Human worth

[puppydog85]

John, you got my point exactly. Two can play at the dismissing game. I really do try to discuss the topics at hand, which was human worth and I gave a genuine answer to Stalin as to why I believe it "because God says so". I can back up this belief with logic, ect. but it boils down to that answer. And no the flying monkey god does not count in my opinion and I have looked into many positions and found them unable to properly explain human experience. Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.

[puppydog85]

Thank you symmetry for you kind reply. I never did get the hang of plurals/possessive's on words ending in s. But what strikes me as funny is that apparently you can spell but not read. I never said that having a thesis proved that a point was right, I merely stated that it could hardly be called illogical or arbitrary. And I know that a thesis can still be both of those, but in general they are the exact opposite. The Christian worldview is a full fledged philosophical and logical system of thought. Just to name one advocate I would pick Dr. Greg Bahnsen Phd in philosophy from USC. He engages with Stalin's flying monkey argument in his debate with Edward Tabash.

[BigBallinStalin]

Who said it was arbitrary? My position has doctoral thesis's written about it. You just asked a question and I gave you my answer. Don't arbitrarily call my position arbitrary.

I have great reasons to call your position arbitrary and/or illogical. You entirely dismissed the opinions of other deities because according to you "I just gave the Christian answer. And no, no other opinion counts. And that includes yours."

By implication, if it's not Christian, it must be wrong because "no other opinion counts." You may as well have argued, "Why? cuz I said so" or "cuz I feel like it" (which is not a logical argument).

It's arbitrary because your Christian beliefs are presumably based on your personal whim. For you, faith fills the gaps where reason and logic fall short.


But now, your argument has changed. We have an appeal to authority, specifically "doctoral thesis's written about..." what exactly and which ones?

if his Christianity had a logical basis (which you assume is not true), then he would be somewhat justified in dismissing other opinions as invalid.

why not have a chat with him about the basis for his Christian beliefs? i mean, you could reject his opinion out of hand like he rejected yours, but then you're sinking yourself to his level.

I like to make fun, and he takes his religion very seriously. So whatever, john. Honestly, if someone wants to believe in a Christian God and run around in logical circles, then there's no need to take them seriously.


I offer my position, and he just said, "No, it's wrong cuz I said so." I call that arbitrary and/or illogical, and of course he gets offended, so I explain. But then he counters with a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority ("doctoral thesis's"). At that point, I don't care to take him seriously on the subject.

Our two styles aren't similar, so I don't see how I'm "sinking to his level."

[BigBallinStalin]

Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.

Humans shouldn't be considered as having any set amount of worth because some humans have "worth" or value which is negative; otherwise, you'll have to concede that baby rapists should be considered as having worth. Since to me baby rapists should, and do, have a negative worth, then I"ll reject your normative assumption that human beings should be considered as having any worth.

(You're thinking holistically. It's messing with your analysis).

Why do I think this?

Because value is subjective. The value of Bob is determined by the valuation of Joe, Jill, and whoever. This means that a human can have worth or negative worth, and that depends on the individual who you're asking. You'll have to explain why (almost all?) humans have some minimal level of value, or explain why value is objective and not subjective.


If your argument will be something similar to "god said so," then here's a question for you: "is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, it is not sinking to my level. The original question is: Why should humans be treated as equal. I gave the Christian viewpoint. .

Except that isn't really the Christian perspective, either in theory or practice. In theory, women and men, children and adults are all to be treated differently. The bit about "to each is given a different measure" is not about equality. Nor is the concept of people being given different gifts.

You can, at best argue that Christianity says people have something close to equal worth. We are all valuable in God's eyes. But when you start talking about equality among humans, you are talking not about the Godly idea, but a very human one. And, churches are far from immune from the basic judgements every person makes every day.

In practice, wealthy individuals are treated very differently from non-wealthy. Some people have more ability in some areas. The children of a pastor and the children of the local drunkard are almost never treated truly alike. Some argue (I ABSOLUTELY disagree!) even that the Bible dictates races be treated differently.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I'm gonna write my doctoral thesis on measuring the half-life of forum threads.
We're trying to probabilistically determine how long it take for different kinds of forum threads to fall back to their stable states(i.e. trolling, politics, religion or some combination of the above).

How do you determine those to be "stable states?". Seems that would be your first question to answer.

It has been shown that once a thread becomes mostly about trolling, politics or religion it takes a huge ammount of energy to change it's state. We theorize the energy requirement might be exponential in the number of replies that have already been written about trolling/politics/religion.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm gonna write my doctoral thesis on measuring the half-life of forum threads.
We're trying to probabilistically determine how long it take for different kinds of forum threads to fall back to their stable states(i.e. trolling, politics, religion or some combination of the above).

How do you determine those to be "stable states?". Seems that would be your first question to answer.

It has been shown that once a thread becomes mostly about trolling, politics or religion it takes a huge ammount of energy to change it's state. We theorize the energy requirement might be exponential in the number of replies that have already been written about trolling/politics/religion.

Where has this been shown? Again, that is the very first step. Else, you are working on unproven assumptions.

Also, in what time frame? Often times populations/behaviors reach plateaue states that are not true stasis, but more like "pauses" or "steps". And, if the politics/religious views in various threads differ extremely, then is it truly a stasis? That is, they might stay, but only until they either get challenged again.. or simply die off.

I find the idea interesting. Seems like there are some parallels here between thread evolution and natural selection/establishment of species. However, I would argue that just like species are never truly static, neither are threads.

[Haggis_McMutton]

John, you got my point exactly. Two can play at the dismissing game. I really do try to discuss the topics at hand, which was human worth and I gave a genuine answer to Stalin as to why I believe it "because God says so". I can back up this belief with logic, ect. but it boils down to that answer. And no the flying monkey god does not count in my opinion and I have looked into many positions and found them unable to properly explain human experience. Anyway, Stalin how about you? Why should humans even be considered as having any worth? I say that it is because I believe that my God (and of course it is my God, just as whatever rational system you use is yours) has so ordered it. If you have a problem with that then lets go at it.

puppydog, I have two observations:
1. Now you are talking as if you actually want to debate stuff. A couple of posts ago when you wrote:

Stalin, the question was not whose idea of human worth was best, the question was why insist that they are equal. I just gave the Christian answer. And no, no other opinion counts. And that includes yours.
---
Who said it was arbitrary? My position has doctoral thesis's written about it. You just asked a question and I gave you my answer. Don't arbitrarily call my position arbitrary.

It looked as if your "argument" is: "I know my god is real cause the bible/some guy's thesis says so, you're all wrong". There's a couple people on these forums that are completely unable to productively discuss religion, because they can't even let themselves conceive for a second that they might be wrong. I think some of us assumed you are in that category and therefore resorted to mocking you. Perhaps we were wrong.

2. More importantly, if you're gonna stick around here, I need a way to shorten your name. Puppy or Dog seem derogatory and we already have a PD. Suggestions ?

[PLAYER57832]

I need a way to shorten your name. Puppy or Dog seem derogatory and we already have a PD. Suggestions ?

85?

[puppydog85]

Thanks, Haggis. I will check in later but for now puppy is fine. I don't find it derogatory. No more derogatory than haggis . I don't mind discussing things and I most certainly can do it in detail. But I hate just launching into a full tirade and prefer to start in slowly.

[Symmetry]

Thank you symmetry for you kind reply. I never did get the hang of plurals/possessive's on words ending in s. But what strikes me as funny is that apparently you can spell but not read. I never said that having a thesis proved that a point was right, I merely stated that it could hardly be called illogical or arbitrary. And I know that a thesis can still be both of those, but in general they are the exact opposite. The Christian worldview is a full fledged philosophical and logical system of thought. Just to name one advocate I would pick Dr. Greg Bahnsen Phd in philosophy from USC. He engages with Stalin's flying monkey argument in his debate with Edward Tabash.

Which Christian worldview? If you feel there's just one, and you're picking Dr. Greg as your representative of Christianity, would that not be a kind of an arbitrary thing?

[Gillipig]

Kind of. I reject the idea of people being good or bad, so you cannot have "better". We are complex organic logical machines with no true free will, to talk of good and bad (in morals) is nonsensical in an objectified frame. (Unless you are religious or Sam Harris).

I think Sam Harris interpretation of human morale is more valid than any religious entity. If you are going to speak about human morals objectively and that's a big "if". I think it's rather pointless and not very interesting, but if you are, having human evolution as your source to why you think something, is helpful.

[puppydog85]

Symmetry, specifically I am offering a rather popular protestant (and maybe R. Catholic) view of human worth. There are fringe elements in any view and I am not defending or advocating them. I really don't get this just calling things arbitrary. Am I supposed to offer a full blown report on why I believe what I believe? You ( I think it was you) made some snide comment evidently without reading the thread about the theses backing my position. Well, there it is. I am offering a little more information on why I believe it. Am I supposed to list every theologian who backs my position? You want more, try Cornelius van Til and Douglas Wilson.

Of course I think what I believe is right. Which makes the opposite of what I believe wrong. Basic logic there, if A then non-A. If you want my reasons in why I think I am right just ask.

[Gillipig]

Symmetry, specifically I am offering a rather popular protestant (and maybe R. Catholic) view of human worth. There are fringe elements in any view and I am not defending or advocating them. I really don't get this just calling things arbitrary. Am I supposed to offer a full blown report on why I believe what I believe? You ( I think it was you) made some snide comment evidently without reading the thread about the theses backing my position. Well, there it is. I am offering a little more information on why I believe it. Am I supposed to list every theologian who backs my position? You want more, try Cornelius van Til and Douglas Wilson.

Of course I think what I believe is right. Which makes the opposite of what I believe wrong. Basic logic there, if A then non-A. If you want my reasons in why I think I am right just ask.

I think what others have been trying to get at is that you give no reason for anything you believe. You basically just state "that's what I believe" and "others thinks so too". Those sort of arguments are really none arguments and they are worthless in a debate. They may work for you in your head but you can't use them in a discussion. This is something many christians do btw.

[puppydog85]

I gave short answer in the beginning because I like to keep things on track. But I think it is safe to say that this thread is now highjacked. So here it goes:
Stalin, if you won't take me seriously I see no reason to take you seriously. No point in proceeding. You say I run in logical circles and I must agree. But with the caveat that all thought will eventually do so. Kantian first principles and all that. Everyone has an ultimate authority. Mine is God, if you have a problem with that deal with it. Yours could be any number of things but I will hazard a guess and say that you have the common atomist/materialist viewpoint which has it own little circles that it runs in. It is the uneducated who sit in their own circle mocking others (what was the song? who wave little flags saying hooray for my side... I think it was CCR or somebody)
The real fun starts when we see whose little circles are internally coherent and make the most sense of reality (Plato's great downfall)

[puppydog85]

Player, I must confess myself completely lost as to what your response is about. Give me time and maybe I will figure it out.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, specifically I am offering a rather popular protestant (and maybe R. Catholic) view of human worth. There are fringe elements in any view and I am not defending or advocating them. I really don't get this just calling things arbitrary. Am I supposed to offer a full blown report on why I believe what I believe? You ( I think it was you) made some snide comment evidently without reading the thread about the theses backing my position. Well, there it is. I am offering a little more information on why I believe it. Am I supposed to list every theologian who backs my position? You want more, try Cornelius van Til and Douglas Wilson.

Of course I think what I believe is right. Which makes the opposite of what I believe wrong. Basic logic there, if A then non-A. If you want my reasons in why I think I am right just ask.

So, rather than the Christian view, you're offering an arbitrary view as a certain type of Christian? There's really little point in asking you for your reasons, as your default position is that whatever you believe to be right is right.

[puppydog85]

Symmetry, are you saying that you don't think what you believe is right? and what others therefore believe is wrong? If that is so then we need to have a different discussion about logic.

[puppydog85]

Gillipeg,

A. Stalin. based on his first response, I pegged him as a mocker with no interest in taking things seriously. I responded in fashion and was justified.
B. Symmetry. Is essentially a name caller who can only call things morons or assume that he knows all about me and my arbitrariness.
C. Haggis. Apparently a decent guy who I would be willing to discuss things in detail with.

Everyone assumes that their position is correct at its starting point. That is called an ultimate authority. I don't know yours and don't pretend to. But when asked why I believe what I believe about human worth I stated that it is because God said so. If I thought otherwise I would have said so ie. human experience teaches us, buddha says so, ect. ect

So based on the first two there has not been a major reason to list my chain of reasoning. Later tonight I will answer more fully Haggis and give him the answer his tone and thought deserves.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, are you saying that you don't think what you believe is right? and what others therefore believe is wrong? If that is so then we need to have a different discussion about logic.

I think you need to have a think about what you consider the word "logic" to mean. As apparently, for your good self, it's essentially a word that you employ to say that everything you believe to be true is true.

If you're using that as your fallback, and have misunderstood the idea of logical progression so massively then at best I can only suggest that you're operating with a false premise. Of course, being less sympathetic, I believe (Yay!) you're operating on a system of false premises, each building less logically from the other until you have convinced yourself that you are following a path chosen by God and are able to speak for all Christians.

A Messiah complex, if you will.

[puppydog85]

I know quite well what logic and arbitrary mean symmetry. I think it is funny that you seem to know all about me. I gave a classical explanation as to why I think if I am right, I must therefore think that you are wrong. Basic logic there. I am not dealing with whether or not my premise is right.

[Symmetry]

I know quite well what logic and arbitrary mean symmetry. I think it is funny that you seem to know all about me. I gave a classical explanation as to why I think if I am right, I must therefore think that you are wrong. Basic logic there. I am not dealing with whether or not my premise is right.

Of course you aren't, I doubt anyone looking at your arguments would even consider that you're dealing with your premise.

[puppydog85]

And on that note I am finished answering you symmetry. Mark me down as another Christian fully refuted by your brilliant reasoning.

[Symmetry]

And on that note I am finished answering you symmetry. Mark me down as another Christian fully refuted by your brilliant reasoning.

Nah- you're not Jesus, and there are plenty of Christians willing to talk to me without claiming that they are representative of the entirety of Christian thought.

[BigBallinStalin]

Actually, it is not sinking to my level. The original question is: Why should humans be treated as equal. I gave the Christian viewpoint. .

Except that isn't really the Christian perspective, either in theory or practice. In theory, women and men, children and adults are all to be treated differently. The bit about "to each is given a different measure" is not about equality. Nor is the concept of people being given different gifts.

You can, at best argue that Christianity says people have something close to equal worth. We are all valuable in God's eyes. But when you start talking about equality among humans, you are talking not about the Godly idea, but a very human one. And, churches are far from immune from the basic judgements every person makes every day.

In practice, wealthy individuals are treated very differently from non-wealthy. Some people have more ability in some areas. The children of a pastor and the children of the local drunkard are almost never treated truly alike. Some argue (I ABSOLUTELY disagree!) even that the Bible dictates races be treated differently.

Great points, PLAYER.

But puppy seems to be mixing two separate topics.

Positive/"scientific" approach:
Originally, he posted: "Humans are all *created* equal and in the image of God. This is in theory the driving force behind the Christian idea of all men being created equal. That is not saying that they are all equal in abilities ect., just that they all have equal worth in the eyes of God."

In other words, everyone was created equal and has equal worth from God's perspective. (How he knows this? Well, this would most likely explain how he knows this).


[u][u]Normative approach[/u][/u]:
But then he switched to a position on "why should humans be treated as equal," which from a Christian perspective wouldn't sync well if one incorporates the views in the Bible, which is basically your contention, and I agree with it. The Bible is bent on making life difficult for gays and women. I don't think he knows how to respond because I'm not sure he realizes that he's making two different types of arguments.