Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: trippymonkey on May 18, 2016, 09:43:20 AM
-
Are some here actually bothered about the 'TRUTH' or just looking for something that coincides with what they already THINK is the truth ????
So rejecting ANYTHING that doesn't 'fit in'?
Nick
-
Dear Nick,
What TRUTH, you have chosen to pose your question on the Christian topic bit, so what Christian TRUTH are you asking, and please remember that we are all subject to confirmation bias, we all cherry pick.
Gonnagle.
-
None of us can know the elusive 'truth' for sure where god and an afterlife is concerned. As there is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god and everything claimed for it, I am of the opinion it doesn't exist. However, I would be a fool to claim that is a definite fact and the TRUTH.
-
Dear Nick,
What TRUTH, you have chosen to pose your question on the Christian topic bit, so what Christian TRUTH are you asking, and please remember that we are all subject to confirmation bias, we all cherry pick.
Gonnagle.
Some of us do out best not to cherry pick and not succumb to confirmation bias.
If I see something that does not agree with a current belief, I do NOT discard it out of hand. It needs to be looked at and considered.
Christians, and in fact all theists cannot do that. If they did, they would have to conclude that the possibility of a god is remote, as the 'evidence' for it, is ALWAYS poor and not sufficient. The fact they do still believe, means they MUST be prepared to believe on poor evidence.
Why would anyone believe something for bad reason?
-
Neither my truth not your truth are true, so I'm not sure where we go from there.
-
Maybe we could go to Nietzche :
"there are no facts, only perspectives"
or something like that.
-
Dear Berational,
Christians, and in fact all theists cannot do that. If they did, they would have to conclude that the possibility of a god is remote, as the 'evidence' for it, is ALWAYS poor and not sufficient. The fact they do still believe, means they MUST be prepared to believe on poor evidence.
Ah the old atheist, EVIDENCE, wheres your evidence, my evidence is the same as your evidence, but I am different, I ask WHY, why gravity, why evolution, why us, why are we here to ponder the wonders of the Universe, why life, why can we understand ( in a very limited way ) the wonders of the Universe, so many WHY'S.
Just is, is no answer for me, we were just an accident waiting to happen, no sorry, doesn't wash, it was inevitable, sorry again, WHY am I here to gaze out at the stars and think, F*** me that is truly beautiful.
Another WHY, why God, go on fill your boots with, "we are mean seeking creatures" that might do it for you, not me.
Gonnagle.
-
Another WHY, why God, go on fill your boots with, "we are mean seeking creatures"
Some of us, yup ;)
-
Are some here actually bothered about the 'TRUTH' or just looking for something that coincides with what they already THINK is the truth ????
So rejecting ANYTHING that doesn't 'fit in'?
Nick
I suppose I am looking for my truth, that thing which conforms to my sense of reality which is backed up by my evidence ( experience).
Like most people I will only move what "my truth and reality " is after a lot of soul searching and experiences/discussions which show me that my truth is flawed.
I suppose most people have a bit of cognitive dissonance ;)
I think we are all doing it, otherwise we wouldn't have things to disagree over ;D
-
Just is, is no answer for me...
But "just is" seems to be a good enough answer for "why is there a god?"
-
Dear Stranger,
God "just is" that will do for me ;)
On a totally unrelated and completely off topic subject ::) which came first, flying mammal or flying insect, it has been bugging me all morning ( bugging :P ) can't seem to find a link.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Ah the old atheist, EVIDENCE, wheres your evidence, my evidence is the same as your evidence, but I am different, I ask WHY, why gravity, why evolution, why us, why are we here to ponder the wonders of the Universe, why life, why can we understand ( in a very limited way ) the wonders of the Universe, so many WHY'S.
Just is, is no answer for me, we were just an accident waiting to happen, no sorry, doesn't wash, it was inevitable, sorry again, WHY am I here to gaze out at the stars and think, F*** me that is truly beautiful.
Another WHY, why God, go on fill your boots with, "we are mean seeking creatures" that might do it for you, not me.
Gonnagle.
But all your whys have no answer.
So the ONLY honest answer is "Don't know".
Go no further than that and you remain honest unbiased and not cherry picking.
The moment you invent an answer you are lost.
-
'They just are' is a plenty good enough explanation for why there's life, why the stars, the universe. We can give our individual lives meaning according to whatever comes our way, but to think there is any underlying purpose to it seems to me to overcomplicate what is actually quite beautifully simple.
-
Dear Berational,
But all your whys have no answer.
so far, but asking why seems a perfectly good question.
So the ONLY honest answer is "Don't know".
Fine, I am quite happy with don't know, but I am not fine with taking God out of the equation, which for me brings us winging all the way back to "what is God" I don't know!!
Go no further than that and you remain honest unbiased and not cherry picking.
No, it makes me human, a curious bugger, I want to go further, I am not happy with "don't know".
The moment you invent an answer you are lost.
The moment I invent an answer, just like science, I explore it, see if it has any merit, I imagine an answer, just like my hero Albert, then I explore it, see if it can be falsified.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
'They just are' is a plenty good enough explanation for why there's life, why the stars, the universe. We can give our individual lives meaning according to whatever comes our way, but to think there is any underlying purpose to it seems to me to overcomplicate what is actually quite beautifully simple.
Just is, stop asking why, nah!! but I agree, it is "quite beautifully simple" ain't God Great ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Fine, I am quite happy with don't know, but I am not fine with taking God out of the equation, which for me brings us winging all the way back to "what is God" I don't know!!
Why aren't you fine with taking God out of the equation? Given that you then say you don't know what god is, what has it added except for another "don't know"?
The moment I invent an answer, just like science, I explore it, see if it has any merit, I imagine an answer, just like my hero Albert, then I explore it, see if it can be falsified.
But god can't be falsified (at least many versions can't and the ones that can be, have been). Also, it isn't actually any sort of answer: because god could "explain" absolutely anything, it doesn't actually explain anything.
-
Why aren't you fine with taking God out of the equation? Given that you then say you don't know what god is, what has it added except for another "don't know"?
But god can't be falsified (at least many versions can't and the ones that can be, have been). Also, it isn't actually any sort of answer: because god could "explain" absolutely anything, it doesn't actually explain anything.
I think you're being very unfair on Gonners here, Stranger. As you say, he Is just adding another unknown. There are going to be a myriad unknowns before Man finally cracks the problem and one more hurts no one.
In my mind, Gonners is just putting a name to his feelings of awe and wonderment at the marvels of the Universe. I do it too, but without giving it a name or purpose.
At least he isn't threatening anyone or forcing biblical verses down everyone's throats.
I like to think there are Christians like Brownie and Gonners to show us they're not all like Sassy and TW..
-
Dear Stranger,
Why aren't you fine with taking God out of the equation? Given that you then say you don't know what god is, what has it added except for another "don't know"?
I am a God botherer, sue me!!
But god can't be falsified (at least many versions can't and the ones that can be, have been). Also, it isn't actually any sort of answer: because god could "explain" absolutely anything, it doesn't actually explain anything.
So we don't bother, we give up, we stop questioning, sounds alot like atheism to me. ( Nearlysane will be along shortly to give me a slap ::) )
Dear jj,
Cheers mate ;)
Gonnagle.
-
I am a God botherer, sue me!!
Yes, I do understand that - I'm just struggling to understand why.
So we don't bother, we give up, we stop questioning, sounds alot like atheism to me. ( Nearlysane will be along shortly to give me a slap ::) )
In much the same way theists give up after they've postulated god? :)
No, I'm not suggesting we give up but there seems little point (as far as I can see) in dreaming up a "solution" that doesn't really explain anything and cannot be falsified or tested in any objective way. How does it actually add anything to our understanding?
-
I think you're being very unfair on Gonners here, Stranger. As you say, he Is just adding another unknown. There are going to be a myriad unknowns before Man finally cracks the problem and one more hurts no one.
In my mind, Gonners is just putting a name to his feelings of awe and wonderment at the marvels of the Universe. I do it too, but without giving it a name or purpose.
At least he isn't threatening anyone or forcing biblical verses down everyone's throats.
I like to think there are Christians like Brownie and Gonners to show us they're not all like Sassy and TW..
I absolutely agree with your last comment.
Whereas it's fairly clear how the likes of Sassy and TW "think", I'm actually rather curious about how people like Gonners get to their conclusions.
-
Dear Stranger,
No, I'm not suggesting we give up but there seems little point (as far as I can see) in dreaming up a "solution" that doesn't really explain anything and cannot be falsified or tested in any objective way. How does it actually add anything to our understanding?
To me, my opinion, it gives me an understanding of being human, what makes us us, God has been with us since day dot, since we first stepped out of or into the cave, recent scientific study hints that God was there even before we stepped out of the cave, example, Nearly sanes link to chimps having a religious place, a tree.
God, religion, faith, is a fascinating subject, of course there is no scientific methodology to study God, but for me, I see God everywhere, I see God in the science.
Gonnagle.
-
Unlike some on this board, my "truth" doesn't entail thinking that people will be horribly tortured for all eternity if they fail to accept my truth.
-
Unlike some on this board, my "truth" doesn't entail thinking that people will be horribly tortured for all eternity if they fail to accept my truth.
In which case you are missing out on the 'pleasure' of thinking about folk roasting in hell, as one particular poster appears to get off on!
-
That's all very well but how many other posters think like that on here? If there wasn't one you would have to find something else to home in on, floo. I've only seen one poster here who says things like that and find it unpalatable but must admit I can't remember who it is (& please don't enlighten me).
Also I doubt you come across many in real life nowadays who believe in conscious eternal torment. You have to seek out that sort of opinion these days, it's rare. No doubt they are tortured souls themselves in one way or another and we can avoid them, like some are avoided at 'bus stops.
-
Dear Stranger,
To me, my opinion, it gives me an understanding of being human, what makes us us, God has been with us since day dot, since we first stepped out of or into the cave, recent scientific study hints that God was there even before we stepped out of the cave, example, Nearly sanes link to chimps having a religious place, a tree.
God, religion, faith, is a fascinating subject, of course there is no scientific methodology to study God, but for me, I see God everywhere, I see God in the science.
Gonnagle.
But you are making all this up without evidence.
The point I was making is that it is Theists like yourself that ARE cherry picking, using Confirmation Bias, and not thinking rationally.
When you do not know something, you absolutely investigate, you do not give up. But, what you do NOT do, is just invent a made up answer, that actually answers nothing.
-
Dear Berational,
Which bits am I making up, certainly not God/gods, they are well documented in history.
Yes you may be right that I cherry pick, I am a Christian, what I see is another avenue to investigate, you don't.
I haven't invented anything, man has done that, or God.
When you can give me category evidence that there is no God, how you do that? until then I will keep asking, why??
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Just is, stop asking why, nah!! but I agree, it is "quite beautifully simple" ain't God Great ;)
Gonnagle.
I'm a pantheist so I'm on agreement in that I think the universe is awesome. But a personal God, great it otherwise? No.
I am not stopping asking why, I don't ask in the first place. It's nice to
imagine some deity dreamed me into being but that's just vanity.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Bit of a Pantheist myself, still a Christian.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Which bits am I making up, certainly not God/gods, they are well documented in history.
Yes you may be right that I cherry pick, I am a Christian, what I see is another avenue to investigate, you don't.
I haven't invented anything, man has done that, or God.
When you can give me category evidence that there is no God, how you do that? until then I will keep asking, why??
Gonnagle.
You have invented god as an answer to stuff you do not like not knowing. Just because someone else has invented a myth, you do not have to go along with it. I don't, so why do you?
I do not need to give you evidence that there is no god. You should know this by now. This is the negative proof FALLACY!
You should ONLY believe things for which there IS sufficient evidence.
You know this I am sure, otherwise you would have to believe an almost infinite number of things which I cannot prove do not exist.
Do you believe EVERYTHING until it is shown NOT to be true.
I don't think so.
-
You have invented god as an answer to stuff you do not like not knowing. Just because someone else has invented a myth, you do not have to go along with it. I don't, so why do you?
I do not need to give you evidence that there is no god. You should know this by now. This is the negative proof FALLACY!
You should ONLY believe things for which there IS sufficient evidence.
You know this I am sure, otherwise you would have to believe an almost infinite number of things which I cannot prove do not exist.
Do you believe EVERYTHING until it is shown NOT to be true.
I don't think so.
Like black holes? Or dark matter?
There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.
-
Like black holes? Or dark matter?
There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.
There is evidence for black holes so you are wrong there.
Dark matter and Dark energy are not things, they are place holder names for something that science needs to find an answer to.
They could equally be named notknown1, and notknown2. No one believes in them, but we know that something is wrong and these are convenient names.
-
There is evidence for black holes so you are wrong there.
Dark matter and Dark energy are not things, they are place holder names for something that science needs to find an answer to.
They could equally be named notknown1, and notknown2. No one believes in them, but we know that something is wrong and these are convenient names.
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/01/stephen-hawking-now-thinks-there-are-no-black-holes
Scientists don't always "only believe in things for which there is sufficient evidence."
Sometimes they believe in something that just explains what they see as resolving a question. ( an invented something)
No one has ever seen a black hole.
Science has lots of hypothetical things that until they learn differently they do believe in.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Bit of a Pantheist myself, still a Christian.
Gonnagle.
Pantheistic pagan, me. I don't experience a personal deity. If you do I think that makes you a panentheistic Christian.
But hey, labels, just stories.
-
Dear Berational,
You have invented god as an answer to stuff you do not like not knowing.
What!! Like the gaps? no for me God is firmly in the science we know already.
Just because someone else has invented a myth, you do not have to go along with it. I don't, so why do you?
Which myth, I know what a myth is, there are lots of myths mentioning God/gods, but I don't find God in myths, I find him in life, in science, how I see the world.
You should ONLY believe things for which there IS sufficient evidence.
I do, see above.
Do you believe EVERYTHING until it is shown NOT to be true.
Not everything, but I confess I am a gut instinct man, sometimes if it feels right.
I do not need to give you evidence that there is no god. You should know this by now. This is the negative proof FALLACY!
Oh right, that is the negative proof fallacy, was wondering about that.
Gonnagle.
-
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/01/stephen-hawking-now-thinks-there-are-no-black-holes
Scientists don't always "only believe in things for which there is sufficient evidence."
Sometimes they believe in something that just explains what they see as resolving a question.
No one has ever seen a black hole.
Well no, that's the point you will not see it.
But, you do see the effects of it. There have been many observations of stars orbiting 'nothing'. The nothing is black, and has immense mass, just like the attributes of a black hole.
This is good evidence of a black hole, but does not stop it being something else that we find out about later.
Do you believe in the force of gravity?
-
Dear Berational,
What!! Like the gaps? no for me God is firmly in the science we know already.
Which myth, I know what a myth is, there are lots of myths mentioning God/gods, but I don't find God in myths, I find him in life, in science, how I see the world.
I do, see above.
Not everything, but I confess I am a gut instinct man, sometimes if it feels right.
Oh right, that is the negative proof fallacy, was wondering about that.
Gonnagle.
The thing is, when you do not know something, just stop there.
Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.
That's currently where you are going wrong.
-
Well no, that's the point you will not see it.
But, you do see the effects of it. There have been many observations of stars orbiting 'nothing'. The nothing is black, and has immense mass, just like the attributes of a black hole.
This is good evidence of a black hole, but does not stop it being something else that we find out about later.
Do you believe in the force of gravity?
I believe something exists that keeps me from floating off planet.
-
I believe something exists that keeps me from floating off planet.
Exactly and gravity is the explanation (not fully) that we have.
In fact it's also not a force I have read.
-
The thing is, when you do not know something, just stop there.
Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.
That's currently where you are going wrong.
IMO where you are going wrong is you can't see how another person can see evidence of God in the order of things.
You don't, and they do.
It doesn't mean your way is the only way of seeing the order in the universe.
As evidence can go either way, depending on who is looking.
God like black holes and dark matter is a hypothetical answer.
An answer to something we can't know yet.
-
The thing is, when you do not know something, just stop there.
Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.
That's currently where you are going wrong.
No, it's not making stuff up. It's feeling something and giving it the name 'God'. Used to do it myself once.
-
http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/01/stephen-hawking-now-thinks-there-are-no-black-holes
The article is actually a rather sensationalized and not very accurate (or scientifically literate, for example the description of entanglement as "where two particles are created that are identical on the quantum level") account of a very short and speculative paper about the possible nature of black holes.
There is actually no suggestion that the phenomenon doesn't exist - just a suggestion that it might not have the structure that was previously predicted.
Scientists don't always "only believe in things for which there is sufficient evidence."
Sometimes they believe in something that just explains what they see as resolving a question. ( an invented something)
No one has ever seen a black hole.
Science has lots of hypothetical things that until they learn differently they do believe in.
Clearly, you do not understand how science functions. It is at the heart of the process to be open to revision when new evidence comes to light. Theories are explanations that are supported by considerable body of evidence. Hypotheses are tentative explanations that have not yet been tested. Conjectures are educated guesses.
-
The article is actually a rather sensationalized and not very accurate (or scientifically literate, for example the description of entanglement as "where two particles are created that are identical on the quantum level") account of a very short and speculative paper about the possible nature of black holes.
There is actually no suggestion that the phenomenon doesn't exist - just a suggestion that it might not have the structure that was previously predicted.
Clearly, you do not understand how science functions. It is at the heart of the process to be open to revision when new evidence comes to light. Theories are explanations that are supported by considerable body of evidence. Hypotheses are tentative explanations that have not yet been tested. Conjectures are educated guesses.
Yes i'm sure you are correct.
But an educated guess, is still a guess.
Not that I'm suggesting any old wild guess will do ;)
-
IMO where you are going wrong is you can't see how another person can see evidence of God in the order of things.
You don't, and they do.
It doesn't mean your way is the only way of seeing the order in the universe.
As evidence can go either way, depending on who is looking.
God like black holes and dark matter is a hypothetical answer.
An answer to something we can't know yet.
But seeing this god is clearly wrong as they cannot demonstrate it.
That alone should give them pause for thought. People make mistakes, and if it cannot be demonstrated, they should consider they have made a mistake.
To posit a god is always wrong. It answers nothing.
If you think you have seen evidence for god, you are probably not looking at it correctly.
-
IMO where you are going wrong is you can't see how another person can see evidence of God in the order of things.
You don't, and they do.
It doesn't mean your way is the only way of seeing the order in the universe.
No, we all see the order. It is unclear how this order came to be (at it's most basic level). God is just an anthropomorphism of the mystery; calling our ignorance "god" and worshipping it. It doesn't explain order because god would be even more ordered than the universe.
God like black holes and dark matter is a hypothetical answer.
An answer to something we can't know yet.
Nonsense. As has been pointed out "dark matter" is a place holder for whatever causes the gravitational effects we observe. It isn't any sort of answer.
Black holes have supporting evidence.
-
But seeing this god is clearly wrong as they cannot demonstrate it.
That alone should give them pause for thought. People make mistakes, and if it cannot be demonstrated, they should consider they have made a mistake.
To posit a god is always wrong. It answers nothing.
If you think you have seen evidence for god, you are probably not looking at it correctly.
http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/
In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.
It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.
Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.
Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.
Like the picture you can see the evidence for God or no God in the structure of the universe.
It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.
You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.
I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹
-
What Rose said.
-
http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/
In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.
It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.
Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.
Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.
Like the picture you can see the evidence for God or no God in the structure of the universe.
It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.
You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.
I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹
No this is not correct.
To see evidence of a god, you would have to define god.
Can you do that?
I have seen god used as an answer to stuff we do not know. In reality it is not an answer.
If you have evidence for a god, it should stand up to scrutiny. That's we believe that gravity is the best explanation for stuff falling etc.
I could look at stuff falling and say I see this as evidence for pixies pulling things down on invisible strings.
One is science, the other is complete nonsense.
The trick is seeing the difference, something theists sometimes struggle with.
-
Rose,
http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/
In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.
It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.
Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.
Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.
Like the picture you can see the evidence for God or no God in the structure of the universe.
It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.
You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.
I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹
This fails because the analogy fails. In epistemological terms, each interpretation of the image is equally valid because no further data is available to distinguish one from the other. A more apt analogy though would be Fred saying "babies emerge from women's tummies" and Harry saying, "no, babies are delivered by invisible storks".
Each interprets the data according to his ability to do so, but there's a lot more data too that probabilistically causes us to think Fred more likely to be right than Harry. That is, different interpretations do not necessarily have the same epistemological values.
-
What's complete nonsense can be very subjective.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/gravity-doesnt-exist-is-gravity-an-illusion.html
To many Scientists are disputing too much for it to be answered logically yet.
A lot of scientists are struggling as well.
Who knows, one day we might catch a pixie ;)
-
I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹
It's nothing at all like the illusion. "God" explains nothing at all, is unfalsifiable and has no more to support it than any other blind guess, for example, that the universe was created by Kevin - a spotty teenager in a meta-universe who had a new physics set for his birthday...
-
No this is not correct.
To see evidence of a god, you would have to define god.
Can you do that?
I have seen god used as an answer to stuff we do not know. In reality it is not an answer.
If you have evidence for a god, it should stand up to scrutiny. That's we believe that gravity is the best explanation for stuff falling etc.
I could look at stuff falling and say I see this as evidence for pixies pulling things down on invisible strings.
One is science, the other is complete nonsense.
The trick is seeing the difference, something theists sometimes struggle with.
No one has to define God, be rational.
It's just one of many possible answers.
-
Rose,
Who knows, one day we might catch a pixie
Or an invisible stork. As neither "God" nor "invisible stork" have meaningful definitions or coherent rationales for their existence at all, each falls to the category "not even wrong" whereas competing ideas about the origins of the universe are in different categories on the spectrum of conjectures to hypotheses.
-
Rose,
No one has to define God, be rational.
It's just one of many possible answers.
That only works if you think "uh30730y" or "*&ŁEDŁ*Ł@&*" are possible answers too.
-
To many Scientists are disputing too much for it to be answered logically yet.
A lot of scientists are struggling as well.
Who knows, one day we might catch a pixie ;)
Again, you clearly don't understand the process of science. Scientific theories (not to be confused with hypotheses or conjectures) are the best fit explanations for the current evidence.
This already is logical and rational, even if new evidence eventually changes our views.
God is a blind guess based on zero evidence, that could "explain" anything and hence explains nothing.
-
No one has to define God, be rational.
It's just one of many possible answers.
If it isn't defined, it isn't an answer (possible or otherwise).
-
If it isn't defined, it isn't an answer (possible or otherwise).
Yes it is.
No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.
-
No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.
Drivel. Newton defined it as a force and gave a mathematical formula for it. Einstein gave a more accurate definition in the form of curved space-time and showed that it matched Newton's theory except in extreme conditions. Probably, in the future, we will have another refinement.
At every stage there has been a defined theory that fits the observed facts.
-
If some people only want to believe in things they can see, touch or feel or measure, that's fine.
Any ideas about the very beginnings of the universe and what was before, is bound to be mostly speculation.
Personally I don't believe we can be too sure, based on what science has found out, so far.
Maybe we will never find out.
It doesn't stop people wondering though and seeing things, in the way things are.
-
...
Nonsense. As has been pointed out "dark matter" is a place holder for whatever causes the gravitational effects we observe. It isn't any sort of answer.
Black holes have supporting evidence.
Somewhat veering off-topic, but so does dark matter: We can map out where it seems to be clustered from images showing the effects of gravitational lensing. We just don't know yet what the dark matter itself is in terms of particles.
http://www.space.com/14768-dark-matter-universe-photos.html
-
Drivel. Newton defined it as a force and gave a mathematical formula for it. Einstein gave a more accurate definition in the form of curved space-time and showed that it matched Newton's theory except in extreme conditions. Probably, in the future, we will have another refinement.
At every stage there has been a defined theory that fits the observed facts.
Except it isn't a force, is it? Some chap called Einstein came along ;)
-
Rose,
It doesn't stop people wondering though.
"Wondering" and making positive assertions of fact are not the same thing. Scientists wonder, but that's the start rather then the end of the process of enquiry. For theologians, it's the other way around.
-
http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/
In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.
It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.
Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.
Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.
Like the picture you can see the evidence for God or no God in the structure of the universe.
It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.
You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.
I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹
Nice illusion. I got the old hag immediately but it took an effort to see the young lady
-
torri,
I got the old hag immediately but it took an effort to see the young lady
Story of my life....
-
Except it isn't a force, is it?
For practical purposes it is more of a "force" than God is!
-
Yes it is.
No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.
Go for it, Rose, I'm with you here. If 'X' was substituted for 'God' there would be no problem. It's the mythical tales and rules that theology and religion make up that concerns me, not the name we call this unknown answer.
Scientists look for answers to everything unknown, as they look for X or anything else we - as yet - have no evidence for.
-
torri,
Story of my life....
;D ;D
-
Go for it, Rose, I'm with you here. If 'X' was substituted for 'God' there would be no problem. It's the mythical tales and rules that theology and religion make up that concerns me, not the name we call this unknown answer.
Scientists look for answers to everything unknown, as they look for X or anything else we - as yet - have no evidence for.
Yes, let's change it from God to X.
God has to much baggage for my point really ;D
Which is only that some people see the evidence in the structure and way things are for X and others don't.
Like the illusion :)
I'm not claiming to know btw, but have some sympathies for those that see evidence of X.
-
Rose,
Yes, let's change it from God to X.
Or "stork". Or "uyG8O7687". Or "magic". Or leave it as "God". The problem though is that none of these terms offer any explanatory power whatever.
On balance, I'd say "don't know" does the job better as it doesn't overreach by claiming to be an answer to the problem.
-
Like black holes? Or dark matter?
There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.
The difference between black holes and God/gods is that no-one worships black holes, no-one gives them, instead of us evolved humans, the credit for all that human evolution enables us to think or do, no-one teaches children that blackholes must be prayed to, will provide them with an after-life, etc etc.
-
The difference between black holes and God/gods is that no-one worships black holes, no-one gives them, instead of us evolved humans, the credit for all that human evolution enables us to think or do, no-one teaches children that blackholes must be prayed to, will provide them with an after-life, etc etc.
But what credit can we 'evolved humans' give to ourselves. After all, we have nothing to do with causing evolution; we are simply the outcome of it.
-
Hope,
But what credit can we 'evolved humans' give to ourselves. After all, we have nothing to do with causing evolution; we are simply the outcome of it.
Our species evolved; the individual members of our species can do astonishing things and, when they do, they deserve credit for it.
-
None of us can know the elusive 'truth' for sure where god and an afterlife is concerned. As there is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god and everything claimed for it, I am of the opinion it doesn't exist. However, I would be a fool to claim that is a definite fact and the TRUTH.
Floo, you have parrotted this post, almost word for word, over numerous posts here, not to mention numerous posts on other boards. You are entitled to be 'of the opinion (God) doesn't exist', but then there are others who would come to the opposite conclusion using the same evidence. That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.
Whilst there are huge differences in the various religions, there are also a variety of similarities. Don Richardson talks about this in his book 'Eternity in Their Hearts'. In view of the age of most of the world's religions - and the distances separating them in their formative periods limiting any cross-fertilisation - it would seem to suggest that there is something that is external to humanity and the evolved natural world. Intertestingly, too, one of these similarities is the concept of salvation. It exists across the range of religious thinking, albeit differing in detail.
-
Hope,
You are entitled to be 'of the opinion (God) doesn't exist', but then there are others who would come to the opposite conclusion using the same evidence.
Actually it’s more like, “there’s no reason to think “God” does exist” but yes, anyone is entitled to any opinion they wish to hold. That’s why Harry might think that babies come from women’s tummies and Bill thinks an invisible stork delivers them.
That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this…
Where?
…and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.
It “suggests” no such thing for the same reason that the evidence Bill thinks there to be for storks delivering babies does not suggest that there’s some truth to the Bill’s opinion.
Whilst there are huge differences in the various religions, there are also a variety of similarities. Don Richardson talks about this in his book 'Eternity in Their Hearts'. In view of the age of most of the world's religions - and the distances separating them in their formative periods limiting any cross-fertilisation - it would seem to suggest that there is something that is external to humanity and the evolved natural world.
Again, it suggests no such thing. The common feature is that they sought explanations for the otherwise inexplicable, so it’s hardly a surprise that there’s some overlap in their focus and claims.
Intertestingly, too, one of these similarities is the concept of salvation. It exists across the range of religious thinking, albeit differing in detail.
“Interesting” only in the sense that shamans and clerics needed a carrot as well as a stick to persuade the doubtful. That though says nothing whatever to whether “salvation” is indeed an option.
-
Floo, you have parrotted this post, almost word for word, over numerous posts here, not to mention numerous posts on other boards. You are entitled to be 'of the opinion (God) doesn't exist', but then there are others who would come to the opposite conclusion using the same evidence. That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.
No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with evidence but - as in your case - everything to do with not being able to think without committing some form of logical fallacy or other. With you it's usually the negative proof fallacy, but occasionally as here you make a detour into others.
-
That evidence - some of which evidence that has been placed on this and other boards over the years - would suggest that there is some form of truth in the world's religions.
Leaving aside the lack of evidence from such as yourself, this claim of yours covers quite a bit of ground. There may indeed be stuff that is trivially true, such as places (Jerusalem would be an obvious one) but that doesn't imply that other religious claims are also true: especially the supernatural ones, since human artifice accounting for aspects of these claims remains an unresolved risk that you seem reluctant to acknowledge.
You seem to be wearing your rose-tinted theo-glasses again.
-
Dear Berational,
Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.
I don't insert God, he is already there, what I never say is, end of subject, Godidit, but I want to know, how Godidit.
But I agree with your other posts, we fall down in defining God, Christians can point to our Lord Jesus, but that is only a bit of what God is.
Gonnagle.
-
But "just is" seems to be a good enough answer for "why is there a god?"
Yeh, but some how just is doesn't seem appropriate for nature with it's cause and effects and yet we have Russell and Dawkins settling for ''just is'' when they wouldn't dream of settling for that in any other context.
-
I don't insert God, he is already there...
Except god isn't already there. The beliefs in all sorts of different (often mutually exclusive) gods exist in some people's minds. Many other unevidenced beliefs exist in people's minds too; vampires, ghosts, astrology and so on. Are they (rather than just the beliefs) "already there"?
-
Yeh, but some how just is doesn't seem appropriate for nature with it's cause and effects...
Why not? For example, just taking relativity literally, leads to a four dimensional "block universe" - time and causality being properties of the contents.
This is the ever present double standard that theists apply: "we must have an explanation and cause for everything.... oh, except when it comes to god, of course..."
It's a tad silly, really.
-
Like black holes? Or dark matter?
There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.
Actually, there is evidence for black holes.
As for Dark Matter and indeed Dark Energy....they are provisional hypotheses used to explain real phenomena and unlike Christianity, nobody is required to believe them.
What's more, Dark Matter and Dark Energy could styill be kicked into touch if someone comes along with a better hypothesis that's been put together after further observations.
Contrast that with Christianity where nothing analogous ever happens.
-
Yes it is.
No one has defined gravity, but it's still an answer.
The theory of gravity is our best explanation for certain observable phenomena.
You have a better theory?
-
But what credit can we 'evolved humans' give to ourselves. After all, we have nothing to do with causing evolution; we are simply the outcome of it.
You say that like it's something to be ashamed of.
I trust you're not searching the Theory of Evolution for some grand religious/philosophical meaning because you won't find one.
Why? Because scientific theories are neither moral of immoral - they just are.
-
Are some here actually bothered about the 'TRUTH' or just looking for something that coincides with what they already THINK is the truth ????
So rejecting ANYTHING that doesn't 'fit in'?
Nick
The first of three should surely be 'Gods Truth'.
What you wrote Nick, suggests that there is only one type of truth that truth is anything pertaining to ourselves.
Gods truth comes from without and is independent of us all.
Whilst it changes the individual it is still a choice between his truth and whatever we accept as truth.
-
The first of three should surely be 'Gods Truth'.
What you wrote Nick, suggests that there is only one type of truth that truth is anything pertaining to ourselves.
Gods truth comes from without and is independent of us all.
Whilst it changes the individual it is still a choice between his truth and whatever we accept as truth.
And your god's truth contains his wish to torture us for all eternity.
-
The first of three should surely be 'Gods Truth'.
What you wrote Nick, suggests that there is only one type of truth that truth is anything pertaining to ourselves.
Gods truth comes from without and is independent of us all.
Whilst it changes the individual it is still a choice between his truth and whatever we accept as truth.
There is no reliable way to verify which truth claims allegedly from God are authentic and which are bogus. All claims are from humans and no human is infallible.
-
There is no reliable way to verify which truth claims allegedly from God are authentic and which are bogus. All claims are from humans and no human is infallible.
No there isn't, but if you stand well back there are things you can pull through
https://integralchurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/15-great-principles-shared-by-all-religions/
Those are quite enough for anyone to aim for and if God isn't behind them at all, well at least we might have tried and hopefully led a good life.
I don't see the need to get hung up on the detail, which is what joining a religion does. ( or I think it does) I have never understood why anyone needs to define things so much.
I can share those values with atheists, it's not a problem.
Whether there is something out there or not, I think those things have value. It's win win really.
I just chose that web site at random but it's the shared ( good hearted )things that religions share that interest me.
That's God and represents God, to me.
If I'm wrong, well I'm can cope with that.
:)
-
Interfaith sites are great places to find shared values.
http://www.interfaith.org.uk/publications/all-publications/all-publications/21-connect-different-faiths-shared-values/file
People just follow them their own way.
I think it is something you have to bash out for yourself as you go through life. ( the truth)
-
Rose,
No there isn't, but if you stand well back there are things you can pull through
https://integralchurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/15-great-principles-shared-by-all-religions/
All of which collectively can be summarised in two words: be nice.
Which is fine and dandy, except many of those same religions also happen to say lots of awful things and moreover they know these things to be right because that's their "faith".
Those are quite enough for anyone to aim for and if God isn't behind them at all, well at least we might have tried and hopefully led a good life.
I'm all for leading a good life: junk the religious bits, call it moral philosophy and use it as a useful rationale for decent behaviour and you'll get no argument from me. Problem is though, most religions go waaaay beyond that - not are they keen to hang on the religious claims too, they see them as central to their being.
I don't see the need to get hung up on the detail, which is what joining a religion does. ( or I think it does) I have never understood why anyone needs to define things so much.
I can share those values with atheists, it's not a problem.
Fair enough.
Whether there is something out there or not, I think those things have value. It's win win really.
Not really. We have the inherent altruism anyway - the various additional claims of fact they make underpinned by faith and backed up with menaces are all their own. That's the problem.
I just chose that web site at random but it's the shared ( good hearted )things that religions share that interest me.
That's God and represents God, to me.
If I'm wrong, well I'm can cope with that.
Well, essentially you're proposing "God" as only a hypothesis - would that the religions did the same.
-
Interfaith sites are great places to find shared values.
http://www.interfaith.org.uk/publications/all-publications/all-publications/21-connect-different-faiths-shared-values/file
People just follow them their own way.
I think it is something you have to bash out for yourself as you go through life. ( the truth)
I am beginning to sound as though I agree with everything you say and have no thoughts of my own but it is a fact that I go along with a lot of what you say. I'm very keen on interfaith, always have been, and it is worthwhile for all people of faith to learn about and understand other faiths - and to meet people of good heart who worship differently. It fosters respect too. However it doesn't work for those who aren't at least fairly liberal in their beliefs. Never mind about those for the moment :-).
-
Dear Rose,
15 Great Principles Shared by All Religions
The Golden Rule / Law of Reciprocity – The cornerstone of religious understanding. “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” – Christianity
Excellent, the cornerstone of religious understanding, this what Christ was saying, this is where Christians should start and finish.
Honor Thy Father and Mother – Knowing them is the key to knowing ourselves. The day will come when we shall wish we had known them better.
A tough ask for some in society but in general very good advice.
Speak the Truth – “Sincerity is the way of heaven, and to think how to be sincere is the way of a man.” – Confucius
Another tough one, speaking the truth can get you into a lot of trouble, takes guts sometimes to speak the truth.
It’s More Blessed to Give than to Receive – Generosity, charity and kindness will open an individual to an unbounded reservoir of riches.
THis one is a real cracker, what is that about helping others, small kindnesses, that buzz, serving your fellow man, this one should be explored more.
Heaven is Within – “Even as the scent dwells within the flower, so God within thine own heart forever abides.” – Sikhism
Can't argue with this one, God truly is within us all.
Love Thy Neighbor / Conquer With Love / All You Need is Love – Acts of faith, prayer and deep meditation provide us with the strength that allows love for our fellow man to become an abiding part of our lives. Love is a unifying force.
Corinthians book 1 verse 13 ( my lucky number ) the Beatles have it spot on, Love is all you need.
Blessed Are the Peacemakers – When people live in the awareness that there is a close kinship between all individuals and nations, peace is the natural result.
Instead of looking for differences, look for what we have in common.
You Reap What You Sow – This is the great mystery of human life. Aware or unaware, all are ruled by this inevitable law of nature.
This is a law, a truth, be aware of your actions, another one to think deeply about.
Man Does Not Live by Bread Alone – The blessings of life are deeper than what can be appreciated by the senses.
So true, we need our art, literature, music, these things feed us.
Do No Harm – If someone tries to hurt another, it means that she is perceiving that person as something separate and foreign from herself.
Hurting someone is such a fleeting thing, you usually regret it in the long run.
Forgiveness – The most beautiful thing a man can do is to forgive wrong. – Judaism
To forgive, to rise above, another tough one, but I do think when you forgive your own healing begins.
Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged – This principle is an expression of the underlying truth that mankind is one great family, and that we all spring from a common source.
One of Our Lords belters, whole books could be written on this commandment.
Be Slow to Anger – Anger clouds the mind in the very moments that clarity and objectivity are needed most. “He who holds back rising anger like a rolling chariot, him I call a real driver; others only hold the reins.” – Buddha
One I have learned with age ;)
There is But One God / God is Love – Nature, Being, The Absolute. Whatever name man chooses, there is but one God. All people and all things are of one essence.
One God many names.
Follow the Spirit of the Scriptures, Not the Words – “Study the words, no doubt, but look behind them to the thought they indicate; And having found it, throw the words away, as chaff when you have sifted out the grain.” – Hinduism
For me this one is aimed at those stupid literal Christians, scripture is there to make you think not what to think.
Excellent link Rose, thank you. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
For me this one is aimed at those stupid literal Christians...
Just wondering how you reconcile that with:
Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged – This principle is an expression of the underlying truth that mankind is one great family, and that we all spring from a common source.
;)
-
Rose,
All of which collectively can be summarised in two words: be nice.
Which is fine and dandy, except many of those same religions also happen to say lots of awful things and moreover they know these things to be right because that's their "faith".
I'm all for leading a good life: junk the religious bits, call it moral philosophy and use it as a useful rationale for decent behaviour and you'll get no argument from me. Problem is though, most religions go waaaay beyond that - not are they keen to hang on the religious claims too, they see them as central to their being.
Fair enough.
Not really. We have the inherent altruism anyway - the various additional claims of fact they make underpinned by faith and backed up with menaces are all their own. That's the problem.
Well, essentially you're proposing "God" as only a hypothesis - would that the religions did the same.
Sometimes I think all you can really do is try and use the good bits to combat the bad bits so hopefully have a good influence overall.
I think that is what interfaith tries to do.
Unfortunately the ones who need to go and have their horizons broadened most, tend not to go, but I think interfaith is important because of the people it can influence ,and in turn who they can influence.
:)
-
That is a great post Gonnagle, thank you.
R: Unfortunately the ones who need to go and have their horizons broadened most, tend not to go
Unfortunately true, I've even heard one or two people (long time ago), say that ''interfaith doesn't work''. It doesn't work because they are not prepared to accept that someone else doesn't think the same, but are still worth understanding. Their loss.
-
I've always found Bertrand Russell's 'Liberal Decalogue' to be good advice.
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
-
Dear Blue,
You dog :P :P
Yeah I ain't no saint, take the plank out of my own eye ::)
Dear Mods,
Could you suspend our Blue, why!! sometimes he is so bloody right >:(
Cheers Blue my first smile of the day. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Gordon,
I've always found Bertrand Russell's 'Liberal Decalogue' to be good advice.
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool’s paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/
Thanks Gordon - much better!
-
Gonners,
You dog :P :P
Yeah I ain't no saint, take the plank out of my own eye ::)
Dear Mods,
Could you suspend our Blue, why!! sometimes he is so bloody right >:(
Cheers Blue my first smile of the day. ;)
It was done with love my friend, done with love :-*
-
Reminds me of this older thread: http://goo.gl/qD1IRl
-
Dear Gordon,
Should we start a thread, Russell's 10 verses Religions 15 :P :P but then I see a lot of comparisons in each offering ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Sometimes I think all you can really do is try and use the good bits to combat the bad bits so hopefully have a good influence overall.
I think that is what interfaith tries to do.
Unfortunately the ones who need to go and have their horizons broadened most, tend not to go, but I think interfaith is important because of the people it can influence ,and in turn who they can influence.
:)
Our local catholic church has attempted interfaith services with our local mosque on occasion, but although the immam and the priest might be encouraging and enthusiastic about it, to be honest there is virtually zero enthusiasm for it amongst the congregations from either side. They are really not interested.
-
Gonners,
Should we start a thread, Russell's 10 verses Religions 15 :P :P but then I see a lot of comparisons in each offering ;)
There is overlap, but for me the most important of Russell's is the one he put first: do not feel absolutely certain of anything, on which the religious principles are silent. Uncertainty it seems to me is the bulwark against extreme behaviour - how could I commit an irrevocable act when I think I could be wrong? - whereas presumably the religions start from certainty about their god(s) so the principle is unobtainable from the get-go.
-
Dear Blue,
Sorry mate but do not feel absolute certainty for me runs through most of those 15, Judge not is one, but,
Follow the Spirit of the Scriptures, Not the Words – “Study the words, no doubt, but look behind them to the thought they indicate; And having found it, throw the words away, as chaff when you have sifted out the grain.” – Hinduism
Always think, never think you have found the truth, only say you have found a truth. Confucius.
Gonnagle.
-
Our local catholic church has attempted interfaith services with our local mosque on occasion, but although the immam and the priest might be encouraging and enthusiastic about it, to be honest there is virtually zero enthusiasm for it amongst the congregations from either side. They are really not interested.
What's the age make-up of both congregations? Predominantly older?
-
What's the age make-up of both congregations? Predominantly older?
Probably a slight older bias among the catholics, not so sure about the muslims, but perhaps more younger people I think.
-
Gonners,
Sorry mate but do not feel absolute certainty for me runs through most of those 15, Judge not is one, but,
Quote
Follow the Spirit of the Scriptures, Not the Words – “Study the words, no doubt, but look behind them to the thought they indicate; And having found it, throw the words away, as chaff when you have sifted out the grain.” – Hinduism
Always think, never think you have found the truth, only say you have found a truth. Confucius.
Well, you did once tell me that no argument could ever dissuade you from the fact of god. Sounds pretty certain to me...
-
What's the age make-up of both congregations? Predominantly older?
Coincidentally, that happened at my ex-Church, Shaker, a very big church with all age groups in the congregation. The priest in charge there was very keen on it, not only with people of other faiths but 'Interchurch' stuff. It seemed to work quite well but out of a congregation of approximately 1000 at that time, there were only a few who joined and contributed on a regular basis. Those that did were very active.
I never heard anything against it, indeed it was viewed warmly, but people only have so much time and are often involved in other things. I liked it and loved hearing about it but didn't go along to any meetings, too shy, didn't feel as though I'd have anything to contribute. Still there were people who were committed to the ideal and attended regularly. I've no idea if it still happens there, it's been a few years since I was a congregant.
-
Dear Torridon,
No matter, more power to the Imam and the Priest, Blessed are the Peacemakers, I hope and pray they keep the lines of communication open, us stupid theists will get it one day, what God truly wants, his children to live in Peace, all his children.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Blue,
Well, you did once tell me that no argument could ever dissuade you from the fact of god. Sounds pretty certain to me...
Are you going to keep beating me over the head with that, I am pretty certain, lets say 99.9%, but always that healthy little grain of doubt, but in my mind ( mine ) atheism is, well I am in a good mood, atheism is.................................. actually lets put it this way, I have tried to walk in the atheist shoes, they don't fit :o
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Are you going to keep beating me over the head with that, I am pretty certain, lets say 99.9%, but always that healthy little grain of doubt, but in my mind ( mine ) atheism is, well I am in a good mood, atheism is.................................. actually lets put it this way, I have tried to walk in the atheist shoes, they don't fit :o
Yeah sorry. That's the thing with certainty though - it's well, you know, certain. No little grain of doubt allowed. I'm always struck by the religious use of "in the sure and certain knowledge" and similar phrases when you'll never find it in science - Russell vs religion again. And the problem with that is that it pervades everything. Way back when the shias and the sunnis disagreed over whether Mohammed preferred lace-ups over slip ons or something equally trivial and they've been killing each other over it ever since. Freud's "narcissism of small differences" for you.
But isn't certainty essential to religion though: it's tribally cohesive so if you're to kill the fellow in the next tribe you need to be sure of your ground. Which is functionally sound, but it breaks down when the tribes get too big (and nuked up). That's the problem with the inter-faith efforts: all tea and garibaldi biscuits when they're in the same room, but as soon as the other folks leave with a cheery wave it's back to, "well that was lovely children, but of course we know the real facts don't we, whereas those bozos..."
Hey, I'm writing like you now - it's catching! Take it as a compliment ;)
-
And your god's truth contains his wish to torture us for all eternity.
Christ would have not died had that been the truth. As for torture what torture.
I suppose being separated from God would appear a torture.
Other than that if you don't want it then you know what to do. If God as you believe doesn't exist whatever are you harping on about. Ever thought some of us know God because God is....
-
There is no reliable way to verify which truth claims allegedly from God are authentic and which are bogus. All claims are from humans and no human is infallible.
Christ is the way to have the truth verified. If you have never tried it you cannot make that statement.
-
Christ is the way to have the truth verified. If you have never tried it you cannot make that statement.
Likewise, one could say - have you tried the Muslim way ? if you have never tried it you cannot make that statement
-
Dear Blue,
Are you going to keep beating me over the head with that, I am pretty certain, lets say 99.9%, but always that healthy little grain of doubt, but in my mind ( mine ) atheism is, well I am in a good mood, atheism is.................................. actually lets put it this way, I have tried to walk in the atheist shoes, they don't fit :o
Gonnagle.
Forgive me for prying but I'm struggling to reconcile this with
Fine, I am quite happy with don't know, but I am not fine with taking God out of the equation, which for me brings us winging all the way back to "what is God" I don't know!!
If you don't know what God is then what exactly are you so very sure of when you say God?
I only ask because this is something that has long puzzled me in relation to apophatic theology, which won't say anything positive about God yet seems quite happy to go along with assertions of belief. Belief in what?
We can go right back to the 6th century Syrian monk Dionysius who stated that God is 'beyond affirmation and negation'. Where does that leave believers and atheists alike?
Even Aquinas admitted that he didn't know what he meant when he spoke of God's attributes. Why then did he speak of them?
Eckhart prayed to be rid of god for God's sake because he realised that his ideas about God were just idols. His contemporary Tauler expressed the same thoughts. Tillich said that nearly all theology was idolatry. Yet none of these folk gave up belief in God. What did they believe in?
I don't mean to put you on the spot but we the hell-bound get a bit confused sometimes ;)
-
Good to see you back again Bramble - I was starting to fear you'd given up on us.
-
Christ is the way to have the truth verified. If you have never tried it you cannot make that statement.
You believe the guy was all that is claimed for him, but there is no evidence that is so. The human imagination isn't evidence.
-
Christ is the way to have the truth verified. If you have never tried it you cannot make that statement.
What about those who have tried it and found nothing in it?
-
Good to see you back again Bramble - I was starting to fear you'd given up on us.
No, it's just less effort to function in the read-only mode ;D
-
Bramble,
Good to see you back.
If you don't know what God is then what exactly are you so very sure of when you say God?
I only ask because this is something that has long puzzled me in relation to apophatic theology, which won't say anything positive about God yet seems quite happy to go along with assertions of belief. Belief in what?
We can go right back to the 6th century Syrian monk Dionysius who stated that God is 'beyond affirmation and negation'. Where does that leave believers and atheists alike?
Even Aquinas admitted that he didn't know what he meant when he spoke of God's attributes. Why then did he speak of them?
Eckhart prayed to be rid of god for God's sake because he realised that his ideas about God were just idols. His contemporary Tauler expressed the same thoughts. Tillich said that nearly all theology was idolatry. Yet none of these folk gave up belief in God. What did they believe in?
I don't mean to put you on the spot but we the hell-bound get a bit confused sometimes ;)
It's a paradox isn't it: the moment you try to say something about "God" the effort collapses into fallacy, non sequitur, mistake etc but unless you can say something about this God then all you have is white noise. Maybe the problem lies somewhere in the unbounded premise: if you say something about what God is or thinks then necessarily you're also saying something about what God isn't and doesn't think, and who is the simple believer to bound his God that way?
-
Dear Bramble,
I will try to clarify my position ( mine ).
My journey is on going, I once prayed to God, but I no longer do that, I pray to Our Lord Jesus, Our Lord gives me something tangible, the Cross gives me a symbol.
which won't say anything positive about God yet seems quite happy to go along with assertions of belief. Belief in what?
I can say positive things about God, for me, He/She/It is persistent, persistent in my life, but when it comes to Jesus I feel on firmer ground, I have the Gospels, Our Lords teachings his message, everytime I study the Gospels ( study, not just read ) my belief, my faith is reaffirmed.
We can go right back to the 6th century Syrian monk Dionysius who stated that God is 'beyond affirmation and negation'. Where does that leave believers and atheists alike?
Glad you asked, it was Karen Armstrong who put me on to "walk the walk first" God comes later, so if I see an atheist walking the walk I think, God can do the rest.
For me, God does not want all this worship nonsense, he wants his children to live in peace and harmony, when we do that, we then all truly worship God.
Does that help :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners, I love that......"walk the walk first, God comes later". Think that's how it is for me. I talk to Jesus, always have done... and after all, it is through Jesus that we reach God.
-
Forgive me for prying but I'm struggling to reconcile this with
If you don't know what God is then what exactly are you so very sure of when you say God?
I only ask because this is something that has long puzzled me in relation to apophatic theology, which won't say anything positive about God yet seems quite happy to go along with assertions of belief. Belief in what?
We can go right back to the 6th century Syrian monk Dionysius who stated that God is 'beyond affirmation and negation'. Where does that leave believers and atheists alike?
Even Aquinas admitted that he didn't know what he meant when he spoke of God's attributes. Why then did he speak of them?
Eckhart prayed to be rid of god for God's sake because he realised that his ideas about God were just idols. His contemporary Tauler expressed the same thoughts. Tillich said that nearly all theology was idolatry. Yet none of these folk gave up belief in God. What did they believe in?
I don't mean to put you on the spot but we the hell-bound get a bit confused sometimes ;)
Excellent summary.
All these fine folks seem to be milestones on the path to the 'non-realist God'. Somehow, I've always thought that belief in the latter is little more than sexed-up atheism.
-
No, it's just less effort to function in the read-only mode ;D
Agreed to that :)
-
Bramble wrote:
Eckhart prayed to be rid of god for God's sake because he realised that his ideas about God were just idols. His contemporary Tauler expressed the same thoughts. Tillich said that nearly all theology was idolatry. Yet none of these folk gave up belief in God. What did they believe in?
Nice post, Bramble. I used to read these people avidly, along with 'The Cloud of Unknowing'. I think your point about Eckhart hits the nail, that all ideas and conceptions of God are seen as idols, in 'The Cloud' seen as obstacles.
But also for the mystics, God is not a thing in the universe, but a dissolution of normal consciousness, so that there is One, or if you like, None. In other words, normal ego-consciousness has gone.
Well, the Eastern religions have gone further than this, saying that belief itself is nonsense, since it depends on dualism (self/other dualism). There are probably a few Christians who dare to say this.
I think you are right that there is nothing left to believe in, but on the other hand, there are many symbols for this emptiness/fullness, or whatever you call it. I don't know whether this is atheism or not. In Zen, they say that hell isn't punishment, but just training! I like it.
And I know that Gonners likes this, so here goes, no-thing, no-Gonners, no-Wigginhall, no-God.
-
Dear Bramble,
I will try to clarify my position ( mine ).
My journey is on going, I once prayed to God, but I no longer do that, I pray to Our Lord Jesus, Our Lord gives me something tangible, the Cross gives me a symbol.
I can say positive things about God, for me, He/She/It is persistent, persistent in my life, but when it comes to Jesus I feel on firmer ground, I have the Gospels, Our Lords teachings his message, everytime I study the Gospels ( study, not just read ) my belief, my faith is reaffirmed.
Gonners
Aren't you just a little bothered by the clear discrepancy of Jesus being portrayed as an apocalyptic prophet with an essentially Jewish message, and other areas where he is described as having a message for the whole world? (I reject the latter texts as add-ons, however noble they may sound)
What I get from Jesus is an example of courage, from someone who had a message of non-violence and forgiveness. These things are all wholesome, whatever else one might think about him. But I'd hardly call it 'firm ground', if you're after immutable, divine truth.
-
I don't know whether this is atheism or not. In Zen, they say that hell isn't punishment, but just training! I like it.
And I know that Gonners likes this, so here goes, no-thing, no-Gonners, no-Wigginhall, no-God.
On the other hand, "before Abraham was, I AM". Or perhaps "we weren't" - and I don't think that's the royal we.
-
On the other hand, "before Abraham was, I AM". Or perhaps "we weren't" - and I don't think that's the royal we.
Yes, quite a lot of people crow-bar Jesus into the ranks of the mystics; it's not difficult to do it. The idea of pre-existence, the stuff about lilies, and so on, and giving up attachment. I think it's religion that messes everything up.
-
Yes, quite a lot of people crow-bar Jesus into the ranks of the mystics; it's not difficult to do it. The idea of pre-existence, the stuff about lilies, and so on, and giving up attachment. I think it's religion that messes everything up.
'Take no thought for the morrow' or 'store up treasure in heaven'? Now those two ideas have scrambled a few heads. Maybe from the mystic's point of view they're one and the same?
-
Christ is the way to have the truth verified. If you have never tried it you cannot make that statement.
Yet again Sass, how can you or anyone else possibly know; why can't you see that you would have to go back to the root of the things you believe in and be able to provide verifiable evidence for the very root of your belief first before you can make any declarations about them as facts, something you have never done, all you do is keep on making assertions?
ippy
-
'Take no thought for the morrow' or 'store up treasure in heaven'? Now those two ideas have scrambled a few heads. Maybe from the mystic's point of view they're one and the same?
I think so. But for many Christians, this is a massive alteration to the teachings of Christ, who after all, at times, recommended adherence to Jewish law also.
There are some New Age Christians who have these ideas, but I suppose they are marginal. If you're going to go mystical, it's probably more exciting to investigate Buddhism, Sufism, advaita, etc. I'm too old and tired now, it's quite nice to listen to the cricket, without worrying about who I am.
-
Wiggs et al,
First, thanks to the last few posters here - enjoyable reading from all. As for:
I think you are right that there is nothing left to believe in, but on the other hand, there are many symbols for this emptiness/fullness, or whatever you call it. I don't know whether this is atheism or not. In Zen, they say that hell isn't punishment, but just training! I like it.
Well, my atheism at least is bewilderment at the loopiness of the claims of most theists here and at the awfulness of the arguments they attempt to validate those claims. The emptiness/fullness idea is more nuanced though (Sam Harris essays similar territory) where I struggle more just to understand what it's supposed to mean. Call me a feet of clay materialist, but I'm quite relaxed at the idea of letterbox reality - we shape the world according to our ability to perceive it whereas, if our eyes could see like scanning electron microscopes, then it would appear to be entirely different, and maybe our parochial sense of separateness would disappear. If "we" are just clumps of consciousness emerging from but inextricably bound to a universal field of matter and forces then fine and dandy by me.
Whence though the mystical stuff rather than just the recognition that's it's all more nuanced than we know or, possibly, can know? Why in other words presume the non-material?
-
Gonners
Aren't you just a little bothered by the clear discrepancy of Jesus being portrayed as an apocalyptic prophet with an essentially Jewish message, and other areas where he is described as having a message for the whole world? (I reject the latter texts as add-ons, however noble they may sound)
What I get from Jesus is an example of courage, from someone who had a message of non-violence and forgiveness. These things are all wholesome, whatever else one might think about him. But I'd hardly call it 'firm ground', if you're after immutable, divine truth.
I don't think Gonners bothers himself about the biblical Jesus in that sort of detail, to him the symbolic Jesus preaches all that's good and how we should behave towards one another. I like that kind of belief.
-
Dear JJ,
Symbolic Jesus, yes I like that, the essence of Jesus, cheers.
Gonnagle.
-
I do too john and, though I always want to know the Biblical Jesus, I believe Gonnagles' attitude is not only good but 100% acceptable - and should be acceptable to all Christians. Rose said something earlier along the lines of us all needing/having to work out our own journey, which I thought was spot on. Gonners is the sort of Christian who inspires others, would that there were more like him. I expect he's blushing now so I'll shut up and talk about something else, haven't thought of what yet.
-
I do too john and, though I always want to know the Biblical Jesus, I believe Gonnagles' attitude is not only good but 100% acceptable - and should be acceptable to all Christians. Rose said something earlier along the lines of us all needing/having to work out our own journey, which I thought was spot on. Gonners is the sort of Christian who inspires others, would that there were more like him. I expect he's blushing now so I'll shut up and talk about something else, haven't thought of what yet.
A shame your post is still suggestive of ''Good christian'' ''bad christian''.
I don't know what is meant by symbolic Jesus.....Does it mean he was neither real nor risen?
-
You know what I mean Vlad. Jesus is real but it is important to know and try to embody the essence of Jesus. There are good and bad Christians in the sense that there are good and bad people, most are a mixture.
-
Dear Vlad,
Aye!! That's right, wasn't real, wasn't Risen, some times old son you would drive a Saint to drink :-\
Dear Brownie,
Cheers, but I am not all wonderful, right now I am skiving work and having a smoke, straight to hell for me.
Gonnagle.
-
Essence of Jesus - the new fragrance range by Nicky Gumbel.
-
Essence of Jesus - the new fragrance range by Nicky Gumbel.
Blimey I bet that would stink. They didn't have showers and deodorants in those far off days, LOL!
-
Dear Bramble,
I will try to clarify my position ( mine ).
My journey is on going, I once prayed to God, but I no longer do that, I pray to Our Lord Jesus, Our Lord gives me something tangible, the Cross gives me a symbol.
I can say positive things about God, for me, He/She/It is persistent, persistent in my life, but when it comes to Jesus I feel on firmer ground, I have the Gospels, Our Lords teachings his message, everytime I study the Gospels ( study, not just read ) my belief, my faith is reaffirmed.
Glad you asked, it was Karen Armstrong who put me on to "walk the walk first" God comes later, so if I see an atheist walking the walk I think, God can do the rest.
For me, God does not want all this worship nonsense, he wants his children to live in peace and harmony, when we do that, we then all truly worship God.
Does that help :o :o
Gonnagle.
Thanks for that. It turns out you were being too modest; you do know what you mean when you say God, at least to the extent that your God is some kind of being who wants peace and harmony. Perhaps as a Christian you took that for granted, although there are Christians who don't understand God in this way. Anyway, I know where you're coming from now :)
-
Blimey I bet that would stink. They didn't have showers and deodorants in those far off days, LOL!
I was thinking more of the cloying aroma of a man who thinks he exudes Jesus Christ.
-
Dear Bramble,
Thanks for that. It turns out you were being too modest; you do know what you mean when you say God, at least to the extent that your God is some kind of being who wants peace and harmony. Perhaps as a Christian you took that for granted, although there are Christians who don't understand God in this way. Anyway, I know where you're coming from now :)
You know where I am coming from, any chance you could explain it to me :o :o
Perhaps as a Christian you took that for granted
No it took me a long time to come to the concussion that I should stop fussing over God and ask, what is it for, what does God want from me and I will admit it was only after reading Karen Armstrong's " A History of the Bible " that I discovered that one simple little truth, God want us all to live in Peace and Harmony, he wants us to Love our Neighbour, feed the Poor, show real compassion, real empathy.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bramble,
You know where I am coming from, any chance you could explain it to me :o :o
No it took me a long time to come to the concussion that I should stop fussing over God and ask, what is it for, what does God want from me and I will admit it was only after reading Karen Armstrong's " A History of the Bible " that I discovered that one simple little truth, God want us all to live in Peace and Harmony, he wants us to Love our Neighbour, feed the Poor, show real compassion, real empathy.
Armstrong obviously hasn't read the Bible if she believes that to be the case. The deeds attributed to god aren't going to encourage peace and harmony.
-
Dear Floo,
My first chuckle of the day, thank you ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Armstrong obviously hasn't read the Bible if she believes that to be the case. The deeds attributed to god aren't going to encourage peace and harmony.
I'd have thought you would have read some of Karen Armstrong's books floo, they are extremely interesting. She is somewhat controversial but there's no doubt she has not only read but studied the Bible extensively. Not exclusively, she is a well rounded scholar. Not everyone's cup of tea but I've enjoyed her writings and I think you would.
When I was talking about the essence of Jesus I wasn't meaning any physical essence, I'd have thought people would have realised that. Wish I hadn't said it.
-
I'd have thought you would have read some of Karen Armstrong's books floo, they are extremely interesting. She is somewhat controversial but there's no doubt she has not only read but studied the Bible extensively. Not exclusively, she is a well rounded scholar. Not everyone's cup of tea but I've enjoyed her writings and I think you would.
When I was talking about the essence of Jesus I wasn't meaning any physical essence, I'd have thought people would have realised that. Wish I hadn't said it.
I have read some of her writings and was not impressed at all.
-
Dear Brownie,
When I was talking about the essence of Jesus I wasn't meaning any physical essence, I'd have thought people would have realised that. Wish I hadn't said it.
I got it, but Floo and Rhiannons ramblings sent me off on a little, Perfume of religion thing, seems that some early Christians had a downer on the use of scent/perfume in religious worship, far to pagan for some :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Brownie,
Cheers, but I am not all wonderful, right now I am skiving work and having a smoke, straight to hell for me.
Gonnagle.
Hee hee, I used to do that. There was a ''smoking area'', people would congregate from all over the building. A very friendly place and good for making contacts.
Floo, all a matter of taste when it comes to reading.
-
I am about halfway through 'sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. I am not keen on the rather abrasive way it is written, but as he points out human civilisation, particularly in very large groups, adheres because of humanly created myths, and of what is an imagined order, and most definitely not because of
any god or something.
Gonnagle - I think it was you who recommended this a while ago?
-
Dear Floo,
My first chuckle of the day, thank you ;)
Gonnagle.
OH DEAR ?!!?? Yet ANOTHER here who cherrypicks & conveniently ignores all the 'bad bits' in the Bible !?!?! ;) ;) ::) ::)
-
Dear Bramble,
You know where I am coming from, any chance you could explain it to me :o :o
No it took me a long time to come to the concussion that I should stop fussing over God and ask, what is it for, what does God want from me and I will admit it was only after reading Karen Armstrong's " A History of the Bible " that I discovered that one simple little truth, God want us all to live in Peace and Harmony, he wants us to Love our Neighbour, feed the Poor, show real compassion, real empathy.
Gonnagle.
Having seen some of the bad bits that are morally terrible in the bible. How did you come to that conclusion.
Is keeping slaves showing real compassion?
-
Dear Brownie,
I got it, but Floo and Rhiannons ramblings sent me off on a little, Perfume of religion thing, seems that some early Christians had a downer on the use of scent/perfume in religious worship, far to pagan for some :o :o
Gonnagle.
I got it too. For me it was a play on words, nothing more.
-
BR,
Having seen some of the bad bits that are morally terrible in the bible. How did you come to that conclusion.
Is keeping slaves showing real compassion?
It's yer common-or-garden projection isn't it? Gonners is fundamentally a nice guy so he projects peace and love onto his god; TW on the other hand is a nasty piece of work, so that's the character he projects onto his god. 'twas ever thus with gods - their proponents create them according their preferences pretty much across cultures I'd have thought.
Of course that says nothing to why you need to come up with gods in the first place rather than just, say, "the universe' other than perhaps than that you need a sentient being of some sort to hold these positions.
-
I think the type of god a person believes in very much reflects their personality.
-
Dear Berational,
Armstrong focus's on the pivotal points in the Old Testament, namely the Prophets and the times that the Jews were having a bad time, why they were having a bad time, what was going on at that time, the story she unfolds ( through meticulous research ) could be projected to this century, the Jews got bogged down in politics, forgot about helping the poor, the needy, loving their neighbour.
And you really have a downer on Biblical slavery, get over it!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Armstrong focus's on the pivotal points in the Old Testament, namely the Prophets and the times that the Jews were having a bad time, why they were having a bad time, what was going on at that time, the story she unfolds ( through meticulous research ) could be projected to this century, the Jews got bogged down in politics, forgot about helping the poor, the needy, loving their neighbour.
And you really have a downer on Biblical slavery, get over it!
Gonnagle.
You are correct is saying that I have a downer of slavery.
Don't you?
Does it no make you think, that this god of yours does NOT have a downer on slavery, and is happy for one human to OWN another, and can beat that slave so badly that it is not a problem if they die as a result a few days later.
Don't you have a downer on that.
-
Dear Blue,
It's yer common-or-garden projection isn't it? Gonners is fundamentally a nice guy so he projects peace and love onto his god; TW on the other hand is a nasty piece of work, so that's the character he projects onto his god. 'twas ever thus with gods - their proponents create them according their preferences pretty much across cultures I'd have thought.
And that is a very feasible hypothesis, if I thought for one moment my God was a Floo or TW God then I would be asking Susan for a NSS badge, but no, reading Armstrong, who covers all religions, researched them meticulously, almost all religions, right from their very start, preached compassion, empathy, Love thy Neighbour, helping the poor, so pretty much across cultures, all cultures, they all had that theme running through them, no difference, compassion, empathy, Love Thy Neighbour, helping the poor runs through them all.
And me as a Christian, when I read the Gospels, they all shine through, but don't just take my word for it, ask a follower of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucius, Sikhism, they will all tell you that these qualities are at the heart of their religion, why is that? why do all religions hold these things in such high esteem? I know why, you might have a scientific answer, but it is still God.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Yes I have a downer on modern day slavery, but you want me to judge someone who lived thousands of years ago, God did not condone slavery, man did.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Yes I have a downer on modern day slavery, but you want me to judge someone who lived thousands of years ago, God did not condone slavery, man did.
Gonnagle.
NO that is NOT correct.
Your god condones slavery in the bible. Have you read it?
-
Dear Berational,
Yes I have a downer on modern day slavery, but you want me to judge someone who lived thousands of years ago, God did not condone slavery, man did.
Gonnagle.
That's exactly how I see it, Gonners. It was humans who wrote all those stories and laid down all the stupid rules in the Bible, they each portrayed their particular kind of deity to reflect their own personality. Organised religion is to blame for the Biblical stories about slavery and all the nasty behaviour that Floo talks about, not belief in a god.
The need that so many of our fellow humans have for a spiritual father figure is universal. You find it in every continent - and even in Brazilian jungles where no theist has ever set foot. I think it's a throw back to our early childhood, good or bad, where our parents and carers were, to us, all powerful and yet loving (or in some cases, hating) and that stays with all of us to a greater or lesser extent.
So to berate a Christian for the bad things in the Bible is very wrong. If they relish the bad, as some do, then we should condemn them ... but those that only look for the good things - cherry pick, if you like - should be respected for their humanity, as I do you and Brownie, Gonners.
-
That's exactly how I see it, Gonners. It was humans who wrote all those stories and laid down all the stupid rules in the Bible, they each portrayed their particular kind of deity to reflect their own personality. Organised religion is to blame for the Biblical stories about slavery and all the nasty behaviour that Floo talks about, not belief in a god.
The need that so many of our fellow humans have for a spiritual father figure is universal. You find it in every continent - and even in Brazilian jungles where no theist has ever set foot. I think it's a throw back to our early childhood, good or bad, where our parents and carers were, to us, all powerful and yet loving (or in some cases, hating) and that stays with all of us to a greater or lesser extent.
So to berate a Christian for the bad things in the Bible is very wrong. If they relish the bad, as some do, then we should condemn them ... but those that only look for the good things - cherry pick, if you like - should be respected for their humanity, as I do you and Brownie, Gonners.
So you think the bible has nothing to do with a god, and is just humans.
I agree.
-
I think the type of god a person believes in very much reflects their personality.
What a thought :D. My God must have headaches, be insomniac, nervous, forget which day of the week it is and lose his glasses regularly. Nice with it of course.
Now IF you believed in God, what would he/she be like?
jjjohnjil: The need that so many of our fellow humans have for a spiritual father figure is universal. You find it in every continent - and even in Brazilian jungles where no theist has ever set foot. I think it's a throw back to our early childhood, good or bad, where our parents and carers were, to us, all powerful and yet loving (or in some cases, hating) and that stays with all of us to a greater or lesser extent.
That is so very true and is something I often ponder, alongside the sense that ''grownups are always right''; even if a lot of the 'grown ups' were awful, that idea stays in many peoples's subconscious well into adulthood.
-
Gonners,
And that is a very feasible hypothesis, if I thought for one moment my God was a Floo or TW God then I would be asking Susan for a NSS badge, but no, reading Armstrong, who covers all religions, researched them meticulously, almost all religions, right from their very start, preached compassion, empathy, Love thy Neighbour, helping the poor, so pretty much across cultures, all cultures, they all had that theme running through them, no difference, compassion, empathy, Love Thy Neighbour, helping the poor runs through them all.
I haven't read KA but I've heard her on the radio a few times - seems very nice, but every time I find I wan't to throw a flowerpot at the damn thing because she seems to me to make such logical mis-steps and unwarranted claims. Anyways...
...yup, no doubt lots of religions do include these things (though I suspect, like Christianity, they contain darker stuff too about, for example, what'll happen to you if you break the rules or pick the wrong god). Does that mean that they've all identified a benign god (or gods) though, or does it merely reflect their mapping of human characteristics of solidarity, co-operation etc onto whichever gods they've come up with? "Here's behaviour that works and we want to encourage, so let's make it our god's plan too" kind of thing - which after all requires fewer assumptions than the actual god hypothesis.
And me as a Christian, when I read the Gospels, they all shine through, but don't just take my word for it, ask a follower of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucius, Sikhism, they will all tell you that these qualities are at the heart of their religion, why is that? why do all religions hold these things in such high esteem? I know why, you might have a scientific answer, but it is still God.
I don't know about "scientific" - anthropological perhaps though: tribes that flourish work together for common success; those behaviours become thereby morally good; gods are arbiters of moral good; therefore that's what gods want - a virtuous circle provided you ignore the nasty stuff that' also attributed to these gods.
-
So you think the bible has nothing to do with a god, and is just humans.
I agree.
Of course it's just humans. Look at the great medieval cathedrals and bishops palaces, those professed as being in communication with God lived the life of Riley while the peasants scraped along in their hovels!
Religion is all about power, it has nothing whatsoever to do with any god. It merely exploits the natural feelings of the masses that 'something up there' controls everything.
Decent Christians read the Bible for the stuff that inspires them and comforts them. The nastier type look for anything that threatens everyone except themselves - Kidding themselves they are fireproof, for some arrogantly ridiculous reason.
-
BR,
It's yer common-or-garden projection isn't it? Gonners is fundamentally a nice guy so he projects peace and love onto his god; TW on the other hand is a nasty piece of work, so that's the character he projects onto his god. 'twas ever thus with gods - their proponents create them according their preferences pretty much across cultures I'd have thought.
Of course that says nothing to why you need to come up with gods in the first place rather than just, say, "the universe' other than perhaps than that you need a sentient being of some sort to hold these positions.
I think people feel something - awe, wonder, even something akin to love - and call it 'God'. That's why.
-
Dear Blue,
Don't know anything about Mis steps or unwarranted claims but her CV is impeccable, this why the UN, UNICEF, Prime Ministers, world leaders turn to her for advice on religious matters, it is why high profile atheists shy away from debating with her, Dawkins being one who refused her offer.
There is no woo in her writing, she cites all the greats in history to make her point, Aristotle, Plato, Jung, Freud, Confucius, Budda, she angers Christians with thoughts like, The Road to Damascus could just have been spiritual experience, God is a kind of after thought, she delve more into the human psyche, her books are well worth a read.
Gonnagle.
-
Likewise, one could say - have you tried the Muslim way ? if you have never tried it you cannot make that statement
Not at all.... Had you been educated in religion there is no way of proving that religion to ourselves or others.
So the Muslim way has nothing to try that would tell you as Christ, whether it is true or not. A relatively new religion by all accounts. God said he would make the descendants of Ishmael a mighty nation not a new religion.
So far Mahomet claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael but there has not been any proof of such.
-
Not at all.... Had you been educated in religion there is no way of proving that religion to ourselves or others.
So the Muslim way has nothing to try that would tell you as Christ, whether it is true or not. A relatively new religion by all accounts. God said he would make the descendants of Ishmael a mighty nation not a new religion.
So far Mahomet claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael but there has not been any proof of such.
I haven't 'tried' Islam either, I am merely pointing up that the claims you make about 'trying' christianity sound similar to the claims made by muslims; I often hear it said that its truth is revealed through practice - daily prayers, prostrations, recitations of Qur'an, going on haaj, it is by making these things part of the ongoing fabric of your life that one can come to know the mind of god. Neither faith- christianity or islam - is really about empirical enquiry or epistemic truth, they are really more about immersion in a god centered way of life that works for individuals within their broader social and cultural context.
-
I am about halfway through 'sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. I am not keen on the rather abrasive way it is written, but as he points out human civilisation, particularly in very large groups, adheres because of humanly created myths, and of what is an imagined order, and most definitely not because of
any god or something.
Gonnagle - I think it was you who recommended this a while ago?
He's the guy who says there will be billions of humans who are ''useless''. That's secular thinking for you.
-
He's the guy who says there will be billions of humans who are ''useless''. That's secular thinking for you.
Where's the evidence for this assertion?
-
Where's the evidence for this assertion?
It's his book. He says that the main secular indices, economic prospects, welfare spend, employability, contribution to society is what renders these billions ''useless.''
SusanDoris seems to be reviewing the book, let's see what she says.
-
It's his book.
Not good enough. Amazon tells me that it's a book of 512 pages - simply waving your hands airily and saying "It's in his book" doesn't cut it. What's the exact quote wherein he says, as you have claimed, there will be billions of humans who are useless? Where in his book does he say what you think he has said? Provide the quote, with particular reference to the word 'useless.'
SusanDoris seems to be reviewing the book, let's see what she says.
Indeed. I'm eagerly awaiting SD's report to see if it tallies with what you, for goodness only knows what reason, imagine he's said.
I won't be putting money on it, though.
-
I think people feel something - awe, wonder, even something akin to love - and call it 'God'. That's why.
The idea of 'God' might have started the other way round. What is lacking in a person's life he might seek to invoke. If it's love then God is Love, if it's truth then God is Truth, if it's power then God is Power, if it's peace then God is Peace, if it's luck then a God of Fortune and so on.
-
Gonners,
Don't know anything about Mis steps or unwarranted claims but her CV is impeccable, this why the UN, UNICEF, Prime Ministers, world leaders turn to her for advice on religious matters...
So was Billy Graham.
...,it is why high profile atheists shy away from debating with her, Dawkins being one who refused her offer.
Are you sure about that? RD has debated theists widely, and he makes the point that in general those who ask for the debate will gain a lot more from the publicity than he will gain from the argument. I suspect that KA would at least observe the rules of debate, but I don't know whether or why they haven't engaged.
There is no woo in her writing, she cites all the greats in history to make her point, Aristotle, Plato, Jung, Freud, Confucius, Budda, she angers Christians with thoughts like, The Road to Damascus could just have been spiritual experience, God is a kind of after thought, she delve more into the human psyche, her books are well worth a read.
It'd be unfair to comment because I haven't read her - I'll try to look some out though. As I said, when I've heard her though while I didn't doubt her scholarship I remember thinking that her underlying assumptions were suspect. Again I'd have to be more specific rather than just throw out citation-free accusations and walk away Trollboy style, but it'll take me a while. Desert Island Discs maybe?
-
Dear Blue,
Are you sure about that? RD has debated theists widely, and he makes the point that in general those who ask for the debate will gain a lot more from the publicity than he will gain from the argument. I suspect that KA would at least observe the rules of debate, but I don't know whether or why they haven't engaged.
Very sure, and I can sympathise with Dawkins on the why he doesn't want to debate with Armstrong, the amount of times I have posted on here, thinking to myself, I am wonderful, this post of mine is the bee's knee's and then some highly intelligent, well educated bloody know it all comes along and leaves me licking my wounds ;) ;) This is Armstrong, she knows her subject inside out, back to front and she does it from a stand point of someone who you can't pin down as a believer or non believer.
If you do want to dip your toes into her writing I would suggest "A Short History of Myth" or "In The Beginning" both are small books which you can read in an afternoon, In The Beginning is a cracker, Noah, a totally dysfunctional character who in the end takes to the drink, Gods choice of men has to be questioned :o
Gonnagle.
-
I do not recall having so far in 'sapiens' heard the idea that billions will be useless!! As it's an audio book, it is difficult to track back and find particular paragraphs etc, but from now on I will pay attention for that. His slightly abrasive, a bit chip-on-shoulder style continues but the content is well worth listening to.
As far as KA is concerned, I gave up reading her work after two or three books, because her, presumably, conscious effort to remain impartial, even neutral, on the subject of her own belief was irritating to say the least. In a way, her determination not to get off the fence was a tad patronising. I certainly would not bother to have any of her work as a talking book nowadays.
-
Not good enough. Amazon tells me that it's a book of 512 pages - simply waving your hands airily and saying "It's in his book" doesn't cut it. What's the exact quote wherein he says, as you have claimed, there will be billions of humans who are useless? Where in his book does he say what you think he has said? Provide the quote, with particular reference to the word 'useless.'
Indeed. I'm eagerly awaiting SD's report to see if it tallies with what you, for goodness only knows what reason, imagine he's said.
I won't be putting money on it, though.
I think Vlad's distorting the truth. Again.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/20/silicon-assassins-condemn-humans-life-useless-artificial-intelligence
-
Dear Susan,
That brought a smile to my face, when I was contemplating recommending a book to old Blue, I thought, this is like me reading Dawkins Delusion, Blue would be filling the air with expletives, shouts of "oh you bloody well think so" but one of the reasons I like Armstrong's writing is her background, Roman Catholic up bringing, becoming a Nun, walking away from her faith, finding it shallow, becoming an atheist, but being left with the thought there must be more to it than this, then her journey through all faiths and for me she found the core of what it is all about.
Gonnagle.
-
You've told me something I didn't know Gonnagle. That she is an atheist. I read books written by her but that was years ago; though she walked away from the convent and left the Catholic faith behind I had no idea she had completely lost faith, I just thought her faith had changed, evolved if you like. Something which happens to a lot of us.
-
She's not an atheist - she calls herself a "freelance monotheist."
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Thanks for the link, and I think I should go out and buy this book, our rush to become small gods, yep!! that's us, we are all doomed, doomed I tell you ??? ???
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Shaker,
She's not an atheist - she calls herself a "freelance theist."
Correct but from what I have read she did lose her faith and did admit to one time being an atheist, but what do I know about being an atheist, what is a real atheist, you are a atheist, but I read some of your posts and think, atheist my erky ;) ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Gonnagle
What makes you think she is a scholar?
I just read an article from the American thinker and they say she is not a scholar.
They say
Armstrong does not perform original research in original languages. She does not publish with university presses. Armstrong is a popularizer, that is, she reads original research by real scholars, digests it, and presents her digested version to the public.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/11/karen_armstrong_is_wrong_wrong_wrong_on_bill_maher.html#ixzz49I7U32u5
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
-
I haven't 'tried' Islam either, I am merely pointing up that the claims you make about 'trying' christianity sound similar to the claims made by muslims; I often hear it said that its truth is revealed through practice - daily prayers, prostrations, recitations of Qur'an, going on haaj, it is by making these things part of the ongoing fabric of your life that one can come to know the mind of god. Neither faith- christianity or islam - is really about empirical enquiry or epistemic truth, they are really more about immersion in a god centered way of life that works for individuals within their broader social and cultural context.
I think you are misrepresenting what you believe about Muslim with what Christ actually says:
There is no connection and it cannot be deemed the same thing.
Christ says " If you obey my commandments and keep my words you will know the truth and if the words he speaks comes from himself or God. In fact God will with Christ reveal themselves to the individual.
Islam makes NO SUCH PROMISE.
So you are deliberately misrepresenting something else to mean the same as Christ and God revealing themselves.
NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. So you cannot use what you have said as any kind of comparison.
-
You've told me something I didn't know Gonnagle. That she is an atheist. I read books written by her but that was years ago; though she walked away from the convent and left the Catholic faith behind I had no idea she had completely lost faith, I just thought her faith had changed, evolved if you like. Something which happens to a lot of us.
Agreed. I've just looked her up on wikipedia. If there is a citation which states her atheism, I would like to see it. Seems to me she wriggles out of being clear on that.
-
Dear Berational,
Ouch!! Please never send me to that sort of stuff again, American thinker, yes I bet he is, devout Catholic, certainly sounds like it, and I am shouting at the keyboard right now, do you honestly think that we, us westerners are blameless in the 9/11 tragedy, we played no part in pushing human beings to that sort of, what!! pushed minds to the point of that human disaster, fuck me, there should be warning with such links. >:( >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Susan,
Agreed. I've just looked her up on wikipedia. If there is a citation which states her atheism, I would like to see it. Seems to me she wriggles out of being clear on that.
Now that I have calmed down, on various books by Armstrong, on the inside front cover, she admits to once being an atheist, that is allowed, or is it once a atheist always a atheist.
Gonnagle.
-
Karen Armstrong is a fellow of the Westar Institute and they class them as critical scholars. I believe that the Institute has upset many Christian traditionalists especially when they embarked upon the Jesus Seminar.
-
I do not recall having so far in 'sapiens' heard the idea that billions will be useless!! As it's an audio book, it is difficult to track back and find particular paragraphs etc, but from now on I will pay attention for that. His slightly abrasive, a bit chip-on-shoulder style continues but the content is well worth listening to.
As far as KA is concerned, I gave up reading her work after two or three books, because her, presumably, conscious effort to remain impartial, even neutral, on the subject of her own belief was irritating to say the least. In a way, her determination not to get off the fence was a tad patronising. I certainly would not bother to have any of her work as a talking book nowadays.
Harari has a section on Frankenstein scenarios near the end of his book. Also Bionic and cyborg life and the subsequent "singularity" - "when all the concepts that give meaning to our world - me, you, men, women, love, and hate - will become irrelevant".
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Obviously the current human form will become extinct over the next century, probably due to parents too frightened of being seen naked by their children. Humans will merge into a new hybrid form of life with machines - that don't need sex to reproduce but build specialized offspring for particular roles.
There still won't be any answer to the "truth question".
-
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Obviously the current human form will become extinct over the next century, probably due to parents too frightened of being seen naked by their children.
Give that man a peanut ;D
-
Dear Susan,
Now that I have calmed down, on various books by Armstrong, on the inside front cover, she admits to once being an atheist, that is allowed, or is it once a atheist always a atheist.
Gonnagle.
In that case, she wasn't a real atheist - you know, the actual, proper kind of true atheist! That is because, once one has realised that there is no god of any sort, never has been never will be, you simply cannot return to believing there is.
I'm on chapter 12 of 'sapiens' at the moment. I listened to 10 and 11today, but have to admit that I found myself dozing off here and there, so I might have missed something important! :)
-
In that case, she wasn't a real atheist - you know, the actual, proper kind of true atheist! That is because, once one has realised that there is no god of any sort, never has been never will be, you simply cannot return to believing there is.
I'm on chapter 12 of 'sapiens' at the moment. I listened to 10 and 11today, but have to admit that I found myself dozing off here and there, so I might have missed something important! :)
Ah, the No True Atheist argument......A no true Christian argument runs into problems but a No true atheist argument is atheist and therefore automatically valid.
Regarding Harare. He has talked about Useless billions in articles he has given to the press (Guardian, Korean Press) and may not have put it in Sapiens which I now understand is a history book.
That said I don't know if Harare thinks of the billions of people as being useless (That wouldn't fit with his background of being a member of two oppressed communities) but the indicators of human uselessness he uses are secular indicators meaning, I would have thought, materialist anti or irreligionists will have to come to a new understanding of human meaning and value.
-
Regarding Harare. He has talked about Useless billions in articles he has given to the press (Guardian, Korean Press) and may not have put it in Sapiens which I now understand is a history book.
... although you said that these alleged "useless billions" were in his book (#169).
I don't know if Harare thinks of the billions of people as being useless
And yet it's an opinion you decided to ascribe to him anyway (#167). I see.
That's so much backpedalling in one post it's a wonder you're not travelling back in time, Vlad ;)
-
... although you said that these alleged "useless billions" were in his book (#169).
And yet it's an opinion you decided to ascribe to him anyway (#167). I see.
That's so much backpedalling in one one post it's a wonder you're not travelling back in time, Vlad ;)
Apparently they are just in his interviews to the press. (The guardian, Koreapress). And yes he talks about Useless billions.......Them being Useless in terms of secular indicators.
-
I think you are misrepresenting what you believe about Muslim with what Christ actually says:
There is no connection and it cannot be deemed the same thing.
Christ says " If you obey my commandments and keep my words you will know the truth and if the words he speaks comes from himself or God. In fact God will with Christ reveal themselves to the individual.
Islam makes NO SUCH PROMISE.
So you are deliberately misrepresenting something else to mean the same as Christ and God revealing themselves.
NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. So you cannot use what you have said as any kind of comparison.
At some level it comes down to the same thing, or so it seems to me. The scriptures might not be identical, the cultures vary, for sure, but the underlying formula is similar - Jews respect the Torah, Christians look to the teachings of Christ Jesus, Muslims observe the pillars of Islam to come to know the mind of God; all are recipes to deliver spiritual enlightenment of some sort or other within a particular cultural context for those so inclined. Any talk of 'my truth' or 'your truth' implies a subjective context at play.
-
At some level it comes down to the same thing, or so it seems to me. The scriptures might not be identical, the cultures vary, for sure, but the underlying formula is similar - Jews respect the Torah, Christians look to the teachings of Christ Jesus, Muslims observe the pillars of Islam to come to know the mind of God; all are recipes to deliver spiritual enlightenment of some sort or other within a particular cultural context for those so inclined. Any talk of 'my truth' or 'your truth' implies a subjective context at play.
The problem with this argument is that both Islam and Judaism were originally aimed at a specific cultural and even ethinic grouping. This was never the case with Christianity. It was cross-cultural and non-ethnic specific from the very start.
-
The problem with this argument is that both Islam and Judaism were originally aimed at a specific cultural and even ethinic grouping. This was never the case with Christianity. It was cross-cultural and non-ethnic specific from the very start.
I'm not sure about 'from the very start', in that Jesus had his Jewish audience in mind and was more a reformer of Judaism than an instigator of a new religion. It was others coming later, notably Paul and John, who broadened the project out to gentiles and Romans.
Islam contains analagous sentiments suggesting universal ethnic-independent applicability - 'all people are muslims' for instance, just that most people don't know it, having been misled by false teachings. Thus we find muslims in all parts of the world now, not just Arabia
-
she admits to once being an atheist, that is allowed, or is it once a atheist always a atheist.
No true atheist would lapse back to theism.
-
This was never the case with Christianity. It was cross-cultural and non-ethnic specific from the very start.
What a load of bollocks.
Jesus never left his homeland. His idea of cross-culturalism was to claim that the Samaritans weren't all that bad.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
No true atheist would lapse back to theism.
Nah!! Sorry not buying that, last time I looked atheists are human, no really they are :P
Gonnagle.
-
What a load of bollocks.
Jesus never left his homeland. His idea of cross-culturalism was to claim that the Samaritans weren't all that bad.
Yeh, but it was pretty cosmopolitan around there at that time...and under Roman Occupation.
-
She's not an atheist - she calls herself a "freelance monotheist."
You call yourself an atheist pantheist.
-
You call yourself an atheist pantheist.
News to me.
-
...materialist anti or irreligionists will have to come to a new understanding of human meaning and value.
We are always having to update and improve our understanding of human value,but can you define what you think this should be?
As far as 'human meaning'' is concerned, that is of course each human's individual choice.
-
Dear Vlad,
The man is an atheist, 100% dyed in the wool atheist, but ( and it's a big but ) he is also human, which makes him a religious and a spiritual creature, same as me and you, there is a wee part within him and all atheists which says, hang on, is my thinking right, am I missing something, it's there, a little itch that they just can't reach to scratch, forums like this help, they can shout at us, it helps ease the irritation.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
The man is an atheist, 100% dyed in the wool atheist, but ( and it's a big but ) he is also human, which makes him a religious and a spiritual creature, same as me and you, there is a wee part within him and all atheists which says, hang on, is my thinking right, am I missing something, it's there, a little itch that they just can't reach to scratch, forums like this help, they can shout at us, it helps ease the irritation.
Gonnagle.
Spot on as usual Mr G.
-
Nah!! Sorry not buying that, last time I looked atheists are human, no really they are :P
Gonnagle.
Hey Wee Free.. what if you never had a religion in the first place. How would you categorise them?
-
Gonners,
Nah!! Sorry not buying that, last time I looked atheists are human, no really they are :P
I think perhaps that Torri was making an ironic play on the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
-
The man is an atheist, 100% dyed in the wool atheist, but ( and it's a big but ) he is also human, which makes him a religious and a spiritual creature....
How do you know?
-
Gonners,
The man is an atheist, 100% dyed in the wool atheist, but ( and it's a big but ) he is also human, which makes him a religious and a spiritual creature, same as me and you, there is a wee part within him and all atheists which says, hang on, is my thinking right, am I missing something, it's there, a little itch that they just can't reach to scratch, forums like this help, they can shout at us, it helps ease the irritation.
Doubt - or uncertainty - is the first of Bertrand Russell's principles posted earlier and in my view it's the most important. Would that more of the religious allowed for the possibility at least of no god(s).
Allowing for the possibility of being wrong though does not make you a card-carrying member of the religious, the "spiritual" etc.
-
Would that more of the religious allowed for the possibility at least of no god(s).
There is no evidence that any antitheist has been made any better a person for holding that view.
-
Dear Farmer,
Hey Wee Free.. what if you never had a religion in the first place. How would you categorise them?
I think the point is, religious = human.
Dear Blue,
I thunk perhaps that Torri was making an ironic play on the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Jeremyp old chap.
Dear Stranger,
How do you know?
Oh! you know, little hints, like history, science, stuff like that ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Jeremyp old chap.
Quite right too - my apologies to both. The point though stands.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Nah!! Sorry not buying that, last time I looked atheists are human, no really they are :P
Gonnagle.
Good. I can tell that to all the Christians who say tell me I was never a true Christian.
-
Yeh, but it was pretty cosmopolitan around there at that time...and under Roman Occupation.
And yet, when you point that out to some Christians by telling them their religion has quite a lot of Greek influence in it, they try to deny it.
-
Gonners,
PS - While I here Im listening to Karen Armstrong on Desert Island Discs play again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0093vvb
You'd enjoy it I think. The music's good, she's a good speaker and I've only rolled my eyes in despair twice ;)
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Good. I can tell that to all the Christians who say tell me I was never a true Christian.
Go for it mate, I doubt the little band of Christians on here could come to a consensus on what a true Christian is, for me it is simple, Salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
Gonnagle.
-
Oh! you know, little hints, like history, science, stuff like that ;)
You made a very specific claim, that to be human made one a "religious and a spiritual creature". Now there has been an awful lot of religions in history and a lot of other superstitions as well. I'd accept that to be human means to have a tendency to be superstitious and see agency where there is none, but a "religious creature"?
Can you define exactly what you meant and in what way you think history and science back it up?
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Go for it mate, I doubt the little band of Christians on here could come to a consensus on what a true Christian is, for me it is simple, Salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
Gonnagle.
That is just a cliché.
-
Gonners,
Go for it mate, I doubt the little band of Christians on here could come to a consensus on what a true Christian is, for me it is simple, Salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
No claims that The Flintstones was a documentary?
I'm disappointed!
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Go for it mate, I doubt the little band of Christians on here could come to a consensus on what a true Christian is, for me it is simple, Salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
Gonnagle.
Penal substitution? Don't get it.
Unless you mean salvation in this world. That I do get.
-
Dear Blue,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0093vvb
Cheers mate, yer a star. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
And yet, when you point that out to some Christians by telling them there religion has quite a lot of Greek influence in it, they try to deny it.
Not sure what you mean by this.
There were certainly platonic/neoplatonic and logos thought influences on Christian theology and doctrine but then even philosophically minded church fathers saw Greek philosophy as merely a schoolmaster leading the Greek world to Christ as Moses and the prophets ultimately had led the Jewish world to Christ and Jesus as the ultimate logos or reason why the universe was so reasonable......Tertullian was able to dissociate faith and Christ even further from philosophy.
Faith in Christ is not 'a philosophy' Jeremy and so Christians keen on you having faith in Christ might want to shift you away from mere acceptance of some of the philosophy surrounding.
-
Dear Stranger,
Can you define exactly what you meant and in what way you think history and science back it up?
I will give it a bash, where to start, well us, us mere humans, religion has been with us, well when has religion not been with us, Karen Armstrong in one of her books takes it all the way back to some cave painting in France, something like 75 thousand years ago, one of the figures in these paintings has been recognised as a Shaman/Priest/Holy man, he is shown to be crying over some kind of beast that has just been killed.
Now the Myth is that these Holy men are easing the poor beast into the spiritual world, now this Myth, this thought has been backed up by studying tribes in Africa, they also cry over their prey.
That is one part of the history bit, another is, I remember posting about this back on the old Beeb, some tribe on a remote island untouched by civilisation, but they were religious, they had their own religion.
History tells us that we are religious creatures, part of what we are.
Then we have the link old Sane posted weeks ago, something about Apes showing signs of religion, they seem to have a special tree or place, so religious practice could be in us even before we began to walk upright.
The science, well dodgy ground but, I am told we are mean seeking creatures, it is what we do, why we do it? but we seem to have evolved to make sense of the world, we don't like not knowing.
We then have the scientific study that we are born believers, contentious, yes, but to me it makes perfect sense, religion is in our genes, you do something for long enough it becomes part of what we are, and is this not how evolution works, the creatures who learn to adapt to their environment survive, religion and spirituality help us survive.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
Unless you mean salvation in this world. That I do get.
Exactly, for me Christianity is about life, how we live, when yer pan bread, well that is Gods business.
Gonnagle.
-
Not sure what you mean by this.
There were certainly platonic/neoplatonic and logos thought influences on Christian theology and doctrine but then even philosophically minded church fathers saw Greek philosophy as merely a schoolmaster leading the Greek world to Christ as Moses and the prophets ultimately had led the Jewish world to Christ and Jesus as the ultimate logos or reason why the universe was so reasonable......Tertullian was able to dissociate faith and Christ even further from philosophy.
Faith in Christ is not 'a philosophy' Jeremy and so Christians keen on you having faith in Christ might want to shift you away from mere acceptance of some of the philosophy surrounding.
Ancient Greece is not synonymous with philosophy.
Christianity is a fusion of Greek mystery religion with Judaism. This should not be surprising since the World in which Christianity arose was overwhelmingly Greek in culture.
-
Ancient Greece is not synonymous with philosophy.
Christianity is a fusion of Greek mystery religion with Judaism.
In what way?
And why should that matter anyway? As the Great MrGonnagle has stated religion has been with us for a long time. Factor in the divine and we have known vaguely and universally that Christ was on his way.
But philosophy or even religion doesn't help us comprehensively with what to do with him........that is down to us.
-
Dear Vlad,
Hell!! I am wondering about this bit.
Ancient Greece is not synonymous with philosophy.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Hell!! I am wondering about this bit.
Gonnagle.
Yikes, I see what you mean.
I think it was CEM Joad who said there was Plato and then the rest is footnotes. A bit of an exaggeration but Plato was an ancient Greek as were those who can be allowed as the greats.
What worries me is that like Jeremy, the new atheists junk the philosophical heritage and concentrate on modern philosophers sympathetic with their cause. This is the kind of intellectual cherry picking that I find renders New atheism as fundamentalist. Why even greats like Marx, Sartre, De Beauvoir and Camus are left back in the changing room for being the wrong sort of atheist.....
Just mention 'existential' to Hillside and see what happens.
-
Further comment on 'Sapiens':
I do not like his assessment of what he calls three types of humanism - very negative and rather disparaging I think.
I agree with his description of homo sapiens as being able to group together in large numbers because of belief in shared myths and stories which produced the idea of gods.
-
Further comment on 'Sapiens':
I do not like his assessment of what he calls three types of humanism - very negative and rather disparaging I think.
I've just used Amazon's look inside feature to see what he says about humanism and it really is utter twaddle with jam on top.
-
Further comment on 'Sapiens':
I do not like his assessment of what he calls three types of humanism - very negative and rather disparaging I think.
I agree with his description of homo sapiens as being able to group together in large numbers because of belief in shared myths and stories which produced the idea of gods.
Thanks Susan.
On a brief reading of his Wikipedia I had him down as very much an atheist pin up boy.
I can't see how he actually supports the notion of the 'Useless Human' but is rather warning us that that will be the ultimate classification of Billions using all the Secular indicators.
I am interested that you find him disparaging of humanism.
-
In fact, I am considering stopping listening and skipping to the end!! I'll give it a couple more sections and then decide.
-
Dear Blue,
Well I wasn't stunned by her choice of music on desert island, I enjoyed the Gregorian chant and the Muslim chant was nice but the rest did nothing for me, probably me an uncultured lout :P
But a thought has been growing in my wee brain cells, the story behind, Armstrong knows the story behind her choice of music, that photo on another thread about the naked man holding the sick child, it didn't resonate until I read the story behind, Turners "The Fighting Temeraire" is beautiful but when you read the story behind it takes on a higher beauty, old warship going to the breakers yard.
What is that all about, the story behind ???
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
Well I wasn't stunned by her choice of music on desert island, I enjoyed the Gregorian chant and the Muslim chant was nice but the rest did nothing for me, probably me an uncultured lout :P
Peasant ;)
Yes, I liked those two too. Still a nice selection re the rest I thought.
But a thought has been growing in my wee brain cells, the story behind, Armstrong knows the story behind her choice of music, that photo on another thread about the naked man holding the sick child, it didn't resonate until I read the story behind, Turners "The Fighting Temeraire" is beautiful but when you read the story behind it takes on a higher beauty, old warship going to the breakers yard.
What is that all about, the story behind ???
This is resonant of the old charge that we materialists are reductionist, limited, unappreciative of the deeper things whereas that strikes me as presumptuous and arrogant: as someone once said, the flowers in the garden are no less beautiful for knowing about chlorophyll. Why in other words wouldn't knowing the story behind the immediate response enrich by adding depth and knowledge rather than diminish the experience?
-
Dear blue,
Very true, knowing the science only increases your joy, in fact it increase your wonder and awe, but I suppose us humans just love a good story, Pratchett chuntered on about it all the time, he coined the word, narratavium, we humans need a good story, maybe that is part of why I am a Christian, greatest story ever told.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear blue,
Very true, knowing the science only increases your joy, in fact it increase your wonder and awe, but I suppose us humans just love a good story, Pratchett chuntered on about it all the time, he coined the word, narratavium, we humans need a good story, maybe that is part of why I am a Christian, greatest story ever told.
Gonnagle.
I can only assume you haven't seen The Expendables.
-
Dear Vlad,
Hell!! I am wondering about this bit.
Gonnagle.
Why? It seems pretty obvious to me. I said Christianity is partly Greek in origin. Vlad immediately started waffling on about philosophy as though that is all Ancient Greece was about. First century Hellenism was vastly more than philosophy.
-
the new atheists junk the philosophical heritage
You tried to junk everything else.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Why? It seems pretty obvious to me. I said Christianity is partly Greek in origin. Vlad immediately started waffling on about philosophy as though that is all Ancient Greece was about. First century Hellenism was vastly more than philosophy.
Fair enough, you are probably more read on first century Hellenism, me, it just seems I can't pick up a science book, philosophy book without some Greek being mentioned, Achilles chasing after a tortoise, why, it's all Greek to me.
Up yours Trip ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
tortoise's what ?!?!?!?!
-
I think you are misrepresenting what you believe about Muslim with what Christ actually says:
There is no connection and it cannot be deemed the same thing.
Christ says " If you obey my commandments and keep my words you will know the truth and if the words he speaks comes from himself or God. In fact God will with Christ reveal themselves to the individual.
Islam makes NO SUCH PROMISE.
So you are deliberately misrepresenting something else to mean the same as Christ and God revealing themselves.
NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL. So you cannot use what you have said as any kind of comparison.
Sass, you really can't put the assersatron down, put it away for five minutes and explain the bit in this post of your's where you say, "Christ says", please explain, how do you know; you often say things like this and other statements of a similar nature and never offer anything that would back up these statements of yours?
Why can't you answer Sass, too embarrassing?
ippy
-
tortoise's what ?!?!?!?!
Commonly known as Zeno's paradox.
I'll get me coat.
-
Dear Blue,
Story telling, we are all just a bunch of Confabulators, don't worry, I know what I mean, it is that wee course Torridon got me interested in, very interesting stuff.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Go for it mate, I doubt the little band of Christians on here could come to a consensus on what a true Christian is, for me it is simple, Salvation through Our Lord Jesus Christ, nothing more, nothing less.
Gonnagle.
Please bear with me, I'm way behind on this thread.
I was just wondering how you reconcile this with one of your earlier posts in which you stated that what the Bible god wants from us is to love our neighbour, live in peace and harmony and be compassionate and empathic.
All of the above is in keeping with the Golden Rule and can be achieved without being a Christian.
Are you saying that accepting Jesus is greater than the Golden Rule and therefore ranks higher in the Bible god's expectations for humanity?
-
You may have noticed that I'm not Gonners, but I did used to be his side of the fence and his Christianity is that I relate to the most of the posters here.
The 'golden rule' was always what mattered most to me in terms of what I did and if you want to call it a 'requirement' then maybe it is. But salvation is what you feel you need. I stopped believing myself to be rotten with the son of Adam but more importantly I decided no just God would demand a blood price for my mistakes. I screw up, I pay, I make amends. If I can.
-
I stopped believing myself to be rotten with the son of Adam but more importantly I decided no just God would demand a blood price for my mistakes. I screw up, I pay, I make amends. If I can.
I think you are playing down the comfort afforded by adopting relative morality here which, at the end of the day allows one just to shut the door on moral issues.
-
I think you are playing down the comfort afforded by adopting relative morality here which, at the end of the day allows one just to shut the door on moral issues.
You know I do that how? Because I'm not a Christian like you?
-
You know I do that how? Because I'm not a Christian like you?
I can't see how you can say having a relative morality doesn't or couldn't relieve you of the burden of ultimate committal.
-
Committal to what?
-
I think you are playing down the comfort afforded by adopting relative morality here which, at the end of the day allows one just to shut the door on moral issues.
In what way "shut the door"?
How is it different to adopting "objective" morality without any objective means of knowing what it is?
-
Committal to what?
An actual moral position.
Rather than commitment to one a moral relativist, at the end of the day, merely likes one, or one suits him/her or he or she appreciates it.
What therefore is the difference between morals and Marmite.
-
An actual moral position on what?
-
An actual moral position on what?
On anything, anywhere at any time.
-
You may have noticed that I'm not Gonners, but I did used to be his side of the fence and his Christianity is that I relate to the most of the posters here.
The 'golden rule' was always what mattered most to me in terms of what I did and if you want to call it a 'requirement' then maybe it is. But salvation is what you feel you need. I stopped believing myself to be rotten with the son of Adam but more importantly I decided no just God would demand a blood price for my mistakes. I screw up, I pay, I make amends. If I can.
Nicely put - the idea of reciprocal kindness as espoused by the Golden Rule is surely the pinnacle of human ethics.
What can possibly be greater?
-
An actual moral position.
Rather than commitment to one a moral relativist, at the end of the day, merely likes one, or one suits him/her or he or she appreciates it.
What therefore is the difference between morals and Marmite.
-sigh-
This has been gone through in detail before and you just ran away from all the difficult questions.
Morality is (obviously) more important than Marmite.
Whether or not you think morality is objective, we are stuck with the fact that there is no objective means of discovering what is actually morally right. Hence, all our moral decisions are subjective anyway.
You also seem to be flirting with an appeal to consequences fallacy.
-
-sigh-
This has been gone through in detail before and you just ran away from all the difficult questions.
Morality is (obviously) more important than Marmite.
Whether or not you think morality is objective, we are stuck with the fact that there is no objective means of discovering what is actually morally right. Hence, all our moral decisions are subjective anyway.
You also seem to be flirting with an appeal to consequences fallacy.
That's about the size of it.
Right down to when someone attempts to demonstrate absolute morality by quoting something 'good' from their holey book........they are actually demonstrating subjective morality in that they ignore what they see as the 'bad stuff'.
-
-sigh-
This has been gone through in detail before and you just ran away from all the difficult questions.
Morality is (obviously) more important than Marmite.
Whether or not you think morality is objective, we are stuck with the fact that there is no objective means of discovering what is actually morally right. Hence, all our moral decisions are subjective anyway.
You also seem to be flirting with an appeal to consequences fallacy.
That's all very well Strange but removed from what being a moral relativist logically allows one to do or not do.
-
Dear Khatru,
Please bear with me, I'm way behind on this thread.
I was just wondering how you reconcile this with one of your earlier posts in which you stated that what the Bible god wants from us is to love our neighbour, live in peace and harmony and be compassionate and empathic.
All of the above is in keeping with the Golden Rule and can be achieved without being a Christian.
Are you saying that accepting Jesus is greater than the Golden Rule and therefore ranks higher in the Bible god's expectations for humanity?
I was talking about Christians and the fact that no two could ever agree on all the detail that make up a true Christian.
I don't think I would ever say "the Bible God" that says to me he/she/it is a Jewish or Christian God, God is everyone's God, I don't think God discriminates, in fact I don't think he favours anyone, we are all Gods children.
The Golden rule runs through nearly all religions, it is not confined to Our Lords teaching, and as I am constantly being told, Jesus was not the first to come up with this Commandment.
Are you saying that accepting Jesus is greater than the Golden Rule and therefore ranks higher in the Bible god's expectations for humanity?
To be honest I have never actually thought about it, I am not here to evangelise, not here to convert you to Christianity, if I have a mission, to simply put the thought of God in your mind, I will say if you accept Jesus into your life you better have a damned good think about the Golden Rule, this is how you worship God, so whatever your faith might be, or no faith, if you follow the Golden Rule you are worshipping God.
Gonnagle.
-
That's all very well Strange but removed from what being a moral relativist logically allows one to do or not do.
No more so than believing in objective morality but being unable to objectively determine what it is.
In practical terms we are all faced with our own moral instincts and the rules of the society we live in. If one subscribes to the view that objective morality is prescribed by some god, then there is the additional problem of untangling all the subjective opinions about what exactly said god actually requires.
It's a subjective muddle either way.
Of course, if there were a god who actually wanted us to follow some moral code, one is forced to wonder why it is being so shy about setting it out in clear and unambiguous terms or, better still, providing an objective test for "morally good" that anybody could apply to any situation...
-
Some,
No more so than believing in objective morality but being unable to objectively determine what it is.
In practical terms we are all faced with our own moral instincts and the rules of the society we live in. If one subscribes to the view that objective morality is prescribed by some god, then there is the additional problem of untangling all the subjective opinions about what exactly said god actually requires.
It's a subjective muddle either way.
Of course, if there were a god who actually wanted us to follow some moral code, one is forced to wonder why it is being so shy about setting it out in clear and unambiguous terms or, better still, providing an objective test for "morally good" that anybody could apply to any situation...
Quite so. The odd thing too for me is that those who assert objective morality but not, say, objective art appreciation have nothing but an argumentum ad consequentiamto support them: "I really, really don't like the idea that morality is a messy and imprecise mixture of intuition and reasoning so...um...it must be objective then!"
Where exactly this supposed objective morality would reside even if it did exist independent of anyone's thoughts on the matter is anyone's guess, but there it it is nonetheless. Possibly before your time here there was a poster (Alan/Alien) who gave ever more plaintive examples to do with torturing a child to death for fun that almost no-one would think to be morally good in the hope of somehow bridging the gap from a near-unanimous opinion on the matter to an objective truth. He never seemed even to comprehend the problem his approach gave him, but he clearly felt it must in some unexplained way be an objective truth despite that. Odd really.
-
Strange states that morality is more important than marmite but does not refute the moral relativists position of merely liking a moral position, or it suiting them or them just appreciating it.
There is no logical distinction therefore and no way of justifying a statement that morality is more important than ones position toward marmite.
Whatever one feels about objective morality attempts to make morality important in moral relativism is akin to turd polishing.
Practically how we behave morally is more akin to trying to get something right, trying to hit some mark.
Morality as liking is not an accurate description of what people are doing.
I'm afraid we all act like objective moralists......except of course psychos and socios.
-
There is no logical distinction therefore and no way of justifying a statement that morality is more important than ones position toward marmite.
Whatever one feels about objective morality attempts to make morality important in moral relativism is akin to turd polishing.
Drivel.
Whether people like Marmite or not has very little impact on other people's lives. Whether people find murdering, stealing and so on, acceptable or not has a very important impact on other people.
Practically how we behave morally is more akin to trying to get something right, trying to hit some mark.
Indeed; we (most people) have a sense of how we ought to behave - it's part of being human. We are social animals.
Morality as liking is not an accurate description of what people are doing.
No, but "morality as liking" is your description, not mine. I think it a significant part of human nature.
I note that, once again, you are studiously ignoring the difficulties with your own position on this. The belief that morality is objectively "out there" in some sense, is of no practical use if we can't access it in an objective way.
Neither have you addressed the point that no matter how desirable and useful you think objective morality would be, and how much you think subjective morality might be flawed, that doesn't constitute an argument that there is objective morality. Argumentum ad consequentiam remains a fallacy.
-
Drivel.
Whether people like Marmite or not has very little impact on other people's lives. Whether people find murdering, stealing and so on, acceptable or not has a very important impact on other people.
Indeed; we (most people) have a sense of how we ought to behave - it's part of being human. We are social animals.
No, but "morality as liking" is your description, not mine. I think it a significant part of human nature.
I note that, once again, you are studiously ignoring the difficulties with your own position on this. The belief that morality is objectively "out there" in some sense, is of no practical use if we can't access it in an objective way.
Neither have you addressed the point that no matter how desirable and useful you think objective morality would be, and how much you think subjective morality might be flawed, that doesn't constitute an argument that there is objective morality. Argumentum ad consequentiam remains a fallacy.
Moral relativism is ridden with all kinds of logical contradictions which you find acceptable here but wouldn't in other circumstances.
As Shania Twain would say.....that don't impress me much.
The best Hillside has is utter crap therefore.
We act as though morality is absolute.
-
... which doesn't of course mean that it actually is ::)
-
Moral relativism is ridden with all kinds of logical contradictions which you find acceptable here but wouldn't in other circumstances.
As Shania Twain would say.....that don't impress me much.
So, still ignoring the problems with your own position and sticking to the argumentum ad consequentiam...
We act as though morality is absolute.
And...?
-
We act as though morality is absolute.
We may indeed, in terms of the practicalities of getting through the average day, but it only seems that way - it doesn't take much deep thinking to realise that moral positions, however static these seem to be at any point, can and do change at both personal and social levels over time and also in response to social changes or new knowledge.
There may well be moral axioms that operate as practical absolutes (such as those involving the welfare of children), but they seem rooted in ourselves and the characteristics of our species.
-
Some,
So, still ignoring the problems with your own position and sticking to the argumentum ad consequentiam...
...as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt. We don't even need to get to Trollboy's various straw man versions of what moral relativism entails. All he's saying is, "I really don't like that" in the hope that his personal dislike will somehow magic it into objective morality.
And...?
And...because we act as though morality is absolute (another straw man incidentally: almost no-one does that as it's almost always the case that counter-arguments can be put that throw a moral decision into doubt - the trolley car situation for example) then...well...um...you know....ooh look over there, a flying horse!...ta-daaaa!...it is objective then!
See? Job done!
-
We may indeed, in terms of the practicalities of getting through the average day, but it only seems that way - it doesn't take much deep thinking to realise that moral positions, however static these seem to be at any point, can and do change at both personal and social levels over time and also in response to social changes or new knowledge.
There may well be moral axioms that operate as practical absolutes (such as those involving the welfare of children), but they seem rooted in ourselves and the characteristics of our species.
And even then people have decided that the moral thing is to exterminate the 'wrong' kind of children - after all they weren't spared the Holocaust or the Rwanda massacre.
-
Dear Khatru,
I was talking about Christians and the fact that no two could ever agree on all the detail that make up a true Christian.
That's for sure. Over the years the question of who is a true Christian has become so contested that believers have died in their thousands trying to answer it.
Strangely enough, rarely, if ever, will you hear an atheist or agnostic claim that another unbeliever is not a true atheist/agnostic.
I don't think I would ever say "the Bible God" that says to me he/she/it is a Jewish or Christian God, God is everyone's God, I don't think God discriminates, in fact I don't think he favours anyone, we are all Gods children.
Point taken, although I tend to use the term "Bible god" because it's the Bible that so many people claim is this particular deity's written/inspired word. Personally, I see nothing transcendent about the Bible, nor indeed any of the other holy books supposedly authored/inspired by the supreme cosmic mega-being.
What's more, you can see that the various people who wrote the books of the Bible also saddled their god of choice with human weaknesses and vanities like capriciousness, jealousy, rage, etc. You'd have thought the supreme cosmic creator being would be beyond such pettiness.
The Golden rule runs through nearly all religions, it is not confined to Our Lords teaching, and as I am constantly being told, Jesus was not the first to come up with this Commandment.
Yes, I'll continue to do that whenever I see someone crediting Jesus with this but not acknowledging that it originated in much earlier and quite different belief systems.
To be honest I have never actually thought about it, I am not here to evangelise, not here to convert you to Christianity, if I have a mission, to simply put the thought of God in your mind, I will say if you accept Jesus into your life you better have a damned good think about the Golden Rule, this is how you worship God, so whatever your faith might be, or no faith, if you follow the Golden Rule you are worshipping God.
Gonnagle.
I'm far from being a good example of how to live an ideal life but I'd say that in general terms I accord people the same respect I would expect to receive from them. Perhaps that's close to accepting Jesus by default but without all the magic stuff.
It's noble that your god wants us to observe the Golden Rule but it's not hard to contrast those wishes when we read of the Yaweh's behaviour as recounted in the Bible. In those pages there are examples of Yaweh instructing his followers to go out there and slaughter people in direct contravention of the Golden Rule.
Still, I accept that the deity described in the OT is not the same entity as the god you worship. Sadly, that is not the case for millions of believers who lap up every syllable in the Bible as being the divine and error free word of the supreme cosmic mega-being.
-
And even then people have decided that the moral thing is to exterminate the 'wrong' kind of children - after all they weren't spared the Holocaust or the Rwanda massacre.
Whether it's Rwanda or the Holocaust we freely and readily condemn the slaughter of men, women and children.
Our willingness to condemn such behaviour also applies when the slaughter is at the hands of an atheist like Stalin or Pol Pot.
Contrast that with believers like Sass and TW who refuse to condemn the slaughter (even of babies) when it's their deity of choice who's responsible.
Their particular brand of snake oil means they have to defend all sorts of reprehensible acts that any sane person would condemn without hesitation.
-
How those who believe the Bible to be literally true with all the ghastly deeds attributed to god, can still describe it as a 'god of love', goodness only knows.
-
YES YES YES !!!
Someone once mentioned that the 'Old Gods' were rarely as ruthless or nasty as this horrible creature is/was !!!!
-
YES YES YES !!!
Someone once mentioned that the 'Old Gods' were rarely as ruthless or nasty as this horrible creature is/was !!!!
They certainly couldn't be any worse.
-
How those who believe the Bible to be literally true with all the ghastly deeds attributed to god, can still describe it as a 'god of love', goodness only knows.
It reflects their own nature, Floo. Those who tend to be nice people believe in a nice God.
-
From Vlad's post 262:
We act as though morality is absolute.
David Bentley Hart, in his chapter 'Bliss' from his book "The Experience of God" says this.
“if we should conclude that there is no such thing as real goodness, we can certainly cease to behave in a spirit of charity, or to feel any sense of moral responsibility towards others.” In other words, he is saying that if we really do not believe in objective absolutes, which have their basis in a metaphysical objective reality, then we are incapable of moral feelings, thoughts and actions.
However, so his argument goes, by the very fact that we perceive the good and the bad, and by trying to follow the good, we inevitably believe in moral absolutes which come from this objective morality. Having your cake and eating it come to my mind!
My answer to this would be as follows:
I function according to the way nature has made me.
So, even though I know that all atoms are virtually composed of space, when I sit down, I expect and feel the material solidity of what I am sitting on. This is the way nature allows me to function in the natural world I inhabit.
Similarly, I suggest that everything I do and think is determined by cause and effect (leaving aside quantum mechanics, which may be responsible for a random element)) so that I cannot make total free will decisions. However, this does not stop me functioning in the natural world under what I consider to be the illusion of free will, because this is the way that nature intended me to act. In essence, the fact that I live my life as if free will existed is not evidence that it actually does.
In exactly the same way, I can happily maintain no actual belief in an objective morality, but act quite naturally as if I did, because this is the way I was made to function. This is my answer to Hart’s point that if we function as if morality has some objective reality, we must therefore, inescapably, believe that it has. Like most other people, I make what I consider to be moral decisions all the time and yet I have no underlying belief that morality is anything but a human concept conditional only on the fact that there are humans around to portray and act upon such attributes. The fact that I live my life as if some sort of morality actually existed is not evidence that it actually does.
I actually see morality as a human construct which attempts to deal with all manner of situations which have no intrinsic moral value in themselves. The morality we feel is based upon the need for social cohesion, driven by the qualities of empathy, compassion and altruism and and fashioned by culture, nurture and rationality. I would suggest that my personal morals are a result of these, and capable of wide interpretation given any particular 'moral' situation. I may well be ‘wrong’ on any particular instance according to others who may take a contrary and opposing view. Indeed I may even change my moral stance if I am convinced that I should do so. I try to follow what I think is reasonable 'moral' behaviour according to the view of morality that I have described.
I would suggest, that this is the way evolution has made us in order to maintain the viability of our species. If drinking tea had any strong emotional overtones such that we felt our species threatened by those who do not drink tea, then, I suggest, drinking tea would then become a clear moral issue.
For myself, ideally, when I say something is wrong, my first reaction is of something which offends my nature. The wrongness I feel might take the form of disapproval, disgust, abhorrence, even fear, depending upon the situation. I then try to assess the wrongness of the situation according to my values,( which may well have their origin in my culture and my upbringing). in as rational a way as possible(e.g. by trying to ascertain as many facts regarding the situation as possible or by trying to consider in as level headed a way as possible the points of view of others.) The result of all this is something which I would call my moral opinion.
-
Like a great many theists DBH seems to think that 'real' only means 'objective, absolute' - why, I have no idea. Existential discomfort with the ideas of the contingent, the local, the specific and the temporary, i.e. reality, I guess.
I would like to know if he spends any time addressing the rather obvious counter that a great many people throughout history have believed in 'real goodness' - including but not limited to a real goodness stemming from a god - and a lack of a spirit of charity and moral responsibilty to others have been quite notable in their effects upon the human body.
Another superb post by the way, enki.
The geneticist Jerry Coyne did a great series of posts picking apart DBH's tome on his website, incidentally.
-
It reflects their own nature, Floo. Those who tend to be nice people believe in a nice God.
Yes Again it brings us back to the old thing of 'Making god(s) in our own image'
Makes perfect sense as look at what kind of horrendous bastard the Jews worshipped as they romped around the Middle East doing much the same thing as Muslims did with that awful creature called Al-Lah literally just The God ?!!?!? Still doing it now quite royally even now with those
murderous unbelievable IS !!!
-
So, still ignoring the problems with your own position and sticking to the argumentum ad consequentiam...
And...?
Of course there are problems. But since your position has collapsed what are you doing admitting your own position is riddled with logical contradiction, pointing out that moral realism has problems and so we must accept the first untenable position.
Yes we've all noticed that you've done a double argumentum ad consequentium.
Of course one doesn't settle for an argumentum ad consequentium. One seeks candidates and only accepts it one finds one. That successful candidate for moral reality is God and has to be experienced. Not conjured as an intellectual answer or factoid.
You settle for an argumentum ad consequentium not I.
-
Like a great many theists DBH seems to think that 'real' only means 'objective, absolute' - why, I have no idea. Existential discomfort with the ideas of the contingent, the local, the specific and the temporary, i.e. reality, I guess.
I would like to know if he spends any time addressing the rather obvious counter that a great many people throughout history have believed in 'real goodness' - including but not limited to a real goodness stemming from a god - and a lack of a spirit of charity and moral responsibilty to others have been quite notable in their effects upon the human body.
Another superb post by the way, enki.
The geneticist Jerry Coyne did a great series of posts picking apart DBH's tome on his website, incidentally.
Two things
1: You completely ignore the term moral relativity which I think sums up the position of many. That renders your moral position 'unreal'.
2: Read Feser's destruction of Coyne's works or rather his description their own self destruction. It eats Coyne for Breakfast and then excretes him.
-
Two things
1: You completely ignore the term moral relativity which I think sums up the position of many. That renders your moral position 'unreal'.
No it doesn't.
You have to demonstrate that relativistic is equal to/a synonym of 'unreal.'
Best of luck with that one, Vladdychops ;)
-
No it doesn't.
You have to demonstrate that relativistic is equal to/a synonym of 'unreal.'
Best of luck with that one, Vladdychops ;)
Red Herring. If you guys are effectively saying that two opposing moral positions can be right or wrong simultaneously then in what sense can their rightness or wrongness be 'real'
-
Red Herring. If you guys are effectively saying that two opposing moral positions can be right or wrong simultaneously then in what sense can their rightness or wrongness be 'real'
Gracious. Seems like you don't know what the word means.
Ah well. No surprises there.
-
Gracious. Seems like you don't know what the word means.
Ah well. No surprises there.
Seems to me you don't.
-
Yup, pretty sure I do.
Merriam-Webster:
: actually existing or happening : not imaginary
: not fake, false, or artificial
: important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way
-
Nicely put - the idea of reciprocal kindness as espoused by the Golden Rule is surely the pinnacle of human ethics.
What can possibly be greater?
It has to be mutual to work. It doesn't work as well as the way of Christ, because we are called to love even those who do not return or give us kindness as you put it. Being kind can be feeding the birds. In the greater scheme of things they are not the same thing at all. Not a moral good or even ethical in that it really serves the self not the other person.
-
-sigh-
This has been gone through in detail before and you just ran away from all the difficult questions.
Morality is (obviously) more important than Marmite.
Whether or not you think morality is objective, we are stuck with the fact that there is no objective means of discovering what is actually morally right. Hence, all our moral decisions are subjective anyway.
You also seem to be flirting with an appeal to consequences fallacy.
You have to establish a moral code first... Where does the moral code to treat all equally even those with religion.
A can and worms this discussion. No one has really given this much thought.
-
Dear Khatru,
I was talking about Christians and the fact that no two could ever agree on all the detail that make up a true Christian.
I don't think I would ever say "the Bible God" that says to me he/she/it is a Jewish or Christian God, God is everyone's God, I don't think God discriminates, in fact I don't think he favours anyone, we are all Gods children.
One day the goats and sheep will be separated.
The bible is clear that true Christians are people born of the Spirit and Truth.
Whilst people may perceive the definition differently God knows those who are alive in him.
The Golden rule runs through nearly all religions, it is not confined to Our Lords teaching, and as I am constantly being told, Jesus was not the first to come up with this Commandment.
Jesus was the first to come up with the truth of what the commandments and the teachings of the Prophets were summing up.
To love God and to love your neighbour as yourself.
To be honest I have never actually thought about it, I am not here to evangelise, not here to convert you to Christianity, if I have a mission, to simply put the thought of God in your mind, I will say if you accept Jesus into your life you better have a damned good think about the Golden Rule, this is how you worship God, so whatever your faith might be, or no faith, if you follow the Golden Rule you are worshipping God.
Gonnagle.
Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life." He is a way not a rule.
-
Contrast that with believers like Sass and TW who refuse to condemn the slaughter (even of babies) when it's their deity of choice who's responsible.
Ignorance may be bliss and even though it has been shown that the killing of a few babies which would be few at the time of the flooding was simply so that they would not be left to die a horrible death when no adults left to look after them.
The humans killed their own like yourself they brought their own death sentences upon them.
Just as the people who murdered their children sacrificing them to gods were themselves and off-spring killed to put an end to such evil and allow people to learn to live the right way.
What you cannot do is compare it to the same type of people today already named who slaughtered people in the name of power and of greed. Showing mans nature is a cruel and evil one at it's best. You are two-faced...even double standard...
You would think nothing of putting people like Hitler and Idi Amin for their crimes against humanity. But when God takes action to remove them you cry foul.
You haven't a God and you have no love of justice of truth. But the truth is God was just in destroying those who killed their children by sacrificing them to idols in pagan worship. Just because they were committing crimes against God and man.
So really we remove dictators and we remove those who murder who are terrorist. He just did it earlier.
And who knows if you weren't trying to make God a man you would see you too will pay for your crimes against humanity.
It is time for you to be brought to the truth. You just cannot win against God because what he did saved the world and kept man from dying off by killing their own children.
-
How those who believe the Bible to be literally true with all the ghastly deeds attributed to god, can still describe it as a 'god of love', goodness only knows.
He stopped mankind destroying themselves by killing off their off-spring. If he allowed those who offered child sacrifices to idols, those pagan religions who had no moral conscience or even feelings for their own children to kill them. Eventually mankind would have died out. Because adults would be next when no children born and even with children dying in infancy as they did a lot then and women in childbirth eventually there would have no children safe. They would have took children from other places and eventually mankind would die out.
You moan like hell but haven't the sense to see that God did what he did to save us. Both mankind from killing themselves off and from sin allowing Christ to be born. You cannot win with stupid people as those stupid people cannot think for themselves. They cannot see as to why a pagan belief; (in which a tribe/nation used their children for sacrifice offerings) that when no children of their own left would eventually kill anyone elses children and cause mankind to die out in that age. An age where few children made it past childhood or died in the first two years anywhere from birth.
It is ridiculous that any person could not fathom it out for themselves.
-
Like a great many theists DBH seems to think that 'real' only means 'objective, absolute' - why, I have no idea. Existential discomfort with the ideas of the contingent, the local, the specific and the temporary, i.e. reality, I guess.
I would like to know if he spends any time addressing the rather obvious counter that a great many people throughout history have believed in 'real goodness' - including but not limited to a real goodness stemming from a god - and a lack of a spirit of charity and moral responsibilty to others have been quite notable in their effects upon the human body.
Another superb post by the way, enki.
The geneticist Jerry Coyne did a great series of posts picking apart DBH's tome on his website, incidentally.
Do you know something, Shaker,
Without other people to write and tell you what to think, you like many on other would have nothing to put in your posts.
Good thing us believers only require the truth from God in Christ.
We don't need humans to tell us what to say or what to believe.
Seems you pretty much do what you accuse Christians of doing. Allowing others to tell you what to think and believe.
This post of yours above pretty much proves that.
-
No it doesn't.
You have to demonstrate that relativistic is equal to/a synonym of 'unreal.'
Best of luck with that one, Vladdychops ;)
Explain both terms separately and show why anyone would need to show them to be equal.
Then apply it to what Vlad said. You just repeat what books say. But give us your explanation of the argument you use also.
-
Gracious. Seems like you don't know what the word means.
Ah well. No surprises there.
Ahh well here is you chance to prove it... Just answer my last post to you above this one.
ETA.....waiting.....waiting...LOL/
-
Isn't it 'funny'?!?!? ;) ;) ;) ::)
One can SOOO easily justify the most horrendous acts of mankind & god as per Sass's posts ?!??!
-
He stopped mankind destroying themselves by killing off their off-spring. If he allowed those who offered child sacrifices to idols, those pagan religions who had no moral conscience or even feelings for their own children to kill them. Eventually mankind would have died out. Because adults would be next when no children born and even with children dying in infancy as they did a lot then and women in childbirth eventually there would have no children safe. They would have took children from other places and eventually mankind would die out.
You moan like hell but haven't the sense to see that God did what he did to save us. Both mankind from killing themselves off and from sin allowing Christ to be born. You cannot win with stupid people as those stupid people cannot think for themselves. They cannot see as to why a pagan belief; (in which a tribe/nation used their children for sacrifice offerings) that when no children of their own left would eventually kill anyone elses children and cause mankind to die out in that age. An age where few children made it past childhood or died in the first two years anywhere from birth.
It is ridiculous that any person could not fathom it out for themselves.
That is total nonsense. If god is omnipotent why would it have to jump through so many crazy hoops to 'save' humanity? All it has to do is wave its magic wand and hey presto!
-
Of course there are problems. But since your position has collapsed what are you doing admitting your own position is riddled with logical contradiction, pointing out that moral realism has problems and so we must accept the first untenable position.
The only contradictions occur when you try to treat the subjective as if it was objective. Many of the most important things we humans do are subjective. Morality is (as I pointed out before) a complicated and messy process involving individuals in societies.
Yes we've all noticed that you've done a double argumentum ad consequentium.
Of course one doesn't settle for an argumentum ad consequentium. One seeks candidates and only accepts it one finds one. That successful candidate for moral reality is God and has to be experienced. Not conjured as an intellectual answer or factoid.
You settle for an argumentum ad consequentium not I.
I see "argumentum ad consequentiam" is yet another term you don't understand.
As for the "successful candidate" being a god that is experienced, that is about as subjective as it gets. Just look at how many different gods and moral codes there are in the world, based on that notion.
There simply isn't an objective moral code available to us. That is an observed fact that we have to live with. Believing that there is objective morality is of no practical use if there is no objective means of accessing it.
-
The only contradictions occur when you try to treat the subjective as if it was objective. Many of the most important things we humans do are subjective. Morality is (as I pointed out before) a complicated and messy process involving individuals in societies.
I see "argumentum ad consequentiam" is yet another term you don't understand.
As for the "successful candidate" being a god that is experienced, that is about as subjective as it gets. Just look at how many different gods and moral codes there are in the world, based on that notion.
There simply isn't an objective moral code available to us. That is an observed fact that we have to live with. Believing that there is objective morality is of no practical use if there is no objective means of accessing it.
The trouble is that moral subjectivists act like moral objectivists.
The contradictions of logic make thinking morality subjective and acting as if it is objective unjustified particularly when you wouldn't countenance such dissonance in other contexts......call this the marmite dilemma for moral relativists.
How we act when we act morally is that we are striving for the truth, for goodness, for being better, for progress and that is suggestive of belief in moral objectivity.
Of course there has to be a candidate to remove an argumentum ad consequentium. You are choosing your view as the default position which you have no warrant for. God is one but atheistic moral objectivists might point to altruism or love.
In yours and Hillside's hands you make any objection to your position as an argumentum ad consequentium.
Read the entry on moral relativism in Wikipedia and remind yourselves of the criticism of it.
-
Funny innit how those who would assert objective morality seem to have carved out just that one area of human experience for this special claim, but not others. They don't for example also claim that a sunset is objectively beautiful rather than something we intuit and, if pressed, could speak to as its beauty being our subjective response.
Just pretending that people behave as if their morality was objectively true - surely no-one sane would do that would they, as only a cursory look at the remarkable changing attitudes to gay rights in the last few decades would tell you - is the least of their problems. Even if you could eventually find someone who behaved as if his morality was objectively true, you'd still have all your work ahead of you to build a bridge from that behaviour to his morality actually being true.
Mind you, if ever someone could manage an argument for that it'd be fun watching him build a moraloscope or some such so he could go looking for where this morality might exist outside of human experience. Tinfoil hats on boys!
-
Just pretending that people behave as if their morality was objectively true - surely no-one sane would do that would they
We all do it. Every time you mention the superiority of your own morality and the inferiority of others you do it and by doing it contradict your base assertion that morality is whatever you like or, as you have said, suits you.
-
We all do it. Every time you mention the superiority of your own morality and the inferiority of others you contradict your base assertion that morality is whatever you like or, as you have said, suits you.
We all do it, and we all have slightly difference views. So where is objective?
-
The trouble is that moral subjectivists act like moral objectivists.
The contradictions of logic make thinking morality subjective and acting as if it is objective unjustified particularly when you wouldn't countenance such dissonance in other contexts......call this the marmite dilemma for moral relativists.
How we act when we act morally is that we are striving for the truth, for goodness, for being better, for progress and that is suggestive of belief in moral objectivity.
You are still blatantly using an appeal to consequences. If there is no objective morality, there is no objective morality; it doesn't matter how difficult that makes it to deal with.
We have to deal with reality as it is, not how we might like it to be.
Of course there has to be a candidate to remove an argumentum ad consequentium. You are choosing your view as the default position which you have no warrant for. God is one but atheistic moral objectivists might point to altruism or love.
You really do need to look up what "argumentum ad consequentiam" means. It's what you did above, in pointing out the problems associated with subjective morality. That is not an argument for objective morality.
Morality as subjective is what we observe. People (individuals and groups) have moral codes. There is no absolute, objective test for morality.
-
We all do it, and we all have slightly difference views. So where is objective?
But it is not just about the view it is also about getting a better view, about getting better morally about what we ought collectively to be doing.
And that is why morality is hardly like Bluehillside describes it.
-
But it is not just about the view it is also about getting a better view, about getting better morally about what we ought collectively to be doing.
And that is why morality is hardly like Bluehillside describes it.
How do we decide what is better, and what we ought to be doing?
Do we dig this up from the ground, or do we collectively decide amongst ourselves?
-
You are still blatantly using an appeal to consequences. If there is no objective morality, there is no objective morality; it doesn't matter how difficult that makes it to deal with.
We have to deal with reality as it is, not how we might like it to be.
You really do need to look up what "argumentum ad consequentiam" means. It's what you did above, in pointing out the problems associated with subjective morality. That is not an argument for objective morality.
Morality as subjective is what we observe. People (individuals and groups) have moral codes. There is no absolute, objective test for morality.
No you take your definitions of morality as arbitrary and binding.
But we do not act or think the way you or Hillside make out.
You started with the conclusion Some kind of Strange and it went downhill from there.
How we act is that we are trying to act as we think we ought and we tell people how we think they ought to act.
You say that is important but if it is subjective as you say you have no warrant for that importance.
Secondly, we are demonstrating homeostatic behaviour when we act morally.
Reread the criticisms of moral relativity. I think your atheism has gone to your head and imputed rightness into you against which all else must be measured.
-
BR,
We all do it, and we all have slightly difference views. So where is objective?
Quite so. Where Trollboy keeps careering off the rails is by overreaching into claiming that when someone says, say, "murder is wrong" he must also think his position is objectively true. We can all reach the conclusion that murder is wrong, and we can argue for it too but jumping from that to the notion that we'd tapped into an objective truth is the stuff of psychopathy - or religiosity.
Even if he could finally track down someone who said, "X is morally wrong and that's an objective fact" he'd still though have all his work ahead of him to show that that belief said one jot of an iota of a smidgin of anything at all about whether the claim actually was objectively true.
Oddly the only people I know of who clam heir morals to be objectively determined are the religious - "X is wrong because God says so" - but that leads them straight into a circularity: "morality is objective because God made it so; because morality is objective, therefore God".
-
No you take your definitions of morality as arbitrary and binding.
...he lied.
"Persuasive", "provisional", defensible" etc do not imply either "arbitrary" or "binding".
-
How do we decide what is better, and what we ought to be doing?
Do we dig this up from the ground, or do we collectively decide amongst ourselves?
OK.
If you practically take that line you are now bound not to compare your moral stance on something to anyone elses. It will be nice not hearing from you on these matters.
-
...he lied.
"Persuasive", "provisional", defensible" etc do not imply either "arbitrary" or "binding".
Nope. He's the one who asserts that his view of how people act morally is correct. He is the one who asserts moral relativism.
-
OK.
If you practically take that line you are now bound not to compare your moral stance on something to anyone elses. It will be nice not hearing from you on these matters.
So you have no answer.
Perhaps it is you that should stop posting about something you cannot defend.
Your position is undone.
-
Ah the unedifying sight of Trollboy thrashing around for ever more outlandish assertions. Of course you can compare moral positions just as much as you can compare the merits of Beethoven with that of Kylie Minogue without ever needing to suggest that any of these opinions are also objectively correct.
-
Could someone please explain to Trollboy that "correct" in discussions of morality (or of music appreciation for that matter) does not imply absolute. People used to think "slavery is fine" was morally correct; now they don't. That's the way with subjective experience - opinions can change.
-
BR,
Quite so. Where Trollboy keeps careering off the rails is by overreaching into claiming that when someone says, say, "murder is wrong" he must also think his position is objectively true. We can all reach the conclusion that murder is wrong, and we can argue for it too but jumping from that to the notion that we'd tapped into an objective truth is the stuff of psychopathy - or religiosity.
Nobody is suggesting a jump and the next logical steps in the case for an objective morality have been outlined to you vis suggestions for candidates, Altruism, love, God.
Intellectual totalitarianism on your part and continued turd polishing of moral relativism.
Like the attempted sly but ultimately not subtle enough linking psychopathy with religion.
Good old Hillside. All the subtlety of someone delivering a packed lunch in a 40 foot truck.
-
It has to be mutual to work. It doesn't work as well as the way of Christ,
The way of Christ?
Would that have something to do with telling everyone that if they want to avoid being burned and tortured they have to love him?
-
Could someone please explain to Trollboy that "correct" in discussions of morality (or of music appreciation for that matter) does not imply absolute. People used to think "slavery is fine" was morally correct; now they don't. That's the way with subjective experience - opinions can change.
Again change in the moral relative sense....in which nothing matters whether it changes or not. Assertion from the premise of moral relativity.
Hillside has focussed here on the change in individuals hoping well forget that he also thinks that diametrically opposed moral views are simultaneously and equally right or wrong!!!!!!
What a carcrash.
He also contradicts Some Kind of stranger by saying morality is equivalent to musical appreciation.....thus reducing the importance of morality.
-
Ah the unedifying sight of Trollboy thrashing around for ever more outlandish assertions. Of course you can compare moral positions just as much as you can compare the merits of Beethoven with that of Kylie Minogue without ever needing to suggest that any of these opinions are also objectively correct.
LOL
Surrender accepted.
-
Ah the unedifying sight of Trollboy thrashing around for ever more outlandish assertions. Of course you can compare moral positions just as much as you can compare the merits of Beethoven with that of Kylie Minogue without ever needing to suggest that any of these opinions are also objectively correct.
This could have come from a Hannibal Lecter film.
-
Just been listening to discussion on BBC News 24 regarding the shooting of the gorilla in Cincinnati Zoo, which is a moral question - was killing it the right decision or not?
Experts said various things: the gorilla could have been protecting the boy but the situation (given the screams of distress from the crowd) wasn't normal for the gorilla beyond even the boy being there in the first place, so its behaviour could be predicted. There seems to have been no emergency plan other than shooting to kill, since the options of using the likes of distraction or a Taser weren't part of any plan to deal with incursions into the enclosure - so it was either kill the gorilla or wait to see what transpired, which was an unknown. Seems like a classic consequentialist moral problem (albeit without any runaway trains).
The point here, and not wishing to on this thread digress into the details of this particular case, is that if we borrowed Blue's 'Moraloscope' and pointed it at this situation would it identify whether shooting the gorilla so as to ensure the survival of the boy was the objectively correct moral decision or not, and why?
What is your view, Vlad?
-
This could have come from a Hannibal Lecter film.
You say morality is objective yes?
Do you know any currently moral values that are objectively correct?
-
Ignorance may be bliss and even though it has been shown that the killing of a few babies which would be few at the time of the flooding was simply so that they would not be left to die a horrible death when no adults left to look after them.
Where does it say this in the Bible? Show me that it's not something you've come up with to justify infanticide.
So the best that an omnipotent being could do was to kill babies? Right you are.
The humans killed their own like yourself they brought their own death sentences upon them.
Except that I condemn humans for this but when your invisible sky pixie does the same thing you see it as an act of transcendent love. It's a warped and degenerate morality you subscribe to.
Just as the people who murdered their children sacrificing them to gods were themselves and off-spring killed to put an end to such evil and allow people to learn to live the right way.
Already refuted this. What did your imaginary friend do to help those children? He fixed it so that the parents would eat them. Nice work, Jehovah.
What you cannot do is compare it to the same type of people today already named who slaughtered people in the name of power and of greed. Showing mans nature is a cruel and evil one at it's best. You are two-faced...even double standard...
Nope. The hypocrisy is yours when you see nothing wrong with your deity killing millions of people.
That also explains why you failed to condemn your god's instructions to carry out abortions by killing unborn babies.
You would think nothing of putting people like Hitler and Idi Amin for their crimes against humanity. But when God takes action to remove them you cry foul.
Unsupported assertion.
You haven't a God and you have no love of justice of truth. But the truth is God was just in destroying those who killed their children by sacrificing them to idols in pagan worship. Just because they were committing crimes against God and man.
Already refuted. Please see following quote...
Actually, the bible god makes it worse for children.
"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them."
Jeremiah 19:9
In this myth, the people were sacrificing their children to Baal. Good job your invisible sky pixie is on hand to stop this slaughter of innocent children, eh?
Well....no...not quite.
What does your deity of choice do?
He gets angry at the adults and arranges it so that they now eat their children.
How about that? Rather than step in and save the children, your god's judgement is to ensure that even more children die. Now, instead of sacrificing their children, your god is making the parents eat them.
What is it about your god's love that entails so much death and suffering?
See what your beliefs mean?
It's not just baby killing and incest that you have to defend but you can now add cannibalism to that list.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12121.msg616072#msg616072
So really we remove dictators and we remove those who murder who are terrorist. He just did it earlier.
And who knows if you weren't trying to make God a man you would see you too will pay for your crimes against humanity.
More unsupported assertions and gibberish.
It is time for you to be brought to the truth. You just cannot win against God because what he did saved the world and kept man from dying off by killing their own children.
Your truth? The truth that just so happens to be better than all the other truths out there?
-
You say morality is objective yes?
Do you know any currently moral values that are objectively correct?
Do you mean morally objectively correct?
-
Do you mean morally objectively correct?
Yes.
Do you know any?
-
Yes.
Do you know any?
Yes, apparently we all conclude that murder is wrong.
-
Do you mean morally objectively correct?
Are you struggling to find an objective moral truth that we currently know?
-
Yes, apparently we all conclude that murder is wrong.
Some people do NOT consider it wrong.
How can you demonstrate that they are wrong and you are right, without using opinion?
-
Are you struggling to find an objective moral truth that we currently know?
No.....I've stated one that has the working out.
Are you saying it is not a moral truth? But merely a position that some people like?
-
No.....I've stated one that has the working out.
Are you saying it is not a moral truth? But merely a position that some people like?
Can you DEMONSTRATE that this is an objective position, and not just a collective subjective opinion?
-
No.....I've stated one that has the working out.
Are you saying it is not a moral truth? But merely a position that some people like?
Where is the working out, I missed that.
Can I use this working for any moral question to derive the objective moral value?
-
Some people do NOT consider it wrong.
How can you demonstrate that they are wrong and you are right, without using opinion?
Because they have a moral defect. As evidenced in their possible justifications. Either their justification for why it was good or their justification for why it was neither good nor bad.
-
Yes, apparently we all conclude that murder is wrong.
Apart from murderers, presumably.
-
Apart from murderers, presumably.
No they are morally defective.
-
No they are morally defective.
Is this because they do not share your opinion on some moral question?
Can we use your working out to demonstrate that homosexuality is either objectively right or wrong?
-
Is this because they do not share your opinion on some moral question?
Can we use your working out to demonstrate that homosexuality is either objectively right or wrong?
I think your flippant use of the term working out as inappropriate here.
Just as any movement requires the brain and body to commit to numerous unconscious calculations for correctness so moral 'calculations'. However, to put it generally anything that is not used in or with love can be harmful. Does that answer your question?
-
I think your flippant use of the term working out as inappropriate here.
Just as any movement requires the brain and body to commit to numerous unconscious calculations for correctness so moral 'calculations'. However, to put it generally anything that is not used in or with love can be harmful. Does that answer your question?
I think you'll need to unpack 'love' and 'harmful' if you are making an argument with these as premises to be applied to a situation. In addition, are these moral 'calculations' situation specific and independent of opinion?
-
Is this because they do not share your opinion on some moral question?
If it is all just opinion how do right or wrong come into it since there cannot be any right or wrong.....merely opinion.
-
I think you'll need to unpack 'love' and 'harmful' if you are making an argument with these as premises to be applied to a situation. In addition, are these moral 'calculations' situation specific and independent of opinion?
But as I have said that is probably not possible considering even the calculations your cerebellum makes are unconscious and probably not matched by cerebral skill or ability.
We all need to unpack love and harmful.
The problem is all the moral relativist since the truth is there can be no actual arbitration on moral issues.
-
But as I have said that is probably not possible considering even the calculations your cerebellum makes are unconscious and probably not matched by cerebral skill or ability.
We all need to unpack love and harmful.
The problem is all the moral relativist since the truth is there can be no actual arbitration on moral issues.
I suspect, Vlad, you are just making this up as you go along hence the attempt to evade.
-
The odd thing for me about the deep stupidity of the objective morality claim is that those who assert it really seem not to see the qualitative difference between it and values that actually are objectively the case. Ask enough people whether murder is wrong and eventually you'll find someone who says, "no, it's fine". That's his opinion and that's his morality.
Now try asking lots of people what'll happen if they jump out of a tenth storey window. Eventually you'll find someone who'll say, "I'll float gently to the ground" but you could test his claim readily enough and find it to be wrong.
What objective test would anyone propose I wonder for subjective opinions about morality?
However much dust they throw to obscure it, that's still their central problem: bridging the gap from the subjective to the objective.
-
I suspect, Vlad, you are just making this up as you go along hence the attempt to evade.
Not at all If I was to ask him to perform the calculations for successfully putting one foot in front of another not even the great Hillside could perform such a feet.
-
If it is all just opinion how do right or wrong come into it since there cannot be any right or wrong.....merely opinion.
There can be consensus based on some moral premises. Like it's better to be alive than dead, painfree rather than in pain.
Using these simple guides, I can conclude that it's bad to drink battery acid.
-
The odd thing for me about the deep stupidity of the objective morality claim is that those who assert it really seem not to see the qualitative difference between it and values that actually are objectively the case. Ask enough people whether murder is wrong and eventually you'll find someone who says, "no, it's fine". That's his opinion and that's his morality.
Now try asking lots of people what'll happen if they jump out of a tenth storey window. Eventually you'll find someone who'll say, "I'll float gently to the ground" but you could test his claim readily enough and find it to be wrong.
What objective test would anyone propose I wonder for subjective opinions about morality?
However much dust they throw to confuse obscure it, that's still their problem: bridging the gap from the subjective to the objective.
Introduction is merely starting with a conclusion.
The rest is irrelevant.
-
Vlad,
So, is homosexuality objectively morally right or wrong?
Can you show your workings out as well as the answer.
-
No they are morally defective.
Do they think so?
-
No they are morally defective.
But Hope thinks homosexuals who have sex are morally defective.
Is he wrong? If so how come you are right?
-
Vlad,
So, is homosexuality objectively morally right or wrong?
Can you show your workings out as well as the answer.
well let's start with yours shall we. This is purely a matter of opinion. So ultimately it is not right....nor is it wrong.......and that is true for murder................ for you.
Now comes my turn................. anything not done in love is potentially harmful. There is no love in murder.
-
Shakes,
Do they think so?
No. Trollboy is merely using his subjective opinion on the matter to critique the subjective opinion of someone who doesn't agree with him. Why he thinks his subjective opinion is also objectively correct is anyone's guess, but a subjective opinion it remains nonetheless.
Of course if he or any other operator of the objective morality assertotron could ever suggest a method to test the objectivity of his claim - as we would for, say, the chap who thinks he can defy gravity - then he'd finally have an argument worth considering. I wouldn't hold your breath on that one though.
-
well let's start with yours shall we. This is purely a matter of opinion. So ultimately it is not right....nor is it wrong.......and that is true for murder................ for you.
Now comes my turn................. anything not done in love is potentially harmful. There is no love in murder.
Define love.
Is it okay to kill someone in pain that you love?
Is homosexuality morally correct?
So, in your opinion if I do something out of love, then it's ok?
-
But Hope thinks homosexuals who have sex are morally defective.
Is he wrong? If so how come you are right?
As a Christian I think all are fallen short. As an antichristian you think only Christians have fallen short. How therefore is your position elevated above Hope's?
-
As a Christian I think all are fallen short. As an antichristian you think only Christians have fallen short. How therefore is your position elevated above Hope's?
Construct a scenario of people's lives comparing (a) what would happen if Rhiannon was in charge and (b) if Hope was in charge, and see how that stacks up.
-
As a Christian I think all are fallen short. As an antichristian you think only Christians have fallen short. How therefore is your position elevated above Hope's?
And you know I think like this how?
-
Define love.
Working on it. You will receive my comprehensive reply in about six years.....and no I won't do a Hillside or a Dawkins's and start with the conclusion.
-
As a Christian I think all are fallen short. As an antichristian you think only Christians have fallen short. How therefore is your position elevated above Hope's?
I don't think Rhi is an anti-Christian her posts certainly don't give that impression.
No one is perfect, we all screw up from time to time.
-
Construct a scenario of people's lives comparing (a) what would happen if Rhiannon was in charge and (b) if Hope was in charge, and see how that stacks up.
Come now. We know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
-
And you know I think like this how?
It is implicit in your posts and general style.......IMHO.
-
Working on it. You will receive my comprehensive reply in about six years.....and no I won't do a Hillside or a Dawkins's and start with the conclusion.
You have already concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot defend this, nor give a method to test a moral option for objectiveness.
-
Come now. We know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Would this apply to a god?
-
Would this apply to a god?
Good one. :D
-
It is implicit in your posts and general style.......IMHO.
Mind reading again, Vlad... You really should state your posts are for entertainment purposes only.
-
Mind reading again, Vlad... You really should state your posts are for entertainment purposes only.
:D
-
It is implicit in your posts and general style.......IMHO.
I have a different opinion, so why is yours correct, and mine wrong?
-
You have already concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot defend this, nor give a method to test a moral option for objectiveness.
Yes but you wanted me to define love and it is that i'm talking about.
Moral relativism actually says nothing about morality so something that does automatically has an advantage. But I have not stopped there We must search for candidates for the moral standard. Atheistic routes out of the cul de sac of moral relativism will include love, Genetic programming, altruism etc. Theistic routes will consider God and there is no reason why we can't consider all of them.
By we I do not mean you since you represent a dead end in the evolution of moral argument.
-
Mind reading again, Vlad...
No......... post reading.
-
I have a different opinion, so why is yours correct, and mine wrong?
We all have the capacity to right or wrong.
-
Moral relativism actually says nothing about morality...
I suppose if someone keeps repeating the lie often enough they'll come to believe it themselves. What Trollboy actually means of course is that "moral relativism" does not concern itself with his assertions about objective reality. Just think: according to Trollboy all those moral philosophers who didn't think you could just look up the answers in a book were wasting their time then. Ah well.
-
We all have the capacity to right or wrong.
And are they both equally valid?
-
As a Christian I think all are fallen short.
You don't have to be a Christian to think that nobody is perfect.
As an antichristian you think only Christians have fallen short.
That doesn't sound like Rhiannon - but it does looks like a straw man.
-
I suppose if someone keeps repeating the lie often enough they'll come to believe it themselves. What Trollboy actually means of course is that "moral relativism" does not concern itself with his assertions about objective reality. Just think: according to Trollboy all those moral philosophers who didn't think you could just look up the answers in a book were wasting their time then. Ah well.
Start with the conclusion why don't you?
I think you are assigning me to a religion where the last word to mankind on the subject of how things ought to be and what ought to be done is a book.
I profess Christianity where the last word is a person and a dynamic personal influence.
The only people who seem to be wasting their time here are those claiming that it's a matter of taste and then acting as if there was a moral absolutism.
-
You don't have to be a Christian to think that nobody is perfect.
That doesn't sound like Rhiannon - but it does looks like a straw man.
How do you mean?
-
Start with the conclusion why don't you?
I think you are assigning me to a religion where the last word to mankind on the subject of how things ought to be and what ought to be done is a book.
I profess Christianity where the last word is a person and a dynamic personal influence.
The only people who seem to be wasting their time here are those claiming that it's a matter of taste and then acting as if there was a moral absolutism.
You have concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot demonstrate that it is, and all the evidence we have shows that it is subjective. So, you are guilty of starting with your conclusion.
-
...and a dynamic personal influence.
Hey, Nicholas Marks is back!
...acting as if there was a moral absolutism.
This "keep repeating the lie in the hope that you'll believe it yourself if you do it often enough" schtick seems to have got Trollboy hooked. I've met plenty of moral probabilists (I am one!), but never someone who acts as if there was moral absolutism. Outside of lunatic asylums and the religious orders, are there any such people?
-
How do you mean?
C'mon, Vlad - my comments were obvious: I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think you were misrepresenting Rhiannon via a straw man.
-
You have concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot demonstrate that it is, and all the evidence we have shows that it is subjective. So, you are guilty of starting with your conclusion.
Well we are right back into proving God then.
I'm just happy to flag up the contradictions in moral relativism and would like to know why you cling on to it like a concrete life belt. I expect Hillside to have a stab at that one.
My own journey to God did take me through moral relativism......and it is found wanting.
As you know I have limited tolerance for turdpolishing and am now interested in how atheist moral realists justify their position. I think you should listen to them in the first instance.
-
Gordon,
C'mon, Vlad - my comments were obvious: I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think you were misrepresenting Rhiannon via a straw man.
Trollboy? Attempting a straw man?
Say it ain't so Gordon, say it ain't so!
I decided a while back only to reply to him when his posts weren't straw men versions of what I'd actually said...
...it's been months now ;)
-
C'mon, Vlad - my comments were obvious: I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think you were misrepresenting Rhiannon via a straw man.
Sorry Gordon that was meant to be a reply to BeRationals post.....not yours.
However since moral relativism boils down to nobody being actually imperfect if you are a moral relativist you will have just contradicted yourself.
-
Gordon,
Trollboy? Attempting a straw man?
Say it ain't so Gordon, say it ain't so!
Sadly, I can't - I cannot tell a lie.
-
Gordon,
Trollboy? Attempting a straw man?
Say it ain't so Gordon, say it ain't so!
I decided a while back only to reply to him when his posts weren't straw men versions of what I'd actually said...
...it's been months now ;)
Yes that's months I haven't been abused by Hillside by him calling me troll boy.
-
Well we are right back into proving God then.
I'm just happy to flag up the contradictions in moral relativism and would like to know why you cling on to it like a concrete life belt. I expect Hillside to have a stab at that one.
My own journey to God did take me through moral relativism......and it is found wanting.
As you know I have limited tolerance for turdpolishing and am now interested in how atheist moral realists justify their position. I think you should listen to them in the first instance.
You are the one that claims moral objective values.
Therefore YOU have the burden of proof.
Demonstrate a moral value that is OBJECTIVELY true.
I bet you can't, and if you can't you must stop saying that morality is objective.
-
I'm just happy to flag up the contradictions in moral relativism...
Just to note that asserting something rather than demonstrating it isn't "flagging up" anything. What Trollboy is actually saying here is something like, "moral relativism contradicts my personal but un-argued opinion that the only real morality is objective morality, therefore moral relativism is contradictory".
Why on earth he thinks that but not, say, that art appreciation can't be real unless there's a big book of divinely ordained correct aesthetic positions is anyone's guess, but as he never feels like offering an argument to support his opinions I guess we'll never know.
Might be interesting if there's a moral objectivist out there who could at least attempt an argument to demonstrate it, but until then it remains a complete dead end with Trollboy at the end of it howling at the moon, "But it'th twoo I tell you, it'th twoo...".
-
You are the one that claims moral objective values.
Therefore YOU have the burden of proof.
Demonstrate a moral value that is OBJECTIVELY true.
I bet you can't, and if you can't you must stop saying that morality is objective.
No I think I'll let you guys moulder in moral relativism.
Of course that won't happen and you will be wearing your moral realist hats soon enough.
-
No I think I'll let you guys moulder in moral relativism.
Of course that won't happen and you will be wearing your moral realist hats soon enough.
So you admit that you cannot demonstrate that which you claim is true.
You lose.
-
BR,
You are the one that claims moral objective values.
Therefore YOU have the burden of proof.
Demonstrate a moral value that is OBJECTIVELY true.
I bet you can't, and if you can't you must stop saying that morality is objective.
Or better yet a method to explain how any moral opinion could be determined objectively to be correct or not.
Sadly as Trollboy just runs away when asked for a method of any kind (for example, a method to distinguish his "whatever pops into my head-ism is true for you too" from just guessing) I guess we'll never have a answer to that one either. Oh well.
-
BR,
Or better yet a method to explain how any moral opinion could be determined objectively to be correct or not.
Sadly as Trollboy just runs away when asked for a method of any kind (for example, a method to distinguish his "whatever pops into my head-ism is true for you too" from just guessing) I guess we'll never have a answer to that one either. Oh well.
I think he said it has something to do with Love.
So as long as I say I am doing something due to love, I can do anything!
-
BR,
You lose.
That happened a long time ago.
-
BR,
I think he said it has something to do with Love.
So as long as I say I am doing something due to love, I can do anything!
Ah the horrors that have been committed by people who thought they were acting lovingly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...
-
So you admit that you cannot demonstrate that which you claim is true.
You lose.
You never even played.
-
BR,
Ah the horrors that have been committed by people who thought they were acting lovingly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...
Perhaps that's why god can kill millions with a supposed flood, as long as it was done with love.
-
You never even played.
My questions defeated you at least.
Not that it was hard to do, and you had been defeated long before I posted.
To win, you must demonstrate an objective moral value, and some mechanism which we can use for ANY moral position.
If you can't, you lose.
-
BR,
Ah the horrors that have been committed by people who thought they were acting lovingly. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...
Glad to see you are choosing your words carefully Hillside.
However as a moral relativist you are actually contradicting yourself suggesting publicly that a bad thing has happened.
-
Glad to see you are choosing your words carefully Hillside.
However as a moral relativist you are actually contradicting yourself suggesting publicly that a bad thing has happened.
What is the method?
-
You never even played.
We'd all lose against Trollboy if the game was Top Trolling. He's got it down pat:
Step 1: Assert the same untruths over and over again
Step 2: Always misrepresent what your interlocutors have actually said in response
Step 3. Never, ever even attempt an argument to support your assertions
Step 4: Claim your victory
Step 5: Repeat Step 1
Face it BR, when it comes to Top Trolling we're amateurs!
-
My questions defeated you at least.
Not that it was hard to do, and you had been defeated long before I posted.
To win, you must demonstrate an objective moral value, and some mechanism which we can use for ANY moral position.
If you can't, you lose.
Tell me then why does Bluehillside find it easier to act like a moral objectivist rather than a moral relativist which logically disallows him any public judgment of an act or even holding that judgment?
-
Tell me then why does Bluehillside find it easier to act like a moral objectivist rather than a moral relativist which logically disallows him any public judgment of an act or even holding that judgment?
Step 1.
-
We'd all lose against Trollboy if the game was Top Trolling. He's got it down pat:
Step 1: Assert the same untruths over and over again
Step 2: Always misrepresent what your interlocutors have actually said in response
Step 3. Never, ever even attempt an argument to support your assertions
Step 4: Claim your victory
Step 5: Repeat Step 1
Face it BR, when it comes to Top Trolling we're amateurs!
You talk about trolling as a bad thing. Doesn't moral relativism disallow judgments like that?
-
Tell me then why does Bluehillside find it easier to act like a moral objectivist rather than a moral relativist which logically disallows him any public judgment of an act or even holding that judgment?
Why do you evade the obvious question from your assertion that morality is objective.
If you cannot demonstrate this, then you are done.
-
Why do you evade the obvious question from your assertion that morality is objective.
If you cannot demonstrate this, then you are done.
If ever moral realism is done at least it is in a position to be done.....which is more than can be said for moral relativism.
-
If ever moral realism is done at least it is in a position to be done.....which is more than can be said for moral relativism.
What is you method.
I am not interested in evasions.
You either have one, or you don't.
If you don't, then stop saying morality is objective.
-
What is you method.
I am not interested in evasions.
You either have one, or you don't.
If you don't, then stop saying morality is objective.
Moral relativism is dead Be Rational.........in fact it was never viable.
-
Moral relativism is dead Be Rational.........in fact it was never viable.
What is your method for deciding an objective moral position?
I have asked several times and you do not answer, but just post some evasion.
Accept your position is defeated until you show your method.
-
Moral relativism is dead Be Rational.........in fact it was never viable.
Steps 3 & 4.
-
I think he said it has something to do with Love.
So as long as I say I am doing something due to love, I can do anything!
Hope agrees with you.
-
Hope agrees with you.
Apart from homosexuality though!
-
No......... post reading.
So by labelling me as prejudiced and biased you seek to discredit any argument I've made or will make.
It's cowardly.
-
What is your method for deciding an objective moral position?
I have asked several times and you do not answer, but just post some evasion.
Accept your position is defeated until you show your method.
So a position starts of by being defeated does it?"..".................I suppose choosing a moniker like Be Rational might fool some of the people all of the time etc.
-
Apart from homosexuality though!
What I meant was that Hope can be foul to and about homosexuals and then claim it's ok 'cos he's doing it out of love.
-
Rhi,
So by labelling me as prejudiced and biased you seek to discredit any argument I've made or will make.
It's cowardly.
Actually it's Step 2 of Trollboy's Top Trolling playbook. He'll claim his "victory" in a bit, then will start with Step 1 again.
-
So by labelling me as prejudiced and biased you seek to discredit any argument I've made or will make.
It's cowardly.
I don't think I said that........If you make good argument then it,s.....ear....good isn't,t it?
I don't think I made any statement on the rightness or wrongness of antichristianity.
-
Rhi,
Actually it's Step 2 of Trollboy's Top Trolling playbook. He'll claim his "victory" in a bit, then will start with Step 1 again.
Hillside....there is no way I'm going to let you beat me in the alliteration stakes........
Bluehillsides buffoonish blustering bullshittery.
Top that one if you can.
-
I don't think I said that........If you make good argument then it,s.....ear....good isn't,t it?
I don't think I made any statement on the rightness or wrongness of antichristianity.
Look at what you accuse me of in the context of your accusations of antichristianity. You've made enough posts to that effect.
Cowardly and dishonest.
-
Look at what you accuse me of in the context of your accusations of antichristianity. You've made enough posts to that effect.
Cowardly and dishonest.
Do you or do you not disagree with the Christian doctrine that all have fallen short to the point of needing salvation. Have you more often than not when talking of faults in people and social groupings largely focuses on those you think Christians and Christianity guilty of? Because I feel that to be the case.
-
Disagreeing with Christian doctrine doesn't make me antichristian, Vlad. As for the rest... more lying.
-
Disagreeing with Christian doctrine doesn't make me antichristian, Vlad. As for the rest... more lying.
Then I look forward to either your future prochristian posts or your absence of derogatory comment of Christianity and Christians.
Perhaps you could reference many of your past posts where you have been positive about Christians for me to enjoy.
-
Rhi,
Disagreeing with Christian doctrine doesn't make me antichristian, Vlad. As for the rest... more lying.
It's the same mistake Trollboy makes when he continually confuses "atheist" with "anti-theist". An atheist has no reason to think claims about gods to be true; an anti-theist doesn't want them to be true. You can of course be both, as indeed you can be a theist and an anti-theist at the same time - ie, you think the claims are true but would rather they weren't. Just reasoning your way to atheism though says nothing whatever about whether or not you also happen to be an anti-theist.
As for why he also continually thinks "moral relativism" to be contradictory because it happens not to cohere with his assertion that morality must be objective to be "real", in the absence of even a scintilla of an argument to support it then he seems satisfied to pitch his tent still in the "not even wrong" camp.
-
Rhi,
It's the same mistake Trollboy makes when he continually confuses "atheist" with "anti-theist". An atheist has no reason to think claims about gods to be true; an anti-theist doesn't want them to be true. You can of course be both, as indeed you can be a theist and an anti-theist at the same time - ie, you think the claims are true but would rather they weren't.
As for why he also continually thinks "moral relativism" to be contradictory because it happens not to cohere with his assertion that morality must be objective to be "real",
It doesn't cohere full stop.
You don't even need to refer to objective morality for its contradictions to be evident.
-
You don't even need to refer to objective morality for its contradictions to be evident.
Step 3.
-
Then I look forward to either your future prochristian posts or your absence of derogatory comment of Christianity and Christians.
Perhaps you could reference many of your past posts where you have been positive about Christians for me to enjoy.
Do I need to justify myself to you? I don't think so.
-
Do I need to justify myself to you? I don't think so.
I don't believe I've asked for a justification from or of yourself and don't expect one
-
I don't believe I've asked for a justification from or of yourself and don't expect one
If you want references then that is exactly what you are asking for.
-
Rhi,
Do I need to justify myself to you? I don't think so.
Of course not. If anything, I'd have thought it was for Trollboy finally to justify his assertion about the supposed logical contradictions in moral relativism (with or without reference to claims of objective morality) but that never quite managed to make an actual argument for.
While he's about it, he might want to explain too why all those moral philosophers who weren't objectivists were wasting their time as (he tells us) moral relativism has nothing to say about "real" morality, and for that matter perhaps he could share why he arbitrarily separates morality for this purpose but seems quite happy for people to hold legitimate but differing opinions on painting and music and literature and indeed on countless other areas of human experience.
I suggest you don't hold your breath though!
-
Well the thing is, other posters don't share his opinion and have said so. I'm really not bothered.
-
If you want references then that is exactly what you are asking for.
No. I said I want to enjoy your prochristian posts.
-
Rhi,
Of course not. If anything, I'd have thought it was for Trollboy finally to justify his assertion about the supposed logical contradictions in moral relativism (with or without reference to claims of objective morality) but that never quite managed to make an actual argument for.
While he's about it, he might want to explain too why all those moral philosophers who weren't objectivists were wasting their time as (he tells us) moral relativism has nothing to say about "real" morality, and for that matter perhaps he could share why he arbitrarily separates morality for this purpose but seems quite happy for people to hold legitimate but differing opinions on painting and music and literature and indeed on countless other areas of human experience.
I suggest you don't hold your breath though!
Come to think of it no one has made a case for moral relativism since everyone of the MRs seems to suffer from the delusion that they never have any burden of proof for anything.
-
Rhi,
I suggest you don't hold your breath though!
Told you so - hey, maybe I have the gift of prophecy after all!
Would someone let me know please in the highly unlikely event that Trollboy finally at least attempts an argument to support his assertion about the supposed logical contradictions in moral relativism?
Ta.
-
No. I said I want to enjoy your prochristian posts.
For goodness' sake, stop lying. The clue was in your use of the word 'reference'.
-
For goodness' sake, stop lying. The clue was in your use of the word 'reference'.
Look I don't want to go trawling over this board for what you suggest are more than meagre crumbs of praise for Christianity. How do I know where to find them unless you direct them. Please give us the reference for a real hooray for Christianity.
-
I don't care if you find them or not.
-
Rhi,
I don't care if you find them or not.
The best way to respond to yet another of his distraction efforts. Notice too his playing fast and loose with "Christianity" (a set of beliefs) and "Christians" (the people who hold those beliefs). It's entirely possible to find the people perfectly pleasant and their beliefs to be total bollocks.
-
I find many Christians to actually be quite admirable, even if their beliefs don't stack up.
-
I find many Christians to actually be quite admirable, even if their beliefs don't stack up.
My thoughts entirely.
See: Tutu, Desmond.
-
I find many Christians to actually be quite admirable,
Thank you very much.....you're too kind.
-
I don't admire liars, whatever their beliefs.
-
I don't admire liars, whatever their beliefs.
I bet you don't want to reference that either.
-
I bet you don't want to reference that either.
Do you have this method yet, or are you still avoiding that question?
-
We must search for candidates for the moral standard. Atheistic routes out of the cul de sac of moral relativism will include love, Genetic programming, altruism etc. Theistic routes will consider God and there is no reason why we can't consider all of them.
But can't you see that there is nothing objective about such a search? If we pick something to be the basis of a moral code then we can, in principle, apply that objectively, but the choice itself cannot be objectively justified.
You can't make a measurement, perform an experiment, or go through some logical steps that will tell you that murder is wrong and caring for people is right. Those are subjective choices we make together, based on our human nature (empathy, wanting to be safe ourselves, and so on).
-
But can't you see that there is nothing objective about such a search? If we pick something to be the basis of a moral code then we can, in principle, apply that objectively, but the choice itself cannot be objectively justified.
You can't make a measurement, perform an experiment, or go through some logical steps that will tell you that murder is wrong and caring for people is right. Those are subjective choices we make together, based on our human nature (empathy, wanting to be safe ourselves, and so on).
You are trying to shoehorn morality into a materialist framework and with all due respect giving up early in the process.Rather than concluding a failure of explanatory powers in materialism you resort to a formulation which actually excludes morality.
There are however materialists who do propose an objective morality and I believe they are further on having not given up. We process morality as humans I agree but morality is out there rather than just a matter of liking.
-
Where is it out there and what methodology are you using to test this bald assertion?
-
Where is it out there and what methodology are you using to test this bald assertion?
In genetic programming,in society and in God in all sorts of ways atheistic and theistic moral realists spell out to you day after day.
There is very little methodology shown by those promoting moral relativism and the language you guys put up.........it,s messy........its zeitgeist...........its choice are .....
Relatively unproductive and make you look as though you want a shroud of mystery.
If you want determinism and materialism you can't also have a messy mystery.
Epic fail but stick around since this is a National convention of Turd polishers.
You say it's moral relativism. You have therefore a burden of proof.since it's a positive assertion.
-
But can't you see that there is nothing objective about such a search? If we pick something to be the basis of a moral code then we can, in principle, apply that objectively, but the choice itself cannot be objectively justified.
You can't make a measurement, perform an experiment, or go through some logical steps that will tell you that murder is wrong and caring for people is right. Those are subjective choices we make together, based on our human nature (empathy, wanting to be safe ourselves, and so on).
Good summary. Objective morality strikes me as an oxymoron, rather like an objective aesthetics. How can you get outside human beings in order to construct a morality?
Most of the arguments for objective morality that I've seen rest on pure assertion.
-
In genetic programming
Which varies, and therefore isn't objective.
in society
See above.
and in God
Don't believe there's any such thing.
Try again.
-
Wiggs,
Good summary. Objective morality strikes me as an oxymoron, rather like an objective aesthetics. How can you get outside human beings in order to construct a morality?
Most of the arguments for objective morality that I've seen rest on pure assertion.
...combined with an appeal to consequences and lashings of wishful thinking.
-
We process morality as humans I agree but morality is out there rather than just a matter of liking.
Out where, exactly? If morality is objective then there must be a purely objective way to arrive at it. Nothing you've mentioned to date is objective, so what do you propose?
-
If you want determinism and materialism you can't also have a messy mystery.
Nonsense. Determinism and "materialism" don't preclude complex and messy and there are some things we don't understand and are therefore mysteries to us.
-
Good summary. Objective morality strikes me as an oxymoron,
There are atheists who think it's more like a tautology Wiggs.
-
Wiggs,
...combined with an appeal to consequences and lashings of wishful thinking.
Surrender accepted.
-
There are atheists who think it's more like a tautology Wiggs.
Who are you thinking of?
-
Funny innit how those who would assert objective morality seem to have carved out just that one area of human experience for this special claim, but not others. They don't for example also claim that a sunset is objectively beautiful rather than something we intuit and, if pressed, could speak to as its beauty being our subjective response.
Just pretending that people behave as if their morality was objectively true - surely no-one sane would do that would they, as only a cursory look at the remarkable changing attitudes to gay rights in the last few decades would tell you - is the least of their problems. Even if you could eventually find someone who behaved as if his morality was objectively true, you'd still have all your work ahead of you to build a bridge from that behaviour to his morality actually being true.
Mind you, if ever someone could manage an argument for that it'd be fun watching him build a moraloscope or some such so he could go looking for where this morality might exist outside of human experience. Tinfoil hats on boys!
Name them bring evidence otherwise be quiet.
-
Vlad asserts objective morality. Key word there is asserts.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up with the discussion.
-
What's disappointing for me here is how entirely vapid the argument from the proponent(s) for objective morality turn out to be. In fact it's worse - just assertion, appeals to consequence, wishful thinking, bluff and bluster. I'd be interested to have a conversation with someone who thought it to be a credible position and who could muster an argument to support him, but - as so often here - we're straight back to "not even wrong" territory.
As I understand it William Lane Craig is the poster boy for those who propose objective morality, but his effort on this matter is desperately poor too. If that's the best that's on the table, then so be it - we can point and pass by without troubling with it any further. If though there is someone out there who could either mount or at least point to an argument worthy of the name then we'd have something to talk about.
I'm not holding out much hope for it mind you, but hey - you never know...
-
Sassy,
Name them bring evidence otherwise be quiet.
Name who? Someone who asserts objective morality? Try reading the last few posts!
-
Ignorance may be bliss and even though it has been shown that the killing of a few babies which would be few at the time of the flooding
Where has it been shown that there would be a 'few babies' at the time of the 'flooding'?
-
The humans killed their own like yourself they brought their own death sentences upon them.
Just as the people who murdered their children sacrificing them to gods were themselves and off-spring killed to put an end to such evil and allow people to learn to live the right way.
Was that evil ended for good or just temporarily?
Did people learn to live the right way afterwards and have they all continued to do so?
-
Are there not philosophers who defend objective morality, non-theistically? Well, the old 'uns were mostly theists, anyway, e.g. Plato.
-
Wiggs,
Are there not philosophers who defend objective morality, non-theistically? Well, the old 'uns were mostly theists, anyway, e.g. Plato.
Good point. Not that I know of, but I'd be interested to hear of any - as I'd suggest should be those who would point to objectively morality as evidence for "God" without falling into circular reasoning.
-
Are there not philosophers who defend objective morality, non-theistically? Well, the old 'uns were mostly theists, anyway, e.g. Plato.
Hi Wiggs,
Sam Harris, noted American atheist, is an exponent of moral realism. He suggests the following, for instance.
"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality.... Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to human happiness than hate is."
Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation", p23.
Of course he strongly rejects the idea that belief in an objective morality depends on believing in a god and he also accepts that we do not have anything like a final scientific understanding of human morality. In fact, he does seem to me to be talking about human flourishing here, which I do not disagree with. However I would challenge the idea that this in some way suggests an objective morality.
I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. However I see this as no different to any other 'potentials' such as the eye, movement, ability to breed, speed, strength, selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right, and, therefore do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.
I rather go along with these words of E. O. Wilson:
"Either ethical principles, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience, or they are human inventions. The distinction is more than an exercise for academic philosophers. The choice between these two understandings makes all the difference in the way we view ourselves as a species. It measures the authority of religion, and it determines the conduct of moral reasoning."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/the-biological-basis-of-morality/377087/
-
I've just started a thread on happiness over on Ethics as it merits its own discussion, if anyone fancies it.
-
Hi Wiggs,
Sam Harris, noted American atheist, is an exponent of moral realism. He suggests the following, for instance.
"For there to be objective moral truths worth knowing, there need only be better and worse ways to seek happiness in this world. If there are psychological laws that govern human well-being, knowledge of these laws would provide an enduring basis for an objective morality.... Everything about human experience suggests that love is more conducive to human happiness than hate is."
Sam Harris, "Letter to a Christian Nation", p23.
Of course he strongly rejects the idea that belief in an objective morality depends on believing in a god and he also accepts that we do not have anything like a final scientific understanding of human morality. In fact, he does seem to me to be talking about human flourishing here, which I do not disagree with. However I would challenge the idea that this in some way suggests an objective morality.
I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. However I see this as no different to any other 'potentials' such as the eye, movement, ability to breed, speed, strength, selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right, and, therefore do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.
I rather go along with these words of E. O. Wilson:
"Either ethical principles, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience, or they are human inventions. The distinction is more than an exercise for academic philosophers. The choice between these two understandings makes all the difference in the way we view ourselves as a species. It measures the authority of religion, and it determines the conduct of moral reasoning."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/04/the-biological-basis-of-morality/377087/
Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see if it gets proper consideration or bluster from Wigginhall and Shaker.
-
It will be interesting to see if it gets proper consideration or bluster from Wigginhall and Shaker.
Ah, the unedifying sight of the king of assertion, evasion, irrelevance, insult, bluff and bare faced mendacity who to my knowledge has consistently run away from every single question that could undo him accusing two other posters noted for answering fully and to the point of "bluster".
Priceless!
-
I've just started a thread on happiness over on Ethics as it merits its own discussion, if anyone fancies it.
Moderator:
Several posts from here on the subject of happiness have been moved the the thread mentioned by Rhiannon, where the earliest of these (by Wiggenhall) becomes the OP of this thread.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12155.msg617179#new
-
Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see if it gets proper consideration or bluster from Wigginhall and Shaker.
Make no mistake, Vlad. Just because I refer to Sam Harris doesn't mean I agree with him, or you. I don't think that Harris makes good arguments at all for objective morality. His main focus is on utilitarianism, but I think his ideas don't really hold water as far as being evidence for objective morality is concerned. Happiness for whom and how many, for instance? And what does that happiness really mean, for each individual? and, why choose happiness anyway?
I'm with Wiggs on this one in his first post on the 'Happiness' thread. As I have already said, I see no reason to think that there is such a thing as an objective morality at all.
-
Make no mistake, Vlad. Just because I refer to Sam Harris doesn't mean I agree with him, or you. I don't think that Harris makes good arguments at all for objective morality. His main focus is on utilitarianism, but I think his ideas don't really hold water as far as being evidence for objective morality is concerned. Happiness for whom and how many, for instance? And what does that happiness really mean, for each individual? and, why choose happiness anyway?
I'm with Wiggs on this one in his first post on the 'Happiness' thread. As I have already said, I see no reason to think that there is such a thing as an objective morality at all.
That's OK you were fair minded enough to put it on.
-
I don't think that Harris makes good arguments at all for objective morality. His main focus is on utilitarianism, but I think his ideas don't really hold water as far as being evidence for objective morality is concerned. Happiness for whom and how many, for instance? And what does that happiness really mean, for each individual? and, why choose happiness anyway?
Not only that but there is no objective reason to conclude that some positive outcome (happiness or whatever) for humans is "good" and that human suffering is "bad". We have to collectively decide that. Although there may be a large measure of consensus on it, some may call it speciesist while others may favour one particular group of humans to the detriment of others.
-
Not only that but there is no objective reason to conclude that some positive outcome (happiness or whatever) for humans is "good" and that human suffering is "bad". We have to collectively decide that. Although there may be a large measure of consensus on it, some may call it speciesist while others may favour one particular group of humans to the detriment of others.
Indeed, SKoS, in accordance with this sense of belonging to a group and overlying the basic elements, our nurture and culture often plays a hugely prominent part in shaping our moral views, often to the detriment of the groups that we feel we don’t belong to.
-
Not only that but there is no objective reason to conclude that some positive outcome (happiness or whatever) for humans is "good" and that human suffering is "bad". We have to collectively decide that. Although there may be a large measure of consensus on it, some may call it speciesist while others may favour one particular group of humans to the detriment of others.
If we have to make decisions we also have to evaluate those decisions, We also have to use past experience of the consequences of previous decisions and we need to do that to see if we were right or wrong.
All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success........aims and outcomes..................Moral relativity cannot provide that since ultimately any decision is as valid as any other.
-
If we have to make decisions we also have to evaluate those decisions, We also have to use past experience of the consequences of previous decisions and we need to do that to see if we were right or wrong.
All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success........aims and outcomes..................Moral relativity cannot provide that since ultimately any decision is as valid as any other.
Doesn't suggest a standard to me but all you need do now, Vlad, to demonstrate this is to design a moral scale and a method of scoring moral decisions to see where they sit on the scale - this would be a basis for your 'measure of success' notion and would discriminate between moral decisions in a quantifiable way.
Good luck with that!
-
Doesn't suggest a standard to me but all you need do now, Vlad, to demonstrate this is to design a moral scale and a method of scoring moral decisions to see where they sit on the scale - this would be a basis for your 'measure of success' notion and would discriminate between moral decisions in a quantifiable way.
Good luck with that!
On what then do we base moral decisions if not a standard?
On what. Then do you base your moral decisions?
I think like on numerous previous occasions you have not fully thought this through.
-
If we have to make decisions we also have to evaluate those decisions, We also have to use past experience of the consequences of previous decisions and we need to do that to see if we were right or wrong.
Yes, but "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. They will depend on our personal values (or the values of a society).
All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success........aims and outcomes..................Moral relativity cannot provide that since ultimately any decision is as valid as any other.
That is why it becomes messy and difficult. It's why societies have to have rules and why there are groups devoted to changing attitudes and laws. We, as humans, tend to agree to some degree, which provides us with the only possible standard to use. However, we can observe through history, that attitudes change.
You are guilty not of an appeal to consequences but a false dichotomy too. You are saying that if it isn't objective, it doesn't matter and every course of action is equal. Whereas, in fact, for very practical reasons, it matters a lot to people and to the survival of societies.
We always come back to the fact that there is simply no objective test for morality. If you can't supply one, your argument is dead in the water, no matter what the consequences.
-
On what then do we base moral decisions if not a standard?
On what. Then do you base your moral decisions?
I think like on numerous previous occasions you have not fully thought this through.
You are the one who said 'All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success' and I'm simply looking forward to seeing how you develop this moral standard and measure of success idea.
My thoughts on morality are neither here nor there - we're talking about your approach.
-
Doesn't suggest a standard to me but all you need do now, Vlad, to demonstrate this is to design a moral scale and a method of scoring moral decisions to see where they sit on the scale - this would be a basis for your 'measure of success' notion and would discriminate between moral decisions in a quantifiable way.
Good luck with that!
Unfortunately though moral relativity provides no moral arbitration.
You suggest there is no external standard by which moral decisions are made nor any internal standards
What decision is therefor made.
All you successfully do is to establish that what you are really meaning to say is you don't know where your moral standard comes from.............
Unless you come out with the alternative and admit that actually, at base , their is no real morality"..........................In which case we are obliged to ask............why not act like there isn't.
-
Yes, but "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. They will depend on our personal values (or the values of a society).
Ah, so there are values out there. And where do they come from?
-
You are the one who said 'All of that suggests a standard and a measure of success' and I'm simply looking forward to seeing how you develop this moral standard and measure of success idea.
My thoughts on morality are neither here nor there - we're talking about your approach.
Ah to be at the end of a bleak, cold, dark Scottish atheist inquisition steeped in a dour Presbyterianism.
We ask the questions, lady.......eh Gordon.
-
Ah, so there are values out there. And where do they come from?
People. As I have said repeatedly, human nature is such that we have a degree of agreement. We (most of us) have empathy, people and groups we care about, and a desire not to live in a society without rules of conduct.
However, it isn't simple and objective. Hence the changes through history (abolition of slavery, the notion of equal rights for all humans and so on).
-
People. As I have said repeatedly, human nature is such that we have a degree of agreement. We (most of us) have empathy, people and groups we care about, and a desire not to live in a society without rules of conduct.
However, it isn't simple and objective. Hence the changes through history (abolition of slavery, the notion of equal rights for all humans and so on).
Oh dear I fear your argument is going to go circular.
Where do people get their moral standard from.
Secondly it sounds as if there are genes for morality. Empathy etc.
In what way then do we decide our morality if that is the case.
-
People. As I have said repeatedly, human nature is such that we have a degree of agreement. We (most of us) have empathy, people and groups we care about, and a desire not to live in a society without rules of conduct.
However, it isn't simple and objective. Hence the changes through history (abolition of slavery, the notion of equal rights for all humans and so on).
Yes but what is the engine of change?
-
Unfortunately though moral relativity provides no moral arbitration.
Of course does - I can come to the view, having thought about the issues, that while shoplifting and murder are both morally wrong there is a difference in circumstances that is substantive in terms of, say, the different consequences arising from each on both individuals and society at large.
You suggest there is no external standard by which moral decisions are made nor any internal standards
Barring rules and regulations devised by people I've no idea how an external moral standard would appear since I can see no source of said standard that is independent of people. I think there are plenty of internal standards that are derived by people in the form of axioms.
All you successfully do is to establish that what you are really meaning to say is you don't know where your moral standard comes from.............
I didn't mean to say that at all - I think that my moral views derive from people thinking, both myself and in taking into account the thoughts of others throughout history. There is no shortage of moral philosophy to draw on.
Unless you come out with the alternative and admit that actually, at base , their is no real morality"..........................In which case we are obliged to ask............why not act like there isn't.
Because there clearly is, and I act as if there is - albeit it isn't based on what you'd prefer it was based on.
-
Where do people get their moral standard from.
Their biology.
-
Yes but what is the engine of change?
Nothing ever remains the same; change is the norm.
-
Of course does - I can come to the view, having thought about the issues, that while shoplifting and murder are both morally wrong there is a difference in circumstances that is substantive in terms of, say, the different consequences arising from each on both individuals and society at large.
Barring rules and regulations devised by people I've no idea how an external moral standard would appear since I can see no source of said standard that is independent of people. I think there are plenty of internal standards that are derived by people in the form of axioms.
I didn't mean to say that at all - I think that my moral views derive from people thinking, both myself and in taking into account the thoughts of others throughout history. There is no shortage of moral philosophy to draw on.
Because there clearly is, and I act as if there is - albeit it isn't based on what you'd prefer it was based on.
Again, what is the engine for changing the rules to make them more moral?
If it is external influences then where does thateave personal subjectivity.
In fact it would seem that personal subjectivity is a source of immorality!
-
Nothing ever remains the same; change is the norm.
Where does that leave rules then. Surely chaos is maximal change?
-
Oh dear I fear your argument is going to go circular.
Where do people get their moral standard from.
Secondly it sounds as if there are genes for morality. Empathy etc.
In what way then do we decide our morality if that is the case.
That is why morality is subjective. We develop a sense of moral conscience just as we develop a sense of balance or a sense of direction, and like all aspects of mind, they in turn derive from genetics and the individual's particular personal development trajectory. Thus every human has his own unique sense of right and wrong just as surely as he has his own personal sense of humour. No two individuals are alike, not even identical twins.
-
Where does that leave rules then. Surely chaos is maximal change?
As humans we don't want maximal change, we want rules that help us to survive when we live in large groups.
Morality is the evolved system of behaviour that assists that.
If morality is objective as YOU suggest, why do they change in populations over time?
If they are objective, you must have some standard to compare them to.
Where is this standard, and how is it that YOU know them and it appears no one else on here does.
Is slavery morally correct or not?
Please answer yes or no, then show how you arrived at this OBJECTIVE value.
-
Their biology.
And when has biology been subjective?
-
Their biology.
If that were true we would still be back in the earliest stages of man.
Our morality is as individual as our fingerprints...we choose it.
-
If that were true we would still be back in the earliest stages of man.
Our morality is as individual as our fingerprints...we choose it.
So you agree it is not objective then?
-
As humans we don't want maximal change, we want rules that help us to survive when we live in large groups.
Morality is the evolved system of behaviour that assists that.
If morality is objective as YOU suggest, why do they change in populations over time?
If they are objective, you must have some standard to compare them to.
Where is this standard, and how is it that YOU know them and it appears no one else on here does.
Is slavery morally correct or not?
Please answer yes or no, then show how you arrived at this OBJECTIVE value.
And when has evolution been subjective?
-
And when has biology been subjective?
He's busy just a trollin'
All the live long day
He's busy just a trollin'
And he'll never go away
Humour, art, music...all are emergent properties of our biological selves, and they seem to function perfectly well on a mix of consensus and changing opinions with no plaintive appeal to objective standards for any of them. What I wonder does Trollboy think makes morality so special that he needs to assert into existence only its objectivity?
-
He believes that there is no morality without God, and that God's morality is absolute.
-
Rhi,
He believes that there is no morality without God, and that God's morality is absolute.
Quite. The irony that will be lost on him is that he wrongly accused Some of circular reasoning (yet another term we'll have to add to the ever-growing list of "words Trollboy uses but misunderstands") yet a prefect example of circular reasoning is his: "Objective morality exists because God made it so; because there's objective morality, therefore God". And round and round he goes...
-
He believes that there is no morality without God, and that God's morality is absolute.
I do but the atheist objective moralists don't.....so therefore you have made a pretty poor attack on objective morality...........but of course mono states,er,Hillside has appeared so we can expect his little wizards to make arse clenching argumentii ad evokium William Craig Latium. Ha ha.
-
I do but the atheist objective moralists don't.....so therefore you have made a pretty poor attack on objective morality...........but of course mono states,er,Hillside has appeared so we can expect his little wizards to make arse clenching argumentii ad evokium William Craig Latium. Ha ha.
Is homosexuality objectively right or wrong?
Show your method for deriving the answer.
If you cannot then stop saying morality is objective.
-
He's busy just a trollin'
All the live long day
He's busy just a trollin'
And he'll never go away
Humour, art, music...all are emergent properties of our biological selves, and they seem to function perfectly well on a mix of consensus and changing opinions with no plaintive appeal to objective standards for any of them. What I wonder does Trollboy think makes morality so special that he needs to assert into existence only its objectivity?
Music is governed by physics and maths Hillside and art by the fives senses.
These operate within and across physical spectra. Morality is just a question of ought and ought not.It is markedly different from the analogies you use.
-
Some Kind of Stranger wrote:
You are guilty not of an appeal to consequences but a false dichotomy too. You are saying that if it isn't objective, it doesn't matter and every course of action is equal. Whereas, in fact, for very practical reasons, it matters a lot to people and to the survival of societies.
This is a good point. I've noticed, trawling around for articles on morality, that this kind of black and white thinking is common amongst theists. For example: either morality is objective or arbitrary.
This is incorrect, since, as many have said on this thread, human beings consult their interests in making moral choices. Those interests are not arbitrary.
I suppose they are trying to say that only theists are moral, and anyone else is without morality, again, obviously untrue.
-
Is homosexuality objectively right or wrong?
Show your method for deriving the answer.
If you cannot then stop saying morality is objective.
Is biology subjective?
Is evolution subjective?
-
Some Kind of Stranger wrote:
This is a good point. I've noticed, trawling around for articles on morality, that this kind of black and white thinking is common amongst theists. For example: either morality is objective or arbitrary.
This is incorrect, since, as many have said on this thread, human beings consult their interests in making moral choices. Those interests are not arbitrary.
I suppose they are trying to say that only theists are moral, and anyone else is without morality, again, obviously untrue.
Argument by evoking theists.
Theists believe this so it must be wrong.........or as Monostatos ........aka Hillside would have it.......argument by evoking WLC..
-
Is biology subjective?
Is evolution subjective?
Irrelevant and not under discussion.
Can you answer the question or not?
It seems not?
-
And when has biology been subjective?
Of course your biology is subjective. My body is personally mine and yours is personally yours. Each body is unique, each mind is unique and is the ephemeral subjective aspect of the body.
-
Is homosexuality objectively right or wrong?
Show your method for deriving the answer.
If you cannot then stop saying morality is objective.
What do you mean by right or wrong?
-
Again, what is the engine for changing the rules to make them more moral?
People, and what they think, and how they think alongside the changing background within which we live our lives.
If it is external influences then where does thateave personal subjectivity.
As a considered response.
In fact it would seem that personal subjectivity is a source of immorality!
Yep - just as it is also the source of what we might term morality.
-
Of course your biology is subjective. My body is personally mine and yours is personally yours. Each body is unique, each mind is unique and is the ephemeral subjective aspect of the body.
Mine?yours? Didn't you argue that the self was an illusion?
-
If that were true we would still be back in the earliest stages of man.
Our morality is as individual as our fingerprints...we choose it.
I don't think we choose it. Choice in this context is an illusion. You can choose to adopt a certain position, but you cannot really choose the contents of your conscience. If you think eating animal flesh is wrong, you cannot choose to think it is OK.
-
People, and what they think, and how they think alongside the changing background within which we live our lives.
As a considered response.
Yep - just as it is also the source of what we might term morality.
People, and what they think, and how they think alongside the changing background within which we live our lives.
As a considered response.
Yep - just as it is also the source of what we might term morality.
I see people change because people change........and so it goes.
-
I don't think we choose it. Choice in this context is an illusion. You can choose to adopt a certain position, but you cannot really choose the contents of your conscience. If you think eating animal flesh is wrong, you cannot choose to think it is OK.
Agree completely. We might want x to be ok, but if we don't feel it in our gut we can't make it so.
-
Mine?yours? Didn't you argue that the self was an illusion?
Yes, indeed, grasshopper, illusory in the sense that we have a feeling of self as if it were a thing with a separate ontology to the body, hence dualism, and so forth. That does not deny the subjectivity of a body, rather it is emergent ephemeral phenomenon of its subjectivity, amongst other things.
-
Of course your biology is subjective. My body is personally mine and yours is personally yours. Each body is unique, each mind is unique and is the ephemeral subjective aspect of the body.
I don't think biologists would agree with you.
By your logic all science is subjective since all atoms are in different positions as are there sub atomic particles.
-
I don't think biologists would agree with you.
By your logic all science is subjective since all atoms are in different positions as are there sub atomic particles.
Well, yes, true objectivity in any profound respect is ultimately impossible. We are all bound together in spacetime and we cannot access some external objective reference frame. All we can do is witness how things appear from our location.
-
What do you mean by right or wrong?
I mean objectively morally correct or not.
You know, morality the thing you say is objective.
Morality is about shared rules of behaviour.
So, is it right or wrong?
-
I mean objectively morally correct or not.
You know, morality the thing you say is objective.
Morality is about shared rules of behaviour.
So, is it right or wrong?
Define right and wrong. If you refuse then we can't proceed can we?
-
Define right and wrong. If you refuse then we can't proceed can we?
You are the one that claims objective morality exists.
How does it exist without some measure of right or wrong.
This is my point, right and wrong do not really exist. We create them based on outcomes that we want/desire.
You must have objective values for right and wrong.
You have the problem, not me.
-
Music is governed by physics and maths Hillside and art by the fives senses.
These operate within and across physical spectra. Morality is just a question of ought and ought not.It is markedly different from the analogies you use.
I've never thought stupidity could be like this fixed, but I used to think it could at least be trained a little. Seems I was wrong.
Trollboy is seems will never get around to telling us why qualitatively deciding, say, what constitutes "good" from "bad" art does not require an objective measure of either, whereas deciding what constitutes "good" from "bad" moral behaviour does.
Ah well.
-
I've never thought stupidity could be like this fixed, but I used to think it could at least be trained a little. Seems I was wrong.
Trollboy is seems will never get around to telling us why qualitatively deciding, say, what constitutes "good" from "bad" art does not require an objective measure of either, whereas deciding what constitutes "good" from "bad" moral behaviour does.
Ah well.
Good old Hillside. He is like Rene on ello ello who, whenever he gets caught with his pants down by his wife, starts his response with "you stupid woman '.
A morality based on taste like he maintains would not work.
So therefore there is only one way to respond to Hillside on this
"....................You stupid woman...............
-
You are the one that claims objective morality exists.
You said that like it was a bad thing.."...............define bad.
-
You said that like it was a bad thing.."...............define bad.
I see you are simply trolling and not engaging.
You have the problem as you claim objectivity, so you must have definitions for all these.
Just lay them out with your method, or stop saying that morality is objective.
-
Good old Hillside. He is like Rene on ello ello who, whenever he gets caught with his pants down by his wife, starts his response with "you stupid woman '.
A morality based on taste like he maintains would not work.
So therefore there is only one way to respond to Hillside on this
"....................You stupid woman...............
In which Trollboy treats us to an evasion, a straw man, an argument by assertion and a splash of misogyny to complete the cocktail – and all in one eructation of a post!
Can I suggest we all move along now - clearly there's nothing to see here.
-
BR,
I see you are simply trolling and not engaging.
Trollboy trolling?
Say it ain't so!
-
In which Trollboy treats us to an evasion, a straw man, an argument by assertion and a splash of misogyny to complete the cocktail – and all in one eructation of a post!
Can I suggest we all move along now - clearly there's nothing to see here.
That's right Hillside. If you haven't got a case play the man!
-
That's right Hillside. If you haven't got a case play the man!
You never answer.
You just respond with evasion.
Answer the question.
-
I see you are simply trolling and not engaging.
We cannot proceed until you define right or wrong....which ,as inquisitor is encumbent upon you.
-
That's right Hillside. If you haven't got a case play the man!
Can someone add ad hominem to the list of terms Trollboy doesn't understand, and maybe explain to him in very short words that describing accurately what someone has done isn't "playing the man" at all - it's just describing accurately what someone has done.
-
We cannot proceed until you define right or wrong....which ,as inquisitor is encumbent upon you.
You have the burden of proof not me.
YOU claim objective morality exists, not me.
So explain how you arrive at an objective moral value or stop saying morality is objective.
-
You never answer.
You just respond with evasion.
Answer the question.
Blimey.........this thread is really turning into Ello Ello.
First Hillside as Rene and now Be Rational as Herr Flick.
What Shaker as Von Schmalhausen...........
Oh and BR I'm afraid I don't know where the Madonna with the big boobies is either.
-
BR,
You never answer.
Rule 1 of the trolling playbook: Never answer a question. Never ever ever ever ever ever ever...
...ever.
Rule 2: Demand that other answer your questions.
-
You have the burden of proof not me.
YOU claim objective morality exists, not me.
So explain how you arrive at an objective moral value or stop saying morality is objective.
No you have to define your terms as inquisitor
-
No you have to define your terms as inquisitor
I am asking how YOU define objective morality.
You must know them to have come to the conclusion.
State the definitions and your workings or stop saying morality is objective.
-
I am asking how YOU define objective morality.
You must know them to have come to the conclusion.
State the definitions and your workings or stop saying morality is objective.
I am saying I and others have found God and therefore the source of morality.
However I also say that there is moral reality to be found in nature and detected by humans.
The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.
That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.
-
I am saying I and others have found God and therefore the source of morality.
However I also say that there is moral reality to be found in nature and detected by humans.
The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.
That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.
There is nothing moral about the Biblical god.
-
BR,
I am asking how YOU define objective morality.
He doesn't understand "burden of proof" either by the way. He just asserts objective morality then demands that others prove him wrong – standard Trollboy scumbaggery.
-
I am saying I and others have found God and therefore the source of morality.
However I also say that there is moral reality to be found in nature and detected by humans.
The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.
That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.
What is moral reality in nature?
How have you found god?
I look at nature and see no moral morality so what do you mean.
So using these vague and asserted values, you can derive objective morality.
OK, so I ask yet again, using YOUR method, is homosexuality 'right' or 'wrong' based on YOUR method?
-
What is moral reality in nature?
How have you found god?
I look at nature and see no moral morality so what do you mean.
So using these vague and asserted values, you can derive objective morality.
OK, so I ask yet again, using YOUR method, is homosexuality 'right' or 'wrong' based on YOUR method?
Are humans not natural. You aren't looking properly.
-
That is an objective thing...
Asserts Trollboy having just expressed only a personal and anthropocentric opinion on the matter.
Any prizes for guessing how he just jumped from his personal opinion to "an objective thing"?
-
Asserts Trollboy having just expressed only a personal and anthropocentric opinion on the matter.
Any prizes for guessing how he just jumped from his personal opinion to "an objective thing"?
There is nothing in my definition to limit morality to humans.
Unlike your own notion of pre morality in animals.
-
There is nothing in my definition to limit morality to humans.
And with one simple cheat Trollboy re-defines the word "humanity".
-
And with one simple cheat Trollboy re-defines the word "humanity".
What do you think I mean by it then Monostatos?
-
The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.
That is an objective thing since it is out there and certainly not a question of taste as Monostatos suggests.
No, it obviously isn't objective. Quite apart from how you define "promotes everyone's humanity" in an objective way, you are still left with only the subjective opinion that it is "good" to do so.
-
It's strange how every objectivist selects a particular framework for morality, or a set of desired things, and then says, this is obviously objective. Eh? But you selected it.
-
What do you think I mean by it then Monostatos?
And here we see Trollboy demanding that other people tell him what he means by a word. Leaving his latest diversion aside, here's what it actually means:
"Humanity
1. All human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
2. The quality or condition of being human; human nature.
3. The quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence."
(Dictionary.com)
He is of course entitled to his personal opinion that, "The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it" but how on earth he jumps from that personal opinion to "That is an objective thing..." is anyone's guess.
-
Just like that.
-
Wiggs,
Just like that.
I feel a Tommy Cooper joke coming on: "I got stung by a bee this morning...
...ten quid for a pot of honey!"
-
Just to note too that - even if we took Trollboy's personal opinion as somehow magically an objective moral truth too, it would lead to all sorts of practical problems if he tried to apply it. What if, say, humankind was about to be wiped out by a terrible disease but we found an Amazonian tribe with the genetic make up to cure it, only we'd we have to kill every one of them to obtain it? What would be the morally correct thing to do so as to satisfy his, "The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it" opinion in that case?
Or how about the morality of birth control or of abortion - does "everyone" extend to the not yet born too?
Sadly his big book of divine rules doesn't deal with nuance, so I guess he'd be back to his personal opinions again if ever he tried to apply his choice of mantra.
Oh well.
-
Yes, the idea of everyone's humanity doesn't work really. This is why there are moral dilemmas, after all.
-
Are humans not natural. You aren't looking properly.
Again you just evade.
I see the question has defeated you, and your position collapses.
Give up
-
No, it obviously isn't objective. Quite apart from how you define "promotes everyone's humanity" in an objective way, you are still left with only the subjective opinion that it is "good" to do so.
There are certainly problems in definition of terms for moral realism. But these are certainly nowhere near as tricky as using moral relativity to define morality, or arbitrate in morals and its lesser problem of moral relativists acting like. Moral objectivist so.
The problems of moral realism pale in this context.
-
There are certainly problems in definition of terms for moral realism. But these are certainly nowhere near as tricky as using moral relativity to define morality, or arbitrate in moral realism and its lesser problem of moral relativists acting like. Moral objectivist so.
The problems of moral realism pale in this context.
You have lost already so give up.
-
There are certainly problems in definition of terms for moral realism.
... the biggest one being your still-elusive demonstration of the objectivity of morality.
-
Yes, the idea of everyone's humanity doesn't work really. This is why there are moral dilemmas, after all.
What about personal moral dilemmas. They shouldn't exist in moral relativists.
-
... the biggest one being your still-elusive demonstration of the objectivity of morality.
It's true I haven't pulled of as major a feet as Torridon showing earlier on that Science and particularly Biology is subjective..............
But I have removed moral relativism from its protective box and demonstrated how much it stinks.
The other thing I'm proud of is exposing Be rational for thinking that something yet undemonstrated is wrong or non existent.
.....on reflection, that's a good days work......ciao.
-
What about personal moral dilemmas. They shouldn't exist in moral relativists.
Why not?
-
But I have removed moral relativism from its protective box and demonstrated how much it stinks.
Even if that were true instead of merely delusional, you haven't made your case. Pointing out weakness(es) in the opposition's argument(s) doesn't make your argument go through on the nod - if you think so, evidently you're driving the negative proof fallacy in Hope's absence.
-
Why not?
Because because because the Wizard of Vlad has asserted so
-
Why not?
Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.
-
Wiggs,
Why not?
There is no why not - Some undid Trolboy's wrong assertion about that several posts ago, so his repetition of it now is just another lie. Presumably he gets some satisfaction from his dishonesty, but I cannot for the life of me see what it might be. More fool us for feeding the troll I suppose, but as there's no guessing at what the problems might be that he just asserts for moral relativism then we'll probably never find out.
PS What on earth have Torridon's "feet" got to do with anything by the way?
-
Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.
No they are not.
It depends on a mind to give values to outcomes.
The consensus of which is our current morality.
Why is this beyond you?
-
Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.
And so the argumentum ad consequentiam continues...
...why I wonder can't Trollboy grasp the simple concept that it's as possible to ascribe probabilistic values of "good" and "bad" to moral positions as it is to music or art and to live accordingly without in any of these cases needing to benchmark against supposed objective standards?
He doesn't (presumably) think that aesthetic judgments aren't "real" when there's no "out there" objective values for them, so why on earth would he arbitrarily think otherwise about moral statements - other that is than his personal dislike of what he preceives as the consequences?
Weird.
-
Even if that were true instead of merely delusional, you haven't made your case. Pointing out weakness(es) in the opposition's argument(s) doesn't make your argument go through on the nod
I'm glad we have that straight.......................... tell that to Hillside and Be Rational.
However, Moral relativism has a fatal flaw in that it has no powers of arbitration in moral issues. So when anybody promotes there own or any moral position they are wearing their moral realist hat.
For example Hillside blows hot and cold about who is being a good boy or girl and who is being bad. Does he do so because he thinks he is doing the equivalent of saying Mozart is Good and Chas and Dave are Bad, does he heck, Does he say it believing it is as meaningful as Harry potter being the good guy and Voldemort being the Bad guy I.e. from moral irrealism like hell he does.
Does Be Rational believe that something is incorrect until shown to be correct.....you bet your sweet Bippy.
-
For example Hillside blows hot and cold about who is being a good boy or girl and who is being bad.
Must be exhausting endlessly cranking the handle of the Trollboy Liartron like that.
-
And so the argumentum ad consequentiam continues...
No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to God. I still do not have all the facts.......but then I could say that the search for the source of knowledge of matter energy has ended in science.....likewise and again I do not have all the scientific facts.........
But enough of that......In the realms of where you guys are some of your chums are in fact my chums when it comes to objective morality. Now you may have a case that Objective morality has not yet been proven but moral relativism has been fatally disproven..........and at the moment it looks as though morality is in fact objective since that is where the evidence leads.
So to sum up Moral relativism disproven, Objective morality unproven.
Anybody want to actually say anything in defence of moral relativity rather than just attack objective morality?
Thought not.
-
Because it logically offers no actual moral difference between possibilities since all moralities are equally valid.
That's just another assertion, Vlad. You have made no actual argument. As BR said above, the individual mind does not treat all moral positions equally. For example, we could have capital punishment or not, but many people have a decided view on this, one way or another, and then a consensus is usually arrived at. But note how positions change - we used to have public executions.
-
That's just another assertion, Vlad.
well try it yourself. Assert that one position is correct while believing that neither nor any has any primacy over another.
-
That's just another assertion, Vlad. You have made no actual argument. As BR said above, the individual mind does not treat all moral positions equally. For example, we could have capital punishment or not, but many people have a decided view on this, one way or another, and then a consensus is usually arrived at. But note how positions change - we used to have public executions.
But the change is through concluding that one position was wrong...namely always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong at least in that sense.
-
No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to God.
Perhaps you took a wrong turn and got lost.
Anybody want to actually say anything in defence of moral relativity rather than just attack objective morality?
Thought not.
So, your suggestion is that instead of attacking your arguments we should instead* attack* defend what you imagine are our arguments and just ignore yours - sounds like Fabian strategy to me.
Won't work (since we are experienced at evading your troops of straw men).
* typo corrected.
-
Perhaps you took a wrong turn and got lost.
So, your suggestion is that instead of attacking your arguments we should instead attack what you imagine are our arguments and just ignore yours - sounds like Fabian strategy to me.
Eh since when has a suggestion that you defend your own argument been a suggestion that you should attack it?????
You are surely pushing the bounds of stupidity/evasion (delete as applicable).
Come on hot shot.....................defend moral relativity.
-
well try it yourself. Assert that one position is correct while believing that neither nor any has any primacy over another.
Why would I do that.
I know my position on most things. Sometime a position will be posed that I have to think about and come to a decision.
It is not about stating one thing while trying to believe another, it is about weighing up consequences in your own subjective opinion.
I change my position on some moral actions as well, as I am sure lots of people do.
-
And again Trollboy crashes off the rails...
So to sum up Moral relativism disproven,
Asserting something doesn't disprove it. As Trollboy is incapable of it, it'd be nice if someone would at least attempt this alleged disproof by an argument rather than by just asserting it to be so.
Objective morality unproven.
Same as objective aesthetics then.
-
Just a quick correction for Trollboy:
"No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to a belief in God".
-
And again Trollboy crashes off the rails...
Asserting something doesn't disprove it. As Trollboy is incapable of it, it'd be nice if someone would at least attempt this alleged disproof by an argument rather than by just asserting it to be so.
Same as objective aesthetics then.
There is some evidence that the required mental and physiological effect of aesthetics can be scientifically engineered........or are you suggesting there is a another dimension in aesthetics? In any case aesthetics is not morality. Careful now....you are in great danger of blowi ng your zeitgeist and consensus arguments here........just warning you about that as a friend.
-
Just a quick correction for Trollboy:
"No for me the search for the source of moral objectivity has led me to a belief in God".
Well as I said before Hillside I have to be where you are at the moment so if that helps and isn't just another avoidance/playing for time tactic on your part................................................
-
Eh since when has a suggestion that you defend your own argument been a suggestion that you should attack it?????
You are surely pushing the bounds of stupidity/evasion (delete as applicable).
Come on hot shot.....................defend moral relativity.
Point taken - that was a typo: when re-jigging that sentence (I used 'attacking' earlier in the same sentence) I meant to say 'defend' so I'll amend the post (now done). Apologies for that.
Even so, it still seems like you were encouraging us to defend our own arguments instead of attacking yours.
-
The ultimate definition of what is Good is what promotes everyone's humanity and what is bad as that which reduces it.
Why should we value the promotion of everyone's humanity? What makes it objective?
-
Why should we value the promotion of everyone's humanity? What makes it objective?
That as they say is a fantastically great question.
-
That as they say is a fantastically great question.
The answer is that I do not care about your opinion on things. I form my own subjective opinion informed by lots of things, even your input, but eventually I decide if I think something is right or wrong.
Is that what you do too?
If not, how do you decide?
-
That as they say is a fantastically great question.
Will it get an answer?
-
In the face of Trollboy's continued evasions, would anyone care to hazard a guess at why moral relativism might be "disproven"? So far as I can tell he starts with the odd notion that something must be absolute to be real, so - um - real morality must be objectively true then. Oddly though, he seems to think that, say, having an opinion on a piece of music being good or bad can be a real opinion without recourse to a supposed gold standard of musical worth.
So leaving aside his busted flush of an assertion, why might moral relativism be "disproven"? What I see is a world exactly as I'd expect it to look with people partially intuiting and partially reasoning their way to moral positions - probabilisitic, uncertain, messy, changeable as that might be - and living their lives accordingly. It's not so much that that's "proven" - it's just the way that it demonstrably is.
-
Andy,
Why should we value the promotion of everyone's humanity? What makes it objective?
Nothing does - it was just Trollboy's turn on the assertotron.
-
Will it get an answer?
yes.
Anything less than the promotion of humanity dehumanises and is therefore deemed immoral.
-
Andy,
yes.
Anything less than the promotion of humanity dehumanises and is therefore deemed immoral.
Trollboy meant there of course "no": just repeating his personal opinion on something doesn't magically make it objectively true. And that's before he even gets to trying to define "promotion of humanity" (such anthropocentrism!) and to telling us how he'd go about applying it - would killing the Amazonian tribe for example "promote humanity" or not according to his personal choice of a mantra I wonder?
-
In the face of Trollboy's continued evasions, would anyone care to hazard a guess at why moral relativism might be "disproven"? So far as I can tell he starts with the odd notion that something must be absolute to be real, so - um - real morality must be objectively true then. Oddly though, he seems to think that, say, having an opinion on a piece of music being good or bad can be a real opinion without recourse to a supposed gold standard of musical worth.
So leaving aside his busted flush of an assertion, why might moral relativism be "disproven"? What I see is a world exactly as I'd expect it to look with people partially intuiting and partially reasoning their way to moral positions - probabilisitic, uncertain, messy, changeable as that might be - and living their lives accordingly. It's not so much that that's "proven" - it's just the way that it demonstrably is.
Except that when you try to demonstrate that with your equation of morals with taste it is clear that the ''way it is'' is not how you say it is. 1) we all act like objective moralists 2) aesthetics is not morality 3) An appeal to authority in matters of art, music etc. militates against your consensus and zeitgeist assertions and that makes your ideas contradictory.
Finally why are you evading a positive defence for moral relativism? Is it finally ''The Turd that would not Buff Up''.
-
Andy,
Trollboy meant there of course "no": just repeating his personal opinion on something doesn't magically make it objectively true. And that's before he even gets to trying to define "promotion of humanity" (such anthropocentrism!) and to telling us how he'd go about applying it - would killing the Amazonian tribe for example "promote humanity" or not according to his personal choice of a mantra I wonder?
Pray tell me how does morality operate outside this definition.....and while you are at it tell us how morality operates within moral relativism?
-
Pray tell me how does morality operate outside this definition.....and while you are at it tell us how morality operates within moral relativism?
YOU have the burden of proof as YOU say that morality is objective.
Please demonstrate this assertion, or stop asserting it.
-
Point taken - that was a typo: when re-jigging that sentence (I used 'attacking' earlier in the same sentence) I meant to say 'defend' so I'll amend the post (now done). Apologies for that.
Even so, it still seems like you were encouraging us to defend our own arguments instead of attacking yours.
If this turns out to be a forum where people are just interested in attacking other peoples views without feeling the need to defend their own, then as Duncan Bannatyne would say...............I'm out.
-
yes.
Anything less than the promotion of humanity dehumanises and is therefore deemed immoral.
You're supposed to be answering why it is objectively moral to promote everyone's humanity. This is just going around in a circle, axiomatically stating that promoting everyone's humanity is moral therefore anything less is immoral. Try again.
-
If this turns out to be a forum where people are just interested in attacking other peoples views without feeling the need to defend their own, then as Duncan Bannatyne would say...............I'm out.
But I am making no claim, YOU are.
-
But the change is through concluding that one position was wrong...namely always wrong and therefore absolutely wrong at least in that sense.
I don't think it works like that. Take the morality of killing, it has been subject to massive fluctuations, dependent on the social situation, whether war or peace are prevailing, and many other factors. To cite 'always wrong' ignores historical changes; we no longer cut our enemies' heads off and impale them on stakes, but it would be a stretch to say that an ancient tribe were absolutely wrong to do this. My neighbour killed a burglar, well was that absolutely wrong? I don't think so. It depends.
-
YOU have the burden of proof as YOU say that morality is objective.
Please demonstrate this assertion, or stop asserting it.
I have clarified my position in reply#550 and it is not what you make it out to be.
-
I have clarified my position in reply#550 and it is not what you make it out to be.
It is not clear.
How do you use your method to come to a conclusion about a moral position to take?
I weight up my own subjective opinion and form a view.
You it seems do NOT do that, but have some external means to find the true correct objective answer.
You have been asked to provide this, but you never do.
Waffle about looking at nature is just vapid white noise.
Is homosexuality objectively morally correct according to YOUR method?
-
I don't think it works like that. Take the morality of killing, it has been subject to massive fluctuations, dependent on the social situation, whether war or peace are prevailing, and many other factors. To cite 'always wrong' ignores historical changes; we no longer cut our enemies' heads off and impale them on stakes, but it would be a stretch to say that an ancient tribe were absolutely wrong to do this. My neighbour killed a burglar, well was that absolutely wrong? I don't think so. It depends.
Surely the moral position is killing is wrong and having to kill is always a lesser evil but evil all the same. Particularly those who believe in either the theists edenic paradise or the atheists concept of post enlightenment progress. Otherwise it would be a regular feature of all societies wouldn't it?
-
It is not clear.
How do you use your method to come to a conclusion about a moral position to take?
I weight up my own subjective opinion and form a view.
Meaningless bollocks unless you care to elaborate.
-
Meaningless bollocks unless you care to elaborate.
There is nothing to elaborate on.
I weigh up what I think the pros and cons are and come to a subjective opinion.
I sometime weigh them up at a later date with more information and come to a different conclusion.
What do YOU do?
-
There is nothing to elaborate on.
I weigh up what I think the pros and cons are and come to a subjective opinion.
I sometime weigh them up at a later date with more information and come to a different conclusion.
What do YOU do?
What do you weigh against................ your own standard? or society's standards? or the one you were brought up on? or the one you have been programmed with? and what is the rule that governs your decision?.......or is it a random process?
What if hitting some one on the head tips the scales for you?
Any way isn't your process more akin to reasoning than taste which is after all irrational?
-
Surely the moral position is killing is wrong and having to kill is always a lesser evil but evil all the same. Particularly those who believe in either the theists edenic paradise or the atheists concept of post enlightenment progress. Otherwise it would be a regular feature of all societies wouldn't it?
Well, that is your position, so calling it 'the' moral position is a false generality. My neighbour definitely does not think that killing the burglar was evil. That is his position, and agreed with by many of my neighbours. He is a local hero.
-
I'll just put it out there that I'm not a moral relativist. I think moral assessments are objective, but the foundational values those assessments are based on are subjective.
-
Well, that is your position, so calling it 'the' moral position is a false generality. My neighbour definitely does not think that killing the burglar was evil. That is his position, and agreed with by many of my neighbours. He is a local hero.
Sounds like they are confusing something with something else.
-
What do you weigh against................ your own standard? or society's standards? or the one you were brought up on? or the one you have been programmed with? and what is the rule that governs your decision?.......or is it a random process?
What if hitting some one on the head tips the scales for you?
Any way isn't your process more akin to reasoning than taste which is after all irrational?
My own standard that's why it's subjective.
My standard will be informed from all around me, but it's mine
-
Well, that is your position, so calling it 'the' moral position is a false generality. My neighbour definitely does not think that killing the burglar was evil. That is his position, and agreed with by many of my neighbours. He is a local hero.
Indeed.
I may agree or disagree depending on the circumstance.
For example if the burglar was a little old lady that posed no threat, then NO.
-
My own standard that's why it's subjective.
My standard will be informed from all around me, but it's mine
So you can never be wrong or do bad then?
-
So you can never be wrong or do bad then?
In my subjective opinion NO.
Is this not the same for everyone?
I might feel uncomfortable about some decisions if I was torn between competing actions, and I could not see a clear winner, but had to make a decision.
Can you answer the homosexuality question I ask but you never answer?
-
In my subjective opinion NO.
Is this not the same for everyone?
No I think everyone apart from you has admitted that they fall short on occasions......You seem to be the only one.
-
No I think everyone apart from you has admitted that they fall short on occasions......You seem to be the only one.
Fall short.
I make poor decisions of course but not deliberately.
I sometime have to choose over the lesser of two evils.
Don't you?
How do you do it?
-
Sounds like they are confusing something with something else.
I don't get that. They don't think that X killing the burglar was at all evil; they see it as necessary and heroic. How is that confused?
-
Fall short.
I make poor decisions of course but not deliberately.
I sometime have to choose over the lesser of two evils.
Don't you?
How do you do it?
No I think you are still a rarity when someone who ought to lose weight does something to increase it they know they are harming themselves for instance. I agree about lesser evils......but that suggests belief in evil which I would have thought is I moral objectivists trait.
-
No I think you are still a rarity when someone who ought to lose weight does something to increase it they know they are harming themselves for instance. I agree about lesser evils......but that suggests belief in evil which I would have thought is I moral objectivists trait.
No not objective at all.
I sometimes struggle with two subjective moral actions, and have to make a decision. I might later conclude that it was not the best decision after all, when new information comes to me.
You ignored the question about homosexuality again, when I keep answering yours.
Why is that?
-
I don't get that. They don't think that X killing the burglar was at all evil; they see it as necessary and heroic. How is that confused?
If he is just a burgler then they are confusing property with humanity. If he was more then it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.
No reason it wasn't heroic. I think most people feel something if they are forced into killing someone don't they?
-
If he is just a burgler then they are confusing property with humanity. If he was more then it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.
No reason it wasn't heroic. I think most people feel something if they are forced into killing someone don't they?
What if the burglar was 10 year old child.
Is killing still justified and heroic?
-
If he is just a burgler then they are confusing property with humanity. If he was more then it was a necessary evil in a fallen world.
No reason it wasn't heroic. I think most people feel something if they are forced into killing someone don't they?
Yes, but Vlad, this is the point. My neighbours don't think it was a necessary evil in a fallen world. And they don't think it was confusing property with humanity. OK, you do, but isn't this what we are arguing about? People have different views on moral questions, and there is no fixed objective position.
-
Yes, but Vlad, this is the point. My neighbours don't think it was a necessary evil in a fallen world. And they don't think it was confusing property with humanity. OK, you do, but isn't this what we are arguing about? People have different views on moral questions, and there is no fixed objective position.
But it is Palpable confusion whether they think it not or so. But it raises an interesting point. There have always been people who think like that and those who are opposed. So these moral positions are part and parcel of human experience and not zeitgeist which has been suggested.
-
What if the burglar was 10 year old child.
Is killing still justified and heroic?
I think you've demonised me a little too much and too often BR. You have got the wrong end of the stick.....this is a Wigginhall post and I do not think it is right to use more than reasonable force with burglars. If the state then lets me down in terms of justice then that's just the tories for you.
-
I think you've demonised me a little too much and too often BR. You have got the wrong end of the stick.....this is a Wigginhall post and I do not think it is right to use more than reasonable force with burglars. If the state then lets me down in terms of justice then that's just the tories for you.
So this is an objective moral position then?
Who decides what is reasonable?
-
So this is an objective moral position then?
Who decides what is reasonable?
I think the law states the words proportionate force. That means say if I have destroyed moral relativism it would be unreasonable for me to then continually smite it's wrath upon post after post.
-
BR,
So this is an objective moral position then?
Who decides what is reasonable?
Without realising it Trollboy is running into the same problem here that Alan/Alien had with his "torturing a child just for fun" scenario. You can choose any moral position you like - especially an extreme one - and ask for people's opinions on it, and thereby obtain a consensus. Similarly you can ask lots of people whether or not the late Beethoven quartets are great music and obtain a consensus on that too. Even with all those opinions in the bag though, you'd be not one jot of a step towards demonstrating in either case an objective quality of "good" or "bad".
It gets more bonkers still: Trollboy has invoked "authority" - another of his arguments from consequences fallacies - yet the entire judicial system runs quite happily on the basis of concepts like "beyond reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities" and exercises its authority accordingly without the need to claim absolutes or certainties. I'd readily argue on the same basis for a moral position I hold - a messy mix of intuition and reason in most cases - but allowing always for the possibility that I could be wrong, as indeed I'd have to with no rational argument to suggest that absolute moral certainties exist at all, even assuming that I'd have some magic process to tap into them if they did.
Like I said: weird.
-
I suppose Vlad is working backwards. He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.
-
Wiggs,
I suppose Vlad is working backwards. He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.
Just so. He's been caught out often enough with circular reasoning now to know enough not to try the "because God made it that way" line again when he wants to use supposed objective morality as evidence for God, but that's left him with nothing at all by way of an argument to support his assertion. Instead he's reduced to announcing that moral relativism is "disproven" it seems because he thinks it has no "authority", even though it has no less probabilistic authority than many other areas of human experience that function perfectly well with no recourse to claimed absolutes at all.
When you cut through the endless evasions, fallacies and accusations his position really is that vapid.
-
I suppose Vlad is working backwards. He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.
Quite likely. To me, morality is 'social habits'. Such habits could be based upon the desires and fears of the humans making up that society and enforced by whoever wealds the power and it is changeable, relative and subjective. If one believes in a God which is eternal and absolute then one's social habits would be directed towards the objective of obeying the will of that God as only that God is Good. The Ten Commandments would be a framework.
-
BR,
Without realising it Trollboy is running into the same problem here that Alan/Alien had with his "torturing a child just for fun" scenario.
That's just throwing shit and hoping some of it sticks, Hillside.
You are getting desperate. Go out for a bike ride and/or have your carbon monoxide detectors checked............You are losing the plot(not that you had it in the first place.)
-
I suppose Vlad is working backwards. He needs objective morality as a supportive argument for God, so he defends it, even though there appear to be no arguments for it at all.
I think any non axe grinder would actually look at my post and say actually this chap is putting himself alongside the atheist objective moralists.....see#550.
I was actually an objective moralist before I was a convinced theist.
-
I think any non axe grinder would actually look at my post and say actually this chap is putting himself alongside the atheist objective moralists.....see#550.
I was actually an objective moralist before I was a convinced theist.
And at that time, you thought you should promote everyone's humanity because...
-
That's just throwing shit and hoping some of it sticks, Hillside.
You are getting desperate. Go out for a bike ride and/or have your carbon monoxide detectors checked............You are losing the plot(not that you had it in the first place.)
And here we see Trollboy not liking having his difficulty pointed out but unable to counter-argue so resorting to abuse instead.
That's the trouble with feeding trolls - sometimes they can't keep it all down...
-
If that were true we would still be back in the earliest stages of man.
Our morality is as individual as our fingerprints...we choose it.
Hardly an objective morality, eh Sass?
I thought you guys believe that our morality isn't chosen but comes from your imaginary friend?
-
And here we see Trollboy not liking having his difficulty pointed out but unable to counter-argue so resorting to abuse instead.
That's the trouble with feeding trolls - sometimes they can't keep it all down...
You've obviously got an issue friend but I think you'll understand I can't climb in with you........So good luck old chum.
-
You've obviously got an issue friend but I think you'll understand I can't climb in with you........So good luck old chum.
Accept Trollboy's capitulation as I must, there's no pleasure in taking it from an unarmed man.
Anyways as he's exited the field he was never really in, does anyone want to make an attempt at least to bridge the gap from subjective opinion about supposed objective morality to its objective truth or can we now re-consign it to where it belonged all along?
-
But enough of that......In the realms of where you guys are some of your chums are in fact my chums when it comes to objective morality. Now you may have a case that Objective morality has not yet been proven but moral relativism has been fatally disproven..........and at the moment it looks as though morality is in fact objective since that is where the evidence leads.
So to sum up Moral relativism disproven, Objective morality unproven.
Once again, you are making empty assertions and failing to provide any arguments.
Your main problem seems to be that you are unable to accept that it isn't a stark choice between objective morality and morality being meaningless and unimportant. Most humans have a sense of morality, think that it's important, and try to "do the right thing". However, it isn't consistent and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it is anything but an evolved trait - with all the variability that that implies. It is further complicated because we are thinking, social animals that can, on occasion, change our minds and attitudes due to experience and the influence of others.
The evidence, far from supporting objective morality, is that it is a part of human nature that is subject to complex cultural and individual variations.
-
A lot of Vlad's declarations operate by fiat. Thus he declares that moral relativism has been 'fatally disproven', and hey presto, that's it. He doesn't have to demonstrate this disproof, since the declaration should be enough. Also known as wishful thinking.
-
Wiggs,
A lot of Vlad's declarations operate by fiat. Thus he declares that moral relativism has been 'fatally disproven', and hey presto, that's it. He doesn't have to demonstrate this disproof, since the declaration should be enough. Also known as wishful thinking.
He's also given to complaining that the rest of us won't debate the ramifications of his "disproven/not yet proven" premise when he has no argument to demonstrate the former and not even a coherent description of what the latter could look like – ie, rather than "unproven" he's stuck still in "not even wrong" territory.