Mother Teresa to be made a saint
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2016, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016 02:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 11:27 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Secular and subjective morality is all that exists. Until you prove your god, you have nothing but contradictions.

That just shows your ignorance. Subjective morality doesn't exist, except for the partly closeted beliefs of a handful of atheists. If objective morality doesn't exist, than when I make a claim than torturing babies just for fun is wrong, I'm not making a subjective statement, but a false one. Just like the claim that there's a teapot orbiting the sun, doesn't become a subjective claim, just because it's not true.

A more reflective and informed atheists unlike yourself will acknowledge this, it's why folks like like Micheal Ruse will speak of objective morality as a deep rooted illusion.

And I'm not entitled to prove to you that God exists, anymore so than you're entitled to prove to me that we're a product of a cosmic fluke. Anymore so than you or I are entitled to prove to a solpisist that a reality outside of his own mind exists. You may believe that morality is subjective and secular, but your under no obligation to prove that to me.

And I'm just pointing out that if you believe that, then arguments about whats right and wrong are entirely pointless. By your own presuppositions, it would amount to nothing more than two people arguing whether Justin Bieber is a better singer that Taylor Swift.

Quote:I'm not speaking for any religion. I am noting the differences in the ethical codes proclaimed by each. Do you deny that there are incompatible differences between the various religions? Are you going to be that dishonest?

No, I'm pointing out that you're unlikely to be a valid spokesperson as to what those beliefs are, that your take on Islamic and Mormon, etc.. views on morality are likely to cause these respective parties to face-palm themselves. Are those views in general primarily deontological, more akin to consequentialism, more represented by virtue ethics, etc.....? If I wanted to argue about a muslims take on morality as opposed to my own Christian views, then I'll prefer to argue with an actual muslim, and not an ignorant atheists. You can speak for yourself, and perhaps even speak for other atheists, but that's the extent of it.

Quote:You get your morality from god? From the bible? Let's take a peek, shall we?
How about Abraham and Isaac?

The voices in Abraham's head, "god" told him to take his son/nephew (since Sarah was his sister...) and sacrifice him. The reason? To prove his love/devotion to god. And just to be clear, he was rewarded because he was going to do it.

Do I need to quote the various news stories about the dead babies whose parents where acting on gods orders? Were they right or wrong?
If they were wrong then so was Abraham. So was god.

Well, if all these individuals thought that its the right thing to do, you clearly couldn't claim otherwise right? You have no basis, or grounding to claim that any of these individuals or their actions are immoral, because you don't believe in an objective foundation.

If I were to say that if God instructed them to kill their children and they followed suit, then there's nothing immoral about it. You're entirely unable to argue otherwise. All you'll be able to tell me is that it makes you uncomfortable, that it hurts your sensibilities, or makes you stomach hurts, but that's about it. I don't even have to defend any of this, because you don't have anything to fight with. You waved your white flag once you declared that you believe morality is subjective.

Quote:Is it moral to kill a child to prove your devotion to something/someone?

Your morality says "Yes." Mine says "No."

Your claim is that whatever the answer is, it's entirely subjective. So the question amounts to as much as asking me whether or not caramel is an appropriate topping for ice cream.

Define "objective foundation", then tell us how individual brains LEARN it, and how you have determined they all think alike, in the SAME "objective way".
The fact is, you've defined none of your (meaningless) terms, or shown how they work, or why they meet (your undefined) standard of "objectivity".

The fact is no one has an "objective" anything to judge anything against, (at least you have not given out one).
You're just repeating the clap-trap from Bible school as you think it "sounds good".
In fact it's nothing but smoke and mirrors, and is not even defined or demonstrated, because you think it makes you more righteous than atheists, (which BTW you keep saying things about with NO REFERENCED studies. There is not one reason to accept ANYTHING you state about atheists.

Even IF you were able to demonstrate a standard of "objective morality" there is no reason there would be only one. 50 states have "objective" legal standards, one can reference an action to. There is not only one. And they are all objective. You can't even name 5 "objective moral" standards.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 02:18 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:14 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Define "objective foundation", then tell us how individual brains LEARN it, and how you have determined the all think alike in the SAME "objective way". The fact is, you're defined none of your (meaningless) terms, shown how they work, or why they meet (your undefined) standard of "objectivity".

The fact is no one has an "objective" anything to judge anything against, (at least you have not given out one). You're just repeating the clap-trap from Bible school as you think it "sounds good". In fact it's nothing but smoke and mirrors, and is not even defined or demonstrated.

It's always fun to grant objective morality as a thought experiment. But then - so what? Because people obviously still disagree as to what it is.

What's the meaningful difference between an "objective" basis that still inevitably leads to varying opinions justified by limited and subjective means, and no basis whatsoever?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 02:22 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Illusion as in not real. You understand that, right?

And you understand that “not real” doesn’t mean subjective right? That subjective views and false views are not the same thing. That if I were to claim that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun, i’m not making a subjective statement, but a false one. When people who subscribe to objective morality make moral statements, those statements don’t become subjective if objective morality doesn’t exist, they become false ones.

Quote:"You're can't be a valid spokesperson for other groups. Now, let me continue to talk at length about what all atheists believe…”

Well, there’s plenty of atheists here to correct any mischaracterizations of their views I might express here, but sadly hardly any muslims, mormons, etc… to do the same. Most people here at best have some marginal understanding of Christianity, and it’s likely significantly worse when it comes to other religions. It would all just be marginally better than hearing Donald Trump’s take on Islam.

Quote:"By saying it's subjective you admit you can't objectively prove me wrong. Therefore I win!"

That's... an argument, I guess.

It’s not an argument, it’s pointing out that no argument is possible. If you believe that morality is subjective, then your complaints about the moral quality of God or his followers, is not even worthy of an argument. If you imagine that moral questions are ones for which there are no right or wrong answers for, then it’s silly to have an argument over what’s right and wrong.

There’s no point in arguing what the truth here is, to individuals who believe it’s not a question of truth at all.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 02:35 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's always fun to grant objective morality as a thought experiment. But then - so what? Because people obviously still disagree as to what it is.

For one it frames the disagreement, the argument itself. Two people who believe in objective morality arguing over whats right and wrong, are not entirely different than two people arguing over the age of the earth. In fact these moral arguments, and factual arguments appear remarkably similar, more so than arguments over subjective aspects, like one's taste in movies, or clothes.

In fact much of the arguments from individuals who claim that morality is subjective, resembles that of individuals who believe that truth is subjective. People don't just disagree about morality, they also disagree on truths as well. Some people even hold different standards and views of how they evaluate and judge what's true or not. Some people looking at these various aspects might claim truth is subjective as well. That objective truths do not exist, the same way some folks here would suggest that morality is subjective.

Quote:What's the meaningful difference between an "objective" basis that still inevitably leads to varying opinions justified by limited and subjective means, and no basis whatsoever?

Well, just like truths, there's likely a variety of things we all equally hold as true, and a variety of others we don't, a variety of things one party holds as true, and the other party doesn't.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 02:49 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 01:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Illusion as in not real. You understand that, right?

And you understand that “not real” doesn’t mean subjective right?

Morality is either objective or it is not. Your attributed quote says it is not - it cannot be true and be an illusion.

If it is not objective, but it does exist, what does that leave?

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That subjective views and false views are not the same thing.

Ah, so you're just massively equivocating. Gotcha.

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That if I were to claim that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun, i’m not making a subjective statement, but a false one.

It's rather an unverifiable one.

The limits of unfalsifiability in practice and in principle being another matter entirely.

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When people who subscribe to objective morality make moral statements, those statements don’t become subjective if objective morality doesn’t exist, they become false ones.

Alas, that's nonsense.

If they lack objectivity, then they are necessarily subjective statements. Or at least they must be, if we grant that people actually believe them. The belief itself exists regardless; only its source changes.

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"You're can't be a valid spokesperson for other groups. Now, let me continue to talk at length about what all atheists believe…”

Well, there’s plenty of atheists here to correct any mischaracterizations of their views I might express here...

They do. Repeatedly at and length.

Never seems to affect you, for some reason...

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... but sadly hardly any muslims, mormons, etc… to do the same. Most people here at best have some marginal understanding of Christianity, and it’s likely significantly worse when it comes to other religions. It would all just be marginally better than hearing Donald Trump’s take on Islam.

"Most people here", eh? I see you've now done literally the same thing over again by making massive, sweeping statements as to what others do or don't know.

Self-demonstrating article, thy name is Tomasia.

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:"By saying it's subjective you admit you can't objectively prove me wrong. Therefore I win!"

That's... an argument, I guess.

It’s not an argument, it’s pointing out that no argument is possible. If you believe that morality is subjective, then your complaints about the moral quality of God or his followers, is not even worthy of an argument.

You... don't appear to understand the argument.

It is a response to the claim that religion inspires morality. It amounts to,
"If X is objectively true, why don't I agree?"

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you imagine that moral questions are ones for which there are no right or wrong answers for, then it’s silly to have an argument over what’s right and wrong.

A lack of objective standards does not in fact stop me from caring about how my fellow human beings interact.

Individuals have answers regardless. Which is, it turns out, relevant, when more than one individual is present...

(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s no point in arguing what the truth here is, to individuals who believe it’s not a question of truth at all.

Dear me, that's convenient for you.

Of course that dismissal again relies on equivocating on the meaning of "truth"...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-03-2016, 02:55 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 02:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's always fun to grant objective morality as a thought experiment. But then - so what? Because people obviously still disagree as to what it is.

For one it frames the disagreement, the argument itself. Two people who believe in objective morality arguing over whats right and wrong, are not entirely different than two people arguing over the age of the earth. In fact these moral arguments, and factual arguments appear remarkably similar, more so than arguments over subjective aspects, like one's taste in movies, or clothes.

In fact much of the arguments from individuals who claim that morality is subjective, resembles that of individuals who believe that truth is subjective. People don't just disagree about morality, they also disagree on truths as well. Some people even hold different standards and views of how they evaluate and judge what's true or not. Some people looking at these various aspects might claim truth is subjective as well. That objective truths do not exist, the same way some folks here would suggest that morality is subjective.

Okay. And what about the contingent that does believe in a consistent external reality, but does not accept an objective morality? Let us assume that at least one such person exists.

I mean, I guess I have to applaud you for not just arguing with a straw man but creating a straw man to refuse to argue with... That's something special.

...

But let's give it a look:
If an objective morality exists,
Then...

What?

How does that inform our behaviour? How does that agree with observation? What conclusions does it lead to? Why should anyone care?

Allow me to try one out:
If there exists an objective morality, then it must be discernable somehow, or else it is meaningless by definition.

(15-03-2016 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What's the meaningful difference between an "objective" basis that still inevitably leads to varying opinions justified by limited and subjective means, and no basis whatsoever?

Well, just like truths, there's likely a variety of things we all equally hold as true, and a variety of others we don't, a variety of things one party holds as true, and the other party doesn't.

Aaaaand.... ? So what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-03-2016, 03:33 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:49 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Most people here", eh? I see you've now done literally the same thing over again by making massive, sweeping statements as to what others do or don't know.

Self-demonstrating article, thy name is Tomasia.

How much time would you have to spend hearing Donald Trump supporters talk about Mexicans, and Muslims, to recognize that most of them are fairly ignorant on these topics? How much time would you have to spend on a forum occupied primarily by creationist, to recognize that hardly any of them have any real understanding of evolution, or science in general?

I’ve been here for a considerable while now, so whatever generalized statements I make are based on a signifiant degree of familiarity.

Quote:Morality is either objective or it is not. Your attributed quote says it is not - it cannot be true and be an illusion

Exactly, either objective morality exists or it doesn’t. The statement that objective morality exist, is either true or false. If false, than all statements that stem from that belief regarding what is right and wrong, are also false.

The point I’ve made, and you clearly haven’t gotten is, that if objective morality doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean that moral statements of what’s right and wrong that stem from this belief, are subjective. My claim that torturing babies just for fun is objectively wrong, doesn’t become a subjective one, if objective morality doesn’t exist. It becomes a false statement.


The claim that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun, is not a subjective statement, it’s either true or false, regardless if we can currently verify this or not. Where as if i were to make a subjective statement, like eggs taste better with paprika, it neither true nor false.


Quote:Ah, so you're just massively equivocating. Gotcha.

It’s only you doing the equivocating.

Quote:If they lack objectivity, then they are necessarily subjective statements. Or at least they must be, if we grant that people actually believe them. The belief itself exists regardless; only its source changes.

I’m not sure what you mean by lacking objectivity, if you just means it’s not verifiable, then no. The claim that there’s a tea pot orbiting the sun, does not become a subjective statement because it’s currently unverifiable. It’s either a true statement, or a false statement. Which wouldn’t be the case if it were a subjective statement.

Quote:They do. Repeatedly at and length.

Never seems to affect you, for some reason…

Yea, call me stubborn.

Quote:You... don't appear to understand the argument.

It is a response to the claim that religion inspires morality. It amounts to,
"If X is objectively true, why don't I agree?”

In this situation, it was a response to something I’ve said, and I never claimed that religion inspires morality. My argument was in response to someone requesting that I defend the moral character of God, and others, and I pointed out that if you believe morality is subjective, then there’s nothing to defend or argue here.

Quote:A lack of objective standards does not in fact stop me from caring about how my fellow human beings interact.

It doesn’t.

It does matter when you try and accuse others of being immoral, or wrong. It does matter when protesting an injustice, like slavery or the lynching tree. The mother of Emmett Till is not looking at the wrongness of the brutal death of her son, as her subjective opinion, but as a real transgression, a true violation of something sacred.

Quote:Dear me, that's convenient for you.

Of course that dismissal again relies on equivocating on the meaning of "truth”..

I’m just stating the obvious here. If you believe that morality is subjective, than you have no basis to claim that someone else’s moral views are wrong. An argument over whether or not God is Good, becomes indistinguishable from an argument of whether Gwenth Paltrow is beautiful.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 03:45 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016 03:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’ve been here for a considerable while now, so whatever generalized statements I make are based on a signifiant degree of familiarity biased presupposition with NO supporting evidence presented.

Fixed that for ya Tommy.
Tell your Jebus hi from us, and how you're "spreadin' the love".
Facepalm

The alternative to "no objective morality" is not limited to "your morality is subjective", you moron.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How much time would you have to spend hearing Donald Trump supporters talk about Mexicans, and Muslims, to recognize that most of them are fairly ignorant on these topics? How much time would you have to spend on a forum occupied primarily by creationist, to recognize that hardly any of them have any real understanding of evolution, or science in general?

I’ve been here for a considerable while now, so whatever generalized statements I make are based on a signifiant degree of familiarity.

"Ah, but I'm not baselessly generalising, because I'm right."

Cool argument, bro.

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Exactly, either objective morality exists or it doesn’t. The statement that objective morality exist, is either true or false. If false, than all statements that stem from that belief regarding what is right and wrong, are also false.

Which has no bearing on whether people believe them.

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The point I’ve made, and you clearly haven’t gotten is, that if objective morality doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean that moral statements of what’s right and wrong that stem from this belief, are subjective. My claim that torturing babies just for fun is objectively wrong, doesn’t become a subjective one, if objective morality doesn’t exist. It becomes a false statement.

The claim that it is objectively wrong is, trivially, false.

The claim that it is wrong, remains subjectively true, or else you wouldn't have claimed it.

Don't equivocate between the two.

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The claim that there’s a teapot orbiting the sun, is not a subjective statement, it’s either true or false, regardless if we can currently verify this or not.

If that truth value cannot be known, the distinction cannot by definition be made.

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Where as if i were to make a subjective statement, like eggs taste better with paprika, it neither true nor false.

True.

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Ah, so you're just massively equivocating. Gotcha.

It’s only you doing the equivocating.

You are equivocating between an objective true/false and a contingent true/false.
(or, I suppose, just not grasping the difference)

What am I equivocating?

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:If they lack objectivity, then they are necessarily subjective statements. Or at least they must be, if we grant that people actually believe them. The belief itself exists regardless; only its source changes.

I’m not sure what you mean by lacking objectivity, if you just means it’s not verifiable, then no. The claim that there’s a tea pot orbiting the sun, does not become a subjective statement because it’s currently unverifiable. It’s either a true statement, or a false statement. Which wouldn’t be the case if it were a subjective statement.

If the truth cannot be known, objectivity is irrelevant and indeed meaningless.

How can objective moral truth be known?

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:They do. Repeatedly at and length.

Never seems to affect you, for some reason…

Yea, call me stubborn.

So... you prefer your presuppositions to actual dialogue?

A bold admission. One we all long suspected, to be sure, but...

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You... don't appear to understand the argument.

It is a response to the claim that religion inspires morality. It amounts to,
"If X is objectively true, why don't I agree?”

In this situation, it was a response to something I’ve said, and I never claimed that religion inspires morality. My argument was in response to someone requesting that I defend the moral character of God, and others, and I pointed out that if you believe morality is subjective, then there’s nothing to defend or argue here.

If nobody claimed a link between religion and morality, you might be on to something.

For the record, do you believe in any connection between your religion and your morality? If so, what?

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:A lack of objective standards does not in fact stop me from caring about how my fellow human beings interact.

It doesn’t.

It does matter when you try and accuse others of being immoral, or wrong. It does matter when protesting an injustice, like slavery or the lynching tree.

And my opinion therefore matters insofar as anyone else believes similarly.

Unless you're going to claim that people don't advocate for societies to reflect their beliefs?

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The mother of Emmett Till is not looking at the wrongness of the brutal death of her son, as her subjective opinion, but as a real transgression, a true violation of something sacred.

What a disingenuously loaded presupposition to make.

But no, let's pretend she's not a thirteen years dead woman whose personal convictions you can't possibly know. I still don't see where objectivity enters the picture.

The people who killed her son did not think of themselves as in the wrong. You do, at least, understand that much?

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Dear me, that's convenient for you.

Of course that dismissal again relies on equivocating on the meaning of "truth”..

I’m just stating the obvious here. If you believe that morality is subjective, than you have no basis to claim that someone else’s moral views are wrong.

Except, of course - and bear with me here, 'cause it's a real leap - those subjective standards themselves.

Now, I know how beloved an emotional appeal to consequences is for you, because you don't like the idea that you don't have magic feels on your side when condemning something you don't like. But there's no reason to privilege your individual feels above those of anyone else. Societies can only ever reflect the agreement of the stakeholders comprising them.

I ask again: where does objectivity get us, if it's indistinguishable from subjectivity?

(15-03-2016 03:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  An argument over whether or not God is Good, becomes indistinguishable from an argument of whether Gwenth Paltrow is beautiful.

Which is what makes all that twaddle about objectivity pointless if not meaningless in the first place.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
15-03-2016, 03:58 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
Hope they hurry up and get her halo installed. I need someone new to pray to. The saints I have been praying to ain't done me no good yet!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: