Message Turncoat in a DM to get moderator attention

Users Online(? lurkers):
Posts: 360
Moral relativism of evil

Inquirer stated: source post

I am claiming it's more logical to not assume that a creator's needed.

 

Is it?  

Righty-ho,  so  what's your take on the Uncaused First Cause, for instance?  Like,  how would an infinite (either atemporal or omnitemporal) cause produce a temporal effect such as the universe?  

I'm open to any reasoning, if it's plausible.  

Posts: 1259
Moral relativism of evil

I do not think it's logical to claim that an intelligent and aware 'designer' (with a plan) set everything up, which is what Spatial has been arguing in the past. If instead a creator could be some kind of eternal and impersonal cosmic force I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

Inquirer stated: source post

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

I did define the American dream when I said how it offers opportunity for success and wealth.

That's not a definition. I can't pick that apart and see if you have a point or not because 'opportunity', 'success' and 'wealth' are such loose terms. Give me something we can actually work with.

It is a definition.

You can pick it apart Inq. Just try.

Also I thought I said something about me catering to your laziness already.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

If it doesn't stay absolute, then it wasn't absolute to begin with. You keep contradicting yourself when you don't even believe in the existence of absolute morality, yet to you it's possible for someone to be a hypocrite over it. Paradox.

Hypocrisy is when we don't follow our moral code, be it absolute or relative. Yet Leon (and you by extension) argue that only relative morality is faced with this problem, and your argument does not prove this.

But you argue that absolute morality does not exist, yet you use it as the foundation to your argument. I understand what you're saying, but It's a paradox.

What people say about themselves is only that. If someone says they are absolutely moral, but they really aren't then sure Inq, that would make hypocrites. It would also mean they don't practice absolute morality, so you can't pin the blame on absolute morality, though you don't believe in it's existence. 

On that note I don't argue if absolute morality is real or not, I'm just commenting on your claim, and it hasn't been productive. It's worse than me having to stop, and go back and do your research for you, while you're hard of understanding my perspective to begin with.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

You'll always want more. The problem I have with that, is that it's a basic chore you should be capable of doing yourself.

We're entertained by immorality. Our entertainment gives the older generations the chills, because we've become more callous toward things we wouldn't wish upon ourselves or anyone for that matter. Men and women don't even love one another like they used to. Our environment reflects our behavior, and to talk to many people in public will make you social awkward. The list or things that don't seem to matter to you, goes on and on. This doesn't mean there's no morality.

I asked for specific arguments or points, preferably facts that can be verified, and you give me this?

 

It is a fact. The show isn't good without it's upsets. Violence, war, dramas we wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our environments.

I also mentioned there it doesn't matter to you, because it doesn't stand out what direction we're headed on that note.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Creation will never happen without a creator. Not by us, and not by the great nothing you find logical, that accidentally managed all of this. We and all temporary physical things and creatures are clearly ingeniously designed and made.

 Who created the creator? Another creator?

 

The prime creator has no end, nor a beginning.

Until science says anything about this, it's too far out for you.

 

Posts: 1259
Moral relativism of evil

Spatial Mind stated: source post

I did define the American dream when I said how it offers opportunity for success and wealth.

That's not a definition. I can't pick that apart and see if you have a point or not because 'opportunity', 'success' and 'wealth' are such loose terms. Give me something we can actually work with.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

If it doesn't stay absolute, then it wasn't absolute to begin with. You keep contradicting yourself when you don't even believe in the existence of absolute morality, yet to you it's possible for someone to be a hypocrite over it. Paradox.

Hypocrisy is when we don't follow our moral code, be it absolute or relative. Yet Leon (and you by extension) argue that only relative morality is faced with this problem, and your argument does not prove this.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

You'll always want more. The problem I have with that, is that it's a basic chore you should be capable of doing yourself.

We're entertained by immorality. Our entertainment gives the older generations the chills, because we've become more callous toward things we wouldn't wish upon ourselves or anyone for that matter. Men and women don't even love one another like they used to. Our environment reflects our behavior, and to talk to many people in public will make you social awkward. The list or things that don't seem to matter to you, goes on and on. This doesn't mean there's no morality.

I asked for specific arguments or points, preferably facts that can be verified, and you give me this?

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Creation will never happen without a creator. Not by us, and not by the great nothing you find logical, that accidentally managed all of this. We and all temporary physical things and creatures are clearly ingeniously designed and made.

 Who created the creator? Another creator?

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

Inquirer stated: source post

I do not think it's logical to claim that an intelligent and aware 'designer' (with a plan) set everything up, which is what Spatial has been arguing in the past. If instead a creator could be some kind of eternal and impersonal cosmic force I wouldn't have a problem with it.

You're avoiding her question. 

Posts: 2216
Moral relativism of evil

moonshine stated: source post

Good.  You just dig yourself  further into conflating morals with ethics without having a faintest clue of the nature of either.    And  now dropping biology too into the confusion. 

You only say good because it helps you.

In this world, only biological entities, which are conscious, utilize ethics, so there is no need to highlight and disregard this matter of fact.  My words on ethics and morality have been accurate, and remains so under your personal outlook, as follows....

 

‘Ethics’ are  constant;   abstract objects, like mathematical entities / sets / functions  -  “as mind-independent, non-spatio-temporal, causally effete, abstract entities.”   Ethics are  abstract construct. Absolute, objective, constant.

You fail to list the attributes associated with what Ethics are. Morality being one of them. Your only reason for implicating a divide, is for the sake of argument.

 

‘Morals’, on the other hand, don’t exist outside the vehicle of human condition.  Morals are a human construct - arbitrary, subjective, fallacious.

In multiple documented experiments it has been decided over and over again, that animals have morals. What's a human construct ? is personal, and it's the choices we make and the things we do that  may or may not be arbitrary, subjective and fallacious.

Morals are affiliated with progress. What is considerably good, and what produces good results in all fairness. To move forward, to advance, mental health, piece of mind, positive ethic, wisdom, intelligence, higher learning, focus without interruption, passage, the civilization that looks out for their own, compared to one that does not, is without a doubt more powerful on the "universal" food chain.

These attributes are very real. It gave you a chance to exist, and it makes your life comfortable. Without morality, we'd all be degenerates. Of course you know nothing of this, and for good reason.

 

Ethics can be contradictory of morals (depending on the given societal consensus on  morals) - same as justice vs. law, etc.  etc.

But i thought i explained all that in my previous post.

Fake again. Really it's not just me you're up against.

 

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

To you being kicked in the balls is neither moral or immoral, even if your balls stopped working, it's all one big illusion.

I’ve no balls.  Try pussy next time?

That explains a lot. Thanks.

 

 

 

 Spatial Mind stated: source post  

Then what do you make of bad ethics ?

No such thing.  See above.  

This made me laugh. So by your logic, there is no such thing as bad ethics and all ethics produce positive results and it can never be moral, cause moral is something else you say.

I understand your outlook, it's the outlook that we are truly deluded and the truth of us is lifelessness and that we're hollow on the inside, regardless of what result a good environment prevented us for going crazy from infancy into adulthood.

 

 

 

     Spatial Mind stated: source post 

     "The biggest threat to human beings as far as your vision goes, are immoral human beings."

^

Why are you putting words of your own into my mouth?     

Didn’t i say morality is arbitrary, subjective, ephemeral and irrational?  I did.  Your morality is the next fellow’s immorality & vica versa.  

More bull following mere opinion. I challenge you to give and example of this. Paint a picture.

 

 

          Spatial Mind stated: source post 

         " Counter productivity will absolutely never be rational, and rationality is synonymous with morality. To move forward, to create, to expand, to advance. This is rational."

^

Meanwhile on Earth, in real life,  the agenda of counter-evolutionary counter-productive destructive irrationality is pushed  by the moralist compassion-industry,  chanting the demented madness-mantra of “moral duty  /  shared values / moralduty sharedvalues” yada yada.    If you persist asking them the WHY question, their answer invariably reduces to “butbutbut…  hooman”   <  see my prev. post regarding taboo, idolatry, sacred cow = superstition.  

No known examples and I disagree again.

 

(Yes,  i’m using the current mass-migration to illustrate the point, for simplicity's sake.  In case if it wasn’t apparent.)   Do you live on Planet Zorg? 

I never had the chance to comment on it, and you're asking me this in advance. That is a sign of impulsive thinking, which is highly prone to reoccurring error.

By your logic, the delusion of morality will magically be useful to refugees. Or by no means would morality play any role in fixing their lives, which probably doesn't matter, and the situation is neither good or bad, and having their homes destroyed and nation in ruin is the same.

I'm sure if it happened in your yard and you lost everything, you'd be just fine about it, and those who destroyed your life are all okay folks because morality and immorality are nothing but figments of social construct by your logic. For now you'll indulge in the computer while not taking it for granted.

 

        Spatial Mind stated: source post 

        "If Morality were obsolete it wouldn't just hinder our progress, it would reverse it and we'll drop like dead flies."

^

But that’s precisely what’s happening.  ‘Morality’ hindering progress,  towards the point of no return.  People dropping like dead flies, etc.

There are more people alive today, then in all of our known history even, with modern fatal events. So, no again.

 

 

 

           Spatial Mind stated: source post 

           "At my age and experience"

^

Enjoy  your youth while you have it.  Climb trees or whatever.  One day you’ll hit 18, 20 & so on - there’ll be a time for grown-up stuff like this later, no need to rush.   

 

But what I said, and what you did not quote still holds merit. You're smart enough to avoid defending your own pettiness it seems. A snide remark really is the best you can do.

 

 

Primal is not my sock, btw.

 

You'd be combating the dictionaries definition of Moral and Ethic if it were.

Still a sock regardless. Different perspectives but all the same to me.

Posts: 1564
Moral relativism of evil

Relative morality IS the very thing you theorize about "hypocritical absolute morality", which has no static foundation, It's counterfeit morality. It's us and not them, or me and not you. Relative morality is willing to change to suit itself, while morality remains the same. There is no hypocrisy in morality. 

 

Then be so kind as to be clear and concise and define the parameters of Morality. The last several pages have been nothing but dancing around the mulberry bush an assumption of an 'intelligent' designer./ creator.' 

For what it's worth, it seems the morality more often than not is based on subjective experiences of guilt and regret, and may or may not be based on the effects on the other but the self. 

Posts: 5426
Moral relativism of evil

Poor Inky...

Posts: 1259
Moral relativism of evil

Spatial Mind stated: source post

It is a definition.

You can pick it apart Inq. Just try.

Also I thought I said something about me catering to your laziness already.

Come on. Your argument, your responsibility. I also have this feeling you'll just go "oh, but I never said it meant that" if I try to define it in terms that can be compared to Libya.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

bla bla bla

On that note I don't argue if absolute morality is real or not, I'm just commenting on your claim, and it hasn't been productive. It's worse than me having to stop, and go back and do your research for you, while you're hard of understanding my perspective to begin with.

Leon (and you by extension) argue that only relative morality is faced with this problem (hypocrisy), and your argument does not prove this. I'm saying people that adhere to either absolute or relative morality can be hypocrites. Absolute morality by itself (without people) cannot be hypocritical, and I never claimed that.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

Inquirer stated: source post

I asked for specific arguments or points, preferably facts that can be verified, and you give me this?

It is a fact. The show isn't good without it's upsets. Violence, war, dramas we wouldn't wish it on ourselves or our environments.

I also mentioned there it doesn't matter to you, because it doesn't stand out what direction we're headed on that note.

It is not a fact. First of all, you simply assume violence in movies is bad without proving why that is by pointing to its effects (effects that can be measured). Secondly, you do not show why the overall evolution of morals is declining. Your opinions are not facts, yet you treat them that way.

 

Spatial Mind stated: source post

The prime creator has no end, nor a beginning.

Until science says anything about this, it's too far out for you.

But it doesn't have to be 'intelligent'. 

Posts: 360
Moral relativism of evil

I only meant it in jest as a taunt, but oh well… 

Inquirer stated: source post

 an intelligent and aware 'designer' (with a plan) set everything up  

That’s an anthropomorphism, those are handy for the grappling and processing of alien concepts. Like, that’s why we picture God with a white bushy beard.  A shortcut, or pictogram.  Spatial does it too, with the ‘intelligent creator" spiel. 

Inquirer stated: source post

impersonal cosmic force 

That’s still an anthropomorphism of sorts, but much closer for comfort to conceptualise:

Inquirer stated: source post

 Who created the creator? Another creator?

Yep, very correct question. 

If you take the time and look at the nature of things - time and space, that is - you come to the stumbling block of infinity, which is the sole common denominator.  

With our knee-jerk linear thinking it is  past / future (time), or inward / outward (space.  With space we tend to look outward by habit, but if you go inward, it’s the same rabbithole as you keep zooming in in the subparticular direction).   Rationality dictates there’s no end point in either direction.   

There’s nothing to support that any of it is of linear nature though,  it could be fractal-like all the same - or an iced donut or a möbius strip or any other conceivable formation.  Still the rabbithole of infinity applies.  

Or if you take a tidy line of natural numbers like 5 6 7 8 9 etc, well that’s neat and …linear, or what?  But if you throw a division in the wheels,  you fall down the rabbithole of decimal fractions whose number is infinite, through and through.  If you think of it,  between 0,0000000000…1 and 0,0000000000…2 there is infinity and it sort of makes you question the whole point and purpose of our decimal numerical system, other than for measuring a bag of rice.  

If you keep square-rooting a natural number ad infinitum,  you will never reach zero, no matter what.  (And i don’t even quite know what to make of zero, to begin with).  

 

" Who created the creator? Another creator?"

^  That sounds more of a fractal  matter.   (It’s when i try to think about fractal matters when i say “FUCK THIS SHIT, let’s have a bacon sarnie”.)  

 

(Adding for semantics’ sake, ima pedant like that - on time’s infinite nature,  i nick some quotes: 

  •  Omnitemporal: 

“One way would be to exist omnitemporally—that is to say, at every point in time. And if time is extended infinitely into the past and into the future, then a being which existed omnitemporally would exist without beginning and end. He would never come into existence or go out of existence; he would exist permanently.”  < that is, “from eternity past into eternity future”,  as in 'omni-present'.

  • Atemporal (‘timeless’):

“On the other hand, a being could exist eternally, without beginning and end, if such a being were altogether timeless; that is to say, a being which completely transcended time, which had no temporal location and therefore no temporal extension but just existed outside of time, would have neither beginning nor end. Such a being would simply exist in a single, timeless ‘present’, if you will.”  

^ In effect both states are infinite,  probably just the conceptual flipsides of the same coin. 

   

Anyway.  By the look of it,  the only rational conclusion is that the nature of reality is  infinity - and it doesn’t make sense.  The more you think of it the less sense it makes.   Like trying to hammer a round peg into a square hole. 

I tend to think that is because the human brain is not equipped to grasp the sense of it, it’s a broken toy of sorts. 

I also tend to think that to bridge the irreconcible gap between reality’s rational nature (infinity) and our incapability of processing it by our rational means is  what requires that “leap of faith”  which is the presumption (premiss) of God.   It’s like an algebraic constant (like the fibonacci curve in Spatial’s avi), omnipresent yet you can’t pin a name (number, value) on it. It is what it is. An absolute and a constant. It reveals itself yet you can’t catch it.  In that context the white bushy beard doesn’t seem halfway as stupid to pin on it as it may seem at first.   Just a shortcut like Pi.

 

(I just pulled it all out of my arse as i was typing it (except the quoted part), so i may have to edit the whole thing.  I’ve no dogs in the race so to speak on either side, only curiosity.) 

 

This site contains NSFW material. To view and use this site, you must be 18+ years of age.