- 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 10/6/20 at 7:55 pm to bfniii
Posted on 10/6/20 at 7:55 pm to bfniii
quote:
does "invisible" to the naked eye equal non existent? of course not.
what makes you think god does not make his presence known? my word what have we been talking about itt if he doesn't exist? it's like you people can't think past the next happy hour
Spiritual things are ultimately Subjective. "he that seeks to know God...must FIRST BELIEVE the he (God) exists". This is not irrational; Love and Beauty being of the sort. Love and Beauty only exist to those who both witness, believe and cultivate said belief in.
And it's like Thomas Sowell eloquently observed, re His "First Principle" Theory. Once one chooses a First Principle...ALL things flow from said Principle. Any discussion/argument with an individual whose First Principle choice is polar, per the things that flow from one's chosen Principle, will never bear the fruit of agreement. In fact, talk only aggravates the differences, leading to disrespect, antipathy, and ultimate contempt and hatred. "Hatred"...depending on the innate Principle one chooses. I.e., if one chooses Belief in the First Principle of God/Jesus' Gospel, then such belief negates any embrace of hateful feeling towards one's 'opposition', and in fact, condemns those who do hate, to failure in the practice of Truth/Gospel. "He that says he loves God, but does not love his fellow man...is a liar and the truth is not in him". High bar. But for that...'Heaven' would not be a 'gated community'...'Pearly Gates' as it were.
Quantum Theory alludes to the ultimate Subjectivity of an Entity's Perceptive Paradigm. We all 'reap what we sew'. Sew love...reap love. Believe in no God...no god; just a disintegration/integration back into the whole of the Energy/Matter Reservoir. The 'transition' being the ultimate 'judgment' re one's Worldly sojourn.
Just an opinion; I'll take Sowell's wisdom, and not engage in fruitless banter with those who CHOOSE a polar First Principle (non-Belief). Don't mean I won't won't love those folk; two of my best buds are non-believers. Wonderful friends; caught a lot of fish, and shrimp and sunsets...together.
To each their own.
1
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:11 pm to FooManChoo
What more do I need to say?
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:15 pm to Jrv2damac
"you win"? 
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:39 pm to Jrv2damac
quote:How about a justification for why what you quoted is true? Falcon didn't provide one.
What more do I need to say?
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:40 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you have an objective standard to justify your condemnation of something as morally wrong, then the statement isn't subjective.
The objective morality that comes from God's perfect and holy character has a inherent goodness to it. Subjective morality that is but an extension of preferential behaviors has no inherent goodness or evil to it (if God's standard doesn't, in fact, exist) and therefore is nothing more than a "might makes right" view of it. What is right are those behaviors that are popular at that moment based on those with the power to have the say in a society and culture.
The problem here, as I've said multiple times so far, is that there is no objective basis to condemn another society for their own moral paradigm just because it conflicts with the preferences of those who wish to provide the condemnation. It's results in an incoherence as the people who have accepted their own society's or culture's moral standard as the moral standard that all people and groups should adhere to try to impose that view on others who have a contradictory view. There is simply no basis to condemn a society like China's, Nazi Germany's, or the most extreme Islamic country's in the Middle East. All you can logically do is say "I don't like that" and leave them alone.
Once you accept that morality is defined by culture, then you cannot rationally condemn a morality defined by a different culture just because you don't like it for your own.
I get where you are coming from here but arguing objective morality is better than subjective isn't proving it exists. Better or worse it's irrelevant if it doesn't exist. Looking back on my posts though framing objective/subjective as the same practically isn't quite right though your right. I'd say my issue is that it's a meaningless distinction if god doesn't exist.
quote:
I see the opposite of what you've said. I've seen great advances in technology, medicine, law, etc. come from western societies that have adhered to a Christian worldview. No society is perfect because all societies are made of sinful individuals, yet the Christian worldview provides a rational basis for respecting the rights and value of people who are made in God's image.
Like you said we see this different. I'd say it's a middle of the road moral framework and one of the better ones maybe for it's time, but I don't see evidence that it is actually our perfect moral framework and clearly better than all others (Obv based on subjective opinion).
quote:
What do you do when two populations have conflicting views of what is morally acceptable? You have war. But why? If we were consistent with our views of morality as subjective then we should be leaving others alone
I don't see how this follows. If humanitarianism is a core tenet of a societies moral framework then why should it abandon it?
quote:
There is no "right" way in that worldview, so it boils down to who has the biggest stick to enforce their own subjective preferences.
Yes that is the world we live in. That is the morality of the planet earth where god does not exist. I think that's our reality and you don't. If you think that sucks I don't necessarily disagree but again better =/= true.
quote:
If people were consistent with this worldview, they would mind their own business and let others do what they want to do because there isn't an actual right or wrong, just personal preference.
We have the entire human experience of arguments and disagreement that have spawned things as big as wars to contradict this. People actually care about personal preferences and making sure others share them. It manifests in several different ways even today.
quote:
I didn't equate cancer to an immoral action. I equated feelings about cancer to feelings about an immoral action. The key point of continuity is our (emotional) preferences: not liking something that is happening to us.
Again the issue is that there is no agency to cancer. People don't react the same to a lightning striking the house vs the arsonist because the arsonist had the agency and broke the societal compact in doing so.
quote:
Also, who cares if you can make statistic-based arguments regarding efficacy of certain moral frameworks? Who said that efficacy (of utility?) determines the right way to judge a moral framework? It's an arbitrary standard because you can pick any methodology you want to determine what makes a good framework to you any anyone else can pick any other standard to determine what makes a good framework for them, and there would be no objective way to say which one is better. You seem to be approaching morality from a utilitarian perspective. Who said that utility is the "right" way to approach it?
I agree with this that's why I said at best. I think a moral framework with utility in different categories is preferable to not but not objectively so.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:47 pm to Indefatigable
quote:while there is some truth to this, it just so happens that morality can't be a social construct and morality is absolutely objective. if it weren't, you would be left with relativism which is self defeating
The definition of objective does not prevent morality from being a social construct
quote:if you remove the word "everything" you would be somewhat correct. certainly, neither an empiricist nor a rationalist would agree with you
In fact, every thing that is considered an “objective” truth is considered “objective” based solely on social constructs and human interpretation.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:well you have this backwards in regards to christianity. christian morality, for example, isn't objectively true because it's christian. it was objectively true whether any person ever existed
hyper-theologians who insist that the PROOF of objective TRUTH lies in their particular religious belief system
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:50 pm to FooManChoo
I quoted his post as a response to my original post which just proves my original post
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:51 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
This thread about the magic sky man is till going?
Posted on 10/6/20 at 8:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:it's sad that you don't even see how nonsensical this statement is. there is no "society." there are societies, plural. and they most certainly do not agree on everything. in fact, i think you would be hard pressed to find ANYTHING that all societies have ubiquitously agreed on. and even if you could name something, that is absolutely NOT how something is objectively true. a thing is objectively true regardless of any human cognizance and then humans recognize it. both empiricists and rationalists would agree with that.
Any given fact is deemed objective solely because society has agreed on that fact being true universally
it is abundantly clear from this thread that there is basically no epistemology going on in education these days and i have no idea how people are so lost when it comes to truth, objectivity and relativism
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:03 pm to BoarEd
quote:
If society agrees that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist, it's still there
quote:no it isn't. perhaps you could explain something like epistemic jtb or jtb+ or warrant
This is arguable
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:06 pm to catinthehat
quote:
This thread about the magic sky man is till going?
You are new here, Cat. Otherwise you'd have witnessed that "magic sky man" Threads over the years, were the longest running. With what transformed into the "Q Thread", holding the most comprehensive discussion re Perceived Reality.
If you are serious re arguing re "magic sky man" with any degree of persuasive power on this Forum...you might want to educate yourself via Quantum Theory. Or no. Whatever. I takes all manner of people to make the 'World' interesting.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:08 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:I agree that it's a meaningless distinction if God doesn't exist. The reason why I'm arguing for the distinction is because we instinctively know that objective morality does exist (implying that God exists) and our actions bear this out. We act as though morality is objective which is why we're so quick to condemn others for actions we "know" are immoral. Such condemnation would be completely irrational if God and His objective moral standard didn't exist.
I get where you are coming from here but arguing objective morality is better than subjective isn't proving it exists. Better or worse it's irrelevant if it doesn't exist. Looking back on my posts though framing objective/subjective as the same practically isn't quite right though your right. I'd say my issue is that it's a meaningless distinction if god doesn't exist.
quote:Again you're describing this in terms of value judgements which make no sense if morality was subjective. You have to assume a standard of right or perfect in order to make a judgement of the frameworks we see today and throughout history.
Like you said we see this different. I'd say it's a middle of the road moral framework and one of the better ones maybe for it's time, but I don't see evidence that it is actually our perfect moral framework and clearly better than all others (Obv based on subjective opinion).
quote:Because it would be inconsistent with the notion that morality is created by each society and subjective by its nature. How can you admit that morality (what is "right") is determined by a given society and then reject an opposing morality that another society creates for itself? It's inconsistent and therefore an evidence of its irrationality.
I don't see how this follows. If humanitarianism is a core tenet of a societies moral framework then why should it abandon it?
quote:Again, "better" doesn't really exist in this view because there cannot logically be "better" or "worse" when all is opinion. Again, it's like arguing which color or flavor of ice cream is better.
Yes that is the world we live in. That is the morality of the planet earth where god does not exist. I think that's our reality and you don't. If you think that sucks I don't necessarily disagree but again better =/= true.
I believe reality actually points to an objective moral framework and people by and large know this to be true and act as if it is true, though they may deny it when pressed.
quote:I'm not saying that people don't argue and fight, I'm saying that if morality were actually subjective and that everyone understood this, they would be irrational to try to say that any particular preference is the "right" on. Again, it'd be like starting wars over the best color or flavor of ice cream. When you realize that a worldview that rejects moral absolutes must forfeit a rational claim to condemnation, you have to understand that to condemn from a position of moral authority is entirely irrational.
We have the entire human experience of arguments and disagreement that have spawned things as big as wars to contradict this. People actually care about personal preferences and making sure others share them. It manifests in several different ways even today.
As I see it, the options are a rational view of objective morality that supports what we "know" to be true about the concept of good and evil or an irrational and incoherent view of subjective morality that no one actually abides by, nor can they.
quote:Actually, quite a few people blame God for lightning striking a house, but that's beside the point because it isn't about agency. When thought of within the framework of evolutionary biology, agency doesn't even really make sense, since we are essentially the byproducts of genetics via evolutionary changes over time acted upon by stimuli.
Again the issue is that there is no agency to cancer. People don't react the same to a lightning striking the house vs the arsonist because the arsonist had the agency and broke the societal compact in doing so.
But my point stands: the issue is that no matter what happens to us--whether it be a lightning striking our house, an arsonist setting it on fire, or termites and mold eating it up--there is no rational justification for saying any of it is it objectively "immoral" in a subjective moral framework, regardless of agency. All that happens is simply something we like or don't like. Even the arsonist acting out of agency is still merely an agent of evolution and a more complex animal. Him setting your house on fire is no morally different than an elephant running through your wall.
quote:"Preferable" is meaningless. OK, so you prefer it. If I prefer a moral framework where I steal, rape, and kill to achieve the most power and pleasure for myself, who is to say that isn't better than yours? If you admit that it's all subjective, you lose any moral authority to condemn, which has been my point all along.
I agree with this that's why I said at best. I think a moral framework with utility in different categories is preferable to not but not objectively so.
We make moral judgements all the time, yet those judgements are utterly meaningless if God and His perfect, good, and objective moral law doesn't exist.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:10 pm to catinthehat
quote:
Registered on:8/17/2007
Not new. Just not enough hours in the day to mock fear and impotence.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:11 pm to Jrv2damac
quote:If you're in disagreement with Falcon, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.
I quoted his post as a response to my original post which just proves my original post
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
We make moral judgements all the time, yet those judgements are utterly meaningless if God and His perfect, good, and objective moral law doesn't exist.
I agree we make objectively meaningless moral judgements. Anything beyond that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:in regards to morality, yes. that is correct. but that does not refer to everything. cartesian rationality for example does not require a deity to arrive at an objective truth on a proximate level or in a phenomenal sense. at an ultimate or noumenal level, sure, the truth wouldn't exist without the uncaused cause
there are those who believe that objectivity requires a natural, or non-human origin
quote:yeah that's silly nonsense and i can't believe people fell for that in school.
objectivity is defined by the consensus of whatever society is being analyzed
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:13 pm to catinthehat
quote:Since we're not talking about a magical sky man, then I'd say "no" to you.
This thread about the magic sky man is till going?
If you're referring to whether or not objective morality exists due to God's existence, then "yes".
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:14 pm to FooManChoo
Go handle snakes.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 9:15 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:Then I'd say you're irrational and don't seem to have a problem with it, for I'm assured that you make moral judgements within your paradigm of moral subjectivity.
I agree we make objectively meaningless moral judgements. Anything beyond that we are going to have to agree to disagree.
I urge you to abandon your irrational belief in moral subjectivity and embrace the God of the Bible and His son Jesus Christ who provide a rational basis for the objective moral reality that we all recognize and act in accordance with.
Page 19 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News