# The disconnect between the how's and whys.



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

Both Atheist and Believers have to account for the "How" of exactly how we came about.  For the believers like myself it's simple. "Who did it?" God did it.  To the believer the question of "How?" is secondary.  

For the atheist the question of "How?" is primary.  Whether they label themselves, skeptic, humanist, naturalist, etc., in the end their world views all stem from the belief that time plus matter plus chance produced everything and it is this base belief that they built their values and lives around.  

Both of these belief systems  offer an explanation for the the "How?" as it pertains to origin, and they are both taken on faith.  To pretend otherwise is just sophistry.

As to the "Why?" of origin,  for the Atheist, it would be unfair to say this is a secondary question.  I think to them it's better described as a  moot question or absurd question.  It's a question that doesn't make sense.  It's. Illogical.  "Why?"  It just is!  There is no "Why?"   It's that simple.  

For the believer the answer to the "Why?" is not just primary, its much more than that.  The answer to the "Why?" guides the believers life.  Just as the atheist builds their life around the "How?", the believers life is built around the "Why?".  

The atheist has the autonomy to live their life's as they see fit because they are not bound by any principal other than the ones the define for themselves based on their individual interpretation of life.  This autonomy comes with a price in that because they can't logically justify asking the question "Why?" they forfeit the ability to appeal to a transcendent ideal in matters of morality, justice, and truth.  

Whereas the Atheist forfeit their ability to appeal to a transcendent ideal but gain autonomy, for the believer it's the exact opposite.  Whatever the answer to the "Why?" is for the believer, they are bound by it and live within the parameters of it's dictates.  By doing so they forfeit autonomy,  but they gain the ability to appeal to a transcendent ideal in matters of morality, justice and truth.  




Would you call this a fair assessment, and if so where do you think the rub comes from when these two clash?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Both Atheist and Believers have to account for the "How" of exactly how we came about.  For the believers like myself it's simple. "Who did it?" God did it.  To the believer the question of "How?" is secondary.
> 
> For the atheist the question of "How?" is primary.  Whether they label themselves, skeptic, humanist, naturalist, etc., in the end their world views all stem from the belief that time plus matter plus chance produced everything and it is this base belief that they built their values and lives around.
> 
> ...



I don't consider it a fair assessment. Now, I'm agnostic so that may be the difference, since you seem to be focused solely on atheists. 

Yes, atheists and agnostics, or anyone who believe the scientific creation story, the parts we know, have to take certain aspects on faith, but that's only because we can't observe certain portions. Our view of the universe is the best fit model for what we can observe and nothing more. It's built on a long train of well understood and documented characteristics. We may not know the whole story, but what we do know is held with a not inconsiderable measure of certainty. I could go into the whole thing, but I'd suggest listening to lectures, and reading from those who have done the observing. There's another element of faith since we have to take some of what they're saying at face value, but they also don't shy away from being challenged and can show you the path that they took to get to the conclusions they did. It's based on those observations, the calculations that result, and the predictability that ensues from good science that we can say we've got a pretty good bead on things. 

It's not that why doesn't matter. It's that it's unknowable to us now. Science is concerned with quantifying the observable and making predictions about the future or past from that. There is one point in nearly all of it that this breaks down and you nailed it, it's the why. Why is the gravitational constant set just so? Why is E=mc^2 squared, and not cubed? There's no way to know that, or moreover, there's nothing saying that we ever will know that right now. So, instead of looking in the weeds for answers we may never find, let's focus on what can be answered. 

Still, the curiosity of those why's is exactly why I am agnostic. The only way I can accept that we were created by pure chance is if there are other universes with different values for all of the variables, or if there ever have been. I seriously doubt that random chance could produce this universe, and us, on the first go. The odds are stupendously astronomical against it. It's because of these odds that I don't rule out the possibility of something directing those values to achieve this result, but there's no way to know anything about them given the veil of separation that I hold to be true with every experiment. If you're participating in the experiment then you can affect the outcome, and I don't see evidence for intervention enough to rule out random chance to say that they're still an active player, nor do I think that a scientist would want to monkey with their experiment midstream, introducing unchecked variables, which may alter the outcome. 

To say that religion and science are equals on matters of faith is just dishonest. Not saying that you did, but the bit about sophistry implies and expected refutation of the faith that is involved in science. 

Non-believers are also bound, but their bindings are here and now, not in the eternal punishment that follows for bad behavior. We are bound to what we observe and what we can interact with, if God, or the universal scientist, or whatever, happens to manifest in our experiences in an inarguable, and provable, way, then we will likely remain skeptical, until it is reconfirmed. 

Science is concerned with unraveling the mystery, where faith embraces it. 

Still, I hold science and faith to be two languages trying to tell the same rough story, but one is writing for the fiction section where the other is writing an encyclopaedia.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

I agree with your basic foundation but not the details/assumptions. The details/assumptions that I disagree with are the same ones you posit on all your other posts on this subject.


> where do you think the rub comes from when these two clash?


They don't clash unless one tries to infringe on how the other lives in their private/public life. What I believe or don't believe has no effect on your private/public life whatsoever. Cant say say vice versa though but its quickly getting there.


> they forfeit the ability to appeal to a transcendent ideal in matters of morality, justice, and truth.


The need to appeal to a transcendent ideal sounds like a ego thing to me. Being able to say it and actually living it seems to be quite different quite often.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

There are just too many differences between God believers on rewards, punishment, everlasting life, no everlasting punishment, good people living forever, bad people dying when they die, and most importantly the various levels of moriality that is needed to effect any of the punishements/rewards. Punishements/rewards being now or the afterlife.
Many believers of various Gods all with different requirements. I would imagine there are believers in a Creator/God that believes he doesn't require morals for rewards/punishment. 

The good thing about Christianity is once you repent from believing how you live can't affect your everlasting life to believing that Jesus died because you never could live morally, then it's only rewards for stars in your crown.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> There are just too many differences between God believers on rewards, punishment, everlasting life, no everlasting punishment, good people living forever, bad people dying when they die, and most importantly the various levels of moriality that is needed to effect any of the punishements/rewards. Punishements/rewards being now or the afterlife.
> Many believers of various Gods all with different requirements. I would imagine there are believers in a Creator/God that believes he doesn't require morals for rewards/punishment.
> 
> The good thing about Christianity is once you repent from believing how you live can't affect your everlasting life to believing that Jesus died because you never could live morally, then it's only rewards for stars in your crown.



And lumps of coal in your belly for failures. 

Let's not forget the rod part of the carrot and the stick argument for keeping faithful people on the straight and narrow.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

The best thing about believing in the Christian God over the other false Gods is he knew all along we couldn't live right. Thus he had a plan. I am kinda fond of his plan and believe it works. 
God is no respecter of persons and to him sin is sin. No amount of good living & morals will save one from eternal death. No amount of good living will give someone everlasting life.
I'm not sure if the other God's offer a sacrafice for sins. Maybe a few do as well.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with your basic foundation but not the details/assumptions. The details/assumptions that I disagree with are the same ones you posit on all your other posts on this subject.
> 
> They don't clash unless one tries to infringe on how the other lives in their private/public life. What I believe or don't believe has no effect on your private/public life whatsoever. Cant say say vice versa though but its quickly getting there.
> 
> The need to appeal to a transcendent ideal sounds like a ego thing to me. Being able to say it and actually living it seems to be quite different quite often.



That goes back to autonomy in the life of an Atheist/Agnostic. Without the transcendent, who's to say I can't force my beliefs on another personal/private life?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The best thing about believing in the Christian God over the other false Gods is he knew all along we couldn't live right. Thus he had a plan. I am kinda fond of his plan and believe it works.
> God is no respecter of persons and to him sin is sin. No amount of good living & morals will save one from eternal death. No amount of good living will give someone everlasting life.
> I'm not sure if the other God's offer a sacrafice for sins. Maybe a few do as well.



So if you sin at all then you're going to Hades, no ifs, and, buts, or repentance about it? 



stringmusic said:


> That goes back to autonomy in the life of an Atheist/Agnostic. Without the transcendent, who's to say I can't force my beliefs on another personal/private life?



The knowledge that they have no more right to push their beliefs upon you than you do theirs. Precisely 0.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The best thing about believing in the Christian God over the other false Gods is he knew all along we couldn't live right. Thus he had a plan. I am kinda fond of his plan and believe it works.
> God is no respecter of persons and to him sin is sin. No amount of good living & morals will save one from eternal death. No amount of good living will give someone everlasting life.
> I'm not sure if the other God's offer a sacrafice for sins. Maybe a few do as well.


Its an odd plan to me.
GM made cars they knew wouldn't work right.
GM is being held responsible for it.
That makes sense to me.
God made people he knew wouldn't work right.
The people are punished for not working right.
What????

Gm and God could of just made them right to begin with and avoided suffering and pain and all the negatives that goes with defective cars and people.
That's something I would admire.


----------



## Rebel 6 (Aug 8, 2014)

SemperFiDawg, I wonder about something:

Do you think you have a better chance of earning your way into a heaven by "converting" people who try to think directly with the brain they were born with?  I do wonder, because it seems to me that you post far more in this sub-forum than you do in the sheeple sub-forums.  Am I observing or thinking incorrectly?  Just wondering, and my mind is not closed enough to not allow corrections when I am wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That goes back to autonomy in the life of an Atheist/Agnostic. Without the transcendent, who's to say I can't force my beliefs on another personal/private life?


Ask yourself if there are any laws (state etc) that all people have to live by that are rooted in religion.
Ask yourself if there are any laws (state etc) that all people have to live by that are rooted in Atheism.
Then review your question.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> SemperFiDawg, I wonder about something:
> 
> Do you think you have a better chance of earning your way into a heaven by "converting" people who try to think directly with the brain they were born with?  I do wonder, because it seems to me that you post far more in this sub-forum than you do in the sheeple sub-forums.  Am I observing or thinking incorrectly?  Just wondering, and my mind is not closed enough to not allow corrections when I am wrong.


I'm going to ask a favor from you that I have no right to ask so feel free to tell me to mind my own business.
But, is there any chance you can leave the "sheeple" references out? Its pretty insulting. Although we may disagree with each other on this forum we do make an attempt to treat each other respectfully and the Christians here also go there. Add to that there are some Christians here that I know well enough outside of here (gone hunting and fishing together) that I would consider them friends. So basically you are insulting some of my friends.
Again, just asking you, not telling you.
I'm not a Mod or anybody important 
Thanks


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't consider it a fair assessment. Now, I'm agnostic so that may be the difference, since you seem to be focused solely on atheists.
> 
> Yes, atheists and agnostics, or anyone who believe the scientific creation story, the parts we know, have to take certain aspects on faith, but that's only because we can't observe certain portions. Our view of the universe is the best fit model for what we can observe and nothing more. It's built on a long train of well understood and documented characteristics. We may not know the whole story, but what we do know is held with a not inconsiderable measure of certainty. I could go into the whole thing, but I'd suggest listening to lectures, and reading from those who have done the observing. There's another element of faith since we have to take some of what they're saying at face value, but they also don't shy away from being challenged and can show you the path that they took to get to the conclusions they did. It's based on those observations, the calculations that result, and the predictability that ensues from good science that we can say we've got a pretty good bead on things.
> 
> ...



I really didn't want to turn this into a science vs creation debate.  We've beaten that dawg long enough that we all know where the other stands.  However, I'll just say this and you can feel free to reply.  I have a healthy respect for science.   I'm also aware of it's benefits and limitations.  Science gives us data; useful data if we are lucky.  Nothing more.  The way we interpret that data, no matter how you dice it, is influenced to some degree by observer bias.  With regards to origin and the Big Bang (BB), science can get you there and make a valid case for everything that has occurred since.  But BEFORE the BB, anything that science has to say must be taken with every bit of faith that religion requires and we both know why, so it's not unfair to say both require equal faith at that( or more accurately prior to) that point.  If I'm mistaken feel free.  No offense will be taken.

Regarding science and religion both attempting to tell the same story I'm a bit confused by the allegation of  "one writing for the fiction section".  Are you referring the story where Religion is seen to be addressing a scientific subject or the story in which science is attempting to extrapolate data into the philosophical and religious realm?  Personally I think both are mistaken when this is the case.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to ask a favor from you that I have no right to ask so feel free to tell me to mind my own business.
> But, is there any chance you can leave the "sheeple" references out? Its pretty insulting. Although we may disagree with each other on this forum we do make an attempt to treat each other respectfully and the Christians here also go there. Add to that there are some Christians here that I know well enough outside of here (gone hunting and fishing together) that I would consider them friends. So basically you are insulting some of my friends.
> Again, just asking you, not telling you.
> I'm not a Mod or anybody important
> Thanks





Plus, the exchange is so much better when it isn't bogged down with the insults.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 8, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I really didn't want to turn this into a science vs creation debate.  We've beaten that dawg long enough that we all know where the other stands.  However, I'll just say this and you can feel free to reply.  I have a healthy respect for science.   I'm also aware of it's benefits and limitations.  Science gives us data; useful data if we are lucky.  Nothing more.  The way we interpret that data, no matter how you dice it, is influenced to some degree by observer bias.  With regards to origin and the Big Bang (BB), science can get you there and make a valid case for everything that has occurred since.  But BEFORE the BB, anything that science has to say must be taken with every bit of faith that religion requires and we both know why, so it's not unfair to say both require equal faith at that( or more accurately prior to) that point.  If I'm mistaken feel free.  No offense will be taken.
> 
> Regarding science and religion both attempting to tell the same story I'm a bit confused by the allegation of  "one writing for the fiction section".  Are you referring the story where Religion is seen to be addressing a scientific subject or the story in which science is attempting to extrapolate data into the philosophical and religious realm?  Personally I think both are mistaken when this is the case.



Faith causes you to believe things happen that science as well as your own experience tell you cannot happen.  That's no good.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The knowledge that they have no more right to push their beliefs upon you than you do theirs. Precisely 0.


Why is that?




WaltL1 said:


> Ask yourself if there are any laws (state etc) that all people have to live by that are rooted in religion.
> Ask yourself if there are any laws (state etc) that all people have to live by that are rooted in Atheism.
> Then review your question.


Almost all laws, at least that I can think of are based on someone's idea of morality, religiously based or not.

My question still stands, who can tell me that I shouldn't or can't force my beliefs on someone else.

You want your beliefs forced on others don't you? You believe that murder is wrong and should have consequences, no?



WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to ask a favor from you that I have no right to ask so feel free to tell me to mind my own business.
> But, is there any chance you can leave the "sheeple" references out? Its pretty insulting. Although we may disagree with each other on this forum we do make an attempt to treat each other respectfully and the Christians here also go there. Add to that there are some Christians here that I know well enough outside of here (gone hunting and fishing together) that I would consider them friends. So basically you are insulting some of my friends.
> Again, just asking you, not telling you.
> I'm not a Mod or anybody important
> Thanks



Back at cha'


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

As a Christian who believes in evolution by means of Theistic Evolution, I believe the teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.

What has how God used science to create got to do with one's ability to have or have not morals?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm going to ask a favor from you that I have no right to ask so feel free to tell me to mind my own business.
> But, is there any chance you can leave the "sheeple" references out? Its pretty insulting. Although we may disagree with each other on this forum we do make an attempt to treat each other respectfully and the Christians here also go there. Add to that there are some Christians here that I know well enough outside of here (gone hunting and fishing together) that I would consider them friends. So basically you are insulting some of my friends.
> Again, just asking you, not telling you.
> I'm not a Mod or anybody important
> Thanks



Hear, hear.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Why is that?



Because belief is in the eye of the beholder. Absent some objective reason for prohibiting X activity there is no way to hold faith, or my pragmatism, out to the person on the other side of the table and hope to have them accept it. 

Forgetting this is why we have victimless sins, and I do use the word sins deliberately since there is no provable offense, like gay marriage being verboten. The only thing gay marriage aggravates in its opponents is their perception of a sin. 

I've not once heard anyone in person or on here make a case against homosexuality that didn't involve the word sin at some point. It's usually immediately after their claim that society would crumble as a result falls on its face, but the always work around to sin. I don't subscribe to your sins, and what authority grants you the right to tell me who I can sleep with in my own home?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> What has how God used science to create got to do with one's ability to have or have not morals?


Because if we were created by chance and matter, we are nothing but chance and matter, if we were wonderfully created by God, then we bare His image which gives every human certain inherent rights.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Almost all laws, at least that I can think of are based on someone's idea of morality, religiously based or not.


Not someone's ideas of morality. Society's idea of morality. I belong to society not someone. Our society today contains enough different viewpoints that the majority is represented.


> My question still stands, who can tell me that I shouldn't or can't force my beliefs on someone else.


Society.


> You want your beliefs forced on others don't you? You believe that murder is wrong and should have consequences, no?


No I don't want my individual beliefs forced on society if my beliefs oppose society's beliefs. I understand that what I believe may not be acceptable to society. I can vote, campaign and do a number of things to try to get society to see it my way but if they don't, too bad so sad for me.
Yes I believe murder is wrong and should have consequences. I can also think of a few certain situations where I don't care if its wrong and can't honestly say I wouldn't do it. But I would fully expect to face the consequences.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So if you sin at all then you're going to Hades, no ifs, and, buts, or repentance about it?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Not Hades but everlasting death but only if you don't repent as in changing your way of thinking. One must change his way of thinking according to the Christian God's plan. His plan sent someone to take the place of our sins. A Redeemer if you want to call him that.
> ...


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because belief is in the eye of the beholder. Absent some objective reason for prohibiting X activity there is no way to hold faith, or my pragmatism, out to the person on the other side of the table and hope to have them accept it.
> 
> Forgetting this is why we have victimless sins, and I do use the word sins deliberately since there is no provable offense, like gay marriage being verboten. The only thing gay marriage aggravates in its opponents is their perception of a sin.
> 
> I've not once heard anyone in person or on here make a case against homosexuality that didn't involve the word sin at some point. It's usually immediately after their claim that society would crumble as a result falls on its face, but the always work around to sin. I don't subscribe to your sins, and what authority grants you the right to tell me who I can sleep with in my own home?



Eggggggzackly.

From my worldview, God is that objective source, and yes, I understand that you don't believe He is an objective source, however, that isn't my point.

What is your objective source that says murder should be illegal, or that homosexuality is ok?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> So if you sin at all then you're going to Hades, no ifs, and, buts, or repentance about it?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Not Hades but everlasting death but only if you don't repent as in changing your way of thinking. One must change his way of thinking according to the Christian God's plan. His plan sent someone to take the place of our sins. A Redeemer if you want to call him that.
> ...



I don't know why an atheist would look to the Bible for the justification of their morality. 

I guess what I'm asking about repentance is that if one accepts that they can't stop sinning, what you just said was repentance, and that leading a moral life is all but an impossibility and would preclude salvation, then why even bother to try to live on the straight and narrow? 

If I can know that I will sin anyway, but accept that Jesus died for my sins and will thus be allowed entrance to heaver over any quality my life had, then, theoretically I would be able to do anything to anyone without fear of repercussion. I could kill, knowing that I will sin and Jesus redeemed me, and still get into heaven. But the 10 commandments tell me that's wrong. Maybe it's in my perception, but that's a paradox.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Eggggggzackly.
> 
> From my worldview, God is that objective source, and yes, I understand that you don't believe He is an objective source, however, that isn't my point.
> 
> What is your objective source that says murder should be illegal, or that homosexuality is ok?



Case A has a victim. Case B doesn't. I'm talking two consenting adults and nothing more.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Not someone's ideas of morality. Society's idea of morality. I belong to society not someone. Our society today contains enough different viewpoints that the majority is represented.
> 
> Society.
> 
> ...



From your perspective, society is the ruler of what is just and moral?

Here's another question that I hear often...

In some society's they love their neighbor, in others, they eat them. 

Which do you prefer?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Because if we were created by chance and matter, we are nothing but chance and matter, if we were wonderfully created by God, then we bare His image which gives every human certain inherent rights.



We are what we make it.
We may be wonderfully created or we may be from chance and matter. 
If we are from chance and matter and we are at the point that we are at don't we still have inherent rights that we earned along our journey to get here?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Case A has a victim. Case B doesn't. I'm talking two consenting adults and nothing more.



What is your objective source that say something is immoral because there is a victim involved?


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> From your perspective, society is the ruler of what is just and moral?
> 
> Here's another question that I hear often...
> 
> ...



Point is both exist.
When brought up in one the other is always the wrong choice.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> We are what we make it.
> We may be wonderfully created or we may be from chance and matter.
> If we are from chance and matter and we are at the point that we are at it don't we still have inherent rights that we earned along our journey to get here?



I'm not sure how we would? As far as I know, chance and matter cannot give a human inherent rights.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> What is your objective source that say something is immoral because there is a victim involved?



I never claimed to have one. My morality extends only the ends of my being. I can no sooner project mine upon you than you should try to project yours upon me. 

We can all have morality, but it breaks down once it leaves the individual. Even proponents of the same God, from the same Bible have differing moralities. If that doesn't show you the folly in proclaiming the Bible as an objective source for all then I don't know what will. 

I was hoping we would circle back to this, but you beat me to it while I was replying to someone else.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Point is both exist.
> When brought up in one the other is always the wrong choice.



And without an objective source, neither can be wrong.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I never claimed to have one. My morality extends only the ends of my being. I can no sooner project mine upon you than you should try to project yours upon me.
> 
> We can all have morality, but it breaks down once it leaves the individual. Even proponents of the same God, from the same Bible have differing moralities. If that doesn't show you the folly in proclaiming the Bible as an objective source for all then I don't know what will.
> 
> I was hoping we would circle back to this, but you beat me to it while I was replying to someone else.


If you seen someone about to stab a small child with a knife because they thought it would be funny, what would you say to them?


----------



## 660griz (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> My question still stands, who can tell me that I shouldn't or can't force my beliefs on someone else.


 No one said that. Just that you don't have a right to. History shows that beliefs are forced all the time.


> You want your beliefs forced on others don't you? You believe that murder is wrong and should have consequences, no?


Beliefs are personal, morals are based on a code of ethics. 
Murder is a construct of your particular society. Murder is wrong in our society. Some, not so much. The fact that MOST societies think murder is wrong seems to point to evolution. 
I would not go to other societies and try to change their morals. Say, they like to eat puppies.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If you seen someone about to stab a small child with a knife because they thought it would be funny, what would you say to them?



That funny in their eyes does not overrule that child's life. Go find something else to laugh at that doesn't involve depriving someone of their life. 

It would most likely end with me fighting them to defend that child, but so would, "God commands you not to do this..." if they're bent on it. 

They're under no obligation to listen to either of our statements, but anyone with 2 working brain cells knows that killing people isn't good and doesn't need a God to tell them that. If they do need that, then they're sub-human in my eyes and no amount of imposed morality would sway them anyway.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If you seen someone about to stab a small child with a knife because they thought it would be funny, what would you say to them?



If safe to do so, I would just shoot them. 
Our society does not take kindly to small child stabbing.

If I was in China, and it was a girl, nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'm not sure how we would? As far as I know, chance and matter cannot give a human inherent rights.



We being the result of chance and matter have given them to ourselves through living.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> From your perspective, society is the ruler of what is just and moral?
> 
> Here's another question that I hear often...
> 
> ...





> From your perspective, society is the ruler of what is just and moral?


Remember we were talking about laws -


> Almost all laws, at least that I can think of are based on someone's idea of morality, religiously based or not.


Because something is legal you can still use your own sense of morality and not do it. But yes, in general our laws reflect what the majority of society believes to be moral and just. As societies views change about what is moral and just the laws change. For example now you can smoke a big fatty right before you marry your gay lover legally in some states with more states on the way.


> In some society's they love their neighbor, in others, they eat them.
> Which do you prefer?


I cant say. Ive never had human before so I don't actually know.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> And without an objective source, neither can be wrong.



And they are not wrong within their own societies.
Advanced societies kill and murder.
God has a few hundred million murders under his belt.
Some people eat people.
Man decides.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't know why an atheist would look to the Bible for the justification of their morality.
> 
> I guess what I'm asking about repentance is that if one accepts that they can't stop sinning, what you just said was repentance, and that leading a moral life is all but an impossibility and would preclude salvation, then why even bother to try to live on the straight and narrow?
> 
> If I can know that I will sin anyway, but accept that Jesus died for my sins and will thus be allowed entrance to heaver over any quality my life had, then, theoretically I would be able to do anything to anyone without fear of repercussion. I could kill, knowing that I will sin and Jesus redeemed me, and still get into heaven. But the 10 commandments tell me that's wrong. Maybe it's in my perception, but that's a paradox.



I somewhat agree with you. If morals are from God and were given to us knowing full well we couldn't live by his morals and would thus need a saviour, what is the point of this OP?
Now one could say the point of the thread is that after an un-believer accepts that he can't live by God's standards and accepts Jesus that God will now help that person live by his morals.
But keeping the morals aren't a part of salvation.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I somewhat agree with you. If morals are from God and were given to us knowing full well we couldn't live by his morals and would thus need a saviour, what is the point of this OP?
> Now one could say the point of the thread is that after an un-believer accepts that he can't live by God's standards and accepts Jesus that God will now help that person live by his morals.
> But keeping the morals aren't a part of salvation.



So why even bother with them? They, by this logic, have no point. 

Maybe that's a little nihilistic of me, but I see no point in something that has no consequence and no benefit. 

I believe my actions on earth matter, not because of what happens to me when I die rather, because of what they do to others on this earth.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

How someone else squares the results of their actions, and their effects upon me, within themselves is no concern of mine. I can deal with emotional pain, and if the threat is death I can deal with defending myself.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> No one said that. Just that you don't have a right to. History shows that beliefs are forced all the time.
> 
> Beliefs are personal, morals are based on a code of ethics.
> Murder is a construct of your particular society. Murder is wrong in our society. Some, not so much. The fact that MOST societies think murder is wrong seems to point to evolution.
> I would not go to other societies and try to change their morals. Say, they like to eat puppies.


Murder cannot be wrong/immoral in our society and also be right/moral in another society, that's not logical.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Murder cannot be wrong/immoral in our society and also be right/moral in another society, that's not logical.



The world isn't logical. If it were ISIS wouldn't be murdering Christians.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Because if we were created by chance and matter, we are nothing but chance and matter, if we were wonderfully created by God, then we bare His image which gives every human certain inherent rights.



Are humans born capable of living righteous before or even after salvation? Aren't un-believers totally or somewhat depraved until God opens their eyes?

What does this have to do with  how God created us. I didn't say God used random matter any more than you said he used random dirt/matter to form Adam.

But for the sake of argument, if God doesn't offer any randomness then he can't offer any choices either.
We can't leave anything up to chance as it would change who we are by changing all future events. One choice by you could change the outcome of your offspring and their offspring. I'd hate to think our offspring are a result of our choices.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Murder cannot be wrong/immoral in our society and also be right/moral in another society, that's not logical.



string, if you are getting your murder morals from the Bible go through and count how many deaths are attributed directly by God, how many are commanded directly by God and how many are carried out in God's name.
NO WONDER PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
If you would say we kill people because God has set the standard for us then I might be inclined to agree with you.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That funny in their eyes does not overrule that child's life. Go find something else to laugh at that doesn't involve depriving someone of their life.


By you're own admission, you shouldn't say anything to them, your morals are yours, and their morals are theirs, whether it involves a victim or not.



> It would most likely end with me fighting them to defend that child.


So you would forcefully stop them from what they see as moral? Isn't that exactly what you're arguing against?



> They're under no obligation to listen to either of our statements, but anyone with 2 working brain cells knows that killing people isn't good and doesn't need a God to tell them that. If they do need that, then they're sub-human in my eyes and no amount of imposed morality would sway them anyway.


Yes, and I say those brain cells come from God. Chance and matter, and even science and reason cannot show that murdering someone is right or wrong. There is no other way to get there apart from an objective source.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Murder cannot be wrong/immoral in our society and also be right/moral in another society, that's not logical.



May not be logical to you but, that doesn't make it false.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> We being the result of chance and matter have given them to ourselves through living.



You can't give yourself, or anybody else inherent/intrinsic rights.

in·trin·sic  [in-trin-sik, -zik] 
adjective
1.belonging to a thing by its very nature


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> By you're own admission, you shouldn't say anything to them, your morals are yours, and their morals are theirs, whether it involves a victim or not.


Laws are Laws. No morals necessary




stringmusic said:


> So you would forcefully stop them from what they see as moral? Isn't that exactly what you're arguing against?


It might be within his morals to want to stop them. 
He may feel he needs to uphold the law.




stringmusic said:


> Yes, and I say those brain cells come from God. Chance and matter, and even science and reason cannot show that murdering someone is right or wrong. There is no other way to get there apart from an objective source.


Does the objective source murder?
Has the objective source ordered others to murder?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And they are not wrong within their own societies.


That violates the law of non contradiction. It cannot be immoral in the US and moral in China. A few thousand miles in between someone murdering a child makes no difference.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> You can't give yourself, or anybody else inherent/intrinsic rights.
> 
> in·trin·sic  [in-trin-sik, -zik]
> adjective
> 1.belonging to a thing by its very nature



I can't give them..but your God can give them even though you tell me intrinsic and inherent rights can't be given?

I don't know string, something does not sound right there.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That violates the law of non contradiction. It cannot be immoral in the US and moral in China. A few thousand miles in between someone murdering a child makes no difference.



What law does the actions of your God violate?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Remember we were talking about laws -


Yes, and you've stated that society is the arbiter of laws, which in turn makes society the arbiter of morals.



> Because something is legal you can still use your own sense of morality and not do it. But yes, in general our laws reflect what the majority of society believes to be moral and just. As societies views change about what is moral and just the laws change. For example now you can smoke a big fatty right before you marry your gay lover legally in some states with more states on the way.


Again, that violates the law of non contradiction. Time and place are irrelevant to morals. If society decided murdering babies became legal in 20 years that doesn't make moral.



> I cant say. Ive never had human before so I don't actually know.


Use your imagination.  

I'm sure I know the answer to the question.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That violates the law of non contradiction. It cannot be immoral in the US and moral in China. A few thousand miles in between someone murdering a child makes no difference.


It only contradicts if you believe all societies have the same view of what is right and wrong.
They don't.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I can't give them..but your God can give them even though you tell me intrinsic and inherent rights can't be given?
> 
> I don't know string, something does not sound right there.



I didn't say they couldn't be given, just that you couldn't give them to yourself.

You can only have intrinsic/inherent rights if you were created by God in His image.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> It only contradicts if you believe all societies have the same view of what is right and wrong.
> They don't.


That's irrelevant, just because it's ok to murder someone in Iraq doesn't meant it's moral.

That just makes my point that societies cannot decide what is and isn't moral.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> By you're own admission, you shouldn't say anything to them, your morals are yours, and their morals are theirs, whether it involves a victim or not.
> 
> 
> So you would forcefully stop them from what they see as moral? Isn't that exactly what you're arguing against?
> ...



My morality permits me to prevent the creation of a victim. 

It is, the only difference is that my goal isn't to deprive them of life. Theirs is. 

Really? Science can't show that murder is wrong? How about propagation of the species and the first goal in pursuit of that is preservation of current populations? 

I'd say survival of the species is about as objective as one can get.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What law does the actions of your God violate?



It always goes here. Why don't we just hash out morals before we get to this subject.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

Gosh I'm really enjoying this, but I gotta take a break for a few mins. 


Y'all gonna get me in trouble at work.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Yes, and you've stated that society is the arbiter of laws, which in turn makes society the arbiter of morals.
> 
> 
> Again, that violates the law of non contradiction. Time and place are irrelevant to morals. If society decided murdering babies became legal in 20 years that doesn't make moral.
> ...


You are ignoring what is happening all around you.
At one time it was moral and right to kill your wife for adultery.
How about now in the US?


> Use your imagination.


My imagination tells me that we eat all kinds of flesh, so cooked on the grill to a nice medium rare and smothered in fried onion with some fresh corn on the cob, I might go for seconds.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Gosh I'm really enjoying this, but I gotta take a break for a few mins.
> 
> 
> Y'all gonna get me in trouble at work.



Well, don't do that.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I didn't say they couldn't be given, just that you couldn't give them to yourself.
> 
> You can only have intrinsic/inherent rights if you were created by God in His image.



String you have not addressed ONE murder that your God is responsible for in his own handbook.
You refuse to address the murders he commanded be carried out.
According to you we look like him but you won't admit we act like him.
Tell me I am wrong and then show me.

And now you are asserting that ONLY your God is capable of of giving us these rights.

You have em cause you believe in God and I have them because I don't believe in your God.
If I was like your God I'd off someone for simply disagreeing with me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You are ignoring what is happening all around you.
> At one time it was moral and right to kill your wife for adultery.
> How about now in the US?
> 
> My imagination tells me that we eat all kinds of flesh, so cooked on the grill to a nice medium rare and smothered in fried onion with some fresh corn on the cob, I might go for seconds.



Prezactly. Christianity has contradicted its own morality almost since day one, let alone that of the rest of the world. 

There's often a disconnect in philosophy, i.e. noncontradiciton, and reality.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String you have not addressed ONE murder that your God is responsible for in his own handbook.
> You refuse to address the murders he commanded be carried out.
> According to you we look like him but you won't admit we act like him.
> Tell me I am wrong and then show me.
> ...



Not too mention, slavery, incest...etc.

Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."

He was gathering sticks on the Sabbath.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That's irrelevant, just because it's ok to murder someone in Iraq doesn't meant it's moral.
> 
> That just makes my point that societies cannot decide what is and isn't moral.


What is irrelevant is our morals because we aren't talking about us.
What is relevant is their morals because we are talking about them.

If there was only one set of morals throughout the world we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

660griz said:


> Not too mention, slavery, incest...etc.
> 
> Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So all the congregation brought him outside the camp, and stoned him to death with stones, just as the Lord had commanded Moses."
> 
> He was gathering sticks on the Sabbath.


I would hate to see what they did to him if he went fishing.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My morality permits me to prevent the creation of a victim.


If you're going to be consistent, you must allow them to have their morality all the same, which means while you don't agree that murdering a child is moral, they do. But you've already admitted you would forcefully intervene, which is what you're arguing against. 



> Really? Science can't show that murder is wrong?


Not even close.



> How about propagation of the species and the first goal in pursuit of that is preservation of current populations?


That's just simple math. It can tell you that if you don't procreate, there will be less people, if you murder, there will be less people, certainly doesn't say if it's moral or not.



> I'd say survival of the species is about as objective as one can get.


In what way is that objective? Universal agreement by people doesn't dictate morality. What if every human decided that rape was moral?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You are ignoring what is happening all around you.
> At one time it was moral and right to kill your wife for adultery.
> How about now in the US?


I'm not insinuating that people and societies haven't changed their mind on what is moral and what isn't. Again, that makes my point that society isn't the best option when it comes to morality.



> .My imagination tells me that we eat all kinds of flesh, so cooked on the grill to a nice medium rare and smothered in fried onion with some fresh corn on the cob, I might go for seconds.


LOL. Well, the taste of human flesh wasn't exactly the reason for the question. The point was, while one society loves there neighbor, another eats theirs, one is moral and the other is not. How do we find out which is which? Certainly not society, they're all over the place on morality.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If you're going to be consistent, you must allow them to have their morality all the same, which means while you don't agree that murdering a child is moral, they do. But you've already admitted you would forcefully intervene, which is what you're arguing against.
> 
> 
> Not even close.
> ...



A) I'm not bound to consistency, even though I am consistent, you just wouldn't know it because my code of ethics isn't plastered on a court room wall or in a book. My morality states that they forfeit their freedom the moment they take a victim. 

B) Choosing not to procreate is not the same thing as murder. Is it to you? Pointed question, no deflections please. 

C) If every person decided rape was moral, even the potential victims, then there's nothing to discuss. You can't have consensual rape. If they consent, i.e. agree that it's ok, then it's not rape. If it's rape then they don't agree with it. 

Survival of the species is objective because we're all members. Defending ourselves from death is a natural right, except from uncontrollable events, which you would call Acts of God. I don't see the hand of god in an anvil striking a toddler in the head and killing them, maybe you do. I see a horrific accident. I also don't see the hand of God in someone murdering someone else, maybe you do. I see murder, and murder, i.e. the taking of someone's life against their will, is wrong in my eyes. Maybe you differ, maybe you're just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> String you have not addressed ONE murder that your God is responsible for in his own handbook.
> You refuse to address the murders he commanded be carried out.
> According to you we look like him but you won't admit we act like him.
> Tell me I am wrong and then show me.
> ...



I'll refer you back to post #59



stringmusic said:


> It always goes here. Why don't we just hash out morals before we get to this subject.



One problem we have in this forum is we can never seem to resolve anything. While I kinda understand that to a point, when a valid point is made, one just switches tactics or changes the subject.

Case and point, I made the argument that it is impossible to have intrinsic/inherent rights without being created by God. Instead of refuting that claim with your worldview, you changed the subject to God and His relationship with humans.

Until we get past the point of intrinsic/inherent rights, there is no point in discussing Gods relationship with people. So, do you agree or disagree that the only way humans can have intrinsic rights is to be created by God? If you disagree, please tell me why and give me a way that it is possible.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> A) I'm not bound to consistency, even though I am consistent, you just wouldn't know it because my code of ethics isn't plastered on a court room wall or in a book. My morality states that they forfeit their freedom the moment they take a victim.


You're not bound by consistency, but you're consistent because you use logic and for you to be logical, you must be consistent.  So in a way, you're bound by consistency. I've asked this question a few times now, and this is the last time. Why is it ok for you to force your morality of not murdering a child on someone else?



> B) Choosing not to procreate is not the same thing as murder. Is it to you? Pointed question, no deflections please.
> 
> C) If every person decided rape was moral, even the potential victims, then there's nothing to discuss. You can't have consensual rape. If they consent, i.e. agree that it's ok, then it's not rape. If it's rape then they don't agree with it.
> 
> Survival of the species is objective because we're all members. Defending ourselves from death is a natural right, except from uncontrollable events, which you would call Acts of God. I don't see the hand of god in an anvil striking a toddler in the head and killing them, maybe you do. I see a horrific accident. I also don't see the hand of God in someone murdering someone else, maybe you do. I see murder, and murder, i.e. the taking of someone's life against their will, is wrong in my eyes. Maybe you differ, maybe you're just playing devil's advocate.


I don't think we are on the same page here. Either I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make or you're not understanding the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> B) Choosing not to procreate is not the same thing as murder. Is it to you? Pointed question, no deflections please.


Obviously not. That wasn't the point I was making. The point is, whether people are simply not procreating, or murdering each other, the human race declines in numbers. Science, nor math, can tell someone if that is moral or immoral.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 8, 2014)

Alright fellers, I'm heading out for the weekend. Going to plant more food plots and move stands etc etc tomorrow.

I usually don't post much on the weekends, but I'll be back at it on Monday. We haven't had a good morals thread in a while, kinda reminds me of old times.... LOL.

Y'all have a good'un.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree with your basic foundation but not the details/assumptions. The details/assumptions that I disagree with are the same ones you posit on all your other posts on this subject.



It's just the sheeple in me coming out.



WaltL1 said:


> They don't clash unless one tries to infringe on how the other lives in their private/public life. What I believe or don't believe has no effect on your private/public life whatsoever. Cant say say vice versa though but its quickly getting there.



Disagree.  We don't live in a vacuum.  Beliefs shape values and values guide actions.  



WaltL1 said:


> The need to appeal to a transcendent ideal sounds like a ego thing to me



And that sounds like a biased personal opinion to me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> SemperFiDawg, I wonder about something:
> 
> Do you think you have a better chance of earning your way into a heaven by "converting" people who try to think directly with the brain they were born with?  I do wonder, because it seems to me that you post far more in this sub-forum than you do in the sheeple sub-forums.  Am I observing or thinking incorrectly?  Just wondering, and my mind is not closed enough to not allow corrections when I am wrong.




My first thought is WOW, what did I do to deserve being singled out enough for you reviewing my posting history?  Do you do this to everyone, or is it because I'm the low hanging fruit (intellectually speaking) on this forum.  Either way it's kinda odd in a creepy sort of way.  

To answer your question though it's for purely selfish reasons.  First I find the most of the threads in the above forums pretty boring.  There are some great guys up there, but for the most part it's either trolls or a couple of believers arguing over an obscure doctrine.  I prefer it down here for several reasons.  Having my beliefs challenged and defending those beliefs forces me to think.
If my belief can't stand up to the challenge it's not much of a belief and if I can't answer the hard questions I'm not much of a believer.  In summary it makes me less of a sheeple.  I'm sure you understand what I'm attempting to convey.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Faith causes you to believe things happen that science as well as your own experience tell you cannot happen.  That's no good.



Not true.  Faith requires me to believe something exists outside of the natural, outside the scope of what science can answer.  It doesn't necessarily contradict, nor detract from science, but it does validate the very foundation of science: that the universe is understandable/comprehensible.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Aug 8, 2014)

Why exactly does there have to be a "why?" Wondering why could very well be a trait of one only species (human) in the entire universe. There may be creatures somewhere that can make Einstein look like a baby, but still don't ask "why." 
Curiosity just might be a side effect that we humans experienced as our bigger/better brains developed over time. So to a species that has no concept of "why" God would not be necessary. God is needed with many humans to explain the unexplained, or the motivation behind what is already explained. The thought that there is no "why" disturbs some people, but liberates others.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I'll refer you back to post #59


insert spaghetti western ricochet here





stringmusic said:


> One problem we have in this forum is we can never seem to resolve anything. While I kinda understand that to a point, when a valid point is made, one just switches tactics or changes the subject.


The valid point was not made. In order to show why the point is not valid an example must be given. THAT valid example is ignored.
You always want to settle something dealing with a God.
You and everyone else that champions for this God have never yet once provided evidence of a God. You admit freely that it is impossible to do yet you continue on trying to make valid points about an invalid subject.
Yeah...IF there was a God, and IF that God created us than most likely that is where our morals and values would come from. 
IF the Queen had.....she'd be King.
When everything is one big IF...and when your God needs an IF in order to somehow make it seem more real....then it probably is not real.



stringmusic said:


> Case and point, I made the argument that it is impossible to have intrinsic/inherent rights without being created by God. Instead of refuting that claim with your worldview, you changed the subject to God and His relationship with humans.


To show you that the book you use, which is supposed to be your God's word, shows that you are claiming your God has given us something he does not posses himself.



stringmusic said:


> Until we get past the point of intrinsic/inherent rights, there is no point in discussing Gods relationship with people. So, do you agree or disagree that the only way humans can have intrinsic rights is to be created by God? If you disagree, please tell me why and give me a way that it is possible.



I do disagree and I have told you why already...all the way back with the chance/matter reply.
But you did not like that reply so you are asking again for another answer.
To which I will reply:
We are here.
I do know we are made of Matter and I do not see the involvement of the God of the Bible. Therefore I feel that we are a product of our Universe. The particles and molecules and atoms that make up us and everything in the Universe have formed in a way that has made me what, who and how I am. I am unique. I think evolution has refined certain things, eliminated others and it all comes down to actions and consequences. Whatever society we live in dictates the rules and dishes out the punishment or reward. I think each individual alive today has been passed down something from their ancestors that goes all the way back to a time when their ancestor was a much simpler creature. As they learned through trial and error and pure survival of the fittest their brain became more complex and a trait was passed on to the next generation. At one point we may have just been an electrical impulse in a single cell and here we are now.
I Do Not Know what happened in between but I do not see evidence of a God, let alone the God of the Bible.
I think our intrinsic/inherent rights have evolved along with us, are evolving along with us and change accordingly. Nothing concerning humans and morals are universal or the world would not be such a mess.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> Why exactly does there have to be a "why?"



That's kinda the point I wanted to raise with the thread.  Why should there be a "Why?"  The atheist creed doesn't call for one and they seem to get along as well as others without it, yet we all continue to acknowledge it both believers and atheist alike.  It's human nature to not only ask "Why?" but expect there to be an answer.  

Bertrand Russell said “The center of me is always and eternally a terrible pain – a curious wild pain – a searching for something beyond what the world contains, something transfigured and infinite, the beatific vision – God. I do not find it, I do not think it is to be found, but the love of it is my life … it fills every passion I have. It is the actual spring of life in me”

C.S. Lewis put it like this 

“Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”
What is the desire which finds no satisfaction in this present world but points us to heaven? It is an inner yearning for righteousness, peace and joy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> To show you that the book you use, which is supposed to be your God's word, shows that you are claiming your God has given us something he does not posses himself



Actually it doesn't matter what his book says, which book he's using, or even if he's using a book at all.  His point is logically true, yet instead of ceding the point and acknowledging a  shortfall of your belief, you did just as String noted and changed the topic.  It would be real nice if we could be honest about the pros and cons of our beliefs.  I tried to do that in the OP and I'm going to make a conscious effort to continue.  I'm willing to admit that there are pros and cons to my beliefs and to being a believer in general and I will acknowledge those and others as they are pointed out.  Walt really gained a lot of respect from me today by taking a stand against the insults.  I feel it would make the forum a lot more interesting if we could likewise keep all the discussions intellectually honest as well.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It's just the sheeple in me coming out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Disagree.  We don't live in a vacuum.  Beliefs shape values and values guide actions.


That's exactly why we live in a society governed by laws so no one belief can trample over the other yet still allow for the existence of different beliefs.


> And that sounds like a biased personal opinion to me.


That's exactly what it is. Every personal opinion is biased.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 8, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's kinda the point I wanted to raise with the thread.  Why should there be a "Why?"  The atheist creed doesn't call for one and they seem to get along as well as others without it, yet we all continue to acknowledge it both believers and atheist alike.  It's human nature to not only ask "Why?" but expect there to be an answer.
> 
> Bertrand Russell said “The center of me is always and eternally a terrible pain – a curious wild pain – a searching for something beyond what the world contains, something transfigured and infinite, the beatific vision – God. I do not find it, I do not think it is to be found, but the love of it is my life … it fills every passion I have. It is the actual spring of life in me”
> 
> ...


As you said in the OP you have an answer to "how" that you are satisfied with so your next question is "why" did God put me here. 
For the A/A if the Big Bang is proven to be the "how" we know that the Big Bang didn't make a conscience decision to put us here so there is no "why" in that sense.
An A/A can also ask why am I here but in the sense of "ok Im here now what would I like to do or become".


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Actually it doesn't matter what his book says, which book he's using, or even if he's using a book at all.  His point is logically true, yet instead of ceding the point and acknowledging a  shortfall of your belief, you did just as String noted and changed the topic.  It would be real nice if we could be honest about the pros and cons of our beliefs.  I tried to do that in the OP and I'm going to make a conscious effort to continue.  I'm willing to admit that there are pros and cons to my beliefs and to being a believer in general and I will acknowledge those and others as they are pointed out.  Walt really gained a lot of respect from me today by taking a stand against the insults.  I feel it would make the forum a lot more interesting if we could likewise keep all the discussions intellectually honest as well.



Using logic to argue the make believe happens all of the time. So a logically sound argument does not make it true....especially when the subject has not been proven to exist. We can logically discuss what he might do or be responsible for IF he existed...but that is about it.

I gave an example of why I think differently.

It certainly had to do with the subject at hand.

I applied a method of problem solving by using a book that is not only associated with the God String is talking about, but I used examples from the book that God is credited for producing. I have not let my personal beliefs interfere with the truths.

What I have done IS a perfect example of intellectual honesty. I took a claim that was made by string and used the Bible that is the only written source of information about his God to refute the claim. I let the pieces fall where they may and show what they show.

THE fact that you and string completely ignore the examples I give and then accuse me of being intellectually dishonest just shows WHO really is being intellectually dishonest.
String has ignored relevant facts and information and purposefully omitted things that may contradict his claim. You are trying to help him. It IS the definition of Intellectual Dishonesty and a perfect example that proves it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

If being created out of random matter keeps me from being made in the image of God then I hope God didn't use random dirt to make Adam. I believe it to be the breath of God, not the dirt.
For some reason randomness takes away from the power of God to make us in his image thus it would mean we arrive on the earth with no morals/image of God if creation is random. This would have to mean that God has controlled every action of man and everything else from the beginning of time until now. 
If randomness isn't a part of creation then it isn't a part of my destiny. There is no room for me to have  a choice. If I'm allowed to make random choices about nutrition, health, sex, my salvation, destiny, or anything for that matter then God is not in total control of his creation. 
If God created me specifically to be who I am and when I die, then he would also control every aspect of my life. This would mean he also controls the life of every virus,fungus, and bacteria that infects my body. He controls every aspect of everything. If not then when did he quit? Why was randomness wrong for my creation but OK for me later? If It was so important for God to create me as me, why leave "me" up to chance?
I never got a reply from stringmusic to my post #45 in regards to randomness.

I never got a response from a Christian member as to why morals must be from God if God only gave us morals to show us that we couldn't live by them and thus needed a Savior. This is the whole concept of Christianity yet no response.
Righteous living isn't a way to obtain everlasting life. We can never be righteous. 
Why no replies to this concept from my Christian brothers?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2014)

It's hard to believe God used dirt to create Adam and then turned the whole concept of future creations over to science. 
Why do most Christians believe God couldn't use science for creation because that would somehow be random but uses science for the creation of life beyond his first creation? Why do most Christians believe they get to make random choices and these choices wouldn't change God's already determined destiny for them? People who are against randomness shouldn't be given choices.
If Creation from dirt & breath rather than matter & oxygen is somehow related to morals and no randomness then why doesn't  God create all of his creations from dirt & breath? 
Even Christians must admit that at some point God turned life over to science. I still hold to my belief that God is the Great Scientist who has designed the greatest systems a living organism could have.
I'm still having trouble comprehending the moral connection. Perhaps because I'm a Christian who believes in science.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 8, 2014)

I can admit that I like the way you think AD.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Using logic to argue the make believe happens all of the time. So a logically sound argument does not make it true....especially when the subject has not been proven to exist. We can logically discuss what he might do or be responsible for IF he existed...but that is about it.
> 
> I gave an example of why I think differently.
> 
> ...



I'll just reinterate what I said.  I'M gonna make a conscious effort.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 9, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> If being created out of random matter keeps me from being made in the image of God then I hope God didn't use random dirt to make Adam. I believe it to be the breath of God, not the dirt.
> For some reason randomness takes away from the power of God to make us in his image thus it would mean we arrive on the earth with no morals/image of God if creation is random. This would have to mean that God has controlled every action of man and everything else from the beginning of time until now.
> If randomness isn't a part of creation then it isn't a part of my destiny. There is no room for me to have  a choice. If I'm allowed to make random choices about nutrition, health, sex, my salvation, destiny, or anything for that matter then God is not in total control of his creation.
> If God created me specifically to be who I am and when I die, then he would also control every aspect of my life. This would mean he also controls the life of every virus,fungus, and bacteria that infects my body. He controls every aspect of everything. If not then when did he quit? Why was randomness wrong for my creation but OK for me later? If It was so important for God to create me as me, why leave "me" up to chance?
> ...



I think most of your "Christian brothers"  as well as some others have come to the correct conclusion that you are a troll whose only purpose for posting is to elicit a reply, any reply, and thus we have grown weary of feeding your need for mindless conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'll just reinterate what I said.  I'M gonna make a conscious effort.



There are many things that I feel I have found proof of and there are many things that I can freely admit that I Just Do Not Know.
I have never stated that my beliefs are the say all end all. I have made that effort to be open minded all along. In fact that is what got me started on this journey 20+ years ago.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Aug 9, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> That just makes my point that societies cannot decide what is and isn't moral.



I guess I am lost on on exactly whose morals you are living by. I would imagine that some cultures would feel that your wife, sister or daughter is not living a moral life because they wear revealing clothing, don't cover their heads in public, drive cars, vote, have an opinion (that they express openly), have sex out of wedlock, etc.

Yet other cultures might say you are not living a godly moral life because you don't wear a hat or have a beard, you drive a car and use electricity. And your female relatives don't wear long dresses, etc, etc.

Is it really possible that YOUR morals are THE morals?  Also, from which time period are you basing you firm set of morals on? Surely we can agree that morals have loosened a bit over the years? 200 years ago a woman wearing a dress above her ankles would have been ostracized. Now it is common practice. Probably even by people you love. Were they right back then, or are you right now?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 9, 2014)

> Originally Posted by stringmusic View Post
> That just makes my point that societies cannot decide what is and isn't moral.


But they do.
That means they can.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think most of your "Christian brothers"  as well as some others have come to the correct conclusion that you are a troll whose only purpose for posting is to elicit a reply, any reply, and thus we have grown weary of feeding your need for mindless conversation.



I think that you have always felt this to be so. Why do you feel my positions to be mindless? Why would I have some weird agenda as you purpose? 
Do you consider me the only troll that is keeping you off of the other Religious forums? Of the other three open discussion forums only one is exclusively for Christians and it is shared with Judaism.  One is open to all religions and the other is open to other religions.
I do not know what it is about me that you do not like and I'm sorry for the distance you set between us. I am not a troll and am just as sincere about my beliefs as you are. I have been on a hard & difficult journey since joining the GON family of forums. I have been on a religious roller coaster, constantly going back and forth in my beliefs. Once believing it took works for salvation, I no longer believe as such. I'm still struggling with predestination & free-will. 
I feel it's just my disagreement and perhaps that as a fellow Christian I don't defend your stance against the Atheist.
It's almost like you have a personal vendetta against my beliefs. Is it my views on God being a scientist? My belief in evolution? My non-Trinitarian belief? 
I would agree that I'm not a cookie cutter Christian. I don't believe God wants me to be. I can't help what I believe. It's who I am. I can only present my honest approach to these discussions. I  am "out there somewhere" in my beliefs but I'm not trolling.
I hate that I'm the only one keeping you from the discussions on the other forums. Please join in and I won't respond to you posts. I will respond to your posts on this forum only. 
I do not see you going after the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Wiccans  with the same vengeance that you have against atheist. Jesus said you are either with me or against me. They are equally wrong as are the atheist. It's the same problem I have with Freemasonry or the Boy Scouts who only require a belief in a supreme being. If that supreme being isn't the Father of Jesus they are seeking the wrong light. They are on the wrong path. I truly believe this. It is a sincere feeling in my heart. I do not understand why you don't feel the same way. Why do you believe that Hindus who are following a false god or gods can have morals but not an atheist is beyond me.
It would probably be easier to convert an atheist to Christianity than followers of the false religions.
I believe you have some sort of other "prideful" agenda that isn't very Christian in hanging out mostly in this forum.
I'll try to work on my trolling appearance if you will start participating on the other religious forums.
I am sorry for our ongoing difficulties. I don't expect you to agree but ask that you at least honor my beliefs. That's all that I can ask.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think most of your "Christian brothers"  as well as some others have come to the correct conclusion that you are a troll whose only purpose for posting is to elicit a reply, any reply, and thus we have grown weary of feeding your need for mindless conversation.



Can you pretend that I'm not a troll and honestly answer my questions as if it might help other Christian and Non-believers experiencing my enigma? 
The questions on no randomness in creation but choices granted to individuals, and how morals are important if they were presented from God to show we couldn't follow the morals and thus needed a savior. This savior was prophesied in the Old Testament. I'm not making this up, he really was. God knew way back when. It's an honest question. If you don't have it in you to answer then I'll ask of any Christian. Someone out there has to have some type of input to add. It truly is a personal struggle of mine. Otherwise I would be in bed by now.

It was asked with a lot of time and thought. I would honestly like your answer. Please don't brush it off because of your prejudice against me. 
Please as I plea, look at my recent threads with advice of finding Jesus as the only way in hopes of understanding my intent.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg, 
After careful thought I feel it was wrong of me to accuse you of posting for the wrong reasons. Your incorrect conclusion of me did not give me the right to do the same and it was wrong. I apologize for doing so. 
Maybe we both need some time in prayer about our own intent of posting  and that might help us to understand each others intent as well.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 10, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think most of your "Christian brothers"  as well as some others have come to the correct conclusion that you are a troll whose only purpose for posting is to elicit a reply, any reply, and thus we have grown weary of feeding your need for mindless conversation.



Shame, shame.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 10, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> SemperFiDawg,
> After careful though I feel it was wrong of me to accuse you of posting for the wrong reasons. Your incorrect conclusion of me did not give me the right to do the same and it was wrong. I apologize for doing so.
> Maybe we both need some time in prayer about our own intent of posting  and that might help us to understand each others intent as well.



Good for you.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> You're not bound by consistency, but you're consistent because you use logic and for you to be logical, you must be consistent.  So in a way, you're bound by consistency. I've asked this question a few times now, and this is the last time. Why is it ok for you to force your morality of not murdering a child on someone else?
> 
> 
> I don't think we are on the same page here. Either I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make or you're not understanding the point I'm trying to make.



Because there is a victim. I've said it before. 

All you guys asked was would I stand up for someone about to kill a child. There's no qualifying statement about the whole scenario, nothing. A simple 2 second question, so it gets a simple 2 second answer. 

If that's not good enough for you, ask a better question.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The valid point was not made. In order to show why the point is not valid an example must be given. THAT valid example is ignored.
> You always want to settle something dealing with a God.
> 
> You and everyone else that champions for this God have never yet once provided evidence of a God. You admit freely that it is impossible to do yet you continue on trying to make valid points about an invalid subject.
> ...


The point I made is valid. Human beings cannot have intrinsic rights without a Creator. There is no other way around it. I'm not using the bible to back up my claim(even though it does), I'm using simple logic. Energy, time, chance, the big bang, can not give anything, especially a right to humans.





> I do disagree and I have told you why already...all the way back with the chance/matter reply.
> But you did not like that reply so you are asking again for another answer.
> To which I will reply:
> We are here.
> ...


Two things.

1. You're still not telling me how we received our intrinsic rights, or why we have them.

2. Intrinsic rights do not, and can not change. If humans have the "right to life" they've always had and always will have the right to life, meaning I can't murder you because I would violate an intrinsic right.

I'll say it again, evolution in no way can give humans rights, it impossible. If you agree humans have intrinsic rights then you must agree they come from an intelligent Creator that gave them to us. It's the only logical conclusion.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> I guess I am lost on on exactly whose morals you are living by. I would imagine that some cultures would feel that your wife, sister or daughter is not living a moral life because they wear revealing clothing, don't cover their heads in public, drive cars, vote, have an opinion (that they express openly), have sex out of wedlock, etc.
> 
> Yet other cultures might say you are not living a godly moral life because you don't wear a hat or have a beard, you drive a car and use electricity. And your female relatives don't wear long dresses, etc, etc.


Again, all the more reason society and culture and not a good place to look for objective morality.



> Is it really possible that YOUR morals are THE morals?  Also, from which time period are you basing you firm set of morals on? Surely we can agree that morals have loosened a bit over the years? 200 years ago a woman wearing a dress above her ankles would have been ostracized. Now it is common practice. Probably even by people you love. Were they right back then, or are you right now?


Morals do not come from me, so they're not my morals.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Because there is a victim. I've said it before.


So if I think there is a victim, it's ok for me to use force to advance my morals?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> But they do.
> That means they can.


Societies can develop constructs and laws, but fail when it comes to objective morality.

And you've already agree that just because a society makes something legal/illegal doesn't mean it's moral/immoral. In essence, what society says about what is moral or not is ultimately meaningless.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Societies can develop constructs and laws, but fail when it comes to objective morality.
> 
> And you've already agree that just because a society makes something legal/illegal doesn't mean it's moral/immoral. In essence, what society says about what is moral or not is ultimately meaningless.



Do you see a difference between God's laws and his morals? Maybe I'm trying to combine the two and it's two different concepts that just overlap.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> So if I think there is a victim, it's ok for me to use force to advance my morals?



That's up to you to square. I'm not the one holding out the belief that there can be universal morality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Societies can develop constructs and laws, but fail when it comes to objective morality.
> 
> And you've already agree that just because a society makes something legal/illegal doesn't mean it's moral/immoral. In essence, what society says about what is moral or not is ultimately meaningless.


Its not meaningless when it can change law.
Its not meaningless when it can change peoples lives.
Its not meaningless when it gives people rights that were previously withheld from them.
Its not meaningless when it presents a different viewpoint that children will grow up with.
Its actually quite powerful.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm not the one holding out the belief that there can be universal morality.



The golden rule.  I can't think of a situation where it's application would not be beneficial to any society.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> As you said in the OP you have an answer to "how" that you are satisfied with so your next question is "why" did God put me here.
> For the A/A if the Big Bang is proven to be the "how" we know that the Big Bang didn't make a conscience decision to put us here so there is no "why" in that sense.
> An A/A can also ask why am I here but in the sense of "ok Im here now what would I like to do or become".



With exception to everything but the last sentence you echoed what I stated in the OP.  I was worried the OP may have been a little vague.  I agree with your last sentence also, but don't see it as asking "Why?", but more of a "Where to now?"


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2014)

Well Rebel 6 did a drive by and ain't been back.  Go figure.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well Rebel 6 did a drive by on us and ain't been back.  Go figure.



It's what he does.  Heck, the dude started a thread with 408 posts where his only participation was the OP.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The golden rule.  I can't think of a situation where it's application would not be beneficial to any society.



As long it is applied within the society and not to other societies.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The golden rule.  I can't think of a situation where it's application would not be beneficial to any society.



I would agree, but it would also be folly to think it universal. If it were, there would be no crime, anywhere, ever.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With exception to everything but the last sentence you echoed what I stated in the OP.  I was worried the OP may have been a little vague.  I agree with your last sentence also, but don't see it as asking "Why?", but more of a "Where to now?"


I think "why"? and "where to now?" can be the same question. If I decide the answer is lawyer -


> Whatever the answer to the "Why?" is for the believer, they are bound by it and live within the parameters of it's dictates.


Am I not bound to the parameters that dictates what it takes to achieve that? School, law school, practice etc and also bound by the code of ethics for lawyers?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The golden rule.  I can't think of a situation where it's application would not be beneficial to any society.


There are those for whatever reason want to be treated badly. They seek out abusive relationships throughout their lives. That would make this a bad thing-


> One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself


Maybe a stretch, maybe not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> It's what he does.  Heck, the dude started a thread with 408 posts where his only participation was the OP.


I'm not sure if that says a lot about him or a lot about us


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The golden rule.  I can't think of a situation where it's application would not be beneficial to any society.



I thought about this more after my initial reply, and this is actually from where most of my morality springs. 

I'm pretty sure, either in here or the PF, that we've hit on this before but I can't think of many situations where this wouldn't apply and those aren't things that need to be regulated by society as a whole anyway. 

Example:

Murder: That one is pretty cut and dry. Don't kill anyone because you wouldn't appreciate being arbitrarily killed, either. Do something to deserve being killed and, well, you've earned it. 

DUI: Don't drink to excess where you would present a danger to someone else, because you wouldn't appreciate the return. 

Drinking to excess: If you're the only one harmed then there is no plausible authority by which anyone can claim sovereignty for you, on your behalf. Same goes with drugs, and a whole host of other scenarios. If you're the only one to face, and pay, the consequences then no one has any right to say anything to you, IMO.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> The point I made is valid. Human beings cannot have intrinsic rights without a Creator. There is no other way around it. I'm not using the bible to back up my claim(even though it does), I'm using simple logic. Energy, time, chance, the big bang, can not give anything, especially a right to humans.



You are starting with a false premise.
You have NO IDEA if a creator exists and you have no idea how we got Intrinsic rights. Lay off the God did it cr@p already.

The simple facts are that we are here right now.
It has been a long complicated journey about how we arrived at the place in time we are at now.
All along the way we advanced in multiple ways as a species to get where were are at. 
The Big Bang is pretty much accepted as our starting point and whatever concoction of matter, energy and elements and how it became to be "US" is unknown.

200,000 years ago (Bible doesn't back that up)Grog and Gork didn't argue about intrinsic rights or who gave them to us because it took a couple of hundred thousand years for someone to coin the phrase in order to try to understand the thoughts that have evolved as our minds did.






stringmusic said:


> Two things.
> 
> 1. You're still not telling me how we received our intrinsic rights, or why we have them.
> 
> ...



It is only logical to someone that believes in a God.
That line of thinking ALWAYS results in EVERYTHING reverting back to a God.
It never pans out

WE ARE but one example of intelligence on this planet and through our paths of evolution we have given ourselves these values.

from:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

 Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value. The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic.

Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments. For example, according to a fundamental form of consequentialism, whether an action is morally right or wrong has exclusively to do with whether its consequences are intrinsically better than those of any other action one can perform under the circumstances. Many other theories also hold that what it is right or wrong to do has at least in part to do with the intrinsic value of the consequences of the actions one can perform. Moreover, if, as is commonly believed, what one is morally responsible for doing is some function of the rightness or wrongness of what one does, then intrinsic value would seem relevant to judgments about responsibility, too. Intrinsic value is also often taken to be pertinent to judgments about moral justice (whether having to do with moral rights or moral desert), insofar as it is good that justice is done and bad that justice is denied, in ways that appear intimately tied to intrinsic value. Finally, it is typically thought that judgments about moral virtue and vice also turn on questions of intrinsic value, inasmuch as virtues are good, and vices bad, again in ways that appear closely connected to such value.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

String don't be afraid to read the entire link I posted above...it already explains most of what you are going to argue and in no way explains that Intrinsic value HAS to come from a creator but it questions whether or an Intrinsic value even exists at all outside of an individual.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

String do you have an intrinsic right to life?


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> There are those for whatever reason want to be treated badly. They seek out abusive relationships throughout their lives. That would make this a bad thing.



Yes.  But, without completely going the psychological route, are these preferences the result of somebody else not acting the golden rule towards them?

Some psychological illnesses are genetic.  These are an exception.  Many are the result of either physical or emotional mistreatment at some stage of development.

If all things are equal, excluding those societys completely made up of those suffering schizophrenia, and even then, I would think the golden rule would be the preferred morality.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You are starting with a false premise.
> You have NO IDEA if a creator exists and you have no idea how we got Intrinsic rights. Lay off the God did it cr@p already.


LOL. God is the conclusion, not the premise.

Humans have intrinsic rights.
Intrinsic rights have to be given from a Creator because evolution cannot give humans anything.
A Creator gave humans intrinsic rights.




> The simple facts are that we are here right now.
> It has been a long complicated journey about how we arrived at the place in time we are at now.
> All along the way we advanced in multiple ways as a species to get where were are at.
> The Big Bang is pretty much accepted as our starting point and whatever concoction of matter, energy and elements and how it became to be "US" is unknown.
> ...


OK?








> It is only logical to someone that believes in a God.
> That line of thinking ALWAYS results in EVERYTHING reverting back to a God.
> It never pans out


That line of thinking is logic, and you don't have to believe in God to use logic. If humans have intrinsic rights, there is no other way to get them other than from a Creator. If you don't believe in a Creator, then by using logic, you don't believe humans have intrinsic rights.



> WE ARE but one example of intelligence on this planet and through our paths of evolution we have given ourselves these values.
> 
> from:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/
> 
> ...





> Suppose that someone were to ask you whether it is good to help others in time of need. Unless you suspected some sort of trick, you would answer, “Yes, of course.” If this person were to go on to ask you why acting in this way is good, you might say that it is good to help others in time of need simply because it is good that their needs be satisfied. If you were then asked why it is good that people's needs be satisfied, you might be puzzled. You might be inclined to say, “It just is.” Or you might accept the legitimacy of the question and say that it is good that people's needs be satisfied because this brings them pleasure. But then, of course, your interlocutor could ask once again, “What's good about that?” Perhaps at this point you would answer, “It just is good that people be pleased,” and thus put an end to this line of questioning. Or perhaps you would again seek to explain the fact that it is good that people be pleased in terms of something else that you take to be good. At some point, though, you would have to put an end to the questions, not because you would have grown tired of them (though that is a distinct possibility), but because you would be forced to recognize that, if one thing derives its goodness from some other thing, which derives its goodness from yet a third thing, and so on, there must come a point at which you reach something whose goodness is not derivative in this way, something that “just is” good in its own right, something whose goodness is the source of, and thus explains, the goodness to be found in all the other things that precede it on the list. It is at this point that you will have arrived at intrinsic goodness.[10]



While intrinsic value and intrinsic rights are related, they are not the same.

Read this paragraph and remove the word "good" or "goodness", and insert the word "rights".


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I thought about this more after my initial reply, and this is actually from where most of my morality springs.
> 
> I'm pretty sure, either in here or the PF, that we've hit on this before but I can't think of many situations where this wouldn't apply and those aren't things that need to be regulated by society as a whole anyway.
> 
> ...



Agreed.  The murder example would exclude the death penalty, because, generally folks don't think they deserve it (he had it comin', type stuff).  But, if the ruling morality was the golden rule, their would not be murder.....only assisted suicide because folks would not visit upon others what they would not visit upon themselves, and involuntary death would qualify.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not sure if that says a lot about him or a lot about us





I think it says we were bored at the time


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> LOL. God is the conclusion, not the premise.


Only to you



stringmusic said:


> Humans have intrinsic rights.


Maybe


stringmusic said:


> Intrinsic rights have to be given from a Creator because evolution cannot give humans anything.
> A Creator gave humans intrinsic rights.



I guess this is where I will ask you for proof to back up your assertion.















stringmusic said:


> That line of thinking is logic, and you don't have to believe in God to use logic. If humans have intrinsic rights, there is no other way to get them other than from a Creator. If you don't believe in a Creator, then by using logic, you don't believe humans have intrinsic rights.



They may not have them.
From: http://anamericanatheist.org/2011/12/29/god-and-intrinsic-value/
"One of the common refrains from theists is that the existence of their God means that humans have intrinsic value qua God’s creation. Furthermore, they will tell you earnestly, it is a problem for atheism that it cannot account for this intrinsic value.

I’m going to provide two attacks against the first claim. If successful, these render the second claim unimportant (not that I ever thought it was because no such thing exists).



Problem 1

In order for some value to be intrinsic, in the strict sense, then that value must be self-contained. In other words, it must not have value only in virtue of some other fact. For example, a painting does not have intrinsic value. If there is absolutely no one who values a particular painting, then I’m not doing anything wrong if I destroy it. However, there is something wrong with me destroying a Picasso. The paintings themselves do not contain the value; rather, saying they have value is to describe a relationship between some being capable of valuing and some object.

So, what is the type of value theists think we have? I think it is clearly the relational type of value, rather than the self-contained type. They think we have value only in virtue of God valuing us. Here is what I propose. Ask, “If God were to stop valuing you, would you still have value?” If he or she says they will not have value, then it was never truly intrinsic. If he or she says they will still have value—perhaps God implants some value “stuff” into their soul that even He cannot remove—then we can move to the next argument.



Problem 2

We are now operating under the assumption that each person has some permanent value contained within their everlasting soul. This value remains regardless of whether anyone, including God, recognizes it. God would not even be able to command the value out of you; it would have to be some kind of logical impossibility to do so. For, if God could remove it, it would not be intrinsic, as discussed.

Now, under this assumption, how are we to reconcile God’s murder of human beings? Let me briefly sketch the problem. Knowingly destroying something with intrinsic value is wrong by definition. God, according to the Hebrew Bible, Christian Bible, and possibly the Koran (I only have a passing familiarity), murders people. These people allegedly have intrinsic value. Yet, God cannot do anything wrong. Something here has to give.

While I have argued several times that the most likely thing to be false is the Bible, most don’t want to see large chunks of their holy book tossed aside (even if those chunks are monstrous and obviously false). Similarly, I know of almost no one willing to give up God’s goodness. This leaves us with intrinsic value. The idea didn’t even seem coherent to begin with given Problem 1, but it makes even less sense when compared to what theists actually believe about their books and their God."







stringmusic said:


> While intrinsic value and intrinsic rights are related, they are not the same.
> 
> Read this paragraph and remove the word "good" or "goodness", and insert the word "rights".



From an anonymous reply on a Yahoo forum:
"If humans had a right to live intrinsically, there seem to be two possible ways in which this could obtain. First, God (whatever that is) could confer such an intrinsic property. Second, if it is not God that ultimately confers such a property, one could rgue for some natural law whereby the right to life is a property of being human. The thing to note about these two possibilities is that the right to life is a real property that exists independantly of human values, interests, and beliefs.

Personally, of these two choices I consider the first the most plausible. But both are highly problematic. The first for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that it requires that God exist (which has proven to be a notoriously difficult thing to prove), and second because even if God does exist, that in no way explains why differing views of God yeild differing views of the right to life. The natural law view is problematic also. One problem is the epistemic problem of determining and identifying just what the right to life is. The second being the problem of just what such a property would be in the first place. How is it that merely being natural means that it is also a right? Natural law theory has a hard time explaining this.

For these reasons (and others not mentioned) most thinkers today reject the above possibilities; in the enlghtenment, however, natural law theory dominated discussions of human rights. Prior to that, Christian doctrine helped progress our understanding of human rights from the clutches of Greek Neoplatonism. Christian doctrine had a metaphysics that in some way or another had God be the conferring agent by which the property of the right to life obtained. Aquinas, the great Christian philosopher and theologian even combined Christian doctrine with Aristotelianism (which is markedly NOT Neoplatonist despite being Greek) resulting in a fusion of Christian metaphsyics and natural law theory.

We are left with, then, some form of conventionalism, whereby rights are conferred by human values, interests, and beliefs. This means that the right to life is not a property that ultimately exists independantly of human thought; it is not something found in nature nor is it something bestowed by a deity. It is something chosen, defined, and created by some person or group of persons. The belief that humans have certain rights may be psychollically disposed, but that is not to say that it is a belief that corresponds to anything real independant of human concensus and thought.

Today, as ontology and epistemology become more and more naturalized (that is, an approach to what there is and what we can know that views humans as just another natural phenomena that exists), the conventionalist view has become more predominent. The bottom line is, however, that when one asks what it is in virtue of being human that automatically means a right to life, it is hard to come up with good answers. If it is that humans possess conciousness, why is conciousness so special that we should have the right to life because of it? There are good reasons for thinking a number of things that don't have conciousness still have a right to life, so why privilidge the possession of conciousness? (As the thought goes.) Similarly is the claim that we are rational (in the sense that we reason propositionally) and that should be why we have a right to life. But many things are not rational in that sense but we intuitive still think they should have a right to life.

The conventionalists usually, then, will give some sort of pragmatic or aesthetic argument about why we should agree that humans have a right to life. Recall, that agreeing to confer a property is to say that the property is not really distinct from what is agreed upon.

There are a number of realists (like Searle and Boghossian) that have made arguments against constructivism without seemingly to commit themselves to some Divine law theory or natural law theory. This is the route that seems like it can be compatible with naturalism.

If it were conventionalists who should decide who has the right to live? Well, i fear leaving it up to a direct democracy, since the majority rarely ever makes good decisions. I think the experts ought to decide based on a representative democracy, whereby the experts make the decisions but whose decisions are delimited by objective criteria, such as a constritution. "


----------



## bullethead (Aug 11, 2014)

string I am going to start an Intrinsic thread and I'll ask you to join me there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think "why"? and "where to now?" can be the same question. If I decide the answer is lawyer -
> 
> Am I not bound to the parameters that dictates what it takes to achieve that? School, law school, practice etc and also bound by the code of ethics for lawyers?



"code of ethics for lawyers"???  Sounds like an oxymoron.

All kidding aside, in the OP, and again I may have not made it clear, the answer to the "Why?" for  the believer is intimately interconnected to every other aspect of life, whereas for the atheist that underlying guiding principle/belief doesn't exist.  As a result the atheist may very well chose to bind themselves to any code of ethics they wish.....or none at all, but it goes back to what String is talking about.  Whether it be ethics, morality, or something as simple as a metric meter.  For any of those to be meaningful there must be a standard to which all  are measured by and Atheism by definition lacks a basis to justify any such transcendent standard exists.  

For me, more than anything else,  this is Atheisms most serious flaw;  not just because theoretically it's illogical, but because existentially it's unlivable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "code of ethics for lawyers"???  Sounds like an oxymoron.
> 
> All kidding aside, in the OP, and again I may have not made it clear, the answer to the "Why?" for  the believer is intimately interconnected to every other aspect of life, whereas for the atheist that underlying guiding principle/belief doesn't exist.  As a result the atheist may very well chose to bind themselves to any code of ethics they wish.....or none at all, but it goes back to what String is talking about.  Whether it be ethics, morality, or something as simple as a metric meter.  For any of those to be meaningful there must be a standard to which all  are measured by and Atheism by definition lacks a basis to justify any such transcendent standard exists.
> 
> For me, more than anything else,  this is Atheisms most serious flaw;  not just because theoretically it's illogical, but because existentially it's unlivable.



Why must there be an underlying standard for them to be meaningful? 

Is your marriage, presumably you're married, any more or less meaningful than mine, though we probably took different steps to get there? That's impossible to know because meaning is up to the individual. 

1 pound may or may not _feel_ like 1 pound to you, even if it is scientifically accurate down to the micron. The reality has no bearing on your feeling, and your feeling has no bearing on reality.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why must there be an underlying standard for them to be meaningful?



Of all people I expect you to understand.   What meaning would any measurement you make have without a set standard to quantify it/compare it against.  



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Is your marriage, presumably you're married, any more or less meaningful than mine, though we probably took different steps to get there? That's impossible to know because meaning is up to
> the individual.




That would depend on what you use to measure "meaningful" with, but to even pose the question you are acknowledging a comparison and therefore a standard to which to measure each against in order to make an accurate comparison.   It stuns me that you hold science in such high regards, but then state that meaning is up to the individual.  I dare say you don't conduct your science based on that philosophy.  




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 1 pound may or may not _feel_ like 1 pound to you, even if it is scientifically accurate down to the micron. The reality has no bearing on your feeling, and your feeling has no bearing on reality.



I could not agree more, yet by stating meaning is up to the individual you are denying there is an objective reality.

These views are contradictory..  Either there is an objective reality that is true despite individual interpretation or reality is based on individual interpretation.   It can't be both.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  But, without completely going the psychological route, are these preferences the result of somebody else not acting the golden rule towards them?
> 
> Some psychological illnesses are genetic.  These are an exception.  Many are the result of either physical or emotional mistreatment at some stage of development.
> 
> If all things are equal, excluding those societys completely made up of those suffering schizophrenia, and even then, I would think the golden rule would be the preferred morality.


How we would like to be treated is all psychological whether we want to be treated good or bad. I tend to agree with you but have known physical and emotionally abused people as children be the most kindest and caring adults and the people who were given love and kindness as a child treat people like carp.
But again I agree with you with the exception of some isolated cases.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> "code of ethics for lawyers"???  Sounds like an oxymoron.
> 
> All kidding aside, in the OP, and again I may have not made it clear, the answer to the "Why?" for  the believer is intimately interconnected to every other aspect of life, whereas for the atheist that underlying guiding principle/belief doesn't exist.  As a result the atheist may very well chose to bind themselves to any code of ethics they wish.....or none at all, but it goes back to what String is talking about.  Whether it be ethics, morality, or something as simple as a metric meter.  For any of those to be meaningful there must be a standard to which all  are measured by and Atheism by definition lacks a basis to justify any such transcendent standard exists.
> 
> For me, more than anything else,  this is Atheisms most serious flaw;  not just because theoretically it's illogical, but because existentially it's unlivable.


Your entire argument is based on the belief that Christianity is the standard by which all has to be compared. 
Its not. 
And not only is it not but in some cases Christianity's standards are lower that what I hold myself to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Your entire argument is based on the belief that Christianity is the standard by which all has to be compared.
> Its not.
> And not only is it not but in some cases Christianity's standards are lower that what I hold myself to.



That is not my argument and to the best of my understanding it's not the one String is making either.  Leave all religion out of it entirely for the moment.  

What I, and String too (I think) are attempting to say is this:  reality is objective, not subjective.  What "is" actually is,  is not dependent on the the individuals interpretation.   A pound of ice is a pound of ice depending on an objective measure(a set of scales), not what I feel or what you feel.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is not my argument and to the best of my understanding it's not the one String is making either.  Leave all religion out of it entirely for the moment.
> 
> What I, and String too (I think) are attempting to say is this:  reality is objective, not subjective.  What "is" actually is,  is not dependent on the the individuals interpretation.   A pound of ice is a pound of ice depending on an objective measure(a set of scales), not what I feel or what you feel.



Lets discuss post #123.

I like that you are into units of measurement.  How did they come about?  Did God declare the unit Hectares?  Did he declare the idea of pain?  Or did we observe a thing and give it a name?

Are you saying that there would be no observing or naming without God's help?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Lets discuss post #123.
> 
> I like that you are into units of measurement.  How did they come about?  Did God declare the unit Hectares?  Did he declare the idea of pain?  Or did we observe a thing and give it a name?
> 
> Are you saying that there would be no observing or naming without God's help?



I think they opened an entirely new post regarding the subject in 123 and I'm not understanding what any of your questions have to do with either the "How?" or "Why?" or objective vs. subjective reality.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That is not my argument and to the best of my understanding it's not the one String is making either.  Leave all religion out of it entirely for the moment.
> 
> What I, and String too (I think) are attempting to say is this:  reality is objective, not subjective.  What "is" actually is,  is not dependent on the the individuals interpretation.   A pound of ice is a pound of ice depending on an objective measure(a set of scales), not what I feel or what you feel.


Objective and subjective reality are merely ways of looking at whats around you. Neither can be proven right and neither can be proven wrong.


> Objective Reality (OR) is the perspective that you’re the character in the dream world, and the dream world is solid, real, and objective.  An OR person wouldn’t normally think of the physical world as a dream at all — they accept the (socially conditioned) notion that the dream world is reality itself.  The objective world itself is seen as the basis for knowledge.  Note that there can be no proof whatsoever that this is how reality actually works; it’s one giant unprovable assumption.  It’s also not falsifiable.


Your example of a pound of ice doesn't accomplish what you think it does. Man decided what a pound and therefore what a pound of ice would be. So yes it is what man felt it would be and we now hold to that standard.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2014)

This is so important to me and how I see Christianity that I hope someone will post this link for Semperfidawg to see as I feel he might have placed me on his ignore list.
The point I'm trying to make that he feels is making me a troll is what Christianity is all about. He isn't the only one who has missed God's point. That point is that man isn't righteous. Not that morals aren't  from God, but if they are they were given to us to show "us" that we can't measure up. We need a savior. I'll present a few excerpts from the link I'll proved by a fellow Christian who isn't a troll:

James A. Fowler
Morals are the acceptable behavior based on the mores of a social grouping. Jesus did not come to give us a standardized moral code to which all should conform, but to give us His life whereby the divine character might be expressed through our behavior.

The average man on the street believes that Christianity is a religion that imposes a particular morality with specific ethical behavior. He has concluded that "a Christian is one who lives by certain rules and regulations imposed upon him by divine or ecclesiastically dictated 'thou shalts' and 'thou shalt nots,' and that behavioral conformity to these moral codes of conduct is what the Christian strives to perform in order to please and/or appease God." The tragic part of this misconception is that Christian religion has "faked" the world into believing that such is the essence of Christianity.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotmor.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2014)

Christianity is beyond morality and this is the point I'm trying to make. Point being that we aren't moral and need God's grace. After a person believes in Jesus then and only then will the Holy Spirit help us become moral. Is the author of this dissertation and me missing the point of Christianity as how it is related to morality?
From the link:

The French social analyst, Jacques Ellul noted this misrepresentation:

    "In the eyes of most of our contemporaries, Christianity is a morality first of all. And have not many epochs of Christian history been characterized by the church's insistence upon actions and conduct?"1

    "We have to recognize that Christians themselves have done all they can to create this confusion. God's revelation has nothing whatever to do with morality." 2

C.S. Lewis similarly explained,

    "I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond..." 

It is the objective of this dissertation to explain what there is about Christianity that is "beyond" all morality.

  These three premises are antithetical to Christian monotheistic understanding and the gospel of grace. Christianity denies (1) the independent, autonomous self-existent "good;" (2) the self-determined, self-defined, self-discernment of "good" by an alleged independent-self of autonomous man; (3) the self-actuating ability of this alleged independent-self, autonomous man, to generate his own "good" behavior.

   There is no "natural goodness" which becomes the basis of a "natural morality" within a "natural theology." "There is none good, no not one" (Rom. 3:12). "No one is good, except God alone" (Luke 18:19). When mankind thinks that he can know "good" and define "good" from his own perspective alone, he ends up calling "evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20), and Isaiah pronounces a woe upon those who are thus "wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight." (Isa. 5:21).

   The so-called "good" intentions of prevailing moralizers allegedly acting for the "good" of the whole, their moralities and ethics are always based on their fallen and self-serving motivations. They "bind up" others in the tyranny of legalistic performances, encouraging them to strive and struggle to perform goodness, right living, morality, modesty, etc. Such is the bondage of religion and morality.

   The Christian gospel, contrary to such religion and morality, asserts these three monotheistic premises:

    (1) "Good" exists only in God.
    (2) "Good" is knowable only as God reveals Himself.
    (3) "Good" is do-able only as the character of God is activated and expressed in human behavior by the grace of God.

  These three premises are antithetical to Christian monotheistic understanding and the gospel of grace. Christianity denies (1) the independent, autonomous self-existent "good;" (2) the self-determined, self-defined, self-discernment of "good" by an alleged independent-self of autonomous man; (3) the self-actuating ability of this alleged independent-self, autonomous man, to generate his own "good" behavior.

   There is no "natural goodness" which becomes the basis of a "natural morality" within a "natural theology." "There is none good, no not one" (Rom. 3:12). "No one is good, except God alone" (Luke 18:19). When mankind thinks that he can know "good" and define "good" from his own perspective alone, he ends up calling "evil good, and good evil" (Isa. 5:20), and Isaiah pronounces a woe upon those who are thus "wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight." (Isa. 5:21).

   The so-called "good" intentions of prevailing moralizers allegedly acting for the "good" of the whole, their moralities and ethics are always based on their fallen and self-serving motivations. They "bind up" others in the tyranny of legalistic performances, encouraging them to strive and struggle to perform goodness, right living, morality, modesty, etc. Such is the bondage of religion and morality. 

   The Christian gospel, contrary to such religion and morality, asserts these three monotheistic premises:

    (1) "Good" exists only in God.
    (2) "Good" is knowable only as God reveals Himself.
    (3) "Good" is do-able only as the character of God is activated and expressed in human behavior by the grace of God.

   To expand on these premises and document their Biblical basis:

(1) "God is good" is an assertion made throughout the Scriptures. "No one is good except God alone" (Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). "There is One who is good" (Matt. 19:17). There is no legitimate, genuine, absolute "good" which has any objective, independent, autonomous existence, apart from God. "Good" exists exclusively in the essence of the autonomous God. "Good" can only be defined by the character of God's goodness.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotmor.html


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2014)

I want list all of the authors points but enough to show his intent:

Morality is antithetical to all Christian belief and behavior. Admittedly, if one does not understand the foundation already laid in differentiating between morality and Christianity, and the derivation of good and evil from God or satan respectively, then the statements below will appear to be bizarre, outlandish and almost blasphemous.

(1) Morality is a joke. It is a bad joke that is not even funny, because it is tragic. For the dedicated religionist, morality is no joking matter. It is the basis of his/her religion. But for the Christian, morality is a joke.

   It was C.S. Lewis who first expressed this thought.

    "I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of these things, except perhaps as a joke. Everyone there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes." 6

   Has anyone ever become "good" or "righteous" on the basis of morally proper behavior? Impossible! Absurd! That is what makes morality such a laughable matter: its utter absurdity and impossibility (the basis of many a joke.) Morality is Satan's big laugh on mankind.

(2) Morality is a result of the fall of man into sin. As noted, the deceptive temptation of the Tempter in the garden of Eden was to suggest that man could develop a self-determined knowledge of good and evil. That was the first temptation - I AM A POTTY MOUTH - to develop morality, to establish an independent, self-oriented standard of good and evil. Rejecting the derived goodness of God, man opted for the lie. Natural men, religious men, have been developing moralities ever since, trying to regulate man's behavior.

(3) Morality is a lie. It is based on the lie of independent-self, autonomous man. The true condition of man is that of derivative contingency upon spiritual being for both spiritual condition and behavioral expression.

(4) Morality is sinful. If sin is defined as anything not derived from God, then morality is sinful because it advocates the autonomy of goodness and fails to understand the spiritual derivativeness of all human behavior. "Whatever is not of faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23), and morality is not based on the derived receptivity of faith. Therefore it is sinful.

(5) Morality is humanistic. Humanism is based on the thesis of the autonomous self-potential of mankind, the suggestion of which was first introduced in the garden. Morality is humanistic because "goodness" is alleged to be knowable by oneself (second premise of moralism) and do-able by oneself (third premise of moralism). The self-potential of self-generated, self-activated behavioral activity is at the root of all morality.

(6) Morality is psychological manipulation. Behavioristic psychology attempts to manipulate human behavior in "behavior modification," failing to understand the spiritual source of all behavior. The social moralists employ such behavioristic psychological manipulation to keep their particular "society" in check and functioning in accord with their self-oriented objectives.

(7) Morality is offensive to God. God hates morality! It is contrary to His intent for mankind. Isaiah graphically states that "all our righteous deeds are as a filthy rag" (Isaiah 64:6). All our moral actions by which we try to be good or righteous, when presented before God are as offensive as presenting Him with a menstrual cloth, a "dirty Kotex!" (This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew words.) Lest you be offended at such graphic analogy, just be aware that God is even more offended at our periodic discharges of morality, presentations which are the discharge of death with no life. The picture is no prettier when Paul describes his religious and moral efforts as but "rubbish" or "dung" (KJV) in Philippians 3:8. Morality is offensive to God.

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotmor.html

(My statements)
I'm sure if Semperfidawg isn't ignoring me he will say that I'm off topic. He likes to accuse me of that as if I'm the only one who does this. Before we figure out if morals are from God we must concern ourselves why we were presented morals if not but to set a guideline to what we aren't capable of performing without God's help. Without needing a Savior. God constantly showed man that we can't be righteous enough. This is one of the main concepts of Christianity.
I'm leaving open my own views of the origin of morals as possibly different from the author's views. Mostly wanted to present my view of their purpose in not being a big part of the basis of Christianity. 
It's more of what a Christian can become after becoming a believer with the help of God.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 11, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> How we would like to be treated is all psychological whether we want to be treated good or bad. I tend to agree with you but have known physical and emotionally abused people as children be the most kindest and caring adults and the people who were given love and kindness as a child treat people like carp.
> But again I agree with you with the exception of some isolated cases.



It's amazing how much a person's first few years shape their entire life.  I have mentioned before the work I have done over the years with a local children's home.  Some of those kids never over come their history, others view it as a roadblock to crash through.  There are definitely learned patterns and behaviors that become cemented for many. 

The more puzzling ones are the folks who have good parents, good circumstances, and no real reason to be awful, but still turn out to be awful people.  I call them "misfires."  Something just went wrong with the wiring.

We could never get everyone to live according to the golden rule, but, I think we could probably get 99% to agree it would be better. 

I recon that was my point relevant to universal morality.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Objective and subjective reality are merely ways of looking at whats around you. Neither can be proven right and neither can be proven wrong.





WaltL1 said:


> Your example of a pound of ice doesn't accomplish what you think it does. Man decided what a pound and therefore what a pound of ice would be. So yes it is what man felt it would be and we now hold to that standard.



Walt I respectfully suggest that you are missing my point.
The point isn't that man decided.  The point is that man recognized that for anything to have meaning there must exist a universal standard in which it can be measured against.  

You used the profession of law earlier.  Take the crime of premeditated murder for example.  For anyone to be proven either innocent or guilty of premeditated murder there must be a standard that defines what exactly premeditated murder is.  If it wasn't defined neither the prosecution nor defense would have any hope of arguing their case.   And as for the jury, they would have no hope of making a decision with any amount of certainty, because the charge wasn't clearly defined.  So again for the crime of premeditated murder to have any meaning it must be clearly defined as a standard which one actions do or don't rise to.

Theoretically you can argue that reality is subjective, but in all actuality you nor anyone else can live their life based on that philosophy.  We all live our lives based off of the philosophy of objective reality.


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2014)

> "I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of these things, except perhaps as a joke. Everyone there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light. But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes."



It is precisely the difference between "what would Jesus do" and what is Jesus _doing_.

One involves imagining, one sight of the true.
One is religion, one is faith.
One is real, one is not.
One is life, one is other.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt I respectfully suggest that you are missing my point.
> The point isn't that man decided.  The point is that man recognized that for anything to have meaning there must exist a universal standard in which it can be measured against.
> 
> You used the profession of law earlier.  Take the crime of premeditated murder for example.  For anyone to be proven either innocent or guilty of premeditated murder there must be a standard that defines what exactly premeditated murder is.  If it wasn't defined neither the prosecution nor defense would have any hope of arguing their case.   And as for the jury, they would have no hope of making a decision with any amount of certainty, because the charge wasn't clearly defined.  So again for the crime of premeditated murder to have any meaning it must be clearly defined as a standard which one actions do or don't rise to.
> ...





> We all live our lives based off of the philosophy of objective reality.


If that was true we wouldn't be having a conversation about objective vs. subjective reality.
You are trying to insist that regardless of how a person views it, they are actually living in an objective reality.
Its just not true.
Note your use of philosophy. Its definition does not mean fact. It means a way of looking at things. We are discussing the philosophy of objective and the philosophy of subjective realities. Since neither can be proven right or wrong they are equal. And they aren't the only two philosophies on this subject. NONE of which can be proven right or wrong.
Objective reality lines up with what you believe.
That's where it ends.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Of all people I expect you to understand.   What meaning would any measurement you make have without a set standard to quantify it/compare it against.
> 
> Thanks for the backhanded compliment.
> 
> ...



Take a crime, for example. 

There are 3 people who are there. The perp, the victim, and an observer. If you just ask them their stories and then compare and contrast them, you find out that they are not identical. They're colored by their perceptions. Even then there is an objective reality to what really happened but that also requires an objective observer. However, that observer may not capture everything because a lot of our actions, and reactions, depend greatly on our perceptions and can't be quantified anywhere but within our own heads. 

So while the camera can record that the observer witnessed the perp beat up the victim, it may not see the victim running his mouth out of frame, or that the observer was panicked and trying to look for their phone at the time of the actual beating and not watching the whole thing as they could have told you in testimony. 

True objectivity is rare, as is the quality of being truly universal. Our beliefs, and experiences have a little to do with what is objectively happening around us, and more to do with how we flavor them with our humanity. 

So a pound may be a pound according to ISO, but feel like 10 ounces in your hand. Or maybe 2 lbs. 

Likewise God may feel real in your heads and hearts, and that's all well and good, but you can't put him on a pedestal for me to interact with in order to come up with my own experience. 

That's how you get subjective reality and objective reality. Your reality is real to you, but may not be for me, and what actually is occurring does so somewhere between the poles of our two stories. 

I really hope that came out as clear, and as jovially, as I intended it to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If that was true we wouldn't be having a conversation about objective vs. subjective reality.
> You are trying to insist that regardless of how a person views it, they are actually living in an objective reality.
> Its just not true.
> Note your use of philosophy. Its definition does not mean fact. It means a way of looking at things. We are discussing the philosophy of objective and the philosophy of subjective realities. Since neither can be proven right or wrong they are equal. And they aren't the only two philosophies on this subject. NONE of which can be proven right or wrong.
> ...



The fact that we are discussing objective vs, subjective reality doesn't make subjective reality experientially feasible no more than theoretically discussing living outside the constraint of time makes it feasible.  So there's that.

Walt I don't think I ever said my definition of philosophy means "fact."  If we agree(and I do) that philosophy is simply a way of looking at things.  If I understand your point correctly you are stating that since philosophy can't PROVE either objective or subjective reality true, they are equal....it's a wash so-to-speak......we can't know.

What I'm saying is this.  Philosophically one may not be able to prove one view superior to the other, but existentially no one lives their life based on the view that life is subjective.  No one.  

Existentially we all live our lives based on the premise life is based on objective truths.   Neither my beliefs nor feelings have any bearing on it.  Physical death is the cessation of physical life, water freezes at 32 degrees F, a lie is a false statement, and birds lay eggs, not oranges regardless of my beliefs.  Those are objective truths and we live our lives based on those truths.  You drive 55 mph based on your speedometer, not what you think 55 mph feels like.    You anticipate a curve in the road because it has been there every time your take that route and you have no reason to think that it won't be there today.  Why? Because inherently you base almost every decision you make on a daily basis on the premise that reality is objectively true.  Think about it.  If this wasn't the case you would have to feel for your mouth each time before you stuck a spoon in it, because you would have no reason to believe that just because it was between your nose and chin on your last bite that it wouldn't be between your rectum and scrotum on the next one.  We live this way so while we can discuss subjective truth in a theoretical sense, we can't live it.  For meaning to exist there absolutely has to be an objective truth which defines it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

I've also said, as somewhat of a joke, if you want to find out how relative reality can be then you need to go paint shopping with your spouse. 

Green is not green, neither is blue. 

"I like this, it looks blue-green to me."

"You mean the grey one?"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've also said, as somewhat of a joke, if you want to find out how relative reality can be then you need to go paint shopping with your spouse.
> 
> Green is not green, neither is blue.
> 
> ...



I can relate to that, me and my wife always see colors differently.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> I can relate to that, me and my wife always see colors differently.



Yep. It's objectively the same shade to both our eyes, we just process it differently.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The fact that we are discussing objective vs, subjective reality doesn't make subjective reality experientially feasible no more than theoretically discussing living outside the constraint of time makes it feasible.  So there's that.
> 
> Walt I don't think I ever said my definition of philosophy means "fact."  If we agree(and I do) that philosophy is simply a way of looking at things.  If I understand your point correctly you are stating that since philosophy can't PROVE either objective or subjective reality true, they are equal....it's a wash so-to-speak......we can't know.
> 
> ...





> no one lives their life based on the view that life is subjective.  No one.


You live your life as a Christian. 
The Christian God exists - objective or subjective?
And why did you choose the answer you did.


----------



## Israel (Aug 12, 2014)

Is there anything "out there" that is not defined by our perceptions?
Read Grendel if you care to. Maybe you have.
Feel the wall.
Then sing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2014)

> Of all people I expect you to understand. What meaning would any measurement you make have without a set standard to quantify it/compare it against.
> 
> Thanks for the backhanded compliment.



It was neither a compliment nor an insult.  Just an observation.  



> Can you measure God, in any way that you could demonstrate to the rest of us?
> 
> I didn't think so, or we wouldn't be having this discussion, or you at least wouldn't be having it with me. You're trying to say that a pound of feathers is the same as a pound of lead, which I would agree they the same weight, except you're the ONLY one who can see your feathers. I can't weigh them, therefore they can have no meaning to me.



I'm not the one injecting God into this conversation.  I could make this point as a skeptic.  The observation is true regardless of my belief or unbelief.  



> That would depend on what you use to measure "meaningful" with, but to even pose the question you are acknowledging a comparison and therefore a standard to which to measure each against in order to make an accurate comparison. It stuns me that you hold science in such high regards, but then state that meaning is up to the individual. I dare say you don't conduct your science based on that philosophy.
> 
> [Correct, meaning is just as relative as faith, religion, and spirituality.



So let me ask you a question. When you report a number or data as a result of an observation or experiment is the number/data meaningful or do you just write down what you want the number to be based on your feelings.  Moreover, when you take a measurement do you record the units the measurement was taken in or do you leave that blank.  If you don't, why not.  It's all relative right?  Pounds, inches, mm, moles, it's all the same right?   So why quantify it if reality is relative.  

Like I said, you make swear up and down till you turn blue in the face that truth is relative, but you don't dare to live it.  You get sick and go to the Dr. and tell him you have been running a 104 F temp.  He looks at you as says "So what?  104 is just a number as unimportant as say 2.  It has no meaning, because meaning is subjective."  You would think he had lost his mind.  Again, you don't dare live it.  



> You acknowledge the validity of my position, in saying that I derive my own meaning from things, then you backpedal.
> 
> Which is it, Senator? Is my position valid or invalid, it can't be both.



I think if you would review your post you would realized you argued two separate contradictory points.  Both can't be correct.



> My point is valid, since there is no objective measure to the meaningfulness of mine or your marriage. Yours means to you what you want it to, and so does mine, my understanding of the meaningfulness of your marriage has zero impact on it.



No Sir, you missed my point that by your very introducing a comparison you presuppose a standard to which both must be compared to.






> I could not agree more, yet by stating meaning is up to the individual you are denying there is an objective reality.
> 
> These views are contradictory.. Either there is an objective reality that is true despite individual interpretation or reality is based on individual interpretation. It can't be both.
> 
> ...



 Is this where the insults begin?



> There is an objective reality to most any thing that is real. 1 pound, according to ISO, will always be one pound, as will one second. How that feels to you is wholly different and it's all relative to the person. You know this innately, you just can't admit it because it seemingly destroys your position that God is universally the same.



 First I would have to say truth is not based on feeling.  1 pound is not defined nor does it get it's meaning by what I feel is a pound.  

The ISO?  The International Organization for Standardization whose sole purpose is to provide an objective international standard for measurement?  This is who you cite in an example to argue reality is subjective?  

From their website


> Whatis a standard?
> 
> A standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose. We published over 19 500 International Standards that can be purchased from the ISO store or from our members.



Let me ask you this?   Do you think they would agree that the standards they hand down are subjective and based on YOUR and everyone else's interpretation of them or fixed and defined by an objective measurement/number/data that is to be understood by all?  



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Take a crime, for example.
> 
> There are 3 people who are there. The perp, the victim, and an observer. If you just ask them their stories and then compare and contrast them, you find out that they are not identical. They're colored by their perceptions. Even then there is an objective reality to what really happened but that also requires an objective observer. However, that observer may not capture everything because a lot of our actions, and reactions, depend greatly on our perceptions and can't be quantified anywhere but within our own heads.
> 
> ...



That's example that gives us a picture of how subjective reality can differ from objective reality, but it ignores the issue of which is true.  On one hand you state objective knowledge exists


> Even then there is an objective reality to what *really* happened


 and then seem to state that even though it exists, it can't be known.


> Your reality is real to you, but may not be for me, and what actually is occurring does so somewhere between the poles of our two stories.


which to me is absurd.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> You live your life as a Christian.
> The Christian God exists - objective or subjective?
> And why did you choose the answer you did.



Very good question.  Very good.

Objective.  Because He is knowable.

BTW That was a hard one and I'm not being facetious.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I've also said, as somewhat of a joke, if you want to find out how relative reality can be then you need to go paint shopping with your spouse.
> 
> Green is not green, neither is blue.
> 
> ...



That's your strongest argument yet. :


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Very good question.  Very good.
> 
> Objective.  Because He is knowable.
> 
> BTW That was a hard one and I'm not being facetious.


Lets take it one step further. Using what you said here -


> Whether it be ethics, morality, or something as simple as a metric meter. For any of those to be meaningful there must be a standard to which all are measured by


Im assuming you believe God is meaningful and I'm assuming you believe there is no standard that God can be measured by.
That leaves 2 choices -
1. YOUR belief in God and therefore how you live your life as a Christian is subjective reality  OR
2. YOUR objective reality is based on the belief that God has no comparison.
Either reality is based on YOUR perceptions.

And objective/subjective TRUTHS are not the same as objective/subjective REALITY. The two started getting thrown around as the same thing and they aren't.
So notice I did not prove you wrong and neither did I prove me right. That doesn't equal a wash, it equals two different philosophies each as right and wrong as the other.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It was neither a compliment nor an insult.  Just an observation.
> 
> So was what I said. I perceived it to be a backhanded compliment. I'm not hurt by it, but I did feel it.
> 
> ...



Just because something is absurd doesn't mean it isn't true. It was once absurd to think that the earth travelled around the sun as opposed to it around us. 

My point being is that Objective Reality is not the same as Human Reality. The reason is that we cloud, and color, our reality with our perceptions. The moment we experience something it's not the same as it truly happened. We've proven that in this thread 2 times alone, and just between us. 

I typed X, which had a certain meaning in my head, the webz carried those bits, which had no meaning to anyone until they were read, and you read them which became Y meaning in your head, and vice versa. 

You didn't mean to backhand compliment me, but that's what those words you typed meant to me in my reality, despite what they actually said, and I didn't mean to insult you by saying you were being political in your replies, but that's what you took it to be when they entered your reality. 

For 2 people to interact there have to be no less than 3 realities. 1 for each of their own experiences, and 1 for what transpires without their perspective. This reality is observable, but not quantifiable, since we can have cameras do the observations, but once we interact with them we create another reality dependent upon our own feelings.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Lets take it one step further. Using what you said here -
> 
> Im assuming you believe God is meaningful and I'm assuming you believe there is no standard that God can be measured by.
> That leaves 2 choices -
> ...



I think you left out the obvious choice which believers adhere to.
3) God is THE objective standard to which all else is defined by.

I see objective truth/ reality as one in the same and hold that truth, any truth,  is exclusive by nature.  I see no logical alternative in that the alternatives all self destruct when taken to their logical conclusions.   This view is reinforced by what I have observed.  An egg is an egg, not an apple.  2 plus 2 equals 4, not 5 etc.

To your last statement,  I don't agree with your conclusion.  I think it can be clearly shown logically, evidentially and experientially that truth is both exclusive and objective.  I will not take the stand that it can be proved to everyone as I see that as a fools errand given that people have free will and thus the ability to reject even basis truths.  The question I guess is, do you really want to go down that trail?  Is it really going to alter our stance?  If not, I honestly don't see the point.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 13, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Just because something is absurd doesn't mean it isn't true. It was once absurd to think that the earth travelled around the sun as opposed to it around us.
> 
> My point being is that Objective Reality is not the same as Human Reality. The reason is that we cloud, and color, our reality with our perceptions. The moment we experience something it's not the same as it truly happened. We've proven that in this thread 2 times alone, and just between us.
> 
> ...



Stripe I'm having a really hard time replying to you on a point by point basis given that you are replying to me on a point by point basis then putting it all in a quote.  It either has something to do with the limitations of my replying from an iPad or my limitation with regards to computers in general, but I simply don't have the time to try to format my responses on a point by point basis to which your points deserve.  Can you just refrain from putting your entire defense in quotations.  It's great in that it helps with staying focused on the context, but it's killing me trying to reply on this pad.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think you left out the obvious choice which believers adhere to.
> 3) God is THE objective standard to which all else is defined by.
> 
> I see objective truth/ reality as one in the same and hold that truth, any truth,  is exclusive by nature.  I see no logical alternative in that the alternatives all self destruct when taken to their logical conclusions.   This view is reinforced by what I have observed.  An egg is an egg, not an apple.  2 plus 2 equals 4, not 5 etc.
> ...





> I think you left out the obvious choice which believers adhere to.
> 3) God is THE objective standard to which all else is defined by.


Got that covered right here -


> I'm assuming you believe there is no standard that God can be measured by.


Unfortunately the definition of objective is -


> adj. adjective
> 1.Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
> objective reality.
> 2.Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
> ...


Your usage of -


> which believers adhere to.





> I see objective truth





> I see no logical alternative





> I don't agree


Puts you squarely in the definition of -


> Subjective
> adj. adjective
> 1.Dependent on or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world.
> 2.Based on a given person's experience, understanding, and feelings; personal or individual.
> 3.Not caused by external stimuli.





> I see objective truth/ reality as one in the same


Therein lies the problem. They aren't the same. 
That's why these are objective truths -


> This view is reinforced by what I have observed.  An egg is an egg, not an apple.  2 plus 2 equals 4, not 5 etc.


But that God exists does not fit into the definition of objective. 


> The question I guess is, do you really want to go down that trail?  Is it really going to alter our stance?


I'm not here to alter your stance. We are debating objective vs subjective reality. You do what you want with the facts that I am providing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 13, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Stripe I'm having a really hard time replying to you on a point by point basis given that you are replying to me on a point by point basis then putting it all in a quote.  It either has something to do with the limitations of my replying from an iPad or my limitation with regards to computers in general, but I simply don't have the time to try to format my responses on a point by point basis to which your points deserve.  Can you just refrain from putting your entire defense in quotations.  It's great in that it helps with staying focused on the context, but it's killing me trying to reply on this pad.



I do that to keep myself on track and so that it's easier to read since the reply is right beside the comment. 

Reformatting to break the source quote into sections and reply to those is too time consuming for me, it's not my strong suit. 

I can try but you'll notice that the content of my post goes down when I focus on formatting.


----------



## Israel (Aug 13, 2014)

those who deal deceitfully, cleverly, not of good faith, be they of themselves called believer or non believer, will be made plain.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Got that covered right here -
> 
> Unfortunately the definition of objective is -
> 
> ...



Sorry for the delayed reply.  Been pretty busy.

Just a quick couple of notes.

I think it could be reasonably argued that God fits one or even all the definitions of "objective" that you provided.


I think that we (and that includes Stripe too) are arguing 2 seperate concepts.

I'm not arguing that in some, maybe in all, cases subjective reality doesn't exist.  My position is that an objective exists and is the true state of existence.

For example.  

Take an egg.  It's an egg regardless of how I perceive it.  (Objective) If I don't have my glasses on I may think it's an ice cube(subjective).  Both realities exist in this case, but because truth IS exclusive, only one is correct.  ( the objective one).  The truth isn't dependent on the individual interpretation, it exists outside of and is wholly independent of it.  The egg is an egg regardless of my interpretation.  

Therefore these statements, 



> I see objective truth





> I see no logical alternative





> i don't agree





while absolutely validating the fact that I view God through a subjective lens if you will, doesn't make him less real any more that the fact that I saw an ice cube instead of an egg change the fact that the egg was in fact an egg.

In short, subjective reality/truth may or may not be an accurate interpretation of an objective truth/reality but the objective truth is inherently true through its very existance and is totally independent of interpretation for its definition and existence.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry for the delayed reply.  Been pretty busy.
> 
> Just a quick couple of notes.
> 
> ...



Why are you trying to compare tangible objects like ice cubes and eggs with something that is not tangible like a god?

while absolutely validating the fact that I view God through a subjective lens if you will, doesn't make him less real any more that the fact that I saw Daffy Duck instead of Donald Duck change the fact that the Daffy Duck was in fact Daffy Duck.

Now that we are using three suspect "real" entities....things are a little more in perspective.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sorry for the delayed reply.  Been pretty busy.
> 
> Just a quick couple of notes.
> 
> ...





> Both realities exist in this case, but because truth IS exclusive, only one is correct.  ( the objective one).


Your insistence that objective truth and objective reality are the same thing is the foundation of your argument.
Again, its not.
For example -


> I think it could be reasonably argued that God fits one or even all the definitions of "objective" that you provided


.
Yes it could. However every one of your arguments would be based on  a subjective view. If that the Christian God exists is not a proven, universal fact, every argument you make is going to be "how you think" God fits into the objective definition.
You need a new argument. No argument you give can or will accomplish your goal.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Your insistence that objective truth and objective reality are the same thing is the foundation of your argument.
> Again, its not.
> For example -
> .
> ...




Two quick questions and if I don't reply I will be back Monday and do so then.



> Your insistence that objective truth and objective reality are the same thing is the foundation of your argument.
> Again, its not.



What's your rationale for this belief.  

And 



> However every one of your arguments would be based on  a subjective view.



How does a subjective view in any way negate the presence of an objective truth?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 19, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In short, subjective reality/truth may or may not be an accurate interpretation of an objective truth/reality but the objective truth is inherently true through its very existance and is totally independent of interpretation for its definition and existence.



I would agree with this.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I would agree with this.


I think we all would.
That there are objective truths was never in question.


----------

