OT: Food for Thought

brownja · Post by **brownja** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 1:36 pm

On 2002-03-14 14:27, jim stone wrote:
Thanks, Brownja, for taking the argument
seriously! Note that 3 is a substitution
instance of 2--that is, it follows logically
from 2, so that 3 must be true if 2 is true.
But 2 does look true. If there's a problem
with the argument, perhaps it's at 2?
But I'm not sure.

I'm still not buying it.
The joke about carrots was a little illustration to show that it's fallacious to try to use two sides of an argument simultaneously, when one side moots the other.
jb

DrRichard · Post by **DrRichard** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 1:38 pm

On 2002-03-14 14:23, JessieK wrote:
On 2002-03-14 10:23, DrRichard wrote:
For the atheist, there is no higher law by which to determine if an action is "good" or "bad" - you cannot justify one behaviour over any other, as there is no absolute right or wrong. I'm actually interested in how you determine what right and wrong is? Is there an absolute right or wrong in your opinion?
Wow! I see how little faith you have in a human's ability to think, to feel, to be. If you live among morons, then yeah, religion can help direct them. But for the rest of us...a little credit here, please.

Jessie, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but aside from that, perhaps you can answer the question of _how_ one can tell right from wrong? Is there a "real" standard outside of the presence of a moral law giver?

Richard

WyoBadger · Post by **WyoBadger** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 1:45 pm

Well. Isn't this interesting. I still don't think this forum is the best place to discuss such things for all the reasons I stated before (somewhere around page 4, methinks

), but I was seriously worried about where this was going. Then I check back in to see that common sense and courtesy have broken out.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

If anyone would like to discuss any of these things further with me, by all means e-mail. I'd love to hear your thoughts, and it's a good challenge to make me think.

Disagreement is not a threat to truth. If one's faith is threatened, than perhaps it's founded in a false premise.

Or, as Galileo said, "I do not feel oblidged to believe that the same God who endowed us with reason, sense, and intellect would require us to forego their use."

Peace
Tom

brownja · Post by **brownja** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:01 pm

On 2002-03-14 14:38, DrRichard wrote:
Jessie, I'll give you all the credit in the world, but aside from that, perhaps you can answer the question of _how_ one can tell right from wrong? Is there a "real" standard outside of the presence of a moral law giver?

Richard

Each individual is their own arbitor of right and wrong. If you have no internal sense of right/wrong, by all means seek out a code that suits you. You could do worse.
But you could also do a lot better.

jb

Bretton · Post by **Bretton** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:08 pm

fnord!

ErikT · Post by **ErikT** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:09 pm

Jim: Like I said before, your writting is poetry. Once again you have given us something to think about in an elegant way.

Now, because you asked (that's the global 'you')

I welcome you to our birthday party.

Now, because you didn't ask, here are my thoughts on truth and relativity.

It seems to me that there is one basic point at which the two primary forms of philosophy diverge. And it is at this point that both make a supposition based upon faith.

1) One view states that "Man is the measure of all things." Followed closely by the belief that because I think, I am.

2) The other view finds that God is the measure of all things and that because He thinks, I am.

We're going to go around and around on all the points that rest upon these basic suppositions. And the reason is that both are based upon faith. Both are a religion. And the proof for both are beyond the reach of philosophers and theologians alike.

Certainly, based upon the 'enlightened' view that man is the center of all things we will logically conclude that truth is relative. Notice, though, that at its basis this conclusion must rest in a truth accepted by faith - that is that #1 is correct and #2 is incorrect. On this point one cannot accept relativity.

For those of us that believe #2 to be correct we simply call our foundation what it is: faith based upon experience.

These two baselines even effect the application of logic. If your baseline is nothingness, then your logic will state that existence is to be proved. If your baseline is somethingness, then existence is assumed and proofs for nothingness would be the rubrick.

I have enjoyed following this thread and do hope that you guys solved (as in logical proof - not as in curtailment) this by tomorrow. That's not to much to ask, is it?;) I'm going to bed

Erik

aderyn_du · Post by **aderyn_du** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:21 pm

Happy Birthday to Erik's little one! What a sweetheart...

Hope she had a very special day!!

Slainte,
Andrea ~*~

DrRichard · Post by **DrRichard** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:27 pm

On 2002-03-14 15:01, brownja wrote:
Each individual is their own arbitor of right and wrong. If you have no internal sense of right/wrong, by all means seek out a code that suits you. You could do worse.
But you could also do a lot better.

Okay, I can accept this as a logical argument. In essence then, you are saying this is no objective right and wrong, only *completely subjective* right and wrong. Thus, the logical conclusion of your argument is that there is, in the objective sense, no standard by which we should live.
That's an interesting worldview. Don't you think if we all thought like that, the world would be anarchy?

As Ravi Zacharias once said "In some countries they love their neighbours, based upon feelings. In other countries, they eat them. Do you have a personal preference?"

Richard

brownja · Post by **brownja** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:36 pm

On 2002-03-14 15:27, DrRichard wrote:
Okay, I can accept this as a logical argument. In essence then, you are saying this is no objective right and wrong, only *completely subjective* right and wrong. Thus, the logical conclusion of your argument is that there is, in the objective sense, no standard by which we should live.
That's an interesting worldview. Don't you think if we all thought like that, the world would be anarchy?

Uh, no.

Again, you're showing your very low opinion of mankind here.

Did you ever consider that people might behave themselves for reasons other than fear of damnation? doesn't sound like it.

I did NOT say NO standard. Each person has then own standard, huge difference, some people will behave in a way that is conducive to a peaceful society, and others may not.

Also, were talking about moral right/wrong here. If you get too far out there, the legal system may kick in.

Edited for typos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: brownja on 2002-03-14 15:48 ]</font>

brownja · Post by **brownja** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:53 pm

As Ravi Zacharias once said "In some countries they love their neighbours, based upon feelings. In other countries, they eat them. Do you have a personal preference?"

Richard

I love based on merit. Unconditional love is reserved for animals and children.
Adults have to abilty to earn love and should strive to do so.

p.s. i'm a vegetarian. Eating dead animals is always wrong, not just on friday's during lent.

DrRichard · Post by **DrRichard** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:53 pm

On 2002-03-14 15:36, brownja wrote:
Uh, no.

Again, you're showing you're very low opinion of mankind here.

Did you ever consider that people might behave themselves for reason other than fear of damnation? doesn't sound like it.

Hmmm. Let's pull that apart. First, you bring in damnation, which is interesting. Note that I didn't say anything about damnation - all I've talked about so far is the question of ethics and morals from an atheistic and theistic viewpoint. While your comment is an excellent starting point for a discussion, it's a bit too broad for right now, though perhaps we can come back to it!

I never even said that I thought that an atheist is bad per se, just that without a theistic worldview it is impossible to objectively say an action is "good" or "evil".

I did NOT say NO standard. Each person has then own standard, huge difference, some people will behave in a way that is conducive to a peaceful society, and others may not.

Also, were talking about moral right/wrong here. If you get too far out there, the legal system may kick in.

Another two interesting points. If each person has their own standard (which is entirely possible yes) it is a standard based upon _feelings_ or _opinion_. Thus, there is NO absolute standard, only subjective standards. That is exactly what I said, and exactly what you disagreed with. I'd really like to understand what you're saying here, so please give more detail if you have time.

Second, don't you think that the legal system is a reflection of what we collectively think of as "wrong"? So, you can't appeal to it as some external standard, as it's really highly dependent on our internal standard.

Interesting in hearing your thoughts....

Richard

DrRichard · Post by **DrRichard** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 2:55 pm

On 2002-03-14 15:53, brownja wrote:
As Ravi Zacharias once said "In some countries they love their neighbours, based upon feelings. In other countries, they eat them. Do you have a personal preference?"
I love based on merit. Unconditional love is reserved for animals and children.
Adults have to abilty to earn love and should strive to do so.

p.s. i'm a vegetarian. Eating dead animals is always wrong, not just on friday's during lent.

Right, I understand what you're saying. But I think you're missing the point of the Ravi post - it is to show that if we define "right" and "wrong" simply by our feelings then there is really no objective meaning of "right" and "wrong" - it is simply a product of culture.

Richard

brownja · Post by **brownja** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:01 pm

On 2002-03-14 15:55, DrRichard wrote:
As Ravi Zacharias once said "In some countries they love their neighbours, based upon feelings. In other countries, they eat them. Do you have a personal preference?"
Right, I understand what you're saying. But I think you're missing the point of the Ravi post.

Would prefer this instead?

I love my neighbors, they taste just like Chicken.

-------
Sorry, couldn't resist.

JessieK · Post by **JessieK** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 3:33 pm

Richard,

The men who wrote the Bible lived with a viable moral code, one the lawmakers and citizens embraced. Most of the morals in the Bible, taken from society (not the other way around), are reasonable. Do you have to consult with God before you decide what to eat or what channel to watch on TV? Geez.

Jessie

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Thu Mar 14, 2002 4:06 pm

"I love my neighbors, they taste just like chicken."

Chicken? I like Chicken!