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

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I think he expresses himself just fine. The problem is that the positions he expresses are often contradictory,
    ...or perceived to be by those who do not understand the arguments being made.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    and when he can't reconcile them, he accuses us of misunderstanding him. He's attempting a sleight-of-hand that is so blatantly obvious that even people in the back of the theater can spot the trick.
    I'll leave this one to you...
    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


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      That is false Carp, I am not a moral relativist no matter how many times you claim this. I believe there are universal moral truths, you do not. I believe there are objectively right moral answers, you do not.
      You beleive you are a moral objectivist/absolutist, Seer. Unfortunately, morality is not absolute/objective. You ARE a moral relativist/subjectivist because that is the very nature of morality. A man may believe he is indestructible, but the bullet will still kill him.

      ETA: To be fair, I'm sure you see your moral framework as "correct/true/real" and I am the one living in denial of what is real. "Making myself god" is the way that is usually expressed, IIRC.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Whether I'm locked into that book or not you have nothing better, as a matter of fact your position is decidedly worse, as we have discussed in the past. Since the murderous Maoist's position would be just as rational and consistent as yours. And the fact that your "underlying value structures" are largely informed by the Christian culture you were raised in. You have nothing Carp, get over yourself.
      Seer, do you think you have any more chance of convincing the Maoist than I? You will quote your book to him, and claim it is absolute/objective all day long, and the Maoist will likely laugh as hard at you as he will at me. And when he refuses to change his POV, you will have the same options as I: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend - all because we live in a subjective/relative moral universe.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      And that is why I say that marching children into gas chambers is absolutely and universally wrong. And you don't.
      I actually do say that marching children into gas chambers is universally wrong. It is wrong when done by anyone anywhere at any time. All people should see that as wrong. Anyone who does it is acting immorally. No problem. Your assumption that "I don't" is incorrect. We all see our own moral framework as the ideal one, by definition, and want all others to agree with us. When they don't, we see them as "immoral." That's how it works. I am not obliged to measure morality by another man's moral code. Morality is subjective. I measure it by MY moral code. So do you. So does everyone. The only difference between you and me is that you have subjugated your moral decision making to "the book." It is your only tool in your conversation with the Maoist. You have to say, "but the book says..." And the Maoist will laugh at your book. He may laugh at me too - but at least I will have the freedom to look at the underlying value structure, look for logical inconsistencies, and engage the Maoist on a wide front of discussion. I'd say my chances are probably better than yours of success. But if we both fail - we both will do the same thing: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So again, you would use force against those who disagree with your above opinion.
      If a business in the U.S. engages in bigoted/prejudicial/discriminatory behavior in their workplace, then I would turn to the courts to contest that behavior, as I would for anything I find to be an injustice in any context. Same with the "whites only" diner and the "blacks at the back of the bus" transportation system.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Like Jacobins and Marxists of old you leftists will use the ideas of social justice to bludgeon the rest of us to conform to your views. Bottom line Carp, I don't trust you, your ethics, or the state.
      That much is clear.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-11-2019, 10:48 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


      • #48
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        You beleive you are a moral objectivist/absolutist, Seer. Unfortunately, morality is not absolute/objective. You ARE a moral relativist/subjectivist because that is the very nature of morality. A man may believe he indestructable. The bullet will still kill him.
        Really Carp? You have already agreed in the past that you can not categorically state that universal moral truths don't exist. And that moral disagreement does not disprove them.

        Seer, do you think you have any more chance of convincing the Maoist than I? You will quote your book to him, and claim it is absolute/objective all day long, and the Maoist will likely laugh as hard at you as he will at me. And when he refuses to change his POV, you will have the same options as I: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
        Except in my universe there are right moral answers, and universal justice at the end of the road.

        I actually do say that marching children into gas chambers is universally wrong. All people should see that as wrong. Anyone who does it is acting immorally. No problem. Your assumption that "I don't" is incorrect. We all see our own moral framework as the ideal one, by definition, and want all others to agree with us. When they don't, we see them as "immoral." That's how it works.
        But gassing Jewish children can't actually be universally or absolutely wrong in your world. It is in mine...


        If a business in the U.S. engages in bigoted/prejudicial/discriminatory behavior in their workplace, then I would turn to the courts to contest that behavior, as I would for anything I find to be an injustice in any context. Same with the "whites only" diner and the "blacks at the back of the bus" transportation system.
        But you can actually still have a "whites only" diner. And the federal courts can't stop that if it doesn't run a foul of the commerce clause. Again, you have no Constitutional principle to back up your opinion.


        That much is clear.

        Yes we have seen this movie before...
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Really Carp? You have already agreed in the past that you can not categorically state that universal moral truths don't exist.
          Assuming you are using "universal" as a substitute for absolute/objective, correct. Morality is not a discipline like mathematics - where there is an objectively true set of equations. There are some objectively true principles - but they are very general and tightly coupled to sentience.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And that moral disagreement does not disprove them.
          Correct. Moral disagreement is not the basis for the claim there are no moral absolutes and morality is not objective. Universal is a different matter. Each of us seeks to universalize our moral framework. That is the very nature of the framework.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Except in my universe there are right moral answers, and universal justice at the end of the road.
          I my universe (which is the same as yours, BTW), there are right moral answers. As for justice - we strive for it. Some escape. I suspect that is a major reason why some people cling to the illusion of moral absolutes and a punisher-god. The idea that some people would actually get away with things is anathema. The theory recently put forward, concerning how punisher gods became prevalent when societies grew beyond the point where everyone knows everyone else fits perfectly with what you are saying.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          But gassing Jewish children can't actually be universally or absolutely wrong in your world. It is in mine...
          Since we all believe our moral codes should be universalized - then anyone who sees gassing children as immoral seeks to have that moral precept universalized. As for absolutes - they don't exist period. You simply think they do. You are trying to go past "this is my moral framework and I think it is best and everyone should be using it" to "this is THE moral framework that everyone should be aligning to." Except you cannot show that to be the case. You can just insist and insist and insist...somewhat pointlessly I might add.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          But you can actually still have a "whites only" diner. And the federal courts can't stop that if it doesn't run a foul of the commerce clause. Again, you have no Constitutional principle to back up your opinion.
          Seer, bigotry/discrimination/prejudice in the workplace has been in place for years. All 50 states have such prohibitions in place. The EEOC enforces workplace-related anti-discrimination laws.

          The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. What is happening now is an attempt to widen that to cover groups not previously covered (e.g., the LGBTQ community). The laws are not there yet. Right now we are at the same point we were at in the 1950s and late 1960s. When Rosa Parks refused to move - she had not a shred of legal stance for doing so. It took nine more years of struggle before the FCRA was passed in 1964. Hopefully, in the next decade, a new act will be passed that broadens the coverage. Until then, the rest of us continue to fight to prevent such discrimination in the public market and places of employment.

          I wish it were possible to erase bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination from the planet. Unfortunately, to do that would require more us to sacrifice some very cherished beliefs. People will always have the freedom (I hope) to say and think despicable things - because all of us want the freedom to say and think what we wish. But we CAN place a limit on what people DO.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Yes we have seen this movie before...
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-11-2019, 01:17 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


          • #50
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Assuming you are using "universal" as a substitute for absolute/objective, correct. Morality is not a discipline like mathematics - where there is an objectively true set of equations. There are some objectively true principles - but they are very general and tightly coupled to sentience.
            Except Carp, as we discussed, what makes logical and mathematical truths universal is the same thing that makes moral truth universal - God...


            Correct. Moral disagreement is not the basis for the claim there are no moral absolutes and morality is not objective.
            Then how do you prove that morality is not objective?


            Since we all believe our moral codes should be universalized - then anyone who sees gassing children as immoral seeks to have that moral precept universalized. As for absolutes - they don't exist period. You simply think they do. You are trying to go past "this is my moral framework and I think it is best and everyone should be using it" to "this is THE moral framework that everyone should be aligning to." Except you cannot show that to be the case. You can just insist and insist and insist...somewhat pointlessly I might add.
            Prove that moral absolutes don't exist...


            Seer, bigotry/discrimination/prejudice in the workplace has been in place for years. All 50 states have such prohibitions in place. The EEOC enforces workplace-related anti-discrimination laws.

            The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. What is happening now is an attempt to widen that to cover groups not previously covered (e.g., the LGBTQ community). The laws are not there yet. Right now we are at the same point we were at in the 1950s and late 1960s. When Rosa Parks refused to move - she had not a shred of legal stance for doing so. It took nine more years of struggle before the FCRA was passed in 1964. Hopefully, in the next decade, a new act will be passed that broadens the coverage. Until then, the rest of us continue to fight to prevent such discrimination in the public market and places of employment.
            No Carp, the The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 only prohibits such discrimination IF there is interstate commerce involved.
            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


            • #51
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Except Carp, as we discussed, what makes logical and mathematical truths universal is the same thing that makes moral truth universal - God...
              There is no such being. Even if there were, morality would still be subject to this being as a sentient (presumably) being.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Then how do you prove that morality is not objective?
              Prove as in "mathematically?" I don't. Prove as in "scientifically?" I don't. Prove as in create an iron-clad syllogism? I don't. None of those is possible, AFAICT.

              The proof is more in the nature of a legal one: beyond a reasonable doubt. I look at the available evidence and see where it takes me. I have already done that multiple times in multiple threads. You don't find the evidence compelling because you are still clinging to the notion of a god (see above). There's not much I can do about that.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Prove that moral absolutes don't exist...
              Prove that god exists!

              You see, Seer, we have the same problem. There are some things that cannot be definitively proven. The best we can do is look at the available evidence and conclude, "this seems to me to be the most likely situation."

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              No Carp, the The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 only prohibits such discrimination IF there is interstate commerce involved.
              First, in this age of globalism and nationalism, do you think there are many publicly facing businesses that do NOT have an interstate component to them, whether it is where they source their product, the reach of their supply chain, or where they sell their goods?

              Second, for those that do not, there are equivalent statutes at the state level in most states.

              Third, since the 1930s, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that Congress has the power to regulate intrastate transactions if they have the potential to impact interstate commerce. The is the power the FCRA of 1964 taps in putting regulatory constraints on intrastate businesses. Your reading of the FCRA appears to be focused on two specific clauses that deal with interstate commerce. You should read the rest of the act. BTW - this is also the basis for the FCRA extending to housing discrimination.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-11-2019, 02:01 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


              • #52
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                There is no such being. Even if there were, morality would still be subject to this being as a sentient (presumably) being.
                Yes, but logically His moral sense would be both universal and absolute:

                P1. God thinks and acts morally, he embodies moral truths.
                P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                P3. God’s moral nature is immutable.
                C4. Therefore absolute moral truths exist universally.

                The same as with logical truths:

                P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.


                Prove as in mathematically? I don't. Prove as in scientifically? I don't. Prove as in "gather evidence and see where it takes you?" I have already done that multiple times. You don't find the evidence compelling because you are still clinging to the notion of a god (see above). There's not much I can do about that.
                So you can't prove it, you base your opinion on your limited and finite experience? And that has weight why?


                First, in this age of globalism and nationalism, do you think there are many publicly facing businesses that do NOT have an interstate component to them, whether it is where they source their product, the reach of their supply chain, or where they sell their goods?

                Second, for those that do not, there are equivalent statutes at the state level in most states.

                Third, since the 1930s, SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that Congress has the power to regulate intrastate transactions if they have the potential to impact interstate commerce. The is the power the FCRA of 1964 taps in putting regulatory constraints on intrastate businesses. Your reading of the FCRA appears to be focused on two specific clauses that deal with interstate commerce. You should read the rest of the act. BTW - this is also the basis for the FCRA extending to housing discrimination.
                I have read it Carp, and recently. You can not make a Constitutional case for anti-discrimination laws as applied to private business - period. That is why they had to go at it by the backdoor, the commerce clause. If I had a business and only served within my state and only purchased products in my state I would not run a foul of the Civil Rights act. That is a fact.
                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


                • #53
                  My responses embedded:

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Yes, but logically His moral sense would be both universal and absolute:

                  P1. God thinks and acts morally, he embodies moral truths. MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise
                  P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe. MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise
                  P3. God’s moral nature is immutable. MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise
                  C4. Therefore absolute moral truths exist universally.

                  MICHEL: you cannot show any of your premises to be true, your conclusion may be valid (I didn't actually trace the argument closely enough to determine that), but it cannot be shown to be true.

                  The same as with logical truths:

                  P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths. MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise
                  P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe. MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise
                  P3. God’s rational nature is immutable. MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise
                  C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

                  MICHEL: same comment


                  So you can't prove it, you base your opinion on your limited and finite experience?
                  Of course. What else would a limited and finite being do?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And that has weight why?
                  Seer, are you somehow under the impression that you are NOT basing your opinions on a limited and finite experience? Did you suddenly become an infinite, omniscient, and eternal being when I wasn't looking?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I have read it Carp, and recently. You can not make a Constitutional case for anti-discrimination laws as applied to private business - period. That is why they had to go at it by the backdoor, the commerce clause. If I had a business and only served within my state and only purchased products in my state I would not run a foul of the Civil Rights act. That is a fact.
                  And yet the FCRA has been in place for 55 years and still ticking without any significant constitutional challenges. I'm not a constitutional scholar - this is true. But then again, neither are you. So I'll take it as evidence that the interpretation of the commerce powers of the Federal government give it powers to regulate in this space, since the FCRA actually allows for that. It has been shown to cover housing, food services, and a whole host of other businesses. Then there are all those pesky state constitutions and laws.
                  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


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    My responses embedded:
                    MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise

                    Like your premises for your moral theories? Yet I can make a logical case for both universal moral and logical truths, you can not.


                    Of course. What else would a limited and finite being do?
                    Not make absolute statements like moral absolutes don't exist?

                    Seer, are you somehow under the impression that you are NOT basing your opinions on a limited and finite experience? Did you suddenly become an infinite, omniscient, and eternal being when I wasn't looking?
                    No, but the God I worship is...


                    And yet the FCRA has been in place for 55 years and still ticking without any significant constitutional challenges. I'm not a constitutional scholar - this is true. But then again, neither are you. So I'll take it as evidence that the interpretation of the commerce powers of the Federal government give it powers to regulate in this space, since the FCRA actually allows for that. It has been shown to cover housing, food services, and a whole host of other businesses. Then there are all those pesky state constitutions and laws.
                    You brought up the Civil Rights act - and my point was that there was no Constitutional grounding for anti-discrimination laws as applied to private business. Hence the use of the commerce clause...
                    Last edited by seer; 06-11-2019, 02:22 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


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      MICHEL: you cannot show this to be a true premise

                      Like your premises for your moral theories?
                      Seer, because morality is relative/subjective, and is rooted in what the individual values, the premises will be subjective. Ergo, their truth will be subjectively true. "Proving" a subjective truth is essentially impossible. I cannot "prove" I like the color blue. I cannot "prove" I value life. That is the nature of subjectivity. I understand that and embrace it as reality.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yet I can make a logical case for both universal moral and logical truths, you can not.
                      And here is where we part company. You have not and cannot do this. Your morality is likewise relative/subjective and no more accessible to proof than mine. You cannot prove to me that you value your god. You cannot prove to me this god exists, or what it's nature is. You cannot prove to me this god inspired your holy book. All of the assumptions you make to arrive at your own moral framework are equally unprovable.

                      Seer, anyone can string together a sound syllogism.

                      P1) I value life
                      P2) A thing that is value should not be destroyed indiscriminately
                      C) I should not destroy life indiscriminately

                      P1 is true - but I cannot prove it to you because it is an internal, subjective state. P2 would seem to be a reasonable premise probably widely accepted, but in the end it is an opinion. If P1 is true and one accepts P2 as true, C follows logically. See, anyone can do it. You have strung together your own arguments (previous post) and I'll assume they are likewise sound. The problem is, I don't accept your premises as true. I have no cause to. There is nothing about them that aligns with what I have come to know of my world and my universe. SInce I reject the premises as false, your conclusion goes out the door with them.

                      If you want me to accept your premises as true, it will take more than just your say-so. After all, you are not claiming that your premises are subjectively true - you are claiming they are objectively true/real. Therefore, they should be subject to some for of objective determination of their truth. As soon as you claim "objective/absolute," you put yourself in this position.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Not make absolute statements like moral absolutes don't exist?
                      Unicorns don't exist. I'm not absolute - and not eternal - and not omniscient - but I am knowledgeable enough about human history and the origins of human mythology to conclude "unicorns do not exist." Is it possible I am wrong? Sure. Is it probable. I doubt it. Likewise, god's do not exist. They are also creatures of human mythology. Morality is clearly and evidently subjective and relative. It has none of the hallmarks of mathematics or logic and all of the hallmarks of human laws. If it is subjective/relative, then it is not absolute/objective. There is no basis for thinking otherwise. Until you provide me with one, it is what I am going to continue to believe. Could I be wrong? Always possible. Am I wrong? I find it unlikely.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      No, but the God I worship is...
                      You mean the god you have determined exists on the basis of your finite and limited logic and experience? That god? The one that is one of many gods described by human beings since the dawn of humanity? The one that is described in the writings of men who lived 2000-3500 years ago who were likewise finite beings of limited experience?

                      You pile conclusion on top of conclusion, all arrived at by finite and limited beings - and arrive at "absolute" and "objective" knowledge? Really? How on earth does THAT work?

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You brought up the Civil Rights act - and my point was that there was no Constitutional grounding for anti-discrimination laws as applied to private business. Hence the use of the commerce clause...
                      And the commerce clause is in the constitution... remember...? And it has survived judicial scrutiny now for 55 years. I think I'll accept that as evidence that the is power in the Constitution for the government to regulate private business. And the fact that it is primarily interstate is a function of how we operate as a country. The federal government tends to hold sway for international and interstate issues; the states for intrastate issues unless they are interstate-related. That is why we have 51 sets of civil rights legislation: federal and 50 states. It is also why we have an FCC as well as 50 PUC/PSCs, one for each state. Interstate is regulated federally - intrastate is regulated at the state level. The U.S. Constitution governs at the federal level. State Constitutions govern at the state level, with the constraint that they may not subvert or overrule the U.S. Constitution. That's how our government works.
                      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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        You beleive you are a moral objectivist/absolutist, Seer. Unfortunately, morality is not absolute/objective. You ARE a moral relativist/subjectivist because that is the very nature of morality. A man may believe he is indestructible, but the bullet will still kill him.


                        I think we've gone over this once before, using the term "moral objectivist/absolutist" in the idiosyncratic way you're doing is not going to help make the discussion clearer.

                        If you're an "-ist" about something, regardless of what it is, it simply means that you have certain beliefs about that something. Whether you're correct about those beliefs or not is absolutely irrelevant as to whether you really are a "those beliefs"-ist or not.

                        Using your logic I would have to conclude that every atheist out there is actually a theist, because whatever they might believe, the fact of the matter is that the very nature of reality is that there is a ultimate cause and upholder of the cosmos called God, and regardless of what the "atheist" might believe it's still a fact that his very existence is dependent on that God's continuously sustaining providence. So the atheist might believe that the intellectual faculties he's using to come to the conclusion that belief in God is not warranted came into being and continue to exist without divine power and guidance, but reality contradicts him.

                        Of course, the above is actually ridiculous, and not something I'm proposing to put forth as a serious argument. But my point is that I have a hard time seeing how your "everyone is actually a 'moral relativist/subjectivist' because whatever someone might believe about morality the fact of the matter is that the very nature of morality is relative"-claim is not equally absurd and abusive of the English language.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          Morality is clearly and evidently subjective and relative. It has none of the hallmarks of mathematics or logic and all of the hallmarks of human laws. If it is subjective/relative, then it is not absolute/objective. There is no basis for thinking otherwise.
                          Frankly, based on this, I'm not sure why you haven't thrown your hands up in nihilistic despair and declared like King Solomon, "Vanity! Vanity! All is vanity"

                          "I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun."

                          Of course very few atheists have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its only logical conclusion, and I suspect it's because, deep down, they know it's a lie.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            And here is where we part company. You have not and cannot do this. Your morality is likewise relative/subjective and no more accessible to proof than mine. You cannot prove to me that you value your god. You cannot prove to me this god exists, or what it's nature is. You cannot prove to me this god inspired your holy book. All of the assumptions you make to arrive at your own moral framework are equally unprovable.
                            I did not say prove, I made a deductive case for both universal moral truths and the universality of logical truths, which are conceptual.

                            Seer, anyone can string together a sound syllogism.

                            P1) I value life
                            P2) A thing that is value should not be destroyed indiscriminately
                            C) I should not destroy life indiscriminately

                            P1 is true - but I cannot prove it to you because it is an internal, subjective state. P2 would seem to be a reasonable premise probably widely accepted, but in the end it is an opinion. If P1 is true and one accepts P2 as true, C follows logically. See, anyone can do it. You have strung together your own arguments (previous post) and I'll assume they are likewise sound. The problem is, I don't accept your premises as true. I have no cause to. There is nothing about them that aligns with what I have come to know of my world and my universe. SInce I reject the premises as false, your conclusion goes out the door with them.

                            If you want me to accept your premises as true, it will take more than just your say-so. After all, you are not claiming that your premises are subjectively true - you are claiming they are objectively true/real. Therefore, they should be subject to some for of objective determination of their truth. As soon as you claim "objective/absolute," you put yourself in this position.
                            You are correct, premise two does not follow deductively so this is not a sound syllogism. Second, as a theist I can deductively account for inherent human value, you can not. I also can deductively account for the universality and immutability of the laws of logic (which are conceptual) - you can not. So in this debate Carp, logic is not your friend. So what do you have left?
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post


                              I think we've gone over this once before, using the term "moral objectivist/absolutist" in the idiosyncratic way you're doing is not going to help make the discussion clearer.

                              If you're an "-ist" about something, regardless of what it is, it simply means that you have certain beliefs about that something. Whether you're correct about those beliefs or not is absolutely irrelevant as to whether you really are a "those beliefs"-ist or not.

                              Using your logic I would have to conclude that every atheist out there is actually a theist, because whatever they might believe, the fact of the matter is that the very nature of reality is that there is a ultimate cause and upholder of the cosmos called God, and regardless of what the "atheist" might believe it's still a fact that his very existence is dependent on that God's continuously sustaining providence. So the atheist might believe that the intellectual faculties he's using to come to the conclusion that belief in God is not warranted came into being and continue to exist without divine power and guidance, but reality contradicts him.

                              Of course, the above is actually ridiculous, and not something I'm proposing to put forth as a serious argument. But my point is that I have a hard time seeing how your "everyone is actually a 'moral relativist/subjectivist' because whatever someone might believe about morality the fact of the matter is that the very nature of morality is relative"-claim is not equally absurd and abusive of the English language.
                              Thank you....
                              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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Frankly, based on this, I'm not sure why you haven't thrown your hands up in nihilistic despair and declared like King Solomon, "Vanity! Vanity! All is vanity"

                                "I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun."

                                Of course very few atheists have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its only logical conclusion, and I suspect it's because, deep down, they know it's a lie.
                                Actually I do remember Carp agreeing that he was an existential nihilist by definition.
                                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 little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                232 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X