Originally posted by seer
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
Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
I think we've gone over this once before, using the term "moral objectivist/absolutist" in the idiosyncratic way you're doing is not going to help make the discussion clearer.
If you're an "-ist" about something, regardless of what it is, it simply means that you have certain beliefs about that something. Whether you're correct about those beliefs or not is absolutely irrelevant as to whether you really are a "those beliefs"-ist or not.
Likewise, the moral absolutist/objectivist can be that in belief (which Seer clearly is) but they cannot be that in practice, because there is no avenue for doing so and the very nature of morality precludes it. No matter how you cut it, the person gets in the way. Seer is choosing which, of a wide selection, "absolute" moral framework he is aligning with. Seer is imposing his interpretation on the specific framework he is attempting to align with. Seer is the one that values god, which is his entire rational for adopting this framework. We cannot escape the fact that individuals derive moral frameworks on the basis of what they value. Every singe one of us does it - whatever we might call ourselves.
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostUsing your logic I would have to conclude that every atheist out there is actually a theist, because whatever they might believe, the fact of the matter is that the very nature of reality is that there is a ultimate cause and upholder of the cosmos called God, and regardless of what the "atheist" might believe it's still a fact that his very existence is dependent on that God's continuously sustaining providence. So the atheist might believe that the intellectual faculties he's using to come to the conclusion that belief in God is not warranted came into being and continue to exist without divine power and guidance, but reality contradicts him.
Of course, the above is actually ridiculous, and not something I'm proposing to put forth as a serious argument. But my point is that I have a hard time seeing how your "everyone is actually a 'moral relativist/subjectivist' because whatever someone might believe about morality the fact of the matter is that the very nature of morality is relative"-claim is not equally absurd and abusive of the English language.
Likewise, Seer (and all so-called "moral realists") may claim this belief and actually have it - but they cannot live it. Their actions and choices are all relative/subjective. They simply cannot escape it. It is analogous to the person that believes they are a dog. They may fervently believe it, but they cannot escape the reality that they are actually human.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 Mountain Man View PostFrankly, based on this, I'm not sure why you haven't thrown your hands up in nihilistic despair and declared like King Solomon, "Vanity! Vanity! All is vanity"
"I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun."
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostOf course very few atheists have the intellectual honesty and courage to follow their worldview to its only logical conclusion, and I suspect it's because, deep down, they know it's a lie.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 PostWhat do you think this conclusion should be?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 PostI did not say prove, I made a deductive case for both universal moral truths and the universality of logical truths, which are conceptual.
P1) Ferzwhiggles have unlimited knowledge
P2) Beings with unlimited knowledge can never make a mistake
C) Ferzwhiggles can never make a mistake
See...I just made a deductive argument for the inerrancy of a Ferzwiggle. Will you now join me in believing in that inerrancy? What you are doing, Seer, is weaving together fanciful claims about god so they can be strung together to conclude what you want to conclude. You cannot show any of your premises to be true.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou are correct, premise two does not follow deductively so this is not a sound syllogism.
P1) I like pizza
P2) A person who likes pizza should have it for lunch
C) I should have pizza for lunch
Any first year philosophy student will see this as a sound syllogism. It is valid only if the first and second premises are true.
P1) A dog has four legs
P2) That animal has four legs
C) That animal is a dog
This syllogism is NOT sound. The two premises can be true and the conclusion can still be false, because it could be a cat. The structure of the syllogism has been violated. It should be:
P1) A dog has four legs
P2) That animal is a dog
C) That animal has four legs
Originally posted by seer View PostSecond, as a theist I can deductively account for inherent human value, you can not. I also can deductively account for the universality and immutability of the laws of logic (which are conceptual) - you can not. So in this debate Carp, logic is not your friend. So what do you have left?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 PostActually I do remember Carp agreeing that he was an existential nihilist by definition.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 Mountain Man View PostAnd yet he argues as though objective values exist and life has meaning.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 PostLikewise, Seer (and all so-called "moral realists") may claim this belief and actually have it - but they cannot live it. Their actions and choices are all relative/subjective. They simply cannot escape it. It is analogous to the person that believes they are a dog. They may fervently believe it, but they cannot escape the reality that they are actually human.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 PostThat does not follow Carp. If I believe that adultery is a universal moral wrong, and refrain from that behavior based on that belief how am I not living that out?
Example: You and I both believe (I think) that "randomly killing other humans is morally wrong." How we get to this position differs because our relative/subjective moral frameworks differ. My path is by recognizing that I value life - both mine and that of others, and recognizing the implicit contradiction in destroying something I value. You arrive at it by valuing your god and (presumably) wanting to please it. Why you value this god you have not articulated, so I won't presume. You have determined that the collection of books called "the bible" is where this god has expressed its will, and in there are passages about "though shalt not kill," which you interpret to mean, "not randomly kill human beings." So you follow this precept.
We end up at the same moral principle - but arrive there by different subjective/relative moral paths. If you didn't value this god but valued a different god, presumably you would turn to whatever source you believe to be the expressed will of this other god and use that instead. If you didn't believe in any god, you would be left to identify specific things you value that lead you to this conclusion. If you didn't value life - or valued money MORE than life, then you might not have this moral code at all.
That's the way it works. Each of us holds specific moral positions because we have determined they are "the most moral." If we ever encountered a different moral principle we come to perceive as superior in some way, we immediately adopt it. That is essentially how we convince one another. So at any given time, each of us sees our moral framework as "the best." Because it is the lens through which we evaluate all sentient action (ours and everyone else's), we intrinsically want our moral framework to be the one everyone lives by - because then what we value is best protected. It's much easier to do that if we can convince people "this moral framework is from the supreme intelligence of the universe - and we ought all follow it!" I suspect that has a lot to do with why the notion of gods exist to begin with: they lend authority to morality. After all - who would dare to question a god, right?Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-12-2019, 08:23 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 PostGiven how you define it - yes.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 PostIt wasn't how I defined 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 PostDeduction, Seer, is a logical process by which we begin from premises that can be shown to be true, and arrive at conclusions that must also be true by virtue of the structure of the argument. It begins with general truths and arrives at specific conclusions. If the argument is well structured, it is considered sound. If it is sound AND the premises are true, then it is valid and the conclusion must be true. You keep popping out presumably sound arguments, but cannot show any of them to be valid, despite the fact that you are making claims about an objective reality.
P1) Ferzwhiggles have unlimited knowledge
P2) Beings with unlimited knowledge can never make a mistake
C) Ferzwhiggles can never make a mistake
See...I just made a deductive argument for the inerrancy of a Ferzwiggle. Will you now join me in believing in that inerrancy? What you are doing, Seer, is weaving together fanciful claims about god so they can be strung together to conclude what you want to conclude. You cannot show any of your premises to be true.
Seer. I think you need a lesson in basic logic. The premises do not have to be deductively related. They simply need to be necessary for the conclusion to be true. Here is another sound syllogism:
P1) I like pizza
P2) A person who likes pizza should have it for lunch
C) I should have pizza for lunch
Any first year philosophy student will see this as a sound syllogism. It is valid only if the first and second premises are true.
P1) A dog has four legs
P2) That animal has four legs
C) That animal is a dog
This syllogism is NOT sound. The two premises can be true and the conclusion can still be false, because it could be a cat. The structure of the syllogism has been violated. It should be:
P1) A dog has four legs
P2) That animal is a dog
C) That animal has four legs
Actually - you can't. You can string together syllogisms that are sound (assuming yours are), but you cannot establish that any of the premises are true. The best you can say is "if these premises I claim are true, then the conclusion follows." I would nod and say "yep, but you haven't shown that they are so you haven't shown that the conclusion is true. You might as well believe in a ferzwiggle's inerrancy."Last edited by seer; 06-12-2019, 09:04 AM.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 PostOK - this confuses me a bit. What wasn't how you defined it?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 PostIt was the definition from Wikipedia. I didn't invent 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 seer View PostThat is hypocritical Cap, you can not prove for instance that your premise "I value life" is true. Yet you used it.
I believe morality is relative/subjective. As a consequence, the premises will largely be subjective. A subjective premises is internal - it cannot be proven - by definition. Evidence for it can be found in my behavior, but that is about it. You either are going to accept my word for the fact that "I value life" is true or not. This is the reason I cannot "prove" my premises to you.
You believe morality is absolute/objective - a real thing that exists to which we should all align. As such, one would hope you can demonstrate the truth of your premises in some fashion, since it is supposedly an objective reality available to all of us. But you cannot. I think there is a good reason why you cannot. I don't think you're likely to agree with or like that reason.
There is no hypocrisy involved.
Originally posted by seer View PostYour original argument was inductive, not deductive. The fact is Carp, you can not deductively even account for the laws of logic that you rely on, the theist can.
Meanwhile, we remain where we have always been - which is part of what convinces me that morality is genuinely relative/subjective: no one has ever been able to frame an argument against the position that doesn't reduce to an objection that relative/subjective morality cannot exist (or must be bad) because it's not absolute/objective. I find that form of argument content-free. Since how humans moralize is demonstrably relative and subjective to themselves (as it would be for any sentient being) and an absolute/objective moral framework cannot be shown to exist and multiple competing variations exist, I conclude that morality is naturally relative/subjective. It's what we do. It's what we have always done. It conforms to the observed reality.Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-12-2019, 09:07 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
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Today, 11:40 AM
|
2 responses
31 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Today, 03:28 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:30 AM
|
15 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 04:20 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:24 AM
|
25 responses
144 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 04:13 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
|
43 responses
239 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-02-2024, 09:15 AM
|
31 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:12 PM
|
Comment