Originally posted by carpedm9587
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Take Back Our Country
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostActually Carp, no he didn't. If position/motion are meaningless concepts, then so are relative ethics. Your analogy holds for both...
Absolute motion/position are meaningless concepts
Relative motion/position is all that exists (and the framework from which they are assessed is subjectively selected)
That reality did not make physics meaningless
The claim being made is that relative/subjective morality is meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective
We have already seen at least one thing that is relative/subjective and is still meaningful/useful. Another is the world of law. So we have at least two relative/subjective things that continue to be useful and meaningful. Ergo, the claim that relative/subjective morality is useless/meaningless solely because it is relative/subjective is unsustainable.
That has been the argument from the outset. It has never changed. And you have not done anything to refute it, except to point out that I separated the notion of relative motion from Special Relativity instead of recognizing it was a Postulate One within the theory. How Einstein organized the theory (base + Special Relativity - or - Postulate One and Postulate Two within Special Relativity) does not change the truth of the theory or my understanding of it. It just means I didn't know how/remember the theory was linguistically organized. I'm grateful for the correction. Always nice to learn something.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostThe claim being made is that relative/subjective morality is meaningless solely because it is relative/subjectiveAtheism 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 PostThat is nonsense Carp, as I explained before. Let's use a current example. Homosexuality is a sin. The Biblical model for human sexuality is between a man and a women, in the context of marriage. Now, on what basis could I possibly find that homosexuality is now a moral good?
Originally posted by seer View PostThere is no argument since I base my present position on the revealed law of an omniscient God. His knowledge of future consequences of any behavior is complete. I would have no rational ground to dispute His moral law. My only option would be to reject God or His revealed will.
I am under no illusion that you are going to be convinced by any rational argumentation. So, most of the time, you will be someone that is either in the "agree-to-disagree" bucket, the "isolate/separate" bucket, or the "contend" bucket. For the most part, in casual places like this, we'll probably agree to disagree. I don't think you're a bad person, and I recognize you think you are doing what is right and are blind to the harm you do. I probably would not invite you to dinner with some of my LGBTQ friends (isolate/separate). In the public sphere, we will politically contend as I strive to align the laws of our country with my own moral framework (along with a lot of my fellow citizens).The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut I never made that argument, so who are you arguing against?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI have noted multiple times that this one will be harder for the right. The statements against homosexuality are far more explicit in the bible than those about slavery, the role of women, contraception, abortion, and all of the other moral issues on which the various churches have gone separate ways. Some churches have done this, but they tend to be those that are not locked into a literalist interpretation of the bible.
Yes - you have locked your moral framework to your interpretation of a book. So you value god, and based on that valuing and your desire to protect/enhance that relationship, you have subjectively determined that the "moral" thing to do is "follow his commandments" (as you subjectively interpret them) in the collection of books you call the bible. It's relative/subjective morality, Seer, but with the added twist that you have abandoned reasoning on basic moral principles and locked yourself to (your interpretation of) a book. So, for someone to convince you, they either have to: a) convince you that this god you believe in doesn't exist (which is unlikely) or b) convince you that you are misinterpreting the book (which is also unlikely).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 carpedm9587 View PostSeer...you have made that claim multiple times. It's a little disingenuous to deny it now. I'm not going to spend the time going back and finding all of the posts. I'll trust those reading the thread to find them.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 carpedm9587 View PostSince you cannot show the existence of such and absolute/objective framework...
We are each using analogies to showcase our views. My analogy using relativity is more valid than yours was.
But I think even more evidence of objective morality is how hard you keep arguing AS IF moral values were objectively true for everyone, even while claiming they are relative.
Morals are built into us. And we all seem to have a common set of basic values. The details can get messy but the basics are the same.
For example, homosexuality. The basic moral there that we both share is that people deserve to love one another. Where we disagree is on what types of relationships are valid. We agree some relationships are off limits (pedophilia for instance) and homosexuality is just one of the ones we disagree on. But the basic moral, love, we share. All humans do. It is "good" - to me that is an objective moral.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAh I misread you!
Sorry.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Carp, it is not about literal or not - it is about rejecting what Scripture actually says. I spend a number of years in a very liberal church, I know better than you what they believe.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is pure bunk Carp, it is not a relative morality if it is the law of God, that is the only question. Whether I subjectively understand it or not. Homosexuality would be sin, even if I subjectively rejected that notion. And what do you mean that I have abandoned reasoning on basic moral principles? Whose reasoning? Whose moral principles? Yours? If it is all relative Carp your admonition makes no sense whatsoever.
You have an entire moral system built upon perceptions and subjective opinions and beliefs. As I said in an earlier post, those of us who understand that morality is relative/subjective see you doing the equivalent of claiming cars are blue, blue cars are best - better than red cars, defending it by arguing that red cars aren't blue, insisting you are driving a blue car, and then contentedly driving away in your red car.
It leaves us shaking our heads just a tad....The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostNo Carp, I don't expect you to remember everything I said, but I have more than one reason.
Originally posted by seer View PostYes, the fact that there are no objectively right answers for the most profound moral questions is problematic for me.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd the fact, that if we really do live in a godless universe then our moral musings are ultimately as insignificant as we are. I would not put any meaning the moral conclusions of ants. And in the big picture we are no more than ants.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou cannot show the existence of relative morality is "true"
Originally posted by Sparko View PostWe are each using analogies to showcase our views. My analogy using relativity is more valid than yours was.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostBut I think even more evidence of objective morality is how hard you keep arguing AS IF moral values were objectively true for everyone, even while claiming they are relative.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostMorals are built into us. And we all seem to have a common set of basic values. The details can get messy but the basics are the same.
Originally posted by Sparko View PostFor example, homosexuality. The basic moral there that we both share is that people deserve to love one another. Where we disagree is on what types of relationships are valid. We agree some relationships are off limits (pedophilia for instance) and homosexuality is just one of the ones we disagree on. But the basic moral, love, we share. All humans do. It is "good" - to me that is an objective moral.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYep. I tend to read too quickly sometimes. I am currently at work and I have a lot of pauses while tasks run in the background so I use the time to check Tweb. But I do sometimes rush when things are hectic.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:42 AM
|
7 responses
30 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:44 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 08:04 AM
|
26 responses
105 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Today, 11:48 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:47 AM
|
19 responses
61 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 11:54 AM
|
||
Started by Starlight, Yesterday, 10:22 PM
|
12 responses
82 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 08:49 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:39 PM
|
13 responses
54 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:27 AM
|
Comment