"So - Are OMFs just a concept in men's minds ? Or are they part of external reality?
You still seem to baulk from this question , however , I suspect that you realise how important the answer might be."
So, WTF did you mean when you asked me whether they are " ...[text shortened]... You are, quite frankly, a waste of time on this issue. Sorry to have to tell you that.
Look, if you still just don't get it: my point that I have been pushing is that whatever you want to claim about morality the atheist can simply offer a dialectically symmetric position.
-----ljello-----------
But that's the whole point. The only way the Atheist can keep up in this area is to offer something symmetrical to theism that either has profound implications for their world view or is just a feint copy of theism.
I don't think you or Lord shark understand that to say there really are OMFs is quite a statement.
Originally posted by Lord Shark [b]Theism pins it's colours to the mast about morality and unequivocally places morality in the realm of the real , the realm of external reality. I disagree. How is invoking 'the holy spirit' any use at all in describing in detail what is going on? How does it work? How is god part of the physical universe? If god isn't part of the physical universe ...[text shortened]... t now I must conclude that you are incapable of processing the experience in some way.[/b]
If god isn't part of the physical universe, then in what sense is an OMF within 'the realm of external reality'?
----------shark -----------
He is though. In the sense that he is present within the universe and also beyond it. In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? You are making a statement of faith about what you believe is the nature of reality. However , I believe that this physical universe is a pale shadow of the glorious eternal (spiritual) reality from which it sprang. To my world view , God is more real than what you call "reality".
Hey , but at least we can start a discussion on Christian OMFs and debate them. I can't seem to do this with Atheist OMFs because I'm still unsure what model/idea I am supposed to dispute. Is the idea that morality is woven into the physical laws of the universe at the big bang?
Originally posted by knightmeister If god isn't part of the physical universe, then in what sense is an OMF within 'the realm of external reality'?
----------shark -----------
He is though. In the sense that he is present within the universe and also beyond it. In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? You are making a sta s the idea that morality is woven into the physical laws of the universe at the big bang?
I'm not an expert in such matters but...
Your defininition of your God, creator of the universe, being the font of all morality is just as arbitrary as someone else claiming their God, creator of the universe is morally beholdant to 'Hashnu the capricious magic pot', font of all morality. How does your god vindicate an argument (from it's own *subjective* standpoint) it is to be ground zero for morality???
I, an atheist, don't even believe in OMFs but see no reason why an atheist can't merely copy a theist and define a set of morals which exist as brute facts independent of whether humans exist to adhere to them or not (or a universe in which they may be adhered to).
Like flaying youngsters alive is objectively wrong in the same way 1+2=2 is objectively wrong.
Originally posted by knightmeister If god isn't part of the physical universe, then in what sense is an OMF within 'the realm of external reality'?
----------shark -----------
He is though. In the sense that he is present within the universe and also beyond it. In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? You are making a sta ...[text shortened]... s the idea that morality is woven into the physical laws of the universe at the big bang?
He is though. In the sense that he is present within the universe and also beyond it. Ah, I see.
In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? Well, we'd have to think up a new name in that case wouldn't we? How about 'the physical-spiritual universe'?
You are making a statement of faith about what you believe is the nature of reality. No, I don't think I have done that. I have just posed questions that you have been unable to answer.
However , I believe that this physical universe is a pale shadow of the glorious eternal (spiritual) reality from which it sprang. To my world view , God is more real than what you call "reality". I'm afraid it still does no explanatory work.
Hey , but at least we can start a discussion on Christian OMFs and debate them. I can't seem to do this with Atheist OMFs because I'm still unsure what model/idea I am supposed to dispute. Well since you seem incapable of even noticing the model/idea I shoved under your nose several times, let's run with yours here:
Is the idea that morality is woven into the physical laws of the universe at the big bang? Could you explain in detail why you think this is less plausible than the vague anthropomorphic narrative you prefer?
Originally posted by Lord Shark He is though. In the sense that he is present within the universe and also beyond it. Ah, I see.
In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? Well, we'd have to think up a new name in that case wouldn't we? How about 'the physical-spiritual universe'?
You are making a state you think this is less plausible than the vague anthropomorphic narrative you prefer?
In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? Well, we'd have to think up a new name in that case wouldn't we? How about 'the physical-spiritual universe'? That made me laugh!...cheers :]
Originally posted by Lord Shark [b]He is though. In the sense that he is present within the universe and also beyond it. Ah, I see.
In any case , who is to say that this physical universe is purely physical( and not also spiritual)? Well, we'd have to think up a new name in that case wouldn't we? How about 'the physical-spiritual universe'?
You are making a state ...[text shortened]... you think this is less plausible than the vague anthropomorphic narrative you prefer?
Could you explain in detail why you think this is less plausible than the vague anthropomorphic narrative you prefer?
--------------shark-------------
I didn't say anything about it's plausibility. I am simply saying that at least Theism has a narrative and a structured idea of OMFs - offer me an alternative narrative and I will tell you if I think it is vague or not.
On what basis would an Atheist claim there to be such a thing as an objective moral fact that is indisputable and absolute? What world view or narrative are you talking about?
Originally posted by Agerg I'm not an expert in such matters but...
Your defininition of your God, creator of the universe, being the font of all morality is just as arbitrary as someone else claiming their God, creator of the universe is morally beholdant to 'Hashnu the capricious magic pot', font of all morality. How does your god vindicate an argument (from it's own *subjective* s ...[text shortened]... flaying youngsters alive is objectively wrong in the same way 1+2=2 is objectively wrong.
I, an atheist, don't even believe in OMFs but see no reason why an atheist can't merely copy a theist and define a set of morals which exist as brute facts independent of whether humans exist to adhere to them or not
------------------agerg-------------
There is no reason why an Atheist cannot copy aspects of Theism and define a set of morals in that way.
The question would then be - would it still be proper Atheism and what would be the implications of such a world view?
For example , there's nothing to stop a socialist proposing a tax free society , anti union legislation and a total free market economy but one could then rightly question whether such a person was really a socialist. There's nothing to stop him other than his committment to his own political beliefs and the integrity of them.
Originally posted by knightmeister I, an atheist, don't even believe in OMFs but see no reason why an atheist can't merely copy a theist and define a set of morals which exist as brute facts independent of whether humans exist to adhere to them or not
------------------agerg-------------
There is no reason why an Atheist cannot copy aspects of Theism and define a set of morals in th stop him other than his committment to his own political beliefs and the integrity of them.
The question would then be - would it still be proper Atheism and what would be the implications of such a world view? Why would I fail to be a non-believer in gods if I decided, as an axiom, that the insinuation one should ever flay babies alive is objectively morally wrong?
I'll make my point again, you take it as an axiom that your god is ground-zero for morality...this is just as arbitrary as me claiming my mother is ground zero for morality.
Originally posted by Agerg [b]The question would then be - would it still be proper Atheism and what would be the implications of such a world view? Why would I fail to be a non-believer in gods if I decided, as an axiom, that the insinuation one should ever flay babies alive is objectively morally wrong?
I'll make my point again, you take it as an axiom that your god is grou ...[text shortened]... for morality...this is just as arbitrary as me claiming my mother is ground zero for morality.[/b]
I'll make my point again, you take it as an axiom that your god is ground-zero for morality...this is just as arbitrary as me claiming my mother is ground zero for morality.
------agerg---------------
I don't see how that can be.
It makes no sense to claim that your mother is ground zero for all morality because she is just a human being. Unless you are claiming that your mother is the immutable , omnipotent uncaused cause of all reality? I know mothers can be very powerful characters in many cultures............. but really?
Originally posted by Agerg [b]The question would then be - would it still be proper Atheism and what would be the implications of such a world view? Why would I fail to be a non-believer in gods if I decided, as an axiom, that the insinuation one should ever flay babies alive is objectively morally wrong?
I'll make my point again, you take it as an axiom that your god is grou ...[text shortened]... for morality...this is just as arbitrary as me claiming my mother is ground zero for morality.[/b]
Why would I fail to be a non-believer in gods if I decided, as an axiom, that the insinuation one should ever flay babies alive is objectively morally wrong?
-----------agerg-------------------
Many Atheists have failed to think about this question and what it really means to say thet OMFs exist.
If you say that flaying babies is objectively wrong(FBIOW) then you are saying it is not a matter of opinion. The idea that FBIOW must correlate to some objective reality outside of men's minds in order for it to be true. What objective reality might that be do you think? Have you REALLY thought about the implications of this simple little statement (FBIOW)
The idea that FBIOW must correlate to some objective reality outside of men's minds in order for it to be true.
That doesn't really follow. Surely it is enough for it to be considered morally wrong according to the agreed ethics and morals of the society in question. These ethics and morals are evolved and agreed concepts rather than objective facts, but they're still real, aren't they?
Originally posted by knightmeister Could you explain in detail why you think this is less plausible than the vague anthropomorphic narrative you prefer?
--------------shark-------------
I didn't say anything about it's plausibility. I am simply saying that at least Theism has a narrative and a structured idea of OMFs - offer me an alternative narrative and I will tell you if I think ...[text shortened]... al fact that is indisputable and absolute? What world view or narrative are you talking about?
I didn't say anything about it's plausibility. I am simply saying that at least Theism has a narrative and a structured idea of OMFs It has a narrative but you have offered nothing definite in terms of structure.
You yourself just offered an atheist narrative, and I went with that. Before that I offered you another. About three times.
I think the reason you cannot see these as narratives is that they don't fit your template, which is mythical.
On what basis would an Atheist claim there to be such a thing as an objective moral fact that is indisputable and absolute? What world view or narrative are you talking about? You just gave one! It was the idea that morality is woven into the physical laws of the universe at the big bang. What's the matter? Not enough supernatural characters in it for you? Well you can't please everybody 🙂
By the way, it doesn't follow that if a moral fact is objective then it is indisputable.
Originally posted by knightmeister I'll make my point again, you take it as an axiom that your god is ground-zero for morality...this is just as arbitrary as me claiming my mother is ground zero for morality.
------agerg---------------
I don't see how that can be.
It makes no sense to claim that your mother is ground zero for all morality because she is just a human being. Unles ...[text shortened]... ity? I know mothers can be very powerful characters in many cultures............. but really?
It makes no sense to claim that your mother is ground zero for all morality because she is just a human being. Unless you are claiming that your mother is the immutable , omnipotent uncaused cause of all reality? I know mothers can be very powerful characters in many cultures............. but really? WTF has (supposedly) being uncaused creator of universes got to do with it??? 😕 She could be uncaused creator of all Gods who in turn create universes she currently dwells in for all I care...setting her, me, Allah, apples, or your God as ground zero for morality is completely arbitrary.
If your god says flaying babies alive is a good thing to do on saturdays (say, to prove your unquestioning love for him), then accepting your claim that what your god says is morally correct is an objective fact then we must always strive to flay at least one baby alive every saturday.
--> *I DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR CLAIM* <-- (running out of ways to emphasise that further), even if your god exists, that it's sense of morality is any less subjective than my own. (again...I don't personally hold a positive belief in objective morality)
Originally posted by knightmeister Why would I fail to be a non-believer in gods if I decided, as an axiom, that the insinuation one should ever flay babies alive is objectively morally wrong?
-----------agerg-------------------
Many Atheists have failed to think about this question and what it really means to say thet OMFs exist.
If you say that flaying babies is objectively think? Have you REALLY thought about the implications of this simple little statement (FBIOW)
Many Atheists have failed to think about this question and what it really means to say thet OMFs exist.
If you say that flaying babies is objectively wrong(FBIOW) then you are saying it is not a matter of opinion. The idea that FBIOW must correlate to some objective reality outside of men's minds in order for it to be true. What objective reality might that be do you think? Have you REALLY thought about the implications of this simple little statement (FBIOW)
What objective *reality* outside of man's mind allows us to say 1+1=2 is an objective fact? I don't accept the premises of your argument.
Your claim that we atheists have failed to think about this question is based on a faulty construction of it on your part.
Originally posted by Agerg [b]It makes no sense to claim that your mother is ground zero for all morality because she is just a human being. Unless you are claiming that your mother is the immutable , omnipotent uncaused cause of all reality? I know mothers can be very powerful characters in many cultures............. but really? WTF has (supposedly) being uncaused creator of univ ...[text shortened]... jective than my own. (again...I don't personally hold a positive belief in objective morality)[/b]
then accepting your claim that what your god says is morally correct is an objective fact then we must always strive to flay at least one baby alive every saturday.
--------agerg--------------
You haven't the foggiest idea of what the actual conception of the Christian God actually is. OMFs are based on God's nature (ie what he is like) . He is holy and righteous , that's his nature - just like it's the nature of gravity to cause the earth to orbit the sun. His nature is what it is. He can't not be God . That's why Jesus had to come because his righteousness couldn't just "overlook" sin and pretend it wasn't there - he had to do something to deal with sin that also reconciled us with his nature. You treat God as if he could just snap his fingers and not be God.
what is real?
14 Apr '10 22:08
Back to Top