Do you Belive in a God or Not?

[Logic]

Subjective my ass! do you think that the kids getting killed in russia of the recent incident was okay because they thought there were justified.

Subjective, get real man tell that to the man who raps and murders your family.

If there is no basic obejective view of right and wrong then why do most cultures institute one.

He's actually correct. Morality is entirely subjective. Cultures enforce (and educate their youth with) laws and morality in order to create order. The fact that they are enforced and accepted doesn't make them any less based on opinion. If someone truly and honestly believes that killing people is the right thing to do, then to them it is. Of course, to most people, whose moral views differ, it will be wrong, but that doesn't make it any less subjective.

I don't think the killing you're referring to (or others like it) was right or justified, but that's only my opinion, which is merely the result of both the influence parents\teachers\society had on my upbringing, and my own decisions about what to believe.

 

[Sprafa]

There is no logic.

 

[Yakuza]

Er its just like pvtryan said: by choosing a different religion you willfully reject the Christian truth.



This thread needs more cowbell...

Only if you knew who Jesus was when choosing a different religion.

 

[Logic]

There is no logic.

That's a big can-o-worms, I don't know if we should open it here ... I'd probably thoroughly enjoy the discussion though...

 

[Yakuza]

He's actually correct. Morality is entirely subjective. Cultures enforce (and educate their youth with) laws and morality in order to create order. The fact that they are enforced and accepted doesn't make them any less based on opinion. If someone truly and honestly believes that killing people is the right thing to do, then to them it is. Of course, to most people, whose moral views differ, it will be wrong, but that doesn't make it any less subjective.

I don't think the killing you're referring to (or others like it) was right or justified, but that's only my opinion, which is merely the result of both the influence parents\teachers\society had on my upbringing, and my own decisions about what to believe.

I am talking about murders, I believe there is a time when killing can be justified. I am talking about the sickness.....

So from what your saying, If I believe that kid porn is okay then that makes it right.

Let me add a question. Do you think Kid Porn is wrong? Yes? Why do you think that. Did some one actualy have to tell you that kid porn was wrong?

 

[Sprafa]

That's a big can-o-worms, I don't know if we should open it here ... I'd probably thoroughly enjoy the discussion though...

I meant you shouldn't exist

 

[Logic]

So from what your saying, If I believe that kid porn is okay then that makes it right.

To you, yes. It does NOT, however, make it universally right. There is no universal "right", only a commonly accepted one. And of course, if you believed kid porn is right, a huge number of people will disagree with you. To them, it will still be wrong.

 

[Sprafa]

Everything is relative Yakuza, that's Logic's point.

 

[Logic]

I meant you shouldn't exist

Oh! In that case... er, well I guess I'll try to.... exist... a bit less.... yeah.

Edit:

Everything is relative Yakuza, that's Logic's point.

Not everything (another can-o-worms ), but the extroadinarily vast majority of things, yes.

 

[Yakuza]

To you, yes. It does NOT, however, make it universally right. There is no universal "right", only a commonly accepted one. And of course, if you believed kid porn is right, a huge number of people will disagree with you. To them, it will still be wrong.

I think in your heart you dont really believe that. That there are no universl "Wrongs." Even universal "Rights."

EDIT:

If you hold a subjective view of right and wrong yet cling to an objective response doesn't that contrdict you view of subjectivity. If rape is moraly subjective yet you thinks its wrong, clinging to an objective respons, doesn't that conflict with your idea that rape is moraly subjective.

It seems that if you claim right and wrong are subjective that any response emotionaly or physicaly would have to be subjective for that statemnt to be true right?

 

[Letters]

Oooh, Relativism vs. Subjectivism, eh?

Well, you're both wrong! There are objective moral truths! Take the Social Contract theory for instance... in order for society to even exist, things like lying must be considered wrong in order for there to be any trust, and, thus, cooperation. Same goes for murder... people have to be able to assume that others will keep their promises, etc....

 

[Logic]

I think in your heart you dont really believe that. That there are no universl "Wrongs." Even universal "Rights."

Actually, I truly and honestly do. With all my.... mind (hearts don't think, they just pump blood ).

And you're right, Letters, certain moral positions are neccissary for certain things to work, but the need for those things to work is also subjective. Even the need for society to exist is subjective.

 

[Yakuza]

Actually, I truly and honestly do. With all my.... mind (hearts don't think, they just pump blood ).

And you're right, Letters, certain moral positions are neccissary for certain things to work, but the need for those things to work is also subjective. Even the need for society to exist is subjective.

But isn't choosing subjectivity an objective stance.

 

[Logic]

If you hold a subjective view of right and wrong yet cling to an objective response doesn't that contrdict you view of subjectivity. If rape is moraly subjective yet you thinks its wrong, clinging to an objective respons, doesn't that conflict with your idea that rape is moraly subjective.

When I say that I think it's wrong, it's more that I'm deciding to present that moral position to others. I personally don't want to be raped, or for others to be, which is why I say that, but in reality that is merely a desire, and an aspect of my subjective views.

It seems that if you claim right and wrong are subjective that any response emotionaly or physicaly would have to be subjective for that statemnt to be true right?

Emotional and physical responses, while they may be hardwired, are basically subjective, yes. The reason for that is that an emotional or physical response is not universal (just as a subjective viewpoint isn't). Different people may have different hard-wired responses. Emotional responses are also heavily influenced by the individual's views.

 

[Logic]

But isn't choosing subjectivity an objective stance.

Interesting point :cheese: , but I believe that it is logical. I'm not choosing subjectivity because I arbitrarily want to, but rather because as far as my reasoning has taken me, that seems the most logical point of view. Of course, you could take it a step further and debate the subjectivity\objectivity of what makes something logical, and that's where the can of worms starts to open

Edit: er wait, I seem to have misread your post to mean "isn't choosing subjectivity a subjective stance". Never mind.. Could you explain further what you're getting at with that post? I'll respond properly to that

 

[Yakuza]

Let me ask this. Do you believe in logical absalutes?

 

[Logic]

*slaps forehead* right, sorry, it didn't click

You're basically saying that my view that everything is subjective, if true, must also be subjective by it's own definition. Kind of like a self-defeating argument. Right?

It's a good point, but again I'll introduce logic as the extra element here. I think logic is objective. (<--edited that sentence, it was hogwash before)

I'll try to be brief:

Logic is the only source of truth. (and yes, I'm talking about the concept, not myself ) Why do I say that? Well, consider anything you can 100% state is true. To pick a hypothetical example, how about "if I drop a rock, it will fall down". According to the laws of physics (and the existance of gravity), it is logical that it will fall down, and that is how we reason it to be true. The same goes for anything and everything that can be considered "true". Logic is the one and only source of truth. I could go into more detailed examples and reasons, but I'm sure you get the idea.

That's why I don't say that EVERYTHING is subjective. Logic itself is objective. It, after all, is the source of objectivity. So yes, I am taking an objective viewpoint by calling all these things subjective, but I'm not saying that everything is subjective, since that statement would, of course, eliminate it's own truth.

Edit: Good timing, thanks! You saved me from a triple post! ... so in direct answer to your question, that would be a yes.

 

[PvtRyan]

Subjective my ass! do you think that the kids getting killed in russia of the recent incident was okay because they thought there were justified.

Subjective, get real man tell that to the man who raps and murders your family.

If there is no basic obejective view of right and wrong then why do most cultures institute one.

Kudos to you for totally missing my point.

Who the f*ck said I think Hitler, the Beslan terrorists and rapists were right?

Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, there is no absolute right or wrong.

 

[Yakuza]

Kudos to you for totally missing my point.

Who the f*ck said I think Hitler, the Beslan terrorists and rapists were right?

Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, there is no absolute right or wrong.

And as I said with Logic. I thing deep down you dont really buy that. IMHO

 

[Yakuza]

*slaps forehead* right, sorry, it didn't click

You're basically saying that my view that everything is subjective, if true, must also be subjective by it's own definition. Kind of like a self-defeating argument. Right?

It's a good point, but again I'll introduce logic as the extra element here. I think logic is objective. (<--edited that sentence, it was hogwash before)

I'll try to be brief:

Logic is the only source of truth. (and yes, I'm talking about the concept, not myself ) Why do I say that? Well, consider anything you can 100% state is true. To pick a hypothetical example, how about "if I drop a rock, it will fall down". According to the laws of physics (and the existance of gravity), it is logical that it will fall down, and that is how we reason it to be true. The same goes for anything and everything that can be considered "true". Logic is the one and only source of truth. I could go into more detailed examples and reasons, but I'm sure you get the idea.

That's why I don't say that EVERYTHING is subjective. Logic itself is objective. It, after all, is the source of objectivity. So yes, I am taking an objective viewpoint by calling all these things subjective, but I'm not saying that everything is subjective, since that statement would, of course, eliminate it's own truth.

Edit: Good timing, thanks! You saved me from a triple post! ... so in direct answer to your question, that would be a yes.

So would you agree that logical absolutes are by nature conceptual absolutes, for wich they exist in the mind. These absolutes can not be quantified or tested in a lab, yet they exist.

 

[Logic]

And as I said with Logic. I thing deep down you dont really buy that. IMHO

Morality is a concept that has been invented by human beings - it exists solely in the minds of individuals. It simply is not universal, and I say that with absolute certainty. It's not a matter of whether you, I or he believes that.. logic dictates it.

So would you agree that logical absolutes are by nature conceptual absolutes, for wich they exist in the mind. These absolutes can not be quantified or tested in a lab, yet they exist.

Can I ask you to define "logical absolutes"? I've done a lot of thinking, but not a lot of reading, on the subject of logic and truth, so I want to make sure I don't misinterpret anything.

If I'm interpreting correctly, you're basically asking if I agree that logic itself is conceptual, and can't be quantified in a lab.

Logic can be endlessly demonstrated but never proven, since possibilities exist such as that the "laws" of physics have only been observed and replicated by chance all these years (how's that for unlikely! but it's still a philosophical possibility that must be considered), and that the next time you drop a ball, it may cause the world to turn into a small pink and purple peanut, rather than fall down. With those sorts of "possibilities", logic may not exist at all, in which case truth goes right out the window. So in order to understand the world, communicate, and think rationally, we must operate under the assumption that those possibilities are not the case, and that logic does exist. If you deny logic's absoluteness, you basically have no backup for any statement you make, or thought you consider, ever, and nothing can be considered true. At which point you will go stark raving mad.

So basically, while I do accept those unlikely philosophical possibilities, I, for the purposes of discussion, and living a sane life, choose to operate under the assumption that logic does exist.

 

[Letters]

Morality is a concept that has been invented by human beings - it exists solely in the minds of individuals. It simply is not universal, and I say that with absolute certainty. It's not a matter of whether you, I or he believes that.. logic dictates it.

A man kills another man because he took his pencil. They had had no previous contact of any kind and the killer did not have any mental disabilities. Does logic and reason in this situation still allow for one to think that this action is right without being immoral?

 

[Logic]

A man kills another man because he took his pencil. They had had no previous contact of any kind and the killer did not have any mental disabilities. Does logic and reason in this situation still allow for one to think that this action is right without being immoral?

Yes. If your upbringing and beliefs are such that you do genuinely think that the action is right, you are not being immoral for thinking so.

 

[Letters]

I can't see how that is logical, though... or any valid reasons for it being considered right. Just because one THINKS something is right, does not make it so. People aren't infallible.

 

[24Gamer]

lol, don't get me started but put simply, god doesn't exist. :cheers:

 

[Logic]

I can't see how that is logical, though... or any valid reasons for it being considered right. Just because one THINKS something is right, does not make it so. People aren't infallible.

People aren't infallible, that's true. Someone is not correct simply because he\she thinks he\she is (that is a matter of truth, which is dictated by logic), but in a matter of morality, it is subjective. What is morally acceptable to you is determined by your moral beliefs, therefore it is your own mind that determines whether or not something is morally acceptable to you.

Basically, it is absolutely correct that something is not universally moral simply because someone thinks so, but that's because no moral belief is universal to everyone. Something is morally acceptable to you simply if you believe it is.

 

[Yakuza]

lol, don't get me started but put simply, god doesn't exist. :cheers:

What are your reasons behind this statement?

 

[oldagerocker]

I'm n the middle, although i dont believe in religion... i just dont know whats out there... there could be a god, who knows...

 

[Yakuza]

but that's because no moral belief is universal to everyone.

And yet Religion seems to be a universal theme through out every known civilization.

 

[Yakuza]

there could be a god, who knows...

I do!.........

 

[Phisionary]

Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, there is no absolute right or wrong.

I agree with that completely.

Interesting discussion, guys. Keep it up.

 

[Yakuza]

there is no absolute right or wrong.

For some one who doesn't believe in absolutes, thats a rather absolute response.

 

[Phisionary]

moral judgements are the things that aren't absolute, absolutes are still absolute.

 

[Logic]

And yet Religion seems to be a universal theme through out every known civilization.

That doesn't suggest anything that would make morality universal. In fact, it would tend to demonstrate the opposite. Some people believe (and have believed, in the past) that killing people in the name of their religion is morally the 'right' thing to do. I'm sure the men who flew the planes into the two towers believed that. Of course you don't agree with them, but I challenge you to present logical proof that your argument is any more correct than theirs. I predict that your points will come entirely from your own subjective viewpoints, thus demonstrating the subjectivity of morality.

 

[24Gamer]

What are your reasons behind this statement?

lol, i said dont get me started, ive tried many a times to explain my reasonings but it just seems to go to waste on the religous folk.

 

[Yakuza]

That doesn't suggest anything that would make morality universal. In fact, it would tend to demonstrate the opposite. Some people believe (and have believed, in the past) that killing people in the name of their religion is morally the 'right' thing to do. I'm sure the men who flew the planes into the two towers believed that. Of course you don't agree with them, but I challenge you to present logical proof that your argument is any more correct than theirs. I predict that your points will come entirely from your own subjective viewpoints, thus demonstrating the subjectivity of morality.

No but it does suggest the possibility of a creator who designed us to worship him.

I cant give you 100% proof, because then all would be forced to believe.

However I still lean on evidence to make logical descisions.

Jesus said no one gets to the father except through him, I believe him and have faith in him. There is no logical reason for me not to believe him.

 

[Yakuza]

lol, i said dont get me started, ive tried many a times to explain my reasonings but it just seems to go to waste on the religous folk.

It just seems that with all of the logic talk going around here, that you would have said somthing a little less illogical.

You said there is no God. Based on what? Can you give me 100% proof that god doesn't exist.

 

[PvtRyan]

You said there is no God. Based on what? Can you give me 100% proof that god doesn't exist.

Can you give me 100% proof that there is no magic elephant inside the sun?

Improving something doesn't exist = impossible.

 

[24Gamer]

It just seems that with all of the logic talk going around here, that you would have said somthing a little less illogical.

You said there is no God. Based on what? Can you give me 100% proof that god doesn't exist.

lol, no if i had 100% proof there wouldn't be any religons, thats the reason why they are still here, cuz no-one can totally disprove that god does exists.
it is scientific proof that part of the human mind is responsible for the belief in religon/supernatural.
basically when we die, blood stops pumping around our body and the electronic signals in our brain stop, thats it, thats all there is to life and death. people who cant exept that believe in life after death. i have trouble sometimes excepting that all i am is a complicated mix of chemical, but i know that i have to come to terms with reality. there is a logical reason for everything that has and will happen. just because we dont know about something (big bang maybe) doesnt mean there isn't a logical explaination for it.
damn this i knew i shouldn't of made an argument, i just know its not gonna get me anywhere with you religous people. just makes me laugh a little that you think when you die ur gonna go to heaven or some shit, AHAHAHAHAA, come athiests, laugh with me . :cheers:

 

[Logic]

No but it does suggest the possibility of a creator who designed us to worship him.

Could it not suggests, at least as plausably, that human beings feel a need to explain what they don't understand and therefore create an explanation? The existance of Religion is not good evidence for the existance of such a creator, just as the existance, in the past, of the belief that the world is flat is not good evidence to support that theory.

Jesus said no one gets to the father except through him, I believe him and have faith in him. There is no logical reason for me not to believe him.

Just as, at the time when the world was believed to be flat, there was no logical reason for the people not to believe that?

I'm not attacking you or your beliefs, and respect your right to have them.. but you haven't yet suggested a good reason for believing what you do. May I be nosey enough to ask what kind of upbringing you've had? (religious?) I understand if you'd rather not get personal.