Explaining Axioms?

[Jmpty]

You must go to the root. Ask them to define what an axiom is, which is,"A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate." If they cannot define this, or accept the definition, they are done.

[Plu]

Axioms by definition are true for everyone beyond human ability to change.

No they're not, plenty of people accept axioms that aren't true, and plenty of people attempt to deny the axioms that are true.

What could be the source other than something like god

Argument from ignorance, so this whole thing already breaks down here.

But your reply is quite good :)

[Shol'va]

Oh brother. Discussion has descended into the typical "how do atheists account for morality".
Either way, mum's the word on the topic of how axioms come from god :)

[Plu]

Discussion has descended into the typical "how do atheists account for morality".

That's a pretty easy one, really. It's because atheists don't like being murdered in their sleep, so they kinda prefer a world where that kind of thing is frowned upon.

[lumpymunk]

You must go to the root. Ask them to define what an axiom is, which is,"A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate." If they cannot define this, or accept the definition, they are done.

So under this definition of an axiom the christian would be equally correct, since he believes "god creates all axioms" and this is "accepted as true without proof" among Christians "as the basis for their argument."

To identify what an axiom is you were correct, you've got to go to the root... not a voting booth.

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest."

The concept of god can be analyzed and broken into component parts, so god is not an axiom.  Most of the arguments against god point out that the component parts cannot co-exist free of contradiction.   ...so "god" is not related to anything axiomatic.

[Shol'va]

But but ... evolution cannot tell you what ought to be (morals), only what is and how it came to be.

[Colanth]

But but ... evolution cannot tell you what ought to be (morals), only what is and how it came to be.

Morals aren't oughts, morals are what works.  (Immoral societies fail, so extant societies are moral - until they're not and they fail.)

Oughts are merely opinions.  (Even the theist has to accept that the oughts his god gives us are merely that god's opinions.  If not, there's something higher than that god, so why call it a god?)

[Shol'va]

Alright I'm dragging this thread off topic but the guy is setting up the argument that lying is always bad and lying is axiomatically wrong within Christianity. He even goes on to say this
"For example, a WWII family has Jews hiding in their basement. The Nazi's come to the door. They can choose between betrayal and complicity in murder or lying.... in that case lying is the (much) lessor of two evils. But lying is always wrong"

My response:
You consider lying to protect a human being from murderous thugs to be morally wrong.

That's just one of the things that sets us apart in ideology Willis. Even if Yahweh were real, I would want nothing to do with it, the same god that would allow for that scenario to even begin to play out, and then go on considering it a sin to lie even in that situation. And that is me pretending you have proven that lying=bad is an axiom within Christianity, which you have not.

Thank you once again for being the best argument against Christianity.

Christianity: lying is axiomatically wrong and it is a sin, even when one does so to save a human being. Yes, the religion of love, compassion, and logical consistency.


And that's a checkmate and I appreciate everyone's insight in this thread. And I apologize once again if I've dragged this discussion down.

[josephpalazzo]

You should point out to your friend that morality without God is easier to understand than morality with God, as the latter brings in a bag of contradictions and inconsistencies.  :P

[Colanth]

Christianity: lying is axiomatically wrong and it is a sin, even when one does so to save a human being. Yes, the religion of love, compassion, and logical consistency.

This is the same religion that says that lying in the name of Jesus is no sin.  (If you slit your eyes, only look through one of them - sideways - and redefine "sin" the right way, it almost works.)

[Shol'va]

Interlocutor continued to assert morals are unmoving LAWS and therefore axiomatic. Assertions upon assertions, nothing to back it up except the argument "I am not comfortable with gray areas, if morals are not axiomatic we can do anything we want" etc etc.
Either way the discussion between him and I went off-topic and therefore I am off-topic here and will bore you no further :)