Atheist!

[sr71plt]

Does it have something to do with some kind of red ass dog or something?

No, wait. I know this. Don't tell me.

It has to do with wasting too much time taking the trash out.

 

[xssve]

As you seem to be the most lucid and consistent of the bunch here, those in opposition to objective reality; I ask that you lay out, explain and justify your contention that abortion is a moral and ethical value.

If you don't mind, since most present that position as, 'absolute', please include that in your dissertation.

"I ask that you lay out, explain and justify your contention that abortion is a moral and ethical value."

First: a value?

Wikipedia: value (ethical); "In ethics, value is a property of objects, including physical objects as well as abstract objects (e.g. actions), representing their degree of importance".

Abortion is an abstract value, in this sense, i.e., an action, and you wish me to assign it a degree of importance, no?

Further: "If you don't mind, since most present that position as, 'absolute', please include that in your dissertation."

I can't speak for most, I can only offer my reasoning, but presumably there is an absolute value to be found.

Again from wikipedia:

There is a distinction between relative (or personal or cultural value) and absolute (or noumenal) value (not to be confused with mathematical absolute value). Relative value is subjective, depending on individual and cultural views, and is therefore synonymous with personal and cultural value. Absolute value, on the other hand, is philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural views, as well as independent on whether it discovered or not what object has it.

I refer back to Jarvis, and for the most part, current medical ethics is in agreement, that when the life of the mother is threatened, a decision must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the child.

The question here is, who decides whose life is more important?

I'll steal Jarvis's first analogy, and twist it a bit - if you do not pay your taxes, a child will starve to death - which is of greater value, your money, or the childs right to live?

That is not the whole story, as it turns out, if you pay your taxes, you will die, because that loan shark you borrowed money from will kill you if you don't pay him first, but the child will live. Again, which life is more important, yours or the innocent child?

Who should decide? There is an exchange implied here, one life or the other.

You tell me what you would do. Is your answer absolute or relative?

 

[Guest]

It has to do with wasting too much time taking the trash out.

I don't have any wine, so we can't transubstantiate.

Rum?

 

[sr71plt]

I don't have any wine, so we can't transubstantiate.

Rum?

I'm not sure. I'm glugging Shiraz. Will those mix (doesn't sound promising).

 

[xssve]

The dictionary isn't all that relevant to Christian faith. True faith would be the same as knowledge in the Christian understanding. This is the basic misunderstanding here. You guys just aren't on the same page and never will be. Can you guess what the best thing to do is in that circumstance? Come on, you can reason it out.

You're referring to Liar and I? I think we're both on the same page, and I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity per se, just faith in general, as phenomena.

I guess I missed it, I didn't see what faith you were, so I have no comment on it.

 

[amicus]

]"I ask that you lay out, explain and justify your contention that abortion is a moral and ethical value."

First: a value?

Wikipedia: value (ethical); "In ethics, value is a property of objects, including physical objects as well as abstract objects (e.g. actions), representing their degree of importance".

Abortion is an abstract value, in this sense, i.e., an action, and you wish me to assign it a degree of importance, no?

Further: "If you don't mind, since most present that position as, 'absolute', please include that in your dissertation."

I can't speak for most, I can only offer my reasoning, but presumably there is an absolute value to be found.

Again from wikipedia:



I refer back to Jarvis, and for the most part, current medical ethics is in agreement, that when the life of the mother is threatened, a decision must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the child.

The question here is, who decides whose life is more important?

I'll steal Jarvis's first analogy, and twist it a bit - if you do not pay your taxes, a child will starve to death - which is of greater value, your money, or the childs right to live?

That is not the whole story, as it turns out, if you pay your taxes, you will die, because that loan shark you borrowed money from will kill you if you don't pay him first, but the child will live. Again, which life is more important, yours or the innocent child?

Who should decide? There is an exchange implied here, one life or the other.

You tell me what you would do. Is your answer absolute or relative?[/[/I]QUOTE]


~~~

You began well, defining terms, as I usually do, so that we may affirm that we are saying and meaning the same things.

The Wiki definition of 'value', would be sufficient in most cases, but it struck me as quite impersonal and detached. My thought was to demonstrate how the term 'value', exists only in relationship to human life, A frog swallowing a fly or a black hole consuming a solar system is of no, 'value' in terms of the word, the term must be recogized as dependent on human existence.

Might I offer this as an expansion of the term:

Value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality (it does not derive from mystic authority or from whim, personal or social). Reality, along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive—dictates and demands an entire code of values.

Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism. Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man’s life (it is good): or it threatens man’s life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live.


Rather than address your, 'Jarvis' analogy or question/conflict, let us not jump to the testing of a 'value' until we reach an understanding of the meaning.

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

You're referring to Liar and I? I think we're both on the same page, and I don't think it has anything to do with Christianity per se, just faith in general, as phenomena.

I guess I missed it, I didn't see what faith you were, so I have no comment on it.

No, I was responding to the "discussion" going on and on and from just scanning it. I think that it was quite true what wmrs2 posted about all this discussion without agreeing on any basic definitions of what you were arguing about--although mwrs2 seems to have backed away from that. And the inability to understand what the discussed terms mean to each of you (and I have no idea what mwrs2 thinks his definitions of almost anything is--it's certainly not New Testament Christianity) is what prompted me to post again.

Wmrs2 is not reflecting the beliefs or understandings of mainline Christian churches and isn't acting in Christian ways at all. And atheists here are picking at him as if he represents anyone/anything but his own underbaked gaming (not to mention Amicus using him to play across the board). It's just a bunch of garbage that's going on here.

Not really a good discussion of what it means to be a Christian as opposed to being an athiest (let alone an agnostic).

 

[xssve]

I'm quite content with the Wikipedia definitions thanks, yours are contradictory, to wit: "Value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality (it does not derive from mystic authority or from whim, personal or social)."

Value is in fact, typically subjective in most cases, market economics is based on negotiations over value, determined by supply and demand: how much salt is a Flint stone worth, etc., value changes with supply and demand.

This is ethics, and in ethics, there is both relative and absolute value.

"Reality, along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive—dictates and demands an entire code of values. "It objectively requires shelter, food and water in that order to sustain life - are you admitting that you need others in order to survive? That's very humanist of you.

Logically, you've skipped a step, but we might allow that in order for any population of organisms to co-exist they need to avoid compromising each others survival to the point of extinction, one might call that a "code of values", since we are talking about a sapient species, specifically, us.

"Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism." "Lower" is a value judgment, we have not established a hierarchy, so that's superfluous - just picking, on to your defense of the main point, the repudiation of subjectivity:

"Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man’s life (it is good): or it threatens man’s life (it is bad or an evil). Wait, now we have good and evil, I thought you decided to dispense with mysticism above?

Life is good, death is bad, we'll leave it at that for the moment.

The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live."So nobody dies? Or those who die are false? I'm confused, values are facts, facts are good, life is good, value is life?

It's repetitious, but we're just back to life is good, death is bad, except now death is false and unreal too, so we're really getting into the mysticism now - like wow, it's sooo profound, so death is like, lying - or maybe, lying is like... death? Unreal. Anyway, it's not good, that much is clear.

Sure, you can use it if you want, life is good death is bad, you've sort of established that life has value, which is sort of self-evident in a subjective way - you're life has value anyway, no? You coulda just said that.

Now whose life is better, yours or the kiddo's? Given that both are absolute goods - somebody has to contradict reality by ceasing to metabolate, who's it gonna be?

 

[xssve]

No, I was responding to the "discussion" going on and on and from just scanning it. I think that it was quite true what wmrs2 posted about all this discussion without agreeing on any basic definitions of what you were arguing about--although mwrs2 seems to have backed away from that. And the inability to understand what the discussed terms mean to each of you (and I have no idea what mwrs2 thinks his definitions of almost anything is--it's certainly not New Testament Christianity) is what prompted me to post again.

Wmrs2 is not reflecting the beliefs or understandings of mainline Christian churches and isn't acting in Christian ways at all. And atheists here are picking at him as if he represents anyone/anything but his own underbaked gaming (not to mention Amicus using him to play across the board). It's just a bunch of garbage that's going on here.

Not really a good discussion of what it means to be a Christian as opposed to being an athiest (let alone an agnostic).

The really scary part is that this very same conversation is taking place every day, millions of people on thousands of message boards - a genetic researcher and a creationist argued with each other all day long on the NYT human evolution boards for like Five years running, maybe more, they were there when I got there - same two guys, same argument, surreal.

 

[sr71plt]

The really scary part is that this very same conversation is taking place every day, millions of people on thousands of message boards - a genetic researcher and a creationist argued with each other all day long on the NYT human evolution boards for like Five years running, maybe more, they were there when I got there - same two guys, same argument, surreal.

That's what bugs me. I don't think this conversation is taking place anywhere else. I can't think there are many like mwsr2 representing themselves as Christian apologists. I trust that most message boards have better mechanisms than this to filter out the crazies and malicious.

 

[wmrs2]

Wrms -

Is Red Ass Dog Bitch in the Bible, too?

Yes, they killed Christ in the Bible and they stoned Stephen, killed Able, and made fun of people who tried to live a good life. On this forum they try to kill and ridicule those who differ with them. If you do not like the term RABD, a good tempered response would go a long way to remove it.

 

[slyc_willie]

I trust that most message boards have better mechanisms than this to filter out the crazies and malicious.

I wonder if they're really crazy or malicious, or just plain misguided and brainwashed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes, they killed Christ in the Bible and they stoned Stephen, killed Able, and made fun of people who tried to live a good life. On this forum they try to kill and ridicule those who differ with them. If you do not like the term RABD, a good tempered response would go a long way to remove it.

you are just the most pitiful little fakeass self-righteous wanna-be bully, aren't you?

 

[sr71plt]

I wonder if they're really crazy or malicious, or just plain misguided and brainwashed.

Oh, I think it's a game. Only redeeming value I can think for it.

 

[slyc_willie]

Oh, I think it's a game. Only redeeming value I can think for it.

It would have to be.

Still, considering all the time and effort put into it . . . one has to wonder as to the state of their life for devoting so much effort to a game, or the state of their faith to devote so much time defending it.

It's as bad as a WoW addiction.

 

[sr71plt]

It would have to be.

Still, considering all the time and effort put into it . . . one has to wonder as to the state of their life for devoting so much effort to a game, or the state of their faith to devote so much time defending it.

It's as bad as a WoW addiction.

I have trouble thinking anyone is this screwed up in his/her faith. I've never encountered anyone like this, and I've met some real screwballs in the church.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, I think it's a game. Only redeeming value I can think for it.

There have been a couple of felicitous phrases that have me wondering...

But they really could have come from a tossed-salad-brain, just as easily.

 

[sr71plt]

There have been a couple of felicitous phrases that have me wondering...

But they really could have come from a tossed-salad-brain, just as easily.

Trust me, this is not a standard coherent line of reasoning that even an evangelical Christian would establish with an athiest.

 

[slyc_willie]

I have trouble thinking anyone is this screwed up in his/her faith. I've never encountered anyone like this, and I've met some real screwballs in the church.

But how much free reign did they have to voice their thoughts, and could they have eloquated themselves in mixed company without being interrupted?

 

[sr71plt]

But how much free reign did they have to voice their thoughts, and could they have eloquated themselves in mixed company without being interrupted?

Not quite sure how to answer this. I've lived between the institutional church and the art worlds, and I've heard discussions between believers and nonbelievers a million times. This wasn't one of them.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Trust me, this is not a standard coherent line of reasoning that even an evangelical Christian would establish with an athiest.

Oh, I agree-- if this critter isn't gaming us, then it's schizophrenic.

 

[slyc_willie]

Not quite sure how to answer this. I've lived between the institutional church and the art worlds, and I've heard discussions between believers and nonbelievers a million times. This wasn't one of them.

It's something I've wondered since joining the forum here. I've noticed that people who can't present themselves with aplomb and creativity in person can be much more persuasive and intelligent (or, at least, present themselves as such) on an Internet forum. This is their outlet, their great soapbox. No one can clamp their mouth shut or drag them down off the high horse.

The freedom to speak one's mind sometimes has a tendency to make some go just a tad bit too far -- or, sometimes, a lotta bit too far.

 

[sr71plt]

It's something I've wondered since joining the forum here. I've noticed that people who can't present themselves with aplomb and creativity in person can be much more persuasive and intelligent (or, at least, present themselves as such) on an Internet forum. This is their outlet, their great soapbox. No one can clamp their mouth shut or drag them down off the high horse.

The freedom to speak one's mind sometimes has a tendency to make some go just a tad bit too far -- or, sometimes, a lotta bit too far.

So it seems.

 

[wmrs2]

Actually, you were right before, Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin did all use reason to justify their actions, greed is a reason for example, but just as you claim the superiority of true revelation over false, in reason one is required to demonstrate ones reasoning, and it is open to scrutiny and repudiation by means of further reasoning, which is where it departs sharply from revelation.

Hitler tried to take over the world, eradicate Jews, homosexuals, gypsy's, and communists among other things, using reasoning which many in this country actually applauded at the time.

In the fullness of time however, his reasoning was disputed, and it was determined that his reasoning was insufficient to justify his acts, and thus, after repudiating his reasoning, we proceeded to repudiate him, and in the end, we won both arguments.

It is enshrined in our laws that if you seek to violate the rights of others, you are required to demonstrate your reasoning for doing so, and we have evolved through much reasoning tested through trial and error, a system whereby you may demonstrate that reasoning, and by which we may evaluate the soundness and vigor of that reasoning, and further, if need be, provide reasoning of our own as to why we dispute your reasoning.

Your explanation of truth is a perfect example of two types of reasoning.

In the fullness of time however, his reasoning was disputed, and it was determined that his reasoning was insufficient to justify his acts, and thus, after repudiating his reasoning, we proceeded to repudiate him, and in the end, we won both arguments.

Evaluate the above statement in terms of these questions. Was Hitler's reasoning correct when the German people were living off the slave labor of the world? Hitler did not become unpopular until we bombed the German people and brought the war home to the people. Did the war suddenly become evil when the bombs began to fall or was the German logic actually evil from the beginning of the war? The German war logic was based on might makes right and the superman. Free people did not have to win the war before we knew the German logic was evil but because we knew it was evil, we endured to win the war. God fearing people did not have to wait for the fullness of time to know evil when they saw it because they had a premise on which to judge evil.

What if Hitler had won the war? Would you have said that time and a long process of reasoning made Hitler a good person? Would that have then made his atheistic reasoning very good logic? If you have to know the outcome of events to know good and evil, when it arrives at your door step, you will not recognize it then. Who wants to make judgments about good or evil after it happens? Did the Jews know Hitler was evil or was that determination made later by the world only after long observation of his mayhem?

We won no arguments with Hitler. Hitler's logic remains here on this forum where free minded people are asked to give up their belief in the truth. When we accept that truth is relative, we invite Hitler to win the war and he wins the debate. If you think Hitler is dead, look about this forum and you will see that his logic is stell being used to discredit Godly reasoning. I am afraid that it is not the Christian that uses circular reasoning but that is one of the reasons that Americans think so poorly of Atheist.

 

[wmrs2]

Faith can only be asserted, it cannot be demonstrated, at least not with absolute certainty - and that's just the faith itself - whatever thing one claims to have faith in is not demonstrated to be valid based on that faith, it's two separate subjects.

To accept faith requires an act of faith: I have to have faith that you have faith - and even so, I can reserve the right to not have any faith for that in which I take it on faith that you believe.

No?

Do you believe Hitler was evil?