FWIW, here is what I think.
Trivial truth, mathematical truth, does not change. But the truth about what may be morally best for a particular person or society fluxes and changes frequently, as opportunities change. So I don't think it sheds light to proceed from an axiomatic belief that moral truth does not change in its applications depending on changes in contextual relations.
For example, a representative republic based on general respect for individual rights and responsibilities may be best for one society, but inappropriate for others. When a people are ready for it, a representative republic seems best. When they're not, trying to force it on them can be a fool's errand.
A society that was appropriate for a representative republic may become not appropriate, if it is flooded with liberty-illiterates or if its replacement generation is wrongly schooled or indoctrinated. If you drive a person or child or moral cripple to the middle of a desert and force him to get out, without water or food or clothes, and tell him to go now and be free, that tends not to be in the practice of a timeless and good principle.
There abide general moral principles whose truths do not change. They are the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. However, in specific and material applications, because different mortal perspectives are necessarily different, those absolute principles are applied differently to the different perspectives of each subject participant.
This is not strictly situational ethics or absolutist ethics. Rather, it is objective ethics reconciled to the perspectives of various subject persons. This is why we leave it to God to judge the souls (essential essences) of people, but we take responsibility ourselves to decide how to deal with them on earth.
Man-made law is filled with prescriptions and proscriptions, but nearly all of them are subject to exceptions, not all of which have been specifically provided for. To try to nail all those down tends to become errands for law-drooling fools. If there is a place where absolutes always apply equally, I doubt it is inhabited by human beings.
As an aspiration, I do believe it best for a person and society to aspire to become individually responsible, free, competent, and decent. We can try to teach that to children and to people who have lost their way. Moral truths can abide as general ideals. As detailed instructions for every particular application, not so much.
Unfortunately, is can also become necessary, if a representative republic is ever to be restored and not to perish from the earth, to make tough decisions to separate from or banish certain kinds of hard corps moral delinquents. Drastic times may call for drastic measures. This is why a sustainable republic has to establish and enforce borders. It cannot fix or ensure the physical or moral health of everyone. Of course, those who are banished will tend to curse the ones who are trying to banish (or change) them.
Which is the lesser evil: The central agglomerating gov apparatus, or pushing needy people off health coverage? I would prefer that most domestic problems be punted to the states and to state compacts. The more the fed gov "helps" us, the more it sub-humanizes us.
The more our central gov takes on the duty to re-raise us, the less competent we seem to become as individual adults. This feeds a need for the central gov to take on even more duties to re-raise us, which makes us even less competent as individual adults. How low can we circle the drain in this way, before our society falls into it?
*******************
To rally condemnation against any actions or actors, you need a higher standard against which to condemn or judge them.
There are various ways to serve NO Higher Standard. The Pollyanna Doper way is to espouse that this, no matter what, is always the best of all possible worlds. The Self-Godding way is to pretend that your personal gratification, no matter how it changes, is the standard against which all others should be assessed. The Toolish way is to surrender your mind and body to the use of another Mouthpiece or Gang of Mouthpieces. The Rationalizing Indoctrinated way is to let your mind be trained to reason in circles, using slippery words to promote a program to flim-flam yourself and others. The Gamer way is to see others only as pawns in a game to test who can win by accumulating the most stuff. The Pagan way is to espouse that everyone must serve one's own needs and instincts under the Natural Order, which prescribes that everyone be good in his own way. The Homey way is to tag and gang-bang with others on some superficial basis -- like skin color, place of origin, diet, or dress. The People-Farming Law-Drooler way is to devise schemes for imposing order by using subalterns and shills to dispense favors and punishments in order to impose rules over the masses that are not applied to the elites.
The Only Way to inspire people towards an Ideal of Higher Mindedness is to rationalize a model that will inculcate a society whose members, as they pass into responsible adulthood, will each respect the freedom and dignity of the others. This requires a Leap Of Faith to inculcate generalized good faith and sustainable good will.
That is what Jesus did, under His teaching of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. That teaching is needed to inspire people to find ---- beyond all the noise of the Pollyanna Dopers, Self-Goddings, Tools, Rationalizing Indoctrinateds, Gamers, Pagans, Homeys, and People-Farming Law Droolers --- the still, quiet voice of common empathy and decency that abides with every perspective of consciousness. The Good News is: That voice is not beyond reason. And ITs significations are traced and written throughout the Good Book, the Cosmos, and the Mind of every reasoning perspective of consciousness.
Do those who routinely eat babies think that what they're doing is evil? No. I don't think they tend to espouse belief that it is good or evil. Not unless they have fomented some religious notion that they have been specially blessed and chosen by Allah to devour other people's babies.
Rather, I suspect they tend to think they, and everyone and everything, are beyond good and evil. I suspect the only basis for good and evil they may espouse is pleasure, gratification, instinct. I doubt they respect any idea of sacrifice or delayed gratification in the service of an innate moral connection among and between all the various perspectives of consciousness.
This is not because such basis is beyond innate intuition and empathy, but because respect for its espousal has been brutalized, trained, or mutated out of them.
What a pinkie-wagging, evasive deflection! If your system of morality is relevant, then it at the very least ought to help sustain a society, to help that society defend itself from depredations of international corporatists and human traffickers.
Good grief! Are you blind to the swamping of the republic with third-world liberty-illiterates, who are child's play for being manipulated by corporate people-farmers seeking cheap labor? What do you think the NWO Open Society is all about?
Unpack!? Don't bother. The fact that you asked such a ridiculous question is indicative that any time spent on you would be a waste.
Self justifying surveys? Are you kidding? If people can be "just as moral and ethical without organized religion in their lives," then how is it that the Progs with such a worldview tend to fall behind oligarchs who want to replace our representative republic with an open bordered, open society? How is it "just as moral and ethical" to allow yourself to be used as a tool for destroying borders and institutions that are requisite to preserving a representative republic?
It seems coincidental that, just as religion is coming under heavy fire, the morals of our society no longer support the sustenance of the nation. Not even its borders. These are "functional" morals?
Re: "Goodness is defined by atheism as being whatever works to achieve a desired result."
If goodness is only what facilitates an individual's subjective gratification, then goodness is only assimilated among groups to the extent they use the power of each group to facilitate the gratifications of its members. Such inculcation facilitates a constant tendency for warring and re-aligning between and among groups. As in the case of race-baiting. Such inculcation tends to define the desires of an individual as being mainly constricted to the perimeter of his skin or his allies of convenience.
But why should any individual's perspective of consciousness be conceptualized as being mainly constricted to his body, as opposed to identifying with a wider system of interests? What should an individual desire, and what should be the wider extent of his interests? How is that concern responded to, without respect for, reference to, and inspiring guidance and inculcation regarding, more encompassing interests?
When should an individual forego his own immediate desires in order to facilitate his identification with more encompassing interests? How unlikely is civic mindedness to become inculcated in an individual, using a philosophy of morality and goodness that does not extend much beyond servicing individual desires? How long can a decent society likely endure, when its members seek mainly to service or justify only their own desires?
Among Lefties who are willing to allow the destruction of their nation's borders, how many adopt that mindset to justify (rationalize) their own unwillingness to serve much that is higher than themselves? How many are content to groom their children to perversions of adults? How many are willing to allow the destruction of a government of, by, and for the people ... so they can feel good about themselves? (Even when they were nurtured by that government from the blood of patriots that was shed to establish it.) This is "moral"?
Stunted brains don't appreciate metaphors and parables. Did you fall and hurt your head when you learned Santa Claus was only based on a legend? Did Momma not kiss it for you?
You cannot reach people who think they have answers in all details to all the important questions. You know, like carbon bankers, wazoo regulators, gun grabbers, snowflakes, and entitlement minded wussies. The only people who think that way are the enormously ignorant and/or corrupt. Those, you cannot fix. But I respect your effort. When I detect intelligence, I respond in kind. For the ignoranti/corrupti who think they have all the answers. I see little point in giving them the time of day. Before they ban you, just have your comment copied and then repost it in a more intelligent blog.
A scientisimist is a phoney who pretends science supports a position for which there are as yet no valid scientific models. Like a Witch Doctor, but certified.
*If you still think Marx, Obama, Mohammad, Al Gore and Soros had or have the best interests of the people at heart, then I cannot help you.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
Americans laugh at whiny wussies who need safe spaces after being triggered by opposing speech.
Dignity relates to bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
An aspect would be this: As we tend towards becoming responsible adults, we expect to be accorded self-ownership. That is, a right to think, speak, and act for ourselves, absent good compelling reason to the contrary.
Achieving a level of dignity relates to overcoming previous "failures to launch." Being recognized as competent enough to take responsibility for oneself, without remaining a perpetually dependent, whinny little snowflake.
No, you don't understand me nearly as much as you imagine.
Whatever individual desires I personally may not approve of, I do not attribute to the Almighty as absolute rules. I am not strictly speaking an absolutist or a relativist. I think the injunction to Be Empathetic is an innate absolute. I think it is experienced and interpreted from each subject perspective, subjectively. So, there is ongoing feedback between the absolute and the relative. Like a flux of the Changeless-Changer.
Consensus is sometimes possible when the necessary ingredients come together. For awhile, the U.S. had a consensus that could more or less support a representative republic. However, that is unraveling (for which I severely castigate Progs), as that consensus is undermined by race-baiting, non-assimilating, multi-culti, and as they are farmed by international oligarchs now in control of most institutions of persuasion and indoctrination.
If the U.S. for awhile was suitable for a representative republic, it is losing that. Many other cultures and nations never did become suitable. I don't believe it is moral to try to impose democratic values on non-suitable cultures. Neither do I believe it is moral for people who seek to escape non-democratic societies to come to America to try to turn it into the kind of society they found it necessary to flee.
Trivial truth, mathematical truth, does not change. But the truth about what may be morally best for a particular person or society fluxes and changes frequently, as opportunities change. So I don't think it sheds light to proceed from an axiomatic belief that moral truth does not change in its applications depending on changes in contextual relations.
For example, a representative republic based on general respect for individual rights and responsibilities may be best for one society, but inappropriate for others. When a people are ready for it, a representative republic seems best. When they're not, trying to force it on them can be a fool's errand.
A society that was appropriate for a representative republic may become not appropriate, if it is flooded with liberty-illiterates or if its replacement generation is wrongly schooled or indoctrinated. If you drive a person or child or moral cripple to the middle of a desert and force him to get out, without water or food or clothes, and tell him to go now and be free, that tends not to be in the practice of a timeless and good principle.
There abide general moral principles whose truths do not change. They are the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. However, in specific and material applications, because different mortal perspectives are necessarily different, those absolute principles are applied differently to the different perspectives of each subject participant.
This is not strictly situational ethics or absolutist ethics. Rather, it is objective ethics reconciled to the perspectives of various subject persons. This is why we leave it to God to judge the souls (essential essences) of people, but we take responsibility ourselves to decide how to deal with them on earth.
Man-made law is filled with prescriptions and proscriptions, but nearly all of them are subject to exceptions, not all of which have been specifically provided for. To try to nail all those down tends to become errands for law-drooling fools. If there is a place where absolutes always apply equally, I doubt it is inhabited by human beings.
As an aspiration, I do believe it best for a person and society to aspire to become individually responsible, free, competent, and decent. We can try to teach that to children and to people who have lost their way. Moral truths can abide as general ideals. As detailed instructions for every particular application, not so much.
Unfortunately, is can also become necessary, if a representative republic is ever to be restored and not to perish from the earth, to make tough decisions to separate from or banish certain kinds of hard corps moral delinquents. Drastic times may call for drastic measures. This is why a sustainable republic has to establish and enforce borders. It cannot fix or ensure the physical or moral health of everyone. Of course, those who are banished will tend to curse the ones who are trying to banish (or change) them.
Which is the lesser evil: The central agglomerating gov apparatus, or pushing needy people off health coverage? I would prefer that most domestic problems be punted to the states and to state compacts. The more the fed gov "helps" us, the more it sub-humanizes us.
The more our central gov takes on the duty to re-raise us, the less competent we seem to become as individual adults. This feeds a need for the central gov to take on even more duties to re-raise us, which makes us even less competent as individual adults. How low can we circle the drain in this way, before our society falls into it?
*******************
To rally condemnation against any actions or actors, you need a higher standard against which to condemn or judge them.
There are various ways to serve NO Higher Standard. The Pollyanna Doper way is to espouse that this, no matter what, is always the best of all possible worlds. The Self-Godding way is to pretend that your personal gratification, no matter how it changes, is the standard against which all others should be assessed. The Toolish way is to surrender your mind and body to the use of another Mouthpiece or Gang of Mouthpieces. The Rationalizing Indoctrinated way is to let your mind be trained to reason in circles, using slippery words to promote a program to flim-flam yourself and others. The Gamer way is to see others only as pawns in a game to test who can win by accumulating the most stuff. The Pagan way is to espouse that everyone must serve one's own needs and instincts under the Natural Order, which prescribes that everyone be good in his own way. The Homey way is to tag and gang-bang with others on some superficial basis -- like skin color, place of origin, diet, or dress. The People-Farming Law-Drooler way is to devise schemes for imposing order by using subalterns and shills to dispense favors and punishments in order to impose rules over the masses that are not applied to the elites.
The Only Way to inspire people towards an Ideal of Higher Mindedness is to rationalize a model that will inculcate a society whose members, as they pass into responsible adulthood, will each respect the freedom and dignity of the others. This requires a Leap Of Faith to inculcate generalized good faith and sustainable good will.
That is what Jesus did, under His teaching of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. That teaching is needed to inspire people to find ---- beyond all the noise of the Pollyanna Dopers, Self-Goddings, Tools, Rationalizing Indoctrinateds, Gamers, Pagans, Homeys, and People-Farming Law Droolers --- the still, quiet voice of common empathy and decency that abides with every perspective of consciousness. The Good News is: That voice is not beyond reason. And ITs significations are traced and written throughout the Good Book, the Cosmos, and the Mind of every reasoning perspective of consciousness.
Do those who routinely eat babies think that what they're doing is evil? No. I don't think they tend to espouse belief that it is good or evil. Not unless they have fomented some religious notion that they have been specially blessed and chosen by Allah to devour other people's babies.
Rather, I suspect they tend to think they, and everyone and everything, are beyond good and evil. I suspect the only basis for good and evil they may espouse is pleasure, gratification, instinct. I doubt they respect any idea of sacrifice or delayed gratification in the service of an innate moral connection among and between all the various perspectives of consciousness.
This is not because such basis is beyond innate intuition and empathy, but because respect for its espousal has been brutalized, trained, or mutated out of them.
**************
DIGNITY: Dignity relates to bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
An aspect would be this: As we tend towards becoming responsible adults, we expect to be accorded self-ownership. That is, a right to think, speak, and act for ourselves, absent good compelling reason to the contrary.
Achieving a level of dignity relates to overcoming previous "failures to launch." Being recognized as competent enough to take responsibility for oneself, without remaining a perpetually dependent, whinny little snowflake.
An aspect would be this: As we tend towards becoming responsible adults, we expect to be accorded self-ownership. That is, a right to think, speak, and act for ourselves, absent good compelling reason to the contrary.
Achieving a level of dignity relates to overcoming previous "failures to launch." Being recognized as competent enough to take responsibility for oneself, without remaining a perpetually dependent, whinny little snowflake.
What a pinkie-wagging, evasive deflection! If your system of morality is relevant, then it at the very least ought to help sustain a society, to help that society defend itself from depredations of international corporatists and human traffickers.
Good grief! Are you blind to the swamping of the republic with third-world liberty-illiterates, who are child's play for being manipulated by corporate people-farmers seeking cheap labor? What do you think the NWO Open Society is all about?
Unpack!? Don't bother. The fact that you asked such a ridiculous question is indicative that any time spent on you would be a waste.
Self justifying surveys? Are you kidding? If people can be "just as moral and ethical without organized religion in their lives," then how is it that the Progs with such a worldview tend to fall behind oligarchs who want to replace our representative republic with an open bordered, open society? How is it "just as moral and ethical" to allow yourself to be used as a tool for destroying borders and institutions that are requisite to preserving a representative republic?
It seems coincidental that, just as religion is coming under heavy fire, the morals of our society no longer support the sustenance of the nation. Not even its borders. These are "functional" morals?
Re: "Goodness is defined by atheism as being whatever works to achieve a desired result."
If goodness is only what facilitates an individual's subjective gratification, then goodness is only assimilated among groups to the extent they use the power of each group to facilitate the gratifications of its members. Such inculcation facilitates a constant tendency for warring and re-aligning between and among groups. As in the case of race-baiting. Such inculcation tends to define the desires of an individual as being mainly constricted to the perimeter of his skin or his allies of convenience.
But why should any individual's perspective of consciousness be conceptualized as being mainly constricted to his body, as opposed to identifying with a wider system of interests? What should an individual desire, and what should be the wider extent of his interests? How is that concern responded to, without respect for, reference to, and inspiring guidance and inculcation regarding, more encompassing interests?
When should an individual forego his own immediate desires in order to facilitate his identification with more encompassing interests? How unlikely is civic mindedness to become inculcated in an individual, using a philosophy of morality and goodness that does not extend much beyond servicing individual desires? How long can a decent society likely endure, when its members seek mainly to service or justify only their own desires?
Among Lefties who are willing to allow the destruction of their nation's borders, how many adopt that mindset to justify (rationalize) their own unwillingness to serve much that is higher than themselves? How many are content to groom their children to perversions of adults? How many are willing to allow the destruction of a government of, by, and for the people ... so they can feel good about themselves? (Even when they were nurtured by that government from the blood of patriots that was shed to establish it.) This is "moral"?
Stunted brains don't appreciate metaphors and parables. Did you fall and hurt your head when you learned Santa Claus was only based on a legend? Did Momma not kiss it for you?
You cannot reach people who think they have answers in all details to all the important questions. You know, like carbon bankers, wazoo regulators, gun grabbers, snowflakes, and entitlement minded wussies. The only people who think that way are the enormously ignorant and/or corrupt. Those, you cannot fix. But I respect your effort. When I detect intelligence, I respond in kind. For the ignoranti/corrupti who think they have all the answers. I see little point in giving them the time of day. Before they ban you, just have your comment copied and then repost it in a more intelligent blog.
A scientisimist is a phoney who pretends science supports a position for which there are as yet no valid scientific models. Like a Witch Doctor, but certified.
*If you still think Marx, Obama, Mohammad, Al Gore and Soros had or have the best interests of the people at heart, then I cannot help you.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
Americans laugh at whiny wussies who need safe spaces after being triggered by opposing speech.
Dignity relates to bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
An aspect would be this: As we tend towards becoming responsible adults, we expect to be accorded self-ownership. That is, a right to think, speak, and act for ourselves, absent good compelling reason to the contrary.
Achieving a level of dignity relates to overcoming previous "failures to launch." Being recognized as competent enough to take responsibility for oneself, without remaining a perpetually dependent, whinny little snowflake.
No, you don't understand me nearly as much as you imagine.
Whatever individual desires I personally may not approve of, I do not attribute to the Almighty as absolute rules. I am not strictly speaking an absolutist or a relativist. I think the injunction to Be Empathetic is an innate absolute. I think it is experienced and interpreted from each subject perspective, subjectively. So, there is ongoing feedback between the absolute and the relative. Like a flux of the Changeless-Changer.
Consensus is sometimes possible when the necessary ingredients come together. For awhile, the U.S. had a consensus that could more or less support a representative republic. However, that is unraveling (for which I severely castigate Progs), as that consensus is undermined by race-baiting, non-assimilating, multi-culti, and as they are farmed by international oligarchs now in control of most institutions of persuasion and indoctrination.
If the U.S. for awhile was suitable for a representative republic, it is losing that. Many other cultures and nations never did become suitable. I don't believe it is moral to try to impose democratic values on non-suitable cultures. Neither do I believe it is moral for people who seek to escape non-democratic societies to come to America to try to turn it into the kind of society they found it necessary to flee.
*********************
I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."
Just as other math-verses can be imagined in which their empirical observations would not hold, our own math-verse may flux and phase shift, so that old values for absolutes change. (Some imagine that the speed of light may shift over time.)
My participatory concern for moral statements is contingent on this: I test for what seems to be needed to establish and defend a decent representative republic. I think too much multi-culti, polygamy, Islam, and power in oligarchs is corrosive to that desire (purpose). I think traditional families, assimilating faith (Great Commandment and Golden Rule), and civic fidelity are essential, but they are being undermined.
To be moral, a person needs to become human --- not sub-human. He needs to enjoy enough individual freedom and dignity to become responsible for his choices and actions. He needs to become strong enough not to need to shout down invited speakers or run to safe spaces. He needs to tolerate and find joy in other people becoming individually competent and free. He needs to become intolerant of poison that would harm himself, his family, his republic.
Human trafficking is such a poison. As is Islam. As to Gays, I could care less. But I don't think Scotus was right in allowing them to force the nation as a whole to recognize gay marriage. I think that is not a healthy way to strengthen a representative republic.
I don't pretend to know whether the Godhead wants all nations to become representative republics. But if God wants the U.S. to remain one, then I think He is available to our faith, intuition and empathy to guide us to do our part to help that purpose.
If you have a worldview about whether or not nations should seek to become republics, then it will, at some point, entail leaps of faith about what is moral or conducive to that purpose.
Does the Godhead change his mind? Yes, I think so. I think there is feedback part-icipation. Continuous reconciliation. In that respect, we participate as moral agents. Apart from Good Faith and Good Will, I don't believe morality, in specific applications, exists by itself, in a vacuum.
Are you an "avowed Atheist?"
One can also think he is an atheist, even as, in many of his choices and actions, he faithfully serves the Godhead. Ayn Rand, David Deutsch (not Danny Deutsch), and Isaac Asimov SAID they were atheists (or agnostics). But I share much of their thinking, which, from my interpretation, seems quite spiritual. And also, in many ways, not inconsistent with various metaphors as taught by Jesus.
I read a few articles that I find of interest that are cited by Drudge, American Thinker, miscellaneous stuff of interest from Disqus, search for insights online, and do my best to think for myself to reason about interesting concerns.You probably read much more of Alex Jones than I do. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Did you emit some more gas?
There's some other stuff I find far more interesting than the present discussion here. I will be getting back to that. But you have my permission to carry on with your strawmen and naïveté without me.
Oh for crying out loud! It may have been cute for awhile for Progs to delude themselves to think their worldviews are not faith based, but it has become cloying and annoying.
To imagine that Prog SJW/Critical Social Studies/Warmism/Open Society-ism /Entitlement-ism/Socialism/Scientism/Race-Baiting/Islamophilia/MarryYourGoat-ism/50 Gender-ism is not as faith-based and authoritarian as most literalistic Religions is the height of self-delusion.
Communism and Fascism are the same demented people-farming Totalitarianism, except Fascists wear more stylish uniforms and use corporate legalisms. Grow up. It's time.
What a pinkie-wagging, evasive deflection! If your system of morality is relevant, then it at the very least ought to help sustain a society, to help that society defend itself from depredations of international corporatists and human traffickers.
*********************
There's some other stuff I find far more interesting than the present discussion here. I will be getting back to that. But you have my permission to carry on with your strawmen and naïveté without me.
Oh for crying out loud! It may have been cute for awhile for Progs to delude themselves to think their worldviews are not faith based, but it has become cloying and annoying.
To imagine that Prog SJW/Critical Social Studies/Warmism/Open Society-ism /Entitlement-ism/Socialism/Scientism/Race-Baiting/Islamophilia/MarryYourGoat-ism/50 Gender-ism is not as faith-based and authoritarian as most literalistic Religions is the height of self-delusion.
Communism and Fascism are the same demented people-farming Totalitarianism, except Fascists wear more stylish uniforms and use corporate legalisms. Grow up. It's time.
What a pinkie-wagging, evasive deflection! If your system of morality is relevant, then it at the very least ought to help sustain a society, to help that society defend itself from depredations of international corporatists and human traffickers.
*********************
I don't believe in a guiding hand. Nor in a pre-determined hand. I believe in a fluxing, contemporaneously involved Reconciler whose spiritual power is leveraged with math. I have no idea whether we will understand better upon experiencing mortal death.
What I think is that churches, given more enlightened congregations, can be valuable forums for assimilating decent social purposefulness. (Does not even Dawkins thinks Christianity may be necessary as a bulwark against Islam?)
IAE, I do not care for the alternative: Law drooling regulations up the wazoo. Especially when taken over by oligarchs claiming to rule on concerns of social justice (morality), scientifically, as they lead and condition the wussie masses into worldwide sheeple-dom.
You recite stock phrases, but you haven't defined what you mean by the idea of god/religion that you don't believe in.
Do you believe in goodness, beyond the human form? Can consciousness associated with A.I. express morality, or end-run around its pre-programming?
If there is relevant morality, then it helps to assimilate decent society. That includes society that cares about more than just humans. To say that all morality is human is rather stunted.
Many physicists do not believe the affairs of our universe have all been pre-set. Rather, they unfold. Whatever is reconciling the unfolding is contemporaneously involved. Each decision your brain becomes aware of will have been contemporaneously reconciled moments before you became self conscious of the decision. A reconciliation beyond your mortal consciousness was entailed. Some thing that is contemporaneously involved is hardly irrelevant.
Information tends often to be preserved, in various forms. Your idea about what consciousness is might be stunted, in the way that Grandfather described to Little Big Man. Consciousness is consciousness. How it associates with varying forms does not change that.
I think all expressions of consciousness are expressions of an innate and reconciling morality.
You have the "best" country on the planet? And you complain that 'Muricans are jingoistic or chauvinistic? I think you're at least as self-congratulatory as 'Muricans, except you're more effetely passive-aggressive about it. You compensate for lower self esteem by retreating into passive aggressiveness and sometimes excessive barking.
You score higher because you don't have Mexico on your southern border. However, your oligarchs and their idiot tools are working on that. Good luck with that. I truly hope Canada can preserve a national character. Long live Sergeant Preston and his faithful dog, Yukon King!
Well, how personally committed are you to your atheism? Do you know what a vow is? Do you vow that you are of any belief system? Do you attest you are an atheist? Are you dramatic or passionate about your profession? Do you pine for a day when everyone will attest to being an atheist? Do you think those who do not pose as atheists tend to be vulgar?
To me, an avowed atheist tends to be someone who likes to take a public vow or stance against the letters G o d. ("As Marx is my witness ...") A militant atheist is someone who wants to use group force (as in the case of laws or riots) to erase monuments to belief systems they seek to replace with their own leaps of faith (in themselves, Marx, scientism, nihilism, unicorn-ism, whatever).
Do you think you're on the scent of discovery? Are you seeking some kind of "aha" moment?
What I love is a society that defends the freedom and dignity of its members. For that, some things about Canada and the U.S. are admirable, and some are not. I do not admire the willingness of many Canadians and Californians to enforce pc with criminal punishment.
You might also suffer from a distorted or overly literalistic belief about the god you say you don't believe in.
I don't believe in an old guy in a long beard, either. To me, the Trinitarian Godhead is what reconciles the fluxing expression of qualitative Consciousness, measurably manifesting Substance, and accumulating Information. (Do you believe in consciousness, substance, and information?) For substance, matter is stored information, while energy is transmitting information. No expression of substance is entirely matter or entirely energy, but a mix.
In practice, Atheists tend to indulge their own leaps of faith about moral connections and reconciliations (good faith and good will), but they have a fetish-like aversion to the letters G o d. Also, a metaphysical belief that banishing the sequential use of the letters G o d would result in more happiness and fewer conflicts. I agree, it's not a fancy belief, just a simplistic one.
Do Canadians need more hugs? The thing about churches (forums for assimilating community good will) is that they tend to dispense hugs and help assimilate feelings of moral purposefulness. Which tends to help strengthen and preserve societies and nations.
Are you an "avowed Atheist?"
I agree that most avowed Atheists tend not to be patriotic.
I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."
Just as other math-verses can be imagined in which their empirical observations would not hold, our own math-verse may flux and phase shift, so that old values for absolutes change. (Some imagine that the speed of light may shift over time.)
My participatory concern for moral statements is contingent on this: I test for what seems to be needed to establish and defend a decent representative republic. I think too much multi-culti, polygamy, Islam, and power in oligarchs is corrosive to that desire (purpose). I think traditional families, assimilating faith (Great Commandment and Golden Rule), and civic fidelity are essential, but they are being undermined.
To be moral, a person needs to become human --- not sub-human. He needs to enjoy enough individual freedom and dignity to become responsible for his choices and actions. He needs to become strong enough not to need to shout down invited speakers or run to safe spaces. He needs to tolerate and find joy in other people becoming individually competent and free. He needs to become intolerant of poison that would harm himself, his family, his republic.
Human trafficking is such a poison. As is Islam. As to Gays, I could care less. But I don't think Scotus was right in allowing them to force the nation as a whole to recognize gay marriage. I think that is not a healthy way to strengthen a representative republic.
I don't pretend to know whether the Godhead wants all nations to become representative republics. But if God wants the U.S. to remain one, then I think He is available to our faith, intuition and empathy to guide us to do our part to help that purpose.
If you have a worldview about whether or not nations should seek to become republics, then it will, at some point, entail leaps of faith about what is moral or conducive to that purpose.
Does the Godhead change his mind? Yes, I think so. I think there is feedback part-icipation. Continuous reconciliation. In that respect, we participate as moral agents. Apart from Good Faith and Good Will, I don't believe morality, in specific applications, exists by itself, in a vacuum.
One can also think he is an atheist, even as, in many of his choices and actions, he faithfully serves the Godhead. Ayn Rand, David Deutsch (not Danny Deutsch), and Isaac Asimov SAID they were atheists (or agnostics). But I share much of their thinking, which, from my interpretation, seems quite spiritual. And also, in many ways, not inconsistent with various metaphors as taught by Jesus.
Whatever individual desires I personally may not approve of, I do not attribute to the Almighty as absolute rules. I am not strictly speaking an absolutist or a relativist. I think the injunction to Be Empathetic is an innate absolute. I think it is experienced and interpreted from each subject perspective, subjectively. So, there is ongoing feedback between the absolute and the relative. Like a flux of the Changeless-Changer.
Consensus is sometimes possible when the necessary ingredients come together. For awhile, the U.S. had a consensus that could more or less support a representative republic. However, that is unraveling (for which I severely castigate Progs), as that consensus is undermined by race-baiting, non-assimilating, multi-culti, and as they are farmed by international oligarchs now in control of most institutions of persuasion and indoctrination.
If the U.S. for awhile was suitable for a representative republic, it is losing that. Many other cultures and nations never did become suitable. I don't believe it is moral to try to impose democratic values on non-suitable cultures. Neither do I believe it is moral for people who seek to escape non-democratic societies to come to America to try to turn it into the kind of society they found it necessary to flee.
The people who ran the Nazi gas chambers in accord with Nazi orders should not be subjected to shame?
As to sexual orientation, gays have been tolerated for quite some time now. What is now being weaponized is not bias against gays, but gays against the culture. Scratch a militant atheist, find a militant gay. Who deludes himself that his program will survive confrontation with a more militant strain of mind enslavement: Islam.
First, they just wanted to be understood and tolerated. Now, they want not only to be celebrated, but to be able to punish all who decline to join their celebration. Along their merry way, they seek to replace the First Amendment with the PC Amendment: No one shall speak ill of rampant sexual expression of all kinds, except on pain of punishment, assessment of fine, and forfeiture of pension and belongings.
They want your tax money to be spent to indoctrinate grade school kids. They want to groom children in much the same way the pushers and tobacco sellers groom kids --- except they want the gov/law to provide the enforcement goons. They do not care whether their program for normalizing deviancy may unravel the institutions that have assimilated the wider society.
So long as they serve their sexual predilections, they do not care whether they corrupt youth or flood the electorate with wussies and liberty-illiterates.
In effect, gays are used by oligarchs that want to replace the republic with the worldwide cheap labor farm and pc scientisimists. Most of them seem to be down for that. Had they succeeded in electing Hillary, the republic and the First Amendment would, in main, have been lost by now, in all ways except its name.
I don't care what gay adults want to do among themselves. I do care when they want to groom children and undermine institutions important to preserving the republic and the Bill of Rights.
Too many defenders of Warmism have covered themselves in feeling-based, gender-bending, emotional confusion. Do you have a Warmism Model that actually has some reliable predictive value?
Go ahead. Tell me how much the average sea level is going to rise around Houston (or any other large city) in the next 3 years. Derive that from your model and available data, rather than from guesses.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
What I think is that churches, given more enlightened congregations, can be valuable forums for assimilating decent social purposefulness. (Does not even Dawkins thinks Christianity may be necessary as a bulwark against Islam?)
IAE, I do not care for the alternative: Law drooling regulations up the wazoo. Especially when taken over by oligarchs claiming to rule on concerns of social justice (morality), scientifically, as they lead and condition the wussie masses into worldwide sheeple-dom.
You recite stock phrases, but you haven't defined what you mean by the idea of god/religion that you don't believe in.
Do you believe in goodness, beyond the human form? Can consciousness associated with A.I. express morality, or end-run around its pre-programming?
If there is relevant morality, then it helps to assimilate decent society. That includes society that cares about more than just humans. To say that all morality is human is rather stunted.
Many physicists do not believe the affairs of our universe have all been pre-set. Rather, they unfold. Whatever is reconciling the unfolding is contemporaneously involved. Each decision your brain becomes aware of will have been contemporaneously reconciled moments before you became self conscious of the decision. A reconciliation beyond your mortal consciousness was entailed. Some thing that is contemporaneously involved is hardly irrelevant.
Information tends often to be preserved, in various forms. Your idea about what consciousness is might be stunted, in the way that Grandfather described to Little Big Man. Consciousness is consciousness. How it associates with varying forms does not change that.
I think all expressions of consciousness are expressions of an innate and reconciling morality.
You have the "best" country on the planet? And you complain that 'Muricans are jingoistic or chauvinistic? I think you're at least as self-congratulatory as 'Muricans, except you're more effetely passive-aggressive about it. You compensate for lower self esteem by retreating into passive aggressiveness and sometimes excessive barking.
You score higher because you don't have Mexico on your southern border. However, your oligarchs and their idiot tools are working on that. Good luck with that. I truly hope Canada can preserve a national character. Long live Sergeant Preston and his faithful dog, Yukon King!
Well, how personally committed are you to your atheism? Do you know what a vow is? Do you vow that you are of any belief system? Do you attest you are an atheist? Are you dramatic or passionate about your profession? Do you pine for a day when everyone will attest to being an atheist? Do you think those who do not pose as atheists tend to be vulgar?
To me, an avowed atheist tends to be someone who likes to take a public vow or stance against the letters G o d. ("As Marx is my witness ...") A militant atheist is someone who wants to use group force (as in the case of laws or riots) to erase monuments to belief systems they seek to replace with their own leaps of faith (in themselves, Marx, scientism, nihilism, unicorn-ism, whatever).
Do you think you're on the scent of discovery? Are you seeking some kind of "aha" moment?
What I love is a society that defends the freedom and dignity of its members. For that, some things about Canada and the U.S. are admirable, and some are not. I do not admire the willingness of many Canadians and Californians to enforce pc with criminal punishment.
You might also suffer from a distorted or overly literalistic belief about the god you say you don't believe in.
I don't believe in an old guy in a long beard, either. To me, the Trinitarian Godhead is what reconciles the fluxing expression of qualitative Consciousness, measurably manifesting Substance, and accumulating Information. (Do you believe in consciousness, substance, and information?) For substance, matter is stored information, while energy is transmitting information. No expression of substance is entirely matter or entirely energy, but a mix.
In practice, Atheists tend to indulge their own leaps of faith about moral connections and reconciliations (good faith and good will), but they have a fetish-like aversion to the letters G o d. Also, a metaphysical belief that banishing the sequential use of the letters G o d would result in more happiness and fewer conflicts. I agree, it's not a fancy belief, just a simplistic one.
Do Canadians need more hugs? The thing about churches (forums for assimilating community good will) is that they tend to dispense hugs and help assimilate feelings of moral purposefulness. Which tends to help strengthen and preserve societies and nations.
Are you an "avowed Atheist?"
I agree that most avowed Atheists tend not to be patriotic.
I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."
Just as other math-verses can be imagined in which their empirical observations would not hold, our own math-verse may flux and phase shift, so that old values for absolutes change. (Some imagine that the speed of light may shift over time.)
My participatory concern for moral statements is contingent on this: I test for what seems to be needed to establish and defend a decent representative republic. I think too much multi-culti, polygamy, Islam, and power in oligarchs is corrosive to that desire (purpose). I think traditional families, assimilating faith (Great Commandment and Golden Rule), and civic fidelity are essential, but they are being undermined.
To be moral, a person needs to become human --- not sub-human. He needs to enjoy enough individual freedom and dignity to become responsible for his choices and actions. He needs to become strong enough not to need to shout down invited speakers or run to safe spaces. He needs to tolerate and find joy in other people becoming individually competent and free. He needs to become intolerant of poison that would harm himself, his family, his republic.
Human trafficking is such a poison. As is Islam. As to Gays, I could care less. But I don't think Scotus was right in allowing them to force the nation as a whole to recognize gay marriage. I think that is not a healthy way to strengthen a representative republic.
I don't pretend to know whether the Godhead wants all nations to become representative republics. But if God wants the U.S. to remain one, then I think He is available to our faith, intuition and empathy to guide us to do our part to help that purpose.
If you have a worldview about whether or not nations should seek to become republics, then it will, at some point, entail leaps of faith about what is moral or conducive to that purpose.
Does the Godhead change his mind? Yes, I think so. I think there is feedback part-icipation. Continuous reconciliation. In that respect, we participate as moral agents. Apart from Good Faith and Good Will, I don't believe morality, in specific applications, exists by itself, in a vacuum.
One can also think he is an atheist, even as, in many of his choices and actions, he faithfully serves the Godhead. Ayn Rand, David Deutsch (not Danny Deutsch), and Isaac Asimov SAID they were atheists (or agnostics). But I share much of their thinking, which, from my interpretation, seems quite spiritual. And also, in many ways, not inconsistent with various metaphors as taught by Jesus.
Whatever individual desires I personally may not approve of, I do not attribute to the Almighty as absolute rules. I am not strictly speaking an absolutist or a relativist. I think the injunction to Be Empathetic is an innate absolute. I think it is experienced and interpreted from each subject perspective, subjectively. So, there is ongoing feedback between the absolute and the relative. Like a flux of the Changeless-Changer.
Consensus is sometimes possible when the necessary ingredients come together. For awhile, the U.S. had a consensus that could more or less support a representative republic. However, that is unraveling (for which I severely castigate Progs), as that consensus is undermined by race-baiting, non-assimilating, multi-culti, and as they are farmed by international oligarchs now in control of most institutions of persuasion and indoctrination.
If the U.S. for awhile was suitable for a representative republic, it is losing that. Many other cultures and nations never did become suitable. I don't believe it is moral to try to impose democratic values on non-suitable cultures. Neither do I believe it is moral for people who seek to escape non-democratic societies to come to America to try to turn it into the kind of society they found it necessary to flee.
The people who ran the Nazi gas chambers in accord with Nazi orders should not be subjected to shame?
As to sexual orientation, gays have been tolerated for quite some time now. What is now being weaponized is not bias against gays, but gays against the culture. Scratch a militant atheist, find a militant gay. Who deludes himself that his program will survive confrontation with a more militant strain of mind enslavement: Islam.
First, they just wanted to be understood and tolerated. Now, they want not only to be celebrated, but to be able to punish all who decline to join their celebration. Along their merry way, they seek to replace the First Amendment with the PC Amendment: No one shall speak ill of rampant sexual expression of all kinds, except on pain of punishment, assessment of fine, and forfeiture of pension and belongings.
They want your tax money to be spent to indoctrinate grade school kids. They want to groom children in much the same way the pushers and tobacco sellers groom kids --- except they want the gov/law to provide the enforcement goons. They do not care whether their program for normalizing deviancy may unravel the institutions that have assimilated the wider society.
So long as they serve their sexual predilections, they do not care whether they corrupt youth or flood the electorate with wussies and liberty-illiterates.
In effect, gays are used by oligarchs that want to replace the republic with the worldwide cheap labor farm and pc scientisimists. Most of them seem to be down for that. Had they succeeded in electing Hillary, the republic and the First Amendment would, in main, have been lost by now, in all ways except its name.
I don't care what gay adults want to do among themselves. I do care when they want to groom children and undermine institutions important to preserving the republic and the Bill of Rights.
Too many defenders of Warmism have covered themselves in feeling-based, gender-bending, emotional confusion. Do you have a Warmism Model that actually has some reliable predictive value?
Go ahead. Tell me how much the average sea level is going to rise around Houston (or any other large city) in the next 3 years. Derive that from your model and available data, rather than from guesses.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
No comments:
Post a Comment