(March 13, 2016 at 4:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 4:10 pm)IATIA Wrote: That does not follow.  If "objective morality" exists, then by definition god must abide by it which means that god does not have to exist just because "objective morality" exists.  If god is the source, then it is still subjective.

You guys repeat these things like mantras. And everything I say doesn't seem to click.

I have shown you where you are wrong unless you can show me where my statement is in error.

(March 13, 2016 at 3:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 1. I see just repeating the assertion in more complicated way and depending on it through out in a circular fashion. You haven't proven we cannot have anything such thing as innate knowledge.  I'm sorry. You haven't. 

Ah, the old "nuh uh!" defense. Fascinating.

I demonstrated, in painstaking detail, how true claims you can't demonstrate are indistinguishable from false claims. If you can look at the fact that literally nobody, including yourself, can tell whether what you "know" is true or false, and tell me that I haven't shown that you need the demonstrability that your "knowledge" lacks to show that what you claim actually is knowledge, than I don't know what to tell you.

But hey, let's be charitable: I've no interest in expending too much more effort on someone who's content to respond with "that doesn't prove anything," but I'll leave you with a question: how did you determine that your "innate knowledge" actually is that, rather than just a belief that you have? Can you even determine that, or is this just a case of you strongly overstating an opinion that you really want to be true, but can't in any way confirm?

Quote:2. The cosmological argument is not one we are discussing. We are talking about the fact existence cannot come out of non-existence with no cause. In your example, existence simply changed with no cause and time began to apply to it. That is difference from there being nothing, and existence coming out of it after there being nothing. I'm saying that which makes innately know that, makes us innately know the other, because it's relying on one and the same knowledge. Again, this has nothing to do with beginning of universe.

I'll ask again: do you intend to back up either of the two claims you've made?

Quote:3. No, it's simply a reminder, but you seem to thing asserting we don't know it is somehow proof and argument against the claim.

A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. What you've said is simply indistinguishable from a claim that's false. You need to actually bring something to the table more than the flat assertion you've brought thus far.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:48 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: He knows that even though we all make immoral choices at times, in the end, the good of having free will is going to outweigh the bad. That's why He set it up like that.

What is the good of having free will?   Say as opposed to being determined to act in the same way.  How is free will necessarily good?

I have already said that I don't know what the good consequences of free will are. I imagine it has something to do with us not being just mindless robots, acting on instinct alone, and not having a deeper awareness and understanding.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 6:49 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The difference between a human parent running out to grab their toddler son off the street, and God changing things that would naturally happen, is that for God to do it would require divine intervention. And like Tibs said, you start getting into a slippery slope. Why didn't God stop the toddler from getting hit by a car? Why didn't God stop my brother from getting severe food poisoning last week? Why didn't God prevent me from stubbing my toe? If God were to prevent every negative thing that were about to happen, we wouldn't have free will anymore.

This seems to be a common view, that without the possibility of bad things, we aren't really free.  Why.  Am I not still free to choose from an wide array of neutral and pleasant outcomes?  How does elimination of some of my actions result in elimination of all of my free will?  That doesn't seem to make sense.

I disagree. I think having the choice to only do good things and think good thoughts is a huge impediment to free will. I think Tiberius already addressed this way better than I ever could several pages back.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Very understandable. Since you don't believe in God, objective morality doesn't really make sense.

I think that's a little unfair.  Surely What'vrist is capable of imagining the hypothetical if you can paint it.

I did not mean to be unfair to him, and I apologize. Honestly I've explained it many times already in the best way that I could. If someone still can't grasp the concept, I imagine the disconnect is the fact that I believe in God and they do not. So we just see things that much differently.

I always respected Tiberius. When I saw him state that he doesn't know whether some Theists have knowledge of God existing or not, simply, he believes he doesn't, I said this has to the be the most honest Atheist I know.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 12:53 am)Irrational Wrote: What kind of discussions? I'm serious, what's the aim exactly? Just to be heard?

I'm not sure what you mean by "what kind of discussion." 

What's the aim? Just to talk, share ideas, etc. It is a a thing, you know. Not everything has to be about debate, heated argument, or trying to change someone's mind. It's perfectly possible to talk about things you disagree with. 

Quote:It seems you want us to not challenge what you say.

No, that's not what I said. I said I'm here to have discussions with people who aren't ass holes. That means nothing other than exactly what it says. Obviously you can be an ass hole if you want, but I'll probably stop responding to you if you are because that's not what I want. There are plenty of people here who are challenging me and being civil about it, and I'm perfectly fine with it.

Some of us would dispute that everyone who you have put on your ignore list at some point during the past week has been less than civil with you about it. A few of us were persistent with you, but we were more than civil. You kept saying you "believe" something when it isn't really the case. You don't really understand the difference between believing and accepting the ideas which you were taught.

You stated something which you believe, and it was challenged reflectively with an assessment on what that belief really says. It doesn't matter that you don't think of it that way, it's still a statement in support of a god who is, according to your own belief, too great to not be held culpable for the evil which he allows. Whether you deny that culpability or give him the excuse for being "God", this is not only illogical, but cruel, whether or not you see it that way.

One thing I'd like to point out on your expectation to state your beliefs on an atheist forum and not have them challenged is that this is a special privilege which you demand of us. Most atheists reject illogical arguments, and if we assert an idea which doesn't make sense to others, then we know we will be expected to present evidence for said assertions. We, which includes all of your guard-dog atheist friends here are not allowed to say "I believe", and just leave it at that, and those friends of yours are utter fools for defending your right to do that and go unchallenged.

I don't believe anyone owes you an apology for what we have attempted to point that out to you, which is why I haven't apologized. Keep me on ignore forever, and that makes you no better than the little girl who sticks her fingers in her ears and goes NO, NO, NO, I BELEIVE!!!" I've had enough of tap-dancing around that, and I suspect that you are here for the specific purpose of destroying this forum community. If that's your angle, then congratulations, you have succeeded! I, for one, have had enough of wasting my time here. I've got an actual life to live, it's the only one which I ever expect to have, and it's going nowhere while I waste my time on this site, which is going nowhere itself the more it allows people to insult thoughtful discourse like children. I know this has not been you, you have been gracious up until this week, and I am sorry about the words which were said of you personally by some, but shutting out everyone who participated in that challenge of your ideas is very childish. I do believe that everyone has the right to speak their minds and be treated respectfully when they treat others that way, but not for their ideas to be respected. You decided to keep on repeating your assertions, and to endlessly do that will endlessly provoke more "attacks". You don't have to agree with atheists, but you should know it's time to knock it off already when you aren't getting anywhere. That's my parting advice, because I've had enough already.

I can't take any more of going nowhere with this endless looping about which has become the nature of forums and blogs, not necessarily this forum nor most of the people here, although the policies here are way too lenient with trolls, allowing pointless threads to spin on long after they should have been shut down. Anyway, I need a break for awhile, need to get out of the house more, maybe see if the local atheist meetup doesn't have some cool people to get drunk with. Because I'm not really an asshole.

Goodbye, All, for now.

(March 13, 2016 at 12:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 12:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well, it is what we believe, but that doesn't mean it can't be objectively true. 

I think I addressed this earlier on in the post  - I also believe my husband loves me. I could be either right or wrong about that.

Subjectivity doesn't speak to the truth or falseness of a claim. It speaks to the basis of the claim, the epistemology of it.

Of course a subjective claim can be true.  That doesn't mean it is any less subjective. In my subjective morality, murder is always wrong. That happens to coincide with your allegedly objective view. So clearly, you would agree that this subjective claim of mine is true, even though you might think I am right for the wrong reasons.

You seem to have this idea in your head that "subjective" automatically means "false".  They aren't synonymous.

My understanding is that subjective means there is no right or wrong answer. 

For example, I can say "the color pink is pretty"... that's subjective because it's an opinion. Other people can say pink is ugly, and they are not making an incorrect statement, assuming they actually think pink is ugly.  

Or I can say "the earth is round"... that's objective because it is a fact. Other people can say the earth is flat, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "the earth is flat, the earth is flat, the earth is flat", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

....Objective morality, looks like the latter:   

I can say "rape is evil"... that's objective because it is fact. Other people can say rape is good, and they are making an incorrect statement by doing so. They can say all day long "rape is good, rape is good, rape is good", it doesn't matter what they think/say, they are still wrong.

(Edited for a dumb mistake.)

(March 13, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 12, 2016 at 10:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well we believe they come from God. We believe God established what is good and what is evil. To act in a way that is good is moral, to act in a way that is evil is immoral. 

So your objective moral values, which don't depend on anyone's opinion to exist... in the end, depend on god's opinion to exist?

This is the Euthyphro Dilemma, and thus far no satisfactory answer has ever been given, but I can tweak it a little to better fit our discussion: if god decides what is and is not moral then it's just god's opinion, and no more objective than an actually subjective system of morality. If god doesn't decide what's moral, but merely relays to us a standard of morality that is beyond his ability to change, then that moral system has to come from somewhere and would be detectable sans god entirely... and until such time as we can detect it, we cannot rationally call it objective at all.

Either way, without a clear idea of how god derives his stated morality, not just what that morality is, there's no reason to call it objective.

Quote:How do I know? Same way I "know" God exists, if you will. It's what I believe and it makes sense to me.

That's just your opinion, though. I mean, that literally is just your opinion, only you've tarted it up- unjustifiably- in stronger language. You can say you "know" it all you like, but knowledge is demonstrated, it's based on repeatable, real world observations, and without any of those you're really doing nothing more than attempting to disguise a subjective moral view as an objective one using borrowed authority from a being we can't even establish to exist.

When I ask you how you know something, telling me that you think you know it doesn't answer the question. It just repeats the thing I needed clarification on in the first place.

Isn't this all stuff I have already addressed though??

(March 13, 2016 at 3:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 13, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You are correct. As the video explains, you can't "demonstrate" morality, just as you can't demonstrate God. They both are in the realm of the supernatural, and there is no proof for either of them. But that is what we believe.

WHY?

I have already addressed this multiple times. See my last post to you.