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

Atheism, Slavery, And The Moral High Ground...

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

  • Right, but Seer is saying that there most certainly is unchangeable absolutes, and that these are grounded in an unchangeable and absolute God.

    I cannot tell however if any real points are being made.

    Here is my understanding at this point, in a very concise nutshell:

    An unchangeable immutable God exists, therefore unchangeable absolute moral truths exists.

    Surely, my understanding is lacking here, because if that is all there is, then all this is saying is "I believe in God".

    The atheist (at least Tassman), has already conceded that "morality has no independent unchangeable reality..." so in effect, the argument is over.

    Seer cannot ask Tassman to deductively reach any universals. Tassman has already said with no uncertain terms that there aren't any.

    I can't understand how and why this argument has received so much attention over the centuries.

    I think perhaps it's when the atheist begins to claim there are Universal absolutes (independent from a mind). It seems there are nuances of this argument that not every atheist subscribes to.

    Stoic seems to have a different nuance of "absolute" than Seer.

    Does any atheist here believe there are universal moral absolutes independent from any mind?

    Doesn't the term "absolute" (especially in a philosophical context) already imply "independent from mind"?

    It's like you don't even have to say it, it's just there.

    Maybe it would be helpful to phrase it "independent from any human mind". This at least suggests a possible reality of some Other Mind.

    There are great minds here, and there have been great minds over the centuries that have tackled this problem, yet without any consensus.

    That boggles my mind that the answer cannot be seen by everyone. Why would anyone in their right mind, not want to see what is?

    One bit of advice I think is for everyone to make sure that you're not equivocating any terms before you post.

    It's hard to tell, and before you can even catch it, your mind has already been entangled in some conceptual abstraction of what at first appeared logic like.
    Last edited by Machinist; 05-18-2021, 06:23 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
      Right, but Seer is saying that there most certainly is unchangeable absolutes, and that these are grounded in an unchangeable and absolute God.

      I cannot tell however if any real points are being made.

      Here is my understanding at this point, in a very concise nutshell:

      An unchangeable immutable God exists, therefore unchangeable absolute moral truths exists.

      Surely, my understanding is lacking here, because if that is all there is, then all this is saying is "I believe in God".

      The atheist (at least Tassman), has already conceded that "morality has no independent unchangeable reality..." so in effect, the argument is over.

      Seer cannot ask Tassman to deductively reach any universals. Tassman has already said with no uncertain terms that there aren't any.

      I can't understand how and why this argument has received so much attention over the centuries.

      I think perhaps it's when the atheist begins to claim there are Universal absolutes (independent from a mind). It seems there are nuances of this argument that not every atheist subscribes to.

      Stoic seems to have a different nuance of "absolute" than Seer.

      Does any atheist here believe there are universal moral absolutes independent from any mind?

      Doesn't the term "absolute" (especially in a philosophical context) already imply "independent from mind"?

      It's like you don't even have to say it, it's just there.

      Maybe it would be helpful to phrase it "independent from any human mind". This at least suggests a possible reality of some Other Mind.

      There are great minds here, and there have been great minds over the centuries that have tackled this problem, yet without any consensus.

      That boggles my mind that the answer cannot be seen by everyone. Why would anyone in their right mind, not want to see what is?

      One bit of advice I think is for everyone to make sure that you're not equivocating any terms before you post.

      It's hard to tell, and before you can even catch it, your mind has already been entangled in some conceptual abstraction of what at first appeared logic like.
      Nice summation Mac....
      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 Machinist View Post
        Right, but Seer is saying that there most certainly is unchangeable absolutes, and that these are grounded in an unchangeable and absolute God.

        I cannot tell however if any real points are being made.

        Here is my understanding at this point, in a very concise nutshell:

        An unchangeable immutable God exists, therefore unchangeable absolute moral truths exists.

        Surely, my understanding is lacking here, because if that is all there is, then all this is saying is "I believe in God".

        The atheist (at least Tassman), has already conceded that "morality has no independent unchangeable reality..." so in effect, the argument is over.
        If by that you mean that we will never reach agreement so that further argument is useless, then you are probably right.

        Seer cannot ask Tassman to deductively reach any universals. Tassman has already said with no uncertain terms that there aren't any.

        I can't understand how and why this argument has received so much attention over the centuries.
        Perhaps because a lot of people feel strongly one way or the other.

        I think perhaps it's when the atheist begins to claim there are Universal absolutes (independent from a mind). It seems there are nuances of this argument that not every atheist subscribes to.

        Stoic seems to have a different nuance of "absolute" than Seer.

        Does any atheist here believe there are universal moral absolutes independent from any mind?

        Doesn't the term "absolute" (especially in a philosophical context) already imply "independent from mind"?

        It's like you don't even have to say it, it's just there.

        Maybe it would be helpful to phrase it "independent from any human mind". This at least suggests a possible reality of some Other Mind.

        There are great minds here, and there have been great minds over the centuries that have tackled this problem, yet without any consensus.

        That boggles my mind that the answer cannot be seen by everyone.
        That would imply that you see an answer. All you have to do is convince everyone else that it's the right answer.

        Why would anyone in their right mind, not want to see what is?
        Who says anyone doesn't want to see what is?

        One bit of advice I think is for everyone to make sure that you're not equivocating any terms before you post.
        That's always good advice.

        Comment


        • Who says anyone doesn't want to see what is?

          When I witness adept minds at philosophy not agreeing, I can only suspect that someone is too attached to their view point.

          I don't know what the answer is. I'm not even sure if I understand the question. It seems that it's been around for centuries though.

          What Seer is arguing is something only a few theists see. What he is arguing is of the unseen, it's like it's so basic and fundamental and I want to know it.

          Faith is the Substance of Things hoped for, the Evidence of Things not seen. I've always taken that to mean reality is shaped by faith. Faith and that substance it speaks of, are one and the same.

          It's like Faith itself is the actual evidence of things that actually exist on some plane not yet manifested.

          I think the argument that Seer is making is based on the unseen. It's very esoteric and faith based. I'm not knocking it either...it actually resonates with me...the question, the verbiage, the groping in the dark for words to express this Truth.

          Because I personally wrestle daily with moral dilemmas. I pray about these and ask God's guidance in making wise decisions. This is an argument that deeply stirs my inner most thoughts and impulses.

          Sometimes I think I want there to be no point in what Seer is saying. Sometimes I feel that I see something there, and it brings me great comfort knowing that that is an unmistakable Image of God within me.

          I think it's beyond 2+2=4 though.

          Having said all that, I think I may have refined the question a little more here:

          Are there moral universals, independent from the approval of any human mind that you can think of?


          Last edited by Machinist; 05-19-2021, 06:39 AM.

          Comment


          • Perhaps because a lot of people feel strongly one way or the other.

            It seems that feelings are a major stronghold.

            Comment


            • It is the mind that formulates moral truths.
              But minds are subjective.
              Any moral truth formulated in a mind is subjective
              and cannot be called absolute
              But what of the Golden Rule?
              Is that an absolute moral truth independent of a mind?
              How can it be? Because it would require a mind, and people...
              for them to do unto others...
              It seems consistently a good idea though.
              How is the Golden Rule not a Universal Moral Truth?
              Without a Mind, how can it be?
              It's like a tree that falls in the forest
              and no one is around to hear it fall.
              I think it all boils down to this very important suggestion:
              Choose Ye this day whom you will serve.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                Who says anyone doesn't want to see what is?

                When I witness adept minds at philosophy not agreeing, I can only suspect that someone is too attached to their view point.
                I think you are assuming that there is a "right" answer than can objectively be shown to be correct. I don't think that is generally the case in philosophy.

                Are there moral universals, independent from the approval of any human mind that you can think of?
                No, I see no good reason to think that such objective moral universals exist.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                  No, I see no good reason to think that such objective moral universals exist.
                  Yet you believe that certain things should be absolutely or universally wrong...
                  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 Post

                    Yet you believe that certain things should be absolutely or universally wrong...
                    Nothing is "absolutely or universally wrong" in and of itself. - only as we determine it to be as a community.. We are a social species and our rules of behavior, i.e. morality, arose through natural selection in that populations that cooperated had a survival advantage
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Yet you believe that certain things should be absolutely or universally wrong...
                      But not objectively wrong. IOW, I'm using a different definition for "absolute" than you prefer.

                      Comment


                      • Just a quick update here, but it is not esoteric nor of the "unseen" as I mentioned yesterday. I may have gone a little too far on that.

                        It is however as simple as 1+1=2 though.

                        It is a self contained irreducible axiom much like saying "it is what it is"

                        Now of course you would first have to accept the premise that God exists

                        But that, in and of itself...

                        is...

                        the...

                        pathway...

                        to a Universal Moral Absolute.

                        The atheist cannot form a pathway to a Universal using the building blocks of logic. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. It doesn't prove God exists. It's just saying it is what it is.

                        How do we get to a Universal? We ground it in a Universal. We begin with a Universal and it comes back around to a Universal. It's circular and it's complete. It is what it is.

                        It is simply a property of logic, an irreducible artefact of logic.

                        It's clever and it's true and it's fun to ponder. I can appreciate and fully understand why the atheist would say " I don't need to build a universal".

                        I get it. You don't need to. The Theist doesn't need to either really. It's independent of what any atheist or theist may do or think. It's just there. It is what it is.
                        Last edited by Machinist; 05-20-2021, 06:23 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                          But not objectively wrong. IOW, I'm using a different definition for "absolute" than you prefer.
                          I use the standard definition - what do you use?
                          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 Post

                            I use the standard definition - what do you use?
                            I was using the word as it is used here. But I'm willing to avoid using the word in order to avoid arguing about definitions.

                            My position is that I do not believe anything is intrinsically wrong.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                              I was using the word as it is used here. But I'm willing to avoid using the word in order to avoid arguing about definitions.

                              My position is that I do not believe anything is intrinsically wrong.
                              OK, you seem to be backtracking now. So you don't really believe that anything is absolutely or inherently wrong. You are a moral relativist then?
                              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 Post

                                OK, you seem to be backtracking now. So you don't really believe that anything is absolutely or inherently wrong. You are a moral relativist then?
                                When you ask such questions, it would be a good idea to clarify what you mean.

                                As described here, I would say that I'm a descriptive and meta-ethical moral relativist, but not a normative moral relativist.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by lee_merrill, 06-03-2021, 11:57 AM
                                1 response
                                38 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
                                557 responses
                                3,486 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:43 AM
                                21 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 05-09-2021, 09:34 AM
                                144 responses
                                1,079 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X