Author Topic: Trump vs Twitter  (Read 6144 times)

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8042
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #50 on: June 01, 2020, 09:46:44 PM »
I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it?

It's about justice.


ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8042
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #51 on: June 01, 2020, 09:49:42 PM »
There is no moral truth,

It's settled then, there is nothing wrong with Twitter saying what they like about Trump's posts.

Eric, I spent a lot of time on that post and that's all you got? :(

Well, since you agree that no moral truth exists

It wasn't agreement; it was Devil's advocacy.  In other words, if you're right then Twitter can do whatever they want because nobody can say they are wrong.  Invert, always invert.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #52 on: June 01, 2020, 10:44:03 PM »
Quote
Honestly, I'm not trying to move goal posts. You frequently don't answer my questions so I try to word them differently.

I don't answer your one lone question on how atheists can determine good or bad. I've answered it multiple times in the past, you don't accept my perspective (which is totally fine), but then you keep bringing it up as, like I mentioned previously, the fallback argument when your position breaks down.

We can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to get into another 20 page waste of time debating morality. Like I suggested in my previous post, I think it would be productive if avoided this position in every discussion and tried to make your case in a less dramatic manner.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
akam| brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2020, 04:52:40 AM »
Quote
-----How do you measure impact? For instance, does Trump hurt more people than the average homosexual? Yes, of course (and so did Obama-and every other president).

We're not talking about Trump, we're talking about why Trump was discriminated.
The act of lying vs. being a homosexual human.

You say we cannot measure the impact in order to compare. I disagree.

Being a homosexual has as little direct impact as being a heterosexual. Homosexuality does not cause problems - biases from other humans cause problems. The same we see today - black people are not the problem, racist cops are the problem.

Whereas lying can directly cause a host of problems, massive in nature in some cases, to perfectly un-bigoted, fine, upstanding people. If Bernie Madoff was gay rather than a liar, a lot of grief would have been avoided, for example.

Quote
If one group of ancient humans produced 90% liars/cheaters/abusers (little Trumps) and 10% of folks that were attracted to the same gender (will call them Tribe A) and then another group (Tribe B) produced 90% who liked the same gender and 10% little Trumps, I would have to bet that Tribe A would probably have better survival odds since there would be more incidents of procreation.
When reality does not fit your needs - create a fantasy which does, then attempt to convince everyone that the fantasy is real. The religious solution.

First, there is no known human society with a majority of homosexuals. So you're arguing make-believe.

Second, I could just as easily say all the liars/cheaters would kill each other in fits of adulterous rage while the homosexuals had sex as god intended (just for kids) once a year, then went back to their carnal pursuits. You can't prove me wrong because as I mentioned you've moved from reality to fantasy in order to justify your conclusion.
I tried to flesh out my arguments better in the above post to Eric. I worded it poorly.

And I'm saying that if atheism is accurate those biases of humans are okay  (whether it's being racist or against homosexuals or anything else for that matter) because all of them are just evolutionary instincts (just like sexuality).

Homosexuality is okay, heterosexuality is okay, lying is okay, honesty is okay, racism is okay as is sexism as is a desire for equality. They are all simply (and only) evolutionary instincts. None more right or wrong than another. Anymore than green is superior to yellow. Since you have no basis to think one ideal is superior, why are you so sure you do?

There is no moral truth, lc! If there is no moral truth, why is being a racist "wrong?" It isn't. Your just indoctrinated to think it is because you grew up in the West. The West's views of human rights is highly influenced by this passage:

Genesis 1:27 "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

So humans aren't just like any other animal but each of us have significance because we are made in the image of God. So, if you're a theist, you have a reason to fight racism. If you're an atheist...well, we're all just animals anyway, so what's the big deal? Racism probably helped us survive in the past so why think it's bad?

In fact, racism is a part of every culture. It's a part of our humanity - just like sexuality. It's not like human rights exist or that people are made in God's image or something.

You're assuming that there is only one truth...either religion and morals exist or religion and morality do not exist.  That a society without religion cannot construct a moral code...and we know that this is completely possible.  Just because someone doesn't believe in religion, doesn't mean that morality goes out the window.  AI may not believe in religion, but AI can be programmed to have a moral code...it's not different for human beings.   

The other part of your analogy about homosexuals and tribes also isn't accurate.  Since homosexuals exist in all tribes and species.  You are correct in one perspective...humans are different...we have the choice to act in ways that may be contrary to what nature would make us believe is most productive.  that being said, nature decides homosexuality...while nurture decides on who becomes a liar.  Cheers!

Sanj, glad you joined! Y

es, as an agnostic it bugged me when people were like "are you a Christian or something? I was like no. Why would anyone believe in that type of stuff?" I wanted to believe that I lived way better than a lot of these religious people. So no, I'm not saying atheists can't be moral. I'm saying that if you're an atheist, it silly to think that your moral compass is any more right/true than Trump's. Ultimately, everyone is just acting on their evolutionary instincts.

Yes, there is only one truth. Either God exists and there is a superior morality or God doesn't exist and there is no superior morality. I think that's pretty fair. Our conscience is either being influenced by God or influenced (totally) by evolution. It's almost like comparing manners or culture to one another. One culture might think cannibalism is good and another believes in veganism. Neither is really more true or right than another. Just different. There are culture that are racist and cultures that are not. Neither is more right than another there either.

If it is driven by evolution it is silly to say that there is a moral truth. There is no reason to think that honesty is morally superior to dishonesty because they are both coming from the same source (arbitrary and random inputs). In fact, being honest can work against our best interest so why do it? If all morality is just based in our own mind, why be a slave to it? Shouldn't we admire people like Trump who are actually more self serving since their is no real moral good?

Not sure what you mean by nature decides homosexuality. If you mean nature by genetics, that's only partially true. Only about 25% of someone's genetics determine their sexuality. In that case, nature also creates pathological liars. Posted links on research for both of these claims in previous post.

Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2020, 04:59:57 AM »
I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it?

It's about justice.

The feeling of justice is just is an evolution instinct. Hitler thought his version of morality was better too. All I'm saying is that neither of you are right. You only have the illusion of superiority (assuming atheism is accurate). As did he. 

On what grounds do you think that your version of "justice" is superior to the KKK or Hitler's? They have their versions too. You are getting your moral compass from the same exact spot as these folks.

It's like grabbing a crayon out of the box and saying "my color is better than yours! My coloriality is superior to yours, colorist!" In fact, it's more like someone else randomly grabbing a crayon out and giving it to you (you can't help your genetics or how your brain is wired after all).
« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 05:17:30 AM by stahleyp »
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2020, 05:02:35 AM »
There is no moral truth,

It's settled then, there is nothing wrong with Twitter saying what they like about Trump's posts.

Eric, I spent a lot of time on that post and that's all you got? :(

Well, since you agree that no moral truth exists

It wasn't agreement; it was Devil's advocacy.  In other words, if you're right then Twitter can do whatever they want because nobody can say they are wrong.  Invert, always invert.


Do you believe that moral truths exist? Yes or no?
Paul

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2020, 05:17:03 AM »
Quote
Honestly, I'm not trying to move goal posts. You frequently don't answer my questions so I try to word them differently.

I don't answer your one lone question on how atheists can determine good or bad. I've answered it multiple times in the past, you don't accept my perspective (which is totally fine), but then you keep bringing it up as, like I mentioned previously, the fallback argument when your position breaks down.

We can agree to disagree, but I'm not going to get into another 20 page waste of time debating morality. Like I suggested in my previous post, I think it would be productive if avoided this position in every discussion and tried to make your case in a less dramatic manner.

Yes, I understand how atheists think they can determine good or bad. I'm saying that good and bad doesn't actually exist if atheism is accurate. There is reality and there is wishful thinking. Things like secular humanism is simply wishful thinking. The reality is that every moral action is equal because they all come from the same source. The reality is that moral truth does not exist. The reality is that it's silly to be so irrationally attached to things like morality because morality boils down to personal opinions.

Paul

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8042
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2020, 06:29:27 AM »
I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it?

It's about justice.

The feeling of justice is just is an evolution instinct.

That's good enough for me.  Social instincts are what make us human.

We could think of it from the point of view of a starfish but I am unable to do that.

ERICOPOLY

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8042
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2020, 06:39:11 AM »
There is no moral truth,

It's settled then, there is nothing wrong with Twitter saying what they like about Trump's posts.

Eric, I spent a lot of time on that post and that's all you got? :(

Well, since you agree that no moral truth exists

It wasn't agreement; it was Devil's advocacy.  In other words, if you're right then Twitter can do whatever they want because nobody can say they are wrong.  Invert, always invert.


Do you believe that moral truths exist? Yes or no?

Yes, I do.  Plural is right.  One social group will have a moral truth as will another, and sometimes they are at odds with each other.  At times my moral truths shifts with education.  For example, I once thought it was justified to drop the two big bombs on Japan as I was told it swiftly ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.  That was an opinion given to advocate for and justify the bombing, not a truth. 

Leahy believed that a surrender could be arranged without the bombs:  http://www.doug-long.com/leahy.htm.  Taking Leahy's position, the bombing was an enormous war crime.  It may have been anyhow -- for whether or not you believe it saved lives, that argument could have been used in any war.  Maybe we'll shorten the war and save lives if we kill all of the civilians in a couple of cities?  Perhaps that's what Bin Laden was thinking in planning 9/11?

« Last Edit: June 02, 2020, 06:44:46 AM by ERICOPOLY »

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3867
Re: Trump vs Twitter
« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2020, 06:43:40 AM »
I'm simply saying that if you're atheist, why think your moral code is better than Trump's (or Hitler or whoever)? Why do you trust it?

It's about justice.

The feeling of justice is just is an evolution instinct.

That's good enough for me.  Social instincts are what make us human.

We could think of it from the point of view of a starfish but I am unable to do that.

That's good. If it's good enough for you, it should be good enough for the KKK too. ;)
Paul