11-12-2020 03:58 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14377) |
tgoebbles wrote:Objective morality does not require a deity. At issue is that objective morality can involve a deity, not that one is required. tgoebbles wrote: Those who describe themselves as atheist, ironically, usually reference an universal morality I do, and there is nothing ironic about it. tgoebbles wrote: ... and can read a priest the riot act on how amoral their religion is. 1) "Reading the Riot Act" is giving a stern warning to cease and desist. It is not a rebuke. 2) A religion's morality can be immoral but cannot be amoral. tgoebbles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:I doubt that's the full quote in full context.Well those are Trump's words. More total dishonesty. Step 1: Demonize someone based on something said, not anything done. Step 2: Paraphrase an absurd oversimplification Step 3: Strip away all necessary context. Step 4: Commit felony mischaracterization. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
11-12-2020 09:41 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...objective morality can involve a deity,..."Objective" by definition would be independent of perspective. So if there is objective morality then it doesn't change if someone shows up to discuss it with a deity or not. IBdaMann wrote:Well universal morality is arguably a religious belief. A religious atheist is ironic (most Atheists claim to have no "religion", not just that it's not deist).tmiddles wrote: Those who describe themselves as atheist, ironically, usually reference an universal moralityI do, and there is nothing ironic about it. IBdaMann wrote:...immoral but cannot be amoral.no real difference there. IBdaMann wrote:Try actually making your point by citing what I've done and not just pretending it's obvious.tmiddles wrote:More total dishonesty...gfm7175 wrote:I doubt that's the full quote in full context.Well those are Trump's words. |
11-12-2020 16:22 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14377) |
tgoebbles wrote: Well universal morality is arguably a religious belief. Not when it's not. tgoebbles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...immoral but cannot be amoral.no real difference there. Not if you're a moron. Learn English. Science is amoral and not immoral. tmiddles wrote: Try actually making your point by citing what I've done and not just pretending it's obvious. Try actually reading my post and not just pretending that I didn't write anything. You were totally dishonest. Step 1: You demonized Trump based on something said, not anything done. Step 2: You oversimplified in a paraphrase Step 3: You did then provide a quote but with all necessary context stripped. Step 4: You opened and closed with felony mischaracterization. ... and it's all totally obvious. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
11-12-2020 17:12 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...immoral but cannot be amoral.no real difference there. There's a huge difference, actually. A 'moral' action is a "good" or "correct" action with regard to human behavior. Immoral means 'not moral'. It refers to actions that are "bad" or "wrong" with regard to human behavior. Amoral means 'without morals'. It means than actions are neither "good" nor "bad", and are neither "correct" nor "wrong". As IBD said, science is amoral. It does not concern itself with such right or wrong behavior. It is also atheistic. It does not concern itself with God or no-God. Edited on 11-12-2020 17:23 |
11-12-2020 22:30 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Objective morality does not require a deity.tmiddles wrote:...without making any consideration to the existence of any particularly defined god/s, ....gfm7175 wrote:...morality (especially with regard to epistemology) is subjective..I don't agree but that's a broader philosophical topic. There is no such thing as objective morality. tmiddles wrote: No, honesty is a state of being. tmiddles wrote: No. You are assigning honesty as 'moral'. Honesty is not necessarily moral. You first have to define what 'moral' is. That is a subjective term. tmiddles wrote: The Church of No God is a religion. It is inherently a fundamentalist religion. Atheists don't argue about god or what is 'moral' with any particular religion. They are atheists. They have no opinion about any god or gods. tmiddles wrote: Not really. The Church of Global Warming is another fundamentalist style religion. So is the Church of Green. So is the Church of Karl Marx. tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:..."good" and "evil", in the same way that one would objectively determine "high-fidelity" and "low-fidelity" ...But good/evil translates to right/wrong. A stereo making sound and not making sound is also objective. False equivalence. You cannot compare subjective terms to objective terms. Doublespeak. tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Certainly true and one nice thing about Presidents if you have a track record and a lot to work with. Trump's interview Oreilly when Orielly called Putin a killer and Trump defended him says it all.tmiddles wrote:...Trump...Putin: Putin hasn't killed any more than most any other national leader. Trump is correct if you maintain context, which you typically don't. tmiddles wrote: Contextomy fallacy. tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:I doubt that's the full quote in full context.Well those are Trump's words. Investigate further as you please. Contextomy fallacy. tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:I precedent I should have written. He is the first US president to reject the election.tmiddles wrote:...where is the a pecedent for what he is doing? What election? Fake ballots are not an election. tmiddles wrote: There is plenty of precedence of fake ballots being cast as 'votes'. It's a habit of the Democrats. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
11-12-2020 22:36 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...objective morality can involve a deity,..."Objective" by definition would be independent of perspective. So if there is objective morality then it doesn't change if someone shows up to discuss it with a deity or not. There is no such thing as objective morality. Morality is a subjective term. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Well universal morality is arguably a religious belief.tmiddles wrote: Those who describe themselves as atheist, ironically, usually reference an universal moralityI do, and there is nothing ironic about it. There is no such thing as a 'universal' morality. tmiddles wrote: There is no such thing as a religious atheist. The Church of No God is a religion. Atheists have no religion. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...immoral but cannot be amoral.no real difference there. WRONG. 'Amoral' means no morals at all. 'Immoral' means something that goes against a given moral. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Try actually making your point by citing what I've done and not just pretending it's obvious.tmiddles wrote:More total dishonesty...gfm7175 wrote:I doubt that's the full quote in full context.Well those are Trump's words. You haven't done anything. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
15-12-2020 09:03 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tgoebbles wrote: Well universal morality is arguably a religious belief. What is your definition of "religious"? IBdaMann wrote:And we were talking about: IBdaMann wrote:...A religion's morality can be immoral but cannot be amoral.So again, what is your definition of "religion"? IBdaMann wrote: You demonized Trump based on something said, not anything done.Presidents lead with their words and making statements is doing something. IBdaMann wrote:...You oversimplified in a paraphraseHow? You failed to explain why you think so. IBdaMann wrote: necessary context stripped.Again, how? What is your point? What context is missing? IBdaMann wrote: mischaracterization.This again is as useless a statement as "you got it all wrong" without bothering to supply your version of what getting it right is. gfm7175 wrote:No it's not referring to the result but to the actor. An immoral actor is doing something they know is wrong while a amoral actor isn't considering morals at all. You are confusing the psychological motive of someone doing something with the results of their actions. A completely senseless murder can be committed by someone who is acting in either an immoral or amoral sensibility. Edited on 15-12-2020 09:07 |
15-12-2020 17:56 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14377) |
tmiddles wrote:What is your definition of "religious"? "pertaining to one's theism" tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Science is amoral and not immoral.And we were talking about: ... your stupid assertion that the words "immoral" and "amoral" somehow carry the same meaning. Just out of curiosity, who did your thinking for you on that one? tmiddles wrote: Presidents lead with their words Nope. Presidents carry out their duties, i.e. actions, to serve We the People by executing the laws as set forth by the Legislative branch as specified in the Constitution. Actions. The Constitution makes no mention of tweets. Just out of curiosity, who did your thinking for you on that one? tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:No it's not referring to the result but to the actor. You really need to bitch-slap the person doing your thinking for you because he's blowing chunks. First you claim both words carry the same meaning but now, rather than admit that you were simply mistaken you are required to double down on your claim of omniscience and defend your nonexistent credibility of always being right. Immoral: counter to morality (as Into the Night pointed out) Amoral: not pertaining to morality; lacking any morality component Asexual: lacking sexuality or any sexuality component Apolitical: lacking politics or any political component Atheist: lacking theism or any theism component Amorphous: lacking form (or structure) Asynchronous: lacking synchronicity or synchronization, or any need for such Amoral: lacking any morality component tmiddles wrote: An immoral actor is doing something they know is wrong while a amoral actor isn't considering morals at all. You're a moron. When you selected those who would do your thinking for you, you got lemons. An actor is amoral because his operating environment lacks any morality component upon which he can act (either for or against). A senseless murder is NOT somehow devoid of any morality component and therefore is not amoral but is totally immoral. Learn English. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
15-12-2020 22:46 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Ah so you would not include anything that doesn't include a belief in a "God" or "Gods" ? Your definition of "religion" is simply that it's the same meaning as Deism/Theism?tmiddles wrote:What is your definition of "religious"? IBdaMann wrote:your stupid assertion that the words "immoral" and "amoral" somehow carry the same meaning.Didn't say they were the same I said there was "little" difference in that context. IBdaMann wrote:Trump does tweet a lot. One of his favorite activities. Presidents are the chief diplomats among other duties. It makes a huge difference. Call Nazi's good people, host a screening of BIRTH OF A NATION at the white house as Wilson did. It matters a great deal.tmiddles wrote: Presidents lead with their words IBdaMann wrote:Immoral: counter to morality (as Into the Night pointed out)No those are not the definitions. You've defined the results/actions. Get a dictionary. IBdaMann wrote:Atheist: lacking theism or any theism componentSo bubble gum is atheist? Your shoes...also atheist shoes. |
15-12-2020 23:17 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Ah so you would not include anything that doesn't include a belief in a "God" or "Gods" ? Your definition of "religion" is simply that it's the same meaning as Deism/Theism?tmiddles wrote:What is your definition of "religious"? Random nonsense statements. False authority fallacies. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |