- 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 6:38 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:38 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
For something to be objective, it’s truth must be tangibly verifiable.
Not at all. The earth was round well before that fact could be even remotely verified. It was round regardless of what Oog the caveman thought, and it was round regardless of the fact that nobody could tangibly verify it.
2
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:43 pm to Flats
quote:
The earth was round well before that fact could be even remotely verified.
I did not say verifiED
I said verifiABLE. The Earth was verifiably round way before it was actually verified to be round via mathematics (and later space flight).
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The Earth was verifiably round way before it was actually verified to be round via mathematics
Arguable.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 7:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I did not say verifiED
I said verifiABLE.
Still incorrect. Objective realities exist whether we can verify them or not; that's baked into the definition of objective. The earth would have the same shape regardless of our ability to verify it.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:31 pm to omarlittle
quote:who are these others you are speaking of?
others avow their God (with separate definitions of moral law) is the light of truth
quote:they can't all be right
Why does belief in a certain deity predicate morality?
quote:well first, i'm not interested in convincing anyone of that. second, if i were so inclined, tell me which particular person i'm speaking to
how do you unequivocally convince others that don’t believe the same way that you do that they’re framework is not fit to abide by?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:37 pm to Indefatigable
quote:other than what i've already posted? you are demonstrably wrong on this matter. is your statement objectively true?
there is zero objective basis for this statement
quote:false. not mine
Every single post/explanation in this thread to the contrary is based 100% in religious beliefs
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:when was this?
the way we lived pre-society
quote:again, you're still conflating ethics with morality
is our natural state and isn't really conducive to efficient living in society. morality is a codified version of societal trial and error, after thousands of years of learning what behaviors disrupt society. those become "sins" to use the Christian term
quote:you are wrong
no i'm referring to what we call morality
quote:replace "morality" with "ethics" and you would be somewhat correct
stealing disrupts society. stealing is codified into religious law by the ruler-king. stealing becomes an affront to morality. over thousands of years, it isn't even considered a function of societal living and is only seen in terms of morality
quote:similar, or the same? perhaps you could quote it for us. also, when did confucius live? was that before or after leviticus 19:18, 34.
Confucius was teaching things similar to the golden rule over 500 years before Jesus, to people who had very little, if any, interaction with Jews
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:tell me what i said that's wrong
i think you need to mingle with the flock a little more
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:you did it. i responded. you haven't explained further
the thing you're missing is that they are doing this more than i am
quote:no you talked about ethics, not morality.
i have clearly explained where i see where our concept of morality has originated
quote:unless it's revealed, which it has been otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation
nobody will ever understand that truth
quote:demonstrably false as has been explained by multiple people itt
it's the exact same process for believers and non-believers
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:i can't figure out how you think these unsubstantial statements are accomplishing anything. why don't you try responding to what i said. you referred to how people act in an immoral manner. the point of the thread is about morality itself. you are trying to undermine the concept of morality by appealing to mistakes people make.
within the context of a discussion on humans comprehending morality, the philosophy of religion becomes rather irrelevant
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:you're all over the place. you keep referring to ethics being developed as civilization arises and here you're saying they don't have to "originate." second, you keep conflating ethics and morality. if there are moral laws (objectively true for all people at all times), which there are, then there has to be a moral law giver. otherwise, we would not even know that there are no morals. cs lewis said that if the universe had no meaning, we should never have found out that it didn't.
it doesn't have to originate anywhere
quote:not a "force," a person
nor does it have to be created by any force
quote:no it's not. it's just true by definition. it seems abundantly clear you don't understand the definition
that is a very narrow, human-centric and egotistical, view of the universe
quote:aside from your customary ethical mistake, you are totally wrong and your characterization is completely convoluted and oversimplified. i'll ask again, at what point do you imagine this "codification" took place? stealing was not prohibited because it "disrupted society." it was prohibited because of the concept of ownership. you don't have a right to what i have. if you were right, then socialism would have appeared in the distant past and all people would have equal possessions so that no one had a reason to steal.
stealing became codified as immoral because stealing disrupted society
quote:your thinking on this matter is very juvenile. does your stealing rule apply across societies? why or why not?
yet, stealing persists as an immoral act
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:06 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:this changes nothing conceptually
Unless it happened to you
quote:james 1:13. job 1:12
One would have to blame gawd for everything, gawd created and allows right?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:10 pm to bfniii
At what point do you begin to wonder if you’re just talking to yourself?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:no we aren't and that is an asinine idea. the same moral dilemmas plague the godless now just like they always have.
we're a lot closer to determining this in 2020 than we were in 1920 than we were in 20
quote:science makes no claim(s) regarding morality. morals are metaphysical whereas science is constrained by methodological naturalism. what you're referring to is the physiological process that occurs when people are processing information.
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:what world do you live in? have you watched the news lately? our so called enlightened society is tearing itself apart. care to guess why? and that's just in THIS country. internationally, nothing has changed. there are violent sects in basically every country. china has concentration camps. muslims are still trying to conquer the world at the edge of the sword. countries are exploiting each other. lions, tigers, bears. cats and dogs living together. mass hysteria
international cooperation has supercharged our advancement
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:21 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
An objective moral standard is one that applies equally and universally to all humanity, who are moral beings; it's a standard that originates outside of the human experience.
quote:no, that definition was objectively true. and it's rather easy to prove
According to your beliefs, sure.
quote:you believe it too. you've been trying to deny it while affirming it. you are saying "it's objectively true that objectively true statements don't exist."
It’s simply what you believe
quote:you added "my religious philosophy" unnecessarily. that statement is objectively true without your additional qualifier. you need to take a basic philosophy course. let me give you yet another example.
“My religious philosophy says that morality cannot exist without god and therefore it cannot exist without god”
you are saying that there aren't objectively true morals. is your assessment objectively true for me too? for everyone? or is that only true for you?
here's your dilemma. if you say that your assessment is true for everyone, you are saying that there is an objective morality - true for everyone all the time. if you say your assessment is not true for everyone, then you have undermined your own statement.
you may not realize this but, all of this has been worked out by philosophers centuries ago. you're just behind the curve
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:25 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:oh my word. is your statement objectively true or not?
Arguing for the morality of something subjectively vs objectively is such a meaningless distinction
how do some of you people make it through the day?
quote:how is god "incoherent?" regale us
incoherent as God
quote:actually that's not true and the "legwork" has been done repeatedly itt. and then you come along late to the party and act like it hasn't been done.
you have a lot of leg work to do
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:35 pm to LSU2a
quote:this is astonishing. this statement has been objectively refuted multiple times itt and then people come along on page 10 and repeat it like that's supposed to make it right. ugh
Secular beliefs and moral standards can be based on objective realities divorced from religious texts
let's try this again.
quote:wrong based on what? according to who? is this true for all people for all time or is it contextual? can it be rescinded or are there any exceptions?
Choosing to not kill someone because you believe it is wrong
quote:oh yeah? prove that your view is superior. list all your "morals" and why they're authoritative to anyone. why should anyone follow them?
Stating that morality based on the demands of a higher authority is somehow superior is ridiculous
quote:it's sad you don't see how laughable this is. first, enlightenment philosophy was modern. we are in a postmodern period. iow, contemporary continental philosophers mock some of their modernist predecessors. care to elaborate on that?
my moral standard is based on millennia of evolved human social behavior mixed with philosophy born from the enlightenment and personal growth as a thoughtful human being
quote:yeah, we're so evolved right now. what a joke
millennia of evolved human social behavior
quote:that's interesting. so you now believe that certain things are moral/immoral whereas in the past you didn't? or have your views remain unchanged?
personal growth as a thoughtful human being
Posted on 10/5/20 at 11:42 pm to Hot Carl
quote:should i ask the members of the underground christian church in china? what about christians who live in africa or the middle east? what about muslims in china or india? or america for that matter?
if instead of being born where you were, when you were, to the parents you were, you were born in Yemen, or Afghanistan, or China—anywhere without a prominent presence of Western Christianity in the culture—how and what would you believe right now?
you are parroting the juvenile idea that people born in the middle east are muslims and people born in america are christians. that's a false assumption. mohammed was aware of christian beliefs before he even had an islamic thought. guatama buddha was a hindu from birth. europe was pagan before it was christian.
to answer your underlying point, you are appealing to the silly idea of religious relativism - that all paths are equally "right" or true. they're just cultural constructs. while there is some truth to that prima facie, that does not preclude that the beliefs of one of them can't be ultimately true
Posted on 10/6/20 at 12:08 am to Harry Rex Vonner
Thank you
I’m just a man, like you.
-
I dislike the upper middle class, with their endless pursuit of status, and trophies. They also habitually punch down, which is tacky.
I’m just a man, like you.
-
I dislike the upper middle class, with their endless pursuit of status, and trophies. They also habitually punch down, which is tacky.
This post was edited on 10/6/20 at 12:13 am
Posted on 10/6/20 at 2:31 am to Harry Rex Vonner
I love God and am a big fan of President Trump. He’s a great American!
Page 16 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News