Take Back Our Country

[seer]

In your dreams...

Did you have a nice nap old man?

[carpedm9587]

Did you have a nice nap old man?

I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you.

I can tell by your antiquated philosophy...




ETA: that's a joke...

[Tassman]

My problem is that you keep arguing with me because I believe relative ethics are meaningless, like I am somehow in the wrong for doing so.

[seer]

You yourself practice relative ethics, but you do so under the guise of absolute morality. When it comes to 'morality' prior beliefs and acculturated presuppositions inevitably shape biblical interpretation to some degree.

Nonsense, I do not practice ethical relativism because I am a Theist. If you say that my understanding is at times wrong, or that I get things wrong, fine, but that is not the same as practicing relative ethics.

Show me where the bible says that interracial marriage is prohibited. It doesn't Biblically follow that because God created the races that He did not approve of interracial marriage. That is an idea NOT FOUND in scripture. If you think otherwise post the references here.

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense, I do not practice ethical relativism because I am a Theist. If you say that my understanding is at times wrong, or that I get things wrong, fine, but that is not the same as practicing relative ethics.

Actually, Seer, if you look at it for a moment, you'll see that although the name you give it is different, the process and outcome is identical. To whit, you hold one belief to be moral. Then along comes someone with an argument to convince you that your moral position is in error. You consider it, reflect on it, decide the argument is sound, and shift your moral position to the new position because you have found it "better."

The basis for your argument is different, but the behavior is exactly the same as what moral subjectivism/relativism predicts. When you add to that your inability to show that a moral absolute actually exists...I think you can see why I (we?) do not find your argument very compelling.

What we see is a man insist blue cars are better than red cars, provide no real argument except "red cars aren't blue cars," insist he is driving a blue car, and then we watch him drive off in his red car and scratch our heads.

[Sparko]

Then we disagree. The two concepts are highly analogous. Not the special/general theories, mind you. Simply the observation that absolute position/motion are meaningless concepts.

Well done Carp!

The analogy that relative position and motion are meaningless concepts does indeed show that relative morality is a meaningless concept.

[carpedm9587]

Well done Carp!

The analogy that relative position and motion are meaningless concepts does indeed show that relative morality is a meaningless concept.

You jumped the rail logically somewhere.

[Sparko]

I've already responded to this.

However, I'm a little curious. Do you feel at all childish with the condescending emojis? You kind of come across that way...

Nope. It is just a simple way to express how dumb I thought you were being. You made it a point to tell Seer that he didn't understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, while showing over and over that you are the one who did not. It was very condescending of you to go around preaching to Seer when you did not even realize that Einstein's theory of relativity was the same thing as "special relativity" and that what you were actually describing was Galilean or Newtonian Relativity. I am sorry I previously claimed you were being dishonest when you claimed you hadn't used "special relativity" -- you were instead, just ignorant of what the heck you were using in the first place. Thus the

Maybe try to not be so patronizing and condescending the next time?

You still don't seem to understand why your use of Einstein's relativity was so wrong for your analogy. It basically says that the physical laws of the universe are the SAME for everyone no matter their frame of reference. It is not so much about everyone measuring each other's speed differently as it is that no matter what speed they are moving at, the actual way they relate to the universe is exactly the same. It is as if they are standing still and the universe is moving around them. Basically it shows that the rules of the universe are OBJECTIVE for everyone. Even if they are not in the same frame.

A better analogy would be that even if a person has different personal morals, the actual morality of the universe is objective and remains the same. Even if someone thinks rape is moral, it is not. It is objectively immoral.

[Sparko]

You do like to make ad hominem attacks, Sparko. That much I can say for you.

Oh well...on to the actual subject.

Although it was a error on my part to include "special" in that one post, because I was not looking at the entire theory of special relativity, if you actually read what Einstein put forward, the First Postulate of special relativity reads: "observers can never detect uniform motion except relative to other objects."

You are referring specifically to the Second Postulate, which reads, "Unlike the velocity of massive objects, the speed of light is a constant and is the same for all observers independent of their CONSTANT VELOCITY toward or away from the light source."

Einstein, as you correctly pointed out, did not originate the first postulate. It builds upon the works of others before him, most notably Newton. One source for this is here, but you can find countless others with a simple search.

So my language was sloppy, as you correctly noted. I separated out the First Postulate from the Special Theory and treated it as a base on which he built the Special Theory. Instead, he incorporated the concept IN the Special Theory as a postulate. Until I went looking, I have to admit I did not know that. And all of this is STILL irrelevant to the basic point being made: claiming a thing is meaningless solely on the basis of its relative/subjective nature is not a sustainable position.

Wow. You are still trying to cover up your error and pretend you knew what you were talking about all along.

It boggles the mind. Everyone here sees that you had NO idea about what Einstein's theory of relativity was other than as some vague popular idea you had probably heard of a while back.

People would respect you much more if you just admitted your mistakes instead of constantly scrambling to save face and pretend you know what you are talking about.

[Sparko]

People wrongly using the bible to justify their behavior doesn't equate to the bible taught something.

There is nothing in the bible that says interracial marriage is immoral. I challenge you to show it to me. Races are not even mentioned in the bible. Just people and nations.

[Sparko]

You jumped the rail logically somewhere.

nope. You just destroyed your own analogy.

Relative motion is meaningless because no matter the motion, the physical laws of the universe are the same to all observers. Just like your relative morals are meaningless because the objective morality of the universe is the same for all people.

[seer]

You jumped the rail logically somewhere.

Actually Carp, no he didn't. If position/motion are meaningless concepts, then so are relative ethics. Your analogy holds for both...

[carpedm9587]

nope. You just destroyed your own analogy.

Relative motion is meaningless because no matter the motion, the physical laws of the universe are the same to all observers. Just like your relative morals are meaningless because the objective morality of the universe is the same for all people.

No - you definitely jumped the rails. At no point did I say "relative motion is meaningless." Indeed, from beginning to end, the point was "physics did not become meaningless when we discovered all motion/position is relative." If you read my last statement, it says, "Simply the observation that absolute position/motion are meaningless concepts."

In other words, we learned, from relativity, that the notion of "absolute position/motion" is meaningless - everything is relative to everything else. That did not destroy the meaningfulness of physics. Likewise, as people come to realize that morality is itself relative (and subjective), there is no basis for claiming morality will become meaningless.

[carpedm9587]

Nope. It is just a simple way to express how dumb I thought you were being. You made it a point to tell Seer that he didn't understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity, while showing over and over that you are the one who did not.

Actually - if you read my post related to this, you will note that I actually do understand it. What I did not know was that the concept of relative motion had been embedded in Special Relativity as "Postulate One." I believed it was a precursor to both Special and General relativity. So I misunderstood how he organized the theory, not the meaning of the theory itself.

It was very condescending of you to go around preaching to Seer when you did not even realize that Einstein's theory of relativity was the same thing as "special relativity" and that what you were actually describing was Galilean or Newtonian Relativity. I am sorry I previously claimed you were being dishonest when you claimed you hadn't used "special relativity" -- you were instead, just ignorant of what the heck you were using in the first place. Thus the

Maybe try to not be so patronizing and condescending the next time?

I post - and I feel no patronizing or condescension. I'm simply engaging in an argument. The rest is in your mind, not mine, so I'll leave you to it.

You still don't seem to understand why your use of Einstein's relativity was so wrong for your analogy. It basically says that the physical laws of the universe are the SAME for everyone no matter their frame of reference. It is not so much about everyone measuring each other's speed differently as it is that no matter what speed they are moving at, the actual way they relate to the universe is exactly the same. It is as if they are standing still and the universe is moving around them. Basically it shows that the rules of the universe are OBJECTIVE for everyone. Even if they are not in the same frame.

Yes - this is true. Every analogy breaks at some point, as we have noted elsewhere. My point was narrowly focused on the claim "relative/subjectivity makes a thing meaningless."

A better analogy would be that even if a person has different personal morals, the actual morality of the universe is objective and remains the same. Even if someone thinks rape is moral, it is not. It is objectively immoral.

Since you cannot show the existence of such and absolute/objective framework...

[carpedm9587]

Wow. You are still trying to cover up your error and pretend you knew what you were talking about all along.

It boggles the mind. Everyone here sees that you had NO idea about what Einstein's theory of relativity was other than as some vague popular idea you had probably heard of a while back.

People would respect you much more if you just admitted your mistakes instead of constantly scrambling to save face and pretend you know what you are talking about.

Your opinion is duly noted.