>But that is definitely not a universally held moral.
Doesn't matter, I was pointing out the reality of the definition of God Almighty. Evidently that fact is way beyond your merry-go-round thinking.
Rex
Absolute truths have been admitted....
by Shining One 102 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
Shining One
Jgnat,
Since you are so fond of derailing a discussion to side issues, here we go again:
Some of you believe that some moral absolutes exist. Though there may be some things that are individual moral calls, some things aren't, right? You have admitted that some moral absolutes (rules) exist, yet you cannot see or touch this rule, nor will any of your five senses reveal it to you. What kind of thing is it?
You of the agnostic, unbelieving variety said that you believe that something exists somewhere in a realm which you can't see, taste, touch, smell or hear. You believe something exists that you can't prove empirically. This is the very same argument against those who believe in God as a basis for saying "there is no proof of God". (I think it is telling that you, who claim to be a Christian, seem to reside in this camp!)
You don't realize that you believe in a lot of things that you can't test in that way, that aren't evident to you. But just because you can't sense it by the five senses doesn't mean that it's unreasonable for you to believe that such a rule exists. In other words, there are other ways to learn about things than just the five senses.
If you believe that it’s wrong to kill, steal or hurt others then that rule applies to everyone. This is a moral absolute! You have just affirmed a belief in something that is immaterial that you don't access by your five senses but you do access with some certainty by some other means. (You cited some moral absolutes, so why do you insist on arguing against this?)
Either way you can be considered rational in believing that such a rule actually exists. Once you do that, it does a lot of work for you. You've made an admission that has profound implications for many other beliefs. There are a whole bunch of other beliefs are bundled with that computer!.
For example, when you say that some absolute moral laws exist, you're saying that immaterial things, moral laws, certainly do exist. Therefore, materialism as a world view is false. Instead, it is reasonable to believe in things you don't see and can't test with the five senses. Strict empiricism would be false, then! For those that are agnostic or atheistic you have a ‘argument that is suicidal’. It disproves itself! That is one of the points, tied up and delivered to you again. Try to stay off the 'rabbit trails'. I know that is tough for you to do with that merry-go-round reasoning of yours.
Rex -
daniel-p
I think this one needs a bttt.
-
jgnat
OK, Rex. Let me get this straight. This thread is titled "Absolute truths have been admitted...." You then proceeded to give a sermon that supposedly leads from the existence of "absolute truth" to the existence of God. So this thread is supposedly regarding connecting the existence of "absolute truth" to the existence of God.
I've given examples and suggestions on what those "absolute truths" might be, but you've danced around them. I've told you that I agree with your overall concept, but you've ignored that. I've poked holes in your argument and you told me you don't need to defend your statements, as you don't mind being a "fool for Christ". This is why I've concluded that you never intended to have an intelligent debate or discussion on this subject, but instead subjected us all to a sermon. Sorry, sermons demand a captive audience.
I've endured all kinds of name-calling and accusations about my "camp", my "beliefs", my "foundation", and my supposed hypocricy by you. These sorts of arguments are called "ad-hominem" attacks, and are resorted to by those with WEAK arguments.
NOW, you accuse ME of dancing around the issue, then proceed to REPEAT your original argument? I've gone through each and every freaking sentence, and you've stated NOTHING NEW.
Your argument is not weak, but you weakly defend it. Do a better job, willya?
-
press any key
Hellrider
behaviour I expect of myself and the behaviour I expect from others
Sorry my phrasing there was a bit vague (the word expect has several meanings and I used two of them). I try to follow the golden rule most of the time, not because its some moral code, it is just my nice guy nature . I don't however expect (demand) people to treat me like that, it would be nice, but I do expect (anticipate) it from them, somewhat naively on occassion.
You still seem to be saying that its either an absolute moral, or nothing, just a feeling. I see relative morals as stronger than that, sure they may change over time, given new information or situations, but that doesnt make them weak now, "it is reasonable to conclude" that this would make them stronger over time. They are as strong as we decide they are.
And you also keep coming back to the idea that some things are just so heinous, so beyond the pale, that they must be against some absolute moral standard. But who decides where the line is drawn (God? us? the UN?) How do you stop it being abused? Can the absolute morals change ? (if so they are not absolute, if not how do you avoid them becoming outdated and dangerous)
And your example of Africa - what if Aids mutated into a more virulent airbourne virus that could wipeout humanity in days, and had already spread over half of Africa? What then? What if it was not quite so virulent and would only wipe 75% of humanity? 60%? 40%? 10%? Somewhere it goes from being moral to nuke Africa to not being moral - (according to my relative morals) but where? I dont know and they're my morals. Pity on someone trying to work out an absolute moral to fit all circumstances.
What if we decide now that it is absolutely immoral to nuke Africa, and then Aids mutates as above. But we cant do anything cause that would break our moral code.
I am also toying with the thought (havent worked it though fully yet) that many of the examples you have given are only possible if the villians of the piece (Nazis is particular, also terrorists nowadays) believe they have an absolute moral right. We can kill all them people cause we are right and they are wrong. Any comments on this?
cheers
pak
-
Hellrider
press any key:
You still seem to be saying that its either an absolute moral, or nothing, just a feeling. ;I see relative morals as stronger than that, sure they may change over time, given new information or situations, but that doesnt make them weak now, "it is reasonable to conclude" that this would make them stronger over time.
Ok, and this is where it gets confusing. "Sure they may change over time"...I assume you would see this as a change in the morality. But then I have to ask: Change to what? Change to "the better"? What is "the better"? And how do you decide whether a "new view on morals" is better, without some eternal, absolute standard? New information or situations doesn`t change the morality (which I see as an unchangeable "core") itself, it just changes how we apply morals on the new situation.
And you also keep coming back to the idea that some things are just so heinous, so beyond the pale, that they must be against some absolute moral standard. But who decides where the line is drawn (God? us? the UN?) How do you stop it being abused? Can the absolute morals change ? (if so they are not absolute, if not how do you avoid them becoming outdated and dangerous)
No, God doesn`t decide. Morality is a principle, the core of this principle doesn`t change, and finding this core is possible for every seeking person. It is "written in the heart" of every man and woman. But it takes knowledge and thought to find out what is right and wrong, especially in the "greyzones". Shining One started another thread now, about abortion, and abortion is an excellent example of a greyzone. We all agree that premeditated murder is in violation of the moral law. But what is a featus? Is it a human being? Or a lump of cells? What if it`s the latter? What then about the fact that the featus will evolve into a baby? What role does this potential play in this? What is a human being? Someone who can breathe for themselves? Ok, what about comatosed people on life support-system then? Are they not humans, then?
See? There is a million questions that have to be answered. Sometimes they are very difficult to answer, and that`s why there are greyzones, in which we don`t yet know what is right and wrong. Sometimes science can help us, sometimes not. We just have to stumble along in the dark, and use the information that we have. But that doesn`t change the moral principle in itself! But new information (and situations) may change how we apply the principle.
What if we decide now that it is absolutely immoral to nuke Africa, and then Aids mutates as above. But we cant do anything cause that would break our moral code
We can`t see into the future. Noone can. But the question is valid. If you could step into a time machine, go back to the year 1900 and kill Hitler and Stalin while they were still little boys, would you do it? Combined, these two monsters are responsible for the death of around 80 million (!!!) people! Ok, so you just stepped out of the time machine, like one of the terminators from the Schwarzenegger-movie , and landed in Austria. You find little Adolf in a playground, and you just have to make him come with you into an alley and do it. Would you?
Difficult questions...
-
kid-A
No, God doesn`t decide. Morality is a principle, the core of this principle doesn`t change, and finding this core is possible for every seeking person. It is "written in the heart" of every man and woman. But it takes knowledge and thought to find out what is right and wrong, especially in the "greyzones".
Hellrider, you freely admit to the existence of grey-zones. But you state that some "moral core" is written in the heart of human beings? How do you define this core? Since cultural definitions of what is "morIt seems the examples you are giving about grey-zones are topics derived from your own subjective moral universe, and of course, each of us, including Hitler and Stalin, occupy our own unique moral universe. Having said that, there can be no possibility of an objectively, absolutely defined "core" because each core would be entirely unique and dependent upon the individuals historical, psychological and cultural context. Hitlers "moral core" informed his moral universe: he ardently believed that he was acting in the best interests of the germans by exterminating the jews. Read "Mein Kampf". It is a rambling mish-mash of "moral invectives" from the subjective moral universe of Hitler. He believed he was right, and that he had the "moral" imperative to justify the murder of 6 million people.
Osama bin Laden has his own moral core, based on his subjective reality, and in his "mind and heart" his actions are entirely justified. Do you see the danger in taking the position of "moral absolutes"? WHen one assumes there is something "morally absolute" in the universe, this mentality may be used to justify any action. You state it "takes knowledge" to find out what is right and wrong? Whose knowledge? Who defines it? What is the context wherein such knowledge would be constructed? There are no reasonable answers to these questions because each answer would be an entirely subjective position, open to debate and censure.
What is the alternative to this position? By admitting, as you do, that there are moral grey zones where debate is possible. This forces us to question our actions and our motives and provides the only real break on our behavioural patterns. It has been said that there is nothing more dangerous than a conviction. And regardless of whether we personally believe in the justification of our beliefs or actions, there are always alternative ways to interpret our subjective reality which begins with the acceptance that there are no moral absolutes that can be objectively defined outside of our own limited, ephemeral and culturally constructed moral universes.
-
wanderlustguy
There is another option you left out in your initial post, Rex.
The fact that certain rules and "laws" exist with regard to life and behavior doesn't have to be corraled into three possibilities only for creation. "God" is a very narrow view of an extremely broad subject. To narrow "God" down to the tantrum throwing, selfish child represented in several parts of the bible does more of a desservice to the source of all things than it gives glory, IMHO.
The more I learn the more evident it becomes when someone has closed their mind and heart to the true value of life and the Glory of creation. It seems you choose to continue to debate and defend the validity of a book written thousands of years ago, which is extremely similar to other books written even before it, and contains in it's own pages contradictory information, if taken literally, which one has to learn to reason by someone else's direction to make it all mesh.
Today we see what happens when people "inspired" by "God" pursue what they view as "His" direction or their take on a narrow view of the "Creator" and decide to press thier view on others; death, war, and suffering.
Now I wonder more than ever, can you remember when you decided you had learned enough? Did you ever even look at anything else other than "The Bible" or have you simply taken in propaganda from the same sources that believe the same as you do now?
What makes you think that the creator of all things can be summarized in a few thousand pages of print, is that not blasphemy in and of itself?
WLG
-
acadian
Now, here are some more questions: Given that this moral rule is out there somewhere, where did it come from? Who made this rule up and why should it apply to everyone? Apply that to our physical reality. Where did it come from? Where do our very mental processes come from and why should we even be alive, much less self-aware?
There were two cavemen sitt'en round the camp fire, one of the cavemen hits the other, the one that got hit didn't like it much, using what mental ability he had, he sat there a moment and thought, boy that didn't feel good, so I guess I don't want to do to other, what I don't like being done to me...and there you have it... now you know where it came from. Oh, and why we should even be alive...That's easy ...TAXES... I hope that helped? Acadian ~~~ of the My Head Hurts Class ~~~
-
Hellrider
Kid A:
There is nothing in your post that I directly disagree with.
Osama bin Laden has his own moral core, based on his subjective reality, and in his "mind and heart" his actions are entirely justified. Do you see the danger in taking the position of "moral absolutes"? WHen one assumes there is something "morally absolute" in the universe, this mentality may be used to justify any action. You state it "takes knowledge" to find out what is right and wrong? Whose knowledge? Who defines it? What is the context wherein such knowledge would be constructed? There are no reasonable answers to these questions because each answer would be an entirely subjective position, open to debate and censure.
Absolutely, I agree, I see the problem here. But I believe that there is a "right" course of action in every situation. Of course, what the "right course of action" might be, on this we can debate. And thru the debate, we will get closer to the right course of action. The alternative (that whatever course of action one takes will be the result of completely subjective considerations) is to say that there really IS no "right course of action". And I can`t accept that, because it makes every action morally equal (because, like you said, in his own mind, Osama bin Laden is sure he is doing the right thing). And if there is no unchangeable guiding principle (although I admit the validity of your "who defines it"-question), then we have no reason to be upset at bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin or Bush.
What is the alternative to this position? By admitting, as you do, that there are moral grey zones where debate is possible. This forces us to question our actions and our motives and provides the only real break on our behavioural patterns. It has been said that there is nothing more dangerous than a conviction. And regardless of whether we personally believe in the justification of our beliefs or actions, there are always alternative ways to interpret our subjective reality which begins with the acceptance that there are no moral absolutes that can be objectively defined outside of our own limited, ephemeral and culturally constructed moral universes.
Agreed. Communication is good . I don`t think it`s that dangerous to have a conviction, but when a person is willing to kill for his conviction, then we are talking danger.
I said something similar in my previous post:
See? There is a million questions that have to be answered. Sometimes they are very difficult to answer, and that`s why there are greyzones, in which we don`t yet know what is right and wrong. Sometimes science can help us, sometimes not. We just have to ;stumble along in the dark, and use the information that we have
But I also said:
But that doesn`t change the moral principle in itself! But new information (and situations) may change how we apply the principle.
Now, don`t worry. I know perfectly well that these unchanging, eternal moral principles can`t be proven. They are, if they exist, invisible (just like God). But what I have been trying to clearify thruout this thread, is the result, the logical conclusion of the alternative view! (The view that morals are subjective and changeable). And I don`t know if I was able to paint a clear enough picture of that, but at least I tried.