No absolutely not. Why did you get the impression? I am not moral just to fit into society, I am also not morally different in a significant way.
I mean, we all are morally different but not in the sense you just meant it.

I am a standard human being. I dont wanna harm anybody and dont wanna be harmed. I love my girlfriend and my daughter. I can laugh about myself, I enjoy good jokes. I dont steal, I help others in need. Just a nkrmally functioning human being.

You know, it is really interesting for me to see how the brain of religious people seems to work oftentimes.
How you read through my text and instead of really thinking about it seriously, maybe taking something with you do widen or even questuons parts of your personal view, you suck it all up and conclude that I am an amoral being.

I made so many arguments against your lest response and showed you how humans normalized killing other animals, how they kill each other and so on.

Sometimes its good to get another view point to see yourself from somewhere else and think about ehat you see. Its like seeing yourself on video. Please my advice, read again and try to reflect instead of reject.

I know, that when you read what I write you only look at how to could oppose it. Dont do that, try to look at as new input. I dont say you have to agree with me, but its healthy to look at it all as new information as a first.

Let me add because I forgot that: Yes I reject any moral highground and also the existence of absolute good and evil.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 9 2023 11:53pm

I think you are misinterpreting what amoral means. I'm not saying you are a bad person-- if that is how you took it.

Amoral is the belief that absolute morals don't exist which is what you said two or three times. Being "moral" is a description that describes a "good" action or ethic. Immoral is a description that describes "bad" or "wrong" actions or ethics. Amoral is the rejection of the terms of absolute good or evil. If you took offence to the word, I apologize. It is the usage of the words in their understood terms.

Perhaps to continue the discussion of absolute morality (which I think we both agree on the definition), may I ask if we could go into an extreme example? I think there is a large agreement among all developed nations that pedophilia is wrong. It is in the strictest sense of the word wrong. Not just "relatively wrong", but disgustingly wrong.

If you hold to the position that "absolute morals do not exist", may I ask how you feel towards pedophilia? Is it "wrong because society has deemed it wrong", or is it "wrong because it's socially unacceptable?"

During ancient times, there is unfortunately many cases of pedophilia being part of the norm. In fact, in the Bible, it is often mentioned that Mary and Joseph was probably a case of a 14 or 15 year old girl, and a 25+ year old man. As a Christian, it is one of those topics that come up as an awkward thing to explain-- usually we say it is a cultural thing. To this day, I have no good way to explain or justify these kinds of ancient cultural practices, but I am up for discussion and I do not hide from it.

In your view, if culture was "accepting" of relationships of 14 year old girls and 25+ year old men, would that be "accepting" to your moral standards too? How would you approach cultural differences in morality, especially in moral situations that are sickening to today's standards? In Laos, they eat dog meat as a cultural norm. I think in most western societies, eating dogs is considered animal cruelty. If there is no "grounding" or even the abstract theory of moral high ground, who is to say what is truly right or wrong? (Deep down we both agree pedophilia is wrong, let's agree on that so this doesn't go sideways too quickly!)

This post was edited by dajusta on Mar 10 2023 01:01am

Day 17: The Name

At the inauguration of a king of Israel, the Israelites would offer a prayer like Psalm 72. This prayer was not only an acknowledgement of the king, but also expressed a set of expectations and criteria for their leader. The king was viewed as the means by whom blessings came to the people from God and he was expected to uphold divine standards of justice and righteousness. Looking to the king for compassion and deliverance for the weak was not naive or wishful thinking, but a hope rooted in the character of the one who had anointed him. The God off Israel is by nature a rescuer and helper to the helpless, so must the king be. Prayers for the endurance of the king's name were based on that expectant hope, that the king would fulfill his commitment to the weak, so prayers for him meant safety and happiness for all.

From then until now, however, no king or leader has ever been able to fulfill these divine standards. Today many have lost faith in our leaders and distrust them all, while others spend their lives and money promoting this name or that name as the one who will finally save us. As followers of Christ, we can know that God has given us the One in whose name the needy, poor and helpless will truly find deliverance. We can know that in Christ, we have a king who is not only concerned with our needs and suffering, but compassionately identifies with them. We can know that in Christ, prayers for the flourishing of his name and reign will mean peace and blessing for all. Do you know that the King truly cares for you and all of your needs? Have you called on his name?

Psalm 72:12-19

For he delivers the needy when he calls,
the poor and him who has no helper.
He has pity on the weak and the needy,
and saves the lives of the needy.
From oppression and violence he redeems their life,
and precious is their blood in his sight.

Long may he live;
may gold of Sheba be given to him!
May prayer be made for him continually,
and blessings invoked for him all the day!
May there be abundance of grain in the land;
on the tops of the mountains may it wave;
may its fruit be like Lebanon;
and may people blossom in the cities
like the grass of the field!
May his name endure forever,
his fame continue as long as the sun!
May people be blessed in him,
all nations call him blessed!

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel,
who alone does wondrous things.
Blessed be his glorious name forever;
may the whole earth be filled with his glory!
Amen and Amen!

Stay tuned for day 18 of 40.

Amorality is definitely a negative term as it describes someone who does not care about morals. If you didnt mean it in a negative way, thats fine but it is definitely not a neutral description.
I am absolutely not amoral, I care a lot about the subjective morals in my life.

Pedophilia is a psychic disorder which sexually attracts people to children. Its not wrong, its just an illness which is not harmful or illegal in any sense as long as you control it.
I guess what you mean: It is wrong is when someone actively lives out that illness instead of seeking help.
Yeah thats wrong in our society, of course. No question about it. But why should that be wrong in an absolute sense? There is also lived out animal pedophilia. Do you care about it? Do animals care about humans raping children?
Does the universe care? No one cares except for us because its happened in our society and we protect our children from harm. Its a totally social thing.
There are unfortunately even human societies still today which accept pedophilia and sex with children.

So no, there is no such thing as an "absolute" greater than life wrongness about it.

To make it clear: I personally am of course against pedophilia. I have children myself, I have been a child myself and I know that children do not have the mental capacity nor the body developed enough to have sex. Its harms children physically and it harms children mentally, so its not acceptable for me and should not be acceptable for our society. But again, thats our society and we of course protect our children.
Again, it is wrong because it harms US.

We kill millions of little 6 week old baby cows and baby sheep every single day, we boil lobsters alive, we did breed around with wolves until we got degenrated lifeforms like a fancy little chihuahua, just because we like to carry them around in our bags today.
Everything is fine for humans as long as its doesnt harm their species and they have fun. Thats the reality of morals.

Of course the hypocrits in western societies cry when other cultures eat a cute dog - while while they themselves eat and slay millions of cows and pigs each day - because they love there degenerated dog breeds so much..which they basically enslaved thousands of years ago. I mean, if you cant see through that I dont know what else to say, my friend.

There is no absolute morality, we live like we want to. Just like any other animal.

1. i suppose we can close this topic as most likely impossible to resolve. we can call it one of lifes little forgettable mysteries?

2. clearly google understands there is a difference between atheist and antitheist. my experience I also contend there is a difference. i suppose we can also call this topic unresolved if you still want to insist they mean the same thing although its not what definitions say.

3. i never said "idiot" as i believe its a spiritual problem not an intellectual problem.

4. ya its an interesting kinda dilemma? and doesnt look like science is going to be able to do it either. but its been along time since i looked into it
"Science is nothing but ordinary men and women at work. They arent magicians, you know? Its normal dudes." (to bad more people didnt understand that)

5. by definition yes. you know everyone else understand what i am saying here? do i really need to post the definition of supernatural again?
su·per·nat·u·ral
/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
adjective: supernatural

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

6. because you cant and your weaseling out of it? (lol dont remember what this topic is about and just not interestd at the moment to go back)

7. the beginning of a friendship

8. your a science guy but you dont believe any thing. you have said there is no evidence for God. did you believe that statement.
there is nothing in science that troubles my belief did you not claim to be a science guy?

looking for truth is a "waste of time"?

it doenst look like science is going to explain first life among other things and that is knowledge. there is implications to that and your just going to walk away saying "o well not my problem" that sound a lil crazy? it appears to me you have a subjective rejection of God but dont have a objective scientific rejection.

lets revisit. gravity wells
that gravity slows down time. that the universe is all different ages depending where your at in it. it can be old and young at the same 'time

I am tracking with you, in that you believe there is no absolute morality, and you find core reasoning to guide your morals in terms of harm and keeping people safe.

I guess to sum up the morality argument for the supernatural moral agent is this: if there is at least one absolute morality, that should point to a supernatural moral agent in the universe. Just one absolute moral, not needing for us to discuss a thousand cases of actions or behaviour. Could you agree with me on this "theory"? I know you have already cited your beliefs, that you don't believe absolute morals exist-- that's fine. But could you see the logic at least? If at least one absolute moral exists, then that should point to the grounded nature of morals, in other words, that there is a moral agent outside of humanity that has instilled morality into humans.

If needed to contend with you on which absolute moral, I would cite the morality of harm. It seems to be so universal, so widely acknowledged, you yourself stand on this moral yourself. Here is how to properly test this theory.

In World War 2, many Jews were dying needlessly at the hands of Nazi Germans and the forces of Hitler. From their own government, they were killing and murdering Jews. It takes the confrontation of other countries, acknowledging what Nazis were doing is wrong, so they stopped them. Ignoring the fact that Germany was trying to invade Poland and other countries, if Germany was only targeting its own civilians, would you choose to intervene in another countries' affairs, asserting "moral authoruty" and citing what Nazis are doing is "wrong"? If so, how do you do that without acknowledging moral high ground?

I argue that humans can only intervene in moral dilemmas if one party has established moral high ground, and without it, its simply just one's arbitrary thoughts and preferred actions. But, then if truly arbitrary, a Nazi would easily tell you that you're wrong and they may assert Aryan-based morality upon you. How could you prove he is wrong?

Without the human understanding of absolute morality (whether if it exists or not could even be another story), how could one human ever assert judicious action towards another morally different person, especially if they come from two vastly different belief systems?

If this conversation on morality does not gain traction, I'm willing to forfeit the talking points. So far we've talked on the theory of the supernatural, the Big Bang, and now morality. We need not to dwell on areas that will never gain traction, and I think moving onto more suited topics is good-- an argument from intelligent design.

This post was edited by dajusta on Mar 10 2023 10:41am

We should really move on...its hard to even respond to this (sorry for the rudeness) nonsense without being a raging asshole, but I try to.

I mean how could you ever see humans having a moral high ground for anything if we on our very own destroy all the infrastructure on earth, all the environment? We let our own fellow humans starve and die all over the world although we could easily feed them all without a problem. Where are these absolute morals. Where is the intervention?

We kill millions of animals each and every single day as I mentioned before. We even kill each other, we torture each other, rape each other.

What about the Nazis themselves? Were they not normal people? Where was their "moral highground"?
Do you think they were born monsters? No they were not.
Their society normalized murder, thats all.
They have been lied to. They thought what they did was right, the normal soldiers didnt even realize they were actively supporting genocide.
99% of Nazis were people like me and you.
Their society normalized killing others, raping others, torturing others, enslaving others.
No absolute moral compass told them that it was wrong, they thought they were the good guys until the very end.

Some humans live in cannibal societies btw. Still to this day.
They eat humans and thats part of their morality.
Its the right thing to do, they do not question that at all.
There is no moral compass dude. Wake up.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Mar 10 2023 01:39pm

Day 18: The Chosen Servant

In previous chapters, God through the prophet Isaiah has been building a case; he says that though we pursue false idols, they continue to delude, enslave and ultimately fail us. In this passage, God's chosen "servant" is called to bring about justice and free those bound in "the dungeons" (v. 7). This was the lesson for Israel and remains the lesson for us today.

The nature of idolatry is that we worship and serve that which does not deserve it. At the heart of the Christian message, however, is that Jesus Christ "the Chosen One," who truly deserves worship, has served us first.

How can we know God's pleasure in such a way that we begin to replace the idols in our lives with true worship? In verses 1-4, we are taught to "Behold" the one in whom God himself "delights." To behold means to both see and consider. Isaiah calls Israel to see and consider the Lord through his servant; appointed by God, and supported by his Spirit. In beholding this servant we are able to clearly distinguish what is real from what is counterfeit, a "metal image" full of "empty wind" (Isaiah 41) to a Spirit-filled servant who has come in the flesh (John 1). This servant, who has from afar long beheld us, knows that we are wounded and always on the verge of losing hope and will complete his task with the gentleness of a friend (v. 3). Behold the pleasure the Son found in serving the Father even unto death, for you. Then, "delight" in Jesus and be free.

Isaiah 42:1-9

Behold my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him;
he will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry aloud or lift up his voice,
or make it heard in the street;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a faintly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
He will not grow faint or be discouraged
till he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law.

Thus says God, the Lord,
who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people on it
and spirit to those who walk in it:
“I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness;
I will take you by the hand and keep you;
I will give you as a covenant for the people,
a light for the nations,
to open the eyes that are blind,
to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness.
I am the Lord; that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to carved idols.
Behold, the former things have come to pass,
and new things I now declare;
before they spring forth
I tell you of them.”

Isaiah 41:22-24

Let them bring them, and tell us
what is to happen.
Tell us the former things, what they are,
that we may consider them,
that we may know their outcome;
or declare to us the things to come.
Tell us what is to come hereafter,
that we may know that you are gods;
do good, or do harm,
that we may be dismayed and terrified.
Behold, you are nothing,
and your work is less than nothing;
an abomination is he who chooses you.

Stay tuned for day 19 of 40.

Sir, my eyes are awake, I am getting to something very critical. Please give this consideration, as it is very important before moving on. Remember what I said in my initial post about two common pitfalls, one is on the micro morality and one is on the macro morality. Here is the quote:



You've enacted this common pitfall, as pointing out today's society there are many people who murder, rape, and steal, and you've insinuated that there is no absolute morality due to the presence of so much harm and suffering.

This is a fallacy, nor even the crux of the moral argument. For example, let's say being "healthy" is the topic. People could discuss which food categories are "healthy", and discuss about what exercises are "healthy", etc, but no one would ever say "look at this world, so many people are fat and unhealthy, therefore "healthy" does not exist! In other words, the existence of unhealthy people does not invalidate the abstract concept of being healthy. Today, I think we could say there is such a thing as a "healthy" high ground (if you may). Could a healthy doctor and nutritionist say to an unhealthy person, "I think you need to do more exercise" while standing on healthy high ground? I think so.

Essentially, I think you've discredited the possible existence of absolute morality simply by looking at the immorality that is so pervasive in this world. Many immoral actions do not invalidate the existence of absolute morality. There are people who know it's wrong, they just choose to act against it. There are also people who think they are doing right (in many cases) yet we know they are still in the wrong. The German general, Hagenbach, claimed he was just following orders and should not be convicted to the war crimes he was charged with. In the end, he is still held accountable to his actions, since he was the one who sent millions of Jews to die. He can weasel as much as he can, saying how innocent he is and that he was only following orders, but at the end of the day, a judicial court standing on moral high ground has the logical authority to condemn Hagenbach to his war crimes.

Let me quote the other pitfall that I think you are falling into:



I see you've committed to these errors, despite me writing them prior to your comments.

You pointed out there are cultures that eat each other, and also cultures that kill each other, and cultures that commit genocide, therefore how can there be an "absolute" moral system?

Please, I am trying to write this as specific as I can: the acknowledgement of an absolute moral system does not establish which current moral system is right, it need not to find a perfect moral society. Rather, the acknowledgement of absolute morals is the mere start of grounded morality to allow meaningful discussion on what is truly moral or immoral.

I agree with you there are cultures that have "twisted" ritualistic practices. They do probably think they are "normal". But only by holding to absolute morals could we ever say "hey, child marriages are wrong!" and "you should not be fighting amongst yourselves and eating one another!" Absolute morals give justification to intervention.

In this world, we definitely see lots of suffering and not enough intervention. Does that outrage us? Yes, it should. Ironically, that points out to us that immorality is truly despicable, and we both hold a moral compass to react negatively to disastrous human behavior. Just because others in this world have no moral compass does not invalidate the existence of one.

There may be other pre-suppositions that you have that muddy the conversation further. You might say "if morals are absolute why doesn't everyone have them? if just one person that has NO moral compass exists, then that invalidates absolute morality!"

Again, that is not the definition of absolute morality. That is again looking at micro morality pitfall. Absolute morality is not dependent on the validation in humans. It is the argument that because it is outside the human control, that it points to a supernatural moral agent.

If morality was dependent on validation on humans, then it is truly arbitrary-- no different than kids governing themselves on a playground and setting for themselves rules. "Jenny can't use the swings because she's a red head!"-- who gives this rule authority? The biggest kid? The loudest voice? The highest majority of kids?

It is my belief that this world is not a massive playground where the rules are arbitrary. There is truth to this world, truth of absolute morality, truth to the morality that we ought to not harm each other. Though I cannot define absolute morality to its entirety, it is still an abstract ideology necessary for pursuit as it creates the basis for rejecting immoral behavior with true, un-arbitrary meaning.

Thank you for reading thus far, and if this truly was not gaining any traction whatsoever, then I apologize.

This post was edited by dajusta on Mar 10 2023 06:19pm

We are going in circles and you and you great "pitfalls" to support your narrative. This is honestly crazy. Those arent pitfalls, those are hints to the truth of them not existing and it should alert you. If absolute morals exist, then they dont work - which could suggest that they probably just dont exist? Ever thought about that?


Health is an adjective to describe a functioning body. Thats it. Why should health not exist? What comparison is that?
We KNOW health exists, because a lot of people are in fact healthy. There is damn question if it exists or not. We advocate for people to be healthy because it helps them survive. We are back at the point of wanting to live long, painless and in shape.

Absolute morals on the other hand are just some incredibly stupid and illogical religious construct.

There is ZERO logic behind it. The ONLY punishment for law violations are always and without exception coming from our own societies - and they differ from country to country, because WE made laws to keep US safe.
No higher power from outside sets rules and no higher power from outside punishes us for anything. We are immoral as a society and not just single individuals.
I have to use the following example for the 3rd time, but we kill other life forms FOR FUN. And we are - aside from a few exceptions - all okay with it. I am okay with it, you are okay with it. All of us.

I mean, you can think that absolute morals exist(the sound of the term alone is stupid) which you obviously do, but it is by far the stupidest argument out of all pro-god arguments out there. Its is absolutly pointless.

You guys are apparently just hoping that someone guides us and therefor come back to this crazy argument over and over again without a single shred of a foundation. Its enough.