A bizarre definition of morality from the guy who loves to tell us he's more moral than the God whom he supposedly doesn't believe exists

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Yes, humanity determines humanity's standard

I already established that you have engaged in such idiotic circularity.

A man might have a standard for what he is looking for in a potential female companion
Perhaps that standard is that she can weigh no more than 120 pounds

A woman might have a standard for what she looking for in a potential male companion
Perhaps that standard is that he can be no less than 6 foot tall

Who do you think has determined these standards?
The man in question did!
The woman in question did!


How do we, humanity, determine our collective standard that to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is wrong?

Probably a combination of pure empathy and a desire not to be, ourselves, needlessly harmed

And who or what determines what harm is needed? And needed for what? And what constitutes humanity? Who tells us what humanity thinks? The majority?
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
We? That would include me. So I have decided the flood harm was needed.
I know that you have
And your point is?

We agree upon the standard that it is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another

That you and I might disagree upon what qualifies as conscious or purposeful or needed/needless or harmful is just part of life...
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I know that you have
And your point is?

You got owned again.

We agree upon the standard that it is immoral to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon another

That you and I might disagree upon what qualifies as conscious or purposeful or needed/needless or harmful is just part of life.

"Part of life" doesn't cut it. You said I was involved in determining what harm is needful. I say flood harm was. You lose again.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Who determines which are correct? Let me guess: Humanity. LOL.
Why are you struggling so?

Humanity has determined a standard of morality, stiggy

To consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others is immoral
All else is either morally good or, at the very least, morally neutral

That we do not all agree, all the time, on what constitutes 'conscious', 'purposeful', 'needful/needless', and 'harmful' is no more relevant than the fact that a relatively few psychos do not agree upon the standard itself...
 

SteveB

Well-known member
Here's an exchange that took place between me and the arborist in his silly Spiderman thread:


ME: Who determines what is good and just?

ARBORIST: We do.

ME: You and who? Ted Bundy? Who's included in your "we?"

ARBORIST: Me and SteveB

ME: And since SteveB doesn't condemn God, you just blew up the dumb point you were trying to make in your OP. Congratulations.

ARBORIST: "We" means the human race, stiggy. Me, SteveB, and you as well

ME: And Ted Bundy and Hitler and Pol Pot and Bill Cosby and OJ and Jack the Ripper too, right?

ARBORIST: Yes, that's right, stiggy. Guess what, though? The vast, overwhelming majority of us ARE NOT socio/psychopaths like the individuals that you and SteveB keep harping on about...

ME: So majority rules, right? In the South in 1856, since the majority thought slavery was moral, it therefore was, right?

ARBORIST: The voices of the evil are drowned out by the voices of the good,

ME: So if a neutron bomb wiped out everyone on earth except six people, four white and two black, and the four believed blacks should be exterminated, thus "drowning out" the voice of the blacks, then white supremacy would be moral, right?

No answer so far, but would anyone like to guess what it might be?
He'll never actually answer it either.

It'd destroy his humanity is basically good beliefs.
 
H

HouOz

Guest
Re the op title - one does not need to believe in God to pass comment on it.
It's nature and tendencies are there for all to see in the bible. One can draw comparisons from there.
Edit - btw, in your little discussion with the Arborist, you fail to mention that God endorsed slavery.
 
H

HouOz

Guest
List some members of humanity who have participated in that determination. Are you one? Am I one? SteveB? Hitler? Alan Alda?
The standard tree planter refers to allows us to determine undesirable moral traits and judge them via our laws in our courts.
The majority of humanity is not immoral like your outlier examples.
 
H

HouOz

Guest
There is no "us."

By your already established individual opinion.

They are not your laws or courts.

A statement with no support.
Okay, so there are no humans - we are all in a matrix.

No, by the combined, agreed upon morality of mankind and incorporated into our laws.

Never said they were but I know they are good and moral. I may not agree with all of them, but I abide by them - else I may be penalized.

Reasonable people would see it stands on it's own and makes eminent sense.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Okay, so there are no humans - we are all in a matrix.
I can't account for your delusions.

I wanted to ask an atheist, and you're the nearest one so if the universe is amoral, is it true that atheists waste time on virtue signaling their morality?
 
Last edited:
Top