| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/13/2006 02:08:05 AM · #801 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
"All men are created equal" didn't work out so well for blacks during most of that time. :-/ |
Please see my post above this one. :)
Actually, let me summarize:
The standard we use today is the same one we used 200 years ago. The only difference is we have since added more verbiage "clarifying" some issues that have come up during the 200 years of it's application.
Humans are fallible. We're not gods. However, our founding fathers set forth a standard that at it's inception wasn't attainable but is becoming more and more today. The standard has never changed only our abilities and willingness to practice it.
Message edited by author 2006-08-13 02:14:14.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:36:13 AM · #802 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
While you can "pursue happiness" with a bottle of bourbon, doing it by smoking a joint can land you in Federal prison. That doesn't sound like much of an absolute right to me.
Also, the word "privacy" does not appear in the US Constitution, and one of the major arguments by anti-abortion advocates is that the Justices "invented" that right with the Roe v. Wade decision. (Note: this is not true of various state constitutions -- e.g. California's includes an explicit right to privacy.)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Interestingly, the same issues Scalvert is dealing with are also faced in worldviews with more than one deity. Many of these come down to two major gods which represent good and evil, yin and yang, etc. Because you now have two equal entities you one again run into the problem of finding the moral standard. |
The pantheons with which I'm familiar operate on a strict hierarchy, with disagreements usually ending with the stronger god disposing of the lesser in some shockingly unpleasant manner. For example, the supreme god Saturn was so afraid of being overthrown that he ate his children, until his wife fooled him by sneaking a stone into his meal instead ... so when Jupiter killed his dad and took over the family business it may have been a shock but perhaps not completely unexpected. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 03:45:22 AM · #803 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by yanko:
Let me add, the core principles this country was founded on i.e. "life, liberty and The pursuit of happiness" which the Declaration of Independence stated and the constitution upholds still remains today some two centuries later. That's the mark of an absolute standard if I ever saw one. |
While you can "pursue happiness" with a bottle of bourbon, doing it by smoking a joint can land you in Federal prison. That doesn't sound like much of an absolute right to me.
Also, the word "privacy" does not appear in the US Constitution, and one of the major arguments by anti-abortion advocates is that the Justices "invented" that right with the Roe v. Wade decision. (Note: this is not true of various state constitutions -- e.g. California's includes an explicit right to privacy.) |
I've never claimed the powers at be adhered to the standard absolutely. ;)
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 09:48:38 AM · #804 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality. |
… an absolute standard for morality which changes at the will of a jealous and vengeful God.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) An atheist's worldview cannot logically support that idea. |
…which is not that same as having no moral standards.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) Nobody acts like they believe an absolute standard for morality doesn't exist. |
Members of societies benefit from having some form of moral standard. I benefit from having a moral standard within my community. You benefit from having a moral standard in your community. Some moral standards benefit more people than other moral standards. There are differences in standards of morality between different societies. There are even differences in moral standards between different Christian communities who claim access to an absolute standard.
Because people in society get a benefit from having a moral standard does not lead to the conclusions that there is necessarily an absolute moral standard. This is the point you’re ignoring.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
4) Therefore, atheists act one way and believe another. |
Faulty premises lead to faulty conclusions.
Shall we get back to the poor Amorite kiddies?
|
|
|
|
08/13/2006 11:10:58 AM · #805 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
I've been trying to read along, but for the life of me can't quite figure out what exactly is being debated.
Your query, Doc, if I read this right, is are all moralities equal or some more equal than others? I would wager that every man believes his morality is the right one - maybe not better or worse, but right.
Do I think that my society and its attending morals, which frown upon killing people, are better than a society's where killing people is an honorable "task"? Yes but that's based on me being raised in my society. Who knows what I'd think if that weren't the case.
And I have no idea if this has anything to do with the discussion at hand... :-) |
You are pretty close yanko. We're debating the following points (which form an argument):
1) A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality.
2) An atheist's worldview cannot logically support that idea.
3) Nobody acts like they believe an absolute standard for morality doesn't exist.
4) Therefore, atheists act one way and believe another. |
I'm not actually yanko, though we do hail from the same state at the moment. And his first name has D, R, A and H in it; mine (formal version) does, too.
But beyond that...
From above:
A theist's worldview can logically support the idea of an absolute standard for morality.
I would assert that this can be true if and only if the theists all hold the same deity as "god". And this is where all the "smite the peoples" part comes into play, yes? My god says I can kill all of people "A" in his name; your god says you can kill all of people "B" in his name.
That's the part I've never quite understood about organized religion - Christianity in particular. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 12:50:29 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The standard we use today is the same one we used 200 years ago. The only difference is we have since added more verbiage "clarifying" some issues that have come up during the 200 years of it's application. ...our founding fathers set forth a standard that at it's inception wasn't attainable but is becoming more and more today. |
Good to know that we're getting closer the ideals set forth by our founding fathers. Like... freedom. :-/ |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 02:13:00 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The one thing I think we CAN agree on is that the debate is going nowhere and at this point a total waste of time an energy. :-/ |
Debating is fun up to a point. When it becomes frustrating and unproductive to all parties, then you might as well end. We knew, as we have said before, that nobody was going to change their mind about things. Unsurprisingly, we were right.
It's been enjoyable. You are a worthy opponent... ;)
Sorry for confusing you with yanko melethia, I think he posted just below you and my little brain read it wrong. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 02:27:34 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Debating is fun up to a point. When it becomes frustrating and unproductive to all parties, then you might as well end. We knew, as we have said before, that nobody was going to change their mind about things. Unsurprisingly, we were right.
It's been enjoyable. You are a worthy opponent... ;) |
Are you done arguing with me, too? I was only two-thirds the way through my argument and you seemed to stop responding directly to me. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 04:41:07 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Are you done arguing with me, too? I was only two-thirds the way through my argument and you seemed to stop responding directly to me. |
Ya, Shannon was all dominating the conversation and stuff. Let me look back at your posts (particularly the last one). We'll talk tomorrow. |
|
|
|
08/13/2006 04:51:56 PM · #810 |
Big Bang ? how about Big Band or Big Ben ? j/k ...
trying to be funny :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 08:46:59 PM EDT.
