The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What belief system are you talking about that I live my life under? Do tell.

Again, humanism.

I’m not familiar with Humanism, so it would be foolish to suggest I live my life under such a belief system. It would be akin to me claiming you live your life under the system of witchcraft because like them, you consider rape and sexual assault to be wrong.

It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality; those involved in academic, scientific and intellectual standards that you speak of don't live their lives this way, and neither do I.
I hope that you see that you are attempting to, as you once wrote, have your cake and eat it too. Here you are arguing that your “empirical experiences” are a sufficient basis for you to live your life. Yet you argue the Christian’s empirical experiences, certainly as they relate to the notion of objective morality, are insufficient. I hope that you see your contradiction.

No, I am fine with Christians believing whatever they want, its just that when they start insisting I believe what they believe, that I have disagreements with them. Obviously if a Christian believed all moral issues are addressed and answered by their God, they will believe morality is objective. But for me and everybody else, moral issues aren’t addressed that way; hence the disagreement.



Welcome to the real world my friend! In the real world, we don't behave, discuss, or reason as if we are putting together a dissertation for a PHD, we reason in accordance to what makes sense; and to reason that our empirical experiences are not real, that we could be just a brain in a vat being fed information via a Computer does not make sense.
I hope that you can see that this is another instance of your contradictions. You have, and likely will again in the future, argue the supremacy of science (See your post #1969 to Ed1Wolf). Now, you wish to diminish the scientific standards. I hope you see that this is amateurish.

As a skeptic, I apply the same scrutiny to science as I do religion or anything else. BTW in post #1969 I do not argue the supremacy of science.

Why is this so difficult or you to understand? Tell me what you aren't getting and I will gladly explain it to you.
I am “getting” that your world view accepts a belief in ontology. I am challenging you to live by the standard that you expect the Christian to live by. So far, and again here, you are offering circular logic as “demonstrable proof” that you “know” objective truth. Your logic is self-created (your “empirical experiences”) and because you find support in your beliefs, you feel justified. This is exactly how you criticize the Christian. It is amazing that you somehow cannot see your hypocrisy.

I apply the same standards to Christians as I do to myself. If you disagree, point to a time when I haven’t done this.
I will respond to the rest later
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Richard-Roy

Active Member
Jan 22, 2019
45
1
69
Illinois
✟17,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I’m not familiar with Humanism, so it would be foolish to suggest I live my life under such a belief system. It would be akin to me claiming you live your life under the system of witchcraft because like them, you consider rape and sexual assault to be wrong.



No, I am fine with Christians believing whatever they want, its just that when they start insisting I believe what they believe, that I have disagreements with them. Obviously if a Christian believed all moral issues are addressed and answered by their God, they will believe morality is objective. But for me and everybody else, moral issues aren’t addressed that way; hence the disagreement.





As a skeptic, I apply the same scrutiny to science as I do religion or anything else. BTW in post #1969 I do not argue the supremacy of science.



I apply the same standards to Christians as I do to myself. If you disagree, point to a time when I haven’t done this.
I will respond to the rest later


I’m not familiar with Humanism, so it would be foolish to suggest I live my life under such a belief system. It would be akin to me claiming you live your life under the system of witchcraft because like them, you consider rape and sexual assault to be wrong.

Ken, this is silly and sophomoric. Because I wake up in the morning does not mean that I am an atheist because atheists wake up in the morning. Also, I truly am not surprised that you are not familiar with humanism.


No, I am fine with Christians believing whatever they want, its just that when they start insisting I believe what they believe, that I have disagreements with them. Obviously if a Christian believed all moral issues are addressed and answered by their God, they will believe morality is objective. But for me and everybody else, moral issues aren’t addressed that way; hence the disagreement.

Its [sic] just that when they start insisting I believe what they believe, that I have disagreements with them.” What would cause you to have a disagreement with them? Are they violating an objective moral standard? Are they violating an objective standard at all? What is your issue with a Christian insisting that you believe what he/she believes? The necessary inference from what you wrote in your last post, the Christian is justified in proselytizing simply by the Christian being “convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt” that he/she should proselytize. If you were honest to this new principle you would support, celebrate, and encourage the Christian living his/her objective truth.

Also, it is extremely arrogant to suggest that you can speak for "everybody else." I hope that you will be more careful in the future.


As a skeptic, I apply the same scrutiny to science as I do religion or anything else. BTW in post #1969 I do not argue the supremacy of science.

This is amateurish. Now you are attempting to imply that you use “scrutiny” which has the connotation of rigorousness, but the “scrutiny” that I have asked of you, you dismiss as “not in the real world.” Here is the first example of the standards that you do not hold yourself to that you demand from a Christian. (Your next point below.) Regarding, your post #1969, apparently there too you cannot comprehend the direct inferences that are necessarily drawn from what you wrote.


I apply the same standards to Christians as I do to myself. If you disagree, point to a time when I haven’t done this.
I will respond to the rest later


Second example of a double standard:

Ken’s (one time) standard expected of Christians regarding objective morality: Objective truth is demonstrable.

You’ve posited numerous times that “objective truth” is demonstrable.

Your post: # 1912: “Truths can often be proven, thus can be objective; morality cannot thus is only subjective

Your post: # 1924:

I can demonstrate the claim is objectively true.”

Remember; that which is objective should be demonstrable.”

Your post # 1926: “that which is objectively true, can be demonstrated as true


Ken’s standard for himself:

Your post: # 2015:

what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person

You wrote this because you failed to demonstrate (the standard you expected from Christians) that you know objective truth. Thus, you “moved the goal posts” for your positions.

Third example of a double standard:

The beliefs of a Christian = subjective truth

Your post # 1912: “There is no such a thing as objective morality.”

The beliefs of Ken = objective truth

Your post # 1958 “just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong.”


Respectfully,

T R-R
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
(Ken)
Again; to know means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Confirmation of brain chemical reactions are not necessary to achieve this; if it were you wouldn't be able to claim what I know or don't know, without demonstrating yourself how YOUR chemical reactions can know that they are interpreting data correctly concerning myself

(TRR)
This is not testable, which at one time was your standard.
I said that which is objective is demonstrable; I never said knowing was.

By this definition, then, therefore, the Christian knows “objective morality” simply by being “convinced beyond any shadow of doubt.” Here you refute your earlier point, (and this is a point of hypocrisy), if you do not acknowledge the Christian who is “convinced beyond any shadow of doubt” knows objective morality.

Then the earlier scientists who “knew” that the earth was flat because they were “convinced beyond any shadow of doubt” were objectively correct. Here you demonstrate that you are, once again, not considering all of the implications of the statements that you make.
As I said before, you could know something and still be wrong.

(KEN)First of all; what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person. Second, if what you call intellectual honesty includes investigating the possibility that I could be a brain in a vat being fed information via a computer like in the movie “the Matrix”, or inspecting my brain chemicals to make sure they are functioning properly so I can know that what appears real IS real; If this is your idea of intellectual honesty, no offense intended; but I don’t think I could care any less about your idea of intellectual honesty; that’s just some stuff you can keep to yourself bruh!
(TRR)Here again you demonstrate that you are attempting to “have your cake and eat it too.” It is amateurish to demand that science is the arbiter of truth when the argument suits you and then, when confronted with the scientific standards, claim that they do not apply to you.
I never claimed science as the arbiter of truth; as a skeptic I am just as critical of science as I am anything else.

Regarding your point “what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person” then, to be honest to yourself, this applies equally to the Christian. And, if the Christian believes that “blind faith” is the standard to know objective morality, then you have not basis to refute that the Christian does not know objective morality. You, to be honest to yourself, could not expect that the Christian meet any other standard than that chosen by the Christian.
I never said Christians don't know objective morality I just said they were wrong.

(Ken)Your Bible says faith is “unseen”. If belief has evidence, it is no longer unseen, it is no longer faith, but reason. To use faith this way makes the term meaningless. However if you wish to use the term faith that way, for the sake of our conversations I will respect that as what you are talking about when you use the term from now on.
(TRR)
Surely you will agree that context is important and paramount. You, clearly, are imposing your understanding of the word “unseen” into the Biblical meaning. The whole of the Jewish and Christian faiths is based on a real God who exists and who has spoken. This has always been the case (for the “orthodox” believers) (I mean orthodox in the academic sense and not religious denominational sense) and never has it been true that these faiths believed apart from this.
If those people actually saw God, their belief would not be based on faith, but fact.

Also, to be strict in your definition, which I expect that you won’t be, you will never “see” tomorrow, but you will always believe that there will be a tomorrow. By your definition, believing that there will be a tomorrow is a belief without reason.


I've answered this already in post #2003

In your post #2003, you used circular logic. You argued that “Ken is the reference point.” However, Ken has no testable method (your one time standard) to:
  1. Know that Ken exists
  2. Know if Ken is perceiving data
  3. Know that if Ken exists that he is interpreting data correctly
  4. Etc.
  5. Etc.
I don’t use myself as a reference point; somebody else does. This person using me as a reference can test to see if
*I exist
*I am perceiving data
*If I am interpreting data correctly
*Etc.
*Etc.
Do you understand that your proposed method, self-verification, fails by the scientific and intellectually honest standards? If the Christian were to argue using your proposed method the following statement is then, therefore, proven to be objective truth.
  • The Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.
It is clear that you would never accept this from the Christian. But, somehow you accept this from yourself. Amazing.

Your whole argument is that I, Ken, create objective truth. Yet you do not apply this standard to the Christian. You on one hand demand the Christian meet your standard, but on the other hand expect the Christian to accept your subjective standards. That is sad.
You’ve gotten it wrong again. I said some truth claims are objective (like claims about math, or other things that can be objectively verified or demonstrated) And some truth claims are subjective (like those claims that are based on beliefs, opinions, and perceptions. If a Christian were to make a claim about something that can be objectively verified (like math) I would label his claim objective; and if I were to make a claim based on my beliefs, opinions, or my points of view; I would label my claim subjective.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
(ken)I’m not familiar with Humanism, so it would be foolish to suggest I live my life under such a belief system. It would be akin to me claiming you live your life under the system of witchcraft because like them, you consider rape and sexual assault to be wrong.

(TRR)Ken, this is silly and sophomoric. Because I wake up in the morning does not mean that I am an atheist because atheists wake up in the morning. .
Great! Now hopefully you can see how silly and sophomoric it is to compare me to a Humanist.

(Ken)No, I am fine with Christians believing whatever they want, its just that when they start insisting I believe what they believe, that I have disagreements with them. Obviously if a Christian believed all moral issues are addressed and answered by their God, they will believe morality is objective. But for me and everybody else, moral issues aren’t addressed that way; hence the disagreement.
Its [sic] just that when they start insisting I believe what they believe, that I have disagreements with them.” What would cause you to have a disagreement with them? Are they violating an objective moral standard? Are they violating an objective standard at all? What is your issue with a Christian insisting that you believe what he/she believes?
Because they are insisting I believe something that is not true.

The necessary inference from what you wrote in your last post, the Christian is justified in proselytizing simply by the Christian being “convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt” that he/she should proselytize. If you were honest to this new principle you would support, celebrate, and encourage the Christian living his/her objective truth.
The Christian has every right to proselytize, and I have every right to disagree with him.

Also, it is extremely arrogant to suggest that you can speak for "everybody else." I hope that you will be more careful in the future.
I was referring to everyone else who were not Christians because if they did believe that way, they would be Christians! HELLO!!!

Second example of a double standard:

Ken’s (one time) standard expected of Christians regarding objective morality: Objective truth is demonstrable.

You’ve posited numerous times that “objective truth” is demonstrable.

Your post: # 1912: “Truths can often be proven, thus can be objective; morality cannot thus is only subjective

Your post: # 1924:

I can demonstrate the claim is objectively true.”

Remember; that which is objective should be demonstrable.”

Your post # 1926: “that which is objectively true, can be demonstrated as true


Ken’s standard for himself:

Your post: # 2015:

what constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met is subjective and will vary from person to person
What constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met does not equal objectivity. So where is the double standard?


Third example of a double standard:

The beliefs of a Christian = subjective truth

Your post # 1912: “There is no such a thing as objective morality.”

The beliefs of Ken = objective truth
There is a big difference between truth and morality.

Your post # 1958 “just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong.”
I fail to see a double standard here. Beliefs concerning morality are subjective, and just because you know something (by dictionary definition) does not mean you are right! Where’s the double standard?
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Richard-Roy

Active Member
Jan 22, 2019
45
1
69
Illinois
✟17,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Great! Now hopefully you can see how silly and sophomoric it is to compare me to a Humanist.


Because they are insisting I believe something that is not true.


The Christian has every right to proselytize, and I have every right to disagree with him.


I was referring to everyone else who were not Christians because if they did believe that way, they would be Christians! HELLO!!!


What constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met does not equal objectivity. So where is the double standard?



There is a big difference between truth and morality.


I fail to see a double standard here. Beliefs concerning morality are subjective, and just because you know something (by dictionary definition) does not mean you are right! Where’s the double standard?


Ken, once again, you are again going in circles. It’s either that you are unaware of this or you are trolling. (The only other possibilities are that you are an adolescent (underdeveloped brain) or have cognitive disabilities.)


I said that which is objective is demonstrable; I never said knowing was.

Do you understand that with this you are attempting to establish a standard that you expect others to accept? This is true because you are at this forum site debating. If you, in a sophomoric retreat, attempt to argue, “well, it’s something that I believe. I don’t expect others to believe it.” You belie yourself by posting here. I’m guessing that will go over your head too.

You clearly do not understand objectivity and subjectivity. (Unless, of course, the lesser the education = the more accurate one can understand.)

Also, knowing is demonstrable in the intellectual world. I realize that you dismiss this, but that only demonstrates that you have no idea what you are really talking about.

Regarding your proposal “that which is objective is demonstrable” (again) what makes this objective truth. Let me give you a hint, you need to not use circular logic for this proposal to be valid. OH, wait yes. That is too rigid a standard and only good for those people who live in the fake world of academia. Those in the “real” world get to use whatever standard that is preferred.

This is hysterical. Since, you dismiss intellectuals as not being in the “real” world, this, undoubtedly necessarily means that the lesser education that you have, the more you understand the “real” world. Ken, by this standard of yours, (the more education that you have the less you are in the “real” world) it necessarily means that the kindergartener is more in the real world than you are. I doubt that you see that your position is inane.


As I said before, you could know something and still be wrong.

Ken, again you may be trolling. If not, you really are quite ignorant. I do hope for your sake that you will attempt to educate yourself. If you are not trolling; if you were wrong about X, that necessarily means that you did not know X. I realize that logic does not cut muster with the elementary school set, but, regardless, it is a logical derivative. If you are not trolling, it is important for you to understand the differences between knowing and to have knowledge of.



I never claimed science as the arbiter of truth; as a skeptic I am just as critical of science as I am anything else.

While, of course, you can self-title yourself anything that makes you feel important, your chosen title of “skeptic” is overly generous to yourself. Skeptics do not dismiss intellectual challenges. And, with your tacit admission that you are not higher educated, I can accept that you do not understand the writing process. With this, I can accept that you do not realize the implications of what you write. You have continuously demonstrated that you do not understand the implications of a position of yours. If these two were coupled, I can easily understand that you do not understand what you write has meanings that you may not intend. A classic case of the elder Mayor Daley in the City of Chicago; “write what he means and not what he says.” If you are not trolling, it would be wise if you were to learn implications to your positions and how to express these ideas in written form.


I never said Christians don't know objective morality I just said they were wrong.

Ken, you are not being honest or, you are trolling, or this is another example of your simplicity. You wrote in your post #1912 “There is no such a thing as objective morality.” This means that Christians cannot know objective morality. You’ve, again, contradicted yourself.


If those people actually saw God, their belief would not be based on faith, but fact.

Again, you can make up definitions that suit your attempts to save face, but your definition of faith is incomplete. The “blind faith” definition is a relatively new addition to the concept of faith. The concept of faith prior to the European enlightenment was squarely as I’ve described it. The “blind faith” concept came much later in human history. This too, is something that you can learn more about if you really wish to be taken seriously as a “skeptic.”



I don’t use myself as a reference point; somebody else does. This person using me as a reference can test to see if
*I exist
*I am perceiving data
*If I am interpreting data correctly
*Etc.
*Etc.


Sadly, you are going in circles again. You conveniently forgot that you failed to demonstrate that “somebody else” exists and you failed to demonstrate that someone used you as a reference point. You, here again, offer no demonstrable evidence that your perceptions can differentiate “objective truth” from “subjective truth.” Here again, you offer faith statements as “proof” of your knowledge of objectivity. You have faith in your perceptions which logically equals “Ken, using Ken as a reference point.” If you do not understand this, you, again, need to learn more.


You’ve gotten it wrong again. I said some truth claims are objective (like claims about math, or other things that can be objectively verified or demonstrated) And some truth claims are subjective (like those claims that are based on beliefs, opinions, and perceptions. If a Christian were to make a claim about something that can be objectively verified (like math) I would label his claim objective; and if I were to make a claim based on my beliefs, opinions, or my points of view; I would label my claim subjective.

Do you see, I doubt it, that you are attempting to establish a standard; “demonstrability.” Yet, when I expect you to meet this standard that you demand from the Christian, you fail to demonstrate your faith statements. Are you trolling? Or, do you truly not see that you have a double standard. If you were honest, especially to yourself, you would recognize that you have not met the standard that you demand from a Christian. Using circular logic, which is all you have offered, does not meet the demonstrability standard.


Great! Now hopefully you can see how silly and sophomoric it is to compare me to a Humanist.

Ken, before you make yourself look foolish again, I suggest that you study, in the academic traditions, (and not self-defined education) what a humanist is before you make statements that are easily demonstrated as false.


Because they are insisting I believe something that is not true.

Ken, uh, Ken. Do you realize that you’ve contradicted yourself again? I doubt it. You have no basis to demonstrate that Christians are insisting on something that “is not true.” Your basis for insisting Christians are insisting you believe something that is not true is how you, Ken, interpret data (Ken as the reference point). You, therefore, (therefore means that the following point necessarily derives logically from the previous supposition) are insisting that they believe in something that is not true. Even to the least of the skeptics this is known as hypocrisy.

Also, while I doubt that you realize it, you are making a value judgement. This, in the intellectual world, (which I know is unsatisfactory to those of you who live in the “real” world) is moralizing. You really do not understand that you are “guilty” of the very things you criticize the Christian for.



The Christian has every right to proselytize, and I have every right to disagree with him.

Agreed (of course), but you have not made any statement that you’ve demonstrated as true. You have only offered circular logic to “demonstrate” how you have knowledge. These are better known as faith statements.


I was referring to everyone else who were not Christians because if they did believe that way, they would be Christians! HELLO!!!

Ken, oftentimes you really make yourself look foolish and here is another example of it. While I expect that you’ll attempt to redefine “everybody else” in a way that tries to have you save face, you really do not know the subject for which you argue. I recently returned from India. The Indian population is estimated at approximately 1.3 billion people. Most of these people are Hindus with a large minority population of Muslims. Since you will likely agree that none of these people are Christians you will then have to agree that if they believe in objective morality, that your point is refuted. And, by the way, mostly they do believe in objective morality.


What constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met does not equal objectivity. So where is the double standard?

Apparently, you need lessons on reading as well as writing. What I wrote is that your double standard is that you expect the Christian to demonstrate that objective morality exists, but you fail to demonstrate that any of your positions objectively exist. Ken’s standard for the Christian = demonstrability. Ken’s standard for Ken = belief

(post # 2008) “My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality

(post #2015) “It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality

In these two posts of yours you offer “belief” and “assumption” as demonstrable proof. You would never accept these from a Christian. Therefore, even to the simplest of skeptics, this is a double standard.


There is a big difference between truth and morality.

Yet another faith statement by Ken. Ken, please demonstrate this to be objectively true. Oh, that’s right. You “believe that your perceived experiences” are true and you “assume that your empirical experiences reflect reality” that it is true; therefore, it’s true. Amazing.


I fail to see a double standard here. Beliefs concerning morality are subjective, and just because you know something (by dictionary definition) does not mean you are right! Where’s the double standard?

I believe that you indeed fail to see the double standard. The double standard is

Ken’s standard for a Christian is that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is not an acceptable basis to establish objective truth.

Ken’s standard for Ken is that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is an acceptable basis to establish objective truth.

Even by the least of the skeptics, this is a double standard.

Respectfully,

T R-R
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hey hey :)

So u believe He once existed on earth. What do u think about His claims and what He said?

Cheers

Jesus never wrote anything down, so nobody knows what he actually said, all we know about is what other people claimed he said, and those accounts of Jesus will vary from person to person often with contradicting accounts. According to the people who wrote the books of him that eventually were used to make up the Holy Bible, according to those accounts Jesus claimed he was the Son of God and everything Christians claim he did; but according to the people who wrote the Gnostic gospels, or even the Holy Koran, according to those accounts Jesus never even made such claims.
When It comes to Jesus, I think its all a matter of who you choose to believe; I personally don’t believe any of those writers, I suspect some of the accounts might contain truth, but I think there is much exaggeration in those claims as well.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Jesus never wrote anything down, so nobody knows what he actually said, all we know about is what other people claimed he said, and those accounts of Jesus will vary from person to person often with contradicting accounts. According to the people who wrote the books of him that eventually were used to make up the Holy Bible, according to those accounts Jesus claimed he was the Son of God and everything Christians claim he did; but according to the people who wrote the Gnostic gospels, or even the Holy Koran, according to those accounts Jesus never even made such claims.
When It comes to Jesus, I think its all a matter of who you choose to believe; I personally don’t believe any of those writers, I suspect some of the accounts might contain truth, but I think there is much exaggeration in those claims as well.

The Koran was written over 400 years later by people who were copying off of Christian and Jewish texts.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Regarding your proposal “that which is objective is demonstrable” (again) what makes this objective truth.
I didn't say this is objective truth, I just stated it as the definition and gave an outside source to back it up.
While, of course, you can self-title yourself anything that makes you feel important, your chosen title of “skeptic” is overly generous to yourself. Skeptics do not dismiss intellectual challenges.

Neither do I. If you disagree point to a time when I’ve done this. Not absurd challenges like “how do I know when I am looking at a blue car that I’m not actually looking at the Eiffel Tower” Or how do I know that my chemical reactions are interpreting data correctly when I see that I actually have a body. These type of absurd questions you have been asking are just folly.
(Ken) I don’t use myself as a reference point; somebody else does. This person using me as a reference can test to see if
*I exist
*I am perceiving data
*If I am interpreting data correctly
*Etc.
*Etc.
(TRR)Sadly, you are going in circles again. You conveniently forgot that you failed to demonstrate that “somebody else” exists and you failed to demonstrate that someone used you as a reference point.
If nobody exists, and nobody uses me as a reference point, there is no conversation.
(Ken)
Because they are insisting I believe something that is not true.
(TRR)
Ken, uh, Ken. Do you realize that you’ve contradicted yourself again? I doubt it. You have no basis to demonstrate that Christians are insisting on something that “is not true.”
Wrong again; I do.

(Ken)
The Christian has every right to proselytize, and I have every right to disagree with him.

(TRR)
Agreed (of course), but you have not made any statement that you’ve demonstrated as true.

I was only voicing my opinion.

I recently returned from India. The Indian population is estimated at approximately 1.3 billion people. Most of these people are Hindus with a large minority population of Muslims. Since you will likely agree that none of these people are Christians you will then have to agree that if they believe in objective morality, that your point is refuted. And, by the way, mostly they do believe in objective morality.

It isn’t enough that they believe morality is objective, they would also have to believe morality is based on the views of the Christian God. IOW my argument stands.

(Ken)
What constitutes as the most rigorous standards being met does not equal objectivity. So where is the double standard?
(TRR)
What I wrote is that your double standard is that you expect the Christian to demonstrate that objective morality exists, but you fail to demonstrate that any of your positions objectively exist.

I gave examples of my positions that are objectively based, and those what are subjectively based. The same standard applies to Christians.

(post # 2008) “My intellectual honesty does allow me to believe my perceived experiences are anything but reality

(post #2015) “It would be foolish and absurd to go through life assuming the possibility that our empirical experiences do not reflect reality
In these two posts of yours you offer “belief” and “assumption” as demonstrable proof. You would never accept these from a Christian. Therefore, even to the simplest of skeptics, this is a double standard.

Did I say that was “demonstrable proof? Or is this just more stuff you are making up about me. Go back and read it in the context of how it was said, then get back with me on this if you want.

Ken’s standard for a Christian is that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is not an acceptable basis to establish objective truth.

Ken’s standard for Ken is that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is an acceptable basis to establish objective truth.

I did not say that. I said beliefs concerning MORALITY are not objective. I didn’t say anything about a Christians empirical experiences.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The Koran was written over 400 years later by people who were copying off of Christian and Jewish texts.
So the Koran was written many years after the Bible. What's your point? They were both written many years after Jesus had already died; are you suggesting because the Bible was written first that it contains the truth?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So the Koran was written many years after the Bible. What's your point? They were both written many years after Jesus had already died; are you suggesting because the Bible was written first that it contains the truth?

It was sourced directly from people who knew Jesus personally, so I'd think it would be more accurate when it comes to His life and teachings.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It was sourced directly from people who knew Jesus personally, so I'd think it would be more accurate when it comes to His life and teachings.
The problem is not when it was written, but who wrote it. I don't trust the men who wrote it any more than I trust the men who wrote all the other unsubstantiated holy texts.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
but according to the people who wrote the Gnostic gospels, or even the Holy Koran, according to those accounts Jesus never even made such claims

Hey hey kenny my friend :)

When we consider Jesus and what He is recorded as saying, why would we consider their versions of Jesus as opposed to the NT version? What justifies their authority on Jesus over the NT?

Jesus will vary from person to person often with contradicting accounts.

What are some of these contradictions you speak of?

When It comes to Jesus, I think its all a matter of who you choose to believe; I personally don’t believe any of those writers, I suspect some of the accounts might contain truth, but I think there is much exaggeration in those claims as well.

What makes you suspect an exaggeration? Why do you not believe what they say, are you suggesting they are lying? What benefit is it - to them - that they would lie? What makes the NT untrustworthy?

Cheers hey :)
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Richard-Roy

Active Member
Jan 22, 2019
45
1
69
Illinois
✟17,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I didn't say this is objective truth, I just stated it as the definition and gave an outside source to back it up.


Neither do I. If you disagree point to a time when I’ve done this. Not absurd challenges like “how do I know when I am looking at a blue car that I’m not actually looking at the Eiffel Tower” Or how do I know that my chemical reactions are interpreting data correctly when I see that I actually have a body. These type of absurd questions you have been asking are just folly.

If nobody exists, and nobody uses me as a reference point, there is no conversation.

Wrong again; I do.



I was only voicing my opinion.



It isn’t enough that they believe morality is objective, they would also have to believe morality is based on the views of the Christian God. IOW my argument stands.



I gave examples of my positions that are objectively based, and those what are subjectively based. The same standard applies to Christians.



Did I say that was “demonstrable proof? Or is this just more stuff you are making up about me. Go back and read it in the context of how it was said, then get back with me on this if you want.



I did not say that. I said beliefs concerning MORALITY are not objective. I didn’t say anything about a Christians empirical experiences.
[/QUOTE]

Ken, since you have only been offering faith statements, continually contradicting yourself, and using circular logic I will not respond to every point in your last post. Rather, I will focus on the crux of your faith.

Neither do I. If you disagree point to a time when I’ve done this. Not absurd challenges like “how do I know when I am looking at a blue car that I’m not actually looking at the Eiffel Tower” Or how do I know that my chemical reactions are interpreting data correctly when I see that I actually have a body. These type of absurd questions you have been asking are just folly.

Ken, you dismiss the points that you cannot answer as “absurd.” However, what makes them absurd? Because you cannot answer them is the only reason. Also, when you title the argument “absurd” you, true to your character, miss the point that you (Ken) are defining what is absurd from that which is rational. Apart from an objective reference point, this is the very definition of: Ken using Ken as a reference point.

Furthermore, to a new born infant math is absurd. How can you demonstrate that you are not like the new born child as it relates to cognitive understanding? If you were honest to yourself, you cannot. Probably the saddest part is that you do not comprehend, like the infant (not comprehending), that you are dishonest to yourself.

To an honest “skeptic” Ken’s standard for a Christian that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is not an acceptable basis to establish objective truth. And, Ken’s standard for Ken that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is an acceptable basis to establish objective truth equals a double standard; period.

But, it clearly seems that you lack personal integrity and demand that your “definitions,” your “perceived experiences,” and your “empirical experiences” be accepted on faith to be objective truth. This is very sad, completely hypocritical, and certainly not worthy of a real “skeptic.” You have no basis other than your faith statements to differentiate objective morality from math. You can save yourself the keystroke time to respond with a faith statement. That is, unless you can demonstrate (your one time standard) that you have an objective reference point. I expect that you will, again, respond by making a statement that you "believe" and "assume" to be objective truth without demonstrating how it is objectively true.


Therefore, I’ve purposefully simplified this conversation for your benefit and I ask that you please answer the questions posed above. Here they are again for clarity’s sake:

  • What makes my questions “absurd?”
  • How can you demonstrate that you are not like the new born child as it relates to cognitive understanding?


Respectfully,

T R-R
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Hey hey kenny my friend :)

When we consider Jesus and what He is recorded as saying, why would we consider their versions of Jesus as opposed to the NT version? What justifies their authority on Jesus over the NT?
As I said before, I don't believe any of them.
What are some of these contradictions you speak of?
Christians believe Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. Some of the other Gospels don't claim Jesus was crucified; the Muslims believe the Jews were conspiring against Jesus to have him killed, so Allah took him to heaven akin to how Christians believe Elijah was taken to Heaven by God. There are many others as well; which is why those books aren't part of the Bible I suppose.
What makes you suspect an exaggeration? Why do you not believe what they say, are you suggesting they are lying? What benefit is it - to them - that they would lie? What makes the NT untrustworthy?
A dead man rising from the dead sounds unrealistic to me. Do I suspect they lied? Of course! There has been and continues to be countless people involved in cults and religious sects who have lied concerning their religious beliefs; happens all the time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ken, you dismiss the points that you cannot answer as “absurd.” However, what makes them absurd?
When you ask how do I know I actually have a body, or that my brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly when I observe something, I find that absurd because in order to have a serious conversation, we must assume what we experience is real.

Furthermore, to a new born infant math is absurd. How can you demonstrate that you are not like the new born child as it relates to cognitive understanding? If you were honest to yourself, you cannot. Probably the saddest part is that you do not comprehend, like the infant (not comprehending), that you are dishonest to yourself.

To an honest “skeptic” Ken’s standard for a Christian that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is not an acceptable basis to establish objective truth. And, Ken’s standard for Ken that “belief in perceived experiences” and “assumption of empirical experiences” is an acceptable basis to establish objective truth equals a double standard; period.
Wow! As many times as I've explained this to you, and you still keep getting it wrong. Can you demonstrate that you are not like the new born child as it relates to cognitive understanding? Because I keep explaining the same thing over and over to you and you keep getting it wrong! Must be something seriously wrong with your ability to understand things. Perhaps you should check to see if your brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly, because you don't seem to be getting this.
 
Upvote 0

Thomas Richard-Roy

Active Member
Jan 22, 2019
45
1
69
Illinois
✟17,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you ask how do I know I actually have a body, or that my brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly when I observe something, I find that absurd because in order to have a serious conversation, we must assume what we experience is real.


Wow! As many times as I've explained this to you, and you still keep getting it wrong. Can you demonstrate that you are not like the new born child as it relates to cognitive understanding? Because I keep explaining the same thing over and over to you and you keep getting it wrong! Must be something seriously wrong with your ability to understand things. Perhaps you should check to see if your brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly, because you don't seem to be getting this.


Ken, as expected, you failed to demonstrate your beliefs. Only faith statements again.

When you ask how do I know I actually have a body, or that my brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly when I observe something, I find that absurd because in order to have a serious conversation, we must assume what we experience is real.

How does this differ from:

When you ask how do I know I actually know objective morality, or that my brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly when I observe something, I find that absurd because in order to have a serious conversation, we must assume what we experience is real.
  • Ken’s expected answer: Because I know I see my body. The Christian cannot see objective morality.
  • But, Ken how do you know that you are interpreting the data correctly?
  • Ken: because it is absurd to not believe so.
  • But, Ken, don’t you realize that this is an unverified starting point? You hold by faith that you are interpreting the data correctly and you do not have a reference point that verifies you do?
  • Ken: that is absurd. I know I see my body.
  • But Ken, what is your reference point?
  • Ken: you are absurd.
Also:
  • Ken, how do you know the Christian doesn’t see objective morality?
  • Ken: Because it cannot be seen.
  • But Ken, what is your basis to say that it cannot be seen?
  • Ken: Because I make the rules.
Amazing. And, sad. And dishonest. And, certainly not worthy of a “skeptic.”


You continually fail to demonstrate any of your positions. You continuously, over and over and over, demand that you get to make the rules of what equals experience, etc. etc. etc.

I hope that you will be honest with yourself and come to realize that you are a person of faith.

Also, you did not attempt to answer my two questions in my last post. Please attempt to answer them in a serious way without making a faith statement. If you cannot answer them without a faith statement, please be honest and answer to that effect.


I’m still optimistic that you can be honest with yourself.

Respectfully,

T R-R
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
.
How does this differ from:

When you ask how do I know I actually know objective morality, or that my brain chemicals are interpreting data correctly when I observe something, I find that absurd because in order to have a serious conversation, we must assume what we experience is real.
  • Ken’s expected answer: Because I know I see my body. The Christian cannot see objective morality.
No; When I look at my body its existence is confirmed by everyone else I come in contact with. Everyday I come in contact with hundreds of people and 100% of the people I come in contact with see the exact same thing I see down to the smallest detail. With morality, though many may agree on the basics, everybody I know of will eventually disagree on one moral issue or another; I’ve never seen a case where two people will agree 100% of the time with every moral issue. This tells me the existence of my physical body is objective, and morality is subjective.

.
  • But, Ken how do you know that you are interpreting the data correctly?
  • Ken: because it is absurd to not believe so.
The fact that 100% of the people I come in contact with interprets the data exactly as I do


.
  • But, Ken, don’t you realize that this is an unverified starting point? You hold by faith that you are interpreting the data correctly and you do not have a reference point that verifies you do?
  • Ken: that is absurd. I know I see my body.
No; What would you consider a verified starting point? Could you give an example please?
.
  • But Ken, what is your reference point?
  • Ken: you are absurd.
No; What would you call a legitimate reference point? Example please?

.
Also:
  • Ken, how do you know the Christian doesn’t see objective morality?
  • Ken: Because it cannot be seen.
What do you mean when you speak of the ability to see morality?

.
  • But Ken, what is your basis to say that it cannot be seen?
  • Ken: Because I make the rules.
Again' what do you mean by this?
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
This thread was made by someone who said this in the past:
If one of these people who starved, raped and shot Jews.. got down on their knees and accepted that what they did was wrong.. and asked Christ to save them.... then... they would be saved

Only if they were truly sincere, and generally people who live a life like this are extremely unlikely to sincerely repent because most people want to believe that what they did was right. They try to rationalize and justify it just for them.

cis: Any human who denies Christ as the messiah..will not receive eternal life... No matter if they die in their sleep, died killing an evil Nazi, died helping Miss Daisy walk across the street. Or, died in the holocaust.
So in short a Nazi has a higher chance to go to heaven than the jews he murdered or a person who is mentally handicapped. These are such sick views.
No, as I stated above it is extremely unlikely that a Nazi would sincerely repent of what they did. Read about the Nuremberg trials, they all tried to justify it such as I would just obeying orders and they forced me to, and etc. Such people would never sincerely repent. As far as mentally handicapped, they would only be judged on how much they understand,, just like children would not be judged until they reach the age of accountability which psychologists generally determine between 7-10 years old.

cis: Check this thread about males with long hair too.. just to have an idea as to how much is in that section.
Obviously long hair can not send you to hell, look at Samson. But it is God's ideal for men to have shorter hair than women so that there is no gender confusion.

cis: This entire forum raises a lot of doubts to the "moral code" because just look at how immoral and unintelligent these views are.If you disagree then it's because "you don't know Christ" or "you have to pray to Yahweh to enlighten you".

I honestly think that maybe there should be a law in where people have to pass an IQ and personality test to own a Bible.
.
You need to read some books by highly biblically literate scholars like RC Sproul and Francis Schaeffer among others. And not some biblically illiterate internet surfers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,969
5,733
✟247,488.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I Myself am Deist and see the only morality there is, is the law of nature. which is unbreakable. so there is no point trying to follow it. as you already do.
I am an atheist and I don't hold a belief in morality as being something that is discoverable.
I see it as a concept, where a person, an individual, is trying to workout what is the proper way to behave, as a guidance for themselves on the many choices that they are faced with.

In my opinion morality becomes a dangerous concept once a person takes their own morals and tries to apply those to others, as in (others should behave according to my own moral beliefs). That's where we get conflict, shaming, and the like.

We will always have conflict, even without trying to force moral beliefs on others, as resources are limited and so we must compete for those resources. Also life is incredibly complex and we will often have difficult decisions to make. There are real, this worldly, consequences to our decisions and hence the game of life gets interesting, full of happiness, of sorrow, of anger, of love.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.