It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow




Why are you asking questions and then berating people for the answers they give?


I ask the questions so that I can get an understanding of their world view. I challenge their answers to press them to think more deeply about their beliefs. Why do you come to a thread talking about concepts you refuse to acknowledge as a line of thought.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




When someone wrongs you do you have a subjective or objective moral experience?


Subjective.



I steal your wallet and claim it as mine because I think it has a cool design on it. I do this in front of you. What would you say to me?


How I react would depend on my situation and my mood. What does my reaction have to do an objective moral standard?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




How I react would depend on my situation and my mood. What does my reaction have to do an objective moral standard?


Ok apparently I have to go a bit overboard on the analogy for you lol. THis is not meant to be an appeal to emotion but to make a point, and your reaction has everything to do with objective morals.

Your at your house with 6 family members that you are very close with. I walk in the house tie you up, and begin slitting there throats in front of you.

What would you say to me?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't see how this is going to lead to an example of objective morality, and I won't put myself in such a situation for your pleasure.

Can you give me an example of objective morality, without slitting mine and my family's throats? Which, by the way, would still be an subjective crime.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn




The single observable universe couldn't exist without observers?


This is the first statement made by Barrow and Tipler's strong anthropic principle. It states that the observable universe must have the conditions for life present in it. This is obvious because we are here.




The universe itself is proof of a system with rules & set applications (IE all planets circle a sun), thus there is a God? (Oversimplified, here's my point)- An unknowable amount of Suns explode & wipe out & unknowable amount of planets & potential life on said planets


Well yes the rules governing what made those planets circle the sun (i.e gravitational constant.) Are uninfringed by the destruction of the star, and guess what Supernovas occur for a systematically. Either they accumulate to much mass and explode or they run out of nuclear fuel some of their mass leaks into their core. The core then gets so heavy that it cannot withstand its own gravitational force. The core collapses causing a supernova. The citric acid cycle. The water cycle. Reproduction. All of these are systematic processes we observe in reality.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

What would you say to me if I was about to kill your whole family?

If you want to talk about morals. We have to talk about our interactions with people. Just stick with me.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

The first thing I would want to know is "Why?".



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

I ask the questions so that I can get an understanding of their world view. I challenge their answers to press them to think more deeply about their beliefs.


Fair enough.



Why do you come to a thread talking about concepts you refuse to acknowledge as a line of thought.


I ask the questions so that I can get an understanding of their world view. I challenge their answers to press them to think more deeply about their beliefs.

Do you have a problem with my method?
edit on 6-1-2015 by TheArrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Because I believe its the right thing to do for the bettering of mankind.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow




I ask the questions so that I can get an understanding of their world view. I challenge their answers to press them to think more deeply about their beliefs.


You can't ask questions about something you don't understand....you disproving your own belief by interjecting within the conversation.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

Because I believe its the right thing to do for the bettering of mankind.


Well then, I guess we're toast. How could I convince someone not to kill me, when they passionately believe that what they're doing is for the betterment of mankind?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow
You can't ask questions about something you don't understand....you disproving your own belief by interjecting within the conversation.


So, you can only ask questions about things that you do understand?

What belief do I have?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So as I kill your family your telling me your moral experience would be to concede that what I am doing is morally correct, even if you don't agree?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow




So, you can only ask questions about things that you do understand?


No but in order to ask any question of God or protrude anywhere past "What is God?" would be breaking the idea of theological noncognivitism.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




So as I kill your family your telling me your moral experience would be to concede that what I am doing is morally correct, even if you don't agree?


No.

How is this an example of objective reality? This is exactly the same situation that your God put the victims of the Isrealites in.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow




So, you can only ask questions about things that you do understand?


No but in order to ask any question of God or protrude anywhere past "What is God?" would be breaking the idea of theological noncognivitism.


Unless I am questioning your responses. Which is exactly what I was doing. I don't blame you for not being able to answer my questions about the nature of God, truly I don't, because I don't believe it's a viable concept.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

So what your telling me is that your moral experience would contradict your world view



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheArrow




Unless I am questioning your responses. Which is exactly what I was doing. I don't blame you for not being able to answer my questions about the nature of God, truly I don't, because I don't believe it's a viable concept.


Lol your arguing with semantics. Your trying to redefine the word God as "meaningless." I have defined God as a philosophical concept to you. You chose to ignore the meaning of the words in my sentence, and produce multiple strawman arguments in order to make it appear as though you had something of worth to say.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

No. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I don't believe that my existence is detrimental to the betterment of mankind, one way or the other, but I can't stop someone, who is passionately determined, from taking my life.
edit on 6-1-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow
I have defined God as a philosophical concept to you.


You attempted to, but your words were meaningless. God is a Mind? What does that even mean? It means nothing.


You chose to ignore the meaning of the words in my sentence, and produce multiple strawman arguments in order to make it appear as though you had something of worth to say.


I didn't choose to ignore the meaning, you chose to use words in a way that doesn't make sense. However, that was only one of the times you defined God. The other was when you said Jesus was God. Which, of course, is a circular argument.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join