Violence [2603171]

Watching even the dumbest of sports like americ futbooll or wrestling....


Nah actually I can't watch that shit. Finally I found something more tedious than this thread.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

No, I didn't change the wording. That is the question I asked you. I'm not looking for a "gotcha" I just want to learn what your moral framework is, how it's formulated, and what it's merits are.

Thank you for answering though.

So earlier I asked you where your moral framework comes from and you answered, "My upbringing, society, and my conscience." Now you define your conscience as "a persons knowledge of what is right and wrong."

If your moral framework is a collection of your knowledge of right and wrong and is built upon three pillars, upbringing, society and conscience, then how can conscience refer back to the moral framework that it establishes?

Steppenwulf [2960257]

You need to look one post earlier to see my original question about conscience.

My first question was "What is conscience, if not an emotional response to good or bad behavior?" (here's a link to that post: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=6&t=16366237&b=0&a=0&start=340&to=24269076

To which you answered:

"You don’t require an emotional response you can use a logical response."

Which, since it was in the context of my question, "What is conscience..." I took it within that context and asked you to clarify what you were trying to say about conscience. (here's a link to your post: https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=6&t=16366237&b=0&a=0&start=340&to=24269102)
(and here's the link to my follow-up question to that answer. https://www.torn.com/forums.php#/p=threads&f=6&t=16366237&b=0&a=0&start=340&to=24269150)

ok, so those are the posts in the order in which they appear.

Now that we've completed the circuit on that rabbit trail, I'll return to the point of my last question.

Can I ask is there an end point to all these inane questions? Are you driving towards something?

You suggested that theists need the threat of divine punishment to think things are wrong, implying that atheist morality was somehow superior. I just wanted you to explain where your morals come from and how they are superior to those of theists. Based on what you've said, I think you'll agree that you don't really know the answer, you just accepted your own moral code because it suits you and your worldview, not due to some higher philosophical attainment.

I endeavored to use the Socratic method in this discourse. It is infuriating, and the questions can seem inane. I don't think anyone really stands a chance against a skill Socratic questioner (which I'm not). But we all know Socrates' major philosophy was that he knew nothing. Thus, this method is meant to show the one being questioned just how little they know about a topic.

I like to use it when people rag on religious people, seemingly assuming they know better than stupid theists. Sometimes I'm surprised at their wealth of knowledge on the topic.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

The Socratic method is used to teach, this is a discussion/arguably a debate.

Socrates used it to debate, and to learn and assist in the learning about the interlocutor's self-contradicting beliefs. Just because it is often used as a teaching method does not mean that it is useless for other purposes. However, aren't we all students all our lives?

you’ve wasted both our time

I disagree. I think we've discovered an inconsistency in your beliefs about morality. That hardly seems a waste of time. Furthermore, I have at least a somewhat better understanding of your beliefs about morality.

If you want to view it that way.

That's a statement of assent.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

The Socratic method is used to teach, this is a discussion/arguably a debate.

Socrates used it to debate, and to learn and assist in the learning about the interlocutor's self-contradicting beliefs. Just because it is often used as a teaching method does not mean that it is useless for other purposes. However, aren't we all students all our lives?

you’ve wasted both our time

I disagree. I think we've discovered an inconsistency in your beliefs about morality. That hardly seems a waste of time. Furthermore, I have at least a somewhat better understanding of your beliefs about morality.

If you want to view it that way.

That's a statement of assent.

Unlucky [2472585]

If you’re using the Socratic debate method you’re also using it wrong as you are required to understand the other persons position which we have proved you don’t.


So what is it? We you using it it in a teaching method, incorrectly. Or using it in debate, incorrectly. Your choice.

I disagree. I think we've discovered an inconsistency in your beliefs about morality.

What’s that?

Edit - also why have you stopped quoting my posts in reply? I have this post on feed so you won’t “win” by me not responding when you sneak post.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

also why have you stopped quoting my posts in reply? I have this post on feed so you won’t “win” by me not responding when you sneak post.

I accidentally clicked remove quote and didn't remember that I had done it. It was one single post, it doesn't represent a new trend. And no, I'm not seeking to "win" anything and if I were, I wouldn't stoop to such base tactics.

I was using the Socratic method of dialogue. I wasn't debating you; I was, and this will be the third time I've told you this, trying to learn what you believe about morality.

Anyway, the line of questioning has arrived at the discovery of circular reasoning. You base your knowledge of morals partly on your conscience, which you define as your emotionless knowledge of morals.

I have no reason to continue the discussion.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

also why have you stopped quoting my posts in reply? I have this post on feed so you won’t “win” by me not responding when you sneak post.

I accidentally clicked remove quote and didn't remember that I had done it. It was one single post, it doesn't represent a new trend. And no, I'm not seeking to "win" anything and if I were, I wouldn't stoop to such base tactics.

I was using the Socratic method of dialogue. I wasn't debating you; I was, and this will be the third time I've told you this, trying to learn what you believe about morality.

Anyway, the line of questioning has arrived at the discovery of circular reasoning. You base your knowledge of morals partly on your conscience, which you define as your emotionless knowledge of morals.

I have no reason to continue the discussion.

Unlucky [2472585]

Again with the idiotic lying it was two sneak posts lol. Why lie?

Anyway, the line of questioning has arrived at the discovery of circular reasoning. You base your knowledge of morals partly on your conscience, which you define as your emotionless knowledge of morals.

What circular reasoning? I disproved that idiotic assertion in my last couple of posts.

Ref emotions, That’s literally the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying you can use logic to work out what’s right and wrong.


Like I said, perhaps you are simple? That’s nothing to be ashamed of but you should probably be aware before you try and start these arguments.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

it was two sneak posts lol

Seems you are correct. I wasn't aware of the first one. To be honest, I'm getting a bit old, and sometimes the "Remove quote" link looks a lot to me like the "see more" link so i click on it. Then when it doesn't do what I'm expecting, I have to go searching through the forums for the quote I'm looking for. I guess sometimes I forget to re-quote the original post.

What circular reasoning? I disproved that idiotic assertion in my last couple of posts.

I've seen where you've denied that it was circular reasoning, but I don't see where you've disproved it.

Ref emotions, That’s literally the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying you can use logic to work out what’s right and wrong.

Here's what I said, which I must assume you are referring to: "You base your knowledge of morals partly on your conscience, which you define as your emotionless knowledge of morals."

If you read the highlighted word closely, you'll see that in fact I was accurately characterizing your view of conscience without emotion, thus "emotionless conscience".

Since the line of Socratic questioning has come to an end, I suppose I can throw this little gem into the conversation:

Conscience (n.)

The part of you that judges how moral your actions are and makes you feel guilty about bad things you have done or things you feel responsible for.

source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conscience

With this definition of conscience, your position that your moral framework stems from your upbringing, society and conscience, would be far less circular because it does not consider the conscience the source of knowledge about what is moral, it places the conscience as the inner judge as to whether one's actions are moral. Thus, one may develop one's moral framework based upon the input of experienced feelings of guilt. But one cannot develop one's moral framework based upon their "knowing what's right and wrong" because the moral framework is what defines "what's right and wrong".

Steppenwulf [2960257]

it was two sneak posts lol

Seems you are correct. I wasn't aware of the first one. To be honest, I'm getting a bit old, and sometimes the "Remove quote" link looks a lot to me like the "see more" link so i click on it. Then when it doesn't do what I'm expecting, I have to go searching through the forums for the quote I'm looking for. I guess sometimes I forget to re-quote the original post.

What circular reasoning? I disproved that idiotic assertion in my last couple of posts.

I've seen where you've denied that it was circular reasoning, but I don't see where you've disproved it.

Ref emotions, That’s literally the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying. I’ve been saying you can use logic to work out what’s right and wrong.

Here's what I said, which I must assume you are referring to: "You base your knowledge of morals partly on your conscience, which you define as your emotionless knowledge of morals."

If you read the highlighted word closely, you'll see that in fact I was accurately characterizing your view of conscience without emotion, thus "emotionless conscience".

Since the line of Socratic questioning has come to an end, I suppose I can throw this little gem into the conversation:

Conscience (n.)

The part of you that judges how moral your actions are and makes you feel guilty about bad things you have done or things you feel responsible for.

source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/conscience

With this definition of conscience, your position that your moral framework stems from your upbringing, society and conscience, would be far less circular because it does not consider the conscience the source of knowledge about what is moral, it places the conscience as the inner judge as to whether one's actions are moral. Thus, one may develop one's moral framework based upon the input of experienced feelings of guilt. But one cannot develop one's moral framework based upon their "knowing what's right and wrong" because the moral framework is what defines "what's right and wrong".

Unlucky [2472585]

I've seen where you've denied that it was circular reasoning, but I don't see where you've disproved it.

Then refute it.


Reference the rest of your bollocks, sure emotions had a part to play but I’ve been clear that logic has a greater part.


If you need me to be more clear here I’ll help you out:

Anyone with a tiny bit of a brain can work out why bad a thing are bad and good things are good, using logic.


Is that helping you understand? I don’t think I can make it any simpler.

Steppenwulf [2960257]

That's fine. So if I understand you, you're saying that your morals are worked out from your upbringing, society, and logical reasoning.

Is that a fair restatement?

Strand [2821241]

Because that's not how God works. He doesn't give people incontrovertible evidence they'd be forced to accept. He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him. There were people of his time who witnessed their miracles and still opted to crucify him, so it's likely that revealing himself in all his glory would still not make Christians of all of us.

God hasn't revealed himself to me, if by reveal you mean a miracle, a vision, a potent experience that couldn't be explained by natural means. Yet I believe in him and his goodness. I live a happy life largely because of my faith in him. I don't live in constant fear of hell or in breaking the rules, although I feel ashamed when I do wrong because of the harm it does others, myself, and the offense it does to God, whom I should wish to offend least of all. Too often the rules become the focal point of Christianity, but following Christ means being opened up to the world, not being closed off or limited in accessing it's pleasures. I feel gratitude every day for the life and gifts I have received and feel purpose even on the days I feel worst about the world or myself.

Violence [2603171]

Watching even the dumbest of sports like americ futbooll or wrestling....


Nah actually I can't watch that shit. Finally I found something more tedious than this thread.

-SnowQueen- [2699010]

Ironically, your childish attempt to belittle and demean Christians belies a belief far more flimsy and unsubstantiated than the faith you mock. You actually think those poor women weren’t faking it. Smh.

Strand [2821241]

Because that's not how God works. He doesn't give people incontrovertible evidence they'd be forced to accept. He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him. There were people of his time who witnessed their miracles and still opted to crucify him, so it's likely that revealing himself in all his glory would still not make Christians of all of us.

God hasn't revealed himself to me, if by reveal you mean a miracle, a vision, a potent experience that couldn't be explained by natural means. Yet I believe in him and his goodness. I live a happy life largely because of my faith in him. I don't live in constant fear of hell or in breaking the rules, although I feel ashamed when I do wrong because of the harm it does others, myself, and the offense it does to God, whom I should wish to offend least of all. Too often the rules become the focal point of Christianity, but following Christ means being opened up to the world, not being closed off or limited in accessing it's pleasures. I feel gratitude every day for the life and gifts I have received and feel purpose even on the days I feel worst about the world or myself.

ElHeffe [2564022]

Now I am really confused. I don't really know where to begin trying to unpick what is possibly the single most self-contradictory post I have ever read.

Because that's not how God works.

That is a statement of someone who is speaking with a direct understanding of God. You would have to be mad to tell someone how God does or does not operate unless you had a personal understanding of His methods.

He wants people to have faith and use their reason to come to him.

Again you're speaking with the conviction of someone who knows exactly how God operated. But yet you want me to have faith AND reason.
Dude - faith is what you use when you have no reason.

Faith is the belief in the truth of something that does not require any evidence and may not be provable by any empirical or rational means. Reason is the faculty of the mind through which we can logically come to rational conclusions.

Have faith and use reason?
Why not tell me to stand up and sit down? Or be quiet and shout? Listen to yourself.
Have faith and use reason? What a lot of bollocks!

God hasn't revealed himself to me,

Now that takes the f**king cake doesn't it. How dare you tell me about how God works? How dare you tell me how I'm not understanding His ways? How DARE you tell me to open up my heart to God and trust His Word when you did it and you heard NOTHING.
In a way I am impressed - I didn't think I could feel insulted by something wrote on the internet, but you've just about done it. You were just telling me about the Mind of God and then you confess you don't have a clue, do you?

What a crock of crap. What a hypocrite. What you've written is truly disgusting.

Violence [2603171]

Watching even the dumbest of sports like americ futbooll or wrestling....


Nah actually I can't watch that shit. Finally I found something more tedious than this thread.

-SnowQueen- [2699010]

Ironically, your childish attempt to belittle and demean Christians belies a belief far more flimsy and unsubstantiated than the faith you mock. You actually think those poor women weren’t faking it. Smh.

Violence [2603171]

Intentionally sliding my bare feet over rough floorboards knowing I'm going to get a splinter the size of godzilla.



Another pastime more beneficial to my mental health than this thread