[Vision2020] About Evidence

Wed Jul 18 09:53:13 PDT 2012

I wasn't repeating my view, I was further explaining it. You are not explaining yours well, as you have not even given a view on how to determine right and wrong. Or how we can define moral and immoral without an agreed upon definition. 

I don't see a "problem". I see a problem solved. I would view it as a problem if right and wrong was not subjective and subject to change by an all knowing God. Imagine if something was hurting you or other people and it could not be changed by any means, as it was an immovable "right action no matter what the consequences". Or imagine if people together got to decide right and wrong. Slavery would be wrong in one generation but right in another. How horrible! Nope, I don't see a problem with the definition of right of wrong connected to God rather than to specific actions. In fact, it seems the only way to define it. I only see a problem when the definition of right and wrong becomes subjective to the actor because those terms depend on some sort of objective definition independent of the actor of action being judged as right and wrong. 

Donovan J. Arnold

From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] About Evidence

I understand the view. It just strikes me as flawed and incorrect. And
for the reasons given. Certainly repeating your view isn't going to
convince me that it doesn't have the problems that I suggest it has.
In fact, you gladly accept those problems! Not sure we're going to
move beyond this difference of opinion. Joe

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joe writes;
>
> "God can do anything. If what is right and what is wrong were defined by
> him, he could redefine things at will and make it wrong to eat toast and
> right to rob and steal. Does that make sense to you? Not too me. This view
> -- the divine command view -- makes morality relative just like the the
> majority opinion view."
>
> The definition of moral is to do what is right, not wrong. Without a
> definition of what is right or wrong nothing can be moral or immoral. God
> decides what is wrong or right. Otherwise the definition would fall on
> people. Then people would be overruling God on what was right and wrong and
> thus what was moral and immoral. They would be telling their creator and
> master what is acceptable behavior or not. It would be dogs telling there
> owners how it can behave or third graders telling their teacher the
> classroom rules.  Does that make sense to you?
>
> It is true, however, God could change what is right to wrong and what is
> wrong to right. And at that point what was wrong would be right, and what is
> right would become wrong. He has the power and authority to do this just as
> lawmakers can change what is legal to what is illegal and make what is
> illegal once again legal. God gets to define right and wrong, and lawmakers
> get to decide  legal and illegal. It is not the actions themselves that make
> them legal, illegal, moral or immoral, but the authority behind those
> decisions.
>
> Is the North Pole still not the North Pole just because it moves? is the
> Earth still not required to spin around the Sun even though the Sun moves
> relentlessly around the galaxy? Can the Moon leave the Earth and still be
> called the Moon? God can move right and wrong every year. We still have to
> follow it.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
>
>
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 7:45 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] About Evidence
>
> God can do anything. If what is right and what is wrong were defined by him,
> he could redefine things at will and make it wrong to eat toast and right to
> rob and steal. Does that make sense to you? Not too me. This view -- the
> divine command view -- makes morality relative just like the the majority
> opinion view.
>
>
>
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 4:17 AM, Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> By definition, it is not possible to live a moral life and denounce God.
> There is no absolute definition of right or wrong in any situation without a
> God to define it or regard it as such. All actions would be amoral with
> positive or negative consequences depending on the person and their
> individual perspective. At best, right and wrong would be defined by the
> majority or people. Since most people consider denouncing the existence of
> God, and preaching against him as immoral, an atheist would not be moral or
> living a moral life. An atheist could live a life which they had more of a
> positive impact on people than a negative.
>
> Regarding Einstein, he believed in God. He belonged to the Jewish religion.
> If he did not, he along with many other notable and talented scientists
> would have remained in Germany. If that occurred, Germany would have
> developed the nuclear bomb along with their rocket instead of the US. That
> is an example of where the world is better off because of religion.
>
> Donovan J. Arnold
>
> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
> To: Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>; viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] About Evidence
>
> Speaking as an atheist, I don't need belief in God or gods to live a moral
> life.
>
> Atheism is the lack of belief in deity, nothing more, nothing less.
>
> As for the Einstein quote, Einstein also wrote this:
>
> "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
> of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
> primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
> interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
>
> And of his own Jewishness he wrote:
>
> "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the
> most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly
> belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no
> different quality for me than all other people. As far as my
> experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although
> they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power.
> Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
>
> Chas
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Some beliefs provide motivation to fly jets into tall buildings, and some
>> convince parents to withhold medication to sick children. Some beliefs
>> promote misogyny, racism, and homophobia."
>>
>> And atheism teaches us none of it is wrong, as there is no God, just
>> science.
>>
>> "Science without religion is lame"--Albert Einstein.
>>
>> Donovan J. Arnold
>>
>> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
>> To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>> Cc: viz <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:28 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] About Evidence
>>
>> There are not 7 billion different belief systems, or anywhere near
>> that number. At best, there are a half dozen, regurgitated and
>> recapitulated into a fistful of semi-unique varieties. And some
>> beliefs are harmful. Some beliefs provide motivation to fly jets into
>> tall buildings, and some convince parents to withhold medication to
>> sick children. Some beliefs promote misogyny, racism, and homophobia.
>> Not all beliefs are equal.
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>              http://www.fsr.net/
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net/
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120718/9991ce59/attachment-0001.html>