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

Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    First, if this is humanism then it is a lie, a hypocrisy.
    I don't understand what you're getting at.

    Second, if you can invent an arbitrary standard to justify the killing of the unborn, why not invent an arbitrary standard to justify the killing of dissenters?
    It's not an arbitrary standard. What part of objective morality didn't you understand? We can't just change it. Doing good to thinking beings is the moral code.

    Whereas you theists can basically change it up anytime you like and target any group you like: "Hey guys, God just told me that we have to go on a crusade/jihad against those evil people over there! He wants us to drive them out of the land utterly and kill them to the last, like when the children of Israel were told to drive out the Canaanites!"

    The bible is full of passages like the 'curse of Ham', or various commands of genocide, or commands not to intermarry with other races, or to stone all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, that give a blank check to anyone wanting to come up with a God-given excuse to kill, punish or persecute whatever group they personally don't like / happen to feel God has told them not to like.

    Beside you leftists are already looking to kill just born children.
    Please take a little bit more care with your phrasing. You make it sound like we have a to-do list of deliberate evil: "Atrocities I am looking to achieve today: 1. Randomly go out and kill any children I come across. 2. Justify it."

    The philosophical observation your link rightly makes is that fetuses/newborns are not thinking beings, and thus moral obligations with regard to them are lessened, just as they are with animals. Harming them is still wrong, but it is not as wrong. It is therefore unsurprising that so many cultures in human history have practiced infanticide, and equally unsurprising that most people in history have been happy to kill animals for meat.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      I don't understand what you're getting at.
      Of course you don't.

      It's not an arbitrary standard. What part of objective morality didn't you understand? We can't just change it. Doing good to thinking beings is the moral code.
      As we have seen, there is no rational basis for your "objective" standard. And your arbitrariness comes with qualifying the human being as "thinking."

      Whereas you theists can basically change it up anytime you like and target any group you like: "Hey guys, God just told me that we have to go on a crusade/jihad against those evil people over there! He wants us to drive them out of the land utterly and kill them to the last, like when the children of Israel were told to drive out the Canaanites!"
      Well no, a man can claim what ever he wants. Whether it was actually a command from God is another story. And if it isn't there will be justice in the end. Unlike your world where secularists like Stalin and Mao can murder millions and live to a good old age. Zero consequences.

      The bible is full of passages like the 'curse of Ham', or various commands of genocide, or commands not to intermarry with other races, or to stone all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, that give a blank check to anyone wanting to come up with a God-given excuse to kill, punish or persecute whatever group they personally don't like / happen to feel God has told them not to like.
      And what excuses did the the communists of the last century use? Way more people were killed by them than anything in Scripture.


      The philosophical observation your link rightly makes is that fetuses/newborns are not thinking beings, and thus moral obligations with regard to them are lessened, just as they are with animals. Harming them is still wrong, but it is not as wrong. It is therefore unsurprising that so many cultures in human history have practiced infanticide, and equally unsurprising that most people in history have been happy to kill animals for meat.
      Then you support the killing of the just born.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        The bible is full of passages like the 'curse of Ham'
        I'm curious, because I think I've seen you bring this up before, but, what do you think the 'curse of Ham' is? Or, what do you think most Christians think it is?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I'm curious, because I think I've seen you bring this up before, but, what do you think the 'curse of Ham' is? Or, what do you think most Christians think it is?
          If it is what I think it is he's wrong in both cases.

          Comment


          • I would have responded earlier but I see no system in place that lets you know your post has been responded to. Is there a way?

            Anyway...

            Welcome Thinker! First question: Why should we be concerned with our fellow man? We know our history is littered with those who are not necessarily concerned with their fellow man, or use their fellow man for personal gain. In other words why, objectively, is a Mother Teresa morally right and a Stalin morally wrong?

            Theism doesn't answer that question, because I could just ask "Why should I be concerned with what a person tells me their god wants?" If you say it's because god will punish us if we don't listen to him, then his commands can be arbitrary. He can command us to own slaves and commit genocide against entire groups of people and it would be moral to do so merely because he'll punish us if we don't. So that can't be it. So what else does theism have? It has the idea that god is the source of goodness. But this is asserted, not demonstrated. The theist cannot show that loving someone is good because god exists, and not just as good if god didn't exist. There have to be reasons aside from the mere existence of a being, and the mere commands of a being, since might doesn't make right, and since no theist can make a successful argument showing that objective moral values cannot exist independently of god. So you should be concerned with your fellow man because doing so leads to a society that has less suffering in it, and I've argued that causing unnecessary suffering and death are logically connected to what's morally bad. This is an objective standard that exists irrespective of one's opinion. Whereas on theism, morality is subjective -- it depends on god's opinion, as every religion has god commanding things that increase suffering, and are arbitrarily neurotic. That's why divine command theory is classified under ethical subjectivism in metaethics.

            As far as Mother Teresa, she was actually not as good as people think she was. She was a narcissistic lover of poverty who thought that suffering was good because it brought people closer to god, and as such she rarely did anything to truly alleviate the actual underlying causes of disease and poverty in the world. On top of that she was an ardent anti-contraception supporter, and contraception is one of the best cures for poverty. Watch this documentary about her here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65JxnUW7Wk4
            Blog: Atheism and the City

            If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yes, that is justice. I define justice as punishment or the complete reformation of the bad man (Christianity offers both). And again, yes, if a man rejects life he will die. God is the only source for everlasting life and if you are not connected to that life you will wither and die. I live in a just and moral universe, you live in an unjust and amoral universe. It is as simple as that. And let me get this right - slavery is bad but killing millions of unborn babies in the womb is perfectly justified?
              You assert that you live in a just universe, just as a Muslim asserts they live in a just universe, and in their universe all Christians get tortured in hell for eternity. So what's just about being judged entirely on what you believe when you die? Especially since what one believes is mostly by happenstance and determined by what family and culture they grew up in? Nothing. Slavery is bad? You live in a "just" universe where your god commands and condones slavery but it's "bad"? How does that make logical sense?
              Blog: Atheism and the City

              If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                You assert that you live in a just universe, just as a Muslim asserts they live in a just universe, and in their universe all Christians get tortured in hell for eternity. So what's just about being judged entirely on what you believe when you die? Especially since what one believes is mostly by happenstance and determined by what family and culture they grew up in? Nothing. Slavery is bad? You live in a "just" universe where your god commands and condones slavery but it's "bad"? How does that make logical sense?
                For one, you would just be shamed for eternity, not tortured. And He never commanded slavery but regulated indentured servitude. You fail theology/history/biblical hermeneutics forever.
                If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                  You assert that you live in a just universe, just as a Muslim asserts they live in a just universe, and in their universe all Christians get tortured in hell for eternity. So what's just about being judged entirely on what you believe when you die? Especially since what one believes is mostly by happenstance and determined by what family and culture they grew up in? Nothing. Slavery is bad? You live in a "just" universe where your god commands and condones slavery but it's "bad"? How does that make logical sense?
                  Well first Thinker, take a breath. You seem rather angry. Second, yes I do live in a just universe, the question would be who or what defines justice. Third, I hold to Christian Conditionalism. But if eternal conscious suffering was the case that would be just. Fourth, as far as soteriology I'm more inclusive - but even here, whatever God does will be in character - loving and just. Fifth, love and trust are the currencies of heaven. Love for God and trust in God is what connects you to God, and by extension everlasting life. Even in human relationships love and trust are the things that intimately connect us to our fellow human beings. As far as Slavery, yes God allowed a commonly practiced, and nearly universal, institution and put limits on it. But I'm not sure why that bothers you so much - after all if you were born in the antebellum South or in some African nations of today you may be perfectly accepting of slavery. Meaning your objection is relative and cultural - nothing more.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                    So you should be concerned with your fellow man because doing so leads to a society that has less suffering in it, and I've argued that causing unnecessary suffering and death are logically connected to what's morally bad. This is an objective standard that exists irrespective of one's opinion.
                    What? Why is it morally bad to cause unnecessary suffering? How is that any more than your subjective opinion? If you have, let's say, Communists that don't agree, why is your opinion more valid or correct than theirs?
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      The store would and does stock same sex figurines. They stock both male and female figurines.
                      That's what I had thought, but Abigail was hypothesizing a difference. So I was interpreting her charitably to mean that she has only couple figurines, and not individual person figurines. And I was going on that assumption.

                      so just admit that you believe in discrimination, and argue your case from that stance. Oh, guess what, you have no case, discriminating against persons in the public square is illegal.
                      Actually my position is that all anti-discrimination laws should be repealed. It should be legal.
                      On the other hand, I think that prejudicial discrimination is bad.
                      But what I was pointing out to Tass is that even given the existing laws in the U.S., they don't force someone to stock goods they don't want to stock.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      You mean a sign saying “We don’t stock same-sex figurines because we are Christian cake shop and consider that homosexual marriage is an abomination to the Lord”…perhaps with a helpful quote from Leviticus to reinforce exactly why your cake shop is discriminating against homosexuals.
                      Whatever sign Abigail wants on her shop. She has to deal with her customer relations. Or perhaps no sign. My point wasn't that a sign should be required. My point was that a person's mere expectations should not be enforced upon others. A person's mistaken expectations are the person's own problem.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      As opposed to a moral code that doesn't work you mean like one based upon religious beliefs, which by definition are divisive in a multicultural, diverse society.
                      If there exists any objective moral standard, it will be divisive in a multicultural, diverse society. Such a standard is necessarily radical in the sense that any deviation from it is wrong, and that it is always condemning the (imperfect) status quo.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        I'm curious, because I think I've seen you bring this up before, but, what do you think the 'curse of Ham' is? Or, what do you think most Christians think it is?
                        Starlight, Starbright,
                        first star I see tonight
                        I wish you would, I wish you might
                        answer this and please be right

                        Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-01-2015, 03:39 PM.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          Starlight, Starbright,
                          first star I see tonight
                          I wish you would, I wish you could
                          answer this and please be right

                          Way too optimistic there.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            First, if this is humanism then it is a lie, a hypocrisy. Second, if you can invent an arbitrary standard to justify the killing of the unborn, why not invent an arbitrary standard to justify the killing of dissenters?
                            This is not too far in the future for the once great United States of America. Yeah I know radical . . . still I expect it.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Doing good to thinking beings is the moral code.

                              snip

                              The philosophical observation your link rightly makes is that fetuses/newborns are not thinking beings, and thus moral obligations with regard to them are lessened, just as they are with animals.
                              How about some evidence that infants are not thinking beings. Because they are not able to fully communicate does not prove lack of thinking.

                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Harming them is still wrong, but it is not as wrong. It is therefore unsurprising that so many cultures in human history have practiced infanticide, and equally unsurprising that most people in history have been happy to kill animals for meat.
                              The fact that evil has been done in the past is no justification for doing evil today. Abortion is evil, murder is evil, even murder of infants.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Doing good to thinking beings is the moral code.
                                That begs the question by saying the moral code is to "do good".

                                It also seems too narrow, as moral philosophers have usually included internal virtues and vices such as fortitude, temperance, pride.

                                Originally posted by The Thinker View Post
                                ...I could just ask "Why should I be concerned with what a person tells me their god wants?" If you say it's because god will punish us if we don't listen to him, then his commands can be arbitrary. He can command us to own slaves and commit genocide against entire groups of people and it would be moral to do so merely because he'll punish us if we don't. So that can't be it. So what else does theism have? It has the idea that god is the source of goodness. But this is asserted, not demonstrated.
                                I'm pretty sure I already showed that the "Euthyphro dilemma" poses no problems for the Christian theologian. Why do you still bring it up?

                                The latter is not merely asserted. It was demonstrated, in the sense that it is shown that it follows necessarily from basic premises about God.

                                The theist cannot show that loving someone is good because god exists, and not just as good if god didn't exist.
                                That too follows necessarily from the basic premises about God.

                                There have to be reasons aside from the mere existence of a being
                                No, because if there exists an objective standard, its existence is sufficient to be the standard. If it weren't then it wouldn't be the objective standard.
                                If you always say there have to exist additional "reasons," beyond the existence of the standard, then you have infinite regress and no objective standard.

                                ...and I've argued that causing unnecessary suffering and death are logically connected to what's morally bad.
                                No, your argument rested on the premise that IF there is an objective moral standard, then suffering is connected to it. The trick is showing that IF part.
                                Also, just showing a connection doesn't show which direction it's in, or if it's more complex than a "pain is morally bad" hedonism.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:28 PM
                                8 responses
                                45 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:00 PM
                                1 response
                                27 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Yesterday, 04:08 PM
                                0 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:47 AM
                                35 responses
                                143 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by whag, 01-26-2021, 04:54 PM
                                17 responses
                                138 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Working...
                                X