Originally posted by dj2beckerI am just waiting for a response from you. So tell me, do you feel that it is amoral of God to take someone's life? And if so, by whose moral standard?
I am just waiting for a response from you. So tell me, do you feel that it is amoral of God to take someone's life? And if so, by whose moral standard?
Do you want to hear a funny story? Well, never mind, I'm gonna tell you anyway! Y'know, when I was young my dad caught me smoking when I was about 14 years old. Oh you should have seen how my dad beat me up that day. I thought that was hell!
Then when I was about 18 years old, there was this pretty girl I liked so much. I brought her out to the movies one day. And when my dad found out, again I got some beating! He said I should be concentrating on my studies for my own future, you see.
Oh he was a very strict dad. Today I'm approaching 42 yrs old and I am a non-smoker. I am a happily married man with a 4 year old girl. Of course my dad smokes about 3 packets of cigarettes per day. He went through 2 heart operations when he got heart attacks. When he was about to be wheeled into the operating room, my mom who's his first wife with 6 of us children were there. And then his second wife was there too with her 2 kids. But his mistress couldn't make it because she was expecting her third child.
Your question on moral standard is very interesting. Actually Bosse had already answered your question, but let me repeat it anyway. It is based on God's standard. Thou shalt not kill (or something like that). It means, if I am not wrong, we are not allowed to kill others. For example, I would interpret Osama Bin Laden's act of bombing the tower as morally wrong based on this particular moral standard. But of course it's OK for God to go against His own standard when he drowned everyone-- including unborn infants.
Originally posted by dj2becker1) It does not logically follow from a discussion about morals that there is no absolute truth.
[b]Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.
This logically follows that there is no absolute truth. Which also logically follows that there is no absolute certainty. Which means you are the only one without certainty on this matter. So please hand over the soapbox to someone with a little more certainty than yourself.[/b]
2) It does not logically follow from a lack of absolute truth that absolute certainty is not possible. Truth and knowlegde of truth are not equivalent.
3) As we've been over many times in the past, even though your reasoning above is faulty, I do not have 100% certainty about anything. Neither do you, you only believe so based on a conceptual pyramid, experience and presupposing beliefs about god. From those you construct beliefs which you induce to be certain (eg that the sun will rise tomorrow), yet you have no way of proving them conclusively; it is possible that any one thing you are sure of could turn out to be wrong the next day. You can say in hindsight that things have happened and be pretty certain, but to claim absolute certainty is to throw out induction completely and I don't know a human being that could do that.
You're the one with the flimsy soapbox.
Originally posted by ckoh1965It was a nice story about standards and how people don't follow standards that they set for others. However that is not morals. Your father would probably not call smoking morally wrong.
Do you want to hear a funny story?
Most of us do not follow our own moral standards and often do not expect everyone else to be 100% strict in following them.
The question is, if I have all the information available about a particular action and judge it morally wrong, and somebody else judges it morally right. Is one of us wrong?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI was focusing more on the meaning of the word "absolute."
Actually his statement was absolutely right.
Keep in mind the two meanings of the words 'right' and 'wrong'
To claim, as you have, that "there is no absolute right or wrong." you would need to know everything.
Think about it .. you are claiming ABSOLUTELY that you are RIGHT in saying " there is no absolute right or wrong."
You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument.
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh! my mistake. Sorry. I have gone through a bit from the beginning of this thread, and now understand what this is all about. Let me see if I get this correct. It seems that someone is saying the moral standard by god is fixed, whereas those of the non-believers may be subject to their whimps and fancies?... well, I mean not in so many words?
It was a nice story about standards and how people don't follow standards that they set for others. However that is not morals. Your father would probably not call smoking morally wrong.
Most of us do not follow our own moral standards and often do not expect everyone else to be 100% strict in following them.
The question is, if I have all the informati ...[text shortened]... tion and judge it morally wrong, and somebody else judges it morally right. Is one of us wrong?
Since the atheist does not have an absolute moral reference point, adultery for example could easily be excused.
I've cut and pasted the above suggestion from an earlier thread by dj2. My response is: yes, maybe. Is that an issue? It doesn't really worry me because the moral standards of the world are in general more sensible and up to date; and thankfully many crimes like murder and rapes are considered morally wrong by our standards.
And I am not so sure that the moral standards set by god is fixed anyway. The behavior of the OT god appears to be far different from that of the NT god. Maybe god had a reconsideration in between and decided that times had changed and therefore introduced the changes to go along with time. Hell, I don't know, maybe it's time for another update?
Originally posted by jammerRubbish. Saying that you need to be absolute to argue against absoluteness just highlights the absurdity of the notion of absolute anything. It is a paradox, not a dismissive notion against relativity.
I was focusing more on the meaning of the word "absolute."
To claim, as you have, that "there is no absolute right or wrong." you would need to know everything.
Think about it .. you are claiming ABSOLUTELY that you are RIGHT in saying " there is no absolute right or wrong."
You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument.
Regardless of that nonsense, I originally said there was no absolute truth. I did not say 'there is absolutely no absolute truth' neither did I say 'there is absolutely no truth' both of which have entirely different meanings. Relativity is my arena of context, do not make the mistake of moving what I say into a world based upon absolutes.
Originally posted by Starrman"Regardless of that nonsense, I originally said there was no absolute truth." ... to which I said, "You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument."
Rubbish. Saying that you need to be absolute to argue against absoluteness just highlights the absurdity of the notion of absolute anything. It is a paradox, not a dismissive notion against relativity.
Regardless of that nonsense, I originally said there was no absolute truth. I did not say 'there is absolutely no absolute truth' neither did I say 'th ...[text shortened]... of context, do not make the mistake of moving what I say into a world based upon absolutes.
Then you attempt to backstep by saying " I did not say 'there is absolutely no absolute truth' (basicly, yes, you did) neither did I say 'there is absolutely no truth' (agreed) both of which have entirely different meanings.
What you did assert was "there is no absolute truth.", which, regardless of your attempt at circle-speak .. is an absolute statement.
Absolute truth is defined as an inflexable reality; fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
Absolute truth.
Originally posted by jammerThen absolute truth is the idea that paradoxes are impossible?
"Regardless of that nonsense, I originally said there was no absolute truth." ... to which I said, "You cannot argue against absolute truth unless an absolute truth is the basis of your argument."
Then you attempt to backstep by saying " I did not say 'there is absolutely no absolute truth' (basicly, yes, you did) neither did I say 'there is absolutely no ...[text shortened]... lutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
Absolute truth.
Originally posted by jammerI disagree. The context in which dj2becker has been using it is not the same as your context where you are talking about logical truth. In logic a statement can be true. Your example, based in logic is a logical truth and not a reality.
Absolute truth is defined as an inflexable reality; fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
Absolute truth.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's fine as long as your reality contains round squares and square circles.
I disagree. The context in which dj2becker has been using it is not the same as your context where you are talking about logical truth. In logic a statement can be true. Your example, based in logic is a logical truth and not a reality.
When you say "truth is relative", you're making an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. If 'truth is relative' were a "true" statement, then everything .. including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "truth is relative" is not always true, sometimes truth is not relative.
This means there ARE absolutes which means .. you're wrong.
Your argument contradicts itself.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf there is no transcendent God, there can be no such thing as true and absolute right. If there is no God, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasures and we cannot demand that they place society above themselves. We have no standard by which to prove that doing good to others is any better than ignoring the needs of others and doing good for oneself. In a world without God to underscore absolutes, we cannot expect anyone to live up to any standard society chooses to set up.
With my morals of course.
Each person has within them the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Now assuming that absolute truth exists, it would mean that there is an absolute moral moral standard which all people will follow. I contend, for example, that all people in their right state of mind would feel that it would be wrong for a pe ntly intelligent being is morally wrong.
[b]And if so, by whose moral standard?
Mine.[/b]
If there is no God, all rules are mere opinion and none have authority. If there is no God to give mankind hope for life after death, you may as well ignore any notions of righteousness that self-appointed moralists shove at you and get on with the business of doing only what you want to do. As Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky said: "If there is no immorality of the soul, there can be no virtue and therefore everything is permissible."
Originally posted by jammerMy reality doesn't contain circles or squares, they are construct in an imaginary logical world.
That's fine as long as your reality contains round squares and square circles.
When you say "truth is relative", you're making an absolute statement implying truth is absolutely relative. If 'truth is relative' were a "true" statement, then everything .. including that statement would be relative. If a statement is relative, it is not always true. If "trut ...[text shortened]... ere ARE absolutes which means .. you're wrong.
Your argument contradicts itself.
You are mixing up logical truth and reality.