- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes
Posted on 10/5/20 at 2:42 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 10/5/20 at 2:42 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Since that is a hypothetical question, I have no idea. I'm blessed to have been born in a time and place where I have been exposed to the gospel message and God used it to change my heart to seek after Him through Jesus Christ.
Doesn’t that teeter on Calvinism, which most Christians even reject today due to its inherent arbitrariness and thereby, unfairness?
I don’t have time to properly address your other responses, but know that they are appreciated. Like I mentioned earlier, I love playing devil’s advocate in these threads, but it’s not always to try to trap someone into a contradiction. A lot of times I am challenging my own beliefs and/or my ability to express and explain them, and I can always count on your thoughtful, educated, and genuine replies. For that, I thank you.
1
Posted on 10/5/20 at 2:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's not meaningless at all. There are logical outcomes associated to this distinction.
It's completely meaningless practically.
quote:
If there is an objective source for moral reasoning, then there will be actions that are objectively wrong and others that are objectively right, regardless of one's opinions on the subject. It allows a person to condemn certain immoral behavior (according to the standard) and meaningfully promote behavior that is consistent with that standard.
On what basis does objective condemnation (if it exists) differ from subjective condemnation? Has it mattered historically? Why does it matter on what basis an action is condemned?
quote:
If there is no objective moral standard then all morality is nothing more than personal preference, like a favorite color or flavor of ice cream.
It isn't personal preference so much as a cultural biproduct, with you being born in that culture predisposing you to certain moral beliefs. True though that these different set of moral beliefs can contradict and are not objectively better than each other.
quote:
You might not like the actions of someone else but you have no rational basis to condemn them any more than you can condemn cancer as immoral.
Do you understand the definition of rational? Can someone not have a rational subjective basis for not wanting to be killed, raped, or stolen from?
quote:
If there is no objective standard for morality then there is no objective basis for condemning Hitler's personal moral paradigm. You can't even compare his to Ghandi's, since they would simply be different preferences. You couldn't say one is "better" than the other in a meaningful way because you don't have a common standard to judge them by.
There is no OBJECTIVE basis, there is a SUBJECTIVE BASIS. I can judge them on my SUBJECTIVE BASIS, which is likely shared/enforced by my community at large.
quote:
When we make political decisions, decisions within society, or within our families based on perceived moral imperatives, there has to be a rational basis for doing so, otherwise we're just being arbitrary and irrational.
Our moral beliefs are not arbitrary and not necessarily irrational. You have a problem with throwing out truth claims and not demonstrating them.
quote:
God isn't incoherent.
The concepts we assign to Gods plurally or the Christian God specifically are contradictory and nonsensical. Some are at best conceivable but if time has taught us anything it's that reality acts far differently than we conceive it to.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 3:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
All you provided were examples where people could make decisions based on personal preference.
I provided examples where moral decision based on personal belief is superior to appealing to an authority.
quote:
How do you determine that such a standard is the "right" standard to abide by and to use to judge whether an act is moral or immoral?
In a similar way to how you determined which religious authority to base your morals on-- choice. How informed that choice was is a separate lengthy debate.
quote:
It's not ridiculous at all. Without an objective moral standard, you have no rational basis to condemn the "immoral" actions of others.
Your premise that one cannot have a secular objective moral standard is incorrect. For example, there are objective realities that determine why it is morally wrong for someone to kill and steal property that has evolved overtime through the progression of societies. A society that allows unjustified murder and theft doesn't survive.
quote:
The utilitarian non-murderer, the tyrannical parents, the opportunist, and the power-pleaser are all perfectly within their own realms of morality if morality, itself, is nothing but subjective preference.
Yes, people have free will and are bound to develop a variety of moral beliefs that are likely to diverge from others and be the source of debate. You keep acting as though your moral beliefs are somehow different simply because they are tied to a religion which you chose to follow.
quote:
That is what "morality by choice" boils down to.
Did you not choose which religion and thus which set of morals to follow?
quote:
So personal preference. Got it.
Yes, personal preference based on a large and complex host of things from evolved traits and behaviors to philosophy and context. Pretty much the same as you.
quote:
You are mistaken here, at least in terms of Christian morality. I can't speak of Roman Catholicism since they uphold church tradition as equal in authority to the unchanging Bible, but at least for those Christians that adhere to sola scriptura, moral principles haven't changed over the years.
Ah yes, the No True Scotsman fallacy that every religious follower adheres to when one points to their religion as a whole. Everything from the role of women in church, the age of consent, religious persecution, to marriage has evolved in Christianity. You can divorce yourself from the inconveniences of your religion, but it doesn't change the fact that religious morality has evolved with secular philosophy and society.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 3:09 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
Then I guess you're not exactly in the group I'm talking about.
If you decide you're not in that group, then you're not in that group.
Seems like the group was pretty straight forward:
quote:
Those who don't believe in God
Posted on 10/5/20 at 3:27 pm to Hot Carl
quote:It certainly is a Calvinistic view of the scriptures (which I believe is the correct view). I would disagree that it's arbitrary or unfair, though. I believe it's consistent with the whole of scriptures that teach God's sovereignty in all things, including salvation. I'd be happy to justify that claim if you or anyone else is interested in it, but I do agree that it's an unpopular viewpoint these days where "free will" seems to have become the be-all and end-all of all of Christian thought and interpretation.
Doesn’t that teeter on Calvinism, which most Christians even reject today due to its inherent arbitrariness and thereby, unfairness?
quote:Certainly, and thank you for engaging. It's nice to have these sorts of discussions that don't result in ad hominem attacks or other logical fallacies based on credentials or other unrelated points.
I don’t have time to properly address your other responses, but know that they are appreciated. Like I mentioned earlier, I love playing devil’s advocate in these threads, but it’s not always to try to trap someone into a contradiction. A lot of times I am challenging my own beliefs and/or my ability to express and explain them, and I can always count on your thoughtful, educated, and genuine replies. For that, I thank you.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 3:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
"free will" seems to have become the be-all and end-all of all of Christian thought and interpretation.
It's pretty clear free will as we conceive of it doesn't exist. If God is all knowing he knows what choices we will make, and despite knowing what choice we made it was still our choice. I actually find that much more coherent than the alternative.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:00 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:It's not. Like I said (and then explained), the distinctions come with logical conclusions.
It's completely meaningless practically.
quote:The basis is one of rationality in regards to truth claims.
On what basis does objective condemnation (if it exists) differ from subjective condemnation? Has it mattered historically? Why does it matter on what basis an action is condemned?
It's the difference between "that behavior is wrong and should be condemned" and "I personally don't like that behavior but you do what feels right to you". Have you ever gotten into an argument about what the best color is? It essentially turns morality into such a debate over personal preference.
Yes, it has mattered historically. Truth used to matter. I know these days truth has been turned into whatever an individual feels is true to them, but that's not really truth. It makes all the difference in the world if an action is condemned because someone just feels like it's bad versus whether or not it's actually bad.
quote:Due to the contradicting nature of differing moral beliefs, I would say that it's an important distinction to make when having such a discussion. If morality is nothing more than mere preference or opinion and no opinion is objectively any more right or wrong than any other (as you seem to be conceding here) then that turns the discussion of morality on its head. How does one rationally condemn genocide or rape of children if there is no objective morality to call such things objectively evil? If all you've got is consensus then that won't bode well if there is a society that supports things that we consider evil. We have no basis to condemn Hitler's Germany for supporting the actions against the Jews and we have no basis to condemn the treatment of women or homosexuals in the Middle East. They're just doing what they think is right in their culture.
It isn't personal preference so much as a cultural biproduct, with you being born in that culture predisposing you to certain moral beliefs. True though that these different set of moral beliefs can contradict and are not objectively better than each other.
quote:Reasons and causes are not the same thing. Not enjoying pain and suffering that is brought about from being killed, raped, or being stolen from doesn't mean I have a rational basis for saying those things are morally wrong. I might not like the results of cancer attacking my body but I wouldn't be able to rationally say that cancer is immoral simply because I don't like what it's doing to me.
Do you understand the definition of rational? Can someone not have a rational subjective basis for not wanting to be killed, raped, or stolen from?
More specifically, when I say it's not rational to condemn the actions you don't like in a subjective moral framework, I mean that there isn't an underlying rationale to explain why a personal preference (which morality boils down to) is an adequate reason for making moral truth claims that others should listen to. We all experience things differently and what you don't like, I might like, and vice versa. There is no objective standard that determines what personal preferences are right and wrong in a subjective moral framework so picking one thing as right and another thing as wrong is ultimately an exercise in arbitrariness.
quote:So what? So what if you don't like what Hitler did? So what if you don't like what I say? Who is to say that your dislike of something is justified? Is my dislike of something you tolerate justified simply because I dislike it? Who is to judge between competing ideas of moral rightness if it is all subjective preference?
There is no OBJECTIVE basis, there is a SUBJECTIVE BASIS. I can judge them on my SUBJECTIVE BASIS, which is likely shared/enforced by my community at large
I think you've answer that question, though: "community at large". Essentially you are conceding that moral truth is defined by consensus, which is an arbitrary way to determine morality in itself, but it is certainly problematic when you get into cultural views of morality that are acceptable in one society but not in another.
quote:If personal preference (feeling) is your basis for truth (moral or otherwise), it is certainly arbitrary and definitely irrational.
Our moral beliefs are not arbitrary and not necessarily irrational. You have a problem with throwing out truth claims and not demonstrating them.
I've provided arguments. I've provided logical statements and conclusions based on premises. If you disagree with something in particular, please say so, but I believe it's false to say I'm "throwing out truth claims and not demonstrating them".
quote:I'm curious what concepts about the Biblical God are contradictory and nonsensical in your estimation. I'm not here to defend theism generally.
The concepts we assign to Gods plurally or the Christian God specifically are contradictory and nonsensical. Some are at best conceivable but if time has taught us anything it's that reality acts far differently than we conceive it to.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:07 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:
It's pretty clear free will as we conceive of it doesn't exist.
On the contrary, free will requires the supernatural. In a materialistic world you're nothing but a bio-machine responding to inputs, and there is no "you" that has a choice in the matter. In the material world "you" are just a big collection of chemical reactions and electrons racing around.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:08 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
They are ignorant?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:19 pm to LSU2a
quote:When you say "superior" you're making a value judgement. What standard are you using to say moral decisions based on personal belief is actually "superior" to appealing to an authority?
I provided examples where moral decision based on personal belief is superior to appealing to an authority.
quote:People make terrible choices all the time. Choice alone doesn't make something right. How do you justify your claim that an adequate standard for moral reasoning is one that is simply chosen based on the best information available to the individual? Doesn't that make any potential moral standard valid, even ones that contradict each other? I think that supports my assertion that subjective morality is nothing more than arbitrary preference than anything else.
In a similar way to how you determined which religious authority to base your morals on-- choice. How informed that choice was is a separate lengthy debate.
And for the record, I believe the Biblical moral framework is right for multiple reasons beyond simply my choice, but in particular I believe it best conforms to the reality we know exists and is supported rationally rather than arbitrarily based on individual feelings that are constantly changing over time, location, and from person to person.
quote:So your reasoning for a secular objective moral standard is that societies that tolerate an "immoral" action don't survive? Is that which supports societal survival your standard for objective reasoning then? If so, how did you come to that conclusion? Why is societal survival the right goal for a moral framework compared to individual survival, or individual sacrifice?
Your premise that one cannot have a secular objective moral standard is incorrect. For example, there are objective realities that determine why it is morally wrong for someone to kill and steal property that has evolved overtime through the progression of societies. A society that allows unjustified murder and theft doesn't survive.
quote:My entire point was that with a subjective moral framework that all people are going to have different moral beliefs, many of which are contradictory to the moral beliefs of others, and that there is no ultimate standard to judge which is right and which isn't. You seem to be agreeing, so what's the argument here?
Yes, people have free will and are bound to develop a variety of moral beliefs that are likely to diverge from others and be the source of debate. You keep acting as though your moral beliefs are somehow different simply because they are tied to a religion which you chose to follow.
But to your second point, my beliefs are different because they originate from an authority who has defined what is true. Truth matters. I also have a rational basis for subscribing to such a view whereas it is incoherent to agree that morality is subjective (personal opinion/preference) but then act as if others are objectively wrong when their preferences differ substantially from your own. My worldview is coherent and yours isn't. That's really what I'm trying to point out.
quote:It depends which level you want to talk about this from, but the short answer is that I'm not convinced a person can choose what they want to believe. They can choose to ignore that which contradicts their beliefs, but I've never heard of someone willing themselves to believe something differently from what they are confident is true. Belief isn't really a choice as much as it is a result. It's not something you (choose to) do as much as it is something you have.
Did you not choose which religion and thus which set of morals to follow?
quote:No, not the same as me. I approach morality from the perspective of that which conforms to God's holy character as expressed through His moral law written into our beings and expressed clearly in His revealed word.
Yes, personal preference based on a large and complex host of things from evolved traits and behaviors to philosophy and context. Pretty much the same as you.
You approach morality from what appears to be a preference for a utility. Very different.
quote:That fallacy doesn't apply when there are clear teachings on the subject that define what something is or right belief is. I'm not saying that because they are different from me that they are wrong (which is essentially what the NTS fallacy is). I'm saying that I adhere to the Bible as the sole authority for life and faith and that it is complete and won't change through time, therefore if others who profess to be Christians adhere to some other standard as well that can and does change over time, that I'm not in the same boat as them when it comes to invariable morality.
Ah yes, the No True Scotsman fallacy that every religious follower adheres to when one points to their religion as a whole.
quote:It hasn't changed at all. What you're talking about are societal applications of principles that haven't changed but may be ignored or attempted to be changed in principle by those who reject the principle of sola scriptura. I won't deny that many who share the name "Christian" believe all sorts of things that are contradictory to the scriptures, but their perversion of the truth doesn't mean the truth has changed.
Everything from the role of women in church, the age of consent, religious persecution, to marriage has evolved in Christianity.
quote:It hasn't, no. Many Christians have tried to interpret the Bible in light of secular philosophy and society but the scriptures haven't changed.
You can divorce yourself from the inconveniences of your religion, but it doesn't change the fact that religious morality has evolved with secular philosophy and society.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:22 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:It's actually a very interesting subject. Those who reject God and take an evolutionary view of our origins and nature have to reject the concept of free will, as well, as they are putting their eggs into the basket of chemical reactions occurring based on genetic makeup. In essence, such a person has to believe that all of our actions are based on our genetic predispositions reacting to stimuli in the natural world. It's hard to justify free will like that and it's also hard to justify moral imperatives when we humans are just more advanced animals.
It's pretty clear free will as we conceive of it doesn't exist.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:well, one is.
i'm assuming you're saying the religious process is the rational one?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:27 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
Not all atheist think alike.
Silly thread.
“ You’re welcome on my boat. Your god ain’t .”
Malcolm Reynolds
Silly thread.
“ You’re welcome on my boat. Your god ain’t .”
Malcolm Reynolds
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Those who reject God and take an evolutionary view of our origins and nature have to reject the concept of free will, as well, as they are putting their eggs into the basket of chemical reactions occurring based on genetic makeup
Do you deny that this happens?
I don't understand why it can't be both. Where Christian dogma fails is creating this dichotomy -- you either believe in God, or believe in chemistry -- obviously, God created the chemical laws as well and has overseen the evolution of life from the very beginning.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:34 pm to BoarEd
quote:It's the difference between our actions having moral culpability and being just what we're wired to do, like a machine.
Do you deny that this happens?
I don't understand why it can't be both.
I accept the concept of free volition (what most people call free will) but reject free will in terms of ability to choose to do what is ultimately best, which is trust in Christ's work on the cross and obey God faithfully. I believe our wills are in bondage to sin and we are free to act within that enslaved will and require a "heart of flesh" (regeneration from the Spirit) to be able to choose that which is the true good.
quote:God certainly does work through means, but if we're merely the results of our genetics, then as I said, we are removed from culpability for our actions.
Where Christian dogma fails is creating this dichotomy -- you either believe in God, or believe in chemistry -- obviously, God created the chemical laws as well and has overseen the evolution of life from the very beginning.
I don't believe we are the results of guided evolution. I believe that concept flies in the face of the Biblical narrative, and not just in Genesis. There are theological ramifications to the concept of evolutionary origins.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:35 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
I'm not exactly the most religious person in the world. I have a lot of respect for those who are, though.
But you don't have to be religious / believe in God, in order to know right from wrong.
But you don't have to be religious / believe in God, in order to know right from wrong.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:36 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:What is right and what is wrong and how do you know the difference?
But you don't have to be religious / believe in God, in order to know right from wrong.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:43 pm to TacoNash
quote:i wish i could understand how some people think this makes sense. it sounds harmless but ultimately belongs in an infomercial for sedona vortices
My goal as a non believer is to live a "good" life and to that make a meaningful impact on other and this earth
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:no. according to truth
According to you
quote:it's not arrogance. it's just truth
The arrogance that must come with believing that your belief system is the only way
quote:
to establish morality.
as if morality is "established" any other way. listen, if you want to stay lost and stupid, more power to you. but you might want to pump the brakes on making fun of other people who do have it figured outPosted on 10/5/20 at 4:47 pm to bfniii
quote:
but you might want to pump the brakes on making fun of other people who do have it figured out
Oh I'm certain you have it all figured out
Page 12 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News