Question for nonbelievers, atheists, seekers

[Diatheosis]

 

sounds like sort of nihilism to me. Based on that thinking, there is no value in anything, life is just an accidental reaction with no value attached to it. What that then makes us?

 

Is there then something 'preferable' one can do in life, in your opinion? Like, does life to you matter at all? I really assume it does, but you think that in itself does not matter and it's just opinion, in the end?

 

I have absolutely no idea how you gleaned that from my posts.

 

I used to think like that when I was an atheist. Now I feel life has a meaning and life is good in essence, although people, including ourselves and circumstances can make it hard from time to time. It's different to say it's good than to say it's easy.

 

 

Well, I guess it's a good thing you're not an atheist anymore. 

 

 

I surely do hope and actually I believe you consider life worth something, probably even worth a lot as you appear to be a person who appreciates intelligence and intelligent people usually consider life worth something.

 

But if you say all is relativistic, then where that puts life in general. Because if good is only a definition of no universal subjective essence, I just try to follow that logic you have expressed to understand what life means to you, since you represent abstract views about it. The difficulty is not the abstraction, but to locate the real you in all this. Because no matter how brilliant ideas and theories we may share, what we make of it in practical life is what matters in the end of the day. Common sense it is.

 

So I am only trying to find where's your real, personal, life philosophy in this.

 

I find it too quite a good thing not to be an atheist anymore. Not that atheists were in any way in a different position as individuals or that I had anything against them, but having walking with God is definitely something. Unfortunately testifying does not do it that well on the internet, which I very much understand as this is still quite anonymous debate so when it comes to the internet not taking someone's word for it is totally understandable.

 

No hard feelings here, though, just trying to understand my fellow beings a bit better day by day. Everyone is unique and there's only one you in this world, probably in the whole existence so I appreciate that, it being a great honor to communicate with you. And I mean it, really. I don't mind as for the beliefs. One thing is for sure, we all grow no matter what we believe, although it does not necessarily mean to abandon the starting point.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Diatheosis

[JDavis]

 

It is as apt an analogy that one can make when comparing something of this earth to God.   And it serves its purpose, showing that authority makes a difference in the action.

 

Except for that little detail where you guys keep insisting that God and man ("things of this earth") are completely different.  Other than that.....  

 

 

 

 

perhaps you do not understand what an analogy is. (the rest of this post was deleted by Candice)

Edited August 16, 2013 by ~candice~

[JDavis]

Fallacy of False Analogy

 

If the two objects being compared are fundamentally dissimilar (which Christians insist is true about God and man), the analogy is inapt.

 

man was created in God's image.  God himself uses analogies comparing Himself and humans.

 

just one more false charge of a fallacy. 

[LuftWaffle]

Ok, this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself on this.  If you don't get it this time, I can only conclude that it's either beyond you or you have an emotional stake in this that prevents you from grasping it.

We're so fortunate to have such a gifted paragon of reason and enlightenment such as yourself taking part here. I'm so sorry that I'm failing to grasp what must be a brilliant argument on your part.

 

 

It "seems obvious" that what the Nazi's did was wrong because you're viewing it from your perspective, which is a product of the time and culture in which you live.

Which means they didn't actually do anything wrong in any real sence. It's merely a case of preference, right?.

 

 

If you were a Nazi in 1930's Germany, your perspective would be a product of that time and culture, and you would likely see what you were doing as morally good.

So the Nazi genocide isn't wrong per sé. The Nazis ought not feel guilty because their culture defined what was right for them to do and if they took part in the Final Solution they did the culturally moral thing, so they ought to feel pride and not guilt, correct?

 

So because we won the war and not the Nazi's our cultural ethic replaced theirs and looking back we can now say it was "wrong" purely because we have different ethical tastes.

It is therefore not that the action of committing genocide is wrong in any way, but that our cultural preference is otherwise inclined. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

Or put another way:

When we say genocide is wrong, we do not mean that the act itself has the property of wrongness, but rather that "we in our culture prefer otherwise".

 

 

 

If the Nazis had won and managed to convince the world culture that their policies were morally good, we would all think that way now. 

But would we be correct in thinking that genocide is good if the Nazi's had won the war?

I guess, according to your view there is no correct ethic, right?

 

 

*sigh*

Good answer.

 

 

Again you fail to think in terms of perspective.  If you're a person within the culture that the reformer is trying to change, you likely think the reformer is immoral (he's a heretic, a usurper, infiltrator, etc.).

Do you believe that immorality should be discouraged and morality should be encouraged?

If so, then if a culture practises female circumcision for instance, the culture ought to encourage that behavior and any "moral reformer" who goes against that norm, being immoral should be discouraged?

 

 

But what if the reformer had failed (which happens often)?  If he failed, you would be living in a culture that rejected his views on morality and you would think of him as a heretic, usurper, infiltrator, etc..

According to your view perhaps. The problem which you're failing to see though is that cultural relativism makes no real distinction between Martin Luther King and Charles Manson. Both went against the cultural preference of the day.

This is why I said that you can find nothing wrong with genocide, other than appealing to our own perspective, which is no more valid than any other perspective. It's simply a matter of preference in the end of the day.

 

 

Thus, your view of whether the reformer was moral or immoral is not dependent on any sort of objective standard, but is dependent on your perspective, which is a direct result of the time and culture in which you live.

I would disagree.

 

 

 

You're still borrowing from objectivism to support cultural relativism. Right and wrong are what cultures define.

You make my argument for me.

I'm not making your argument for you, I'm reminding you what your argument is, because as I said it seems you're jumping between moral objectivism and cultural relativism.

 

 

That's entirely dependent on your perspective.  If you're a member of the African-American culture in the 1960's, MLK's actions are very moral.  If you're a member of the white southern culture in the 1960's, MLK's actions are immoral. 

Which brings me to another point. How does one demarcate cultural boundaries? Suppose the local farming culture prefers to rape women but the local reggae culture prefers not to do so. Suppose you're a member of both cultures, do you get to choose?

Or are cultures defined by national borders, in which case one can skip the border and not be bound by any moral guilt?

Or does the cultural government define what moral for the whole culture, in which case if government decides to kill a certain ethnic population in its borders, then it's okay?

 

 

Sure it can.  Our culture had defined it so.  Surely you're not going to argue that all cultural standards are not "meaningful"?

You beg the question.

I would say actions can be said to be morally good or bad precisely because they are not mere preferences like preferring chocolate milkshake or strawberry.

 

Ultimately, given what you've written, the serial killer, the rapist, the child molester and the genocidal tyrant are nothing more than people who act unfashionably and the only thing wrong with their actions is that they haven't convinced the rest of us to adopt their perspective, correct?

[LuftWaffle]

Fallacy of False Analogy

 

If the two objects being compared are fundamentally dissimilar (which Christians insist is true about God and man), the analogy is inapt.

 

That's not even what the link says.

The link says that if the difference between A and B affects the way in which they share property P, then it's a false analogy, not merely when the two objects are "fundamentally dissimilar".

 

The fact that God may in many ways be different to man doesn't affect how authority influences prerogative.

The silly notion that judges are voted in whereas God is not, is completely irrelevant. I can think of lots of authorities that haven't been voted in by those over whom they have authority (with prerogatives and/or different restrictions). How the authority comes to be in authority is inconsequential.

[Diatheosis]

Diatheosis,

 

I think your question is about how I view the value of life.  If so, I believe life is what one makes of it (in a general sense).  If I choose to make my life about food, golf, conservation, worshiping a god, family, intellectualism....whatever, then I can do so.

 

You most surely can and I am glad if you are having good time, life is a precious thing.

 

Thank you for answering that, although I still did not get to know you. But I understand your choice of not willing to share your real interests here.

 

From what you are saying, then, we may choose, but those choices are not in any way more right than anyone else's choices? Have I understood correctly your understanding as for the subject?

[Diatheosis]

 

Fallacy of False Analogy

 

If the two objects being compared are fundamentally dissimilar (which Christians insist is true about God and man), the analogy is inapt.

 

That's not even what the link says.

The link says that if the difference between A and B affects the way in which they share property P, then it's a false analogy, not merely when the two objects are "fundamentally different".

 

The fact that God may in many ways be different to man doesn't affect how authority influences prerogative.

The silly notion that judges are voted in whereas God is not, is completely irrelevant. I can think of lots of authorities that haven't been voted in by those over whom they have authority and therefore certain prerogatives and/or different restrictions. How the authority comes to be in authority is inconsequential.

 

 

Becoming a parent would be one in which it is not voted, and it is quite a valid example too. Interestingly, Jesus depicts God as our Heavenly Father and I have come to know Him as such. Would not Him who has programmed all life, to use computer analogy which probably nowadays is better understood than the older conception of begetting, have the authority and also responsibility over His design? I have authority and responsibility over my children, and I as imperfect as I am try to do is equip them with ability to think and do right things (help others if that's needed, and it may be good to ask about that too etc.), and that is also very important in life to do so.

[JDavis]

Luftwaffle,

Again, you completely fail to understand my argument (even in its most basic sense). As I said, I see no reason to repeat myself over and over and over.

I tried to explain it, you either couldn't grasp it or wouldn't grasp it. Either way, there's no point in continuing.

Perhaps this is because your argument is so flawed nobody but yourself can grasp it

[Diatheosis]

 

Thank you for answering that, although I still did not get to know you. But I understand your choice of not willing to share your real interests here.

 

You didn't ask me about my "real interests", and I'm not sure how that's relevant to this thread.

 

From what you are saying, then, we may choose, but those choices are not in any way more right than anyone else's choices? Have I understood correctly your understanding as for the subject?

 

 

You can choose, and whether your choices are "right or wrong" is dependent on the time and society in which you live.  The "right and wrong" are very real, they're just a function of what I've been describing. 

 

That seems to be the point that's tripping everyone up.  Obviously some people cannot handle the concept that "right and wrong" can be both subjective and real at the same time.  It's interesting to observe.

 

 

Your real interests are relevant in that you prefer some things instead of something else. I assume you then also have some kind of stance to back up your choices. In the other hand, if you choose tomorrow completely different set of values, is that 'right' too?

 

This moral system is completely based on man made values that may differ from one moment to another radically and yet, it can be considered both right and real?

 

It's like Abraham Lincoln asking how many limbs does a monkey have if we call its tail a limb? The obvious answer given usually was five, to which he simply replied 'wrong, calling a tail a limb does not make it one'.

 

But this logic is of course understandable in the light nothing really matters in the long run because it's all relativistic. Why I asked about your real interests is relevant in that lacking any solid basis for moral makes life pretty meaningless because all choices are in theory equally 'good' although this term cannot be used. It's all definition by man which does not matter. A rapist's choice to proceed with his obsession is morally equal to going to borrow a  cooking book from the library according to this logic. No one can really judge since we all are just morally conditioned by the past.

 

I understand that to some extent it works, but then again, all living organisms tend to maintain their status as alive. That would reveal there to be a meaning for life. To comprehend the connection between living beings and things in general may shed some light in what can be meaningful in life. But considering the limited period as a human being in physical appearance, that cannot be the totality of it.

 

Quite naturally, I understand not all will accept this logic. Neither did I years ago. Was my comprehension right, it being the real to me, compared to now? If I were still living in the experience of an atheistic view, having not experienced God's direct involvement in my life many times, would my conception of reality be more right for other atheists since they accepted my thinking? But then again, it does not matter since it relativistic. Anything goes, but nothing holds. As for being right or wrong, good and bad.

 

Satanist philosophy embraces the idea for preference of the most powerful drive, neither good nor bad, but beyond that. What has gained the biggest momentum is what rules all else. Same do the current new age teachings which state that light and dark are the different sides of the same thing. They exist, that's right, but that's pretty much the only thing to share. It's pretty relativistic in nature too.

[JDavis]

 

Perhaps this is because your argument is so flawed nobody but yourself can grasp it

 

 

Sure, that could be.  But I haven't seen where anyone has pointed out the fundamental flaws.  Instead, what I see are repeated "If you think that, then you must think this" misrepresentations/misunderstandings repeated ad nauseum.  

 

Oh, and a bunch of empty accusations from you.

 

 

I have been pointing out the fundamental flaw for a day or so.  your misunderstand of the Christian view of God does not allow you to have an unflawed argument.