Aggrad08 said:

---

You can't deduce anything about morality from the natural order of things. It's the is-ought problem brought up by Hume long ago and never since addressed.

No matter what, you have to make a subjective assumption at your foundation before you can attempt to deduce good or evil.

But again this conversation is wholly off topic. And like I recommended you before just use the search feature to see how this one plays out.


Towards the topic of IFV it's a side show.

---

You can deduce an intelligent design. If we didn't know anything about TVs, we'd still know that it's a product of intelligent design, and could we know anything about how it's SUPPOSED to work based just on what they do? Would you say a TV is in proper working order if the screen was broken? If I took it to a repair shop and said my TV isn't working properly, they wouldn't say well we can't know how it ought to work. It's pure speculation to say something like that it's not working properly. We only know that it doesn't turn on. But we can't assign a valuation like 'not working properly' to it.

shack009 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

So things you want to do or have happen to you = moral.
Things you don't want to do or have happen to you = immoral?

---

Incorrect. You cant ask me a single specific question and extrapolate that answer to define my entire world view on such a complex topic. It doesn't work that way.

---

Yeah man postmodernism is so complex. You have made numerous truth claims in this thread while not believing truth exists. You've disproven your own world view and do so basically every time you post and/or open your mouth.

That is a fact, because truth exists.

---

Truth exists. Moral truth does not exist. You haven't paid attention to anything I've said.

---

Ok so how do you KNOW truth exists but KNOW moral truth does not exist? I'm genuinely curious to understand your reasoning.

---

Define moral truth.

And expound on all permutations...

Please.

---

Moral truth is the objective nature of rightness and wrongness. We know things to be right because they are intrinsically good and wrong things are intrinsically evil. We can use reason and logic to understand the order of nature and whether something is ordered (good) or disordered (bad). That which is good and ordered generally respects the dignity of human life, which is sacred. We know this because we observe that humans are unique and distinct in nature because of our ability to logic and reason and create with intelligence unlike any other in nature. And yes, we also know we are unique in nature because we are made in the likeness of God.

---

A loving couple having a child together- intrinsically good

A loving couple having a child together through IVF - intrinsically bad

Ag with kids said:

---

shack009 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

austagg99 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

So things you want to do or have happen to you = moral.
Things you don't want to do or have happen to you = immoral?

---

Incorrect. You cant ask me a single specific question and extrapolate that answer to define my entire world view on such a complex topic. It doesn't work that way.

---

Yeah man postmodernism is so complex. You have made numerous truth claims in this thread while not believing truth exists. You've disproven your own world view and do so basically every time you post and/or open your mouth.

That is a fact, because truth exists.

---

Truth exists. Moral truth does not exist. You haven't paid attention to anything I've said.

---

Ok so how do you KNOW truth exists but KNOW moral truth does not exist? I'm genuinely curious to understand your reasoning.

---

Define moral truth.

And expound on all permutations...

Please.

---

Moral truth is the objective nature of rightness and wrongness. We know things to be right because they are intrinsically good and wrong things are intrinsically evil. We can use reason and logic to understand the order of nature and whether something is ordered (good) or disordered (bad). That which is good and ordered generally respects the dignity of human life, which is sacred. We know this because we observe that humans are unique and distinct in nature because of our ability to logic and reason and create with intelligence unlike any other in nature. And yes, we also know we are unique in nature because we are made in the likeness of God.

---

A loving couple having a child together- intrinsically good

A loving couple having a child together through IVF - intrinsically bad

---

Yes, you skipped the part about the is-ness of IVF.

A loving couple could adopt a child born of rape but it doesn't mean the rape was good.

Bob Lee said:

---

wtmartinaggie said:

---

I didn't say that at all. Like not even close. If you took the time to read and process the conversation you'd understand that. For example, literally three posts above I said this:

Actually, he didn't. He expressed that there were consequences for acting immorally with intent and allowing it to poison one's soul and their future intentions, but he also presented a pretty solid pathway to absolution and forgiveness for one's sins. In fact, there are several situations in which those around Jesus ridiculed him for expressing a willingness to look beyond the sins of those around him because he could see beyond them where they could not.

---

This feels like being dangerously close to promulgating the sin of presumption.

Edit: IVF is bad. We shouldn't do it. The people who have are not irredeemable.

---

That's good to know.

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Why do you get to decide what's right and wrong? You certainly think your moral view is THE right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's inherently flawed. Your beliefs are based on your own experiences. Others have based their beliefs on their experiences. Why do you get to claim you are right and they are wrong?

Bob Lee said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You can't deduce anything about morality from the natural order of things. It's the is-ought problem brought up by Hume long ago and never since addressed.

No matter what, you have to make a subjective assumption at your foundation before you can attempt to deduce good or evil.

But again this conversation is wholly off topic. And like I recommended you before just use the search feature to see how this one plays out.


Towards the topic of IFV it's a side show.

---

You can deduce an intelligent design. If we didn't know anything about TVs, we'd still know that it's a product of intelligent design, and could we know anything about how it's SUPPOSED to work based just on what they do? Would you say a TV is in proper working order if the screen was broken? If I took it to a repair shop and said my TV isn't working properly, they wouldn't say well we can't know how it ought to work. It's pure speculation to say something like that it's not working properly. We only know that it doesn't turn on. But we can't assign a valuation like 'not working properly' to it.

---

You really can't. You can infer it, as a matter of opinion, but no you cannot at all demonstrate that a universe must be designed. Evolution works as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life without any divine intervention whatsoever.

In your example we know people create TVs. We know how TVs work, and can conclude if a TV is working as intended. We do not know that "Gods create universes", we do not know how universes work or can conclude if ours is working correctly.

We can't even conclude that it was designed with us or life in mind. Google the weak anthropic principal.

But even if I grant a creator, you still don't have objective morality. There you will need to look up Euthyphro's dillemma.

And as I tire of repeating myself, look up an old thread, your argument has been done before, it doesn't work.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Why do you get to decide what's right and wrong? You certainly think your moral view is THE right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's inherently flawed. Your beliefs are based on your own experiences. Others have based their beliefs on their experiences. Why do you get to claim you are right and they are wrong?

---

Again what you said is true. But someone's beliefs can be untrue. Some cultures believed human sacrifice was necessary for the crops to grow. How do we know their beliefs weren't correct? We know because human sacrifice and crop cycles are completely unrelated.

Crops grew? Sacrifice worked! Crops didn't grow? Need more sacrifice!

We know there is nothing about human sacrifice that advances human flourishing, therefore human sacrifice ought not exist.

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Think we have found the guy who is in most desperate need of a blow job!!

---

I love when guys who abuse themselves while watching pron 10 times a day, chuckle about how sexually frustrated guys who have 5+ children are. I'll pass on the bj. But thanks anyway.

---

If you have that many children to raise, then why are you on here preaching to all of us. You should be spending your time raising your children and being a good parent. We all know that child neglect is immoral.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Why do you get to decide what's right and wrong? You certainly think your moral view is THE right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's inherently flawed. Your beliefs are based on your own experiences. Others have based their beliefs on their experiences. Why do you get to claim you are right and they are wrong?

---

I don't get to decide what's right and wrong. I'm subject to the same precepts as everyone. We have a purpose. To the extent we do things to that end, we're doing good things. To the extent we're doing things to frustrate our purpose, we're not. This is true of everything we know about. If a tool does what it was designed to do, and we use it properly, it fulfills its purpose, but when it breaks or we abuse it, it can't or doesn't do what it was designed to do. The idea that you can't make ought claims is rooted firmly in the idea that we are purposeless, in which case everything we do is pointless. Which leads to despair.

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Think we have found the guy who is in most desperate need of a blow job!!

---

I love when guys who abuse themselves while watching pron 10 times a day, chuckle about how sexually frustrated guys who have 5+ children are. I'll pass on the bj. But thanks anyway.

---

If you have that many children to raise, then why are you on here preaching to all of us. You should be spending your time raising your children and being a good parent. We all know that child neglect is immoral.

---

If I told you they were all frozen, and living in my freezer indefinitely, that would be okay though. Right?

I agree. But that doesn't make what you've said factual.

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Why do you get to decide what's right and wrong? You certainly think your moral view is THE right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's inherently flawed. Your beliefs are based on your own experiences. Others have based their beliefs on their experiences. Why do you get to claim you are right and they are wrong?

---

I don't get to decide what's right and wrong. I'm subject to the same precepts as everyone. We have a purpose. To the extent we do things to that end, we're doing good things. To the extent we're doing things to frustrate our purpose, we're not. This is true of everything we know about. If a tool does what it was designed to do, and we use it properly, it fulfills its purpose, but when it breaks or we abuse it, it can't or doesn't do what it was designed to do. The idea that you can't make ought claims is rooted firmly in the idea that we are purposeless, in which case everything we do is pointless. Which leads to despair.

---

So who decides what has purpose? Who decides what the purpose is? How do you handle disagreements in what that purpose should be?

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Think we have found the guy who is in most desperate need of a blow job!!

---

I love when guys who abuse themselves while watching pron 10 times a day, chuckle about how sexually frustrated guys who have 5+ children are. I'll pass on the bj. But thanks anyway.

---

If you have that many children to raise, then why are you on here preaching to all of us. You should be spending your time raising your children and being a good parent. We all know that child neglect is immoral.

---

If I told you they were all frozen, and living in my freezer indefinitely, that would be okay though. Right?

---

I'd say that's your business and an issue that I shouldn't stick my nose into. I'm not your judge.

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Why do you get to decide what's right and wrong? You certainly think your moral view is THE right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's inherently flawed. Your beliefs are based on your own experiences. Others have based their beliefs on their experiences. Why do you get to claim you are right and they are wrong?

---

I don't get to decide what's right and wrong. I'm subject to the same precepts as everyone. We have a purpose. To the extent we do things to that end, we're doing good things. To the extent we're doing things to frustrate our purpose, we're not. This is true of everything we know about. If a tool does what it was designed to do, and we use it properly, it fulfills its purpose, but when it breaks or we abuse it, it can't or doesn't do what it was designed to do. The idea that you can't make ought claims is rooted firmly in the idea that we are purposeless, in which case everything we do is pointless. Which leads to despair.

---

So who decides what has purpose? Who decides what the purpose is? How do you handle disagreements in what that purpose should be?

---

The creator or designer.

We handle disagreements generally by trying to persuade each other.

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Think we have found the guy who is in most desperate need of a blow job!!

---

I love when guys who abuse themselves while watching pron 10 times a day, chuckle about how sexually frustrated guys who have 5+ children are. I'll pass on the bj. But thanks anyway.

---

If you have that many children to raise, then why are you on here preaching to all of us. You should be spending your time raising your children and being a good parent. We all know that child neglect is immoral.

---

If I told you they were all frozen, and living in my freezer indefinitely, that would be okay though. Right?

---

I'd say that's your business and an issue that I shouldn't stick my nose into. I'm not your judge.

---

If that really was your reaction and you weren't repulsed by it, I think that makes you a psychopath by definition.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Should jacking off be a crime? Killing all those sperm that could potentially be humans. Sounds like you'd think so.

---

That was the dumbest take ever. Sperm aren't living humans.

---

Neither are embryos.

---

Actually, they are.

---

Nope. That's completely untrue. Embryos do not have sentience.

---

Sentience is not a requirement for life. You just made that up.

---

He proved that...himself. haha lol. But i'm 24 pages late...move along here folks.

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Why do you get to decide what's right and wrong? You certainly think your moral view is THE right one and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's inherently flawed. Your beliefs are based on your own experiences. Others have based their beliefs on their experiences. Why do you get to claim you are right and they are wrong?

---

I don't get to decide what's right and wrong. I'm subject to the same precepts as everyone. We have a purpose. To the extent we do things to that end, we're doing good things. To the extent we're doing things to frustrate our purpose, we're not. This is true of everything we know about. If a tool does what it was designed to do, and we use it properly, it fulfills its purpose, but when it breaks or we abuse it, it can't or doesn't do what it was designed to do. The idea that you can't make ought claims is rooted firmly in the idea that we are purposeless, in which case everything we do is pointless. Which leads to despair.

---

So who decides what has purpose? Who decides what the purpose is? How do you handle disagreements in what that purpose should be?

---

The creator or designer.

We handle disagreements generally by trying to persuade each other.

---

We have no proof that exists. Your argument is Faith based. And therefore completely invalid.

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Think we have found the guy who is in most desperate need of a blow job!!

---

I love when guys who abuse themselves while watching pron 10 times a day, chuckle about how sexually frustrated guys who have 5+ children are. I'll pass on the bj. But thanks anyway.

---

If you have that many children to raise, then why are you on here preaching to all of us. You should be spending your time raising your children and being a good parent. We all know that child neglect is immoral.

---

If I told you they were all frozen, and living in my freezer indefinitely, that would be okay though. Right?

---

If that's how you do your time outs, more power to you.

Sounds a little cold blooded to me, though.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

jwoodmd said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

shack009 said:

---

AggieDub14 said:

---

Morals are decided upon by each and every one of us.

---

Again, that's true, but people can be objectively wrong about what they decide is moral or immoral.

Quote:

---

We often refer to humans having a "moral compass". That phrase refers to a person's ability to judge right and wrong. It's relative.

---

Yes, the compass is actually a measure of how well they are judging the rightness and the wrongness. That's why you can say someone's moral compass is broken. When it becomes relative and not objective, you say they have lost their moral compass.

Quote:

---

No one gets to be the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. There are plenty of examples you can give (murder, kidnapping, rape) that most sane and rational people will agree are just plain evil. But that does not make it true. That does not make it factual.

---

Postmodernist nonsense that is completely incoherent. Sane and rational people understand something to be bad but that doesn't mean it is bad? If something is understood then it is known. Something that is known is true.

We understand murder to be evil because of our understanding of what murder is and what the word "evil" means. Understanding and knowing something about nature and natural law makes it factual. That is what those words mean.

---

You could claim someone lost their moral compass. Someone else disagrees with you. You cant objectively prove it. It's an opinion.

You won't find me arguing murderers aren't evil. I'm simply stating that is an opinion, not a fact.

---

Yes you can, but only to people who accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things.

---

There are things we can prove with evidence. If I toss an object in the air, it falls to the ground. Gravity is real.

There are things we cannot prove. You may say homosexuality is morally wrong. You may say sex before marriage is morally wrong. You have no evidence to back up that claim. It's an opinion. One that many would share and many would disagree with.

"accept certain basic truths about nature and being human and the order of things." - you cant use religion as a basis for truth. Others who do not share your religious views will not see that as a universal truth. It's subjective. It may be true in your mind. But it's not universally true.

---

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

Can you prove it?

Is that your opinion?

We can deduce the existence of things and truths about things using evidence, even if it's not empirical evidence. We can know as a matter of fact what makes a thing good, by what it's for. Marriage is for procreation, and homosexual acts are contrary to our design. Not to be crass, but your poop shoot isn't for that. We know that isn't an appropriate use for our sex organs, because it's not what they're for, and therefore are not good. We know that.

To say morality is a matter of opinion you have to believe we can't deduce anything from the natural order of things. Should we force copulation onto lesser animals? "Well in my opinion, no, but there's no proof." Does that not sound ridiculous? It violates our rational faculties as long as they're in proper working order.

---

Think we have found the guy who is in most desperate need of a blow job!!

---

I love when guys who abuse themselves while watching pron 10 times a day, chuckle about how sexually frustrated guys who have 5+ children are. I'll pass on the bj. But thanks anyway.

---

If you have that many children to raise, then why are you on here preaching to all of us. You should be spending your time raising your children and being a good parent. We all know that child neglect is immoral.

---

If I told you they were all frozen, and living in my freezer indefinitely, that would be okay though. Right?

---

If that's how you do your time outs, more power to you.

Sounds a little cold blooded to me, though.

---

We run a tight ship

AggieDub14 said:

---

Never said it was. Embryos aren't the same thing as humans. Caterpillars aren't the same as butterflies.

---

Genetically they are. Same for human embryos they already contain all that is required to be human and would never be confused as anything but human if the dna was examined.