Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostThanks for your patience both to you and Teallaura.
You are correct - "Terminology is kind of important, and it's easily glossed over, ... "Absolute objective morality" is two things."
So your quibbles are important.
Originally posted by rwatts View PostI do get annoyed then people try to kid me that their moral evaluations are from God and hence their assertions should be taken on face value, all the while they avoid questions, goof up on concepts, argue from ignorance, and make lots of mistakes.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThis:Last edited by seer; 05-16-2014, 02:36 PM.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 Doug Shaver View PostYou stated your assumption thus: The bible is God's revealed word.
As you are no doubt aware, many people who accept that very same assumption disagree with you about what the Bible teaches about many things, including morality. Can you show me, without making any additional assumptions, why I should think your understanding of the Bible is the correct understanding?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 seer View PostOur value does depend on the whims of men.
Originally posted by seerWhat are you talking about - I don't believe that Mao or Stalin were doing God's will.
Originally posted by seerGod's moral will is reflected in the teaching of Christ and the New Testament in general. These men were not following these principles.
Besides, surely God's will is defined by more than just the NT.
Originally posted by seerAgain, I will try one more time. In my world there are objectively correct ethical answers, even if we don't always understand them correctly. In your world there can be no objectively correct ethical answers - only personal or collective opinion, which can never be more correct or valid than its opposite.
Well your assertion is wrong.
Besides, your claims illustrate the point of the OP title. If every thing you do is God's will, then all the bad things you do are God's will. That is, your objective morality can indeed be harmful. It's just that you label it "God's will" and to bad those who suffer for it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell yes I had no moral opinion on what the chimps did, but I did have an opinion on what the Europeans did. Whether I label what the chimpanzees did as amoral or immoral does not undermine my position, nor does it help yours. The question still remains the same for the atheist: why call one natural act immoral and not the other natural act? Apart from an arbitrary designation.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostIt does undermine your position, actually. You approach the question from a presumption of moral superiority, claiming that yours can distinguish where mine cannot. To then stipulate that you have yet to make a distinction dissolves your presumed position of superiority. You then compound the error by insisting on making the same claims again and again.Last edited by seer; 05-16-2014, 03:37 PM.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 seer View PostAnd that is not correct.
Originally posted by Doug ShaverCan you show me, without making any additional assumptions, why I should think your understanding of the Bible is the correct understanding?
Originally posted by seer View PostWell no, nor do I need to.Last edited by Doug Shaver; 05-16-2014, 04:20 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostYou say so.
Why not? Am I supposed to believe it just because you say so?Last edited by seer; 05-16-2014, 04:26 PM.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 seer View PostWhat? If the bible is the word of God how doesn't a myriad of things follow?
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm just answering your claim that only one thing can flow from my presupposition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostBecause what follows from that assumption depends on one's method of interpretation, and the assumption does not state which method is to be used.
I never made that claim.
Yes, I misread you, you said:A single assumption never has any consequences.
I still disagree, my single assumption certainly would have consequences.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 seer View Postif my initial presupposition is true then it logically follows that God exists.
Yes, you can argue, "The Bible is God's word, therefore God exists." But it would be otiose to argue, "The Bible is God's word, and the Bible says God exists, therefore God exists."
Originally posted by seer View PostDisagreements on specific interpretations would not change that. But for this argument I'm not going to get into hermeneutics.Last edited by Doug Shaver; 05-16-2014, 06:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou missed my point Carrikature, it wasn't that you couldn't distinguish between the two events, but that there was no rational reason to do so.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostHowever much you insist otherwise, this claim has been shown false time and again. There are plenty of rational reasons to do so.
Event 1
Doug Shaver wrote a post.
Event 2
You wrote a post.
My rational reason for distinguishing the two events is that I can read "Doug Shaver" at the top of one post and "Carrikature" at the top of the other post.
Seer appears not to think my reasoning is rational.
The assertion of an objective basis for reasoning seems to make some folk irrational.Last edited by rwatts; 05-16-2014, 08:45 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut you are the one demanding "evidence" Tass. So until you offer a non-arbitrary definition of "evidence" we can't even get off the ground. I'll be waiting...
2. Our best moral sense is not merely a quirk of biology, but actually ties into something eternal and permanent.
3. The universe we live in is not ultimately unjust and amoral.
Why would anyone believe these assertions just on your say so?
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat are you taking about Carrikature? I said what the Europeans did was clearly morally wrong. Violating of the teachings of Christ and the NT in general. And from the atheistic point of view you certainly can assert that what the Europeans did was wrong from your relative cultural position but in the evolutionary sense it was no different in kind from what the chimps did. So now we come along and overlay a moral judgement on the Europeans but not what the chimpanzees did - when in both cases its just animals doing what animals do.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, Yesterday, 09:43 AM
|
4 responses
42 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Today, 09:14 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,120 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-05-2024, 04:09 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,245 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
53 responses
418 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 06-11-2024, 11:01 AM |
Comment