Would the world be better off without religion?

plainoldme wrote:

There are some things that can't be defined. Try defining the color red.

Still working on that... Smile

0 Replies

plainoldme wrote:

There are some things that can't be defined. Try defining the color red.

snood wrote:

Well, some egghead will probably take you up on that one pretty readily, POM, but how about describing it to someone who had never had the power of sight?

I'm no "egghead," but what English speakers refer to as the color red can be very finitely described as a range of radiation wave lengths which produce a reaction in our optic nerve, and a cerebral interpretation named "red."

So, POMs remark is rather ill-considered, but Snood has a very good point to make.

0 Replies

Oh, please, ill-considered?

Of course, color can be defined and delineated by its wave length but I never took physics (frightened off by fear of getting a bad grade and being kept out of college. Took what today would be called AP Biology instead.) and don't think in those terms as a consequence.

I wasn't even thinking of defining color for a blind person but for a person whose ideas of what colors are is the equivalent of an idealect in speach. Haven't you ever been in an argument with someone over whether a color is blue or grey; brown or purple; red or orange? While there is an absolute range of color in terms of light refraction, in terms of nomenclature, well, not even the sky is the limit?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That it is an absolute statement does not alter that it is a subjective statement...You are not arguing logically.

I think I see now why we don't agree on this. Laughing

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Asherman wrote:
The target is NEVER innocent civilians , much less children.
Exempting the rationalization for such killings, your assertion is false. The US has indeed targeted civilians and children with foresight and intent.

Example: American indigenous peoples
Example: Nagaaski

Civilians were not the target at Nagasaki. Nagasaki was an important arms manufacturing center.

Diest TKO wrote:

Asherman wrote:
Nagasaki was a military target, and the civilians who died there were incidental to the destruction of the target and the defeat of Japan to spare far greater casualties that would have attended a conventional "D-Day' style invasion.

I'd agree if you had made the same arguement about Hiroshima, however the second bombing will always be contraversial. The US did not allow for enough responce time from the Japanese government.

There was no requirement that we allow any time between the bombings.

Diest TKO wrote:

Not true. Truman's generals were not all in favor of a second bomb. The was certainly difference in opinion then.

Nonsense. Name one general who spoke out against "dropping a second bomb".

Diest TKO wrote:

Kyoto was infact the original second target, but I believe it was McArther who told Truman that it would only fuel the Japanese if the US destroyed all it's most ancient temples.

Kyoto was the original *primary* target. It was removed from the list by Secretary of War Stimson without input from Truman or MacArthur.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
That it is an absolute statement does not alter that it is a subjective statement...You are not arguing logically.

I think I see now why we don't agree on this.

It is time that you recognized just saying what appears to support your position--such as that the statement that moral judgments are subjective is itself a moral judgment, which it is not--does not constitute logical argment.

However, i'm not a fool, and i well understand that even though you cannot frame and sustain a logical argument, it is your intent to suggest that my statements are not logical. You have consistently failed to demonstrate as much, and i have no doubt that you will continue to fail in your attempts to deploy logic, or simply avoid discussing the logical basis for your unwarranted remarks.

0 Replies

Moral values are for ordinary people. Powerful ruling elites are quite amoral, acting purely in their interests, sometimes they have to dress it up as being in a wider national interest. Thats where religion is useful.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the people

The neo cons say religion is the opiate of the people, thank God.

Morality is entirely subjective.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
That it is an absolute statement does not alter that it is a subjective statement...You are not arguing logically.

I think I see now why we don't agree on this.

It is time that you recognized just saying what appears to support your position--such as that the statement that moral judgments are subjective is itself a moral judgment, which it is not--does not constitute logical argment.

However, i'm not a fool, and i well understand that even though you cannot frame and sustain a logical argument, it is your intent to suggest that my statements are not logical. You have consistently failed to demonstrate as much, and i have no doubt that you will continue to fail in your attempts to deploy logic, or simply avoid discussing the logical basis for your unwarranted remarks.

Let me be clear. I hope I haven't given the impression that I consider you a fool. I do not, and if it seems any other way, I am sorry of that.

A disagreement doesn't have to slide down further into such sentiments.

----------------------------------------------

That being said, I do see a contradiction in your position however.

The statement

"All moral judgements are subjective"

is clearly stated as an absolute.

Just because you have adopted it in a subjective manner as representing your position doesn't alter the nature of the statement itself. It is an absolute due to the use of 'all'. It allows no exceptions.

However, the statement itself is an exception because, first, it is a moral judgement (i.e. it defines the source and therefore the CONTENT of ALL moral judgements ----- they are simply opinions); and, second, it is stated as an absolute.

It cannot be considered other than a moral judgement when it is the determinant of what is defined as moral and what is immoral (i.e. nothing is really moral or immoral. It's all just opinion.)

I haven't avoided discussing this. I have explained why your statement is contradictory several times.

The moral relativist's position is inherently contradictory. That's why I believe the existence of moral absolutes is the only consistent position. Simple as that.

Hope you are having a great day, Setanta. Cool

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Moral values are for ordinary people. Powerful ruling elites are quite amoral, acting purely in their interests, sometimes they have to dress it up as being in a wider national interest. Thats where religion is useful.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the people

The neo cons say religion is the opiate of the people, thank God.

Morality is entirely subjective.

If there is no 'moral' or 'immoral', how do you differ from the 'ruling elites' that you are apparently disdainful of?

Are you not both simply acting in your own (perceived) best interests? What makes you a scintilla better than they?

Indeed how would you measure 'better'?

0 Replies

I will take this slowly, "real life," because i do sometimes suspect that you are a fool--but not because you make such feeble and ultimately failed attempts to deploy logic. Rather, i consider it foolish to be so deluded by one's insistence upon religious doctrine, that one will abandon logic.

I state: "All morality is subjective."

That is, in itself, a subjective judgment. It is also a statement of an absolute principle. Those two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

You then retort that there is a contradiction, in that this is an absolute statement, but that by saying that all morality is subjective, i've denied that there are any absolutes, and therefore have contradicted myself.

But that is false, because in making the statement, i simply deny that there are any moral absolutes, i do not deny that any absolutes exist. However, it is further an illogical position for you to take, because it equates moral absolutes with any statement alleging an absolute condition, and there is no logical basis for such an equation.

So, you then attempt to demonstrate the contradiction by alleging that the statement is itself a moral judgment. However, you fail again because for any statement to have a moral character, it must assert that the subject of the statement is either good or bad, or right or wrong. In making the statement that all morality is subjective, however, i have not made any value judgment about the worth of subjectivity, or of morality, or of moral subjectivity. I have not said that it is good or bad, or right or wrong that morality is subjective, i have simply observed that morality is subjective.

Therefore, your arguments have no logical basis. It is certainly no fault of mine that you are unable to logically argue against my statement, and i assure you it is also no skin off my nose.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
Moral values are for ordinary people. Powerful ruling elites are quite amoral, acting purely in their interests, sometimes they have to dress it up as being in a wider national interest. Thats where religion is useful.

Marx said religion is the opiate of the people

The neo cons say religion is the opiate of the people, thank God.

Morality is entirely subjective.

If there is no 'moral' or 'immoral', how do you differ from the 'ruling elites' that you are apparently disdainful of?

Are you not both simply acting in your own (perceived) best interests? What makes you a scintilla better than they?

Indeed how would you measure 'better'?

Good questions. I dont think I am "better", nor they "worse". We just do as we do, (always of course trying to stay the right side of the law if we care about such things)

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I state: "All morality is subjective."

That is, in itself, a subjective judgment. It is also a statement of an absolute principle. Those two conditions are not mutually exclusive.

Correct. I stated the same earlier when I said:

real life wrote:

Just because you have adopted it in a subjective manner as representing your position doesn't alter the nature of the statement itself. It is an absolute due to the use of 'all'. It allows no exceptions.

.

The statement is absolute.

Your acceptance of it is subjective.

The statement itself is not both absolute and subjective.

Setanta wrote:

You then retort that .....by saying that all morality is subjective, i've denied that there are any absolutes, and therefore have contradicted myself.

Incorrect. The context of the argument is moral absolutes. I've made no reference to absolutes of any other kind.

Setanta wrote:

However, it is further an illogical position for you to take, because it equates moral absolutes with any statement alleging an absolute condition, and there is no logical basis for such an equation.

Incorrect. See above.

Setanta wrote:

you alleg(e) that the statement is itself a moral judgment.

Correct.

Setanta wrote:

However, you fail again because for any statement to have a moral character, it must assert that the subject of the statement is either good or bad, or right or wrong.

The statement "All moral judgements are subjective" is framed such that it alleges that ALL actions are neither moral nor immoral, but that they are simply called that due to one's opinion of the action.

In stating that nothing is moral, nor immoral, you have made a moral judgement.

Setanta wrote:

In making the statement that all morality is subjective, however, i have not made any value judgment about the worth of subjectivity, or of morality, or of moral subjectivity.

You have made a value judgement about ALL actions.

Setanta wrote:

I have not said that it is good or bad, or right or wrong that morality is subjective, i have simply observed that morality is subjective.

You have stated that an action is NEITHER good NOR bad, but it is simply called such based on one's opinion

Setanta wrote:

Therefore, your arguments have no logical basis.

Incorrect. The statement you have made certainly addresses what is and what is not moral or immoral, and why you consider it to be so.

It is inescapably a moral judgement.

And since it is an absolute moral judgement which denies the existence of moral absolutes, it is inherently contradictory.

Setanta wrote:

and i assure you it is also no skin off my nose.

I'm glad your nose is fine.

0 Replies

I realize that you abandoned your effort to claim that just because of the absolute character of my statement about morality, i had contradicted myself by referring to an absolute. Apparently, it eventually became clear to you that that tack was not working for you. Since then, you have come up with this nonsense:

real life wrote:

The statement "All moral judgements are subjective" is framed such that it alleges that ALL actions are neither moral nor immoral, but that they are simply called that due to one's opinion of the action.

In stating that nothing is moral, nor immoral, you have made a moral judgement.

It is completely false that i have said that nothing is either moral or immoral. I have simply commented on the character of moral judgments (or judgments of what is immoral, for that matter). There is absolutely nothing about the way the statement, "all morality is subjective" which warrants a claim on your part that it is "framed" in such manner to allege that all actions are neither moral nor immoral--it simply observes that the judgment which asserts that an action is moral or immoral is itself a subjective judgment. It is true that this arises from the opinion of the person assigning a moral or immoral value to the action--but that does not authorize an idiotic contention that i have therefore claimed that no action is either moral or immoral. This is another example of how feeble is your effort to apply logic to this discussion. You are attempting to equate the recognition that morality is a matter of opinion with a value judgment of morality, because in the fairy tale world in which your imaginary friend resides, opinion is a matter of less worth than "the word of god." You therefore are conflating the value-neutral statement that morality is subjective with your opinion that morality derives from your imaginary friend, and that the statement therefore belittles morality by denying is divine provenance.

You fail, on a logical basis, to demonstrate that the statement, "all morality is subjective," has itself a moral character. Therefore, it is errant silliness to proceed from there to argue the nonsense with which you follow that illogical statement, because the premise is flawed.

Quote:

You have made a value judgement about ALL actions.

No, that is false, and you have failed to demonstrate the case. Therefore, you premise is flawed, and it is not worth the effort to argue the statements which you based upon that false premise.

Quote:

You have stated that an action is NEITHER good NOR bad, but it is simply called such based on one's opinion.

No, i have not so stated the case. You have failed to demonstrate this contention, and have no logical basis for your subsequent argument. It is not axiomatically true, nor have i claimed, that opinions are bereft of value judgment. I have no argument at all with someone's contention that something may be good or bad, or moral or immoral (although, of course, i reserve the right to disagree)--i simply recognize it as and point out that it is a subjective judgment.

Quote:

Incorrect. The statement you have made certainly addresses what is and what is not moral or immoral, and why you consider it to be so.

What is incorrect is your claim that saying that all morality is subjective addresses what is or is not moral--it does not, nor does it address upon what basis i would consider something to be moral or immoral. You have failed to logically support your case.

Quote:

It is inescapably a moral judgement.

No, it is not. You have consistently failed to logically support that claim. No other argument which you advance (your argument of contradiction) is valid, because it is predicated upon a false premise.

Quote:

And since it is an absolute moral judgement which denies the existence of moral absolutes, it is inherently contradictory.

It is not a moral judgment, you have failed to logically support such a claim, and it is therefore a false premise which fails to support your specious claim of a contradiction.

Quote:

I'm glad your nose is fine.

So am i. Too bad your nose is so consistently out of joint because you cannot demonstrate that you imaginary friend has created moral absolutes.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I realize that you abandoned your effort to claim that just because of the absolute character of my statement about morality, i had contradicted myself by referring to an absolute. Apparently, it eventually became clear to you that that tack was not working for you. .

Not at all.

I have consistently said, including in my most recent post, that your statement is an absolute statement.

It includes the word 'all' and it allows no exceptions.

It postulates a moral absolute and denies the existence of moral absolutes.

I have abandoned nothing.

I have not referred to absolutes of any other kind in this discussion.

Your reference to this was a brief distraction with no foundation.

The context has always been moral absolutes.

However, you have abandoned your contention that the statement itself was both an absolute statement and a subjective statement, as it has been made clear that the statement itself cannot be both.

Setanta wrote:

That it is an absolute statement does not alter that it is a subjective statement.

Your subjective acceptance of the statement did not make it a subjective statement.

0 Replies

Would the world be better off without religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know