Page 22 of 35 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 ... 35  Next

Iamaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,027
Location: San Antonio

30 Jun 2015, 7:40 pm

pcuser wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:


Yes, God does exist.

Prove it...


The proof is everywhere as far as natural revelation goes, but with historical revelation it is "seek and ye shall find". Look up apologetics, I'm not going to be your search engine for you to ignore the results of, but here is a freebee in addition to what you ignored in the quote above:


_________________
"In the kingdom of hope, there is no winter."

I'm an author: https://www.amazon.com/author/benfournier

See my novel, Fullness Of Time:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07N91615Z


Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,031

30 Jun 2015, 8:15 pm

pcuser wrote:
Lukecash12 wrote:
Janissy wrote:
Lintar wrote:
What they cannot do is explain why morals should matter at all in the first place if all we are IS matter.
.


Morals matter because this is all we have. Life on earth is precious because life on earth is what there is for us. Morals don't matter to me because of heaven or hell. They matter to me because we're matter. (Using 'matter' as both a noun and a verb is getting a bit confusing.) This is our only chance. There are no do-overs. There is no God to ask forgiveness from. It's all on us.

There is a saying in the U.S., "let go and let God". I understand the appeal of religion. It would be very relaxing to just 'let go and let God', secure in the knowledge that no matter what horrors happen here on earth, heaven awaits. But it's just a story people tell themselves and I can't suspend disbelief and believe this story, regardless of how stress-relieving it would be.

Not being able to look forward to heaven( or behaving to avoid hell) puts a tremendous importance on right here, right now. I don't try to live as morally as possible so I'll get into heaven. I try to live as morally as possible because this life right here is all I have and all any living thing has. That makes it precious, more precious than if this life were a mere way-station on the way to afterlife.


What you have presented us on our end of the aisle is a false dilemma, because it does not adequately describe Christian morality. You have suggested that Christian morality amounts only to "let go and let God", that heaven and hell are the primary motivations for following mores, and finally that we consider life as a "mere way-station". Taken as a whole these arguments are a great oversimplification of Christian thinking and they reflect that what you seem to know about Christians, for the most part, merely amounts to your perceptions on Christians as opposed to their own perceptions. It relies on popular stereotypes and in fact it blatantly misrepresents Christian philosophers who have established otherwise for two thousand years now, and there is a staggering list of names to peruse in order to disprove your summation of Christian morality.

Please remember that these observations I've just made were not made in order to impugn you or suggest that you are lacking in intelligence. Rather they were straightforward observations of the contrasts between your idea of our moral motivations and what they really happen to be. So now that you've presented your slam dunk arguments against this straw man let me lay out the essence of what Christian ethics really looks like:

Christian ethics begin with the idea that God designed us. His ethical prescriptions thus exist in the first place because they are for our own benefit, as they consider our very design and envision the best state of affairs given that knowledge. In such a system there is penal justice and satisfactory justice. The penal justice system of mores is a system that exists in order to benefit society, and is important in establishing a more pleasant experience for us right now. The satisfactory justice system of mores is perfect rather than provisional, general rather than specific, and it solves the problem of sin rather than improving or helping us to understand the situation, as in: our failures to follow the penal system helped us to understand that we couldn't offer up anything meet in the other system, as well as understanding that there are two systems in the first place (i.e. "the Law through Moses", and "grace and truth through Jesus Christ"). It's prerogative is the satisfaction of God, as opposed to the benefit of society. As only God Himself could satisfy this system He did just that.

Because God loves us we are gifted the benefits of both of these systems, and we can use His moral instructions both to benefit our societies as well as to please Him personally. The reward for the first system is a better society and the reward for the second system is mutual pleasure between the believer and God. This is why the NT says that God is love. The entire goal of both systems is to experience and benefit from His love, through association with either Him or His creations. Two key things to notice in this whole explanation so far is that I have made no references to heaven or hell, and if you know your scriptures this whole moral framework is saturated with possible references to material all over the bible.

You and others don't realize that you claim that your God magically provides you with morals and ethics. This is the extraordinary claim. You must have the extraordinary evidence. It isn't up to those of us who don't believe your nonsense to prove anything. We aren't making any extraordinary claims. That applies to all on this thread...


More music for our listening pleasure as we all contemplate:

And you don't appear to realize that there is a variety of topics to consider here, not all of which are topics where theists must shoulder the burden of proof. Diverting the topic at hand to whether or not God exists does nothing to establish the rationality of your own ethics. I am perfectly comfortable discussing any of the major topics of the Great Debate, and what's more I am capable of conceding on a certain area. But whatever each party actually realizes is out of each party's purview, so I would like to make clear that language such as "well you just don't know", "you don't realize", "all of you do/are/just/say" is about as productive as "nuh'uh", "uh'huh". I do my best not to be smug, and you could at least extend the same courtesy because the other party here is at least regarding you seriously.

Your challenge that "God doesn't exist" hasn't stymied me to the point that I can't compose a response to that claim. In fact I have supplied on numerous occasions during my academic career and correspondences, a whole host of arguments in different categories (ontology, cosmology, teleology, ethical philosophy, history, hagiography and so on), so be assured that I don't shrink away from your claim, rather I take special pleasure in addressing. But my arguments aren't composed to score points, to establish my "superior" intelligence or other qualities, and right now I'm more interested in seeing you demonstrate some of your own qualities by directly addressing the material you've been given here.

There's been plenty of challenges and burdens thrown on Judeo-Christian backs in this thread after all, so let's see what atheists and agnostics can muster up for themselves. Does this position make comparatively more sense? Are there not extraordinary claims that they themselves make? For example: people in your camp claim that there are multiple universes to counter the cosmological argument, random chance in the case of abiogenesis to counter teleological arguments, when the inflationary model of the universe is accepted and the beginning of the universe of considered ex nihilo atheists and agnostics argue that such can be a brute fact (as if ex nihilo requires no explanation? that's quite a leap of faith in itself), and the list goes on. Theists are not the only camp with "extraordinary" claims, and there is a rich tradition of theists arguing for God's existence so it's not as if this ad nauseum claim that "God doesn't exist anyways" has fallen on deaf ears. Modern atheists and militant agnostics attacking their caricatures of Anselm's ontological argument and Craig's cosmological argument are merely swatting at flies, merely peering at a drop in a pond.


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


Last edited by Lukecash12 on 30 Jun 2015, 8:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.

quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

30 Jun 2015, 8:20 pm

Iamaparakeet wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:


Yes, God does exist.

Prove it...


The proof is everywhere as far as natural revelation goes, but with historical revelation it is "seek and ye shall find". Look up apologetics, I'm not going to be your search engine for you to ignore the results of, but here is a freebee in addition to what you ignored in the quote above:


Have you ever done any real research on evolution? Have you ever read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (his book The Selfish Gene is great, too), or any other book about evolution written by an actual scientist? If not, then what makes you so sure that evolution is wrong? Just because creationists tell you it's wrong doesn't mean that's true. Creationists are completely capable of lying or being uneducated, you know. So why blindly trust them?

Also, why believe in God when it's so obvious that he doesn't exist? Not only does the Bible contain numerous contradictions, factual errors, and impossibilities, but it's also incredibly hateful, and it paints God as a vile, wrathful, monstrous being who only cares about being worshipped and praised, and who doesn't care about all of the people who are suffering through more than they can bear.

It's like Epicurus famously said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" In other words, according to your religion, God can do anything, no matter how impossible it seems to us, correct? Therefore, God could get rid of evil without taking away our free will, even though that seems impossible to us. Yet he doesn't do that, which means that he himself must be evil, since he doesn't care one bit about the thousands of people who are suffering as a result of the existence of evil, so why worship him and call him "God" at all? I mean, can you even prove that God exists? If not, then why believe in him at all? Seriously, think about it.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


Lukecash12
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,031

30 Jun 2015, 8:36 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:


Yes, God does exist.

Prove it...


The proof is everywhere as far as natural revelation goes, but with historical revelation it is "seek and ye shall find". Look up apologetics, I'm not going to be your search engine for you to ignore the results of, but here is a freebee in addition to what you ignored in the quote above:


Have you ever done any real research on evolution? Have you ever read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (his book The Selfish Gene is great, too), or any other book about evolution written by an actual scientist? If not, then what makes you so sure that evolution is wrong? Just because creationists tell you it's wrong doesn't mean that's true. Creationists are completely capable of lying or being uneducated, you know. So why blindly trust them?

Also, why believe in God when it's so obvious that he doesn't exist? Not only does the Bible contain numerous contradictions, factual errors, and impossibilities, but it's also incredibly hateful, and it paints God as a vile, wrathful, monstrous being who only cares about being worshipped and praised, and who doesn't care about all of the people who are suffering through more than they can bear.

It's like Epicurus famously said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" In other words, according to your religion, God can do anything, no matter how impossible it seems to us, correct? Therefore, God could get rid of evil without taking away our free will, even though that seems impossible to us. Yet he doesn't do that, which means that he himself must be evil, since he doesn't care one bit about the thousands of people who are suffering as a result of the existence of evil, so why worship him and call him "God" at all? I mean, can you even prove that God exists? If not, then why believe in him at all? Seriously, think about it.


Have you ever read any reputable theist, deist, or fideist literature on the same subjects? Are you aware of the academic support for, and longstanding traditions of, interpretations of Genesis 1-3 that aren't mutually exclusive with evolutionism at all? Have you ever read Soren Kierkegaard, Immanuel Kant, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Alvin Plantinga, Gottfried Leibniz, Desiderus Erasmus, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, or Epictetus? "Seriously, think about it".

But with that sarcastic remark aside, I would invite you to consider that such statements as those you've quoted didn't fall on deaf ears. We can trade literary references all day if you like. Or if you are interested, we can start by addressing creation vs evolution in Genesis right here. I think you may be surprised at what is right there in the Hebrew and the stark contrast between what's linguistically tenable as an interpretation as opposed to the more "literal" renderings given by fundamentalist Christians ("literal" can really be a misguided term when we look at genre and forms of literary expression in ancient languages).


_________________
There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

30 Jun 2015, 8:42 pm

Lukecash12 wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Iamaparakeet wrote:


Yes, God does exist.

Prove it...


The proof is everywhere as far as natural revelation goes, but with historical revelation it is "seek and ye shall find". Look up apologetics, I'm not going to be your search engine for you to ignore the results of, but here is a freebee in addition to what you ignored in the quote above:


Have you ever done any real research on evolution? Have you ever read On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins (his book The Selfish Gene is great, too), or any other book about evolution written by an actual scientist? If not, then what makes you so sure that evolution is wrong? Just because creationists tell you it's wrong doesn't mean that's true. Creationists are completely capable of lying or being uneducated, you know. So why blindly trust them?

Also, why believe in God when it's so obvious that he doesn't exist? Not only does the Bible contain numerous contradictions, factual errors, and impossibilities, but it's also incredibly hateful, and it paints God as a vile, wrathful, monstrous being who only cares about being worshipped and praised, and who doesn't care about all of the people who are suffering through more than they can bear.

It's like Epicurus famously said: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" In other words, according to your religion, God can do anything, no matter how impossible it seems to us, correct? Therefore, God could get rid of evil without taking away our free will, even though that seems impossible to us. Yet he doesn't do that, which means that he himself must be evil, since he doesn't care one bit about the thousands of people who are suffering as a result of the existence of evil, so why worship him and call him "God" at all? I mean, can you even prove that God exists? If not, then why believe in him at all? Seriously, think about it.


Have you ever read any reputable theist, deist, or fideist literature on the same subjects? Are you aware of the academic support for, and longstanding traditions of, interpretations of Genesis 1-3 that aren't mutually exclusive with evolutionism at all? Have you ever read Soren Kierkegaard, Immanuel Kant, C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright, Gary Habermas, Alvin Plantinga, Gottfried Leibniz, Desiderus Erasmus, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, or Epictetus? "Seriously, think about it".

But with that sarcastic remark aside, I would invite you to consider that such statements as those you've quoted didn't fall on deaf ears. We can trade literary references all day if you like. Or if you are interested, we can start by addressing creation vs evolution in Genesis right here. I think you may be surprised at what is right there in the Hebrew and the stark contrast between what's linguistically tenable as an interpretation as opposed to the more "literal" renderings given by fundamentalist Christians ("literal" can really be a misguided term when we look at genre and forms of literary expression in ancient languages).

If you believe in theistic evolution, then I'm fine with that. It's just when people outright deny proven scientific facts in favor of their particular interpretation of the Bible (like IAmAParakeet did) that I get riled up. I really have no problem with religion at all, so long as you don't believe blindly in it or try to push your religious beliefs on others. My father's entire side of the family is actually Jewish, and I've been to Temple a number of times, and have enjoyed the experience, even though I don't share (most of) their beliefs.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,212
Location: San Jose

30 Jun 2015, 11:50 pm


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Jul 2015, 7:57 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Atheists have no problem explaining the subjective value of morals. You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null.


So what the group known as I.S.I.S. now does to its opponents (you know, like chop their heads off), rape, murder, theft and arson are only subjectively wrong, are they? Are you here making the claim that such actions are only wrong due to a consensus view of what "wrong" actually is at the present moment in our history and cultural development?
Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I know that the examples given above can never be justified, and you have just proven my own point that the atheistic worldview cannot account for morality and ethics, for if it could I am quite sure that by now someone would have written more than just a book about it (Sam Harris gave it a shot, but he failed miserably).



quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 7:59 pm

Lintar wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Atheists have no problem explaining the subjective value of morals. You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null.


So what the group known as I.S.I.S. now does to its opponents (you know, like chop their heads off), rape, murder, theft and arson are only subjectively wrong, are they? Are you here making the claim that such actions are only wrong due to a consensus view of what "wrong" actually is at the present moment in our history and cultural development?
Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I know that the examples given above can never be justified, and you have just proven my own point that the atheistic worldview cannot account for morality and ethics, for if it could I am quite sure that by now someone would have written more than just a book about it (Sam Harris gave it a shot, but he failed miserably).

You should really study sociology, since the answers to all of your questions about how morals came about without God can be answered by studying that field. Seriously, refusing to educate yourself doesn't mean that your ignorance-based religious beliefs are true.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Jul 2015, 8:06 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
Lintar wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Atheists have no problem explaining the subjective value of morals. You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null.


So what the group known as I.S.I.S. now does to its opponents (you know, like chop their heads off), rape, murder, theft and arson are only subjectively wrong, are they? Are you here making the claim that such actions are only wrong due to a consensus view of what "wrong" actually is at the present moment in our history and cultural development?
Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I know that the examples given above can never be justified, and you have just proven my own point that the atheistic worldview cannot account for morality and ethics, for if it could I am quite sure that by now someone would have written more than just a book about it (Sam Harris gave it a shot, but he failed miserably).

You should really study sociology, since the answers to all of your questions about how morals came about without God can be answered by studying that field. Seriously, refusing to educate yourself doesn't mean that your ignorance-based religious beliefs are true.


"...ignorance-based religious beliefs"? Quiet Dove, I'm not at all religious. I hate religion, and all it stands for. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I as I understand it sociology has not been able thus far to account for why some things are inherently wrong (or conversely, right). If you think there is some book out there that does accomplish this, then name it.



quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 8:12 pm

Lintar wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
Lintar wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Atheists have no problem explaining the subjective value of morals. You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null.


So what the group known as I.S.I.S. now does to its opponents (you know, like chop their heads off), rape, murder, theft and arson are only subjectively wrong, are they? Are you here making the claim that such actions are only wrong due to a consensus view of what "wrong" actually is at the present moment in our history and cultural development?
Well, you can believe this if you want to, but I know that the examples given above can never be justified, and you have just proven my own point that the atheistic worldview cannot account for morality and ethics, for if it could I am quite sure that by now someone would have written more than just a book about it (Sam Harris gave it a shot, but he failed miserably).

You should really study sociology, since the answers to all of your questions about how morals came about without God can be answered by studying that field. Seriously, refusing to educate yourself doesn't mean that your ignorance-based religious beliefs are true.


"...ignorance-based religious beliefs"? Quiet Dove, I'm not at all religious. I hate religion, and all it stands for. I may not be an expert on the subject, but I as I understand it sociology has not been able thus far to account for why some things are inherently wrong (or conversely, right). If you think there is some book out there that does accomplish this, then name it.

If you hate religion, then how come you're trying to present it as a possible explanation for morality?

As for a book recommendation, I recommend The Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. (I know it's pretty pricey on Amazon, so I recommend looking for it at any of the college libraries near you first.)


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,374
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Jul 2015, 8:28 pm

I'm an atheist/agnostic. However, I do believe religions have their place in the world. It creates some sort of sense out of perceived chaos for some people. There is a history of atrocities committed in the name of religion; however, there is also a history of atrocities committed under the auspices of a purely atheistic society.

Belief in an afterlife also eases what may be termed "existential dread." I've had a fear of death since the age 11; it makes me want to embrace an afterlife--and other panaceas which are part and parcel of religion. I have not done so because I have embraced, in general, the Scientific Method. I have no belief in the existence of a deity, despite my desire for my essence to live on forever, and not curtailed by death.

Humans created morality--but there is at least a portion of morality which arose from religious belief.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,778
Location: Victoria, Australia

01 Jul 2015, 9:07 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
If you hate religion, then how come you're trying to present it as a possible explanation for morality?


I'm not. I presented God as a possible explanation, not religion. There is a difference.

quiet_dove wrote:
As for a book recommendation, I recommend The Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. (I know it's pretty pricey on Amazon, so I recommend looking for it at any of the college libraries near you first.)


Ok, thanks. :)



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,603

02 Jul 2015, 1:06 am

'Normal' human beings are born with emotional contagion as small children; enjoying sharing laughter and smiles with other babies at a very young age; sharing and reciprocating emotions, yes, from wee ages of babyhood.

There is no religion that makes love happen, alone; love is part of social cooperation in altruistic ways of human evolving behavior for social cooperation, and the potential for greater chances at overall survival.

Sociology assesses the most peaceful societies around the world; as those that are ones that share instead of collect materialistic goods for profit; and these cultures are all relatively small; humans are not evolved for more than about 150 to 200 sets of eyes, per current study, of human social capacity for interaction.

A set of carrots and sticks are necessary to rule an unruly large population of human being through religion and or culture; but put human beings back in normal primitive circumstances, AND all natural innate instinct and intuition of kindness of love with courage rules the way of social cooperation and survival.

No BIBLE REQUIRED; NO SPECIFIC ABSTRACT CONCEPT OF GOD REQUIRED; HOWEVER, THE ALL NATURAL EVOLVING FORCE OF GOD, AS EVOLVED IN HUMAN IS THE WAY OF KINDNESS OF LOVE AND COURAGE FOR SOCIAL COOPERATION AND SURVIVAL, in 'normal' human primate environmental circumstances, where social-stress does not rule environments.

We live in a world in the United States, in particular, where studies show that empirical measures of human empathy among college age young adults, has dropped off almost a third in the last several decades. The reason for this is obvious; use it or lose it, applies, as in all stuff of human behavior; play with machines all day and become machine-like, robot-like, zombie-like; the cultural metaphors for this now growing sadder human reality, are myriad in force, as the Zombie Apocalypse; the real one, gains force, in empty human hearts with spirit expressed as emotional heart; no longer working with humans who lose their soul; and yes, all real emotional hearts, expressed emotions as spirit, and human soul, in mind and body balance with emotions properly regulated, and senses properly integrated; for greater focus and short term working memory
to enhance the potential
for human kindness
and
courage..:)

For a person who neither lives with these all innate instinctual intuitive properties of cognitive and affective
empathy as real experience; the world is both a cold and chaotic place that makes little sense; empathy
and the emotional life of human beings is not only responsible for gluing memories; it is
also the house of existential intelligence, connection with, and trust in other humans,
AND the rest of Nature AKA GOD.

THE WORLD makes sense; NOT BECAUSE OF LOGIC, alone; but because of
evolving human empathy and emotions in all innate instinctual
intuitive ways; for those who do not share in this all
natural evolving human nature gifted by the
overall GOD of Nature;
the world
is neither
kind
or fearless
for those folks.

It is transparent, for folks
who have been to
both places
of real life
heaven of feeling
now to the other
place of non-feeling
heart, spirit, and practically
non-existent soul of human
in mind and body balance..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

02 Jul 2015, 6:14 am

Lintar wrote:
So what the group known as I.S.I.S. now does to its opponents (you know, like chop their heads off), rape, murder, theft and arson are only subjectively wrong, are they?


Those members of the group known as I.S.I.S. chop off heads in the belief that what they do is ethically and morally sound, in accordance with their god and their wider society. This makes the "beheading of infidels" very much a matter of subjective perspective.

Quote:
Are you here making the claim that such actions are only wrong due to a consensus view of what "wrong" actually is at the present moment in our history and cultural development?


I didn't make any such claim. There is no global ethical or moral consensus.

Quote:
Well, you can believe this if you want to


I wasn't aware I required your consent to believe in the strawman ethics you've ascribed to me. Do you believe it's morally sound to manufacture another person's opinions before condemning that person on the grounds of your fabrication?

Your righteous indignation towards a moral position of your own imagining is another example of the subjectivity of morality and ethics. In your mind you're a paragon of moral excellence - just like those members of I.S.I.S. whose agency was conveniently ignored when you issued your proclamation on the subject of subjective morality. In my mind, your words indicate dishonest hypocrisy. Who then, in this instance, is subjectively "correct"?

Quote:
but I know that the examples given above can never be justified


They cannot be justified to you. Subjectively. That's rather the point.

Quote:
and you have just proven my own point that the atheistic worldview cannot account for morality and ethics


Your strawman proved only that your mind is a closed trap. Not only did you misrepresent my position, by doing so you demonstrated the truth of my original statement.

"You may not like the answers, but that alone cannot render them null."

Your dislike for the answers is so ingrained that you've mischaracterised an atheist (myself) unjustly, thus proving your own moral turpitude.

Quote:
for if it could I am quite sure that by now someone would have written more than just a book about it (Sam Harris gave it a shot, but he failed miserably).


And indeed they have. There are thousands of articles, papers and video presentations on the subject. Your ignorance of existing knowledge is evidence only of your ignorance, and nothing more.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

03 Jul 2015, 8:01 am

Oh dear!
I was hoping that this thread might evolve into a reasonable argument with the likes of Alexander the Solitary who seems to have a functional intellect and some knowledge of the subject to boot.

However, the Materialist lobby typically spout vainglorious, simple, assertions based only on the premise that everything that exists is not caused by anything and for no reason and that is assumed to surpass any scientific observations or logic that science and logic say are impossible.

Those who claim science as the total justification for their religious presumptions assume a logical (scientific) absurdity as the absolute premise for their ideological position.

I was almost going to start an argument with Alex about Kantian (etc. etc.) assumptions along those lines but the argument has, once again, been reduced to the illogical and puerile fads anyone can pick up from Primary School picture books.

Heh heh! It seems that I'm even too unpopular for the "Unpopular Member's Club".