[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
murdering an innocent baby depends on what, society, or evolution, so one day you could think its acceptable and begin practising it?

Yes, a population's concept of morality is a social construct. Is that getting through now?

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by DomPugh)
Yet you say it was okay at the time because society said it was okay, surely thats subjective?

Confusing.

no, I have always said it was objectively wrong.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
Yes, a population's concept of morality is a social construct. Is that getting through now?

yes, but i can't believe what im hearing, you would begin to MURDER innocent babies, if evolution or society allowed for it.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
abraham was being tested, and it wasn't a baby.

I didn't say it was a baby, I still feel it is relevant. I also acknowledge that God stopped him, I'm aware that it was a test. This wasn't the point. The point was, were Abraham's intentions immoral even though the instructions came from God?

the abrahamic god hasn't asked mankind to sacrifice babies

Correct. I didn't say that the Abrahamic god has, what I'm saying is that he killed them himself and that other gods have asked mankind to sacrifice children.

im sure thats the Pharaoh killing all the baby boys..

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...30&version=NIV

Since you're incapable of reading, I'll grab 12:29 straight out for you.

"At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well."

(Original post by SexyNerd)
yes, but i can't believe what im hearing, you would begin to MURDER innocent babies, if evolution or society allowed for it.

That's not what he's saying. Gofre has his own moral code that says it's wrong to murder babies. Therefore, he doesn't do it. If society were to say 'killing babies is right' tomorrow. He still wouldn't do it because his moral code is SUBJECTIVE, IT COMES FROM HIMSELF.

[DomPugh]

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't! I cant beleive what I AM hearing!

[R.P.Everything.]

Regardless of whether you believe morality is objective or not, I find it hard to reconcile an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God with both moral and natural evil.

I can't see a omnipotent, omni-benevolent God standing by whilst 6 million of his chosen people die at the hands of the Nazi's. How anyone can argue, even subjectively that the Holocaust isn't evil - I just don't see it happening.*

I can't see a omnipotent, omni-benevolent God standing by whilst people suffer from natural evils either. Why would he create such a broken and flawed world to begin with? To have the ability to write science - a loving creator could create tectonic plates that don't cause earthquakes, or to create a weather system that doesn't cause extreme flooding or drought.

I don't buy the argument that suffering is a test from God too. God already knows everything you have and will do - he knows exactly how you would respond in a situation of great moral dilemma. Yet, he still has to go ahead and let it happen, despite knowing the outcome already. Pointless - testing a pupil who you already know will succeed or fail. God certainly has a cruel sense of humour if he is using suffering as a test.

*By evil, I take the logical definition: destructive and causes suffering.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I didn't say it was a baby, I still feel it is relevant. I also acknowledge that God stopped him, I'm aware that it was a test. This wasn't the point. The point was, were Abraham's intentions immoral even though the instructions came from God?

it was a test, god would not have made him do it... because god determines morals, it wouldn't be, but that would go against the nature of god and wouldn't/hasn't happened.



Correct. I didn't say that the Abrahamic god has, what I'm saying is that he killed them himself and that other gods have asked mankind to sacrifice children.[/QUOTE]

Since you're incapable of reading, I'll grab 12:29 straight out for you.

"At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well."

i can't speak for the bible, i don't believe in it.

[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
yes, but i can't believe what im hearing, you would begin to MURDER innocent babies, if evolution or society allowed for it.

I did not say that at all, you moron.

Either you're so thoroughly inept at debating this subject, blinded by your own preconceptions, or just trying to misrepresent my arguments in a steady stream of strawmen to make me look like an dick. Whatever the case you're obviously incapable of actually holding a discussion with so consider this my final response.

So here's a final summary in the hopes that it penetrates to the vacuum that resides between your ears and manages to trigger the right neural activity: I would not kill babies, I believe it to be an abhorrent idea and as you can probably tell I find the very insinuation extremely insulting. What I am saying is that moral codes are determined by social progression. This is patently obvious when you look at the history of species as we become more and more civilised barbaric practices of all stripes have died out- at one point or another infant sacrifice, human bloodsport, genital mutilation, cannibalism and so on have all been acceptable to one culture or another. This is not the same as me saying I advocate their behaviour. I was saying that their morality is determined by cultural norms and social pressure, and in that sense it is fundamentally unrecognisable compared to the objective moral code you are positing in their place, the two are completely incomparable.

Declare yourself victor if you want, I'm fed up of pigeon chess.

Good luck Hype

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
That's not what he's saying. Gofre has his own moral code that says it's wrong to murder babies. Therefore, he doesn't do it. If society were to say 'killing babies is right' tomorrow. He still wouldn't do it because his moral code is SUBJECTIVE, IT COMES FROM HIMSELF.

he said it came from evolution, so if he evolved in that way, he would.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
I did not say that at all, you moron.

Either you're so thoroughly inept at debating this subject, blinded by your own preconceptions, or just trying to misrepresent my arguments in a steady stream of strawmen to make me look like an dick. Whatever the case you're obviously incapable of actually holding a discussion with so consider this my final response.

So here's a final summary in the hopes that it penetrates to the vacuum that resides between your ears and manages to trigger the right neural activity: I would not kill babies, I believe it to be an abhorrent idea and as you can probably tell I find the very insinuation extremely insulting. What I am saying is that moral codes are determined by social progression. This is patently obvious when you look at the history of species as we become more and more civilised barbaric practices of all stripes have died out- at one point or another infant sacrifice, human bloodsport, genital mutilation, cannibalism and so on have all been acceptable to one culture or another. This is not the same as me saying I advocate their behaviour. I was saying that their morality is determined by cultural norms and social pressure, and in that sense it is fundamentally unrecognisable compared to the objective moral code you are positing in their place, the two are completely incomparable.

Declare yourself victor if you want, I'm fed up of pigeon chess.

Good luck Hype

so if society said it was o.k, you would?

answer my question, stop avoiding it.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
Yes, a population's concept of morality is a social construct. Is that getting through now?

here, we can see that you have said that killing babies is o.k, if society or evolution determined it.

post 61

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Gofre)
Good luck Hype

I've said pretty much all I have to say. Just a few nuances to clean up. Godspeed.

(Original post by SexyNerd)
he said it came from evolution, so if he evolved in that way, he would.

I don't think he meant social evolution in the literal Hamiltonian sense of behaviours. More the progression of society.
Even if I was wrong and the former was true, it wouldn't matter. Gofre's finished evolving. He's here, he's born. It's his descendants that will evolve.

(Original post by SexyNerd)
it was a test, god would not have made him do it... because god determines morals, it wouldn't be, but that would go against the nature of god and wouldn't/hasn't happened.

Are you incapable of understanding the difference between intentions and actions? Whether or not God let him do it is irrelevant. I'm asking about the morality of his intentions.

i can't speak for the bible, i don't believe in it.

What do you believe in then, just for my own curiosity?

(Original post by SexyNerd)
here, we can see that you have said that killing babies is o.k, if society or evolution determined it.

post 61

Once again, that's not what he said. "A POPULATION'S morality". What that society as a whole considers moral. Not him individually. He has already said that he thinks that killing babies is wrong, therefore, if society permitted it. He wouldn't do it. He's saying that population would think it's okay, not that the action itself is okay in his, or present society's, moral system.

[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
so if society said it was o.k, you would?

answer my question, stop avoiding it.

You really are stupid.

To quote myself one last time "I would not kill babies, I believe it to be an abhorrent idea and as you can probably tell I find the very insinuation extremely insulting."

Now go and learn how to read.

[tazarooni89]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
no, I have always said it was objectively wrong.

Here's an interesting exercise:
Try writing out a short explanation as to why killing babies is wrong.

As soon as you've done this, I'm quite confident that I'll be able to show you the subjective element in your explanation. But if it is objectively wrong, it should be possible to explain why it is wrong, without needing to refer to anything subjective.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
You really are stupid.

To quote myself one last time "I would not kill babies, I believe it to be an abhorrent idea and as you can probably tell I find the very insinuation extremely insulting."

Now go and learn how to read.

print screen

[Gofre]

(Original post by SexyNerd)
print screen

Congratulations on uploading a screenshot, it only took you about four attempts!

Unsurprisingly you've misinterpreted what I said, deliberately or otherwise. Either way it's evident by now trying to convince you otherwise is a waste of time.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I've said pretty much all I have to say. Just a few nuances to clean up. Godspeed.


I don't think he meant social evolution in the literal Hamiltonian sense of behaviours. More the progression of society.
Even if I was wrong and the former was true, it wouldn't matter. Gofre's finished evolving. He's here, he's born. It's his descendants that will evolve

.


see attachments below

Are you incapable of understanding the difference between intentions and actions? Whether or not God let him do it is irrelevant. I'm asking about the morality of his intentions.

there is a big difference between intentions and actions. morality doesn't apply to god, god created them (morals).

What do you believe in then, just for my own curiosity?

mankinds natural way of life.

Once again, that's not what he said. "A POPULATION'S morality". What that society as a whole considers moral. Not him individually. He has already said that he thinks that killing babies is wrong, therefore, if society permitted it. He wouldn't do it. He's saying that population would think it's okay, not that the action itself is okay in his, or present society's, moral system.

no, he said it would be fine.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by Gofre)
Congratulations on uploading a screenshot, it only took you about four attempts!

Unsurprisingly you've misinterpreted what I said, deliberately or other wise. Either way it's evident by now trying to convince you otherwise.

ad hominem

what you said is loud and clear

(Original post by Xotol)
wait so u think killing babies is o.k.

Spoiler:

Show

indeed he does.

[SexyNerd]

(Original post by tazarooni89)
Here's an interesting exercise:
Try writing out a short explanation as to why killing babies is wrong.

As soon as you've done this, I'm quite confident that I'll be able to show you the subjective element in your explanation. But if it is objectively wrong, it should be possible to explain why it is wrong, without needing to refer to anything subjective.

god

[Xotol]

(Original post by Gofre)
x

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
x

wait so u think killing babies is o.k.

Spoiler:

Show