Lay it all out!

Posts and comments by soldieroftruth77

Page 1 2 3 4 » 84 comments
Like I said, it comes down to bias. Clearly you WANT to be able to define good and bad so it suits your life, rather than the other way around. We can go back and forth all day on this but I don't think it'll do any good unless we agree on that basic premise.

This is what happened in the garden of eden when the serpent deceived eve, with the proposition that she could "play God", defining good and evil for herself.

Maybe I'm wrong and morality is subjective, but that just seems a little self centered to me. You do you man.

0
Morality, as far as my biblical understanding, is a gauge for the intended purpose of our lives. Sin is basically a violation of purpose (either your own, or anothers). So basically, if there is no God, there is no purpose (random universe, pure chance), and therefore no need for morality.

Quite simply put, I believe our purpose is to love God and love one another as Jesus said (which morality shows us how to do), but in a meaningless world, it all becomes entirely subjective how we treat one another.

Laws are based on "morals" but of course we don't want to strictly impose things that interfere with our freedom to live our lives as we choose, so long as we don't violate the freedom of others in the process. At least in America, the role of the government has been to protect individual liberty, and the laws exist to do just that. But this value of freedom, was adopted from the Christian principles of the reformation.

0
You really enjoy picking fights with strangers don't you? You get something out of it? Dopamine reward for being right?
0
Yup. I'm the weird one. Again with the name calling and accusations. Great way to win an argument
0
You're right. You totally won this youtube argument. I've given up my beliefs and converted to atheism. Congratulations!
0
I'm still guessing you still think this conversation is going anywhere
0
Morality isn't even a concern if there is no God. Thats my point. Morality 101
0
I'm confused because I thought words didn't exist. So this conversation isn't happening. Where am I? Help!
0
Sure they can
0
Aaand we've resorted to insults. My words (that don't exist) got you all upset. Isn't that ironic.
0
I suggest you study how language works. It will make sense.
0
The constitution was based on objective Christian values and the idea that our rights were bestowed upon us by a creator.

I don't agree that morality has ever changed, just that we have gotten closer to a better understanding of what's right and wrong. I mean people thought slavery was fine for a while. But we know now it's wrong, which means it's always been wrong. The principle didn't change, just our understanding of it. Just like we used to think the earth was flat. It wasn't, but our understanding of it changed.

0
You know exactly what it means. But here's the dictionary definition just in case:

adverb
-in a universal manner; in every instance or place; without exception.

ex. Mathematics is a language and exists everywhere in science. Including mars.

0
they exist universally, though they vary based on language. Even animals communicate in their own language.
0
Because every person defines well-being differently. Happiness has almost nothing to do with physical well being. It comes down how you process any situation you're in.

So what if someone is happiest when raping or murdering? At some point my happiness will interfere with someone else's happiness. Which is why government exists to protect my right not to be murdered or raped. But what if 90% of the country are happiest if the other 10% are killed? That's how the standard of "maximum well-being" works when you take it to its logical conclusion.

0
Honestly I think maximum well-being is a great standard for us to follow, but all I'm saying is not everyone thinks that due to it's perceived subjectivity, nor do people even agree on what well-being constitutes.

Furthermore, it's dishonest to say that it's a scientific statement. It's an objective statement to claim we should maximize well-being, but it lacks an objective scientific basis. It's used by people like sam harris to qualify "secular morality" but it's contradictory due to its subjective basis.

In other words, if well-being is subjective, why even follow it?

0
Well if it's subjective it wouldn't really be intrinsic, it would be extrinsic.

But the reason I think it's important is because it becomes impossible for us to deem anything wrong or right when it's constantly changing based on culture and opinion. Look at American politics right now, we barely agree on anything, but issues are always argued at a moral level (healthcare for example). And if it comes to the point where we don't even agree on the founding principles and constitution, we will no longer have freedom. It's OK to disagree on some things, of course, but the core ideology must remain in tact for society to function.

0
Its just logic man. I'm not sure how you're not seeing the connection lol. Lets try this:

"Humans have intrinsic value"

Is this a true or false statement? If it's true, how do you prove it? My point is that it cannot be proven. You either believe it, or you don't.

In your spider example, you talk about violating it's well being. What does that matter if it has no value? Do you value spider well-being above human well being? Or the same for that matter?

The example I gave about tribes illustrates how some people assign subjective value. What I'm saying is that animals do the same thing. We are clearly above animals.

0
Let me put it this way. To say humans have intrinsic value is an objective statement. It's an absolutely necessary qualifier to even begin talking about well being or things like the non-aggression principle and secular ethics. But if all morality is subjective, then so is human value. Does that make sense?

If I could prove to you in scientific terms why humans have value I would. And believe me I've tried reasoning that through in my head but it always comes back to the subjective value I assign in my own head. My argument is simply that our value is independent of human opinion. As I'm sure you're aware, some people don't value any life other than their own or their own immediate tribe.

0
What things do I believe in without evidence?
0
That was also my original point! I'm seriously baffled by all the hostility that ensued after lol
0
Maybe you should re-read this entire comments section again. Nowhere did I claim to have proof for God. What I do have is reason for my faith, not blind faith. Which was my point 90 comments ago. As usual, all I've received is accusatory statements without any logic to back it up.
0
Yes. Language exists and words are its vehicle.
0
Ok lets work through this.

"Falsehoods don't exist"

If that statement is true, then it must be shown elsewhere since its claiming to be a true statement. IE, you must then prove it afterwards. This would be the same logic as saying "Science doesn't exist", and then claiming its true without empirical evidence.

If that's a false statement (which it is), it validates the opposite BECAUSE its false. Therefore falsehoods exist.

0
Page 1 2 3 4 » 84 comments
soldieroftruth77
154 comments
Jul 7, 2017
soldieroftruth77
14 comments
May 11, 2017
soldieroftruth77
6 comments
May 7, 2017