Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is The Concept Of Human Dignity...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seer
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    So you are dodging again. Got it...
    I answered your question.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    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."

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 03-02-2021, 11:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    [/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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Starlight
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    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"?

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Two thousand years? And which teachings of Christ exactly were they following?
    Read the Passion narratives, Acts, and John’s gospel.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    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...

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, Yesterday, 06:57 AM
8 responses
41 views
0 likes
Last Post seer
by seer
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-14-2021, 08:20 AM
9 responses
5 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
1 response
39 views
0 likes
Last Post Christian3  
Started by Machinist, 05-26-2021, 10:52 AM
97 responses
522 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Started by seer, 05-12-2021, 05:35 AM
559 responses
3,517 views
0 likes
Last Post Stoic
by Stoic
 
Working...
X