Enjoyed this. Maybe it'd be useful to introduce the term 'intentional object' when talking about mythical figures about whom statements can be said to be true or false (Jesus, Micky Mouse, God etc). What do you think?
It could be yes. The problem I have though in using it is it introduces a new formal term that has a variety ways of being applied. What do you think of "mythical object"?
I don't like mythical object, as it makes it appear like you are referring to an actual thing. Mythical character is good enough for the alleged beings in mythology, but what about something like hell? If I call it an intentional object, it still seems like it is lending an air of credibility to it. I'll ponder on this.
No one is saying that antitheists can't live moral lives. The theist says that you simply have no rational reason to live a moral life. Why not live like Hitler? Is it based on the good of the whole? What if killing you makes everyone happier? Does that mean that is moral? It simply isn't livable. Human experience tells us otherwise.
There is a rational reason, our own moral understanding. When you ask "does that mean it is moral", you miss the point that it is subject dependant... what is moral for me is not for someone else.
But that is exactly my point. Truth and morality by definition are exclusive. Reality and human experience tell us that morality and truth cannot be subjective. The law of non-contradiction comes into play here. I think that your point is well taken, but one must evaluate all of the tests of truth when talking about this. Something may logically work out, but it doesn't jive with human experience.
I cannot think of a single example where a moral view can be shown objectively, let alone shown to be true. Can you offer one? Also, if you will, please detail an example where a logical truth is shown that doesn't jive with human experience. Thanks.
So, the belief that God doesn't exist is also subjective. You are no more able to make valid claims about God's non-existence than others can about God's existence. Also, your claim that Jesus is a strictly mythical figure is based on what objective evidence? I think atheists grossly oversimplify issues so they can play vacuous logical games.
The belief that theology or atheism is good or bad is subjective. Theology and atheism both use inductive logic with their best arguments. Atheism doesn't necessarily violate modern logic, theology does.
The only evidence of Jesus at all is storybook based. That is how we qualify myth, which is not how we qualify what doesn't exist.
Thanks. So far so good on the sun, which actually doesn't rise at all of course... that phrase is probably a hangover from the geocentric model christians used. Maybe anyway, but that's my suspicion.
Hi Az. I would say a proposition is subjective only when the sole means of determining the belief is subject dependant. So if I don't exist, I can't say "I prefer peanut butter to jam", wheras "the sun will rise tommorow" is not dependant on my existence.
Enjoyed this. Maybe it'd be useful to introduce the term 'intentional object' when talking about mythical figures about whom statements can be said to be true or false (Jesus, Micky Mouse, God etc). What do you think?
bitbutter 4 years ago
It could be yes. The problem I have though in using it is it introduces a new formal term that has a variety ways of being applied. What do you think of "mythical object"?
gklr 4 years ago
I don't like mythical object, as it makes it appear like you are referring to an actual thing. Mythical character is good enough for the alleged beings in mythology, but what about something like hell? If I call it an intentional object, it still seems like it is lending an air of credibility to it. I'll ponder on this.
gklr 4 years ago
No one is saying that antitheists can't live moral lives. The theist says that you simply have no rational reason to live a moral life. Why not live like Hitler? Is it based on the good of the whole? What if killing you makes everyone happier? Does that mean that is moral? It simply isn't livable. Human experience tells us otherwise.
dsuelzle 4 years ago
There is a rational reason, our own moral understanding. When you ask "does that mean it is moral", you miss the point that it is subject dependant... what is moral for me is not for someone else.
gklr 4 years ago
But that is exactly my point. Truth and morality by definition are exclusive. Reality and human experience tell us that morality and truth cannot be subjective. The law of non-contradiction comes into play here. I think that your point is well taken, but one must evaluate all of the tests of truth when talking about this. Something may logically work out, but it doesn't jive with human experience.
dsuelzle 4 years ago
I cannot think of a single example where a moral view can be shown objectively, let alone shown to be true. Can you offer one? Also, if you will, please detail an example where a logical truth is shown that doesn't jive with human experience. Thanks.
gklr 4 years ago
I was muchly entrigued
braveorslave 5 years ago
So, the belief that God doesn't exist is also subjective. You are no more able to make valid claims about God's non-existence than others can about God's existence. Also, your claim that Jesus is a strictly mythical figure is based on what objective evidence? I think atheists grossly oversimplify issues so they can play vacuous logical games.
northwatuppa 5 years ago
The belief that theology or atheism is good or bad is subjective. Theology and atheism both use inductive logic with their best arguments. Atheism doesn't necessarily violate modern logic, theology does.
The only evidence of Jesus at all is storybook based. That is how we qualify myth, which is not how we qualify what doesn't exist.
gklr 5 years ago
Nice video gklr. Like the intro :D
Respond to my email sometime pls :)
xJediHowieX 5 years ago
reply sent, let me know if you get it...
gklr 5 years ago
got it
xJediHowieX 5 years ago
Hey there Greg. Nice to see another vid from you.
Btw, you're right about the sun coming up every morning (so far).. It's why I believe science is more valid than superstition. :)
rattaplan 5 years ago
Thanks. So far so good on the sun, which actually doesn't rise at all of course... that phrase is probably a hangover from the geocentric model christians used. Maybe anyway, but that's my suspicion.
gklr 5 years ago
Good points. Would you say that "objective" beliefs are subjective, the objectivity is subjective, and it's simply believed that they are objective?
It's great to see you back.
azrienoch 5 years ago
Hi Az. I would say a proposition is subjective only when the sole means of determining the belief is subject dependant. So if I don't exist, I can't say "I prefer peanut butter to jam", wheras "the sun will rise tommorow" is not dependant on my existence.
Great to be back. :)
gklr 5 years ago
Right. I wasn't sure what you were meaning by objective beliefs in regards to Jesus and Mickey Mouse, but that clarifies it.
azrienoch 5 years ago