A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 02:48 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Not the exact same wording, different order for the premises, but pretty much the same argument. Other than you identifying the higher power much more specifically than I have (unless you're going with a very general definition of God), I don't see a significant difference.

So, I'll put the question from my original post to you directly. Precisely what do you mean when you describe moral values and duties as being objective? What is it that qualifies a moral value or duty to possess the status of objectivity?

When used in the moral argument, the word objective simply entails existing independently of personal human opinion or human influence. Existing independently of human thought.


Thank you for your admission that you are equivocating the shit out of the word "objective" in order to pander your bullshit faux "argument".




Quote:A number of ethicists such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended various moral arguments for God.

Oh, look -- an Ad Populum Appeal to Misleading Authority Fallacy.




Quote:Below is Dr. William Lane Craig's exposition that will be of importance.

FUCK that shyster snake-oil salesman that you suck ass on. And fuck YOU. NO ONE here takes that fucking idiot seriously.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 03:23 PM)djhall Wrote:  The only logical meaning of "objective" based on the way they use it is "not derived from or by humans." Anything human in nature is met with the response that you are merely stating your preference, you culture's preference, or the preference of the vast majority of the human species which are all subjective and/or relative. Describing what makes the species thrive or happy or sociobiology is met with the response that you are making the logical fallacy of assuming that what is or what has been is what ought to be. To measure humans objectively you need a non-human standard.... ergo, god.

Of course, there isn't any reason to give a crap about the standards of a non-human when determining how humans should treat each other. So, god has to be all knowing and work in mysterious ways so we can't question the moral logic or accuracy, and all loving so we can't question the motives or claim they don't align with our own human interests, and be the giver of everything so we can't question the fairness of his punishments, and a bit vengeful and unforgiving so we don't think maybe we can just use our own judgment independently and see how it goes without risking punishment for that temerity.

Just add one human mind willing to suspend its own reason, free will, and judgment in favor of a promised reward so compelling that our human existence in our uncaring universe seems dull, empty, and even frightening by comparison, stir, and presto... instant Jeremy.

You have a typical atheistic mentality when giving your idea of what reality would be like if God existed. It is evidence by your repeated "so we can't question...."..

In your mind, if God existed, thinking goes out the window.

This is pitiful. It only belies your ignorance, willful it seems. I am sure you know that many intellectuals throughout history have been devout Christians. It seems you make the same patently absurd error that Dawkins has made when he equates believing in God with not thinking.

Its as if you equate that believing in God means setting reason and logic and rationality to the side which could not be further from the truth. I recommend you read some of Stephen J. Gould's writings.

Surely you have heard of the man?

In 1982 Harvard awarded him the title of Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology. The following year, 1983, he was awarded fellowship of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where he later served as president (1999–2001). The AAAS news release cited his "numerous contributions to both scientific progress and the public understanding of science". He also served as president of the Paleontological Society (1985–1986) and of the Society for the Study of Evolution (1990–1991).

In 1989 Gould was elected into the body of the National Academy of Sciences. Through 1996–2002 Gould was Vincent Astor Visiting Research Professor of Biology at New York University. In 2001, the American Humanist Association named him the Humanist of the Year for his lifetime of work. In 2008, he was posthumously awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal, along with 12 other recipients. (Until 2008 this medal had been awarded every 50 years by the Linnean Society of London.

He was "the man" when it came to evolutionary biology. He was also an atheist like Dawkins. But one thing he did not do that both you and Dawkins have done, is make the absurd and brash exclusivistic equation of scientific excellence with atheism. He acknowledges in Scientific American based on the religious views leading evolutionary biologists that:

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs..." [ Stephen Jay Gould, "Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge," Scientific American, July 1992, 267(1):118-121;

His point is widely accepted. Nature can be interpreted in a theistic or in an atheistic way-but it demands neither of these. Both are genuine intellectual possibilities for science.

Stephen J. Gould himself acknowledging that just because many of his brilliant colleagues were religious does not mean they were "non-thinking" idiots the way you and Dawkins seem to think they necessarily are.


Strawman much, asshole?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:05 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:17 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  3. Secular - Unless you are truly mentally defective, you know the difference between right and wrong and don't need Big Spooky to tell you how to act.
Enjoy your time on Earth while you are here because when you die, that's it, you're dead.

I pick #3.


I love how you wrote:

" Unless you are truly mentally defective, you know the difference between right and wrong..."

I agree....

The only problem you have is that you cannot account for how humans possess this knowledge of right and wrong on a secular view.

Yes we can: Reciprocal Ethics --> the very "Golden Rule" that the inventors of your Jeebus character hijacked from the teachings of the Buddha and others to take the place of the brutal and nonsensical "morality" of the Jewish superstition.


(12-05-2014 05:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 04:53 PM)djhall Wrote:  Well, for the god of Judaism / Christianity / Islam, that is the functional reality, though not the presentation. That god claims to be love, but the reality of what he offers is just worship slavery, which you are willing to overlook since you find the deal offered to his worshippers acceptable.

I'm sure the first slave that got off a boat from Africa and was presented the offer, "You can be obedient and respectful and work for us in exchange for free room and board, or not, your choice.... yeah, that guy I'm sure said no. After they honored his wishes by tying him to a pole and whipping him to death, I'm sure the next slave "voluntarily" accepted the offer.

Similarly, your god will accept my "voluntary" love and adoration and worship and obedience, or honor my decision not to with Hell. Which is actually worse than the deal offered slaves, since they could at least end it by dying, and god isn't even decent enough to give you that option..

Sure, if your god exists then we can think, but I can't really be free to use our thinking to make our own destiny, can we? We can use all that marvelous reasoning only for the purpose of slavishly feeding god adoration and worship. Which is worse than if we simply didn't have it at all.

Here lies the issue.

Finally some TRANSPARENCY!!!!!

Shocking


God existing, for you, is a nightmare come true. It means that you do not get to live however you want to and when its all over you just get to lay down and go to sleep and cease to exist.

Strawman much, asshole?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:16 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 06:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:39 PM)djhall Wrote:  No, that was YOUR interpretation and issue. But nice try to change what I said and attempt to make that the issue.


Ah, yes, you can take your religious standards of behavior and try to force them on other people who are just trying to live their own lives without your interference and without trying to interfere with you. And you will fight it if you can. And, presumably, if you win, and people are left with no choice but to fight for their freedom from you religiously motivated laws or submit to compliance with your standards, I assume you have no problem using force to enforce it. Perhaps, if people were even sufficiently motivated to defend themselves with deadly force against your religiously motivated aggression, you would be willing to respond in kind and kill if necessary to enforce your beliefs.

That is mighty Christian of you. Seriously. No

Actually, I already know how it all plays out. I have inside information. It is the Christians that are going to have forced used against them as time progresses. Not the way you think it will be.

So far, the Bible has been accurate in its predictions about increases in lawlessness. Many Christians will be killed for their faith. It is happening now. More so overseas. But a time will come when Christians will not be able to worship openly without their lives being at stake.






OH, look -- more brainwashed presup bullshit. And a faux-martyrdom syndrome, to boot.


FAIL.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 06:10 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I can make this easy for everybody. Jeremy isn't interested in arguing, his mind is made and no argument will persuade him. For all the good you are doing you might as well be screaming at a brick wall.

Very much like you with your batshit-crazy veganism religion. Well spotted. Thumbsup


Hobo Laughat

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 06:19 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Yeah, I'm just responding because I find it entertaining.

I'm pretty sure this is Jeremy:

[Image: super-computer-nerd-580x348.jpeg]

Angel

More like this:


[Image: fat-blogger.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:37 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 06:19 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:47 PM)djhall Wrote:  Yes, your god is evil, so the horrific aspect of it would finding all of humanity in the inescapable grip of a sadist who lied about everything and doesn't give a rats ass about good or love of any of those lies. It is precisely because I do desire a moral existence, and one that values the happiness of other people, and because your god is clearly NOT moral and does not have our best interests at heart, that I find that prospect horrifying. Why would I want to suppress my acknowledgement of good and bad and heap praise on a sadist while he does evil?

Of course, I believe this to be true because I believe deeply in morals that are not culturally relative, and that exist independent of god, and that apply even to him. And he fails, miserably, to live up to the moral standards of even your average ignorant human, let alone serve as some light of moral purity to be followed.

Which brings us right back to the issue at hand.... your assertion that no such moral values can exist without god, that those moral values exist, and therefore we either have no morals or we believe god exists and gave us a moral standard which he immediately failed miserably to live up to.

He fails miserably because He does not condone the evil you love.

Strawman much, asshole troll? We don't "love evil" at all, and you fucking know it.

Quote:If we are being honest here.

That's something you have proven over and over that you are incapable of.

Quote:Even if none of the passages which you claim demonstrate God as being evil existed, you still would find fault with Him because of who He is. He is God. You are not.

BULLSHIT, you lying asshole. We have consistently and clearly rejected the purported actions of your fairy tale monster which are CLEARLY "evil" to us. We don't "want to be" gods; we clearly revile the false morality your superstitions proclaim.



Quote:You would still be accountable to Him. So no I am not convinced that you are so holy and righteous that you find God to fail to meet your standard of morality.

You have said precisely NOTHING that would support that statement. ANd you can't.



Quote:If the bible condoned and supported every thing you love doing and thinking and saying and it condoned and supported your views, then you would be first in line holding it up as some book that people should order their lives around.

WRONG. Strawman much, asshole? You don't speak for any of us. And we reject your superstitions AND we also reject your false morality THAT IS NOT MORAL.



Quote:Because it says you are a sinner and that you need God, you despise it.

We have each pointed out to you why we reject your superstitious bullshit, and not one of us has said we reject your fairy tales for that. Your desperation is showing.


Quote:This is as it should be.

More like as YOU WISH it would be. Fuck you.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 06:53 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am simply stating it is not about arguments Mr. Tadlock.

Arguments do not cause a man to kneel in worship. A man's knees must bend because he chooses to bend them. Because he wants to bend them.

Indeed.


And YOU WANT to see yourself as a slave to an imaginary tyrannical monster, and thus you play that role in your delusional fantasy.


Pretty fucking sad.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 10:59 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 10:29 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 06:19 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Yeah, I'm just responding because I find it entertaining.

I'm pretty sure this is Jeremy:

[Image: super-computer-nerd-580x348.jpeg]

Angel

More like this:


[Image: fat-blogger.jpg]

Nonono, that's Girly.

There's only one Girly.

Only one.

For the sake of all sanity, let there be only one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
12-05-2014, 11:13 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 10:59 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 10:29 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  More like this:


[Image: fat-blogger.jpg]

Nonono, that's Girly.

There's only one Girly.

Only one.

For the sake of all sanity, let there be only one.




It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: