Total posts: 14,582
-->
@PGA2.0
So you have absolutely no concern about what consenting adults do with and or to each other in the privacy of their own homes?If it is immoral it should be a concern to everyone.
Why?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If I were in France and wanted to express myself to a person who does not speak English, I would have to know the word 'chien/chienne' and what it means, or a synonym like “un toutou," or a French slang word that expresses the same idea of a dog.
So, would you say the appropriate use of language is based on geography and the social norms and expectations of proximate observers?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Words have meaning, and "dog" is the meaning we give to a specific type of animal. You are confusing the word we identify with that type of ontology with another word. We use a particular word to describe the nature of that particular being. Failing to do so fails to communicate or jive with social norms. In societies, specific words have specific meanings.
NOPE.
WORDS ARE UNDEFINED VARIABLES.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
'morality' (in English) is the common term used to describe a particular social normative abstract concept type. It has a specific meaning because of the association we get from the word. If I say morality, I don't mean subjective-morality unless I have developed the wrong association. If a person uses a new word foreign for the meaning 'morality' they fail to communicate or express the standard norm or common usage, but if it catches on, they can invent a new word only if it is widely accepted or communication only between people who know what the person is referring to (or fail to recognize their miscommunication). The point is that the thing describes is what it is, not something else (unless the new meaning and or usage catches on, they can start using it in a novel way if it is widely accepted). If you want to use the word "morality" when speaking of subjective-morality, you will not be understood unless the idea is presented clearly and explicitly and you are pointing to the clear and explicit, rigorously defined definition. Otherwise the person you are communicating with is going to (hopefully) correct you of your misconception (if they even recognize the discrepancy).
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
...and within those groups, there is a huge diversity of values and beliefs.
How is this even possible if one group is following universal and unchanging divinely inspired perfect moral dogma?
How can so many "true Christians" disagree?
Are you the only "true Christian" on planet earth?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Adam had free will. He was the only person who could choose to sin or not sin, other than Jesus Christ.If I made a robot, would that robot be "free from the influence of sin"?Its programming would depend on your moral character and what you included in the programming.
In the exact same way that human programming would depend on the moral character of "YHWH".
Are you capable of making such a robot?
It seems likely that a robot indistinguishable from a human could be produced at some point.
I do not believe you are able.
Please respect the hypothetical.
A robot does not suggest (to me) a free moral agent.
Why not?
Did you program it to make moral choices and did you determine what the good was and the boundaries to which it could choose?
Did "YHWH" program humans to make moral choices and did "YHWH" determine what the good was and the boundaries to which humans could choose?
IOW's, is there a best that the robot can use as its standard for goodness?
IOW's, is there a best that the human can use as its standard for goodness?
What is that standard? Yourself? Is your own standard really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?
What is that standard? "YHWH"? Jesus? Is the behavior of "YHWH" really good? Or do you just suppose so, or call it good even though it is not?
Are the standard those who influence your thoughts? Since you are not almighty, nor omniscient, how could you avoid programming it without including sinful instructions or codes?
Since "YHWH" is almighty and omniscient, how could it program humans with sinful instructions or codes?
For freedom of choice would it not have to know all things to determine the good, or nothing at all and build from there and choose the right choice every time to avoid sin?
Since "YHWH" knows all things and can presumably determine the good, wouldn't that mean that every human is acting 100% in accordance with their master plan at all times?
In other words, (IFF) "YHWH" can only do good things (AND) "YHWH" makes a human (THEN) that human can only always do good things
In other words, (IFF) a human makes a robot (AND) that robot commits a crime or an error (THEN) the crime or error of the robot is REALLY simply a second-order HUMAN ERROR
Some suggest that Adam was a blank slate, free to choose to sin or not to sin. No influence at first. He only knew the good God had made. That is what he saw. In this way, he was different from every other human being. He could choose not to sin. We can't. It is built into our nature through the Fall.
So you're saying that sin is genetic?
How was Adam a "blank slate" but not Eve or Lilith?
AND, (IFF) "YHWH" made Adam a "blank slate" (THEN) "YHWH" could have just made Adam infertile and built a new "blank slate" perhaps named "Sammy"(?)
He was influenced by two initial agents (God and Satan)
Hold up. Full stop.
Who made "Satan"?
...and then a third, Eve, repeating what Satan had said. Adam chose to sin which impacted the rest of humanity since not only did sin create a barrier between humanity and a holy and pure God but it also gave rise to humans deciding what they would accept as right and wrong (subjectivism/relativism).
How did "YHWH" screw this up so badly? Was it lack of foresight? Poor planning? Or was this perhaps some sort of 12 dimensional chess game they dreamed up because they were like, super-super bored?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Or is your standard of "goodness" "let Jesus guide your heart"?By faith in God through Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit is given to the believer that they may know Him better.
So, how do you propose we resolve disputes between "true believers"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not when marital unfaithfulness is present. God even divorced Israel in OT times. Adultery is a reason given in which the offended person may divorce their spouse.
Isn't the penalty for "marital unfaithfulness" death by stoning?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So, the covenant changed, not the Law.Hairsplitting.It changes for the believer because he/she is not judged by the law but by what Jesus Christ did in his/her stead. The NT tells the believer repeatedly; we live by grace, not by the works of the law. By the works of the law, no human is justified because no accountable human other than Jesus has been able to live without sin.
Awesome. Does this mean you believe we should let all Christians out of jails and prisons?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you are unable to produce a coherent definition of "objective" then your naked opinion is laid bare.Objective: That which is the actual case, to put it simply. Do you want me to expand on that?
How do you personally determine and how do you personally verify "that which is the actual case"?
Do you rely on your "gut instincts"?
As a subjective person, do you know what is the actual case?
I draw the brightest possible line between FACT and OPINION.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
And I point to that truth; God is truth. I have continually argued for what is necessary for objective moral truth.
But you have failed to demonstrate a single solitary unchanging, universal moral axiom.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is okay when someone wants something that does not belong to them and takes it?
Isn't that what you call "shopping"?
Is it okay that you want something that does not belong to you and you are willing to do whatever it takes to obtain that something?
Isn't that what you call "ambition"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Is it okay when the person you love is unfaithful to you and doesn't care?
(IFF) you are relying on a formalized social contract (and public ritual) in order to maintain a sense of security in your personal relationships (THEN) you are missing the point of human interaction
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is okay when others steal from you? Is it okay for you to steal from others?
Do you consider inflation "theft"?
Do you consider taxation "theft"?
Do you consider price gouging "theft"?
Do you consider anti-competitive business practices "theft"?
Do you consider exploitation of labor "theft"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
What if someone defames your character and says things that are untrue of you to others.
You can say whatever you wish.
I will not attempt to intimidate or coerce you with threats of force (by the state or otherwise) or verbal counter-attack.
(IFF) people are easily fooled by banal ad hominem attacks (THEN) they merely demonstrate their own deficit of critical thinking
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is wrong to lie?
Of course (under certain circumstances).
Even Christians believe it's permissible, even admirable to violate unjust laws and use subterfuge (lies by omission and or lies by commission) in order to avoid legal consequences.
Like lying to the state in order to assist escaped slaves and or people persecuted by the state for their religious beliefs and or genetic composition.
But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Can you live without condemning murder as wrong?
Can you live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing"?
I'm pretty sure you can live without explicitly defining "an unjustified killing" because I'm pretty sure you can't explicitly define "an unjustified killing" (murder).
Without a fixed reference point (without an explicit, unchanging and universal definition), how can you claim to condemn "murder"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think it is right to murder, to take an innocent life out of malice intentionally?
Of course not.
But I don't need to resort to a hackneyed "appeal to authority" in order to come to that conclusion.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
You have an OPINION that "the bible" is "objective".I have what is necessary for objectivity.
You are a human who suffers from sample bias.
Therefore you are biased.
Therefore you are not "objective".
I question that your worldview does, and I want you to demonstrate it does.
I am not "objective" and I've never claimed to be "objective".
I do my best to maintain logically coherent, fact based world view based on explicit primary axioms.
I very intentionally engage in exploration of opposing viewpoints in order to continuously refine and update my own perspective.
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Israel was not allowed by God to exploit foreigners as they had been exploited in Eygpt.
You're technically right about that. The Israelites didn't build any pyramids with their foreign chattel slaves.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Please make your personally preferred definition of "morality" explicit.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Morality is like language.
It's determined by geography and evolves over time.
Are you perhaps of the opinion that your personal moral instinct applies to all people everywhere at all times?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
What evidence is that?
Different cities and different countries have different laws at different times.
Are you seriously disputing this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What evidence is there that social media platforms have wiped the Hunter Biden story "nearly out of existence"?
Twitter Inc. on Friday unlocked the New York Post’s Twitter account, ending a [two week long] stalemate between the social-media company and the newspaper stemming from the latter’s publication of stories it said were based on documents obtained from the laptop of Hunter Biden. [**]
Facebook and Twitter took drastic measures to limit the reach of a disputed news story about Hunter Biden [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Even if we give Guiliani and Carlson maximum credit what we are left with is some circumstantial evidence that Hunter Biden likes porn and has the telephone numbers of many politicians.
- Please explain why any newspaper should publish this?
- Where is any evidence of any crime (except that Guiliani is in possession of Hunter Biden's password info which does suggest a crime on the part of America's Mayor)
- Yes, we know that Trumpets would like to embarrass Hunter because he is related to a political enemy but why is any of this newsworthy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
(IFF) Atheism literally means "No God" (THEN) we must make the definition of "God" explicit
Please present your personally preferred definition of "God".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Though a mask can't block 100% of all viruses, it can stop some.
And that may and that may not be enough to make any difference.
We should probably always wear masks all the time forever and ever now to protect all people from all diseases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You just want to define terms to make you have a non-faith.
Please make your personally preferred definitions explicit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism is NOT a dogma or a creed.
Atheism literally means "NOT a Theist".
It's the same as calling yourself "NOT a space alien" or "NOT an champion swimmer".
It isn't a description of what you ARE, but of what you are NOT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It also dismantles your assertion that spending time arguing against something somehow indicates that I really really really believe in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You are reading intelligence into processes so you can draw the false analogy to god creating things intelligently. How is the existence of intelligence and things created by intelligence evidence of a god?
Deism is functionally identical to Atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I also spend a lot of time debunking other myths.
Guess how much faith I need to NOT believe in other myths?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
...can't fit through the mask...
If the mask isn't airtight, and or if you can smell through it, a virus can get around it.
Also, a mask doesn't keep the respiratory particles from landing on your hair and clothes and other parts of your face and even on the mask itself which most people touch with their hands anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
It's the same conversation as your "anger management" clip.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I believe in the 'concept of monsters under the bed and other such fabrications.If I tell my child that there is a monster under the bed, and this prevents him from getting out of bed and romping around, then it had an impact.Morality, to me, is real in this sense.By people believing in it, it has an impact.
I don't really see why doubting ["objective" "universal"] morality should stop a human from making moral claims.
Not to mention the fact that we have a lot of evidence that moral systems are temporally and geographically specific (not "universal").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
No, see, I want the actual research and the conditions and methods used to conduct the research. Not CDC quotes and one persons opinion. Does anyone know what science is anymore?
There are no scientific studies that show masks alone slow the spread of the plague.
There are no scientific studies that show masks alone DO NOT slow the spread of the plague.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You still don't get what a micron is.
I'm quite certain its a rigorously defined unit of measurement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
"boo hoo! the lamestream media is censoring my circumstantial evidence that a relative of my political enemy likes porn! What has happened to society that I can't just talk any old shit about my enemies and see it treated as real news! Alas! boo hoo!"
All jokes aside,
Do you think facebook, twitter, google, and youtube should mass delete specific stories?
I mean news organizations NOT running a story is fine of course, but platforms just wiping a story nearly out of existence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Show me and cite who your source is.
Just to make sure I understand what you're asking for,
Are you asking for evidence of shadows, you know, like on the surface of the moon?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
TO do so - is an example of someone who has not actually thought through her position but someone who has just jumped in by "blind faith".
It takes ZERO faith to NOT believe in something you've never seen or heard.
How much faith does it take for you to NOT believe in the almighty NANABOZHO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Is the earth the only planet that's not a spheroid?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think you might need to make your definitions explicit before attempting to draw any logical conclusions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Even if there is a conspiracy, you are creating a conspiracy that is current and relative to you, rather than a conspiracy relative to the historical facts.
REAL-TRUE-FACTS must necessarily be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary (QUANTA).
HISTORY is, at best, an inductive hypothesis.
HISTORY =/= FACT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Ours is an enchanted world, like that of the Old Norse who believed in land spirits who could bless or hinder travelers who didn’t pay them heed, or animists who consider everything alive and fraught with spiritual meaning, or the 16th-century English who hunted down witches based on hyper-sensitive suspicions and presumed signs.
100% THIS.
It might be useful to note that the sw.ast.ika is an ancient symbol that predates the birth of Jesus Christ.
It was not invented by the Germans.
It does not have any intrinsic meaningfulness.
But the question remains, Do you believe its current cultural significance can be safely ignored?
I mean, all KKK members are patriotic Christians. But it might be worth noting that not all patriotic Christians are members of the KKK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
The first and third video don't provide a single example Chomsky getting actually cancelled. They are describing the criticism of Chomsky as cancellation but isn't that the opposite of cancellation--- just making your point and going away.
Chomsky's not "canceled" yet. He hasn't been fired and his books and movies haven't been dropped by publishers.
Chomsky's at the beginning of the process, where people start suggesting they support hate-speech. I mean, only an evil person would support hate-speech, right?
Not every cancel campaign ends in success and I think they're going to have some trouble making this one stick.
Created: