Six Questions to Ask An Atheist
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Depends on what you are talking about.
But I can highlight a few christian morals that are subjective.
Christians say that lying is always wrong. This does not apply to every situation. Lying can sometimes be good.
Christians say that jesus is the only god. This is also subjective. Not every single human being believes int hat. It also depends on many factors like what religion you were brought up in/exposed to, what religious book you have read, and your personality and culture.
Christians say abortion is always wrong. Subjective again.
All these christian truths will/can change, and are subjective to the specific situation/individual.
THey are not universal truths.
You are still as CONFUSED as ever.
Either lying is a sin or it is not. It cannot be a sin and then not a sin. Just because something good or beneficial comes out of telling a lie, it does not mean therefore that lying is good. If it is, then we SHOULD lie regardless of time, place and circumstance. But no relativist would think like that. Would you?
Either Jesus is God or He is not. That's what is meant by objective truth. It has NOTHING to do with how many people believe that or one's background.
And the abortion issue is with regards to abortion-on-demand which is what the pro-life debate is about, that people suka suka decide to terminate a pregnancy because it is inconvenient or because they do not want to live with consequences of their actions. There are times when abortion is necessary and justified. Other than such circumstances abortion would be wrong.
The problem with your argument is that the mere existence of moral ambiguity and controversy in SOME area is then treated as proof that there are no objective (moral) truths at all.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Some christian denominations do not believe jesus is god or that only jesus saves.
Then the objective truth according to the Bible is that these are NOT Christian at all and do not deserve to wear that label.
-
he will accuse u of being judgmental...
-
Originally posted by despondent:
he will accuse u of being judgmental...
Yet the irony is that the one doing the accusing is himself being judgemental!
Believers are called judge ourselves, judge right from wrong, and to discern truth from error. All these require us to be judgemental. The issue then is not about being judgemental, everyone is. The issue is whether one is judging rightly. Also, we should not engage in hypocritical judgement.
-
"If belief is that which changes, then Tcmc should be clear in her communication. In any case, since when is belief defined as subjective truth?"
Since when you believe in Christ? Subjective. No one ever is a born believer. Only you failed to see beliefs are subjective, regardless of truth.
"And again you any-o-how allege a fallacy of hasty generalisation when there is none committed. Relativism = subjective truth. I suggest you brush up on your knowledge concerning what relativism is herehttp://www.theopedia.com/Relativism"
Just because you equate relativism=subjective truth therefore declare those holding subjective truth as believers of relativism, when the concept of relativism revolves around the definition of subjective truth, is enough to deem you dull. Example, God=love. Therefore a loving person is a god loving person.
"And you are STILL confused between what a circular reasoning is and what a self-defeating argument is. The statement "Relativism is true" is a self-defeating statement akin to saying "The truth is that there is no truth." It's like saying that you have your feet firmly planted in mid-air. "
1st two statements are circular if you still don't see it. Last sentence is physically possible.
"And mind you, relativism is not just a theory but for many it has become a worldview. See http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism"
Just as when there was a time when the world was believed to be flat. No consequence to objective truth.
"When there was no earth, there would be no Singapore to speak of. That's the objective truth about the existence of Singapore before earth existed. How difficult is this?
You are saying the Singaporean(your objective truth) did not exist before Singapore. The Singaporean(your objective truth) was non existent before Singapore. Your objective truth changed into non existent when there was no Singapore. So your objective truth changed to another objective truth.
"Even if today Singapore is wiped off the face of the earth, the objective truth remains that (say you were born in Singapore in 1990) you were born in Singapore in 1990. And even if the whole universe vaporised, that truth is still true, it does not cease to be true, though it may cease to be relevant or meaningful with no one around to take note."
To make you understand, I'll need to quote the bible; Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former will not be remembered nor come to mind."[Isa 65:17]The Singaporean(your objective truth) became non existent.I shall conclude either you don't know as much about objective truth as you presented yourself to be or you refuse to come up with a better example."Regarding the Flat Earth Myth, the only conspiracy is that concocted by the enemies of the Christian faith, who deceptively tries to cast the faith in a bad light by perpetuating a science-faith conflict."Subjective... I showed you verificable facts that there were people who believed in a flat earth, regardless of their religion."There is no intimidation on my part at all in merely pointing out that you were WRONG to stubbornly insist that an argument is a statement. How you can even claim to be not wrong is beyond comprehension. Guess it is a matter of ego here for you."<no_u.jpg> much? You don't even know whats a proof by intimidation even when I provided a link in the words.... So much for feeding the ducks....
If you insist I'm wrong, so be it. Its your strawman anyway."Of course saying God is cruel is making a moral judgment, because the assumption is that there is something morally wrong with being cruel."Your assumptions, not my problem. Who died and made you to judge suffering, death and pain morally wrong?"If it is just a matter causing pain or suffering, then would you say the doctor is cruel in causing pain and suffering in treating a patient of cancer through chemotherapy? Of course not."<Suddenly..._strawman_everywhere.jpg> See previous reply"I don't blame you for your lack of theological training and Bible knowledge. When God finished with Creation on Day 6 He said it was "very good". It couldn't be all "very good" when death and suffering is present then and animals are dropping dead or dying around Adam and Eve. No, the other life-forms did not deserve death at all. It wasn't anything they did but what Adam did. But that's the point I was making, sin affects everything. And God's way is higher than ours. The mistake that atheists make is to think that God must be subject to their rational view."Was Adam allowed to eat before he sinned? Did God gave him permission to eat before he sinned? According to you there was no death, so Adam consumed lifeforms alive and passes them out alive. According to you, the is no decomposition since nothing was dead. <ok_noted.jpg>
"I don't know what badger evidence you are talking about. The point is that the rock badger/hyrax/coney is an animal which the Bible classified as one that "chews the cud" using the language of appearance. Why would you consider it an insult when your ignorance is being corrected? You can't be that petty and narrow-minded yah?"
Badgers are not observed to be ruminants or refects. That is where the evidence of lack comes in. You were saying that it can't be proven what exact animals the verse points to, but whatever it is, its as what the bible described. Thats appealing to ignorance. How is that correcting my ignorance? And now you resort to a false dilema of making me either not insulted or being petty and narrow minded, attempting to undermine the insult of calling another ignorant. That's hypocritical. I'm insulted to be corrected by a hypocrite who thinks he corrected me by what he thinks he knew and pointing to the things he think I do not know. I am insulted to be compared to a hypocrite.
"You are employing double standards here: you can treat all creationists as not credible but I cannot speak of creationists generally as credible? The fallacy is all yours. Are creationists making a lot of noise? Sure. And what's your problem with that? Atheists and evolutionists are making a lot of din too."
Since when atheist are credible? Since when evolutionist are credible? Since when you are credible? Since when am I credible? The bias is yours alone.
"Your intention, if I remember you admitted earlier, was to like a challenge and argument. Perhaps you are just being argumentative."
I like challenges but you miss the part where I wanna bridge a reasonable communication standard.
"But even so, it shows that you are a novice when it comes to critical thinking. Perhaps you were only just introduced to the world of informal fallacies but lacked the training in them, thus explaining how your confusion in recognising and identifying them."
What I see are ad naseums, tu quoques, ad hominems, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, appeals to ignorance... I was begining to favor letting you go in bliss, but you are being hypocritical again... dismissing the users here without (perceived)training as if the rationality of their arguments are lesser. The more the personal you get the more you will get exposed.
"You are CONFUSED still."
You miss the spot where I said "I believe thats what Tcmc was trying to say."
"Objective truth is that which is true regardless of time and space and one's feelings or perceptions. It is independent of what one believes or thinks or feels. And we are not talking about whether a thing changes, but whether truth can change."
And you failed to give me a better example of what is objective truth previously, you can try again.
"And just because a reader brings to the text his personal background and prejudices/biases which may influence his interpretation, that does not mean that the objective/intended meaning of the text is absent. We have to work at it to DISCOVER the meaning, rather than to think we can decide its meaning whichever way we like."
The key is: interpretations. Only the source is objective, not what you know not what I know. What I know, I know is subjective. I pursue absolute truth by observations and hopefully reconcile directly to the source, the beginning.
"Please explain how those 3 truths you highlighted become subjective when referring to each other."
Time.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are still as CONFUSED as ever.
ya he is confused, but you are no better, as deluded and irrational as ever
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
ya he is confused, but you are no better, as deluded and irrational as ever
See, even a troll like Jacky agrees with me that Aneslayer is confused. But I certainly disagree with his assessment of me. Jacky cannot explain and justify his allegations at all. I guess it simply boils down to his anti-christian bigotry. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
See, even a troll like Jacky agrees with me that Aneslayer is confused. But I certainly disagree with his assessment of me. Jacky cannot explain and justify his allegations at all. I guess it simply boils down to his anti-christian bigotry.
Please... don't include me into your bickering, I'm innocent. Even if I'm not, I'm not concerned. It makes you appear desperate to put me in a bad light... as in being confused.
Jacky apparently quoted your reply to Tcmc. Don't blur blur or act blur to cause confusion... -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Ane.
I think even for christians, the three you stated might not be objective truths to each and every denomination.
It depends on the denomination.
Some christian denominations do not believe jesus is god or that only jesus saves.
Thats where the "becomes subjective when refering them to each other" comes in.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
he will accuse u of being judgmental...
Doesn't mean he is or he is not being judgemental...
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are CONFUSED still.
Objective truth is that which is true regardless of time and space and one's feelings or perceptions. It is independent of what one believes or thinks or feels. And we are not talking about whether a thing changes, but whether truth can change.
And just because a reader brings to the text his personal background and prejudices/biases which may influence his interpretation, that does not mean that the objective/intended meaning of the text is absent. We have to work at it to DISCOVER the meaning, rather than to think we can decide its meaning whichever way we like.
Please explain how those 3 truths you highlighted become subjective when referring to each other.
BIC
EVeryone is confused except for you and your gang!
-
where his gang?
all run off with tails between their legs!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You are still as CONFUSED as ever.
Either lying is a sin or it is not. It cannot be a sin and then not a sin. Just because something good or beneficial comes out of telling a lie, it does not mean therefore that lying is good. If it is, then we SHOULD lie regardless of time, place and circumstance. But no relativist would think like that. Would you?
Either Jesus is God or He is not. That's what is meant by objective truth. It has NOTHING to do with how many people believe that or one's background.
And the abortion issue is with regards to abortion-on-demand which is what the pro-life debate is about, that people suka suka decide to terminate a pregnancy because it is inconvenient or because they do not want to live with consequences of their actions. There are times when abortion is necessary and justified. Other than such circumstances abortion would be wrong.
The problem with your argument is that the mere existence of moral ambiguity and controversy in SOME area is then treated as proof that there are no objective (moral) truths at all.
BIC
I never say we should lie regardless of what situation. I am saying lying can be good, it can be bad, depending on situation! And every situation is different. For example, its good to lie to the robber that your grandma is not in the house if he asks you where she is because he wants to rape her. It's also good lie to people sometimes for fear that they cannot take the truth because of a weak heart. It's also good to lie if the truth will hurt someone badly. (to tell him that he is really unpleasant looking).
Or if you were a German hiding Jews in your house during WW2, it would also be considered a GOOD deed to lie to the Nazi soldiers.
Lying can also be bad in many circumstances.
Saying "Lying is ALWAYS bad" is not an objective truth.
Lying can be bad and good.
Same applies for abortion, and the existence of gods. (christian, hindu or jewish god)
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
where his gang?
all run off with tails between their legs!
His gang? You mean he represents one lot of subjective Christians here? Impossiibru...
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates. -
i think he represent Satan, in any case, i have exposed him to be judas, christ betrayer!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
EVeryone is confused except for you and your gang!
Thumbs up! -
I just could not fathom how anyone can believe wholeheartedly and blindly when the facts are quite obvious. maybe perception is reality to them is very true. when you believe in something (never mind what outsiders think or perceive), you perceive it to be true. so the truth is true to you and your religion, despite what others may say. but we also perceive it that the religion is so irrational and illogical, so this is also true to us despite their beliefs.
-
i was just having a chat with a christian colleague... and so this is how their perception of other religions are or at least buddhism...
buddha = human who is enlightened, so no matter how enlightened, also human.
God = God, super natural being, someone up there, he is god not human and so, christianity > other religions(or at least buddhism)
I explained that to buddhist, buddha is a equivalent of christian's god at least. But to her, buddha is human. I might have interpreted both religions wrongly. But through the conversation, thats roughly what i get.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
he will accuse u of being judgmental...
despondent
Dont be silly. Unlike BIC or you, I dont go around saying people from other religions/denomminations will end up in a torturous , fiery place eternally.
THAT is judgemental.
I dont say that.
If you have read my previous threads, I have even agreed that religions CAN be good (christian, hindu, jewish etc).
I just disagree with some religions with regard to an invisible deity. But I dont condemn them to hell!
BIC and probably most christians DO believe that other ppl from other religions do go to hell!
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"If belief is that which changes, then Tcmc should be clear in her communication. In any case, since when is belief defined as subjective truth?"
Since when you believe in Christ? Subjective. No one ever is a born believer. Only you failed to see beliefs are subjective, regardless of truth.
"And again you any-o-how allege a fallacy of hasty generalisation when there is none committed. Relativism = subjective truth. I suggest you brush up on your knowledge concerning what relativism is herehttp://www.theopedia.com/Relativism"
Just because you equate relativism=subjective truth therefore declare those holding subjective truth as believers of relativism, when the concept of relativism revolves around the definition of subjective truth, is enough to deem you dull. Example, God=love. Therefore a loving person is a god loving person.
"And you are STILL confused between what a circular reasoning is and what a self-defeating argument is. The statement "Relativism is true" is a self-defeating statement akin to saying "The truth is that there is no truth." It's like saying that you have your feet firmly planted in mid-air. "
1st two statements are circular if you still don't see it. Last sentence is physically possible.
"And mind you, relativism is not just a theory but for many it has become a worldview. See http://www.theopedia.com/Relativism"
Just as when there was a time when the world was believed to be flat. No consequence to objective truth.
"When there was no earth, there would be no Singapore to speak of. That's the objective truth about the existence of Singapore before earth existed. How difficult is this?
You are saying the Singaporean(your objective truth) did not exist before Singapore. The Singaporean(your objective truth) was non existent before Singapore. Your objective truth changed into non existent when there was no Singapore. So your objective truth changed to another objective truth.
"Even if today Singapore is wiped off the face of the earth, the objective truth remains that (say you were born in Singapore in 1990) you were born in Singapore in 1990. And even if the whole universe vaporised, that truth is still true, it does not cease to be true, though it may cease to be relevant or meaningful with no one around to take note."
To make you understand, I'll need to quote the bible; Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former will not be remembered nor come to mind."[Isa 65:17]The Singaporean(your objective truth) became non existent.I shall conclude either you don't know as much about objective truth as you presented yourself to be or you refuse to come up with a better example."Regarding the Flat Earth Myth, the only conspiracy is that concocted by the enemies of the Christian faith, who deceptively tries to cast the faith in a bad light by perpetuating a science-faith conflict."Subjective... I showed you verificable facts that there were people who believed in a flat earth, regardless of their religion."There is no intimidation on my part at all in merely pointing out that you were WRONG to stubbornly insist that an argument is a statement. How you can even claim to be not wrong is beyond comprehension. Guess it is a matter of ego here for you."<no_u.jpg> much? You don't even know whats a proof by intimidation even when I provided a link in the words.... So much for feeding the ducks....
If you insist I'm wrong, so be it. Its your strawman anyway."Of course saying God is cruel is making a moral judgment, because the assumption is that there is something morally wrong with being cruel."Your assumptions, not my problem. Who died and made you to judge suffering, death and pain morally wrong?"If it is just a matter causing pain or suffering, then would you say the doctor is cruel in causing pain and suffering in treating a patient of cancer through chemotherapy? Of course not."<Suddenly..._strawman_everywhere.jpg> See previous reply"I don't blame you for your lack of theological training and Bible knowledge. When God finished with Creation on Day 6 He said it was "very good". It couldn't be all "very good" when death and suffering is present then and animals are dropping dead or dying around Adam and Eve. No, the other life-forms did not deserve death at all. It wasn't anything they did but what Adam did. But that's the point I was making, sin affects everything. And God's way is higher than ours. The mistake that atheists make is to think that God must be subject to their rational view."Was Adam allowed to eat before he sinned? Did God gave him permission to eat before he sinned? According to you there was no death, so Adam consumed lifeforms alive and passes them out alive. According to you, the is no decomposition since nothing was dead. <ok_noted.jpg>
"I don't know what badger evidence you are talking about. The point is that the rock badger/hyrax/coney is an animal which the Bible classified as one that "chews the cud" using the language of appearance. Why would you consider it an insult when your ignorance is being corrected? You can't be that petty and narrow-minded yah?"
Badgers are not observed to be ruminants or refects. That is where the evidence of lack comes in. You were saying that it can't be proven what exact animals the verse points to, but whatever it is, its as what the bible described. Thats appealing to ignorance. How is that correcting my ignorance? And now you resort to a false dilema of making me either not insulted or being petty and narrow minded, attempting to undermine the insult of calling another ignorant. That's hypocritical. I'm insulted to be corrected by a hypocrite who thinks he corrected me by what he thinks he knew and pointing to the things he think I do not know. I am insulted to be compared to a hypocrite.
"You are employing double standards here: you can treat all creationists as not credible but I cannot speak of creationists generally as credible? The fallacy is all yours. Are creationists making a lot of noise? Sure. And what's your problem with that? Atheists and evolutionists are making a lot of din too."
Since when atheist are credible? Since when evolutionist are credible? Since when you are credible? Since when am I credible? The bias is yours alone.
"Your intention, if I remember you admitted earlier, was to like a challenge and argument. Perhaps you are just being argumentative."
I like challenges but you miss the part where I wanna bridge a reasonable communication standard.
"But even so, it shows that you are a novice when it comes to critical thinking. Perhaps you were only just introduced to the world of informal fallacies but lacked the training in them, thus explaining how your confusion in recognising and identifying them."
What I see are ad naseums, tu quoques, ad hominems, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, appeals to ignorance... I was begining to favor letting you go in bliss, but you are being hypocritical again... dismissing the users here without (perceived)training as if the rationality of their arguments are lesser. The more the personal you get the more you will get exposed.
"You are CONFUSED still."
You miss the spot where I said "I believe thats what Tcmc was trying to say."
"Objective truth is that which is true regardless of time and space and one's feelings or perceptions. It is independent of what one believes or thinks or feels. And we are not talking about whether a thing changes, but whether truth can change."
And you failed to give me a better example of what is objective truth previously, you can try again.
"And just because a reader brings to the text his personal background and prejudices/biases which may influence his interpretation, that does not mean that the objective/intended meaning of the text is absent. We have to work at it to DISCOVER the meaning, rather than to think we can decide its meaning whichever way we like."
The key is: interpretations. Only the source is objective, not what you know not what I know. What I know, I know is subjective. I pursue absolute truth by observations and hopefully reconcile directly to the source, the beginning.
"Please explain how those 3 truths you highlighted become subjective when referring to each other."
Time.
The question I asked was “Since when is belief defined as subjective truth?” and you changed the subject by asking me since when I became a Christian. A diversion, and an irrelevant one no less.
Subjective truth is simply another label for relativism, that you cannot understand this simple truth is enough to deem you dull. Even this atheist website apparently got it right http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Subjective.htm
You repeatedly failed to differentiate and distinguish between a self-defeating argument and a circular argument. According to The Philosopher’s Toolkit, a self-defeating argument is an argument that, if taken to be sound, shows itself to be unsound. The term is often used for positions or theses as well as arguments where, if you take the principle proposed to be true, it undermines itself by its own logic. Such cases are more accurately described as self-defeating positions. And pray tell how do you plant your feet in mid-air or are you being facetious?
You missed my point about relativism being a worldview. Oh well, never mind.
And you are still sorely confused about what is objective truth. The objective truth did not change at all. You mean you disagree with me that before there was a Singapore there were no Singaporeans? Or are you just trying to be funny? Worst, you quoted the Bible but FAILED to understand what it means. That verse is not saying that objective truth about the previous creation became non-existent, it is saying that the former physical earth will cease to exist and will not be remembered anymore because of the new heavens and new earth. See, this again proves my point that atheists really fare pathetically when they try to play Bible exegete.
And so what if there were some people who believed that the earth was flat? You still missed the point that the objective truth is that the earth is not flat and that these people were wrong. And one can only be wrong if objective truth exists.
You can play the dishonest game for all I care. You said that an argument is a statement. I corrected you and even provided a third party to correct you when you asked for it, and then you go ad hominem because of a bruised ego. And it’s not that I am insisting that you are wrong, but you are refusing to admit that you are wrong. The evidence is plainly on my side.
You mean being cruel is not something that is morally wrong? Why would that be just my assumption and not your problem? And then you go shooting off alleged strawman fallacies when you realised that you have been cornered.
You can read English, right? What does the Bible say in Genesis about what is food for Adam and the animals? Hint: they were vegetarian. So it still means no death before sin. And according to the Bible, plants and fruits are not called “nephesh chayah” which is Biblical life as distinct from biological life. If you wish to debate intelligently with me on Bible interpretation please at least brush up on your Bible knowledge here http://creation.com/no-death-before-the-fall
The issue is not whether the rock badger is really a ruminant or engages in refection, but that the phrase “chews the cud” (to bring up) is applied to it because what it does is similar to the cow or other animal that chews the cud. The point was not to teach animal anatomy or biology but to inform the Israelites that they can eat only those that “chew the cud” and have split hooves, but that from among this group of animals they are not supposed to eat the rabbit and the coney and some others. And there’s no false dilemma because you were really being ignorant. Else you were simply playing daft.
And you still continue to play daft when I exposed your fallacious claim that creationists are not credible.
And I don’t see how you have been trying to bridge any reasonable communication standard. What standard are you talking about? Whose standards? What criteria? None that can be discerned. All that I have seen are your attempts to undermine the Christian faith, just like the other atheists here.
Again, spewing out the names of fallacies proves nothing beyond the fact that you can spew out these names. When it comes to actually spotting and discerning them you repeatedly failed. And the more you do this the more your pretence will be exposed.
The example of Singaporean was a good example of what is objective truth. Your attempt to dismiss it failed. Again if the fact is that you were born in 1990 in Singapore, then that is the objective truth, even if 1000 years have passed. It cannot be that you are born in 1850 in China when it is the year 3000.
I wonder why there is a need to continue on when you have already conceded the whole argument to me when your very words are that you pursue “absolute truth”. What then is absolute truth? Isn’t that the objective truth I have been talking about all along?
And please explain in detail your point about time making truths subjective.
-
I think they do not understand is because they are not in your position to understand what Truth is. To them, your belief is subjective truth. You cannot deny that in thier p.o.v.
However, Aneslayer subscribes truth to be absolute. If that is true, and he has such high standard of truth.. actual reality/existence, then he cannot also deny that Truth may also reside in the Christian faith.
For example, gravity is truth. And if you subscribe to a very high degree of truth, the theory of gravity is true and not truth. As truth is absolute regardless of anyone thinking otherwise. A natural phenomenom that is there, and can be there and unaware to us at the same time but exists since time immemorial.
So for objective morals, it may be something like "against murder". That whole thing that makes us homo sapien, embedded in us, in our genetics seared into our instincts, into the brain. I suppose that is what BIC is saying. That innate ability to reject such act as a moral act, was given to man by God through his creation of Man and Woman and also through the Bible.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I think they do not understand is because they are not in your position to understand what Truth is. To them, your belief is subjective truth. You cannot deny that in thier p.o.v.
However, Aneslayer subscribes truth to be absolute. If that is true, and he has such high standard of truth.. actual reality/existence, then he cannot also deny that Truth may also reside in the Christian faith.
For example, gravity is truth. And if you subscribe to a very high degree of truth, the theory of gravity is true and not truth. As truth is absolute regardless of anyone thinking otherwise. A natural phenomenom that is there, and can be there and unaware to us at the same time but exists since time immemorial.
So for objective morals, it may be something like "against murder". That whole thing that makes us homo sapien, embedded in us, in our genetics seared into our instincts, into the brain. I suppose that is what BIC is saying. That innate ability to reject such act as a moral act, was given to man by God through his creation of Man and Woman and also through the Bible.
BadM
For your info, before the bible was written about yahweh or any jewish civilisations, there were already other civilisations around.
Human morality predates the jewish religion/jewish book.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BadM
For your info, before the bible was written about yahweh or any jewish civilisations, there were already other civilisations around.
Human morality predates the jewish religion/jewish book.
Of course. That is why gave the example of our sociological makeup. But that still does not change anything.
Just like the paragrpahs on truth, that alone shows that there are different degrees of truth and each truth will have a consequence resulting in your understanding of the definition and applying it in your everyday lives.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Of course. That is why gave the example of our sociological makeup. But that still does not change anything.
Just like the paragrpahs on truth, that alone shows that there are different degrees of truth and each truth will have a consequence resulting in your understanding of the definition and applying it in your everyday lives.
BadM
Truth is subjective. What YOU or BIC know as "truth" might not be true to another million people.
What is true to another million people might not be true to another million people.
To BIC, lying is always bad.
But if you did read my response, there are MANY instances where lying is good.
For example, its good to lie to the robber that your grandma is not in the house if he asks you where she is because he wants to rape her. It's also good lie to people sometimes for fear that they cannot take the truth because of a weak heart. It's also good to lie if the truth will hurt someone badly. (to tell him that he is really unpleasant looking).
Or if you were a German hiding Jews in your house during WW2, it would also be considered a GOOD deed to lie to the Nazi soldiers.
So his "truth": does not stand in every situation, and therefore subjective to many factors.
There are objective truths, I guess, but when it comes to moral truths, it is very very subjective.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BadM
Truth is subjective. What YOU or BIC know as "truth" might not be true to another million people.
What is true to another million people might not be true to another million people.
To BIC, lying is always bad.
But if you did read my response, there are MANY instances where lying is good.
For example, its good to lie to the robber that your grandma is not in the house if he asks you where she is because he wants to rape her. It's also good lie to people sometimes for fear that they cannot take the truth because of a weak heart. It's also good to lie if the truth will hurt someone badly. (to tell him that he is really unpleasant looking).
Or if you were a German hiding Jews in your house during WW2, it would also be considered a GOOD deed to lie to the Nazi soldiers.
So his "truth": does not stand in every situation, and therefore subjective to many factors.
There are objective truths, I guess, but when it comes to moral truths, it is very very subjective.
Truth is not subjective. Truth CAN be subjective if you subcribe to a lower degree of truth. Perhaps like true = truth.
There are moral truths as well as subjective morals, often related to as relativist morality.
It just depends on your understanding of morality. Some people have spent thier entire lives on just what Truth is or what Morality is. There are subsequent schools of though within those schools of thought that breaks them down.
Now for you to instantly reject any objective truth's or moral's just means that you have not really spent the time really understanding the philosophy of morality.
In the end of day, does it matter subjective or objective ? What does your gut say ? What does it mean to do the right thing ? How do you know that what you are doing is the right thing ? Because the right thing is something deep down within yourself. Your gut.. your instinct... your humanity.
.