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.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
His case for objective morality does have a presupposition built in, but it's hardly arbitrary.
I have a general conspiracy theory that the teachings of Jesus were rewritten to serve the purpose of perpetuating the legitimacy of government by monarchy. I generally think the Bible was written by men in order to preserve the power of the monarchy. So I don't trust the Bible.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"Objective morality exists"
"No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion"
Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"Objective morality exists"
"No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion"
Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.
A 'fairly strong case" fails beside it's clear refutation!
If YOU want to take the pro side in a discussion, I'd be happy to school ya'! *__-
It seems that I have the ability to think for myself, and there is no cogent argument, whatsoever, for the existence of an 'objective' anything!
Every Perspective is unique, and is an integral feature of that which is perceived.
If anything, that means that all Perspectives are 'subjectively perceived' and understood.
Such delusional trickery/dishonesty is how 'believers', those engaged in the sinsanity of 'morality', excuse their behavior; "everyone does it/it's Universal"!
No, it is not!
There are those who do not 'judge'; there are those who actually Love, for instance...
Again, see the definition of 'morality'.
originally posted by: Seede
That is a very interesting theory. What leads you to believe that? According to some modern authorities the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were dated from about 150 CE. to about 250 CE.. We have 13 sources of Matthew, 1 source of Mark, 10 sources of Luke and 7 sources of John. All 31 sources are from different locations and dates. That does not include the other 23 letters of the NT.. So after 250 CE. someone collected those 31 sources and had them rewritten to keep people under their control? But you have no idea when this great forgery took place?
originally posted by: Seede
The entire NT. as to this date was found as being 350 CE. and written in Greek. So let us assume that all of the NT. was involved in this coverup but still for the sake of the gospels we will take those 31 sources of between 125 CE. and 150 CE. and use them as the main forgery. We now have a window of between 250 CE. and 350 CE. as being when the forgery took place. Within that 100 years is when the NT gospels were changed. About 1716 years ago. Now all one has to do is realize who was in power to do this forgery in 300 CE.? Why did it not work? Name me one world power that used this forged NT. as a controlling tool?
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: dfnj2015
Honestly, did you watch that video fully or read the link I provided of the transcript in its entirety?
originally posted by: dfnj2015
originally posted by: namelesss
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
"Objective morality exists"
"No, it does not, other than as the meaningless words in your unsupportable assertion"
Before you say that you should have watched the video that was linked in that post as it makes a fairly strong case for objective morality. From Sam Harris. It's about 20 mins. It's rather good.
A 'fairly strong case" fails beside it's clear refutation!
If YOU want to take the pro side in a discussion, I'd be happy to school ya'! *__-
It seems that I have the ability to think for myself, and there is no cogent argument, whatsoever, for the existence of an 'objective' anything!
Every Perspective is unique, and is an integral feature of that which is perceived.
If anything, that means that all Perspectives are 'subjectively perceived' and understood.
Such delusional trickery/dishonesty is how 'believers', those engaged in the sinsanity of 'morality', excuse their behavior; "everyone does it/it's Universal"!
No, it is not!
There are those who do not 'judge'; there are those who actually Love, for instance...
Again, see the definition of 'morality'.
You comment that there is no cogent argument for the existence of 'objective' anything made me think of a funny story I read once:
One day two monks were in a garden arguing subjectivity versus objectivity. The Zen master hearing them arguing approached the two students. The Zen master asked, "that rock over there, does that exist inside your head or outside your head?". One of the monks looked up at the Zen master and replied, "Well, our religious bible tells us that all truth is subjective so that rock only exists inside my head." At which point the Zen master replies, "Then it must be pretty heavy all day walking around with that rock in your head!"
originally posted by: Pinocchio
OP is brilliant...
Yet... I believe he/she has not read the whole book.... properly.
Hell Is Real. And Its A Dreaded Torment. And There Is No Escape. Jesus... May Be The Path. But Always In All Things You Are The Traveler. Dont Fret. In God... You Find... When You Are Dead.... Blindness... Deafness... And Muteness... So That You Sit In Peace... OBLIVIOUS To The Suffering And Torment Of The Others. You Have But Ask Those Three Wishes.
originally posted by: TAECOLE7
Is this a discussion of contengency or non contegency? The answer allows this discussion to be more valid and sensical.
a future event or circumstance which is possible but cannot be predicted with certainty.
The only point of the 'subjective/objective' discussion is emotional/ego (as I have said), not rational/logic.
They were never able to achieve that ideal, and quantum mechanics demonstrated why. It is impossible