Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What about when people don't agree. specifically the minority.
    Your example is yet again quite vague. Are you referring to a political, racial, ethnic, religious, etc. minority?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am not aware of any moral system that was voted on at all ever.
    Nor did I say one was.

    ---------- Post added at 09:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:19 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Just because an action is accepted does not make it right, morally; it makes it liked or imposed.
    Tell me, is it simply accepted that cutting off your head will harm you, or is it a fact? You seem to miss the point about how SM uses objective assessments to determine whether an action is considered good or bad.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The question is why do the thoughts of one relative, subjective individual (who influences others) equal what is 'good'? Is it because of he and the other participants 'liking' his system of thought, or is there a standard that is best that he can appeal to?
    SM relies on rational discourse, the examination of data & facts, and objective assessments, in order to determine which actions serve the goals of the system.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    SM does not have one that is best, nor could it make one up.
    The standards aren't simply made up. The standards are based on what's inherently in the participants' best interests. Your claim that they're just "made up" is a common claim by theists regarding the inherent subjectivity of any society's goals. It's something which no society ever has been able to avoid regardless of where they claim to get their morals, but there's nothing wrong with it. Do you honestly think people are just sitting around, "making up" standards arbitrarily?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If the Being is all-knowing, then He would know what is best, and He would be the standard that best is derived from by subjective human beings.
    Really? On what basis are you saying that an all-knowing being should have any authority over a society which has the ability to determine for themselves what they think their standards should be? This is the main point behind the authority being external vs. internal.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    People would start calling good as evil and evil as good.
    Would you call punishing someone indefinitely for a finite crime good?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    "Encourage change" would be a problem.
    How so? When an opportunity to change & improve something is identified, a secular system encourages the discussions which would lead to the change. Religious systems, on the other hand, do not encourage change.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    How would the participants ever arrive at a best?
    With reasoned discussion and rational examination of available evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Without a fixed best how could the participants know that what they believed was good? (The idea of best is that there is nothing better and if the participants can't appeal to a best - everything is changing - how can they say their system of thought is any better than any other?)
    Again, by having reasoned discourse and showing that a certain standard meets the goals of their system better than another. When faced with limited options, one can certainly be identified as the best available.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    This type of SM philosophy is what people fight over - a disagreement on what is better or best.
    In SM, armed conflicts only occur when one party is not willing to participate in the reasoned discourse which would resolve the disagreement, or, more commonly, when the party is not SM, but RM and dogmatically asserting their inferior system.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You throw around words like good and better and best, but what they equate to is what you prefer/like, since your system is ever changing.
    No, they equate to what is demonstrably better at serving our goals. Again, nobody is simply saying "I like this or that" arbitrarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Is Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not lie, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not covet something that belongs to someone else, a bad thing?
    No, but again, what identifies and validates these as bad things is not simply that they're written about in a book, but that they are demonstrably against the goals of our society. These assessments, however, are subject to change. Killing someone, for example, is in some circumstances the best available action to take, in which case it would not be bad to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    The 'Golden Rule' is what most religious beliefs are based upon, although I only defend ONE, the Judeo-Christian system of belief. I will argue with you against any other system of thought and belief.
    Really? So when the Israelites were performing the instructions in Going to War, they were actually operating on the Golden Rule?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Improvements provided that the system has built on what is right, instead of what is thought by the individual and his adherents to be good.
    Again, the system is built on what is demonstrably better at achieving the society's goals, not just one what an individual and their adherents think is good.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Hitler (and other depots) built on a system, that if realized, would have resulted in the extermination of whole classes of human beings, such as the Jews.
    Hitler claimed he was doing the work of God. He dogmatically enforced his religious opinions on Germany by force of the army, and each soldier had "God with us" on their belt buckles. SM allows us to objectively determine that what Hitler did was wrong by examining the available evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Now, if there is no best or ultimate, fixed standard, how do we even get to best, let alone good? Good is whatever works, or whatever one person or group can pressure others to accept.
    Again, it's not pressure, but reasoned discourse.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    So Thou shall not kill, lie, steal, covet, etc., (love your neighbor as yourself) is not providing the most reliable results, results that we should follow?
    Whether a standard can provide results is completely separate to whether the standard is intended to do so, which was the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Adaptation means that best has not been found, followed, or known.
    And this is the situation we find ourselves in. Anything else is just unsupported claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Based on whose skeptical inquiry, whose rationale, whose data, whose demonstratable results.
    The participants'.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Inclusive discussions?
    Yes, inclusive discussions, since the discussions take place between the participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I see what is happening on campuses around your country where conservative views are ostracized and squashed. That is what happens when SM is questioned and criticized.
    No, that is what happens when rational discourse breaks down.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, not conquest or coercion in the case of Christianity but choice.
    I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. There are numerous examples in history where religions, including Christianity, were forced onto unwilling participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It relies the individual recognizing there is One who has our best interested in mind and it depends upon the obedience of the INDIVIDUAL to doing what is good or best because the revelation of God has changed their whole being.
    Yes, all hail Zeus! No, wait, Allah! Or was it Thor? This is what it means to fail at a rational examination of evidence. In any case, what you describe here is precisely what I referred to in my point which included conversion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Superior in whose SM view (Kim Jong-un, President Xi's, an oppressive military junta, or Putin's)?
    As previously explained, these regimes are not SM, but RM, since they are all dogmatic and are not based on the best interests of their participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Because an individual or group says their changing view is superior to another groups views does not make it so unless there is an ultimate standard that their view can be measured by?
    But we don't have what you are referring to as an ultimate standard - only claims of one. In any case, the measurement is the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Hitler did not like Jews. Kim Jong-un does not like Americans.
    These are both RM.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    President Xi ... Putin
    These are both RM in their dogmatic approach to the state's involvement in religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    If these atheistic and agnostic regimes achieve their goals, the world will be a radically changes place. Once the Judeo-Christian system of thought is supplanted, anything is possible).
    Again, they are not atheistic or agnostic regimes.

    Thank you for your post, Peter!

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Just because an action is accepted does not make it right, morally; it makes it liked or imposed.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Tell me, is it simply accepted that cutting off your head will harm you, or is it a fact? You seem to miss the point about how SM uses objective assessments to determine whether an action is considered good or bad.
    Sure it will harm you - fact.

    Is it accepted that abortion violently kills an innocent human being? If so, then why are there so many abortions (millions every year) if it is considered harmful to cut off (pull off) someone's head?

    So, on those thoughts (cutting off someones head), is abortion good or bad considering how many are decapitated, injected or mutilated?

    Warning for graphic content showing decapitated unborn human beings:

    http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/u...2/08/david.jpg
    http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/u...08/ablate5.jpg
    http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/u...08/ablate8.jpg
    http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/u...slit-small.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The question is why do the thoughts of one relative, subjective individual (who influences others) equal what is 'good'? Is it because of he and the other participants 'liking' his system of thought, or is there a standard that is best that he can appeal to?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    SM relies on rational discourse, the examination of data & facts, and objective assessments, in order to determine which actions serve the goals of the system.
    That depends on what SM regime and system of thought or control you/one live(s) under, such as China or North Korea, or Russia.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    SM does not have one that is best, nor could it make one up.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The standards aren't simply made up. The standards are based on what's inherently in the participants' best interests. Your claim that they're just "made up" is a common claim by theists regarding the inherent subjectivity of any society's goals. It's something which no society ever has been able to avoid regardless of where they claim to get their morals, but there's nothing wrong with it. Do you honestly think people are just sitting around, "making up" standards arbitrarily?
    The standards are merely made up if there is no ultimate standard as the measure. It just depends on who makes them up and where you live. Civilization (when you can call it that) is replete with such examples of different (harmful) standards. Western culture, influenced by the Judeo-Christian system of thought, makes it more tolerant to live in than some atheistic or alternate systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If the Being is all-knowing, then He would know what is best, and He would be the standard that best is derived from by subjective human beings.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Really? On what basis are you saying that an all-knowing being should have any authority over a society which has the ability to determine for themselves what they think their standards should be? This is the main point behind the authority being external vs. internal.
    The Bible is the basis I use.

    An omniscient and omnipotent being would know best, and if He chose to exercise His sovereignty by revealing what is best (Himself), then we would be responsible for living according to His standard or face repercussions. As His creatures in His creation, we would eventually have to answer for the wrong we have done.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    People would start calling good as evil and evil as good.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Would you call punishing someone indefinitely for a finite crime good?
    Yes, if God created humanity to live forever. Punishment would be separation from His presence, since why would He allow someone who wanted to do their own sinful will to live in His presence for eternity? That each man to his own standard in heaven would be the kind of hell we see so often on earth where one person decides to do extreme evil to someone else. If a person wants to live a selfish and self-centered life, pleasing themselves and their desires, then they will be judged as such and separated from His presence. If you do not want to acknowledge His purity and majesty, nor submit to His will (which meets its fulfillment in Jesus Christ) here on earth, you will find yourself living according to your heart's desire, along with everyone else who is wanting to live according to his or her own will on the flip side of this life. I'm sure you can imagine the inhumanity that will ensue, without any restraint from God if the same kind of inhumanity and freedom was allowed in heaven.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    "Encourage change" would be a problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    How so? When an opportunity to change & improve something is identified, a secular system encourages the discussions which would lead to the change. Religious systems, on the other hand, do not encourage change.
    How so? Why is your system of thought any better than my opposing mode of thinking in a relative, subjective world of ideas? Why is your opinion of improvement any 'better' than Hitler's idea of change, or Kim Jong-un's? You are just lucky you live in a culture that is significantly influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

    The problem with 'improvement' is who discusses what 'better' is and why is their relative standard the standard that all others SHOULD be fashioned after? If you are just a biological bag of atoms that fizzes one way, and me another, according to my electro-chemical reactions then what makes your opinion any better than mine? NOTHING. It just makes it the system fostered on others by force.

    Better needs an ultimate best in which to measure qualitative values against or else whose 'best' are we to believe? The very nature of best is better than all others. Since you are not omniscient how do you determine all the computations of a particular system of thinking as to its goodness? You don't. Your idea of utopia becomes a living hell once the scenario starts to play out. Look at every country that implemented communism. But when you adopt the Judeo-Christian system of thought things work better because it is based on a best. After all, is it better not to murder/kill another INNOCENT human being? Is it better not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, not to covet? If you say it is not better to tell the truth, then why would you be able to trust anything anyone else told you if they lived according to such a standard?


    [QUOTE=PGA2How would the participants ever arrive at a best?[/QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    With reasoned discussion and rational examination of available evidence.
    Given that you think your reasoning is 'better' than my reasoning, and if there is no ultimate measure, why SHOULD your reasoning be better than mine? If I am starving why would it be in my best interest to share with you? When shortages of food or economic crisis occur, it is more often than not that every man is for himself or his family. There is no reasoning available, operating on a secular morality, that I would share with you what I grew to feed my family, even if I have a little more than my family needs at present, if it ultimately means their survival over yours. But as a Christian, I would forgo my earthly existent to look after yours along with my family, instead of my own.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Without a fixed best how could the participants know that what they believed was good? (The idea of best is that there is nothing better and if the participants can't appeal to a best - everything is changing - how can they say their system of thought is any better than any other?)
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, by having reasoned discourse and showing that a certain standard meets the goals of their system better than another. When faced with limited options, one can certainly be identified as the best available.
    You have a reason or reasons that may very well oppose my reasoning. Your reasoning may meet your idea of reasonable but obviously the Judeo-Christian system of thought does not meet your standards of logic/reason or else you would believe it. How does 'loving your neighbor as yourself' seem unreasonable? How does an ultimate qualitative value that best can be know from and better can be compared to seem absurd? If it does seem ridiculous, then what is your final standard that you derive best from? It is a subjective standard, right? You don't have an ultimate, final standard, do you? You make one up, or someone else does for you because you use words like good and better that change as more and more reasoning requires you to redefine what is good. Not so long ago abortion and same-sex marriage were considered taboo by both our North American societies. Which system of thought is better, the one we used to hold or the one we hold today (because both are opposites and both can't be equally right). Which social system is better, the one adopted by the USA or the one chosen by Kim Jong-un, the Vatican, or Saudi Arabia, regarding abortion or same-sex marriage? Why SHOULD your social group get to choose? And what about those in your greater society who disagree with the spoon-fed masses or the elite who pass the laws? Why can't these sub-cultures be right also? If you say they both can be right, you run into a problem of a logical contradiction. Which is the true standard? In a relative world, please explain why your system is the true standard, or do you just want to foster your atheistic views by force on everyone so we can all live as you dictate?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    This type of SM philosophy is what people fight over - a disagreement on what is better or best.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In SM, armed conflicts only occur when one party is not willing to participate in the reasoned discourse which would resolve the disagreement, or, more commonly, when the party is not SM, but RM and dogmatically asserting their inferior system.
    Conflicts happen when one system of thought is imposed on another system of thought that goes against the will on the native system.

    Reasoned in whose mind? A secular mindset. Why is your mindset any better than mine? Define your ultimate best standard, so I may determine if it is better. Is your gauge ultimately yourself? Which relative individual or group holds the keys to best if not you?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You throw around words like good and better and best, but what they equate to is what you prefer/like, since your system is ever changing.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, they equate to what is demonstrably better at serving our goals. Again, nobody is simply saying "I like this or that" arbitrarily.
    Better in whose mind, yours? Why is your mind's view better than mine? Because YOU prefer it?

    Let's get down to concrete examples. What is your view on abortion? It is, or SHOULD it be, the woman's right to choose?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Is Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not lie, Thou shall not commit adultery, Thou shall not covet something that belongs to someone else, a bad thing?
    No, but again, what identifies and validates these as bad things is not simply that they're written about in a book, but that they are demonstrably against the goals of our society.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    These assessments, however, are subject to change. Killing someone, for example, is in some circumstances the best available action to take, in which case it would not be bad to do so.
    They are subject to change in your system of thought because you can't grab onto an ultimate best or final measure of comparison. You're always trying to get to best but never can. 'Better' is only as good as those who believe it until someone else comes along and explains their subjective views are better yet. If others decide to accept those beliefs, then what was once considered better is now jettisoned and replaced by another relative opinion. That view is opposite of what was once thought better. You can never get to best in a changing system of thought regarding qualitative values.

    Go figure.

    Is killing an innocent human being for the fun of it ever right?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The 'Golden Rule' is what most religious beliefs are based upon, although I only defend ONE, the Judeo-Christian system of belief. I will argue with you against any other system of thought and belief.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Really? So when the Israelites were performing the instructions in Going to War, they were actually operating on the Golden Rule?
    They were operating on the principle of justice (God's justice). These people groups living in the Promised Land practiced evil. Some, such as the Ammonites, practiced human sacrifices.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

    Deuteronomy 18:9-12 (NIV)
    Occult Practices
    9 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. 10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. 12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.


    What is more, these people groups would have obstructed God's plan by eradicating the Jews from the land or corrupting them to do evil (which they did). They would have (and did) persuade them to adopt foreign gods who are not the Only true God.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Improvements provided that the system has built on what is right, instead of what is thought by the individual and his adherents to be good.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the system is built on what is demonstrably better at achieving the society's goals, not just one what an individual and their adherents think is good.
    'Better' in whose mind? In any given society many (sometimes countless) subcultural groups oppose the central system of thought.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Hitler (and other depots) built on a system, that if realized, would have resulted in the extermination of whole classes of human beings, such as the Jews.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Hitler claimed he was doing the work of God. He dogmatically enforced his religious opinions on Germany by force of the army, and each soldier had "God with us" on their belt buckles. SM allows us to objectively determine that what Hitler did was wrong by examining the available evidence.
    No, Hitler used Christianity as a means to an end. Mein Kampf deals with a social Darwinian system of thought - the strong survive. Many people claim they are Christians, some even think it is their birthright, yet do not display an ounce of Christian fruit in their actions.

    "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity, numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity."

    "Once in office, Hitler and his regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. From the mid-1930s, his government was increasingly dominated by militant anti-Christians like Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler, Rosenberg and Heydrich whom Hitler appointed to key posts. These anti-church radicals were generally permitted or encouraged to perpetrate the Nazi persecutions of the churches. The regime launched an effort toward coordination of German Protestants under a unified Protestant Reich Church (but this was resisted by the Confessing Church), and moved early to eliminate political Catholicism. Hitler agreed to the Reich Concordat with the Vatican, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...f_Adolf_Hitler

    "Hitler’s religious beliefs have been the source of much misinformation. Some argue that while Hitler paid lip service to Christianity, he was actually an atheist. Others argue that Hitler was an occultist. The reality is that Hitler adhered to a system of belief that may be classified as pseudo-Christian and extremely heretical."

    "His closest friend as a youth, August Kubizek, said, “For the entire period that I knew Adolf Hitler, I do not think he attended mass.”2 Hitler affirmed his lack of interest in religion as a youth, saying in 1942, “At thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, I no longer believed in anything, certainly none of my friends still believed in the so-called communion, only a few totally stupid honor students!”"

    http://www.equip.org/article/was-hitler-a-christian/

    Anyone who alters the message of Christianity is not a Christian. They do not worship God in spirit and in TRUTH. Hitler did not recognize the OT and many parts of the NT, including Matthew and the writings of Paul. He shaped his Positive Christianity to resemble Aryian teachings, a false gospel.

    Anyone who calls what he believed Christian is sadly mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Now, if there is no best or ultimate, fixed standard, how do we even get to best, let alone good? Good is whatever works, or whatever one person or group can pressure others to accept.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, it's not pressure, but reasoned discourse.
    Whose reason?

    What you see as 'reasoned discourse' I regard as a propaganda machine that tries to drown out opposing views (just like Hitler did). I perceive my conservative reasoning as drowned out in much of your/my culture, including gatekeeping institutions of higher learning (the school system, colleges, and universities), the Democratic Party/Liberal Party, Holywood, and the liberal-minded mass media. These (and other liberal groups) control the mainstream view held by your/my society.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So Thou shall not kill, lie, steal, covet, etc., (love your neighbor as yourself) is not providing the most reliable results, results that we should follow?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Whether a standard can provide results is completely separate to whether the standard is intended to do so, which was the point.
    Either the standard I listed is positive and provides the most reliable results that we SHOULD follow, or it does not. Are you saying such a standard does not?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Adaptation means that best has not been found, followed, or known.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And this is the situation we find ourselves in. Anything else is just unsupported claims.
    It is the type of situation YOU find YOURSELF in, but don't include me in your system. I do NOT share the same value system that you or many in your culture does in many instances. If you can prove that the Christian system of thought is a sham then, you have a point. I do not believe you can.

    Explain to me how you can arrive at better in an ever changing sytem of thought in which best has not been defined or realized and the term better rests.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Based on whose skeptical inquiry, whose rationale, whose data, whose demonstratable results.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The participants'.
    Sure!

    Stats can be used to bolster any system of thought. You can poll 1,000 people in a city that is largely Democratic. Not only this, but statistics measure both empirical data and abstract opinions, opinions that are based on a qualitative value system (that, in your case, is continuously changing depending on a number of factors, one such being who is in power).

    In your very country, it is in with the new and out with the old concerning many of the policies Obama implimented. Trump is replacing them. Show me that Trump's plans are worse regarding, for instance, Planned Parenthood, by showing me that the value system Obama held on that abortion issue has a fixed and final reference point or don't talk to me about better. Why should I believe that a standard that is continually morphing is better now than it used to be?

    Regarding statistics:

    http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
    http://www.news1130.com/2011/11/21/y...th-statistics/

    "There are, of course, problems with using statistics as evidence. Let me remind you of a famous saying: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics." What you must do is ask yourself some questions: who did the study that came up with the statistics, what exactly are the statistics measuring, who was asked, how were they asked, and compared with what? If one believes in the truth of statistics (and there are many such), then how does one explain that the same Presidential candidate can be 20 points ahead and 5 points behind his opponent in the polls at the same time? After all, both polls are "statistics". What you must be examine, if you wish to use statistics as evidence, are the above questions.
    1. Who Did the Study
    2. What are the Statistics Measuring
    3. Who was Asked?
    4. How Were They Asked?
    It is not only the respondents but the questioners that contribute their own prejudice to the gathering of facts.
    Two things that are used in surveys and statistical studies are questions and answers. First, let's examine the questions.
    Researchers generally have an idea what their research is looking for. They thus formulate questions that will illuminate their research, either pro or con. Prejudice can creep in when a researcher unconsciously words questions in such a way that the answers support his or her contention or opinion. Various questions of this type are leading questions, loaded questions, and double-barreled questions.
    5. Compared with What?
    Finally, you need to examine statistics to determine what are the comparisons being drawn and are they relevant and valid.

    http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evistats.html

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Inclusive discussions?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, inclusive discussions, since the discussions take place between the participants.
    Inclusive of who? Is a liberal university campus like Berkeley inclusive? Are women who choose to destroy their offspring being inclusive? Are those who object to a Christian saying "Merry Christmas" being inclusive? Are those who form a different opinion on any particular issue being inclusive when they exclude others? Are the Palestinians or Iranians inclusive of the rights of Israel to exist? Is Kim Jong-un being inclusive regarding his people or the rest of the world?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I see what is happening on campuses around your country where conservative views are ostracized and squashed. That is what happens when SM is questioned and criticized.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, that is what happens when rational discourse breaks down.
    Right, but a large group of people holds the view that what they believe is right/true without 'right and true' being locked down. For them, it can mean whatever they want it to say/mean. These people do not want a rational discourse; they want what they like to be made legal. This is the same case for you unless you have an ultimate standard/measure/reference point that can be appealed to. Do you have such a standard? If not, don't tell me what you like is BETTER than what I like.

    If I like to boil and eat human beings that oppose my views because that is my preference, and the majority and legal position of my culture, and I can get away with doing this because my culture accepts this view I hold then, what makes my opinions on such issues any less right than your opposing views, if you live in my culture? Your system of thought has no final reference point or measure to argue otherwise. In fact, if I appeal to my culture as the ultimate consensus I can say that it is your views that are wrong, and you will be the next guest in my cauldron, thank you very much!

    If it is all relative to culture or all relative to an individual, how can you say that Obama's America is any better than Hitler's Germany, or Kim Jong-Un's North Korea?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    No, not conquest or coercion in the case of Christianity but choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. There are numerous examples in history where religions, including Christianity, were forced onto unwilling participants.
    Christianity is a heart issue. You cannot be forced to believe in a God if you deny He exists, even if the culture forces you to conform with its religiosity and rituals outwardly regarding Christianity.

    But if God changes your mind by His Word, Son, Spirit, then you will choose Him over your other ultimately worthless beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It relies the individual recognizing there is One who has our best interested in mind and it depends upon the obedience of the INDIVIDUAL to doing what is good or best because the revelation of God has changed their whole being.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, all hail Zeus! No, wait, Allah! Or was it Thor? This is what it means to fail at a rational examination of evidence. In any case, what you describe here is precisely what I referred to in my point which included conversion.
    No, not Zeus, or Allah, or Thor. God, as revealed in the Bible, has given justifiable evidence of His existence. I would argue that Zeus, nor Allah, nor Thor has. If you wanted to investigate the claim, which is another discussion, I would invite you to disprove biblical prophecy on the evidence available. I don't see the Qu'ran, for instance, as offfering the same degree of accountability for its claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Superior in whose SM view (Kim Jong-un, President Xi's, an oppressive military junta, or Putin's)?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    As previously explained, these regimes are not SM, but RM, since they are all dogmatic and are not based on the best interests of their participants.
    Why does a system have to be determined on the best interests of its participants and who determines what are the best interests without an ultimate best reference point? Do they just make a best up? Please answer the question as to your definition of best interests. If you need a specific example, take abortion, or what is the overall best interests of a society.

    Also, Xi's China is not an RM value-based system, neither is Kim Jong-un's NOKO. Atheists put themselves in place of God by being their own gods.

    "North Korea is an atheist state where public religion is discouraged."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

    "The Chinese government is officially atheist."

    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_China

    As for Putin, he was raised an atheist and later claimed to be Russian Orthodox. Does he live the Christian life - no.

    People claim to be all kinds of things that are not true.

    For instance, Jesus narrowed the field of what a believer was.
    1. A believer in Him (John 14:6)
    2. Someone who does not deny Him and follows Him (Matthew 16:24; Matthew 12:30)
    3. Those who worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). If you worship a false view of God then you do not worship God as He is but an idol, a false god.
    4. Those who claim to have faith but their life shows otherwise can be questioned (Matthew 3:8; Matthew 3:10; Matthew 7:16; Matthew 12:33)....And so on.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Because an individual or group says their changing view is superior to another groups views does not make it so unless there is an ultimate standard that their view can be measured by?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    But we don't have what you are referring to as an ultimate standard - only claims of one. In any case, the measurement is the evidence.
    You don't. You do not have what is necessary for such a standard. If my system of thought and belief is true then, I have an ultimate standard of appeal and measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Hitler did not like Jews. Kim Jong-un does not like Americans.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    These are both RM.
    Very debatable with Hitler. For sure, he was not a Christian, even though during his early years of power his WORDS said he was and he professed an aberrant Christianity for a while.

    As for Kim Jong-un, show me your evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    President Xi ... Putin
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    These are both RM in their dogmatic approach to the state's involvement in religion.
    "China's Leader Xi Jinping Reminds Party Members to Be 'Unyielding Marxist Atheists'....there is a widespread attack on religious institutions in China. More than 1,700 churches have had their crosses torn down in the country’s east, according to activists, and many have been completely demolished. Muslims in China’s far-western state of Xinjiang have been hit with bans on beards, veils as well as fasting during the holy month of Ramadan. Religious sects like the Falun Gong have long complained of persecution...Certainly, Xi thought it was necessary to emphasize in his weekend speech that CCP cadres must act as “unyielding Marxist atheists … and bear in mind the party’s tenets.”..According to William Nee, China researcher for Amnesty International, obligatory Marxist atheism has been conspicuously absent from party decrees over the past two or three decades. No longer. “It’s not a change per se, but it’s significant when that message is being reinforced by the highest levels,” Nee says." - Time

    http://time.com/4306179/china-religi...uddhist-tibet/

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If these atheistic and agnostic regimes achieve their goals, the world will be a radically changes place. Once the Judeo-Christian system of thought is supplanted, anything is possible).
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, they are not atheistic or agnostic regimes.
    The Chinese and North Korean ARE. The Russian were and a high percentage of Russians are not only communist but also atheist, brought up in the communist system by founders who were atheists (Stalin and Lennin).

    People's Republic of China
    Main article: Irreligion in the People's Republic of China
    A WisdomAsia survey, commissioned by WIN-Gallup International, conducted from 1 November, 2014, to 15 November, 2014, found that 61% of the People's Republic of China were "convinced atheists."

    "China has the world's greatest irreligious population...In comparison, only 14% considered themselves to be religious.[10] More recently, a 2015 Gallup poll found the number of convinced atheists in China to be 61%, with a further 29% saying that they are not religious compared to just 7% who are religious"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_China

    List of atheists:
    Xi Jinping (1953–): General Secretary of the Communist Party of China and President of China.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law

    "There are no known official statistics of religions in North Korea. North Korea is an atheist state where public religion is discouraged. Based on estimates from the late 1990s and the 2000s, North Korea is mostly atheist and agnostic, with the religious life dominated by the traditions of Korean shamanism and Chondoism. There are small communities of Buddhists and Christians...This cult of the Kims, together with the doctrine of Juche (self-reliance) are said by some to have religious overtones. Juche appeared in the 1960s as an idea of national autonomy but it has developed universal characters. The doctrine proclaims that human beings should break free of any dependency on spiritual ideas and realise that, working together, they can achieve all their goals without supernatural assistance...Kim Il-sung criticized religion in his writings, and North Korean propaganda in literature, movies and other media have presented religion in a negative light. Kim Il-sung's attack on religion was strongly based on the idea that religion had been used as a tool for imperialists in the Korean peninsula. He criticized Christians for collaborating with the United Nations' forces against him during the Korean War, although he praised Christians who supported him.
    Accounts from the Korean War speak of harsh persecution of religion by Kim Il-sung in the areas he controlled...Religion was attacked in the ensuing years as an obstacle to the construction of communism, and many people abandoned their former religions in order to conform to the new reality. On the basis of accounts from the Korean War as well as information from defectors, an interpretation has held that the North Korea was the only state in the world to have completely eradicated religion by the 1960s..."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Thank you for your post, Peter!
    Thank you for yours too, Futureboy, and for addressing my arguments and concerns!

    Peter

  3. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  4. #23
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    SM allows us to objectively determine that what Hitler did was wrong by examining the available evidence.
    I think a lot of people here are unfamiliar with the process you are describing in this thread. Perhaps you could take this example and use it to show us how the SM objectively determines that Hitler's actions were wrong?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. Likes PGA2, MindTrap028 liked this post
  6. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Your example is yet again quite vague. Are you referring to a political, racial, ethnic, religious, etc. minority?
    I was talking about in your specific model. It does not address how it is a applied to the minority. Specifically in a non dogmatic way.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Nor did I say one was.
    Well, that is a problem because your OP requires such a thing to take place in some form in order for it to be "SM".
    So your saying that no such system actually exists, when you previously claimed they were everywhere.

    This is the problem with logically contradictory arguments, when applied it eats itself.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  8. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I was talking about in your specific model. It does not address how it is a applied to the minority. Specifically in a non dogmatic way.
    Again, this is quite vague. The request for clarification was to specify the kind of minority you are referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that is a problem because your OP requires such a thing to take place in some form in order for it to be "SM".
    This is a kind of category mistake. A society doesn't need to explicitly vote to adopt SM in order to practice it. However, the voting which a society does is indeed an expression of practising SM. A simpler way to look at it is that SM is the kind of morality human societies tend to adopt naturally through rational consideration when no dogmatic influences are present, or when the dogmatic influences are questioned by rational members of a society and found wanting.

  9. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy
    This is a kind of category mistake. A society doesn't need to explicitly vote to adopt SM in order to practice it. However, the voting which a society does is indeed an expression of practising SM. A simpler way to look at it is that SM is the kind of morality human societies tend to adopt naturally through rational consideration when no dogmatic influences are present, or when the dogmatic influences are questioned by rational members of a society and found wanting.
    Frankly there is no such thing as a society that has no dogmatic influences present. Even societies that throw off on dogmatic influence is only trading it for another. It is not even a logical possibility, and I would challenge you to show support for your implied assertion that such a thing is or has been a reality anywhere. IE show an example of society creating a morality that is not influenced by dogmatic influences.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTUREBOY
    Again, this is quite vague. The request for clarification was to specify the kind of minority you are referring to.
    I am referring to a minority in regards to belief. So, for example the Jews were the minority of Germany. Like wise, criminals are the minority of any given society. That is not the limitation of a minority in a given field, and you are free to define what your model defines a minority as, as of now, it is not addressed and it exists so it is a flaw in your model and cuts against its explanatory power and legitimacy.
    So basically your model of SM doesn't address how any given minority of ideas, is not dogmatically dominated by your models version of SM.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  11. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Frankly there is no such thing as a society that has no dogmatic influences present. Even societies that throw off on dogmatic influence is only trading it for another. It is not even a logical possibility, and I would challenge you to show support for your implied assertion that such a thing is or has been a reality anywhere. IE show an example of society creating a morality that is not influenced by dogmatic influences.
    You clearly don't fully understand the meaning of dogmatic. As I've already explained, there is nothing dogmatic about the way western secular societies operate. Literally every position they adopt is done so with the clear understanding that it is not adopted incontrovertibly, and could be changed. As stated earlier, I'm sure you've experienced laws being changed in your lifetime, and legal definitions being updated or improved upon - this is literally the antithesis of incontrovertible dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I am referring to a minority in regards to belief. So, for example the Jews were the minority of Germany.
    Germany during the holocaust was not SM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Like wise, criminals are the minority of any given society.
    Nothing about the way criminals are treated in SM societies is incontrovertible, so therefore it's not dogmatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not the limitation of a minority in a given field, and you are free to define what your model defines a minority as, as of now, it is not addressed and it exists so it is a flaw in your model and cuts against its explanatory power and legitimacy. So basically your model of SM doesn't address how any given minority of ideas, is not dogmatically dominated by your models version of SM.
    Again, you appear to be confused about the meaning of dogmatic, as well as the difference between enforcing agreed upon laws and dogmatically asserting them.

  12. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    You clearly don't fully understand the meaning of dogmatic. As I've already explained, there is nothing dogmatic about the way western secular societies operate. Literally every position they adopt is done so with the clear understanding that it is not adopted incontrovertibly, and could be changed. As stated earlier, I'm sure you've experienced laws being changed in your lifetime, and legal definitions being updated or improved upon - this is literally the antithesis of incontrovertible dogma.
    Well, I agree we apparently have different understandings of the meaning of Dogmatic. I think however that you have not "shown" or "explained" you have simply stated that there is some distinction I am missing. And you are in fact incorrect and trying to make a distinction that does not exist in reality. I think you are trying to shoe horn religion and exclude gov from holding any kind of dogmatic position. This is false.

    Quote Originally Posted by DEFINITION OF DOGMATIC
    : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts

    a dogmatic critic

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
    Quote Originally Posted by DEFINITION OF DOGMATIC
    adjective
    1.
    relating to or of the nature of a dogma or dogmas or any strong set of principles concerning faith, morals, etc., as those laid down by a church; doctrinal:
    We hear dogmatic arguments from both sides of the political spectrum.
    2.
    asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated:

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogmatic

    So what you should get from these definitions is that it is something presented as though it is fact.
    Any strong set of principles is "dogmatic".
    So the scientific method is "dogmatic", and so are those who adhere to it, and forward it as "the best" or "Only" way of finding truth.

    While the idea of a "church" is connected, it isn't a necessary element, and the state is certainly not excluded.

    Lastly, "incontrovertible" is not a necessary component to the "assertion of truth".
    As long as a thing is asserted as true and strongly so (which would be in the form of force by the state) it fills the definition of dogmatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Germany during the holocaust was not SM.
    Why not? Ther is no distinction between them an your definition of SM.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Nothing about the way criminals are treated in SM societies is incontrovertible, so therefore it's not dogmatic.
    That they are "guilty" of a crime certainly is. And lets be honest, according to you the laws are all just made up anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, you appear to be confused about the meaning of dogmatic, as well as the difference between enforcing agreed upon laws and dogmatically asserting them.
    First, the minority does not "agree" to the laws.. that is why they are criminals. (As we are talking of the criminal minority in this instance)
    Second, there is no distinction between "dogmatically asserting them" and "enforcing" as you describe it.

    -----
    Conclusion.

    It is no small thing that we are in disagreement regarding dogmatic and how to understand it. Because I think your definition of SM has special pleaded out of any application of Dogmatic.
    Thus you will say that Germany was dogmatic when it sentenced millions of Jews to extermination for being "non persons".
    But, the u.s. is not dogmatic for calling millions of unborn as "non persons" and giving them the same fate (IE death).
    Unfortunately for you there is no real distinction and both are dogmatic.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  13. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I agree we apparently have different understandings of the meaning of Dogmatic. I think however that you have not "shown" or "explained" you have simply stated that there is some distinction I am missing.
    The distinction you are missing is that of incontrovertibility/unquestionability. This is the main idea behind dogma, and the distinction I've repeatedly forwarded in my posts.
    == Definitions ==
    https://www.google.ca/search?q=Dogma
    "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/dogma
    "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group"

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
    "a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted"

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=dogmatic
    "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true"

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what you should get from these definitions is that it is something presented as though it is fact.
    Yes, something which isn't fact but is presented as though it is. That, along with it being unquestionably imposed, means it's dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Any strong set of principles is "dogmatic".
    No, any strong set of principles is not dogmatic. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. It's opinions or principles which are asserted as unquestionable or incontrovertible and without supporting evidence/facts - that's what's dogmatic

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the scientific method is "dogmatic", and so are those who adhere to it, and forward it as "the best" or "Only" way of finding truth.
    Again, since nothing in science is asserted incontrovertibly, it is not dogmatic. Literally everything a scientist forwards when they're trying to offer an explanation is enshrouded in doubt and attempts to falsify what they're forwarding. There is nothing dogmatic about it. Even the core principle behind the necessary methodological naturalism is not simply and incontrovertibly asserted as fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    While the idea of a "church" is connected, it isn't a necessary element, and the state is certainly not excluded.
    Of course not, and that's why we have many examples of states acting dogmatically. However, there are also many examples of states not acting dogmatically. Literally every instance of laws changing is an example of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Lastly, "incontrovertible" is not a necessary component to the "assertion of truth".
    As you can see from the common definitions, incontrovertible is a necessary component of dogmatism.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    As long as a thing is asserted as true and strongly so (which would be in the form of force by the state) it fills the definition of dogmatic.
    Again, no, something can be asserted strongly as true and not fill the definition of dogmatic if it's supported by facts which are controvertible.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why not? Ther is no distinction between them an your definition of SM.
    The holocaust was a result of dogmatic antisemitism.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That they are "guilty" of a crime certainly is. And lets be honest, according to you the laws are all just made up anyway.
    No, finding someone guilty of a crime is never asserted simply and incontrovertibly as true. This is why evidence is required in order to find someone guilty. They are free to controvert that evidence with their own. Have you ever heard of cases where someone was found guilty based on available evidence, but later evidence proved that they were not guilty and released? This is literally the antithesis of incontrovertible dogmatism.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, the minority does not "agree" to the laws.. that is why they are criminals. (As we are talking of the criminal minority in this instance)
    They agree to the laws, but don't agree to abide by them. If their disagreement is simply with the law, then they have every opportunity to attempt to controvert the laws by providing evidence and rational argumentation against the laws. This happens quite often, actually, as laws and definitions are improved and updated.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Second, there is no distinction between "dogmatically asserting them" and "enforcing" as you describe it.
    Again, the enforcement is enshrouded in rational support and is not incontrovertible. Those subject to the laws have every opportunity to use fact and reason to controvert the laws they are subject to.

  14. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURBOY
    The distinction you are missing is that of incontrovertibility/unquestionability. This is the main idea behind dogma, and the distinction I've repeatedly forwarded in my posts.
    My point is that no society does that, or can.
    Such that criminals are charged as though the crime is incontrovertibly illegal. Sure it may later become legal, but then it forwarded so incontrovertibly.

    You also taking ideas that you disagree with, and forwarding them dogmatically as false. Such as the Nazies being wrong. Given the elasticity in SM, they still filled the definition, it has just fallen out of favor.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURBOY
    Yes, something which isn't fact but is presented as though it is. That, along with it being unquestionably imposed, means it's dogma.
    Your acting like facts don't change, but when it comes to laws.. they most certainly do. That is why the Gov is dogmatic about enforcing laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURBOY
    No, any strong set of principles is not dogmatic. This is the crux of your misunderstanding. It's opinions or principles which are asserted as unquestionable or incontrovertible and without supporting evidence/facts - that's what's dogmatic

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right, but we are discussing MORALS
    And in the secular subjective position, morals ARE OPPINON.
    The only thing that makes it corporate is that many people hold it at a given time.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTUREBOY
    Again, since nothing in science is asserted incontrovertibly, it is not dogmatic. Literally everything a scientist forwards when they're trying to offer an explanation is enshrouded in doubt and attempts to falsify what they're forwarding. There is nothing dogmatic about it. Even the core principle behind the necessary methodological naturalism is not simply and incontrovertibly asserted as fact.
    Absolutly it is. People adhere to the core principles of science dogmatically, over any other system.

    Quote Originally Posted by DICTIONARY
    : something firmly believed

    She repeated medical dogma against eating sugar.
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
    A field of science is used as the EXAMPLE OF DOGMA!

    Quote Originally Posted by same link
    Word story
    At the turn of the 17th century, dogma entered English from the Latin term meaning “philosophical tenet.” The Greek word from which it is borrowed means “that which one thinks is true,” and comes ultimately from the Greek dokeîn, which means “to seem good” or “think.”
    The origin of the word dogma acts as a reminder to English speakers that now established principles and doctrines were once simply thoughts and opinions of ordinary people that gained popularity and eventually found their way into the universal consciousness of society. Twentieth-century American academic and aphorist Mason Cooley concisely observed that “Under attack, sentiments harden into dogma,” suggesting that dogma is spawned as a defensive act. This idea implies that for every dogma that exists, there is a counter dogma. With so many “truths” out there, there is sure to be a dogma to conveniently fit every set of beliefs.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  15. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My point is that no society does that, or can.
    I've provided examples of how societies do this on a regular basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Sure it may later become legal, but then it forwarded so incontrovertibly.
    The bolded part of your statement literally contradicts the incontrovertibility aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You also taking ideas that you disagree with, and forwarding them dogmatically as false. Such as the Nazies being wrong. Given the elasticity in SM, they still filled the definition, it has just fallen out of favor.
    Again, the political principles behind the Nazi movement were in no way SM due to the dogmatic way they were enforced. Hitler's own claims of doing God's work further excludes Nazism from SM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your acting like facts don't change, but when it comes to laws.. they most certainly do. That is why the Gov is dogmatic about enforcing laws.
    Facts don't change, but our knowledge about facts does. That's where the changes come from. The government is not dogmatic about enforcing laws, since it is always ready and prepared for them to be controverted by new facts, which happens on a regular basis. This is the literal antithesis of dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Absolutly it is. People adhere to the core principles of science dogmatically, over any other system.
    Again, anyone is free at any time to controvert any of the principles of science, and this is attempted on a regular basis. It's actually a fairly important part of the scientific method often referred to as falsification. Just because attempts at falsifying a scientific theory or principle fail doesn't mean that the theory or principle is dogma - it just means that it's withstood the kind of scrutiny which is readily invited - indeed, expected - to be applied at all times. Again, the literal antithesis of dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A field of science is used as the EXAMPLE OF DOGMA!
    So what? Just because it's possible for people to act dogmatically with regard to something scientific in no way demonstrates that the entire endeavour of science is dogmatic. I fully understand why you need to maintain your anti-science stance and try to assert that science is just as dogmatic and faith-based as religion, but it's just not the case I'm afraid.

  16. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I've provided examples of how societies do this on a regular basis.
    Not that I'm aware of. Especially in regards to morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    The bolded part of your statement literally contradicts the incontrovertibility aspect.
    I don't see how. Laws and legality is a "fact" that can change.
    It is incontrovertibly a fact that today it is illegal to do XYZ.
    That is not a contradictory statement.

    Is it that you don't understand application of incontrovertible in regards to laws? That could explain why you don't understand how laws are implemented dogmatically especially against minorities that disagree with them.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Facts don't change, but our knowledge about facts does. That's where the changes come from. The government is not dogmatic about enforcing laws, since it is always ready and prepared for them to be controverted by new facts, which happens on a regular basis. This is the literal antithesis of dogma.
    Actually, some facts do change. See laws and legality.
    as to the state.. Try to succeed from the union then
    Point is, gov are not neutral agents. They are self preserving by nature. Which smacks of Dogma at every turn. Again, especially when dealing with minorities.
    All that the state does is dogmatically applied to the minority position.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, anyone is free at any time to controvert any of the principles of science, and this is attempted on a regular basis. It's actually a fairly important part of the scientific method often referred to as falsification. Just because attempts at falsifying a scientific theory or principle fail doesn't mean that the theory or principle is dogma - it just means that it's withstood the kind of scrutiny which is readily invited - indeed, expected - to be applied at all times. Again, the literal antithesis of dogma.
    I think you are missing how this is applied.
    Science is a dogma. The scientific method is a dogma. And scientists are just as prone to be dogmatic about their positions inside of science as any church leader.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    So what? Just because it's possible for people to act dogmatically with regard to something scientific in no way demonstrates that the entire endeavour of science is dogmatic. I fully understand why you need to maintain your anti-science stance and try to assert that science is just as dogmatic and faith-based as religion, but it's just not the case I'm afraid.
    Then you objection to religion fails for the same reason...
    So what you found the people can use religion dogmatically. That doesn't make SM superior.

    Finally
    Nothing I said is "anti-science". and it is silly to think I did.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    458
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is incontrovertibly a fact that today it is illegal to do XYZ.
    This is again a kind of category mistake. The fact that it's illegal to do XYZ is a fact, sure, but the basis for and reasons why it's illegal is what must be incontrovertible in order to fail the SM test. Since all laws are subject to change and do so regularly, this meets the SM criteria. Again, this is why we have numerous situations where verdicts are overturned or changed after the fact. Incontrovertibility would require that a verdict, once handed down, could never be changed, and for the mere reason that the authority handing down the verdict said so.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Is it that you don't understand application of incontrovertible in regards to laws? That could explain why you don't understand how laws are implemented dogmatically especially against minorities that disagree with them.
    No, it's that you haven't supported how laws are implemented dogmatically. Even the laws to which minorities are subject to and with which they may not agree can still be changed. Ability to be changed ≠ dogmatic incontrovertibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Point is, gov are not neutral agents. They are self preserving by nature. Which smacks of Dogma at every turn. Again, especially when dealing with minorities.
    That a government will attempt to protect itself in order to continue fulfilling its goal of serving the people is not dogmatic at all, but a necessary result of holding to the goals it sets (which are also not incontrovertible dogma and can be changed). That you simply say that it smack, to you, of dogma, is irrelevant. The fact is that it can be changed, and does so on a regular basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All that the state does is dogmatically applied to the minority position.
    Again, that which can be changed is not incontrovertible dogma.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Science is a dogma. The scientific method is a dogma.
    Again, I fully understand why you want to assert this position, but it's unfortunately nothing more than false conspiracy theorizing which is common for theists. "Scientific dogma" is used in two ways: one to refer to well-established theories in science (which is different usage from the traditional religious use) and one to negatively refer to scientific theories that the speaker doesn't like, with the implication that science is unchanging and suppressive of minority views (like religious dogmas). This second usage is wholly without basis in fact.
    Again, to repeat: the key point is about incontrovertibility. Anyone is free at any time to attempt to controvert any scientific theory/principle/method by offering/demonstrating support for a different conclusion. As I already explained, this is one of the most important aspects of how science is done.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    And scientists are just as prone to be dogmatic about their positions inside of science as any church leader.
    Again, just because a person might have a tendency to assert something dogmatically says nothing about the entire endeavour, and if/when a scientist were to assert that something is just so just because they said so, they'd be laughed out of the hall. But again, they wouldn't ever need to assert anything in this way, since every bit of scientific theory is supported with a wealth of facts and observations which can be readily presented to anyone questioning or attempting to controvert any theory/principle.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then you objection to religion fails for the same reason...
    Sure, if any religion exhibited the ability to change when sufficient facts are presented to warrant a change, then this would be quite good. Unfortunately, this rarely, if ever happens, and religions base their rules and principles solely on incontrovertible dogma which is unquestionable. This is why religious disputes almost always end in armed conflict.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So what you found the people can use religion dogmatically. That doesn't make SM superior.
    It does. When the ability to change and improve is a goal, then the system which is better-equipped to achieve that goal is necessarily superior.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Nothing I said is "anti-science". and it is silly to think I did.
    Literally every statement you've made about science, scientists, the scientific method, etc., was either factually incorrect or exhibited the standard anti-scientific slant commonly held by theists. Again, I fully understand why you need to do so, but unfortunately there is no basis in fact for such conclusions.

  18. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,281
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    This is again a kind of category mistake. The fact that it's illegal to do XYZ is a fact, sure, but the basis for and reasons why it's illegal is what must be incontrovertible in order to fail the SM test. Since all laws are subject to change and do so regularly, this meets the SM criteria. Again, this is why we have numerous situations where verdicts are overturned or changed after the fact. Incontrovertibility would require that a verdict, once handed down, could never be changed, and for the mere reason that the authority handing down the verdict said so.
    Not even close. A person goes to trial for murder, is convicted then later over turned in subsequent trial.
    That process has nothing to do with if murder is legal or not, it has to do with if the person fulfills the definition of being guilty.

    When that process ends, it is applied incontrovertibly asserted.
    The death sentence is an incontrovertible conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    No, it's that you haven't supported how laws are implemented dogmatically. Even the laws to which minorities are subject to and with which they may not agree can still be changed. Ability to be changed ≠ dogmatic incontrovertibility.
    Quote Originally Posted by define incontrovertable
    not able to be denied or disputed.

    1.
    not controvertible; not open to question or dispute; indisputable:
    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/incontrovertibly
    Basically, incontrovertable doesn't mean unchanging. That is why you can be incontrovertably guilty of violatinga law.. while the law itself can change.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    That a government will attempt to protect itself in order to continue fulfilling its goal of serving the people is not dogmatic at all, but a necessary result of holding to the goals it sets (which are also not incontrovertible dogma and can be changed). That you simply say that it smack, to you, of dogma, is irrelevant. The fact is that it can be changed, and does so on a regular basis.
    Your projecting "in order to continue to fulfilling it's goal of serving the people". That certainly isn't a necessity of gov motivation, and if anything is the exception, as they really seek to maintain power.
    Hence our founders seeking to "limit" gov. the above is an essential assumption of our founding.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, that which can be changed is not incontrovertible dogma.
    False, unchanging is not an antithetical element of dogma, or a necissary elemnt to incontrovertable.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, I fully understand why you want to assert this position, but it's unfortunately nothing more than false conspiracy theorizing which is common for theists. "Scientific dogma" is used in two ways: one to refer to well-established theories in science (which is different usage from the traditional religious use) and one to negatively refer to scientific theories that the speaker doesn't like, with the implication that science is unchanging and suppressive of minority views (like religious dogmas). This second usage is wholly without basis in fact.
    I am referring to neither. I am refering to the basic assumptions of science, the scientific method. The presupositions of science.
    Those are the dogma of science.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Again, just because a person might have a tendency to assert something dogmatically says nothing about the entire endeavour, and if/when a scientist were to assert that something is just so just because they said so, they'd be laughed out of the hall. But again, they wouldn't ever need to assert anything in this way, since every bit of scientific theory is supported with a wealth of facts and observations which can be readily presented to anyone questioning or attempting to controvert any theory/principle.
    Then SM is not superior, as it is not established that non secular morality is in fact wrong, and the dogmatic nature of some people asserting non SM is not relevant as proof to it being "dogmatic".
    So.. you have undercut your support that Non SM is in fact dogmatic.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Sure, if any religion exhibited the ability to change when sufficient facts are presented to warrant a change, then this would be quite good. Unfortunately, this rarely, if ever happens, and religions base their rules and principles solely on incontrovertible dogma which is unquestionable. This is why religious disputes almost always end in armed conflict.
    None of that is true, and sounds more like you have been listening to atheist propaganda.
    The fact that Christianity arose on the wrong end of the sword(IE the receiving end) pretty much makes your proposition crap on it's face.

    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    It does. When the ability to change and improve is a goal, then the system which is better-equipped to achieve that goal is necessarily superior.
    but you said truth doesn't change.
    So, once you have truth wouldn't it be to not change be the goal?
    Your system is starting to eat itself.


    Quote Originally Posted by FUTURE
    Literally every statement you've made about science, scientists, the scientific method, etc., was either factually incorrect or exhibited the standard anti-scientific slant commonly held by theists. Again, I fully understand why you need to do so, but unfortunately there is no basis in fact for such conclusions.
    How so? Support explain please.
    Otherwise you can drop this line.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,870
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

    Do we really need to have the headless body of an aborted fetus on my feed? Can someone replace it?

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Objective morality vs. subjective morality
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 300
    Last Post: November 21st, 2017, 06:36 PM
  2. Replies: 108
    Last Post: July 29th, 2011, 08:02 PM
  3. Personal Morality vs. Public Morality
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: April 7th, 2006, 08:32 PM
  4. Secular Humanism
    By Zenstone in forum Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: August 27th, 2004, 06:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •