The flaws of NT-based morality

[Tassman]

You're creating a strawman, but I'm not sure if it's deliberate or if it's unintentional simply because you don't understand this topic as well as you think you do.

One way of thinking about is to look at the nature of a circle. A circle, by its nature, is round, and by its nature is the definition of roundness. We don't look at a circle and declare that it's round based on some external standard of roundness. Rather, a circle is, in and of itself, the standard of roundness, and we could not know the concept of roundness apart from a circle. This is not circular reasoning. Well, you know what I mean.

Substitute "circle" and "roundness" with "God" and "goodness" and maybe you'll begin to understand.

[Tassman]

Right, and again what you view as evil is still relative and meaningless. You are making my case.

So you admit that you can not demonstrate that God is a myth - thank you.

Nonsense Tass, in your world our survival is of no more consequence than the survival of past extinct species - which is zero.

[Mountain Man]

You're so clueless, I wonder if you leave notes around your house reminding yourself to breath.

I'm going to stop you right there, because I never said or implied that God's nature was based on anything. Did you really not understand the circle analogy?

Yeah, I never said that, either. You're referring to the Euthyphro dilemma which I've already refuted.

Don't forget to breath...

[Charles]

Substitute "circle" and "roundness" with "God" and "goodness" and maybe you'll begin to understand.

Substitute "circle" and "roundness" with "Allah" and "goodness" and maybe you'll begin to understand why I point to the fact that what you are pointing to could lead to all kinds of evil and absurd consequences and it is and remains faith based. Because that is the line that extremist muslims follow. Starting to understand?

And you could basically substitute it with anything including "Thor", "Mao" or whatever. And since your line of "reasoning" cuts of the part about justification, there is nothing to point to whithin those systems that would contradict the idea that "Allah", "Thor" or "Mao" was the absolute standard.

By the way I have never seen a perfect circle. And yet I know what the idea about the perfect circle is and how it would be defined, so I am not bying into the idea that we do not determine it on external standard on roundness but on the actual circles we see.

[Charles]

I'm going to stop you right there, because I never said or implied that God's nature was based on anything. Did you really not understand the circle analogy?

The analogy does not work. Sorry to say. See my post about it above.

[seer]

The analogy does not work. Sorry to say. See my post about it above.

And still Charles we all wait for you, with bated breath, to produce a definition of goodness that doesn't beg the question!

[Charles]

And still Charles we all wait for you, with bated breath, to produce a definition of goodness that doesn't beg the question!

I think you have misunderstood quite many points regarding this, seer. My criticism of MM is both that his analogy does not work because it is a simplification of our understanding and that it could be used to justify just about anything. My criticism of your line of reasoning is that it is circular. You have a subjective preference for a circular position that I don't share. My position is founded on something rather different as pointed out again and again in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

As I have also often pointed out simple definitions, simple answers to difficult questions rather often will not work. So, perhaps, a second reading will make you see the points?

[seer]

I think you have misunderstood quite many points regarding this, seer. My criticism of MM is both that his analogy does not work because it is a simplification of our understanding and that it could be used to justify just about anything. My criticism of your line of reasoning is that it is circular. You have a subjective preference for a circular position that I don't share. My position is founded on something rather different as pointed out again and again in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

As I have also often pointed out simple definitions, simple answers to difficult questions rather often will not work. So, perhaps, a second reading will make you see the points?

Charles nothing you wrote or presented offered a non-circular definition of goodness or a non-question begging source for ethics. So you are hypocritical, demanding from us what you can not offer yourself. Suggesting that that is a flaw in our reasoning when you can not meet the same standard.

[Mountain Man]

Substitute "circle" and "roundness" with "Allah" and "goodness" and maybe you'll begin to understand why I point to the fact that what you are pointing to could lead to all kinds of evil and absurd consequences and it is and remains faith based. Because that is the line that extremist muslims follow. Starting to understand?

And you could basically substitute it with anything including "Thor", "Mao" or whatever. And since your line of "reasoning" cuts of the part about justification, there is nothing to point to whithin those systems that would contradict the idea that "Allah", "Thor" or "Mao" was the absolute standard.

By the way I have never seen a perfect circle. And yet I know what the idea about the perfect circle is and how it would be defined, so I am not bying into the idea that we do not determine it on external standard on roundness but on the actual circles we see.

Yeah, you're jumping way ahead of yourself. as I wrote earlier:

Look, I know you reject theism. Fine, but that's not the point of this debate. The point is, is theism internally consistent, and, assuming it's true, can it account for an "ought"? The answers, of course, are yes, and yes. It really is OK for you to say, "I understand your position even if I fundamentally disagree with it." Nobody will expect you to resign from the "Atheist Kool Kids Klub". Trust me.

Of course the next step of the debate is, given that theism is internally consistent, do we have any reason to think it's true? But let's finish with the first step before we take another. OK?

Debating about which version of theism is true is step three in this discussion. You haven't even gotten past step one. You've sniffed around the edges of conceding it, but you haven't fully committed.