Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    But so what?
    It kind of blows the whole "objective moral framework" out of the water. Moral frameworks are derived by intelligent beings. If god exists and is intelligent, then god has a moral framework. If god is unchanging, then the moral framework is unchanging. You're not saying anything that doesn't align with relative/subjective morality.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I was answering your point about being absolute. I'm glad we agree.
    It depends on what "absolute" means. If it means "unchanging," then we agree. If it means always, everywhere, and everywhen, then we agree (as long as god is omnipresent and eternal - both of which have their own problems). If it means "always, everywhere, everywhen for everyone," then we don't agree. God's moral framework applies to god. There is no way to translate it to someone else.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right, just as you can not escape God's absolute moral character.
    First of all - you're talking about a being you cannot even show exists, so "escaping" it is pretty trivial. There is no such being. If that being COULD be shown to exist, and has a particular moral framework, I have no need to "escape" it. The moral framework is this being's moral framework - not mine. I am a separate intelligent being with my own moral framework - just as you are.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    The law of God holds complete authority over you, and you can not escape that reality.
    Oh horse hockey. The "law of god" has no "authority" over me whatsoever. God (if it exists) is an independent moral entity as I am. The same principles that govern my moral framework govern this god's. The only difference is, with infinite power, this god can theoretically impose any harm or reward it wants on me for rejecting or acceding to its presumed desire to impose its moral will on mine. This is no different than what I have said about all moral frameworks: when two moral frameworks are in opposition and cannot be aligned, we ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. If we get to the last stage, the being/group with more power will determine the punishments/rewards for those that do not align to the being/group.

    You haven't described anything that doesn't align perfectly with relative/subjective morality - because that is what morality IS.
    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 carpedm9587 View Post
      It kind of blows the whole "objective moral framework" out of the water. Moral frameworks are derived by intelligent beings. If god exists and is intelligent, then god has a moral framework. If god is unchanging, then the moral framework is unchanging. You're not saying anything that doesn't align with relative/subjective morality.
      We were speaking of the absolute. And on that we agree.



      It depends on what "absolute" means. If it means "unchanging," then we agree. If it means always, everywhere, and everywhen, then we agree (as long as god is omnipresent and eternal - both of which have their own problems). If it means "always, everywhere, everywhen for everyone," then we don't agree. God's moral framework applies to god. There is no way to translate it to someone else.

      First of all - you're talking about a being you cannot even show exists, so "escaping" it is pretty trivial. There is no such being. If that being COULD be shown to exist, and has a particular moral framework, I have no need to "escape" it. The moral framework is this being's moral framework - not mine. I am a separate intelligent being with my own moral framework - just as you are.

      Oh horse hockey. The "law of god" has no "authority" over me whatsoever. God (if it exists) is an independent moral entity as I am. The same principles that govern my moral framework govern this god's. The only difference is, with infinite power, this god can theoretically impose any harm or reward it wants on me for rejecting or acceding to its presumed desire to impose its moral will on mine. This is no different than what I have said about all moral frameworks: when two moral frameworks are in opposition and cannot be aligned, we ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. If we get to the last stage, the being/group with more power will determine the punishments/rewards for those that do not align to the being/group.

      You haven't described anything that doesn't align perfectly with relative/subjective morality - because that is what morality IS.
      Again saying that the laws of logic don't apply to you doesn't mean that they don't. You may not believe in logical absolutes like Little Monkey or Eastern Philosophers (as we recently discussed) but they still have authority over you. You could no more escape the moral law of God than you could escape the laws of logic. Just because logical laws don't happen to conform to your reasoning process is meaningless.
      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 Jim B. View Post
        Yes, if it could be established, which was the conditional going in, so we're back to square one. This is a "Philosophy" forum after all, which is, among other things, about 'conceptual analysis.' Maybe you're on the wrong forum (?) Maybe you're thorough-going literal-mindedness is more suited to a strictly scientific venue.
        Nevertheless a “conditional going in” is not establishing the actuality of deities existing, it’s merely creating a hypothetical concept which, in the long run, proves nothing. Philosophy has its limitations, it’s purely an academic exercise.

        As a useful tool for what?
        I’m disagreeing with the use of counterfactuals as "a useful tool" for establishing the reality of moral realism. It doesn't.

        That's a very narrow and constricted and frankly 'science-centric' conception of what philosophy is,
        Not at all. Philosophy has its uses in ensuring self-consistency and helping prevent errors of false inference, as I outlined. But it is not equipped to verify facts and truths about nature. It can only expose and reformulate the truths contained in scientific models.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post




          Again saying that the laws of logic don't apply to you doesn't mean that they don't. You may not believe in logical absolutes like Little Monkey or Eastern Philosophers (as we recently discussed) but they still have authority over you. You could no more escape the moral law of God than you could escape the laws of logic. Just because logical laws don't happen to conform to your reasoning process is meaningless.
          You are erroneously conflating “Laws of logic” with “Laws of God”. The two are not the same. The “Laws of Logic” are a human creation…dating back to Aristotle some would say. Conversely, the “Laws of God” depend upon the existence of God and there is no substantive evidence of God existing.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            We were speaking of the absolute. And on that we agree.
            As I said - depending on your definition of "absolute." And all of this is hypothetical, since you cannot show this being even exists.

            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Again saying that the laws of logic don't apply to you doesn't mean that they don't. You may not believe in logical absolutes like Little Monkey or Eastern Philosophers (as we recently discussed) but they still have authority over you. You could no more escape the moral law of God than you could escape the laws of logic. Just because logical laws don't happen to conform to your reasoning process is meaningless.
            Seer, you can say that the Rules of Asgard don't apply to you, but it doesn't mean that they don't. You may not believe in them, like so many other humans, but they still have authority over you. You can no more escape the rules of Asgard than you can escape the laws of logic. Just because the rules of Asgard don't conform to your beliefs is meaningless.


            That's about as meaningful as the argument you are making is. You have never had an argument about morality, only an endless repetition of definitions. You have never had an argument to show your god exists, only one assertion after another, and a floating leaf (IIRC). You are saying words that have little or no meaning - no more than the previous paragraph. I'm sure you believe it all...I know I once did. I didn't have a floating leaf - I had a petrified child's sudden sense of peace. But it turns out it isn't real. There are far simpler reasons why humanity has its religions and its gods. The rules/laws of logic and mathematics are evident all around me. The morality of a god? The existence of a god? Those are about as real as a Marvel superhero and their credo, and equally as evident in the real world.

            Think about the basis for Christianity, Seer. A god creates all that is - this vast universe - and then is hyper focused on "saving" one species on one backwater planet. This god demands sacrifice to atone for violation of its will, so accepts the sacrifice of its son - a son that is apparently equally god - yet this god is monotheistic. This son is both "fully human" and simultaneously "fully god." And this sacrifice somehow appeases this god's sense of justice - a barbaric death on a barbaric torture device. The proverbial scapegoat. And all of this actually makes sense to you? Somehow, this is more believable than the stories of the Norse gods, Eqyptian gods, Roman gods, Druids, Allah, Vishnu, or any of the other deities humanity has conceived?

            I don't know what else there is to say. I could no more return to those beliefs than I could return to a belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
            Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-01-2019, 05:22 AM.
            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 carpedm9587 View Post
              As I said - depending on your definition of "absolute." And all of this is hypothetical, since you cannot show this being even exists.
              Yet God would be the most absolute thing possible. Whether you believe he exists or not is not material to the discussion. Personal ignorance is not an argument.



              Seer, you can say that the Rules of Asgard don't apply to you, but it doesn't mean that they don't. You may not believe in them, like so many other humans, but they still have authority over you. You can no more escape the rules of Asgard than you can escape the laws of logic. Just because the rules of Asgard don't conform to your beliefs is meaningless.


              That's about as meaningful as the argument you are making is. You have never had an argument about morality, only an endless repetition of definitions. You have never had an argument to show your god exists, only one assertion after another, and a floating leaf (IIRC). You are saying words that have little or no meaning - no more than the previous paragraph. I'm sure you believe it all...I know I once did. I didn't have a floating leaf - I had a petrified child's sudden sense of peace. But it turns out it isn't real. There are far simpler reasons why humanity has its religions and its gods. The rules/laws of logic and mathematics are evident all around me. The morality of a god? The existence of a god? Those are about as real as a Marvel superhero and their credo, and equally as evident in the real world.

              Think about the basis for Christianity, Seer. A god creates all that is - this vast universe - and then is hyper focused on "saving" one species on one backwater planet. This god demands sacrifice to atone for violation of its will, so accepts the sacrifice of its son - a son that is apparently equally god - yet this god is monotheistic. This son is both "fully human" and simultaneously "fully god." And this sacrifice somehow appeases this god's sense of justice - a barbaric death on a barbaric torture device. The proverbial scapegoat. And all of this actually makes sense to you? Somehow, this is more believable than the stories of the Norse gods, Eqyptian gods, Roman gods, Druids, Allah, Vishnu, or any of the other deities humanity has conceived?

              I don't know what else there is to say. I could no more return to those beliefs than I could return to a belief in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
              Nice rant Carp, you just can't help yourself can you? So let me ask, do the laws of logic have authority over you whether one believes in them or not? And as far as Christ goes, Christians have good answers for the Hypostatic Union, nothing irrational about it: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...postatic-union
              Last edited by seer; 08-01-2019, 08:21 AM.
              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 Post
                Yet God would be the most absolute thing possible. Whether you believe he exists or not is not material to the discussion. Personal ignorance is not an argument.
                And Aphrodite would be the most loving being possible...after all...she is the goddess of love, right?
                Personal fantasy is not an argument, Seer.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Nice rant Carp, you just can't help yourself can you?
                Help myself....?

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                So let me ask, do the laws of logic have authority over you whether one believes in them or not?
                Absolutely

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                And as far as Christ goes, Christians have good answers for the Hypostatic Union, nothing irrational about it: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...postatic-union
                Yeah - I've read the theology, Seer. I used to believe it, remember? I'm sure it all hangs together quite well for you. Like I said - there is essentially no way I could return to such beliefs. And you having those beliefs doesn't make them true. As you note, you cannot avoid what is (and is not) real.
                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 carpedm9587 View Post
                  Absolutely
                  Just as the laws of logic would apply to you whether you believed in them or not, God's moral law would apply to you whether it fit your moral framework or not.

                  Yeah - I've read the theology, Seer. I used to believe it, remember? I'm sure it all hangs together quite well for you. Like I said - there is essentially no way I could return to such beliefs. And you having those beliefs doesn't make them true. As you note, you cannot avoid what is (and is not) real.
                  The point is Carp, the Hypostatic Union is not inherently illogical. Which I think you were suggesting. Whether you believe it is true or not, is not the point.
                  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 Post
                    Just as the laws of logic would apply to you whether you believed in them or not, God's moral law would apply to you whether it fit your moral framework or not.
                    Just as the absence of a god won't suddenly become the presence of one because you think it exists, Seer.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    The point is Carp, the Hypostatic Union is not inherently illogical. Which I think you were suggesting. Whether you believe it is true or not, is not the point.
                    As I said, Seer, I'm familiar with the theological rationalizations. Sorry...but they don't really work. The entire Christian story is an odd one. Granted - it is psychologically powerful, so little wonder it has lasted for so long. But as soon as you get past the hype and truly start to consider it...it's just odd. The Hypostatic Union is only one of a long line of bizarre positions one has to twist oneself into a pretzel to swallow...or simply suspend one's disbelief. But the willing suspension of disbelief was largely intended for theater - not philosophy.
                    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 Tassman View Post
                      Nevertheless a “conditional going in” is not establishing the actuality of deities existing, it’s merely creating a hypothetical concept which, in the long run, proves nothing. Philosophy has its limitations, it’s purely an academic exercise.
                      I wasn't arguing for the "actuality of deities existing." I was originally saying that one didn't have to be a theist in order to be a moral realist or an atheist to be a moral relativist, that is until you hijacked it with your misunderstanding. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with philosophy a little bit more before dismissing it. It doesn't seem like you know much about it or have much respect for it.



                      I’m disagreeing with the use of counterfactuals as "a useful tool" for establishing the reality of moral realism. It doesn't.
                      Again, I wasn't arguing for the reality of moral realism. But actually you're wrong; counterfactuals are a useful tool for arguing for all sorts of things.



                      Not at all. Philosophy has its uses in ensuring self-consistency and helping prevent errors of false inference, as I outlined. But it is not equipped to verify facts and truths about nature. It can only expose and reformulate the truths contained in scientific models.
                      Philosophy is much broader in scope than the uses you outlined, which sound like the Logical Positivist idea of philosophy which was pretty much universally rejected 80 years ago.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        Which would make it relative to their interpretation of what "best" is," and subjective to that religious group.
                        When you refer to "their interpretation" of best, who exactly are you refering to? What is "best" from my point of view is not meant to refer to that which might be preferable relative to a particular individual. What is best is that moral system which is most conducive to social cooperation. Certain groups, or societies, could adopt differing moral systems, systems that are variously conducive to social cooperation, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one of those systems that is not "better" than all of the other moral systems in accomplishing that goal. Thus, if true, then that moral system that is "best" in that regard, i.e. that it best serves to conduce social cooperation, then that moral system would be objective regardless of whether anyone, in their imperfect knowledge, might disagree.


                        Relative to someone's definition of "best," making it subjective to that someone.
                        No, because morality is not based on "someone," it's based on the interests of the society as a whole, therefore it is not subjective..


                        And would be relative and subjective to that individual and/or society.
                        As above, society is not an individual mind, and so since morality is about the best interests of society, not of a particular individual, it can't then be said to be subjective.


                        So now we are relative to a society's interpretation of "peaceful" and what makes people happy - which is a subjective thing.
                        No, again, society isn't a mind, so what may be in it's best interests with regard to morality, isn't subjective.


                        Except that what makes one person or society "happy" may not make another society or person "happy." And peaceful is also open to interpretation and varies from individual to individual. Does it mean stress-free? Without war? Without any conflict? Without disagreement?
                        And which moral system is best, might also make every person the happiest they can be within a social group. We don't know which moral system that would be, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a "best" one out there to be found.


                        Because that is how we define the terms:

                        Murder: an illicit or illegal killing.
                        Rape: an illicit or illegal sexual act.
                        That doesn't tell me why they are immoral by definition, it tells me they are illegal.
                        So saying "murder is immoral" is the same as saying (by substitution), "illicit or illegal killing is immoral." See the problem? Now we have the problem of determining specifically which act of killing is "illicit" or "illegal."
                        No, I don't see. What you are defining is what is illegal, as in, murder is illegal. Why is it immoral?


                        Wait, wait - you are a moral realist who doesn't believe that morals are objective realities? How does THAT work?
                        It depends on what you mean by objective realities. Morals are only objective realities with respect to human society. They don't exist out there as things in themselves, so to speak.


                        Gods or your "social good." Morality is individual. It is rooted in the things that we individually value. Because we all share a great deal in common, we tend to value in common ways, so their is significant alignment in our moral frameworks. But there is essentially no such thing as a "social moral norm." What we consider "social moral norms" are nothing more than the moral positions that the majority of us (in a given society) hold in common. We tend to gather in societies that most align with our own moral framework. But if the individual perceives the group moral norm as "wrong," they will reject it in favor of their own. We see this all the time.
                        That's where we disagree, morality is not individual, or subjective, it is societal, and therefore necessarily objective. If you live by yourself on an island then the moral adage to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't make any sense.
                        Last edited by JimL; 08-01-2019, 10:33 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          I wasn't arguing for the "actuality of deities existing." I was originally saying that one didn't have to be a theist in order to be a moral realist or an atheist to be a moral relativist, that is until you hijacked it with your misunderstanding.
                          It seems to me that if you are going to argue that “theism would be the most coherent foundation for moral realism”, one needs an actual Theos, i.e. God, for the argument to make sense. Otherwise it is an empty academic exercise.

                          Again, I wasn't arguing for the reality of moral realism. But actually you're wrong; counterfactuals are a useful tool for arguing for all sorts of things.
                          Counterfactuals may be useful for arguing abstract hypotheticals, but not for arguing about reality.

                          Philosophy is much broader in scope than the uses you outlined,
                          Yes. Philosophy is a very useful discipline. I said so. It still nevertheless remains a purely academic exercise.

                          which sound like the Logical Positivist idea of philosophy which was pretty much universally rejected 80 years ago.
                          I’m cognizant of the fact that Logical Positivism “hoisted itself by its own petard”. Nevertheless, when it is understood as a self-evident axiom, it needs no justification except that it works. Namely, any claim that is not inherently verifiable cannot be shown to be true.
                          Last edited by Tassman; 08-02-2019, 12:31 AM.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Just as the absence of a god won't suddenly become the presence of one because you think it exists, Seer.
                            Carp we were discussing two tings, first the absolute thing, that has been put to bed. Second, was about God's law not applying to you because it did not line up with your moral framework. That is just silly, just as silly as saying that the laws of logic don't apply to you because they don't line up with your beliefs.



                            As I said, Seer, I'm familiar with the theological rationalizations. Sorry...but they don't really work. The entire Christian story is an odd one. Granted - it is psychologically powerful, so little wonder it has lasted for so long. But as soon as you get past the hype and truly start to consider it...it's just odd. The Hypostatic Union is only one of a long line of bizarre positions one has to twist oneself into a pretzel to swallow...or simply suspend one's disbelief. But the willing suspension of disbelief was largely intended for theater - not philosophy.
                            Carp, I'm not interested in your personal pedestrian beliefs. It is obvious that you can not preset a logical flaw in the theory. No pretzels...
                            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 JimL View Post
                              When you refer to "their interpretation" of best, who exactly are you refering to?
                              Whoever is assessing "best."

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              What is "best" from my point of view is not meant to refer to that which might be preferable relative to a particular individual. What is best is that moral system which is most conducive to social cooperation.
                              So your metric is "social cooperation." What do you do about those who use a different metric to assess "best?"

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Certain groups, or societies, could adopt differing moral systems, systems that are variously conducive to social cooperation, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one of those systems that is not "better" than all of the other moral systems in accomplishing that goal.
                              For those who measure "best" in terms of "social cooperation," I agree. People who use that metric will likely have highly aligned moral frameworks, because they are all using the same metric.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Thus, if true, then that moral system that is "best" in that regard, i.e. that it best serves to conduce social cooperation, then that moral system would be objective regardless of whether anyone, in their imperfect knowledge, might disagree.
                              This is objectively true - about a subjectively selected premise. It is also true that if one chooses "maximization of wealth" as their metric, there is one objectively true strategy (we'd love to find) that will achieve that end. That doesn't make the metric less subjectively chosen and the moral framework that results less subjective to the person/group/society.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, because morality is not based on "someone," it's based on the interests of the society as a whole, therefore it is not subjective...
                              Except that you have to define what metric you are using to determine what is "best" for a society, and that process is inevitably subjective.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              As above, society is not an individual mind, and so since morality is about the best interests of society, not of a particular individual, it can't then be said to be subjective.
                              See above...

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, again, society isn't a mind, so what may be in it's best interests with regard to morality, isn't subjective.
                              See above.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              And which moral system is best, might also make every person the happiest they can be within a social group. We don't know which moral system that would be, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a "best" one out there to be found.
                              See above.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              No, I don't see. What you are defining is what is illegal, as in, murder is illegal. Why is it immoral?
                              OK. If we accept that "murder" is a legal term, then why are you using it in a moral discussion? Murder is "illicit killing." So you are saying "illicit killing is immoral." What is it about illicit killing that makes it immoral in your world of morality? It can't be the "killing" part because I can provide multiple instances where killing another human being is NOT considered immoral. So it must be the "illicit" part? Are all things that are illicit (i.e., illegal) immoral by definition? That seems a stretch.

                              You appear to be in trouble either way you go.

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              It depends on what you mean by objective realities. Morals are only objective realities with respect to human society. They don't exist out there as things in themselves, so to speak.
                              So morality is objectively real, but only to humans? Huh? How does that make it NOT subjective?

                              Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              That's where we disagree, morality is not individual, or subjective, it is societal, and therefore necessarily objective. If you live by yourself on an island then the moral adage to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't make any sense.
                              Jim...if the society you live in shifts its moral stance over the next 10 years and determines that killing any human being born with a deformity is a moral good because it protects the human gene pool against imperfections, and reduces harm to future human beings, will you agree with them? Will you support laws that enforce this moral position?
                              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 seer View Post
                                Carp we were discussing two tings, first the absolute thing, that has been put to bed.
                                Yes - depending on your definition of "absolute," as has been noted.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Second, was about God's law not applying to you because it did not line up with your moral framework. That is just silly, just as silly as saying that the laws of logic don't apply to you because they don't line up with your beliefs.
                                No - it's perfectly rational. A moral framework is subjective to the person conceiving it. God's moral frame work no more has "authority" over me than yours does, or the moral framework of any other sentient person. You have no means for showing that it does, even if this god DID exist. If I believe "homosexuality is morally neutral, then homosexuality is morally neutral in my moral framework. It may be a moral ill in god's moral framework, but that has no impact on mine. It means god and I disagree, just as you and I disagree. There is no "binding" there in the same way that there is for the laws of logic or mathematics. The laws of logic are not things I (or god) can refute. An argument bad argument will still be a bad argument, even if I think it is a good one. 2 + 2 will still equal 4 even if I say it equals 5. If god and I disagree on morality, the best you can say is "god disagrees with you." So? You also disagree with me.

                                And you still have not shown this being actually exists - you basically you are projecting your own religiously-based moral framework on a deity you cannot show to exist to lend them authority. Sorry, Seer...I don't buy it. You'll have to do better than "because god says so."

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Carp, I'm not interested in your personal pedestrian beliefs. It is obvious that you can not preset a logical flaw in the theory. No pretzels...
                                Seer...a single being cannot be "fully human" and "fully god" simultaneously. The two definitions contain explicit contradictions (mortal/immortal; limited/omniscience; limited/all-powerful; created/creator, etc.). You can rationalize to the ends of the earth, but a thing cannot be two opposing things: that is fundamental to logic (except, of course when it comes to Christian theology). The same is true for a triune monotheism - it's an oxymoron. Christianity is riddled with such oxymorons that the faithful parrot and the theologians have expended enormous volumes of ink to have "make sense." They simply don't - unless you drink the Koolaid (and yes, I use that expression selectively).
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X