Stop teaching morons that Christianity has a monopoly on virtue

[Micawber]

I believe in mercy, justice, and virtue. And I believe these these values are universal and exist independently and apart from secular law, public opinion, or the whims of dictators.

Nor can they be experimentally proven, or proven by sensory perception or empirical evidence.

You have not stated what you do base those three ideas upon.


I believe in those virtues as well, and if taxed to explain it
will have to say it is the visceral understanding that I experience some pain when I see lack of mercy and arbitrariness.
I think those ingrained emotions are biologically passed down with the influence of their forwarding survival of our species.
However, their antithesis does exist in spades, and so it most also play a role in survival. I do not believe those beliefs are
acquired through reason. Some reflexes are encouraged. We are behaviorally controlled by schools and parents to emote virtue and eschew vice.
Do I throw up when I see a merciless beating because of some divination or some brain calculus? Nope, its because I had toothpicks in my eyelids.
Think Clockwork Orange used gently.

 

[Cypress]

You have not stated what you do base those three ideas upon.


I believe in those virtues as well, and if taxed to explain it
will have to say it is the visceral understanding that I experience some pain when I see lack of mercy and arbitrariness.
I think those ingrained emotions are biologically passed down with the influence of their forwarding survival of our species.
However, their antithesis does exist in spades, and so it most also play a role in survival. I do not believe those beliefs are
acquired through reason. Some reflexes are encouraged. We are behaviorally controlled by schools and parents to emote virtue and eschew vice.
Do I throw up when I see a merciless beating because of some divination or some brain calculus? Nope, its because I had toothpicks in my eyelids.
Think Clockwork Orange used gently.

All I am saying is that belief can be rational, and does not necessarily have to be based on empirical data, sensory perception, or the experimental method.

There is literally no data that says there has to be a fundamental moral code which exists, and which holds true irrespective of the whims of kings or of mob rule.


This might be one of history's most famous expressions of a universal natural law, expressing a self-evident moral consciousness, based on a higher truth..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

 

[Micawber]

All I am saying is that belief can be rational, and does not necessarily have to be based on empirical data, sensory perception, or the experimental method.

There is literally no data that says there has to be a fundamental moral code which exists, and which holds true irrespective of the whims of kings or of mob rule.


This might be one of history's most famous expressions of a universal natural law, expressing a self-evident moral consciousness, based on a higher truth..

Disagree sentence one, no thought is a rational thought not based on perception. A man born in a sensory deprivation tank could not create math.

Agree sentence two.

I disagree that sentence three is actually true. I don't care that it is a lionized famous American quote. I think it is terrific that we do treat people equally despite that they are not born equal. I also don't believe in a creator.
In fact any argument premised on something asserted as "self evident" is an auto fail and makes me laugh. It's a tell every time. It tells me it is exactly the opposite.
It simply tells the audience that they refuse to attempt to gainsay the proposition. The sun rising in the East is not self evident. It is only evident when you see it happen.
People aren't born equal, the evidence is all to the contrary. I like that we assign equal moral worth and rights to them despite the many variations.

 

[Nordberg]

All I am saying is that belief can be rational, and does not necessarily have to be based on empirical data, sensory perception, or the experimental method.

There is literally no data that says there has to be a fundamental moral code which exists, and which holds true irrespective of the whims of kings or of mob rule.


This might be one of history's most famous expressions of a universal natural law, expressing a self-evident moral consciousness, based on a higher truth..

How could there be data? When people started living in large groups, it required them to establish rules. Hammurabi set up a code in about 1800 BC. Those rules still work . They were based in need. You could not start to build cities without rules. It would be bedlam. We needed regulation and punishments for those who broke them. It has nothing to do with religion or god.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Tell that to Lot's wife, or any of the other people massacred in the bible.

im telling you.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

How could there be data? When people started living in large groups, it required them to establish rules. Hammurabi set up a code in about 1800 BC. Those rules still work . They were based in need. You could not start to build cities without rules. It would be bedlam. We needed regulation and punishments for those who broke them. It has nothing to do with religion or god.

like dont lie? Don steal? don't murder?

sounds familiar.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Disagree sentence one, no thought is a rational thought not based on perception. A man born in a sensory deprivation tank could not create math.

Agree sentence two.

I disagree that sentence three is actually true. I don't care that it is a lionized famous American quote. I think it is terrific that we do treat people equally despite that they are not born equal. I also don't believe in a creator.
In fact any argument premised on something asserted as "self evident" is an auto fail and makes me laugh. It's a tell every time. It tells me it is exactly the opposite.
It simply tells the audience that they refuse to attempt to gainsay the proposition. The sun rising in the East is not self evident. It is only evident when you see it happen.
People aren't born equal, the evidence is all to the contrary. I like that we assign equal moral worth and rights to them despite the many variations.

cooperation works. why is this hard for you?

 

[Cypress]

Disagree sentence one, no thought is a rational thought not based on perception. A man born in a sensory deprivation tank could not create math.

Agree sentence two.

I disagree that sentence three is actually true. I don't care that it is a lionized famous American quote. I think it is terrific that we do treat people equally despite that they are not born equal. I also don't believe in a creator.
In fact any argument premised on something asserted as "self evident" is an auto fail and makes me laugh. It's a tell every time. It tells me it is exactly the opposite.
It simply tells the audience that they refuse to attempt to gainsay the proposition. The sun rising in the East is not self evident. It is only evident when you see it happen.
People aren't born equal, the evidence is all to the contrary. I like that we assign equal moral worth and rights to them despite the many variations.

Perhaps what it comes down to is whether one believes in a reality that is purely materialistic and relativistic, or whether there are eternal truths which are reasonable and rational to believe in.

Protagoras thought man was the measure of all things.
Plato thought there were higher truths which could be accessed through the careful use of reason.

John Locke thought we were tabula rasa, and our knowledge was limited to sensory perception.
Renee Descartes thought there were eternal truths we could arrive at rationally, through the excercise of reason..

I personally do not think mercy, compassion, equality, justice are mere opinions, which depend on the consent of public opinion or government laws. I think they exist as a universal moral imperative, whether we choose to act on it or not.

But that is just my opinion. I think is is reasonable and rational hold that belief, but there is no data or physical measurements I have which supports it. I believe empiricism is a powerful tool. But even strict empiricism has its limits.

 

[Micawber]

Perhaps what it comes down to is whether one believes in a reality that is purely materialistic and relativistic, or whether there are eternal truths which are reasonable and rational to believe in.

Protagoras thought man was the measure of all things.
Plato thought there were higher truths which could be accessed through the careful use of reason.

John Lock thought we were tabula rasa, and our knowledge was limited to sensory perception.
Descartes thought there were eternal truths we could arrive at rationally.

I personally do not think mercy, compassion, justice are mere opinions, which depend on the consent of public opinion or government laws. I think exist as a universal moral imperative, whether we choose to recognize it or not.

But that is just my opinion. I think is is reasonable and rational hold that belief, but there is no data I have which supports it. I believe empiricism is a powerful tool. But even strict empiricism has its limits.

Well chalk it up to my tabula rasa and Lock me in. Mind that I think part of the perception is the perception we have that is passed through to us via our dna contributions of each parent, including instincts, reflexes, all the biological things that occur without our conscious choice. Nature & nuture stuff are both still perceived and affect belief, IMO.

I guess the important thing is we both get to those aspirational virtues despite disagreeing as to causation. The degree of evil in the world, the lack of order both cause me to have grave
doubts there is a benevolent parental unit watching over the universe with any predilection to favor humans, or that the aspirational goods are evident in any way, much less predominate.

Bottom line is I think we are very intelligent talking monkeys in clothing, and those in power have been sufficiently smart in controlling people to value moral equality and legal
equality to a degree that most people can survive in this world. There is no guarantee that some despot might not take the reins and decide the best path forward is purging,
violation of rights or eugenics or any other atrocious practice. It's happened before, universal self evident truth or not. If a thing is universally truth, it would be universally the case
without the need for philosophers to write it down in treatises or constitutions or political pamphlets.

 

[Drummie123]

This Marjorie Taylor Greene meltdown reveals an uncomfortable truth about Christianity (msn.com)

[FONT="]“You should practice the basic thing you're taught in church: respect your neighbor,” Dingell shouted. Greene blasted back, “Taught in church, are you kidding me? Try being a Christian and supporting life!" Dingell responded, “You try being a Christian... and try treating your colleagues decently!”[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]Dingell thinks being a Christian means being neighborly and civil. Greene thinks being a Christian means attacking anyone who supports abortion rights. But they both agree that being a Christian is morally good, and that Christianity is virtuous.[/FONT]

Christians aren't perfect.

Just forgiven.

 

[Cypress]

How could there be data? When people started living in large groups, it required them to establish rules. Hammurabi set up a code in about 1800 BC. Those rules still work . They were based in need. You could not start to build cities without rules. It would be bedlam. We needed regulation and punishments for those who broke them. It has nothing to do with religion or god.

Laws dealing with crime such as theft, murder, rape are not exactly what I am talking about. What I am taking about is beyond the realm of administrative sanctions petty crime and property damage.

I am saying a higher moral consciousness is not a matter of mere opinion.

>>https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...as-a-monopoly-on-virtue&p=4699790#post4699790

 

[Micawber]

I am saying a higher moral consciousness is not a matter of mere opinion.

Ask Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson and Stalin. They may have helped an old lady across the street at some point, but you get my drift.
Just because you enjoy a moral compass unerringly pointing due north doesn't mean others do. A universal truth should be universally observed, right?

 

[Drummie123]

An interesting OP. I think this twat is a Governor somewhere.

I get the impression that the new Gov of NY (after Cuomo) may not be ready for Prime Time.

It's like she is trying out a new advertising pitch and doesn't know how stupid it makes her sound.

And it will actually piss off anti-vaxxers. AND Christians. And real Americans.

The government needs us to start getting in the habit of complying with government edicts.

Converting America to Socialism or Sharia depends on it.

See how they use rubber bullets on anti-vaxxers in Australia to get them to comply?

That's a preview of what Biden & crew have in mind for us.

 

[Cypress]

Well chalk it up to my tabula rasa and Lock me in. Mind that I think part of the perception is the perception we have that is passed through to us via our dna contributions of each parent, including instincts, reflexes, all the biological things that occur without our conscious choice. Nature & nuture stuff are both still perceived and affect belief, IMO.

I guess the important thing is we both get to those aspirational virtues despite disagreeing as to causation. The degree of evil in the world, the lack of order both cause me to have grave
doubts there is a benevolent parental unit watching over the universe with any predilection to favor humans, or that the aspirational goods are evident in any way, much less predominate.

Bottom line is I think we are very intelligent talking monkeys in clothing, and those in power have been sufficiently smart in controlling people to value moral equality and legal
equality to a degree that most people can survive in this world. There is no guarantee that some despot might not take the reins and decide the best path forward is purging,
violation of rights or eugenics or any other atrocious practice. It's happened before, universal self evident truth or not. If a thing is universally truth, it would be universally the case
without the need for philosophers to write it down in treatises or constitutions or political pamphlets.

I am not going to categorically rule out that reality is nothing more than quarks and leptons, and that any attempt to fathom a higher truth and meaning to existence is a futile excercise based on mere opinion.


But to me, the abolitionist movement, the Nuremberg trials, the fight against apartheid were perceived by humanity to be so powerful because they spoke to something we only know by intuition. Something we cannot measure with mass spectrometers or particle accelerators.

 

[Drummie123]

This Marjorie Taylor Greene meltdown reveals an uncomfortable truth about Christianity (msn.com)

[FONT="]“You should practice the basic thing you're taught in church: respect your neighbor,” Dingell shouted. Greene blasted back, “Taught in church, are you kidding me? Try being a Christian and supporting life!" Dingell responded, “You try being a Christian... and try treating your colleagues decently!”[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333][FONT="]Dingell thinks being a Christian means being neighborly and civil. Greene thinks being a Christian means attacking anyone who supports abortion rights. But they both agree that being a Christian is morally good, and that Christianity is virtuous.[/FONT]

If America was filled with nothing but Mormons, Americans would be much nicer to each other.

 

[Cypress]

Ask Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson and Stalin. They may have helped an old lady across the street at some point, but you get my drift.
Just because you enjoy a moral compass unerringly pointing due north doesn't mean others do. A universal truth should be universally observed, right?

The fact that Stalin and his Soviet lackeys went to great lengths to hide what they were doing suggests to me they intuitively knew they were in flagrant violation of a universal moral consciousness.

The world only really learned about the Gulag through Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents.

Thank you for engaging me with some thoughtful exchanges.

 

[Mr.Badguy]

If America was filled with nothing but Mormons, Americans would be much nicer to each other.

People in cults generally are nice to each other.

 

[Micawber]

I am not going to categorically rule out that reality is nothing more than quarks and leptons, and that any attempt to fathom a higher truth and meaning to existence is a futile excercise based on mere opinion.


But to me, the abolitionist movement, the Nuremberg trials, the fight against apartheid were perceived by humanity to be so powerful because they spoke to something we only know by intuition. Something we cannot measure with mass spectrometers or particle accelerators.

OK then you rest assuming what you seek to prove, or in fact don't really seek to prove.
If what we are talking about is intuition, or something that cannot be measured, we are not in any debate of my understanding. I actually respect you more for the several
admissions you made. Usually that is not the case. In fact nothing is more precious to me here than a rational admission. It's the rarest of things on the internet.

I will admit if God appears then I will have been wrong. If he appears magical,
I will believe in magic, and if a moral code ever is shown to be more than an abstraction, held by him on stone tablet I will obey this cloud man,
or a secular Platonic form representing pure unadulterated reason, if you prefer.

Until then my moral compass is the one I was taught to believe in and provides for the rights of the unequal, because they were largely fucked over in every other respect.
I cannot disprove some higher moral plane exists outside the natural world, I can only line up evidence.
So we are basically not playing on the same field. Acts that comport with our conception of virtue exist as do those as to vice.
as such the case is not self evident. What you call intuition I call learned behavior and genetic inheritance.

 

[Cypress]

If America was filled with nothing but Mormons, Americans would be much nicer to each other.

Tolerance and diversity are other values I believe in, and I think it is reasonable and rational for me to believe in it, even though I cannot prove them by empircal data and the experimental method.

 

[Micawber]

The fact that Stalin and his Soviet lackeys went to great lengths to hide what they were doing suggests to me they intuitively knew they were in flagrant violation of a universal moral consciousness.

The world only really learned about the Gulag through Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents.

Thank you for engaging me with some thoughtful exchanges.

I'm not sure how evidence (secreting it) points to an intuition in another's head, since you are talking about intuition helping discern a higher truth.
You have a lot of intuits!

I think your case is better here, but still it is equivocal. I could equally argue someone who violates a code
is doing so to avoid the social consequences of doing it. Dahmer possibly was not wrestling against his intuitive sense
of a higher and virtuous moral code when he was eating the corpse of his gay lover in the house instead of on a park bench.

And thank you also. Been fun. But now I am procrastinating. At least its friday.