Absolute truth

Originally posted by sonship
[b]
I think Abraham was morally wrong to set about sacrificing his son on an altar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe so. But if a materialist atheist view is right - no credit to you for choosing to believe so. Somehow your chemistry deterministically fissed and bubbled atoms in ...[text shortened]... praise can be offered either way for the deterministic mechanics of a purely material universe.[/b]

Maybe so. But if a materialist atheist view is right - no credit to you for choosing to believe so. Somehow your chemistry deterministically fissed and bubbled atoms in your grey matter to make you think that.

There is no nobility in your "choosing" to judge Isaac on the altar as morally wrong.
"Good" atoms somehow are prevailing over "bad" atoms along the lines of your central nervous system and brain matter.

It all a material reaction.
isn't that the case with atheism ?

No that is not the case with atheism, though there has historically been a school of thought labelled Positivism that tried to make this profoundly reductionist model of science credible. It is nonsense and its advocates are idiots in my view. Feel free to mock them, but label them correctly as "Positivists," not Scientists, Materialists or other terms that allow very different philosophies. Marx for example explained social phenomena according to the principles of classical economics and not chemistry. When he demanded a materialist explanation, he did not seek or expect let alone offer a discussion about chemistry or physics. That would be stupid and you are trying to imply materialists are stupid.

To keep things simple, the response to Reductionism is to refer to "levels of explanation" and "emergent properties of systems." It would be absurd and also meaningless to discuss the best route from London to Edinburgh in terms of the chemistry of the internal combustion engine. It would also be absurd to hope you could drive that far without enough petrol, because so much would be consumed through the internal combustion process. There is no property of petrol that could be analysed and projected forward to predict a good route although petrol consumption might be a variable to take into account.

That is as much as you deserve to refute your absurd argument about materialist morals. Try again, Try harder.

Originally posted by finnegan
You are mistaken.

As a matter of fact, there is no circumstance in which I would judge or evaluate torturing of babies for fun (let's say TBFF) as morally acceptable - none whatsoever.

When my personal morality is engaged in the matter, I will always make the same moral choice.

It does not follow that this renders my moral judgement "absolute. ...[text shortened]... set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.

Excellent post.

Originally posted by finnegan
[quote]Maybe so. But if a materialist atheist view is right - no credit to you for choosing to believe so. Somehow your chemistry deterministically fissed and bubbled atoms in your grey matter to make you think that.

There is no nobility in your "choosing" to judge Isaac on the altar as morally wrong.
"Good" atoms somehow are prevailing over "bad" ato ...[text shortened]... as you deserve to refute your absurd argument about materialist morals. Try again, Try harder.

Could you enumerate then the kinds of Atheisms you are apparently well versed in? And let me know which one describes best your own brand.

And do you really want to call your comrades "idiots" ? I didn't call them idiots. If I was only speaking to "Positivism" atheism (if that was the case) I was simply demonstrating that I think that view comes to a dead end.

I thought you were going to say that I was not speaking to a Compatibalist like ethicest Shelley Kagin. But I would have to yet again go through one of his debates.

And, while I "Try Harder" maybe you could, uh, "try harder" to understand the Bible better too, maybe ? Or is that different ?

Originally posted by finnegan
You are mistaken.

As a matter of fact, there is no circumstance in which I would judge or evaluate torturing of babies for fun (let's say TBFF) as morally acceptable - none whatsoever.

When my personal morality is engaged in the matter, I will always make the same moral choice.

It does not follow that this renders my moral judgement "absolute. ...[text shortened]... set of standards, because apart from anything else it would have to be revised almost every day.

How can you rationally defend the proposition that there are no intrinsic moral values to any action? How do you "know" your assertion is true?

If no rational basis can be offered, then your statement is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and subjective opinions do not establish truth.


To say that "There are no intrinsic moral values to anything whether it is action, thought, or intention" is to assert a universally true statement about the moral value of everything. Therefore, the statement itself contains an intrinsically moral value and is self-refuting.


If there are no such things as universally moral truths, then all morals decided upon by people are necessarily subjective. But, if moral values are subjective, then everyone is "right" from his own perspective. The problem is that it cannot be true that all people are right morally when they contradict each other. Therefore, this is also self-refuting.

On the other hand if you agree that it is always wrong to torture babies for fun then you are agreeing to an objective truth which is a moral absolute. This has nothing to do with arrogance. It is just a simple fact.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How can you rationally defend the proposition that there are no intrinsic moral values to any action? How do you "know" your assertion is true?

If no rational basis can be offered, then your statement is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and subjective opinions do not establish truth.


To say that "There are no intrinsic moral values to a ...[text shortened]... ruth which is a moral absolute. This has nothing to do with arrogance. It is just a simple fact.

'If no rational basis can be offered, then your statement is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and subjective opinions do not establish truth.'



You can offer no rational basis for belief in a divine being. By your own reckoning, that makes your belief a subjective opinion that can not establish truth.

Someone tell me - Which do you think is more certainly and solidly known ?

1.) Carbon atoms exist

2.) It is wrong to torture babies for amusing entertainment

Which of these two would you say has been more definitely realized throughout human history ?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'If no rational basis can be offered, then your statement is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and subjective opinions do not establish truth.'



You can offer no rational basis for belief in a divine being. By your own reckoning, that makes your belief a subjective opinion that can not establish truth.

You can offer no rational basis for belief in a divine being.

Is your statement a universally true statement or merely your subjective opinion?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]You can offer no rational basis for belief in a divine being.

Is your statement a universally true statement or merely your subjective opinion?[/b]

The former.

Originally posted by sonship
Someone tell me - Which do you think is more certainly and solidly known ?

1.) Carbon atoms exist

2.) It is wrong to torture babies for amusing entertainment

Which of these two would you say has been more definitely realized throughout human history ?

The former.

Originally posted by sonship
Could you enumerate then the kinds of Atheisms you are apparently well versed in? And let me know which one describes best your own brand.

And do you really want to call your comrades "idiots" ? I didn't call them [b]idiots. If I was only speaking to "Positivism" atheism (if that was the case) I was simply demonstrating that I think that v ...[text shortened]... you could, uh, "try harder" to understand the Bible better too, maybe ? Or is that different ?[/b]

One type of atheism is sufficient for this discussion.

There is no necessary dependence of atheism on Positivism nor, generally, on Reductionism of the extreme and highly unusual kind that would say human behaviour can be reduced to the meaningless / arbitrary interactions of chemicals.

You are the one making the claim and it is up to you, not me, to substantiate your unfounded claim. If you do not even understand the basic terms, then your prospects of justifying your argument look slim.

To help you out, I do know that there are some atheists who would make the kind of statement you invoke. There are also some atheists who prefer cats to dogs and some who favour brown leather shoes rather than black ones.

You can google Positivism and find, among other things, this quote:

German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, Nobel laureate for pioneering work in quantum mechanics, distanced himself from positivism by saying:
The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies.

[Aside: Amusingly enough (ho ho ho) this quote represents Positivism by invoking the (first) philosophy of Wittgenstein as set out in Tractatus, notably its famous final sentence. In fact, Wittgenstein himself was appalled that the Postivists thought their opinions matched his philosophy, met them in Vienna to tell them they were wrong, and in any case he later rejected his own philosophy and developed an alternative one.]

Originally posted by finnegan

One type of atheism is sufficient for this discussion.

You singled out Positivism, called them idiots, and gave the impression that I was unfamiliar with all but THAT form of materialistic Atheism.

Your reluctance to indicate other forms, makes me think the former proposed expertise was a bluff.

Either that or you want to remain ambiguous enough to be unassailable. I thought you Atheists were big on falsifyability in the search for truth.

There is no necessary dependence of atheism on Positivism nor, generally, on Reductionism of the extreme and highly unusual kind that would say human behaviour can be reduced to the meaningless / arbitrary interactions of chemicals.

Extremely popular Atheists like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins seem to lean heavily of reduction of all reality to material matters.

Their the ones selling lots of books and saying things like the Universe is all that is, ever was and ever will be. So they get critiqued. And I suppose now you have critiqued them too as "idiots".

You are the one making the claim and it is up to you, not me, to substantiate your unfounded claim.

And providing no list of kinds of Atheism and docking all labels to identify your own brand you hope will make that more difficult.

"One type of atheism is sufficient for this discussion"

How do I know that if I show problem with another form of Atheism as your Positivism you won't just say again - "Well you're only talking about the idiots who push that one brand which I don't agree with." ?

If you do not even understand the basic terms, then your prospects of justifying your argument look slim.

Ah yes. Can't even talk about it.

I don't claim you have nothing to say about the Bible because apparently quite a few themes you seem ignorant of.

When you mentioned Abraham and Isaac and the sacrifice on Mt. Moriah I didn't shew you away with "Not Qualified to Discuss" excuse. Are you some sort of elitist ?

So then who is your favorite Atheist thinker purporting that transcendent abstractions of a non-material nature do exist - IE. a transcendent standard of right and wrong which was here even before man existed or evolved?

If Reductionism to materialism is only done by idiots then whose your champion to argue something not material is there to judge ethical matters in reference to ?

To help you out, I do know that there are some atheists who would make the kind of statement you invoke.

You already told me about those "idiots" We're beyond that now. Right ?

There are also some atheists who prefer cats to dogs and some who favour brown leather shoes rather than black ones.

Now that's real heavy.

You can google Positivism ...

I said we're beyond this Positivism thing now. Right?
That's not your brand.
So what is ? I mean if you were in a conversation with other Atheists with whom you did not agree, what would you tell them of the brand of Atheist philosophy which describes your opinion ?

Refer me to your non-Positivist Atheist thinkers.

and find, among other things, this quote:
German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg, Nobel laureate for pioneering work in quantum mechanics, distanced himself from positivism by saying:

I know about that. I have seen that issue before.

The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies.


[Aside: Amusingly enough (ho ho ho) this quote represents Positivism by invoking the (first) philosophy of Wittgenstein as set out in Tractatus, notably its famous final sentence. In fact, Wittgenstein himself was appalled that the Postivists thought their opinions matched his philosophy, met them in Vienna to tell them they were wrong, and in any case he later rejected his own philosophy and developed an alternative one.]

Careful now. Remember the entire burden is all on me, you said. Shhhhhh!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The former.

Are you sure Duke ?

Look, the knowledge of carbon atoms is relatively recent. And it is rather evolving. Fifty years from now what we say about carbon atoms may be entirely revised by other information.

I often refer to the cute cartoon I saw with some scientists around some complex equations on a blackboard. One of them is saying sadly -

"The most depressing thing is that one day everything we believe here today will be proved wrong."

One thousand years ago, don't you think people were far more conversant about the evil of torturing babies for entertainment then they were convesant about the carbon atom? I do.

Fifty years from now, I do expect the textbooks to have virtually replaced all current information about the carbon atom with new models today unknown. But the torturing of newborn babies for fun? I think the scope of people still clear that that is wrong will be much wider than those who can explain the carbon atom (if they even CALL it that by then).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
The former.

Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute.

Can you offer a rational basis for the existence of absolute truth?

A while ago you said truth cannot be absolute. Have you changed your mind about that?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Ok so a theists moral absolute point of reference is God, what is an atheists moral absolute point of reference? Atoms?

I can only speak for myself, not all the other atheists in the world. Some of them are as crazy as you religious folk.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute.

Can you offer a rational basis for the existence of absolute truth?

A while ago you said truth cannot be absolute. Have you changed your mind about that?

More importantly, do you have no radar whatsoever for sarcasm?