On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2017, 07:07 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 02:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And there's few subjects that people are likely to feel quite sensitive about, than their own moral attitudes, particularly when they get reduced to being subjective, and framed the way we do every other thing we refer to as subjective. So to treat morality the way we do subjective things like taste, appears quite offensive to them, even if at some level they agree.

I'm not sensitive about it, just appalled that you consider morality no different than taste.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 07:14 AM by Tomasia.)
On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 07:07 AM)kemo boy Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 02:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And there's few subjects that people are likely to feel quite sensitive about, than their own moral attitudes, particularly when they get reduced to being subjective, and framed the way we do every other thing we refer to as subjective. So to treat morality the way we do subjective things like taste, appears quite offensive to them, even if at some level they agree.

I'm not sensitive about it, just appalled that you consider morality no different than taste.


Subjective morality, that is.

I consider it no different than any other category of subjective stuff.

Objective morality on the other had is just a series of false beliefs, rooted in religious traditions, and their influence on culture.


What you often get with atheists who agree that morality is subjective, is a tendency to make it a special sort of subjective, quasi-realism mumbo-jumbo. They take offense when those who concede to the subjectivity of morality, compare it to other subjective positions.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
16-03-2017, 07:22 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 07:07 AM)kemo boy Wrote:  I'm not sensitive about it, just appalled that you consider morality no different than taste.


Subjective morality, that is.

I consider it no different than any other category of subjective stuff.

Objective morality on the other had is just a series of false beliefs, rooted in religious traditions, and their influence on culture.


What you often get with atheists who agree that morality is subjective, is a tendency to make it a special sort of subjective, quasi-realism mumbo-jumbo. They take offense when those who concede to the subjectivity of morality, compare it to other subjective positions.

History has been made. Tom Asia said something I agree with. Laugh out load

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
16-03-2017, 07:44 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 07:07 AM)kemo boy Wrote:  I'm not sensitive about it, just appalled that you consider morality no different than taste.


Subjective morality, that is.

I consider it no different than any other category of subjective stuff.

Objective morality on the other had is just a series of false beliefs, rooted in religious traditions, and their influence on culture.


What you often get with atheists who agree that morality is subjective, is a tendency to make it a special sort of subjective, quasi-realism mumbo-jumbo. They take offense when those who concede to the subjectivity of morality, compare it to other subjective positions.

As I said, You're saying that we put no more thought into killing that asshole who cut me off in traffic, and what color shirt to wear. You're a dick.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 09:01 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 07:44 AM)kemo boy Wrote:  As I said, You're saying that we put no more thought into killing that asshole who cut me off in traffic, and what color shirt to wear. You're a dick.

No, I didn't say that. In fact some people put considerable amount of thought into what shirt they were, or planning their outfits, designing their homes, etc.. while other's don't.

Some people hastily kill someone over those petty or insignificant of disputes, some more methodological to avoid getting caught, and for most of us, we're unlikely to ever get so angry to the point where'd we'd actually kill someone.

"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
16-03-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 09:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 07:44 AM)kemo boy Wrote:  As I said, You're saying that we put no more thought into killing that asshole who cut me off in traffic, and what color shirt to wear. You're a dick.

No, I didn't say that. In fact some people put considerable amount of thought into what shirt they were, or planning their outfits, designing their homes, etc.. while other's don't.

Some people hastily kill someone over those petty or insignificant of disputes, some more methodological to avoid getting caught, and for most of us, we're unlikely to ever get so angry to the point where'd we'd actually kill someone.

Lets try this again.
At the risk of sounding redundant.
Oversimplification is a big problem that anyone can fall into if they aren't careful.

I suspect that many here find your position on this to be lacking nuance (aka is over simplified). Some are more offended than other's by this (especially since at times it sounds as if you're defending psychopathic behavior, or making some backhanded insult that we are somehow psychopaths for not holding to some religious based objective morality).


Does this help clarify things for you?

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 01:04 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 01:09 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 03:15 PM)SYZ Wrote:  So my opinion of him is just as valid as yours—according to your logic.

Sure, I'm just a man that thinks crème brûlée tastes good, and you're just a man who think it taste like absolute crap.

Quote:then by default yours must be the correct opinion[/i]?

My view is neither wrong or right, it's subjective, just like yours is neither wrong or right. You criticizing a theist for holding to God being Good, is equivalent to you criticizing a man who holds that crème brûlé tastes good, because you don't like it.

That all you can say, when accusing someone of being subjectively wrong.

"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
16-03-2017, 01:12 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 11:49 AM)JesseB Wrote:  Lets try this again.
At the risk of sounding redundant.
Oversimplification is a big problem that anyone can fall into if they aren't careful.

I suspect that many here find your position on this to be lacking nuance (aka is over simplified). Some are more offended than other's by this (especially since at times it sounds as if you're defending psychopathic behavior, or making some backhanded insult that we are somehow psychopaths for not holding to some religious based objective morality).


Does this help clarify things for you?

Yet, no one has yet to provide a valid refutation of it. And plenty of others who generally don't agree with me on much of anything, have tended to agree with me when it comes to morality. So we'll try this another way.

DO you believe morality is subjective?

"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
16-03-2017, 01:27 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 01:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 11:49 AM)JesseB Wrote:  Lets try this again.
At the risk of sounding redundant.
Oversimplification is a big problem that anyone can fall into if they aren't careful.

I suspect that many here find your position on this to be lacking nuance (aka is over simplified). Some are more offended than other's by this (especially since at times it sounds as if you're defending psychopathic behavior, or making some backhanded insult that we are somehow psychopaths for not holding to some religious based objective morality).


Does this help clarify things for you?

Yet, no one has yet to provide a valid refutation of it. And plenty of others who generally don't agree with me on much of anything, have tended to agree with me when it comes to morality. So we'll try this another way.

DO you believe morality is subjective?

What I believe (joke) is that I already answered this question. I guess I can say it again...

"Hmm.... perhaps the best way I can put it is, to me, Nihilism is an observable fact about the universe, about my life, about politics everything. Personally I fully accept this, yet I draw (or rather create) meaning for my life through existentialism, philosophy, empathy, logic, rational thought, and occasionally pragmatism. Just because there is no intrinsic meaning in the universe does not mean I can't create meaning.

One of the biggest problems I have with your position is it's simply not pragmatic, or practical when put into practice. This takes the discussion far beyond just the idea of "relativism" which to be frank and honest, I don't really have a problem with recognizing there's a certain subjectivity to it all. That does not override the need for practical application and analysis of the various structures as a whole.

How do I put it.... Perhaps a good place to start might be slavery, you could say that all the points of view on it were subjective. But I think we came to the right conclusion (however subjective you may think that statement is) based on stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, and the application of empathy, and following the logic to its various natural conclusions and over all end results for all people involved.

Empathy is one of the biggest tools in determining these positions as it helps cross bridges from one set of moral imperatives to another, and ultimately is one of the best tools for determining which one over all is the best. Discounting that is a flaw I think.

I don't think there's necessarily an objective morality, any more than I think that science can be 100% certain of anything. Instead I look at it as we can come as close as its possible to come (just like within science). You're argument seems to be a false dichotomy to me (and slightly surface level as well), it sounds as if you feel that there's 2 sides. One side would be at 0% and the other at 100% (with subjective, and objective at the respective sides). First I'm not sure anyone here is even on the 100% side, and second as I stated before it's simply far more complex than you seem to be willing to get into.

Edit^ Made some minor errors, haven't eaten so my wording was a bit off.
Edit^ Corrections.... yea exactly.. lol I need to eat."




Look, I try not to be in the habit of saying things I don't mean. I took the trouble of writing this once already, would be cool if you took the time to really read it. Would make me smile.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 01:39 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 07:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  They take offense when those who concede to the subjectivity of morality, compare it to other subjective positions.

History has been made. Tom Asia said something I agree with. Laugh out load

Weird. I remember when Tommy boy first got here he was a fierce proponent of objective morality. Turns out he's a dick no matter which side he's arguing for.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: