# Atheist logic



## ddd-shooter (Aug 5, 2013)

There is nothing outside of that which is provable with science. 
Anything outside of nature is by definition untrue. 
Then we have these things known as morals, beliefs and values. 
If you're talking about God, you're crazy. 
If you're talking about how we think we should be treated  then it's ok. These made up constructs are ok, because they fit me. 
Just remember it's all relative.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> There is nothing outside of that which is provable with science.
> Anything outside of nature is by definition untrue.
> Then we have these things known as morals, beliefs and values.
> If you're talking about God, you're crazy.
> ...



You are entitled to your opinion.
If you want to make is as fact you have a lot more to do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

Logic can provide evidence of truth
Atheist believe truth is relative

Atheist logic=oxymoron


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Atheist believe truth is relative



Not quite.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

bullethead said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.
> If you want to make is as fact you have a lot more to do.



How is what he said not fact? It's true to him, therefor it's true.


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

Not actually an atheist, but allow me to rephrase your statements....



ddd-shooter said:


> There is nothing outside of that which is provable with science.



There is nothing knowable outside of that which is provable with science.



> Anything outside of nature is by definition untrue.



Anything outside of nature is unknowable.



> Then we have these things known as morals, beliefs and values.



Morals, beliefs and values are all within nature.



> If you're talking about God, you're crazy.



If you're talking about God, you're talking about faith, not fact.



> If you're talking about how we think we should be treated  then it's ok.



I missed the point of this one.  What's ok?



> These made up constructs are ok, because they fit me.
> Just remember it's all relative.



I don't think there is any Atheist, at least not any I know of, who denies that there is a such a thing as objective truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> There is nothing knowable outside of that which is provable with science.


How do you know that?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Logic can provide evidence of truth
> Atheist believe truth is relative
> 
> Atheist logic=oxymoron



Facts man, where are your facts to back that up?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How is what he said not fact? It's true to him, therefor it's true.



It stops at true to him.


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> How do you know that?




Because, without science, you can't PROVE it.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> Because, without science, you can't PROVE it.


I was asking how you know that particular sentence to be true, since by your assertion, you cannot know any philosophical truth claim to actually be true.


http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=755113&highlight=


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I was asking how you know that particular sentence to be true, since by your assertion, you cannot know any philosophical truth claim to actually be true.
> 
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=755113&highlight=



Logic.  Science is simply applied logic.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> Logic.  Science is simply applied logic.



If you want to qualify the statement by throwing logic in as scientific then I see where you're coming from.

I personally look at logic through a philosophical lens.

Do you consider math as science too?


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Do you consider math as science too?



You ever study physics?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> You ever study physics?



No sir, I have not.


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No sir, I have not.



Not really import to this conversation that you had.  Just that there is a lot of math in physics.  

Logic and science are the only reliable method we have for determining objective truth.  Everything outside of that, is what I would call relative truth.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> Not actually an atheist, but allow me to rephrase your statements....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> Not really import to this conversation that you had.  Just that there is a lot of math in physics.
> 
> Logic and science are the only reliable method we have for determining objective truth.  Everything outside of that, is what I would call relative truth.



Science borrows from logic to set up assertions.   What you are doing is co-opting logic to support your science but denying logic can be used to support other frameworks?  Sort of hypocritical don't you think?


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Science borrows from logic to set up assertions.   What you are doing is co-opting logic to support your science but denying logic can be used to support other frameworks?  Sort of hypocritical don't you think?



All of those "other frameworks" are relatively true.  

If something is objectively true in Salt Lake City, it must also be objectively true in Tehran.   Mormonism and Shia Islam are can't both be objectively true.  

So, how do we take a relative truth and make it an objective one?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> All of those "other frameworks" are relatively true.
> 
> If something is objectively true in Salt Lake City, it must also be objectively true in Tehran.   Mormonism and Shia Islam are can't both be objectively true.
> 
> So, how do we take a relative truth and make it an objective one?



By examining the philosophical claims. I don't think Mormonism or Shia Islam make any scientific claims.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> Not really import to this conversation that you had.  Just that there is a lot of math in physics.
> 
> Logic and science are the only reliable method we have for determining objective truth.  Everything outside of that, is what I would call relative truth.



It's pretty much all math. I made a 108 in my physics class in high school.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> All of those "other frameworks" are relatively true.
> 
> If something is objectively true in Salt Lake City, it must also be objectively true in Tehran.   Mormonism and Shia Islam are can't both be objectively true.
> 
> So, how do we take a relative truth and make it an objective one?



Relatively true is a very vague term.  Would you define as what you did Sunday as relatively true, because I would be willing to bet you would be hard pressed to make a scientific argument to account for your time that day that would meet the standards of objective truth. Yet whatever you did whether objectively true or relatively true is in fact true, and the fact that you can't reproduce it with clarity makes it no less true.

At least it appears we both agree truth is exclusive.


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Relatively true is a very vague term.  Would you define as what you did Sunday as relatively true, because I would be willing to bet you would be hard pressed to make a scientific argument to account for your time that day that would meet the standards of objective truth. Yet whatever you did whether objectively true or relatively true is in fact true, and the fact that you can't reproduce it with clarity makes it no less true.
> 
> At least it appears we both agree truth is exclusive.



I suppose I could provide you with some empirical evidence to support my claim that I helped a friend move and then took my canoe out on the hooch with a bunch of friends.  You could either accept that evidence as sufficient to support my claim, or you could say that you require more. 

There is nothing illogical about that.  

You seem headed into the same box as Schrödinger's cat.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> By examining the philosophical claims. I don't think Mormonism or Shia Islam make any scientific claims.



Maybe not scientific but, like all religions, they hold their stories and faith up as facts. 

Science requires facts, facts require proof; and we all know religions run short on all. If it were based on proof it wouldn't be called faith. 

However, science has its own evolution since there are always more facts out there and "laws" are based on statistical samplings. Case in point are black holes, which by their very definition can't be seen, but can be inferred based on other things we can observe. They were scientific fantasy until not very long ago, in a historical sense, and are now pretty well documented if not fully understood. 

Science uses what are called best-fit models during their evolutionary phase, which constantly change as the name would imply, while testing the conditions to take a theory to a "law." That evolution requires those facts to corroborate the model, or they have to analyze whether the model is wrong or the tests are. The word fact, not exampled by some in the current scientific community, is a huge deal amongst true scientists and it denotes something that is observable, replicable, and verifiable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> You seem headed into the same box as Schrödinger's cat.



Please, oh please, don't bring up quantum states in a discussion on verifiable truths.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 5, 2013)

pnome said:


> I suppose I could provide you with some empirical evidence to support my claim that I helped a friend move and then took my canoe out on the hooch with a bunch of friends.  You could either accept that evidence as sufficient to support my claim, or you could say that you require more.
> 
> There is nothing illogical about that.
> 
> You seem headed into the same box as Schrödinger's cat.




I unsure of your definitions of objective truth and relative truth.  You care to help me out with what exactly you mean by each.


----------



## pnome (Aug 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I unsure of your definitions of objective truth and relative truth.  You care to help me out with what exactly you mean by each.



Let's take Artful's example from that other thread:



Artfuldodger said:


> What kind of scientific methods would you use to obtain knowledge your wife doesn't love you any more?



If we could come to an objective definition for "love." We could run an experiment or two and find the answer.  An "objective" truth.  This definition, we called "love", exists or is absent in the sample.

Now let's suppose something likely.  We got the "objective" definition (hypothesis) wrong.  Despite the conclusion of the experiments, Artful's wife still claims, vehemently, that she loves him.  Her love for him, by all accounts, is still true.  That is what I would call "relatively" true.  True only to her, but still "true".


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 5, 2013)

Christians(myself) believe in the Almighty God.
We believe in creation and the evidences of it.
We believe in the logic of "nothing cannot come from nothing".
We knew and see the proofs of God in many ways in our lives.
For us, it is fact.  But it is based upon faith.
But I have no way of proving it to one who has decided to not believe.

Atheists believe there is no God and never was a God.
They believe everything exist through a process of logic.
They have seen the evidences of evolution and they accept them.
They have seen the evidences of the physical "beginning", and they accept them.
They believe what man has researched concerning the godless universe.
For them, it is fact.  But it is based upon their faith in man's research.
They have no way to totally prove what they believe, but they accept it as fact.
They cannot prove it to someone who has decided not to believe what they believe.

*Logic or not this is what it is.

There isn't a person alive who can prove the existence of God.
There isn't an atheist who can prove there is no God.

Those who will believe, will believe.  Now, I'm not the smartest knife in the drawer, but I'm afraid believers and atheist are gonna have to accept the above.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 5, 2013)

The point was, talking about morals or values is in direct contradiction to being "scientifically sound in our thinking" because they are simply man's constructs.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 5, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Christians(myself) believe in the Almighty God.
> We believe in creation and the evidences of it.
> We believe in the logic of "nothing cannot come from nothing".
> We knew and see the proofs of God in many ways in our lives.
> ...



That is a well put post  and the only thing I would take issue with is "There isn't an atheist who can prove there is no God".
That is a statement of the obvious. Being there is not a person alive that can prove a God automatically puts God into a category of non-existence. That statement is not limited to Atheists as it applies to everyone also.There are lots of things that literally everyone cannot prove do not exist. Except for a God, we would all would be in agreement such things only exist in a persons mind(which that may very well be where God is at, especially if anyone has seen the episode on Through The Wormhole where a scientist has located and isolated the part of the brain that gives the sense of spiritual awareness, and is able to test it on people with outstanding results) and therefore seem absurd. So really, not being able to prove God does not exist is not a failed feat. It is exactly what happens when belief is the only evidence. 

Otherwise I like your post.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> That is a well put post  and the only thing I would take issue with is "There isn't an atheist who can prove there is no God".
> That is a statement of the obvious. Being there is not a person alive that can prove a God automatically puts God into a category of non-existence. That statement is not limited to Atheists as it applies to everyone also.There are lots of things that literally everyone cannot prove do not exist. Except for a God, we would all would be in agreement such things only exist in a persons mind(which that may very well be where God is at, especially if anyone has seen the episode on Through The Wormhole where a scientist has located and isolated the part of the brain that gives the sense of spiritual awareness, and is able to test it on people with outstanding results) and therefore seem absurd. So really, not being able to prove God does not exist is not a failed feat. It is exactly what happens when belief is the only evidence.
> 
> Otherwise I like your post.



And your comments prove my point entirely.
You believe a scientist has located a part of the human brain that give the sense of spiritual awareness.  Your belief of what he has said is accepted by you as fact.
There are very few things in the "life without a God" spectrum that you or anyone else can prove to be 'fact'..... Now they might be fact to you, but so is the fact of God's existence to me.

You will never prove to me the details of 'nothing becoming something' in the evolution process.  You accept it as fact, and you'll beat me up for not accepting what you take as being completely reliable research or information, but you'll never pass my standards of logic.

So you'll believe I'm "shallow" for not believing what you claim to be "absolute".


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> And your comments prove my point entirely.
> You believe a scientist has located a part of the human brain that give the sense of spiritual awareness.  Your belief of what he has said is accepted by you as fact.
> There are very few things in the "life without a God" spectrum that you or anyone else can prove to be 'fact'..... Now they might be fact to you, but so is the fact of God's existence to me.


Whoa buddy, I suggest you research the scientists findings on test subjects to get a little more insight about what I have briefly talked about on here. His finding to me were very interesting. If I said anything that God being in anyone's brains is a fact, I cannot find it.
You are putting words in my mouth to make your rant seem valid. it doesn't work like that.



Ronnie T said:


> You will never prove to me the details of 'nothing becoming something' in the evolution process.  You accept it as fact, and you'll beat me up for not accepting what you take as being completely reliable research or information, but you'll never pass my standards of logic.


Again, that "nothing becoming something" nonsense is your version. It is the typical creationists argument that they use and pretend some evolutionist said it. You are putting words in my mouth in order to make you feel better. I do not know anyone that thinks something came from nothing or nothing made something. If you paid an ounce of attention on here you would have seen where I posted numerous links that make a great case for there always being something.
There is no need for me to beat you up for anything that you believe in. You dole out your own punishment for that.
No shocker that I can't pass your standards of logic.



Ronnie T said:


> So you'll believe I'm "shallow" for not believing what you claim to be "absolute".


If you can spare the ten seconds, please tell me what I have claimed to be absolute.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Whoa buddy, I suggest you research the scientists findings on test subjects to get a little more insight about what I have briefly talked about on here. His finding to me were very interesting. If I said anything that God being in anyone's brains is a fact, I cannot find it.
> I don't believe I insinuated that, did I?
> You are putting words in my mouth to make your rant seem valid. it doesn't work like that.  Again, I have to apologize if it appeared that I had a 'rant' going on here.
> 
> ...



I gotta be honest, I'm absolutely shocked that you have taken my posts so incorrectly.  Maybe it's an indication of just how worthless these conversations are.   

My post #28 wasn't intended to be a "RANT".  I was just trying to illustrate that we each seek something from the other that isn't going to happen just because I 'ask' you to believe what I believe, or you 'ask' me to believe what you believe.

Do me a huge favor, do not even respond.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 6, 2013)

If people could be civil, then the discussion isn't useless even if we don't agree.

Being a lover of knowledge, I fell in love with physics, biology, geology, anything science. I majored in interdisciplinary science in college because I couldn’t pick one field, and got a postgraduate degree in science at a large secular university. I also studied logic and fell in love with that too. In my humble opinion, one needs both science( empirical data, inductive reasoning ) and logic (deductive reasoning) to really search for truth. Some believe that science is the only way to find truth but that is called a self defeating argument because it is not a scientific statement and can’t be scientifically tested so it fails. The greeks believed one could reason alone and only the weak minds need to actually test (“science/empiricism”).  I think you need both.  As philosopher of science John Lennox said, outside of math nothing is truly provable and faith is required whether it’s scientific theory, morality or religion.
Gravity is a great example of faith. You can’t see it, weigh it, taste it, or tell what color it is. You take it on faith because it is the best explanation for what one witnesses in the universe, and it allows you to get out of bed without wondering if you will float to the ceiling. I “believe”  in gravity (hold a concept about it that I feel coincides with reality or truth) and have  “faith” ( the effect of my belief on my behavior). Interestingly, even if someone denies belief in gravity, I have never seen anyone behave in a way that didn’t coincide with an expectation that it was there.  
My belief in God is the same. I can’t see him, weigh him, or tell what color he is but I can get out of bed in the morning because of my expectations of a logic to the universe. Even most atheists expect to leave their house knowing that it would be wrong to break in and steal their TV, even if they claim that there are no morals. When I look at the big questions- from where did the university originate, what is the uncaused cause that the greeks looked for, where is the source for the morals that even the “amoralist” expects to be treated by, why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle), how does life form in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, etc.- I end up, like gravity, coming up with the most plausible hypothesis to explain all this. I can’t show you God but you can’t show me any better explanation.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

I feel I have to respond in order to show you why I said what i said. 

I don't believe I insinuated that, did I?
You believe a scientist has located a part of the human brain that give the sense of spiritual awareness. Your belief of what he has said is accepted by you as fact.

Again, I have to apologize if it appeared that I had a 'rant' going on here.
And again, your typical way of expressing your thoughts will remove me from this discussion. I promise, I didn't intend it to resort to this. 
The whole thing seemed like a rant to me and that is why I took my "typical" approach. Sorry

Again, I never put words into your mouth,, I was stating my opinion of how matter would have had to begun. 
Your belief of what he has said is accepted by you as fact.
There are very few things in the "life without a God" spectrum that you or anyone else can prove to be 'fact'..... Now they might be fact to you, but so is the fact of God's existence to me. 

You will never prove to me the details of 'nothing becoming something' in the evolution process. You accept it as fact,

I never said anything was Fact yet you are making it sound like I did . And I never said anything about 'nothing becoming something'. I felt that was putting words in my mouth

And with those words I'll leave you to playing with yourself and your other sandbox pals. 
Sorry if I cut right to the chase and offended you.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> If people could be civil, then the discussion isn't useless even if we don't agree.
> 
> Being a lover of knowledge, I fell in love with physics, biology, geology, anything science. I majored in interdisciplinary science in college because I couldn’t pick one field, and got a postgraduate degree in science at a large secular university. I also studied logic and fell in love with that too. In my humble opinion, one needs both science( empirical data, inductive reasoning ) and logic (deductive reasoning) to really search for truth. Some believe that science is the only way to find truth but that is called a self defeating argument because it is not a scientific statement and can’t be scientifically tested so it fails. The greeks believed one could reason alone and only the weak minds need to actually test (“science/empiricism”).  I think you need both.  As philosopher of science John Lennox said, outside of math nothing is truly provable and faith is required whether it’s scientific theory, morality or religion.
> Gravity is a great example of faith. You can’t see it, weigh it, taste it, or tell what color it is. You take it on faith because it is the best explanation for what one witnesses in the universe, and it allows you to get out of bed without wondering if you will float to the ceiling. I “believe”  in gravity (hold a concept about it that I feel coincides with reality or truth) and have  “faith” ( the effect of my belief on my behavior). Interestingly, even if someone denies belief in gravity, I have never seen anyone behave in a way that didn’t coincide with an expectation that it was there.
> My belief in God is the same. I can’t see him, weigh him, or tell what color he is but I can get out of bed in the morning because of my expectations of a logic to the universe. Even most atheists expect to leave their house knowing that it would be wrong to break in and steal their TV, even if they claim that there are no morals. When I look at the big questions- from where did the university originate, what is the uncaused cause that the greeks looked for, where is the source for the morals that even the “amoralist” expects to be treated by, why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle), how does life form in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, etc.- I end up, like gravity, coming up with the most plausible hypothesis to explain all this. I can’t show you God but you can’t show me any better explanation.



I always thought we could test gravity, make gravity and repeat the findings.

You are right you can't show us God, and possibly right that we can't show you any better explanation, but using your God standards we can show you tens of thousands of other just as plausible examples that are equally untestable.


----------



## Ronnie T (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I feel I have to respond in order to show you why I said what i said.
> 
> I don't believe I insinuated that, did I?
> You believe a scientist has located a part of the human brain that give the sense of spiritual awareness. Your belief of what he has said is accepted by you as fact.
> ...



Understand this.  I didn't just fall off a turnip truck!  I've been around far too long to be offended by something you say to me.
I'm frankly just disgusted that our conversation got no further than it did.  You are suspicious of everything a believers says.  And, as always, you'll blame that on us.

And there wasn't suppose to be a chase.  Wasn't suppose to be a contest.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I always thought we could test gravity, make gravity and repeat the findings.
> 
> You are right you can't show us God, and possibly right that we can't show you any better explanation, but using your God standards we can show you tens of thousands of other just as plausible examples that are equally untestable.



You don't "make gravity" it is a mathematical description of the behavior of objects that have mass. It is a concept that is presently the best description of what we see.

You haven't shown me even 1 alternative quintessential explanation for the various questions I laid out. Outlandish claims are no substitute for reason.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 6, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Understand this.  I didn't just fall off a turnip truck!  I've been around far too long to be offended by something you say to me.
> I'm frankly just disgusted that our conversation got no further than it did.  You are suspicious of everything a believers says.  And, as always, you'll blame that on us.
> 
> And there wasn't suppose to be a chase.  Wasn't suppose to be a contest.


 Don't worry anyone who claims there's a "spiritual loci" in the brain and therefore spirtiual beliefs are simply a firing of neurons hasn't thought it through very carefully. It means what *they* believe spiritually, even if its atheism, ALSO originates from that spot and therefore there is no reason to accept what they say either.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

Ronnie T said:


> Understand this.  I didn't just fall off a turnip truck!  I've been around far too long to be offended by something you say to me.
> I'm frankly just disgusted that our conversation got no further than it did.  You are suspicious of everything a believers says.  And, as always, you'll blame that on us.
> 
> And there wasn't suppose to be a chase.  Wasn't suppose to be a contest.





Ronnie T said:


> And, as always, you'll blame that on us.



You take care Ron


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> You don't "make gravity" it is a mathematical description of the behavior of objects that have mass. It is a concept that is presently the best description of what we see.
> 
> You haven't shown me even 1 alternative quintessential explanation for the various questions I laid out. Outlandish claims are no substitute for reason.



What questions did you lay out and where?



outdooraddict said:


> Even most atheists expect to leave their house knowing that it would be wrong to break in and steal their TV, even if they claim that there are no morals.



I can't remember anyone saying there are no morals. I can remember it being said that Morals did not come from a God but from other influences. It was laid out in detail in the Morals thread or a thread that talked about Morals.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What questions did you lay out and where?
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember anyone saying there are no morals. I can remember it being said that Morals did not come from a God but from other influences. It was laid out in detail in the Morals thread or a thread that talked about Morals.



From the above blog:  "When I look at the big questions- from where did the university originate, what is the uncaused cause that the greeks looked for, where is the source for the morals that even the “amoralist” expects to be treated by, why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle), how does life form in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, etc.- I end up, like gravity, coming up with the most plausible hypothesis to explain all this. I can’t show you God but you can’t show me any better explanation." Add to that, on what basis can you or I trust our own thoughts. 

From the meme blog: "The question still goes unanswered-Do you feel this ("Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals") is absolutely true or your opinion? Is this a moral statement or are you just typing your present thoughts? Historical facts tell us how things have been, morals tell us how things should be. Don't confuse history with a moral statement."


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> From the above blog:  "When I look at the big questions- from where did the university originate, what is the uncaused cause that the greeks looked for, where is the source for the morals that even the “amoralist” expects to be treated by, why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle), how does life form in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, etc.- I end up, like gravity, coming up with the most plausible hypothesis to explain all this. I can’t show you God but you can’t show me any better explanation." Add to that, on what basis can you or I trust our own thoughts.


This sounded like you blogging your thoughts



outdooraddict said:


> From the meme blog: "The question still goes unanswered-Do you feel this ("Might makes right. the winner makes the rules and the morals") is absolutely true or your opinion? Is this a moral statement or are you just typing your present thoughts? Historical facts tell us how things have been, morals tell us how things should be. Don't confuse history with a moral statement."



Well I never claimed it to be a moral statement. I have said repeatedly that it was a statement I made from observing history.
In many instances throughout history the Might makes Right has panned out and morals have followed. I mentioned the Romans rule as an example. I mentioned how morals were influenced and changed under Hitler's rule. History is filled with examples of varying morals yet I cannot think of one example where there is Absolute anything, let alone morals.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 6, 2013)

I have yet to see a list of absolute moral standards spelled out for every situation that has occurred or will occur on this planet.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This sounded like you blogging your thoughts
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Of course it's me blogging my thoughts. I have the presupposition of a logical universe and certain "rules" that I take by faith such as the fact that I can trust my own senses. I'm asking you how YOU come by this assumption.

As I said before, history is an observation of past behaviors not a moral prescription for how one should behave in the future. Might makes right gives me no idea how I should act tomorrow since I don't know who will win the battle. Morality tells me how I should behave despite who wins the battle. I will die for my wife and children. I don't know how you decide whether to protect them or let them die.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Of course it's me blogging my thoughts. I have the presupposition of a logical universe and certain "rules" that I take by faith such as the fact that I can trust my own senses. I'm asking you how YOU come by this assumption.
> 
> As I said before, history is an observation of past behaviors not a moral prescription for how one should behave in the future. Might makes right gives me no idea how I should act tomorrow since I don't know who will win the battle. Morality tells me how I should behave despite who wins the battle. I will die for my wife and children. I don't know how you decide whether to protect them or let them die.



I trust my own senses. They have served me well for 43 years. They have been influenced by many things that include but are not limited to society, upbringing, experience, family, etc . But I cannot say for sure that a supreme being has downloaded the Ultimate Morals program into my brain. I have yet to see such a list and have yet to know anyone that has been able to provide such a list and do not know of anyone who has been able to follow such a list, mainly because again, there is no list for every situation and scenario. Everyone makes a choice, hopefully to the best of their ability.
At best you can tell me what you would do in a certain situation. And like me, I would tend to think that you have not made the correct moral decision every single time despite our best wishes that we have the ultimate answer within us.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> If people could be civil, then the discussion isn't useless even if we don't agree.
> 
> Being a lover of knowledge, I fell in love with physics, biology, geology, anything science. I majored in interdisciplinary science in college because I couldn’t pick one field, and got a postgraduate degree in science at a large secular university. I also studied logic and fell in love with that too. In my humble opinion, one needs both science( empirical data, inductive reasoning ) and logic (deductive reasoning) to really search for truth. Some believe that science is the only way to find truth but that is called a self defeating argument because it is not a scientific statement and can’t be scientifically tested so it fails. The greeks believed one could reason alone and only the weak minds need to actually test (“science/empiricism”).  I think you need both.  As philosopher of science John Lennox said, outside of math nothing is truly provable and faith is required whether it’s scientific theory, morality or religion.
> Gravity is a great example of faith. You can’t see it, weigh it, taste it, or tell what color it is. You take it on faith because it is the best explanation for what one witnesses in the universe, and it allows you to get out of bed without wondering if you will float to the ceiling. I “believe”  in gravity (hold a concept about it that I feel coincides with reality or truth) and have  “faith” ( the effect of my belief on my behavior). Interestingly, even if someone denies belief in gravity, I have never seen anyone behave in a way that didn’t coincide with an expectation that it was there.
> My belief in God is the same. I can’t see him, weigh him, or tell what color he is but I can get out of bed in the morning because of my expectations of a logic to the universe. Even most atheists expect to leave their house knowing that it would be wrong to break in and steal their TV, even if they claim that there are no morals. When I look at the big questions- from where did the university originate, what is the uncaused cause that the greeks looked for, where is the source for the morals that even the “amoralist” expects to be treated by, why does the universe appear designed for life (anthropic principle), how does life form in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, etc.- I end up, like gravity, coming up with the most plausible hypothesis to explain all this. I can’t show you God but you can’t show me any better explanation.



Come on in brother.  The water is fine.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I trust my own senses. They have served me well for 43 years. They have been influenced by many things that include but are not limited to society, upbringing, experience, family, etc . But I cannot say for sure that a supreme being has downloaded the Ultimate Morals program into my brain. I have yet to see such a list and have yet to know anyone that has been able to provide such a list and do not know of anyone who has been able to follow such a list, mainly because again, there is no list for every situation and scenario. Everyone makes a choice, hopefully to the best of their ability.
> At best you can tell me what you would do in a certain situation. And like me, I would tend to think that you have not made the correct moral decision every single time despite our best wishes that we have the ultimate answer within us.



Thank you, that seems an honest and sincere answer. Unfortunately it is fraught with problems. To trust your senses you must assume there is a reason you can. It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you must be able to trust your senses (as Scrooge questioned Marley), you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data. These assumptions are not scientific they are principles that must exist for science to work. People often gloss over that fact when they try to defend science as the only way to "know" something. I know you didn't say that, just pointing it out. Finally, while your approach is well intentioned, it is circular. You ended by saying that you know we don't always make the correct moral decision. THAT is the whole point. It brings us right back to an absolute moral standard by which we are graded, and that requires an absolute source somewhere. Otherwise, what is correct?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Thank you, that seems an honest and sincere answer. Unfortunately it is fraught with problems. To trust your senses you must assume there is a reason you can. It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you must be able to trust your senses (as Scrooge questioned Marley), you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data. These assumptions are not scientific they are principles that must exist for science to work. People often gloss over that fact when they try to defend science as the only way to "know" something. I know you didn't say that, just pointing it out. Finally, while your approach is well intentioned, it is circular. You ended by saying that you know we don't always make the correct moral decision. THAT is the whole point. It brings us right back to an absolute moral standard by which we are graded, and that requires an absolute source somewhere. Otherwise, what is correct?



Very, very well said.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Thank you, that seems an honest and sincere answer. Unfortunately it is fraught with problems. To trust your senses you must assume there is a reason you can. It requires you to internally have a reliability to your thinking, not the product of random changes that lead to a survival benefit. Second, you must be able to trust your senses (as Scrooge questioned Marley), you could actually be living in the Matrix. Third, you must live in an external logical and consistent universe for which rules/a logos exists in order to apply those senses and analyze the data. These assumptions are not scientific they are principles that must exist for science to work. People often gloss over that fact when they try to defend science as the only way to "know" something. I know you didn't say that, just pointing it out. Finally, while your approach is well intentioned, it is circular. You ended by saying that you know we don't always make the correct moral decision. THAT is the whole point. It brings us right back to an absolute moral standard by which we are graded, and that requires an absolute source somewhere. Otherwise, what is correct?



Now for the $100,000 questions.
Can you back up what you said above with hard facts? Can you prove I don't have internal reliability in my thinking? Can you prove I do not trust my senses? Can you prove we are not in the Matrix? Can you prove we live in an external logical and consistent universe? Can you show us this absolute moral standard and the source of it?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

I am 50% convinced. All I think I need is to see the set of Absolute Morals and the Absolute Moral Giver.


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I am 50% convinced. All I think I need is to see the set of Absolute Morals and the Absolute Moral Giver.



I wonder what the Absolute Moral Giver thinks about slavery?  Is that an absolute moral?  Or has that one changed over time?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Now for the $100,000 questions.
> Can you back up what you said above with hard facts? Can you prove I don't have internal reliability in my thinking? Can you prove I do not trust my senses? Can you prove we are not in the Matrix? Can you prove we live in an external logical and consistent universe? Can you show us this absolute moral standard and the source of it?



Its worth way more than that. The search for truth isn't "I made it up, prove I'm wrong" it should be based on justifying why you hold things to be true in the first place, like those assumptions you make and I described.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> I wonder what the Absolute Moral Giver thinks about slavery?  Is that an absolute moral?  Or has that one changed over time?



Do you think slavery is wrong?


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Do you think slavery is wrong?



Yes I do.  Do you?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Yes I do.  Do you?



Why do you think its wrong, or did you just mean for you its wrong and you wouldn't participate?


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Why do you think its wrong, or did you just mean for you its wrong and you wouldn't participate?



It's wrong because I can empathize with people who are enslaved. 

Do you think it's wrong?  If so, why?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> It's wrong because I can empathize with people who are enslaved.
> 
> Do you think it's wrong?  If so, why?



It's wrong because you can empathize with people who are enslaved? Again, no gimme presuppositions. Why is being enslaved bad or empathizing good?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I have yet to see a list of absolute moral standards spelled out for every situation that has occurred or will occur on this planet.



1. Love God. 
2. Love everybody.


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> It's wrong because you can empathize with people who are enslaved? Again, no gimme presuppositions. Why is being enslaved bad or empathizing good?



Being enslaved is detrimental to one's survival.  Hence, it is "bad" to be a slave.  

Empathizing is "good", because the ability to empathize allows humans, and other social animals, to survive as a group.  Groups improve the chances of survival for all members.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Being enslaved is detrimental to one's survival.  Hence, it is "bad" to be a slave.
> 
> Empathizing is "good", because the ability to empathize allows humans, and other social animals, to survive as a group.  Groups improve the chances of survival for all members.



Enslavement was felt to be good for the enslaver and southern society, they felt it help them survive "as a group" as you put it.

Empathizing is "bad" because the gazelle that goes back gets eaten too.

You and I have to come up with a better source. Arguing for the individual survival in one case and group survival in another is so problematic. Its cheating really, like when its used in natural selection-even Dawkins thought that in his atheistic naturalistic philosophy book The Selfish Gene


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Being enslaved is detrimental to one's survival.  Hence, it is "bad" to be a slave.
> 
> Empathizing is "good", because the ability to empathize allows humans, and other social animals, to survive as a group.  Groups improve the chances of survival for all members.



Is this not still based on the premise that survival is "good"?

What's the difference in a human surviving and a rock "surviving"?

P.S., I'm not sure what your exact stance on God is and how that relates to the inherency of human value. I do remember that you don't consider yourself an atheist anymore.


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Enslavement was felt to be good for the enslaver and southern society, the felt it help them survive "as a group" as you put it.



I understand it was felt to be that way, but was it?  Would you want to be a slave in the old south?  



> Empathizing is "bad" because the gazelle that goes back gets eaten too.
> 
> You and I have to come up with a better source.



Let me put it this way.  Your "Absolute Moral Giver" is just your enlightened survival instinct.  Nothing more.

There is nothing that you can possibly imagine as "morally good" that does not, given the limited information you posses, improve either your chances of survival, or those with whom you empathize.

"Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level."

That's the source.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> I understand it was felt to be that way, but was it?  Would you want to be a slave in the old south?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your assertions are so random. No I don't want to be enslaved, take my medicine, eat my vegetables, or die. What's that got to do with it?

Your statement about my absolute moral giver is nothing more than that, a statement. I thought you guys were opposed to claims without "proof"

You have no idea what I can imagine.

As said (and Dawkins the Godfather of naturalistic religious athiesm says), Only the survival of the individual is supposed to matter, but the survival of individual and group is in conflict and has no true evolutionary pathway (the strong soldier dies protecting the village while the weak and lame stay back and impregnate the village women)

You again make a claim for a source with no logical reasoning other than "because I said so" and I can't take that on faith


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> You have no idea what I can imagine.



I suppose you can imagine all kinds of things.  But even your imagination has limits.  For instance, you cannot imagine anything that you have never experienced.  You may be able to imagine a half-bear, half-butterfly monster with huge teeth.   But you've seen a bear, a butterfly, and teeth.  And you can't imagine something that is morally good, but which hurts you or those with whom you empathize.



> As said (and Dawkins the Godfather of naturalistic religious athiesm says), *Only the survival of the individual is supposed to matter*, but the survival of individual and group is in conflict and has no true evolutionary pathway (the strong soldier dies protecting the village while the weak and lame stay back and impregnate the village women)



Who said that?  Do you think it doesn't often happen that the strong soldier dies, in an effort to help his fellow strong soldiers live? Or to protect his wife and strong children back at home?



> You again make a claim for a source with no logical reasoning other than "because I said so" and I can't *take that on faith*




Who's talking logic and who's talking faith?  Which explanation is simpler?  

That there is some absolute moral law (that seems to change with the times) provided by some mystical power?

Or that our morals come from our group based survival instinct?  

It seems our creator gave us but one commandment:  Survive.  We've worked all the rest out on our own.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> I suppose you can imagine all kinds of things.  But even your imagination has limits.  For instance, you cannot imagine anything that you have never experienced.  You may be able to imagine a half-bear, half-butterfly monster with huge teeth.   But you've seen a bear, a butterfly, and teeth.  And you can't imagine something that is morally good, but which hurts you or those with whom you empathize.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My son's had serious health issue since age 9. We've done everything we can to help him. Sometimes it hurts but absence of pain is not our goal. He says he will never have children because he doesn't want to pass on his health problems to his kids. Your concept of morality would be complete impotent in guiding our decisions.

Asserting a statement as true with no evidence behind it would have to be accepted as "faith" in you and what you say.  I don't know you.

If you feel there is a creator, where did you find this commandment from him. I may have biologic instincts to rape also, this certainly occurs in nature and helps survival. Is this ok?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> I suppose you can imagine all kinds of things.  But even your imagination has limits.  For instance, you cannot imagine anything that you have never experienced.  You may be able to imagine a half-bear, half-butterfly monster with huge teeth.   But you've seen a bear, a butterfly, and teeth.  And you can't imagine something that is morally good, but which hurts you or those with whom you empathize
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That's actually a traditional argument for the existence of God. How can we imagine or make up something totally incomprehensible to us, such as an infinite, omnipotent being.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Who said that?  Do you think it doesn't often happen that the strong soldier dies, in an effort to help his fellow strong soldiers live? Or to protect his wife and strong children back at home?



When a soldier dies, he doesn't survive. You said survival was the goal. When a soldier dies he doesn't pass his genes on to the community so the community doesn't gain either. I do think a soldier dies to protect, it's just that it doesn't fit your morality well. Its in christianity, not nature, that a man is expected to give his life for another.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> That's actually a traditional argument for the existence of God. How can we imagine or make up something totally incomprehensible to us, such as an infinite, omnipotent being.



So we all agree on God, but are still working out morality?


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 7, 2013)

Just curious and wanting to  a little...

How is being enslaved detrimental to one's survival ?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Its in christianity, not nature, that a man is expected to give his life for another.




where did this load come from?0


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

"We believe in the logic of "nothing cannot come from nothing". ronny t

lets address this logic!!! 

you believe everything came from an invisible god(nothing)

how is that logical to you


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> My son's had serious health issue since age 9. We've done everything we can to help him. Sometimes it hurts but absence of pain is not our goal. He says he will never have children because he doesn't want to pass on his health problems to his kids. Your concept of morality would be complete impotent in guiding our decisions.



My morality would tell you to do everything you can to help your son.  My morality would tell you to tell your son that having children, even if they live short lives, is still worth it because they will have received the greatest gift ever bestowed upon mere matter. 

And there is always hope that a cure can be found. 



> If you feel there is a creator, where did you find this commandment from him.



I do think there is a creator.  That is a philosophical belief of mine or what I would call a relative truth.  

There is no greater force in our decision making than the urge to survive.  It is what defines life.  Why do you think the idea of eternal life is such a convincing argument?  



> I may have biologic instincts to rape also, this certainly occurs in nature and helps survival. Is this ok?



Does rape help survival in a social animal?  I think the answer is an obvious no here.


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> J
> How is being enslaved detrimental to one's survival ?



Your odds of summary execution go up a bit wouldn't you think?


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> When a soldier dies, he doesn't survive. You said survival was the goal. When a soldier dies he doesn't pass his genes on to the community so the community doesn't gain either. I do think a soldier dies to protect, it's just that it doesn't fit your morality well. *Its in christianity, not nature, that a man is expected to give his life for another*.



Survival behavior _above the individual level_.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> where did this load come from?0



Are you postulating that you do see examples in nature or that you don't know the reference in Christian doctrine or that you think it is rubish to die for another?

 I'll give you some christian references if thats what you meant, not asking you to accept them for yourself just answering the question. I assume from the question it isn't therefore in your moral framework to die for another-the personal survival thing again. 

Lead by example I guess-Rom 5:6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

ddd-shooter said:


> 1. Love God.
> 2. Love everybody.



useless


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Survival behavior _above the individual level_.



Where does that moral come from? It doesn't come from nature, a bacteria doesn't develop drug resistance because its good for his neighbor but because it helps him survive. Again I would reference an atheistic naturalistic philosophy for that- The Selfish Gene, by Dawkins.

I see a moral claim for doing whats best for others in christian teaching but I don't think that's where you are referencing.

I again please ask for your source.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Are you postulating that you do see examples in nature or that you don't know the reference in Christian doctrine or that you think it is rubish to die for another?
> 
> I'll give you some christian references if thats what you meant, not asking you to accept them for yourself just answering the question. I assume from the question it isn't therefore in your moral framework to die for another-the personal survival thing again.
> 
> ...



in nature ,which includes most humans they protect their young and being the man of odds i am....i bet the male died doing it,females do too

i would die protecting my wife and child ,no doubt in my mind....i am not christian,just don't know where you get off thinking only christians do it


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> in nature ,which includes most humans they protect their young and being the man of odds i am....i bet the male died doing it,females do too
> 
> i would die protecting my wife and child ,no doubt in my mind....i am not christian,just don't know where you get off thinking only christians do it



1. Nature has all sorts of examples like the female eating her partner after sex, so that doesn't help.

2. Straw man fallacy, I NEVER said non christians don't die to protect the ones they love, I am asking you WHY they would do it. Is it personal preference or based on some moral. Don't change the subject.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> I wonder what the Absolute Moral Giver thinks about slavery?  Is that an absolute moral?  Or has that one changed over time?



No one here can give us any absolute morals or show us the giver.
The arguments, while excellent examples of why someone believes in absolute morals and a giver, hit a brick wall when the next step is needed.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> 1. Nature has all sorts of examples like the female eating her partner after sex, so that doesn't help.
> 
> 2. Straw man fallacy, I NEVER said non christians don't die to protect the ones they love, I am asking you WHY they would do it. Is it personal preference or based on some moral. Don't change the subject.



outdoor, what is your moral for protecting the family?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> 1. Nature has all sorts of examples like the female eating her partner after sex, so that doesn't help.
> 
> 2. Straw man fallacy, I NEVER said non christians don't die to protect the ones they love, I am asking you WHY they would do it. Is it personal preference or based on some moral. Don't change the subject.



Because it is the right thing to do,it should come natural
If it doesnt your not wired right


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Where does that moral come from? It doesn't come from nature, *a bacteria doesn't develop drug resistance because its good for his neighbor but because it helps him survive.* Again I would reference an atheistic naturalistic philosophy for that- The Selfish Gene, by Dawkins.
> 
> I see a moral claim for doing whats best for others in christian teaching but I don't think that's where you are referencing.
> 
> I again please ask for your source.



Bacteria are not social animals.   And I haven't read that book.

Tell me, what is "doing what's best for others"?  What's involved with that?  What are you doing for them?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> outdoor, what is your moral for protecting the family?



Thanks. I would reference the above tenets of my philosophy for one thing (christian doctrine). Not asking that you accept that at this point, we're too far away from that just giving you a source.

I'm merely saying I would have to reach beyond nature for the above reasons. Witnessing animal behavior not only gives contradictory examples, it only tells us how they behave, not how they "should"act. No prescriptive reasoning for how I should behave tomorrow.

Humans have morals not just instincts and behaviors (in my opinion). If we only have instincts and behaviors then a mere asking of why these are my morals would be useless because it would only represent your instinct and behavior (_to survive_ was someones postulate).

"How and Why" is the moral question. If I trip grandma it matters as to whether or not it was an accident (intent) and if it was intentional then why-to stop her from stepping in front of a moving car for instance (purpose). Behaviors, survival, and nature don't get me there.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> Because it is the right thing to do,it should come natural
> If it doesnt your not wired right



Begging the question fallacy, you still haven't defined "right" and given the source


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Bacteria are not social animals.   And I haven't read that book.
> 
> Tell me, what is "doing what's best for others"?  What's involved with that?  What are you doing for them?



Now only social animals have value. Is that an absolute moral or your opinion?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> No one here can give us any absolute morals or show us the giver.
> The arguments, while excellent examples of why someone believes in absolute morals and a giver, hit a brick wall when the next step is needed.



Is this an absolute truth? If so how come there are absolute truths but no absolute morals?


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 7, 2013)

pnome said:


> Your odds of summary execution go up a bit wouldn't you think?



Really?  how? remember, slaves were looked at like property and like livestock had a $ value.  As long as you did as you were told/expected you could live a long life...

I guess you figure the owners walked through the fields shooting slaves randomly.  that makes as much sense as a farmer walking through the pasture shooting cows...


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Now only social animals have value. Is that an absolute moral or your opinion?



 Nevermind.


----------



## pnome (Aug 7, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> Really?  how? remember, slaves were looked at like property and like livestock had a $ value.  As long as you did as you were told/expected you could live a long life...
> 
> I guess you figure the owners walked through the fields shooting slaves randomly.  that makes as much sense as a farmer walking through the pasture shooting cows...



Ok, ask yourself this:  Why don't you want to be a slave?  What's wrong with it?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Is this an absolute truth? If so how come there are absolute truths but no absolute morals?



Well I don't know. So far it is a statement made by me based off what I have asked for and what others have not been able to provide.

You can keep asking questions, but I would like you to back up your statements on why you believe things are(morals) with examples of what you are talking about.
If you are telling us absolute morals exist, give us some.
If you are telling us an absolute giver provides us with these morals, expose the giver.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Is this an absolute truth? If so how come there are absolute truths but no absolute morals?



Can humans discover on their own what is right and wrong  in a reliable way without some god telling us?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Can humans discover on their own what is right and wrong  in a reliable way without some god telling us?



great question. A couple of years ago my dad and I were hunting near Juliette Ga in the rain. Nobody knows the woods like my dad but when we went to leave we walked in circles. Literally, straight of a comedy, we walked in a circle and after 20 mins we walked under the same tree/treestand. My dad had enough sense to stop. We waited for the whistlestop cafe train whistle to blow and once we had an external and absolute fixed reference, we got out with no trouble.

Do I think humans can come up with morals at their will and then treat each other appropriately? No. I think we can tell ourselves we are smart enough to walk out of the woods without any frame of reference but it's really ego talking. If there are no absolute references, there is no right direction. If there is no right direction, everbody keeps convoluting and contradicting themselves about how they are going to decide.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Do I think humans can come up with morals at their will and then treat each other appropriately? No.



This not what I asked.
I asked,
Can humans discover on their own what is right and wrong in a reliable way without some god telling us?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Begging the question fallacy, you still haven't defined "right" and given the source



compassion our brain has learned from living with other human beings since the beginning of man...not christianity

and the beginning of man goes back to the apes


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> This not what I asked.
> I asked,
> Can humans discover on their own what is right and wrong in a reliable way without some god telling us?



You're right we either try to create them or discover them. Can humans *discover* implies that there is an absolute moral code out there and outside ourselves to be discovered and that takes us right back to where we started.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> compassion our brain has learned from living with other human beings since the beginning of man...not christianity
> 
> and the beginning of man goes back to the apes



Then why complain about how man treats man. Its just and expression of the brain and living together


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> Then why complain about how man treats man. Its just and expression of the brain and living together



it's religion that get's in the way...religious wars


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> it's religion that get's in the way...religious wars



I can't speak to all religions. I already referenced the christian tenets above. Certainly other religions may promote war, and abuse by those claiming christianity has been used but don't confuse abuse with doctrine. When it comes to christianity show me where it promotes war. That should be easy since there is one easily accessible storage document for christian principles.

While one has to violate christianity in order to promote violence, it completely flows naturally from either previous references to observations of nature, claims already made that might makes right, or atheistic philosophy. Again, I'm not saying atheists are the "bad" people, there may be more "good" atheists than christians. I'm saying I don't know how an atheists decides what is good, and why they choose to pick from the "good" category instead of the "bad" category. If I were an atheist, and since I'm not by nature "good", I would do whatever I felt like. I sure got in a lot of trouble before I had to face these questions and come up with a logic answer.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> I can't speak to all religions. I already referenced the christian tenets above. Certainly other religions may promote war, and abuse by those claiming christianity has been used but don't confuse abuse with doctrine. When it comes to christianity show me where it promotes war. That should be easy since there is one easily accessible storage document for christian principles.
> 
> While one has to violate christianity in order to promote violence, it completely flows naturally from either previous references to observations of nature, claims already made that might makes right, or atheistic philosophy. Again, I'm not saying atheists are the "bad" people, there may be more "good" atheists than christians. I'm saying I don't know how an atheists decides what is good, and why they choose to pick from the "good" category instead of the "bad" category. If I were an atheist, and since I'm not by nature "good", I would do whatever I felt like. I sure got in a lot of trouble before I had to face these questions and come up with a logic answer.



You think you are by nature wicked and evil.  That's a problem for your psychiatrist to deal with.  

You've got all of history and all of scientific advancement as well as your sharp mind to inform what is the best way to deal with your fellow man.  Do you really trust your or a priest's interpretation of an enigmatic and almost nonsensical book to inform your judgement?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> I can't speak to all religions. I already referenced the christian tenets above. Certainly other religions may promote war, and abuse by those claiming christianity has been used but don't confuse abuse with doctrine. When it comes to christianity show me where it promotes war. That should be easy since there is one easily accessible storage document for christian principles.
> 
> While one has to violate christianity in order to promote violence, it completely flows naturally from either previous references to observations of nature, claims already made that might makes right, or atheistic philosophy. Again, I'm not saying atheists are the "bad" people, there may be more "good" atheists than christians. I'm saying I don't know how an atheists decides what is good, and why they choose to pick from the "good" category instead of the "bad" category. If I were an atheist, and since I'm not by nature "good", I would do whatever I felt like. I sure got in a lot of trouble before I had to face these questions and come up with a logic answer.



you mean the book full murder and rape....look i base my deism off some of the good things i found in the bible and live by them,but i don't take the whole thing literal...the rest is based off my research in science and what i have observed in the sky


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> you mean the book full murder and rape....look i base my deism off some of the good things i found in the bible and live by them,but i don't take the whole thing literal...the rest is based off my research in science and what i have observed in the sky



You pick and choose what suits you for the moment. I get that, you're a relativist. But even if you found murder and rape as a part of christian doctrine why do you think you are the only relativist and you can define these things as wrong for everyone else.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> You pick and choose what suits you for the moment. I get that, you're a relativist. But even if you found murder and rape as a part of christian doctrine why do you think you are the only relativist and you can define these things as wrong for everyone else.



love thy neighbor,but bash gays

i believe in the constitution is what i believe in,and i stay out of other people business...freedom of choice,speech,religion,and packin a gun
gays should be able to marry

you push your ways on everyone in a free country


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> You're right we either try to create them or discover them. Can humans *discover* implies that there is an absolute moral code out there and outside ourselves to be discovered and that takes us right back to where we started.



"Discover" most certainly does not imply that there is an absolute moral code out there. That is YOUR assertion.
I am asking without a God in the mix, without this so called absolute moral code written somewhere where no one can find it, Can humans discover(ie: find out, figure out) on their own what is right and wrong in a reliable way without some god telling us?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> love thy neighbor,but bash gays
> 
> i believe in the constitution is what i believe in,and i stay out of other people business...freedom of choice,speech,religion,and packin a gun
> gays should be able to marry
> ...



I have yet to push anything on you. I'm just frustrating because I'm simple minded and keep asking the same basic questions and pointing out the same basic fallacies. I'm not capable of jumping ahead, I need to be walked through the basic logic.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> You pick and choose what suits you for the moment. I get that, you're a relativist. But even if you found murder and rape as a part of christian doctrine why do you think you are the only relativist and you can define these things as wrong for everyone else.



I don't think he is saying they are wrong for everyone else, he is pointing out that despite the claims of believers saying there is an absolute moral truth, the claimed giver of said moral truth does not follow the morals himself and that comes directly from the handbook believers use as the words of said moral giver. UNLESS the absolute morals ARE exactly what that giver(God) does himself in the handbook???


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> "Discover" most certainly does not imply that there is an absolute moral code out there. That is YOUR assertion.
> I am asking without a God in the mix, without this so called absolute moral code written somewhere where no one can find it, Can humans discover(ie: find out, figure out) on their own what is right and wrong in a reliable way without some god telling us?



How does someone "discover" anything that doesn't absolutely exist? I'm not sure I follow you at all. I can't discover unicorns and you can't discover lepricons if they don't exist. We can choose for ourselves to believe in them but we can't discover them. You can't discover morals that don't absolutely exist. You can make them up, choose them, believe them but you can't discover them. Its not an assertion but a logic conclusion.

You cannot discover what doesn't absolutely exist
You can discover what does absolutely exist.
Things cannot partly exist. Things must either by the law of noncontradiction exist or not exist.
You discovered it
It must exist.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> How does someone "discover" anything that doesn't absolutely exist? I'm not sure I follow you at all. I can't discover unicorns and you can't discover lepricons if they don't exist. We can choose for ourselves to believe in them but we can't discover them. You can't discover morals that don't absolutely exist. You can make them up, choose them, believe them but you can't discover them. Its not an assertion but a logic conclusion.
> 
> You cannot discover what doesn't absolutely exist
> You can discover what does absolutely exist.
> ...



These things exist because they have evolved as society has evolved.
Can humans discover on their own what is right and wrong in a reliable way without some god telling us?


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> I have yet to push anything on you. I'm just frustrating because I'm simple minded and keep asking the same basic questions and pointing out the same basic fallacies. I'm not capable of jumping ahead, I need to be walked through the basic logic.



you ever heard of empathy that your brain learns too...not because your one of the christians that you are representing


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

hummdaddy said:


> you ever heard of empathy that your brain learns too...not because your one of the christians that you are representing



No I haven't, I'm not even sure what that sentence means.


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> These things exist because they have evolved as society has evolved.
> Can humans discover on their own what is right and wrong in a reliable way without some god telling us?



I don't think things can exist because they have evolved. I suppose certain things can exist and then evolve, but not exist because they evolved.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> I don't think things can exist because they have evolved. I suppose certain things can exist and then evolve, but not exist because they evolved.



I think things inside our brains evolved with our brains. Our thoughts evolved as our brains evolved. Our thoughts changed as we became more social. As we became more social we had to adapt to living together. Rules followed. A sense of right and wrong was based off of those rules.
The first humans were not programmed with a sense of absolute morality. If you wanted to crack someone on the head with a rock and take his woman you did it. If you were the alpha male you did what you wanted when you wanted. If you were not the alpha male and you got caught doing something the A M didn't like you got a beating. If you wanted to stay in the clan you followed the rules. It all evolved.

There were no "first humans" sitting around in smoking jackets with pipes in their mouths watching others run amok and saying..."that is bad cricket ol chum, your actions are immoral because my invisible friend told me so". It was a learned process based off of our own ability to know what we liked and disliked, finding others with similar feelings and having refined all these things over tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years into where we are today.  It was all so we could be social in order to survive. We needed to be around other people and that necessity spawned rules which turned into ethics and morals. I seriously doubt there was a constant moral then and with today's advanced societies worldwide, we do not seem any closer to having a universal set of absolute morals now either.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> No I haven't, I'm not even sure what that sentence means.



compassion and empathy are learned behavior that form our moral codes
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion
com·pas·sion noun \kÉ™m-Ëˆpa-shÉ™n\

Definition of COMPASSION

: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy?show=0&t=1375925715
em·pa·thy noun \Ëˆem-pÉ™-thÄ“\

Definition of EMPATHY

1
: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2
: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2013)

Is this another topic on all morals come from the God of Abraham? If it is then every man on the face of the Earth knows right from wrong.
Knowing this or believing this I ask, what is the argument?
In other words why debate the morals of Atheist or Hindus if all our morals come from the one true God? Why try to convince a non believer where their morals came from if you already know?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 7, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I think things inside our brains evolved with our brains. Our thoughts evolved as our brains evolved. Our thoughts changed as we became more social. As we became more social we had to adapt to living together. Rules followed. A sense of right and wrong was based off of those rules.
> The first humans were not programmed with a sense of absolute morality. If you wanted to crack someone on the head with a rock and take his woman you did it. If you were the alpha male you did what you wanted when you wanted. If you were not the alpha male and you got caught doing something the A M didn't like you got a beating. If you wanted to stay in the clan you followed the rules. It all evolved.
> 
> There were no "first humans" sitting around in smoking jackets with pipes in their mouths watching others run amok and saying..."that is bad cricket ol chum, your actions are immoral because my invisible friend told me so". It was a learned process based off of our own ability to know what we liked and disliked, finding others with similar feelings and having refined all these things over tens, if not hundreds of thousands of years into where we are today.  It was all so we could be social in order to survive. We needed to be around other people and that necessity spawned rules which turned into ethics and morals. I seriously doubt there was a constant moral then and with today's advanced societies worldwide, we do not seem any closer to having a universal set of absolute morals now either.



I think we are agreeing that there is no naturalistic way to develop morals. The only mechanism I know proposed for evolution is random changes with natural selection choosing traits that confer a survival advantage. So by this process, yes no one really contemplates morality around the fire. Thoughts randomly occur and if they confer survival advantage (not "moral-ness") then they stick, at least until a change in the ecosystem requires a different behavior for survival. They cannot give you "truth" about morality because they are by nature random, but theoretically they can improve survival.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 7, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> I think we are agreeing that there is no naturalistic way to develop morals. The only mechanism I know proposed for evolution is random changes with natural selection choosing traits that confer a survival advantage. So by this process, yes no one really contemplates morality around the fire. Thoughts randomly occur and if they confer survival advantage (not "moral-ness") then they stick, at least until a change in the ecosystem requires a different behavior for survival. They cannot give you "truth" about morality because they are by nature random, but theoretically they can improve survival.



I am not sure we are agreeing that there is no naturalistic way to develop morals. Since I believe we are a product of nature, nature would have to be in the mix somewhere.

I have a hard time believing our most primitive ancestors all were walking around with an absolute set of moral codes instilled in their brains, but it took them a few million years to think of that concept and talk about it.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2013)

outdooraddict said:


> I think we are agreeing that there is no naturalistic way to develop morals. The only mechanism I know proposed for evolution is random changes with natural selection choosing traits that confer a survival advantage. So by this process, yes no one really contemplates morality around the fire. Thoughts randomly occur and if they confer survival advantage (not "moral-ness") then they stick, at least until a change in the ecosystem requires a different behavior for survival. They cannot give you "truth" about morality because they are by nature random, but theoretically they can improve survival.



Our brains certainly evolved. In your opinion, unless you have facts, when were humans given these absolute morals? At what point in our evolutionary process did we become aware that we had such a thing as morals and how did we act or how were we supposed to act before that point?

I have to ask again, Do we need God to tell us right from wrong or can we figure it out for ourselves in some other reliable way?


----------



## outdooraddict (Aug 8, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Our brains certainly evolved. In your opinion, unless you have facts, when were humans given these absolute morals? At what point in our evolutionary process did we become aware that we had such a thing as morals and how did we act or how were we supposed to act before that point?
> 
> I have to ask again, Do we need God to tell us right from wrong or can we figure it out for ourselves in some other reliable way?



As far as evolution goes, you misunderstand the mechanism. Nature works by random events and those that provide a survival advantage stick in the gene pool. If you are right then there is no point that you become aware of morals. I don't know what you think you are doing but you are not being "aware" of morals, there is no evolutionary mechanism for that. You are merely holding a "brain state process of neuronal firing" that may or may not provide a survival advantage, time will tell.

As far as morals, I laid that out in the other blog site.


----------



## hunter rich (Aug 8, 2013)

pnome said:


> Ok, ask yourself this:  Why don't you want to be a slave?  What's wrong with it?



No, this is not what I originally asked of you.  You made a statement and I questioned it, you responded with a answer that didn't work. 

Being wrong or right has no bearing on the statement you made about being enslaved is detrimental to one's survival ?


----------



## pnome (Aug 8, 2013)

hunter rich said:


> No, this is not what I originally asked of you.  You made a statement and I questioned it, you responded with a answer that didn't work.
> 
> Being wrong or right has no bearing on the statement you made about being enslaved is detrimental to one's survival ?



Bear with me.  I'm getting there.  Your question was is slavery good for survival?  I certainly CAN be.  But that is the rarity, not the norm.

There is a good reason why we don't want to be slaves.  That reason, which I asked you, I am thinking will end up being something like:  I don't want to be a slave because I want to spend my life doing things that help the survival of either myself, or those I empathize with, not helping the survival of someone who I don't empathize with (the slave owner)

When you're a slave, you're being forced to spend your blood, sweat and toil helping people you do not want to help.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Aug 8, 2013)

pnome said:


> Bear with me.  I'm getting there.  Your question was is slavery good for survival?  I certainly CAN be.  But that is the rarity, not the norm.
> 
> There is a good reason why we don't want to be slaves.  That reason, which I asked you, I am thinking will end up being something like:  I don't want to be a slave because I want to spend my life doing things that help the survival of either myself, or those I empathize with, not helping the survival of someone who I don't empathize with (the slave owner)
> 
> When you're a slave, you're being forced to spend your blood, sweat and toil helping people you do not want to help.


Ever had a thirty year mortgage? Lol


----------

