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.

 

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

page: 23
23
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 



You have provided a rationale for a higher authority being required for mankind to be governed by in order to exist under one, universally accepted or standard moral code. It was my assumption you meant a god figure of some sort.


No, I said for a morality to be applicable for all of mankind it must appeal to an authority that is higher than man. Whatever authority that is, aliens, God, Santa Claus, whatever... the point is, if not appealing to an authority higher than man, your morality is no more true than the next guy's is. The same guy who thinks it's morally good to murder you and you cannot tell him to stop, it's wrong to murder, because to him it might be morally wrong NOT to murder you.

(Btw, there is a real-life example in all this)

If morality were subjective then it would be morally evil to murder a homosexual in the United States, but morally good to murder that same homosexual in Iran. The only difference between the murder being evil or good is what country the murder happens in?? Murder is ALWAYS evil and morally wrong, because *gasp* morality IS NOT subjective, but is in fact objective.

Do you see how absurd life would be if truth or morality were relative? Could you imagine if gravity were true for you, but not true for me? Or if humans needing oxygen to breathe was true for me, but not true for you? Life would be absurd.

"Yesterday gravity held me on the ground, I hope gravity is the same today as yesterday, I have tons of errands to do. Please be true today gravity!"


edit on 7-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Instead, could a moral code possibly be written into our very genes? Is it possible that human beings have an inate sense of what is right and wrong and some either have mental deficiency or simply ignore it and have the stomach to deal with the consequences?



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Ted Bundy and Subjectivism

^ Yeah, enough said about subjectivism. That breaks the rule of divine law, because objectivism being universal, one would say that someone who thinks like Ted Bundy or did what he did is pure EVIL...Trust me a lot of criminals are subjectivists...
edit on 7-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Furbs

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Furbs
 



Again, this is retread, and you can simply reread out discussion to see where this is going. It is your SUBJECTIVE morality that gives you the impression that murder and rape is morally wrong everywhere, just as it can be another's SUBJECTIVE morality that murder and rape everywhere is not wrong.


PRECISELY!!! That's why I specifically said that if you want a morality that is APPLICABLE to all mankind, it must appeal to an authority HIGHER THAN MANKIND. Your examples are MEN APPEALING TO MEN for authority applicable to all mankind. If men are appealing to their own subjective morality it's NOT applicable to all people, only the person themselves.

lol @ "re-read" the discussion.




There is no morality applicable to all men, only morality that YOU believe should be applicable to all men.


Okay cool, then I'd better never see another thread detailing how God is unjust, immoral, or evil. Since, after all, morality is subjective and all that jazz.


You won't see one authored by me.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Instead, could a moral code possibly be written into our very genes? Is it possible that human beings have an inate sense of what is right and wrong and some either have mental deficiency or simply ignore it and have the stomach to deal with the consequences?


That's actually precisely correct sir. Morality is hard-wired into the very fabric of our being, our DNA. Our DNA is our software our physical bodies are the hardware.

"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;" Hebrews 10:16

We don't need someone to teach us that murder is wrong, it's pre-programed into our very DNA.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



Sometimes with debates - beauty (and truth) is in the eye of the beholder. Same as here at ATS


No, truth isn't relative.


prove it

please

:-)


If you believe truth is relative how exactly can I "prove" anything at all to you?


exactly

let me ask you something - do you believe truth is absolute - or do you know it?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
Ted Bundy and Subjectivism

^ Yeah, enough said about subjectivism. That breaks the rule of divine law, because objectivism being universal, one would say that someone who thinks like Ted Bundy or did what he did is pure EVIL...Trust me a lot of criminals are subjectivists...
edit on 7-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)


or could it be that they see the world objectively - as far as they're concerned?

same as you do?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 



Well apparently Dawkins must of felt that the knowledge Dr. Craig had about moral objectivism was irrefutable. Which probably means Dr. Craig had a better universal grounding. So yeah, think the video debates tell a lot as well...


Apparently? Probably? Are you being objective? :-)


The subjectivist being Dawkins, and the objectivist is being Dr. Craig... Yes it is up to discussion, but how far can this go on for until it becomes squash...


oh, Konquest - how many centuries now...? :-)

I wish Dawkins had 'debated' him (I also wish Monty Python was still together - but what can you do?) Do you or I really need champions? No one is going to win this in a public debate - so your opinion is as valid as Dr. Craig's

What do you believe Konquest? Were our morals handed to us?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



"Yesterday gravity held me on the ground, I hope gravity is the same today as yesterday, I have tons of errands to do. Please be true today gravity!"


consistency and stability are what we crave - we humans

we look for it everywhere - we create it if we can't find what we're looking for

life is like playing with marbles on a boat on choppy water - and we would give anything to make everything hold still

which team are you arguing for NOTurTypical? - I'm confused :-)
edit on 3/8/2012 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



exactly

let me ask you something - do you believe truth is absolute - or do you know it?


I believe it to be so. Obviously truth could be relative in some alternate dimension or reality, but based on what I've been able to see here on Earth truth is absolute. And I see no reason at this time to doubt it's the same way throughout the universe.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



which team are you arguing for NOTurTypical? - I'm confused :-)


Now I'm confused, what do you mean? I was originally arguing that Dawkins is correct, no one can be certain God doesn't exist without the attributes of God Himself. After that I've been arguing Philosophy. In that fight my dog is moral objectivity or absolute truth.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



which team are you arguing for NOTurTypical? - I'm confused :-)


Now I'm confused, what do you mean? I was originally arguing that Dawkins is correct, no one can be certain God doesn't exist without the attributes of God Himself. After that I've been arguing Philosophy. In that fight my dog is moral objectivity or absolute truth.


well, you're right - you are not your typical...anything :-)

and I am guilty of not reading everything in this thread as thoroughly as I should have (it's 23 pages now - and reading is not my bestest skill)

one should never assume - and I just assumed too much



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



exactly

let me ask you something - do you believe truth is absolute - or do you know it?


I believe it to be so. Obviously truth could be relative in some alternate dimension or reality, but based on what I've been able to see here on Earth truth is absolute. And I see no reason at this time to doubt it's the same way throughout the universe.


well - it's a moving target

I think we would all like to believe in an absolute truth. I'm not even saying I don't - but I will be the first one here to admit that I don't call it truth - I call it reality. Just semantics maybe...but while reality may be just one thing - our perceptions of it are many

so - there can be no one truth for the humans

:-)

I believe this is probably where you and I part ways as far as truth goes. I say probably - but I won't assume



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



so - there can be no one truth for the humans


I can think of one right off the bat. Humans require oxygen to live.

That's an absolute truth. Or are you arguing that only human morality is relative?

I don't want to assume either.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Yo where's that thread you promised?

What's your excuse this time?

Can't man up and admit you're full of #?




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by m0rphine
 


All in time my little student, you must wait.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



so - there can be no one truth for the humans


I can think of one right off the bat. Humans require oxygen to live.

That's an absolute truth. Or are you arguing that only human morality is relative?

I don't want to assume either.


we need rules and criteria :-)

so, yeah - was kinda thinking along the lines of morality - philosophy - intellect...

so let's just agree on things like food, water, air and cable...what is truth after that I wonder? And how do we recognize it? Then, how do we agree about what is and isn't true? Is my truth truthier than yours?

:-)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 



Honestly it doesn't matter...I will leave it at this note if "our" is something subjective, because it is our feelings or something that we perceive to be ours...Then our must be our "objective universal reason"...So no matter what objectiveness will triumph...
edit on 9-3-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 



Well this is an interesting development


not really becuase he says the same thing in his book "the god delusion" published in 2006. Only 6 years old this story. Good work.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Reply to post by silent thunder
 


There is an invisible elf in my backyard. Prove me wrong with 100% certainty.

Get it now? Do I need to spell it out for you (please don't make me do that).


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




top topics



 
23
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join