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.

 

Are you a sinner?

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I mean if I violate a moral that YOU think is immoral but I don't, does that make me a sinner?


I am not the judge of morality, but I do know there are objective moral truths that exist in this realm that regardless of your belief it would still be wrong for you to do such things. Causing any emotional or physical harm to an innocent person is wrong. You can say some people believe murder is okay, that doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong. If I say I believe apples are vegetables, that doesn't change the fact that an apple has seeds and therefore would be classified as a fruit. I don't have to have a philosophical debate with the guy stealing my wallet and raping my girlfriend, while you, if you truly believe what you say you believe, would have to say sir excuse me. I don't agree with rape. Its not my moral preference. Thats not how reality works and we both know it.




No. Psychopaths and sociopaths may know what WE tell them right and wrong are, but that doesn't mean they acknowledge it themselves. Look at the tv show Dexter. He clearly KNEW what society considered right and wrong (after all he only went after bad guys), but he still was only doing it to stay under the police radar. Now I know that a tv show isn't the best example, but it certainly is a relateable instance to consider.


I don't think that is true at all. Dexter clearly had certain affections for rita, and his sister. He also constantly refers to himself as a monster in one episode. Something evil. He knew where he was on the moral scale of things but he just didn't care. Both perspectives can be seen there it doesn't shatter the argument its just which assumptions about reality we bring to the table.




Yet the bible condones it. How come the people who wrote the bible never mentioned that it was bad? If we are born knowing that slavery is wrong, you'd think someone would mention such things in the bible. Yet not only is it NOT condemned, it is condoned with the bible giving out instructions on how to properly look after your slaves.


Either you are being dishonest or you are ignorant of the context of the "slavery" the Bible sets rules upon. First it condemns the type of slavery we had here in america, "16"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."(Exodus 21:16) Slavery in OT times was not kidnapping and forcing people into slavery, but was rather a form of repayment for debt. Rather than pay someone back you could work seven years instead. We can see an example of this in Genesis 29:20. In ancient Hebrew weddings, it was accustom for the groom to pay a bride price to the father. No the girl was not forced to marry someone. It was her choice, the price was compensation for the brides family losing one of their family members in a sense. Jacob paid his bride price by entering into what you are calling slavery, which is really a form of debt payment. Kidnapping or man-stealing was punishable by death.




posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I am not the judge of morality, but I do know there are objective moral truths that exist in this realm that regardless of your belief it would still be wrong for you to do such things. Causing any emotional or physical harm to an innocent person is wrong. You can say some people believe murder is okay, that doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong. If I say I believe apples are vegetables, that doesn't change the fact that an apple has seeds and therefore would be classified as a fruit. I don't have to have a philosophical debate with the guy stealing my wallet and raping my girlfriend, while you, if you truly believe what you say you believe, would have to say sir excuse me. I don't agree with rape. Its not my moral preference. Thats not how reality works and we both know it.


Well you are wrong. Morality, all of it, is relative. I certainly don't agree with hurting others. It is against my morality, but that doesn't mean that it is consistently against everyone else' morality. Pretending like you can speak for everyone's morality in regardless to hurting others is arrogant. You are making a bandwagon appeal fallacy here and saying that just because most of society agrees that hurting others is immoral then it is naturally immoral for humans to do so. That isn't true. Morality was only invented to make living in the human societies we constructed easier to do. Without society, morality is just a suggestion.


I don't think that is true at all. Dexter clearly had certain affections for rita, and his sister. He also constantly refers to himself as a monster in one episode. Something evil. He knew where he was on the moral scale of things but he just didn't care. Both perspectives can be seen there it doesn't shatter the argument its just which assumptions about reality we bring to the table.


Well you have pretty much all of the science of psychology disagreeing with you on this one. Take it up with Psychology.


Either you are being dishonest or you are ignorant of the context of the "slavery" the Bible sets rules upon. First it condemns the type of slavery we had here in america, "16"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."(Exodus 21:16) Slavery in OT times was not kidnapping and forcing people into slavery, but was rather a form of repayment for debt. Rather than pay someone back you could work seven years instead. We can see an example of this in Genesis 29:20. In ancient Hebrew weddings, it was accustom for the groom to pay a bride price to the father. No the girl was not forced to marry someone. It was her choice, the price was compensation for the brides family losing one of their family members in a sense. Jacob paid his bride price by entering into what you are calling slavery, which is really a form of debt payment. Kidnapping or man-stealing was punishable by death.


I really don't care about these petty distinctions. Slavery is slavery no matter how it started. It is wrong. The bible is wrong. Your argument is falling apart.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Well you are wrong. Morality, all of it, is relative. I certainly don't agree with hurting others. It is against my morality, but that doesn't mean that it is consistently against everyone else' morality


How exactly am I wrong? I know of no other way to show you moral truths exist other than to give you examples of obvious moral truths. Just like if you were to say you don't think fruits exist, the only way I could show you fruits exist are to show you examples of fruits. If you still choose to believe fruits don't exist after I show you fruits then we are simply at a stalemate. Not because what I am saying is untrue but simply because you cannot see what is directly in front of you. We have moral experiences thru out life and none of those experiences are experienced in a subjective manner. Never are my thoughts I don't agree with that man who raped 14 children. My thoughts are that man ought not have raped those 14 children it was wrong, even if that man believed with all his heart he was doing those children good it was still wrong objectively.




Well you have pretty much all of the science of psychology disagreeing with you on this one. Take it up with Psychology.


Appealing to authority with absolutely no arguments...you really wanna start naming logical fallacies.




I really don't care about these petty distinctions. Slavery is slavery no matter how it started. It is wrong. The bible is wrong. Your argument is falling apart.


They aren't petty distinctions they are two entirely different things, and I showed you where the bible taught contrary to what you are saying it teaches so rather than own up to that you just want to make blanket statements that hold absolutely no weight.
edit on 24-11-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Ah. Now I see what you are saying. You have a similar belief about sinning that I do. It's a tool, invented by the religious, to play on people's guilt. I hadn't thought of that with my original response, but I like it. It makes sense.


Basically, our moral compass is something that we're all born with. When we do something we wouldn't want done to us, we feel guilty. We don't want to be stolen from, cheated, beaten, yelled at ect ...

And when we feel guilt (and subsequent shame) -- we've got this handy little word called a "sin". It packages up our guilt and shame, gives it a little handle on which to hold to. We can then carry that sin into a church and hand it off to "God".

Now that we've psychologically unloaded our guilt and shame, we feel better. And because it works so amazingly well, people keep coming back to this place with truck loads of "sins" to unload time after time. People even donate money to this place, building it larger so they can unload more "sins".



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
How exactly am I wrong? I know of no other way to show you moral truths exist other than to give you examples of obvious moral truths. Just like if you were to say you don't think fruits exist, the only way I could show you fruits exist are to show you examples of fruits. If you still choose to believe fruits don't exist after I show you fruits then we are simply at a stalemate. Not because what I am saying is untrue but simply because you cannot see what is directly in front of you. We have moral experiences thru out life and none of those experiences are experienced in a subjective manner. Never are my thoughts I don't agree with that man who raped 14 children. My thoughts are that man ought not have raped those 14 children it was wrong, even if that man believed with all his heart he was doing those children good it was still wrong objectively.


How about proving to me where it is codified in our genetic code what is and isn't moral? That would be a good start. Plus it's a good way to try to integrate religion with science. Though I'm not aware of any studies that prove this is the case, so I'm not to confident of how successful you will be.



Appealing to authority with absolutely no arguments...you really wanna start naming logical fallacies.


Which authority have I appealed to exactly?


They aren't petty distinctions they are two entirely different things, and I showed you where the bible taught contrary to what you are saying it teaches so rather than own up to that you just want to make blanket statements that hold absolutely no weight.


The fact is that slavery, a type of slavery, is condoned in the bible. I know that is inconvenient for bible believers, but it's the truth. I am also well aware of the various rationalizations Christians have for defending its existence, but that's all they are rationalizations. Slavery is slavery and there is all of zero quotes in the bible that say that clearly spell out that slavery is wrong. Even your quote from Exodus could EASILY be argued that it is talking about kidnapping and not so much slavery.
16"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death."(Exodus 21:16)

This tells me that kidnapping is a crime punishable by death. It tells me nothing about slavery.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Dumping our guilt for our actions or in-actions onto someone or something that may or may not even exist instead of taking responsibility and attempting to make amends is a pretty awful thing.

I understand that it's a main tenant of certain desert religions but scapegoating is detrimental to individuals and society as a whole and it should not be lauded or praised.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Well, in a way dumping it onto someone or something else is a way of admitting what we did and coming to some kind of inner resolution.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Prezbo369

Well, in a way dumping it onto someone or something else is a way of admitting what we did and coming to some kind of inner resolution.


No - it isn't.

It is a process of diversion - small children do it - because it is easier to blame/scapegoat someone/something else, than to take responsibility...the little golden book establishes this process very early on - the rest of the book faffs around (like small children do) bolstering the original diversion, and the last chapter tells how the evil clown-toy under the bed comes out from under the bed...

Å99



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Ah. Now I see what you are saying. You have a similar belief about sinning that I do. It's a tool, invented by the religious, to play on people's guilt. I hadn't thought of that with my original response, but I like it. It makes sense.


Basically, our moral compass is something that we're all born with. When we do something we wouldn't want done to us, we feel guilty. We don't want to be stolen from, cheated, beaten, yelled at ect ...


That is just us having our feeling hurt then translating how we'd feel if the same thing happened to us. That is a trick that has to be taught to us though. Children don't have a moral compass. We have to teach kids not to steal or hit other people. Things like that. It isn't until we've instilled the sense of rightness and wrongness in them that they start feeling guilty about it.


And when we feel guilt (and subsequent shame) -- we've got this handy little word called a "sin". It packages up our guilt and shame, gives it a little handle on which to hold to. We can then carry that sin into a church and hand it off to "God".

Now that we've psychologically unloaded our guilt and shame, we feel better. And because it works so amazingly well, people keep coming back to this place with truck loads of "sins" to unload time after time. People even donate money to this place, building it larger so they can unload more "sins".


Like I said, I agree that sin is just a way for religion to stay relevant in a world that is quickly leaving it behind.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Prezbo369

Well, in a way dumping it onto someone or something else is a way of admitting what we did and coming to some kind of inner resolution.


Not sure how letting someone/something else bear the shame and guilt for our acts is admitting anything, especially as doing this act makes us 'feel better'?

Couldn't we just take responsibility ourselves? what benefit is there to offloading our shame and guilt onto a innocent party?

How do you find this to be moral?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




How about proving to me where it is codified in our genetic code what is and isn't moral? That would be a good start. Plus it's a good way to try to integrate religion with science. Though I'm not aware of any studies that prove this is the case, so I'm not to confident of how successful you will be.


Like are you kidding? We are having a discussion about moral ontology and epistemology and you are asking me for evidential arguments on the existence of an abstract notion. You are just way off base here.




Which authority have I appealed to exactly?


You claimed I was going against the whole Science of psychology because I said the sociopaths and psychopaths ignore the moral code rather not having one at all, implying I was wrong because all of psychology supposedly thinks differently. You don't seem to get that saying psychologist or you or I can actually know what psychopaths are thinking is an argument from omniscience. Honestly its not an argument that Science can prove or disprove. I think you get confused with facts and the interpretation of facts. They are two totally different things.




The fact is that slavery, a type of slavery, is condoned in the bible. I know that is inconvenient for bible believers, but it's the truth. I am also well aware of the various rationalizations Christians have for defending its existence, but that's all they are rationalizations. Slavery is slavery and there is all of zero quotes in the bible that say that clearly spell out that slavery is wrong


First off who are you to say the Bible shouldn't condone Slavery, rape, and murder? You have no true standard of morals to call those things wrong or evil in the first place. So why are you pretending its a bad thing for the bible to condone anything because truth is you have no objective standard to call those things legitimately wrong in the first place. You just don't agree with them.

Secondly, what I gave you was not a rationalization it was simply the truth about the situation. People in ancient Israel used slavery as a form of debt payment. It is not wrong, to let someone work off debt rather than pay it. You say zero verses and then post the one I just gave you right after and try to argue it away. Use reading comprehension man. Its obvious what that is talking about, but all i have to do to show that you are wrong is look at the original language. A verb form of ganab, is what is used in exodus and it means to steal. This is exactly what occurred in the type of slavery a few hundred years ago, but is not the type of slavery practiced in ancient Jewish cultures. So a more accurate translation would be he that stealth a man. This is why i said kidnapping, or man-stealing is condemned. So no it can't be argued away just because you say it can be. You simply don't know when to humble yourself and accept that what you were saying was untrue.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
Yes i will be judged ....but people got the wrong idea of what judged means.
Any time you stand before a judge it is becuase something is going so wrong in your life
and this wise person is going to do his her best to fix it .....
Hence drug classes speeding tickets social service child abuse you name it you have to go to court it is usually because something in your life has gone wrong.
Now Jesus forgives me of all things I do wrong . Why because he loves me.

And you said (
The fact that you call them your past sins would suggest that they still are in the back of your mind...have you really forgiven yourself? )

Well Inever calles them or anything my past sins in fact I never used the word past in my post at all soooo i dunno what your talking about past sins.
Hell I sin everyday ..............sorry yhwh



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its cool just Christians get blamed for everything lol

And like Billy Joel said ...................we didnt start the fire its been burning since the world been turning.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Like are you kidding? We are having a discussion about moral ontology and epistemology and you are asking me for evidential arguments on the existence of an abstract notion. You are just way off base here.


Sorry, I'm a realist. If it exists, it can be objectively proven. I accept no less. You made the claim that certain morals are held true across all humans. Well if that is the case, then that MUST be hard coded into our genes. How else would our body know to make us think that way while we were growing up?


You claimed I was going against the whole Science of psychology because I said the sociopaths and psychopaths ignore the moral code rather not having one at all, implying I was wrong because all of psychology supposedly thinks differently. You don't seem to get that saying psychologist or you or I can actually know what psychopaths are thinking is an argument from omniscience. Honestly its not an argument that Science can prove or disprove. I think you get confused with facts and the interpretation of facts. They are two totally different things.


An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you appeal to a non-sme on the subject you are talking about. If I appeal to psychology and psychologists, I'm appealing to smes. They would know better than you or I. So I'm going to defer to their opinion before your opinion on the matter.


First off who are you to say the Bible shouldn't condone Slavery, rape, and murder? You have no true standard of morals to call those things wrong or evil in the first place. So why are you pretending its a bad thing for the bible to condone anything because truth is you have no objective standard to call those things legitimately wrong in the first place. You just don't agree with them.


Well its contradictory to the message the bible is presenting by condoning something that takes advantage of another person like that. It's just simple logic. It's interesting how many Christians get mad at the arguer when he points out obvious contradictions in the bible. You make it sound like I don't have the intelligence to read the bible and notice contradictions just because I'm not Christian.


Secondly, what I gave you was not a rationalization it was simply the truth about the situation. People in ancient Israel used slavery as a form of debt payment. It is not wrong, to let someone work off debt rather than pay it. You say zero verses and then post the one I just gave you right after and try to argue it away. Use reading comprehension man. Its obvious what that is talking about, but all i have to do to show that you are wrong is look at the original language. A verb form of ganab, is what is used in exodus and it means to steal. This is exactly what occurred in the type of slavery a few hundred years ago, but is not the type of slavery practiced in ancient Jewish cultures. So a more accurate translation would be he that stealth a man. This is why i said kidnapping, or man-stealing is condemned. So no it can't be argued away just because you say it can be. You simply don't know when to humble yourself and accept that what you were saying was untrue.


Oh I know that that form of slavery was a product of the times. That has been my whole point all along. That form of slavery used to be morally ok, so it wasn't written poorly about in the Bible (since the Bible was written by men), but all that disproves your hypothesis that there are certain morals hard wired into our heads that we are born with. That form of slavery today is just as immoral as the slavery we had in the 1800's. That is an obvious example of changing morals. Especially a dire one such as that.

Hell, I can play this game all day. Ancient civilizations used to condone murder. They didn't CALL it murder (it was called a sacrifice), but it was murder nonetheless. Theft? Well we all agree to pay taxes to our government. There are exceptions to ALL morals past and present whether you want to believe that is the case or not.
edit on 25-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: sweets777
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Its cool just Christians get blamed for everything lol

And like Billy Joel said ...................we didnt start the fire its been burning since the world been turning.


Nice! Way to adopt a Christian perseuction complex when I wasn't even talking to you to begin with. Y'all never fail to disappoint with this tired rhetoric. Christians are no more blamed for anything than any other minority. Besides, if you were truly being honest here, you'd recognize that Muslims are currently being blamed for a HECK of a lot more these days than Christians are.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Sorry, I'm a realist. If it exists, it can be objectively proven. I accept no less.


You have never looked at philosophy a day in your life have you. Apply that logic to your world view and you know absolutely nothing. Also I think its hilarious that you believe that objectively proven means only an evidential argument was used. Please give me an evidential argument for the existence of the concept of the number 2. If you cannot give me an evidential argument for the existence of number concepts them I am afraid you are no longer allowed to use them....its just off base man..evidential arguments are not the only valid form of argument and to pretend they are is close minded. It has to be coded into our genes? No, it most definitely doesn't. You assume that because you don't believe in a soul.




An appeal to authority is only a fallacy when you appeal to a non-sme on the subject you are talking about. If I appeal to psychology and psychologists, I'm appealing to smes. They would know better than you or I. So I'm going to defer to their opinion before your opinion on the matter.


Dude you made a blanket statement about what all psychology says and gave absolutely no physical or logical evidence to think that what you were saying is true. It was an appeal to authority....




Well its contradictory to the message the bible is presenting by condoning something that takes advantage of another person like that.


Again you have no philosophical basis in your world view to be able to call any of that a contradiction. You want to borrow from objective morality when it suits you but claim that it is subjective. If it is subjective who are you to say slavery isn't loving. My point was you have no foundation in your world view that will allow you to call something immoral and it hold any weight.




You make it sound like I don't have the intelligence to read the bible and notice contradictions just because I'm not Christian.


All you did was claim there was a contradiction you are not backing anything up with evidence and that is apparently the only form of evidence you accept. You continue to debate without ever putting out any thoughts that actually contain any type of substance. They are all just blanket appeals to authority or simply you claiming things without backing up your ideas at all. Its quite clear based on the major philosophical blunder you made in your first response that you have never analyzed your own world view.




That form of slavery today is just as immoral as the slavery we had in the 1800's. That is an obvious example of changing morals


I disagree. I know people who would gladly work for someone for seven years to get out of debt. You are pretending that those slaves were disrespected like people disrespected them 200 years ago its simply not true. Sure there were probably some, but it was not the majority. Again here you go calling something immoral. Its not immoral from the point of view you claim to take....if its subjective you simply don't agree with that action. Doesn't make it right or wrong. It's simply your opinion and opinions hold no weight. You keep speaking as though morals are objective while claiming the opposite. Your words contradict the way you claim to believe the world operates.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
You have never looked at philosophy a day in your life have you. Apply that logic to your world view and you know absolutely nothing. Also I think its hilarious that you believe that objectively proven means only an evidential argument was used. Please give me an evidential argument for the existence of the concept of the number 2. If you cannot give me an evidential argument for the existence of number concepts them I am afraid you are no longer allowed to use them....its just off base man..evidential arguments are not the only valid form of argument and to pretend they are is close minded. It has to be coded into our genes? No, it most definitely doesn't. You assume that because you don't believe in a soul.


Philosophy is a great way to think up new ideas, but philosophy doesn't prove anything. At the end of day, they are still just ideas. You have to actually PROVE that those ideas are correct with evidence. By the way, your argument about proving the number two is silly and nonsensical. The word two is proven because we've typed it out and shown that we both understand it. The number two itself is proven whenever you have two of something.


evidential arguments are not the only valid form of argument and to pretend they are is close minded.


You are only saying this because you cannot prove what you are saying is true. I bet if you actually had evidence for your opinion, you'd be singing a different tune.


Again you have no philosophical basis in your world view to be able to call any of that a contradiction. You want to borrow from objective morality when it suits you but claim that it is subjective. If it is subjective who are you to say slavery isn't loving. My point was you have no foundation in your world view that will allow you to call something immoral and it hold any weight.


-I- don't need a philosophical basis in my world view to read something in the bible where it says one thing in one place than tells you to do the exact opposite somewhere else. That is called a contradiction whether you like to believe it or not. Besides, I have a philosophical worldview. It's called realism. Christians usually call it materialism.


All you did was claim there was a contradiction you are not backing anything up with evidence and that is apparently the only form of evidence you accept. You continue to debate without ever putting out any thoughts that actually contain any type of substance. They are all just blanket appeals to authority or simply you claiming things without backing up your ideas at all. Its quite clear based on the major philosophical blunder you made in your first response that you have never analyzed your own world view.


No, YOU made the claim that certain morals are hard wired into humans. Morals such as murder, theft, and so on. Here are your words on the matter.



I am not the judge of morality, but I do know there are objective moral truths that exist in this realm that regardless of your belief it would still be wrong for you to do such things. Causing any emotional or physical harm to an innocent person is wrong. You can say some people believe murder is okay, that doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong. If I say I believe apples are vegetables, that doesn't change the fact that an apple has seeds and therefore would be classified as a fruit


You used the word "objective" to describe certain morals. Well if they are objectively true then they are ALWAYS true: past, present, and future. I've been showing that this hasn't been the case. This has nothing to do with my personal philosophy. This is me pointing out a contradiction in YOUR philosophy.


I disagree. I know people who would gladly work for someone for seven years to get out of debt. You are pretending that those slaves were disrespected like people disrespected them 200 years ago its simply not true. Sure there were probably some, but it was not the majority. Again here you go calling something immoral. Its not immoral from the point of view you claim to take....if its subjective you simply don't agree with that action. Doesn't make it right or wrong. It's simply your opinion and opinions hold no weight. You keep speaking as though morals are objective while claiming the opposite. Your words contradict the way you claim to believe the world operates.


People agree to do quite a bit of things that many consider immoral, what point is this supposed to prove? You even say that the majority of slaves weren't abused. How do you know this? I can think of QUITE a few slave rebellions that happened before the western version of slavery started.

Servile Wars

If slaves were so well treated, why the need to rebel? Huh?



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Philosophy is a great way to think up new ideas, but philosophy doesn't prove anything. At the end of day, they are still just ideas. You have to actually PROVE that those ideas are correct with evidence


Philosophy is not just about ideas it is also about rational discourse. Evidence simply tells you what is. Your interpretation of the evidence is what matters. You keep talking about proof. I'd like for you to prove that you have a good reason to believe the future will be like the past. David Hume called this the principle of uniformity in nature, and this single assumption is what all of science and our day to day lives is based upon. Without sufficient reason for believing that nature is uniform, or that the future will be like the past, you are stuck with the inability to prove even the simplest of things such as fire will always burn you when you touch it without proper protection. Basically what I am saying is where you stand philosophically speaking, your stuck with the fact that you can't know anything at all. You can only believe.




The word two is proven because we've typed it out and shown that we both understand it. The number two itself is proven whenever you have two of something.


Oh no it isn't. The letters 't', 'w', 'o' do not prove the existence of anything other than the existence of lines in ordered in a particular fashion. You are confusing facts with your interpretation of the facts. It does not prove that the concept of the number 2 exist. The existence of a cattle and another cattle does not make an evidential argument for the existence of a concept. It makes an argument for the existence of both of the cattle, not a number concept. Again you have confused the facts with the interpretation of those facts. You cannot prove a concept with evidential arguments. It was not nonsensical it was to get you to see an error in your line of thinking.




You are only saying this because you cannot prove what you are saying is true. I bet if you actually had evidence for your opinion, you'd be singing a different tune.



No I said that because it is true. Give me an evidential argument for the existence of love. You also failed to prove that the concept of the number two exist. So right now you lose all the math behind science your world views not looking to hot. You can't...because its not a material thing, but it most definitely exist.




-I- don't need a philosophical basis in my world view to read something in the bible where it says one thing in one place than tells you to do the exact opposite somewhere else


You making a claim about morals from an objective perspective? That is not something that exist according to you. You are saying that one command says to be moral and the other command says to be immoral. You can't make that claim as a truth claim. You can only make that statement as your particular preferences because that is all your world view allows. You can't call it a contradiction from my world view because you have no idea what objective morals are.




Well if they are objectively true then they are ALWAYS true: past, present, and future. I've been showing that this hasn't been the case


You have done nothing of the matter. All you have shown is that people don't always agree on what is moral, and if you think that is a counter argument then you don't know the meaning of the term objective. If you and I disagree on the validity of a statement such as "two plus two is four," that doesn't take away the fact that the statement at hand is either true or it is false. That statement has an objective truth value, because truth cannot contradict. If it is true that murder is bad, then logically it must be false that murder is good. If it is true that murder is good, the logically it must be false the murder is bad. Only one of these statements can be true regardless of our opinion on the matter that fact remains due to logic.




If slaves were so well treated, why the need to rebel? Huh?


Strawman much? We are talking about slavery in ancient Judaism, not the roman republic. Slavery in the roman republic was not done according to the ways of ancient Judaism. Romans practiced man-stealing. The thing condemned in Exodus.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Philosophy is not just about ideas it is also about rational discourse. Evidence simply tells you what is. Your interpretation of the evidence is what matters. You keep talking about proof. I'd like for you to prove that you have a good reason to believe the future will be like the past. David Hume called this the principle of uniformity in nature, and this single assumption is what all of science and our day to day lives is based upon. Without sufficient reason for believing that nature is uniform, or that the future will be like the past, you are stuck with the inability to prove even the simplest of things such as fire will always burn you when you touch it without proper protection. Basically what I am saying is where you stand philosophically speaking, your stuck with the fact that you can't know anything at all. You can only believe.


Assuming that the universe won't be uniform day to day is an assumption without evidence. Occam's Razor says that the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. That doesn't mean that it is always true though, but it is certainly the safest idea to default to and believe.


Oh no it isn't. The letters 't', 'w', 'o' do not prove the existence of anything other than the existence of lines in ordered in a particular fashion. You are confusing facts with your interpretation of the facts. It does not prove that the concept of the number 2 exist. The existence of a cattle and another cattle does not make an evidential argument for the existence of a concept. It makes an argument for the existence of both of the cattle, not a number concept. Again you have confused the facts with the interpretation of those facts. You cannot prove a concept with evidential arguments. It was not nonsensical it was to get you to see an error in your line of thinking.


If you say so. I find it rather nonsensical. Like you said, proving a concept is impossible. Concepts don't actually exist though. They are just ways for us to label things so we can better understand the universe through our human perspectives.


No I said that because it is true. Give me an evidential argument for the existence of love. You also failed to prove that the concept of the number two exist. So right now you lose all the math behind science your world views not looking to hot. You can't...because its not a material thing, but it most definitely exist.


Yea except there is biological evidence for love:
Biological basis of love

Who's acting arrogant now? You aren't even fact checking your own rhetoric.


You making a claim about morals from an objective perspective? That is not something that exist according to you. You are saying that one command says to be moral and the other command says to be immoral. You can't make that claim as a truth claim. You can only make that statement as your particular preferences because that is all your world view allows. You can't call it a contradiction from my world view because you have no idea what objective morals are.


The problem is that you are refusing to attempt to understand what I'm saying.


You have done nothing of the matter. All you have shown is that people don't always agree on what is moral, and if you think that is a counter argument then you don't know the meaning of the term objective. If you and I disagree on the validity of a statement such as "two plus two is four," that doesn't take away the fact that the statement at hand is either true or it is false. That statement has an objective truth value, because truth cannot contradict. If it is true that murder is bad, then logically it must be false that murder is good. If it is true that murder is good, the logically it must be false the murder is bad. Only one of these statements can be true regardless of our opinion on the matter that fact remains due to logic.


Well you made the case that objective morals exist. Proving a negative is impossible, plus the burden of proof lies on the presenter not the arguer. Though you got offended when I demanded evidence from you.


Strawman much? We are talking about slavery in ancient Judaism, not the roman republic. Slavery in the roman republic was not done according to the ways of ancient Judaism. Romans practiced man-stealing. The thing condemned in Exodus.


The problem with slavery from so far ago is that we don't have much on it. The best we got is the Code of Hammurabi, though here is some text about it:

The rewards and penalties for a medical man in Babylon nearly 4000 years ago are listed in the code of laws established by King Hammurabi:

'If a physician shall perform on anyone an operation with a bronze operating knife and cure him, or if he shall open a growth on an eye and save the eye, he shall have ten shekhels of silver; if it is a slave, his owner shall pay two shekhels of silver to the physician.

If a physician shall make a severe wound with the bronze operating knife and kill the patient, or open a growth and destroy his eye, his hands shall be cut off.

If a physician shall make a severe wound with the bronze operating knife on the slave of a free man and kill him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.' (Source)


How exactly is this physician supposed to replace a slave by the way? Just force someone to owe him a lot of money and conscript him into slavery, OR just kidnap him and force him into slavery. Slavery is slavery no matter how you want to justify it. Though your defense of certain forms of slavery is rather telling about why we so vehemently disagree with each other.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Assuming that the universe won't be uniform day to day is an assumption without evidence. Occam's Razor says that the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. That doesn't mean that it is always true though, but it is certainly the safest idea to default to and believe.


The assumption the it isn't uniform is no less likely than the assumption that it is uniform. You cannot give any proper evidence to say that is the case, yet you constantly ask for proof. You can only prove something if you have knowledge . Your philosophical position leaves you with no way to acquire knowledge, which means you have no way to prove anything.




If you say so. I find it rather nonsensical. Like you said, proving a concept is impossible. Concepts don't actually exist though. They are just ways for us to label things so we can better understand the universe through our human perspectives.


Wrong proving a concept is not impossible its just not possible with evidential arguments, which was the point I was trying to make to you. It requires a logical argument to prove that it exist and is valid. Lets call two, a state in which there is a thing and another thing. Lets call one, a state in which there is a thing. If we have a state in which there is a thing, and a state where there is a thing and another thing. Then we have a thing, another thing, and another thing, lets call that three. Concepts are easy to prove with logic.




Yea except there is biological evidence for love:
Biological basis of love

Who's acting arrogant now? You aren't even fact checking your own rhetoric.



Again you are confusing facts with your interpretation of those facts.




The problem is that you are refusing to attempt to understand what I'm saying.


Not at all I get what you are saying, but the fact that you are saying it contradicts what you say you believe...





Well you made the case that objective morals exist. Proving a negative is impossible, plus the burden of proof lies on the presenter not the arguer. Though you got offended when I demanded evidence from you.


That is simply a principle of folk logic.




A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative.
Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website
that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’
Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia,
agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we
can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at
Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts
that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we
can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that
something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis
will give a mountain of similar examples.
But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional
logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove
a negative?


departments.bloomu.edu...

For example I will prove one to you now. I will prove that I am not nonexistent. Guess what you just read that sentence and I typed it which means I exist which means I proved the I am not nonexistent.

I also already gave you evidence of objective morals but you ignored them. Murder is objectively wrong. That is the apple I am showing to the guy who says fruit doesn't exist. If you refuse after that there is not much I can do but assume you are incapable of understanding what I am talking about due to a mental block of some kind. There very fact that we are having this conversation should show that logic dictates either murder is good or murder is bad. The only way for you to remain logically consistent is to concede to moral nihilism but then you lose all right to judge moral situations or you are not living coherently with what you say you believe.
edit on 25-11-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join