// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    How did "absolute" get mixed up as the opposite of "subjective?" My point, Jim, is that there is no objective moral framework that is "the right one" we are all supposed to be subscribing to. About as close to "objective" that morality gets is that your moral framework is objectively real to me and vice versa, and the objective reality that sentient minds of sufficient complexity moralize.
    You're the one who keeps trying to set up "absolute" as the straw man alternative to "subjective," not me. I'm the one who keeps trying to suggest a third way, one that's called "objective." It's not an absolute set of unchanging principles, but a framework based upon human nature, rationality and being social. It's more complex than a set of absolute rules. It's more akin to the framework of space-time in which relations are objective but there are no absolute fixed locations (principles).



    No, but you seem to continually come back to these little gems. I'm not sure why you feel a need to do that, but...
    You're the one suddenly changing the criteria for subjectivism, not me. You can deflect blame all you want but it doesn't alter that fact.



    Jim...if I value life, and I conclude that randomly killing people is moral, it stands to reason that something is badly flawed in my reasoning; the moral position does not align with the underlying valuing. Someone can help me trace the path of reasoning and identify the flaw. As soon as I see it, my moral stance will change. The same thing will happen if the valuing changes. I too once valued god, and that valuing drove many of my moral positions. When I realized that there is no such being, my valuing shifted. Some of my moral positions shifted as well. I have never held any other position...or expressed any other position. Nothing has been moved.
    No, because you can have another competing value, the thrill of watching random people die, that you value more highly than you do life.
    The fact is you don't know for sure when or if your positions will shift again, especially if the shift is due to a change in your factual beliefs. You stopped believing in God, which some would say was a change in a factual belief about the nature of reality. Factual beliefs are always subject to change and can always alter our moral beliefs.



    Yes - the objective reality of the laws of reason. Most of us reason to our moral positions. The alternative is to hold moral positions without reasoning to them. But since the moral positions are rooted in what we value, and what we value is subjective, the resulting moral framework is subjective. Unless you'd like to argue that we can arrive at an objective moral framework on the foundation of subjective valuing?
    I'm not arguing that we can 'arrive' at an objective moral framework. That's why it's normative. In a somewhat similar way, we can never arrive at a perfectly adequate picture of the physical universe. We are probably never going to get there, even in principle. My point was that you were saying that when we come to our moral positions, we reason about them, ie subject them to rational criteria. That contradicts simple subjectivism, because I'm appealing to criteria beyond my subjective response. I'm no longer dealing with the language of 'private disclosure' but opening my response up to the 'language of public discourse.' That is, it's open now to public scrutiny, to rational critique, to the canon of rational discourse, which isn't 'mine' or 'yours'. It's not subjective but objective; it's public. I really hope we don't have to keep going over this.



    I'm sure some people do indeed base their morality on unreasoned feelings. If someone does not reason to a moral position, then there is no way to reason with them about their moral position, leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. And the attempt to assign differing levels of "validity" in a subjective moral world is meaningless. It suggests an objective framework from which to make that assessment, and none has been shown to exist.
    I have no idea what this means. I have the sneaking suspicion that you think that moral objectivism is some kind of empirical thesis. It's not. It's a conceptual thesis. There seems to be an undercurrent of scientism running through your posts, but I could be wrong. Like I've said over and over, objectivism isn't a list of "Thou Shalts" or a list of moral principles that are exceptionless. It's a more sophisticated, conceptual thesis than that.



    No - it means my valuing has changed, and with it my subjective moral position. From the perspective of my new framework, I will assess my own framework as "wrong" just as I would assess ANY moral framework that does not align with my current one as "wrong."
    Right, but my point is How can a subjective reaction be 'wrong'? It's like saying my reaction to that ice cream was wrong. Maybe it changed with time, but it wasn't wrong at the time, especially if subjectivism is right in saying that morality is nothing but subjective reactions. If I was wrong then in the past, why can't I be wrong now as well? And if I can be wrong now, that would cast doubt on the entire thesis of subjectivism, because it's built on nothing more substantial than the shifting sands of my subjective responses.



    Yes- they can, though shifts in what we value at our core are not easily shifted. They are fairly well established by the time we enter adulthood, and it usually takes a significant event or paradigm shift to alter them thereafter - but they can and do change.
    Yes, especially if triggered by changes in factual belief. See above.



    You have slipped back into objective thinking. What "permanent position?" Our morality is what it is at the moment it is - and may shift at some future time. There is no objectively true ultimate destination or we would be back into the world of objective moralizing, which has not been shown to exist.
    Yes, and I don't think you're getting my point. The fallibility of subjectivism is I believe a fatal flaw. It reveals an internal contradiction in the theory. If it is true, it cannot be fallible, but it is obviously fallible, so it cannot be true.



    Ahh... there it is...the "it can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" argument. Jim, there is no "objective right" or "objective wrong." But we know that because morality is subjective. There is a "subjective right" and "subjective wrong."
    I don't think you're following. I am agreeing with you and taking your point to its logical conclusion. Try to follow. I agree for the sake of argument that there is no "objective right" or "objective wrong." There are only subjective responses to moral questions. There are no moral facts about moral questions. I am taking those as my starting points...If what you say is right, then we are not disagreeing about moral issues at all because there is no moral issue that is available to be discussed.




    If you believe pre-marital sex is immoral, and I do not, then we have moral disagreement. That our moral positions are subjective does not change this reality.
    We cannot discuss pre-marital sex because there is no truth to the matter. The only possible topic is our responses to it. Pre-marital sex itself is like Kant's noumenon.



    I frankly don't see how your rewording changes anything. "X is immoral to Seer" and "Seer believes X is immoral" are equivalent statements, AFAICT. Both are perfectly consistent with subjective morality.
    It was "Seer believes" and "Carpe believes". This phrasing leaves it open as to whether what they believe happens to be true or not, like saying Jim B believes the Sun is 93 milllion miles from the Earth.



    The burden of proof rests with the person who wants their view to be accepted. If you are expressing a view, and have no desire for me to accept your view as accurate, then you have no burden of proof. If you express a view and want me to accept it as true, then you have a burden of proof to achieve that. The same is true for me in reverse.
    A good starting point for you would be to stop the question-begging.;)



    Jim - morality is about differentiating between "good" action and "bad" action. Or "right" action and "wrong" action. But an assessment of "good" or "bad" requires a metric by which that assessment is made. It is the selection of that metric that is subjective. This is the point being made earlier to JimL. He thinks morality is about "what is good for society." He wants to argue that there is some "objective good" that is at the basis for morality. But you cannot say "X is good" without including HOW that is measured and from who's perspective it is measured. Ergo - moralizing is a subjective act. It is a function of the sentient mind reflecting upon its own choice of actions.
    Again, you phrased it in a question-begging way, as "reflecting upon its own CHOICE of actions". Subjective being defined as being a matter of choice or preference. You haven't given any reason, evidence or argument to believe that it is a matter of choice aside from assertion. When will you come up with any? Do you feel like you don't have to because it's just so, like, obvious, man?

    If you want to attempt to refute that, you are going to have to do better than "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective." There is no demonstrable, external, objective, moral framework. No one has shown one to exist. No one has ever made a case against subjective moralism (to me) that doesn't reduce to "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective." As I noted before, there is no "proof" possible for subjective moralizing. I know of no way to prove what I value or why I value it. I also know that no one has ever been able to express a single objectively true moral proposition that does not trace back to their own valuing.
    I agree with you for once there is "no proof possible for subjective moralizing". (Drop the mic!) You're going to have to do better than your lame old "it can't be subjective because then it can't be objective" schtick! Come up with some new material. I've been giving arguments as to why subjectivism is incoherent and internally contradictory, none of which you've ever answered. Please answer them. It could be you don't understand what objectivism is or what would constitute "proof" in favor of it.

    For me - that is more than adequate evidence that morality is subjective.
    'Nuff said.
    Last edited by Jim B.; 08-13-2019, 11:12 PM.

    Comment


    • Jim -

      I have been through both of your posts and it strikes me that further back and forth is not going to get us anywhere, Furthermore, they are consuming a great deal of time. So I'm going to leave them and attempt a different approach. You seem to want to argue that morality is fundamentally an objective exercise. That is to say, there are moral principles that are objectively true and not subject to individual thoughts, ideas, or opinions. You should therefore be able to cite one objectively true moral principle and identify what makes that particular principle "moral" without any reference to subjectively selected valuing. That is the basis for my position concerning morality: that we cannot arrive at a moral claim without it being rooted in something we value that is subjectively selected, making the entire edifice of morality a subjective exercise. If you can demonstrate a moral claim that is NOT so rooted, then I would have to rethink my position.
      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 Post
        Again - you should reread what I actually said. I really have become tired of this type of discussion game with you, Seer. I have no desire to go on another round. If/when you respond to what I actually said, I'll go from there.
        Carp, one can turn a lot of claims into a tautology just by the wording. What we are saying at bottom is that God is perfectly and immutably rational and that the universe reflects that rationality. That perfect rationality is an attribute of God, that is not a tautology - period.
        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 Post
          And you are wrong, Seer. Our government has the authority (i.e., right AND power) because we consent. If we did not consent, it would not have the right, even if it did have the power.
          Nonsense Carp, there are individuals who are citizens who do not recognize government authority or its laws, we call them criminals. And we put them in jail - the government has that right, whether the criminal agrees with that authority or not.


          My position about "inalienable" has never changed. Inalienable means "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." There is no such right. But that does not mean there are no basic rights that every human being claims for themselves and, in order to be consistent, must grant to others as well. Life - liberty - pursuit of happiness are among these. I don't need a "god" to give me these rights - I claim them for myself. You don't have to respect them or even agree that I have them. They do not have to have "objective meaning" to have "meaning." This has already been established. And you an call them gobblygook all day long if you wish, but I will defend them when I need to.
          Isn't the special...


          If I break a country's laws, and I am willingly in that country - then I have consented and the government has the right and power (hence the authority) to punish me.
          That is just untrue, you don't know many in Militia groups do you. Again, your consent is meaningless, it has no effect on the authority of the government. It is merely a subjective, personal proclivity of yours.
          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 Post
            No one is claiming that "logic is merely a description of how Carpe's brain functions." (I can just hear the comments now... )

            That is how you are describing god. Therefore, if logic is simply "how god's mind works" and "God cannot act other than how his mind works," then the claim "god cannot act irrationality" reduces to "god cannot act other than how god can act."

            The logic is fairly straightforward - and the statement is shown to be a tautology. It ultimately says nothing. It's like saying "green is green" or "the walking man is walking."

            What do you mean merely? If I say that Carp can not think logically then Carp can not act other than other than how his mind works. Carp can not act rationally reduces to Carp cannot act other than how Carp can act. That is just silly, you can say a dog can't act other than a how a dog can act, a fish or a bird, etc...
            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 Post
              I'm sure you are not surprised to hear that this is a fairly regular refrain. But then again, it's a refrain within Christianity as well. Anyone who's theology doesn't align is "not Christian" or "Unchristian." But it is curious that you would say "you're wrong" about my reported experiences. Apparently I have'nt experienced what I've experienced. Odd that.
              Perhaps you regularly hear the refrain because you so often out yourself. It's not simply that your theology apparently did not align with Christianity (it didn't), but as far as I can tell, your entire Christian experience was idiosyncratic. I'm not the only one who has noticed that on this forum. Every time you post you demonstrate a bit more what little understanding you have of a faith you claimed to have so cherished. It's little wonder you apostatized.


              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              And yet that is a common response. Seer has used it. Sparko has used it. Well.. I gave you a list before. If there are people here who think/discuss differently, I have not met them or had that type of discussion with them.


              I believe my comments were about people here, on this forum that I have had exchanges with, Adrift. I'm not sure how it got projected to the entire population of Christians. Indeed, I was fairly clear that I am aware some Christians exist who DO question the bible statements and do NOT base their moral framework on it. Somehow, you seem to have missed that observation.


              Well, I guess that explains how you missed the observation...



              I can only speak to what I have observed. If I have not met them, or discussed with them, then I cannot know about them.

              Was it not on this very forum that I told you that this view was not accurate? That several regulars upvoted my post after telling you it wasn't accurate (including Sparko)? But your rebuttal was an attempt to move from the specific to the general. You were quite obviously using your example with seer (which I also explored in that other thread) as something you saw normative of Christian moralism, and you insisted on this interpretation after I called you on it. Furthermore, someone so serious about his Christian faith that he attended seminary should have at some point come into contact with Augustine and Kierkegaard. If not there, at least some time in your many years on the forum (perhaps before the crash). If your experiences are indeed so limited that you're not familiar with Christian ethics, perhaps you shouldn't write about it with such confidence.

              Also, the bit you slipped in about questioning the Bible and NOT basing one's moral framework on it misses the point. Plenty of Christians (likely the majority) have a healthy enough moral framework that allows investigation, acceptance, and integration of certain moral teachings espoused in scripture while recognizing that it offers illumination on moral intuitions they had previous to their conversion. In other words, while plenty of Christians continue to question the Bible, they need not reject it's teachings out and out to demonstrate that their moral framework is pinned on more than "because the Bible says so."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                Carp, one can turn a lot of claims into a tautology just by the wording. What we are saying at bottom is that God is perfectly and immutably rational and that the universe reflects that rationality. That perfect rationality is an attribute of God, that is not a tautology - period.
                When you respond to what I actually said, I'll engage further.
                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 Post
                  Nonsense Carp, there are individuals who are citizens who do not recognize government authority or its laws, we call them criminals. And we put them in jail - the government has that right, whether the criminal agrees with that authority or not.
                  As noted multiple times, their citizenship and voluntary presence within these borders IS their consent. That is essentially what citizenship is - an agreement to abide by the laws of the land and to follow through on one's duties to the state (i.e., taxes, etc.) in return for the benefits of citizenship. You can claim to "not consent" all you wish - but if you remain voluntarily here and retain your citizenship - your actions belie your words.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Isn't the special...

                  That is just untrue, you don't know many in Militia groups do you. Again, your consent is meaningless, it has no effect on the authority of the government. It is merely a subjective, personal proclivity of yours.
                  See above.
                  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 Post
                    What do you mean merely? If I say that Carp can not think logically then Carp can not act other than other than how his mind works. Carp can not act rationally reduces to Carp cannot act other than how Carp can act. That is just silly, you can say a dog can't act other than a how a dog can act, a fish or a bird, etc...
                    Ahh...so you found the post. "Merely had" no specific meaning in the statement and can be omitted without loss. It's one of those words that gets tossed in sometimes without thinking (at least by me). The point is, logic is being defined in terms of god's mind (which is not what is done with respect to Carpe). It is defined to be "the nature of god's mind." You are not just saying that god is logical (i.e., god thinks consistently with the objective/absolute laws of logic) but rather that the objective/absolute laws of logic exist because god's mind operates this way (unless I have misunderstood your argument). It is this claim that renders the statement a tautology.
                    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 Adrift View Post
                      Perhaps you regularly hear the refrain because you so often out yourself. It's not simply that your theology apparently did not align with Christianity (it didn't), but as far as I can tell, your entire Christian experience was idiosyncratic. I'm not the only one who has noticed that on this forum. Every time you post you demonstrate a bit more what little understanding you have of a faith you claimed to have so cherished. It's little wonder you apostatized.
                      Adrift, with all due respect, I'm not going to engage further in "who is" or "who was" a "theologically proper Christian." If you believe I never was, such is life. A lot of Christians would agree with you, and the there all those that wouldn't. What constitutes a "theologically proper Christian" is a fluid thing that varies (to varying degrees) from one person/sect to another.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Was it not on this very forum that I told you that this view was not accurate? That several regulars upvoted my post after telling you it wasn't accurate (including Sparko)? But your rebuttal was an attempt to move from the specific to the general. You were quite obviously using your example with seer (which I also explored in that other thread) as something you saw normative of Christian moralism, and you insisted on this interpretation after I called you on it. Furthermore, someone so serious about his Christian faith that he attended seminary should have at some point come into contact with Augustine and Kierkegaard. If not there, at least some time in your many years on the forum (perhaps before the crash). If your experiences are indeed so limited that you're not familiar with Christian ethics, perhaps you shouldn't write about it with such confidence.
                      Again, my comment was made with respect to a specific group. Why you choose to bring historical theologians into the mix I do not understand, but they have nothing to do with my initial observation. The "because the bible says so" group exists, and is well represented here. Indeed, it is the primary voice I have encountered on this site.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Also, the bit you slipped in about questioning the Bible and NOT basing one's moral framework on it misses the point. Plenty of Christians (likely the majority) have a healthy enough moral framework that allows investigation, acceptance, and integration of certain moral teachings espoused in scripture while recognizing that it offers illumination on moral intuitions they had previous to their conversion. In other words, while plenty of Christians continue to question the Bible, they need not reject it's teachings out and out to demonstrate that their moral framework is pinned on more than "because the Bible says so."
                      And my experience is, when you begin any significant discussion about the basis for these beliefs, we eventually end up at "because the bible says so and the bible is the (inspired, inerrant, etc.) word of god." It was recognizing this that made me realize the futility of engaging in a discussion about specific moral principles with the aforementioned. The valuing is WAY out of synch, and the probability of successful resolution of the moral discrepancy is extremely low. Indeed, there is not even a way to point out logical disconnects between different moral positions; if those logical disconnects are ignored and the moral principles enshrined in the bible, then they will be held without further question. It's why I stopped discussing specific moral issues here. There is basically no point in doing so.
                      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 Post
                        Ahh...so you found the post. "Merely had" no specific meaning in the statement and can be omitted without loss. It's one of those words that gets tossed in sometimes without thinking (at least by me). The point is, logic is being defined in terms of god's mind (which is not what is done with respect to Carpe). It is defined to be "the nature of god's mind." You are not just saying that god is logical (i.e., god thinks consistently with the objective/absolute laws of logic) but rather that the objective/absolute laws of logic exist because god's mind operates this way (unless I have misunderstood your argument). It is this claim that renders the statement a tautology.
                        And a dog acts like a dog. To say that God is the source of logic is not a tautology, any more than saying that God is the source of moral absolutes.
                        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
                          And a dog acts like a dog. To say that God is the source of logic is not a tautology, any more than saying that God is the source of moral absolutes.
                          I did not say " 'god is the source of logic' is a tautology," so we're back to "when you get what I said right, I'll respond further." Sorry, but I've decided I'm tired of wasting my time continually trying to bring people back to what I actually said, instead of the strawmen they create and then bat down. When you are accurately reflecting what I have actually said, I'll engage further. Until then, feel free to flail away at...well...whatever you're flailing away at...
                          Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-14-2019, 01:11 PM.
                          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 Post
                            I did not say " 'god is the source of logic' is a tautology," so we're back to "when you get what I said right, I'll respond further." Sorry, but I've decided I'm tired of wasting my time continually trying to bring people back to what I actually said, instead of the strawmen they create and then bat down. When you are accurately reflecting what I have actually said, I'll engage further. Until then, feel free to flail away at...well...whatever you're flailing away at...
                            I did not say 'god is the source of logic' is a tautology. Good, and therefore that He is immutably rational. Again not a tautology. And that is all I'm saying, as was the quote that Adrift referenced.
                            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 Post
                              As noted multiple times, their citizenship and voluntary presence within these borders IS their consent. That is essentially what citizenship is - an agreement to abide by the laws of the land and to follow through on one's duties to the state (i.e., taxes, etc.) in return for the benefits of citizenship. You can claim to "not consent" all you wish - but if you remain voluntarily here and retain your citizenship - your actions belie your words.

                              See above.
                              And again, that is just untrue. And I suspect that your circle of friends is rather limited.

                              Sovereign citizen movement

                              The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of American and Commonwealth litigants, commentators, tax protesters, and financial-scheme promoters. Self-described "sovereign citizens" see themselves as answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and as not subject to any government statutes or proceedings.[1] In the United States, they do not recognize U.S. currency and maintain that they are "free of any legal constraints".[2][3][4] They especially reject most forms of taxation as illegitimate.[5] Participants in the movement argue this concept in opposition to the idea of "federal citizens", who, they say, have unknowingly forfeited their rights by accepting some aspect of federal law.[6]

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovere...tizen_movement
                              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 did not say 'god is the source of logic' is a tautology. Good, and therefore that He is immutably rational. Again not a tautology. And that is all I'm saying, as was the quote that Adrift referenced.
                                When you respond to what I actually said, I'll respond further.
                                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 mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
                                23 responses
                                466 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Ronson, 07-08-2020, 09:35 PM
                                81 responses
                                3,042 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mattbballman31  
                                Started by seer, 04-21-2020, 09:33 AM
                                301 responses
                                6,463 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-17-2020, 07:15 AM
                                5 responses
                                1,231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Jim B., 08-04-2019, 04:18 PM
                                74 responses
                                11,916 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X