Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI have long found the term "skeptics" an interesting one. I actually don't see myself as "skeptical." I have a set of beliefs that includes some elements and excludes others, as with any human being. Ultimately, we are all skeptical of the things that are not in our belief system, so we can all be described as "skeptics."
But I agree that Seer is tenacious, and generally engages respectfully in the exchange - staying on the argument at hand instead of taking swipes at the person making them.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept in math, like 12=12 it can not be any other way. Some one who commits suicide has decided that existence is not a desirable state (which was the case with a good friend of mine recently). So unlike the rules of logic for instance where there can't be an actual contrary position there can be with the question of existence. Whether you find your existence desirable or not is subjective. Agreed?
Originally posted by seer View PostRight and that is my point - your existence is a good to you. You decide your existence is a good, because you decide. But why is it good to you? Any argument you use will beg the question. Your a priori truth does nothing to inform this question. You would come to the same conclusion whether you held to this a priori truth or not. Like I said, it has no real currency in the discussion.
If you do not recognize this, Seer, I can do nothing further. You are arguing against an a priori truth, and there is nowhere else to go. From my perspective, you are willing to reject a foundational principle to preserve your line of reasoning. I would consider that irrational. I cannot prove the mathematical law of identity. I cannot prove the goodness of being within the context of itself. To reject the former you blow up mathematics. To reject the latter requires to to abandon pretty much all Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophical disciplines. You're tossing out the baby to rid yourself of the bath water, IMO.
Originally posted by seer View PostLet's focus on these two questions for now...Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-21-2017, 12:13 PM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI'm using the word "skeptic" here in it's general usage to refer to those who are skeptical, particularly, of religious claims. It's easier to say "skeptic" than to indicate "atheists", "agnostics", "non-Christians religious believers", and perhaps even "liberal Christians". I would love to use the word "skeptic", and "freethinker" of myself, since I think of myself as generally skeptical and freethinking, maybe more so than most people I know, including those who use those labels for themselves, but unfortunately that would just become confusing to people who use those terms in their more colloquial sense.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSee, I've never seen him actually misrepresent people like that. Sometimes he'll follow his debatee's view point to what he believes is it's logical conclusion, and that'll frustrate people and having them believing that he's misrepresenting them, but I don't know if I consider that misrepresentation in the sense you're using it here.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSeer - a person who is mentally compromised may also reject 12=12 as true. Their rejection does not alter the a priori truth of the statement. Likewise, depression may alter the perception of the "good of existence" - that does not change the a priori nature of it. This is not about how I "feel" about something. It is about the intrinsic "good" of existence. You will find it a foundational principle in Thomistic and Aristotelian thought.
No - it is not a good "to me." Within the context of myself, my existence is a good. My existence is not necessarily a good for anyone else - but for a given thing, it's own existence is a good. It is not about how I "feel" about it (that, I suspect, would get us to emotivism). The a priori nature of it is rooted in the existence itself. Again - consider your own existence and ask yourself how the fact of your existence compares with the possibility of your non-existence. "To be," for a given thing, is a good for that thing.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
It is not a necessary truth, like the law of noncontradiction, for instance.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostYes it is. The law of identity is a necessary truth. So, 12=12 is a necessary truth.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe necessary truth we are speaking of is existence - that existence is a necessary good. I say it isn't.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostWhat possible world would have existence not being a good? God exists at all possible worlds.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell Carp is an atheist. And that being the case why wouldn't non-existence also be a good?Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut 12=12 can not be any other way, whether you find your existence desirable or not can be different, whether you come to that conclusion under distress or not. It is not a necessary truth, like the law of noncontradiction, for instance. Let me put it this way, the law of contradiction would be true even if no minds were there to discover it. The sun could not both exist and not exist at the same moment. If there were no minds (existence) your a priori truth would not exist, it is based on experience - it is not a necessary truth like the law of noncontradiction, it would be a posteriori knowledge.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut it is ONLY the content of my experience that informs me that my existence is a good. If I never existed the question is completely moot! There would be nothing to compare. It is not a necessary truth, how could it be, we would have to exist to subjectively value life.
Except to keep repeating myself, I have no idea how else to help you see this. If you are capable of rejecting as foundational the goodness of existence, then I cannot possibly see you as rational. Further discussion just seems....well...pointless. It is not possible to have a rational discussion if the very foundations of reason are denied.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by mattbballman31 View PostIf God exists in all possible worlds, then Carp's atheism is incorrect. So . . . saying non-existence would be a good would be incorrect. Do you think God is a necessary being?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThe necessary truth we are speaking of is existence - that existence is a necessary good. I say it isn't.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
It is not possible to have a rational discussion if the very foundations of reason are denied.Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
George Horne
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
15 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 09:46 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
102 responses
558 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 11:43 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
251 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
154 responses
1,017 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
04-12-2024, 12:39 PM
|
Comment