Discussing - Because that feels bad for oneself, and since I…

Because that feels bad for oneself, and since I don’t want that on myself, I don’t want to inflict that upon others either, as most don’t. Generally, giving it a “would I be okay in that situation” perspective tends to be helpful.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

5 Replies

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1mo1MO

All you've said is that you shouldn't inflict pain on others because it hurts others and you don't like getting hurt yourself. So essentially all you've said is "you shouldn't inflict pain because you shouldn't inflict pain!" Which is blatantly circular reasoning.

▲ 4 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…1mo1MO

If you don’t like it yourself, it is mutually beneficial for all to agree not to inflict pain on one another, both because the risk for yourself of feeling pain is high, and because society has agreed mutually that inflicting pain is just inherently not good for the community or the people at large, because that can start fights that hurt everyone, and because we have evolved a tendency to not like inflicting pain upon others. I refuse to have to redefine every last aspect of morality to explain my side here, I can have solid morals without religion in this case, and I’m tired of these ridiculously recursive arguments that you and I have on this subject.

▲ 3 ▲Reply to this Agree 1 Disagree 2 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1mo1MO

The reason you're tired of these "ridiculously recursive arguments" we have is because you don't have a clue how to respond to them. And it's impossible for morality to just mean "what is mutually beneficial for society" and I can prove it. Imagine a random guy on the streets accidentally trips you, and you fall to the ground, hurting yourself, but he sincerely apologises. Are you angry with him. No, of course not, if you're a decent person, it was an accident and he said he was sorry. But suppose another random guy on the streets deliberately tries to trip you, but fails. Read moreThen you're angry with him, and have good cause to be. But why? In the first instance, a man actually physically hurt you, yet you did not angry at him. In the second instance, you were not hurt at all, and yet you're angry at the man who failed to inflict injury rather than the man who actually did. Why is this? Why are you angry at the one who did nothing to you but not with the one who inflicted harm upon you? Because the first, as he accidentally produced the offence, was not in violation of the Moral Law God established. But the second, even though he failed in his attempt at mischief, did in fact violate this law, which 999 out of 1000 people have some basic awareness of ingrained by God into their conscience. Obviously then, Right cannot merely mean what is good for society, and Wrong cannot merely mean what is bad for it.

▲ 6 ▲Reply to this Agree 4 Disagree 1 Link Context •••Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow 1

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…1mo1MO

I cited effect as one of many factors, though I find it to be one of the biggest pieces. Morality came from our evolved senses and thoughts over the course of our existence, forming from emotions, logic, thoughts, desires, and yes, in part, religions that created set codes. Its origin and evolution points only partially to god during the age of European dominance over the northern hemisphere. A higher power was used as an explanation and simplifying factor for what we couldn’t understand about our own minds and thoughts. Morality is very much objective, but decisions made using differen… Read moret moral principles will very much differ, as our realities are based upon assumptions about what is factual, and are therefore liable to extreme amounts of faultiness regardless of what most people think.

Morality may be complicated, but it’s not subjective, and simplifying it down to religion to make it more palatable and clear as an objective thing doesn’t make religion its source. Every logical argument for god must come with assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven, while god’s existence requires empirical proof that cannot be proven or disproven, merely putting us at a stalemate of finding whatever information we can that would be somewhat close to empirical, hence, this conversation where both of us attempt to use logic as if it’s empirical, then use assumptions to claim it is.

There are very much rational explanations for these things, the fact that intent plays a role in what is bad or not is just one factor, the same way as effect is. You play religious moral codes as your personal set of assumptions since they’re more concrete and attempt to clarify the complicated concepts of morality itself, though I do not because I’m more inclined for a case-by-case perspective without a strong moral code, since those codes are capable of shattering in the face of things with extreme amounts of convolution or nuance. You claiming religion as the sole factor of morality is rather similarly over-encompassing as you view my own thought process of labor being the source of value (though that’s a very different discussion). I do not place any one factor as the main determinant for morality, the same as you don’t, but you play into that assumption that I do in order to make these arguments using scenarios look strong when, in reality, it misunderstands a large part of what I actually believe. Humans react these different ways in our lives because we have evolved emotional, logical, and moral systems over our lives that create our own objective morality. Other intelligent beings might not have the same values, but, if morality was completely uniform, then all rational morals would align perfectly in existence without any contradictions, but it does not, because what is subjective for us with our reasoning might have a different result with different objective reasoning for others.

In short, morality is a massive debate built on a thousand factors, imaginations, and ideas of what is and isn’t right or wrong. For our own evolution, we have an objective moral basis because our neurological system has evolved a relatively uniform set of ideals of basic right and wrong, which we expound upon with attempts to better understand morality in that framework, or create sub-frameworks like religion or moral codes that can, often, shatter when faced with nuance of the wrong nature. That’s why I’m tired of these arguments, because we can have the same information, the same knowledge, the same species, and still have wildly different conclusions, so the entire point of these arguments is just your explanation of why a god is somehow the source of our own understanding since we cannot disprove the supernatural, and cannot prove it either. I’m sick of these arguments because I despise having to look ridiculously far inward to explain basic right and wrong, as it’s both something you’re doing entirely for the sake of trying to get your opinion to come out of my mouth, and because I’ve heard your same information a thousand times. It’s annoying, you’re not getting anywhere, and I gain nothing from the discussion of this subject except acknowledging complexity of our existence.

▲▲Reply to this Disagree 1 Link Context •••Agree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…1mo1MO

I cited effect as one of many factors

Apparently you forgot to provide other factors. If you'd like to do so now, please do, I'll be glad to debunk them.

Morality came from our evolved senses and thoughts over the course of our existence,

Begging the Question again. (I'm noticing a trend.) This is what we're supposed to be debating. You're not supposed to be spewing it as if it's some accepted fact. I provided powerful evidence against it, which you've chosen to largely ignore, and not answer logically, instead just restating the very thing we're discussi… Read moreng.

Every logical argument for god must come with assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven,

I just proved God to you two months ago using the Laws of Logic. You had no rational rebuttal. Have you forgotten that...? Also, even if you believe God is not real, you capitalise the names fictional characters, like Darth Vader, and Santa Clause do you not? And yet, out of sheer disdain for religion and unwillingness to consider its arguments, you've decided not to capitalise "God" when you are indeed talking about the specific Christian God? Why is it you are so hostile to Christianity that you want to dispose of grammar rules just to make yourself feel better? And was this written by AI?

There are very much rational explanations for these things,

Good! Then why haven't you given me one? All you've done is muddied the waters of this discussion through dodging my questions and obfuscating the subject matter. None of my claims in the previous comment have been addressed. You keep claiming that "Thousands of factors" affect morality, which is really just a fallacious and arbitrary Rescuing Device you're using to escape accountability for your views of morality. How great for you. By claiming there are thousands and refusing to define any of them, you escape logical criticism, without having any answer for morality. You may not be ready to consider Christianity yet, but I just want you to be aware that what you have done here is avoid a discussion that happened to show something very wrong with your worldview, and when a worldview can land you in Heaven or Hell, why would you not want to exercise the utmost care in ensuring it can adequately answer the most fundamental questions of human existence, and why would you not, finding a religion that can adequately describe that which your own worldview cannot, take some time to consider the arguments offered by it?

I’m sick of these arguments because I despise having to look ridiculously far inward to explain basic right and wrong, as it’s both something you’re doing entirely for the sake of trying to get your opinion to come out of my mouth, and because I’ve heard your same information a thousand times. It’s annoying, you’re not getting anywhere, and I gain nothing from the discussion of this subject except acknowledging complexity of our existence.

You've acknowledged the complexity of our human existence and yet refuse to even consider for a fleeting moment the solution, which is incredibly simple, that I have offered that resolves every one of these paradoxes, obviously out of emotion rather than logic. The simple solution is this – God is real. It solves ALL these problems. It is not rocket science. Most human beings across all ages have innately understood that there is a god of some sort, and I have not only proven that, I have proven that it must be the Christian God? What's your issue? Why won't you consider this? I am asking not to annoy you, but because I don't want you to burn in Hell for eternity. It's out of humanity and empathy that I am asking you to consider these things, it's not a personal attack or an annoyance at all. I have no problem reading through your comments attacking my faith, because I have an answer for them. And you seem greatly annoyed reading through my comments questioning your naturalistic worldview. Why are you annoyed and not me? Because I have answers, and deep down inside you know you do not.

▲ 4 ▲Reply to this Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Mute author Follow

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this comment.

@9CJ6CB6

Last activeActivity1,502 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias2%Active in

PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

5 Replies

About this author

Discussions

Voter guides

Data & analytics

Candidates

About