I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Hi again, and thanks again for posting.

I'm going to address your answers to my questions before I go on to remark on your points.

1) Do you believe it is NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin? Yes or no?

You said:

Quote:1) For the most part yes, I agree

Ok give me an example of when you DISagree. When is it GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin?

I asked:
2) If you do believe it is SOMETIMES GOOD... give me 3 examples of it being a GOOD thing to beat someone to death for the color of their skin.

You said:
Quote:2) A fruitless although not impossible exercise. I decline.

I disagree. If you are going to hold that it is SOMETIMES GOOD to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin, I think an example of when you think it is GOOD is definitely in order. I will settle for ONE example of it being GOOD.

I asked: 3) Give me your definition of God... What are the qualities a God would need?

You said:
Quote:3) So far god has not been important to this debate, and the definitions of gods are less so important to me. If you want to talk about god it would be pertinent for you to describe which god.

But we DO need your definition of God, IF I suspect that you are attributing to the universe, the attributes of God. I want to know what attributes you think a "God" should have if He is the creator of all that is. I am bringing God into the discussion.

My short definition of the attributes of God is:
powerful enough to create all that is
powerful enough to then cause a big bang
powerful enough to create planets flora and fauna.
powerful enough to bestow consciousness to His creation

Would you agree that a God who is creator of the universe would have to be bestowed with these qualities from the standpoint of most of the world who believes in God?


I asked:
4) What do you think is the "ultimate origin" of "consciousness"?

You said:
Quote:4) What do you mean by ultimate origin? What do you mean by consciousness?

Be for real Tongue

WHEN did it first just POP into existence in your view, and where did it come from?

I asked:
5) When is it GOOD to beat an innocent child to death? Or is it NEVER good despite social acceptance?

You said:
Quote: Good and bad are subjective qualities. People do kill children, they do so for reasons that are compelling to them. According to my personal understanding of morality I deem that "wrong", according to whatever standards they are using and the motivations that compel them it isn't wrong, or at least not wrong enough to stop them. You seem to be confusing agreement with objectivity

So I take it then you believe there is no higher morality that simply lets EVERYONE KNOW that the beating to death of a child is NEVER good? You don't even entertain the idea that those who believe it to be good are simply WRONG?


The overall rest of your post seems to be an attempt to justify saying sometimes its good to do some VERY bad things... it just depends on the point of view.

I oppose this as a barbaric non caring philosophy... and I mean no personal offence, it's just how I see it. According to your view there is no right and wrong good and bad. Its just dependent on what one wants to justify doing.

I am proud to say I believe in a HIGHER morality that transcends the opinions of men.

I am proud to be able to say I KNOW right from wrong. I am able to say its NEVER good to beat a child to death or beat one to death because of the color of their skin.

So do you REALLY THINK it is sometimes good to beat an innocent child to death, or beat someone to death simply because of the color of their skin? If it is NOT ALWAYS bad/wrong/evil, then it is sometimes good.

Here is my honest opinion of speaking with Atheists about this point.

They are all to willing to SWEAR I'm a fool for believing in universal absolute truth, and they are ALL TO WILLING to say "it is not always wrong to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin... YET... None of you are quick to be honest enough and straight up enough to just come off with an example of when it would actually be a GOOD THING.

Why?

I don't mean this personally whatsoever, but I do view this as a type of intellectual dishonesty.

It is either ALWAYS wrong, or it is SOMETIMES NOT. If you hold that it is SOMETIMES NOT wrong to beat someone to death simply for the color of their skin, then at least be straight enough to tell me when its good... OR be honest enough to ADMIT its a point in my favor. I honestly don't care which one does, just be honest and stop hem hawing.

Now to recap my questions..

1) Since I brought up God and defined Him, I would like to know YOUR definition and whether or not you recognize MY definition as a valid one IF there were a "Creator God".

2) Is it absolutely universally NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent man to death because only of racial prejudice, or explain to me when it is GOOD. I will be happy with ONE CLEAR example please.



I'll leave you with these 2 very easy questions, and I do appreciate straight up answers Smile
Find all posts by this user
06-11-2014, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2014 04:33 PM by Michael_Tadlock.)
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
(05-11-2014 04:43 PM)Wolfbitn Wrote:  Hi again, and thanks again for posting.

I'm going to address your answers to my questions before I go on to remark on your points.

1) Do you believe it is NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin? Yes or no?

You said:

Quote:1) For the most part yes, I agree

Ok give me an example of when you DISagree. When is it GOOD to beat an innocent person to death because of the color of their skin?

I don't think it is ever good to beat anyone. It isn't important how I feel though; the point is took look at morality as if it is objective. If morality is objective it doesn't matter what I think.

Quote:I asked:
2) If you do believe it is SOMETIMES GOOD... give me 3 examples of it being a GOOD thing to beat someone to death for the color of their skin.

You said:
Quote:2) A fruitless although not impossible exercise. I decline.

I disagree. If you are going to hold that it is SOMETIMES GOOD to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin, I think an example of when you think it is GOOD is definitely in order. I will settle for ONE example of it being GOOD.

Ok, sense you asked. For the sake of argument let's pretend I believe in an all powerful being... let's call it "god", and let's say my god hates a certain group of people, let's call them "Canaanites", and let's say I defined my moral axioms in a particular way, let's say "it is immoral for me not to obey my god". In that particular case, under those set of beliefs, killing someone because of their ethnicity would be morally righteous.

Snarky comments aside, what you have been zeroing in on is moral consensus. What I have been trying to stress is that consensus is not equal to objectivity. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT I BELIEVE. It is objectively true that the earth is round and I can prove it. If it is objectively true that hurting people is wrong then you should be able to prove if. I may agree with you that is it is wrong, but the point is that it is possible to create a moral framework where it is not wrong. Objectively (meaning removing ones bias from the consideration) how do you evaluate one moral system along another? You have to have some agreement about first principles, for example an orderly society is better than a disorderly society, or the golden rule, or whatever. When you are talking about morality these are not givens. You cannot assume that these are true for every case, even if they are true for almost every case. This is one of many reason why morality is subjective, not objective. The fact that this makes you uncomfortable in no way changes the argument. Every moral system, from an objective and completely naive perspective, is interchangeable with any other moral system. There are no objective measures by which to compare them. Right, wrong, desirable, undesirable, righteous, just, unjust - these are qualitative, subjective assignments. Now compare it to things that are objective. A round earth has a diameter, a curvature, an axis, gravity, and a shape. You can use numbers and binary relationships to describe the shape of the earth. You cannot do this with morality.

Quote:I asked: 3) Give me your definition of God... What are the qualities a God would need?

You said:
Quote:3) So far god has not been important to this debate, and the definitions of gods are less so important to me. If you want to talk about god it would be pertinent for you to describe which god.

But we DO need your definition of God, IF I suspect that you are attributing to the universe, the attributes of God. I want to know what attributes you think a "God" should have if He is the creator of all that is. I am bringing God into the discussion.

My short definition of the attributes of God is:
powerful enough to create all that is
powerful enough to then cause a big bang
powerful enough to create planets flora and fauna.
powerful enough to bestow consciousness to His creation

Would you agree that a God who is creator of the universe would have to be bestowed with these qualities from the standpoint of most of the world who believes in God?

Firstly, I don't attribute anything to god. I don't believe god exists. I don't attribute anything to fairies or the bogey man either. However, sense you insist on dragging god into this debate:

No, I don't believe that a god who created the universe must also be all powerful if we are considering all possibilities to be equally likely. I am not particularly interested in exploring every possibilities, but just to name one, a "god" could have created the universe, and then ceased to exist immediately afterwards, or have no other powers other than first creation. I think when you are talking about the supernatural every possibility is just as likely ( or rather unlikely), and all assumptions are equally useless. If we could some how know that god created the universe, then all we would know about god is that god created the universe. By definition, being supernatural, we could know nothing else.

Quote:I asked:
4) What do you think is the "ultimate origin" of "consciousness"?

You said:
Quote:4) What do you mean by ultimate origin? What do you mean by consciousness?

Be for real Tongue

I wasn't being antagonistic, I really don't know what you mean by consciousness. Consciousness to me means awake and lucid. If someone is asleep they are not conscious. If someone is incapacitated, for example "knocked unconscious", then they are not conscious. Intimate objects are not conscious.

If you mean what is the ultimate origin of "conscience", then we could talk about that, and I think it would be relevant to our conversation about morality.

Quote:
WHEN did it first just POP into existence in your view, and where did it come from?

Consciousness has an implied degree of intelligence. We don't really think of simple creatures, like bacteria, as conscious, even though they are alive and in a certain manner of speaking "intelligent". Your question is analogous then to "how tall does someone have to be to be tall"? It depends on who you ask, but in general we understand people to be conscious, even if they are of low intelligence, and we understand many creatures to be conscious. At some point there existed no creatures that had the benchmark level of intelligence for true consciousness, and then fast forward some time later and there were many creatures that exist with true consciousness. It happened somewhere in between. Like tallness, it is on a continuum, where a certain height is definitely too short, and another height is definitely tall enough, but somewhere in between average becomes tall. Where is that point exactly? Nobody knows, but it is there some place.

Quote:I asked:
5) When is it GOOD to beat an innocent child to death? Or is it NEVER good despite social acceptance?

You said:
Quote: Good and bad are subjective qualities. People do kill children, they do so for reasons that are compelling to them. According to my personal understanding of morality I deem that "wrong", according to whatever standards they are using and the motivations that compel them it isn't wrong, or at least not wrong enough to stop them. You seem to be confusing agreement with objectivity

So I take it then you believe there is no higher morality that simply lets EVERYONE KNOW that the beating to death of a child is NEVER good? You don't even entertain the idea that those who believe it to be good are simply WRONG?

I believe we have an instinctual desire to protect our own young, and are in addition socially conditioned to protect and value all children. I think there are very good reasons, that can at least be partially explained by culture, evolution, and morally principled logical arguments, why we protect children. I do not believe that the structure of the universe is such that it mandates children must be protected. I do not believe in an objective moral law giver.

Quote:The overall rest of your post seems to be an attempt to justify saying sometimes its good to do some VERY bad things... it just depends on the point of view.

I oppose this as a barbaric non caring philosophy... and I mean no personal offence, it's just how I see it. According to your view there is no right and wrong good and bad. Its just dependent on what one wants to justify doing.

That is not only my view, that is true. The universe is apathetic and uncaring; sentimentality and compassion are not woven into physics. We create moral systems that suite us. I don't advocate abandoning them, but that is what they are. We accept that law, and art, and music are no more concrete and only meaningful because people say they are meaningful, why not morality?

Quote:I am proud to say I believe in a HIGHER morality that transcends the opinions of men.

Prove it.

Quote:I am proud to be able to say I KNOW right from wrong. I am able to say its NEVER good to beat a child to death or beat one to death because of the color of their skin.

Prove it.

Quote:So do you REALLY THINK it is sometimes good to beat an innocent child to death, or beat someone to death simply because of the color of their skin? If it is NOT ALWAYS bad/wrong/evil, then it is sometimes good.

No, I don't think that. If we agree that hurting people is wrong, and hurting children is worse, I can make very good arguments for why we shouldn't beat children. However, if there was a person who did not believe hurting people is wrong, who did not believe that children need protected or that we are obligated to protect them, then no matter how persuasive your argument you could not convince them that hurting children is wrong. Their moral framework would not logically necessitate that it by wrong like our moral framework does. You and I probably agree that Beethoven's 7th symphony is a great symphony, but that doesn't mean that it is objectively true that the 7th is a great symphony, and if we found someone who valued music sufficiently differently from the way you and I do we could never convince them that it is great either. It may make you uncomfortable, but from an objective, logical perspective view on morality are no different than opinions about art. We are just more passionate, and in general in more agreement, about one as compared to the other.

Quote:Here is my honest opinion of speaking with Atheists about this point.

They are all to willing to SWEAR I'm a fool for believing in universal absolute truth, and they are ALL TO WILLING to say "it is not always wrong to beat someone to death because of the color of their skin... YET... None of you are quick to be honest enough and straight up enough to just come off with an example of when it would actually be a GOOD THING.

Why?

I can't speak for other atheist. Not all atheist are good at philosophy. Many Christians aren't either. I won't be asking you to answer for them.

Quote:I don't mean this personally whatsoever, but I do view this as a type of intellectual dishonesty.

I have been very honest with you.
Quote:It is either ALWAYS wrong, or it is SOMETIMES NOT. If you hold that it is SOMETIMES NOT wrong to beat someone to death simply for the color of their skin, then at least be straight enough to tell me when its good... OR be honest enough to ADMIT its a point in my favor. I honestly don't care which one does, just be honest and stop hem hawing.

This is an example of "shifting the goal posts". Convincing me that hurting people is never ok is not the same thing as convincing me that morality is objective. I agree with you. Hurting people is wrong. SO WHAT? What does that prove?

Quote:Now to recap my questions..

1) Since I brought up God and defined Him, I would like to know YOUR definition and whether or not you recognize MY definition as a valid one IF there were a "Creator God".

All definitions of god are valid. He exists outside of space and time and follows none of our rules, including the rule of being logical or coherent. You can describe him in whatever way you like. So sure, if it is important to your argument, your god has these attributes. For the time being I am not interested in arguing the nature of god.

Quote:2) Is it absolutely universally NEVER GOOD to beat an innocent man to death because only of racial prejudice, or explain to me when it is GOOD. I will be happy with ONE CLEAR example please.

You asked this questions many times, I have given several answers.

Quote:I'll leave you with these 2 very easy questions, and I do appreciate straight up answers Smile

I have answered them to the best of my ability. I await your response.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
06-11-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Banned

SO now I can reply.

Nicely done Michael, he didn't have a chance. Good job maintaining your cool in the face of such an astronomical level of ignorance and delusion. Thumbsup

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
06-11-2014, 04:51 PM
RE: I challenge Wolbin to a debate on "absolute truths".
Since Wolfbitn has been banned this thread is closed


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: