Can We Be Good Without God...

[PaulSacramento]

Here you have it people, materialism at its best:

Okay; Subjective truth means a truth based on opinion, extenuating circumstances taken into consideration, or influenced by personal biases.

Objective truth means true no matter opinion, biases, or extenuating circumstances.

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

The first scenario is an example of subjective truth, the second scenario is an example of objective truth. Objective truth can be demonstrated as true, subjective truth cannot.

Ken

Thanks ken, I don't think that I could have explained the problem with materialism any better.

[Kenny]

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

No Ken, is there is no such thing AS Good and Evil then there is NO subjective good and evil.

I've already explained why good and evil does not exist by themselves; that they are just subjective judgments calls we attach to human behavior (like funny, silly, stupid, etc.). Perhaps you can explain why you disagree with me.

Ken

You need me to explain to you the common understanding that if there is no objective to start with that there can't be any subjective ???

I didn't say that; I said nothing about "no objective to start with" I compared good, and evil, to funny, silly, or stupid, as they are all judgment calls we attach to human behavior; that none of them exist by themselves. Now if you disagree with this, I am asking you to voice your disagreement.

Ken

[Kenny]

Here you have it people, materialism at its best:

Okay; Subjective truth means a truth based on opinion, extenuating circumstances taken into consideration, or influenced by personal biases.

Objective truth means true no matter opinion, biases, or extenuating circumstances.

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

The first scenario is an example of subjective truth, the second scenario is an example of objective truth. Objective truth can be demonstrated as true, subjective truth cannot.

Ken

Thanks ken, I don't think that I could have explained the problem with materialism any better.

Such a pity you have such a problem with the truth.

ken

[Kenny]

BW
Hebrew idea was that one bad fruit tree will eventually spreads its dysfunction to the good trees thus ruining what is healthy and good to eat. So the remedy was to cut down and destroy the bad fruit tree to spare the orchard from producing rancid fruit.
The Western Idea of Form and Materialism on the other hand defines good in this sense:
A Good fruit Tree makes good fruit that you keep for yourself, share freely with those close to you to appease conscience, and sell to others you like who do nice things for you.
The Bad fruit tree makes bad rancid fruit it is good to sell this fruit in the market place and make a buck...
Either way - both are good to me... even if the bad tree makes the orchard's entire harvest rancid - I can still sell the fruit in the market place and make a fortune, which is for my good.

Ken
Anybody who does business in the west knows if you sell defective product, it will not take long before nobody will want to buy from you. Once you get a bad reputation in business it takes a long time to recover from it

BW
Materialist of the left and atheist have no problem selling bad fruit.

Ken
Now that’s funny!

BW
How can that be good?

Ken
Not good, Funny!

BW
Is there such a things as rancid meat, fruit, food - you cannot eat it know matter one's perception of goodness, rancid food can kill you, or it can lame you, or make one very ill.
Therefore, Goodness is truly objective and measurable even of what is in the human heart in how it tries to wiggle its way to justify selling bad fruit and spoiling what is good.

Ken
Rancid food is objective; good is subjective

BW
Why do you desire to destroy goodness Ken?

Ken
Really???

[PaulSacramento]

I didn't say that; I said nothing about "no objective to start with" I compared good, and evil, to funny, silly, or stupid, as they are all judgment calls we attach to human behavior; that none of them exist by themselves. Now if you disagree with this, I am asking you to voice your disagreement.

Ken

I can't believe you actually wrote that.
It seems that you do NOT understand the premis at all.

Let me try it this way, using your own examples:

Good, evil, funny, stupid, none of those can exist in a subjective form ( what one finds good, evil, funny, stupid) without the objective existence of good, evil, funny and stupid ( even if those things are an absence of an objective thing as opposed to the thing itself).

[PaulSacramento]

Such a pity you have such a problem with the truth.

ken

Ken, you really need to re-read what you wrote, honestly.
Re-read it and if you still don't see the issue with materialism then, well...

[Kenny]

I didn't say that; I said nothing about "no objective to start with" I compared good, and evil, to funny, silly, or stupid, as they are all judgment calls we attach to human behavior; that none of them exist by themselves. Now if you disagree with this, I am asking you to voice your disagreement.

Ken

I can't believe you actually wrote that.
It seems that you do NOT understand the premis at all.

Let me try it this way, using your own examples:

Good, evil, funny, stupid, none of those can exist in a subjective form ( what one finds good, evil, funny, stupid) without the objective existence of good, evil, funny and stupid ( even if those things are an absence of an objective thing as opposed to the thing itself).

Lets pick the word "funny" for example. If you believe funny cannot exist in the subjective form without having an actual objective existence, explain the objective existence of "funny".

Ken

[Kenny]

Such a pity you have such a problem with the truth.

ken

Ken, you really need to re-read what you wrote, honestly.
Re-read it and if you still don't see the issue with materialism then, well...

Since you obviously disagree with what I wrote, how about if you explain why you disagree?

Ken

[Nessa]

Lets pick the word "funny" for example. If you believe funny cannot exist in the subjective form without having an actual objective existence, explain the objective existence of "funny".

Ken

Just as beauty is objective so is humour.
To say they don't exist as objective things, is to say there is nothing that can be truly funny
or truly beautiful.

[PaulSacramento]

I didn't say that; I said nothing about "no objective to start with" I compared good, and evil, to funny, silly, or stupid, as they are all judgment calls we attach to human behavior; that none of them exist by themselves. Now if you disagree with this, I am asking you to voice your disagreement.

Ken

I can't believe you actually wrote that.
It seems that you do NOT understand the premis at all.

Let me try it this way, using your own examples:

Good, evil, funny, stupid, none of those can exist in a subjective form ( what one finds good, evil, funny, stupid) without the objective existence of good, evil, funny and stupid ( even if those things are an absence of an objective thing as opposed to the thing itself).

Lets pick the word "funny" for example. If you believe funny cannot exist in the subjective form without having an actual objective existence, explain the objective existence of "funny".

Ken

ken if there is no such thing as "funny" then NOTHING can be "funny".

[Kenny]

Lets pick the word "funny" for example. If you believe funny cannot exist in the subjective form without having an actual objective existence, explain the objective existence of "funny".

Ken

Just as beauty is objective so is humour.
To say they don't exist as objective things, is to say there is nothing that can be truly funny
or truly beautiful.

Do you agree I may say “X” is funny and “Y” is beautiful, while YOU would say “X” is stupid and “Y” is ugly? This is possible because funny and beautiful is based on opinion not fact; that makes it subjective.
Now if “X” represents the effects of poison on the human body, under this scenario, “X” is objective because the effects of poison on the human body can be proven as fact. It doesn’t matter if you and I disagree on “X” or not, our opinions can be proven as true or false. Does this make sense to you?

Ken

[Kenny]

I didn't say that; I said nothing about "no objective to start with" I compared good, and evil, to funny, silly, or stupid, as they are all judgment calls we attach to human behavior; that none of them exist by themselves. Now if you disagree with this, I am asking you to voice your disagreement.

Ken

I can't believe you actually wrote that.
It seems that you do NOT understand the premis at all.

Let me try it this way, using your own examples:

Good, evil, funny, stupid, none of those can exist in a subjective form ( what one finds good, evil, funny, stupid) without the objective existence of good, evil, funny and stupid ( even if those things are an absence of an objective thing as opposed to the thing itself).

Lets pick the word "funny" for example. If you believe funny cannot exist in the subjective form without having an actual objective existence, explain the objective existence of "funny".

Ken

ken if there is no such thing as "funny" then NOTHING can be "funny".

I didn't say "no such thing as funny" I said "no such thing as OBJECTIVLY funny"

Ken

[RickD]

Guys,

Unless you can figure out a way to explain to Kenny how he's conflating ontology and epistemology,you're spinning your wheels. There's something in Kenny's mind that's blocking his understanding of the issue. If someone can figure out what that is, then maybe you can help Kenny understand.

[patrick]

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

Kenny, what do you think of social contractarianism?

Or put another way, what metric are you using to gauge which opinion is "better" ? Cause I'm assuming you don't really think "rape is good" is a valid opinion.

[Kenny]

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

Kenny, what do you think of social contractarianism?

Or put another way, what metric are you using to gauge which opinion is "better" ? Cause I'm assuming you don't really think "rape is good" is a valid opinion.

The metric I use is what makes sense to me.

Ken