Catholic question

20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Catholic question

In no way do I intend to offend anyone. I have been looking for a while and I just can't find an answer yet. I am just curious how one derives the "value" of human life if there is not some "higher being." That is not to say that you must believe in God to be a "good" person (as defined by me), I know PLENTY of great Atheist, Agnostics, Christians, ext. But I am just not able to figure how anyone could possibly be "right" if there is nothing higher than us?


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Pikachu wrote: if you say

Pikachu wrote:
if you say that we have to suffer evil now in order to get a greater good tomorrow you are into that "ends justifies the means" thinking - which is in and of itself alltogether evil. Your god is evil. We have already established that. A good god would never put humanity into that kind of dilemma, he would never declare that the ends justifies the means and that you therefore have to suffer some evil now in order to get greater good later.

I'm just not sure what evil you are talking about? 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: But that is

20vturbo wrote:
But that is only one point on morality, what about killing for what is believed to be the good of humanity, or any of the other hundreds of situations. 

Why is this hard to understand? It is no different than with your godly morality. It will either be good or bad or some combination of the two. It must have some effect one way or the other and that effect will be either good or bad or in between depending on the act, situation, circumstances. Being non-omniscient you will not always know all the possible outcomes of any event, but you don't with godly morals either.And as with godly morals whether an action is good or bad it is still you who must decide, in your human mind, whether or not to commit the act.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: Vessel

20vturbo wrote:
Vessel wrote:
 

It has nothing to do with social norms. A human Killing another human for the sake of enjoyment is never a good thing for a human society. This will always be bad, no matter what the societal norms might deem it to be. Giving to help those in need will always be a good thing for a human society, no matter what the societal norms might deem it to be. One creates a situation in which if everyone killed for fun, the society would soon be extinct. The other creates a situation where humans can feel secure in the knowledge that, were they in a similar situation, they would be responded to in kind. This creates a close knit, secure society.

 

But that is only one point on morality, what about killing for what is believed to be the good of humanity, or any of the other hundreds of situations. 

A male lion doesn't just eat every other lion because he can. An elephant doesn't just trample every other elephant because he can. Co-operation is a part of even the most basic of life.

A lion killing a deer wouldn't be a moral issue but a survival issue - just like a man killing a cow is not a moral issue. A lion will not generally kill another of it's own kind for the mere sake of it, and neither will a human. It will only be 'wrong' or 'right' depending on what angle you view it from. As a victim it's wrong, as the killer it's right.

God had no time to create time.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:Pikachu

20vturbo wrote:
I'm just not sure what evil you are talking about? 
The primary difference between humans and other animals is our ability to communicate using speech. And this brought about the possibility of complaining to a higher authority. A non-human animal who's mate has been killed by a rival cannot make its feelings known to the rest of the troop, to the rest of its "society", if you like. But once speech was developed, the social cohesion which must have evolved almost instantly is of a different quality and nature to that of any animal species. This is because we no longer react purely on instinct, but upon a unique ability to empathise with the feelings of a fellow human being. Unlike any animal we can put ourselves in the position of someone who has been wronged or hurt in some way, and this in turn is because of the ability of another human to express how they feel about a particular wrong in direct terms.

Because of this unique social cohesion, the dominant entity, the leader, has to do more than impose his rule and domination by his strength - he has to demonstrate wisdom and judgement.

God had no time to create time.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: 20vturbo

Vessel wrote:

20vturbo wrote:
But that is only one point on morality, what about killing for what is believed to be the good of humanity, or any of the other hundreds of situations.

Why is this hard to understand? It is no different than with your godly morality. It will either be good or bad or some combination of the two. It must have some effect one way or the other and that effect will be either good or bad or in between depending on the act, situation, circumstances. Being non-omniscient you will not always know all the possible outcomes of any event, but you don't with godly morals either.And as with godly morals whether an action is good or bad it is still you who must decide, in your human mind, whether or not to commit the act.

I dont think it is hard to understand, in my opinion it appears that if there is no "higher" power there is no true right or wrong, only opinions.  You say it depends ont situation and circumstance, but if that is the case right is not alway right and wrong is not always wrong so there can't really be a true right or wrong 

 

 


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Pikachu wrote: A lion

Pikachu wrote:

A lion killing a deer wouldn't be a moral issue but a survival issue - just like a man killing a cow is not a moral issue. A lion will not generally kill another of it's own kind for the mere sake of it, and neither will a human. It will only be 'wrong' or 'right' depending on what angle you view it from. As a victim it's wrong, as the killer it's right.

So you would agree that all we have are opinions, and noones opinion is better/more valuable than anothers?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, that's

Quote:
Well, that's how the bible was written. A bunch of opinions that may or may not be truth.

This is unjustified.

Quote:
  

Except you don't even seem to know what truth is, and so your whole foundation is flawed. Truth has nothing to do with this conversation. A moral isn't true. It's a concept. If it were true, it would be universal. It is not universal, so it cannot be true.

That is terrifically patent circular logic. Truth has everything to do with this conversation. If, as your claim, survival is the reason we hold any opinion, truth itself is an illusion/non-existent. Moral truth is merely a subset of truth. However, you assert moral truth is not true, and hence not true. Terrifically circular.

Quote:
Fallacy. You're depending on bullshit to further bullshit. Your own religion proves that your god is inadequate to be a standard for good and evil. Any appearance of arbitrary decisions regarding morality remove any capability of your god to claim itself as morally superior. And since god was directly or indirectly responsible for at least 2-3 million seperate and distinct crimes against his own tenets, god cannot claim moral superiority.

I have no idea what you are talking about but it does not answer my question. Christians do not believe that God is arbitrary at all. I repeat my argument and await your reply. Ignoring it and calling it 'bullshit' does not change anything.

Further, I see no reason why you are saying God committed '2-3 million' crimes. First, because the number it totally arbitrary, and second because it is does not have justification at all.

Lastly, God does not 'claim moral superiority.' God, by way of eminence, is the cause of truth, being, goodness, and morality itself. It has nothing to do with being morally superior, as God is morality.

 

Quote:
Evidence of your false god is impossible to find. Or I would not be here protesting your lies. Morals flow from evolution.

Ok, then. Assert something without evidence and pretend it to be an argument.

 
Quote:
I don't care how you define truth. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with your god. Every time you claim truth along side god you are lying. Linguistically and materially.

I still see no unique reason why you can claim that truth exists. I likewise see no justification why "every time [I] claim truth alongside god [I] am lying. Linguistically and materially." That last part doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
A statement does not equal an opinion. It can be an opinion, but it can also be a fact. And if you really meant "statement" instead of opinion, then your argument is even more flawed.

No it does not, but there is a different sense of the word 'opinion' I am using. It does no harm to my argument. If you want to maintain your position, only opinions (properly speaking of opinions) can exist, as no statement can be properly said to be a 'fact' as it cannot possess either truth or falsity.

 
Quote:
"you must hold that no true or false statements can exist"I am not going to become irrational, much as you might like me to. As such, I just have to laugh at the new meaning your sentence has. Yeah, there really needs to be a god in order for: "The grass is green" to be true.

*Rolls eyes*

Except that there does. If no objective and necessary cause exists, there is no reason why truth exists.

Quote:
*Sigh* So I misread you. The standard of truth itself and the search of it is reality. Logic. Science. Etc.

Ok, but that still does not satisfy. How can truth exist if it is identified with changeable things (like 'survival' or 'man' as being the standard of truth)?

Reality, if we mean 'being,' is the same standard I use for truth. However, we must refer, again, to a necessarily existent cause in order to claim that truth is founded in reality.

Quote:

You can beg all you like, it doesn't make you right. You're making an assumption that you can prove even less than your god. The day you can prove your god = truth, bring it.

I can make neither heads nor tails of that second sentence ("You're making an assumption...&quotEye-wink. Likewise, I have been proving that truth requires God to be logically coherent. 

 
Quote:
How about the dictionary? Duh. Your continued attempts to contradict obvious reality are laughable. I'm starting to wonder if you have a mental disorder that causes some kind of neural loop in your brain.

Is the dictionary the cause of truth? I cross out 'moon' in Webster's dictionary and the moon ceases to exist? That seems a silly definition.

Quote:

Only because you are irrational.

I am growing to dislike unsupported assertions.

 
Quote:
Bullshit. It's easily done with medical equipment and observation.

Medical equipment is the standard? If 'survival' is the standard of truth, how can this apply to define 'pain.' What 'pain' is would merely be my opinion of pain, as my quest for survival dictates a particular view of pain. Medical equipment would only be an extension of my opinion of what 'pain' is. Is 'pain' a lighting of neurons in the top or bottom of the brain? Just because I associate some sensation with 'pain' would not ensure that there is any truth in what 'pain' is.

Quote:
No measurement possible without an objective standard.

Irrational argument.

Why? How can you measure without a ruler or some other instrument of measurement?

Quote:
Just because you don't like democracy does not mean your god exists. Yeesh.

What does democracy have to do with anything we have been speaking about? Does the state determine moral truth? I would disagree.

Quote:
Have fun maintaining your lies and assumptions. Good doesn't exist. Truth is a dictionary term that you REALLY need to look up some day. And my statement is self justifying.

I have no idea why you are so rampant in name-calling.

As for "truth," here is the dictionary.com defintion: "conformity with fact or reality." An atheist cannot have a conformity with reality because reality has no objective value. If survival is the standard of what constitutes reality, then everything is merely relative.

Lastly, saying your statement is 'self-justifying' does not prove anything. You need to explain something in order to argue it. You cannot merely assert that it is true.

Quote:
My statement is self justifying. You simply use irrationality to attempt to poke holes in it. Which, by the way, fails by default. It seems to me that you are a very shallow person morally. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to come up with these questions. Here, I'll give you a bone. People like you need to believe in a god or some kind of imaginary friend or risk falling apart. But that doesn't mean your god exists. And just because you need it, that does not mean that every one does.

Shallow morally? What does this have to do with anything, even if I am? I do not see why we are making such weird and unjustified assertions.  Second, I do not appreciate name-calling. Third, it makes you look unable to argue because all you can do is insult others.

Lastly, I do not believe in God as an 'imaginary friend.' I know God to be necessary in order to formulate meaningful propositions about reality and in order to account for the existence of the universe. I further believe Him to have become incarnate as Jesus Christ and to have founded the Church, I hope to achieve salvation in heaven, and I love Him in this life and look forward to being happy with Him in eternity.

Quote:
So we can ask this question: is survival itself is good? and other questions like, what aspects of survival make it good? is the alternative to survival bad?Can these questions be answered empirically or logically? Can one provide a logical argument that survival of the human species is better than the alternative?

If we can't, does that have implications for a system of morals based on this end? For example, if someone shot a fellow just for the hell of it, would we in prosecuting him have the burden of proving that survival of the human species is a good thing?

There is no room in atheism for maintaining that any view is true or good. There is no basis for it.

 
Quote:
I have yet to see you explain how it would. I can't answer an objection unless you actually voice one as something other than an unsubstantiated statement.

 To say human morals are based in nature as a necessary component of our nature as social animals says absolutely nothing about truth. Whether what we as humans see as "good" due to our nature as social animals is good independent of our experience as humans is unimportant. If "good" does not exist as we humans know it on the dark side of the third moon of planet x-4550 makes absolutely no difference on whether or not it is truly "good" as far as we are concerned. We can only understand truth in the way that it affects us as a group. Being as that you are a human and will never experience anything as anything but a human, what difference could it possibly make whether something is true when removed from human experience? Viewing this good from a non-affected perspective is the only way the need for your desired truth could be of any consequence whatsoever.

If truth is merely a by-product of evolution, there is no reason this statement has any truth. There is no meaning to it. It is a contradiction. Truth is essential if we wish to speak about anything.

Quote:
Survival is the reason for good. Our natural need to be able to survive in groups is the foundation of good. No standard is required. Even if there was a standard it would be of absolutely no importance.  

If there would be no standard for what is true, nothing (including that 'there is no standard for truth&#39Eye-wink would be false.

Second, survival does not determine all good. How is knowledge and contemplation good, as it does not necessarily further survival?

Third, 'good' is a term similar to 'true' in that truth indicates a good of the intellect. If good does not exist, truth does not either.

Quote:
Fact 1. All morality that we humans have exist as a result of ourselves.

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Fact 2. Different groups of people have had different morality. People 100 years ago had a different morality from what we have today. People in Afghanistan under Taliban had a different morality than people in Europe or people in US. So morality obviously depends on time and geography and culture. Seems to me that the evidence we have indicate that morality comes from ourselves and not from God.

Morality might be discovered by man in different ways, but that says nothing about what moral truth is in itself. Further, the range of moral opinions you imply never existed - most morals opinions throughout time have been fairly close. Lastly, this does not necessitate that morality does not depend on an objective standard. In fact, morality must if it exists as true.

Quote:

Fact 3. The morality in the old testament is immoral. They stone people for the smallest crimes, they want to force a man to have sex with his brother's widow because his brother died before he had any children. They want to force a girl to marry her rapist. Thus, the biblical moral is immoral. If that is your source of morality then you and your god are immoral beings. If you want to stone your children from speaking up against you I am sure the police wants to have a chat with you.

This is rather unfounded and also rather ignorant of what the Old Testament says. Nobody ever said that someone should marry their rapist. Nor does it dictate 'stoning' people for the 'smallest crimes.' Nor does it force a man to have sex with his brother's widow. Further, the interpretation of the moral precepts of the Old Testament is not limited purely to my interpretation of what they mean; the Church, or (for the Jews) their rabbinic interpreters.

 [quote

This is where the fact that survival must be a goal of a living organism comes into play. We must think that life is good or else we cease to exist. Life could never form anywhere unless by its nature its goal was survival. Since life exists we know for a fact that it has a natural goal of survival.

If the first life form had not expended the energy required to exist then no other life form would ever have existed. It necessarily, by its nature as life, had to work toward a goal of survival. This is true of any life form.

If truth is merely a side effect, does it ever have any meaning? Then your statement is merely a side-effect that evolution, according to arbitrary standards, judges to be useful.

Quote:
"As far as any human is concerned" is the only way good and evil can possibly make sense or be of any importance to any human.

In so far as human beings are the agents of morality, yes. But this does not mean that morality is only our personal opinions, or by-products of evolution.

Quote:
They are objective human morals based in nature. Without humans, human morals can no longer exist whether objective and based in nature or not.

They are not objective. What determines morality? You claim that survival of the individual determines truth, but what determines the truth of that statement? It goes on ad absurdum.

Quote:

 We should strive to make this place a happy place for all people and to live in harmony with nature and blah blah blah. This includes that we should not cause other species to go extinct or wreck havoc on earth. It also includes that we should strive to learn more about nature and the world around us. Science has been a great boon to human civilization for the last few centuries where it has been active. I think it has proven its worth and if we could put more money in science and less into military I think it would be a good thing overall.

Except that these choices for what is moral would be totally arbitrary. There is no reason why I ought to support other species at all. There is no reason I ought to save a whale from extinction rather than kill my friend. There is no basis for moral decisions.

Quote:

What we do not need more of in this world is superstitious religious nuts who want to introduce ID in school and fly airplanes into buildings and blow themselves and innocent people around them to pieces because they believe they can get to heaven that way.

This is libelous and unnecessary.

Quote:
No need for god in any form of moral. Gods just makes morality more muddy and unclear.

God makes things much clearer than 'let's all just get along.' Further, without a foundation, you are not just living with muddy morality, but no morality.

Quote:

Moral is easy:
- Don't take or inflict damage to anything that is not yours
- Don't harm other humans or animals.

What else is there really?
Religion adds a whole lot of other crap that is not needed.

Except that your standards of what is or is not moral is totally arbitrary.

God creates a standard in which I can make moral decisions (not in His will, but in the fact that He exists independent of myself and hence is a stable foundation on which to place truth).

Quote:
 Well, I can't speak for atheists, but as for myself, this is what I've been explaining in my posts. There is no such thing as my morals and Hitler's morals, or Mother Theresa's morals and Papa Doc's morals. Hitler had the same morals I do, he merely made justifications to commit the acts he commited.

That is gonna go over real well in the Borscht Belt.

I would agree with your seeming statement that morals are non-relative, but you have no way in which you can claim that.

Lastly, if you assume a set moral code for all people, you cannot prove how it exists independent of a subjective perspective.

Quote:
Morals are not opinion. Do you know what's right and wrong? I would bet that it is very similar to what anyone else you ask thinks is right or wrong. No two people will have the exact same idea of what is right and wrong unless they have been indoctrinated to follow a certain rigid code. This is because people have intelligence which allows them to consider morals and justify actions. But, because people are all humans, they all have similar morals.

This, essentially, is what the Church believes. Human beings naturally have a moral sense of right and wrong that can be discovered naturally. However, as an atheist, it becomes unclear how you could say that what is 'true for me' is 'true for all men.'

Quote:

Of course there is nothing, no god with a promise of heaven and threat of hell to make people adhere to natural morals, or to keep them from finding ways to justify mass murder or genocide within morals, but for most people this is not the way they choose to live, or are genetically predisposed to live (depending on whether one goes with nature or nuture).

The Christian does not claim that the threat of hell is what creates moral code. The Christian claims that God's existence as the Eternal Law ensures the existence and objectivity of the Natural Law.

 
Quote:
Because we are in many ways, and we all have just as much right as any other to existence. Whether that is no right or every right is unimportant. We have equal right and that says that each should be respected as equal.

If there are no rights, there can be no way you can say that every thing must be respected equally. You have no place from which to claim that rights of any sort exist.

Quote:
Isn't a god existing just your opinion? See you can ask this question of anything and since all you have to answer with is the thoughts from your own mind, how do you answer such a question? You can't answer from anything other than a human perspective using your human senses and what you have learned through personal human experience. It is impossible for a human to do anything else whether a god were to exist or not.

What I know is not the same as opinion. I know God exists because I see that things exist dependent upon a first cause - God.

Quote:

As to whether or not we let the most intelligent make the rules, well, that depends. It seems to be a sound idea as long as the intelligent person has a level of altruism we find acceptable, We also want to have our own say in the matter so that our interests are seen to, etc.. There is much more than intelligence that is required to make a good leader. I think that aside from the anomally of the current U.S. president, humans normally do try to put people of above average intelligence into positions of power.

Intelligence is irrelevant if there is no reason why some thing ought to be true or moral rather than another.


Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: I dont

20vturbo wrote:
I dont think it is hard to understand, in my opinion it appears that if there is no "higher" power there is no true right or wrong, only opinions.  You say it depends ont situation and circumstance, but if that is the case right is not alway right and wrong is not always wrong so there can't really be a true right or wrong.

Then with your godly morals there is no true right or wrong. Killing for fun is wrong by your godly morals. But is killing always wrong by your godly morals? I'd hope not, because your god has killed according to his biography. Depending on circumstances, killing can be good.

You see, killing being wrong depends on circumstances no matter where morals are based. Again killing for fun is wrong. If you are killing to keep someone from setting off an atomic bomb in Manhattan, it is good, not wrong. Killing changed from wrong to good because of circumstances. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Well, that's how the bible was written. A bunch of opinions that may or may not be truth.

This is unjustified.

Quote:
  

Except you don't even seem to know what truth is, and so your whole foundation is flawed. Truth has nothing to do with this conversation. A moral isn't true. It's a concept. If it were true, it would be universal. It is not universal, so it cannot be true.

That is terrifically patent circular logic. Truth has everything to do with this conversation. If, as your claim, survival is the reason we hold any opinion, truth itself is an illusion/non-existent. Moral truth is merely a subset of truth. However, you assert moral truth is not true, and hence not true. Terrifically circular.

Quote:
Fallacy. You're depending on bullshit to further bullshit. Your own religion proves that your god is inadequate to be a standard for good and evil. Any appearance of arbitrary decisions regarding morality remove any capability of your god to claim itself as morally superior. And since god was directly or indirectly responsible for at least 2-3 million seperate and distinct crimes against his own tenets, god cannot claim moral superiority.

I have no idea what you are talking about but it does not answer my question. Christians do not believe that God is arbitrary at all. I repeat my argument and await your reply. Ignoring it and calling it 'bullshit' does not change anything.

Further, I see no reason why you are saying God committed '2-3 million' crimes. First, because the number it totally arbitrary, and second because it is does not have justification at all.

Lastly, God does not 'claim moral superiority.' God, by way of eminence, is the cause of truth, being, goodness, and morality itself. It has nothing to do with being morally superior, as God is morality.

 

Quote:
Evidence of your false god is impossible to find. Or I would not be here protesting your lies. Morals flow from evolution.

Ok, then. Assert something without evidence and pretend it to be an argument.

 
Quote:
I don't care how you define truth. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with your god. Every time you claim truth along side god you are lying. Linguistically and materially.

I still see no unique reason why you can claim that truth exists. I likewise see no justification why "every time [I] claim truth alongside god [I] am lying. Linguistically and materially." That last part doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
A statement does not equal an opinion. It can be an opinion, but it can also be a fact. And if you really meant "statement" instead of opinion, then your argument is even more flawed.

No it does not, but there is a different sense of the word 'opinion' I am using. It does no harm to my argument. If you want to maintain your position, only opinions (properly speaking of opinions) can exist, as no statement can be properly said to be a 'fact' as it cannot possess either truth or falsity.

 
Quote:
"you must hold that no true or false statements can exist"I am not going to become irrational, much as you might like me to. As such, I just have to laugh at the new meaning your sentence has. Yeah, there really needs to be a god in order for: "The grass is green" to be true.

*Rolls eyes*

Except that there does. If no objective and necessary cause exists, there is no reason why truth exists.

Quote:
*Sigh* So I misread you. The standard of truth itself and the search of it is reality. Logic. Science. Etc.

Ok, but that still does not satisfy. How can truth exist if it is identified with changeable things (like 'survival' or 'man' as being the standard of truth)?

Reality, if we mean 'being,' is the same standard I use for truth. However, we must refer, again, to a necessarily existent cause in order to claim that truth is founded in reality.

Quote:

You can beg all you like, it doesn't make you right. You're making an assumption that you can prove even less than your god. The day you can prove your god = truth, bring it.

I can make neither heads nor tails of that second sentence ("You're making an assumption...&quotEye-wink. Likewise, I have been proving that truth requires God to be logically coherent. 

 
Quote:
How about the dictionary? Duh. Your continued attempts to contradict obvious reality are laughable. I'm starting to wonder if you have a mental disorder that causes some kind of neural loop in your brain.

Is the dictionary the cause of truth? I cross out 'moon' in Webster's dictionary and the moon ceases to exist? That seems a silly definition.

Quote:

Only because you are irrational.

I am growing to dislike unsupported assertions.

 
Quote:
Bullshit. It's easily done with medical equipment and observation.

Medical equipment is the standard? If 'survival' is the standard of truth, how can this apply to define 'pain.' What 'pain' is would merely be my opinion of pain, as my quest for survival dictates a particular view of pain. Medical equipment would only be an extension of my opinion of what 'pain' is. Is 'pain' a lighting of neurons in the top or bottom of the brain? Just because I associate some sensation with 'pain' would not ensure that there is any truth in what 'pain' is.

Quote:
No measurement possible without an objective standard.

Irrational argument.

Why? How can you measure without a ruler or some other instrument of measurement?

Quote:
Just because you don't like democracy does not mean your god exists. Yeesh.

What does democracy have to do with anything we have been speaking about? Does the state determine moral truth? I would disagree.

Quote:
Have fun maintaining your lies and assumptions. Good doesn't exist. Truth is a dictionary term that you REALLY need to look up some day. And my statement is self justifying.

I have no idea why you are so rampant in name-calling.

As for "truth," here is the dictionary.com defintion: "conformity with fact or reality." An atheist cannot have a conformity with reality because reality has no objective value. If survival is the standard of what constitutes reality, then everything is merely relative.

Lastly, saying your statement is 'self-justifying' does not prove anything. You need to explain something in order to argue it. You cannot merely assert that it is true.

Quote:
My statement is self justifying. You simply use irrationality to attempt to poke holes in it. Which, by the way, fails by default. It seems to me that you are a very shallow person morally. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to come up with these questions. Here, I'll give you a bone. People like you need to believe in a god or some kind of imaginary friend or risk falling apart. But that doesn't mean your god exists. And just because you need it, that does not mean that every one does.

Shallow morally? What does this have to do with anything, even if I am? I do not see why we are making such weird and unjustified assertions.  Second, I do not appreciate name-calling. Third, it makes you look unable to argue because all you can do is insult others.

Lastly, I do not believe in God as an 'imaginary friend.' I know God to be necessary in order to formulate meaningful propositions about reality and in order to account for the existence of the universe. I further believe Him to have become incarnate as Jesus Christ and to have founded the Church, I hope to achieve salvation in heaven, and I love Him in this life and look forward to being happy with Him in eternity.

Quote:
So we can ask this question: is survival itself is good? and other questions like, what aspects of survival make it good? is the alternative to survival bad?Can these questions be answered empirically or logically? Can one provide a logical argument that survival of the human species is better than the alternative?

If we can't, does that have implications for a system of morals based on this end? For example, if someone shot a fellow just for the hell of it, would we in prosecuting him have the burden of proving that survival of the human species is a good thing?

There is no room in atheism for maintaining that any view is true or good. There is no basis for it.

 
Quote:
I have yet to see you explain how it would. I can't answer an objection unless you actually voice one as something other than an unsubstantiated statement.

 To say human morals are based in nature as a necessary component of our nature as social animals says absolutely nothing about truth. Whether what we as humans see as "good" due to our nature as social animals is good independent of our experience as humans is unimportant. If "good" does not exist as we humans know it on the dark side of the third moon of planet x-4550 makes absolutely no difference on whether or not it is truly "good" as far as we are concerned. We can only understand truth in the way that it affects us as a group. Being as that you are a human and will never experience anything as anything but a human, what difference could it possibly make whether something is true when removed from human experience? Viewing this good from a non-affected perspective is the only way the need for your desired truth could be of any consequence whatsoever.

If truth is merely a by-product of evolution, there is no reason this statement has any truth. There is no meaning to it. It is a contradiction. Truth is essential if we wish to speak about anything.

Quote:
Survival is the reason for good. Our natural need to be able to survive in groups is the foundation of good. No standard is required. Even if there was a standard it would be of absolutely no importance.  

If there would be no standard for what is true, nothing (including that 'there is no standard for truth&#39Eye-wink would be false.

Second, survival does not determine all good. How is knowledge and contemplation good, as it does not necessarily further survival?

Third, 'good' is a term similar to 'true' in that truth indicates a good of the intellect. If good does not exist, truth does not either.

Quote:
Fact 1. All morality that we humans have exist as a result of ourselves.

Unsupported assertion.

Quote:

Fact 2. Different groups of people have had different morality. People 100 years ago had a different morality from what we have today. People in Afghanistan under Taliban had a different morality than people in Europe or people in US. So morality obviously depends on time and geography and culture. Seems to me that the evidence we have indicate that morality comes from ourselves and not from God.

Morality might be discovered by man in different ways, but that says nothing about what moral truth is in itself. Further, the range of moral opinions you imply never existed - most morals opinions throughout time have been fairly close. Lastly, this does not necessitate that morality does not depend on an objective standard. In fact, morality must if it exists as true.

Quote:

Fact 3. The morality in the old testament is immoral. They stone people for the smallest crimes, they want to force a man to have sex with his brother's widow because his brother died before he had any children. They want to force a girl to marry her rapist. Thus, the biblical moral is immoral. If that is your source of morality then you and your god are immoral beings. If you want to stone your children from speaking up against you I am sure the police wants to have a chat with you.

This is rather unfounded and also rather ignorant of what the Old Testament says. Nobody ever said that someone should marry their rapist. Nor does it dictate 'stoning' people for the 'smallest crimes.' Nor does it force a man to have sex with his brother's widow. Further, the interpretation of the moral precepts of the Old Testament is not limited purely to my interpretation of what they mean; the Church, or (for the Jews) their rabbinic interpreters.

 [quote

This is where the fact that survival must be a goal of a living organism comes into play. We must think that life is good or else we cease to exist. Life could never form anywhere unless by its nature its goal was survival. Since life exists we know for a fact that it has a natural goal of survival.

If the first life form had not expended the energy required to exist then no other life form would ever have existed. It necessarily, by its nature as life, had to work toward a goal of survival. This is true of any life form.

If truth is merely a side effect, does it ever have any meaning? Then your statement is merely a side-effect that evolution, according to arbitrary standards, judges to be useful.

Quote:
"As far as any human is concerned" is the only way good and evil can possibly make sense or be of any importance to any human.

In so far as human beings are the agents of morality, yes. But this does not mean that morality is only our personal opinions, or by-products of evolution.

Quote:
They are objective human morals based in nature. Without humans, human morals can no longer exist whether objective and based in nature or not.

They are not objective. What determines morality? You claim that survival of the individual determines truth, but what determines the truth of that statement? It goes on ad absurdum.

Quote:

 We should strive to make this place a happy place for all people and to live in harmony with nature and blah blah blah. This includes that we should not cause other species to go extinct or wreck havoc on earth. It also includes that we should strive to learn more about nature and the world around us. Science has been a great boon to human civilization for the last few centuries where it has been active. I think it has proven its worth and if we could put more money in science and less into military I think it would be a good thing overall.

Except that these choices for what is moral would be totally arbitrary. There is no reason why I ought to support other species at all. There is no reason I ought to save a whale from extinction rather than kill my friend. There is no basis for moral decisions.

Quote:

What we do not need more of in this world is superstitious religious nuts who want to introduce ID in school and fly airplanes into buildings and blow themselves and innocent people around them to pieces because they believe they can get to heaven that way.

This is libelous and unnecessary.

Quote:
No need for god in any form of moral. Gods just makes morality more muddy and unclear.

God makes things much clearer than 'let's all just get along.' Further, without a foundation, you are not just living with muddy morality, but no morality.

Quote:

Moral is easy:
- Don't take or inflict damage to anything that is not yours
- Don't harm other humans or animals.

What else is there really?
Religion adds a whole lot of other crap that is not needed.

Except that your standards of what is or is not moral is totally arbitrary.

God creates a standard in which I can make moral decisions (not in His will, but in the fact that He exists independent of myself and hence is a stable foundation on which to place truth).

Quote:
 Well, I can't speak for atheists, but as for myself, this is what I've been explaining in my posts. There is no such thing as my morals and Hitler's morals, or Mother Theresa's morals and Papa Doc's morals. Hitler had the same morals I do, he merely made justifications to commit the acts he commited.

That is gonna go over real well in the Borscht Belt.

I would agree with your seeming statement that morals are non-relative, but you have no way in which you can claim that.

Lastly, if you assume a set moral code for all people, you cannot prove how it exists independent of a subjective perspective.

Quote:
Morals are not opinion. Do you know what's right and wrong? I would bet that it is very similar to what anyone else you ask thinks is right or wrong. No two people will have the exact same idea of what is right and wrong unless they have been indoctrinated to follow a certain rigid code. This is because people have intelligence which allows them to consider morals and justify actions. But, because people are all humans, they all have similar morals.

This, essentially, is what the Church believes. Human beings naturally have a moral sense of right and wrong that can be discovered naturally. However, as an atheist, it becomes unclear how you could say that what is 'true for me' is 'true for all men.'

Quote:

Of course there is nothing, no god with a promise of heaven and threat of hell to make people adhere to natural morals, or to keep them from finding ways to justify mass murder or genocide within morals, but for most people this is not the way they choose to live, or are genetically predisposed to live (depending on whether one goes with nature or nuture).

The Christian does not claim that the threat of hell is what creates moral code. The Christian claims that God's existence as the Eternal Law ensures the existence and objectivity of the Natural Law.

 

 
Quote:
Because we are in many ways, and we all have just as much right as any other to existence. Whether that is no right or every right is unimportant. We have equal right and that says that each should be respected as equal.

If there are no rights, there can be no way you can say that every thing must be respected equally. You have no place from which to claim that rights of any sort exist.

Quote:
Isn't a god existing just your opinion? See you can ask this question of anything and since all you have to answer with is the thoughts from your own mind, how do you answer such a question? You can't answer from anything other than a human perspective using your human senses and what you have learned through personal human experience. It is impossible for a human to do anything else whether a god were to exist or not.

What I know is not the same as opinion. I know God exists because I see that things exist dependent upon a first cause - God.

Quote:

As to whether or not we let the most intelligent make the rules, well, that depends. It seems to be a sound idea as long as the intelligent person has a level of altruism we find acceptable, We also want to have our own say in the matter so that our interests are seen to, etc.. There is much more than intelligence that is required to make a good leader. I think that aside from the anomally of the current U.S. president, humans normally do try to put people of above average intelligence into positions of power.

Intelligence is irrelevant if there is no reason why some thing ought to be true or moral rather than another.


Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

I ignore your post because i can't read a thing with that font. Please stop copy pasting. Thank you.

God had no time to create time.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Then with

Vessel wrote:

Then with your godly morals there is no true right or wrong. Killing for fun is wrong by your godly morals. But is killing always wrong by your godly morals? I'd hope not, because your god has killed according to his biography. Depending on circumstances, killing can be good.

You see, killing being wrong depends on circumstances no matter where morals are based. Again killing for fun is wrong. If you are killing to keep someone from setting off an atomic bomb in Manhattan, it is good, not wrong. Killing changed from wrong to good because of circumstances.

 

 

But those are all set rights and wrongs that are taught in the church.  There is a definite right and wrong given by a higher power.  If guy X was the one setting off the bomb then guy X would think guy X was doing a good thing and keeping the always growing population in check.  It would be guy X's opinions vs. guy Y's, and since there is nothing higher than these guys who can say guy X is wrong?

 

 

 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael:First off, if

StMichael:

First off, if you are going to respond to me please be considerate enough to do so in a post that deals only with what I have written. These long posts containing all your responses make it more diffficult than it needs be to find your responses and sort out what you are saying.

StMichael wrote:
There is no room in atheism for maintaining that any view is true or good. There is no basis for it.

An assertion you continually make and have yet to prove.

StMichael wrote:
If truth is merely a by-product of evolution, there is no reason this statement has any truth. There is no meaning to it. It is a contradiction. Truth is essential if we wish to speak about anything.

I have not said truth is a byproduct of evolution, but even if I had, explain why, for us two humans, communicating from our human perspectives, this 'byproduct of evolution' truth has no meaning.

  

StMichael wrote:
If there would be no standard for what is true, nothing (including that 'there is no standard for truth'Eye-wink would be false.

This is just silliness. Humans of course have a standard for judging what is true as it pertains to humanity. Is the statement that "a stove burner set to medium high is hot", true? Well, I can think of a few ways to judge the truth of that statement if one doesn't already know.

StMichael wrote:
Second, survival does not determine all good. How is knowledge and contemplation good, as it does not necessarily further survival?

Knowledge definitely furthers survival. Think about it for a while, if you still can't manage to see how I'll list many, many, many, many ways, though my opinion of you will suffer greatly. Contemplation, well, I'm not sure that it needs to be qualified as good or bad, though as it is part of the thought process, it certainly comes from a place that is beneficial.

StMichael wrote:
Third, 'good' is a term similar to 'true' in that truth indicates a good of the intellect. If good does not exist, truth does not either.

Goobledygook. You can say things like this as often as you want but until you provide sound reasoning it is meaningless. Good and truth both exist for humans so much as they pertain to humans. It is the only way they can exist for humans as we would have no other way of knowing them, but in a human way. As humans, whether or not they exist independent of humans is completely and wholly unimportant. And, though good may be dependent on truth in so far as for something to be truly good something must be able to have the quality of being true, it does not stand to reason that truth is dependent on good, nor does it stand to reason that what is good and true to humans must be good and true in a vacuum on the other side of the universe.


“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: StMichael: First

Quote:
StMichael:

First off, if you are going to respond to me please be considerate enough to do so in a post that deals only with what I have written. These long posts containing all your responses make it more diffficult than it needs be to find your responses and sort out what you are saying.

I have a great deal to respond to and I do so in big posts. It is the easiest way for me to respond in a timely matter. I am sorry if it inconveniences you.

Quote:

An assertion you continually make and have yet to prove.

It cannot exist precisely because no standard of objective truth exists in atheism.

Quote:

I have not said truth is a byproduct of evolution, but even if I had, explain why, for us two humans, communicating from our human perspectives, this 'byproduct of evolution' truth has no meaning.

You do when you say that it is an illusion stemming from human survival.

Quote:

This is just silliness. Humans of course have a standard for judging what is true as it pertains to humanity. Is the statement that "a stove burner set to medium high is hot", true? Well, I can think of a few ways to judge the truth of that statement if one doesn't already know.

Is something true only insofar as it pertains to me? This is precisely the problem. If something is only relatively true, then that statement that 'truth is relative' contradicts itself. Sensual impressions are relatively true, but can one say that the stove is hot, rather than merely "I find the stove hot"?

Quote:

Knowledge definitely furthers survival. Think about it for a while, if you still can't manage to see how I'll list many, many, many, many ways, though my opinion of you will suffer greatly. Contemplation, well, I'm not sure that it needs to be qualified as good or bad, though as it is part of the thought process, it certainly comes from a place that is beneficial.

Knowledge of God, or of metaphysics, does not further survival. Our discussion here does no service to survival.

Quote:

Goobledygook. You can say things like this as often as you want but until you provide sound reasoning it is meaningless. Good and truth both exist for humans so much as they pertain to humans. It is the only way they can exist for humans as we would have no other way of knowing them, but in a human way. As humans, whether or not they exist independent of humans is completely and wholly unimportant.

Rethink the last statement. First, if it is truly relative, why is it uniquely relative only to the human race and not even to individual people? Second, your statement assumes that truth is objective when you state that 'truth is relative.'

Quote:

And, though good may be dependent on truth in so far as for something to be truly good something must be able to have the quality of being true, it does not stand to reason that truth is dependent on good, nor does it stand to reason that what is good and true to humans must be good and true in a vacuum on the other side of the universe.

There are different senses of good and true. First, I am not advocating that personal preferences do not differ. However, I would maintain that truth is the same in our side of the universe or on the other in such facts as "2+2=4" or the very fact that X person has B preference in the first place.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:Vessel

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
An assertion you continually make and have yet to prove.

It cannot exist precisely because no standard of objective truth exists in atheism.

I have been explaining that just as much standard exists as it would if there was a god. You simply refuse to acknowledge that fact. And again this is just an assertion. You don't seem to be able to explain what you think you know so surely.

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
I have not said truth is a byproduct of evolution, but even if I had, explain why, for us two humans, communicating from our human perspectives, this 'byproduct of evolution' truth has no meaning.

You do when you say that it is an illusion stemming from human survival.

I have said no such thing and I think you realize it and are merely being dishonest. Show me the quote where this was said.

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
This is just silliness. Humans of course have a standard for judging what is true as it pertains to humanity. Is the statement that "a stove burner set to medium high is hot", true? Well, I can think of a few ways to judge the truth of that statement if one doesn't already know.

Is something true only insofar as it pertains to me? This is precisely the problem. If something is only relatively true, then that statement that 'truth is relative' contradicts itself. Sensual impressions are relatively true, but can one say that the stove is hot, rather than merely "I find the stove hot"?

No, not only so far as it pertains to you. This has nothing to do with truth being relative. "I find the stove hot" would not be incorrect, however, as long as you are a part of a society and don't exist in complete solitude, it is easy to determine that others find the stove to be hot as well. If one were to live a completely solitary existence with no other humans, then the question of "whether what is true for one is true for all" is non-sensical.

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
Knowledge definitely furthers survival. Think about it for a while, if you still can't manage to see how I'll list many, many, many, many ways, though my opinion of you will suffer greatly. Contemplation, well, I'm not sure that it needs to be qualified as good or bad, though as it is part of the thought process, it certainly comes from a place that is beneficial.

Knowledge of God, or of metaphysics, does not further survival. Our discussion here does no service to survival.

Well, there is no knowledge of God, there is only belief in a god or gods. The ability to question things, which is the basis of metaphysics, is very important to survival. And communication is very important to survival.

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
Goobledygook. You can say things like this as often as you want but until you provide sound reasoning it is meaningless. Good and truth both exist for humans so much as they pertain to humans. It is the only way they can exist for humans as we would have no other way of knowing them, but in a human way. As humans, whether or not they exist independent of humans is completely and wholly unimportant.

Rethink the last statement. First, if it is truly relative, why is it uniquely relative only to the human race and not even to individual people? Second, your statement assumes that truth is objective when you state that 'truth is relative.

Truth is not relative. I've told you this several times and yet you still argue against relative truth. Its freaking mindboggling. It is objective as far as the human race is concerned and, as humans, that is the only way we can ever consider truth. It is impossible to know anything else about it. So, to say it is objective as far as the human race is concerned is to say it is objective, period, since we, the parties discussing this (and any other party with which I could possibly discuss it), and any other party which could possibly contemplate it, are humans.

It is the same for all humans because all humans are the same type of information processors.

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
And, though good may be dependent on truth in so far as for something to be truly good something must be able to have the quality of being true, it does not stand to reason that truth is dependent on good, nor does it stand to reason that what is good and true to humans must be good and true in a vacuum on the other side of the universe.

There are different senses of good and true. First, I am not advocating that personal preferences do not differ. However, I would maintain that truth is the same in our side of the universe or on the other in such facts as "2+2=4" or the very fact that X person has B preference in the first place.

Unless you can use your human brain to process the information then there is no truth as to that part of the universe. We can assume things about that part of the universe based on information we have processed here, but we can know no truth of that part of the universe. What about another universe? If there was another universe would 2+2=4 there even if no human had ever known of it or would ever know of it? A pointless and impossible to answer question, right?

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Roadkill
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo, what makes morals

20vturbo, what makes morals derived from a god right or wrong, good or evil? If god is the source of morals then they are equally arbitrary, it will still be a subjective opinion. The only way in which morals can be truly absolute and objective would be if they existed independently of everything, god included.

 

But just looking at history, would you want morals to be absolute? Think about the moral codes utilized a thousand years ago, do you hold them in high regard? It is the subjectivity of morals that have brought us here(Along with a good dash of logic and reason). 


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
We may or may not be able

We may or may not be able to say it is a subjective opinion of God, but if there is a God would it really matter? It is moral if God says it is moral? (Unless I am missing something, which is totally possible)

I think I would like morals absolute. Otherwise they aren't really morals anymore? It seems to me that just like truth has to always be truth, morals have to always be moral. I hope that made some sort of sense


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I have been

Quote:

I have been explaining that just as much standard exists as it would if there was a god. You simply refuse to acknowledge that fact. And again this is just an assertion. You don't seem to be able to explain what you think you know so surely.

It is your burden of proof to show that atheism has an objective standard of truth. Not mine.

Quote:

 I have said no such thing and I think you realize it and are merely being dishonest. Show me the quote where this was said.

 

And I quote, "Survival on the personal level is most certainly good. From the perspective of our species, of course survival of our species is good. From a removed perspective, survival on the species level can be classified as neither good nor evil as we understand them, since without humanity good and evil cease to exist as far as any human is concerned. "As far as any human is concerned" is the only way good and evil can possibly make sense or be of any importance to any human."

 

Quote:

No, not only so far as it pertains to you. This has nothing to do with truth being relative. "I find the stove hot" would not be incorrect, however, as long as you are a part of a society and don't exist in complete solitude, it is easy to determine that others find the stove to be hot as well. If one were to live a completely solitary existence with no other humans, then the question of "whether what is true for one is true for all" is non-sensical.

Then the standard of truth is majority opinion. If everyone believed that the moon is made of cheese, does the moon become made of cheese? Certainly not. This is precisely the same sort of thinking that leads to totalitarian states.

Quote:

Well, there is no knowledge of God, there is only belief in a god or gods. The ability to question things, which is the basis of metaphysics, is very important to survival. And communication is very important to survival.

Who taught you metaphysics? Metaphysics is not a study of critical thinking, or any such thing. Metaphysics is the study of being as being. Further, I have very little idea in which way you intend the first sentence ("there is no knowledge of God...&quotEye-wink.

 

Quote:

Truth is not relative. ... It is objective as far as the human race is concerned and, as humans, that is the only way we can ever consider truth. It is impossible to know anything else about it....

It is the same for all humans because all humans are the same type of information processors.

I point out that, if you claim that truth is relative to human beings, then it is relative. If things are merely true because human beings are "information processors" of the same model, then all truth is really just opinion or whimsy. Then mathematics is pure fantasy, as is natural science. Lastly, I would agree that truth only exists in relation to a rational being (as of course truth is a correspondence between reality and the knower), but this is not what you mean (or at least what you are saying here; if it is what you mean, correct me).

Quote:

Unless you can use your human brain to process the information then there is no truth as to that part of the universe. We can assume things about that part of the universe based on information we have processed here, but we can know no truth of that part of the universe. What about another universe? If there was another universe would 2+2=4 there even if no human had ever known of it or would ever know of it? A pointless and impossible to answer question, right?

It is not a pointless question. Nothing can contradict the fact that something cannot be and not be in the same way at the same time. If it does, no truth is possible. It doesn't matter if you believe it happens here, in another universe, or in Iowa, it is intellectual suicide. It is for precisely that reason that I doubt you can seriously hold to it.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: It is your

StMichael wrote:
It is your burden of proof to show that atheism has an objective standard of truth. Not mine.

Yes, and I have. There is nothing I can do about your refusal to acknowledge it.

StMichael wrote:
And I quote, "Survival on the personal level is most certainly good. From the perspective of our species, of course survival of our species is good. From a removed perspective, survival on the species level can be classified as neither good nor evil as we understand them, since without humanity good and evil cease to exist as far as any human is concerned. "As far as any human is concerned" is the only way good and evil can possibly make sense or be of any importance to any human."

Yes, that is a quote of me. Too bad it doesn't contain what I asked you to provide a quote of. As a matter of fact, I wasn't even discussing truth there. I was discussing good and evil. Something can be truly good but good and truth are not the same thing. If so I might as well say it is goodly good or truly true. The coffee in my cup can be truly hot. That does not mean that hot and truth are the same thing. I can't promise to tell the hot, the whole hot, and only the hot.

StMichael wrote:
Then the standard of truth is majority opinion. If everyone believed that the moon is made of cheese, does the moon become made of cheese? Certainly not. This is precisely the same sort of thinking that leads to totalitarian states.

No, it has nothing to do with majority opinion. The majority concensus does not make the stove hot, the stove being hot makes the majority concensus, or in an actual situation, the unanimous declaration. The stove is truly hot as far as any human is concerned. The heat would even be measurable with a thermometer. It would be very easy to find out exactly what the temperature was (being as that 'hot' is subjective). This temperature would be the same no matter what human took the reading.

StMichael wrote:
Who taught you metaphysics? Metaphysics is not a study of critical thinking, or any such thing. Metaphysics is the study of being as being. Further, I have very little idea in which way you intend the first sentence ("there is no knowledge of God...&quotEye-wink.

Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality. Are you saying that this is not based in our ability to question? How else would we ever come by this study? Is the ability to question not of vital importance for our survival?

What I mean about there being no knowledge of god is precisely that. God is undefinable in any meaningful sense. I can hear the word but it has no real meaning. With the word fairy at least I have some idea of what is being spoken of, even though they don't exist. The word god gives no such impression. There are no attributes that conform with anything in reality that I can bring to mind when someone uses the word. It means absolutely nothing except being that word religious people use. Infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, they are words whose meanings are unfathomable.

StMichael wrote:
If things are merely true because human beings are "information processors" of the same model, then all truth is really just opinion or whimsy.

Things aren't merely true because human beings are information processors of the same model, but because humans are information processors of the same model, we all know the same truth. It is not relative and it is the only truth we can know. 

StMichael wrote:
 Lastly, I would agree that truth only exists in relation to a rational being (as of course truth is a correspondence between reality and the knower), but this is not what you mean (or at least what you are saying here; if it is what you mean, correct me).

Yes, truth only exists in relation to a rational being. That is part of what I'm saying. Now what kind of rational being are you? Human. Now, as a human, how can you know truth? In a human way and only in a human way. Therefor, any other form of truth is non-existent as far as any human is concerned. It can not be known. Does this mean truth must be relative? No. Truth can be objective and all humans can know the same truth. Where does this truth come from? The way humans experience their environmant and process the information received from it.  

StMichael wrote:
It is not a pointless question. Nothing can contradict the fact that something cannot be and not be in the same way at the same time. If it does, no truth is possible. It doesn't matter if you believe it happens here, in another universe, or in Iowa, it is intellectual suicide. It is for precisely that reason that I doubt you can seriously hold to it.

Sure it matters if it is in another universe which no one will ever know of. There is no way you can make any truthful statement about such a universe. And it is for the very reason you state above. It is not intellectual suicide because it is of no importance. It is non-existent as far as any human is concerned.

 The only truth you can ever know is human truth and it is objective. 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Yes, that is a

Quote:

Yes, that is a quote of me. Too bad it doesn't contain what I asked you to provide a quote of. As a matter of fact, I wasn't even discussing truth there. I was discussing good and evil. Something can be truly good but good and truth are not the same thing. If so I might as well say it is goodly good or truly true. The coffee in my cup can be truly hot. That does not mean that hot and truth are the same thing. I can't promise to tell the hot, the whole hot, and only the hot.

Truth is a phrase that is "convertible" with "being" and "good." The truth is the good of the intellect. Likewise, the truth is a conformity with being and the good a desire for being. Further, you quote does indicate that you regard something only true or good only insofar as it applies to humans.

Quote:

No, it has nothing to do with majority opinion. The majority concensus does not make the stove hot, the stove being hot makes the majority concensus, or in an actual situation, the unanimous declaration. The stove is truly hot as far as any human is concerned. The heat would even be measurable with a thermometer. It would be very easy to find out exactly what the temperature was (being as that 'hot' is subjective). This temperature would be the same no matter what human took the reading.

Thank you. This is what I wanted to hear. Reality exists regardless of man's perception of it.

Quote:

Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality. Are you saying that this is not based in our ability to question? How else would we ever come by this study? Is the ability to question not of vital importance for our survival?

But there are many ways in which one can engage in critical thinking in far more useful ways. Metaphysics is utterly useless in practical affairs.

Quote:

What I mean about there being no knowledge of god is precisely that. God is undefinable in any meaningful sense. I can hear the word but it has no real meaning. With the word fairy at least I have some idea of what is being spoken of, even though they don't exist. The word god gives no such impression. There are no attributes that conform with anything in reality that I can bring to mind when someone uses the word. It means absolutely nothing except being that word religious people use. Infinite, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, they are words whose meanings are unfathomable.

Why is the word 'God' without meaning? Because God has no conformity to reality? But that would be incorrect, because God does have a relationship with this universe and created things. He is the cause of the universe, hence one can speak of Him a posteriori by analogy and negation.

Quote:

Things aren't merely true because human beings are information processors of the same model, but because humans are information processors of the same model, we all know the same truth. It is not relative and it is the only truth we can know. 

That fundamentally agrees with my position, though I disagree that human beings are 'information processors' in any purely material, mechanistic way. I also would take issue with the fact that our mode of knowing determines what reality is like. The same goes for the phrase, "it is the only truth we can know." I would only agree to this in a limited circumstance. I would agree that man can know according to the means available to us naturally.

Quote:
Yes, truth only exists in relation to a rational being. That is part of what I'm saying. Now what kind of rational being are you? Human. Now, as a human, how can you know truth? In a human way and only in a human way. Therefor, any other form of truth is non-existent as far as any human is concerned. It can not be known. Does this mean truth must be relative? No. Truth can be objective and all humans can know the same truth. Where does this truth come from? The way humans experience their environmant and process the information received from it.  

I again agree fundamentally with the first part of this statement. We can know only in a way proper to humans. However, that does not limit truth to human beings. Truth is the conformity of any intellect to reality including, for example, angels and God. I would also object to the fact that "other truth" does not exist, not because I believe that it would, but because it would not make sense at all to speak of "other truth." As reality is one, so truth is one.

Quote:
 

Sure it matters if it is in another universe which no one will ever know of. There is no way you can make any truthful statement about such a universe. And it is for the very reason you state above. It is not intellectual suicide because it is of no importance. It is non-existent as far as any human is concerned.

 The only truth you can ever know is human truth and it is objective. 

Now that I see what you mean by 'human truth' I agree with reservations. It makes it confusing when you speak of a 'different universe,' as such a thing is impossible. Also, I would point out that the intellect's conformity with reality is an objective fact. My idea is true for everything if it is true. I still find it likewise distasteful to see humans as the determining factor here. Human beings discover truth and truth properly exists only in the human intellect, but that does not mean that, for example, the truth of the law of gravity does not apply to a rock. 

However, I still see no basis for upholding that truth can exist in this way because there is no ground in atheist thought to posit that reality might exist objectively for all men.

I would likewise point out that, if you believe what you write here, then the good is likewise a matter of an objective judgement. If there exists right and wrong, right and wrong action exists in terms of moral goodness.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Truth is

StMichael wrote:
Truth is a phrase that is "convertible" with "being" and "good." The truth is the good of the intellect. Likewise, the truth is a conformity with being and the good a desire for being.

This means absolutely nothing to me. 

StMichael wrote:
Further, you quote does indicate that you regard something only true or good only insofar as it applies to humans.

Being human, that is the only way I can know it as either. If there were no humans, both good and truth would be meaningless.

StMichael wrote:
Thank you. This is what I wanted to hear. Reality exists regardless of man's perception of it.

That it does or does not can be of no importance as we would have no way of knowing the truth of whether or not reality exists were we not here. Again, it is really of no importance. There is no meaning to "reality when we are not here". I probably state this better following the smiley below.

StMichael wrote:
But there are many ways in which one can engage in critical thinking in far more useful ways. Metaphysics is utterly useless in practical affairs.

We have questioning brains and they question. The usefullness of the questions themselves is difficult to measure and not really the point I was making.

StMichael wrote:
Why is the word 'God' without meaning? Because God has no conformity to reality?

Yes. 

 

StMichael wrote:
But that would be incorrect, because God does have a relationship with this universe and created things.

One must first have a meaningful concept of god to come to the conclusion that god has a relationship with this universe and created things. 

 

StMichael wrote:
He is the cause of the universe, hence one can speak of Him a posteriori by analogy and negation.

Again, without having a meaningful concept of god it is impossible to come to the conclusion that god is the cause of the universe. To think that a llama made a footprint in my backyard, I must first have a meaningful concept of a llama.

StMichael wrote:
That fundamentally agrees with my position, though I disagree that human beings are 'information processors' in any purely material, mechanistic way.

Of course you do, Smile.  

 

StMichael wrote:
I also would take issue with the fact that our mode of knowing determines what reality is like. The same goes for the phrase, "it is the only truth we can know." I would only agree to this in a limited circumstance. I would agree that man can know according to the means available to us naturally.

Our mode of knowing must determine what 'reality is like' for us, which is the only reality we can know. It says nothing about reality removed from us. We can know nothing of that. It is a limitation that is inescapable. 

StMichael wrote:
I again agree fundamentally with the first part of this statement. We can know only in a way proper to humans. However, that does not limit truth to human beings. Truth is the conformity of any intellect to reality including, for example, angels and God.

With a lack of angels or god, where would that leave us? Humans.

 

Stmichael wrote:
I would also object to the fact that "other truth" does not exist, not because I believe that it would, but because it would not make sense at all to speak of "other truth." As reality is one, so truth is one.

I state that any other form of truth is non-existent to illustrate the point that no matter the circumstance humans can only know truth as they are capable of knowing it through their natural abilities. If humans, the rational beings, can not know something, then it can not be truth. 

StMichael wrote:
Now that I see what you mean by 'human truth' I agree with reservations. It makes it confusing when you speak of a 'different universe,' as such a thing is impossible. Also, I would point out that the intellect's conformity with reality is an objective fact. My idea is true for everything if it is true. I still find it likewise distasteful to see humans as the determining factor here. Human beings discover truth and truth properly exists only in the human intellect, but that does not mean that, for example, the truth of the law of gravity does not apply to a rock.
 

That 'the law of gravity applies to a rock' is a truth that is known to humans. The truth of 'the law of gravity applies to a rock' is meaningless removed from humans.

StMichael wrote:
However, I still see no basis for upholding that truth can exist in this way because there is no ground in atheist thought to posit that reality might exist objectively for all men.

Sure there is. What would you call what I have been speaking of? The fact that we as humans can only know truth as humans can know it by no means says that truth can't be objective. It by no means says that all men can't experience the same truth. All humans process information the same way. We are all the same type of rational being. You said yourself that truth only exists in relation to a rational being (I was searching for wording that I liked and you provided it, thanks. I can finally explain in terms that are easier to follow). Humans are the only rational being. Truth arises from rational beings existing in an environment. Being as that rational beings (humans) exist in an environment (the universe) there is truth. If there were no environment, there could be no truth. If there were no rational beings, there could be no truth. Truth is uniquely human, but objective, a result of humans existing in the universe.

StMichael wrote:
I would likewise point out that, if you believe what you write here, then the good is likewise a matter of an objective judgement. If there exists right and wrong, right and wrong action exists in terms of moral goodness.

Yes. Morals are objective as I have insisted all along. Good is objective. However, it does not follow that true=good. Though good can be true, it does not follow that truth is good. Good and bad are contained within truth but truth can be quantified as neither good nor bad as it contains both.

Good and bad are truths as a result of humans existing in the universe.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The length added to this

The length added to this topic recently is great, so I'll just look at this.

20vturbo wrote:

I may not be asking the correct way or not understanding the answer, but I am not interested in debating the what all the old testament means, as I am not qualified to do so, I’m sure if you are really interested St. Michael could help with that since he has probably studied that.  My question lies with how we know we are doing the “right thing” if there is nothing higher than ourselves.  How can we condemn the actions of anyone?  What if in the future we find out that we should have killed more people, or the only way that we will survive the next big extinction is to kill anyone weak.  

I can break it into a very simple question. Do you want to be punched in the face? In general the answer is no. Since the general answer is no almost universally(if not universally) within our species, it should generally be wrong to punch someone in the face. The same logic applies to overall morality. It gets more complicated the deeper you look at it, so it's best to accept it on the surface simplistic elements before looking at deeper moral questions that depend on the simple foundation.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Roadkill
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: We may or

20vturbo wrote:

We may or may not be able to say it is a subjective opinion of God, but if there is a God would it really matter? It is moral if God says it is moral? (Unless I am missing something, which is totally possible)

I think I would like morals absolute. Otherwise they aren't really morals anymore? It seems to me that just like truth has to always be truth, morals have to always be moral. I hope that made some sort of sense

 

 -So because someone is bigger and stronger than you you should listen to him? I would not like absolute morals, otherwise they would not be morals, they would be laws. Morals are derived from empathy, our ability to approximate the situation of another being and deciding wether we would have done differently. Morals must, in my opinion, be subjective or they are no longer moral. This is quite difficult to explain so I'll just cut it short, I might have a better reply later on.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I can break

Vastet wrote:

I can break it into a very simple question. Do you want to be punched in the face? In general the answer is no. Since the general answer is no almost universally(if not universally) within our species, it should generally be wrong to punch someone in the face. The same logic applies to overall morality. It gets more complicated the deeper you look at it, so it's best to accept it on the surface simplistic elements before looking at deeper moral questions that depend on the simple foundation.

 

 

No one is debating the "golden rule" my question was if there is no God then it would seem that there is no absolute right and wrong.  Since humans would be the highest power then the best we could do is just our opinions regarding being right or wrong.  

 


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Roadkill wrote:   -So

Roadkill wrote:
 

-So because someone is bigger and stronger than you you should listen to him? I would not like absolute morals, otherwise they would not be morals, they would be laws. Morals are derived from empathy, our ability to approximate the situation of another being and deciding wether we would have done differently. Morals must, in my opinion, be subjective or they are no longer moral. This is quite difficult to explain so I'll just cut it short, I might have a better reply later on.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to about the bigger stronger part.  Just b/c that was the way things were handled in the past still doesn't make it right.  If morals can change what makes them any better than just going with your gut feeling?   You can always usually rationalize them?  


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:

If the person you are arguing with has decided the ten commandments are not immoral, there's probably not much you can say or do to change his or her mind. You may be able to persuade him or her that some of the commandments are amoral such as not working on the Sabbath. Or you can argue against the ten commandments as a whole by saying that the ten commandments lack any mention of such horrendous acts as torture, child abuse, or rape and the entire list is immoral in itself for excluding them.

I suspect the person you are argung with has decided that morality comes from God and therefore anything God calls moral is moral, e.g. if God say wearing a blue carpet on your head is moral than wearing a blue carpet on your head is moral. Good luck trying to argue against anyone who thinks that way.

God had no time to create time.


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: I'm not

20vturbo wrote:
I'm not sure what you are referring to about the bigger stronger part. Just b/c that was the way things were handled in the past still doesn't make it right. If morals can change what makes them any better than just going with your gut feeling? You can always usually rationalize them?
I know that in the past "Gods people" have used the words of God to inflict suffering on other people, torture, pogroms, inquisition, excommunications. In the name of God and the Ten Commandments at some point in the future they may be used again by people in power.

God had no time to create time.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Pikachu wrote: I know that

Pikachu wrote:
I know that in the past "Gods people" have used the words of God to inflict suffering on other people, torture, pogroms, inquisition, excommunications. In the name of God and the Ten Commandments at some point in the future they may be used again by people in power.

 What does that have to do with the question?  that just means in your opinion you think that was wrong (as do I) but without a higher power is it really bad or not?


Pikachu
Pikachu's picture
Posts: 181
Joined: 2006-08-19
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote:

20vturbo wrote:
What does that have to do with the question?  that just means in your opinion you think that was wrong (as do I) but without a higher power is it really bad or not?
Check to see if he wears clothing made from more than one material. See if he'd have his child stoned to death at the city gate for giving him lip. Does he have tattoos? Does he eat shellfish (lobster, crab, shrimp...)? The bible condemns all these practices. If he violates even one, you have proof that his morals actually come from within himself--not from God. He simply goes along with the biblical rules he believes make sense and ignores those he knows are just stupid and outdated. When he does so, he decides for himself what is moral and what is not.

The only difference (in this area) between believers and non-believers is that we non-believers admit we don't get our morals from god. Believers tell themselves their morals come from a higher power, despite their own rejection of some of that very power's rules.

God had no time to create time.


Roadkill
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: Roadkill

20vturbo wrote:
Roadkill wrote:

-So because someone is bigger and stronger than you you should listen to him? I would not like absolute morals, otherwise they would not be morals, they would be laws. Morals are derived from empathy, our ability to approximate the situation of another being and deciding wether we would have done differently. Morals must, in my opinion, be subjective or they are no longer moral. This is quite difficult to explain so I'll just cut it short, I might have a better reply later on.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to about the bigger stronger part. Just b/c that was the way things were handled in the past still doesn't make it right. If morals can change what makes them any better than just going with your gut feeling? You can always usually rationalize them?

 

 -It was actually you who referred to the "bigger,  stronger" part. If you follow the morals set down by god because he can send you to hell then he's flexing his muscles to make you comply, ok? And you have to consider, is the god of the bible good? Would you characterize someone who'd killed millions good? You have to ask yourself, would you follow a man who's killed 20 people because he didn't like them? I'm guessing no, so why do you make that exception when it comes to Yaweh? Is it fear of hell? I can't see how you find that moral. Even if god did exist I wouldn't follow him because then he'd be the biggest bastard ever to exist, I'd rather go to hell than follow god. He wants you to praise him and if not he'll send you to hell, is this the kind of god you want to follow? Just disregard the fact that the bible is fraught with contradictions, that Jesus is most likely a myth and so on, just the character of god would make me reject him.

 

-Still not able to put why I prefer morals to be subjective into words yet. I'd just like to add that if you take away the most religious countries(Especially moslem) then you'll find that morals are generally similar so I wouldn't worry too much. People don't go around stealing and raping just because there is no true absolute moral code as any secular European country can testify to. 


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Pikachu wrote: 20vturbo

Pikachu wrote:
20vturbo wrote:
What does that have to do with the question? that just means in your opinion you think that was wrong (as do I) but without a higher power is it really bad or not?
Check to see if he wears clothing made from more than one material. See if he'd have his child stoned to death at the city gate for giving him lip. Does he have tattoos? Does he eat shellfish (lobster, crab, shrimp...)? The bible condemns all these practices. If he violates even one, you have proof that his morals actually come from within himself--not from God. He simply goes along with the biblical rules he believes make sense and ignores those he knows are just stupid and outdated. When he does so, he decides for himself what is moral and what is not.

The only difference (in this area) between believers and non-believers is that we non-believers admit we don't get our morals from god. Believers tell themselves their morals come from a higher power, despite their own rejection of some of that very power's rules.

 

Again this is all taken out of context, we would have to have another debate about how. 

 

I assume that by the statement you made "The only difference (in this area) between believers and non-believers is that we non-believers admit we don't get our morals from god."  you are answering my original question and since you don't get your morals from a higher power then you agree that you really can't say if one persons actions are ever right or wrong?


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Roadkill wrote:

Roadkill wrote:

-It was actually you who referred to the "bigger, stronger" part. If you follow the morals set down by god because he can send you to hell then he's flexing his muscles to make you comply, ok? And you have to consider, is the god of the bible good? Would you characterize someone who'd killed millions good? You have to ask yourself, would you follow a man who's killed 20 people because he didn't like them? I'm guessing no, so why do you make that exception when it comes to Yaweh? Is it fear of hell? I can't see how you find that moral. Even if god did exist I wouldn't follow him because then he'd be the biggest bastard ever to exist, I'd rather go to hell than follow god. He wants you to praise him and if not he'll send you to hell, is this the kind of god you want to follow? Just disregard the fact that the bible is fraught with contradictions, that Jesus is most likely a myth and so on, just the character of god would make me reject him.

I don't seek religion for fear of hell, i think you misunderstand. I seek religion to try as much as I can about God. Morals have nothing to do with what I think, IMO, if they did then I could think whatever I wanted was moral.

Roadkill wrote:

-Still not able to put why I prefer morals to be subjective into words yet. I'd just like to add that if you take away the most religious countries(Especially moslem) then you'll find that morals are generally similar so I wouldn't worry too much. People don't go around stealing and raping just because there is no true absolute moral code as any secular European country can testify to.

I am interested in your reply when you get it. Smiling


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Being human, that

Quote:

Being human, that is the only way I can know it as either. If there were no humans, both good and truth would be meaningless.

Good and truth are designations that indicate our relationship to being. It might be accurate that truth can only exist when there is an intellect in which to exist, but you deny the existence of being as well apart from man (and truth is this sense).

Quote:

That it does or does not can be of no importance as we would have no way of knowing the truth of whether or not reality exists were we not here. Again, it is really of no importance. There is no meaning to "reality when we are not here". I probably state this better following the smiley below.

The existence of reality has terrific importance. Is everything merely a dream and an illusion? Are such categories as truth meaningless? I would have to disagree with you on that.

Quote:

StMichael wrote:

But that would be incorrect, because God does have a relationship with this universe and created things.

 

 

One must first have a meaningful concept of god to come to the conclusion that god has a relationship with this universe and created things. 

Again, without having a meaningful concept of god it is impossible to come to the conclusion that god is the cause of the universe. To think that a llama made a footprint in my backyard, I must first have a meaningful concept of a llama.

In this, our knowledge and definition of God comes from the fact that He is cause of the universe, not the other way around. We could use many terms to refer to the cause of the universe, but we must admit such a first cause exists. Further, the word God designates properly the creator/cause of the universe, so that it is properly applied to this 'first cause.'

Quote:

Our mode of knowing must determine what 'reality is like' for us, which is the only reality we can know. It says nothing about reality removed from us. We can know nothing of that. It is a limitation that is inescapable. 

But our minds discover reality, not just our own perception of it. That is the point. And if we cannot say that our minds reach into reality, there can be no such thing as truth or goodness.

Quote:

With a lack of angels or god, where would that leave us? Humans.

I only accepted that statement insofar as it designated that humans are in relation to reality. I disagree however that we are standards for truth. Being/reality is the standard for truth.


 

Quote:

I state that any other form of truth is non-existent to illustrate the point that no matter the circumstance humans can only know truth as they are capable of knowing it through their natural abilities. If humans, the rational beings, can not know something, then it can not be truth. 

Truth is not just 'human truth,' but because it says something about the way the world really is, it is always and everywhere true. Being exists apart from ourselves and we can know being as it is, and not just as we perceive it to be.

Quote:

That 'the law of gravity applies to a rock' is a truth that is known to humans. The truth of 'the law of gravity applies to a rock' is meaningless removed from humans.

The rock doesn't cease to obey the law of gravity when I leave it alone.

Quote:

Sure there is. What would you call what I have been speaking of? The fact that we as humans can only know truth as humans can know it by no means says that truth can't be objective. It by no means says that all men can't experience the same truth.

Which is exactly to say that truth is subjective.

Quote:

All humans process information the same way. We are all the same type of rational being. You said yourself that truth only exists in relation to a rational being (I was searching for wording that I liked and you provided it, thanks. I can finally explain in terms that are easier to follow).

Truth, as per definition, is an adequacy between reality and the mind. I meant that it cannot, by definition, exist without a mind in which it can be in conformity with. But you are denying that reality exists apart from our mode of knowing it, which is false.

Quote:

Humans are the only rational being.

I would disagree, but it is irrelevant for the discussion.

Quote:
 

Yes. Morals are objective as I have insisted all along. Good is objective.

Not what you said earlier.

Quote:

However, it does not follow that true=good. Though good can be true, it does not follow that truth is good. Good and bad are contained within truth but truth can be quantified as neither good nor bad as it contains both.

I agree. But they are similar in that they are convertible with each other, even though truth is logically prior to the good.  

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Things are not right

Things are not right because God enforces them. Things are right because they are objectively good actions.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Roadkill
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't seek

Quote:
I don't seek religion for fear of hell, i think you misunderstand. I seek religion to try as much as I can about God. Morals have nothing to do with what I think, IMO, if they did then I could think whatever I wanted was moral.

 

-I was not implying that you did so due to a fear of hell, simply asking the question. Heh, it would be quite difficult for me to relate with your quest for god seeing as I reject any notion of a god but let me see if I can make some sense here; Do you think that if a god existed he would manifest itself in the various ways as it is supposed to have done? Do you truly believe for instance that a god would object to homosexuality(As Yahweh does), does that sound like the thing a god would be upset by, or touching the skin of a pig? No, if god were real I seriously doubt that it would manifest itself through a book(Not the best of mediums), that it would likely not be known to us or that being it's intent(Errrr... To be known...).  This might sound a bit odd coming from an atheist but if you wish to find god then my suggestion would be to ignore all the religions in the world and just listen to your inner self, would not that be the most obvious place for a god to reveal itself? This reminds me of a quote; "Isn't it strange that the right thing to do and the hard thing to do is so often the same?" Can't remember where it's from but I feel that it suits the post. Though my preference is that you become atheist or agnostic that is a road that you must take, the only thing I can say is that if god exists it's being is most surely not captured in some ancient tome.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
  StMichael

 

StMichael wrote:
Vessel wrote:
Yes. Morals are objective as I have insisted all along. Good is objective.

Not what you said earlier.

Yes, in fact it is. Providing an objective basis for morality is the reason I entered into this discussion in the first place.

As for the rest of the discussion, I feel I have explained and made a solid case for both morals and truth having an objective basis in a godless universe. For you to acknowledge as much, is not something that is within my control. I actually could never expect you to as it is key to your faith that you believe such things can only exist in your god. At this point, anything I could say on the matter would be repetitive and there is no sense in re-typing what is already posted. I appreciate what I will assume in good faith was your attempt at open dialogue. 

Thank you,

Vessel 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Roadkill wrote:  if you

Roadkill wrote:

 if you wish to find god then my suggestion would be to ignore all the religions in the world and just listen to your inner self, would not that be the most obvious place for a god to reveal itself? This reminds me of a quote; "Isn't it strange that the right thing to do and the hard thing to do is so often the same?" Can't remember where it's from but I feel that it suits the post. Though my preference is that you become atheist or agnostic that is a road that you must take, the only thing I can say is that if god exists it's being is most surely not captured in some ancient tome.

 

Sure I could make up my own religion but then I would have just created God in whatever my mind wanted at the time.  I know I have only been on this earth for a measly 24 years and I know there is so much to learn and experience that I will partly rely/trust/try to learn from others that are older and wiser.   

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Quote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Well, that's how the bible was written. A bunch of opinions that may or may not be truth.

This is unjustified.

Prove it.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
  

Except you don't even seem to know what truth is, and so your whole foundation is flawed. Truth has nothing to do with this conversation. A moral isn't true. It's a concept. If it were true, it would be universal. It is not universal, so it cannot be true.

That is terrifically patent circular logic. Truth has everything to do with this conversation. If, as your claim, survival is the reason we hold any opinion, truth itself is an illusion/non-existent. Moral truth is merely a subset of truth. However, you assert moral truth is not true, and hence not true. Terrifically circular.

Terrifically hypocritical, and showing an incredible ignorance of the english language. And on top of all that, absolutely nothing to prove me wrong. So I can just ignore it. At least until you open a dictionary.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Fallacy. You're depending on bullshit to further bullshit. Your own religion proves that your god is inadequate to be a standard for good and evil. Any appearance of arbitrary decisions regarding morality remove any capability of your god to claim itself as morally superior. And since god was directly or indirectly responsible for at least 2-3 million seperate and distinct crimes against his own tenets, god cannot claim moral superiority.

I have no idea what you are talking about but it does not answer my question. Christians do not believe that God is arbitrary at all. I repeat my argument and await your reply. Ignoring it and calling it 'bullshit' does not change anything.

Ignoring my point gets you nowhere. God is arbitrary, according to your own bible. Apparently you don't know as much about your own religion as you claim.

Calling it what it is doesn't change it no. But when did calling anything what it is change it? And you tell me I'm using circular logic? Laughing out loud

StMichael wrote:

Further, I see no reason why you are saying God committed '2-3 million' crimes. First, because the number it totally arbitrary, and second because it is does not have justification at all.

The number is rather arbitrary, since the bible isn't particularly specific. But you can waltz over to the home page of this site for a breakdown of all the deaths god caused. And that's only one rule, saying nothing about all the others that he broke or caused to be broken.

StMichael wrote:

Lastly, God does not 'claim moral superiority.' God, by way of eminence, is the cause of truth, being, goodness, and morality itself. It has nothing to do with being morally superior, as God is morality.

If god is morality, then he must be morally superior to us by definition. But he obviously isn't. And so he can't be.

StMichael wrote:
  
Quote:
Evidence of your false god is impossible to find. Or I would not be here protesting your lies. Morals flow from evolution.

Ok, then. Assert something without evidence and pretend it to be an argument.

Why would I do that? That's the kind of thing you theists do. 

StMichael wrote:

 
Quote:
I don't care how you define truth. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with your god. Every time you claim truth along side god you are lying. Linguistically and materially.

I still see no unique reason why you can claim that truth exists. I likewise see no justification why "every time [I] claim truth alongside god [I] am lying. Linguistically and materially." That last part doesn't even make sense.

Only because you don't make sense. Until you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of truth, you're just going to continue to make an idiot of yourself. But hey, don't let me stop you.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
A statement does not equal an opinion. It can be an opinion, but it can also be a fact. And if you really meant "statement" instead of opinion, then your argument is even more flawed.

No it does not, but there is a different sense of the word 'opinion' I am using. It does no harm to my argument. If you want to maintain your position, only opinions (properly speaking of opinions) can exist, as no statement can be properly said to be a 'fact' as it cannot possess either truth or falsity.

Rofl. You don't even know what truth and falsity are. And so this whole "point" is a waste of my time. 

StMichael wrote:
  
Quote:
"you must hold that no true or false statements can exist"I am not going to become irrational, much as you might like me to. As such, I just have to laugh at the new meaning your sentence has. Yeah, there really needs to be a god in order for: "The grass is green" to be true.

*Rolls eyes*

Except that there does. If no objective and necessary cause exists, there is no reason why truth exists.

Look up the word already. This is getting tiresome. 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
*Sigh* So I misread you. The standard of truth itself and the search of it is reality. Logic. Science. Etc.

Ok, but that still does not satisfy. How can truth exist if it is identified with changeable things (like 'survival' or 'man' as being the standard of truth)?

I don't particularly care if it satisfies you or not. You've quite clearly demonstrated that you don't even know what the words mean. Fact is fact. Fiction is fiction. And your god is fiction.

StMichael wrote:

Reality, if we mean 'being,' is the same standard I use for truth. However, we must refer, again, to a necessarily existent cause in order to claim that truth is founded in reality.

Truth doesn't have a standard. It just is. Yeesh.

 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

You can beg all you like, it doesn't make you right. You're making an assumption that you can prove even less than your god. The day you can prove your god = truth, bring it.

I can make neither heads nor tails of that second sentence ("You're making an assumption...&quotEye-wink. Likewise, I have been proving that truth requires God to be logically coherent.

You don't know what truth is and you think you've proved it requires god? I wonder just how much brainwashing went into your indoctrination. How sad. 

 
StMichael wrote:
Quote:
How about the dictionary? Duh. Your continued attempts to contradict obvious reality are laughable. I'm starting to wonder if you have a mental disorder that causes some kind of neural loop in your brain.

Is the dictionary the cause of truth? I cross out 'moon' in Webster's dictionary and the moon ceases to exist? That seems a silly definition.

What kind of stupid comment is this? *Shakes head*

StMichael wrote:
Quote:

Only because you are irrational.

I am growing to dislike unsupported assertions.

My assertion is fully supported by your irrationality in this topic. Truth hurts I guess. Oh, but you don't know what truth is. Oops.

StMichael wrote:
  
Quote:
Bullshit. It's easily done with medical equipment and observation.

Medical equipment is the standard? If 'survival' is the standard of truth, how can this apply to define 'pain.' What 'pain' is would merely be my opinion of pain, as my quest for survival dictates a particular view of pain. Medical equipment would only be an extension of my opinion of what 'pain' is. Is 'pain' a lighting of neurons in the top or bottom of the brain? Just because I associate some sensation with 'pain' would not ensure that there is any truth in what 'pain' is.

Now you are ignoring what I said and are putting words in my mouth. You really are far gone. 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
No measurement possible without an objective standard.

Irrational argument.

Why? How can you measure without a ruler or some other instrument of measurement?

Because this is based on previous assumptions that are steeped in your lack of linguistic knowledge and fictional beliefs. 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
Just because you don't like democracy does not mean your god exists. Yeesh.

What does democracy have to do with anything we have been speaking about? Does the state determine moral truth? I would disagree.

There's no such thing as moral truth, or we'd all have the same morals. Silly.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Have fun maintaining your lies and assumptions. Good doesn't exist. Truth is a dictionary term that you REALLY need to look up some day. And my statement is self justifying.

I have no idea why you are so rampant in name-calling.

Name calling? What name calling? You mean how I'm discarding your irrational arguments as irrational, in the face of your failed attacks on my disbelief? Did you happen to know it isn't an insult when you call an irrational person irrational? It's like calling a white person white. Or a black person black. It's simply true. If you find it insulting, well...I suppose that's your problem. You're the one who came here after all, attempting to prove your god and failing so miserably that your linguistic comprehension has been called into question. 

StMichael wrote:
As for "truth," here is the dictionary.com defintion: "conformity with fact or reality."

Holy shit balls you actually looked it up. $10 says you didn't understand it though... 

StMichael wrote:
  An atheist cannot have a conformity with reality because reality has no objective value. If survival is the standard of what constitutes reality, then everything is merely relative.

Lastly, saying your statement is 'self-justifying' does not prove anything. You need to explain something in order to argue it. You cannot merely assert that it is true.

Say what? Reality is simply reality. There is no standard to reality. It just is.

When....no..at this point it's IF you ever understand what truth really is, then you'll see why my statement is self justifying. The whole point is based on the simple concept of truth, and until you know what that is the point will be beyond your comprehension.

 

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
My statement is self justifying. You simply use irrationality to attempt to poke holes in it. Which, by the way, fails by default. It seems to me that you are a very shallow person morally. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to come up with these questions. Here, I'll give you a bone. People like you need to believe in a god or some kind of imaginary friend or risk falling apart. But that doesn't mean your god exists. And just because you need it, that does not mean that every one does.

Shallow morally? What does this have to do with anything, even if I am? I do not see why we are making such weird and unjustified assertions.  Second, I do not appreciate name-calling. Third, it makes you look unable to argue because all you can do is insult others.

Again, name calling? How quaint. If you aren't going to like the answer, then don't ask the question.

StMichael wrote:
Lastly, I do not believe in God as an 'imaginary friend.' I know God to be necessary in order to formulate meaningful propositions about reality and in order to account for the existence of the universe. I further believe Him to have become incarnate as Jesus Christ and to have founded the Church, I hope to achieve salvation in heaven, and I love Him in this life and look forward to being happy with Him in eternity.

You know no such thing. You believe it. And you have the arrogance to equate it with truth, and espouse it to the world with no corresponding evidence.

StMichael wrote:
Quote:
So we can ask this question: is survival itself is good? and other questions like, what aspects of survival make it good? is the alternative to survival bad?Can these questions be answered empirically or logically? Can one provide a logical argument that survival of the human species is better than the alternative?

If we can't, does that have implications for a system of morals based on this end? For example, if someone shot a fellow just for the hell of it, would we in prosecuting him have the burden of proving that survival of the human species is a good thing?

There is no room in atheism for maintaining that any view is true or good. There is no basis for it.

Now look who's being insulting. Hypocrite.

 
StMichael wrote:
[quote] I have yet to see you explain how it would. I can't answer an objection unless you actually voice one as something other than an unsubstantiated statement.

 To say human morals are based in nature as a necessary component of our nature as social animals says absolutely nothing about truth. Whether what we as humans see as "good" due to our nature as social animals is good independent of our experience as humans is unimportant. If "good" does not exist as we humans know it on the dark side of the third moon of planet x-4550 makes absolutely no difference on whether or not it is truly "good" as far as we are concerned. We can only understand truth in the way that it affects us as a group. Being as that you are a human and will never experience anything as anything but a human, what difference could it possibly make whether something is true when removed from human experience? Viewing this good from a non-affected perspective is the only way the need for your desired truth could be of any consequence whatsoever.

If truth is merely a by-product of evolution, there is no reason this statement has any truth. There is no meaning to it. It is a contradiction. Truth is essential if we wish to speak about anything.

I'm seriously going to start ignoring you if you continue to insist on extreme irrationality.

StMichael wrote:

Quote:
Survival is the reason for good. Our natural need to be able to survive in groups is the foundation of good. No standard is required. Even if there was a standard it would be of absolutely no importance.  

If there would be no standard for what is true, nothing (including that 'there is no standard for truth&#39Eye-wink would be false.

Second, survival does not determine all good. How is knowledge and contemplation good, as it does not necessarily further survival?

Third, 'good' is a term similar to 'true' in that truth indicates a good of the intellect. If good does not exist, truth does not either.

Quote:
Fact 1. All morality that we humans have exist as a result of ourselves.

Unsupported assertion.

Yeah, that about does it. Extreme irrationality coupled with a highly annoying format has annoyed me enough for today. I don't like arguing with people that can't respond intelligently or even be linguistically accurate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JoshHickman
JoshHickman's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey, I have an idea. Can we

Hey, I have an idea. Can we draw up a Moral Map? Can we just say, Hey, this is right, this is wrong? If yes, then that is a frame of reference which is just as good as one drawn up by God. If no, then NOBODY has a clear set of morals,

But I could be wrong.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
JoshHickman wrote: Hey, I

JoshHickman wrote:
Hey, I have an idea. Can we draw up a Moral Map? Can we just say, Hey, this is right, this is wrong? If yes, then that is a frame of reference which is just as good as one drawn up by God. If no, then NOBODY has a clear set of morals,

Sure you can, but it would just be your opinions and wouldn't be anymore valid/right than the next persons.  However if morals are from a higher power then it those morals would have a "higher" foundation.  


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Prove it. Prove

Quote:

Prove it.

Prove that your statement is unjustified? You have no ground to claim that my text is uninspired by God. And it is your burden of proof, not mine.

Quote:

showing an incredible ignorance of the english language. And on top of all that, absolutely nothing to prove me wrong. So I can just ignore it. At least until you open a dictionary.

What ignorance of the english language? Because I point out your internal contradictions? What does language refer to, and how can we speak of any position as "correct" or "true" if we say that truth does not exist? It is not possible, at all.

Quote:

Ignoring my point gets you nowhere. God is arbitrary, according to your own bible. Apparently you don't know as much about your own religion as you claim.

God is not arbitrary according to the Scriptures. There is further NO REASON to state that, either. It smacks of almost complete ignorance both of what Christians believe according to the interpretation of Scripture (given by the Church) as well as the clear speech of Scripture. You can just look at my signature to find proof that "God loves truth."

"Wisdom 6:13. Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away, and is easily seen by them that love her, and is found by them that seek her."

"Wisdom 7:15. ...[God] is the guide of wisdom, and the director of the wise...."

"Wisdom 7:25. For [Wisdom] is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her."

"Wisdom 7:28. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. "
 
 Truth and Wisdom are corresponded in Christianity with the Logos, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself. God is not arbitrary, but acts according to His eternal Wisdom.

Quote:

The number is rather arbitrary, since the bible isn't particularly specific. But you can waltz over to the home page of this site for a breakdown of all the deaths god caused. And that's only one rule, saying nothing about all the others that he broke or caused to be broken.

God does not commit crimes at all. Nor does the Scriptures claim this to be the case. God causes death and life, what is new about that? He could equally be said to be indirectly cause the death of every person, as well as their life.

Quote:

If god is morality, then he must be morally superior to us by definition. But he obviously isn't. And so he can't be.

The middle term is unjustified; it is not proven that God is not morally superior to us, nor is it obvious. If it is so obvious, enlighten me.

Quote:
Only because you don't make sense. Until you pick up a dictionary and read the definition of truth, you're just going to continue to make an idiot of yourself. But hey, don't let me stop you.

What is the definition, pray tell? The definition of truth that I have is, "conformity to fact or actuality." If there is no ground on which absolute being can exist apart from our human subjectivity, there is no ground to be called "reality" or "fact." This destroys truth. Still, you never responded to explain how I am "linguistically and materially" lying every time I say God.

Quote:

 

Rofl. You don't even know what truth and falsity are. And so this whole "point" is a waste of my time. 

 

Just saying it is a waste of time does not answer anything. Be rational and stop being dismissive.

Quote:

I don't particularly care if it satisfies you or not. You've quite clearly demonstrated that you don't even know what the words mean. Fact is fact. Fiction is fiction. And your god is fiction.

"Children, we call this circular logic. Do we all know what "circular logic" means? Circular logic is where somebody presumes their conclusion in their premises and offers no justification for doing so."

Give me a justification instead of just rampantly asserting that my God is fictional.

Quote:

Truth doesn't have a standard. It just is. Yeesh.

What is truth? Define it. Give me your definition, if mine is so odd. Truth needs reality in which it conforms. If we deny that human beings can escape their own subjectivity, there is NO SUCH THING AS TRUTH. It doesn't matter how much you believe truth exists. If you accept the premises, the conclusion follows. I would hold that you do believe that truth exists, I just think that you might not have thought about the conclusions that follow from the premises you are advocating.

Quote:

You don't know what truth is and you think you've proved it requires god? I wonder just how much brainwashing went into your indoctrination. How sad. 

Even if we assume I was "brainwashed" it has no impact on the validity of my deductions. This is called an ad hominem attack. In all these cases, my points merely went unanswered and I have to presume that you cannot answer them. Well enough. Just admit it and don't make such a big fuss.

Quote:

There's no such thing as moral truth, or we'd all have the same morals. Silly.

No, not necessarily. There is such a thing as mathematical truth but we don't all possess inherent knowledge of all mathematical proofs. Nor does it necessitate that we discover exactly the same morals (as people make errors in the discovery of natural principles governing physics, but this doesn't mean that there is no truth in the fact that gravity exists). It merely means only one set of morals is correct.

Quote:

Say what? Reality is simply reality. There is no standard to reality. It just is.

When....no..at this point it's IF you ever understand what truth really is, then you'll see why my statement is self justifying. The whole point is based on the simple concept of truth, and until you know what that is the point will be beyond your comprehension.

"The whole point is based on the simple concept of [insert arbitrary statement here], and until you know what that is the point will be beyond your comprehension."

That would make all rational discussion moot if we all appealed to special standards. Rationality involves a common level of discourse so that both people can converse. If you want to accept a position, you have to justify it. Do that or don't claim to be rational.

Quote:

You know no such thing. You believe it. And you have the arrogance to equate it with truth, and espouse it to the world with no corresponding evidence.

First, I do not believe that God exists. I know it. I believe that God is Triune, and other truths of faith. Existence of God is not properly an object of faith.

Second, what are you telling me what I do or do not believe?

Third, there is no arrogance here. You are falsly labeling me with evil intent, when you do not give any reason why my association of my beliefs (as well as my knowledge naturally) with truth is at all malicious or arrogant.

Fourth, I do possess evidence for my knowledge that God exists. The necessity of a first efficent cause, of a necessarily existing being, of a Prime Mover, of a cause of absolute standards, and of order in the universe. You have offered NO PROOF AT ALL for your own beliefs so far.

Quote:

Now look who's being insulting. Hypocrite.

 

Explain how this is being either insulting or hypocritical. No standard for truth or good can exist in atheism. It reduces all standards, necessarily, to subjective ones. 

Quote:

 

I'm seriously going to start ignoring you if you continue to insist on extreme irrationality.

All you have done in this ENTIRE post is to assert that I am irrational and ignore all my arguments. I have no obligation to defend myself further unless you critique what exactly you find wrong with my arguments.

 

Quote:

 

Yeah, that about does it. Extreme irrationality coupled with a highly annoying format has annoyed me enough for today. I don't like arguing with people that can't respond intelligently or even be linguistically accurate.

Speak merely for yourself. I have done nothing but been calm and rationally discussed your arguments. All you have done is dismiss all of them summarily as "irrational" and somehow below your mere consideration. That does not obviate the fact that you never answered my arguments and that their truth still stands in opposition to anything you have said.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

Prove it.

Prove that your statement is unjustified? You have no ground to claim that my text is uninspired by God. And it is your burden of proof, not mine.

I have every ground, your god doesn't exist. It is your burden of proof, not mine. Continuing this stupid charade continues to expose your hypocracy and common theist illogical tactics to the world. Blind yourself, but you cannot blind everyone. Since the rest of your post and all your other posts are just further evidence of your irrationality in the face of facts, I hereby ignore you as a complete crackpot who has no perception of reality and cannot justify his claims. Enjoy your delusion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: If you

StMichael wrote:
If you wish to hold that there is no standard of reality, truth or falsity, good or evil, you must hold that no true or false opinions can exist (as all of these indicate an objective, real view of reality). If God, or some other similar standard, does not exist, there is no ground to make any claims.


Quote:
There can be intersubjective values - values that people tend to share despite subjectivity because they are in a similar situation. I think this is what morality is based on. (and does not require a standard apart from this world)

Frankly, this would be impossible to state if no objective standard existed. You have to use an objective standard to 'get past' your own subjectivity.


What do you mean by this?
In order to talk about values I need a 'standard' for truth?
So your argument is that we need God for any kind of objectivity, and then once we have objectivity for truth we can infer an objectivity for morality? Sounds a bit like Descartes.
Anyway, moving on to your objections on my 'language theory'.


Quote:
Language might express a truth, but it is not identical with the truth itself. If one were to claim that, when I say 2+2=4 my words themselves would have to be the standard of truth in my statement, which is not the case. If 2+2=4, I would look at real things to determine the veracity of the statement. The same is true if I said "It is raining outside." It would be true because my words and my views (which are expressed in my words) conform to reality.

I'll start with your statement of maths.
Maths is not derived empirically. Arithmetic is defined by the Peano Axioms, the rules for counting, adding and multiplying. Our language (and mathematics) is run on rules, rules for using words/concepts correctly. Logic is based on these rules. So the condition for objectivity is that others follow these same rules, i.e. speak the same language.

Once we have logic/language we can organise empirical data into knowledge and start distinguishing truth from falsity.
My one assumption when it comes to objectivity is that the person I am communicating with speaks the same language that I do. From there, all the framework necessary for objectivity is in place.

You talk of there being an objective standard for truth/falsity.
However, if our judgements are otherwise subjective then our choice of which objective standard to follow will also be subjective.
What did you have in mind by this 'objective standard'?


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
You keep asserting that I

You keep asserting that I am a hypocrite and that I am illogical and that your proof is beyond me. You have not offered one reason at all why anybody, let alone I, ought to accept your position. If you label me as a hypocrite, give a reason. If you label me illogical, you need a reason. If you say that I do not understand your definitions, define them. Do not merely dismiss my arguments. They still stand on their own authority.

 

Or, if you do this, dismissing my arguments because I am inherently "illogical" (which really just means that I don't accept your position), then I ask you, "Which one of us is accepting his position on blind faith?"

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You keep

StMichael wrote:

You keep asserting that I am a hypocrite and that I am illogical and that your proof is beyond me. You have not offered one reason at all why anybody, let alone I, ought to accept your position.

You've been offered plenty by myself and others. You simply disregard proven fact in favour of your fiction. How do you explain the colour red to someone who has always been blind? Figure out a good answer to that and maybe I'll be able to adapt it to expose your hypocracy and irrationality in a light you are capable of awakening to. Until then I'm clearly wasting my time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What do you mean

Quote:

What do you mean by this?
In order to talk about values I need a 'standard' for truth?
So your argument is that we need God for any kind of objectivity, and then once we have objectivity for truth we can infer an objectivity for morality? Sounds a bit like Descartes.
Anyway, moving on to your objections on my 'language theory'.

Not like Descartes. I just think that there must be an objective referent if we are to speak of terms like "truth" or "goodness" or "being." Ultimately, the ultimate standard needs to exist to ensure that the terms have meaning. If they have no meaning, it leads to a contradiction.

Quote:

I'll start with your statement of maths.
Maths is not derived empirically.

Math is initially derived empirically (because quantity only exists in bodies), but that has little to do with my claims. I merely mean that we can check a mathematical statements veracity against real world cases.  

Quote:

Arithmetic is defined by the Peano Axioms, the rules for counting, adding and multiplying. Our language (and mathematics) is run on rules, rules for using words/concepts correctly. Logic is based on these rules. So the condition for objectivity is that others follow these same rules, i.e. speak the same language.

Rules apply regardless of language. The rule is absolute that 2 cannot be 3, regardless of what terms we use to denote the concept "2" and "3."

Further, the reality which we discover at the foundation in which we base mathematics must exist for mathematics to be possible. It must be possible to posit that there is a universal truth such as "2+2=4" before we can being to enunciate any further truths. Rules are based in a standard outside of language. Otherwise, language itself would be the standard and there would be French mathematics, German mathematics, Arabic mathematics, Irish mathematics, and so on. Language/terms might be essential to math, but it is not identical with its standard for truth.

Quote:

You talk of there being an objective standard for truth/falsity.
However, if our judgements are otherwise subjective then our choice of which objective standard to follow will also be subjective.
What did you have in mind by this 'objective standard'?

Our judgements are subjective in that "I" make a decision. But the fact that "I" know that "2+2=4" does not make the truth itself subjective.

 

Quote:

 How do you explain the colour red to someone who has always been blind? Figure out a good answer to that and maybe I'll be able to adapt it to expose your hypocracy and irrationality in a light you are capable of awakening to.

I invite you to go right on ahead and try. Explain every argument you have against theism. Why are my proofs wrong? Why are they illogical? Why am I a hypocrite? You have yet to offer anything. You just claim that you operate on a different level of logic than I do and that you cannot hold conversation with me because it is below your level. These are not  rational arguments.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
StMichael

StMichael wrote:

Quote:

What do you mean by this?
In order to talk about values I need a 'standard' for truth?
So your argument is that we need God for any kind of objectivity, and then once we have objectivity for truth we can infer an objectivity for morality? Sounds a bit like Descartes.
Anyway, moving on to your objections on my 'language theory'.

Not like Descartes. I just think that there must be an objective referent if we are to speak of terms like "truth" or "goodness" or "being." Ultimately, the ultimate standard needs to exist to ensure that the terms have meaning. If they have no meaning, it leads to a contradiction.

Quote:

I'll start with your statement of maths.
Maths is not derived empirically.

Math is initially derived empirically (because quantity only exists in bodies), but that has little to do with my claims. I merely mean that we can check a mathematical statements veracity against real world cases.  

Quote:

Arithmetic is defined by the Peano Axioms, the rules for counting, adding and multiplying. Our language (and mathematics) is run on rules, rules for using words/concepts correctly. Logic is based on these rules. So the condition for objectivity is that others follow these same rules, i.e. speak the same language.

Rules apply regardless of language. The rule is absolute that 2 cannot be 3, regardless of what terms we use to denote the concept "2" and "3."

Further, the reality which we discover at the foundation in which we base mathematics must exist for mathematics to be possible. It must be possible to posit that there is a universal truth such as "2+2=4" before we can being to enunciate any further truths. Rules are based in a standard outside of language. Otherwise, language itself would be the standard and there would be French mathematics, German mathematics, Arabic mathematics, Irish mathematics, and so on. Language/terms might be essential to math, but it is not identical with its standard for truth.

Quote:

You talk of there being an objective standard for truth/falsity.
However, if our judgements are otherwise subjective then our choice of which objective standard to follow will also be subjective.
What did you have in mind by this 'objective standard'?

Our judgements are subjective in that "I" make a decision. But the fact that "I" know that "2+2=4" does not make the truth itself subjective.

Quote:

 How do you explain the colour red to someone who has always been blind? Figure out a good answer to that and maybe I'll be able to adapt it to expose your hypocracy and irrationality in a light you are capable of awakening to.

I invite you to go right on ahead and try. Explain every argument you have against theism. Why are my proofs wrong? Why are they illogical? Why am I a hypocrite? You have yet to offer anything. You just claim that you operate on a different level of logic than I do and that you cannot hold conversation with me because it is below your level. These are not  rational arguments.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

You try to dodge, but I see right through you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Vastet, I think you're a bit

Vastet, I think you're a bit unfair in accusing him or moral wrong. He's here, modestly trying to reason, what's the problem?
That his arguments are flawed? Is that morally wrong?
That he disagrees and is sceptical to our worldview? Isn't that a good attitude to have?

I'll bet you've argued with some real discourteous Christians in your time who'd deserve every discourtesy thrown back in their face but you shouldn't assume all Christians to be like that.
Let's be gentlemen here! Killing them with kindness, remember? Eye-wink

StMichael wrote:
Not like Descartes. I just think that there must be an objective referent if we are to speak of terms like "truth" or "goodness" or "being." Ultimately, the ultimate standard needs to exist to ensure that the terms have meaning. If they have no meaning, it leads to a contradiction.
Quote:

Okay. Logic is rooted in the rules of language which is our objective standard. I should probably clarify what I mean by language.
I don't mean a particular language like English, otherwise we'd have a French logic and a German logic... I mean language in general. All languages have translations of the words 'and', 'not', 'or' and the numbers. This means that each different language contains the rules of 'language in general' that logic and mathematics are grounded in.

You could go further and say that this universal side of language is rooted in the way the human mind works - I think that's what Chomsky has done with his linguistic studies.

Our minds 'follow rules' which allow us to have an intersubjective language (i.e. a set of rules that our subjective minds all agree on) that we can base an objective standard of right and wrong on. This is just right and wrong in 'truth'. Morality is a lot more complex so I'll leave that until we've established how we have objectivity of truth.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There was a strategy to my

There was a strategy to my comment, based on earlier observation that morality is subjective. So blah. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I see...This is what

I see...
This is what happens when I cut into the middle of a conversation! My bad! Laughing out loud


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
20vturbo wrote: I am just

20vturbo wrote:
I am just curious how one derives the "value" of human life if there is not some "higher being." ... But I am just not able to figure how anyone could possibly be "right" if there is nothing higher than us?

One could say a lot about this problem, but I'll just point out what I think you are driving at: that whether you are good or evil, do works of mercy or sin, whether you love or hate, attain some level of happiness or be mostly unhappy in life, on the atheist worldview, all are made equal, to zero, by death.


20vturbo
20vturbo's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Correct me if I am wrong,

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that just saying that we are all born and die?  I am not sure that answers my question of what morality is while alive.  We are, IMO, not all created equal, there are people with mental and physical problems, strong/weak, tall/short, ect.  These are all physical things, and if you are an atheist then I would think (I don't really know, that’s why I ask) you would only deal with the physical things.  For me if a God created us and made all of our souls equal then there is no argument for the "value" of life.