Tradesecret asks..I answer

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 42
Topic's author
#1
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
How can I tell what is right and what is wrong? What is the measuring tool of such  value statements?
And moreover, by what measure are you going to use to determine whether my believe is reasonable or not? 
How can I tell what is right and what is wrong?

You don't need to know how -  you can tell right from wrong already!   

You can tell squares from circles but you don't know how - it's basically 'circles look like circles and squares look like squares'.  Your brain is wired-up to tell shapes apart and your brain is wired up to tell good and bad apart, or more accuratey wired up to judge things as being somewhere on a good-bad/right-wrong scale.

What is the measuring tool of such value statements?
i think you are asking what tool is used to determine what is good and what is bad.  Well, it's not really a tool.  judging thing as good or bad is a function of how you brain is wired up.   Most brains are wired up to judge mugging an old lady to as a bad thing; if you have a brain wired differently you are a danger to society.

what measure are you going to use to determine whether my moral judgement belief is reasonable or not? 

Note I'm answering out of the original context.  
I have implied moral judgement is instinctual, that it is unconscious and outside our control.  And so it is.  You cannot change your opinion on capital punishment by will power alone.  But what we can do is use the rational part of our brains to check, confirm or override our intinct.  Being disguted by homosexuality is not a choice - refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is.

#2
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

Topic's author
#3
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another"
I find it really hard to untangle the way that passage ends.  I think it is saying that everyone - ie jew and gentile - will be judged againt the same standard.  it clearer with more context.
Romans 2
"11 For God does not show favoritism.12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)"

#4
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, yes, sure enough.

The point is that yes, even the gentiles or yes, even atheists, can by nature do the good that the law is meant to steer people towards.

However, as it is later written in the same letter...


"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."


So what is the advantage? What does that mean?

Those entrusted with the oracles of God have a teacher and a guide. It accelerates the development of those with rather than without.



And as someone who has really had to figure out things the hard way, I know. You couldn't just tell me something was good or bad, I wouldn't believe it till I saw it. I didn't really respect any authority other than my own, so I had to personally witness things for it to all really come together. The reason it did? Because even at my most rebellious, I still loved the truth. Loving the truth allowed me to see the folly in things that at first I saw no problem with.


But besides these issues of morality, the greatest error I ever made from leaning on my own understanding was that there is no God.

Truly, God does exist, and it is the worst kind of error to think otherwise.


#5
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10


#6
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
Yeah...

Then we have the more rationally sane explanation: An atheist and a catholic walk into a bar. They both agree that it's morally right to tip the bartender. The catholic said it's because "God" is with both of them, and guides their thoughts, even if the atheist doesn't believe it. The atheist said it's because they're both human, therefore they have the same instincts. One of these arguments can be proven correct. The other one can't. Which one should we believe? The proven one? Or the unproven one?
#7
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
I always thought the argument from morality is just a weak argument. There's no reason to believe that without a God people can't have a moral code or instinct. Not to mention how irritating it would be for an atheist to be told they can't have a moral compass without God. It's just dumb TBH. 
#8
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Having said that, spirituality maximizes each of our abilities and expressions of compassion an all directions as it should, doesn't mean that it was not already there, it just challenges the individual to maximize those qualities. Or, it should anyways as we all know there's plenty of evil religious folks. 
#9
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Prove it. Your cakeshop philosophy is infantile.
#10
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Definition of proof courtesy merriam-webster...

"the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact."


The funny thing about when someone demands proof is that they are really demanding that someone change their mind!

All one has to do is simply reject all evidence that contradicts their viewpoint, and they can maintain "There is no proof!" 


In other words, demanding proof is an arbitrary thing, because something is not proof to an individual until they change their mind. If a nihilist demands proof, they are simply making a pretense in order to appear scientific when they are in fact foundationally anti-intellectual.






#11
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The funny thing about when someone demands proof is that they are really demanding that someone change their mind!
Nah just proof. As someone whose entire life is predicated on ignoring proof and creating lies you need to evade such a request.
Topic's author
#12
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
@disgusted
I've noticed people only ask for proof when they know full well there isn't and can't be any.

To which someone may well reply 'Prove it!'.

#13
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
You would have to be blind to not see that there is more solid evidence for God's existence than literally anything else that can be known scientifically.

Topic's author
#14
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Then there must be an awful lot of blind people around. 

Are you sure it's not you that is blind?

#15
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
I am certainly not blind to this.

Topic's author
#16
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You're certain?

Prov 16:18: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.


#17
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
It is not prideful to be certain of God's existence.

It is prideful to deny the existence of God.

Topic's author
#18
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
I'm glad you aren't insulting me or I'd take exception to being called blind and prideful!

I don't think you are blind or prideful... just wrong!

#19
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Well, you think I am wrong, I know you are wrong.


And I know you are wrong just as you would know I was wrong if I said 2 + 2 = 23


There can be no doubt about God's existence. If there is doubt at all, you don't get it.

#20
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
There is no doubt that men created all gods, it is pure wilful ignorance to deny this.
Topic's author
#21
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
There can be no doubt about God's existence. If there is doubt at all, you don't get it.
What you don't get - or possibly don't admit getting -  is that what has to exist isn't necessarily a god.


#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
To us Orthodox Christians, The Ultimate Reality is God.

So when you say there is no God, you are saying there is no ultimate reality.

And that is always what that will mean to us. 

And as much as we have talked, I really feel you out of everyone on this forum should know better. 
#23
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Snow can mean soot to you but who gives a fuck? You can't prove that anything you believe in is even real much less true.
#24
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Nothing can be proven to the nihilist, they will simply reject everything.
Topic's author
#25
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
So when you say there is no God, you are saying there is no ultimate reality.
No, I am saying the ultimate reality is not a god.

#26
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
The Ultimate Reality is God.
And from the same source a Sasquatch is a 4.6mtr tall primate.

Sasquatch
a hairy creature like a human being reported to exist in the northwestern U.S. and western Canada and said to be a primate between 6 and 15 feet (1.8 and 4.6 meters) tall.

You need to get out more
#27
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You can't prove anything to anybody because you have no proof, I don't why you continue to claim that I'm a nihilist when I've disabused of that claim already. Your claim, therefore, like all of your claims becomes redundant and meaningless.
#28
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
You are right. It is not a god. There is a difference between "god" with a lower case "g", and "God" with a capital "G".


The Ultimate Reality is God. And you can deny this all you want, but you are wrong. If you maintain this, you are being superstitious.




Full Definition of superstitious.
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary





#29
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
All evidence I have seen proves to me that you are a nihilist. You certainly are not a reasonable person.


#30
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Like so many words you use you have no idea what nihilist means, so your assessment is as a fart in a bottle.Worthless.