Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bread and The Bible

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

  • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
    Today, we've changed the meaning of person from a fetus to a new born baby.
    Huh? Is this a comment on abortion? Is your point that "we" will allow the termination of a "fetus" but not of a "person"? Who's "we"?

    I have debate atheists on the implication of moral relativism for years. I now the arguments inside and can even argue from the atheist POV better than most atheists. I never lose the debate simply because the vast majority of people who call themselves atheist don't understand the Meta Ethical implications.
    What 'debate' is it exactly that you constantly find yourself on the winning end of? If one does not believe in a "god" or "creator," they cannot claim to be moral?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      I have debate atheists on the implication of moral relativism for years. ... I never lose the debate
      LOL. Well, we can probably fix THAT. :-D

      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      Atheism is meaningless without a metaphysical belief that materialism is true.
      I don't think so. Atheism is "meaningless" (as in, does not provide any help in the search for meaning) regardless of whether you believe in materialism (which, I guess, you define as "there's nothing but matter") or not.

      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      Materialism (likewise) holds to the exact same belief with regards to moral certitudes.....that is, one culture's moral codes is equivalent to any other culture's moral code.
      And that's not true either. The position that morals are not "real" is perfectly coherent with the position that different morals are not equivalent to each other, some are better and some are worse.

      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      Moral codes simply become the culture codes to controlling social behavior. Which codes then? Doesn't matter.
      Oh, dear. You're erecting one strawman after another. Even if morality were just an arbitrary set of internalized social norms (and it's not), it still would matter what it was. It would matter because morality affects behavior and that has real-life consequences. Moral codes certainly matter.

      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      ..one moral code is as good/bad as any other.
      You really do have a large supply of straw :-)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ciep View Post
        Scott! I was hoping you'd reply. Thanks for the detailed post. I'm at work on my iPhone, so I can't say much right now, plus I'm not sure I completely follow everything you wrote. I'll give it some consideration later tonight though. Thank you again!
        You're welcome. Just keep in mind that my moral arguments are philosophical ones that logically follow from Materialism. Since I, personally, cannot accept the Moral Anti-Realism that Materialism implies I cannot be a materialist. What's the point in being atheistic without philosophical materialism to ground it.

        The irony is this: a scientific minded theists (someone who believes in a dualistic reality) can actually be more rational than an atheist. The acceptation would be an atheist who fully accepts that all arguments over superiority moral codes and moral reasoning are irrelevant, meaningless.....pointless. I've met them who understood the ethical implications, but they were rare.

        Because all Human Rights documents are.....Declarations (http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages...s.aspx)....and not backed by anything else other than simply being declared as an inherent truth/right, they are exactly equivalent to the stuff of religious dogma.
        Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ciep View Post
          Scott! I was hoping you'd reply. Thanks for the detailed post. I'm at work on my iPhone, so I can't say much right now, plus I'm not sure I completely follow everything you wrote. I'll give it some consideration later tonight though. Thank you again!
          You're welcome. Just keep in mind that my moral arguments are philosophical ones that logically follow from Materialism. Since I, personally, cannot accept the Moral Anti-Realism that Materialism implies I cannot be a materialist. What's the point in being atheistic without philosophical materialism to ground it.

          The irony is this: a scientific minded theists (someone who believes in a dualistic reality) can actually be more rational than an atheist. The acceptation would be an atheist who fully accepts that all arguments over superiority moral codes and moral reasoning are irrelevant, meaningless.....pointless. I've met them who understood the ethical implications, but they were rare.

          Because all Human Rights documents are.....Declarations (http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages...s.aspx)....and not backed by anything else other than simply being declared as an inherent truth/right, they are exactly equivalent to the stuff of religious dogma.
          Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
            Just keep in mind that my moral arguments are philosophical ones that logically follow from Materialism.
            There's your problem. The fact that "philosophers" argue nit-picking points about "philosophy" is entirely irrelevant to people who have no interest in such silly mental contortion. I have no interest in Materialism. Therefore all your arguments are self-serving, merely mental masturbation.

            Perhaps you can give yourself points after the people with whom you are attempting to discuss the issue shake their heads and walk away, convinced you don't have a clue. But that doesn't mean you won the argument.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
              Because all Human Rights documents are.....Declarations (http://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/Pages...s.aspx)....and not backed by anything else other than simply being declared as an inherent truth/right, they are exactly equivalent to the stuff of religious dogma.
              Eh? "Rights," as they exist in any meaningful, real-world context, are man-made creations of either the majority of a given population, or of an entity designated by the majority to make such decisions. In the sense that man made them up, I suppose they're similar to religious dogma...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lumifer View Post
                LOL. Well, we can probably fix THAT. :-D



                I don't think so. Atheism is "meaningless" (as in, does not provide any help in the search for meaning) regardless of whether you believe in materialism (which, I guess, you define as "there's nothing but matter") or not.



                And that's not true either. The position that morals are not "real" is perfectly coherent with the position that different morals are not equivalent to each other, some are better and some are worse.



                Oh, dear. You're erecting one strawman after another. Even if morality were just an arbitrary set of internalized social norms (and it's not), it still would matter what it was. It would matter because morality affects behavior and that has real-life consequences. Moral codes certainly matter.



                You really do have a large supply of straw :-)
                I have had PhD in philosophy complement me on how well I grasp this subject.

                http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1627e.htm
                Universal Human Rights and Cultural Relativism
                This situation sharpens a long-standing dilemma: How can universal human rights exist in a culturally diverse world? As the international community becomes increasingly integrated, how can cultural diversity and integrity be respected? Is a global culture inevitable? If so, is the world ready for it? How could a global culture emerge based on and guided by human dignity and tolerance? These are some of the issues, concerns and questions underlying the debate over universal human rights and cultural relativism.

                Cultural relativism is the assertion that human values, far from being universal, vary a great deal according to different cultural perspectives. Some would apply this relativism to the promotion, protection, interpretation and application of human rights which could be interpreted differently within different cultural, ethnic and religious traditions. In other words, according to this view, human rights are culturally relative rather than universal.

                Taken to its extreme, this relativism would pose a dangerous threat to the effectiveness of international law and the international system of human rights that has been painstakingly contructed over the decades. If cultural tradition alone governs State compliance with international standards, then widespread disregard, abuse and violation of human rights would be given legitimacy.

                Accordingly, the promotion and protection of human rights perceived as culturally relative would only be subject to State discretion, rather than international legal imperative. By rejecting or disregarding their legal obligation to promote and protect universal human rights, States advocating cultural relativism could raise their own cultural norms and particularities above international law and standards.
                Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                  Eh? "Rights," as they exist in any meaningful, real-world context, are man-made creations of either the majority of a given population, or of an entity designated by the majority to make such decisions. In the sense that man made them up, I suppose they're similar to religious dogma...
                  ...and therefore a secular humanist, who rejects religious dogma as being myth, arguing that women in Afghanistan are having their human rights violated is being hypocritical. Both dogmas are imposed declarations.
                  Last edited by Scott F; 04-03-2013, 11:53 AM.
                  Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                  Comment


                  • It all still strikes me as relative. Perhaps some believe that Region A should be able to continue engaging in Behavior X, a practice viewed as barbaric by a majority of the population of international community outside of Region A.

                    Others believe that the international community should wield its power and influence to put an end to Behavior X within Region A. This group seeks to subvert the minority moral views of Region A with the majority views of the international community. Views which, by the way, have changed significantly over time.

                    I don't see why atheists, agnostics, or simple nonbelievers could not fall into either camp.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                      ...and therefore a secular humanist, who rejects religious dogma as being myth, arguing that women in Afghanistan are having their human rights violated is being hypocritical. Both dogmas are imposed declarations.
                      So one must either embrace or reject all "imposed declarations," lest they be a "hypocrite"? One must accept "religious dogma" in order to fairly recognize "human rights"?

                      That's absurd. I don't want to go too far here speaking for atheists because I simply consider myself agnostic, but I would imagine many atheists understand religious dogma to be "imposed declarations." They simply doubt the alleged origins of such declarations.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                        I have had PhD in philosophy complement me on how well I grasp this subject.
                        ROFL... Oh, boy... is this your claim from authority? Some PhD was polite and complimented you (by the way, complement and compliment are different words) and that's how you prove that you know what you're talking about? :-D

                        Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                        ...the debate over universal human rights and cultural relativism.
                        Yeah, sure, there is such a debate, but I fail to see how its existence supports any of your points.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                          It all still strikes me as relative. Perhaps some believe that Region A should be able to continue engaging in Behavior X, a practice viewed as barbaric by a majority of the population of international community outside of Region A.

                          Others believe that the international community should wield its power and influence to put an end to Behavior X within Region A. This group seeks to subvert the minority moral views of Region A with the majority views of the international community. Views which, by the way, have changed significantly over time.

                          I don't see why atheists, agnostics, or simple nonbelievers could not fall into either camp.
                          Sort of competing memes, eh? You didn't argue anything different then I did....that to be ration you have to be morally neutral. In that neutrality Sharia is just as viable as any other moral code which could be imposed upon the international community. Democracy is irrelevant went it comes to defining what ought to be the accepted moral standards.
                          Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by UTfootball747 View Post
                            It all still strikes me as relative. Perhaps some believe that Region A should be able to continue engaging in Behavior X, a practice viewed as barbaric by a majority of the population of international community outside of Region A.

                            Others believe that the international community should wield its power and influence to put an end to Behavior X within Region A. This group seeks to subvert the minority moral views of Region A with the majority views of the international community. Views which, by the way, have changed significantly over time.

                            I don't see why atheists, agnostics, or simple nonbelievers could not fall into either camp.
                            Sort of competing memes, eh? You didn't argue anything different then I did....that to be ration you have to be morally neutral. In that neutrality Sharia is just as viable as any other moral code which could be imposed upon the international community. Democracy is irrelevant went it comes to defining what ought to be the accepted moral standards.
                            Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                              Sort of competing memes, eh? You didn't argue anything different then I did....that to be ration you have to be morally neutral. In that neutrality Sharia is just as viable as any other moral code which could be imposed upon the international community. Democracy is irrelevant went it comes to defining what ought to be the accepted moral standards.
                              ....so people who don't believe in God can't have legitimate opinions on what is right or wrong? That's silly.

                              Comment


                              • I ain't got no degrees in philosophy because I actually wanted a job after college. I did bet myself when I saw the title of this thread that it would go over 20 pages. I win. Sadly not much of a prize since I bet myself.

                                IMO, this thread could have been named Bread and Grimm's Fairy Tales and been just as relevant.
                                "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                                B*tch-lite

                                Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X