- 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 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
No mortal man "predated" God
You're not just a pathological liar, you pathologically lie to yourself and then believe it
You're not just a pathological liar, you pathologically lie to yourself and then believe it
0
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:04 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
Yet "the king" steals
and religious people go to war
we're all hypocrites in some way. even Christianity accepts that there was only one perfect human
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:04 pm to omarlittle
quote:They are still required to acknowledge God as God and His son as lord and savior for salvation. They may have a sense of morality because they are still made in God's image and have His moral law implanted in their hearts and minds. Having a degree of moral understanding doesn't save a person, though.
And what about those that call themselves something other than Christians?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:05 pm to Flats
quote:
Lions do it, and we’re just advanced animals.
we're beyond that. we have another layer of advancement (society)
did you not read my post about societal trial and error creating our concepts of morality?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You didn't provide a rational basis for condemning it as evil, either.
wow
Listen, we all "know" that the murder of children is morally reprehensible. I'm not saying that he doesn't think it's bad and I'm not saying that murdering children is good. I'm talking specifically about the rational justification for the position. I have one. He doesn't.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
What part do you disagree with?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It does have to be true. If a standard originates in the human mind and experience, it is subjective by it's very nature.
the problem is the bold part. i don't think that has to be true
If you disagree, please give me an example of a human-invented objective moral standard and explain why you believe it to be so.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we're beyond that. we have another layer of advancement (society)
did you not read my post about societal trial and error creating our concepts of morality?
Yes, I read where you tried to claim that pragmatism equaled morality. Not only does it not equal morality, it's still not objective.
What are we "advancing" towards? Where is the objective definition of our goal?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If a standard originates in the human mind and experience, it is subjective by it's very nature.
it doesn't have to originate anywhere
nor does it have to be created by any force
that is a very narrow, human-centric and egotistical, view of the universe. i get why it makes people feel comfortable (especially since it makes us the center of the universe), but to have this conversation you have to understand that creation isn't necessary
quote:
please give me an example of a human-invented objective moral standard and explain why you believe it to be so.
well, society-created, but i already did earlier. stealing
stealing became codified as immoral because stealing disrupted society. from the purely philosophical realm, if we're really getting into hippie jesus territory, the concept of property ownership (which is effectively the basis of stealing) on that level is a sin in itself
yet, stealing persists as an immoral act
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:19 pm to Flats
quote:
What are we "advancing" towards?
i dunno
but we clearly advanced above "advanced animals" with society. look at the past 12k years compared to the previous 100k
quote:
Where is the objective definition of our goal?
there isn't one. we are still doing trial and error like always
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's not a matter of comfort. It's a matter of ontology.
it doesn't have to originate anywhere
nor does it have to be created by any force
that is a very narrow, human-centric and egotistical, view of the universe. i get why it makes people feel comfortable (especially since it makes us the center of the universe), but to have this conversation you have to understand that creation isn't necessary
Mathematics and laws of logic are examples of objective concepts that apply universally to provide a coherent experience in the world that do not change from person to person or society to society or time to time. Those concepts that are true are true regardless of the person performing the calculations or participating in the reasoning. Morality doesn't follow this way from an objective perspective. What is "right" and "wrong" may change from person to person, location to location, and from time to time within the typical human experience.
quote:Stealing is deemed an immoral act by some but not by others. Who is the decider? What is the standard to condemn it as morally wrong? It seems like you are saying societal standards make that determination, but for one, society is nothing more than many individuals working together and secondly, those individuals may have a change of opinion over time. Many people view confiscation of personal property for the purpose of redistribution among society as theft. Some believe it is morally acceptable or ever morally necessary while others believe it is immoral. Who is right and how do we know?
well, society-created, but i already did earlier. stealing
stealing became codified as immoral because stealing disrupted society. from the purely philosophical realm, if we're really getting into hippie jesus territory, the concept of property ownership (which is effectively the basis of stealing) on that level is a sin in itself
yet, stealing persists as an immoral act
This is not an example of objective moral reasoning. Please try again.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it doesn't have to originate anywhere
nor does it have to be created by any force
That's not an argument, it's just a truth claim. You're saying an objective moral standard exists, period, no explanation necessary. You could have just stated that up front instead of trying to justify something you now claim needs no justification.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:27 pm to Flats
quote:
That's not an argument, it's just a truth claim.
this whole thread is just "truth claims"
truth claims and selectively-defined words/concepts
quote:
You're saying an objective moral standard exists, period, no explanation necessary.
i'm saying one can exist without being created
my actual argument is that our concept of morality was created out of societal trial and error
quote:
You could have just stated that up front instead of trying to justify something you now claim needs no justification.
that's not what i did, though
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Exactly. You have to have a standard in order to judge performance. You have to have a destination in mind in order to know if you're getting closer to it or further from it. An objective moral standard allows all people to compare their actions and the actions of others and determine what is and is not "moral". Without such a standard, all you have is billions of individual opinions and preferences.
i dunno
quote:How do you judge "clearly advanced" if you don't even know what standard to compare to?
but we clearly advanced above "advanced animals" with society. look at the past 12k years compared to the previous 100k
quote:Trial and error requires a goal or standard. You don't know if you have succeeded or failed if you don't know what success looks like. This is where an objective moral standard comes into play. If there isn't one, then there is no basis to judge progress or regress. You're just left with societal standards based on individual preferences that may garner temporary consensus that is constantly changing over time.
there isn't one. we are still doing trial and error like always
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:31 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Mathematics and laws of logic are examples of objective concepts that apply universally to provide a coherent experience in the world that do not change from person to person or society to society or time to time.
perfect examples of things that are universal and not created
i almost used math myself
quote:
Morality doesn't follow this way from an objective perspective. What is "right" and "wrong" may change from person to person, location to location, and from time to time within the typical human experience.
not if it's an objective form of morality. then it's basically math-morality
quote:
Many people view confiscation of personal property for the purpose of redistribution among society as theft. Some believe it is morally acceptable or ever morally necessary while others believe it is immoral. Who is right and how do we know?
that's why we keep on trucking along
kind of like how God changed the rules when he sent Jesus to Earth, or, possibly, how he changed them again when he gave light to the Prophet Mohammed
one God but 3 objective moralities created by that god
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:31 pm to bfniii
quote:
ah yes. the old "blame god for the foibles of people." that's a good one.
just because people are not perfect does not mean that the idea of theistic morality is flawed. but you knew that right?
Unless it happened to you.
One would have to blame gawd for everything, gawd created and allows right?
Remember, the OP is about absolutes.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this whole thread is just "truth claims"
If you don't understand the difference between an "if...then" argument and a truth claim in philosophical discussions then we'll just agree to disagree.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:36 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Exactly. You have to have a standard in order to judge performance. You have to have a destination in mind in order to know if you're getting closer to it or further from it. An objective moral standard allows all people to compare their actions and the actions of others and determine what is and is not "moral".
we're a lot closer to determining this in 2020 than we were in 1920 than we were in 20. that's the point of progress
neuroscience is helping a lot in this field. we are getting where we can see, in real time, how different stimuli affect our brains
quote:
How do you judge "clearly advanced" if you don't even know what standard to compare to?
well, the fact that we can have this discussion is one. heresy used to be illegal
the fact that we have used these societal building blocks to create the technological framework to exchange the ideas is another
i can give you a somewhat objective truth about humans (it's not really mortality). the more information we are allowed to consume, the more advanced our brain's get. that's why the Flynn effect is real and why international cooperation has supercharged our advancement
that or alien technology
quote:
You're just left with societal standards based on individual preferences that may garner temporary consensus that is constantly changing over time.
i think you overrate the individual within the context of society
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:36 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes
They don't believe in right and wrong.
Got damn. You are one dumb mutha fricka.
And you have no clue what a "fact" is.
And your judgement and hated would not sit will with Jesus.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 12:41 pm to BayouBlitz
So the act of rejecting atheism would not sit well with Jesus?
?
?
Page 10 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News