Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who/what is the basis for rational thinking? You're begging the question even by that statement. Animals do not have the ability to reason in that manner. Why do humans?
So let er rip, Buttercup. Why?
You might as well ask what the basis is for good judgement, sound logic, intelligent reason, critical thinking, objective analysis...
Always hard to see this argument that poses such a question as if to suggest there are not the obvious better reasoned informed arguments and positions compared to the very weak bad ones. That we all may judge differently doesn't mean there cannot be a consensus as to what makes more sense compared to utter nonsense. Right?
Who decides?
Here in this forum, anyone who cares to chime in gets to decide, right or wrong no matter. In a court of law, it's twelve jurors. In the court of public opinion, it's our elections. Over the course of history, the younger generation...
No. I call this 'improving on the hand that evolution dealt out to us'. We have evolved to survive and it hasn't been easy. Once when the land dried out and we had to start walking. Again when there was an ice age and we had to adapt the environment to ourselves as we couldn't adapt unless we evolved into Yeti. We have ended up where it has been survival of the species that used it's head rather than it's claws and learned to live together rather than eat each other.
Instinct to just grab what we want and damn' all the others and use force to do it is very strong. No wonder that to some, evolving a stronger more ruthless human bean seems the logical conclusion of Darwinism. It isn't. It is brains and ability to appreciate, nor fear, others that is the key to our survival. It is about understanding and editing our instincts, not letting them drive us and saying 'It's natural', that is the secret.
P.s. The questions you are asking are valid ones. Not Fallacies. They deserve an answer. The Morality apologetic was a powerful question to atheists back in the late 80's. It is pretty much answered now. I'm glad to see that you are getting some answers.
To jump to the end of BF's line of questioning, and side from the simple answer that if God (or any god handing down moral codes) Doesn't exist, then a non -absolute moral code is all we got. That it may not be perfect is irrelevant. Human knowledge isn't by any means perfect but it's all we have and science makes it as reliable and informative as possible and it is far, far better than the results of religious speculations.
Similarly Human Morality is based on instincts, both good and bad, according to current ethics which have of course been changed; evolved and that's a good thing. War was once considered a fine and noble thing. Stratification of society was considered a natural order. We have moved on and righly so. It has been human ethical through that has evolved it and no thanks to religion, which is still battling current changes in morality, ethics and social evolution.
To sum up, a degree of relativity in morality is a good thing and makes it stronger, just as the willingness to admit to being wrong and leaning better is what makes science valid and stronger. Immutable and unchangeable Dogma may look stronger but it isn't. It cannot change and so it either gets left behind as knowledge (and morals) move on or it breaks. What it actually does of course is sowly adapt to human morality and the discoveries of science and pretends that it never said anything else.
Human morality is what religions have been using all the time, adapted to suit their own power and authority. That's why Bible apologists get their knickers in such a twist over the Bad stuff in the bible. They have to blam mass murder on men 'That wasn't god's doing', or deny that slavery was slavery at all. But if God is making the moral rules, why the need to excuse it at all? It is because Bible apologists are using human morality to judge God's deeds.
You and Tired better be careful or you'll rub the drive-by bumper-sticker posters from the peanut gallery in this forum to ridicule, insult and criticism...
Right! There are some of us who can read comments that go beyond a word or two and even appreciate the effort! My compliments and do carry on!
That said, I've got to leave for a bit, because I think I hear God talking to me. Hasn't happened since I was a boy, so I don't want to miss this one. Especially if I can ask where She's been all this time...
You might as well ask what the basis is for good judgement, sound logic, intelligent reason, critical thinking, objective analysis...
Do you understand what I mean by "Laws of logic"? It's more than just being smart.
For instance, the law of Identity states that something is what it is. It's a basic truth of life. It has nothing to do with opinion. It is not based on whether we agree on something or not. It is not based on time, location, or anything else. Why is that?
Do you understand what I mean by "Laws of logic"? It's more than just being smart.
For instance, the law of Identity states that something is what it is. It's a basic truth of life. It has nothing to do with opinion. It is not based on whether we agree on something or not. It is not based on time, location, or anything else. Why is that?
The law of Identity would be true whether a god exists or not.
Arguing you need a god to make this law true is arguing without a god, something could be what it is not. Which shows how stupid this non sequitur and question begging is.
You and Tired better be careful or you'll rub the drive-by bumper-sticker posters from the peanut gallery in this forum to ridicule, insult and criticism...
Right! There are some of us who can read comments that go beyond a word or two and even appreciate the effort! My compliments and do carry on!
That said, I've got to leave for a bit, because I think I hear God talking to me. Hasn't happened since I was a boy, so I don't want to miss this one. Especially if I can ask where She's been all this time...
Part of the Tactics is to drive the Godsuckers into a frustrated fury so they'll come right out with what they think instead of dressing it up in pink Lurve-goo. That's how we make the other half of our case.
Please give my regards to god and teach her something new.
Do you understand what I mean by "Laws of logic"? It's more than just being smart.
It's "Rules of logic" I believe. It's not a law or a scientific theory. It's like like mathematics. If you do it right, you get answers that ar reliable. I think there is a practical basis in actualities but when it gets more complex, humans are really working out rules that work.
In fact it's pretty much like morals or ethics: has an evolutionary instinct (which is real enough) as a practical basis, but humans have had to devise methods that produce reliable results. In not, (like science) it's be replaced by something better.
Quote:
For instance, the law of Identity states that something is what it is. It's a basic truth of life. It has nothing to do with opinion. It is not based on whether we agree on something or not. It is not based on time, location, or anything else. Why is that?
Well, you said it yourself. If humanity vanishes, then all those musical instruments will still exist, but everything we think about music will have gone.
The instruments have identity, music is a human construct and does not. Yet, (like morality and indeed,logic) it has rules. And (like morality) immutible laws or rules may change or be questioned. In a way, atonalism was as change in the way music was regarded, not as a god -given thing with it's own identity that could not be be changed, but a bunch of workable rules that could be questioned. Personally I don't think atonality works, but that's just me
I rather see the change of the 60's as being a moral change, where 'Sin' was no no longer the moral arbiter and 'who is it hurting?' became the question.
I don't know if that answers your question or even if i get what your question was, but just think yourself lucky i don't post some Webern.
It's "Rules of logic" I believe. It's not a law or a scientific theory. It's like like mathematics. If you do it right, you get answers that ar reliable. I think there is a practical basis in actualities but when it gets more complex, humans are really working out rules that work.
In fact it's pretty much like morals or ethics: has an evolutionary instinct (which is real enough) as a practical basis, but humans have had to devise methods that produce reliable results. In not, (like science) it's be replaced by something better.
So those laws cease to exist when human beings cease to exist? Or they didn't exist until humans existed? So a dinosaur wasn't a dinosaur?
The law of Identity would be true whether a god exists or not.
Arguing you need a god to make this law true is arguing without a god, something could be what it is not. Which shows how stupid this non sequitur and question begging is.
How do you account for the Law of Identity? It's a transcendental concept that is true regardless of time or circumstance. How is that? It's a concept that requires a mind. It's not based on time or matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I call this 'improving on the hand that evolution dealt out to us'. We have evolved to survive and it hasn't been easy. Once when the land dried out and we had to start walking. Again when there was an ice age and we had to adapt the environment to ourselves as we couldn't adapt unless we evolved into Yeti. We have ended up where it has been survival of the species that used it's head rather than it's claws and learned to live together rather than eat each other. 
