Humility: Good or Bad?

[rbjmartin]

I have read everything you've written. The only thing you've proved is that you believe in something called "rights," but you have given no evidence for its objective existence. It's just an idea in your head. You've also proved that you believe first principles come from you positing them. So essentially, you practice science and philosophy by fiat. If you say something is true, it must be so.

[Probius]

I have read everything you've written. The only thing you've proved is that you believe in something called "rights," but you have given no evidence for its objective existence. It's just an idea in your head. You've also proved that you believe first principles come from you positing them. So essentially, you practice science and philosophy by fiat. If you say something is true, it must be so.

Your act has grown stale and you have become a broken record.  Your only argument seems to be, if God, then rights, and if not God, then not rights.  You haven't even attempted to prove how God can be an objective basis for morality.  You have no basis for grounding rights in objectivity.  I, however, have given you an obvious axiom, which cannot be denied while remaining outside of a mental institution, and yet you have actually denied it, and on no grounds as well.  You give no reason why a man has no right to live, you simply state this as if it were somehow obvious.  What sort of conclusions are we to draw from this position of yours?  Should every man be killed, as he is claiming a right he has no claim to?  Should every man commit suicide in order to cease practicing a right which you claim doesn't exist?

[rbjmartin]

I'm not trying to prove the existence of God (at least not in this thread). I'm simply demonstrating the blatant inconsistency of your position, i.e. believing in the objective reality of an immaterial thing (rights) while being a materialist.

As long as rights do not exist (you haven't proven that they do), then a man's right to live does not exist.

Perhaps you think your axiom is self-evident because most people believe men have a right to live, but philosophy is not a democratic endeavor. If your axiom is true, you should be able to prove it rather than simply say it's self-evident "because I say so" (which is essentially all you're saying).

[Probius]

I'm not trying to prove the existence of God (at least not in this thread). I'm simply demonstrating the blatant inconsistency of your position, i.e. believing in the objective reality of an immaterial thing (rights) while being a materialist.

As long as rights do not exist (you haven't proven that they do), then a man's right to live does not exist.

Perhaps you think your axiom is self-evident because most people believe men have a right to live, but philosophy is not a democratic endeavor. If your axiom is true, you should be able to prove it rather than simply say it's self-evident "because I say so" (which is essentially all you're saying).

If you had read what I wrote, you would know I said that an axiom cannot be proven, or else it would not be an axiom.

My position includes materialism, but that does not mean that it can't include ideas.  You are hung up on this and can't seem to get unstuck.  You don't have a good grasp of what materialism is, instead you have created a straw man for anyone who disagrees with The Church.

[rbjmartin]

If you had read what I wrote, you would know I said that an axiom cannot be proven, or else it would not be an axiom.

All I have to do to break your axiom is deny it. It is not a self-evident truth. It is just a starting place for your position, but I deny your starting place as a falsehood, unless you can PROVE that it is true.

My position includes materialism, but that does not mean that it can't include ideas.

Your ideas are your own. They only exist in your head. They are utterly subjective and not universal. As a materialist, the only reality is what is material. For you to try to make up a morality for others to live by is arrogant and presumptuous. You do not take into account other materialists who disagree with your ideas.

[Probius]

An axiom is not broken just because a man denies it, otherwise axioms wouldn't exist.

I say nothing of how a man must live, only that he not violate the rights of others.

It is your Church which imposes onerous rules upon every minute aspect of everyone's lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rbjmartin]

The atheistic materialist responds:

Don't impose your morality on me. If I can will it, I will do it.

You do not have a right to live. Rights don't exist. Your theory of rights is BS. You made it up to protect yourself from men like me because I'm strong and you are weak.

Your axiom is broken because you can't prove it. It's no use as a starting place for discussion because I deny it's reality. Only what I can sense is real to me.

[Probius]

How many times must I say that axioms are not proven?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Angelorum]

An axiom is not broken just because a man denies it, otherwise axioms wouldn't exist.

CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

I say nothing of how a man must live, only that he not violate the rights of others.

How can a man live if he has no end to fulfill? Of course, it is important in a civil society that rights exist to protect individuals from unjust intrusion. However, this isn't enough for an individual to live ethically. We can observe that a plant that is properly nurtured will have the traits best fitted for its survival. Similarly, Man has ends whose fulfillment will lead to true happiness and not merely a satisfaction the flesh. This is where we get the Natural Law.

But Man also has a last end whose goodness surpasses all others. This is believing and fulfilling the law of God.

It is your Church which imposes onerous rules upon every minute aspect of everyone's lives.

What exactly do you mean by this?

[rbjmartin]

CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

But what he is calling an axiom (men have a right to live) is not self-evident. It is a statement of his values, not of an objective, observable truth (at least according to a materialist framework).

[Angelorum]

CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

But what he is calling an axiom (men have a right to live) is not self-evident. It is a statement of his values, not of an objective, observable truth (at least according to a materialist framework).

Did he really say that? If so, then he is wrong. He is simply begging the question, as he assumes his conclusion to be true even though he hasn't given any argument.

[rbjmartin]

He sure did.

The right to live is an irreducible primary, which does not need to be proven, nor can it be proven as it is an axiom.

[Probius]

An axiom is not broken just because a man denies it, otherwise axioms wouldn't exist.

CF is right. An axiom is a self-evident statement. (i.e. All Bachelors are Male).

I say nothing of how a man must live, only that he not violate the rights of others.

How can a man live if he has no end to fulfill? Of course, it is important in a civil society that rights exist to protect individuals from unjust intrusion. However, this isn't enough for an individual to live ethically. We can observe that a plant that is properly nurtured will have the traits best fitted for its survival. Similarly, Man has ends whose fulfillment will lead to true happiness and not merely a satisfaction the flesh. This is where we get the Natural Law.

But Man also has a last end whose goodness surpasses all others. This is believing and fulfilling the law of God.

It is your Church which imposes onerous rules upon every minute aspect of everyone's lives.

What exactly do you mean by this?

Every man must choose his own path.  There is an important difference between not violating the rights of others and choosing a proper path in life.  If a man violates the rights of others, he must be stopped.  If he merely makes poor decisions with regard to his own life, it may be sad, but it is his life and no one may use force to prevent him from doing stupid things.

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

[Mono no aware]

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.

Just a slight digression, Crimson Flyboy, to say that I think this new avatar is a cut above your old one, which was an awful eyesore IMO; its colors and design were putrid.  This one is a little more aesthetically pleasing, and I think it communicates your libertarianism and Ayn Randism more artistically.  First of all, the statue is of a god in human form: the classical pagan expression of humanism.  That he holds the world on his shoulders signifies determination and brute strength: a fine symbol for a creed of dominance and power.  And the fact that it's placed in a modern urban setting, with cold steel and concrete rising up all around him, conveys the libertarian love for progress and industrialization, and its hatred of the natural world.  Altogether a definite improvement.

[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.

Just a slight digression, Crimson Flyboy, to say that I think this new avatar is a cut above your old one, which was an awful eyesore IMO; its colors and design were putrid.  This one is a little more aesthetically pleasing, and I think it communicates your libertarianism and Ayn Randism more artistically.  First of all, the statue is of a god in human form: the classical pagan expression of humanism.  That he holds the world on his shoulders signifies determination and brute strength: a fine symbol for a creed of dominance and power.  And the fact that it's placed in a modern urban setting, with cold steel and concrete rising up all around him, conveys the libertarian love for progress and industrialization, and its hatred of the natural world.  Altogether a definite improvement.

Thank you.  I think the skyscraper behind him is very fitting.  Miss Rand was once asked if she enjoyed looking at the stars, she said no, I love looking at skyscrapers.  The statue has also become a symbol for Miss Rand's best known novel, Atlas Shrugged.