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

  • Machinist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    It seems that feelings are a major stronghold.

    Leave a comment:


  • Machinist
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stoic
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    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....

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
39 responses
155 views
0 likes
Last Post whag
by whag
 
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
21 responses
129 views
0 likes
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
80 responses
426 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
45 responses
303 views
1 like
Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
Working...
X