Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#652
#652
rjd970 said:
What objective standard for morality is there that isn't religious based?
Click to expand...

I think you're begging a question there, don't you? You are claiming that the objective moral standard is based on religion, as opposed to allowing that it is not based on religion, but instead religions recognize it and study it.

It'd be like me asking, "Which law of gravity isn't based in Newton's and Einstein's minds?" No. They recognized an objective natural law, studied it, and argued about it.
 
#654
#654
Orange_Crush said:
I think you're begging a question there, don't you? You are claiming that the objective moral standard is based on religion, as opposed to allowing that it is not based on religion, but instead religions recognize it and study it.

It'd be like me asking, "Which law of gravity isn't based in Newton's and Einstein's minds?" No. They recognized an objective natural law, studied it, and argued about it.
Click to expand...

I'm simply asking what objective moral positions are there that don't require belief in a supernatural entity. Is belief in a supernatural entity required to have an objective moral position?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#655
#655
rjd970 said:
I'm simply asking what objective moral positions are there that don't require belief in a supernatural entity. Is belief in a supernatural entity required to have an objective moral position?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I guess pantheistic, or panantheistic religions could believe in an objective morality, since God would be the universe, or infused with the universe. Some sort of transcendent lawgiver would be needed for an objective moral law, I should think. At the very least you'd need something more than a mechanistic, descriptive universe.
 
#656
#656
Orange_Crush said:
I'm not sure. I guess pantheistic, or panantheistic religions could believe in an objective morality, since God would be the universe, or infused with the universe. Some sort of transcendent lawgiver would be needed for an objective moral law, I should think. At the very least you'd need something more than a mechanistic, descriptive universe.
Click to expand...

Why is that?
 
#657
#657
rjd970 said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

Feel free to debunk the assertion. By definition, an objective moral law would be transcendent, or else it is not objective. Are you proposing that the universe would produce an objective law of "ought"? I would be interested to hear your theories on that.
 
#658
#658
Orange_Crush said:
Feel free to debunk the assertion. By definition, an objective moral law would be transcendent, or else it is not objective. Are you proposing that the universe would produce an objective law of "ought"? I would be interested to hear your theories on that.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to debunk anything. I'm trying to understand the foundation for saying a moral is objective versus subjective.

Take the two statements:

Christianity is an objective view on morality.

Criminal and Civil law is an objective view on morality.

Why is the first one correct and the second one not?
 
#659
#659
rjd970 said:
I'm not trying to debunk anything. I'm trying to understand the foundation for saying a moral is objective versus subjective.

Take the two statements:

Christianity is an objective view on morality.

Criminal and Civil law is an objective view on morality.

Why is the first one correct and the second one not?
Click to expand...

(I wasn't being defensive.)

I think because you have not used my statement. My contention is that the moral law is an objective moral law, as opposed to a subjective law. It prescribes. It does not change. It is not relative. It is not a matter of opinion.

I don't think I would say that Christianity is an objective view of morality. I would say that it is (in part) a view of the objective morality.

I would hope that criminal and civil law look at morality objectively, without prejudice, and seeks to interpret and rely upon an objective moral law that is not fluid, relative or based on opinion.

Edit: A curious case of the misplaced modifier?

Perhaps the statements should be:

Christianity is (in part) a view of the objective moral law.

Criminal and Civil law are (hopefully) an objective implementation of the objective moral law.
 
Last edited:
#660
#660
Orange_Crush said:
(I wasn't being defensive.)

I think because you have not used my statement. My contention is that the moral law is an objective moral law, as opposed to a subjective law. It prescribes. It does not change. It is not relative. It is not a matter of opinion.

I don't think I would say that Christianity is an objective view of morality. I would say that it is (in part) a view of the objective morality.

I would hope that criminal and civil law look at morality objectively, without prejudice, and seeks to interpret and rely upon an objective moral law that is not fluid, relative or based on opinion.
Click to expand...

ok, then let me re-phrase, because I don't want to argue over semantics with you for 6 pages (I'm being serious, not defensive):

Christianity is a view of the objective morality.

Criminal/Civil law is a view of the objective morality.

Are both of those statement correct? This is a yes/no question.

If yes, then why can't one argue an objective moral stance based on criminal law.

If no, what makes the second statement wrong?
 
#661
#661
rjd970 said:
ok, then let me re-phrase, because I don't want to argue over semantics with you for 6 pages (I'm being serious, not defensive):

Christianity is a view of the objective morality.

Criminal/Civil law is a view of the objective morality.

Are both of those statement correct? This is a yes/no question.

If yes, then why can't one argue an objective moral stance based on criminal law.

If no, what makes the second statement wrong?
Click to expand...

I would say no to the second. It is an implementation of the transcendent law. I've tried to explain this. If it (US court system) is "a" moral law, then it is not transcendent. It is societal, and an opinion. It would be no better than the societal law of the Nazis, which was also an opinion.

It would have to be an implementation of a greater, transcendent, non-negotiable law of morality.

You can say: "America's criminal code is objective" all you want. The Nazis could say the same thing all they want. If they were created by people, they are not transcendent and are only opinion. The founders of our country realized this.

They said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." They went on to reference God. They based their system on a transcendent truth that is bigger than opinion and non-negotiable.

That is the difference.

Again, it is the difference between Newton's/Einstein's theories, and the actual law of gravity. Each tried to describe it, but the law of gravity did not change with the descriptions, or cease to exist before the theories.
 
#662
#662
rjd970 said:
ok, then let me re-phrase, because I don't want to argue over semantics with you for 6 pages (I'm being serious, not defensive):
Click to expand...

rjd, I'm not really interested in arguing this much further either. I think we've both made our points and unless you'd like more clarification of my views, I am perfectly content to get out of your hair. Either way. (I was defending a critique of my worldview. The conversation grew. Hopefully I've added an insight or two for self examination at the worldview level, whether it's accepted or not.)

:hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#663
#663
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Why can't you give rock solid answers in a discussion or a debate that are asked of you? All you come up w/is asking the same old questions you've already asked or make a mockery of what the believers believe. Gets old, man.
Click to expand...

You don't like the mockery of your religion? Have you never laughed a little at the prospect of the Muslims terrorists having 72 virgins waiting on them in heaven? What about Mitt Romney's magic Mormon underwear? How dumb must one be to believe in Thors's hammer or Zues's lightning, Posidens trident? Ever think that the Egyptians were a little silly to worship the Sun gods Horus and Ra? What about the one god that turns sticks into snakes?

How can you dismiss those so readily? Where's your 'rock solid' proof?

No, I'll happily dole out mockery to anyone who tries to assert that any of these is not hogwash. Especially when they use religious dogma as a platform for public policy. F that.

You're demanding rock solid answers but are hypocritically content to assert reasoning that has the consistency of jello.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence son. The difference here is that we're certain science is not always perfect, does not have ALL of the answers - but it's always striving to learn more. Asking tough questions and searching for answers.

Screaming "because god" is beyond intellectually shallow, screaming "you have no evidence" when perched on a branch of "feels" is an invitation for mockery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#665
#665
Septic said:
You don't like the mockery of your religion? Have you never laughed a little at the prospect of the Muslims terrorists having 72 virgins waiting on them in heaven? What about Mitt Romney's magic Mormon underwear? How dumb must one be to believe in Thors's hammer or Zues's lightning, Posidens trident? Ever think that the Egyptians were a little silly to worship the Sun gods Horus and Ra? What about the one god that turns sticks into snakes?

How can you dismiss those so readily? Where's your 'rock solid' proof?

No, I'll happily dole out mockery to anyone who tries to assert that any of these is not hogwash. Especially when they use religious dogma as a platform for public policy. F that.

You're demanding rock solid answers but are hypocritically content to assert reasoning that has the consistency of jello.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence son. The difference here is that we're certain science is not always perfect, does not have ALL of the answers - but it's always striving to learn more. Asking tough questions and searching for answers.

Screaming "because god" is beyond intellectually shallow, screaming "you have no evidence" when perched on a branch of "feels" is an invitation for mockery.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for your stupid opinions of your nothing beliefs here. Now go crawl back to your hole til you are called jackwad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#666
#666
rjd970 said:
What objective standard for morality is there that isn't religious based?
Click to expand...

I think it's been pointed out, but that's a bit of a loaded question. Not saying you intended it that way.

By definition, objective, in this sense, would mean outside of human opinion. In other words, if something is wrong, it would continue to be so even if no one agreed.

Is there an OM that is not religious based? The answer in a nut shell is yes, but only in the most liberal sense. There is a loose concept of objective morality that has to do with symmetry, but most philosophers don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. And for good reason.

I have found, that most people's objection to OM is that they don't like where it points, which is to a moral law giver.

There have been several arguments to strongly support OM, and looking through the thread they haven't been given any serious consideration. Much like when I provided a link to peer reviewed research contesting Darwinism. Crickets chirping. Most here can't seem to get past ad-hominem attacks, or a reply that requires them not to be a smart ass, or actually write more than two coherent sentences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#667
#667
Orange_Crush said:
I would say no to the second. It is an implementation of the transcendent law. I've tried to explain this. If it (US court system) is "a" moral law, then it is not transcendent. It is societal, and an opinion. It would be no better than the societal law of the Nazis, which was also an opinion.

It would have to be an implementation of a greater, transcendent, non-negotiable law of morality.

You can say: "America's criminal code is objective" all you want. The Nazis could say the same thing all they want. If they were created by people, they are not transcendent and are only opinion. The founders of our country realized this.

They said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." They went on to reference God. They based their system on a transcendent truth that is bigger than opinion and non-negotiable.

That is the difference.

Again, it is the difference between Newton's/Einstein's theories, and the actual law of gravity. Each tried to describe it, but the law of gravity did not change with the descriptions, or cease to exist before the theories.
Click to expand...

Then I guess we are at an impasse. I would say a creator/god/supernatural power is an opinion as well, therefore the idea of transcendent morality is an opinion. I would defer back to PKTs argument on morality being a personal opinion to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#669
#669
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
I didn't ask for your stupid opinions of your nothing beliefs here. Now go crawl back to your hole til you are called jackwad.
Click to expand...

deliverycaptain.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#670
#670
rjd970 said:
Then I guess we are at an impasse. I would say a creator/god/supernatural power is an opinion as well, therefore the idea of transcendent morality is an opinion. I would defer back to PKTs argument on morality being a personal opinion to begin with.
Click to expand...

Not to draw this out, but just for clarification of my views. I do not hold the view that morality is God's "opinion" (as in invented), nor that it transcends Him. To put my beliefs as simply as possible, objective morality issues forth from God's very character, thus He defines morality without it being His opinion.

I know that probably sounds like gobbledygook, but it's a much deeper subject than two paragraphs can do justice.

Best wishes to you. Thank you for your time and discussion.

:hi:
 
#673
#673
PKT_VOL said:
I think it is possible if not probable statistically.
Click to expand...

So aliens that exist millions upon millions of light years away probably exist (statistically) but ones belief in a supreme (God) being is absurd?

Is this logic not hyprocrisy in itself?

I'm not being condescending pkt.

Edit to add: I also believe it's highly probable
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#674
#674
Obsessed said:
So aliens that exist millions upon millions of light years away probably exist (statistically) but ones belief in a supreme (God) being is absurd?

Is this logic not hyprocrisy in itself?

I'm not being condescending pkt.

Edit to add: I also believe it's highly probable
Click to expand...

There is a difference between believing (or at least thinking it is probable) in a supreme being and coupling that belief with the idea that such a being is not only personal to us but also that we know/understand the will of such a being.

Don't forget, I am not atheist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#675
#675
PKT_VOL said:
There is a difference between believing (or at least thinking it is probable) in a supreme being and coupling that belief with the idea that such a being is not only personal to us but also that we know/understand the will of such a being.

Don't forget, I am not atheist.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone could understand or know the "will" of God, however I do 100% believe he did instill our natural understanding of right and wrong.

IMHO that is your conscience, that little voice that kicks in when faced with certain decisions. I say this because every time I have went against that little voice it has backfired on me, I knew I was making the wrong decision but made it anyway. Free Will.

I also believe there must be other intelligent life in the universe.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top