Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unfan
Two different kinds of right and wrong. The former in the discussion is objective right and wrong, statements that are flasifiable. "God is real" is a statement where it can either be proven he does or doesn't exist. For instance 1+1=2. This is true. We can prove by physically putting one object next to another object and seeing there are two objects. The latter is subjective right and wrong/good and bad. Morals are intangibles and abstracts and are thus objectively immeasurable. You can deem them as being of quality, but not empirically true or false.
|
this is where i differ. when a person states 'god is real' i don't take it as anything besides a reflection of their own belief. not right or wrong or needing to be proven just their belief. i don't see why i should try to deny another person's belief simply because it runs counter to my own. arguing semantics seems like an even bigger waste of time.
molecules says it best - trust yourself.
i don't have a problem with people actively discussing their beliefs with me but i draw the line at people who actively try to alter my own beliefs to further reinforce their own to cover up their lack of belief in their own judgement.
as for existence does a rock cease to exist because it's not self aware?