Scripture not needed for morality or ethics apparently

[rikuoamero]

In a thread in the Science sub forum, J P Cusick said the following

I do not claim that Einstein was some Prophet or Priest of God - certainly not - as I see him as a spineless and immoral jerk - and the reason he did so well in science is because he gained huge insight from the scriptures - and that was smart of him to do.

This has me thinking. Apparently, Einstein read Scripture, and had a high level of understanding, more so than your average person. Why, according to J P, he attributed his theory of relativity to Genesis (please ignore the fact that not once in his life did Einstein ever come close to even saying that).
So...we have a smart man, who has the holy scriptures of Judaeo/Christianity, and who has a high level of understanding of them...and yet, he is spineless, and an immoral jerk (so far, J P has not said WHY he says that).
So...are Scriptures actually necessary for morality? Looks like it's not. Surely J P will agree with me in that they seem to be entirely superfluous.

[KenRU]

We make absolute moral claims (discrimination is bad, freedom is good, genocide is very bad)

To prove the point, I can envision an example where each of the above is not good.

Therefore, it is NOT absolute.

You both are making the big mistake here by trying to judge "good from bad" which is using the poisoned knowledge from the garden of Eden, Genesis 2:16-17

It must be difficult to navigate life without knowing the differences between good and bad.

I wonder how you manage?

It is a fact that judging "good from bad" is uncertain and confusing,
it is arbitrary and capricious, and that poisoned knowledge is never quite accurate.

While one can say that certainty is only for fools, that is still no reason to claim that we do not know what those words mean (subjective though they are).

Morality needs to be judged by right and wrong,

The definition of moral does indeed encompass Good and Bad.

which is a completely different kind of judgment.

Do you concern yourself with being a Good person as well as a Right(eous) person? Or is Good character not a concern for you?

Truth is right and to lie is wrong - yes but either of those might be either good or bad depending on the circumstances - yes but to lie is always wrong and the truth is always right.

To judge morality as either "good or as bad" is to always be wrong.

Morality definition: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Is the dictionary wrong?

[JP Cusick]

You both are making the big mistake here by trying to judge "good from bad" which is using the poisoned knowledge from the garden of Eden, Genesis 2:16-17

It must be difficult to navigate life without knowing the differences between good and bad.

I wonder how you manage?

That different way of thinking is difficult at first because it takes a lot of mental self discipline, but it gets easier in a short time of constant effort.

To stop judging "good from bad" is to stop being judgmental, because "good and bad" is just mental judgments based on supposed quality instead of being based on right or wrong.

It is a huge big step for true enlightenment.

It is a fact that judging "good from bad" is uncertain and confusing,
it is arbitrary and capricious, and that poisoned knowledge is never quite accurate.

While one can say that certainty is only for fools, that is still no reason to claim that we do not know what those words mean (subjective though they are).

Certainty is not for fools - certainty is for the mighty and for the bold.

And that poisoned knowledge is not about knowing the dictionary definition of "good and bad" ~ it is about judging anything in that perverted way.

That revelation about the poisoned knowledge is really the very first message of woe from the Bible, from the J source, which means that the ancient people were told this too from the beginning.

Morality needs to be judged by right and wrong,

The definition of moral does indeed encompass Good and Bad.

You are correct about that definition, and that is why people get morality confused and misguided.

There is no such judgmentalism between right and wrong.

If you view the moral standards to be good - then that is wrong.

If we seek to learn which morals are right and correct - then exclude the poisoned judgments of good from bad.

I really do not expect you to do this - so I am just saying it in case anyone is interested.

which is a completely different kind of judgment.

Do you concern yourself with being a Good person as well as a Right(eous) person? Or is Good character not a concern for you?

The answer is no, because those are an unsound judgments.

I am not perfect at the discipline but I do try hard to ignore any thinking or judging based on "good or bad" and I focus just on right from wrong - and it really is a huge distinction.

Right and wrong has substance - while good and bad are unstable and weak.

Plus I do not judge myself as a right person nor as a righteous person - certainly not, but I do try to do right and to avoid doing wrong, so I do it for power and not for position.

Truth is right and to lie is wrong - yes but either of those might be either good or bad depending on the circumstances - yes but to lie is always wrong and the truth is always right.

To judge morality as either "good or as bad" is to always be wrong.

Morality definition: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Back to the dictionary as a God, and I do respect the dictionary Gods, but they are not infallible.

The dictionaries are just to help people to understand the language and word meanings, but the dictionaries are not infallible Bibles.

As such - then yes - the morality as told in the dictionary does include "good and bad" and that is because the poisoned knowledge is infected into our language and into human thinking and no person on the entire planet earth is immune.

It is a mental activity which holds the same poison in every different language and every different culture and so the poison is not limited to the English dictionaries.

Every other language in the entire world is infected with that same poisoned knowledge, Genesis 2:16-17

[KenRU]

It is a fact that judging "good from bad" is uncertain and confusing,
it is arbitrary and capricious, and that poisoned knowledge is never quite accurate.

While one can say that certainty is only for fools, that is still no reason to claim that we do not know what those words mean (subjective though they are).

Certainty is not for fools - certainty is for the mighty and for the bold.

And the theists apparently : )

And that poisoned knowledge is not about knowing the dictionary definition of "good and bad" ~ it is about judging anything in that perverted way.

Perverted is your opinion, and not shared by all.

That revelation about the poisoned knowledge is really the very first message of woe from the Bible, from the J source, which means that the ancient people were told this too from the beginning.

Opinion noted.

Morality needs to be judged by right and wrong,

The definition of moral does indeed encompass Good and Bad.

You are correct about that definition, and that is why people get morality confused and misguided.

No, I submit that people get confused and misguided when people start CHANGING the definitions of words to suit an agenda.

Methinks you have cause and effect backwards here.

There is no such judgmentalism between right and wrong.

Sure there is. Is it wrong to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Is it wrong to force a rape victim to carry to term a baby she doesnt want? Is it wrong to prevent a terminally ill patient in never-ending pain to end his or her own life? (I actually created a thread on this earlier, if you are interested: viewtopic.php?p=876764#876764)

These are just some of the grey areas of right and wrong that exist today. How is this any different than the subjective conversation one has when discussing Good and Bad?

If you view the moral standards to be good - then that is wrong.

If you view the moral standard to be right, then that is wrong, and can just as easily be refuted as well.

Now that we have invalidated all forms of subjective thinking, now what?

If we seek to learn which morals are right and correct - then exclude the poisoned judgments of good from bad.

I submit that you are utilizing the same judgements (system) when determining right and wrong as one does for good and bad " a subjective system.

I really do not expect you to do this - so I am just saying it in case anyone is interested.

Well, that is good, because while I admire the effort to not judge other people unnecessarily, I submit that the world is not just black and white, wrong and right. New evidence and data informs our opinions on a daily basis. Thinking you have the answer to everything is short-sighted at best, and harmful at worst.

which is a completely different kind of judgment.

Do you concern yourself with being a Good person as well as a Right(eous) person? Or is Good character not a concern for you?

The answer is no, because those are an unsound judgments.

I am not perfect at the discipline but I do try hard to ignore any thinking or judging based on "good or bad" and I focus just on right from wrong - and it really is a huge distinction.

Right and wrong has substance - while good and bad are unstable and weak.

Can you illustrate an example for me?

Plus I do not judge myself as a right person nor as a righteous person - certainly not, but I do try to do right and to avoid doing wrong, so I do it for power and not for position.

And if doing what you believe the right thing is causes harm?

Truth is right and to lie is wrong - yes but either of those might be either good or bad depending on the circumstances - yes but to lie is always wrong and the truth is always right.

To judge morality as either "good or as bad" is to always be wrong.

Morality definition: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Is the dictionary wrong?

Back to the dictionary as a God, and I do respect the dictionary Gods, but they are not infallible.

They are more infallible then an imaginary being : )

The dictionaries are just to help people to understand the language and word meanings, but the dictionaries are not infallible Bibles.

While I do not consider a dictionary as a bible, I submit that if you have to claim the dictionary is wrong about the definition of a word, then you are already admitting to a fault or weakness in your argument.

As such - then yes - the morality as told in the dictionary does include "good and bad" and that is because the poisoned knowledge is infected into our language and into human thinking and no person on the entire planet earth is immune.

How convenient. The dictionary is wrong because it has been infected. Perhaps it is infected but not the way you think? Maybe morality should not include Right and Wrong but ONLY Good and Bad?

Anyone can suppose anything. You have nothing but a preconceived bias to support this argument, convenient though it is.

In essence you are saying, yes the dictionary definition of Moral does include Good and Bad, but it doesnt fit my belief system so it must be wrong. That is circular logic.

It is a mental activity which holds the same poison in every different language and every different culture and so the poison is not limited to the English dictionaries.

Every culture is wrong but the one you ascribe to. Wouldnt this be the ultimate case of Special Pleading?

[JP Cusick]

There is no such judgmentalism between right and wrong.

Sure there is.

These are just some of the grey areas of right and wrong that exist today. How is this any different than the subjective conversation one has when discussing Good and Bad?

The fact that you (as for most people) do not recognize any distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad" is what is meant by the poisoned knowledge, because that poison is in the human mentality.

And it is okay to judge but that judging needs to be different from being malicious.

Judging between right and wrong is a healthy thing to do, because that is the basis for truth and justice.

But good and bad are judging the quality and the value which is arbitrary and capricious, and that is unhealthy poison.

People still get this confused because people mix right and wrong to the good and bad as if they are parts of the same equation, and so they can see the wrongs and can judge the right and then equate that as good or bad and so the distinction just gets more confused.

It takes effort and mental discipline to exclude the poisoned knowledge but it can be done rather quickly if one can remain focused.

The focus of good and bad is judging the quality and the value, and so it distorts the judging of truth and justice.

We must not believe what the serpent said and do not believe what Eve said either, in Genesis 3:3-6

[Bust Nak]

The fact that you (as for most people) do not recognize any distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad" is what is meant by the poisoned knowledge, because that poison is in the human mentality.

What exactly do you think is the distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad?"

Judging between right and wrong is a healthy thing to do, because that is the basis for truth and justice.

But good and bad are judging the quality and the value which is arbitrary and capricious, and that is unhealthy poison.

What isn't clear is why you think "right and wrong" the basis for truth and justice, good and bad arbitrary.

People still get this confused because people mix right and wrong to the good and bad as if they are parts of the same equation

Or perhaps there is no confusion because "right" is synonymous with "good" and "wrong" is interchangeable with "bad?"

[KenRU]

There is no such judgmentalism between right and wrong.

Sure there is.

These are just some of the grey areas of right and wrong that exist today. How is this any different than the subjective conversation one has when discussing Good and Bad?

The fact that you (as for most people) do not recognize any distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad" is what is meant by the poisoned knowledge, because that poison is in the human mentality.

Readers will note that you completely ignored my question. So, I will post it again and see if I can get an actual answer:

JP: There is no such judgmentalism between right and wrong.

KenRU: Is it wrong to prevent same sex couples from marrying? Is it wrong to force a rape victim to carry to term a baby she doesnt want? Is it wrong to prevent a terminally ill patient in never-ending pain to end his or her own life?

In other words, aren't the above subjectively Right or Wrong? Just like (and indistinguishable from) Good and Bad?

The focus of good and bad is judging the quality and the value, and so it distorts the judging of truth and justice.

Please cite an example of each, so I can better understand your point.

[JP Cusick]

What exactly do you think is the distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad?"

Judging between right and wrong is a healthy thing to do, because that is the basis for truth and justice.

But good and bad are judging the quality and the value which is arbitrary and capricious, and that is unhealthy poison.

The focus of good and bad is judging the quality and the value, and so it distorts the judging of truth and justice.

Or perhaps there is no confusion because "right" is synonymous with "good" and "wrong" is interchangeable with "bad?"

No, they are not synonymous.

The poisoned mentality makes them appear to be synonymous when they are not.

[Bust Nak]

Judging between right and wrong is a healthy thing to do, because that is the basis for truth and justice.

But good and bad are judging the quality and the value which is arbitrary and capricious, and that is unhealthy poison.

The focus of good and bad is judging the quality and the value, and so it distorts the judging of truth and justice.

I heard that much the first time round, but you have yet to come close to explaining why you would think that. Be explicit, give detail. Justify the following two claims:

1) "good and bad" are judging the quality and the value.
2) "right and wrong" are the basis for truth and justice.

While you are here, explain why it would be incorrect to state the following instead:

1) "right and wrong" are judging the quality and the value.
2) "good and bad" are the basis for truth and justice.

As far as I can tell, you seem to be making the distinction between objective morality and subjective morality, given that you chose the terms "truth" in contrast to "capricious." Or perhaps you are making the distinction between legality and morality, given you linked to a legal definition.

[JP Cusick]

I heard that much the first time round, but you have yet to come close to explaining why you would think that. Be explicit, give detail. Justify the following two claims:

1) "good and bad" are judging the quality and the value.
2) "right and wrong" are the basis for truth and justice.

While you are here, explain why it would be incorrect to state the following instead:

1) "right and wrong" are judging the quality and the value.
2) "good and bad" are the basis for truth and justice.

As far as I can tell, you seem to be making the distinction between objective morality and subjective morality, given that you chose the terms "truth" in contrast to "capricious." Or perhaps you are making the distinction between legality and morality, given you linked to a legal definition.

I repeated the same words because I did give a rather detailed explanation along with example and then you ask for what I already gave.

One big boundary for me is that you need to actively participate with the mental activity because I can not do that for you.

You have to make the effort to distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad" in your own mind.

I can not explain how it is done in your own mind when you do not do it for your self.

It does make a difference when some people (as like a true Atheist) who does not accept any commandment or any rules because without any mental boundaries then all the person has left is the poisoned knowledge of good and bad for their judgments.

So here are two (2) example:
1) Walk up to another person and then speak this judgment = You look good, or you look bad - that is a judgment of quality and of value.
Walk up to the same person and say = You look right, or you look wrong - and that judgment has an entirely different meaning.

2) We judge murder to be wrong, and the right thing is = Thou shalt not murder.
This is very simple basic morality.
But when we judge murder as being either "good or as bad" then the dynamic changes, because if I want to murder the person than that would be viewed as good to murder, but I do not want to go to jail for the murder as that would be bad, but if I could murder and get away from the police then that would be good again, and then we can justify murder based on "good or bad" because in the military we murder people who are called the enemy, or we can murder convicted criminals because that is not bad, and so it is a judgment of value and quality instead of right from wrong.
As in an abortion, it helps the 2 parents have a better life so that makes abortion into a good thing, but it is still wrong to murder.

You might call it as objective morality or subjective morality but that just confusing a very simple message which does not need to be confused.

[Bust Nak]

I repeated the same words because I did give a rather detailed explanation along with example and then you ask for what I already gave.

Well it wasn't good enough since it doesn't explain why.

One big boundary for me is that you need to actively participate with the mental activity because I can not do that for you.

You have to make the effort to distinction between "right and wrong" from "good and bad" in your own mind.

I can not explain how it is done in your own mind when you do not do it for your self.

But you can, and should, layout your own reasoning so I can follow what you are thinking step by step. You are still not doing that.

So here are two (2) example:
1) Walk up to another person and then speak this judgment = You look good, or you look bad - that is a judgment of quality and of value.
Walk up to the same person and say = You look right, or you look wrong - and that judgment has an entirely different meaning.

But why do you think "you look good" and "you look right" has entirely different meaning?

2) We judge murder to be wrong, and the right thing is = Thou shalt not murder.
This is very simple basic morality.
But when we judge murder as being either "good or as bad" then the dynamic changes, because if I want to murder the person than that would be viewed as good to murder..., but I do not want to go to jail for the murder as that would be bad, but if I could murder and get away from the police then that would be good again, and then we can justify murder based on "good or bad" because in the military we murder people who are called the enemy, or we can murder convicted criminals because that is not bad, and so it is a judgment of value and quality instead of right from wrong.

Why would murder switch from bad to good if you want to murder someone?! Or if you won't get caught?!

As in an abortion, it helps the 2 parents have a better life so that makes abortion into a good thing, but it is still wrong to murder.

Not gonna touch that can of worms.

You might call it as objective morality or subjective morality but that just confusing a very simple message which does not need to be confused.

But that's how the issue is typically understood, look how long it took to get to this point, this could have been avoided if you have said there is a distinction between objective and subjective morality right from the start.