Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 12:48 PM
99 online now:
AZPaul3, edge, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 92 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,590 Year: 3,627/19,786 Month: 622/1,087 Week: 212/212 Day: 27/27 Hour: 7/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Author Topic:   Nature and the fall of man
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 300 (303285)
04-11-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by jar
04-11-2006 3:59 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
That's why we were given the great gift of the ability to tell right from wrong, the ability to make those subjective decisions.

If right and wrong are subjective, they are ultimately meaningless.

Your morality consists of the following dicta:

What's right--trying real hard

What's wrong--not trying hard enough.

If this set of rules is subjective, something you made up, then it's of no more significance than my prefering blue shirts to green shirts.

"Subjective" means the idea has no logical basis.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 03:05 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 4:16 PM robinrohan has responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 300 (303286)
04-11-2006 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by jar
04-11-2006 3:59 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS jar's god.
jar writes:

Good and Bad are but a human construct and depends totally on the particular circumstances.

Robin writes:

That's certainly true if there is no God.

True if there is a GOD too.

No, the God who actually exists determines good and bad. They are absolutes because they derive from His very nature.

YOUR God on the other hand obviously has no notion of good and bad as well as being too incompetent to control a meteor he supposedly brought into existence. He lets his creatures suffer until he manages to provide a few weak remedies in modern times to help just a tad to alleviate the suffering.

He/she is an idiot and apparently thinks we're all idiots to consider him/her worthy of worship.

jar writes:

That's why we were given the great gift of the ability to tell right from wrong, the ability to make those subjective decisions.

We do as lousy a job of it as your weak and incompetent and morally challenged god.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2006 04:15 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 3:59 PM jar has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 288 of 300 (303289)
04-11-2006 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by robinrohan
04-11-2006 4:04 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
If right and wrong are subjective, they are ultimately meaningless.

Well, perhaps in your philosophical world they might be meaningless, but in reality, that's how it works. right and wrong are subjective, and depend on the specifics of each individual instance.

What is right in one case may well be wrong in another. That's why the Gift of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is so wonderful. GOD actually gave use the power to consider all the circumstances and decide in each case what is right or wrong.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by robinrohan, posted 04-11-2006 4:04 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 04-11-2006 4:23 PM jar has responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 300 (303294)
04-11-2006 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by jar
04-11-2006 4:16 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
What is right in one case may well be wrong in another.

You're confusing subjectivity with circumstantiality.

Let's assume for a moment that morality is objective. You might still have cases where what is right in one case is wrong in another. The reason is that if you had multiple virtues, sometimes these virtues might clash.

For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case. Why? Because there is a higher virtue that clashes with it (compassion for a victim). That would not violate the objective nature of either rule--if they really were objective.

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-11-2006 03:24 PM

This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-12-2006 05:11 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 4:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 4:42 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 291 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 4:44 PM robinrohan has not yet responded
 Message 292 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 5:53 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 293 by lfen, posted 04-11-2006 11:20 PM robinrohan has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 300 (303304)
04-11-2006 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by robinrohan
04-11-2006 4:23 PM


Wrong!
Let's assume for a moment that morality is objective. You might still have cases where what is right in one case is wrong in another.

That is incorrect. If you have an objective morality, some that is wrong is wrong in ALL cases, by definition.

For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which a way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case.

Might be better I'll give you but if it is honesty is objectively moral, then lying to that murderer would be immoral, no matter the circumstance.

That is by definition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 04-11-2006 4:23 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by robinrohan, posted 04-12-2006 6:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 291 of 300 (303306)
04-11-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by robinrohan
04-11-2006 4:23 PM


But it's the same whether or not GOD exists.
I think we are getting into word games here. But look at your example. It would be the same whether there was a GOD or not. What is right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, all depends on the circumstances and the individuals knowledge as wel as the specific incident.

It has nothing to do with whether or not GOD exists.

edited to fix subtitle and add an e to whether. Other required spalling errors added.

This message has been edited by jar, 04-11-2006 04:01 PM


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 04-11-2006 4:23 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 292 of 300 (303324)
04-11-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by robinrohan
04-11-2006 4:23 PM


Robin your points are so good
and IMHO so important, that I had to return to respond again.

You outlined a case:

robin writes:

For example, honesty is considered a virtue. But if a murderer asked you which a way a man has gone, it might be better for you to tell a lie in that case. Why? Because there is a higher virtue that clashes with it (compassion for a victim).

That is so perfect for this discussion I simply couldn't let it pass.

Notice as we move through this it doesn't really matter if there is a GOD or not, since everyman, Theist, Agnostic or Atheist faces the same set of choices.

Suppose you do not know that the person is a murder, and so you tell him which way the person went and thus lead directly to another murder. Did you do wrong?

Suppose the man was a murderer, but had had a change of heart. He had been involved in a plan to kill someone but was now actively trying to prevent it? Suppose you don't tell him where the third person went, and thus he doesn't get there in time to save the person?

Suppose you do tell him, and he gets there in time to save the person?

There's no magic bullet of right and wrong, but rather we are charged to try our best to make the best decisions possible in each case.

That's as true for the Theist as for the Agnostic or the Atheist.

I believe the charge to do that, as well as the capability to make such decisions came from GOD. Others may think it purely social and that it evolved naturally over time.

The common point is that all of us seem to realize that those decisions need to be made. The threat to all of us though is when some group, whether Theist or Atheist or Agnostic tries to establish absolute objective standards for right or wrong. Then we move into the area of Law. IMHO that was one of the things Jesus came to remind us to avoid.

The thing we all need to fear is the arrival of someone with THE ANSWER, whether it is a Christian Fundamentalist, and Islamic Fundamentalist, a Hindu Fundamentalist, a Secular Fundamnetalist, anyone that comes to you with THE ANSWER is to be feared.

That's why the message of the Gospel is as it is, Love GOD and love others as you love yourself.

It makes you start by first valuing yourself. Then it tells you to treat others like you'd like to be treated. Finally, if you are doing that, then you will be loving GOD.

It's simple, but it's not easy. It requires a level of honesty many find uncomforting. And it requires work, and that you make choices, that you actually think before doing. But it also realizes that you will be working within the limits of your personal knowledge and abilities. GOD tells us if we tried, if we told the person where the third man was, and the person we told turns out to be a murderer, we will not be held accountable.

If on the otherhand, we do the same things in the full knowledge that the person was a muderer looking for his victim, we will certainly be held accountable.

And GOD will apply exactly the same set of rules when judging the Satanist or Agnostic or Atheist or Wiccan or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or Taoist.

This message has been edited by jar, 04-11-2006 05:00 PM


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 04-11-2006 4:23 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by robinrohan, posted 04-12-2006 6:28 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 297 by robinrohan, posted 04-12-2006 8:09 AM jar has not yet responded

lfen
Member (Idle past 2755 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 293 of 300 (303386)
04-11-2006 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by robinrohan
04-11-2006 4:23 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
Hows this as an example:


Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robotics"

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by robinrohan, posted 04-11-2006 4:23 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by robinrohan, posted 04-12-2006 6:23 AM lfen has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 300 (303447)
04-12-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by New Cat's Eye
04-11-2006 4:42 PM


Re: Wrong!
That is incorrect. If you have an objective morality, some that is wrong is wrong in ALL cases, by definition.

It could be objective but complicated. If you have multiple virtues, it will be complicated.

One must never tell a lie except in such cases where lying is in conflict with a higher virtue. This would be true at all times in all places.

And you could have this heirarchy of virtues all laid out.

There are lots of objective statements that have these exceptions built in as part of the idea.

X=P except when P is less that X.

Objective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2006 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 300 (303448)
04-12-2006 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by lfen
04-11-2006 11:20 PM


Re: Robin outlines HIS god.
Yes, ifen. Now imagine setting out the rules for human morality. Vastly more complicated.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by lfen, posted 04-11-2006 11:20 PM lfen has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 300 (303449)
04-12-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by jar
04-11-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Robin your points are so good
Notice as we move through this it doesn't really matter if there is a GOD or not, since everyman, Theist, Agnostic or Atheist faces the same set of choices.

The fact that people disagree about morality is not what illustrates its subjectivity. It's the fact that we have no logical ground for any moral rule is what tells us our rules are subjective.

If there were a God, and he implanted into us moral truths, then there would be no doubt about it. There would be a ground and we would know what that is. It would be as obvious as 2 plus 2 make 4.

All we have now are our feelings--which are notoriously misleading.

More about this later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 5:53 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by purpledawn, posted 04-12-2006 9:46 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 300 (303462)
04-12-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by jar
04-11-2006 5:53 PM


Re: Robin your points are so good
The thing we all need to fear is the arrival of someone with THE ANSWER, whether it is a Christian Fundamentalist, and Islamic Fundamentalist, a Hindu Fundamentalist, a Secular Fundamnetalist, anyone that comes to you with THE ANSWER is to be feared.

I don't see why this applies just to "fundamentalists." They're just as moralistic on the Left as on the Right. One minute the Left is talking about how all morals are relative, and the next minute they are waxing with moralistic fervor about some injustice they think has occurred.

Take an issue like abortion, for example. Both sides are extremely moralistic.

pro-life: Thou shalt not kill an embryo which is a human being.
pro-choice: Thou shalt not interfere with a woman's right to choose.

Can either of these moral statements be proved? Of course not.

How do we decide? We rely on our feelings. That's all we have to rely on when it comes to morals.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jar, posted 04-11-2006 5:53 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 04-12-2006 9:38 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Faith
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 300 (303479)
04-12-2006 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by robinrohan
04-12-2006 8:09 AM


The Bible is an objective basis for morality
pro-life: Thou shalt not kill an embryo which is a human being.
pro-choice: Thou shalt not interfere with a woman's right to choose.

Can either of these moral statements be proved? Of course not.

How do we decide? We rely on our feelings. That's all we have to rely on when it comes to morals.

For a Bible believing Christian, morality is objective because it is given by the Creator God, and we are not going by feelings. It is spelled out in the Bible. There is a Biblical basis for the pro-life position; there is not for the pro-choice position. The Biblical basis for the pro-life position is the references to God's forming us in the womb and knowing us from the womb.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2006 09:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by robinrohan, posted 04-12-2006 8:09 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1535 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 299 of 300 (303482)
04-12-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by robinrohan
04-12-2006 6:28 AM


No Logical Ground
quote:
It's the fact that we have no logical ground for any moral rule is what tells us our rules are subjective.
Maybe someday you'll expound on that thought and actually show that there is no logical ground for any moral rule.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by robinrohan, posted 04-12-2006 6:28 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 300 of 300 (303483)
04-12-2006 9:47 AM


End Of Thread
300's the limit
Stow the prose,
No more discussion
It's time to close.

Finis

See you in another thread. Magic Wand


RewPrev1
...
1516171819
20
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019