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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou cannot show the existence of relative morality is "true"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 carpedm9587 View PostYeah, you guys like to go there a lot...
So your faith is based on the bible being a best seller and Jesus of Nazareth having influenced more people than anyone else? And then you get your pants in a knot when someone appeals to "majority?" What on earth is THAT but an appeal to majority. Sorry, Seer, but the world has been filled with many great thinkers, with many great ideas, and there are many things worth considering. To surrender your freedom of thought and reasoning to one collection of books and one of those thinkers is an unfortunate narrowing of perspective, IMO. And, at the end of the day, each of us has only what each of us finds to be true. You think what you think is "the truth." I think what I think is "the truth." Neither one of us has a superior claim on "proving reality." I just have a wider scope of input than you, and I do not lock myself into "the bible says it - so it must be so."
As per previous discussions, I don't think any of can "know" anything with 100% certainty. But I certainly am not going to hook my philosophical wagon to a claim no one can show to be true. I'm going to look around, see how things happen, and work from there. And when someone comes to me and says, "I'm right - I have the absolute truth," I'm going to nod politely and say, Isn't that nice." If they want to discuss, I'm happy to share with them (you) why I'm not going to go there. And then you are more than welcome to continue on your way. It certainly is not a thing I am anxious to get back to.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 PostGoing where?
Originally posted by seer View PostI was using homosexuality as an example of a moral wrong, and that that does not take a special interpretation to understand what the Biblical writers meant. It is pretty straight forward.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat was not my point, and that is not why I am a Christian. The point is that Scripture has had a lasting and deep moral influence, it has proved itself over the centuries.
Because of the success of the cult of the Nazarene, the themes brought together in the Christian bible certainly gained prominence in western thought. No doubt. And because of the success of western thought, they went on to crush many other religious forms throughout the world. Again, no doubt. None of that is any evidence of "truth." There are many things in the bible I would consider good moral guidelines. As I've noted, I probably agree with 90% of the precepts it puts forward in the moral domain. But the same is true (for me) of the Q'ruan, the Vedas, and most of the formal moral codes put forward by most of the world's religions. And I agree with that 90% because I have thought it through and measured it against what I value; not "because the book says so."
Originally posted by seer View PostUnlike your novel ethical ideals.
Originally posted by seer View PostAs far as your "wider scope" that is just bunk - like I said I had the same wider scope for most of my adult life - so what? It doesn't lead anywhere.
Originally posted by seer View PostWell of course, if one doesn't have God in the picture absolute truth would be difficult to defend, perhaps the laws of logic would be an exception. But with God absolutism is not only possible, but certain.
I'm guessing, but I suspect you see me as somewhat stumbling about in the dark, blind to a glorious reality.
I see you as having fallen into a trap it took me a couple of decades to escape. I don't think you're stupid or silly. I would have to think the same of myself if I did. I was in that same trap for a couple of decades. It is extremely hard to escape.
So we go about our lives. I have no doubt you are a good person. It has never crossed my mind to think otherwise (well, except for your propensity to attack your opponent in a debate, instead of the argument they are making, but I've noticed that is a common theme around here). I just find your arguments uncompelling. I suspect you think the same of mine.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 was referring to the accusation of dishonesty. You guys have a real hard time keeping it about the argument, and regularly attack the person arguing with you instead of the argument they are making. It's a logical fallacy, frankly. I don't know why you think it might add anything to your argument.
Never examine the facts just smugly summarily dismiss it.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSort of like how those on the left here have a knee jerk visceral reaction to anything from a news outlet that hasn't become a part of the Democrat party?
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostNever examine the facts just smugly summarily dismiss it.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 don't believe my comment said anything about the practice being more prevalent on the right or the left. Perhaps "you guys" was narrowly interpreted to mean "you Christians?" If so, that was not my intention. I was speaking about posters to this forum in general. I simply noted that there is a significant amount of personal attacking that happens on this forum. I find the practice somewhat pointless, since it doesn't really do much to further an argument.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI was referring to the accusation of dishonesty. You guys have a real hard time keeping it about the argument, and regularly attack the person arguing with you instead of the argument they are making. It's a logical fallacy, frankly. I don't know why you think it might add anything to your argument.
I think I have said that several times. At least, the translations of the copies of the (unavailable) originals written by largely unknown authors (with a few exceptions) from an ancient culture indicate as much. It does not change that you are locking your morality to your interpretation of a collection of books.
Seer, the bible has been used to defend great acts of heroism, and great atrocities throughout time. I know you want to embrace the former and diminish the latter, but they both exist. The code of Hammurabi dates beyond the earliest date of any biblical text, and incorporates many of the concepts found in the decalogue. There are similarities in at least five other codexes dated before the bible. Almost every theme found in the Christian bible is found in other religions that predate Judaism and Christianity. Even monotheism traces back as far as the ironage.
Apparently not for you. I have to wonder why. Where did you think it was supposed to "lead." Your sentence seems to imply you expected an outcome from that set of beliefs that you didn't realize, so you turned to something else. What were those desired outcomes?
And if there is actually no god, your "absolutes" are a figment of your imagination. My point, through this last part of our discussion is not to undermine your beliefs, Seer. It is to point out that you and I see one another in much the same terms. Unless I miss my guess, you are convinced that your god exists and you are following "The truth." You see my world as a set of "invented" realities because I have turned my back on the actual reality. I am convinced god does not exist, and no one can claim to be following "the truth." We are all moving through life with some combination of truths and untruths in our belief system. We don't have access to "perfection" and cannot achieve it. I see those (like you) who follow a god as following something that doesn't actually exist. So I see you as living a belief that is as "invented" as you think mine is. And I certainly recognize the attraction it holds, having had those beliefs for the first half of my life.
I'm guessing, but I suspect you see me as somewhat stumbling about in the dark, blind to a glorious reality.
I see you as having fallen into a trap it took me a couple of decades to escape. I don't think you're stupid or silly. I would have to think the same of myself if I did. I was in that same trap for a couple of decades. It is extremely hard to escape.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 PostCarp, you were being dishonest, you would apply standards to Scripture that no one would apply to any other historical work.
Dishonesty has nothing to do with it. And you will note that I do not accuse you of being dishonest because you hold this special view. I understand why you have it. The personal attacks really do nothing to further your argument - but you are welcome to keep making them. They're kind of a waste, but they don't really change who I am or what I'm saying.
Originally posted by seer View PostAs if everything is open to interpretation, so much so that any real meaning is lost.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just false, we have an excellent understanding of the biblical cultures and languages. And the fact that most of scripture is pretty straight forward. Like I said, I would have no problem with you dismissing Scripture as not being the oracles of God, that is an honest assessment from your point of view, this other line of argument is pure subterfuge.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd the New Testament has more writings closer to the originals than let's say Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars, but we do not dismiss them as you are attempting to do with Scripture.
Originally posted by seer View PostSo what is your point? Since I do believe in universal moral truths it is no surprise that these ethics have found their way into other cultures. Exactly what Romans 2:14,15 states.
Originally posted by seer View PostThe point is, as an unbeliever I knew that there were no objectively right moral answers. This bothered me, even as an agnostic.
Originally posted by seer View PostOK, so now I believe there are universal moral truths. On what rational basis would I go back?
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat argument could you possibly offer that I didn't once hold myself that would convince me to go back. Your vaunted "autonomy?" Reasoning based on severely limited and finite understanding?
The one exception to that is discussions about specific moral positions (e.g., the LGBTQ discussion). There I DO hope to convince, for all of the reasons I have previously cited. I have to admit that I don't really have much hope of convincing the regular posters here. Those on the left already agree with me, and those on the right are lot likely to be convinced. I am hoping that the discussion will plant some seeds, and maybe someone down the road will read the exchange and find some of what I am saying compelling.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, we are not going to convince each other.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd I see that you have fallen into the trap of the Devil, and it is extremely hard to escape.
It's unfortunate. I do hope, someday, your views widen a bit. I suspect, however, that they won't I don't know too many people who have left Christianity (or theism) in their later years.
For what it's worth, I don't see you as "participating in evil." I do think you hold some immoral views, but I don't think you do so with an intent to be harmful or unkind.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 not attempted to dismiss the scriptures. I have pointed out that your claim of such certainty is not sustainable.
My point is that the Christian bible is not the origin point for pretty much any of the concepts it espouses. It does combine them in a unique way, but most of the moral framework found in the Christian bible predates the bible itself.
Why?
On the basis that you cannot demonstrate the existence of any absolutes. The existence of wide commonality of moral principles can be explained without resorting to an absolute. I don't know about you, but when I cannot show something to be true, I let it go until I can. You appear to want to cling to it because, well, I'm not sure why. I guess you were "bothered" by the absence of moral absolutes and this makes you feel better about it. That doesn't appear to me to be a compelling argument.
The one exception to that is discussions about specific moral positions (e.g., the LGBTQ discussion). There I DO hope to convince, for all of the reasons I have previously cited. I have to admit that I don't really have much hope of convincing the regular posters here. Those on the left already agree with me, and those on the right are lot likely to be convinced. I am hoping that the discussion will plant some seeds, and maybe someone down the road will read the exchange and find some of what I am saying compelling.
It's unfortunate. I do hope, someday, your views widen a bit. I suspect, however, that they won't I don't know too many people who have left Christianity (or theism) in their later years.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 PostNothing, like you said, is 100% certain. So? We all take our stand, where we choose.
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain so? So what is your point?
Originally posted by seer View PostSince I do believe in universal moral truths it is no surprise that these ethics have found their way into other cultures. Exactly what Romans 2:14,15 states.
Originally posted by seer View PostI personally started to see the idea that something like the Holocaust was only relatively wrong as abhorrent. Though in those days it did not cause me to embrace theism, I was looking more towards Plato's forms. I think as an agnostic I was a moral realist all along, though I wouldn't have called it that.
You folks see that as "inconsistent" and "a moral relativist thinking like a moral realist." It's not. Moral subjectivity merely acknowledges that the individual is the arbiter of their own moral framework. If I ever encounter a moral principle I become convinced is superior to my own, it will instantly become my own. So, at any given moment, I am following the best moral framework I can conceive. A natural extension of that is that I think all others should have that same moral framework, since I consider it "the best." Of course, it is "the best" for those who value the things that I value. But that too is what I believe others should do. Why? Because if they value the same things I value, the things I value are better protected/enhanced.
Another natural extension is that I am actually open to discussion/argumentation about the moral framework. It is not locked into this notion of an "inviolate absolute." I know, intuitively, that I am fallible and may find other moral norms more convincing down the road. Until I find them, what I have is the best I can currently conceive. That makes me open-minded to possible change if someone can make a compelling argument.
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain Carp, we are back to God and His moral law. It is a worldview and a package deal.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut why would anyone be convinced by relative, subjective opinions? You have no objective grounding apart from personal preference.
Originally posted by seer View PostSee, since I have been in your position once, thinking more like you would be a moral regression for me.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-23-2018, 11:41 AM.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 PostAgreed. But I do find that "the faithful" make historical claims for the bible that transcend anything regular historians would do with regular historical documents.
That the claims that these things are somehow unique to the bible, or originate from the bible, simply are not true.
You've said this before. I'm afraid Biblical quotes don't do much for me, so that doesn't really help your case in this discussion. As I noted, there are simpler, observable ways to explain how moral commonality occurs without having to invent "absolutes" that cannot be shown to actually exist.
And there is your problem, Seer. I believe the Holocaust was wrong - period. I don't believe it was "relatively" wrong. Relative is merely a term to describe how subjective moral norms are applied (relative to the holder). Each of us sees our moral framework as the best - by definition. You folks seem to be under the impression that a moral relativist/subjectivist has to say, "to each their own" and walk away unconcerned with people like Hitler and Pol Pot. Nothing could be further from the truth. A moral subjectivist/relativist will see their moral framework as the best, and assess all others in that light. I don't walk away unconcerned from you and Sparko and CP claiming that homosexuality is immoral. I believe your moral position is itself immoral, for all the reasons I have cited. I would love to convince you to align to mine. I know I have almost no chance to, but it's still worth an effort.
Another natural extension is that I am actually open to discussion/argumentation about the moral framework. It is not locked into this notion of an "inviolate absolute." I know, intuitively, that I am fallible and may find other moral norms more convincing down the road. Until I find them, what I have is the best I can currently conceive. That makes me open-minded to possible change if someone can make a compelling argument.
Yeah. Unfortunately you cannot even establish that this god exists either. From my perspective, it is a package without a content.
I do, and I have presented much of it. You (and those who think as you do) are resistant to even considering it. I have actually outlined the causal chain. And there are other ways. If I can show you an inconsistency within your own moral framework, that should be a cause for concern for you. Unfortunately, logical inconsistencies become irrelevant if "the bible says so." It is difficult to rationally discuss a position that is not arrived at rationally.Last edited by seer; 06-23-2018, 12:33 PM.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 PostWell of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.
Originally posted by seer View PostDid I ever claim that? As Romans says, and the fact that we are all created in the image of God, we all have that God given, intuitive moral sense. And this crosses cultural lines.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut this is meaningless to me, your unbelief has nothing to do with the reality of God. It is like a man born color blind arguing that colors don't exist.
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept, again, there are no objective or right answers to moral questions.
If you take a moment and see it from my side, I am being asked to accept that there is an objective/absolute moral standard (which no one can show exists), and to accept that this is somehow better (when no one has shown why that is true). Would you accept such a demand? Who would abandon rationality to that degree?
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat Pol Pot did was right for him and his followers for that time and culture, even if you disagree today.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd you have no logical way out of this moral morass - except to offer your personal preference.
Originally posted by seer View PostIt is not that you are merely fallible, it is that all your moral musings are based on ignorance. You are groping in the darkness.
Originally posted by seer View PostBut really Carp? Who cares? You are deceived, sin has darkened your understanding. That is part of my package too bro...
Originally posted by seer View PostNonsense, you have no other argument for, let's said, homosexuality being a moral behavior, apart from personal preference.
Fortunately, "the bible says so" is losing its grip on humanity.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 PostWell of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell of course, a secular historian would not give credence to the resurrection or other miracles.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:19 PM
|
9 responses
52 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 11:58 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 12:23 PM
|
6 responses
37 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:23 AM | ||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:46 AM
|
16 responses
101 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Stoic
Yesterday, 04:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:37 AM
|
23 responses
107 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 02:49 PM
|
||
Started by seanD, 05-02-2024, 04:10 AM
|
27 responses
156 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 01:37 PM
|
Comment