" SOCIETY THAT YOU LIVE IN DETERMINES TRUTH"

Some societies believe you should Love your neighbor while others believe you should eat them. Which is TRUTH.

It is not all that difficult when it comes to Moral Absolutes or Truth it is either, Society, the Individual, or some Transcendent entity that defines these things for all mankind. lets look at all three.

Society, the problem here is we all are aware that some societies are evil. If we say they have the right to define truth and Moral Authority then why did we stop the Nazi's, Why did we convict add put them to death. They were doing what they consider to be their Moral responsibility.

The individual, same problem. Why do we think Dolmer was crazy? As Richard Dawkins says "he was just dancing to his DNA"

But see we ALL KNOW that what the Nazis did was wrong. We ALL KNOW that Dolmer did evil. Why do we know that? Where did that information come from?  It is interesting that every anti-thiestic philosopher from Dawkins to Hawkins says that there is NOWAY through naturalistic means to come up with a Moral Code.

So why do we have one?...... the obvious is right in front of our nose.

Has anyone provided a proof of God's nonexistence?
Not even close!

Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close!

Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close!

Are physicists and biologist willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough!

Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is Moral?
Not Close enough!

Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close!

Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough!

Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark!

Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
Dead on!

                                             David Berlinski

If we present man with a concept of man that is not true, we may well corrupt him. when we present him as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as a mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment-or,as the Nazis like to say, 'of blood and soil'. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientist and philosophers.

                                        Viktor Frankl

MShipley wrote on 07/02/18 at 12:00:56:


Man, again, using others to promote a understanding is still interpretation, for yes, we can gather historical data, assign it, deduce it, yet we never can fully interpret the will of another.

I refer to the book of Job.

If its the results that define, then we could also say mother nature, or who created nature, is nihilistic too, for look at the heartache and misery it has brought.  

Man, again, using others to promote a understanding is still interpretation, for yes, we can gather historical data, assign it, deduce it, yet we never can fully interpret the will of another.

I refer to the book of Job.

If its the results that define, then we could also say mother nature, or who created nature, is nihilistic too, for look at the heartache and misery it has brought.  
[/quote]

No offense but I think you missed Viktors point:

Worldviews have consequences. The way we define Absolute truth and Morality has consequences. The way we define "What it is to be human" has consequences. Those consequences are usually the result of what is taught by current philosophers and scientist in the arena of acadameia.

raydawg wrote on 07/01/18 at 21:22:39:

 At its core, hunting was for survival, food, yes?
Not "sport", tho it did become that later, to many.  

Yes, hunting was for survival. Yet I believe their was  a  middle part left out. My great grandfather was probably the last that hunted for, survival. My Father, and I, hunted for 'Sport', Yet we were, Sportsman. We  cleaned and consumed all we shot. Or we did not shoot it.
We did not 'need' to have that food. In fact, if you added up the cost of guns, ammo, special cloths, etc. etc. etc. etc. and etc. It would would have been cheaper just buying the meat in a supermarket.

(Which brings me to the statement from the Snowflake:  "Just buy your meat from the supermarket, where no animal is harmed")

Last 15 +/- years the States  (Conservation Dept's, Fish and Game), started coming out with, 'Wanton Waste', laws.  Which is, you can NOT, throw out your Fish/Ducks/Deer/etc.

In response to purely, 'Sport' hunting. Where a person, (they call themselves a 'hunter', but they are not even close), buys the required License, (and etc), and SHOOTS, what EVER  their license says. JUST  to shoot. They are not even close to hunting.

And therein, lies the mindset: 'well sure I'll give up my guns, just gonna have to go golfing', that the ultra-Liberals heard a Hand full of them, then tell everybody, it is Millions.

Back to, 'sport' hunting. It has been around got a very long time, but only a very small amount of people. Take Jack O'Conner, (Well know-en Gun Nut),  he hunted for 'Sport', also was a, 'shooter', and advanced the game of, 'shooting' to a degree only a shooter would know.  (Just as someone knows who invented the 'ping', golf club).

So today, is, 'hunting' needed ?
NO, add it all up, supermarket is cheaper for the same Protein.
YET, missing is the bonding. Father/Son, Mother/Daughter, Father/Daughter, Mother/Son, etc.  Is GONE.

Yea, the 'Cell Phone',  replaces Human Interaction, with Parents and Siblings.

Years ago saw a two panel cartoon.
1st.  Father, pipe and Fedora hat, said to Son, "Let's go in, it's time I buy you a Gun and you start becoming a Man"
2nd. Father, outside a mac&dons, said to his son: "Let's go in, it's time I buy you a Big Mack, and make you a Man"

(If you cannot see the difference between a big mack, and a gun.  If you cannot see the differences of what was said. Then their is no hope)

 (and On, and ON, and ON, and ON, and ON)

"... killing another human, before they kill me..."

That is a very fundamental principal.
One has to prepare themselves mentally, long before such a possibility.

If you do, and  realize their can be repructions after shooting someone, and accept it.   Those are the people, you want around you.

If you don't, and realize that that you just, can't. Then step aside, and let someone else do it. Do not take away their, Rights, to defend themselves.