In Your Mind You Know

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Andrew what is it that you are seeking to establish?, can you not say it plainly and without affectation? for it seems to me that you are concerned with semantics and trying to differentiate the difference between an act and its definition as a moral proposition and an entity that is not an act and is therefore not a proposition, if you can give an example, then i may fully grasp what it is you are seeking to establish!

….Andrew what is it that you are seeking to establish?,
..…

That it is logically impossible to deduce from the Bible (or from any other source for that matter) any “moral truths” -this is because you seem to think otherwise.

…can you not say it plainly and without affectation?
….

I have already.

…for it seems to me that you are concerned with semantics ..…

No, I am concerned with LOGIC.

…and trying to differentiate the difference between an act and its definition as a moral proposition and an entity that is not an act and is therefore not a proposition...…

What?
-don’t know what you mean:
Please bare in mind that what I mean by the word “proposition” in this context is the word “proposition” as defined in formal logic.
In formal logic, propositions are declarative sentences that are either true or false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

-please read the above link first so that you clearly understand -it is written plainly enough and defines exactly what the word means in logic and therefore exactly what I mean from it.

Now:
“..trying to differentiate the difference between an act and its definition as a moral proposition ..”? what do you mean by the “definition as a moral proposition” of an “act” that is not itself even a proposition! (i.e. a declarative statement that is either true or false)? -please clarify with an example.

“…and an entity that is not an act and is therefore not a proposition….”

An act such as the ACT of loving ones neighbour is not a “proposition” (please remember what I mean by “proposition” -it is “proposition” as in FORMAL LOGIC)
Because a “proposition” is a declarative sentence that is either true or false and the ACT of loving ones neighbour is not even a sentence 😛 -I am not sure if you doubt this and I am not saying/implying you do but, if you do, let me put it this way;
It is like saying “the physical act of jumping is a sentences” 😛 -what would that mean? -it would just be gobbledygook.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Andrew what is it that you are seeking to establish?,
..…

That it is logically impossible to deduce from the Bible (or from any other source for that matter) any “moral truths” -this is because you seem to think otherwise.

…can you not say it plainly and without affectation?
….

I have already.

…for it seems to me th ...[text shortened]... hysical act of jumping is a sentences” 😛 -what would that mean? -it would just be gobbledygook.

sorry after reading it twice i still do not know what you are trying to establish, either explain it plainly or give up, for it is, in its present form, beyond me, sorry!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
of course it matters what Paul meant, his counsel was primarily for the setting up and orderly running of the congregations, why should it not be organized? for when we look at the typical natural nation of Israel it too was incredibly organized, why should Gods people be any less organized in the christian area, the fact remains that the context sh ...[text shortened]... ect to God, thus it is not a mere office of servitude as you wrongly suggest, but a privilege!

if it matters what paul ment, i claim that it matters also what moses ment when he wrote genesis: he didn't mean the earth was created in 7 days but 15 billion years ago and that evolution was the primary phenomenon responsible for the creation of the species.

also i claim that noah's flood was not actually meant as a world wide flood that actually happened, but a symbol of renewal. gideon didn't actually won the war with 300 people, but more like 3 thousand.

would you agree to my interpretations of what was meant in the bible?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sorry after reading it twice i still do not know what you are trying to establish, either explain it plainly or give up, for it is, in its present form, beyond me, sorry!

…sorry after reading it twice i still do not know what you are trying to establish,….

I said it in the first sentence what it is I am “trying to establish“. Reminder:

“….Andrew what is it that you are seeking to establish?,
..…

That it is logically impossible to deduce from the Bible (or from any other source for that matter) any “moral truths” -this is because you seem to think otherwise. “

….for it is, in its present form, beyond me..…

So plain English is beyond you?
Can you point which part of that first sentence you don’t understand and why?

I have just a small suspicion you may understand perfectly but just don’t want to engage in an argument about logic that you are ill-equipped to handle -after all, I presume you have never studied formal logic but I have.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
if it matters what paul ment, i claim that it matters also what moses ment when he wrote genesis: he didn't mean the earth was created in 7 days but 15 billion years ago and that evolution was the primary phenomenon responsible for the creation of the species.

also i claim that noah's flood was not actually meant as a world wide flood that actually happe ...[text shortened]... re like 3 thousand.

would you agree to my interpretations of what was meant in the bible?

i agree to nothing! for interpretations belong to God!

So Joseph said to them: “Do not interpretations belong to God? - genesis 40:8

the bible is able to interpret itself Zahlanzi, thus introducing concepts that cannot be substantiated in scriptural will do you no good! you must look at the immediate context and the entirety to get a full understanding, cross referencing is also a must! so with reference to your assertions, there is no mention of the evolutionary hypothesis, the flood was substantiated both by peter and Christ, the mosaic law became obsolete is well documented by Paul etc etc, it it only when one goes beyond what is written that errors and dissension occur, this is why Christianity is in such a mess, for they have made the word of god invalid because they have superseded it with their own reasoning, when in fact it is perfectly capable of interpreting itself.

ps please be kind to me today for i have flu and a splitting headache.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b] …sorry after reading it twice i still do not know what you are trying to establish,….

I said it in the first sentence what it is I am “trying to establish“. Reminder:

“….Andrew what is it that you are seeking to establish?,
..…

That it is logically impossible to deduce from the Bible (or from any other source for that matt ...[text shortened]... sh is beyond you?
Can you point which part of that first sentence you don’t understand and why?[/b]

what is plain to you may not necessarily be plain to others, for example i had a friend from Glasgow, Gavin MacNay, he got a first class honors degree in mathematics at Glasgow university, wrote a treatise on number theory that approximately only five persons on the entire surface of the earth could understand, a brilliant mathematician, yet he could not pass even the basic elementary English ordinary grade examination, so you see Mr Hamilton what may be perfectly plain and apparent to you may not be to others, it does not mean that they are stupid, for what is the art of teaching but helping others to grasp what they perhaps were unable to do with their own perception, for which is it easier to do, explain a simple matter in a complicated way, or a complicated matter in a simple way?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i agree to nothing! for interpretations belong to God!

So Joseph said to them: “Do not interpretations belong to God? - genesis 40:8

the bible is able to interpret itself Zahlanzi, thus introducing concepts that cannot be substantiated in scriptural will do you no good! you must look at the immediate context and the entirety to get a full und ...[text shortened]... interpreting itself.

ps please be kind to me today for i have flu and a splitting headache.

oh, so when paul said "i shall not allow a woman to teach because she must be submissive and she is responsible for all sin in the world" it really was god who said, through his apostle Robbie carrobie, that it is not what he meant. so whenever someone interprets the bible, they are doing god's will

this is the pinnacle of arrogance to claim only your interpretation is correct. i cannot even find the words. paul said something quite clear, mysoginistic and outright wrong. and you come and say that is not what he meant, and base your claim on freakin nothing. how do you know what paul meant?

you and others like you are the reason dawkins claims religion is not a good idea. you and others like you will drive a faithful into atheism. someone less liberal than i will start calling himself an atheist just to not be associated with retards like you.

i have the flu too and i have no intention of being nice. i am all out of nice. when you figure out you have a brain and what its for we may discuss again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is plain to you may not necessarily be plain to others, for example i had a friend from Glasgow, Gavin MacNay, he got a first class honors degree in mathematics at Glasgow university, wrote a treatise on number theory that approximately only five persons on the entire surface of the earth could understand, a brilliant mathematician, yet he could ...[text shortened]... er to do, explain a simple matter in a complicated way, or a complicated matter in a simple way?

So tell me what you (and others?) don’t find "plain" about my answer in response to your question of what it is I am seeking to establish is:

“That it is logically impossible to deduce from the Bible (or from any other source for that matter) any “moral truths” -this is because you seem to think otherwise. “

-which part of the above sentence do you not understand?

…so you see Mr Hamilton what may be perfectly plain and apparent to you may not be to others, it does not mean that they are stupid, ..…

I don’t think "they" (who ever "they" are) are stupid because I presume "they" would understand my plain English.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So tell me what you (and others?) don’t find "plain" about my answer in response to your question of what it is I am seeking to establish is:

“That it is logically impossible to deduce from the Bible (or from any other source for that matter) any “moral truths” -this is because you seem to think otherwise. “

-which part of the above sentence d ...[text shortened]... ever "they" are) are stupid because I presume "they" would understand my plain English.

look, what is your objection?, that the bible contains, no moral truths, that it is impossible to define, comprehend and assimilate these moral truths, that there is no such thing as a moral truth, that even if there were we cannot trust them, that morality is in essence not based on logic, there is no such thing as truth and so it goes on and on- WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE SAYING- for goodness sake man, spit it out!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look, what is your objection?, that the bible contains, no moral truths, that it is impossible to define, comprehend and assimilate these moral truths, that there is no such thing as a moral truth, that even if there were we cannot trust them, that morality is in essence not based on logic, there is no such thing as truth and so it goes on and on- WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE SAYING- for goodness sake man, spit it out!

…that the bible contains, no moral truths, ….
…. that there is no such thing as a moral truth, that even if there were we cannot trust them, that morality is in essence not based on logic,
..…

Yes! that is it! The above propositions are EXACTLY what I am trying to establish.
So you DO understand what I am saying and at last we are in agreement 🙂

-the only problem is that this contradicts what you claim in a number of your previous posts:
Reminder of the whole of your post halfway down on page 7:

“ok, look, if i am able to take a portion of scripture, to look at the human, historical, archaeological and cultural aspects (the facts if you like) and to determine their authenticity, with reference, we may be certain that the event was a reality, as far as possible, for granted we were not there, but these little evidences lead us to conclude that the whole account is devoid of fabrication, it has 'the ring of truth', as we are wont to say, therefore if the events contain a spiritual dimension, or a MORAL TRUTH, BASED on the factual evidence which leads us to believe the legitimacy of the account, it leads us to accepting the MORALITY as being authentic as well, thus factual evidence is instrumental in helping us not only give credence to the account, but to accept its authority, and when we discern what the MORAL entity is, we can further VERIFY its 'authenticity', by application and observation of the results, as in the scientific model.” (my emphasise)

-you clearly speak of “MORAL TRUTH” in the above -so I presume here that you DID believe there is such thing as “MORAL TRUTH” but now you have changed your mind? -if so, I have clearly underestimated you a bit 🙂

You also say:

“….MORAL TRUTH, BASED on the factual evidence which leads us to believe the legitimacy of the account, it leads us to accepting the MORALITY as being authentic as well…
…
…and when we discern what the MORAL entity is, we can further VERIFY its 'authenticity', by application and observation of the results, as in the scientific model.””

-and this clearly contradicts the notion that morality is in essence not based on logic.
have you also changed your mind about that as well?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…that the bible contains, no moral truths, ….
…. that there is no such thing as a moral truth, that even if there were we cannot trust them, that morality is in essence not based on logic,
..…

Yes! that is it! The above propositions are EXACTLY what I am trying to establish.
So you DO understand what I am saying and at last we are in a ity is in essence not based on logic.
have you also changed your mind about that as well?[/b]

we may have reached a mutual understanding and i am happy that we have, but we do not agree, for there are many moral truths in scripture, that are clearly defined, easily understood and readily assimilated. whether you hold them to be true or otherwise is neither here nor there my learned friend, for everyone must of necessity develop some sort of morality, and not only are these truths self evident, but they are innate in every human being, the scriptures merely provide a record of their excellence as in the case of Christ and of their abuses, as in the case of others.

note how Paul alludes to this innate morality

For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused. - Romans 2:14 and 15

can you deny that in every culture, in every society, in every human there is a sense of morality, and when this morality is suppressed or conscience is suppressed by some ideology, as in the case of National Socialism, the results are horrific?

Originally posted by josephw
I am convinced, although atheists deny it, they struggles with knowing there is a God. Those who deny the existence of God do so by continually drowning out the knowledge of God that is in them. They have developed all sorts of strategies with which to stifle the voice within, but no matter how much they try, they just can't escape the sound of the truth of ...[text shortened]... that keeps crying out for the love they so desperately need, and know will come from only God.

Not everybody hears the voice. Some are so repulsed by let's say Christianity, that they throw the baby out with the bath water. I have that voice inside me yelling that I need to change my way of living, but I still carry on in the most common of ways'. Is this the Devil leading me down the path to Hell ? Or is it my own selfish need to do what comes easy, and without much effort ? Following a religious path is no cake walk if you are serious about it. It's also very troubling when you can't find one that makes any sense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
we may have reached a mutual understanding and i am happy that we have, but we do not agree, for there are many moral truths in scripture, that are clearly defined, easily understood and readily assimilated. whether you hold them to be true or otherwise is neither here nor there my learned friend, for everyone must of necessity develop some sort of ...[text shortened]... is suppressed by some ideology, as in the case of National Socialism, the results are horrific?

…for everyone must of necessity develop some sort of morality,..…

It was never “necessary“ for me to develop some sort of morality (unless you can define mertely my desires for kindness etc as “morality“ even though I have no “moral“ concepts! -but I don’t think that would be what is generally meant by the word “morality&ldquo😉.
I apply love, kindness, altruism etc because I want to and I want because of emotional reasons -no “moral” concept necessary.

…and not only are these truths self evident,..…

No -they are not. How are they “self evident“? through logic? Through empirical evidence through our physical senses?

-I though you just agreed that there are no “moral truths”? -you now appear to contradict this.

….but they are innate in every human being.…

Why then are they not “innate” in me?
(and please don’t tell me that they are but I deny it to myself -I do not pretend to know what goes in your mind better that you do so please don’t pretend to not know what goes in my mind better than I do)

….can you deny that in every culture, in every society, in every human there is a sense of morality, ..…

Of course I don’t deny it. Why should I deny that there is irrationality in every human society?

…and when this morality is suppressed or conscience is suppressed by some ideology, as in the case of National Socialism, the results are horrific?..…

I assume that what you mean by “National Socialism” is “nazism” and not “socialism”:

Of course I do not deny that if peoples irrational views on morality are suppressed than the result may be horrific. But note that I do not have any irrational views on morality to suppress! Therefore it is impossible to have my “morality suppressed” and, as a result, impossible to turn me into a nazi and impossible to persuade me to perform atrocities.
Instead of having “moral concepts“, I just apply my emotional desire to be kind etc -now if everyone was like me and wanted to apply kindness, altruism etc because they just except they generally want to because of emotional reasons and there is no need to try and “justify” that kindness, atheism etc with any “moral” concept, then everyone would be immune from things like nazi propaganda (because there would be no “moral” concept to suppress and they wouldn’t be behaving kindly almost exclusively as a result of their “moral” concepts) and there would be at least fewer wars (if not none) etc.

P.S. note that my above expressed opinions/attitudes may not be representative of those of most atheists (and probably are not).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…for everyone must of necessity develop some sort of morality,..…

It was never “necessary“ for me to develop some sort of morality (unless you can define mertely my desires for kindness etc as “morality“ even though I have no “moral“ concepts! -but I don’t think that would be what is generally meant by the word “morality&ldquo😉.
I apply love, ...[text shortened]... d opinions/attitudes may not be representative of those of most atheists (and probably are not).[/b]

what are you talking about, if someone came along and punched you on the nose for no reason, would you not then quite quickly form a sense of morality, i think you would! for your innate sense of justice would be incensed, you would say to yourself, i have been the victim of an injustice, my sense of morality is telling me this - to state anything to the contrary is delusional and untruthful, thus in every sense of the word it would be necessary for you to develop this sense of morality, if you did not, then according to your reasoning it would be perfectly legitimate for the same individual to come by every day and land you one on the nose and you would have no complaint! for given your incredulous reasoning it would be perfectly logical and rational for a person to do so!

these truths are self evident in that every society, in every normal functioning human being, there is an innate sense of morality, perhaps you can name one, in which a sense of morality is not present.

you are denying the facts and the findings of the Nuremberg trials, which states that every human being has a sense of morality and regardless of what the reasons are, this sense of human morality should supersede any reasons, thus your argument that reasons are the basis of moral concepts is nonsense!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what are you talking about, if someone came along and punched you on the nose for no reason, would you not then quite quickly form a sense of morality, i think you would! for your innate sense of justice would be incensed, you would say to yourself, i have been the victim of an injustice, my sense of morality is telling me this - to state anything t ...[text shortened]... ersede any reasons, thus your argument that reasons are the basis of moral concepts is nonsense!

…what are you talking about, if someone came along and punched you on the nose for no reason, would you not then quite quickly form a sense of morality,
.…

No, I would quickly form a sense of anger and hate that I would then want to suppress (which, by the way, I am very fortunate at being good at doing).
I would also obviously want to persuade him not to do it again -no “morality” involved -just emotions.

…your innate sense of justice would be incensed,
..…

I do not really have an “innate sense of justice” because I don’t think there is such thing as “justice“ in the moral sense. I would have an emotional desire for everybody to live at piece with each other and not to be cruel to each other etc -it would be these emotional desires that would be upset in me.

….it would be necessary for you to develop this sense of morality, if you did not, then according to your reasoning it would be perfectly legitimate for the same individual to come by every day and land you one on the nose and you would have no complaint!
.…

Wrong. I would complain. Not because of a “sense of morality” but because I don’t want to be in pain nor harmed.

….for given your incredulous reasoning it would be perfectly logical and rational for a person to do so! ..…

How so? Why would it be “logical” (according to my reasoning) for somebody to punch me on the nose?

…these truths are self evident in that every society, in every normal functioning human being, there is an innate sense of morality, perhaps you can name one, in which a sense of morality is not present. ..…

Andrew Hamilton

….you are denying the facts and the findings of the Nuremberg trials, which states that EVERY human being has a sense of morality
..… (my emphasis)

Well they got that bit wrong -unless they didn’t mean the word “EVERY” to be taken THAT literally?

…and regardless of what the reasons are, this sense of human morality should supersede any reasons, thus your argument that REASONS are the basis of moral concepts is nonsense!..… (my emphasis)

You have lost me -when did I say “REASONS are the basis of moral concepts”?
-And what does “REASONS are the basis of moral concepts” mean? -I mean, what kind of “REASONS” are you referring to in this context? -give me an example of one of these “REASONS”.