Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 46 of 577 (553402)
04-03-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by sac51495
04-03-2010 12:33 AM


Re: Origins Of Logic
An abstract entity is merely something that is non-material in nature. If you believe that the laws of logic are a human concept, then they are non-material, and thus "abstract". If the laws of logic are not an established entity (which you apparently don't believe) then we have no way of knowing that we follow the correct laws of logic, and we cannot use our laws of logic to decide whether or not our laws of logic are correct, for this would be circular reasoning.
Certain things work and certain things don't. It's as simple as that. You try things out and you discover what works and what doesn't, then you use what works and discard what doesn't. What part of that is so hard to understand?
All logic is is setting your thoughts in an orderly manner. The word derives from the Greek "lego", from which we get "lay", to place something down.
The pagan Greeks tested what worked and what didn't. And from that they developed logic. What part of that is so hard to understand? Man-made. Pagan-made.
Your "reasoning" makes absolutely no sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:33 AM sac51495 has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 47 of 577 (553403)
04-03-2010 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by IchiBan
04-03-2010 1:25 AM


Not only is that list a pile but if you continue making bold assumptions I will consider you one as well. Don't tell me where I am and what I believe because your mind can't conceive a world without absolute beliefs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 1:25 AM IchiBan has not replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 48 of 577 (553404)
04-03-2010 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
04-03-2010 12:32 AM


Here's some for for yah. And it fits you like a glove.
Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.
Naturalistic materialism is one of the core components of Marxist Atheism.
Communism emerged around the turn of the 20th century in present-day Russia as "a hypothetical stage of socialism, as formulated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and others, to be characterized by a utopian classless and stateless society and the equal distribution of economic goods and to be achieved by revolutionary and dictatorial, rather than gradualistic, means" (Webster's New World Dictionary). Communism is proudly atheistic and seeks to liberate mankind from superstition and "spiritual bondage."
COMMUNIST BELIEFS
1. believes there is no God and no knowable providential order, that this physical world is the only reality, physical beings are the only real beings, and reason is man’s highest faculty.
2. believes religion is the opiate of the people, an exploiters’ tool of oppression that should be eliminated and its resources redirected to improving world conditions to lift mankind from misery.
3. believes mysticism and religion are primitive and fraught with error, prejudice and superstition, and that modern science, based on materialism and empirical evidence, is the only respectable avenue to useful knowledge.
4. believes that each person has but a single life and that death is final. Therefore, in this life we are to attain all that is deemed worthwhile and express our finer qualities in service to the greater social good.
5. believes that as in the case of nature, history evolves in a continuous line from lower to higher forms, from tribalism, feudalism and capitalism to its final maturity in socialism, and that the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of socialism will usher in an age of peace and plenty, when state control will no longer be needed.
6. believes there is no knowable providential order, that death is permanent, that God does not exist and that the highest life is one of intense consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-03-2010 12:32 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by DC85, posted 04-03-2010 1:50 AM IchiBan has replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 49 of 577 (553405)
04-03-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by IchiBan
04-03-2010 1:47 AM


Start a new thread and I will destroy every assertion .
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 1:47 AM IchiBan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 1:55 AM DC85 has replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 50 of 577 (553406)
04-03-2010 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by DC85
04-03-2010 1:50 AM


[qs]I will destroy every assertion[qs] In your mind, and maybe here in this little cult of an outfit. But not out in the greater world

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by DC85, posted 04-03-2010 1:50 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DC85, posted 04-03-2010 2:01 AM IchiBan has replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 51 of 577 (553408)
04-03-2010 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coyote
04-03-2010 12:32 AM


Another outstanding characteristic of the evolutionist is while being not all that deeply intellectual, they are in love with their own intellects. Narcissism its called.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coyote, posted 04-03-2010 12:32 AM Coyote has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 52 of 577 (553409)
04-03-2010 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by IchiBan
04-03-2010 1:55 AM


@IchiBan
go away wingnut troll, You have no desire to debate or to have us understand your position. You're only here to annoy people and I sure in your small mind you find it funny
edit:I'm sorry to everyone else who I interrupted
Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 1:55 AM IchiBan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 2:13 AM DC85 has replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 53 of 577 (553412)
04-03-2010 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by DC85
04-03-2010 2:01 AM


Hey look I am not the one who resorts to referring to people as 'steaming piles' etc like you did to me.
I am not trolling at all. People like Coyote et al are just not used to having their cage rattled in this little evolutionist echo chamber.
I could show you hundreds of examples but I doubt you or they would ever see it.
have a good ay

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by DC85, posted 04-03-2010 2:01 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by DC85, posted 04-03-2010 12:14 PM IchiBan has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 577 (553415)
04-03-2010 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by sac51495
04-02-2010 11:13 PM


From where does the U.K. get the authority to lay out a set of morals as the law of the land, if there are, perhaps, some people in the U.K. who disagree with this set of morals?
There's this thing called "democracy", you might have heard of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:13 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 2:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 577 (553417)
04-03-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by sac51495
04-02-2010 11:39 PM


I would first point out that in my belief, I am an utterly depraved human being ...
Then why the heck should anyone care what you have to say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 11:39 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 2:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 56 of 577 (553418)
04-03-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


Existentialism
Existentialism arose in Europe in the mid-nineteenth century. It teaches that God does not exist, or cannot be known, and affirms individuality and freedom. Stress is on transcendence of the mundane world through exaltation of will, the meaninglessness of existence and the absence of a substratum upon which to base truths or values. Man simply exists, free to create his own meaning in life. It is, however, important to bear in mind that there is a vital strain of religious, or quasi-religious, existentialism as well.
EXISTENTIALIST BELIEFS
1. believes that there is no knowable providential order in nature or in the larger realm of existence or cosmos.
2. believes that the being of man is ultimately meaningless, which is to say that man knows not why he exists and cannot rise to the knowledge of his destiny.
3. believes that each man is an individual and should break his dependence on society and rely solely upon his own individual life, spirit, personality and thought.
4. believes that immortality is not a condition of man. Death is quite realistically seen as an ultimate end and radical fact which cannot be overcome. Man should not tolerate even an anguished hope of personal survival.
5. believes that harmony and security in human relationships are impossible to achieve, and the only satisfactory attitude toward others is based upon explicit recognition of this fact.
6. believes that "Evil is not an illusion. It is not the effect of passions which might be cured, or a fear which might be overcome. It is not an ignorance which might be enlightened. Evil cannot be redeemed" (Sartre).
7. believes that God does not exist.
8. believes that the highest and best life is lived in the intensity of being fully conscious of the life experience. This experience necessarily contains problems, struggle, suffering and conflict. This is man's unalterable reality within which his free, creative action and choice gives birth to the fullness of consciousness which would otherwise be deadened by security and contentment.
9. believes that the soul of man is not whole without such unpleasant things as death, anxiety, guilt, fear and trembling, and despair. It would be the final error of reason to deny that these emotions exist, or to strive to manipulate them out of existence. Therefore, it can be said that nothing can be accomplished by denying that man is essentially a troubled being, except to make more trouble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4937 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 57 of 577 (553419)
04-03-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sac51495
04-02-2010 5:06 PM


Secular Humanism
Humanism is "a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc., without recourse to supernaturalism" (Webster's New World Dictionary). By the term secular this stream distinguishes itself from theistic (Christian) humanism. Secular humanism evolved out of 18th-century rejection of revealed Christianity and the emergence of modern science and free thought. Modern secular humanists condemn and refute all assertions of divine or paranormal phenomena.
SECULAR HUMANIST BELIEFS
1. believes in nontheism, as there is no rational proof for the existence of God, and do not delude myself with thoughts of a Supreme Being.
2. believes that traditional religions and faiths preach false doctrines, are oppressive and lead their followers toward ignorance, bigotry and dogmatism, and that it is my duty to be actively skeptical of and challenge the illusions of orthodox religions and all attempts to explain the world in supernatural terms.
3. believes in the preservation and enhancement of the human species as my ultimate concern, and in the global human family, which must preserve the Earth for future generations through developing a secular, planetary morality and system of law.
4. believes that living a good, moral life is the best means for individual and collective happiness and that morality has a rational, secular basis.
5. believes in expanding human rights and intellectual and moral freedom, and in secular democracy, with strict separation of church and state, as the means of eliminating discrimination and attaining equality and justice for all.
6. believes in the development of the creative human potential through education in the arts and sciences and in the paramount importance of free inquiry in an open, pluralistic, universalist society.
7. believes in the application and development of reason and modern science as the highest means to understanding the universe, solving human problems and enabling each individual to realize his greatest potential.
8. believes in striving for fulfillment and happiness in this life and reject all notions of reincarnation and afterlife as false and baseless, seeking my fullest capacity as a human being here and now, serving others and creating a better, more just world.
9. believes in Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific fact, and in naturalism, holding that the known world is all that exists, and that it has no supernatural or spiritual creation, control or significance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sac51495, posted 04-02-2010 5:06 PM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by DC85, posted 04-03-2010 12:27 PM IchiBan has replied
 Message 93 by AdminPD, posted 04-03-2010 3:10 PM IchiBan has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 58 of 577 (553420)
04-03-2010 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rahvin
04-03-2010 1:28 AM


Allow me to explain in greater detail. If morality is an external, objective "entity," rather than human invention, then we should not see multiple systems of ethics, and different moral values according to culture.
I should first clarify (as I did not earlier, my apologies) that although I refer to morals as "an entity" I believe that they are derived from God, and are not by themselves. I believe all things consist in God, and I do believe that there is one, specific set of morals, which are derived from God. But we do not always follow these morals. In fact, some have deluded themselves into thinking that, say, cannibalism is right. This is absolutely not another set of morals, but a delusion of the morals that be. There is ONE set of morals derived from God, the other "moral systems" that may exist are merely derisions of God's moral standard.
Babies are not born with any sense of morality. Their initial social instincts are selfish in nature - they want food, they want attention, etc. They have no built-in concept of property. They have no idea what "death" is, and thus no concept of "murder." They don't know about sexuality, and so don;t have any opinions on whether a given sexual orientation is moral or immoral. They don;t know what the Sabbath is, and so can't tell wehter working on it is good or bad.
Once again, the statement "babies are not born with any sense of morality" is an assumption, whether I agree with it or not. You may say that this can be proven, but when you attempt to prove it, you will make other assumptions, and to prove those assumptions, you will make more assumptions, and so on and so on. But I will not focus in on this inconsistency right now.
Suppose (as you do) that a long time ago, you have a baby born, whose parents were some form of an ape (we will not get picky about the specifics), and thus, had no way of conveying to their child the concepts of morals and ethics (they would do this via language, which apes do not have). Thus, when this baby grows up and has children, it will not teach its children the concepts of morals and ethics, because its parents did not teach it these concepts. So then we continue on, with more and more children coming into being that do not know of the concepts of morals and ethics. When did these concepts arise, and how were they then conveyed to the offspring?
or would condemn the Bible's instruction to execute rebellious children.
I guess this statement comes from a lack of understanding of the "covenants" of the Bible. I would like to discuss this, but it would be a rather long topic. All I will say is that ultimately, in Jewish law you were to execute rebellious children. I ask, if these children were then disobeying God's commandment (Honor thy father and mother), why shouldn't they be executed, for sinning against an infinitely Holy God. Basically, we do not follow these laws now because Christ fulfilled the law by dying on the cross. I would like to explain this in further detail to make better sense of it, but this would drag on for some time.
It's not an assumption at all, even if you disagree with my conclusion based on the evidence.
Here you still have an assumption. This time, the assumption is not that morals are man-made, but that the evidence is supreme in defining truth, in this case, your truth being that morals are man-made. This may be frustrating to you, but I hold that any arguments you make have an underlying assumption, and you may seek to prove that assumption by other means, but those means will inevitably have an underlying assumption attached along to them as well.
Yet those cultures had no concept of the Hebrew "God" before it was told to them. Various cultures around the world have worshipped nature itself; animal spirits; ancestors; multiple pantheons of wildly different deities; enlightened human beings; and all manner of other things. There is no evidence that any of them "knew" your deity and "chose" nott o worship him. The words of your book are not themselves evidence - they are an assertion that has not been supported.
The word "knew" in the passage I mentioned does not mean that God revealed Himself to them (cannibals or what have you) in the sense that He reveals Himself to Christians. The evidence of God is plainly there for those who don't believe, yet they are blind. From my point of view, I see the evidence, plainly before me, and I see the same evidence directly in front of unbelievers, they simply do not open their eyes and see it in the way that I do. There are true stories of savages in the middle of nowhere, who had not specifically been introduced to the God of the Bible, that when they were witnessed to, they would say things like "I knew there was a God, but now I know who He is." These were the men whose eyes were opened, and were then introduced to the one and only true God by missionaries perhaps.
From my understanding, most cannibalistic societies that still exist are South American tribes.
In any case, I am a member of Western society, and specifically I am a Utilitarian and a Secular Humanist. I value human life in and of itself, and judge morality based on the preservation of that life and the increase in its quality for the greatest number of people. I would judge cannibalism to be immoral if it involves murder. While I feel generally grossed out by cannibalism of someone who has died of natural causes, I see nothing ethically wrong so long as his family consents to the consumption of the corpse (because I value the potential emotional harm to the family).
The cannibal himself may of course disagree, and that proves my very point - morality is not universal and objective, but is subjective and unique to individuals and societies.
The fact that you or I can make a moral judgment does not make our moral values objective, Sac, even if we were to agree. The fact that others come to different moral conclusions in the same circumstances means that morality is subjective and is determined by the individual.
Once again, you have an assumption, and that assumption is that the preservation of human life should be valued above all else, even a cannibals desire to eat. You may seek to prove this assumption in some other way, but as I have said before, that proof will inevitably have an assumption.
But you did not answer the question. Would it be right for the cannibal to cannibalize the American, or not? And once again, if in the cannibals mind, it is right to eat other humans, this does not prove that there are different moral systems, in fact it proves the opposite (this proof is in the following sentences). If, as you say, that in the cannibals moral system, it is right to cannibalize, then who are you to prevent him from cannibalizing? You say you have a right to stop him from eating you; he says he has a right to eat you...this is a stalemate. How then do we decide which view is the correct one? If there is a correct side, there is no good way to decide which one is the correct side. If there is no correct view, then how can justice be established? The very fact that there is controversy over what is right and wrong inexplicably denotes that there IS right and wrong. It follows then that either the cannibal or the American is wrong. How do we decide which is right?...
But the statement was not about someone who does believe in Santa. It was about someone who does not. To not believe in Santa, one could actively believe that particulars of the Santa myth are impossible, and thus there is no such thing. This, admittedly, requires that one have previously determined (by assumption or by other evidence) that the particulars of the Santa myth are impossible.
However, one could instead passively lack belief in Santa simply because they have not been convinced. This requires no assumption at all - it doesn't even require a pre-existing conclusion regarding the possibility of the individual aspects of the myth. This would also describe someone who has never heard of Santa - if you've never heard of a thing, you can hardly believe it exists.
Excuse me for not realizing that you meant someone who does not believe in Santa Claus.
Santa, however, is not a good example. The reason I do not believe in Santa is because I know that it was purposely made up by men. The men who made up the myth did not really believe in the myth they had created. Thus, I don't not believe in Santa because of a lack of evidence, but because the very men who created the idea meant for it to be a myth.
Except for those who believe in many gods. Or those who have never heard of god. Or those who passively lack belief because they aren't convinced.
Please, do tell me which deity I worship? I don't recall praying lately.
There are clearly a few misconceptions here. I guess that I should first change the question to being more like "Do you believe in god(s)". This would account for those who worship multiple gods. As to the agnostics, they would absolutely have to answer in the "no" column. This is because they do not genuinely believe in a god (perhaps in some cases they do worship a god, in which case they would answer yes). To genuinely believe in a god, you must follow the specifics of that religion. If you do not follow the specifics of any religion based on the assumption that you don't know whether or not there is a god, then you are, in effect, saying that you do not believe in a god. IF you TRULY believed in a god, you would follow that religion. IF you DO NOT follow a certain religion, you do NOT believe in a god, and whether your premise is that you don't know, or that you believe the evidence is inadequate, you still do NOT follow a particular religion, and thus cannot say that you TRULY believe in a god.
Then let me rephrase.
I presume you do not believe in fairies or leprechauns. Is that an accurate assumption on my part?
This is a topic that I could speak much of. No, I do not believe in fairies of leprechauns. But people often wonder about the many, many stories there are of kidnappings by aliens, or stories of fairies and other such things. Once again, I do not believe in these things, but this does not preclude the possibility of the King of Lies sending his demons out masquerading as aliens (or whatever the case may be) in order to fool people into believing these things. But I do not know whether or not you would like to get into a lengthy discussion of this. But no, I do not believe in fairies and leprechauns. This is because I believe that the Devil can take on many different forms, and thus decept us.
Once again, I hope you can understand that all beliefs have an assumption, and that those assumptions, even if they can be proven true, will lead to more assumptions, and that the only place this ongoing process can end is with God, who can explain and make sense of all these things. I hope and pray that you can truly understand this, so that perhaps you can be converted to (not mine) God's line of thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 04-03-2010 1:28 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2010 1:29 AM sac51495 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 577 (553421)
04-03-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by sac51495
04-03-2010 12:19 AM


You claim you have no underlying assumptions. Perhaps different atheists have different specific beliefs, but YOU make the assumption that ethics and morality are human constructs. If this isn't an underlying assumption, then I don't know what is.
A discovery made by observation, like my discovery that I have two legs, based on the observation that it looks like I have two legs.
I look at the history of human ideas of morality, and I see that some people think that Protestants should be burned at the stake, and some people think that Catholics should be burned at the stake, and some people think that Jews should be burned at the stake, and some people think that heliocentrists should be burned at the stake ... and you would ask me to decide that one person (you) has got hold of an objective morality that we should all believe in?
Well, I'm open-minded. Perhaps you really do.
So prove it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by sac51495, posted 04-03-2010 12:19 AM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 577 (553422)
04-03-2010 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by IchiBan
04-03-2010 12:30 AM


Evolutionists are essentially materialists who use science as a cover for their ideology.
This is, of course, one of the Great Big Creationist Lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by IchiBan, posted 04-03-2010 12:30 AM IchiBan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024