Is torture acceptable? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
You know what fascinate me about this? When you ask them are they sure, they say that they believe, so that means they arent sure. But when someone suggests other options or challenges that uncertainty of theirs they go berserk.
I mean whats that about, i love being challenged and being proven wrong, since this is the only way to learn. So does this says that they dont want to believe anything but their own truth, or they just dont want to learn, that they are happy with their current state and dont want it to move?
I mean whats that about, i love being challenged and being proven wrong, since this is the only way to learn. So does this says that they dont want to believe anything but their own truth, or they just dont want to learn, that they are happy with their current state and dont want it to move?
People get attached to things, to ideas. It makes them feel comfortable to think they know something. To use JuveRev's example I used to be attached to this absolute morality idea and I was basically looking for justification as to why and how we can support the idea. As I told JuveRev, eventually I decided that there just isn't evidence for that, and I had to reluctantly give it up. But for me it had nothing to do with god, which is I why I think it's a lot harder for him to give it up.
If JuveRev was purely motivated by the search for truth then in the last few days alone there have been enough arguments given to change his mind. But he hasn't budged one centimeter. And if you look at his arguments, they are not evidence for his claim, they are "warnings" about "look what would happen if it wasn't true". So it's obvious he has this idea in his mind and he's trying very hard to find support for it.
So this is part of our psychology. And while I agree that it retards us, preventing us from learning, it's also in some sense a way to keep our sanity. Because just imagine what would happen if everyday you found new evidence that would change your mind. You would be confused about who you are and what you believe, it would be quite unpleasant.
If JuveRev was purely motivated by the search for truth then in the last few days alone there have been enough arguments given to change his mind. But he hasn't budged one centimeter. And if you look at his arguments, they are not evidence for his claim, they are "warnings" about "look what would happen if it wasn't true". So it's obvious he has this idea in his mind and he's trying very hard to find support for it.
So this is part of our psychology. And while I agree that it retards us, preventing us from learning, it's also in some sense a way to keep our sanity. Because just imagine what would happen if everyday you found new evidence that would change your mind. You would be confused about who you are and what you believe, it would be quite unpleasant.
Ok, but there arent that many evidence that would let you change your whole belief system everyday. One can change his mind about some things that are not revolutionary to his belief system according to evidence every day and he still would be sane. While in this case it doesnt serve as preventing our sanity, it just prevents us from learning.
If you are talking about unability to choose between two or more and floating from one to other everyday. Than yes i think it will make you insane.
If you are talking about unability to choose between two or more and floating from one to other everyday. Than yes i think it will make you insane.
No, but it can erode it piece by piece. So that of all the things you believed in some coherent system half have been proven wrong and the other half are just plain confusing as to what they mean anymore.
The thing is that we have this need to unify our ideas, so a fact that doesn't fit with the grand philosophy is likely to be ignored. So let's say that you're a Christian and all through your life you've been going to church and heard certain claims. Now you realize that (for example) evolution completely contradicts the creation account from the bible, so from now on your conviction is "Bible - creation story + evolution". But that inevitably casts doubt over the whole higher power idea as a whole, because if the bible is the word of god and part of it is plain wrong..
Well you can see where that is going.
The thing is that we have this need to unify our ideas, so a fact that doesn't fit with the grand philosophy is likely to be ignored. So let's say that you're a Christian and all through your life you've been going to church and heard certain claims. Now you realize that (for example) evolution completely contradicts the creation account from the bible, so from now on your conviction is "Bible - creation story + evolution". But that inevitably casts doubt over the whole higher power idea as a whole, because if the bible is the word of god and part of it is plain wrong..
Well you can see where that is going.
Totally agree on the bold part. And i think you are right on the first paragraph too.
Yep i can see, and i agree with that too, because it leaves us, the people to decide which parts of the book is still good and which have become obsolete, this doesnt show a perfect work of of a perfect supreme being does it?
Yep i can see, and i agree with that too, because it leaves us, the people to decide which parts of the book is still good and which have become obsolete, this doesnt show a perfect work of of a perfect supreme being does it?
I am positively sure that at the moment neither one of us knows for certain which type of morality exists in our world today(objective or subjective). Perhaps you clinging on to certain beliefs that will help you make sense of the world is just a natural part of our psychology. I know I have a lot to learn before I can conclusively be certain of the opinions I presented on this forum and back them up with undeniable evidence. I do know that there are a few theists in the world who have been at it a much longer time than I have and can certainly be of much more insight.
But here's what I truly think. I believe we can look at morality any way we like, we can speculate it is subjective as it would make sense in today's modern world, but something tells me that deep down inside we all know, whether we like it or not, that there is an absolute truth, that somethings are just truly 'wrong'.
I simply cannot imagine a world where this is not the case. Simply because if every single legal system in the world permitted child rape, I would always know in my heart that it is 'wrong' independant of culture or time. This may be just my naivety speaking here, but that's just how I view things for now.
And to be quite honest, neither you or Seven have done a very convincing job of presenting a case for subjective morality. You musn't blame me if I hadn't changed my views because I really haven't been given any argument that will prove me wrong.
I asked you this question yesterday, and I think I have to rephrase it a little for it to make sense. This is what really perplexes me, how can subjective morality be right when indeed it states that nothing is actually 'right?
I would reach the same conclusions if I were you, however, there are a few vital facts you seem to be overlooking here. Prior to discoveries of evolution that have opposed creationism, there were outspoken Christian leaders whom, despite being completely uninformed of the evolution theory, were passionately opposed to taking Genesis literally.
These people understood even before profound scientific discoveries were made taht opposed classical Christian views, that the Bible as I have mentioned before was never meant to be viewed as a speculative book but rather a practical book.
But here's what I truly think. I believe we can look at morality any way we like, we can speculate it is subjective as it would make sense in today's modern world, but something tells me that deep down inside we all know, whether we like it or not, that there is an absolute truth, that somethings are just truly 'wrong'.
I simply cannot imagine a world where this is not the case. Simply because if every single legal system in the world permitted child rape, I would always know in my heart that it is 'wrong' independant of culture or time. This may be just my naivety speaking here, but that's just how I view things for now.
And to be quite honest, neither you or Seven have done a very convincing job of presenting a case for subjective morality. You musn't blame me if I hadn't changed my views because I really haven't been given any argument that will prove me wrong.
I asked you this question yesterday, and I think I have to rephrase it a little for it to make sense. This is what really perplexes me, how can subjective morality be right when indeed it states that nothing is actually 'right?
I would reach the same conclusions if I were you, however, there are a few vital facts you seem to be overlooking here. Prior to discoveries of evolution that have opposed creationism, there were outspoken Christian leaders whom, despite being completely uninformed of the evolution theory, were passionately opposed to taking Genesis literally.
These people understood even before profound scientific discoveries were made taht opposed classical Christian views, that the Bible as I have mentioned before was never meant to be viewed as a speculative book but rather a practical book.
I think we all know deep down that there things that are really 'wrong'.
Read the Bible and it will be apparent when an actual story is being told as part of a historical event that is meant to be taken literally and when a story is being told in order to portray a certain message.
It's the wording of the sentences, detail.. I can't explain it precisely but you will understand what I mean when you read the actual texts.
Read the Bible and it will be apparent when an actual story is being told as part of a historical event that is meant to be taken literally and when a story is being told in order to portray a certain message.
It's the wording of the sentences, detail.. I can't explain it precisely but you will understand what I mean when you read the actual texts.
So you know what I and all the others here feel? Interesting.
As for bible i dont understand. I might understand if it were normal events, like nothing magic, but why do i have to deny one magic event and accept the other, on what criteria do i have to base this?
I think that if in a book there is one lie about miracle, than there is a chance that there will be another too.
As for bible i dont understand. I might understand if it were normal events, like nothing magic, but why do i have to deny one magic event and accept the other, on what criteria do i have to base this?
I think that if in a book there is one lie about miracle, than there is a chance that there will be another too.
It's called human intuition.
You aren't getting it, buddy. Look, I'll put it this way.
Genesis, the story of Adam and eve carries a symbolic meaning, a life lesson if you will. Now, as we have discussed before, it is debatable what this life lesson really is. Some see it as man's sin for knowledge, others, including myself see it as man's sin for temptation, greed etc..
Now, if you look at the stories portraying Jesus' miracles, you will realize that they do not carry any symbolic meaning but are rather conveyed as actual events in history. It is much more apparent when you actually read the texts as I have said.
You aren't getting it, buddy. Look, I'll put it this way.
Genesis, the story of Adam and eve carries a symbolic meaning, a life lesson if you will. Now, as we have discussed before, it is debatable what this life lesson really is. Some see it as man's sin for knowledge, others, including myself see it as man's sin for temptation, greed etc..
Now, if you look at the stories portraying Jesus' miracles, you will realize that they do not carry any symbolic meaning but are rather conveyed as actual events in history. It is much more apparent when you actually read the texts as I have said.
I am not saying you didn't. Clearly, you tried your best but your arguments do stand very strongly in my opinion.
And on the contrary, it seems you have ignored my arguments. I have asked the same question but I never got a response, "How can subjective morality indeed be true when the very definition of it insinuates that nothing is absolutely true?"
And on the contrary, it seems you have ignored my arguments. I have asked the same question but I never got a response, "How can subjective morality indeed be true when the very definition of it insinuates that nothing is absolutely true?"
