How do you know murder is wrong?

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I disapprove of Jews*. They are evil**. The Holocaust was good--according to the Nazis.

--Brant

*no I don't

**no they aren't

you can't think your way out of a wet paper bag

Since I am not in a wet paper bag, that is of little concern to me.  I do not fret over subjective matters.  Apparently you do.

I am probably smarter than you are but  I lack certain human refinements,  such as empathy and compassion. 

[moralist]

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 I lack certain human refinements,  such as empathy and compassion. 

Being proud of mental illness makes you stupid.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Since I am not in a wet paper bag, that is of little concern to me.  I do not fret over subjective matters.  Apparently you do.

I am probably smarter than you are but  I lack certain human refinements,  such as empathy and compassion. 

Very few people are smarter than me, including my 189 IQ Dad. By IQ he was one in a thousand. In college he had expressions of pure genius in his now terrible-to-believe "Cat Philosophies," but he gave it up. That likely makes me by such metric one in 20 to one in 30. Qua intelligence IQ is terribly over-weighted. It's an artifact. A large part of how smart you are is how you use what you have; how you structure your mind, what you put into it and pure guts or character. I'd go on and on but you'd have no way to understand what I'm talking about. But, by way of example, I'm exponentially smarter than I was 50 years ago although I'm sure my IQ compared to my then age group has deteriorated somewhat. Now, just to show how complicated this all is, a nuclear physicist likely will peak in his 20s in terms of his work. He won't go dumb but will be trapped by his knowledge destroying some of the plasticity of his mind. Physics is extremely simple*--not easy--compared to human being and endeavor generally. Einstein hit a wall. He stalled out. Wanna bet someone doesn't come along and top him? He needed to be surrounded by Einsteins, but there was only one--him. I'm no Einstein, to say the least, but I'm surrounded by people who educate me and let me continue to add on to what I have. Right now I'm grappling with individual rights and its contemporary and unnecessary conflict with social existence. You might say, what's new about that? Wait for the essay.

--Brant

*not the great unknown also physics--reality in toto is too big for our brains, fortunately, for when and if it's not we'll lose the wonder of it all and be consumed by conceit if not boredom; struck down by "God"

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Very few people are smarter than me, including my 189 IQ Dad. By IQ he was one in a thousand. In college he had expressions of pure genius in his now terrible-to-believe "Cat Philosophies," but he gave it up. That likely makes me by such metric one in 20 to one in 30. Qua intelligence IQ is terribly over-weighted. It's an artifact. A large part of how smart you are is how you use what you have; how you structure your mind, what you put into it and pure guts or character. I'd go on and on but you'd have no way to understand what I'm talking about. But, by way of example, I'm exponentially smarter than I was 50 years ago although I'm sure my IQ compared to my then age group has deteriorated somewhat. Now, just to show how complicated this all is, a nuclear physicist likely will peak in his 20s in terms of his work. He won't go dumb but will be trapped by his knowledge destroying some of the plasticity of his mind. Physics is extremely simple*--not easy--compared to human being and endeavor generally. Einstein hit a wall. He stalled out. Wanna bet someone doesn't come along and top him? He needed to be surrounded by Einsteins, but there was only one--him. I'm no Einstein, to say the least, but I'm surrounded by people who educate me and let me continue to add on to what I have. Right now I'm grappling with individual rights and its contemporary and unnecessary conflict with social existence. You might say, what's new about that? Wait for the essay.

--Brant

*not the great unknown also physics--reality in toto is too big for our brains, fortunately, for when and if it's not we'll lose the wonder of it all and be consumed by conceit if not boredom; struck down by "God"

I can't structure my mind.  I have been placed under the most advanced neuro scanning equipment on the planet and there is no sign of a mind in my body.  From which I conclude that I don't have an immaterial Mind.  Nor do I have an immortal or immaterial soul.  I assume my brain, to a limited degree, can structure itself, which is to say change in response to its environment.  

I am cursed (or blessed)  with an almost totally mathematical outlook.  I was brought up Jewish,  but my true religion is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Everywhere I go, and everything I do leads me to comprehend the entropy increasing. 

[moralist]

19 hours ago, Peter said:

Do you mean "statistics?"

More like "studies"...   

They're the god of do nothing collectivist liberal bureaucrats.

Greg

[moralist]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was brought up Jewish,  but my true religion is non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Everywhere I go, and everything I do leads me to comprehend the entropy increasing. 

Secular Jews can be especially harmful to others because they're amoral.

 

Greg

[Peter]

“I am Spartacus!” You want to go nuclear on the people you are talking to, you dope? Secularists in general are less likely to go on a Jihad like irrational, emotional believers . . . of all faiths. Secular teaching means biases do not hinder a search for the truth. Reason, science, and morality are the keystones of secularism while religionist to some degree MUST BE irrational and that irrationality is sparked by a belief in that which does not exist. Immediately the religionist must consider lies, propaganda, murder, and genocide to “get their way.” And what particularly disgusts me is all the cases of hypocritical, supposedly peaceful religionists who lie, cheat, steal, and engage in pedophilia.

So who would you trust more, a secularist or a religionist? How about in a historical context? Thomas Jefferson or Osama Bin Ladin? Ben Franklin or Martin Luther?  

Peter

From Wikipedia: Carl Edward Sagan (/ˈseɪɡən/; November 9, 1934 – December 20, 1996) was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, science popularizer, and science communicator in astronomy and other natural sciences. He is best known for his work as a science popularizer and communicator. His best known scientific contribution is research on extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation. Sagan assembled the first physical messages sent into space: the Pioneer plaque and the Voyager Golden Record, universal messages that could potentially be understood by any extraterrestrial intelligence that might find them. Sagan argued the now accepted hypothesis that the high surface temperatures of Venus can be attributed to and calculated using the greenhouse effect.^[1]

Sagan published more than 600 scientific papers and articles and was author, co-author or editor of more than 20 books. He wrote many popular science books, such as The Dragons of Eden, Broca's Brain and Pale Blue Dot, and narrated and co-wrote the award-winning 1980 television series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. The most widely watched series in the history of American public television, Cosmos has been seen by at least 500 million people across 60 different countries.^[2] The book Cosmos was published to accompany the series. He also wrote the science fiction novel Contact, the basis for a 1997 film of the same name. His papers, containing 595,000 items,^[3] are archived at The Library of Congress.^[4]

Sagan always advocated scientific skeptical inquiry and the scientific method, pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). He spent most of his career as a professor of astronomy at Cornell University, where he directed the Laboratory for Planetary Studies. Sagan and his works received numerous awards and honors, including the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the National Academy of Sciences Public Welfare Medal, the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction for his book The Dragons of Eden, and, regarding Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, two Emmy Awards, the Peabody Award and the Hugo Award. He married three times and had five children. After suffering from myelodysplasia, Sagan died of pneumonia at the age of 62, on December 20, 1996. end quote

[anthony]

As long as we're going to be broadly general about it, It seems to me that the Judeo-Christian tradition has evolved and continues to mature. On two counts, off the top of my head, do they have something that Left secularists do not: they know "why" murder is wrong; and they tend towards individualistic self-responsibility. Many will argue the obvious, that it's irrational. It is their commanding and watchful God and their 'knowledge' of the Soul they derive those from - and that's that. I accept, but argue - not completely - and, so what? How does it hurt you? (Very much presuming upon Church/State separation, for who can tolerate coercion over him/her from anyone, from other atheists equally!).

Belief in the sanctity of the human soul has a positive moral weight, both selfishly in a Christian or Jew's personal life and in the prohibition from harming others, I surmize. (Hypocrites we see from all persuasions. Killers of millions have been secularists. Sanctimony, insult and superior arrogance is heard from the religious and secular, alike).  And ~however~ those virtues of 'soul' arose, it seems clearer to me that the practical consequences in that certainty and a 'rightfulness' for a Christian's or a Jew's life will overtake any dogma they first followed from. The confrontation with reality every being must face, guarantees that religious people too, have to be mostly rational to survive and thrive.

Actions speak loudest-- to, and for oneself, and others.  As with a good philosophy, it is the continuous rational acts of each individual which benefit him - while the early cruciality of studying theory will be born out and reinforced by action, and eventually matter less. A person becomes what he most thinks and practices with consistent integrity.

I ask, what morality has Empiricism brought? Where is any powerful conviction in what is right, from secularists? Where are rational and selfish values in the Left? Little and none, that I can see. More, has secularism turned to the default ethics, of altruism and collectivism (and egalitarianism) than ~ever~ did (or now do, seemingly) the religious. Statism is largely the preserve of the Left, and from it and them we are not protected.

Last, as admirable and beneficial as they are, one cannot derive direct and personal pride or self-esteem from the knowledge, creations and discoveries of others (like scientists, etc.) - or, directly, their knowledge. Virtue, value and knowledge still has to be found each for himself, and lt will always be so. 

[BaalChatzaf]

14 minutes ago, anthony said:

As long as we're going to be broadly general about it, It seems to me that the Judeo-Christian tradition has grown and continues to mature. On two counts do they have something that Left secularists do not: they know "why" murder is wrong; and they tend towards individualistic self-responsibility. Many will argue the obvious, that it's irrational. It is their commanding and watchful God and their 'knowledge' of the Soul they derive those from - and that's that. I accept, but argue- who cares? (Very much assuming on Church/State separation, for who can tolerate coercion over him from anyone, from other atheists equally!). 

Belief in the sanctity of the human soul has a positive moral weight, both selfishly in a Christian or Jew's personal life and in the prohibition of harming others. (Hypocrites we see from all persuasions. Killers of millions have been secularists. Sanctimony, insult and superior arrogance is heard from the religious and secular).  And -however- those virtues of 'soul' arose, it seems clearer to me that the consequences in a certainty and 'rightfulness' for a Christian's or a Jew's life will overtake any dogma they first followed from. Actions speak loudest-- to, and for oneself and others.  As with philosophy, it is the continuous acts of each individual which benefit him - the early criticality of theory will be born out and reinforced by action and eventually matter less. A person becomes what he most practices with consistent integrity.

I ask, what morality has empiricism brought? Where is any conviction in what is right, from secularists? Where are rational and selfish values in the Left? Little and none, that I can see. More, has secularism turned to the default ethics, of altruism and collectivism (and egalitarianism) than *ever* did the religious. Statism is largely the preserve of the Left, and from it and them we are not protected.

Last, as admirable and beneficial as they are, one cannot derive direct and personal pride or self-esteem from the knowledge, creations and discoveries of others (like scientists, etc.) - or, directly, their knowledge. Virtue, value and knowledge still has to be found each for himself, and lt will always be so. 

The Abrahamic answer to why murder is  wrong:  Because God commanded us not to murder.  Would you consider that  reason sufficient?

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Abrahamic answer to why murder is  wrong:  Because God commanded us not to murder.  Would you consider that  reason sufficient?

It is more than sufficient--to the religious person. (And as a result, to the security to another person). Since it is a moral imperative taken by individual conviction, it's a hundred times more "sufficient" than a command of the law. Neither reason is sufficient for me.

[jts]

41 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Abrahamic answer to why murder is  wrong:  Because God commanded us not to murder.  Would you consider that  reason sufficient?

Socrates would want to know:  Is murder wrong because God says it is wrong?  Or does God say murder is wrong because it is wrong?

 

[moralist]

8 hours ago, Peter said:

“I am Spartacus!” You want to go nuclear on the people you are talking to, you dope? Secularists in general are less likely to go on a Jihad like irrational, emotional believers . . . of all faiths.

... that only holds true for America hating/Jew hating Islamic fascists.

There are no Christian jihadis today. They grew up and reformed their religion, whereas Muslims did not. They stood by meekly and tacitly and didn't lift a finger while they allowed their religion to be hijacked by immoral thugs.

 So don't give me that crap about "all faiths"...

...because I DON'T buy that liberal democrat LIE that all religions are morally equivalent.

 

Greg

 

[moralist]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Abrahamic answer to why murder is  wrong:  Because God commanded us not to murder.  Would you consider that  reason sufficient?

Yes... and my Conscience affirms God's wisdom.

You're so devoid of morality you'd gas Jews if your government god told you it was legal. That's the danger when valueless secular kapos like you substitute government for god and legality for morality.

 

Greg

[moralist]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

As long as we're going to be broadly general about it, It seems to me that the Judeo-Christian tradition has evolved and continues to mature.

Also, Judeo/Christian values are also responsible for the existence of America, for it was founded on them.

 

Greg

[jts]

29 minutes ago, moralist said:

Also, Judeo/Christian values are also responsible for the existence of America, for it was founded on them.

 

Greg

Do you see any references to the Bible in the USA constitution?

 

[anthony]

12 hours ago, moralist said:

 

...because I DON'T buy that liberal democrat LIE that all religions are morally equivalent.

 

Greg

 

It seems more like 'moral equivocation' that I've seen, although along with some portion of equivalence. But I agree, it is a moral injustice to conflate Christianity (today) with Jihadist Islam.

Rand wrote of 'Faith and Force' (:'The Destroyers of the Modern World') - of how the two are always in tandem since they are dependent on each other and how mysticism applied by force brings about tyranny or Statism. (Therefore, why they must be kept apart).

Context and situations have changed, but her principle is everlasting.

There have been two new emerging Faiths in the West, in my view: the one as backward-looking, proselitizing, sometimes belligerent and some times murderous - as Christianity used to be - and the other, far less obvious but as insidious - the faith of non-conviction - Progressivism - which is neo-mystical and which has its god or gods too: Statism, Scientism, The People.

It intends for we the people "to progress". From what, to what? nobody actually explains. For example in the US, when I first read several years ago of an American mocking the US Constitution I was quite stunned. Does he not know what he has? Now, it's not so shocking (even worse). "The Constitution is just a piece of paper, written by old Christians way back then; it must adapt and progress with our modern times, science and computers and new generation of non-religious people, or be discarded"  - I gather is the argument, approximately.

Of course this is a rejection of all metaphysics, an evasion of the fundamental fact that man himself will always be man, regardless of the era--which the Founders in their wisdom understood and foresaw. (Man's nature is a 'given', whether by "his Creator" - or not). For that, and epistemological and ethical evasions, I refer to Progressivists also as "skeptics". Those who do not "know".

So far, it's no contest between the two faiths in Europe. As European secular-skeptics watch this growth of Islam, mosques appearing while churches close, they have not the slightest comprehension of how to identify it and rationally respond. Down deep, I think many are in mystical awe of such extremist conviction which they can't attain in their 'faith', and which can be self-sacrificial of lives to a level even they can't reach, in their altruism. Europe is in ideological retreat and has compromised its hard-won values and virtues to that fake morality - along with its individual and cultural identity: Come, to be a part of us, as we shall be a part of you - is the sentiment, best personified by Merkel and her "good intentions"(Kant). The weak, selfless and convictionless are losing, maybe already lost, to those with extremist, confident and irrational convictions who have time and future numbers on their side.

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, jts said:

Socrates would want to know:  Is murder wrong because God says it is wrong?  Or does God say murder is wrong because it is wrong?

 

I think one of Plato's dialogues is exactly addressed to this question.

[moralist]

12 hours ago, jts said:

Do you see any references to the Bible in the USA constitution?

No... and neither is "separation of church and state"... a overused phrase misattributed to the Constitution by lying secular leftist libertines. The only Constitutional reference to religion was to establish its freedom. The Founding Fathers who lived by Judeo Christian values were wise enough to create a secular government.

Greg

[moralist]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

It seems more like 'moral equivocation' that I've seen, although along with some portion of equivalence. But I agree, it is a moral injustice to conflate Christianity (today) with Jihadist Islam.

Rand wrote of 'Faith and Force' (:'The Destroyers of the Modern World') - of how the two are always in tandem since they are dependent on each other and how mysticism applied by force brings about tyranny or Statism. (Therefore, why they must be kept apart).

Context and situations have changed, but her principle is everlasting.

There have been two new emerging Faiths in the West, in my view: the one as backward-looking, proselitizing, sometimes belligerent and some times murderous - as Christianity used to be - and the other, far less obvious but as insidious - the faith of non-conviction - Progressivism - which is neo-mystical and which has its god or gods too: Statism, Scientism, The People.

It intends for we the people "to progress". From what, to what? nobody actually explains. For example in the US, when I first read several years ago of an American mocking the US Constitution I was quite stunned. Does he not know what he has? Now, it's not so shocking (even worse). "The Constitution is just a piece of paper, written by old Christians way back then; it must adapt and progress with our modern times, science and computers and new generation of non-religious people, or be discarded"  - I gather is the argument, approximately.

Of course this is a rejection of all metaphysics, an evasion of the fundamental fact that man himself will always be man, regardless of the era--which the Founders in their wisdom understood and foresaw. (Man's nature is a 'given', whether by "his Creator" - or not). For that, and epistemological and ethical evasions, I refer to Progressivists also as "skeptics". Those who do not "know".

So far, it's no contest between the two faiths in Europe. As European secular-skeptics watch this growth of Islam, mosques appearing while churches close, they have not the slightest comprehension of how to identify it and rationally respond. Down deep, I think many are in mystical awe of such extremist conviction which they can't attain in their 'faith', and which can be self-sacrificial of lives to a level even they can't reach, in their altruism. Europe is in ideological retreat and has compromised its hard-won values and virtues to that fake morality - along with its individual and cultural identity: Come, to be a part of us, as we shall be a part of you - is the sentiment, best personified by Merkel and her "good intentions"(Kant). The weak, selfless and convictionless are losing, maybe already lost, to those with extremist, confident and irrational convictions who have time and future numbers on their side.

That's my basic point. There is absolutely NO moral comparison between Christianity today and islam today...

... and yet secular leftists constantly bring it up because they're LIARS..

The reason Europe (with the possible exception of brexiting UK) is crumbling in the face of the Islamic invasion is because it was founded on degenerate secular liberal socialist values. So the majority of Europeans are morally weak and have nothing in their secular libertine government dependent culture with which to resist the immigrant hoards... just as the immigrant hoards are offered nothing better with which to assimilate.

In America today... the secular liberal democrats are the Islamic fascists ALLIES. Because the secular religion of leftist socialism is as morally degenerate as Islam. This makes them both antithetical to Judeo Christian values. So there is a reason the Constitution is mocked by secular leftists. It does not belong to their government worshipping political religion.

The US Constitution was made only for decent people who govern themselves in accord with Judeo Christian values.

It doesn't work for indecent people.

So as people degenerate into immoral unproductive government parasites, it has to be violated in order to govern those who fail to govern themselves and who have rendered themselves undeserving of a decent government.

 

Progressivism is a secular leftist political religion with government as its god. It is one of the fastest growing and most dynamic religions on Earth.

Both secular leftism and Islam are ENEMIES of American values and American culture.

 

Greg

[merjet]

7 hours ago, moralist said:

The only Constitutional reference to religion was to establish its freedom. 

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That is more than merely "to establish its freedom."

[BaalChatzaf]

13 minutes ago, merjet said:

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That is more than merely "to establish its freedom."

I wonder how Congress would deal with a religion that requires the sacrifice of first born sons?  

[moralist]

5 hours ago, merjet said:

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

That is more than merely "to establish its freedom."

I don't consider freedom of religion "mere" either. England had a state religion. America does not... and the Founding Fathers wanted to make certain none would ever be established.

...but what they never thought would happen is that the secular political religion of liberal socialism would infiltrate the US government.There is no "separation of church and state" there, for secular liberal socialism has become the state religion. It is taught in public schools and government universities and propogandized in the media. And right now half the government and half the population subscribes to its secular political religious beliefs and lives by its secular libertine values.

So when secularists go on and on and on about "separation of church and state"...

...they're NEVER talking about THEIR religion! 

 

Greg

[jts]

43 minutes ago, merjet said:

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Does it make sense to extend freedom of religion to a religion that opposes freedom of religion?

According to Nonie Darwish, who grew up under sharia in Egypt, under sharia you are born a Muslim by law. Also if you leave Islam, that is apostasy and you are an apostate. The penalty for apostasy is death. Is this freedom of Religion?

It is the duty of every Muslim to help to establish sharia when possible.

Do you really want to not prohibit the free exercise of Islam?

 

[moralist]

52 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I wonder how Congress would deal with a religion that requires the sacrifice of first born sons?  

What about a state sponsored secular religion that trains monkeys to become government benefits check cashing parasites?

Eh, Bob?

Greg

[moralist]

4 minutes ago, jts said:

Does it make sense to extend freedom of religion to a religion that opposes freedom of religion?

According to the state sponsored religion of secular liberal socialism, the answer would be yes...

...because both the religion of secular liberal socialism and the religion of Islamic fascism are enemies of Judeo Christian values.

 

Greg