JB>Derek writes:
>
>DM<<My thought processes ARE my life.>>
>
JB>You THINK they are. ;-)
And in the absense of convincing contrary evidence, I will continue to think
they are! :-)
>JB>Further, logic itself is a concept that is meaningless without an
>"outside" referrent.
>
>DM<<But, for the purposes of this discussion, the
>outside referrent is the rationality of the human mind, specifically MY
>mind. I accept MY capacity for rationality as an axiom>>
JB>No, you accept it as a presupposition. An axiom is a self-evident truth, and
>the rationality of the mind--without outside referral--is anything but
>self-evident.
My dictionary also defines an axiom as "a proposition which is assumed
without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it."
JB>That's the problem you face as an atheist. You keep wanting make rational
>noises, but your system cuts you off at every turn. Thus, you "borrow" from
>the objective crowd and try to couch things in subjective terms. That merely
>results in disconnect, oxymorons and things like "The Brady Bunch Movie."
Sorry. I can't find any meaning in this paragraph.
>DM<<One reasonably chooses based on one's own standards of reason... And
how do
>I choose my own standards of reason? I observe the practical application, and
>consider the theoretical application of standards of reason that others have
>chosen or rejected, and DECIDE for myself.>>
JB>Yes. Stalin did the same thing. He was most practical about genocide.
As was Joshua, and the God who aided him. What is your point?
>DM<<In view of your question below, I would ask you for a logical argument
>confirming that the evils perpetrated by Stalin were a specific result of
>his atheism, rather than any other cause.>>
JB>That's a red herring. My question assumes an atheistic stance--I can easily
>argue FOR Stalin; but I cannot CONDEMN him.
I have no difficulty condemning Stalin. I don't need an absolute standard
against which to compare him. My personal standard, or the shared standards
of my family or community will be quite adequate.
JB>You try, with the consensus argument.
I don't use argument to condemn Stalin. I use the judgement (decisions) of
those people whose lives he affected. Overwhelmingly, they condemn him. I
endorse their judgement.
JB>But that is relativism come home to
>roost. Moral questions become questions of votes. This is an odd morality.
You might see it as odd, and at first glance it does appear to be odd. But
it *works* reasonably well and reasonably often, and it has worked for
thousands of years in societies all over the world. Why does it work?
Because humans are essentially altruistic in their relationships with other
humans.
>DM<<Good and evil are not subject to logical argument.>>
JB>Sure they are. Begin with a premise, and reason through:
>
>1. Murder is evil.
>2. Stalin murdered.
>3. Stalin was evil.
>
>QED.
Strictly speaking, not quite right! Unless you would also add the premise
that anyone who does evil, *is* evil. And that premise might be inconsistent
with the teachings of Jesus.
But try this as an alternative.
1. Murder is evil.
2. Stalin murdered.
3. Stalin *did* evil.
Better?
JB>The problem for the atheist is he cannot assert #1 rationally.
Let me try.
1. I don't want to be murdered.
2. I don't want anyone else to be murdered.
2. Anything that I don't want to happen to me, or to anyone else, is evil.
3. Murder is evil.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------