You were the one who claimed that your moral reasons were based on your “feelings”. Why should your personal feelings count more than others’?

I hold the belief that eating too much beef is wrong. This belief is justified in that raising too much cattle is bad for the environment. It is further justified in that it is a leading cause of climate change. If these justified reasons happen to correspond to actual states of affairs in reality (are you denying this?), then I have knowledge of an objective moral truth.

To say it is laughable is not an argument. I presented a justified true belief (knowledge). Address my premises. I am open to being persuaded.

Based on your standard, some Chinese don’t share your “feelings” about dogs and they are justified in eating them. It is not a non sequitur. It follows from your definition of morality.

Chickens were domesticated for food. So were cows, but I would make the argument that eating too much beef is immoral and that belief is justified due to the ill effects on the environment from raising too much cattle. I think this is true because it corresponds to actual states of affairs in reality. Therefore, it is a necessary moral truth that I have knowledge of.

Furthermore, dogs and cats are companion animals. They are not food. But, based on your reasoning the Chinese are justified in eating dogs.

By your standard of basing the morality of eating cows and chickens on your “feelings”, then there are no objective moral truths and we are all justified in basing our own morality on how we feel. What’s the point of this thread then? I don’t give a fuck about tasty chickens. They’re food.

So, you base morality on your personal feelings? Because that’s what it sounds like.

Furthermore, let’s say you eat an entire Cornish game hen in a day but abstain from meat for the majority of the week. Is that immoral?

I granted you that eating too much beef may be immoral due to climate change, for instance, but where do you draw the line with animals and by what standard is it a matter of morality?

Insects are a special kind of living things. They are animals, too.

What about eating as many insects as one desires? Do insects count? But perhaps you’re right when it comes to beef, for example.

Now I think I know where your going with this. It is my understanding that humans are considered animals by biologists. We are animals at the top of the food chain. Thus, it is not immoral to eat animals, however much.

In what world does that example have anything to do with overeating. I think that’s a false analogy.

Suicide may or may not be morally wrong depending on the circumstances. It is not unforgivable, though, in my humble opinion.

God doesn’t have muscles. He’s a Spirit. He can lift any object of any weight through the gravity that He created. This is silliness.

I believe that humans exist and we’re created with the faculty of reason (in God’s image) are necessary truths because it is the purpose of creation to have rational creatures. I’m agnostic about rational creatures living elsewhere in the universe, but it is possible that they do exist and are also created in God’s image as they would also be of the purpose for the universe. Therefore, there must be some necessary truths regarding our conduct.

And a moral skeptic believes what exactly? Are they agnostic about morality having objective truth, or do they deny that morality is objective?

What do you mean by “morality realism”? Is it just the stance that there are objective moral truths?

Okay, but what are your feelings about this?

I agree to that. Do you think my explanation makes sense?

Okay. I agree with that, but I will answer my own question to get to something else that is interesting to me. I believe we have reason and driving emotions that give our reason purpose because we are capable of discerning right from wrong without a decree from God. However, I believe that reason and empathy are gifts endowed to us by our Creator. So, right and wrong are inherent in the human condition, and we can know them without God saying so. Our reason and God’s reason are applied to ethics, discerning right from wrong because they are universal principles prior to God saying so. We all intuitively know that cold-blooded murder of innocent children is wrong, for example.

No, you did fine. I didn’t want to argue that but wanted to ask out of curiosity a related question.

I don’t understand your question

So logic is prior to God in your view. I don’t want to argue that, but a similar question is: Is something right because God says so (never mind figuring out what God “says” as this gets to religion), or does God say it is right because it is right (prior to Him saying so)?

I’m sorry you were indoctrinated by your zealot parents at such a young age. I’m sure they meant well according to their beliefs however blatantly misguided. I believe children should be taught the overlapping and overarching truths that are shared by all religions (the lessons, morals, and such), and when they are adults after being taught how to think critically and with an entire childhood of experience behind them, then they can decide how religious they do or do not want to be. I agree the Bible was written by fallible men, but I do believe it has deep wisdom and much of it was inspired by a spiritual connection to God. I disagree with the fire and brimstone hellfire preaching, and I think it has no place to be taken literally, but should be taken as meaning a spiritual separation from God. I was an atheist for 12 years, and much of that time felt like literal hell because of my attitude and spiritual sickness.

Do what works for you, but we must all remember that we are a part of a community, so always keep the community in mind, too; and I think the best way to do this is to always try to follow the Golden Rule and admit that we can be wrong.

I smashed one iPhone with a hammer and busted another in half because of the spying. I even bought a bug detector. Nothing will stop them or prevent them from harassing me. I even dismantled a radio because I thought there was a bug in it.

Paranoia, delusions, and hallucinations:

My “delusions” are of the paranoid type. The first thing you have to realize about me is that I don’t agree that I am delusional (at least not all the time). I believe that people are sometimes recording me, at other times people are just spying on me, and at other times Homeland Security is using the microphone on my devices to listen in on me. They also use the GPS on my phone to track me and harass me. That may sound outlandish, but you have to realize that I was a failed experiment of the CIA. All throughout 2006, I was followed by agents who zapped my temporal lobe with concentrated microwaves causing me to hear a voice commanding me to do something occurring with a painful shock feeling in my ear. I would not do what the voice told me to do, so they eventually gave up. This went on for months, however, and now I have brain damage from the concentrated microwaves to my temporal lobe. I used to be able to do calculus, and now I can’t. I have trouble with hearing now, too.

I also feel like some people on TV and the radio know me. This probably doesn’t sound likely to you, but I am something like a celebrity to the government. They tried to turn me into a terrorist, but I wouldn’t comply because I don’t want to hurt people. I’m probably one of the few people who have been able to withstand their torture and harassment. So, I’m something of a national curiosity.

Now, I am praying three or more times a day and studying Scripture. I am working on myself so that I can carry out the Golden Rule and treat people with the compassion and understanding that everyone deserves.

God bless!

Noah

I think it just goes to show that racism is common among police officers, judges, and juries. Nothing else.

I also noticed that you mention Stephen Hawking as a hero, and exclaim quantum mechanics as a great achievement (which he was and it was), but for some odd reason you leave out General Relativity and Albert Einstein. What would be the reason I wonder?

No problem. I wasn’t implying that you should feel any guilt, as those events had nothing to do with you personally. As such, you can neither claim them as accomplishments having anything to do with you personally.

Other than that, your essay was well-written.

Did Spengler have the same normative slant that you do, or was he merely presenting an explanatory model? I couldn’t help but notice your frequent use of the term “accomplishments” in your essay, implying a sense of pride. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with pride in one’s culture per se, but ... well, I don’t know. It smacked of apologetics to me.

Haha. No, but in all seriousness, if you wrote what you just did 2,000 years ago, it would either make it into scripture or you would be crucified as a heretic or both. So, I won’t tell anyone lest you become a martyr! :)

If I didn’t know better I’d say you’re a modern day prophet. At least what you said was inspired. You show great understanding, what people pray for the Holy Spirit to give them understanding hope to get. Very cool.

I found what you wrote to have great value. Is this original thought of your own?

Okay. I was just putting some undeveloped thoughts out there.

Just substitute “after” for “at”. Then what?

Most mental illnesses are not personality disorders. The mark of psychopathy is a lack of a conscience. Most people I associate with have one. When I find someone who doesn’t and thinks this is a common trait, I avoid them. Good bye.

There are also what are called “industrial psychopaths”. They are not violent.