Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    ...for instance, you place great value on empathy -- because contrary to atheism, you instinctively recognize certain behaviors as objectively immoral. You do what every atheist is forced to do: you loudly proclaim that morality is subjective while quietly borrowing Christian ethics to paper over the cracks in your own moral philosophy. And like many atheists, I'm not sure you're even aware that you're doing it.
    Amen and amen...

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    There as not creation, my dude. Nothing points to your fantasy. The literal same things are said by Muslims about their own God and are just as convincing (i.e. not at all).
    Well the Muslims borrowed heavily from the Jewish and Christian traditions. But it is not fantasy, it is an inference to the best explanation.

    A

    1. And intelligent Creator created an intelligible cosmos.
    2. A conscious Creator created conscious beings.
    3. A rational Creator created rational beings.
    3. A moral Creator created morally aware beings.

    B

    1. Non-intelligent forces of nature created an intelligible universe.
    2. Non-conscious forces of nature created consciousness.
    3. Non- rational forces of nature created rational beings.
    4. The amoral forces of nature created morally aware creatures.

    I see no rational reason to assume that B is more plausible than A, especially in light of the fact that you have these forces of nature creating things that are completely opposite and foreign to their inherent nature.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Literally a semester away from being a pastor, hun.

    Or rather, you are blinded by your brainwashing much as the Branch Covidians are by theirs, and cannot see it for what it is. Just repeating and believing what your herdmasters told you.

    He regularly breaks his own laws. You simply handwave it away, and pretend it's okay.



    So you didn't read it, you just started and then stopped when it said something you didn't like. Gotcha. I've played that game with H_A too many times, not accepting it from you, so, so long.
    A semester away from being a pastor, huh? Given your ignorance of Christianity and the Bible, that doesn't really say much for the school you were attending.

    I also can't help but notice that you have, once again, failed to address my argument and are instead relying on a link to an article to do your arguing for you, an article which doesn't do anything to refute the arguments I have presented. On the contrary, I have already conceded that it is possible for atheists to behave in a manner that could be considered moral. The problem for you, however, is thinking that there is any virtue in doing so when your worldview demands that morality is subjective. What if someone decides that the greatest good is to enrich himself with no regard for the welfare of others? If atheism is true, then you must necessarily accept that as a morally valid way to live, and yet you don't -- for instance, you place great value on empathy -- because contrary to atheism, you instinctively recognize certain behaviors as objectively immoral. You do what every atheist is forced to do: you loudly proclaim that morality is subjective while quietly borrowing Christian ethics to paper over the cracks in your own moral philosophy. And like many atheists, I'm not sure you're even aware that you're doing it.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Those who believe they have absolute knowledge feel themselves free to destroy anything that contravenes their belief, and they invariably do precisely that.
    That is just stupid. If one believed that she had absolute knowledge that all human beings have genuine value and worth it is unlikely that they would indiscriminately harm others. It is not the absolute knowledge per se, but the content of that knowledge.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Nor are yours. Especially so, given that your religion has killed more than any murderous Maoist.
    Were they following the teaching of Christ? Of course not. But the point remains, if moral relativism is true no moral position is more correct than its opposite.


    Like I said, that you are not able to understand it, is your personal defect. I only hope you never lose your faith, since that appears the only thing keeping you somewhat moral.
    Why would that bother you? There are no universal moral wrongs in your world. Just preferences.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    Those who believe they have absolute knowledge feel themselves free to destroy anything that contravenes their belief, and they invariably do precisely that.
    Are you absolutely sure there is no absolute knowledge?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hypatia_Alexandria
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Unsubstantiated claims like "There is no absolute knowledge."
    Those who believe they have absolute knowledge feel themselves free to destroy anything that contravenes their belief, and they invariably do precisely that.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    And if you want to just copypasta, well: https://www.atheistalliance.org/abou...theists-moral/
    From a purely academic perspective, it is a surprisingly well reasoned article.

    I note however, one particular point that is relevant to God's so called immoral actions in the Old Testament, viz:

    when an action affects many people and results in harm to some and benefits to others, it is difficult to determine its moral value. In other cases, the moral value of an action is difficult to determine because its long-term consequences are hard to predict.
    I have landed myself in hot water on theological issues in the past, one reason being that I have refused to rewrite the nastier sections dealing with God's actions. That section of your citation reflects the reason that I have advanced for acknowledging the actions, and why they cannot be said to demonstrate inconsistency or immorality on God's part.
    Last edited by tabibito; 12-02-2021, 12:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    I have to wonder how familiar you really are with the Bible
    Literally a semester away from being a pastor, hun.

    if you think it is nothing more than "a jumble of bronze age laws".
    Or rather, you are blinded by your brainwashing much as the Branch Covidians are by theirs, and cannot see it for what it is. Just repeating and believing what your herdmasters told you.

    I sometimes get the impression that you stopped reading at Leviticus. And God breaking his own laws? I'm not sure I even want to get into the confusion of ideas that leads you to that conclusion.
    He regularly breaks his own laws. You simply handwave it away, and pretend it's okay.


    As for your article, I did read it, and it immediately launched into the "you don't need to believe in God to be moral" song and dance which is an argument Craig never made. On the contrary, an atheist can behave in a way that we have come to recognize as moral, but if there is no objective mortality, then there is nothing virtuous about it, just as it is not lacking in virtue to behave in a way that we have come to recognize as immoral. If morality is subjective, then society is nothing more then "a jumble of contemporary laws" that we have no obligation to observe. This is perfectly consistent with atheism, and in fact is the logical conclusion of your worldview, so I'm not sure why you so strongly object.
    So you didn't read it, you just started and then stopped when it said something you didn't like. Gotcha. I've played that game with H_A too many times, not accepting it from you, so, so long.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Quite an interesting perception, but what makes it Mountain Man's religion?
    His adherence to said religion and regular defense of and apologetics for said religion, including many of the nasty parts of it and the Bible.
    That would only be a valid observation if Mountain Man subscribed to the same precepts. Or would you consider being yourself classed as one with Maoists a valid criticism? or as one with the Tatars, perhaps?
    What makes it any single Maoist's Maoism?

    And no, I would not consider myself classed as one with Maoists because I do not Follow any Maoist precepts.Unlike the Christian who follows Christian precepts

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
    Nor are yours. Especially so, given that your religion has killed more than any murderous Maoist.
    Quite an interesting perception, but what makes it Mountain Man's religion? That would only be a valid observation if Mountain Man subscribed to the same precepts. Or would you consider being yourself classed as one with Maoists a valid criticism? or as one with the Tatars, perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

    It directly addresses his argument. I never said he argues that atheists can't be moral. Thanks for following that with a direct indication that you did not read the link.


    I sneer at the 'laws of God' because they are a jumble of local bronze aged laws created by the society at the time, that people like you revere (but only certain ones - others you discard when they are inconvenient, like when you want to eat bacon, or when you realize that stoning witches and gays would not go over well in the Western world today - we see the opposite of that play out in Africa where such things aren't so looked down on, and Christians do such things) and act as if they are 'moral absolutes', even though they shift wildly throughout the Bible, and your own deity breaks his own laws. That, my dear, is why I 'sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible.
    I have to wonder how familiar you really are with the Bible if you think it is nothing more than "a jumble of bronze age laws". I sometimes get the impression that you stopped reading at Leviticus. And God breaking his own laws? I'm not sure I even want to get into the confusion of ideas that leads you to that conclusion.

    As for your article, I did read it, and it immediately launched into the "you don't need to believe in God to be moral" song and dance which is an argument Craig never made. On the contrary, an atheist can behave in a way that we have come to recognize as moral, but if there is no objective mortality, then there is nothing virtuous about it, just as it is not lacking in virtue to behave in a way that we have come to recognize as immoral. If morality is subjective, then society is nothing more then "a jumble of contemporary laws" that we have no obligation to observe. This is perfectly consistent with atheism, and in fact is the logical conclusion of your worldview, so I'm not sure why you so strongly object.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    Not ignorance, fact. Your ethical conclusions are no more valid or correct that of the murderous Maoist.
    Nor are yours. Especially so, given that your religion has killed more than any murderous Maoist.

    He used reason to further his moral ideals, as you used reason to develop your position. So like I said, reason tells us nothing about what is moral or not.
    Like I said, that you are not able to understand it, is your personal defect. I only hope you never lose your faith, since that appears the only thing keeping you somewhat moral.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    The very creation points to God, your moral sense points to God, your rational abilities points to God.
    There as not creation, my dude. Nothing points to your fantasy. The literal same things are said by Muslims about their own God and are just as convincing (i.e. not at all).

    SO again, If you could prove your God exists, that he revealed such a law to man (I sure hope you're not referring to the jumble of contradictory nonsense in the Bible), and that he is moral himself, then we might be able to go down such a line of reasoning. But you, and every other theist, has failed to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gondwanaland
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Your link doesn't address Craig's argument, because at no point does he argue that atheists can't be moral. Craig's point is that once objective morality is removed from the equation, then nothing can actually be wrong, and things like empathy, and understanding how your actions can harm others are no longer virtues. You're simply doing what society has taught you to do, but what if you decided to rebel against societal norms and carve a new moral path of maximizing your own wealth and pleasure with no regard for others? If morality is subjective, as you insist, then how could that be wrong?
    It directly addresses his argument. I never said he argues that atheists can't be moral. Thanks for following that with a direct indication that you did not read the link.

    And I find it curious that you would sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible but apparently have no problem with secular laws against murder or theft. If we follow your argument, we may as well strike all laws from the books, because surely we don't need the government telling us it's wrong to arbitrarily kill our neighbor.
    I sneer at the 'laws of God' because they are a jumble of local bronze aged laws created by the society at the time, that people like you revere (but only certain ones - others you discard when they are inconvenient, like when you want to eat bacon, or when you realize that stoning witches and gays would not go over well in the Western world today - we see the opposite of that play out in Africa where such things aren't so looked down on, and Christians do such things) and act as if they are 'moral absolutes', even though they shift wildly throughout the Bible, and your own deity breaks his own laws. That, my dear, is why I 'sneer at the laws of God as recorded in the Bible.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Gondwanaland, Today, 01:42 PM
1 response
30 views
0 likes
Last Post KingsGambit  
Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 11:42 PM
35 responses
229 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by seer, Yesterday, 04:40 PM
13 responses
91 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by seanD, 08-14-2022, 12:30 AM
32 responses
278 views
0 likes
Last Post NorrinRadd  
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 08-12-2022, 12:39 PM
19 responses
163 views
1 like
Last Post tabibito  
Working...
X