@kellyjay saidYour Bible verse is a meaningless interruption in a conversation between you and me. You have been describing the subjectivity that results in a moral compass. You are right. That's how it works. I agree with you.
What happen to just being subjective? You don't like people disagreeing with you
that you have to go here? Am I to only hold on to what you think is right, if not
I may as well call you a dog? If I use the Bible it is because I believe in it, that is no
different than using a calculator to do some math. You disagree that you are
always learning and never coming to the truth? If you do than something about
your views on being subjective are off.
Choose any standard you want. Absorb it from your human environment. This is what "nurture" is. Use it to guide you. That's how it works. Christian ideas are STILL points of reference for my moral compass, for example.
But it's a subjective process and it results in decisions and actions that are rooted in that subjectivity ~ whether you are a theist or an atheist. That's what you were describing. And you were right. We agree.
Quoting a Bible verse suggesting that I will never be able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth blah blah blah - to me - an atheist - is just evasive/cop-out waffle - it is not an argument - it is disengaging from the conversation.
Save it for fellow Christians. You might as well be calling me a "dog" or a "fool" or a "pig" or my ideas "faeces" by pointing to the word in the Bible. It's a waste of your time. Don't sell yourself short.
@fmf saidYou are over reacting.
Your Bible verse is a meaningless interruption in a conversation between you and me. You have been describing the subjectivity that results in a moral compass. You are right. That's how it works. I agree with you.
Choose any standard you want. Absorb it from your human environment. This is what "nurture" is. Use it to guide you. That's how it works. Christian ideas are STILL ...[text shortened]... "faeces" by pointing to the word in the Bible. It's a waste of your time. Don't sell yourself short.
I choose a standard I wanted and you act as if I was calling you a dog.
It is a truth I believe in, and you don't.
It isn't disengaging from a conversation it is qualifying my stance by using the
one thing I go to for universal truth. You think that should be avoided by everyone?
If I wanted to call you a dog or a fool I wouldn't do it in a back handed way, you
would know it by the words I use. Your thin skin is a result of your thinking not
my words.
@kellyjay saidI enjoy people disagreeing with me. But little Biblical cop-out gimmicks are dreary.
What happen to just being subjective? You don't like people disagreeing with you
that you have to go here?
I am beginning to wonder if you regret some unguarded comments relating to the subjectivity of morals you made earlier and, rather than correct yourself, you thought you'd toss in a bit of Biblical bromide and hide behind that rather than explain what it was you really meant and/or acknowledge that we are in agreement.
@kellyjay saidNo. You have got the wrong end of the stick. I am saying that your little conversation-bail-out saying from the Bible is meaningless to me in the same way as a little conversation-bail-out saying from the Bible suggesting I am a "dog" is meaningless to me. Whether you think I am like a "dog" or not is meaningless to me. If you cite some words from the Bible and one of them is the word "true" and your point is that the word "true" applies to what you believe and does not apply to what I believe, it is meaningless to me.
I choose a standard I wanted and you act as if I was calling you a dog.
@kellyjay saidFinding a "truth" to believe in is a subjective process. It results in a subjective guide that governs our decsions and actions. Whether it be you, or whether it be me. My belief in my own moral code does not make mine objective. Your belief in your own moral code does not make it objective.
It is a truth I believe in, and you don't.
@kellyjay saidCiting a Bible phrase with the word "truth" in it in order to 'argue' that what you believe is the "truth" is meaningless to an atheist so - yes - it is tantamount to disengaging from the conversation. It is like me suddenly quoting something like "No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar and suggesting that the saying makes you out to be a poor liar because of your poor memory of what you have said in the past. It would be meaningless to you. Don't you see?
It isn't disengaging from a conversation it is qualifying my stance by using the
one thing I go to for universal truth.
@kellyjay saidUsing your forehand or your backhand, either way, it would be meaningless to me. You have seized the wrong end of the stick: citing a Bible verse with the word "truth" in it is no more or less meaningful to me than citing a Bible verse with the word "dog" in it. That was my point.
If I wanted to call you a dog or a fool I wouldn't do it in a back handed way, you
would know it by the words I use.
@kellyjay saidMorality is subjective. You placing the teaching of Jesus Christ at the centre of your moral reasoning ~ something I do to to a degree ~ is a subjective process and its products - behaviours based on that reasoning - are all subjective too.
Not running away. I think we actually agree a lot on many things, but they hardly
ever become something we talk about over and over.
@fmf saidMorality that is purely subjective is nothing but personal tastes in play. If you think
Morality is subjective. You placing the teaching of Jesus Christ at the centre of your moral reasoning ~ something I do to to a degree ~ is a subjective process and its products - behaviours based on that reasoning - are all subjective too.
for example you have the right to do X, you do it. Others may think X is evil and
therefore count all who do it evil through their actions. When those who have very
strong personal views mix with one another, can there really be a solution, a real
answer beyond arguments, fighting, and killing to stop the evil among us?
This makes the larger question is there a solution to differences of opinion besides
taking out those that disagree with one another? If all we are hanging our hats
on something that is purely subjective, nothing about that can be used to prove
a point, proven points require a standard everyone agrees with so we can see the
right and wrong of any point, a common standard that is not subjective.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Nov 18
@kellyjay saidWaiting for FMF to claim that evil is also subjective and is just a figment of our imagination.
Morality that is purely subjective is nothing but personal tastes in play. If you think
for example you have the right to do X, you do it. Others may think X is evil and
therefore count all who do it evil through their actions. When those who have very
strong personal views mix with one another, can there really be a solution, a real
answer beyond arguments, fighting, an ...[text shortened]... rees with so we can see the
right and wrong of any point, a common standard that is not subjective.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
10 Nov 18
@fmf saidIf you believe there is no single standard by which truth can be measured what is your objection to Kelly using the standard of truth that he sees fit to use?
Finding a "truth" to believe in is a subjective process. It results in a subjective guide that governs our decsions and actions. Whether it be you, or whether it be me. My belief in my own moral code does not make mine objective. Your belief in your own moral code does not make it objective.
@dj2becker saidThis is the claim for those that are suggesting all right and wrong are figments
Waiting for FMF to claim that evil is also subjective and is just a figment of our imagination.
of our imaginations, mere subjective stances. If there are no standards except
what we claim then when the claims clash there isn't any real resolution outside of
a blood bath if it cannot be resolved peacefully.
What kills me are those today who are attacking others because they say that
those they are attacking are ruining free speech. They don't see that they are
doing the very thing that they are attacking others over! Another group is
attacking another race, because for crimes in the past, their race were abused at
the hands of racists who thought their race was less than. Its going to be their
ancestors rising up on judgment day, accusing them of doing the same evil,
because if they knew it was wrong when it was done to them, it is still wrong, so
why are they doing it to others? When judgment day comes we all will have no
excuses for what we do, we so need Jesus!
We will be held accountable for our words and deeds.