Page 462 of 682

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:57 pm
by iambiguous
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 12:30 am
iambiguous wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2023 10:32 pm And when they note that Jesus Christ Himself -- God -- was a Jew, do they remind you that it is Christians who have to come around to Judaism on Judgment Day.
It may interest you to know, or perhaps not, that some who had a cynical stance toward Judaism, proposed it possible that Jesus's mother, being from Galilee, could have been of another racial stock. Galilee was a region contaminated by *foreigners* and certainly by un-Orthodox ideas. As some Europeans tried to squirm out from under the imposed constraints of Judaism and Christianity, they devised a strategy of re-defining Jesus as a Gentile. This would make a certain sense given his mission against the state religion.
Can anything good come out of Nazareth? (John 1:46)
What is of interest to me is the extent to which those who believe that morality is objective "in their head" are able to actually demonstrate this given a particular context such that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe the same...if they wish to be thought of as reasonable men and women.

And "here and now" it doesn't make any difference to me if they are religious or atheists, liberal or conservative, white or black or brown or red or yellow, male or female, gay or straight, Jew or Gentile.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2023 11:34 pm
by iambiguous
Immanuel Cant wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 8:35 pm ....there are more Theists in the world now than at any point in history.
Of course, around the time of Christ, there were about 200 million people alive around the globe...today over 8 billion.

Also, back then and still today, if you need to believe in both moral Commandments and in immortality and salvation what other option is there but God and religion?
Immanuel Cant wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 8:35 pmBut that's unimportant, compared to the fact that you're only assuming -- and doing nothing to prove -- that God does not exist, or that "God" is merely a human construct.
Right, and this is what Mr. Cant insists is all the proof that one needs to know the Christian God is the real deal: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Meanwhile, many of these folks --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- are just as adamant in insisting that it is their own God that will give us the thumbs up or thumbs down on Judgment Day.

And the sheer audacity of suggesting the onus here rests more on the Nietzsches of the world to prove a God, the God does not exist rather than the faithful demonstrating that He -- one of them -- does exist.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:12 am
by Immanuel Can
Harbal wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 10:36 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 9:50 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2023 9:45 pm

If you have an argument to suggest that human beings are biologically any different from any other animal, I am prepared to hear that.
Well, sure: a human being is...a human being, not a fish, or a dog, or a canary. We may share some of the basic building blocks with our feathered or furred friends, but it's very easy to see we're not them.

So that was a little easy to do, so I can only think you've got some deeper point to make; but I'm not sure what it is, yet. Maybe you'll tell me?
We are made out of exactly the same stuff as our feathered or furred friends,
No, not "exactly." Similar. We have our own DNA, though the elements involved are not unique.
The only thing that sets us apart is our brain...

Well, that's debatable. Certainly our brain is vastly superior to all the animals. But whether that's all that's going on his a highly suspicious conclusion. In fact, we have things that this brain of ours does that find no parallel in the animal world at all. Self-awareness is one of them. Philosophy is another.
But theologically, we have a spirit. Animals do not. Nor do animals have spiritual concerns; there are no animal "religions," just as there is no such thing as "cultures" of animals..all members of the same species have exactly the same "culture," (though the word does not even really apply to them) and exactly the same instincts. But we do not. We have variety, volition, self-consciousness, conscience, teleological awareness, rationality...all kinds of stuff comes out of that amazing brain that is completely different from what animals have.

And morally, if we were just animals, we would have no moral duties at all, nor any reason to have a sense of morality. Instinct would do, so far as survival is concerned. But we do have these inclinations, and they puzzle us...for by naturalistic explanations, they shouldn't exist. Just as we can observe and question our universe in ways that no animal ever does.

Like we're doing right now.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:29 am
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:12 am But theologically, we have a spirit. Animals do not.
Everything that has breath has spirit -- how could it be otherwise?

Bible references:

Ecclesiastes 3:19
For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity.

Ecclesiastes 3:21 – “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?”
(In Strong’s Concordance, translation D says “spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)”)

Psalm 150:6
Let everything that has breath praise the Lord. (Breath must show spirit, because breath alone could not be expected to praise.)

And from other belief systems (apparently)...

Islam - In Islam all souls are eternal, including those of animals.

Buddhism - Buddhism sees animals as sentient beings like humans, and says that humans can be reborn as animals and animals can be reborn as humans.

Hinduism - Animals have souls.

Judaism - Animals have souls.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:40 am
by Immanuel Can
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:12 am But theologically, we have a spirit. Animals do not.
Everything that has breath has spirit -- how could it be otherwise?
It depends on what one means by "spirit." If all one means is "breath," which is the literal understanding of the word, then yes, that's right. If what is meant is the faculty of connection with the supernatural or spiritual realm, which is the theological usage, then man has it, and animals don't.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:43 am
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:40 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:29 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:12 am But theologically, we have a spirit. Animals do not.
Everything that has breath has spirit -- how could it be otherwise?
It depends on what one means by "spirit." If all one means is "breath," which is the literal understanding of the word, then yes, that's right. If what is meant is the faculty of connection with the supernatural or spiritual realm, which is the theological usage, then man has it, and animals don't.
So whose interpretation are you using?

I just added some other examples of theology that believe animals have spirits.

Do you speak for all of theology?

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 am
by Immanuel Can
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:43 am So whose interpretation are you using?
Biblical usage. The Bible uses the term both ways, so understanding which one is meant, in each case, requires the context. But I am using the term in the second way, theologically, when I say that animals do not have that faculty. Of course I recognize they have "breath."

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:56 am
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:43 am So whose interpretation are you using?
Biblical usage. The Bible uses the term both ways, so understanding which one is meant, in each case, requires the context. But I am using the term in the second way, theologically, when I say that animals do not have that faculty."
But you cannot know. There are branches and sources in theology that clearly don't agree with you. The Bible verses were from Christian sites.
You speak from your own viewpoint, that's all.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:59 am
by Veritas Aequitas
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 1:12 am ...
In fact, we have things that this brain of ours does that find no parallel in the animal world at all. Self-awareness is one of them. Philosophy is another.
You are wrong on the self-awareness part.
  • The MSR test is the traditional method for attempting to measure physiological and cognitive self-awareness.
    Species that have [pass the MSR test] include the great apes, a single Asiatic elephant, rays, dolphins, orcas, the Eurasian magpie, and the cleaner wrasse.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
The difference between humans and the above are a matter of degrees.
But theologically, we have a spirit. Animals do not. Nor do animals have spiritual concerns; there are no animal "religions," just as there is no such thing as "cultures" of animals..all members of the same species have exactly the same "culture," (though the word does not even really apply to them) and exactly the same instincts. But we do not. We have variety, volition, self-consciousness, conscience, teleological awareness, rationality...all kinds of stuff comes out of that amazing brain that is completely different from what animals have.
Why humans has theological concerns is due to the following;
  • 1. All animals [including humans] has the fundamental instinct to feel terrible primal fears with any threat of death to motivate them to avoid the threats of death.

    2. Humans has evolved with higher degree of self-awareness with the emergence of the "I"-ness that is self-aware of its inevitable and unavoidable mortality.

    3. Because of the self-aware unavoidable death, the fundamental instinct to feel terrible primal fears is triggered [consciously or subconsciously {angst}] as long as one is alive.

    4. To soothe the conscious fears or subliminal angsts, theists invented the fictitious and illusory being of God to cling to for salvation which enable immediate elimination of the feel terrible primal fears.
God is illusory; It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
Nevertheless God is a useful illusion to deal with 4 above.

And morally, if we were just animals, we would have no moral duties at all, nor any reason to have a sense of morality. Instinct would do, so far as survival is concerned. But we do have these inclinations, and they puzzle us...for by naturalistic explanations, they shouldn't exist. Just as we can observe and question our universe in ways that no animal ever does.
Like we're doing right now.
Animals [in varying degrees of complexity] do have moral instincts in varying degrees.
Animals within its own species do not simply kill each other upon sight in general, this is in a way a moral sense and instinct.

Note Inbreeding_avoidance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
in an instinct in higher animals. Males within a group, e.g. Male lions, upon reaching maturity will be 'kick' out of the tribe so as to avoid inbreeding which could threaten the survival of the species.

Point is there is an innate moral sense algorithm in the various instinctual moral elements that has passed on to humans via evolution.

The innate moral sense algorithm [supported by physical neurons -thus objective] has manifested within humanity in various ways.

The religious had adopted these moral instincts and sense into their restricted doctrines as moral commands from an illusory God.
The secular has their own approaches to morality based on rules or consequences.

What is most critical for humanity is to expedite the unfoldment of the innate moral potentials so that they manifest spontaneously like within animal instincts but in a more matured human way.
To do so, humanity must recognize these moral potentials as objective elements that can be improved upon within a morality-proper FSK, i.e. morality is objective.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:59 am
by Dubious
Animals simply exist without any conception of soul or spirit. But we humans are "theologically" advanced enough to give the concept full credence which to a theist not merely implies a soul but absolutely confirms it!

As always, the main specialty of a theist is to create reified absurdities by any method possible.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:01 am
by Immanuel Can
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:43 am So whose interpretation are you using?
Biblical usage. The Bible uses the term both ways, so understanding which one is meant, in each case, requires the context. But I am using the term in the second way, theologically, when I say that animals do not have that faculty."
But you cannot know.
Yes, it's not hard. One just has to read.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:05 am
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:01 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:56 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:46 am
Biblical usage. The Bible uses the term both ways, so understanding which one is meant, in each case, requires the context. But I am using the term in the second way, theologically, when I say that animals do not have that faculty."
But you cannot know.
Yes, it's not hard. One just has to read.
Then why aren't you doing so? I provided examples of theological positions which are at odds with your claim.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:11 am
by Immanuel Can
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:01 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:56 am
But you cannot know.
Yes, it's not hard. One just has to read.
Then why aren't you doing so? I provided examples of theological positions which are at odds with your claim.
You selected only one of the two. Go and check.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:12 am
by Lacewing
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:11 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:05 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:01 am
Yes, it's not hard. One just has to read.
Then why aren't you doing so? I provided examples of theological positions which are at odds with your claim.
You selected only one of the two. Go and check.
Which two are you talking about? I listed several.

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:17 am
by Immanuel Can
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:12 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:11 am
Lacewing wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2023 5:05 am
Then why aren't you doing so? I provided examples of theological positions which are at odds with your claim.
You selected only one of the two. Go and check.
Which two are you talking about? I listed several.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/spirit/