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

Homophobic Trump...

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I have not thought through the link between evolution and morality. At first blush, it makes sense that if our entire being is the product of evolution, then morality is likewise a product of that process. If that is true, then we will tend to be wired to arrive at moral positions that enhance survivability. The problem is the typical nature/nurture discussion. I tend to think our ABILITY to moralize is likely driven by evolution. The specific moral conclusions we reach are not just related to evolution - but are also strongly influenced by experiential influences.



    Claiming consistency and showing consistency are not the same thing. You can claim it all day long. You cannot show it. Indeed, you claim moral certitude and cannot even show that position to be consistent with other views. I have shown this many times.

    1) How do you know what the absolute/objective moral framework is?
    2) It's documented in the bible with 100% accuracy
    3) How do you know your interpretation is correct?
    4) It is self-evident from the bible
    5) Then why are there so many differing views on what this "absolute/objective" moral framework and so many people claiming 100% certitude for different interpretations?
    6) Because of sin.
    7) Are you a sinful person?
    8) We are all sinful in the eyes of god
    9) So how do you know it is not YOUR sinfulness that is leading you to misinterpret this absolute/objective framework?

    The argument ends in an inconsistency. You cannot have or show 100% certitude - even within your own worldview.



    How you choose to see yourself is your concern, Seer.



    Pretty much any that you have made:

    1) That you can have 100% moral certainty
    2) That the god you believe in exists
    3) That your moral positions are consistent with one another
    4) That the bible documents the one, true, absolute/objective moral framework.



    Moral disagreement exists, period. You cannot even cite moral agreement in your "absolute/objective" worldview given that there are demonstrable, competing and conflicting "absolute/objective" frameworks.



    Like Sparko, you seem dedicated to the proposition that you are going to continually repeat this lie - so again I call you on it. You are making a claim whose truth value you cannot know. YOu have testimony from the one person who CAN know that this is not my process. Continuing to repeat something you cannot know to be true in the face of the only evidence available that it is NOT true is no different that promulgating a lie.



    Yes - morality is about moral preference - so you are complaining, again, that green is not blue. We already know moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective. Again - so what?



    The exact same way you do - I don't. If our premises do not align, then no amount of reasoning will bring us to the same moral conclusion. So we ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. Which is exactly what YOU do, Seer. When someone rejects your premise that "the bible is the absolute/objective moral authority," you likewise cannot necessarily get to any moral alignment. Even when they DO agree with your premises - you are not necessarily going to get to moral alignment - which is evident all around us. You call it "sin" (which also defeats your claims to moral certitude). So here is how our worlds compare Seer:

    For Carp:

    If our premises align, we can use reason to align our conclusions, eliminating the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
    If our premises do not align, we cannot use reason to align our moral conclusions, leaving us with the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

    For Seer:

    If our premises align, we cannot use reason to align our conclusions, leaving us with the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend (if we happen to differently interpret what the bible says)
    If our premises do not align, we cannot use reason to align our moral conclusions, leaving us with the need to ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

    So you and the Episcopalians have conflicting moral views on homosexuality. You have no means for reconciling - each see the other as wrong, so you have isolated into separate sects, each claiming to have "THE truth." Christianity (and all religions) are replete with this behavior.



    A rational process for reasoning to moral conclusions.



    Which is exactly what you have, Seer. Christianity has the same morass of conflicting points of view. You have no less variation in your moral outcomes than the rest of the world.You have had these variations throughout history. For all of your objection to "moral morass," Christianity has itself been in the "moral morass" from the dawn of the religion.



    Wow - you and Sparko do like to continually hammer away at interpretations of my words that have nothing to do with anything I have said. So this discussion went as follows:

    Carpe) Your bible contains MANY moral prescriptions for many amazingly bad things.
    Seer) Amazingly bad things to whom - you?
    Carpe) Yes - to me. To most living humans. Even to most Christians. Indeed - to you as well.
    Seer) Appealing to the majority again?

    So, once again, for those who seem to be having a difficulty with some basic understanding...

    a) I was answering a question you asked and identifying who finds these things to be amazingly bad.
    b) There is a significant difference between listing people who find something to be bad in response to a question, and believing it is bad because a lot of people believe it. The latter is "appealing to the majority." The former is not.

    Really, Seer - do you actually find this kind of response to be useful? You have to know by now that my morality has nothing to do with "appealing to the majority" and I have never once said anything to suggest or imply that "X is right because most people think it is right."



    And yet what you are left with is moral proscriptions that hold for one group and not for another, that hold in one time and not in another. God apparently "changed his mind" or "changed his rules." And then you ask me how your worldview is inconsistent? Really?

    Seer) I believe in absolute/objective moral truths that I have 100% certainty in, but sin keeps us from clearly seeing/understanding/agreeing on these moral truths.
    Seer) I believe in absolute/objective moral truths that can change from context to context and time period to time period

    And then you wonder why I find your position internally inconsistent?

    Face it, Seer. You are functionally a subjective/relative moralizer - just like the rest of humanity. You simply have relinquished any effort to think for yourself and hitched your moral wagon to the moral writings to the translated version of the copies of copies of copies of a small group of men who lived/wrote 2000-3500 years ago and whose original works are lost. Despite all of that, you claim absolute certitude on the basis of a magical supreme being you cannot show to exist.

    And you think this is going to seem "reasonable" to someone? That someone will definitely not be me.


    I'm sorry Carp, I just can't keep up. Here is the bottom line, as a Christian I hold that universal moral truths exist, and that we find them both in the New Testament and in our innate moral sense as image bearers of God. And I don't need to justify that, any more that you need to justify your worldview. But I do not trust your moral reasoning prowess any more that I trust the reasoning prowess of the Stalinist. You both may come to conclusions I agree with, but they, in your worldview, are forever subjective and culturally relative. In other words they are nothing that I as a Christian need to pay attention to. Finding more elaborate ways (your so called reasoning) of justifying your subjective opinion does nothing for me. Morally there is just no place to go if relativism is true. It is an endless search with no end, goal or moral progress.
    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 Littlejoe View Post
      If it gets modded, it will be because you are arguing moderation in the Thread. That's against the rules. You can argue moderation to your hearts content by PM or taking it to the Padded Room. I'm not a mod for this area so, it's not up to me.
      There has been no "modding" here to be argued - LJ. Only the threat of one if I continue to point to inappropriate, false, and (presumably) intentional posts (I'm assuming no one is forcing Sparko to type) and call them for what they are. Making a false statement about someone else and then hiding behind "you can't prove me wrong - so if you call me on it again you'll get modded" is bullying at its finest. I won't be bullied. If someone makes a salacious comment about my inner person, I'm going to call them on it. If they repeat it continually, I'm going to call it for what it is. If that gets me modded/bullied, so be it.

      I have to admit I had not considered modding on this forum to be a form of bullying before. I have never seen it used before in that manner. I've actually been impressed with how it is used. Hopefully, that is not going to change.

      And I suggest, at this point, that this matter simply be left. Sparko has unsubscribed and (presumably) desisted from the behavior. We can return to the discussion at hand. That is what I am going to do. Feel free to make your final comments as you see fit.
      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
        I'm sorry Carp, I just can't keep up. Here is the bottom line, as a Christian I hold that universal moral truths exist, and that we find them both in the New Testament and in our innate moral sense as image bearers of God. And I don't need to justify that, any more that you need to justify your worldview.
        You do if you expect your view to hold sway with others. If you don't then it is entirely your business - I agree. When your moral position threatens mine, I will do what we all do: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        But I do not trust your moral reasoning prowess any more that I trust the reasoning prowess of the Stalinist. You both may come to conclusions I agree with, but they, in your worldview, are forever subjective and culturally relative. In other words they are nothing that I as a Christian need to pay attention to.
        And I do not trust your moral process, Seer. It is absent of reasoning and thought, and you have insulated yourself from any criticism or questioning by simply abandoning reasoning altogether. That leaves you free to hold internally inconsistent positions, archaic moral views, and cling to them without a second thought.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Finding more elaborate ways (your so called reasoning) of justifying your subjective opinion does nothing for me. Morally there is just no place to go if relativism is true. It is an endless search with no end, goal or moral progress.
        And this last part is more "green is not blue," which has already been shown to be a non-argument. You have essentially never escaped that reality.

        And with that, I think we are probably at an end. If you cannot keep up with the discussion, Seer, continuing seems pointless. Maybe this is a discussion best had verbally. Next dinner, maybe.
        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
          You do if you expect your view to hold sway with others. If you don't then it is entirely your business - I agree. When your moral position threatens mine, I will do what we all do: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
          Goodness, I won't sway the atheist any more than the atheist will say me. We have been over this before.

          And I do not trust your moral process, Seer. It is absent of reasoning and thought, and you have insulated yourself from any criticism or questioning by simply abandoning reasoning altogether. That leaves you free to hold internally inconsistent positions, archaic moral views, and cling to them without a second thought.
          Right and I don't see your reasoning process as valid for anything save to justify your personal opinion. So I guess we are even.

          And this last part is more "green is not blue," which has already been shown to be a non-argument. You have essentially never escaped that reality.
          Because your relativism is always there, at the core of your belief system. No objective right or wrong, no objective moral answers (not even in principle) and no moral progress. It is no wonder why it is a minority opinion, people know better.

          And with that, I think we are probably at an end. If you cannot keep up with the discussion, Seer, continuing seems pointless. Maybe this is a discussion best had verbally. Next dinner, maybe.
          You are buying this time! I know an expensive steak house!
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            There has been no "modding" here to be argued - LJ. Only the threat of one if I continue to point to inappropriate, false, and (presumably) intentional posts (I'm assuming no one is forcing Sparko to type) and call them for what they are. Making a false statement about someone else and then hiding behind "you can't prove me wrong - so if you call me on it again you'll get modded" is bullying at its finest. I won't be bullied. If someone makes a salacious comment about my inner person, I'm going to call them on it. If they repeat it continually, I'm going to call it for what it is. If that gets me modded/bullied, so be it.

            I have to admit I had not considered modding on this forum to be a form of bullying before. I have never seen it used before in that manner. I've actually been impressed with how it is used. Hopefully, that is not going to change.

            And I suggest, at this point, that this matter simply be left. Sparko has unsubscribed and (presumably) desisted from the behavior. We can return to the discussion at hand. That is what I am going to do. Feel free to make your final comments as you see fit.
            Discussions of ALL moderation subjects are not to be in Threads as it derails the thread. You need to take this gripe to the appropriate forum or...yes...risk being modded.
            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Goodness, I won't sway the atheist any more than the atheist will say me. We have been over this before.

              Right and I don't see your reasoning process as valid for anything save to justify your personal opinion. So I guess we are even.
              We've ALWAYS been even, Seer - because your moral framework is as relative/subjective as mine. It is as linked to your preferences as mine. You cannot escape it. You can only assert it is not.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Because your relativism is always there, at the core of your belief system. No objective right or wrong, no objective moral answers (not even in principle) and no moral progress.
              Responses like this always amaze me. It translates to "the fact that I cannot frame a rational argument to defend my claimed absolute/objective moral position is because your position is relative/subjective."

              Seer, your own moral framework is internally inconsistent. You cannot frame a rational argument to defend it because it has nothing to do with reason. You cannot do anything but continually repeat "moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective," as if you have somehow provided some new insight that I haven't agreed to since we started this entire discussion, for the simple reason that there IS no argument. You simply will not (or cannot) acknowledge it. All you can do is continue to spin what I say to mean other things than what I am actually saying, and repeat your non-argument mantra, as if it provides you with some form of protective shield against reason.

              Your moral framework is (presumably) aligned to the so-called Christian moral framework - or at least to one variation of it. That framework is ONE framework in a sea of moral frameworks, many of which have adherents who claim that their moral framework is "absolute/objective" but cannot be shown to be any less subjective/relative than my moral framework or anyone else's.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              It is no wonder why it is a minority opinion, people know better.
              So do I detect an appeal to majority?

              An alternative explanation for why moral relativism/subjectivism is such a minority opinion is that we still have a significant percentage of the population that is theistic, and moral absolutism/objectivism has been indoctrinated into our education systems, language, and cultural constructs by these various religions for millenia now. It took a long time for people to begin to move away from the archaic "patriarchal" model and see women as the intellectual, moral, and cultural equal of men. Some (like you) still have not made the transition and cling to somewhat neanderthalish opinions. It took a long time for us to move away from inappropriate racial distinctions - and that move is still not complete. It will take a long time for humanity to move away from its indefensible adherence to "absolute/objective" morality. Every movement starts small. I'm not discouraged by that reality. I believe that, ultimately, the truth will out. Since morality is so demonstrably relative/subjective, eventually people will come to accept the reality. Every shift in cultural norms (like the one happening now around homosexuality) gets people thinking, "why did we ever think that?" and wondering if morality truly IS so absolute/objective, or if it is not, in reality, relative and subjective.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              You are buying this time! I know an expensive steak house!
              I would have bought last time - but you insisted. Next time - it is absolutely on me. And a steakhouse sounds good.
              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
                We've ALWAYS been even, Seer - because your moral framework is as relative/subjective as mine. It is as linked to your preferences as mine. You cannot escape it. You can only assert it is not.
                You keep saying this Carp but it just isn't true. I don't believe that ethics are relative to cultures. I may have a subjective preference for Scripture for instance, that however tells us nothing about whether universal morel truths exist or not. Even if we completely misunderstood these truths that too tells us nothing about their reality or non-reality. It is category error on your part.


                Responses like this always amaze me. It translates to "the fact that I cannot frame a rational argument to defend my claimed absolute/objective moral position is because your position is relative/subjective."
                Carp there is nothing to defend, it is a presupposition on my part. Axioms are not proven they are either accepted or rejected. Mine is that the Bible is God inspired, this to me then makes sense of the world on so many levels. It is a consistent worldview with explanatory power - at least in my mind.

                Seer, your own moral framework is internally inconsistent. You cannot frame a rational argument to defend it because it has nothing to do with reason. You cannot do anything but continually repeat "moral relativism/subjectivism is not absolute/objective," as if you have somehow provided some new insight that I haven't agreed to since we started this entire discussion, for the simple reason that there IS no argument. You simply will not (or cannot) acknowledge it. All you can do is continue to spin what I say to mean other things than what I am actually saying, and repeat your non-argument mantra, as if it provides you with some form of protective shield against reason.
                No Carp, my moral framework is not internally inconsistent, nor have you shown that it is. Since I begin with Scripture the rest logically follows, even if I'm mistaken in understanding at times on specifics.

                Your moral framework is (presumably) aligned to the so-called Christian moral framework - or at least to one variation of it. That framework is ONE framework in a sea of moral frameworks, many of which have adherents who claim that their moral framework is "absolute/objective" but cannot be shown to be any less subjective/relative than my moral framework or anyone else's.
                Again, we are all human, and to that degree at times we all have misunderstandings. Scientist don't all agree on what the quantum world is or does. But this is the point, there is a right answer to be found, and according to my worldview there are universal moral truths to be discovered. You have closed off that possibility.

                So do I detect an appeal to majority?
                Right, just like you did a few posts back - what is good for the goose....

                An alternative explanation for why moral relativism/subjectivism is such a minority opinion is that we still have a significant percentage of the population that is theistic, and moral absolutism/objectivism has been indoctrinated into our education systems, language, and cultural constructs by these various religions for millenia now. It took a long time for people to begin to move away from the archaic "patriarchal" model and see women as the intellectual, moral, and cultural equal of men. Some (like you) still have not made the transition and cling to somewhat neanderthalish opinions. It took a long time for us to move away from inappropriate racial distinctions - and that move is still not complete. It will take a long time for humanity to move away from its indefensible adherence to "absolute/objective" morality. Every movement starts small. I'm not discouraged by that reality. I believe that, ultimately, the truth will out. Since morality is so demonstrably relative/subjective, eventually people will come to accept the reality. Every shift in cultural norms (like the one happening now around homosexuality) gets people thinking, "why did we ever think that?" and wondering if morality truly IS so absolute/objective, or if it is not, in reality, relative and subjective.
                Neanderthalish? Really? See Carp you are acting like there is a thing like moral progress, that somehow things were worse in the past and better now. But in your world there is no such thing as moral progress, only moral change, or what happens to conform to your personal proclivities.


                I would have bought last time - but you insisted. Next time - it is absolutely on me. And a steakhouse sounds good.
                We will go dutch treat! I don't want to take advantage. And yes you did want to pay the first time - everybody Carp is not a cheapskate!
                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 keep saying this Carp but it just isn't true. I don't believe that ethics are relative to cultures. I may have a subjective preference for Scripture for instance, that however tells us nothing about whether universal morel truths exist or not. Even if we completely misunderstood these truths that too tells us nothing about their reality or non-reality. It is category error on your part.
                  Seer, you were raised in a Christian culture. Predictably, you have adopted a Christian worldview. Statistically, had you been raised in the Middle East, you would have a high probability of having a Muslim worldview. In China, Buddhist one. In India, a Hindu one. You have an affinity for a specific interpretation of this moral framework. You have subjectively selected the one you have espoused here - and avoided the Episcopalian or Catholic version.

                  - You cannot show this view is absolute/objective
                  - You cannot show this god exists.
                  - You cannot even show that you have possession of, or have correctly interpreted, the original framework

                  Category error? Seer - you are making a claim to a truth you have absolutely no means of demonstrating to be true and insisting that any approach that isn't yours is "inferior." Unlike me, however, you don't see it as relatively inferior - you claim it is absolutely/objectively inferior - without one iota of substantiation. It's truly amazing to see you dance this dance...

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Carp there is nothing to defend, it is a presupposition on my part. Axioms are not proven they are either accepted or rejected. Mine is that the Bible is God inspired, this to me then makes sense of the world on so many levels. It is a consistent worldview with explanatory power - at least in my mind.
                  Wow, Seer. You have just given yourself license to simply accept anything - if you want to believe it badly enough. And then you accuse me of having a position that is nothing more than "what I want?" Seer, ALL of our moral frameworks spring from what we value. Yours included. You have no basis for any claim about absolutes and objectivity. None. Zero.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  No Carp, my moral framework is not internally inconsistent, nor have you shown that it is.
                  I have - you just are dodging it - or you don't understand it - or maybe you didn't read it? You claim moral certainty. You explain that variation in claims about your "moral absolutes" are due to sinfulness. You claim your god can penetrate this sinfulness to provide moral certitude, yet the differentiation between moral claims remains - and you have arbitrarily declared yourself apparently free of this problem because you have 100% moral certitude - yet you are simultaneously sinful....and round and round you go.

                  I have pointed out and traced the reasoning for several ways in which your beliefs are internally inconsistent, but you resolutely stuff your fingers in your ears and say, "I didn't hear that - you haven't shown anything." Ignoring an argument, Seer, doesn't make it go away. It just means you haven't seen or responded to it. YOu have done that with most of my arguments - and then announce that "you can't keep up."

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Since I begin with Scripture the rest logically follows, even if I'm mistaken in understanding at times on specifics.
                  Wait - what happened to "moral certitude?" Seer, you can't even be consistent from post to post.

                  And "begin with scripture?" Seer - think about what you just said. It equates to "I start by assuming that book can't be wrong. Then I proceed from there."

                  I can only say, "wow!"

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Again, we are all human, and to that degree at times we all have misunderstandings. Scientist don't all agree on what the quantum world is or does. But this is the point, there is a right answer to be found, and according to my worldview there are universal moral truths to be discovered. You have closed off that possibility.
                  Um...no. I have refused to accept a belief into my belief system without adequate justification and support. There is a difference. The moment you or anyone else can provide an actual rational defense for the existence of moral absolutes and moral objectivism, I will become a moral absolutist/objectivist. I simply won't do what you have done, and adopt an entire worldview without a rational basis. You have shown not on WHIT of support for your moral claims - from the outset of our discussion. I simply do not accept unsubstantiated claims as "true."

                  The available evidence tells me morality is relative/subjective. Your behavior and arguments tell me morality is relative/subjective. Until I have cause to think otherwise, I will continue to view morality as relative/subjective.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Right, just like you did a few posts back - what is good for the goose....
                  First - I was teasing in this most recent comment. It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. My apologies if that was not clear. I assumed the wink would convey that.

                  Second - you continue to cling to this fiction that I have EVER appealed to the majority as the basis for morality. It's a lie, Seer. You cannot show a single post where I have done so. You cannot support this assertion with one example. You ask a question about "who thinks this way?" I provide you a list, and then you twist it into an "appeal to the majority" without justification. This is a dishonest way of engaging in a discussion, Seer. When you misrepresent a position, and then continue to do so when it is shown to be patently false, you are engaging in deceit and dishonesty.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Neanderthalish? Really?
                  Yes.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  See Carp you are acting like there is a thing like moral progress, that somehow things were worse in the past and better now. But in your world there is no such thing as moral progress, only moral change, or what happens to conform to your personal proclivities.
                  First - I didn't say "progress" or "better" or any other absolute comparative. My statement is perfectly consistent with my worldview. In the age of the Neanderthal, physical strength meant safety. Men had more of it, so they were the center of providing for survival. Times have changed - and our safety is no longer so dependent on physical strength. We now have other means of protection which can be equally accessed by men and women. Ergo - to apply a mindset appropriate for Neanderthals to the modern world is an exercise in archaism. It is roughly the equivalent of warming your house by building a fire in the middle of the living room floor and letting the smoke go out through a hole in your roof. Sure - it will heat the house (or at least that room) - but we have other means provided by modern technology and most provide more effective heating.

                  Second, there is "moral progress" in the same sense that there is evolutionary "progress." Evolution does not have a fixed end-point - it has a relative one: it always progresses to environmental suitability. Change the environment, and the destination changes - but evolution still progresses to that relative end-point. Morality likewise evolves to align moral conclusions to the underlying valuing. Change the valuing, and you change the destination. It is, Seer, relative, remember? So the progress will likewise be relative. Which means your objection just went back to a complaint that "green is not blue."

                  Really, Seer - it's all you have. And you STILL do not see that it is not an argument.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  We will go dutch treat! I don't want to take advantage. And yes you did want to pay the first time - everybody Carp is not a cheapskate!
                  If we go next time - I will be picking up the tab. My turn. And I am not really concerned about what people think of me. If I were, I doubt I would haunt these pages. The perceptions of me here are fairly dismal, as best I can tell.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-22-2019, 03:10 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
                    Seer, you were raised in a Christian culture. Predictably, you have adopted a Christian worldview. Statistically, had you been raised in the Middle East, you would have a high probability of having a Muslim worldview. In China, Buddhist one. In India, a Hindu one. You have an affinity for a specific interpretation of this moral framework. You have subjectively selected the one you have espoused here - and avoided the Episcopalian or Catholic version.
                    Well that is not necessarily true, I was agnostic until I was 37, and even flirted with Buddhism when I lived in the Far East. In this day and age, all this information is readily available, so one can do comparative studies. As a matter of fact I know two people from the old hood who became Buddhist back in the 70s are still are today.

                    - You cannot show this view is absolute/objective
                    - You cannot show this god exists.
                    - You cannot even show that you have possession of, or have correctly interpreted, the original framework
                    What do you mean can not show? To whom - you? Why is that even a consideration? The problem is Carp, as I said in the past, sin has blinded you.

                    Category error? Seer - you are making a claim to a truth you have absolutely no means of demonstrating to be true. And all available evidence suggests it is not.
                    No Carp, go back and reread what I said. It doesn't matter what I can demonstrate or not, that tells us nothing about whether they exist or not. It is the difference between ontology and epistemology, and that is a category error on your part.

                    Wow, Seer. You have just given yourself license to simply accept anything - if you want to believe it badly enough. And then you accuse me of having a position that is nothing more than "what I want?" Seer, ALL of our moral frameworks spring from what we value. Yours included. You have no basis for any claim about absolutes and objectivity. None. Zero.
                    And what I want can also be true, but like I said my worldview has explanatory power on so many levels.


                    I have - you just are dodging it - or you don't understand it. You claim moral certainty. You explain that variation in claims about your "moral absolutes" are due to sinfulness. You claim your god can penetrate this sinfulness to provide moral certitude, yet the differentiation between moral claims remains - and you have arbitrarily declared yourself apparently free of this problem because you have 100% moral certitude - yet you are simultaneously sinful....and round and round you go.

                    I have pointed out and traced the reasoning for several ways in which your beliefs are internally inconsistent, but you resolutely stuff your fingers in your ears and say, "I didn't hear that - you haven't shown anything." Ignoring an argument, Seer, doesn't make it go away. It just means you haven't seen or responded to it. YOu have done that with most of my arguments - and then announce that "you can't keep up."

                    Wait - what happened to "moral certitude?" Seer, you can't even be consistent from post to post.
                    There are different degrees Carp, I don't have to be certain about all things to be certain about some things. I am certain that a just God who loves me exists, that His Son died for my sin, and that I can be forgiven, that Christ was raised from the dead and that universal truths exist. Now if I am wrong about a specific understanding of Scripture that would have to be shown to me, until then I have no reason to question my understanding.


                    Um...no. I have refused to accept a belief into my belief system without adequate justification and support. There is a difference. The moment you or anyone else can provide an actual rartional defense for the existence of moral absolutes and moral objectivism, I will become a moral absolutist/objectivist. I simply won't do what you have done, and adopt an entire worldview without a rational basis. You have shown not on WHIT of support for your moral claims - from the outset of our discussion. I simply do not accept unsubstantiated claims as "true."
                    Can you prove that relativism is true, which entails proving that universal truths can not be possible. And we have been through this before Carp and you admitted that you could not prove that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. The very foundation of all you know rests on an act of faith.

                    The available evidence tells me morality is relative/subjective. Your behavior and arguments tell me morality is relative/subjective. Until I have cause to think otherwise, I will continue to view morality as relative/subjective.
                    But that is an argument based on both ignorance and your severely limited knowledge and experience. That is not adequate justification or support.


                    First - I was teasing. Second - you continue to cling to this fiction that I have EVER appealed to the majority as the basis for morality. It's a lie, Seer. You cannot show a single post where I have done so. You cannot support this assertion with one example. You ask a question about "who thinks this way," I provide you a list, and then you twist it into an "appeal to the majority" without justification. This is a dishonest way of engaging in a discussion, Seer. When you misrepresent a position, and then continue to do so when it is shown to be patently false, you are engaging in deceit and dishonesty.
                    Carp you said: I value life. I value liberty. I value happiness. They are basic values held in common with most humans I have encountered. That sounds like an appeal to the majority.






                    First - I didn't say "progress" or "better" or any other absolute comparative. My statement is perfectly consistent with my worldview. In the age of the Neanderthal, physical strength meant safety. Men had more of it, so they were the center of providing for survival. Times have changed - and our safety is no longer so dependent on physical strength. We now have other means of protection which can be equally accessed by men and women. Ergo - to apply a mindset appropriate for Neanderthals to the modern world is an exercise in archaism. It is roughly the equivalent of warming your house by building a fire in the middle of the living room floor and letting the smoke go out through a hole in your roof. Sure - it will heat the house (or at least that room) - but we have other means provided by modern technology and most provide more effective heating.

                    Second, there is "moral progress" in the same sense that there is evolutionary "progress." Evolution does not have a fixed end-point - it has a relative one: it always progresses to environmental suitability. Change the environment, and the destination changes - but evolution still progresses to that relative end-point. Morality likewise evolves to align moral conclusions to the underlying valuing. Change the valuing, and you change the destination. It is, Seer, relative, remember? So the progress will likewise be relative. Which means your objection just went back to a complaint that "green is not blue."
                    Good I'm glad you agree that there is no objective moral progress in your world. Meaning there is nothing objectively wrong with being a Neanderthal. Thank goodness I was worried there for a second...

                    If we go next time - I will be picking up the tab. My turn. And I am not really concerned about what people think of me. If I were, I doubt I would haunt these pages. The perceptions of me here are fairly dismal, as best I can tell.
                    OK!
                    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
                      Well that is not necessarily true, I was agnostic until I was 37, and even flirted with Buddhism when I lived in the Far East. In this day and age, all this information is readily available, so one can do comparative studies. As a matter of fact I know two people from the old hood who became Buddhist back in the 70s are still are today.
                      Wow, Seer. So one set of rules for me, and a different one for you? I have my moral framework because I was raised in a Christian culture, but when I point the same argument back at you I get "not necessarily true?" So which is it?

                      Meanwhile, the statistics are not in your favor. Statistically, each of has has a significant probability of adopting the dominant religion of our environment. Those numbers hold up worldwide. Is it certain? No. It's not. Just highly likely.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      What do you mean can not show? To whom - you?
                      To anyone, Seer. The only person you have a chance of "showing" your worldview to successfully is someone who a) adopts your premise that the bible cannot be wrong, and b) adopts your specific interpretation of it. You are aware right, that 31.2% of the population claims Christianity as their religion, so 68.8% of the world doesn't agree with your starting premise. Then, your particular version of Christianity (which I assume is some form of Protestantism?) represents about 38.3% of Christians, so 61.7% of Christians don't agree with your particular interpretation of this "inerrant book." And Protestantism itself is so fragmented (somewhere between 200 and 44,000 sects/denominations, depending on whom you believe), that even if you took the more conservative of these numbers, you are down to less than 0.1% of the world that you have a prayer of making an argument to.

                      The rest of us are going to look at you like you have about 12 heads - with your worldview built on one undefended assumption piled on another.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Why is that even a consideration?
                      Because there actually is a segment of the population, Seer, that seems to be under the odd delusion that worldviews should be constructed based on demonstrable and defendable concepts. The alternative is essentially declaring whatever you want to be true, which is (as best I can tell) exactly what you are doing.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      The problem is Carp, as I said in the past, sin has blinded you
                      Ahh...and there is it... the theological "get out of jail free" card. When you cannot defend a position - just declare the other person "blinded" to the brilliance of your worldview. Not all that convincing, Seer. But if it's the best you can do...

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      No Carp, go back and reread what I said. It doesn't matter what I can demonstrate or not, that tells us nothing about whether they exist or not. It is the difference between ontology and epistemology, and that is a category error on your part.
                      I did read what you said - multiple times. Again, you make claim after claim about how reality works, provide absolutely no basis for the claims, declare it is all perfectly understandable if you start with the assumption "the bible can't be wrong," and when you are called on it - classify it as a category error? Sorry, Seer. Your claim is a simple one: morality is absolute/objective. You cannot make an argument for why it must be so except to continually remind us that "relative/subjective is not absolute/objective," you cannot rationally explain how you reach your level of claimed certitude without twisting yourself into an internally inconsistent pretzel about sin and god's power, and meanwhile you level charges of anyone not agreeing with you "just rationalizing to what they want."

                      Seer - I have never seen anyone rationalize to what they want as badly as you have done in this discussion.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And what I want can also be true,
                      Odd... you seem to not extend this possibility to me. How selfish of you to horde it for yourself.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      but like I said my worldview has explanatory power on so many levels.
                      Not that you have demonstrated in ANY of this discussion.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      There are different degrees Carp, I don't have to be certain about all things to be certain about some things. I am certain that a just God who loves me exists, that His Son died for my sin, and that I can be forgiven, that Christ was raised from the dead and that universal truths exist. Now if I am wrong about a specific understanding of Scripture that would have to be shown to me, until then I have no reason to question my understanding.
                      And you are certain about ALL of these things for one reason and one reason only - you started by assuming they were true. You did that when you started by assuming the book that claims that they are true cannot be wrong. So your entire worldview is built on a circular, completely unsubstantiated assumption.

                      And your claims about 100% moral certitude just want POOF, Seer - by your own words. You cannot even BEGIN to make this claim without getting twisted into inconsistencies.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Can you prove that relativism is true, which entails proving that universal truths can not be possible.
                      Technically, no - it doesn't. It would be adequate to show they are not actual. Setting that distinction aside, the claim that absolute/objective moral truths exist is a claim YOU make and must defend if you want it accepted. Meanwhile, the evidence for moral relativism/subjectivism is all around us. It is captured in the manner in which all of us moralize - including you. It is evident in the nature of morality as a categorization of action/behavior - and categorization is demonstrably a function of the sentient mind. I believe the evidence in front of my nose, Seer - not the unsubstantiated claims of someone who is showing every sign of religious indoctrination. You cannot escape the relative nature of your OWN moral framework. You cannot escape that YOU have selected the Christian framework to align to. You cannot even escape that you have arbitrarily selected your starting point (that book cannot be wrong) without one shred of substantiation. There is no finer example of relatively/subjectively choosing a moral course than the one you have provided.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And we have been through this before Carp and you admitted that you could not prove that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. The very foundation of all you know rests on an act of faith.
                      Absolutely. But you just hoisted yourself on your own petard, Seer. Neither can you. So I make the faith-based assumption that the information imparted by my senses can be reasonably trusted and I can proceed from there (recognizing the potential for error). You add to this assumption the unfounded assumption "that book cannot be wrong," and the claim that there exists a supernatural being that can pierce the veil of your limited imperfection. Neither of these latter claims you can in any way substantiate.

                      Which of us, do you think, is on more solid ground, and making fewer undefended assumptions?

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      But that is an argument based on both ignorance and your severely limited knowledge and experience. That is not adequate justification or support.
                      And you think you are in better shape? Do you seriously thinking inventing an supreme being somehow gives you an escape from the human condition? The fact is we are all human, and we are all limited, and we are all only able to do "as good as we can do." Piling on assumption upon assumption to make yourself feel like you somehow have escaped the human condition and achieved "100% certainty" is an exercise in delusion, Seer.

                      Occams razor - don't add to an explanation anything unnecessary.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Carp you said: I value life. I value liberty. I value happiness. They are basic values held in common with most humans I have encountered. That sounds like an appeal to the majority.
                      OK - I'm going to say this one time and one more time only. If you persist in this line, I will assume you feel a need to lie about me because you cannot otherwise defend your own positions.

                      At no point have I EVER appealed to the majority to justify my positions. I have answered questions about who believes X. I have pointed out the reason for why there is so much commonality in human moral positions. At no point have I ever said, thought, or claimed that ANY moral position is or is not right because X number of people believe it. I have never said it. I have never thought it. I don't believe it now either. If you continue to repeat this refrain about my position - given how thoroughly I have responded to this, and how often - I conclude that you have a need to lie about my arguments and my positions. I hope you are better than that, Seer. It would be disappointing to find you so badly need to misrepresent my positions.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Good I'm glad you agree that there is no objective moral progress in your world.
                      That is not what I said. There is no absolute moral progress, or evolutionary progress, because the circumstances can change. There IS objective moral progress, given a clearly stated set of premises. Evolution is a process that always drives a species to adapt to its environment. That is objectively true. Tell me the environment, and we can objectively assess how well a given species has adapted. Because the environmental niche can change, the specific "destination" of evolution can change. Case in point: if a bird eats a particular type of bug, and that type of bug lives 1 inch below the surface of the ground, the species of bird will tend to evolve a beak that can reach that bug. 1.5 - 2 inches should do fine. If something causes the bug to begin to live 3 inches below the ground, evolution will drive an adjustment to the bird to the new reality (longer beak, digging ability, change of diet, etc.).

                      The same thing happens in the moral sphere concerning the relation between moral conclusions and what humans generally tend to value.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Meaning there is nothing objectively wrong with being a Neanderthal. Thank goodness I was worried there for a second...
                      Nobody said there was. But a neanderthal attempting to impose their "man first" chest thumping on modern humans is going to find themselves sadly disappointed as most modern humans suggest they return to the environment where their archaic views were more aligned with the reality of the day, or find a neanderthal woman who shares their largely obsolete and archaic attitudes.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-22-2019, 04:32 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


                      • Really Carp, do you need to turn everything into a mini-novel?
                        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
                          Really Carp, do you need to turn everything into a mini-novel?
                          Well - stay with one argument at a time and we probably won't go there. Pick a direction. But if a single post contains multiple threads/concepts - I'll respond accordingly. I do try to make sure I respond to the points made. I leave it to you to decide what you want to spend time reading. However, I suggest you don't try to tell me I haven't made Argument X when the reality is that you never bothered to read Argument X.
                          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
                            Wow, Seer. So one set of rules for me, and a different one for you? I have my moral framework because I was raised in a Christian culture, but when I point the same argument back at you I get "not necessarily true?" So which is it?

                            Meanwhile, the statistics are not in your favor. Statistically, each of has has a significant probability of adopting the dominant religion of our environment. Those numbers hold up worldwide. Is it certain? No. It's not. Just highly likely.
                            Well that certainly accounts for the rapid spread of Christianity through the Roman world. It was already the dominant religion of the environment ... err, no, it was a minor sect of a small, backwater portion of the Roman world.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              Well that certainly accounts for the rapid spread of Christianity through the Roman world. It was already the dominant religion of the environment ... err, no, it was a minor sect of a small, backwater portion of the Roman world.
                              That an emerging sect can take root and gain ground does not change the statistical model. Over time, the probability of a person adopting the dominant religion of their area is demonstrable, and traces throughout history. That does not mean new sects/religions cannot emerge - as history shows. But they are pretty much statistical anomalies, and require centuries to gain ground. My observation was about statistical averages and is correct. Many studies have shown this. Here is one specifically about home upbringing.

                              Furthermore, it is the exact argument Seer used to suggest that my moral framework was dictated by the dominance of Christianianity here. Dictated - no. Strongly influenced - no qustion about it. But that response was not acceptable. My worldview was definitively due to Christian influence. But then, when confronted with the same reality pointed in his direction, the response is "not necessarily" and the rules change.

                              There is a reason why I have pointed to Seer's inconsistency.

                              BTW - "rapid" is a relative term. Christianity expanded through the Roman world, as best I can tell, about as fast as other successful religions have expanded. It took decades to take root beyond small enclaves. It took centuries to become the recognized religion of a state. There are several religions with a roughly similar growth trajectory.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 03-22-2019, 06:24 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
                                That an emerging sect can take root and gain ground does not change the statistical model. Over time, the probability of a person adopting the dominant religion of their area is demonstrable, and traces throughout history. That does not mean new sects/religions cannot emerge - as history shows. But they are pretty much statistical anomalies, and require centuries to gain ground. My observation was about statistical averages and is correct. Many studies have shown this. Here is one specifically about home upbringing.

                                Furthermore, it is the exact argument Seer used to suggest that my moral framework was dictated by the dominance of Christianity here. Dictated - no. Strongly influenced - no question about it. But that response was not acceptable. My worldview was definitively due to Christian influence. But then, when confronted with the same reality pointed in his direction, the response is "not necessarily" and the rules change.

                                There is a reason why I have pointed to Seer's inconsistency.
                                Perhaps people (on average) adopt moral views that they consider superior to anything else on offer. That would be a subjective evaluation of available data. Better might be available from alternative but unknown (to the person concerned) sources - but being unknown, will not influence that person. Even so, a single individual may find himself dissatisfied with the prevailing morality and independently devise something that he considers better.
                                However, given the excesses that are from time to time reasonably apparent - it would also seem that the subjective evaluation can be tweaked by advertising that makes one system look superior when it has nothing of value to offer, and may even be thoroughly detrimental. (moral junk food, so to speak).
                                A minority may have a disproportionate influence, but that depends on goodwill (predisposition) on the part of the target group. Alternatively, a minority group may be able by dint of notable personalities or outright coercion enforce an inferior (personal subjective evaluation) morality on an entire population. The latter does not succeed in the long term. Even when such tactics are used in promoting a what would otherwise be a superior (personal subjective evaluation) code of moral conduct, the effect is transitory - the tactics so contaminate the moral code so promoted that it in fact becomes odious to the target population.
                                However, I would argue that the number of societies which have independently (and with no traceable cross influence) devised moral codes that are similar tends to suggest a possible objective FOUNDATION for morality. That foundation does not comprise a particularly extensive part of the societies' entire code, but the core is much the same. Murder, for example, is considered inappropriate in most societies. What is considered to constitute murder has a wide range of interpretation.
                                The "head of household" in very ancient (pre-empire) Rome for example had power of life and death over all members of the household. If he killed a member of the household on no more than a whim, it was not deemed to be murder - it was his right as Pater Familias. (also, not killing a promiscuous son or daughter was considered immoral).
                                The code of Bushido is all but indistinguishable from the code of Christianity with no known cross-influences. Loyalty, courage, benevolence, honesty etc are held in high esteem by both groups, yet definitions of what exactly constitutes those values vary rather significantly in some areas.
                                Last edited by tabibito; 03-22-2019, 06:42 PM.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 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
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X