Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
As is yours.
My belief is logical, yours isn't, since you can't come up with a source for morality. Truth will always be logical.
I've given you the source for my belief several times. Your preconceived notions about how this debate should occur prevent you from seeing it. Why don't you go back over my previous post and see if you can't fathom it.
Your ability to make sense appears to be waning. "My belief is logical...[because] truth will always be logical." What? If it's the truth, then it's not a belief. If it's a belief, then it's something you acknowledge cannot be shown true. You are arguing in circles. Please, come out of your isolationist shell and at least try to understand what others are saying.
Seems like a good guess to me. <:^))
I tried mescaline once, too.
I can't fathom it becuase it is illogical. In a debate, logic rules. For example, you said: Your statement is simply untrue. If there is no God, there must be another source, or sources for man, as man did not create himself. That source may have absolutes and they may be categorized as moral.
This doesn't make sense. You can't name another source for absolutes! Why not? If you can't name it it doesn't exist! If it isn't God, then man is the ONLY choice left.
I've already given you my moral absolute: Liberty. Its source is the process that created us. In other words, we were created in such a way that liberty is a moral absolute. It is moral because we have the choice of denying liberty. But, if we deny liberty, dire consequences will ensue. Dire consequences always have and always will result from enslavements.
Non sequitir. Liberty is an absolute right but is not a source for absolutes. "Dire consequences" have nothing to do with the question at hand - which is, what is the source of moral absolutes? No one is arguing as to whether liberty is a moral absolute, what we are trying to find out is: WHO SAYS LIBERTY IS A MORAL ABSOLUTE? You? You have no moral authority and neither does Ayn Rand! Our founders declared it for you in the Decl. of Independence - "...endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights..." In other words, this moral absolute is from God. Name another source for it that makes sense. You cannot. Therefore, my statement stands. Moral absolutes must be from God, or man makes up his own - there are no other choices.
It is you who are not understanding. Just because I believe something does not make it true. People believe in many false things. You can believe something sincerely and be sincerely wrong. If logic and the evidence do not support it, then it is false. If logic and the evidence do support it, then one can conclude it is true. For example, "I exist" is a true statement. If I did not exist I could not ask the question. See how it works? Now you try it.
Absolute merely means universal, objective, essential when applied to truth in general. When applied to morals, it also means transcendant, eternal. Something does not "become" a moral absolute. Moral absolutes are not invented, they are discovered or discerned. Morality is not doing what I like, but doing what is right. Moral relativism is simply morals based on human preferences and this is the dominant system in the world. For example, the U.N. is constantly talking aobut human rights, but where do these U.N. human rights come from? The come from the men at the U.N., that's where. The men at the U.N. have appointed themselves are the ultimate moral arbiters, but it's a joke because the U.N. has no moral authority beyond themselves.
The law of contradiction is a logical law and does not apply to the many variables of electricity. Poor analogy.
Relative and absolute are not things. To say something is both relative and absolute does not violate the law of contradiction because the law only applies to things "in the same context." So, moral principles are determined by the nature of the case (just like Ohm's law) but how those principles are applied are determined relative to the facts of each case. Any other law is arbitrary, having no relationship to reality or real values.
Baloney. n You do not understand basic logic. The law of contradiction recognizes that human reality is based on "antithesis," and deals with "either/or" questions. Not all questions are either/or questions but whether something is aboslute or relative is indeed an either/or question. A leaf is either green or it is red. Which is it? I either exist or I don't. Which? You heart is either beating or it isn't. Which? Moral absolutes are either from God (absolute) or from man (relative). Which? Can't be from both at the same time. Besides, no moral from a man can possibly be absolute becuase moral absolutes are universal in scope and nothing man can do is universal. You need more thinking in this.
...10 commandments - these are REAL moral absolutes... But you do not believe they are really absolute. Why should anyone else. Oh, I absolutely do - because they are! Is lying wrong or not? Is stealing wrong or not? Is murder wrong or not? Is adultery wrong or not (ask Ayn Rand that one!).
The Sabbath is the 7th day of the week. Do you remember Saturday to keep it holy? Or, do you worship on Sunday.
Now, the ten commandments are either absolute or they are not.
Hank
I never have, but, from the descriptions I've read, I get the same effect from listening to the testimony or Christian mystics. My little satire is based entirely on words and expressions that have been used to prove to me their mystical experiences ought to convince me to throw away all evidence and reason and accept their testimony as the final abriter of truth.
Hank
Allow me to educate you about a point in Christianity. The sabbath commandment was for the OT hebrew nation only not gentiles - it's the only commandment no repeated in the NT. That's because Christ is my sabbath rest - Christ fulfills that commandment Himself.
I'm still waiting for that absolute source of morality other than God...
Christianity is based in real space-time history. Jesus Christ was a real person who was really crucified. It's an indisputable historical fact. Ayn Randism, on the other hand, is the invention of a "anti-Communist idealistic mystic" whose philosophical ideas were adopted lock, stock and barrel by sycophants like you. Ayn Rand's is a philosophy of the self which denies the teachings of Jesus Christ - especially the teaching that commands one to put others above himself (unselfishness). Who is right? AR or Jesus Christ? That's an easy one!
I have shown thru logic on this thread that you are the one who "throws away evidence and reason" in your non-rational leap in believing that moral absolutes and unalienable rights can just exist in space with no known source. Name the source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.