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
See more
See less

Is God Immoral?

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

  • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    You said:

    So either quote where I said that, or retract your lie.



    You're still running from the question. You asked:

    I simply don't care if you accept the answers moral realism gives or understand the answers, since that wasn't the issue. The issue was your repeated false claim that I hadn't addressed how moral realism was useful, even after I showed you were wrong by pointing you towards the sorts of questions moral realism answers.

    You've been given an example of what types of questions moral realism answers. So you were wrong when you continued to pretend as if your question hadn't been answered, since I showed that moral realism is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues, much as Cell Theory is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues.

    Do you admit that?
    Feel free to display a shred of intellectual honesty, and admit your question was answered.

    The more you run from this, the worse it looks for you, seer.
    Nonsense Jichard, you have not demonstrated anything. Moral realism is an invented theory with no corresponding reality. Sure you could subjectively create a moral theory then apply it to moral questions - but so what? It isn't real, and you know it.
    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 Post
      Nonsense Jichard, you have not demonstrated anything. Moral realism is an invented theory with no corresponding reality. Sure you could subjectively create a moral theory then apply it to moral questions - but so what? It isn't real, and you know it.
      You said:

      So either quote where I said that, or retract your lie.



      You're still running from the question. You asked:

      I simply don't care if you accept the answers moral realism gives or understand the answers, since that wasn't the issue. The issue was your repeated false claim that I hadn't addressed how moral realism was useful, even after I showed you were wrong by pointing you towards the sorts of questions moral realism answers.

      You've been given an example of what types of questions moral realism answers. So you were wrong when you continued to pretend as if your question hadn't been answered, since I showed that moral realism is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues, much as Cell Theory is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues.

      Do you admit that the above question was answered?
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        You said:

        So either quote where I said that, or retract your lie.



        You're still running from the question. You asked:

        I simply don't care if you accept the answers moral realism gives or understand the answers, since that wasn't the issue. The issue was your repeated false claim that I hadn't addressed how moral realism was useful, even after I showed you were wrong by pointing you towards the sorts of questions moral realism answers.

        You've been given an example of what types of questions moral realism answers. So you were wrong when you continued to pretend as if your question hadn't been answered, since I showed that moral realism is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues, much as Cell Theory is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues.

        Do you admit that the above question was answered?
        Just admit it, you got nothing. Even the atheists here aren't buying what you are selling. And I have been asking for an actual example of how this theory actually works in real life. Demonstrate it! This is what you have repeatedly failed to do. That is why I conclude that you agree that moral realism can't demonstrated to be true or really has nothing to do with reality.
        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 Post
          Just admit it, you got nothing. Even the atheists here aren't buying what you are selling. And I have been asking for an actual example of how this theory actually works in real life. Demonstrate it! This is what you have repeatedly failed to do. That is why I conclude that you agree that moral realism can't demonstrated to be true or really has nothing to do with reality.
          You're still dishonestly avoid the questions, even though I put them in bright red for you. This says a lot about the kind of person you are. Once again:


          You said:

          So either quote where I said that, or retract your lie.



          You're still running from the question. You asked:

          I simply don't care if you accept the answers moral realism gives or understand the answers, since that wasn't the issue. The issue was your repeated false claim that I hadn't addressed how moral realism was useful, even after I showed you were wrong by pointing you towards the sorts of questions moral realism answers.

          You've been given an example of what types of questions moral realism answers. So you were wrong when you continued to pretend as if your question hadn't been answered, since I showed that moral realism is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues, much as Cell Theory is useful (in part) because it answered certain meta-ethical questions/issues.

          Do you admit that the above question was answered?
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            You're still dishonestly avoid the questions, even though I put them in bright red for you. This says a lot about the kind of person you are. Once again:

            <snip>
            You won't get a straight answer from seer, Jichard. We all love him but he specialises in cherry-picked quotes, misrepresentations and disingenuousness...and it's ALL for Jesus.
            Last edited by Tassman; 05-17-2015, 12:46 AM.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              You won't get a straight answer from seer, Jichard. We all love him but he specialises in cherry-picked quotes, misrepresentations and disingenuousness...and it's ALL for Jesus.
              And here we have the pot calling the kettle black! Thanks Tass bro....
              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


              • Another perpetual motion thread.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  And here we have the pot calling the kettle black! Thanks Tass bro....
                  As Aussie icon Edna Everage, house-wife/superstar, would say: "I meant it in the nicest possible way".

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_Edna_Everage
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    As Aussie icon Edna Everage, house-wife/superstar, would say: "I meant it in the nicest possible way".

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame_Edna_Everage
                    Hehe, I liked her/his part in Nicholas Nickleby. One of my favorite movies...
                    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 Post
                      I too find some things, especially in the Old Testament ethically difficult to justify - and they often seem inconsistent with the teaching of Christ. But I start with the teachings and example of Christ and move backward to the O.T.
                      Isn't that called "intellectually dishonest" ?
                      "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." ; "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." ; "Behold, I come quickly."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JonDay View Post
                        Isn't that called "intellectually dishonest" ?
                        Why? If I believe that Jesus Christ presented the most clear picture of God?
                        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 Post
                          Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                          "The moral realist contends that there are moral facts, so moral realism is a thesis in ontology, the study of what is."

                          What question does that answer? [Hint: It isn't the question of why "lying for personal gain is wrong"?][/URL]"[/INDENT]
                          Listen Jichard I know that moral realism is not directly dealing with specific moral questions - I GET THAT. And you are being dishonest or mistaken, I am not longer asking why things like lying are wrong, and I haven't for a number of posts. So again - of what practical use is moral realism, what dos it tell us about the world. How does reasoning in this way help anything?
                          You've gone back to pretending that moral realism needs to answer normative ethics questions:
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Good, so you agree that you have an ethical system that has zero effect on ethics. And it has zero effect on discovering what is actually right or wrong. So again, what good is it?
                          So congratulations on showing that you weren't telling the truth when you said you "GET THAT"

                          Which, of course, is silly. Moral realism is a meta-ethical position that answers meta-ethical questions. Objecting to it by saying it's useless since it doesn't answer normative ethical questions is as ridiculous as objecting to Cell Theory by saying it's useless since it doesn't answer normative ethical questions. Cell Theory answers specific orts of questions in biology (not normative ethics), just like moral realism answers specific questions in meta-ethics (not normative ethics).

                          I wonder when you'll actually address that, as opposed to pretending moral realism need to address normative ethical questions, while dishonestly acting as if that's not what you're doing.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            It's not nonsense at all. You just fundamentally don't get the difference between normative ethics and meta-ethics. This leads you to confusedly think that meta-ethical positions (like moral realism) are supposed to address the questions that normative ethical positions (like welfare utilitarianism) address. And you just repeat this mistake no matter how many times it's pointed out to you.

                            Ignoring this point doesn't change it, seer. You're making a moral philosophy / meta-ethics 101 mistake. Seriously, this sort of thing is gone over in the first day of class. So if anything is "nonsense", it's you repeating this mistake.
                            No I'm not, I get this.
                            You don't get this; you don't get the difference between meta-ethics and normative ethics. Please stop pretending that you do.
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            Is moral realism a meta-ethical position, or is it a position in normative ethics?
                            It doesn't matter since both are meaningless.
                            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                            26 responses
                            87 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post alaskazimm  
                            Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                            21 responses
                            129 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                            78 responses
                            415 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post tabibito  
                            Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                            45 responses
                            303 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Working...
                            X