- 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 6:06 pm to Flats
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:06 pm to Flats
The definition of objective does not prevent morality from being a social construct.
Objective does not mean divine in nature or supernatural In fact, every thing that is considered an “objective” truth is considered “objective” based solely on social constructs and human interpretation.
Objective does not mean divine in nature or supernatural In fact, every thing that is considered an “objective” truth is considered “objective” based solely on social constructs and human interpretation.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:09 pm
2
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:07 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
An “objective” moral standard does not exist.
That doesn't defeat the premise, it's in agreement with it.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:08 pm to Flats
Ok. Btw nothing can defeat a premise that’s rooted entirely in belief. People are going to believe what they choose to believe, and they will interpret everything they consume through the lens of that belief.
Why is why I like to challenge and ridicule hyper-theologians who insist that the PROOF of objective TRUTH lies in their particular religious belief system.
As I’ve said a couple times now, your posts were not the target of my replies because that’s not what you were arguing.
Why is why I like to challenge and ridicule hyper-theologians who insist that the PROOF of objective TRUTH lies in their particular religious belief system.
As I’ve said a couple times now, your posts were not the target of my replies because that’s not what you were arguing.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:11 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The definition of objective does not prevent morality from being a social construct.
Objective does not mean divine in nature or supernatural. Or anything else. In fact, every thing that is considered an “objective” truth is considered “objective” based solely on social constructs and human interpretation.
Of course it does; objective means that something has a reality that is independent of the mind. A social construct by definition is a product of minds.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:12 pm to Flats
quote:
Flats
Yes. Thanks for making my point for me. I should have taken the extra step of including a graphic.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:13 pm to Flats
quote:
objective means that something has a reality that is independent of the mind.
Correct. As defined by people. Any given fact is deemed objective solely because society has agreed on that fact being true universally.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:16 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Btw nothing can defeat a premise that’s rooted entirely in belief.
I agree, but this one is rooted in logic. An objective value must have an objective source; that's not a belief, it's a logical construct. We have obviously have to agree on what "objective" means, and clearly some people don't understand the word, but "if...then" premises in philosophy aren't just naked beliefs that can't be critically examined.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:16 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
Man, I'm glad to have been working hard today and entirely miss this thread.
Otherwise, I would not have gotten anything done at all!
Otherwise, I would not have gotten anything done at all!
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:18 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Correct. As defined by people. Any given fact is deemed objective solely because society has agreed on that fact being true universally.
No. If society agrees that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist, it's still there. Objective realities aren't dependent on agreements between people. The language describing them needs to be, but not the reality itself.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:21 pm to BoarEd
quote:
Yes. Thanks for making my point for me. I should have taken the extra step of including a graphic.
Everybody knew you presented a false dichotomy even without the graphic.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:21 pm to Flats
quote:
If society agrees that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist, it's still there.
This is arguable, imo.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:22 pm to Flats
quote:
Everybody knew you presented a false dichotomy even without the graphic.
Yes. I quoted the false dichotomy.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:22 pm to Flats
quote:
agree, but this one is rooted in logic. An objective value must have an objective source; that's not a belief, it's a logical construct. We have obviously have to agree on what "objective" means, and clearly some people don't understand the word, but "if...then" premises in philosophy aren't just naked beliefs that can't be critically examined.
I generally agree with this. In the context of this thread, the disagreement lies (as you pointed out) in the definition and understanding of what objective means.
And I am not referring to looking at the dictionary and disagreeing at the words on the page and their meaning. I mean that amongst the people in this thread, there are those who believe that objectivity requires a natural, or non-human origin, and those who believe that objectivity is defined by the consensus of whatever society is being analyzed.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:23 pm to BoarEd
quote:
Yes. I quoted the false dichotomy.
Where is the original quote?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:25 pm to Flats
quote:
Where is the original quote?
You quoted it...
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:25 pm to Mo Jeaux
The extrapolation of that argument are founded in that which is unfounded.
The gist of the argument the thread maker provided are simple and well made.
It is in actuality a rethorical thread.
I know you that you understand this but it still is there, like Masada...
The gist of the argument the thread maker provided are simple and well made.
It is in actuality a rethorical thread.
I know you that you understand this but it still is there, like Masada...
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
the disagreement lies (as you pointed out) in the definition and understanding of what objective means
So what word do you use for something that's real, even if a lot of people have decided that it's not? Because that word is "objective" for most English speakers.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:26 pm to Flats
quote:
No. If society agrees that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist, it's still there. Objective realities aren't dependent on agreements between people. The language describing them needs to be, but not the reality itself.
Of course, I assumed that we could leave reductio ad absurdum out of the conversation, but yes, common sense serves as a good guidepost for any argument.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:27 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:28 pm to BoarEd
quote:
You quoted it...
You're one strange dude.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:30 pm to Flats
quote:
So what word do you use for something that's real, even if a lot of people have decided that it's not? Because that word is "objective" for most English speakers.
Would massively depend on the context but objective may be appropriate. However, something that depends ENTIRELY on religious doctrine and on pre-assumed notions of theology cannot be objective.
For something to be objective, it’s truth must be tangibly verifiable. FooManChoo telling me over and over again that a a higher power MUST be the root of human morality does not rise to that level. No amount of philosophical word salad can make something an objective truth.
Page 15 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News