A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-05-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 04:53 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 04:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

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.

That is what it is really about. Freedom to you is getting to live however you choose without being morally accountable to anyone other than yourself. The horrific aspect of it all is that God existing would mean not only being accountable, but being accountable to the One who knows every thought you have ever had, and will judge you based on how you have lived.

God existing means that life is not all about you and what you want. Its about Him. I find it interesting that those who express the most misgivings about God being worthy of worship are some of the very ones that simply love having others honor them and think highly and speak highly of them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 05:35 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:28 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Neither can you, that doesn't mean it came from god by default.

I cannot account for it on a secular view because it cannot be accounted for on a secular view.

What it means is that there is an explanation for why we all know certain things are objectively wrong. It means that this explanation must be the grounds for our sense of morality and that this grounds must exist independently of us. This explains why we experience guilt and shame when doing certain things.

All of this only makes sense if there is One who is the locus of morality to whom we are obligated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  We were talking about how it is absurd to believe that only non-thinking, irrational, unreasonable people are religious.

That is the issue.

No, that was YOUR interpretation and issue. But nice try to change what I said and attempt to make that the issue.

(12-05-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This tangent you went off on is not even pertinent. In America you are entitled to your freedom of speech. You can say what you like. You can even try to have it legislated. That is your right. If I have a problem with it, I will speak on it and likewise fight you through legislation and through the means allowed by law.

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

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djhall's post
12-05-2014, 05:46 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument



β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 12-05-2014 05:53 PM by djhall.)
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  That is what it is really about. Freedom to you is getting to live however you choose without being morally accountable to anyone other than yourself. The horrific aspect of it all is that God existing would mean not only being accountable, but being accountable to the One who knows every thought you have ever had, and will judge you based on how you have lived.

God existing means that life is not all about you and what you want. Its about Him. I find it interesting that those who express the most misgivings about God being worthy of worship are some of the very ones that simply love having others honor them and think highly and speak highly of them.

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.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like djhall's post
12-05-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  


.... wouldn't that imply that the goalposts were set up in the first place?

((Yes, I'm still waiting for clear definitions.))
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
12-05-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:58 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  


.... wouldn't that imply that the goalposts were set up in the first place?

((Yes, I'm still waiting for clear definitions.))

Goalposts would imply a way to score or win agreed upon by both sides...

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 06:07 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:39 PM)djhall Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  We were talking about how it is absurd to believe that only non-thinking, irrational, unreasonable people are religious.

That is the issue.

No, that was YOUR interpretation and issue. But nice try to change what I said and attempt to make that the issue.

(12-05-2014 05:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This tangent you went off on is not even pertinent. In America you are entitled to your freedom of speech. You can say what you like. You can even try to have it legislated. That is your right. If I have a problem with it, I will speak on it and likewise fight you through legislation and through the means allowed by law.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-05-2014, 06:09 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:35 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 05:28 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  Neither can you, that doesn't mean it came from god by default.

I cannot account for it on a secular view because it cannot be accounted for on a secular view.

What it means is that there is an explanation for why we all know certain things are objectively wrong. It means that this explanation must be the grounds for our sense of morality and that this grounds must exist independently of us. This explains why we experience guilt and shame when doing certain things.

All of this only makes sense if there is One who is the locus of morality to whom we are obligated.

That only makes sense if you choose to believe a fictional sadistic killer is what makes you feel bad when you do something wrong.
You keep avoiding the obvious need to be able to prove your claims as fact, you can dance around and side-step all you want. At the end of the day you still don't have any possible way to convince me (or anyone else who doesn't buy it) that your claims are valid or even rational.
Saying Big Spooky is our source of morality repeatedly does not make it so. I reject your claims as they have no weight, are irrational at best, and cannot be proven.

Please try to baffle me with more bullshit, after all it's really all you have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
12-05-2014, 06:09 PM
RE: A Deconstruction of the Moral Argument
(12-05-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 04:41 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  That's fucking idiotic. The premise that objective moral values depend on God is far from proven or the most logical explanation, in fact it's got absolutely no proof in favor of it.

I have not really bothered to supply anything in the way of support for premise one here in these few posts of mine. Maybe that is why you have said what you have said.

Way to get ahead of yourself champ. Thumbsup

Well of course not, you're not capable of it, but you've got to make the argument for your position when stating something like that. I'm not "getting ahead of myself" by refuting your shitty argument; your failure to back it up is your problem, not mine. I'm not convinced you've even got the faintest clue of how to do that, as from what I've seen from your posts on this forum all you're capable of is repeating your asinine arguments over and over again.

(12-05-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 04:41 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Evolution, on the other hand, has strong evidence in favor of it, while the other "explanations" do not. Premise 1 is false because it's not proven - I mention other possibilities as potentially more logical and evidence-backed explanations, though I dispute the claim that objective morals exist, so of course I'm not in favor of stating that one explanation is factually correct in explaining that they exist. Also, nice use of "ontologies" - that doesn't make you sound smarter, it makes you seem pretentious, especially when it's not even used properly...

Nothing you said counters or refutes what I said. You did exactly what I thought you would do and started talking about the evidence for evolution.

You know you are wrong when you say that premise one is false because there are other potential explanations. It simply does not follow. Just because there are various potential explanations that could explain the existence of objective moral values and duties does not constitute a defeater of premise one.

No, the first premise was wrong because it assumes that the ONLY explanation for objective morals is the one given (God), which is false. I was pointing out other alternative sources of "objective morals" as evidence for my claim that that is indeed not the only explanation or even the most logical explanation.

You're really terrible at this debate thing, simply restating your position isn't an argument and you've done nothing but that - all I'm hearing from you is "the first premise is right" and "you're wrong because 'it doesn't follow'" when clearly you've not got a good grasp of the argument to begin with.

Here it is broken down for simpletons like yourself:

1) Your first premise is that without God, objective morals cannot exist
2) I state that #1 is false, other explanations for objective morals do exist, such as other religions and scientific explanations. In other words, I'm arguing that if (theoretically) objective morals exist, they can be explained by either other religions or through scientific means. In other words, I'm saying that objective morals can exist without God (Yahweh, your god), since they can come from other sources (either other gods, non-theistic sources such as Buddhism, or scientifically). DO NOT MISTAKE THIS FOR AGREEMENT WITH THE CLAIM THAT OBJECTIVE MORALS EXIST. I emphasize that specifically because you seem dense enough to get easily confused in that way...

(12-05-2014 05:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(12-05-2014 04:41 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  What makes you think I give a fuck what some other atheist(s) said? Unlike you, I don't follow others' beliefs and claim them as my own. What one atheist says about the topic doesn't inform you at all as to what I believe or why. The first example makes little sense out of context, the second says nothing about objective morals (only very commonly held moral feelings on particular issues), and the last bit by Sam Harris I disagree with - I think Sam's case for objective morals is weak, and also his definition doesn't match yours (or the typical Christian's view). And the last bit certainly doesn't conclude that God exists, as God =/= a transcendent moral law giver. Sam is arguing that science is a source of objective morals (and he's been criticized for that argument, rightly so), which would make science that transcendent moral law giver, not your god.

God does equal a transcendant moral law giver.

Are you even trying? Consider

You really are a fuckwit, aren't you? That kindergarten response is funny, but seriously - is that your best? You've essentially just said "Nuh uh! Is too!" Sam Harris isn't a fucking Christian, he was not arguing that there is a "transcendent law giver" and thus the only conclusion is that that "transcendent law giver" is god (and specifically, your god). He was arguing that science is a source of objective morality (which I think is a terrible argument). You've really got to do better than simply restating your opinion again as if that was an argument. We're not toddlers anymore, that shit doesn't work with adults.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: