|
3 registered members (Konsti, AndrewAMD, 1 invisible),
1,376
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Moral Relativism
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78514
07/22/06 22:52
07/22/06 22:52
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
But if relativism isn't absolutely true, then that means there are absolutes. So you're still wrong.
I tend to agree with you here Irish, relativism can't be absolute, hence the word relativism off course ..  
It's also useless to call relativism's existence absolute, since it isn't, it's one of the most dynamic things in the god blessed world. 
Quote:
These aren't bizarre extremes. If relativism is true, then its an absolute truth, and it defeats itself because it says there are no absolute truths. If relativism isn't absolutely true, then by the definition of relativism there must be absolute truths. That's not extreme, its just common sense.
These are bizarre extremes, why should something be absolute simply when it's valid? I don't see why this should be.
Relativism implies 'it can/could/will change', how can it be absolute then? Even if it, whatever it may be, changes, relativism stays valid, and by being valid it's true, but not absolute in any way. Give me an example of something relative that's absolute ... trust me, you won't find any. Infact, I'd even dare to say there are no absolutes, not even just the 'being' of things is absolute. Not even time is absolute. Not even our universe is absolute. Not even a God could be absolute.
Infact if you ask me, the word absolute doesn't quite have a meaning in the real word, when talking about the big picture of things anyway ... 
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Amazon touts anti-Israeli views,
[Re: broozar]
#78515
07/23/06 20:56
07/23/06 20:56
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
At first I thought you guys wanted another round of me destroying your philosophy. So what did this guy post? It must have been good if the subject was "Amazon touts anti-Israeli views."
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities
[Re: Pappenheimer]
#78516
08/06/06 15:20
08/06/06 15:20
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
While you are reading this, the Iranian reactor produces enriched bomb-grade uranium. Terrorists can deliver that bomb to your city, and it can kill you and your children. Yet the government does nothing. Do we demand violence? Not in any common sense. Similarly, police use force to arrest criminals in order to stop violence. But Iran is not a criminal? Wrong. Iran has proven malicious intent. Iran, under the current regime, conducted many terrorist bombings in the West, and sponsors deadly terrorists. Iranian leaders repeatedly called for fight against the United States and annihilation of Israel. Perhaps Iran needs nuclear weapons for self-defense? No. Iran already bullies the Middle East with its huge conventional army. No country threatens Iran. Since the eighth-century jihad and the Ottoman army at the gates of Vienna, the West has never been exposed to such threat. Iran’s several nuclear bombs can inflict more damage on America than the World War II. Never before the Islamic fundamentalists who hate the West and dream of attacking it had military might of apocalyptic dimensions. Are you crazy to doubt they will use the bomb? We call on the United States: Do not hesitate. Protect your people. Protect your allies. Destroy the Iranian reactor! To sign the petition, visit http://terrorismisrael.com/nuclear_iran.htm
|
|
|
Re: Petition to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities
#78517
08/06/06 16:28
08/06/06 16:28
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
you are right, there is nothing as anoying as some mind twisted extremist  worst are those who dont even show their names and spread hate from the underground have a nice one and dont kill anyone cheers
|
|
|
sldl
[Re: Blattsalat]
#78518
09/11/06 18:51
09/11/06 18:51
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I tend to agree with you here Irish, relativism can't be absolute, hence the word relativism off course ..
It's also useless to call relativism's existence absolute, since it isn't, it's one of the most dynamic things in the god blessed world.
But if it relativism isn't absolute, then what good is it? The opposite of relativism is absolutism. So if relativism isn't absolutely true, then why isn't absolutism absolutely true?
Quote:
These are bizarre extremes, why should something be absolute simply when it's valid? I don't see why this should be.
You'll have to explain to me why this is extreme. The way I see it, I've broken the argument down to its most basic components of logic. And having thus done that, I think I've exposed the weakness of your philosophy. You believe nothing is absolutely true, except that its absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true. But if that's absolutely true, then relativism is false as I've said many times before. If you want to argue that relativism isn't absolutely true, then you'll have a hard time making the argument that its true.
Quote:
Relativism implies 'it can/could/will change', how can it be absolute then?
No, 'truth' can change even in the absolutist position. The difference is relativists will see the change and say, "Neither position is more right than the other." Absolutists will say, "This position is true while the other is false."
That would be the difference.
Quote:
Give me an example of something relative that's absolute ... trust me, you won't find any.
What we're dealing with here is truth. I could come up with many examples of relative perceptions of absolute truths, but it wouldn't really get us anywhere.
Quote:
Infact, I'd even dare to say there are no absolutes, not even just the 'being' of things is absolute.
From the perspective of truth, there are. I can't exist and not exist at the same time.
Quote:
Not even time is absolute. Not even our universe is absolute.
What about time and the universe is relative? Does the universe not exist?
Quote:
Not even a God could be absolute.
I beg to differ. We have a lot of absolute truths 'hard coded' into the universe. I don't think random chance can create everything, including random chance. We have mathematics, logic, and laws (etc) that are absolute. I think that's the reflection of an absolute, and consistent, creator.
Quote:
Infact if you ask me, the word absolute doesn't quite have a meaning in the real word, when talking about the big picture of things anyway ...
This has been a rather illuminating discussion.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: sldl
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78519
09/12/06 03:30
09/12/06 03:30
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Does the universe not exist?
Define exist.
Define universe.
As far as we know what we perceive as exsistance is actually an enormous amount of ridiculously tiny ...things... which act as waves sometimes and paticles at others (actually all matter exhibits wave properties anyway... which is odd to say the least), hell electrons even phase out of existance when switching energy levels. On top of this hazyness of what matter is or isn't we have things like the uncertainty principle where we can't even know exactly where things are when we know how fast their going....
And then theres the stuff behind the crazy half existing particles that's even hazier and I don't even have the half-understanding I do of basic quantum mechanics with, like string theory... super-string theory... the thought that the universe is made of Branes... quarks...
We have no clue what the universe is, how can we know it exists? Can our minds even grasp it? Is there even a truth to the nature of the universe?
As far as we know there are no absolutes in nature. EX. the fine structure 'constant' is in fact changing slowly. What does that mean? The universe is not fine-tuned, or if it is then somebody has definetly been lazy lately with keeping it so.
Everything is variable, everything is relative. There are no absolute co-ordiantes because there is no absolute origin point. Even if there was it would be impossible to chart things from it with any degree of accuracy in the long run since literally EVERYTHING is moving in relation to everything else.
Maybe you should take a look at your perfect natural machine, your fine-tuned universe created specifically for us, where the vast majority - and I mean VAST - of space is well... space. Where giant nuclear furnaces whip around crushing darknesses, drawn slowly in over millions of years... Where tiny dense spinning balls fire off streams of death. Where unexplainable bursts of massive amounts of radiation fire into the permanent blackness. Where all of this is merely another level of tiny building block to the grand scheme of things... Where everything our brains -so tailored to this tiny rock - can comprehend ceases to apply.
Then ask yourself, what do I really know? What is certainty? how can I truly believe that there are moral absolutes, that these ideas from the minds of social apes have any merit?
Logic does not apply to existance.
|
|
|
Re: sldl
[Re: MathewAllen]
#78521
09/13/06 05:18
09/13/06 05:18
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Define exist.
Define universe.
I'm not going to bust out the dictionary. You reference a lot of EM bursts and whatnot, if they don't exist (inside of this universe) then don't bother mentioning them.
Quote:
We have no clue what the universe is, how can we know it exists?
For me, you asking that question answers it. Our understanding of something isn't a requisite of its existence. We didn't know what gravity was (maybe we still don't) but that doesn't mean it doesn't affect us at all times.
Quote:
As far as we know there are no absolutes in nature. EX. the fine structure 'constant' is in fact changing slowly. What does that mean? The universe is not fine-tuned, or if it is then somebody has definetly been lazy lately with keeping it so.
Actually, last I heard it was up in the air and they were hoping to experimentally clarify earlier results by the end of this year.
Assuming the fine structure constant is changing, the universe hasn't decended into chaos yet.
Quote:
Everything is variable, everything is relative. There are no absolute co-ordiantes because there is no absolute origin point.
Ok.
Quote:
Maybe you should take a look at your perfect natural machine, your fine-tuned universe created specifically for us
I don't think it was created for us. If it was, you're right it probably wouldn't look like it does. I wouldn't expect the universe to be specifically created down to every detail just for us, though. I mean, I'm flattered that I'm part of the only species able to grasp the universe (to an extent), but I have no delusions of importance. The universe is in many ways finely tuned for life, but we're not living in a bubble meant just for humans. In fact, I'd be contradicting the bible if I wanted to believe otherwise.
Quote:
the vast majority - and I mean VAST - of space is well... space. Where giant nuclear furnaces whip around crushing darknesses, drawn slowly in over millions of years... Where tiny dense spinning balls fire off streams of death. Where unexplainable bursts of massive amounts of radiation fire into the permanent blackness. Where all of this is merely another level of tiny building block to the grand scheme of things... Where everything our brains -so tailored to this tiny rock - can comprehend ceases to apply.
Then ask yourself, what do I really know? What is certainty? how can I truly believe that there are moral absolutes, that these ideas from the minds of social apes have any merit?
Its rather interesting to follow the atheist line of reasoning here. I'm not trying to belittle what you're saying here, if that's what it sounds like. It just really helps me see things from your viewpoint like I never could before. I don't know, your diction is interesting too, "crushing darkness", "streams of death", "permanent blackness" and so on.
I can definately see why you would feel the way you feel if this is the way you perceive the universe around you.
I don't know, I've always felt privelaged to be a witness to 'the show' if you will. Where you see permanent blackness, I see a sprawling canvas. Where you see streams of death, I see something akin to a cosmic fireworks show. Frankly, the creation never ceases to amaze me, and its one of the few beautiful things that's too far out of our reach to 'taint'; Lord knows we've really managed to mess things up here on earth. Sure, most of these things are dangerous from the perspective of life. But think about how dangerous and destructive the sun is, even though we couldn't survive without it. I don't see danger, I see opportunity (in a sense).
I have to ask you a question though.
Quote:
Then ask yourself, what do I really know? What is certainty? how can I truly believe that there are moral absolutes, that these ideas from the minds of social apes have any merit?
Then how can you trust yourself? Why should I believe any of the conclusions you or any relativist comes to? How do you know that you're right about the 'hopeless' situation we 'advanced apes' find ourselves in? The problem I have, according to you, doesn't just apply to me.
The whole relativist philosophy says that I'm not more right than you are, even though I'm saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. Something doesn't match up.
Quote:
Logic does not apply to existance.
I don't think you could prove that without using logic. Although I wouldn't mind having a debate on the existence of logic, because that's something an atheist might have a hard time with when it comes to accounting for its existence.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/13/06 05:19.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: sldl
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#78522
09/14/06 18:27
09/14/06 18:27
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
But if it relativism isn't absolute, then what good is it? The opposite of relativism is absolutism. So if relativism isn't absolutely true, then why isn't absolutism absolutely true?
Don't get confused by using the same words over and over again.
Absolutism might be the opposite of relativism linguistically, that still doesn't prove it actually exists, it's just that we made up what it's opposition would be called.
Relativism can't be absolute, it would have had to be called absolutism instead in that case, and it's not. Why would something be absolutely true? Is it possible to even determine what's truth and what's not beyond any reasonable doubt? I'd say truth itself is 100% relative, stating something is true is relative, it all depends on the gathered knowledge and know-how.
I simply know relativism exists, it's everywhere. The amount of knowledge (in general and individually), (linked) events/action/reaction, chance, choices, emotions, language, intelligence, perspectives. There's no absolute in any of those, it's really all relative. The fact that all is relative is not absolute, and this is not contradicting at all, even if it may seem so.
Quote:
I beg to differ. We have a lot of absolute truths 'hard coded' into the universe. I don't think random chance can create everything, including random chance. We have mathematics, logic, and laws (etc) that are absolute. I think that's the reflection of an absolute, and consistent, creator.
No, mathematics, laws and logic are all based upon compromises, we have agreed upon those rules, those agreements are relative. Just because we've decided 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's actually true. It's IS true when we follow are own made rules. Without these rules, mathematics would be rather pointless, hence the rules's existance.
Exactly the same goes for logic. A bit more complicated though, because it's based upon learned rules mixed with 'reason', both can determine once's "logic" (you may not always agree with those 'learned rules', in that case 'reason' tells you to think different, IF you are using your brains and don't think like the big masses ).
There are more kinds of logic too by the way, again it's very relative.
Quote:
This has been a rather illuminating discussion.
I see, however prove to me absolute things exist. You will find out it's impossible. The only thing that may be absolute, is it's non-existance hahahaha,
Quote:
What about time and the universe is relative? Does the universe not exist?
It's subject to a constant change, so no it's definately not absolute in any way whatsoever.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 09/14/06 18:31.
|
|
|
Re: sldl
[Re: PHeMoX]
#78523
09/14/06 19:55
09/14/06 19:55
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
OP
User
|
OP
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Don't get confused by using the same words over and over again.
I think I've used that sentence about 8 times now. I need to stop.
Quote:
Absolutism might be the opposite of relativism linguistically, that still doesn't prove it actually exists, it's just that we made up what it's opposition would be called.
Its the opposite of it logically. The linguistics are just symbols and patterns assigned to reality so that our brains can grasp it.
In some ways, black is the opposite of white. Just because we assign words to these colors, doesn't mean that black and white don't exist. It just means that we, in our limited capacity, need such constructs to understand the world.
Quote:
Relativism can't be absolute, it would have had to be called absolutism instead in that case, and it's not.
Yes, that's what I've been saying. But you don't take it to its logical conclusion. If relativism isn't true, then its false. But if its true, then its also false, because then that's an absolute. I hate having to repeat myself like this, but I don't see how you're not making the connection.
Quote:
Why would something be absolutely true?
Something may be absolutely true if all the opposing alternatives are false. In morals, this may be that homosexuality is wrong. If homosexuality is wrong, no matter what, then that's an unchanging absolute. Of course, I'm not going to get into determining sources of absolutes like this, because then that will get into a debate over the validity of the bible and all that. Which is an ok debate to have, but right now, I have to establish that relativism is logically wrong so that we're playing in the right ball park. Then we can decide if the bible is the source of moral absolutes and stuff like that.
Quote:
Is it possible to even determine what's truth and what's not beyond any reasonable doubt? I'd say truth itself is 100% relative, stating something is true is relative, it all depends on the gathered knowledge and know-how.
Perhaps, but I think that's beyond where I'd like the focus to be. But, the way I see it, its our understanding of Truth that's relative, not truth itself.
Quote:
I simply know relativism exists, it's everywhere. The amount of knowledge (in general and individually), (linked) events/action/reaction, chance, choices, emotions, language, intelligence, perspectives. There's no absolute in any of those, it's really all relative.
Hm. This could be a debate in itself because much of these are rock solid absolutes. A lot of nature is absolute. A green light is green, whether or not the viewer observes it as green. I can't exist and not exist at the same time. Etc.
Quote:
The fact that all is relative is not absolute, and this is not contradicting at all, even if it may seem so.
Ok, this is kind of where you need to be at this point. But you still need to make your case. Otherwise all you've done is state an opinion here. If its absolutely true that truth is relative, then why isn't that contradicting? If it isn't absolutely true that truth is relative, then why isn't relativism false?
I could switch up your statement here without changing its meaning. "The fact that relativism is absolute is not absolute."
Quote:
No, mathematics, laws and logic are all based upon compromises, we have agreed upon those rules, those agreements are relative. Just because we've decided 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's actually true.
Hm.
Hmmmmm.
What we've agreed on are the symbols and language to apply to mathematics. However, the principles of mathematics are transcendant. You can say there are three cubes, tres cubes, (1+2) cubes, III cubes, or whatever you want. While the symbols and language of each of those examples is different, they're all true (assuming there really are three cubes). The truth of the existence of thoes three cubes can be described by language, but is no dependent on language.
Quote:
Exactly the same goes for logic. A bit more complicated though, because it's based upon learned rules mixed with 'reason', both can determine once's "logic" (you may not always agree with those 'learned rules', in that case 'reason' tells you to think different, IF you are using your brains and don't think like the big masses ).
Logic would have to exist or we would never have discovered mathematics. Again, its how we apply logic (on a person-to-person basis) that's relative. Not logic itself.
If logic wasn't absolute, then there should be any number of ways to solve a sudoku puzzle, actually sudoku puzzles wouldn't even be possible. So on and so forth.
Quote:
I see, however prove to me absolute things exist. You will find out it's impossible. The only thing that may be absolute, is it's non-existance hahahaha,
Then that would be an absolute and you would just have proved that absolutes exist.
I'm not out to 'prove the existence' of absolutes. What I'm trying to do is show that relativism isn't logically consistent, which makes it little more than 'junk philosophy.' Although, the reason I think its so prevailent is that its the 'logical' step one might make if they're a secular evolutionist (just being an atheist would probably suffice, but I don't know of any that aren't evolutionists), because then there's no source for absolutes.
However, I can prove that absolutes must exist (even if we don't know what they are) by proving that relativism is false. Therefore, I'm trying to prove relativism is false.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 09/14/06 19:58.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
