Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[Starlight]

moral questions must stop somewhere, or you have an infinite regression. We believe they stop with God

I guess you're an infinite regression then, because you never stop asking moral questions.

It's hilarious how you very conveniently insist that the questions must stop "with God". As soon as you're asked a clearly impossible question you're like "no, no, we have to stop somewhere, so why don't we stop one step prior to the question that proves nothing I'm saying actually works" but with atheists you just keep on asking and asking and asking and they are never allowed to stop answering otherwise you think you've "proved" them wrong. Your entire approach to the topic is absolutely hilarious.

Amusingly both you and Adrift gave entirely irrelevant answers to my point that the "traditional 'definition' of marriage" you've been espousing as "between a man and a woman" does not in fact ban incest as part of its definition. And your ongoing attempt to insist that the new 'definition' of marriage doesn't inherently ban incest hypocritically continues your normal hilarious absurdity, as you continue your normal practice of demanding that liberals/atheists meet a standard that your own conservative Christianity clearly fails at.

[seer]

I guess you're an infinite regression then, because you never stop asking moral questions.

It's hilarious how you very conveniently insist that the questions must stop "with God". As soon as you're asked a clearly impossible question you're like "no, no, we have to stop somewhere, so why don't we stop one step prior to the question that proves nothing I'm saying actually works" but with atheists you just keep on asking and asking and asking and they are never allowed to stop answering otherwise you think you've "proved" them wrong. Your entire approach to the topic is absolutely hilarious.

Amusingly both you and Adrift gave entirely irrelevant answers to my point that the "traditional 'definition' of marriage" you've been espousing as "between a man and a woman" does not in fact ban incest as part of its definition. And your ongoing attempt to insist that the new 'definition' of marriage doesn't inherently ban incest hypocritically continues your normal hilarious absurdity, as you continue your normal practice of demanding that liberals/atheists meet a standard that your own conservative Christianity clearly fails at.

Go away Star, no one actually thinks you have any idea what you are taking about.

[seer]

If truth can be self-evident then your continued demand for others to establish their moral framework, with or without God, as "objective" is futile. Anyone could argue for their moral framework on the basis of self-evident basic beliefs.

If you're going to play with the language of epistemology, you ought to be able to be competent in the basics. Your question, no matter how often it's repeated, does not get you very far at all. A moral framework based on self-evident truths is coherent, with or without God as a basic belief.

That is pure nonsense Sam. How is the golden rule for instance a self-evident moral truth? Is the other golden rule just as self-evident - "he with the most gold rules?" Why is one a self-evident truth while the other isn't?

[Starlight]

Go away Star, no one actually thinks you have any idea what you are taking about.

The projection is strong with this one.

[seer]

The projection is strong with this one.

Star, you did so bad on your belief that objective morality could exist apart from God, you went and got Thinker. Sad, really....

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh, I thought you meant that you actually married your sister - not unusual for Texas though...

That's more of a Mississippi thing. Texas has quite a few Yankee transplants that haven't quite developed the southern ways of life yet.

[lilpixieofterror]

People who follow fundamentalist Christian ideals. "In comparative religion, fundamentalism refers to anti-modernist movements in various religions."

Where did you pull that definition from? I don't remember that one, in my secular Christian religion class. Besides, what are you defining as 'anti-modernist'? Would atheist, who disapprove of gay marriage be 'fundamentalist' too?

[lilpixieofterror]

Your sentence makes little sense. Asserting that things flow from the nature of god doesn't get you out of the dilemma. You must demonstrate that they wouldn't be good or bad independently of god, which you can't.

In other words, you have not a clue what you're talking about and just say silly things, to make up for your lack of understanding. It isn't that hard to figure out, if something is said to be part of the nature of God, separating it from God and trying to say it is 'good' can't work because those things are said to be outflows from the nature of God. Besides, I don't need to demonstrate they would be good or bad independently from God. You need to demonstrate that they can exist independently and in Christian theology, they can't. You don't even know basic Christian theology, but I'm expected that you know more? Wow...

[lilpixieofterror]

So do you think Jesus would say all suffering is necessary, and to therefore go out and cause as much suffering as possible? That seems to be where you're heading.

I'm asking you to demonstrate how you figured out what is and isn't necessary. Are you omniscient? If not, how did you figure out what is and isn't 'necessary suffering'?

[lilpixieofterror]

Nope. Never had any bad experiences with religion. I've just studied them enough to know that they are all false and obviously man-made. Is it impossible for you to acknowledge that there are thoughtful people out there to have reasoned to atheism?

And it seems impossible for you to acknowledge that there's thoughtful people out there that do not believe all religious views are false and 'obviously man-made'. Isn't it fun when your sword cuts you as deeply as you intend it to cut your opponents?

[Sam]

That is pure nonsense Sam. How is the golden rule for instance a self-evident moral truth? Is the other golden rule just as self-evident - "he with the most gold rules?" Why is one a self-evident truth while the other isn't?

Like I said, if you're going to ape the language at least be competent in the basics. Epistemology allows for basic beliefs ("There exists a God," "It is wrong to cause undue pain," "Do unto others," Pink is delicious") that need no other foundation than themselves. Indeed, the belief "Do unto others" may be held just as basically as "There exists a God."

You're using the language of epistemology and ethics but you're not adhering to any sufficient philosophical rules when doing so. You should stop using arguments you picked up in Apologetics that you don't understand. It looks bad to people who have even a small bit of knowledge in this area.

If you want to promote the Christian ethic as the most coherent and most beneficial ethic, by all means do so. But please, for the love of Plato, stop this chattering of bad philosophy.

[Tassman]

You honestly believe that the illegality of incest hasn't stopped many people from committing it? It seems pretty common sense to me that it has. If society puts a taboo on something, then that would seem to curb behavior. Maybe not eliminate it completely, but certainly stifle it to a large degree. There's quite a bit of shame involved in someone being caught in a torrid romance with their cousin or sibling today.

Indeed! One need go no further than the sanctimonious, hypocritical Duggar's to see this shame.

Assuming that taboo is lifted, we may or may not see greater incentive for people to commit incest, but there may be less shame associated with it, and those who wouldn't even think about it at one point in history might consider it at another.

Why would you assume that the taboo against incest will be lifted? There are good reasons for keeping it in place due to the recessive or deleterious traits which can result in the decreased biological fitness of a population.

[Tassman]

Right, but it was not unconstitutional for states to have tax payer supported churches. It was only the federal government that could not institute a national church, like the Church of England.

But if challenged before the SCOTUS and ruled against, then The Constitution by virtue of being is the supreme law of the land would prevail.

No, that is false. What if I loved my sister? And why does sexual attraction have to enter in?

No citizen has the legal right to marry their sister whereas, until the SCOTUS ruling last week, some citizens had the right to marry the person they were attracted to whilst other citizens were denied that right. In short, discriminated against.

Again, that is a leap of logic. Actually just silly. Honey bees and monkeys are social beings does it follow that they then somehow have inherent rights? And ]no, such inviolable rights could not have arisen naturally. Nothing is morally inviolable in a godless universe or in evolutionary theory.

Where were the inviolable rights of the millions of dissidents that the Maoists killed?

Well where, in your supposedly godly universe, were the inviolable rights of the victims of the Inquisitions, or the Crusades, or the 30 years war, or the Native Americans slaughtered by the Christian colonialists, or the Latin American natives destroyed by the Christian Conquistadors etc, etc, etc?

[Tassman]

That is pure nonsense Sam. How is the golden rule for instance a self-evident moral truth? Is the other golden rule just as self-evident - "he with the most gold rules?" Why is one a self-evident truth while the other isn't?

[seer]

Like I said, if you're going to ape the language at least be competent in the basics. Epistemology allows for basic beliefs ("There exists a God," "It is wrong to cause undue pain," "Do unto others," Pink is delicious") that need no other foundation than themselves. Indeed, the belief "Do unto others" may be held just as basically as "There exists a God."

You're using the language of epistemology and ethics but you're not adhering to any sufficient philosophical rules when doing so. You should stop using arguments you picked up in Apologetics that you don't understand. It looks bad to people who have even a small bit of knowledge in this area.

If you want to promote the Christian ethic as the most coherent and most beneficial ethic, by all means do so. But please, for the love of Plato, stop this chattering of bad philosophy.

Right, and you are incorrect. I am not speaking of epistemology when it comes to ethics but of ontology. And my point is that objective moral law (i.e. objective to and independent of mankind) can't not exist, apart from God. If God does not exist moral ideals are subjective to human beings. Where no moral opinion is more correct or valid than its opposite. Tell me exactly where I am off.