pop morality

[Esquilax]

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.

Are you suggesting that the Jewish people were significantly genetically different from the Germans during the time of world war 2, but then their genes shifted suddenly to be more similar once the war was over? Or that they were involved in a huge, government controlling conspiracy during that period, but that this conspiracy ceased to be once the war was over?

No? Then you accept, as I do, that objective reality was not influenced, in any sense, by the misguided beliefs of the Nazi party. What we understood about biology, for example, even during the thirties and forties, would disprove the claim that the Jews were somehow subhuman: homology might have a fancy name, but it and other anatomical studies have been a part of biology since Darwin's day. There is no sense, even were one to discount our current knowledge of genetics and so on, in which a conclusion that the Jewish people represented a distinct, lesser race, given that they're anatomically identical to other humans.

Which is, of course, beside the point, since I already specified that people learn things. Someone being wrong about reality does not alter the efficacy of using evidence to come to moral conclusions, it's a suggestion that the human capacity to monitor the facts is imperfect... which is sort of what the scientific method exists to counter.

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.

Maybe you're just renaming your particular brand of morality as righteousness, even though what you're describing is not significantly different from the definition of morality. I'm not going to sit here and play word games with you, just so you can avoid answering questions.

That is why I never said the Nazi's did not rationally consider the facts.

But they didn't, though. One big ol' history lesson the Nazis taught us, echoed again and again in their testimonies of "just following orders," is that it's very easy to get people to unthinkingly bow to authority, to the point of big, nationwide pogroms, even. Not rationally considering the facts was central to the success of the Nazi party.

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?

So, you're suggesting that if I lived in some sort of 1984-esque dystopia, could I be induced to believe incorrect things? Yes, if you put me in an extreme enough situation, extreme results can be attained. Shocker. This is only a problem if you're suggesting the possibility of being wrong while using a given method means that the method itself is wrong, which would be a death knell for both of our methods, and also an unreasonably high expectation that, again, your own methodology would not survive.

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.

Science is a method for obtaining facts, it isn't what I'm talking about here.

(*Cough Global warming/climate change) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...74ffc6988d

Did you do any research into this at all before you posted it? Dumb question, I already know you didn't: for starters, what you've got there are a series of quote-mined emails taken out of context from a single research institute, so even if you had something there what you'd have is a sample size so small and subjective that it'd be useless for forming cogent conclusions on the entire field of climate science, let alone science as a whole... not that that stopped you from doing so anyway.

But leaving that aside, we also have the fact that, indeed, the emails were both quote mined from their original context and unlawfully stolen. Nine separate independent inquiries unanimously exonerated those scientists of the wrongdoing you're accusing them of- funny how that bit doesn't show up in your post- and when read in context the quotations tend to show a meaning almost precisely opposed to what you anti-science conspiritards assert them to mean. In fact they were a discussion that happened six fucking years beforehand, and weren't at all about a concerted conspiracy to hide evidence, but were in fact two guys discussing what should and should not be included in a report they were in the process of writing. Here's some sources, since you've evidently not gone a step further than what confirmed your own biases, here.

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?

Maybe if you'd done any research at all, you wouldn't be asking that question, because you'd know the facts.

Wrong according to whom?

Why do you think that "because X person says so" is sufficient reason to make a moral judgment? That's the implicit, unjustified assumption in what you're asking there.

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 sort of dodged the question there, so I'll ask it more plainly: why is god an "absolute" at all? How do you get there, without making a circular argument?

You claim 'science' is your answer.

Actually, I didn't.

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.

You only showed you're willing to be taken in by the dishonest quote mining of agenda driven spivs, and also that you're happy to just lazily swallow what fits your presuppositions without fact checking it in the least, so I'm not surprised that you think everyone else works that way too, but I've got news for you: we don't.

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

The same question could be asked of you and your god, of course. Does it trouble you at all that your entire argument here relies so heavily on everyone else not thinking to apply your contentions back onto you?

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

Nothing you've ever presented has been a "serious challenge," in the past, so based on the evidence, what you're trying to present now is equally specious. Part of being a debater is knowing what is and is not a good question to debate, after all.

*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.

I wonder whether you'll even read the sources I linked you to before disagreeing with them out of hand?

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.'

So how is god an absolute?

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!!!

That's solipsism. The facts don't change just because of what we think of them.

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?

I'll give you a hint, here: another part of this is not being a credulous buffoon and just absorbing the first thing that agrees with me as gospel, the way you do. If you do your research, hone your bullshit detector and accept the utility of probabilistic conclusions (such that you, for example, avoid the risk of hurting people over a conclusion with the highest, but not sufficiently high, probability of being true), if you're actually careful about your moral conclusions and the actions you take based on them, then you come out far better.

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.

Again, I'm not going to play this game with you. You were asked how god's standard (his opinion) is superior, now it's time to account for your own goddamn position before you get to act as though it's some unassailable edifice fit to judge the rest of us from. I'm so damn tired of you christians interrogating us about morality while refusing to answer even the simplest of questions about their own position.

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 how is god's standard an absolute?

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.

So, to be clear: your standard rests on "might makes right," and is otherwise completely unjustified, and yet you're willing to judge other people's standards inferior?

I can see a strawman, does that count?

How is it a strawman when you just got through assuming your conclusion, exactly like I described?