Animal Description

[Bread_of_Life]

Bob Triez

First, a clarification...Ignorant and stupid ( I know you didn't say "stupid", but I need to make my intent clear here ) are totally different....ignorant, in the way I used it ( and by it's very definition ) means without adequate knowledge - or unlearned....that is not meant to be derogatory....

I'm perfectly aware of the difference between being ignorant and being stupid. I am ignorant of a good many things, and so are we all, but I do not count myself as stupid. However, I am not ignorant of the scientific method - or of the philosophy of science.

All this being said, I will take some time to put together a thread to defend my point of view.

That's fine, take your time, however, it would be useful if you could post a quick thread defining what you believe the scientific method to be - that way we can correct any ignorance that might be lingering on your part

mscoville

The acceptance of Evolution in an Atheistic framework doesn't contribute to the mindset of no moral right or wrong? Do you believe that?

Not only do I believe it, but rather it is provably true! My account of moral subjectivism gives no mention at all to evolution or to atheism - hence that belief is not based either on atheism or evolution.

Indeed, if my belief in moral subjectivism were based on evolution, then it'd necessarily be incorrect - since I would undoubtedly be making the naturalistic fallacy. Furthermore, if I became a theist tomorrow, I would still believe that morals are basically subjective.

If you're right that right and wrong don't exist, you don't see a contradiction there?

Hang on, I said that objective moral right and wrong doesn't exist, that moral statements are neither true or false - I DID NOT say that no statements were true or false - ONLY moral statements.

As it happens, there are other sorts of statements that are subjective (that are neither true or false). For example, aesthetic statements are subjective. If I said "The Mona Lisa is beautiful", that statement would neither be true or false, or objectively right or wrong - it is a subjective statement.

Or are you going to say that there is right and wrong concerning physical facts and your assertion about there being no right morally is based on them?

Well, firstly, there is truth and falsehood concerning physical facts. However, secondly, I do not use physical facts to show that there is no moral truth.

You're saying morals do not actually exist

Morals exist alright. I have morals, you have morals, God has morals. They exist, that's a fact. They're just not true or false - they're not objectively right or wrong.

[artsylady]

No. They're just values. They are neither true or false, right or wrong. They are subjective. I value human life, but that is not good, or bad, or correct, or incorrect - it's just a subjective value. It leads me to conclude that you shouldn't kill humans, but that statement is neither true or false either, because it is based on subjective value statements.

So you're saying it's not necessarily 'bad' or 'wrong' to have sexual relations with a child?? That it's wrong only in your humble opinion and no one should step in with a holier than thou 'right and wrong' attitude saying something is wrong when it's always just subjective???

If you'd grown up in a cannibalistic tribe, would you prefer to stay that way all of your life, or would you prefer that someone would teach you to value human life?

Incorrect. I said "I think [this and that] is wrong". I didn't say "the statement '[this and that] is morally wrong' is true." That would have been an admission that moral values are objective, which they are not.

So, if they decided to start letting baby girls die here in North America, started legally allowing child -adult sexual relations or started letting humans kill and consume other humans, would you have any problems with this?

[nebula]

I'm going to write out a description of an animal based on the Biblical description but I'm going to leave out the name. However I'm sure many of you will recognize the passage. Give your thoughts on what you think it is and don't give me what the Bible may tell you it is. Base your thoughts on the description only. K..here it goes.

....I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the workds of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. .............when the river rages he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

Give your thoughts what you think they are talking about here. I'll be interested in your responses.

God Bless

Steve Baird

www.bairdclan.com

BTW -

Did we ever come to a conclusion on the original post?

:sweating:

[artsylady]

I vote for it being some sort of 'prehistoric' creature. Probably some sort of dinosaur.

[Bread_of_Life]

So you're saying it's not necessarily 'bad' or 'wrong' to have sexual relations with a child??

Well, I think it's bad and wrong, and anyone rational who shares my values will think it's bad and wrong. However, the statement:

"It is bad and wrong to have sexual relations with a child"

is neither true or false. It is not a statement of objective fact, but rather one of subjective value. It cannot be objectively correct or incorrect. Similarly, the statement:

"You are beautful"

is neither true or false. It is not a statement of objective fact.

That it's wrong only in your humble opinion and no one should step in with a holier than thou 'right and wrong' attitude saying something is wrong when it's always just subjective???

I didn't say that either. I'm happy to hear moral arguments from others. What I am saying is that there is no moral truth - noone is objectively correct or incorrect concerning morality.

So, if they decided to start letting baby girls die here in North America, started legally allowing child -adult sexual relations or started letting humans kill and consume other humans, would you have any problems with this?

Yes, I would have problems with all of those things, because I think that those are immoral, no matter who does them. However, I do not claim that my thinking they are immoral is a statement of objective fact, it isn't.

[Guest mscoville]

Oooohhh Atheist,

Howdy, so I'm trying to figure out on what basis you choose moral rights and wrongs? Why choose any? Any you make are without meaning. God's choices are not arbitrary or subjective, they are naturally flowing from His nature. He is necessarily good as he necessarily exists.

You're making a moral judgement about morals, that you don't believe exist, negating your own argument. You render your own argument without meaning, yet you think it to be meaningful. You don't see a contradiction? If I say God Bless, does that sound like I'm being a smart a@#?

God Bless,

~ Martin

[Bread_of_Life]

Howdy, so I'm trying to figure out on what basis you choose moral rights and wrongs?

I've already said, I have values.

Why choose any?

Because I have values and preferences.

Any you make are without meaning.

As I've shown in the past on this board, this statement is incorrect.

God's choices are not arbitrary or subjective,

yes, they are, by definition they are subjective, since they rely on a subject's values (in this case, God).

they are naturally flowing from His nature.

My morality also naturally flows from my nature - in the sense that part of my nature has values and preferences, and that's where my morality comes from.

You're making a moral judgement about morals, that you don't believe exist, negating your own argument.

Incorrect, I am making a meta-ethical judgement about ethics, which is perfectly legitimate.

[nebula]

However, the statement:

"It is bad and wrong to have sexual relations with a child"

is neither true or false. It is not a statement of objective fact, but rather one of subjective value. It cannot be objectively correct or incorrect. Similarly, the statement:

"You are beautful"

is neither true or false. It is not a statement of objective fact.

I can see that. Agreed!

What I am saying is that there is no moral truth - noone is objectively correct or incorrect concerning morality.

You do realize that this is a statement of opinion, don't you? I mean, do you have any evidence to support the statement that there are no absolutes?

Sorry, had to needle you on this one.

(Hey, maybe playing both sides of the fence can be fun! :LOL: )

[Guest mscoville]

Siding with the Christians Neb? Welcome aboard!

I've already said, I have values.

Where do those come from?

My morality also naturally flows from my nature - in the sense that part of my nature has values and preferences, and that's where my morality comes from.

I think you're arguing in a circle.

QUOTE 

Why choose any?

Because I have values and preferences.

So your answer is because?

QUOTE 

Any you make are without meaning.

As I've shown in the past on this board, this statement is incorrect.

They have meaning to you. But are Ultimately meaningless. Sound better?

QUOTE 

You're making a moral judgement about morals, that you don't believe exist, negating your own argument.

Incorrect, I am making a meta-ethical judgement about ethics, which is perfectly legitimate.

Based on a moral law of some sort (your own creation?) Based on your "values" which are based on.......

I guess I'm wondering what the foundation of all this hypothesizing is?

[Guest mscoville]

Oh yeah, on what basis is it "perfectly legitimate"? That's your own statement of purpose.