Current Events > Do you believe in objective morality

(+) Yeah! (+)

no, something like a live sacrifice is bad. Objectively.

Yeah well you think black tea is cold

Nothing wrong with prophecies, dont let some people get you down bud

It's not even new prophecy. Just what is recorded in Revelation

Dreepapult posted...

What I would want or have an opinion of is irrelevant

Covenant with the Father is not an open discussion of terms.

He says these are my Laws. If you keep and obey you will have eternal life.

Well if we're going by what's in there...

The Torah explicitly endorses slavery by providing guidelines on how to treat your slaves, including when it's acceptable to sell your own daughter into slavery. Do you support slavery?

It explicitly says homosexuals are to be put to death and it's their fault for getting killed. Do you support killing the gays.

If no, thank you for not being a bloodthirsty monster, but this means going against god's wishes. You can justify your answers if you want, but please start them with a yes or no.

But you seriously need to calm down

We're on a message board on the Internet

Free and open communication

I made a joke to try to be funny and you flipped shit

Oh and that was meant for Ash if that was unclear

Chill out

Damn

I think you also thought you were responding to me there?

You were quoting David 1988 not me lol

Dreepapult posted...

I think you also thought you were responding to me there?

You were quoting David 1988 not me lol

Wanna take a shot at my previous questions?

It's like 3 hours later

And that doesn't even really make sense. Much of morality has been based on various religious systems. How would The topic at hand not have anything to do with religion?

I got the @ Dreepapult, we'll continue it here where it's more appropriate.

Dreepapult posted...

I'll try to explain.

He'd rather you repent and follow what he says.

I know you would say nothing to repent of. Won't get into that.

Kind of have to if you want honest debate, and are not just being a mindless drone.

No brushing it off like it's small potatos, especially giving life is at play here. And our current zietgeist/environment.

Dreepapult posted...

I've done plenty that deserves death according to the Law. We all break plenty of his Law on a daily basis. What matters is the heart and intent of the heart to follow His Law.

I don't know if that makes any sense or not.

In other words, what matters is the intent to obey. Obey, no questions asked.

Don't get confused in the notion of being allowed a mistake here or there, as proving virtue... mercy.

Because it's not, at the end of the day, it's still kill gay people unless they repent.

No, that is a dangerous mindset. Especially when you can't justify it in the slightest. "Just is, the book says!" Is not a well thought out justification.

Address the issue of something being handled by humans, being able to be altered too... you could easily be being mislead. And that is outside of whether your personal religion is true or not. Could be both. With a sad fact of humans altering things to fit their selfish goals being a thing that could and does happen. Humans are imperfect like that.

I felt I expressed what I could within the TOS. I'm not going to get into deep theological discussion especially on some of the stuff like that. It's going to get me into trouble and there's a good feeling that that is all you're really trying to accomplish.

Dreepapult posted...

I felt I expressed what I could within the TOS. I'm not going to get into deep theological discussion especially on some of the stuff like that. It's going to get me into trouble and there's a good feeling that that is all you're really trying to accomplish.

Sounds more like either you're unable to reconcile your positions or you know the answers to my previous questions are "Yes" and you feel uncomfortable with that.

https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/torahaccuracy/

This gives a breakdown of the proof texting required in Torah. It seems like it's probably pretty accurate

yes

Dreepapult posted...

I felt I expressed what I could within the TOS. I'm not going to get into deep theological discussion especially on some of the stuff like that. It's going to get me into trouble and there's a good feeling that that is all you're really trying to accomplish.

I'm not. PM if you want. I won't report.

I just believe religious people, and people in the LGBQT community can coexist with one another, and do in some communities. Regardless of which umbrella of religion you fall under, so to speak...

As in, they don't agree with that portion of the bible/book/Torah. Not every religious person is so rigidly close minded.

Dreepapult posted...

https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/torahaccuracy/

This gives a breakdown of the proof texting required in Torah. It seems like it's probably pretty accurate

It's what you're told, yes. By imperfect humans. Who can be mistaken, and/or do malicious things. Who handle these things.

It's arrogant of you to think you can't possibly be wrong. You're human too, not a God. You're not perfect, can be wrong. Shocking I know.

It applies to me too though, but I do give you room to justify yourself here.

https://youtube.com/shorts/PvrT9Vva2js?si=jSV1I9RLhxrGmpYN

I'll let someone much more well versed in Torah than myself give my final thoughts on the matter. I think it's a very interesting way to look at things. But I really don't feel there's much more we can discuss here that will be productive and not just cause upset. Especially those that aren't even directly involved in our conversation.

Immanuel Kant argued for objective morality based on synthetic apriori. He cited mathematics as an example of synthetic apriori. He said we understand the observable universe through maths, maths comes about through logical statements, therefore it's possible to know objective reality, including things impossible to observe, strictly through intellect. If maths is an objective reality we understand through deduction, then it is possible to deduce objective morality through the same process.

His mistake was that maths is a tool used by science to model observations. If the observation is incomplete, the model is incomplete. It's impossible to observe everything because we are limited by time and space in our ability to observe.

Furthermore, Kant heavily cited Euclidean geometry as an objective reality. He had limited knowledge of maths, so he didn't know about Topology, a non-Euclidean geometry whose very existence refutes the supposed universality of Euclidean geometry. For example, it's possible on a hyperbolic surface to have a triangle with internal angles less than 180 degrees, something that goes against the Euclidean triangle angle sum theorem that the internal angles of a triangle always equal 180 degrees.

TLDR; No, I don't believe in objective morality.

@ethansilver

If you get a chance watch the video, it's only about 45 seconds long. I would be legitimately curious your thoughts on the matter. It's not probably what you would expect from me given how our conversations seem to be going.

BB_mofo posted...

His mistake was that maths is a tool used by science to model observations. If the observation is incomplete, the model is incomplete.

Mathematics is largely independent of empirical observation (and of science, for that matter), and it's still the quintessential example of a priori knowledge.

The capacity to deduce mathematical truths a priori, however, doesn't automatically entail a corresponding capacity to deduce moral truths a priori. Mathematical realism doesn't necessarily lead to moral realism.

Dreepapult posted...

https://youtube.com/shorts/PvrT9Vva2js?si=jSV1I9RLhxrGmpYN

I'll let someone much more well versed in Torah than myself give my final thoughts on the matter. I think it's a very interesting way to look at things. But I really don't feel there's much more we can discuss here that will be productive and not just cause upset. Especially those that aren't even directly involved in our conversation.

Seems like a good guy. Vibes I get from him.

Best possible interpretation I can give that is that said person, gay one, won't be punished, not necessarily.

As the heart of the matter is in doing the best you can. As many "Mitzvos" as you can.

But again, it doesn't address my concern. The justification for being against it in the first place.

Especially when such things are handled by humans, who are not perfect by their very nature. Mistakes, alterations for personal motives... errors are possible, as we shouldn't expect perfection from humans anyway.

And that's not touching on the mental abuse if can lead to, when you have to deny your existence.

And, again, I'm not saying the religion is false. That would be arrogant of me, but so to in saying no mistake is possible with things handled by humans.

Debate, discussions... should be allowed and encouraged with these things. I mean, we were given a brain to think things through with...

These issues are not small potatoes, especially for some people.

No matter where you are from or what your political stance is, the one thing we can all come together to agree on is that pedophilia is bad.

Gravity is objective but you can find humans that think it doesn't exist... We experience morals subjectively until we can measure the immergent property/law of physics determining the moral system [imo]

If we find alien life or sentient ai emerges with the same types of morality, would you lean toward an objective morality?

The_Wheelman1 posted...

No matter where you are from or what your political stance is, the one thing we can all come together to agree on is that pedophilia is bad.

not according to the philosophy friends here.

Don't murder or steal from the tribe I think is probably universal

I don't think objective morality exists.

We barely even understand ourselves and our brains.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Agreed. Or... one can't control one's thoughts, but they can their actions.

And shaming them might lead to mental anguish, because again, it's something they can't control, which can break some... even to the point of lashing out in negative ways. And who are you helping out then by being a douche?

Just some food for thought.

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't think objective morality exists.

We barely even understand ourselves and our brains.

Is the second statement relevant to the first?

I don't think such a person necessarily has any trauma underlying it

Doe posted...

I don't think such a person necessarily has any trauma underlying it

Nor would it matter, to the overall point.

One can't control thoughts, so to speak, they can actions.

Yes.