(October 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Sigh, most secular morality boils down to hedonism, which is usually applied in 2 ways. On a personal level use the golden rule as written by say Confucius ( or at least one of his students) and on a larger scale moral utilitarianism. These principles guide nearly every good moral decision made in the last 1000 year ( on a large scale) infact the us bill of rights is largely a embodiment of moral utilitarianism.

There would be at all nothing wrong with fascist ideology if you weren't in the minority being persecuted then? It would be hedonistic and utilitarian in that Nazi's enjoyed themselves and had a well run/organised society by their standards. It did go a bit wrong for them but only because they lost the war of which they had a fair chance to win.

(October 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: There would be at all nothing wrong with fascist ideology if you weren't in the minority being persecuted then? It would be hedonistic and utilitarian.

Of course there would.

The well being of others is what moral utilitarianism and the golden rule directly address.

It's really simple. Strive to live in a society as if it is unknown what your status, race, sex, wealth, etc will be ahead of time. It's like having the person cutting the cake choose their piece last, not knowing how big of a piece they will get.

Secular morality is superior to religious morality.

(October 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: There would be at all nothing wrong with fascist ideology if you weren't in the minority being persecuted then? It would be hedonistic and utilitarian in that Nazi's enjoyed themselves and had a well run/organised society by their standards. It did go a bit wrong for them but only because they lost the war of which they had a fair chance to win.

So... that's a no, then?

(October 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm)Sworthat ChriSeriously, 527363 Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 4:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Non-sequitur and a fallacious appeal to consequences.

If you're going to seriously reject the existence of God or a purpose to the universe/life you will have to face the consequences of the truth which is going to be a little bit nihilistic whether you like it or not.

Because you say so?

Seriously, I could sit here and assert things all day long, without providing any sort of justification, exactly like you're doing.

Except that I won't, because that would make me an intellectually bankrupt person.

And I note that you are still using a fallacious appeal to consequences, even after it's been pointed out to you.

Do you honestly think that it would matter to me in the least if the truth happened to be a little less than cuddly? It would not, and my desire for it to be so in no way shape or form alters the underlying fabric of reality.


When you figure that out, feel free to join the adults in this discussion

(October 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm)apophenia Wrote: When you decide to start dealing from your own private dictionary, please do us a favor and warn us. This is not what biological means.

It does, actually.
bi·o·log·i·cal (b-lj-kl) also bi·o·log·ic (-ljk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms: biological processes such as growth and digestion.
2. Having to do with biology.
3. Related by blood or genetic lineage

(October 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm)apophenia Wrote: This is nonsensical double-speak. I can only assume you're dealing from your own private dictionary again. When you feel like communicating in English, please let me know.

This is English.

(October 18, 2013 at 5:20 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm)apophenia Wrote: When you decide to start dealing from your own private dictionary, please do us a favor and warn us. This is not what biological means.

It does, actually.
bi·o·log·i·cal (b-lj-kl) also bi·o·log·ic (-ljk)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, caused by, or affecting life or living organisms: biological processes such as growth and digestion.
2. Having to do with biology.
3. Related by blood or genetic lineage

What you said was that by biological you meant "of genetic origin." The definition you bolded has nothing to do with the definition you claimed you were using (which was the antecedent of 'this'). Moreover, the definition you bolded is not even relevant to the discussion as it refers to the relationship between individuals, not the nature of "qualities that human possess" (your words).

(October 18, 2013 at 5:20 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm)apophenia Wrote: This is nonsensical double-speak. I can only assume you're dealing from your own private dictionary again. When you feel like communicating in English, please let me know.

This is English.

Sure. Whatever. Have a nice day.

Making people feel bad makes me feel bad, so I don't do things that if done by someone else, would make me feel bad. Ya' feel me?

(October 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Sigh, most secular morality boils down to hedonism, which is usually applied in 2 ways. On a personal level use the golden rule as written by say Confucius ( or at least one of his students) and on a larger scale moral utilitarianism. These principles guide nearly every good moral decision made in the last 1000 year ( on a large scale) infact the us bill of rights is largely a embodiment of moral utilitarianism.

There would be at all nothing wrong with fascist ideology if you weren't in the minority being persecuted then? It would be hedonistic and utilitarian in that Nazi's enjoyed themselves and had a well run/organised society by their standards. It did go a bit wrong for them but only because they lost the war of which they had a fair chance to win.

Do you doubt for a moment that, had they won, morality would have been very different from today's?

Moral questions would have been something like: "Can you believe there was a time when Jews were allowed to walk amongst us like normal human beings?"

There is a however to this:

Eventually the Nazi Empire would have collapsed - because all empires do. Whatever followed the Nazi empire would, almost by definition, have rejected that morality. Whether or not it would have come to resemble the morality of today is open to question but it appears likely it would have been a much freer approach in reaction to the strictures of the predecessor.

And where would God have been during all of this - strangely absent would be my guess - just as he was whilst 6 million were walked into concentration camps.

(October 19, 2013 at 3:33 am)max-greece Wrote: Do you doubt for a moment that, had they won, morality would have been very different from today's?

No because Nazi morality isn't Gods morality we don't get to say what is and isn't moral we only understand it and adhere to it or not understand it and rebel against it. Otherwise you're saying we just make it up ourselves based purely on our own standards and Nazi morality is equally just as good. If we all had those moral standards then those are the moral standards we wouldn't be behaving immorally.

Quote:Moral questions would have been something like: "Can you believe there was a time when Jews were allowed to walk amongst us like normal human beings?"

Exactly the Jews would be evil sub-humans infiltrating our society and we managed to make them all disappear somewhere. We may not have known where they went exactly but that's a good thing that happened. Or at least the media would have presented it that way, we may still have question it privately.

Quote:Eventually the Nazi Empire would have collapsed - because all empires do. Whatever followed the Nazi empire would, almost by definition, have rejected that morality. Whether or not it would have come to resemble the morality of today is open to question but it appears likely it would have been a much freer approach in reaction to the strictures of the predecessor.

They were planning on a thousand year Reich and they could in theory have managed it. No need to watch the whole thing just the general idea.





In practice however I don't think God would have sustained it and it would have collapsed much like the Soviet Union did.

Quote:And where would God have been during all of this - strangely absent would be my guess - just as he was whilst 6 million were walked into concentration camps.

He was most certainly there and he always is but there is a such a thing as freewill and human sin, in this case human outright evil. God does fight against it but he does it through people who adhere to him. That's the way it works he can't do anything directly as he isn't physically present but immanent within creation as spirit as well as being utterly transcendent beyond it and sustaining it all.

(October 18, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Sigh, most secular morality boils down to hedonism, which is usually applied in 2 ways. On a personal level use the golden rule as written by say Confucius ( or at least one of his students) and on a larger scale moral utilitarianism. These principles guide nearly every good moral decision made in the last 1000 year ( on a large scale) infact the us bill of rights is largely a embodiment of moral utilitarianism.

There would be at all nothing wrong with fascist ideology if you weren't in the minority being persecuted then? It would be hedonistic and utilitarian in that Nazi's enjoyed themselves and had a well run/organised society by their standards. It did go a bit wrong for them but only because they lost the war of which they had a fair chance to win.

Good ol Godwins law, when you don't like facts you bring up Hitler.

I'd suggest you look up "Got Mitt Uns" and read Mien Komph before you go equating atheists to such a monster. Hitler was NOT an atheist.