Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 324

Thread: Bread and The Bible page 22

  1. #211
    John316's Avatar
    John316 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumifer View Post
    :-)

    For God so Loved the world He gave His Only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will have Eternal Life!

  2. #212
    John316's Avatar
    John316 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    I don't think reality is depressing at all. I think it's awesome and wonderful. I can and do have all that awe and wonder all without feeling the need for a creator.

    For God so Loved the world He gave His Only Son, that whosoever believes in Him will have Eternal Life!

  3. #213
    firemart's Avatar
    firemart is offline Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    56
    Free forums attract trolls like a bug light on a July night.

  4. #214
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,210
    I'm pretty sure that's Slate on a troll alternate account.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  5. #215
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    I knew your type of argument would come up from someone. Maybe you don't realize it, Rich, but your entire argument presupposes the existence of a Moral Truth. If even one just moral precept can be found to real it necessarily follows that atheism (specifically secular humanism) is bankrupt based upon Meta Ethics. That doesn't mean atheism is wrong in its theistic arguments but it does logically follow that materialism (of which modern atheism is grounded upon) cannot possible be true.

    You said:
    If you are talking about stuff related to science I agree with you. But with regards to you moral issues... only makes sense if in fact morals can be objectively defined.
    If/then: If materialism is true then all justifications are arbitrary. Secular humanism (a kind of atheism with a belief in universal human rights) is the newest fairy-tale making mythology....it only excludes a deity.

    To quote Infidel.org
    Philosophical Materialism
    [14] "An evolutionary account of the origin of moral judgment in human beings does not tell us what (if anything) makes a specific action moral. On a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be man-made or socially constructed; there are no objective moral laws existing independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Thus there are no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. The objectivity of laws of nature is clear--our approximations to them (laws of physics) are publicly falsifiable and can be corroborated by empirical evidence. Moreover, unlike natural laws, moral laws can be violated. But if what we call moral laws are really man-made inventions, our ethical rules are arbitrary and thus individuals are not obligated to follow them. Nothing makes an action objectively moral or immoral; individual and social codes vary because ethics, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But then there are no compelling grounds for arguing that Aztec human sacrifice, Nazi or Serbian genocide, or infanticide is really wrong. Core ethical rules are no doubt determined by intersubjective consensus across cultures--for example, incest and murder are universally prohibited. But such consensus does not demonstrate the objectivity of ethics; it merely demonstrates that human beings or societies are largely 'built' the same way and react similarly to certain types of behavior. Suppose we have inherited an aversion to committing murder. That such a genetic disposition would be widespread makes evolutionary sense. A known murderer's neighbors will fear that the murderer might kill them. Out of mutual self-interest they would be wise to band together and eliminate the murderer before he could eliminate them. Since murderers would tend to be eliminated before they could reproduce, individuals with a genetic inclination to commit murder would tend to dwindle. But this is merely an accident of natural selection, and trying to base morality on the fact that adhering to certain ethical norms will make you more "fit" to stay alive and reproduce is insufficient. The origin of behavior is irrelevant to whether a behavior is right or wrong; what makes an individual evolutionarily 'fit' (e.g. infidelity) is not necessarily moral. There will no doubt still be some individuals who are genetically inclined to commit murder; but we do not conclude that they are exempt from moral prohibitions on murder because of this. Furthermore, the fitness of certain evolutionary traits changes when the environment changes. Would murder suddenly become morally acceptable--even obligatory--if it provided us a selective advantage? On a materialist account, the only foundations for behavioral codes are preserving self-interest and satisfying one's conscience--there are no additional 'moral facts' which motivate behavior."


    Like it or not, that quote applies equally to both atheist and theist who justify action upon anything they want. Existence is pointless and all human rights arguments are the stuff of myth.
    Hey Scott F, this John316 character just reminded me that I had meant to respond to your post earlier and totally forgot.

    Excellent post, and extremely thought provoking. I've thought about this a lot though, and I disagree with your position.

    It's a really great question, because, using myself as an example, I'm inclined to say that things like rape or murder are wrong. Just flat out wrong, regardless of what any other individual, society, or culture believes. But of course, your position is that morality is subjective, that I have no truly objective grounds for calling these things wrong, that my moral standards are in no way more "correct" or "true" than any other standards.

    I disagree. I think morality is actually objective. If we consider morality to be the standards of action which promote the greatest possible well-being (which is an acceptable definition I think, right?), then I think we can effectively determine which actions are morally superior to others. Well-being is something that can be assessed objectively, even if we don't have the means to be precise about it or quantify it. Rape and murder (to take easy examples) clearly have a negative effect on the well-being of the victim, so if morality is a question of well being (as I think it is), then these actions are clearly morally wrong, and that is an objective fact.

    I think morality is a lot like nutritional science. Morality is about well-being, and nutrition science is about health. The murder and rape examples were easy, their effects on well-being were obvious, it'd be like asking a nutritionist if a person should drink battery acid, easy answer because the effect on health is clear.

    I like the morality/nutrition analogy even more though for pointing out the problem of nuances, complexities, and subtleties. Sometimes in nutrition we don't know the answer. Example: what carb/fat ratio should person x eat? If we're talking about optimizing health, then there actually is an objectively correct answer to this question. Unfortunately, there are just so many variables, and human health is so insanely complex, nuanced, and multifaceted, that we'll never figure out the exact answers to questions like this one. The best we can do is approximate. The same thing happens with moral questions. Well-being may be even more complex and nuanced than health (actually it must be, as it would actually encompass health). For this reason we'll come across a great deal of moral questions that are hard to answer (or even impossible for us) and we'll have to approximate or give it our best guess, but this doesn't mean that an objective answer to the moral question doesn't exist.

    In my view, morality is a human creation, but if it's about well-being, then it seems to me that morality is actually objective.

    The only way I see that you might argue against my position would be to claim that morality is not fundamentally a question of well-being, that that's not what we mean when we talk about morality. But if you're going to argue that then I'd like to know how you define morality.

  6. #216
    sakura_girl's Avatar
    sakura_girl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,696
    So morality and nutrition are 4D principles that our 3D minds will never comprehend due to unending variables?

  7. #217
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Not sure I understand the wording of your question Sakura. I think there is a lot we understand about morality (and nutrition for that matter). There are easy questions that we have answers to, harder questions that take some work, and some really tough ones that we may never be able to solve exactly. We just get along doing the best we can, hopefully improving as we go.

  8. #218
    sakura_girl's Avatar
    sakura_girl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,696
    Well, I guess when you approximate, it becomes a very subjective stance because you are allocating more value to the ones you judge to be correct. If you want something wholly objective, you have to also take into account infinite possibilities, which can only be possible if you have access to another dimension.

    Sorry if this is too confusing to understand. I don't know how to properly verbalize many concepts I create, so people just usually stare at me in disbelief or pity because they never get the gist of what I'm saying.

  9. #219
    ciep's Avatar
    ciep is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Barneveld, NY
    Posts
    533
    Oh I see, yes you're correct -- when we approximate or guess we are, by definition, just taking our best stab at the truth. Our approximations may be close to the truth, or we may miss by a mile. Obviously we are attempting to get the right answer, but you're absolutely correct, our guess is subjective. My point was that the truth we are aiming for is an actual objective truth.

    Take a math problem for example. Math problems have actual objective right answers. Sometimes the answer is easy to figure out, and we can claim to know the solution. Now imagine an extremely difficult math problem that we can't solve because we just don't know how. If you were asked for the answer to this problem then the best you could do is guess. Your guess would be subjective, but the actual answer exists, and it is objective.

    My argument is that morality is objective, even if we sometimes don't know the answers and are forced to guess.

  10. #220
    sakura_girl's Avatar
    sakura_girl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,696
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I can agree with that last bit, that it is objective. I more so think that morality is something we will never comprehend because the concepts and variables are something that only wisdom and culmination of experience way beyond 100 years can bring. Which I like to equate with being able to understand several other 3D scenarios, leading to understanding of the variables in 4D. (I honestly cannot think of a better metaphor than dimensional theory) Kind of similar to your math problem analogy.

Page 22 of 33 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •