Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

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

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

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

  • Sometimes my fingers get ahead of me. What on earth is an "organizism?"
    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
      Ok, I still find your defense of relative ethics strange.
      There’s no alternative. ALL ethical views are culturally relative including Christian ethics, and you have never been able to show otherwise. You claim that to be meaningful ethics must be “universal/eternal/absolute”, but you cannot support your claim nor can you provide a list of what these universal ethics are.

      No, I'm saying calling these repeatable, predictable principles "natural" is arbitrary.
      So what are they, “supernatural”?

      Oh no, there are real questions, read Sam Harris, a good card carrying atheist, this is not as black and white as you suggest: https://samharris.org/the-mystery-of-consciousness.

      Never mind the hard problem of consciousness, by another good card carrying atheist, Chalmers: https://blog.ted.com/the-hard-proble...rs-at-ted2014/
      Ah, rehashing your favourite cherry-picked quote from Harris again.

      OTOH card-carrying atheist philosopher Dan Dennett says: "The "miracles" of life itself, and of reproduction, are now analyzed into the well-known intricacies of molecular biology. Why should consciousness be any exception? Why should the brain be the only complex physical object in the universe to have an interface with another realm of being? Besides, the notorious problems with the supposed transactions at that dualistic interface are as good as a reductio ad absurdum of the view. The phenomena of consciousness are an admittedly dazzling lot, but I suspect that dualism would never be seriously considered if there weren't such a strong undercurrent of desire to protect the mind from science, by supposing it composed of a stuff that is in principle uninvestigatable by the methods of the physical sciences". - Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness in Human and Robot Minds,"

      Really, how could I possibly demonstrate the color red to a man born color blind? In essence that is what you are asking me to do, I will not be able to break through your presuppositions or your rebellion. And since you already admitted that you don't know why/how the universe exists you can not dismiss God as the originator, but you will.
      There's no good reason to posit the notion of God as the originator. Why would anyone do that in the Age of Science?
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

        You do love to go back to that "safe place," don't you, Seer. I remember how often I had to do so as well, until I finally came to the realization that, if I could not explain my views and why I had them to someone, then perhaps I needed to more closely question those views. That process led me to where I am now.

        Seer, you are entitled to have whatever beliefs/position you wish. But you cannot truly expect to make a claim like, "all of creation/universe proves that God is," then be completely unable to explain how you go from "the universe is" to "god is," and expect it to be very compelling to anyone else. It certainly is not to me. And constant retreat into "you can't understand" and "you are in rebellion" says more about you and your beliefs than it does about me and mine. I look for evidence on which I can base beliefs. If someone can make a case, I will look at it. If they can't...
        That is nonsense Carp, what you are again asking me to do is reject my worldview and adopt yours. You may not see it that way, but that is exactly what is happening. I must satisfy your relative understanding of evidence or what constitutes evidence. I must meet your subjective definitions. That is impossible. Again this is what my worldview states:

        "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

        So I ask, if the creation is not evidence of a Creator, what is it evidence of? You say you don't know, then you don't know that it isn't evidence of a Creator. Nevertheless I will not adopt your presuppositions and reject mine and jump to your arbitrary definitions and understandings.
        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
          That is nonsense Carp, what you are again asking me to do is reject my worldview and adopt yours. You may not see it that way, but that is exactly what is happening. I must satisfy your relative understanding of evidence or what constitutes evidence. I must meet your subjective definitions. That is impossible. Again this is what my worldview states:

          "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

          So I ask, if the creation is not evidence of a Creator, what is it evidence of? You say you don't know, then you don't know that it isn't evidence of a Creator. Nevertheless I will not adopt your presuppositions and reject mine and jump to your arbitrary definitions and understandings.
          First of all, what worldview you have is none of my concern. But if you express a worldview in discussion/debate, it is reasonable to expect you will get a response. I find it inconsistent to hold the view that I am blind and lack the capacity to understand, and then continue to talk to me as if I can. Then our discussion reveals you don't actually think I lack the capacity, because apparently I CAN change my ability to understand by making specific choices, I only lack the capacity until I make those choices, which seems to reverse the original position. I, frankly, am not sure exactly what it is you DO believe about "blindness" and "lack of capacity." Your explanations are inconsistent, and they are also inconsistent with your behavior.

          In our recent chats, you stumbled on one of many reasons for my shift of beliefs: I eventually found it unsatisfying to continually resort to "you cannot understand" and "you are blind - so I cannot explain it to you." Eventually, I confronted the fact that I retreated to that position whenever I was challenged in a way where I could not respond. I may well be projecting on you, but you appear to be doing the same thing in this discussion. I obviously cannot know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that you are not answering my question because you cannot; you have locked your belief to what the bible tells you, and even the bible lacks an explanation for this question. It merely asserts it. So you, in turn, have no explanation.

          As for your final question, I cannot ask it as answered. You have dubbed all of the universe "creation," which presumes a "creator," so you have biased your question to the outcome you wish to have. I have explained why I do not see the universe as evidence of a creator, and it frankly has nothing to do with the logic or illogic of a creator creating it. If you posit an omnipotent god, by definition such a god can do anything, including creating the universe. However, because I believe such beings to be the creation of human minds handed down over the years as "fact," and a fabrication of the human mind cannot create anything, ergo, I believe the universe was not created by a god. Do you see the difference? I DO beleive there is no god, ergo it could not create the universe. I do NOT believe the universe is evidence that there is or is not a god.
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-06-2018, 08:34 AM.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            First of all, what worldview you have is none of my concern. But if you express a worldview in discussion/debate, it is reasonable to expect you will get a response. I find it inconsistent to hold the view that I am blind and lack the capacity to understand, and then continue to talk to me as if I can. Then our discussion reveals you don't actually think I lack the capacity, because apparently I CAN change my ability to understand by making specific choices, I only lack the capacity until I make those choices, which seems to reverse the original position. I, frankly, am not sure exactly what it is you DO believe about "blindness" and "lack of capacity." Your explanations are inconsistent, and they are also inconsistent with your behavior.
            Carp, I have no idea what you are on about. My explanations are not inconsistent, I have been making the same points for pages now. And I'm not sure if you have the capacity to receive Christ as your savior or not, there are degrees of blindness - but I do believe that the more a man closes himself to God the more blind he becomes.

            In our recent chats, you stumbled on one of many reasons for my shift of beliefs: I eventually found it unsatisfying to continually resort to "you cannot understand" and "you are blind - so I cannot explain it to you." Eventually, I confronted the fact that I retreated to that position whenever I was challenged in a way where I could not respond. I may well be projecting on you, but you appear to be doing the same thing in this discussion. I obviously cannot know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that you are not answering my question because you cannot; you have locked your belief to what the bible tells you, and even the bible lacks an explanation for this question. It merely asserts it. So you, in turn, have no explanation.
            Right, the Bible asserts this, but what is your point? You still want me to reject my worldview and accept your relative and subjective standards for evidence. What does your personal opinion have to do with the truth or falsity of my first axiom that the Bible is the word of God? Absolutely nothing. And I never claimed that I could answer every question, neither do I have to. The Biblical fact is Carp, that there is something in man that rejects the authority of God, often for the reasons I previously gave. And for other reasons since each man may have different personal objections.

            As for your final question, I cannot ask it as answered. You have dubbed all of the universe "creation," which presumes a "creator," so you have biased your question to the outcome you wish to have. I have explained why I do not see the universe as evidence of a creator, and it frankly has nothing to do with the logic or illogic of a creator creating it. If you posit an omnipotent god, by definition such a god can do anything, including creating the universe. However, because I believe such beings to be the creation of human minds handed down over the years as "fact," and a fabrication of the human mind cannot create anything, ergo, I believe the universe was not created by a god. Do you see the difference? I DO beleive there is no god, ergo it could not create the universe. I do NOT believe the universe is evidence that there is or is not a god.
            Yes, but you just offered an assertion, an opinion, that there is no god or gods, with no evidence. That ideas of the divine are merely the inventions of human minds with no connection to reality. But how do you know that?
            Last edited by seer; 02-06-2018, 10:32 AM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Carp, I have no idea what you are on about. My explanations are not inconsistent, I have been making the same points for pages now. And I'm not sure if you have the capacity to receive Christ as your savior or not, there are degrees of blindness - but I do believe that the more a man closes himself to God the more blind he becomes.
              I was going to trace the conversation and give you your statements and links to the posts, but I really don't have the time. I'll let you do that for yourself. My memory of it is as follows:
              • It started with you noting I could not understand you because I was blind and lacked the capacity to do so.
              • After some back and forth, you told me that my lack of capacity was self-induced, and could be reversed based on my chioces. That is self-refuting, because if I can reverse it, I don't lack the capacity to do so.
              • Despite repeated assertions that I am blind and lack the capacity, you continue to engage and discuss. That's odd behavior. If I truly think someone lacks the capacity to understand a concept, I politely disengage or change the subject. Why waste the time?


              From my perspective, you're all over the map on this. I have no idea what you actually think.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Right, the Bible asserts this, but what is your point?
              The bible is a collection of books written by men, Seer. You may see it as "divinely inspired," but I (obviously) cannot. So an unsupported assertion by one of these men is no more convincing than an unsupported assertion by someone on this forum, and person I'm sitting having a beer with. I recognize that you see this differently.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              You still want me to reject my worldview and accept your relative and subjective standards for evidence.
              What possible purpose could you have for ignoring what I say and continuing to assert that you know what I want? Again, I have no desire for you to change your worldview. Believe what you wish. Continually telling me that I want to change your worldview doesn't actually make it so, Seer.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              What does your personal opinion have to do with the truth or falsity of my first axiom that the Bible is the word of God? Absolutely nothing. And I never claimed that I could answer every question, neither do I have to. The Biblical fact is Carp, that there is something in man that rejects the authority of God, often for the reasons I previously gave. And for other reasons since each man may have different personal objections.
              The biblical claim, Seer. Not the biblical fact. You may accept it as fact because of your worldview, but you have not shown it to be fact, so someone outside your worldview is not going to accept it as such. You are talking to someone outside your worldview, so I think it is reasonable to assume that mere assertions are not going to cut it. Believe what you wish, but continually asserting "facts" is simply not going to be very compelling to someone outside your worldview.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yes, but you just offered an assertion, an opinion, that there is no god or gods, with no evidence. That ideas of the divine are merely the inventions of human minds with no connection to reality. But how do you know that?
              Actually, I have traced the evidence I find compelling in several of our previous posts, so this was not technically an assertion, it is a restatement of my conclusion. How I come to that conclusion is based on several pieces of evidence form history and my life that include:

              1) An absence of any experience/evidence of the supernatural in my life
              2) An absence of any confirmed encounter with the supernatural (we will likely disagree on what it takes to "confirm" it)
              3) A significant history of supernatural claims being shown false (mistakes or cons)
              4) The pattern of continued separation in the world's religions as well as the wide pattern of similarities
              5) The pattern of scientific knowledge/discoveries continually displacing religious explanations
              6) What we know about the history of religions from the dawn of man
              7) What we know about the conveyance of beliefs in family and cultural structures
              8) The very nature of the description of god

              Some of these we have discussed. None of these is definitive. Together, they form a picture I find compelling. I see in it adequate evidence that "god" is a human construct, not an objectively real phenomenon.
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-06-2018, 11:22 AM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                I was going to trace the conversation and give you your statements and links to the posts, but I really don't have the time. I'll let you do that for yourself. My memory of it is as follows:
                • It started with you noting I could not understand you because I was blind and lacked the capacity to do so.
                • After some back and forth, you told me that my lack of capacity was self-induced, and could be reversed based on my chioces. That is self-refuting, because if I can reverse it, I don't lack the capacity to do so.
                • Despite repeated assertions that I am blind and lack the capacity, you continue to engage and discuss. That's odd behavior. If I truly think someone lacks the capacity to understand a concept, I politely disengage or change the subject. Why waste the time?


                From my perspective, you're all over the map on this. I have no idea what you actually think.
                Carp, I don't think I ever used the term capacity, you did, but I do believe that the more a man rejects His Creator the darker his reasoning becomes, the more difficult it becomes for him to repent. In your case, since you claimed to have been a Christian in the past, I do wonder if you could ever return. But I also said that if you still have breath, there is hope. This is all I'm saying.



                The biblical claim, Seer. Not the biblical fact. You may accept it as fact because of your worldview, but you have not shown it to be fact, so someone outside your worldview is not going to accept it as such. You are talking to someone outside your worldview, so I think it is reasonable to assume that mere assertions are not going to cut it. Believe what you wish, but continually asserting "facts" is simply not going to be very compelling to someone outside your worldview.
                You are doing it again, you can not logically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. You accept that axiom by faith, by assertion. Your unbelief concerning Scripture means nothing (logically) except when it comes to your soul. Should I deny Scripture to satisfy you? We simply can not meet since we begin with completely different assumptions.



                Actually, I have traced the evidence I find compelling in several of our previous posts, so this was not technically an assertion, it is a restatement of my conclusion. How I come to that conclusion is based on several pieces of evidence form history and my life that include:

                1) An absence of any experience/evidence of the supernatural in my life
                2) An absence of any confirmed encounter with the supernatural (we will likely disagree on what it takes to "confirm" it)
                3) A significant history of supernatural claims being shown false (mistakes or cons)
                4) The pattern of continued separation in the world's religions as well as the wide pattern of similarities
                5) The pattern of scientific knowledge/discoveries continually displacing religious explanations
                6) What we know about the history of religions from the dawn of man
                7) What we know about the conveyance of beliefs in family and cultural structures
                8) The very nature of the description of god

                Some of these we have discussed. None of these is definitive. Together, they form a picture I find compelling. I see in it adequate evidence that "god" is a human construct, not an objectively real phenomenon.
                And why do you trust your reasoning powers on any of these questions?

                1. Why is your limited experience the measure of anything?

                2. Right, and since I have experience the supernatural the possibility is open to me.

                3. It don't follow that because some claims are wrong, that they are all wrong.

                4. So both similarities and differences make your case? I don't get that.

                5. Not in the case of Christianity.

                6. ????

                7. So? I learned to treat my fellow man with respect from my culture, does that necessarily make it false?

                8. I have no idea what that means.
                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
                  Carp, I don't think I ever used the term capacity, you did, but I do believe that the more a man rejects His Creator the darker his reasoning becomes, the more difficult it becomes for him to repent. In your case, since you claimed to have been a Christian in the past, I do wonder if you could ever return. But I also said that if you still have breath, there is hope. This is all I'm saying.
                  I first used it, and you picked it up from there. As for whether or not I ever return to Christianity, I will go where the evidence takes me.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  You are doing it again, you can not logically demonstrate that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality.
                  No one can "logically demonstrate that what goes on in [their] mind corresponds to reality," Seer. You're not saying anything. Such a logical proof is not possible, AFAIK. We can experientially affirm that what is going on in our minds aligns with reality - but that is the best any of us can do.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  You accept that axiom by faith, by assertion. Your unbelief concerning Scripture means nothing (logically) except when it comes to your soul. Should I deny Scripture to satisfy you? We simply can not meet since we begin with completely different assumptions.
                  We all ultimately accept all beliefs we hold "on faith." Hopefully, however, it is not a "blind" faith. Hopefully it is a reasoned and thoughtful faith. As for the rest, since I do not subscribe to the notion of a soul, I have no response. Again, no one has asked you to change your beliefs (I think I've said that now a half dozen times. I have no idea why you keep returning to it...).

                  As for the assumptions, there I have no clue. I'm not sure we've ever discussed assumptions.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And why do you trust your reasoning powers on any of these questions?
                  What else do you suggest I trust?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  1. Why is your limited experience the measure of anything?
                  Every item in our heads is based on "experience." Ergo every belief we hold is based on our experiences.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  2. Right, and since I have experience the supernatural the possibility is open to me.
                  I recognize you believe you have experienced the supernatural, so you have come to a different conclusion. I had similar beliefs at one point, so I understand their power.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  3. It don't follow that because some claims are wrong, that they are all wrong.
                  Since I did not say that, I have no response.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  4. So both similarities and differences make your case? I don't get that.
                  Yes. Religions have highly similar themes (e.g., creation, redemption, sacrifical offerings, flood stories, etc.). These seem to link to the types of questions early man would have been trying to answer, and to the commonality of all being based on human experiences on planet earth. But rather than this similarities unifying all beliefs, as religions have progressed forward in time, they continually show a tendency to fragment and differentiate. When there is an underlying truth, beliefs tend to unify around that truth. We see this in scientific observations all the time. Someone proposes a new concept (that geocentrism is false) and it is soundly rejected. But as more and more test the idea, confirm the accuracy of experimentation, successfully repeat experiments, and the claim can be successfully used to predict other outcomes, its acceptance grows until it is close to universal. But religion shows the opposite trend, suggesting there is either a) no underlying objective reality to unify on or b) no mechanism for testing and confirming claims.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  5. Not in the case of Christianity.
                  Christianity is not exempt from this. Look at the multiple battles that occurred between the catholic church and early scientific leaders. Look at the battle that continues to rage between evolutionists and creationists.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  6. ????
                  Their emergence in early man, the universality of polytheisms, the emergence of monotheisms and their eventual dominance, the relationships between religions and adoptions of concepts from one religion to another, etc.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  7. So? I learned to treat my fellow man with respect from my culture, does that necessarily make it false?
                  I'm referring to how beliefs become embeddedin family, social, and cultural groups and the power they then have.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  8. I have no idea what that means.
                  There is an interesting truth about human imagination: we cannot imagine something that is not, in some way, related to our experiences. God is almost universally represented as male and human in aspect, referred to with (mostly male) gender pronouns. His characteristics are largely human characteristics, and some of them are widely considered negative human characteristics (e.g., jealousy, hatred, even fear). We have, in essence, created god in our own image and likeness, and then struggle to then reframe gods as somehow transcending humanity.

                  As I said - I have no doubt you will find all of these wanting, because you have already accepted Christianity as true. Perhaps you looked at this body of evidence, and rejected it as "uncompelling," I find it highly compelling, ergo I believe that the notion of god is a human construct - not something with an objective reality. God lives, in other words, in the human mind and in human art and literature, and nowhere else.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    I first used it, and you picked it up from there. As for whether or not I ever return to Christianity, I will go where the evidence takes me.
                    And again what you consider evidence or what weight you put on it is as subjective or relative as anything else.



                    No one can "logically demonstrate that what goes on in [their] mind corresponds to reality," Seer. You're not saying anything. Such a logical proof is not possible, AFAIK. We can experientially affirm that what is going on in our minds aligns with reality - but that is the best any of us can do.
                    You can even do that, since any "proofs" could just as easily be part of the deception. The point is we all start with unprovable assumptions. Just that some of mine are different than yours.

                    We all ultimately accept all beliefs we hold "on faith." Hopefully, however, it is not a "blind" faith. Hopefully it is a reasoned and thoughtful faith. As for the rest, since I do not subscribe to the notion of a soul, I have no response. Again, no one has asked you to change your beliefs (I think I've said that now a half dozen times. I have no idea why you keep returning to it...).

                    As for the assumptions, there I have no clue. I'm not sure we've ever discussed assumptions.
                    Yet you have time and time again asked me to demonstrate my beliefs starting with your worldview, accepting your assumptions to satisfy your criterion. And your belief that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality is "blind" faith - it can not be demonstrated deductively of empirically.



                    Yes. Religions have highly similar themes (e.g., creation, redemption, sacrificial offerings, flood stories, etc.). These seem to link to the types of questions early man would have been trying to answer, and to the commonality of all being based on human experiences on planet earth. But rather than this similarities unifying all beliefs, as religions have progressed forward in time, they continually show a tendency to fragment and differentiate. When there is an underlying truth, beliefs tend to unify around that truth. We see this in scientific observations all the time. Someone proposes a new concept (that geocentrism is false) and it is soundly rejected. But as more and more test the idea, confirm the accuracy of experimentation, successfully repeat experiments, and the claim can be successfully used to predict other outcomes, its acceptance grows until it is close to universal. But religion shows the opposite trend, suggesting there is either a) no underlying objective reality to unify on or b) no mechanism for testing and confirming claims.
                    There you go again, scientific inquiry does not lend itself to religious questions. And perhaps these similar religious themes point to an underlying truth. The sacrificial point is interesting, why do you have ancient cultures, from the Middle East to South America to Asia, and on...(who are completely separated) coming to the conclusion that in some fashion that they need to atone for their behavior. Why do men think there is something wrong in/with them? I doubt that the Lion would come to that conclusion, if it could.


                    I'm referring to how beliefs become embeddedin family, social, and cultural groups and the power they then have.
                    That does not say anything about their truthfulness.

                    There is an interesting truth about human imagination: we cannot imagine something that is not, in some way, related to our experiences. God is almost universally represented as male and human in aspect, referred to with (mostly male) gender pronouns. His characteristics are largely human characteristics, and some of them are widely considered negative human characteristics (e.g., jealousy, hatred, even fear). We have, in essence, created god in our own image and likeness, and then struggle to then reframe gods as somehow transcending humanity.
                    Or the reverse, we are created in His image, hence we share some of His qualities or attributes. Though displayed in a very flawed way.


                    As I said - I have no doubt you will find all of these wanting, because you have already accepted Christianity as true. Perhaps you looked at this body of evidence, and rejected it as "uncompelling," I find it highly compelling, ergo I believe that the notion of god is a human construct - not something with an objective reality. God lives, in other words, in the human mind and in human art and literature, and nowhere else.
                    Right...
                    Last edited by seer; 02-07-2018, 07:59 AM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And again what you consider evidence or what weight you put on it is as subjective or relative as anything else.
                      Yes, it is. We all weigh evidence subjectively, since it is "we" who are weighing it. I'm not sure why you keep returning to this. Your weighing of evidence is likewise subjective to you, since it is you weighing it.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      You can even do that, since any "proofs" could just as easily be part of the deception. The point is we all start with unprovable assumptions. Just that some of mine are different than yours.
                      Absolutely. It would be interesting to see what those root assumptions are and how they differ.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yet you have time and time again asked me to demonstrate my beliefs starting with your worldview, accepting your assumptions to satisfy your criterion. And your belief that what goes on in your mind corresponds is "blind" faith - it can not be demonstrated deductively of empirically.
                      I have made no such request. You are assuming I am asking from my framework. I don't recall any point where I did that.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      There you go again, scientific inquiry does not lend itself to religious questions.
                      I don't beleive I ever suggested that scientific inquiry most or could be applied to religious beliefs. I noted the difference between science and religion - that is not the same thing.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And perhaps these similar religious themes point to an underlying truth.
                      If all we had was similarities - I would say, yep. But then we have the emerging differences over time, even within single religions. It seems more plausible that the similarities, therefore, are due to the common role religion played (and plays) in human cultures, and the continuing fragmentation points to the lack of an underlying reality. If this evidentiary point stood alone, it would be "modestly compelling." Combined with all of the other data points, it paints a strong picture (to me).

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      The sacrificial point is interesting, why do you have ancient cultures, from the Middle East to South America to Asia, and on...(who are completely separated) coming to the conclusion that in some fashion that they need to atone for their behavior. Why do men think there is something wrong in/with them? I doubt that the Lion would come to that conclusion, if it could.
                      Because it is a natural function of the human mind to moralize. Moralization is nothing more or less than an extension of the mind's tendency to categorize things. We categorize everything, so it is no surprise that we categorize actions into "ought" and "ought not." Those are based on what, as we grew and developed and learned, we came to value (e.g., life, liberty, trust, etc.). So actions that protect the things we value our minds categorize as "ought" and actions that threaten them are categorized as "ought not." Despite that categorization, there are times where short-term impulse overrides our moral categorization. I know it is an "ought not" to lie, but if I tell the truth in this instance, my father/boss/wife may punish me, so I lie to avoid that pain. We all have this experience of failing to meet up to our moral categorizations perfectly, so we have this sense of "not being perfect." Of needing someone/something to forgive us.

                      BTW - you have just stumbled on part of why I believe Jesus of Nazareth was so ultimately successful. He out-Trumped Trump.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      That does not say anything about their truthfulness.
                      ExACTly

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Or the reverse, we are created in His image, hence we share some of His qualities or attributes.
                      Since we have multiple definitions of god in the human species, they all differ from one another, and they are mostly based on human attributes (the ones that are not are based on attributes found in nature), it seems more likely that we have created god(s) in our own image and likeness. Again, by itself, a modest piece of evidence. In combination with the others - I find the pattern compelling.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Right...
                      I didn't expect agreement, Seer. I know your beliefs are different. I am speaking of my beliefs and why I have them.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I didn't expect agreement, Seer. I know your beliefs are different. I am speaking of my beliefs and why I have them.

                        Ok Carp, I think we beat this horse enough, you my have the last word. Peace...
                        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
                          Ok Carp, I think we beat this horse enough, you my have the last word. Peace...
                          So exactly who won*?...

                          I've enjoyed the chat. Someday, perhaps we should explore those "differing assumptions." I'm not sure we ever really established what they were.

                          Wait, wait...I just saw the horse twitch...





                          *that's a joke. I wasn't in it to win or lose, just to exchange/explore views. Hopefully, we've accomplished some of that.
                          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
                            And again what you consider evidence or what weight you put on it is as subjective or relative as anything else.
                            “Evidence” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “that which tends to prove or disprove something; a ground for belief or proof”. The materialist has verifiable “ground for belief or proof”; the theist does not.

                            You can even do that, since any "proofs" could just as easily be part of the deception. The point is we all start with unprovable assumptions. Just that some of mine are different than yours.
                            Yes, “proofs could just as easily be part of the deception”, but this is unlikely given the large body of verified empirical evidence supporting the reality of the natural world as compared to the supernatural world, which has none.

                            Yet you have time and time again asked me to demonstrate my beliefs starting with your worldview, accepting your assumptions to satisfy your criterion. And your belief that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality is "blind" faith - it can not be demonstrated deductively of empirically.
                            I, not Carp, am the one asking you to support your “reality” of an objective, universal ethical reality by providing examples of what some of these universal ethics are. You keep talking about them; you have never indicted what they are other than vague generalisations about loving one another.

                            There you go again, scientific inquiry does not lend itself to religious questions. And perhaps these similar religious themes point to an underlying truth. The sacrificial point is interesting, why do you have ancient cultures, from the Middle East to South America to Asia, and on...(who are completely separated) coming to the conclusion that in some fashion that they need to atone for their behavior. Why do men think there is something wrong in/with them? I doubt that the Lion would come to that conclusion, if it could.
                            The common aspect of virtually all religions is the need to keep the gods on side via offerings or sacrifices. It stands to reason that in the pre-scientific era human beings would attribute powerful, life-threatening natural occurrences to deities and endeavour to keep them happy. It says nothing about their reality.

                            That does not say anything about their truthfulness.
                            It says what is truthful according to community values based upon the fact that, as a social species, our survival depends upon living in harmony among other human beings

                            Or the reverse, we are created in His image, hence we share some of His qualities or attributes. Though displayed in a very flawed way.
                            The god hypothesis is a human creation; it does not have a substantive reality in and of itself.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              You know this how?
                              The 'know' word again. Since I don't put knowledge in a scientistic straight-jacket, I know it. Start a thread on what knowledge is and I'll discuss it with you. But I get a feeling it'll be like talking about color to a blind guy.
                              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                              George Horne

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                The 'know' word again. Since I don't put knowledge in a scientistic straight-jacket, I know it
                                You don't "know". Personal beliefs cannot be equated with factual knowledge.

                                Start a thread on what knowledge is and I'll discuss it with you. But I get a feeling it'll be like talking about color to a blind guy.
                                I get the feeling that it would be like talking with a guy who confuses personal belief in Jesus as his personal friend and saviour with verifiable facts.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

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