Is The Concept Of Human Dignity...

[seer]

It Thought this fit the discussion:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society where the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.” CS Lewis

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you are dodging again. Got it...

I answered your question.

[seer]

I have given you a perfectly clear reply regarding my remark that "Concept/entities for which there is no evidence cannot be proven either way."

So you are dodging again. Got it...

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You still have not defined either proof or evidence. Does something have to be testable to be true?

I have given you a perfectly clear reply regarding my remark that "Concept/entities for which there is no evidence cannot be proven either way."

[seer]

Attempting to prove/disprove the existence of supreme beings/entities is a philosophical cul-d-sac. It is not the same as proving a mathematical theorem or demonstrating a scientific fact.

You cannot offer me verifiable incontrovertible evidence that your supreme being exists and I cannot offer you irrefutable proof that such entities do not exist. I can only point to the lack of any verifiable, testable, and empirical evidence for such entities. In that regard supreme beings/gods are exactly the same as the elf.

I cannot prove that elves exist and nor can I prove beyond all reasonable doubt that elves do not exist. However, the lack of evidence for the existence of elves does not presuppose that believing in the reality of an elfin presence is therefore the most logical and sensible approach to take.

You still have not defined either proof or evidence. Does something have to be testable to be true?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As a matter of personal opinion or choice. In other words using or rejecting criterion that suits your position.

Attempting to prove/disprove the existence of supreme beings/entities is a philosophical cul-d-sac. It is not the same as proving a mathematical theorem or demonstrating a scientific fact.

You cannot offer me verifiable incontrovertible evidence that your supreme being exists and I cannot offer you irrefutable proof that such entities do not exist. I can only point to the lack of any verifiable, testable, and empirical evidence for such entities. In that regard supreme beings/gods are exactly the same as the elf.

I cannot prove that elves exist and nor can I prove beyond all reasonable doubt that elves do not exist. However, the lack of evidence for the existence of elves does not presuppose that believing in the reality of an elfin presence is therefore the most logical and sensible approach to take.

[seer]

[/B]

And I asked you in what specific sense were you employing the word "arbitrary" in that comment.

As a matter of personal opinion or choice. In other words using or rejecting criterion that suits your position. So now answer mine... What do you mean by proof or evidence?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, you said: Concept/entities for which there is no evidence cannot be proven either way.

I said: Proven how? Define proof in a non-arbitrary.

And I asked you in what specific sense were you employing the word "arbitrary" in that comment.

[seer]

As I never wrote any such thing your question concerning history is irrelevant.

Nor have you complied with my request that you define what you understand by “arbitrary” in your comment “Define proof in a non-abitrary”.

Address that and I will address the rest of your comments.

No, you said: Concept/entities for which there is no evidence cannot be proven either way.

I said: Proven how? Define proof in a non-arbitrary.

You said: These concepts cannot be proven as in a mathematical theorem and in what specific sense are you employing the word "arbitrary"?

In other words I asked you to define proof or evidence. What constitutes proof or evidence. And so what if they can't be demonstrated in a mathematical sense - does that make them less true?

[seer]

No, he wouldn't. You seem to find this concept really hard to get, and seem to have (deliberately?) misunderstood my words in my previous post. God adds nothing. Having him say something is moral or not moral adds nothing whatsoever to the topic and is no more authoritative than my neighbor saying something is or isn't moral. You're trying to apply God-of-the-gaps to morality, but adding God doesn't achieve anything at all. Your moral system is absolutely as arbitrary and subjective as those you complain about.

Nonsense Star, if you are right there are no universal moral truths, and even if there were (apart from a governing authority) they too would add nothing. Yet you spin your wheels trying to develop an argument for universal moral truths (which BTW are not really universal) when there is no reason to accept them. The argument is neither novel or compelling and has zero intellectual or moral force behind it. There can logically be no moral progress in the atheist's world merely moral change. If there are true universal moral norms (i.e. the law of God) then there can be moral progress as we move closer to said standard. And there would be an absolute governing authority to insure that we will reach these ethical goals. Now tell me again how your position adds anything to the discussion?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So if something can't be proven with the same exactness as mathematical theorem it can't be true or real? Wouldn't that throw out most historical claims?

As I never wrote any such thing your question concerning history is irrelevant.

Nor have you complied with my request that you define what you understand by “arbitrary” in your comment “Define proof in a non-abitrary”.

Address that and I will address the rest of your comments.

[Starlight]

And God's view, since he is God, would offer an absoluteness to the concept of human dignity that you can not offer.

No, he wouldn't. You seem to find this concept really hard to get, and seem to have (deliberately?) misunderstood my words in my previous post. God adds nothing. Having him say something is moral or not moral adds nothing whatsoever to the topic and is no more authoritative than my neighbor saying something is or isn't moral. You're trying to apply God-of-the-gaps to morality, but adding God doesn't achieve anything at all. Your moral system is absolutely as arbitrary and subjective as those you complain about.

[seer]

These concepts cannot be proven as in a mathematical theorem and in what specific sense are you employing the word "arbitrary"?

So if something can't be proven with the same exactness as mathematical theorem it can't be true or real? Wouldn't that throw out most historical claims?

Christian anti-Semitism was the underlying motive that fuelled those attitudes found in all nations in Europe not just in Germany.

Read the Passion narratives, Acts, and John’s gospel.

Yep, read them many times. Where does it say that we should harm or kill anyone? Just the opposite - we are to love even those who oppose us.

The anti-Semitism that existed across the Christian world and which found its most virulent expression in Nazism was ultimately premised on the interpretation of certain passages found in the New Testament. Therefore according to Nazi ideology they were acting correctly. The Jew was the deicide, the outcast and the universal enemy, and should be destroyed.

Again, where does the NT teach to destroy anyone?

Of course it is a social construct. However, a social construct pertaining to notions of human dignity may be used to justify one group’s belief that it is superior in race and/or culture to other groups. Pernicious although it undoubtedly was, that is how the Nazis viewed their ideology.

We are witnessing similar behaviours today where one group considers its religious and/or political beliefs or racial and/or cultural status is superior to that of other groups around it. This group often considers it has a right oppress and/or destroy those other groups who are different. [The brutality exhibited towards the Rohingya and the Yazidis comes to mind].

Again I will ask - why would your opinions on these matter be more correct or valid?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Proven how? Define proof in a non-arbitrary.

These concepts cannot be proven as in a mathematical theorem and in what specific sense are you employing the word "arbitrary"?

So, the Germans were the driving force.

Christian anti-Semitism was the underlying motive that fuelled those attitudes found in all nations in Europe not just in Germany.

Two thousand years? And which teachings of Christ exactly were they following?

Read the Passion narratives, Acts, and John’s gospel.

It was ethically correct to them - on what logical basis do you disagree?

The anti-Semitism that existed across the Christian world and which found its most virulent expression in Nazism was ultimately premised on the interpretation of certain passages found in the New Testament. Therefore according to Nazi ideology they were acting correctly. The Jew was the deicide, the outcast and the universal enemy, and should be destroyed.

So? If dignity is a social construct what is the big deal...

Of course it is a social construct. However, a social construct pertaining to notions of human dignity may be used to justify one group’s belief that it is superior in race and/or culture to other groups. Pernicious although it undoubtedly was, that is how the Nazis viewed their ideology.

We are witnessing similar behaviours today where one group considers its religious and/or political beliefs or racial and/or cultural status is superior to that of other groups around it. This group often considers it has a right oppress and/or destroy those other groups who are different. [The brutality exhibited towards the Rohingya and the Yazidis comes to mind].

Look up Jane Elliott’s work on Brown Eyes Blue Eyes with her third graders.

[seer]

That cannot be tested.

Concept/entities for which there is no evidence cannot be proven either way.

Proven how? Define proof in a non-arbitrary.

With a lot of willing collaborators. Do you really imagine the Gestapo could have rounded up all the Jews across occupied Europe without some help?

So, the Germans were the driving force.

Premised on nearly two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism.

Two thousand years? And which teachings of Christ exactly were they following?

Insofar as Nazi ideology was concerned yes it was justified. Was it ethically correct is a different matter.

It was ethically correct to them - on what logical basis do you disagree? Since dignity is a social construct?

The same attitude of racial superiority was exhibited by European colonial powers and of course within the USA. Look at how the Chinese were treated in nineteenth century America.

So? If dignity is a social construct what is the big deal...