Best of from FB Apologetics group
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(28-01-2015 09:42 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Him: But you can't say that pedophilia is wrong.

Me: Yes. For the forth or fifth time, I agree with you. We should probably move onto the next step. Next step: you seem to feel that a lack of objective morality is somehow bad or wrong. Why is that?

Yeah, but apparently the church can't say pedophilia is wrong either.

"Don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery...nope, nothing about molesting little boys. Looks like we're good!" Angry

[Image: Touched-by-Jesus.jpg]

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
29-01-2015, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2015 06:31 AM by RobbyPants.)
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(28-01-2015 09:42 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I don't have high hopes for his response. My bet is a mixture of appeal to consequences (it would be bad if it weren't moral!) and appeals to emotion (only a bad person wouldn't agree with the statement that "murder is wrong"). The number of times he went though that circle above is mind-boggling (I think I left one iteration out in my summary). Funny enough, he probably feels the same way about me.

So, the guy finally responded. It was less thought-out than I'd expected:

Him: When they say pedophilia is not absolutely an immoral act, I cringe at the thought of people actually believing this way. I mean if an adult raping an innocent child is not wrong, what is?


Me: I can understand the notion of pedophilia not being OBJECTIVELY wrong as making you cringe, but it doesn't make any sense beyond the surface. Almost everyone still evaluates pedophilia as wrong (and that's a good thing, I think).

In addition, I don't see how moral absolutism is supposed to make the situation any better. It's not like the existence of absolute morality is stopping bad behavior; it just gives the good people something else to pat themselves on the back for ("at least I'm not like THAT guy"). That, and all you're really doing is what someone ELSE told you to do. That's not so much "morality" as it is obedience.

I'd give more credit to someone who figured out pedophilia is bad on their own through empathy and critical thinking than to someone who's just doing what they're told, knowing that they'll get caught 100% of the time. Heck, under that second paradigm, you can't even know if the person who's obeying the "morality" even agrees with it!



Also, for good measure, the OP finally chimed into his own thread two days later. His response to me was the typical "how do you account for anything beyond opinion?". Sigh, it's not like I haven't already covered that no less than six other times in that very thread. The fact that everyone defaults to that has pretty much prove to me that the main bastion of moral absolutists is "if morality weren't absolute, it would be bad, so it must be absolute!", possibly with a side of "If it weren't objectively wrong to kill, everyone would be killing!".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(28-01-2015 04:26 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  Yeah, but apparently the church can't say pedophilia is wrong either.
"Don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery...nope, nothing about molesting little boys. Looks like we're good!" Angry

Apparently they didn't know it was wrong because err... society. That's right. It was society's immorality that infected the church. Damn that secular morality! Good catholic morality needs be be brought back to end this evil.

Quote:Benedict claimed that as recently as the 1970s, "pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children." In this climate, the Catholic Church's actions were merely reflecting the moral relativism of the times: "It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself," Benedict said. That is, church leaders weren't sure if child sexual abuse was wrong, since secular society seemed to accept it.
http://www.livescience.com/9179-pope-bla...iests.html

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(29-01-2015 08:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(28-01-2015 04:26 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  Yeah, but apparently the church can't say pedophilia is wrong either.
"Don't murder, don't lie, don't commit adultery...nope, nothing about molesting little boys. Looks like we're good!" Angry

Apparently they didn't know it was wrong because err... society. That's right. It was society's immorality that infected the church. Damn that secular morality! Good catholic morality needs be be brought back to end this evil.

Quote:Benedict claimed that as recently as the 1970s, "pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children." In this climate, the Catholic Church's actions were merely reflecting the moral relativism of the times: "It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself," Benedict said. That is, church leaders weren't sure if child sexual abuse was wrong, since secular society seemed to accept it.
http://www.livescience.com/9179-pope-bla...iests.html

"The Pope's acknowledgement, that Catholic priests do not have the wisdom nor the moral compass to realize that raping children is wrong or harmful, is a remarkable admission, and hardly comforting." Shocking

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Can_of_Beans's post
29-01-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(29-01-2015 06:27 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I'd give more credit to someone who figured out pedophilia is bad on their own through empathy and critical thinking than to someone who's just doing what they're told, knowing that they'll get caught 100% of the time. Heck, under that second paradigm, you can't even know if the person who's obeying the "morality" even agrees with it!

Another problem is that it turns discussions about right and wrong into arguments about who is listening to the right invisible man in the sky or who correctly interpreted his wishes.

Is killing an entire village who believes in the "wrong" religion, kidnapping the girls and selling them into forced marriage (aka sexual slavery) bad?

Well, it's bad when ISIS does it because they're following the wrong god, but when Israel did the same thing in the OT, it wasn't bad because they were obeying the right god.

Or we could base our morality on consequences and determine that no matter who is doing the slaughtering for which god, passing the village by causes less suffering than killing or kidnapping everyone.

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(29-01-2015 11:11 AM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  Another problem is that it turns discussions about right and wrong into arguments about who is listening to the right invisible man in the sky or who correctly interpreted his wishes.

But it's worse than that. As much as these guys complain how turrible it'd be if morality were subjective, they feel the superior option is to listen to someone else's opinion. Sure, they think God's opinion is super speshul, and other "god's" opinions are false, but it's still subjective.

That's their stated position: "It would be bad if morality were subjective, so I'll chose to believe it's subjective, instead". It cannot get any less coherent! The only thing keeping it from looking that stupid to them is that they say "objective" that second time, tricking themselves into thinking they just said something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
29-01-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
(29-01-2015 11:44 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  they feel the superior option is to listen to someone else's opinion. Sure, they think God's opinion is super speshul, and other "god's" opinions are false, but it's still subjective.

It's not even God's opinion. It's received wisdom from someone who *claims* to know God's opinion.

The only thing they got right is that they are *super* special. God's *precious* children Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
30-01-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
It's nothing more than ego, they want to claim that god agrees with them. Since this god comes from their imagination, they are essentially saying MY moral compass is superior to yours, that's when it's fun to bring up the genocidal nature of their god and watch them go down with the ship. (Which is often Noah's ark) Laugh out load

Which is what Q has been doing in this thread.

The flood was ok because the victims went to heaven! It's appalling and laughable simultaneously.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
So, there's this one guy who likes to post a retarded anti-atheist image macro every one or two days. This last one was stupid to the point of incoherence and self refutation. Also, watch this motherfucker dodge the questions like a motherfucker.


OP: <posts picture showing the vastness of possible knowledge followed up with "Now tell me again how without revelation from God that you could not be wrong about everything you know".


Me: Tell me how you could know that a revelation from God actually came from God. Tell me how you could know it is accurate.


OP: That is not the question at hand Rob. (dodge)


Me: It absolutely is. The picture claims that you cannot know anything without revelation from God. True or not, I also asser that you cannot know anything WITH a revelation from God, as made evident by my two questions.


OP: Not so Rob, and it is disingenuous for you to make that assertion. (disingenuous asshole calls me disingenuous. Also, dodge.)


Me: Dead serious: how can you know that a "revelation" you get is from God? Even if you did know that (which you can't), how could you know that the revelation is correct?

You can assume both are the case, but you can't know them. If you feel I'm wrong, please explain why. How could you KNOW either?



OP: Without revelation from God you have no basis for reason, logic and all things metaphysical.

So the onus in the op is on the atheist to provide a basis for that and not just assertion.

If you will not answer the question posed, start your own op.
(bullshit assertion + dodge)


Me: "Without revelation from God you have no basis for reason, logic and all things metaphysical. "

Incorrect. This is simply an assertion with nothing to back it. There, I addressed it for you. Two other points regarding your OP:

1) You are correct that I cannot fully know anything. No one can. That's the weird thing about our reality.

2) The catch is, while we can't ever "fully" know anything, you also cannot fully know if a revelation you get is from God, and whether or not it is correct.

So, yes, I was addressing your OP, just not in the way you like. It starts with a fundamental truth (that we can't really KNOW anything), and then puts that assertion on the shelf in a form of special pleading to say that people with special, nonfalsifiable, hidden knowledge CAN know things.



OP: Yet I can point to a source for these metaphysical realities and you can point to time + chance = universe.
....and you think my position is logical?
(dodge)


Me: I don't think you realize how incoherent argument that picture is making. It's saying that knowledge that doesn't come from divine revelation is questionable, and knowledge that does isn't. Now, according to that picture, the knowledge necessary to make the first premise came from one of two places: divine relveation, or something else.

If it came from divine revelation, the premise is circular (you know you have a divine revelation if you have a divine revelation).

If it didn't come from divine revelation, then according to the image itself, THAT STATEMENT IS QUESTIONABLE.

It's either a circular assertion (who cares?) or incoherently self defeating (who cares?).



OP: In your world view, why is circular reasoning wrong? (fucking really?)


Me: It isn't necessarily wrong. It's an informal logical fallacy, which means you can't use it to assert your view is correct. Right how, your claims are sort of in limbo, waiting for something to bolster them other than logical fallacies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
02-02-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: Best of from FB Apologetics group
Random post in a thread about the resurrection: " I didn't realize that there were actually people out there that don't believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead!!
If this is true, what do they believe??"


AHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA! No one is that naive! What the hell!?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: