dense cunt and spell it out.

No, don't be so hard on yourself. Padraic will happily call you guileless.

Meh, whatevs. The whole little drama captured my attention for those minutes during which I was waiting for a bench test to pass. But now I am not so... lacking interesting things to look at.
wink.

(September 9, 2012 at 11:49 pm)greneknight Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 10:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: It's odd that you state God is a metaphor for goodness, but then don't believe in goodness (goodness is subjective).

I do believe in goodness. I believe in all the virtues such as goodness, truth and justice.

Then you believe in objective morality.

(September 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 9, 2012 at 11:49 pm)greneknight Wrote: I do believe in goodness. I believe in all the virtues such as goodness, truth and justice.

Then you believe in objective morality.

No I don't. I believe morality changes.

(September 10, 2012 at 5:12 pm)greneknight Wrote:

(September 10, 2012 at 5:08 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Then you believe in objective morality.

No I don't. I believe morality changes.

What do you mean by that it changes? Do you mean moral standards changes in society?

(September 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 10, 2012 at 5:12 pm)greneknight Wrote: No I don't. I believe morality changes.

What do you mean by that it changes? Do you mean moral standards changes in society?

Morality today is different from morality 100 years ago and very much different from morality 1000 years ago. What appears like objective morality to me today is actually an illusion. If the same me were born 500 years ago, I would probably think that beating a runaway slave to death is the right of any slave owner. I would have thought that was objectively moral.

It wasn't all that long ago that it was considered normal to send small children up chimneys, or to work in amogst lethally dangerous machinery in factories, and to beat them soundly for the slightest infraction. Now, thankfully, such things are unconscionable, at least for the relatively developed nations. So yes, moral standards can change, within a society as it matures and between coexisting societies.

(September 10, 2012 at 7:27 pm)greneknight Wrote:

(September 10, 2012 at 5:53 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What do you mean by that it changes? Do you mean moral standards changes in society?

If the same me were born 500 years ago, I would probably think that beating a runaway slave to death is the right of any slave owner. I would have thought that was objectively moral.

Maybe or maybe you would not. Maybe deep down inside you would feel it's wrong or you would feel in emotional turmoil over the issue or maybe you would be against it.

Quote:Morality today is different from morality 100 years ago and very much different from morality 1000 years ago. What appears like objective morality to me today is actually an illusion.

Exactly what do you mean by morality? Everyone knows humanity have different views of what is moral and what is not, but what is actually moral and good or what is unmoral or evil, has that really changed?

This is what I'm asking. How do you believe in goodness now, if you believe it has no objectivity at all?

If you believe it's totally a delusion, why do you say you believe in goodness at all?

---

(September 10, 2012 at 7:37 pm)Stimbo Wrote: It wasn't all that long ago that it was considered normal to send small children up chimneys, or to work in amogst lethally dangerous machinery in factories, and to beat them soundly for the slightest infraction. Now, thankfully, such things are unconscionable, at least for the relatively developed nations. So yes, moral standards can change, within a society as it matures and between coexisting societies.

If you believe in objective morals, you can say moral standards regarding an issue has progressed or regressed. While if you don't believe in objective morality, you cannot say there is progress or regress, only that it has changed.

(September 10, 2012 at 8:20 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(September 10, 2012 at 7:27 pm)greneknight Wrote: If the same me were born 500 years ago, I would probably think that beating a runaway slave to death is the right of any slave owner. I would have thought that was objectively moral.

Maybe or maybe you would not. Maybe deep down inside you would feel it's wrong or you would feel in emotional turmoil over the issue or maybe you would be against it.

Quote:Morality today is different from morality 100 years ago and very much different from morality 1000 years ago. What appears like objective morality to me today is actually an illusion.

Exactly what do you mean by morality? Everyone knows humanity have different views of what is moral and what is not, but what is actually moral and good or what is unmoral or evil, has that really changed?

This is what I'm asking. How do you believe in goodness now, if you believe it has no objectivity at all?

If you believe it's totally a delusion, why do you say you believe in goodness at all?

Your "maybe or maybe you would not" is incorrect. There was a time when EVERYONE thought it was ok to kill a runaway slave or at least a huge majority thought it was ok. If what you say is even remotely correct, the abolition of slavery would have taken place earlier. The FACT that people didn't think anything about slavery can be seen even in what Jesus said. He used parables that had stories about slavery in such a way that it leaves one with no doubt that Jesus was ok with slavery. St Paul was not just ok with slavery. He encouraged slavery and supported it in his Holy Epistles. Let's not have this willy-nilly attitude towards morality. Your "maybe yes and maybe no" is so typical of fundy Christians. Oh, I just checked - you are a believer, most probably a Christian.

Your confusion is again typical of fundy Christians. I have never said morality was a delusion. I said objective morality was an illusion. That doesn't mean I don't believe in morality. Oh, you are so typically fundy in your writing!!!! I'm sure you are a Baptist or one of these. When I said OBJECTIVE morality is an illusion, you say MORALITY is a total delusion to me. Of course I didn't say that. Of course there is morality. Didn't I just explain what morality is and how it changes?

Let me explain one more time. I believe in goodness and in morality but I am AWARE that it may change with time. I'll just give an example. My family has servants and this has been a tradition in my family. We treat them very well of course. But there may come a time when egalitarianism has caught up and having servants may be considered immoral. I don't know if that will happen but it may. Supposing it does happen. I live by my morality today and I have servants to attend to chores and that's ok. But if I were born 200 years from now in a time when morality says servanthood is a crime, of course I would be appalled that I used to have servants some 200 years ago. Do you get this? If you don't please tell me and I will think of another example to explain this to you.

EDIT: Sorry, I just found out you are an ex-Muslim in another thread. I have a high regard for ex-Muslims because they are the most persecuted people on the planet. Ex-Christians are ok but ex-Muslims face the barbaric evil of the Muslim world. There should be a law to compel everyone to draw every morning a cartoon of Muhammad and Allah. That's sure to make the Muslim terrorists change. They can't kill everyone so they become nicer. That's greneknight's recipe on how to stop terrorism. They should allow me to address the UN.

Quote:It wasn't all that long ago that it was considered normal to send small children up chimneys, or to work in amogst lethally dangerous machinery in factories

What republicunts call "the good old days."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/0...?mobile=nc

Quote:Child labor laws are also only one of many essential protections that would evaporate in Mike Lee’s America. The same legal theory Lee uses to impugn child labor laws applies equally to the federal minimum wage and the ban on whites-only lunch counters.

BTW, he's from Utah which means he's another fucking mormon asshole just like some other schmuck who has been in the news a lot lately.

This is from Drich's post in the thread where he called you out...

Drich Wrote:Then in AF.org I had the mods changing my posts so I was in violation of the rules.

Really? You're still playing the poor persecuted martyr card, and calling us out where we can't defend ourselves? Despicable.

Since I know you can't provide any evidence that your posts have been altered, how about you just present evidence that anybody gives enough of a shit to put you in the violation of the rules, and if there is a big conspiracy to do so, how come we haven't done it enough so we could just ban your pious, arrogant, self-righteous ass?