Proof there is no god:

Originally posted by apathist
You're not thinking this through. I mean, if you were to switch (for argument) to your opponent's view, you already know my answer.

You see, I can judge those contradictory actions through [b]my moral lens; or I can imagine the view through the lens of either of the conflicting sides. Of course, it's my view that I find valuable.[/b]

So if morality is only subjective what's the point? It means any given action can be good for one person and evil for another person. So good and evil is really meaningless. But there are certain things we know in reality are always evil or always good regardless of what someone else may think.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if morality is only subjective what's the point? It means any given action can be good for one person and evil for another person. So good and evil is really meaningless.

Morality is subjective, and I'll prove it. Watch:

But there are certain things we know in reality are always evil or always good regardless of what someone else may think.
See? Your own opinion, your own feelings and thoughts about right and wrong are exactly where your own morals come from.

Originally posted by apathist
Morality is subjective, and I'll prove it. Watch:

[b]But there are certain things we know in reality are always evil or always good regardless of what someone else may think.
See? Your own opinion, your own feelings and thoughts about right and wrong are exactly where your own morals come from.[/b]

So in essence you are claiming that nothing really is right or wrong in reality?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I guess you have concluded this based upon the undeniable evidence of your flashbacks as a mosquito in one of your previous lives?

Why is it, pray tell, that when you argue that two competing claims on truth can not both be right, it always happens to be your version of the truth that is the correct one?

Funny that...

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why is it, pray tell, that when you argue that two competing claims on truth can not both be right, it always happens to be your version of the truth that is the correct one?

Funny that...

It's only if they are contradictory claims. For example if one religion claims that Jesus died on the cross and another religion claims that he didn't they can't both be right. If I find the evidence more compelling that he did die I'm obviously going to believe the one that has the most compelling evidence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if morality is only subjective what's the point? It means any given action can be good for one person and evil for another person. So good and evil is really meaningless.

Actually the exact opposite is the correct conclusion. Good and evil are pure meaning free from being properties of entities. Meaning is subjective by nature so anything that is meaningful is necessarily subjective. If good and evil were not subjective they could not be meaningful.
The sky is blue. That is a non-subjective fact. It is not meaningful.
The blue sky may have subjective meaning to me, but that is not the same thing at all as the fact of its blueness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually the exact opposite is the correct conclusion. Good and evil are pure meaning free from being properties of entities. Meaning is subjective by nature so anything that is meaningful is necessarily subjective. If good and evil were not subjective they could not be meaningful.
The sky is blue. That is a non-subjective fact. It is not meaningful.
Th ...[text shortened]... ave subjective meaning to me, but that is not the same thing at all as the fact of its blueness.

Of course it is meaningful to say the sky is objectively blue. It would be meaningless to say the sky was blue if no one could agree on what blue was.

If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?

Originally posted by dj2becker
It's only if they are contradictory claims. For example if one religion claims that Jesus died on the cross and another religion claims that he didn't they can't both be right. If I find the evidence more compelling that he did die I'm obviously going to believe the one that has the most compelling evidence.

Again, if 'YOU' find the evidence compelling.

You get that 'your' opinion doesn't put the stamp on truth,...right? (Irrespective of whether or not 'you' believe it).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Again, if 'YOU' find the evidence compelling.

You get that 'your' opinion doesn't put the stamp on truth,...right? (Irrespective of whether or not 'you' believe it).

To me it does. Who else other than me is supposed to decide what I believe to be true? Obviously I will believe that something is true if I find the evidence for it to be compelling. All religions are mutually exclusive by nature, they can't all be totally true. They could all be false. However there may be more than one religion that contains the same truth. For example if it is true that there is only one God, the religions that teach that contain that part of the truth.

Originally posted by dj2becker
To me it does. Who else other than me is supposed to decide what I believe to be true? Obviously I will believe that something is true if I find the evidence for it to be compelling. All religions are mutually exclusive by nature, they can't all be totally true. They could all be false. However there may be more than one religion that contains the same tru ...[text shortened]... s true that there is only one God, the religions that teach that contain that part of the truth.

Dude, let's break it down so you fully understand the difference.

1. What you believe to be true, is true for 'YOU.' (Based on evidence 'YOU' find compelling).- Correct.

2. Because 'YOU' find something compelling doesn't make it true to everybody else. Indeed, the thing you believe to be true could just as easily be untrue. - Also correct.

3. A Hindu believing in many Gods may be just as convinced as you are that they have the truth, that they have compelling evidence. - Correct again.

4. Contradictory truths can not all be true, but you stating your truth is the correct truth, because you personally find it compelling, is a nonsense. - Once again, correct.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Dude, let's break it down so you fully understand the difference.

1. What you believe to be true, is true for 'YOU.' (Based on evidence 'YOU' find compelling).- Correct.

2. Because 'YOU' find something compelling doesn't make it true to everybody else. Indeed, the thing you believe to be true could just as easily be untrue. - Also correct.

3 ...[text shortened]... correct truth, because you personally find it compelling, is a nonsense. - Once again, correct.

5. The fact that I find something convincing could also be because... wait for it... it actually is true. - Correct?

Originally posted by dj2becker
5. The fact that I find something convincing could also be because... wait for it... it actually is true. - Correct?

Indeed, but it advances you not one iota in laying any claims on absolute truth. You being convinced by something is quite meaningless in the great scheme of things.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So in essence you are claiming that nothing really is right or wrong in reality?

I claimed the opposite. Do you claim your opinions on right and wrong should be dismissed?

Originally posted by dj2becker
5. The fact that I find something convincing could also be because... wait for it... it actually is true. - Correct?

Hey people? dj has the real dope.

Originally posted by dj2becker
5. The fact that I find something convincing could also be because... wait for it... it actually is true. - Correct?

No - not really.

Finding something convincing will depend on the evidence supporting it.
Not whether it is true or not.

The truthfulness of anything is independent of how "convinced" you are.