Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[BigO95]

Apparently it's a get out of jail free card.

I'm waiving off dude, I was just curious about your reconciliation of a few things. No offense but I've heard the buzzwords before, I don't need them regurgitated.

Good luck.

Septic, I will earnestly pray for you. I appreciate the discussion.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Prejudicial. You don't know what I'm willing to consider. I've considered far more developed arguments on non-theistic objective morality than this. I do know your complaint was nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity.

I'm open to discuss and consider, what is your best example of a self-evident moral axiom that is objectively true?

Well, first off, nothing given here was intended to be a developed argument. What was given was a motion toward arguments that have been given. You're welcome to explore moral philosophy on your own. I will say that I don't find any of those previously discussed here to be compelling, personally; so I'm not going to defend them much further here.

I don't think that has been established at all. I thinking you are reading for more into his statement. What was stated cannot escape the issue I ALREADY pointed out. If we are talking about moral ontology and objectivity. Objective means that such facts would exist independently from personal or collective beliefs. If moral facts are the RESULT of human evolution, then as already stated, they are arbitrary, and subjective. They could be different given this or that, or they may change in the future. That is not objective. That is as subjective as you get.

No, you're confusing subjective with relative. Look it up.

But moral facts make societies work and result in human flourishing. Ok, so why is that objectively good? If there are no humans, is a statement on human virtue valid and true?

Why is God good? This is a jumping off point, which is why I said someone who adheres to this moral framework might start with an axiom which they believe to be self-evidently true, perhaps such as "do no harm."

If there were no babies would torturing babies for fun still be objectively wrong in your system of morality? It seems like the answer would be yes, regardless of whether you could actually do it or not.

We are speaking of a moral framework that isn't based on the SUBJECT. That virtue really is BETTER than vice. That honesty really is BETTER than lying. That compassion really is BETTER than greed. If it's only because it was genetically favored then it isn't objective, it's subjective to our survival, which doesn't have objective value either. Whether it's self-evident is irrelevant.

I think you're confused on the difference between subjective and objective again. Does my genetic makeup depend upon, say, my opinion? No. Then it's not subjective.

That only shows that we are wired to recognize moral reality (epistemology). It doesn't account for moral truth. It accounts for a subject that can interpret moral truth. But if the subject is the source of moral truth, then it isn't objective.

Then why is a morality dependent upon another being (God) not subjective as well?

 

[Septic]

Yet here we are.

On a huge chunk of rock.

Floating through space.

Billions of light years of empty space except for just us.

Do you think we're alone in this universe?

 

[NEO]

Do you think we're alone in this universe?

Ok here is my take....

No, we are not alone in the true sense.

In the star trek other worlds version yes we are alone.

God is not a magical being anymore than a plane in today's time would be magic in 1000 bc.

Everything God does is grounded in science.

There is a video that breaks down the plagues of Egypt and shows how God used science.

So.....in the truest sense God is an alien.

The Angel's are a version of that alien being.

The demons that fell with the Devil are truly aliens in the truest scientific term.

The Angel's who found favor with men and fell later also aliens.

The UFOs we see now are simply Angel's and demons.

When the rapture occurs it will be blamed on aliens. In the truest sense that will be true.

Outside of this specific alien race I believe there is nothing else in this specific strand of time continuum.

I do believe in string theory and do believe this is why are universe dates back past the actual timeline of our actual universe as it broke from a current already existing universe when the big bang occured.

 

[Septic]

Ok here is my take....

No, we are not alone in the true sense.

In the star trek other worlds version yes we are alone.

God is not a magical being anymore than a plane in today's time would be magic in 1000 bc.

Everything God does is grounded in science.

There is a video that breaks down the plagues of Egypt and shows how God used science.

So.....in the truest sense God is an alien.

The Angel's are a version of that alien being.

The demons that fell with the Devil are truly aliens in the truest scientific term.

The Angel's who found favor with men and fell later also aliens.

The UFOs we see now are simply Angel's and demons.

When the rapture occurs it will be blamed on aliens. In the truest sense that will be true.

Outside of this specific alien race I believe there is nothing else in this specific strand of time continuum.

I do believe in string theory and do believe this is why are universe dates back past the actual timeline of our actual universe as it broke from a current already existing universe when the big bang occured.

When you use the word "science" are you talking about as we know (e.g. scientific method) it or under the narrative that we can't understand gods "science?" Jonah and the whale, rising from the dead after 72 hours, <insert miracle here>

That wasn't what I was getting at though, do you think we're alone in the universe on a physical, not spiritual plane? Do you believe that Earth is unique in it's ability to sustain life? Or 'little green men', or other living organic matter?

 

[NEO]

When you use the word "science" are you talking about as we know (e.g. scientific method) it or under the narrative that we can't understand gods "science?" Jonah and the whale, rising from the dead after 72 hours, <insert miracle here>

That wasn't what I was getting at though, do you think we're alone in the universe on a physical, not spiritual plane? Do you believe that Earth is unique in it's ability to sustain life? Or 'little green men', or other living organic matter?

We are surrounded by a race of beings that came before us who scientifically are on a plane we dont grasp yet.

These beings defy linear time as we know it and are clearly outside the laws of physics that we grasp today. They are physical.

Outside this race of beings that are defined as Angel's and demons yes we are clearly alone as the Hubble has found nothing.

Jonah is pretty simple. Huge whale held him in his mouth about sea level for a while till God let him go. The term belly comes from the Hebrew old testament being translated into greek and not all words matching. That's not science though that's just God using an animal to make his point.

There is no magic.

I mean we as a human race are pretty dumb in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Septic]

We are surrounded by a race of beings that came before us who scientifically are on a plane we dont grasp yet.

These beings defy linear time as we know it and are clearly outside the laws of physics that we grasp today. They are physical.

Outside this race of beings that are defined as Angel's and demons yes we are clearly alone as the Hubble has found nothing.

Jonah is pretty simple. Huge whale held him in his mouth about sea level for a while till God let him go. The term belly comes from the Hebrew old testament being translated into greek and not all words matching. That's not science though that's just God using an animal to make his point.

There is no magic.

I mean we as a human race are pretty dumb in the grand scheme of things.

Wow.

Thanks.

 

[NEO]

Wow.

Thanks.

I have hit nobody's upstairs point of the evening so I cant tell if u were being sardonic or serious so thanks if you were.

If not..... suck my "thing LG said he was taking home."


Just kidding.

 

[Roustabout]

Well, first off, nothing given here was intended to be a developed argument. What was given was a motion toward arguments that have been given. You're welcome to explore moral philosophy on your own. I will say that I don't find any of those previously discussed here to be compelling, personally; so I'm not going to defend them much further here.



No, you're confusing subjective with relative. Look it up.



Why is God good? This is a jumping off point, which is why I said someone who adheres to this moral framework might start with an axiom which they believe to be self-evidently true, perhaps such as "do no harm."

If there were no babies would torturing babies for fun still be objectively wrong in your system of morality? It seems like the answer would be yes, regardless of whether you could actually do it or not.



I think you're confused on the difference between subjective and objective again. Does my genetic makeup depend upon, say, my opinion? No. Then it's not subjective.



Then why is a morality dependent upon another being (God) not subjective as well?

Anyone notice the question he failed to answer?

God, by definition is the highest conceivable being. Uncreated, self existent. Not contingent. Not composite. I could go on. Your question is a really bad attempt to side step this. Your attempts to make god a “subject” is just laughable.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Anyone notice the question he failed to answer?

God, by definition is the highest conceivable being. Uncreated, self existent. Not contingent. Not composite. I could go on. Your question is a really bad attempt to side step this. Your attempts to make god a “subject” is just laughable.

I see you couldn't spare 5 minutes to figure out the difference between objective and subjective. My question was an attempt to highlight your misunderstanding. Subjective = mind-dependent. Objective = mind-independent. For bonus points, relative and absolute mean whether something can change or not.

My genetic makeup is mind-independent and therefore objective. It has nothing to do with whether I'm a subject in the sense that you're trying to use it. If it did, then the only systems of objective morality would be those where some object (apparently such as God, a stone tablet, or Harambe the gorilla) provides some subjects a basis for morality. However, if you wade out into the open internet and away from Sye Ten Bruggencate's webpage, you'll find that virtually no credentialed philosophers actually hold this opinion.

 

[Roustabout]

I see you couldn't spare 5 minutes to figure out the difference between objective and subjective. My question was an attempt to highlight your misunderstanding. Subjective = mind-dependent. Objective = mind-independent. For bonus points, relative and absolute mean whether something can change or not.

My genetic makeup is mind-independent and therefore objective. It has nothing to do with whether I'm a subject in the sense that you're trying to use it. If it did, then the only systems of objective morality would be those where some object (apparently such as God, a stone tablet, or Harambe the gorilla) provides some subjects a basis for morality. However, if you wade out into the open internet and away from Sye Ten Bruggencate's webpage, you'll find that virtually no credentialed philosophers actually hold this opinion.

Dude, you are not even close. Swing and miss.
Goal post moving again I see.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Dude, you are not even close. Swing and miss.
Goal post moving again I see.

True. It should only take a couple minutes to look something that simple up.

 

[Roustabout]

True. It should only take a couple minutes to look something that simple up.

Your full of it. Deflecting. Avoiding the question you didn’t answer. Hey look, the goalposts are over here now.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I guess what I'm saying is, what is your solution to the Muslim problem as it relates to America? I believe you think it is a bigger issue than I do, so I imagine you have given some thought to corrective action.

Play cowboys and muslims.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I see you couldn't spare 5 minutes to figure out the difference between objective and subjective. My question was an attempt to highlight your misunderstanding. Subjective = mind-dependent. Objective = mind-independent. For bonus points, relative and absolute mean whether something can change or not.

My genetic makeup is mind-independent and therefore objective. It has nothing to do with whether I'm a subject in the sense that you're trying to use it. If it did, then the only systems of objective morality would be those where some object (apparently such as God, a stone tablet, or Harambe the gorilla) provides some subjects a basis for morality. However, if you wade out into the open internet and away from Sye Ten Bruggencate's webpage, you'll find that virtually no credentialed philosophers actually hold this opinion.

Last sentence first paragraph, wrong.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Last sentence first paragraph, wrong.

Oversimplified, sure, but wrong? The truth value of relative statements is subject to change based on the place, the person who says them, or time; whereas absolute statements remain true or false independent from these considerations.

What did you have in mind?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Your full of it. Deflecting. Avoiding the question you didn’t answer. Hey look, the goalposts are over here now.

What question are you wanting answered?

 

[Roustabout]

What question are you wanting answered?

Reposted: I'm open to discuss and consider, what is your best example of a self-evident moral axiom that is objectively true?

 

[Wafflestomper]

Reposted: I'm open to discuss and consider, what is your best example of a self-evident moral axiom that is objectively true?

As mentioned previously, I don't subscribe to this moral framework. However, I think you're misunderstanding how such a framework gets "off the ground."

The idea is that you start with an axiom, such as "God is morally perfect" or the categorical imperative and proceed from there. These axioms don't purport to depend on individual beliefs or perspectives to be true and thus aren't subjective. One could argue whether they're true or warranted or not but that isn't relevant to whether they're objective or not.

 

[UT-Rex]

We are surrounded by a race of beings that came before us who scientifically are on a plane we dont grasp yet.

These beings defy linear time as we know it and are clearly outside the laws of physics that we grasp today. They are physical.

Outside this race of beings that are defined as Angel's and demons yes we are clearly alone as the Hubble has found nothing.

Jonah is pretty simple. Huge whale held him in his mouth about sea level for a while till God let him go. The term belly comes from the Hebrew old testament being translated into greek and not all words matching. That's not science though that's just God using an animal to make his point.

There is no magic.

I mean we as a human race are pretty dumb in the grand scheme of things.

Wow.

Thanks.

"Wow" is a fine response to that description. Here are 3 other, similar historical writings describing what NEO is describing --



(a). 2 Kings 19:35 -- Then it happened that night that the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead.

(b). Matthew 13
‘No,’ he said, ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat into my barn.’”

His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

37He replied, “The One who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38The field is the world, and the good seed represents the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

40As the weeds are collected and burned in the fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will weed out of His kingdom every cause of sin and all who practice lawlessness. 42And they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.


(c) Matthew 28:2 -- "And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. "


Believe the words of Jesus, or not (for assuredly, Jesus believed the words of 2 Kings 19:35) << just as (a) did occur, so did (c) and so shall (b).

 

[Roustabout]

As mentioned previously, I don't subscribe to this moral framework. However, I think you're misunderstanding how such a framework gets "off the ground."

The idea is that you start with an axiom, such as "God is morally perfect" or the categorical imperative and proceed from there. These axioms don't purport to depend on individual beliefs or perspectives to be true and thus aren't subjective. One could argue whether they're true or warranted or not but that isn't relevant to whether they're objective or not.

So, do moral facts exist?

Aside from reading Carrier and (apologies his name slips my mind, starts with P) another, I do think I have an understanding of the framework. I havent seen one that deals with the inescapable arbitrariness of moral reality.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Oversimplified, sure, but wrong? The truth value of relative statements is subject to change based on the place, the person who says them, or time; whereas absolute statements remain true or false independent from these considerations.

What did you have in mind?

You can't generalize definitions like you did. Relative and absolute are used for many other subjects besides logic. Humidity, pressure, time etc. Pressure may be an absolute pressure, but it may change. Absolute is designated to mean something different than gauge or relative (i.e. relative to the gauge's calibration). Same with humidity, there is relative humidity and absolute humidity, both are measured different and may change.

Just sayin.

 

[Wafflestomper]

You can't generalize definitions like you did. Relative and absolute are used for many other subjects besides logic. Humidity, pressure, time etc. Pressure may be an absolute pressure, but it may change. Absolute is designated to mean something different than gauge or relative (i.e. relative to the gauge's calibration). Same with humidity, there is relative humidity and absolute humidity, both are measured different and may change.

Just sayin.

These examples are just different uses of relative and absolute in another context. We're speaking in the context of truth.

There would be nothing wrong (that I can think of from the top of my head) with saying that the absolute pressure of some system is a relative truth, as it has to be qualified relative to some other variable (e.g., time).

 

[Wafflestomper]

So, do moral facts exist?

Aside from reading Carrier and (apologies his name slips my mind, starts with P) another, I do think I have an understanding of the framework. I havent seen one that deals with the inescapable arbitrariness of moral reality.

I'm not inclined to think that moral facts do exist, but I'm not very committed to that belief.

You'll have to expand on what you mean by arbitrary and why you think it's important.

 

[82_VOL_83]

These examples are just different uses of relative and absolute in another context. We're speaking in the context of truth.

There would be nothing wrong (that I can think of from the top of my head) with saying that the absolute pressure of some system is a relative truth, as it has to be qualified relative to some other variable (e.g., time).

Absolute pressure is simply a different way of measuring pressure. An absolute gauge will always read any pressure placed on it such as atmospheric such that pressure read with it will be the absolute pressure, but it is subject to change and is relative to the surrounding pressure. Relative pressure or gauge pressure, is independent of absolute pressure by simply measuring that pressure which is above surrounding pressure. In actuality, it is less relative than absolute in that it measures independently (not relative to) whereas the absolute pressure measures relative to the surrounding pressure. Neither are steady, both can change.

Edit: Keep going though, I was being a smart ass. I am actually enjoying your side of the argument. I'm trying to figure out how you are "logically" going to answer a question when the question is "the answer is always X, please show me an instance where it can't be X". This is a typical Roust argument. He will spend 30 pages constantly changing positions while saying he isn't, you will finally figure out what he is saying and answer it in about 3 lines and he will explode because his super theory cannot possibly be expressed in just 3 lines. Been there and done that.