Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Dragphobia on the rise...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Your personal interpretation of the bible is hardly the only possible interpretation of it, and will have been hugely influenced by both the translations you were using and the theology you were taught. I once wrote a book about how cumulative misinterpretation of the bible over time resulted in the theology you've been espousing in this thread. I can't really be bothered rehashing that all here.
    Ephesians 2:

    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.



    Matthew 7

    22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’


    Both NRSVCE. I would concede that, technically, a plain interpretation is a kind of interpretation. People are free to interpret those verse in a more soothing way, but I see nothing that would suggest my interpretation is incorrect. If you prefer, New Advent has a trilingual Bible, I could quote that.


    have been telling you my view. If you don't want to agree with it you don't have to.
    You seem to be disagreeing with yourself.

    Sure. But it's worth bearing in mind that most philosophers are atheists and most who are atheists are moral realists. So when you go around confidently declaring that there is no 'atheist' position on morality, that you would seem to be wrong, at least in the sense that we can point to a majority one. If you want to hold a different personal view on the topic of morality, that is, of course, your prerogative.
    I never said anything about there being no atheist position on morality, merely that atheism itself doesn't touch on morality.
    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
      Ephesians 2:

      8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
      Indeed a common go-to verse. If you start wondering though if the terms 'grace', 'faith', 'saved', 'works', 'boast' are really being translated/understood correctly in modern Protestantism, then any surety falls apart with regard to what a verse that packs so many of those religious technical terms together is actually trying to say.

      I also note you seem to be assuming that quoting single bible verses is sufficient to speak to the theology of the entire bible, as if the different authors of the bible cannot have held different views to each other?
      James 2:24 "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone"

      Matthew 7

      22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’
      It seems like this supports my position far more than yours. It's saying judgement will be according to the morality of the people ("evildoers") rather than religious faith.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post

        Sure. But it's worth bearing in mind that most philosophers are atheists and most who are atheists are moral realists. So when you go around confidently declaring that there is no 'atheist' position on morality, that you would seem to be wrong, at least in the sense that we can point to a majority one. If you want to hold a different personal view on the topic of morality, that is, of course, your prerogative.
        Are you joking Star? Where is the logical connection between atheism and moral realism? If you go back 30 or 40 years you would probably find that most atheists were moral relativists or utilitarians. Never mind the fact that you have yet to produce one universal moral truth. So your position is irrational. You want the moral certainty without the necessary Deity...
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Are you joking Star? Where is the logical connection between atheism and moral realism? If you go back 30 or 40 years you would probably find that most atheists were moral relativists or utilitarians. Never mind the fact that you have yet to produce one universal moral truth. So your position is irrational. You want the moral certainty without the necessary Deity...
          I'm not interested in another 100 page thread where I give thorough answers to all your questions and completely demolish your views, and you forget all those answers a couple of pages later and demand them again. Go read some of our past exchanges if you want answers.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            I'm not interested in another 100 page thread where I give thorough answers to all your questions and completely demolish your views, and you forget all those answers a couple of pages later and demand them again. Go read some of our past exchanges if you want answers.
            Star all I ever asked you for was one universal moral truth and why it was so. You never produce even one. You could do it here - in one simple paragraph, instead or your meaningless, endless, verbal diatribes. Never mind the fact that there is no logical connection between atheism and moral realism besides it presently being a popular view.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              Indeed a common go-to verse. If you start wondering though if the terms 'grace', 'faith', 'saved', 'works', 'boast' are really being translated/understood correctly in modern Protestantism, then any surety falls apart with regard to what a verse that packs so many of those religious technical terms together is actually trying to say.
              Okay Bill Clinton.

              I also note you seem to be assuming that quoting single bible verses is sufficient to speak to the theology of the entire bible, as if the different authors of the bible cannot have held different views to each other?
              James 2:24 "a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone"
              I never said works were unimportant. Also, I spoke of salvation, not justification.



              It seems like this supports my position far more than yours. It's saying judgement will be according to the morality of the people ("evildoers") rather than religious faith.

              If Jesus never knew them, they were not saved and still went to Hell despite their works.
              P1) If , then I win.

              P2)

              C) I win.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Star all I ever asked you for was one universal moral truth and why it was so. You never produce even one. You could do it here - in one simple paragraph, instead or your meaningless, endless, verbal diatribes. Never mind the fact that there is no logical connection between atheism and moral realism besides it presently being a popular view.
                Pretty sure I've said 'the golden rule' to you as an answer to this question many times now. You not personally liking that answer doesn't mean I haven't given it, so please stop repeating your false claims.

                And you call my explanations about why it is so, 'meaningless, endless, verbal diatribes', which again, just because you don't personally like my explanations doesn't mean I didn't actually give those explanations, so please have some level of basic truthfulness and stop claiming I haven't provided answers and arguments.

                I don't know how you feel you can be an expert on morality when you can't even manage truthful statements about even the most basic of things. As I said above, I am not going to repeat your game where I spend 100 pages giving you all the answers and demolishing your positions only for you to pretend immediately afterward that none of it was said.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Pretty sure I've said 'the golden rule' to you as an answer to this question many times now. You not personally liking that answer doesn't mean I haven't given it, so please stop repeating your false claims.
                  Star, you missed the point then and you miss it now. First, the GR is not universal nor is it objective. Second,

                  Moral realism

                  According to moral realists, statements about what actions are morally required or permissible and statements about what dispositions or character traits are morally virtuous or vicious (and so on) are not mere expressions of subjective preferences but are objectively true or false according as they correspond with the facts of morality
                  The GR is merely an expression of a particular subjective preference. You can not, nor could you ever, make the case that the Golden Rule is an OBJECTIVE moral truth - it is a subjective preference.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    The GR is merely an expression of a particular subjective preference. You can not, nor could you ever, make the case that the Golden Rule is an OBJECTIVE moral truth - it is a subjective preference.
                    Different humans subjectively value different things. But the one thing all those value judgments have in common is that they are performed by minds. Minds are logically prior to, and required for, any and all value judgements. They are objectively in a qualitatively different class with regard to value as compared to any and all subjective value judgements made using them. Thus the one thing that has objective and intrinsic value, and are not subjective preferences, is minds. The innate value of minds, logically different to that of subjective moral judgements, is thus not a subjective particular preference, but an objective logical fact about the world. For this reason I often describe the fundamentals of morality as "value others", referring to valuing those minds. The golden rule just phrases this same idea a little differently, but is fundamentally expressing the same thing.

                    Hence I've proved you wrong, and I've 'made the case' (which, btw, just means to argue for something, which I clearly have). Perhaps what you really meant was "You can not, nor could you ever, make the case in such a way as for me, Seer, to admit you had a good argument, because I am infinitely stubborn and in denial and will just refuse to accept or agree with your argument no matter what you say".
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Different humans subjectively value different things. But the one thing all those value judgments have in common is that they are performed by minds. Minds are logically prior to, and required for, any and all value judgements.
                      Which would negate moral realism.


                      They are objectively in a qualitatively different class with regard to value as compared to any and all subjective value judgements made using them. Thus the one thing that has objective and intrinsic value, and are not subjective preferences, is minds.
                      "Objective value" is a contradiction.


                      The innate value of minds, logically different to that of subjective moral judgements, is thus not a subjective particular preference, but an objective logical fact about the world.
                      X for doubt.

                      .

                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Diogenes View Post
                        Which would negate moral realism.

                        "Objective value" is a contradiction.

                        X for doubt.
                        Your declarations aren't very interesting if you don't provide arguments as to why anyone else should believe them.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Your declarations aren't very interesting if you don't provide arguments as to why anyone else should believe them.
                          The very definition of moral realism would exclude valuation as valuation is necessary subjective. That seems rather obvious.

                          "Objective value" is a contraction, there's hardly a reason to provide an argument for the self-evident. One merely needs to grasp the terms to understand the contradiction.
                          P1) If , then I win.

                          P2)

                          C) I win.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Different humans subjectively value different things. But the one thing all those value judgments have in common is that they are performed by minds. Minds are logically prior to, and required for, any and all value judgements. They are objectively in a qualitatively different class with regard to value as compared to any and all subjective value judgements made using them. Thus the one thing that has objective and intrinsic value, and are not subjective preferences, is minds.
                            Star, that clearly does not follow. Yes minds, or the person, has an objective existence but it does not follow that minds have intrinsic value, that claim is itself subjective or preference. The fact that minds exist or exist prior to making moral judgements does not infer value, especially inherent value. If you think otherwise please show us why.


                            The innate value of minds, logically different to that of subjective moral judgements, is thus not a subjective particular preference, but an objective logical fact about the world. For this reason I often describe the fundamentals of morality as "value others", referring to valuing those minds. The golden rule just phrases this same idea a little differently, but is fundamentally expressing the same thing.
                            But you have not made the case that minds have inherent value, that is an assertion on your part. That 'value' is not a 'objective logical fact about the world.'
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post

                              Star, that clearly does not follow. Yes minds, or the person, has an objective existence but it does not follow that minds have intrinsic value, that claim is itself subjective or preference. The fact that minds exist or exist prior to making moral judgements does not infer value, especially inherent value. If you think otherwise please show us why.




                              But you have not made the case that minds have inherent value, that is an assertion on your part. That 'value' is not a 'objective logical fact about the world.'
                              Minds do have inherent value...do they not?

                              Any mind is going to place value on it's own existence. Does that not count as being an objective fact about the world?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Machinist View Post

                                Minds do have inherent value...do they not?
                                No, does the mind of a fly have inherent value? Our mind, or person, only has value because God deems it so. In other words we have value because God says so...

                                Any mind is going to place value on it's own existence. Does that not count as being an objective fact about the world?
                                It is an objective fact that most people value their minds, but that is a subjective preference.

                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                160 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X