Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

um if God the Creator designed human beings, how would it be irrational to follow his moral rules? I would think that the designer knows best how his creations should act.

It is an act of irrationality for any sentient being to enslave themselves to the opinions of any other sentient being.

Since we believe the bible to be the true word of God, it is entirely rational to want to follow the morals set out by God in the bible. It is irrational to not do this.

Actually, your belief that this bible plays that role is itself irrational. If you don't think so, then I would ask you, "on what basis do you believe the bible is the 'true word of god?' "

[seer]

It is an act of irrationality for any sentient being to enslave themselves to the opinions of any other sentient being.

Why? If you attach to those views of your own free will? Why is that irrational? I mean if a man really believes that the Bible is inspired then it is the only rational thing to do.

[Sparko]

It is an act of irrationality for any sentient being to enslave themselves to the opinions of any other sentient being.

Great then stop telling us what our morals should be. Stick a fork in it, you are done. I bet you were a real trip growing up when your parents told you what to do. "No! I am not your slave!"

Actually, your belief that this bible plays that role is itself irrational. If you don't think so, then I would ask you, "on what basis do you believe the bible is the 'true word of god?' "

It doesn't matter. The fact is we truly believe in God and the bible. Each comes to that believe differently. The only thing that matters is IF there is a God, and he revealed himself to mankind, shouldn't we listen to him?

[carpedm9587]

Great then stop telling us what our morals should be. Stick a fork in it, you are done.

Of course not. As noted - I have a vested interest in the world aligning to the moral framework I hold. Each of us does - so we constantly try to influence (and/or control) one another. It's basically how it works.

It doesn't matter.

Of course it does. You're arguing that your choice is a rational one. If you cannot defend the basis for that choice, then you are basing a belief on an irrational basis.

And I think I can short-circuit the likely response. There is a difference between defending morality, which is subjective and relative and will always be rooted back down to subjective values, and making a statement about what is objectively real. You are claiming knowledge of an objective reality as a basis for your beliefs. If you cannot substantiate the truth of that belief...then your entire structure is based on a misperception of reality.

In other words - you are not actually "following god." You are following the various known and unknown authors of the bible.

The fact is we truly believe in God and the bible. Each comes to that believe differently. The only thing that matters is IF there is a God, and he revealed himself to mankind, shouldn't we listen to him?

And IF you cannot substantiate that "if," then I would say no, a rational person wouldn't "follow him." They'd be making a mistake, and being duped in the process.

[carpedm9587]

Why? If you attach to those views of your own free will? Why is that irrational?

Because you are accepting the abandonment of "reason" by a rational being. I would take that as an irrational act right out of the gate.

I mean if a man really believes that the Bible is inspired then it is the only rational thing to do.

See my response to Sparko

[Sparko]

Of course not. As noted - I have a vested interest in the world aligning to the moral framework I hold. Each of us does - so we constantly try to influence (and/or control) one another. It's basically how it works.

Can't you maintain a consistent stance from one post to another?

And IF you cannot substantiate that "if," then I would say no, a rational person wouldn't "follow him." They'd be making a mistake, and being duped in the process.

Wow you can't even keep a consistent stance in the SAME post.

So we should follow your moral frame work, but we shouldn't follow God's because that would be enslaving ourselves to another sentient being?

Are you smoking weed or something?


I'm sorry, but at this point Carp your entire argument has "jumped the shark" into utter nonsense.

[seer]

Because you are accepting the abandonment of "reason" by a rational being. I would take that as an irrational act right out of the gate.

But Carp you again are only relating your subjective opinion as to what is irrational. Why should anyone accept that opinion? And there could be a number of good rational reasons for following the herd. To be more protected, to get ahead, to foster peace and civility, societal cohesion, etc....

See my response to Sparko

And IF you cannot substantiate that "if," then I would say no, a rational person wouldn't "follow him." They'd be making a mistake, and being duped in the process.

So what if our acceptance of Scripture is merely a preference? You said that preferences are not logically deduced or proven. Remember your "true for me?" So "true to me" is OK for you but not us?

[Sparko]

Who would be more rational than God?

[seer]

Who would be more rational than God?

Carp?

[Sparko]

Carp?

Apparently. In his mind anyway. That's pretty audacious.

[One Bad Pig]

Apparently. In his mind anyway. That's pretty audacious.

Keep in mind, he doesn't think God exists. IF his premise is true, being more rational than a nonexistent entity is a pretty low bar.

[Sparko]

Keep in mind, he doesn't think God exists. IF his premise is true, being more rational than a nonexistent entity is a pretty low bar.

He already told me that I shouldn't enslave myself to another sentient being. But maybe I misunderstood him.

Let's ask.

Carp. For the sake of argument, let's say God does indeed exist and he did create us. Should we follow the moral code he tells us to?

[One Bad Pig]

He already told me that I shouldn't enslave myself to another sentient being. But maybe I misunderstood him.

Let's ask.

Carp. For the sake of argument, let's say God does indeed exist and he did create us. Should we follow the moral code he tells us to?

In his view, you're "enslaving" yourself to the unknown authors of the Bible, which would qualify as sentient beings. In any case, I agree with you that he's failing to apply his beliefs consistently within a single post, let alone between posts.

[carpedm9587]

So we should follow your moral frame work, but we shouldn't follow God's because that would be enslaving ourselves to another sentient being?

If you follow my moral position for the same reason you follow the bible - "just because it says so" - then you are just repeating the same mistake you are currently making - abandoning moral reasoning for "following the herd." All you're doing is "switching herds." But if you find the arguments compelling and adjust your framework to more closely align with mine as a result, then you are reasoning morally and, yes, your moral framework should change. As I said before, as soon as someone sees another moral principle as superior - they will immediately adopt it. Unfortunately, when your measure for "is it superior?" is "is it in the book?" your moral framework can never change - never adjust - and nothing will ever appear to you to be superior. Your herd-based approach precludes it - specifically because your specific "herd' doesn't exist anymore and you're merely following what we have of their writings.

[carpedm9587]

But Carp you again are only relating your subjective opinion as to what is irrational.

A thing is irrational or nonrational if it is not arrived at through the basic principles of reason - of logic. My subjectivity has nothing to do with it.

Why should anyone accept that opinion? And there could be a number of good rational reasons for following the herd. To be more protected, to get ahead, to foster peace and civility, societal cohesion, etc....

And so long as you do - and as long as your herd is a small group of long-dead men, your moral framework is locked in stone and you cannot defend it rationally. You don't even know if they arrived at it rationally.

So what if our acceptance of Scripture is merely a preference? You said that preferences are not logically deduced or proven. Remember your "true for me?" So "true to me" is OK for you but not us?

Seer - if you cannot see the difference between a preference for life, and a preference for a book, I have no idea how to even begin to proceed. Yes - you can indeed base your morality on your "preference for the book." That's pretty much been the point all along. And so long as that is your preference, you are locked into your long-dead herd - pretty much forever.