Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

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

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Great.

    Regardless, we do have the moral framework in place and you just agreed that it would solve many of today's problems if followed whereas Atheism would not. So your objection is a non-sequitur.

    You might prefer a moral framework where 'the person thinks for himself' and there is no moral framework, but that doesn't solve anything. That is what we have now.
    No - that's not what I said. I said that aspects of the Christian moral framework are applicable to today's problems - but those aspects are not unique to Christianity (so Christianity is not required to solve the problem), and are not even based in Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and other religions emphasize many of these same principles, so would be no better or worse than Christianity in addressing the problems. Meanwhile, Christianity (and other theisms) brings with it other moral positions that are abhorrent and create other problems.

    The fact that Atheism does not have an intrinsic moral framework does not preclude moral frameworks. It simply means they are not defined by atheism.
    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 One Bad Pig View Post
      Yes, much more convenient for you when you can decide for yourself what's wrong and what's right - also known as anarchy.
      That is how all of us arrive at our moral principles, OBP. The only difference is that, instead of thinking for themselves, the theist is perpetually trying to figure out "what god wants." Given that I believe there is no such being, the result is also akin to anarchy. Indeed, the atheist and theist moral behavior has many similarities. Like theists, atheists with common moral frameworks tend to band together. We don't call them religions or denominations or sects, but the effect is the same.

      And - unlike the theist - we aren't simply trying to figure out what someone else thinks we should do (though we may be influenced by it): we are trying to work out what is moral based on the merits of the issues involved.
      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
        No - that's not what I said. I said that aspects of the Christian moral framework are applicable to today's problems - but those aspects are not unique to Christianity (so Christianity is not required to solve the problem), and are not even based in Christianity. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and other religions emphasize many of these same principles, so would be no better or worse than Christianity in addressing the problems. Meanwhile, Christianity (and other theisms) brings with it other moral positions that are abhorrent and create other problems.

        The fact that Atheism does not have an intrinsic moral framework does not preclude moral frameworks. It simply means they are not defined by atheism.
        If another religion has a similar moral framework, then that only helps my argument. Most don't though, if you look at their cultures. I already mentioned Islam. Hinduism is pretty bad for how they treat people too, they even have classes which is pretty much institutionalized racism. But what we have now isn't working, or we would not be discussing it. Atheism does nothing to build a stronger family unit, or stop poverty. It is a NON thing. It is defined only by what it doesn't believe. It has nothing to offer society.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          That is how all of us arrive at our moral principles, OBP. The only difference is that, instead of thinking for themselves, the theist is perpetually trying to figure out "what god wants." Given that I believe there is no such being, the result is also akin to anarchy. Indeed, the atheist and theist moral behavior has many similarities. Like theists, atheists with common moral frameworks tend to band together. We don't call them religions or denominations or sects, but the effect is the same.

          And - unlike the theist - we aren't simply trying to figure out what someone else thinks we should do (though we may be influenced by it): we are trying to work out what is moral based on the merits of the issues involved.
          I'm impressed by how much wrong you managed to fit in such a small space. The last sentence may be true in some instances. The rest is unadulterated bovine feces. The difficulty for the theist is not in trying to figure out what God wants, but in aligning his or her will with it.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            These Christians have interpreted the text differently - attempting to resolve what they perceive as inconsistencies. That is because they do not start with your requirement that a literal interpretation is required. I neither agree with them nor defend them. I merely point out that they exist.
            Carp, that makes no sense. You don't interpret what is plain. You either accept it or not. If I turned around and interpreted your support for homosexuality, as being totally against homosexuality you would rightly balk. And where is the inconsistency? Apply your logic to something else like adultery. Even if I start with Christ's compassion you could still see adultery as wrong, as Christ actually did. Then perhaps we should not take the texts about loving and helping your man literally.


            The difference, Seer, is that secular ethics acknowledges (or should acknowledge) the lack of universals and the individuality of moral reasoning. My objection is not that Christianity has no means of resolution to moral issues - but rather that it claims to when it does not actually have any more ability to resolve the problems. In the process - it diverts the discussion from true moral reasoning to an discussion on what words in a book mean and how they should be interpreted. That is because, instead of arguing the actual moral merits of one position or another, the attempt is to discern "what god wants."
            Again Carp, you are not making an argument but an assertion. Moral reasoning is a meaningless claim unless you have a moral goal or end. And those are completely subjective, with no way to resolve. Which IS exactly what you accused us of. And in your relative world there is no such thing as TRUE moral reasoning divorced from moral ends or goal. True moral reasoning really only means what you find subjectively acceptable.


            This is why I have said, all along, that Christian morality (and theistic morality in general) claims absolutes/objective moral principles and cannot demonstrate the existence of, or individual access to, any of these principles. It is relative/subjective morality wearing an absolute/objective costume.
            Except, the problem is not with the universal truths per se, but with our limited and often biased understanding. And of course we do have access, just read your New Testament.
            Last edited by seer; 01-18-2019, 12:50 PM.
            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 Sparko View Post
              If another religion has a similar moral framework, then that only helps my argument. Most don't though, if you look at their cultures. I already mentioned Islam. Hinduism is pretty bad for how they treat people too, they even have classes which is pretty much institutionalized racism. But what we have now isn't working, or we would not be discussing it. Atheism does nothing to build a stronger family unit, or stop poverty. It is a NON thing. It is defined only by what it doesn't believe. It has nothing to offer society.
              Atheism is just a description of a worldview that rejects the notion of a god. If you don't like the term, then use "secular humanism" or some other such contrivance. A belief is a belief - whatever it may entail. That the belief is "the god's humans believe in have been created by humans and exist only in human minds" is a "non-thing" to you - so be it. It's not a non-thing to me. It is rich with consequences and opportunity. It creates new possibilities as it rejects old - once held - ideas.

              We all believe in something.
              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 One Bad Pig View Post
                I'm impressed by how much wrong you managed to fit in such a small space. The last sentence may be true in some instances. The rest is unadulterated bovine feces.
                You and Seer and many others here share this tendency in common. Poisoning the well doesn't do much of anything to contribute to your argument. Indeed - you don't appear to have one.

                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                The difficulty for the theist is not in trying to figure out what God wants, but in aligning his or her will with it.
                Then how do you explain the varying (narrow to wide) differences between what different Christians and Christian sects believe "god wants?" How do you account for the majority of Christians believing same sex marriage is a non-issue - while others (like most here) label it a "sin" that is "against the will of god?"

                Sorry - but it's not just a difference in aligning - it's a difference in what people think they are supposed to be aligning to - which is what I said.
                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, that makes no sense.
                  Again - poisoning the well is not an argument. It makes perfect sense - even if you do not see it.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  You don't interpret what is plain. You either accept it or not.
                  In your simple, literal world, you may approximate that - but never exactly. And when you chat with those who do NOT accept your "literal" world, and factor in the complexity of understanding what a preacher meant when there is no direct record of any of his teachings, no account that is written within a couple of decades of his life, no original sources for those accounts, all of the problems associated with translation, and all the rest? Sorry, Seer - the world is not as black and white as you attempt to paint it.

                  ETA: by the way, you ARE aware that language is symbolic, right? Each word represents a thing or a concept. By definition, a symbolic representation requires interpretation - because it is NOT the thing it symbolizes. That is the very definition of language - and why languages are continuously evolving. If you question that - then I'll ask you to define the word, "nunnery."

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  If I turned around and interpreted your support for homosexuality, as being totally against homosexuality you would rightly balk. And where is the inconsistency?
                  If you re-interpret what I say to be the opposite of what I say, I will correct you - because I am here - speaking with you, and can speak for myself. If you reject it and cling to your interpretation - I will know you are wrong. But that is not what you are facing when trying to interpret the Christian scriptures. You have someone else's words "quoting" a man dead at LEAST two decades, in a different culture and different language and different time. Your attempt to claim that this can be done with exactitude is simply unsupportable. Interpretation is ALWAYS necessary.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Apply your logic to something else like adultery. Even if I start with Christ's compassion you could still see adultery as wrong, as Christ actually did. Then perhaps we should not take the texts about loving and helping your man literally.
                  I am sure there are some Christians out there who do not interpret "adultery" in the same way you do. Personally, I don't know of any - so perhaps not.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Again Carp, you are not making an argument but an assertion.
                  Actually - I am articulating an observation about what I see around myself every day.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Moral reasoning is a meaningless claim unless you have a moral goal or end.
                  Of course.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And those are completely subjective, with no way to resolve.
                  Well - no absolute way to resolve. Moral differences CAN be resolved - they just are not guaranteed to be. But then, that is exactly the position Christians seem to find themselves in, leading me to conclude that you are in the same position as the moral subjectivist/relativist - except that you don't know it and/or won't admit it.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Which IS exactly what you accused us of. And in your relative world there is no such thing as TRUE moral reasoning divorced from moral ends or goal. True moral reasoning really only means what you find subjectively acceptable.
                  Your word "TRUE" simply is another way of you saying, "in your objective/subjective moral world there is no absolute/objective moral position." That is not an argument - it's a tautology - or a simple re-statement of the meaning of the words. Of COURSE it's true. Moral subjectivism/relativism is not absolute/objective by definition. You have just repeated (again) that blue is not green. We all know that. You STILL have not made a case for why blue is better than green.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Except, the problem is not with the universal truths per se, but with our limited and often biased understanding. And of course we do have access, just read your New Testament.
                  You think you do, Seer. But you cannot show that to be the case.

                  So here's the test of the proposition I HAVE put forward. You mentioned that you have had numerous discussions with these so-called "Christians" who believe Jesus calls them to love and accept the homosexual and see their union in marriage and their physical love as not qualitatively different from that of a man and a woman. So - in these discussions - when they were over - did they all walk away from the discussion saying, "Seer is right - I have to change my views because it's not what god wants?" Did you walk away saying "They are right, and I have to change my views because what I believe is not what god actually wants?" Or did you part ways with the issue unresolved - each believing the other to be wrong?
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-18-2019, 04:25 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 carpedm9587 View Post
                    In your simple, literal world, you may approximate that - but never exactly. And when you chat with those who do NOT accept your "literal" world, and factor in the complexity of understanding what a preacher meant when there is no direct record of any of his teachings, no account that is written within a couple of decades of his life, no original sources for those accounts, all of the problems associated with translation, and all the rest? Sorry, Seer - the world is not as black and white as you attempt to paint it.

                    ETA: by the way, you ARE aware that language is symbolic, right? Each word represents a thing or a concept. By definition, a symbolic representation requires interpretation - because it is NOT the thing it symbolizes. That is the very definition of language - and why languages are continuously evolving. If you question that - then I'll ask you to define the word, "nunnery."
                    If I follow your logic we could never know anything, really, about ancient languages or cultures. But the fact is we do.


                    I am sure there are some Christians out there who do not interpret "adultery" in the same way you do. Personally, I don't know of any - so perhaps not.
                    The fact is I have never seen a Christian interpret adultery as a moral good. So please explain to me how does something like homosexuality so from being immoral to moral in our texts?

                    Well - no absolute way to resolve. Moral differences CAN be resolved - they just are not guaranteed to be. But then, that is exactly the position Christians seem to find themselves in, leading me to conclude that you are in the same position as the moral subjectivist/relativist - except that you don't know it and/or won't admit it.
                    No they can not be resolved unless you start with the same premises and having the same moral goal. But the point is that you are guilty of the same thing you accused us of. And no, I'm not in the same position as you since I believe there are universal moral truths to be discovered, even if it is hit and miss.

                    Your word "TRUE" simply is another way of you saying, "in your objective/subjective moral world there is no absolute/objective moral position." That is not an argument - it's a tautology - or a simple re-statement of the meaning of the words. Of COURSE it's true. Moral subjectivism/relativism is not absolute/objective by definition. You have just repeated (again) that blue is not green. We all know that. You STILL have not made a case for why blue is better than green.
                    What the heck are you talking about. What is "true" moral reasoning? Please explain.


                    So here's the test of the proposition I HAVE put forward. You mentioned that you have had numerous discussions with these so-called "Christians" who believe Jesus calls them to love and accept the homosexual and see their union in marriage and their physical love as not qualitatively different from that of a man and a woman. So - in these discussions - when they were over - did they all walk away from the discussion saying, "Seer is right - I have to change my views because it's not what god wants?" Did you walk away saying "They are right, and I have to change my views because what I believe is not what god actually wants?" Or did you part ways with the issue unresolved - each believing the other to be wrong?
                    They will say what you say - they do not take those passages literally, or say they are relative only to the culture. Then I will ask if the love or neighbor or forgiveness are merely relative to the culture or that we don't need to take those literally too. The conversation usually ends there. Do I change their minds? I don't know, perhaps their cognitive dissonance will shake them up.
                    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
                      If I follow your logic we could never know anything, really, about ancient languages or cultures. But the fact is we do.
                      No - if you follow my logic - all language requires interpretation.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      The fact is I have never seen a Christian interpret adultery as a moral good. So please explain to me how does something like homosexuality so from being immoral to moral in our texts?
                      Sorry - Seer. I will argue the positions I take. I'm not going to argue someone else's position.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      No they can not be resolved unless you start with the same premises and having the same moral goal. But the point is that you are guilty of the same thing you accused us of. And no, I'm not in the same position as you since I believe there are universal moral truths to be discovered, even if it is hit and miss.
                      Of course they CAN be resolved. I have had many discussions with other atheists (and even some theists) in which I have laid out the argument for same-sex marriages and homosexual intimacy being perfectly moral and had the other person change their moral position as a result of the argument. So clearly they CAN be resolved. There is simply no guarantee that this WILL always be the outcome.

                      And your "universal moral truths" are really nothing more than your opinion of what your god wants as interpreted by you (or someone you respect). You cannot even show them to be universal - and they show about as much variation among others of your belief system as is shown among those of us with secular moral codes. Really, Seer - you accuse me of "asserting" but you have no basis for the assertions you are making (well - except for "the bible says so"). On the other hand - morality all around us works exactly the way I describe it - even yours.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      What the heck are you talking about. What is "true" moral reasoning? Please explain.
                      True moral reasoning takes the form of examining underlying values, and the chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that "action X" is moral or immoral. In the Christian worldview - this kind of analysis is abandoned. Instead - what most Christians (and other theists) do is attempt to determine what someone else said is moral or immoral, so you can align to it. The process of actually looking at the issue is abandoned in favor of an attempt to achieve this alignment. In your mind, I presume, this is justified because you are trying to align to this god you believe in.

                      Since I believe this god does not actually exist - from my perspective - you are attempting to align to the proclamations of men who lived 2,000 years ago in another culture, and to adopt their moral framework as your own.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      They will say what you say - they do not take those passages literally, or say they are relative only to the culture.
                      You misunderstand me, Seer. I don't take those passages ANY way - except to accept them as the interpretation of copies of writings written 2,000 years ago. They tell me what the writers believed when the writers wrote the texts, if we assume the translations are accurate and the copies are faithful to the originals. Where there is other source material to affirm their historicity, I accept those aspects that are historical. The issue of "literal" or "spiritual" interpretation is irrelevant to me - and I do not involve myself with it.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Then I will ask if the love or neighbor or forgiveness are merely relative to the culture or that we don't need to take those literally too. The conversation usually ends there. Do I change their minds? I don't know, perhaps their cognitive dissonance will shake them up.
                      And I am sure many of them walk away hoping your cognitive dissonance will shake you up as well.

                      Like I said, Seer - my point was that these varying interpretations and corresponding belief systems exist within the Christian community. I take no position on who is right because you all start from a basis I believe is wrong - so any conclusions based on this starting point is going to be, IMO, flawed and/or false.

                      I find that Christians - especially evangelical or fundamentalist Christians - appeal to absolutes a great deal. I also find they cannot actually provide a basis for any of them, except "but, but, but - what you think isn't absolute!" To that I can only say, "exactly!"
                      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
                        No - if you follow my logic - all language requires interpretation.
                        You moved the goal posts, we were speaking of whether to take the prohibitions against homosexuality literally or not. Then you started on this we can't know anything - the text are too old, different language, culture and such. The fact is we know very clearly what the Hebrews and early Christians thought of homosexual behavior.


                        Sorry - Seer. I will argue the positions I take. I'm not going to argue someone else's position.
                        But that is exactly what you have been doing, taking the side of the liberal Christian. But you know that if you tried to apply that logic to adultery it doesn't work. If I claimed that the Bible supported adultery you would rightly question my reading comprehension or motive.

                        Of course they CAN be resolved. I have had many discussions with other atheists (and even some theists) in which I have laid out the argument for same-sex marriages and homosexual intimacy being perfectly moral and had the other person change their moral position as a result of the argument. So clearly they CAN be resolved. There is simply no guarantee that this WILL always be the outcome.
                        Right, atheists who grew up in the Christianized West. Not with Maoists, Stalinists, North Koreans, etc... You are debating with people who to some degree share your premises and moral goals. Without those you are dead in the water - that is the point.


                        And your "universal moral truths" are really nothing more than your opinion of what your god wants as interpreted by you (or someone you respect). You cannot even show them to be universal - and they show about as much variation among others of your belief system as is shown among those of us with secular moral codes. Really, Seer - you accuse me of "asserting" but you have no basis for the assertions you are making (well - except for "the bible says so"). On the other hand - morality all around us works exactly the way I describe it - even yours.
                        Of course one has to begin with the existence of God to make the case for universal moral truths. And you know that I believe that you suffer from a moral and spiritual blindness on this issue. Like I said, I might as well try and demonstrate the color red to a man blinded from birth. So your unbelief has no rational weight with me.


                        True moral reasoning takes the form of examining underlying values, and the chain of reasoning that leads to a conclusion that "action X" is moral or immoral.
                        I have no idea what you mean, if the Stalinist reasons as you suggest but comes to a different conclusion based on his moral goals, what makes your reasoning true and his false?

                        Since I believe this god does not actually exist - from my perspective - you are attempting to align to the proclamations of men who lived 2,000 years ago in another culture, and to adopt their moral framework as your own.
                        Really, in my culture homosexuality was generally considered immoral until very recently.


                        And I am sure many of them walk away hoping your cognitive dissonance will shake you up as well.
                        Where is my cognitive dissonance since I take the love of neighbor and prohibitions against homosexual behavior at face value? They do not.
                        Last edited by seer; 01-19-2019, 09:59 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
                          You moved the goal posts, we were speaking of whether to take the prohibitions against homosexuality literally or not.
                          I was responding to your statement that my argument led to "we can know nothing." That is not "moving the goalposts."

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Then you started on this we can't know anything - the text are too old, different language, culture and such.
                          At no point did I say "we can't know anything." I said all language requires interpretation - responding to your claim that it doesn't.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          The fact is we know very clearly what the Hebrews and early Christians thought of homosexual behavior.
                          I believe most of my posts actually said that - Jesus lived in a time and culture and religion when/where homosexuality was widely condemned. No argument.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          But that is exactly what you have been doing, taking the side of the liberal Christian.
                          At no point have I taken anyone's side. If you disagree - then find the post where I said or implied that the liberal Christians are right and you are wrong. You have added that to my meaning.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          But you know that if you tried to apply that logic to adultery it doesn't work. If I claimed that the Bible supported adultery you would rightly question my reading comprehension or motive.
                          Again - I will argue positions I have taken - not positions I have not taken.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Right, atheists who grew up in the Christianized West. Not with Maoists, Stalinists, North Koreans, etc... You are debating with people who to some degree share your premises and moral goals. Without those you are dead in the water - that is the point.
                          As I have said - there is no guarantee of resolution. We appear to be agreeing. Christianity faces the same problem -- you will note. The primary difference is that my disagreement tends to be about what is valued and the reasoning chain to a moral conclusion. Your disagreements tend to be about how to interpret "what god wants" from a set of 2,000+ year-old books.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Of course one has to begin with the existence of God to make the case for universal moral truths.
                          I don't believe you can even make the case then.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And you know that I believe that you suffer from a moral and spiritual blindness on this issue. Like I said, I might as well try and demonstrate the color red to a man blinded from birth. So your unbelief has no rational weight with me.
                          Yes - I know the gig. When you can't sustain the argument - simply call the other person "blind" and declare victory by fiat. It's not a very effective strategy for convincing someone

                          And yet you keep having the discussion with me...

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          I have no idea what you mean, if the Stalinist reasons as you suggest but comes to a different conclusion based on his moral goals, what makes your reasoning true and his false?
                          Nothing makes it absolutely true or false, Seer. But then we know that - relative/subjective moral frameworks cannot arrive at absolute moral positions. I've never claimed otherwise. But (again) you're still not saying anything except to continually repeat the definition of the terms. You don't appear to be able to see that. Or, at the very least, you haven't seemed to "get that" yet.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Really, in my culture homosexuality was generally considered immoral until very recently.
                          I don't see how that changes the fact that you are attempting to align to a moral framework as outlined by the authors of a 2,000 year old book.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Where is my cognitive dissonance since I take the love of neighbor and prohibitions against homosexual behavior at face value? They do not.
                          I didn't say that you had cognitive dissonance, Seer. I said I'm sure the others walked away hoping (as you do) that your cognitive dissonance will cause you to adjust your view. My point - from the outset - has been that Christianity was some fairly widely divergent sects - and each of them claims to have "the truth." You keep trying to convince me that you are right and they are wrong. Of course, when I chat with them, they do the same thing - relative to their views. That's the entire point.

                          Seer - when we met for dinner - you made an interesting comment to me. You said something like, "I'm just trying to show you the consequences of your views." I have to say that you have not shown me any consequence that gives me any cause for concern - or any consequence that Christians are themselves not subject to.

                          I will also note that you spend a great deal of time rebutting arguments and claims I never made. We'd probably move along more quickly if you focused specifically on what I have said.
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-19-2019, 11:14 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
                            I was responding to your statement that my argument led to "we can know nothing." That is not "moving the goalposts."

                            At no point did I say "we can't know anything." I said all language requires interpretation - responding to your claim that it doesn't.

                            I believe most of my posts actually said that - Jesus lived in a time and culture and religion when/where homosexuality was widely condemned. No argument.
                            Then why bring up the whole culture, language thing if we agree on this?

                            At no point have I taken anyone's side. If you disagree - then find the post where I said or implied that the liberal Christians are right and you are wrong. You have added that to my meaning
                            .

                            No, you have been arguing for the Christian liberal's non-literal position.

                            Again - I will argue positions I have taken - not positions I have not taken.
                            Try dealing with the point, if I claimed that the Bible supported adultery wouldn't you question my reading comprehension or motive? Of course you would, but then you would not apply that standard the the liberal Christian's view on homosexuality.


                            As I have said - there is no guarantee of resolution. We appear to be agreeing. Christianity faces the same problem -- you will note. The primary difference is that my disagreement tends to be about what is valued and the reasoning chain to a moral conclusion. Your disagreements tend to be about how to interpret "what god wants" from a set of 2,000+ year-old books.
                            Funny, I agree on a lot (the majority) of moral questions with my fellow Christians, especially if they put stock in the Bible. Like the Pew poll suggested. But you kept bringing up the no resolution thing as a slam against Christians. And what does age have to do with truth?

                            I don't believe you can even make the case then.

                            Yes - I know the gig. When you can't sustain the argument - simply call the other person "blind" and declare victory by fiat. It's not a very effective strategy for convincing someone
                            Seer Carp, what you again want me to do is to reject my worldview and Scripture to satisfy your sin tainted rational abilities. I bet you could not even define "evidence" in a non-arbitrary way, yet you would expect to me to meet some subjective criterion.


                            Nothing makes it absolutely true or false, Seer. But then we know that - relative/subjective moral frameworks cannot arrive at absolute moral positions. I've never claimed otherwise. But (again) you're still not saying anything except to continually repeat the definition of the terms. You don't appear to be able to see that. Or, at the very least, you haven't seemed to "get that" yet.
                            Let me get this right, when the Communist reasons to his conclusion, which most likely is opposite of yours, both are true reasoning? Why even use the word true in the first place, it has no meaning.


                            I don't see how that changes the fact that you are attempting to align to a moral framework as outlined by the authors of a 2,000 year old book.
                            Again, what on earth does age have to do with anything? Truth or ethics?

                            I didn't say that you had cognitive dissonance, Seer. I said I'm sure the others walked away hoping (as you do) that your cognitive dissonance will cause you to adjust your view. My point - from the outset - has been that Christianity was some fairly widely divergent sects - and each of them claims to have "the truth." You keep trying to convince me that you are right and they are wrong. Of course, when I chat with them, they do the same thing - relative to their views. That's the entire point.
                            And like I said, according to Pew, those who are Biblically literate support my position on homosexuality, those who are less literate less so. So why on earth wouldn't I assume that I knew the subject better?

                            Seer - when we met for dinner - you made an interesting comment to me. You said something like, "I'm just trying to show you the consequences of your views." I have to say that you have not shown me any consequence that gives me any cause for concern - or any consequence that Christians are themselves not subject to.
                            Actually, I was not speaking of you personally, just in general. My general debating style. I will and have had success (by God's grace) over the years, but some men are recalcitrant to the end. Hopefully, and I mean this, you are not one of them.
                            Last edited by seer; 01-19-2019, 12:46 PM.
                            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
                              Then why bring up the whole culture, language thing if we agree on this?
                              I was noting the arguments made by "the other side," in much the same way that I note the arguments made by you when talking with them - and responding to your inaccurate observation that "no interpretation is necessary."

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              No, you have been arguing for the Christian liberal's non-literal position.
                              You are welcome to quote ANY post I made that defended the non-literal Christian's position.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Try dealing with the point, if I claimed that the Bible supported adultery wouldn't you question my reading comprehension or motive? Of course you would, but then you would not apply that standard the the liberal Christian's view on homosexuality.
                              I don't set out to defend ANY Christian's worldview, Seer - yours or theirs - because I don't agree with ANY of you. Defending either of you would be a little silly - given that I am atheist.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Funny, I agree on a lot (the majority) of moral questions with my fellow Christians, especially if they put stock in the Bible. Like the Pew poll suggested. But you kept bringing up the no resolution thing as a slam against Christians. And what does age have to do with truth?
                              Funny - I agree on a LOT (the majority) of moral questions with my fellow humans, especially if they share the common base set of values I start with and have a decent reasoning capability.

                              And the "no resolution" thing was an observation that Christianity has the same problem as any other moral system: getting to "absolute" conclusion is simply not possible - and doesn't actually happen. The proof is in the existence of differing Christian groups with differing beliefs and moral codes - all believing they have it "right."

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Seer Carp, what you again want me to do is to reject my worldview and Scripture to satisfy your sin tainted rational abilities. I bet you could not even define "evidence" in a non-arbitrary way, yet you would expect to me to meet some subjective criterion.
                              Seer - I don't want you to do anything. You are welcome to your worldview. However, when you express your worldview to me - or challenge something I have said from the basis of that worldview - you can expect me to respond with what I find to be flawed in that worldview. If you don't want the response - just stop interacting with me and there will be no further discussion.

                              As for "evidence," the term refers to any fact or information that points to the truth (or falseness) of a proposition. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "arbitrary." All language is arbitrary to some degree (although words usually have an etymology that explains how they came to be in common use or what other words they are rooted in). Basically, if enough people agree that a word means "X" - then that word means "X." That is why dictionaries continually need to be updated.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Let me get this right, when the Communist reasons to his conclusion, which most likely is opposite of yours, both are true reasoning?
                              In any relative/subjective system - opposing views can both be true if they are held in different contexts. That is implied in "relative/subjective." They cannot be simultaneously held by the same person at the same time in the same way - that would be a contradiction. If the underlying values differ, then the moral conclusion can also differ.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Why even use the word true in the first place, it has no meaning.
                              Again - you are complaining that it has no absolute meaning. Yet later today you will tell your wife that you love her - which is a relative/subjective statement that is true for you and not true for me, and you will not consider it to be "meaningless." You are being inconsistent. Relative/subjective things have relative/subjective meaning. Absolute/objective thing have absolute/objective meaning. Complaining that a relative/subjecting thing has no absolute/objective meaning is pointless - it's not expected to.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Again, what on earth does age have to do with anything? Truth or ethics?
                              The age doesn't really matter Seer. The bible is a record many things, including the moral framework of its various authors. You are attempting to align to it. The fact that it is 2,000 years old, we have no original copies, most people are working from translations, and it was in a different culture are merely facts. I would consider you as morally compromised if you were trying to align your moral framework with Billy Graham, Jim Jones, Donald Trump, or any other human being alive or dead. Trying to align to someone else is not "moral reasoning." It's merely trying to be a part of the herd. You are, in essence, foregoing actual moral reasoning in an attempt to align it with someone else's moral reasoning.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And like I said, according to Pew, those who are Biblically literate support my position on homosexuality, those who are less literate less so. So why on earth wouldn't I assume that I knew the subject better?
                              Seer, there are "biblically literate" people across the political spectrum. There are scriptologists on the conservative side, and scriptologists on the conservative side. Arbitrarily limiting "scriptural literacy" to those who approach the bible according to your terms (i.e., literally) is not a very convincing argument.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Actually, I was not speaking of you personally, just in general. My general debating style. I will and have had success (by God's grace) over the years, but some men are recalcitrant to the end. Hopefully, and I mean this, you are not one of them.
                              Seer - a man is not recalcitrant simply because he disagrees with you. A man is recalcitrant if an argument has merit and they obtusely and knowingly refuse to accept the argument. I actually accept arguments when they are compelling. So far, yours are not. I've outlined why - and you still have not responded to that. In general, I find that you respond to arguments you think I have made, and not the arguments I have actually made. I give you the benefit of the doubt that it's an honest misunderstanding. I have the impression that you tend to read into my posts things that I hear from a lot of other atheists and nonchristians - and then you respond to those preconceptions - instead of hearing what I am actually saying and responding to that.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 01-19-2019, 01:47 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 carpedm9587 View Post
                                I was noting the arguments made by "the other side," in much the same way that I note the arguments made by you when talking with them - and responding to your inaccurate observation that "no interpretation is necessary."
                                On this issue no interpretation is necessary, the historical Jewish and Christianity understanding on this is well known. You certainly can not get the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable from the texts or the Hebrew culture.

                                You are welcome to quote ANY post I made that defended the non-literal Christian's position.
                                So you haven't been proffering their point of view?

                                I don't set out to defend ANY Christian's worldview, Seer - yours or theirs - because I don't agree with ANY of you. Defending either of you would be a little silly - given that I am atheist.
                                You won't answer the question because you know what the answer would be.


                                And the "no resolution" thing was an observation that Christianity has the same problem as any other moral system: getting to "absolute" conclusion is simply not possible - and doesn't actually happen. The proof is in the existence of differing Christian groups with differing beliefs and moral codes - all believing they have it "right."
                                No you posed it as a serious flaw (which logically it isn't), until I called you on your beliefs.


                                Seer - I don't want you to do anything. You are welcome to your worldview. However, when you express your worldview to me - or challenge something I have said from the basis of that worldview - you can expect me to respond with what I find to be flawed in that worldview. If you don't want the response - just stop interacting with me and there will be no further discussion.
                                No, I just once again had to explain why your objections have no merits according to my position.

                                In any relative/subjective system - opposing views can both be true if they are held in different contexts. That is implied in "relative/subjective." They cannot be simultaneously held by the same person at the same time in the same way - that would be a contradiction. If the underlying values differ, then the moral conclusion can also differ.
                                But you extolled "true moral reasoning" as if it was some how superior to relying on a 2,000 year old book for ethics. But it is no such thing, since such reasoning can and does lead to very different and even opposite moral ends. True moral reasoning, it turns out, is useless.


                                The age doesn't really matter Seer. The bible is a record many things, including the moral framework of its various authors. You are attempting to align to it. The fact that it is 2,000 years old, we have no original copies, most people are working from translations, and it was in a different culture are merely facts. I would consider you as morally compromised if you were trying to align your moral framework with Billy Graham, Jim Jones, Donald Trump, or any other human being alive or dead. Trying to align to someone else is not "moral reasoning." It's merely trying to be a part of the herd. You are, in essence, foregoing actual moral reasoning in an attempt to align it with someone else's moral reasoning.
                                Yet through "true moral reasoning", saving a child is just as moral as gassing him in a shower, given the relative context.



                                Seer, there are "biblically literate" people across the political spectrum. There are scriptologists on the conservative side, and scriptologists on the conservative side. Arbitrarily limiting "scriptural literacy" to those who approach the bible according to your terms (i.e., literally) is not a very convincing argument.
                                I was going by the Pew poll, one of the best polling groups around. And the fact is, those who are more literate in Scripture and take their faith more seriously largely fall on my side.

                                Seer - a man is not recalcitrant simply because he disagrees with you. A man is recalcitrant if an argument has merit and they obtusely and knowingly refuse to accept the argument. I actually accept arguments when they are compelling.
                                Tell me what argument would convince you of universal moral truths?
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                3 responses
                                9 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                419 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X