Humility: Good or Bad?

[JuniorCouncilor]

The great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says. 

Whereas the great thing about God is that you can listen to Him and accept everything He says.

I do not whine

Everybody whines.  It's part of the human condition.  Prouder people have more to whine about-- one of the great things about humility.

Anything which furthers life has value.

I totally disagree with this.  If I didn't believe in God, I think what would make the most sense would be to get out of life as quickly as possible.  Nor is this opinion uncommon among the philosophers.  You will find it in Plato, for example.

Anyway, historically, post-Christian atheists' respect for human dignity (think Russian and Spanish communism) has been more disastrous than anything Christians have ever done.

[Probius]

The great thing about philosophy is that I can listen to a philosopher without accepting everything he says. 

Whereas the great thing about God is that you can listen to Him and accept everything He says.

I do not whine

Everybody whines.  It's part of the human condition.  Prouder people have more to whine about-- one of the great things about humility.

Anything which furthers life has value.

I totally disagree with this.  If I didn't believe in God, I think what would make the most sense would be to get out of life as quickly as possible.  Nor is this opinion uncommon among the philosophers.  You will find it in Plato, for example.

Anyway, historically, post-Christian atheists' respect for human dignity (think Russian and Spanish communism) has been more disastrous than anything Christians have ever done.

If I did believe in God, I would want to get out of to world as soon as possible in order to get to Heaven.  And altruism has been more disastrous to humanity than anything.

[james03]

I am still here because I still want to argue about God.

Really?  I haven't seen any.  Just contradiction after contradiction, e.g. Dennett plus objective value.  Or atheism with objective value.

[LouisIX]

Out of curiosity, CF, why have you changed your avatar to the Rockefeller Atlas statue (which curiously was built directly across the street, facing St. Patrick's Cathedral)?

[Probius]

Out of curiosity, CF, why have you changed your avatar to the Rockefeller Atlas statue (which curiously was built directly across the street, facing St. Patrick's Cathedral)?

The Atlas statue is often used to signify Objectivism (Atlas Shrugged).  I wanted  to change things up a bit, and used an Objectivist holiday as a time to so just that.  Today is the Objectivist holiday 'Exploit the Earth Day.'  By the way, Happy Exploit the Earth Day.

I have been to St. Patrick's, it is beautiful.

[Probius]

I am still here because I still want to argue about God.

Really?  I haven't seen any.  Just contradiction after contradiction, e.g. Dennett plus objective value.  Or atheism with objective value.

Objective values exist in reality, that's why they are called objective.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

So if objective values exist in reality...Objectively you must admit to God existing to write these values into the universal objective understanding of these values.

[Probius]

So if objective values exist in reality...Objectively you must admit to God existing to write these values into the universal objective understanding of these values.

How are you defining values?

[rbjmartin]

Objective values exist in reality, that's why they are called objective.

This is such BS, I don't even know where to begin.

If you are an atheist, then logic demands that you be a materialist. And if you are a materialist, there is no such thing as spiritual values or Platonic forms. Everything is just what you can see or touch. Values are just names people place on things; ergo, they don't exist in reality. "Order" doesn't exist, because there is no divine mind to order the universe. Everything is just random and material.

You are an inconsistent atheist. You want to deny God, but you want to keep the benefits of God (i.e. moral values, virtues, order, etc.). You want to be a hedonist (which is consistent with a materialist) but you want to claim that there are virtues that should be sought (which is inconsistent with hedonism, because virtues are difficult goods, which often deny pleasure).

If I were an atheist, I would just go all the way. I would live to satisfy my lower appetites. YOLO would be my creed. This would be consistent with an atheist, materialist belief system.

[Probius]

Objective values exist in reality, that's why they are called objective.

This is such BS, I don't even know where to begin.

If you are an atheist, then logic demands that you be a materialist. And if you are a materialist, there is no such thing as spiritual values or Platonic forms. Everything is just what you can see or touch. Values are just names people place on things; ergo, they don't exist in reality. "Order" doesn't exist, because there is no divine mind to order the universe. Everything is just random and material.

You are an inconsistent atheist. You want to deny God, but you want to keep the benefits of God (i.e. moral values, virtues, order, etc.). You want to be a hedonist (which is consistent with a materialist) but you want to claim that there are virtues that should be sought (which is inconsistent with hedonism, because virtues are difficult goods, which often deny pleasure).

If I were an atheist, I would just go all the way. I would live to satisfy my lower appetites. YOLO would be my creed. This would be consistent with an atheist, materialist belief system.

We have gone over this to the point of redundancy.  You are falling into a false dichotomy, which is that we must choose either religion or subjectivity.  True objectivity deals with reality as it is, and not the way we want it to be.  The world around me exists regardless of what I think, nature couldn't care any less about my ideas.  Even if there wasn't a single conscious mind in existence, the world would still be exactly as it is now, nothing would change.  Objective morals must be based on something we can prove and know.  This means that morality must be viewed as a science.  Ayn Rand said it best when she said, "the truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."  Truth is not something that is handed down from generation to generation, it is not something inherited through the genes, it is something that must be sought out and found.  If a man tells me that something is immoral, my response is to say "prove it."  Give me evidence or reason why a thing is immoral, and I will fight along side you in denouncing this immorality.  True objectivity lies in accepting the world as it is, existence exists.

[rbjmartin]

Science deals with empirical knowledge, which ALL originates in the senses. As a materialist, you can never prove to me that morality exists. I can't see it. I can't touch it. I can't observe it in any way. I can't do experiments on it. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're right. We have been over this before, and you have no answer to the argument. I asked you to prove to me that morality exists, and you can't do it.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

[Probius]

So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.

[rbjmartin]

So if I dont seek truth truth doesnt exist for me? Ayne Rand was stark raving loony

Truth is objective, that is it exists in reality outside of me or anybody else.  It exists in the object.  If you do not seek truth, you will not have a mental grasp of it, but it will still exist.  I may not believe in gravity, yet if I jump off a cliff, gravity will still pull me to the ground.

Prove that morality is an object that exists.

[Probius]

Science deals with empirical knowledge, which ALL originates in the senses. As a materialist, you can never prove to me that morality exists. I can't see it. I can't touch it. I can't observe it in any way. I can't do experiments on it. It doesn't exist. Period.

You're right. We have been over this before, and you have no answer to the argument. I asked you to prove to me that morality exists, and you can't do it.

Just because you cannot experience a thing directly with your senses, does not mean that it does not exist.  We can experience things with our senses by the aid of instruments.  I have no direct experience of atoms, they are too small for me to see.  Yet I know they exist as scientists have been able to create instruments which can prove they exist.  There are galaxies so far away that we cannot see them with the unaided eye, yet we know that they exist because scientists have invented telescopes powerful enough to view them.  I can only see a small sliver of the light spectrum, yet I know there is more than what I see.  This is because special instruments have been invented which see things like infrared light.  Sometimes our senses are not strong enough and we need instruments which give us greater insight into the universe we see all around us.  Empirical evidence doesn't only come from the unaided senses, but can also come from the aided senses.