20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerAn absolute standard with which to determine absolute truth is not a necessity for absolute truth. In fact the ability to determine absolute truth is not a necessity for absolute truth. Within the realm of logic however I think we can often determine the truth of things by means of logic and not an absolute standard.
If you believe in absolute truth, then an absolute standard is necessary by which you can differentiate between between absolute truth and absolute falsehood.
Before I deel with all the incoherent dribble that you have posted, would you mind telling me what your absolute standard is by which you differentiate between absolute truth and absolute falsehood?
Just for starters...
I believe that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth that we can determine.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe existence of "Absolute Truth" implies that 'truth' is based upon an 'absolute'.
An absolute standard with which to determine absolute truth is not a necessity for absolute truth. In fact the ability to determine absolute truth is not a necessity for absolute truth. Within the realm of logic however I think we can often determine the truth of things by means of logic and not an absolute standard.
I believe that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth that we can determine.
Without an 'absolute' upon which 'truth' is based, 'absolute truth' as you put it is meaningless.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo why would you expect anyone to live according to the standards that the masses choose to set up?
[b]That does not mean that I do not believe in conditional rightness, or democracy, rightness as defined by the masses.
So why would you expect anyone to live according to the standards that the masses choose to set up?
What will happen when society begins to disintegrate into self-centered individualism, and the population becomes vulnerable to ...[text shortened]... is the ultimate result when society thinks it can legislate morality to fit its own whims.[/b]
One, because the rules which are set up are roughly in accord with the behaviours that have evolved over millions of years.
Two, there's this thing called prison.....
What will happen when society begins to disintegrate into self-centered individualism, and the population becomes vulnerable to the tyranny of what philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche called "the will to power"?
What makes you think this will happen?
It is the 'might makes right' concept. Right will be solely what those who wield the power want it to be.
The strong victimizing the weak and the majority oppressing the minority is the ultimate result when society thinks it can legislate morality to fit its own whims.
Then just pray that the American Republican party doesn't get elected again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzFirstly, if morality is simply what the majority of society legislates and nothing more, why should the minority follow it? I find not rational basis for the minority to accept this 'social contract' - to give up its wants and bend to the will of the majority. What does the consensus of numbers have to do with my desires? As a member of the minority, I may follow the will of the majority as long as I find it convenient. I may follow it generally because I realize the value of it. I may sacrifice my personal wants to preserve social stability because I have the good sense to see that I benefit in the long run. But I will follow law only to the extent that it does benefit me or up to the limits that the government can enforce. People who believe law to be without absolute moral value will not take obedience seriously. They will obey it only when it helps them to accomplish their own ends or when the risk of getting caught is too great.
[b]So why would you expect anyone to live according to the standards that the masses choose to set up?
One, because the rules which are set up are roughly in accord with the behaviours that have evolved over millions of years.
Two, there's this thing called prison.....
What will happen when society begins to disintegrate into self-cente whims.
Then just pray that the American Republican party doesn't get elected again.[/b]
If there is no God, this indifferent approach to law is perfectly reasonable - but utterly fatal. The refusal to recognize God as the absolute authority behind right and wrong will eventually cause society to destroy itself. We can see the beginning of such disintegration in the United States as the recognition of God is increasingly pushed out of public life. The Founding Fathers understood that the law by which nations should be governed was more than a mere social contract. The Declaration of Independence explicitly recognized God as the absolute behind the law when it proposed separation from England in order to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature;s God entitle them."
But now that God as being pushed out as the absolute behind law, we see the authority of the nation's constitution disintegrating. The courts seem determined to accede to individuals bent on destroying any overarching law that stands between them and satisfaction of their own cravings. With no allegiance to God, people will increasingly chip away at the restriction of law to gain more freedom to follow their own wants and urges. The ability of law to restrain these urges will wear down, and individuals will come to have little or no allegiance to society as a whole. All their attention will be focused on themselves - their own rights, wants, and pleasures. Without the pressure of a true and absolute morality, people will lose all motivation to sacrifice personal satisfaction for duty to others.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe first two paragraphs are rubbish, the last one just plain out wrong.
Firstly, if morality is simply what the majority of society legislates and nothing more, why should the minority follow it? I find not rational basis for the minority to accept this 'social contract' - to give up its wants and bend to the will of the majority. What does the consensus of numbers have to do with my desires? As a member of the minority, I may ...[text shortened]... the absolute behind law, we see the authority of the nation's constitution disintegrating.
Go read a good book on evolution.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzWith all due respect, you sound like a whining two year old. You only make yourself look silly if you take that approach.
The first two paragraphs are rubbish, the last one just plain out wrong.
Go read a good book on evolution.
By the way,
I only dealt with the first fatal flaw of your social contract theory. I shall continue with the second fatal one a little later on when I get the time.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2becker
Firstly, if morality is simply what the majority of society legislates and nothing more, why should the minority follow it? I find not rational basis for the minority to accept this 'social contract' - to give up its wants and bend to the will of the majority. What does the consensus of numbers have to do with my desires? As a member of the minority, I may follow the will of the majority as long as I find it convenient. I may follow it generally because I realize the value of it. I may sacrifice my personal wants to preserve social stability because I have the good sense to see that I benefit in the long run. But I will follow law only to the extent that it does benefit me or up to the limits that the government can enforce. People who believe law to be without absolute moral value will not take obedience seriously. They will obey it only when it helps them to accomplish their own ends or when the risk of getting caught is too great.
This is called sociopathy
If there is no God, this indifferent approach to law is perfectly reasonable - but utterly fatal. The refusal to recognize God as the absolute authority behind right and wrong will eventually cause society to destroy itself. We can see the beginning of such disintegration in the United States as the recognition of God is increasingly pushed out of public life. The Founding Fathers understood that the law by which nations should be governed was more than a mere social contract. The Declaration of Independence explicitly recognized God as the absolute behind the law when it proposed separation from England in order to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature;s God entitle them."
Speculative rhetoric, how predictable.
But now that God as being pushed out as the absolute behind law, we see the authority of the nation's constitution disintegrating. The courts seem determined to accede to individuals bent on destroying any overarching law that stands between them and satisfaction of their own cravings. With no allegiance to God, people will increasingly chip away at the restriction of law to gain more freedom to follow their own wants and urges. The ability of law to restrain these urges will wear down, and individuals will come to have little or no allegiance to society as a whole. All their attention will be focused on themselves - their own rights, wants, and pleasures. Without the pressure of a true and absolute morality, people will lose all motivation to sacrifice personal satisfaction for duty to others.
Blah, blah, blah. People have always broken the law and gone against morals, absolute or otherwise. Where has your absoluteness got us? Has there ever been a point in human history where it did?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanThis is called sociopathy
Originally posted by dj2becker
Firstly, if morality is simply what the majority of society legislates and nothing more, why should the minority follow it? I find not rational basis for the minority to accept this 'social contract' - to give up its wants and bend to the will of the majority. What does the consensus of numbers have to do with my de e has your absoluteness got us? Has there ever been a point in human history where it did?
And is frequently occurent among people who reject the absolute, such as Ted Bundy.
Speculative rhetoric, how predictable.
Oh yes? And now that's some mean rebuttal you have there...
Blah, blah, blah. People have always broken the law and gone against morals, absolute or otherwise.
The logical outworking of a non-absolute moral standard is moral degradation. History supports this.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerNot at all. Your entire argument was so fundamentally flawed and based on assumptions it was just silly.
With all due respect, you sound like a whining two year old. You only make yourself look silly if you take that approach.
By the way,
I only dealt with the first fatal flaw of your social contract theory. I shall continue with the second fatal one a little later on when I get the time.
A sense of "right" and "wrong" has no requirement to be divinely inspired at all - that's making the worst kind of assumption. Evolutionary theory predicts it, and is more parsimonious.
20 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou are an idiot.
[b]This is called sociopathy
And is frequently occurent among people who reject the absolute, such as Ted Bundy.
Speculative rhetoric, how predictable.
Oh yes? And now that's some mean rebuttal you have there...
Blah, blah, blah. People have always broken the law and gone against morals, absolute or otherwise.
The logical outworking of a non-absolute moral standard is moral degradation. History supports this.[/b]
And just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, that's relative to everyone else here.
20 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe Bible says:
And does the Bible say that it was right for Lot to do this?
Genesis 19 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Genesis 19
Sodom and Gomorrah Destroyed
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
12 The two men said to Lot, "Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the LORD against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry [a] his daughters. He said, "Hurry and get out of this place, because the LORD is about to destroy the city!" But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
16 When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the LORD was merciful to them. 17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, "Flee for your lives! Don't look back, and don't stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!"
18 But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, [b ] please! 19 Your [c] servant has found favor in your [d] eyes, and you [e] have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can't flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I'll die. 20 Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn't it? Then my life will be spared."
21 He said to him, "Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22 But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it." (That is why the town was called Zoar. [f] )
23 By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. 25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
29 So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived.
Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g] ; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Footnotes:
Genesis 19:14 Or were married to
Genesis 19:18 Or No, Lord; or No, my lord
Genesis 19:19 The Hebrew is singular.
Genesis 19:19 The Hebrew is singular.
Genesis 19:19 The Hebrew is singular.
Genesis 19:22 Zoar means small .
Genesis 19:37 Moab sounds like the Hebrew for from father .
Genesis 19:38 Ben-Ammi means son of my people .
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN%2019;&version=31;