Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You are free to put a price tag on life if it rings your chimes. Maybe you can work a deal with WalMart, I understand they sell things cheap.

What we obtain, too cheap, we esteem too lightly:'Tis dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to set a proper price upon its goods
Thomas Paine

But what is the ontic referent, the objective reality that we can point to that legitimizes the sacredness of life?

PeterS

Oh, you can disagree all you like so long as there is some kind of logic behind it. And didn't we just have a disagreement where you pursued your argument and if finally agreed with you? The only thing I ask for is a rational argument and not one strewn with fallacies and circular arguments. Give me something that makes sense and like the last time, you will find agreement...

JW

It is not I who places a price on life. It is a time honored human tradition. Tell me, what is an enemy's life worth...say, the citizens of Jericho after they offended the Israelites... or a viet cong back when? There are always innocents among the dead.

The referent is the same whether religious or otherwise. It is always what we define it to be; or if you prefer, what we accept it as.

Either all life has intrinsic value or no life does... or we can pick an abstraction and claim it as a guiding principle. I prefer to think all life has intrinsic value but constantly find life's value being determined extrinsically and case by case.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

What exactly are you trying to say? Do you even know what ontic referent I'm talking about? If we define it, it is subjective and therefore can be anything we want it to be. If it is an objective reality, an absolute moral reference, then, yeah, either we accept it or reject it.

When we say there is evil, we assume there is good,
when we say there is good, we assume there is a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil;

when we assume a moral law, we assume a moral law giver; because without the moral law giver, there is no moral law, without the moral law, there is no good, without good, there is no evil.

Why do we need a moral law giver to have a moral law?

Because every question raised about evil and suffering is either raised by a person or about a person, which means personal (intrinsic) worth is essential to the question.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

True. However the issue of sentience is a whole 'nother matter.

True. See my previous post on the valuation of human life via medical and social costs.


Agreed.

Reality, unfortunately, is also colored (even in science) by perceptual biases and foregone conclusions which may be influenced by religion, politics or many other factors.

Murder, theft, adultery and rape are all human concepts that are societal in nature. Defining them is universally accepted in order to keep a society civil and avoid anarchy.

It may appear to be circular logic, but empirical evidence, not logic, is the basis of scientific fact. Scientific theory is based on that scientific fact derived from the empirical evidence. Observed fact 1 combined with observed fact 2 can be extrapolated to provide theory A. When it comes to religion, we are minus the observed facts, and are left only with the theory without any empirical evidence. Therein lies the difference.


Historical t***h, unless backed up by undisputed empirical evidence, is always written by the victor. In the case of an e******n, the b****t count (which can be verified for the most part) is the scientific proof of who had the majority of the v**e. Most of us accept manual counting as a verifiable basis for determining this.

When it comes to behavioral parameters, I would have to say that it is intuitive at best. People lie; gold-diggers sell their souls to become heirs to wealthy elders; spouses c***t and lie about it. Trying to discern this kind of t***h requires having to prove with empirical evidence that the intuitive conclusion that is drawn is truly correct. Neither religion nor science can prove this without the actual evidence of wh**ever is intuited.


Not being a biologist, I can't comment with any expertise on this ... however on superficial reading, both viewpoints apparently could be valid.

JW

Of course it is subjective. Everything man considers is subjective to the extent he lacks physical evidence for his conclusion. That is, verifiable, repeatable, testable physical evidence.

You assume the words in an old book represent God's instructions. That is a matter of your belief and that kind of belief is the height of unsupported subjective conclusion.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

That is your subjective opinion. Evidence can be found in forms other that just physical. Perception is not limited to just the five senses. I don't know anyone who can see, hear, touch, taste or feel a thought.

BTW, that "old book" happens to be the most popular book in world history, even made the Guinness World Record, and since it is in the hands of 1/3 of the world's population, I'd say there is more in it than meets the eye.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Appealing to the popularity of something is not a strong argument... More of a fallacy....

By that logic "al Fatihah" is the greatest prayer because it has been spoken more times than any prayer in history... And continues to be so..

Would you say there is any t***h to this?

(Although I should point out that al Fatihah is an extremely beautiful surah and I doubt that either Christians or Jews would find fault with it...)

terrycheeseman

When cells act on their own (mitosis).

terrycheeseman

I guess I hit the wrong topic sorry

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

When did you convert to Islam?

If one person is convinced of something, or bears witness to it, his version of it can certainly be questioned. When over 2 billion people now living and many millions before them are convinced of something, or bear witness to it, it is a good bet that their perspectives are reliable.

Over 500 people saw Lord Jesus in the flesh AFTER His resurrection.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

An Iranian Shi'ite tells of his conversion to Christianity

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

That was my point concerning Islam...
Billions have believed...

Your argument applies to both...

Why would I convert to Islam?
Have tried it and found it lacking (for me personally)...
Much prefer the path of Christ...

Still love my Muslim brothers though

JW

Of course it's subjective... as is yours.

Perception rests on the input of one's senses. Thoughts can be measured, perhaps not yet interpreted, but they can be seen by MRI.

The bottom line is this, everything we 'know' is filtered through our senses therefore everything we think about is subjective and remains so until it can be verified outside of the individual. That means it has to be able to be tested and repeated to be viewed as real.

JW

It is difficult to see one's own bias in discussions like these. For example, you can immediately spot my subjectivity but cannot see your own. You regard your views as objective because you know you are right. As a result, you allow yourself latitude that you do not allow your opponent. It is not a fault reserved to you.

Keep in mind also that the less one is aware of, the easier it is to know you're right and that certainty hampers curiosity which limits learning.