2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.Not sure I agree. Just because we treat something subjectively doesn't mean it's not objective.
A similar argument would be that just because we all think 2+2=5 doesn't make it so. There are objective truths, and I think real morality extends from that.
2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.
Well you don't sound like much of a mathematician! More like an engineer...Dunno, it seems hard to disagree with holding up two fingers, and then two more, counting them up, and getting to four.
Well you don't sound like much of a mathematician! More like an engineer...
Originally Posted by soccerballtux
I agree. The theist follows Morals because of his assumption of that morality flows from God's character, the atheist believes societal consensus is the determiner of morality.
I am an atheist and I do not believe that.
The Mayans were illogical. Any system which does not protect the rights of ALL men is illogical and doomed to fail.
It is illogical to think one man may be sacrificial now, and you yourself will not be sacrificial later.
Morality is very objective when thought out to it's logical conclusion. It is very simply a set of rules, mutually agreed upon, to protect ourselves.
I have seen lots of shows that stress that the human mind is capable of more than we are taught. This is why some people in sports seem to be able to run faster or do things that other people may not believe is possible. Some peolpe can be trained to walk on fire or break bricks with their bare hands. Logic says this is not possible but it may be quite possible under certain conditions. If you study other areas like Yoga or meditation the main theme is not only to expand your physical well-being but to control your body with your mind. All of these things can be described as spiritual learning.
Straight from God's mouth..
Absolute and unchanging morality FTW.
What idiot chose rape to study? To be convicted of rape it doesn't only take the indulging of selfish desires over the obvious objection of another; it is still rape when there is lack of intent and misinterpretation (neutral or not) explains the gulf; and conviction for rape still occurs when a woman has regrets and convinces herself after the fact that she didn't want it so it must've been rape (or is just batshit insane) and goes forward with charges.
Anyway, proper studies show that white-collar criminals are best at rationalizing their crimes.
You assume sacrifice is feared. What happens when sacrifice is not only acceptable, but desired? If sacrifice is viewed as heroic, then not only are you happy for the person being sacrificed, "morality" may have you hoping to be the next sacrifice.
Morals are not necessarily logical in the sense that you intend. They're merely the prevailing "logic" of any given set of people at any given time, and they're prone to change.
2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.
You assume sacrifice is feared. What happens when sacrifice is not only acceptable, but desired? If sacrifice is viewed as heroic, then not only are you happy for the person being sacrificed, "morality" may have you hoping to be the next sacrifice.
Morals are not necessarily logical in the sense that you intend. They're merely the prevailing "logic" of any given set of people at any given time, and they're prone to change.
You nailed it.
Sacrifice is not always bad and in my opinion I think we could incorporate it into our culture today and see good. This going to euthanasia and the question of how much is life worth?
Is it worth it for a family to go into $100,000 in debt to keep alive a nearly brain dead family member? Not even remotely, but people do it every day.
Think of how much it costs for the elderly to survive with around the clock care. Now, if these people were fruitful members of society and are able to cover their own costs then it is of no consequence. But the situation turns muddy when many of these older individuals are disabled, not self-aware, and have not a dime to their name. Is it really doing anyone good to keep them alive? Not really.
I am not necessarily advocating murder, but imagine if it was in our culture for most people to have an advanced directive to take care of this wasteful case. Less financial drain on the system and for nearly no cost. This sort of advanced directive could be seen as admirable.
2+2=5 is only objectively false once the underlying axioms are agreed upon. If you want to assert that the axioms of mathematics are objectively true, you'd have a hard time even convincing a room of mathematicians - and that's a roomful of people who would even understand the nature of the assertion.
2 + 2 does equal 5. Of course, I use a completely different quaternary system whose symbols just happen to look like the symbols that you lowly humans use in your decimal system. I wouldn't expect you to understand my math, it's far more advanced. As are my morals.
You believe rape shouldn't be studied? What's the matter, are taboo topics hard for you to stomach? Ignorance is bliss I guess, and from what I've seen of your few posts here in P&N, you must one of the happiest people around.
I have pretty decent morals and no god. Stupidest "proof" of a god I've ever heard.
You and the point need to be introduced.
I have pretty decent morals and no god. Stupidest "proof" of a god I've ever heard.
Wow. That is the most devoid-of-rational-connectivity, knee-jerk reply I have ever seen.
"BoberFett," eh? I may have to remember that, for it may be of some small amusement to lay your little mind bare one of these days. But only if comes out that you're consistently bizarre. If this instance is nothing but something along the lines of a senior moment... then, *yawn*, boooooring.
I'm not even going to correct you. I'll just let you flop about on the end of the line there to see whether you can climb your way back to a restart position or if your repertoire lacks such a basic tool.
And I'm telling you this and thus adding another layer of complexity to the equation (factoring in your response to being an experimental subject) just so the datum gives me enough work for it to be somewhat interesting.
Have fun being yourself, and don't have an aneurysm.
It's funny that you should use that against deity based morality, because if you don't believe that god exists, then it wasn't god who put that law into place, it was humans and their ever shifting sense of morality, meaning there is no such thing as objective morality, god or no god.
I'm not the one claiming there is an objective and unchanging morality. That would be the theists. The Deuteronomy pic is just one example of "divinely inspired" ethics that most Christians would find repugnant today..along with the repeated commandments from the Christian God to commit genocide and to enslave entire civilizations. Religious morality changes over time as the moral sentiment of those who practice it changes. It is clearly not the timeless and perfect work of a timeless and perfect God. Otherwise we could never hope to evolve beyond the barbarism displayed in "the good book". That was the point.
Let me guess, you're a MENSA member and actually believe that you're above the rest of us riff-raff?