Angst & Frustrations Galore

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Archon, that argument makes little to no sense. Ookla can't tell someone they are wrong? What if they say raping 8 year olds is good? would you object if he said they were wrong there? I don't see how God becomes any different at all from that. He said God exists. Therefore, if you disagree with him, he thinks you're wrong. How is it any different if he adds on "so you're wrong if you don't believe he exists? In addition, how is that different in ANY way from making any other statement as a fact?

Again, you need to calm down. Ookla has done nothing wrong, in his argument, in the way he has spoken to people, or in his facts. You, on the other hand, are getting far too aggressive with anyone who disagrees with you.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

excuse me, but I must say making an analogy of something intangible like God to something tangible like a rattlesnake does not work.
correct me if I am wrong

uhm... I'm completely unclear as to why tangibility has anything to do with it. so... I think you're wrong.

[Morik]

You can easily touch the rattlesnake correct? Therefore it is Tangible - if you touch it it will most likely bite you.
Can you touch god? if you can, well hmm.. I haven't found that one out yet.

Essentially its a bad analogy.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

no, i still don't see the connection. What did touching a snake have to do with what Jeffe was saying? nothing.

he said that denying the snake exists would not mean the snake wasn't going to bite you.

Just like that, if God really exists, then it doesn't matter what logic or reason you used to try and deny it, he'd still exist

That was the whole thrust of the argument. It wasn't a proof of God's existence, therefore, touching him had nothing to do with anything.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

Morik - I think you misunderstood the analagy.  If there is a God, as Ookla believes, it wouldn't matter whether or not I believed in him, just like if there is a rattlesnake, it doesn't matter if I believe there is a rattlesnake there - I will still be hurt if it bites me.

Essentially, it doesn't matter if you believe in the bullet.

Jeffe (I think it was) - yeah, sometimes a thesaurus will through in words that are kinda like the word you want but don't really mean the same thing.  However, ethics are, by definition

a set of moral principles or values

so, thesaurus aside and just using the dictionary, ethics are essentially a lot of morals.  So, yeah, I still wasn't misusing the word by definition.

As for why do I do something ruther (Ms. Fish's question()) by turning everything into absolute truth's...

I didn't think I was.  All I was saying is nobody had the right to call my, or anyone else's, morals wrong as long as they can justify them rationally.  So, I guess I was arguing there are no absolute truths...so I guess I really was.  I don't know why, apparently that is just the way I think.

Somebody said this was an argument about God - I am not arguing about God.  All I am saying, or trying to say, is that you have no right to tell me what is moral or ethical because my experiences, ect. justify to me what is right and wrong.  If anything, there are no morals, if you really want to get into it.  But I don't, personally.  So, yeah...

[Morik]

But I can deny god exists, because God is intangible, and it wouldn't "bite me". That's why the analogy doesnt work. and that's what tangibilty has to do with it.

[Morik]

if God really exists, then it doesn't matter what logic or reason you used to try and deny it, he'd still exist

That is true. Obviously true.
But were talking about something like god which has not, and - well, fairly put can not be proven, a matter of faith, and the big mighty word, IF.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

why are you so hung up on that? It's all Jeffe said. ookla believes it to be true. So do the majority of the active members on the board, actually. It seems absurd (bringing this back to the relevant part of the discussion) to say they can't state something under a very specific topic just because you disagree with them. Sorry, you won't get anywhere telling someone their post is meaningless because it refers to God.

oh, and I don't find that word so mighty.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

But I can deny god exists, because God is intangible, and it wouldn't "bite me". That's why the analogy doesnt work. and that's what tangibilty has to do with it.

I can't resist. Actually, if God is real and you don't believe him, that really WILL bite you pretty hard

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Mine says

Ethics- A  personal system of fundamental principles that define values and determine duties and obligation.


Morals-the values held by an individual and maintained by the individual's moral community. Morals define what constitutes a good life.

So yeah two different related things

[Morik]

ethics then, define morals.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

No the community defines morals, thats what the bottom definition says... "maintained by the individuals moral community",  in the sense of this defintion the moral community refers to  religious figures, learned elders and so on.

-Moral community---the social group that maintains the values for its individual members.

and just in case someone wants to now extend the argument to the concept of virtue

Virtues---Aristotle defined a virtue as "an habitual disposition to act well". A virtue is a character trait that motivates a person to act in patterns that achieve the good.

[Archon]

SE, I am perfectly calm, I am just stating that Ookla needs to distinguish his opinion from fact. For example, even if I believed it, I could not say that death is the meaning of life, and if you don't believe that it is, you are wrong. I could say that I think death is the meaning of life. It doesn't mean that anyone who has a different opinion is invariably wrong. They could be right, because it is an opinion based question. God and religion are based on opinion, otherwise we would not have different religions in the world. Therefore, I still think that Ookla can believe whatever he wishes, and he can state his opinion, as long as he treats it as his opinion. So in conclusion, his treating his opinion as fact is not giving other opinions any consideration, which seems wrong.
As for being aggressive, I don't understand how I am being aggressive. I told Ookla that I thought it was inconsiderate of Gorgon's opinion to tell him that he would eventually agree with Ookla. I did not throw insults at him. I informed him of what I thought. Why do you think that I am being aggressive?
As for MsFish's question, that really depends on what we are talking about. If you are talking about morals, then it gets kind of complicated. For honesty, for example, I think it is out of consideration for other people, which stems from  empathy, which stems from the natural desire for companionship, which comes from the realization that when two or more people work together, it often yields better results, or conditions are often better. If you want me to continue, it would be a long list, so it would probably be better placed somewhere else.

[Morik]

by your definitions of ethics and morals, ethics defines morals
because ethics defines values as said in the definition
and morals are the values held .. etc..

[Archon]

In addition Jeffe, it says "held by an individual." Therefore, the person is free to define their own morals. It just happens that they are often made by the moral community because most people derive their morals from those around them. I guess you could argue that everyone does, but some people "remix" them, so as to form new morals and religions to dictate new morals. So the community doesnt necessarily define morals.