Absolute Morality

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
My mother has a 155 IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

No she doesn't.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My mother has a 155 IQ

[/ QUOTE ]

No she doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only there was some way for you to express your disbelief of his claim in some sort of monetary form, and for him to similarly express the strength of his claim in a similar way. Oh if only there were some sort of website to facilitate such things!

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]



I said maybe so if it sounded like I said I definatley can, I apologize. May(those who think it does) Be(Those who think it doesn't). Conclustion may or may "not be"

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ"

Lol. Richard Feynman, nobel prize winner and founder of quantum electrodynamics had an IQ of 124 (lower than your supposed IQ) and I assure you, he solves problems WAY BETTER than you, and better than you will ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]



I said maybe so if it sounded like I said I definatley can, I apologize. May(those who think it does) Be(Those who think it doesn't). Conclustion may or may "not be"

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a 130 IQ have posted this?



It's close.

[MaxWeiss]

As creatures that are much more aware of how we affect other beings, we can create a standard of morality which other animals cannot. It may be an arbitrary standard of happiness and suffering of individuals and groups, but it is some kind of standard. They are right in saying that morals have to be based on something, because we cannot judge good and bad without stating why, but that doesn't mean that an atheist's standard is inherently better or worse than anybody else's standard. That being said, I think atheists have a much higher moral standard and authority than do most religious people, since atheists generally get their morals from a humanist point of view, whereas religious folk get theirs from all kinds of wacky stupid places, and in many cases do a lot of harm. (To be fair, religion does do plenty of good for a lot of people--but the problem is that we cannot simply call good "good" or bad "bad" because their definition is often in conflict with ours, when God's word opposes what a humanist thinks is beneficial to humanity--e.g. gay rights, abortion, stem cells, etc.)

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lets say that a god exists.

this god thinks that having gay sex is wrong
I think that having gay sex is not wrong

is "absolute morality" that having gay sex is wrong?

the problem is that "absolute morality" is a meaningless phrase.

it does not change the fact that there are differing moralities here.

the only possible difference here is that this being can force us to go along with his morality or face the punishment.

if god believes that playing bingo after 10pm is wrong, but every other being doesn't believe that it is wrong...is it "absolutely" wrong?

call it what you will, but calling it something different does not change anything.

you are correct that it makes no difference...there is only what is true and what is not.

I know we've been over this subject many times before..and I think you are correct that people are generally terrified that something can't be considered as "absolutely" wrong...curiously enough, every person seems to posess the information on what is "absolutely" right and wrong..I think it's just a way of reinforcing their own beliefs...there's nothing more powerful than believing that the greatest possible being agrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that Gay Sex and playing Bingo are the same thing morally then you will think like you do. Which if you can't see how thats so insanely stupid that thinking is, then, well, God Bless Ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

SitNHit, I've been very patient with you, but you're testing me...

your complaint is irrelevent to the point of my post..the specifics are arbitrary.

I'm going to say this one time.

the people in this forum are some of the most reasonable people I have ever come into contact with..they attempt to make arguments with the utmost respect for logic and understand the need for logical discourse. The simple fact is that you are not as smart as the people in this forum..probably not even as smart as I am (and I'm no genius).

Since you have come into this forum, you have sent me a very rude PM (No matter how much we disagree with eachother in here, I doubt anyone has ever sent such a bizarre PM to another poster.)

you have also managed not make a single decent argument..I understand that your english is not very good, but it goes much deeper than that.

Make no mistake about it, you are not up to the level of intellect that most of the posters in this forum are. Your posts thus far have contributed nothing to the forum. But I don't mind either of these things..the same could be said about me when I first started posting here..but I was rarely arrogant and never rude.

judging by the fact that your posts have largely stopped getting responses, people are basically through with you.

I suggest that you apologize to the forum for insulting several members when unprovoked other than that they hold a different view than you..and make a resolution to get some logic and reason into your posts.

otherwise, I'm done responging to you and I'm done attempting to be nice as well.

Chris

[/ QUOTE ]


I think you put too much stock in intelligence, you think cause you know a bigger quantity of random facts your more qualified to speak on those subjects,
that's not neccessary true. I'm happy you take yourself so seriously but to me that's not a good quality.

My mother has a 155 IQ and my dad a 136, I tested a couple times and got 133 and 137, so I have a similar
IQ number to my parents, big deal. Do I hold any stock in that number, no. Ok, maybe I can solve problems better then a person with 112 IQ and a person who is a 155 IQ can better them me, who cares.

Most of my posts have been sarcastic and exaggerated and were meant to piss you off and get you frustrated
because I was expressing my distaste for the seriousness in which you all take yourselves and your so called intelligence.

I bet that some of you here who think you are such mental big shots have a lower IQ then me. In my opinion,
a persons IQ doesn't matter unless it is below the 90s, but it seems it matters to most of you.

I apologize if my obviously ignorant, close minded posts have offended anybody. Honestly,
if anybody would literally represent themselves like that and represent there way of belief in that manner in my opinion needs a lot of work on how to discuss something without telling other people what is true and what isn't. The goal of any discussion should be to make the other person think about your beliefs in an unbiased manner.

I think many posters on this forum state things as facts that arent factual, so I see a lot
of hypocracy going on, which didn't sit with me the right way when reading some of the threads.

The only true posts I made which were me and not some character were the story about my trip
to SLC and experience and that I really think what I believe is true but I cannot prove it and make it factual.

Random Thought: It's not good to be fanatical about anything, including religion, science,
math, celebrity, etc.

So I think for now on I will be serious about the posts and responses hear instead of just
sparking reactions and playing a character to cause frustration.

Anyways, take it for what it's worth and you may see me in a couple threads in the future.

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I call BS.

Also, even if I'm wrong, I'm getting fed up with this guy too. Lord knows I've said some stupid things lately, but this guy is getting ridiculous.

[Guyute]

at the risk of bringing the discussion back to the original topic...

Vhawk, it seems that the term 'absolute morality' is ambiguous and I was just wondering which sense you have in mind. It could mean that morality is a black and white issue, that something is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. To deny this would be to accept a grey area in morality, or partial rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, it could mean that what is right and wrong is right and wrong at all places and all times for all people. To deny this is to accept some form of moral relativism, whereby morality is determined entirely or in part by some community.

When this issue comes up, it is normally in regards to this second reading, but many of the posts thus far have seemingly been taking the first reading. If the discussion on the other site is regarding an absolute morality insofar as morality is not relative, I am inclined to agree, though almost certainly not for the same reasons as those you have been discussing this with. Thanks.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
at the risk of bringing the discussion back to the original topic...

Vhawk, it seems that the term 'absolute morality' is ambiguous and I was just wondering which sense you have in mind. It could mean that morality is a black and white issue, that something is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. To deny this would be to accept a grey area in morality, or partial rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, it could mean that what is right and wrong is right and wrong at all places and all times for all people. To deny this is to accept some form of moral relativism, whereby morality is determined entirely or in part by some community.

When this issue comes up, it is normally in regards to this second reading, but many of the posts thus far have seemingly been taking the first reading. If the discussion on the other site is regarding an absolute morality insofar as morality is not relative, I am inclined to agree, though almost certainly not for the same reasons as those you have been discussing this with. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

The discussion is primarily about the 'universal' meaning of absolute, although I don't think the two usages are really as different as you make them out to be. The idea is that God is eternal, so any morality derived from God is absolute, unchanging, and everlasting. I don't see much extra value in this, especially when we have no way to figure out a)whether this absolute morality actually exists (this would be identical to proving God exists) or b) that we actually know what it is even if it does exist.

There may very well be some absolute morality somewhere. But we have no way of figuring out what it is. So, we are left with an attempt at morality that is based on human reason and experience, which is really just a relative morality. In practice, absolute morality is meaningless, except as a bludgeon for getting your way. Even in theory, there seems to be little benefit. Is it important for me to be able to say the rapist is ABSOLUTELY wrong? I really just don't want her to rape me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Whats the big deal? We wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a universe WITH an absolute morality and one without anyway


[/ QUOTE ]

Start with C.S. Lewis. I suggest Mere Christianity and Abolition of Man. Not real deep philosophically but a good basic outline of the issues.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It could mean that morality is a black and white issue, that something is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. To deny this would be to accept a grey area in morality, or partial rights and wrongs.

On the other hand, it could mean that what is right and wrong is right and wrong at all places and all times for all people.

[/ QUOTE ]

There can never be a set of Absolute Morals, even granting a God to state them ( and skipping over whether we could understand them). Our multi-variable universe will put any such linear approach to morality dysfunctional.

luckyme