Incontrovertible proof God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2014, 12:02 PM
Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:58 AM)War Horse Wrote:  
Quote:Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water.

Did'nt you mean Kool Aide Consider

Fess up MFer, this is Drichcunt isnt it ?

It's probably his wife. She secretly got the computer working, and has been driven mad by years at the word salad bar.

“It 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
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
11-03-2014, 12:17 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
Well, this is a pathetic pile of drivel.

Literally incoherent, for a start. You simultaneously say that given moral relativism one cannot say an act is bad and yet go on to say in the very same paragraph that one can say an act is good. So there's that gaping plot hole.

Ass-pulling an incoherent phantasm of "objective" morality - seen by light of your own very particular and incredibly exclusive interpretation of very specific texts, I'm sure - just so you can find a way to say "Hitler was bad" is one of the least adequate arguments imaginable. Because news flash: Hitler didn't think Hitler was bad. Can you explain that one?

Notwithstanding that it doesn't matter. If the Nazis acted as they did because they were convinced of the righteousness of their own actions then they did so regardless of one's ability to condemn them. Thus the supposed existence of absolute morality had no bearing on their actions, illustrating as it does that even supposing absolute "divine" morality (where divine here means "agrees with you specifically") to be real it does not alter the fact that other human beings can and do come to their own moral judgements regardless.

The only viable reconciliation between the existence of absolute morality and inevitable moral disagreement among human beings is to presuppose one's own personal morality to be reflective of an imagined absolute, in contrast to everyone else on the planet who somehow manages to not agree with an innate and absolute moral system; I suppose such self-absorbed conceit comes fairly naturally to one who has already decided one's own astoundingly limited conception of religious truth to be exclusively correct despite being, globally, statistically insignificant noise by virtue of narcissism. So there's that.

Besides which ol' Adolph only got the idea from Joshua in the first place.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
11-03-2014, 12:20 PM
Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng

This is a verbatim copy-paste with some commentary from an Intelligent Design website.

"intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution — an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support"

http://www.uncommondescent.com/about-2/

This poster contributes absolutely nothing to discussions, and is in fact repeatedly disruptive with spurious unsupported announcements. This is clearly a troll account, exhibiting a completely different fantasy personality than the other two sock accounts it's associated with.

“It 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
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
11-03-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng

Anyone else masturbate furiously to this post? Am I the only one who blasted a hole in my laptop monitor?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like DemonicLemon's post
11-03-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng

Which god are you talking about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 12:22 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
Stupid fucking apolotard arguments are neither evidence nor "proof".


(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them


[Image: the-Wicker-Man-6.jpg]


Quote:Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.


Even if such a snake oil argument about "moral subjectivism" had any merit at all -- which it doesn't -- it would have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the truth claims of your, or any other, fairy-tale-based moral "authority".

The mythical xtard deity is a moral monster. As are its followers. See: Sodom/Gomorrah, bears eating children, Adolph Hitler, the catholic church on AIDS in Africa, etc, etc.

Quote:I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Basking in the glow of your own arrogant self-delusion.


Quote:Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?


Yes, facts like your fucking fairy tales are fucking fairy tales.


And you have proved NOTHING.

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
11-03-2014, 12:23 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 12:20 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  Anyone else masturbate furiously to this post? Am I the only one who blasted a hole in my laptop monitor?

Yes, but to be fair, I do that every time someone mentions Hitler.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-03-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:41 AM)Miss Meng Wrote:  From Uncommon Descent:

Moral Subjectivism - Nazis Were Doing Good and We Shouldn’t Have Stopped Them

Under moral subjectivism, good and bad are entirely subjective commodities. This means that if I think a thing is right, it is as right as is possible for moral right to exist. The principle of subjective morality authorizes an act as “morally good” if the person that performed the act believed it to be the right thing to do; that is the only framework available to moral subjectivism for an evaluation of “moral” and “immoral”. It is strictly a relationship between the actor/believer and the act.

Therefore, as long as Hitler believed his actions right, and those who carried out his orders believed similarly, then to the full extent that the principle of moral subjectivism has to authorize anything as “moral” or “good”, the holocaust was a good and moral event, and moral subjectivists must (rationally speaking) admit this. (I doubt they will, though.)

The way that moral relativists attempt to wiggle out of this is by saying that in their opinion, Hitler was behaving immorally. Unfortunately, they have no rational basis for making this statement. It is a category error, a non-sequitur under moral subjectivism, offered as if there was some means by which to pass judgement on what others consider to be right. Their principle necessarily endorses the actions of the Nazis as morally good as long as they (the Nazis) believed what they were doing was right; what anyone else thought or thinks is entirely irrelevant. The most that the principle of moral subjectivism logically allows subjectivists to say is that gassing the Jews would not be morally good for them personally to do, but that it was morally good for the Nazis to do.

Furthermore, since the principle of moral subjectivism offers no valid reason to intervene in the moral affairs of others (since it is entirely subjective and there is no objective obligation or authority to do so), and since moral relativists must admit that nothing morally wrong was occurring in the first place (in fact, only moral good was likely happening, since the Nazis believed what they were doing was right), they must hold that we should not have interfered with the Nazis.

Thus, moral subjectivism necessary means that the Nazis were doing good and we shouldn’t have stopped them.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...ectivism-n azis-were-doing-good-and-we-shouldnt-have-stopped-them/

Thus, we NEED God for morality. Thus, morality, love, creativity, ethics all emanate from his divine authority.

I am so happy I was able to offer people who are a little confused about His existence some guidance, help and support.

Miss Meng takes a sip of her mineral water. Let the facts speak for themselves, shall we?

~ Miss Meng




1. Just because a god did not create morality, does not mean that morality is not objective.

There is no need for a god given morality to easily discern why Hitler's actions were immoral. There are very rational reasons why Hitler's actions were wrong.

2. Morality that is provided by an omnipotent deity is not objective, since he could change it if he wants. Since the god of the Bible operates under 'Divine command theory', morality is subjective.

Under your theology, is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is good?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
11-03-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
.



[Image: hitler-3.jpg]



“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]








.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
11-03-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: Incontrovertible proof God exists
(11-03-2014 11:45 AM)LostandInsecure Wrote:  Also, I saw you assert the necessity of a god, but I must have missed the proof of the existence of a god. Can you point it out to me?

You are missing the point LostandInsecure. The problem LostandInsecure is that obviously the nazis believed the holocaust was good. That's why moral subjectivism is a joke and why GOD MUST exist. In moral subjectivism, YOUR moral beliefs are not superior to the nazis' moral beliefs and you can't say they were immoral for acting the way they did, any more than you could say a person who prefers the colour purple over the colour red is immoral. It's all just a matter of opinion. You're missing the point LordandInsecure. You CAN say/think whatever you like...but so what? In moral subjectivism, the nazis can say and think whatever they like as well and there 'morality' is just as valid as yours. This is why the author of the article in the OP shows you can't provide a rational basis for declaring nazis immoral UNLESS you admit there is moral OBJECTIVISM, aka an ultimate moral authority (GOD)

These are the facts and you cannot run from them. Take care LordandInsecure and God bless you.

~ Miss Meng
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: