Atheists are right...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

That isn't true. You are in a social contract so much so the US used this theory to design the constitution.

You are obligated whether or not you do. It's just are question of your own personal morality if you choose the moral good option.

You are receiving obligated because you take part in society, you use roads, prob can call cops if your neighbor steals your boat, have private property rights, etc

In turn you are obligated by the social contract to use the categorical imparitive or your just a thief.

You can't expect to have others follow the contract if you dont. Laws are just a physical representation of the social contract. The reason you give some freedom to agreed authority is because you can't protect yourself on your own nearly as well. Nor can you create the same infrastructure.

In order to do this you enter in a spoken or unspoken contract. "I won't stab you in your sleep, if you don't stab me in my sleep, I won't steal your car, if you don't steal my car etc.

This is basic moral law and social contract theory.

It's an agreement that led us out of nature where morality is purely based on survival. So stabbing somebody is not immoral, it is survival. They were probably going to take your shiny thing anyway.

Society is a social contract with or without "police". It at its very base says I won't kill you, if you don't kill me. This building of the cotract allowed us to increase our reason and intelligence by allowing freedom of thought that isn't available when worried solely on survival.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

its part of our social contract. dont be a dick or dont participate in society. much like having a communicable disease, it becomes your responsibility as a human being to not transfer that disease to others. im not trying to disprove anything except that your conclusion is the only available conclusion.

a reply to: luthier

What makes this contract objectively binding?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: luthier

What makes this contract objectively binding?

Nothing at all other than subjectivity.

There are a lot of people who do not believe in a moral contract. A lot of people believe might is right. And the strongest bully in the room has divine rights of a king over the weak. And the strongest bully is to be worshiped just like God is to be worshiped.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: luthier

What makes this contract objectively binding?

your sense of preservation and respect for the law. same thing that makes god objectively binding as a moral authority. equally effective...or ineffective, depending upon your locale.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: luthier

What makes this contract objectively binding?

It's objectively binding if you have morality.

If you wish to use people as a means and you wish to be a thief stealing what society has created with the social contract then you are a detriment to society. Which is a choice.

Try the categorical imparitive.

What if everyone chose to do what your about to do. Let's say lie. If everyone lies there is no truth. If everyone steals there is no property rights etc. So you give authority to a larger body to protect yourself in turn they don't over step authority. So thinking of your action as a universal action is a benifit to society.

Once these rings become terribly out of balance revolutions usually happen. When the authority you have through consensus fails or takes advantage the people usually revolt.

a reply to: luthier

So you give authority to a larger body to protect yourself in turn they don't over step authority. So thinking of your action as a universal action is a benifit to society.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes? who watches the watchers? this is the problem i have with any ultimate authority. if we as the watched are not allowed to keep the watcher in check, then we are failing in our duty and invite the disaster that will inevitably result. we the people, we the species of homo sapiens are plan b for when the alpha fails. we are the counter point that maintains balance, and we must not allow any form of alpha supernatural or otherwise to dictate that balance. especially if they insist on imbalance for the 'greater good'.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not ultimate authority in democratic models. At least it's not intended to be so. It's a temporary body.

The electorate and the people are supposed to watch the watchers. You vote to give them authority.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's not ultimate authority in democratic models. At least it's not intended to be so. It's a temporary body.

The electorate and the people are supposed to watch the watchers. You vote to give them authority.

i was remarking on ultimate authorities in a more metaphysical sense. control that unconditionally transcends and supercedes natural law or human law. absolute power, you know the saying.

a reply to: Aedaeum

Well laid out and it's good to see it's back on the topic

Now, about morality...define it for me... If you look up the actual definition, it's quite ambiguous and relative to certain ideals.

I quite agree it's ambiguous and dare I say it's based on how and where one is born and what society or group one has been conditioned into.

our Father will prevent this demise, but not before things get much worse.

You did well until this statement. Going back to your ambiguity premise - then why is this "drama" at this point in time any more or less "dramatic" for god to intervene or not?

You do not consider the 60 million killed in WW2 or the 20 million by Stalin as "gotton much worse", how about Fukushima or Bhopal or Chernobyl?


en.wikipedia.org...

Most published estimates of historical world population begin at "year zero" of the Common Era, when world population was in the nine digits (estimates range between 150 and 330 million).

What moral gauge do you measure by before you're God has had enough. I would be interested in knowing.

Here's some context; if the worlds population was say 200 million at year zero, you think the 60 million killed in WW2 or 1/3 of the world in comparison was not significant? When is this absent god going to intervene?

a reply to: luthier

Its amazing when one has no understanding of definitions of words

It's you who's failing on that front.

You stated deism = theism, and left it at that as if there were nothing distinguishable between them. Deism originated in opposition to the theistic view that a creator god intervenes within the affairs of the Universe.

Physical evidence is not always possible.

Right, and without the evidence the reasonable position isn't to then believe that thing is truth.

You talked about the limitation of knowledge. The limits of what science can broach. Then go on to ask someone for physical evidence disproving the existence of a Prime Mover. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The limitation goes both ways. We simply don't have evidence for or against anything said to exist outside the known Universe. This is what agnosticism is about, and paves the way for atheism.

Acknowledging possibilities, especially in light of these limitations, is intelligible - but stating such a thing dose in fact exist is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, I could posit that after we die we all enter the Marvel Universe and combat super villains for eternity. I might ask you for evidence to disprove this being truth. This is no different that what you've done.

Thank "god" they didn't give up because of lack of physical proof.

I never said give up. Explore it philosophically or scientifically but...

God=metaphysics=lack of physical evidence.

...don't expect to make much headway scientifically with the inevitable lack of physical evidence

If you understood philosphy at all you would have known I have argued several academic points

...and I critiqued your understanding of Aquinas's necessary being by surfacing its incompatibility to what you've said about the necessity of conscious observers.

Instead of repeating how much you think I don't understand everything, could you address what i've said in that post? I asked several questions in this regard. Why was that glossed over?

You seem to be obsessed with the mentioning of my degree, as you've brought it up in every post. Let it go. Good grief.

a reply to: luciferslight

Exactly, yet I see no evidence provided for or against this argument.

Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I'm not claiming any kind of knowledge on whether god exists or not. I lack belief in its existence due to wholly lacking evidence in support of its existence. It's the religious people making a knowledge claim. They're positing such a being truthfully exists. It's their burden, not the disbelievers.

a reply to: SethTsaddik

Science has been presenting evolution and the big bang theory, unproven theories, as facts.

Evolution is fact. The Theory of Evolution is, well, the theory.

Essentially by altering the definition of theory.

No. You're altering the definition of scientific theory if you're suggesting it should be synonymous with its colloquial usage.

They are just guesses

Case in point.

a reply to: Padawan SethTsaddik

Padawan,

You are chaging the definition of alot of words in your previous post.

Now that you know the real definitions how about using them the correct way.

Otherwise your being consciously ignorant.

Dont know how many times now you have been corrected, must be a lack of intelligence and computation ability.

Your points are also riddled with ignorance fallacies!!

Jesus Christ your an entertaining Padawan.

Master Coomba

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

It's not about the size of a population, it's about their ideals and their connection or lack-thereof, with the Creator. As I said, it is depravity that will destroy us; not bombs or war. It is a demise of the spirit of Truth...or dare I say, the influence of "goodness".

I know the concept of "good" and "evil", "moral" and "normal" are entirely relative, but that being said, I do still believe in an inherent "good" that we've quintessentially lost as part of our being; our soul, if you will. This is all part of a greater plan and unlike most religious believe, the world is not being called into salvation, it's being called to question. There is no hell or heaven waiting for us, there is only the Father. Sadly, this abysmal existence was the only way to elucidate (save) as many of His children as possible so that by our own free will, we could say to Him: "I choose you".

a reply to: Aedaeum

it is depravity that will destroy us; not bombs or war. It is a demise of the spirit of Truth...or dare I say, the influence of "goodness".

Elaborate for us what you mean by 'Truth' and "goodness".

I know the concept of "good" and "evil", "moral" and "normal" are entirely relative

Indeed.

but that being said, I do still believe in an inherent "good" that we've quintessentially lost as part of our being; our soul, if you will.

We have not lost goodness at all. Goodness still exists within our populace. But you further my questions, can you elaborate on how our being quintessentially entails a soul??

there is only the Father.

Bold words. No evidence for it. Hell, maybe it's a woman.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

Its amazing when one has no understanding of definitions of words

It's you who's failing on that front.

You stated deism = theism, and left it at that as if there were nothing distinguishable between them. Deism originated in opposition to the theistic view that a creator god intervenes within the affairs of the Universe.

Physical evidence is not always possible.

Right, and without the evidence the reasonable position isn't to then believe that thing is truth.

You talked about the limitation of knowledge. The limits of what science can broach. Then go on to ask someone for physical evidence disproving the existence of a Prime Mover. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The limitation goes both ways. We simply don't have evidence for or against anything said to exist outside the known Universe. This is what agnosticism is about, and paves the way for atheism.

Acknowledging possibilities, especially in light of these limitations, is intelligible - but stating such a thing dose in fact exist is intellectually dishonest. Furthermore, I could posit that after we die we all enter the Marvel Universe and combat super villains for eternity. I might ask you for evidence to disprove this being truth. This is no different that what you've done.

Thank "god" they didn't give up because of lack of physical proof.

I never said give up. Explore it philosophically or scientifically but...

God=metaphysics=lack of physical evidence.

...don't expect to make much headway scientifically with the inevitable lack of physical evidence

If you understood philosphy at all you would have known I have argued several academic points

...and I critiqued your understanding of Aquinas's necessary being by surfacing its incompatibility to what you've said about the necessity of conscious observers.

Instead of repeating how much you think I don't understand everything, could you address what i've said in that post? I asked several questions in this regard. Why was that glossed over?

You seem to be obsessed with the mentioning of my degree, as you've brought it up in every post. Let it go. Good grief.

I mentioned your degree because it's obviously a lie.

I have adressed every one of your posts. You just don't understand the topic.

Does deism believe in god? Does deus actually mean god. Yes. Is it theistic in a padogodgy of Abraham faiths no. For a conversation regarding atheism is would be theistic. Even though it doesn't meet the common definition of a god that interacts theism doesn't have to have that as a mandate as some definitions will prove.



How can it be antitheist.

Are Lutherans antichristian?

You keep saying physical evidence is necessary but that isn't true. You can prove what is false through reason or logic. You can use math for instance to make predictions of non physically available expirment.

How much physical evidence is there for super strings? What about black holes? I guess they should stop considering any of this until we can make a black hole or actually get a satellite close enough to take better measurements.

Yes I believe it's possible superposition takes place without observation.

And why do I need to believe everything Aquinas says? By the way a necessary being and needing observers to make reality condense from waveform is not contradictory to the premise at all.

Don't expect to make headway with what regarding god?

You seem to think there is a drive to prove or disprove god. There is no real purpose other than to consider possibility of origin and to have a discussion that uses reason. In the thousands of years this debate has been going on nobody has won the overlying argument. Only pieces.


You seem to think the arguement from the bible is the same as the philosphical explanations for god. Another reason you are phony. This is philosphy 101.

Could humans some day speed up evolution? Can we hybridize animals? Could we possible make a planet completely or Tera form it. If the answers are yes which they seem to be it's certainly possible we were created by something with knowledge.

Are you saying it's inconceivable that humans are created by a being or beings with thousands of years of evolution on us?

Do you disregard fine tuning as an observation?

What are your antitheist arguements? Can you prove superposition isn't happening? Can you explain entanglement and how that fits into reality as most understand it?

Can you explain superposition in visable objects?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If it were possible to elaborate on what we consider to be relative perspectives, I would. The very nature of what is "True" or "Good" is entirely subjective and thus it is merely our own opinions at this point.

I'm afraid my opinions on what I consider to be the perversion of "Good" or "Truth" would just cause an unnecessary controversy, derailing the thread. We are dealing with concepts that exist purely in the mind, relevant only to the individual. I cannot tell you what is "Good" any more than you can tell me what is "Truth", because these concepts are only applicable to our own intellectual plane. It's incredibly edifying when we find intersections where our intellectual planes meet, but sadly more often than not, divisiveness reigns when opinions collide.

I believe peaceful debate can only exist as long as we don't assume our opinions are axioms. Championing an opinion is similar to exclaiming that tofu is meat. No matter how much we believe tofu is meat, it's still just tofu.

FTR, I have nothing against tofu

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Have you ever wondered why Krishna buddah and Jesus as well as other holy prophets who existed before, all have the same story?

Why they all share the same virgin birth, taught the same lessons, and died the same (different deaths but early deaths)?

It's all allegory to the human spirit, mind and body. They all taught meditation as the key to unlocking life's secrets and to rid ourselves of the guilty we put ourselves on.

I like to think the interpretations as the game of telephone.

It came from the east, but once it got here everything was completely different

People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary? It depends on rather the intention of the religion is to justify morality or not...while a religion can have that written, it comes down to the written intention in the doctrine.