Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2012, 05:19 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
This is the problem; the bible has morals, god wrote the bible through man, therefore morals are the work of god.
We look at it as; the bible has morals, man wrote the bible, therefore morals are the work of man.
The question is still “is there a god?” that is actually the only question as all other questions are used to support ether one side or the other of the debate.
You just end up backing down the same road.
They say we ONLY have morals because of the bible.
We say man put morals in the bible as a set of rules to throttle back some of the crap of the time.
They retort by saying ‘yea but god gave man the morals to start with and that’s why he put them in’.
We sigh and say ‘No, over generations we would have weeded out those who made life difficult for the others in the clan/cave/group whatever, and ether killed them off or booted them out ridding a bad trait from spreading too far through the rest of the community and those have evolved into the morals of today’.
They will come back with ‘Because god gave them the starting point’
We go ‘No, all animals that live in groups have rules’. If they don’t that species will ether become solitary (e.g. Lions vs. Cheaters) or die off as not enough available mates in the area.
They get all excited at this point because we call them animals and they just can’t be because god made us in his image.
God got drunk one night and fell asleep on his photocopier apparently…
It’s just the same as the “Where did it all start?” question. They say god, we say the Big Bang and they come back with god made the Big Bang.

The more you delve into it, the worse it looks for religion. They have had to concede so much over the past century and it’s not getting any easer for them, too much ground has been lost.
The Big Bang punched a hole through “On the first day”
Evolution stood on the neck of “God made man”
Archaeology has questioned the existence of many of the cities in the bible.
History has compiled a list of matching myths of “the son of god” that predate the bible.
The moral argument is a lost cause, history yet again has supplied evidence of moral teachings far older than the Judeo Christian movement and realistically I don’t think the religions of today should be commenting on morals, do you?
For the remainder common sense has dealt a blow, read revelations? Normal cognitive thinking had no fucking part of that at all!

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Karl's post
13-07-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
This is where morality came from.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2012, 06:46 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
When it comes to morality, this is one of my favorites from TheoreticalBullshit aka Scott Clifton




Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
14-07-2012, 04:53 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
(13-07-2012 02:29 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The "moral argument" is that objective moral values exist, and that assertion proves the existence of god. The moral argument is not about the existence of the Bible, or that morality was "revealed", or arose in human history only after the 10 Commandments were given. The moral argument is that everyone, including those who have no access to scripture have intrinsic moral values.

There's more than one meaning; as you can see from the Wikipedia page, the second sentence starts "many variations on the argument exist". Perhaps I should have specified it as "the argument from evolutionary naturalism".

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 05:05 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
(13-07-2012 09:15 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

Not that I agree with the Bible being the source of morality (Darwinism handily explains where morality comes from), but there's a flaw with your argument.

Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So that's where the pre-Bible moral info comes from (according to doctrine anyway; I have no reason to believe it and prefer the Quinnian interpretation of the Story of the Fall anyway). My understanding is that the Bible is a post-fact codex. That is to say that everything in the Bible happened before the Bible; the Bible is just a codefication of it all. So when people say it comes from the Bible, it's like saying addition comes from a math textbook. People figured out addition before the book, but the book explains it in no uncertain terms.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
If your argument is true (and I see no reason to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is true), then that makes the bible worthless. It tells us things that we already know; what each sin is. However, if taken in totality, then bible itself contradicts that. In Romans 7:7, Paul makes it clear that he didn't realize that coveting was a sin except that it was found in "the law" (the bible).

Furthermore, your analogy is clever but misses the mark. The reason that we have math books is because, although some people have figured out addition, not everyone has. Some people actually have to learn it from books... people like Paul, who was cool with coveting until somebody told him differently. So does this mean that the bible was necessary? It may be for some people in some cases (assuming that you want to teach sins that are non-intuitive like coveting), but certainly doesn't make an argument for the necessity of a God to make moral laws.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
14-07-2012, 05:11 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
Fun find. One thing you might also ask, I heard on one of the podcasts that morality was written on the hearts of men. So what happens when you have a trasplant? Or, more precise, transplant from a differenet species:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jan...monjeffery

Granted pigs are allegedly susceptible to demonic possession but as long as you keep Jesus away from them they should be fine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sillinde's post
14-07-2012, 07:44 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
(13-07-2012 12:17 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Honestly, though... are there really Christians who say this?

I've never encountered one. I mean, the obvious debunker would be having just one atheist who does something that is considered moral. If that happens, then the whole morality issue is sent into a tailspin.
The late Australian atheist optometrist Fred Hollows spent a good deal of his life saving the sight of third world people leading to the formation of a Trust in his name. He needed no pie in the sky; he spread the secular honey of hope and rehabilitation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2012, 08:35 PM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
Hey, Starcrash.

Your first argument: No.

Your second argument: Yeah, it was an analogy. I wasn't suggesting that a math book was the same as the Bible. Although at the end of the day, everyone goes back to the text.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2012, 12:14 AM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
An objective moral truth is a moral truth that is independent from a mind.
If there were no minds on earth, what moral truth would exist ?

Morals require consciousness. They require an awareness of the consequences of our actions.
Without that awareness, without any life on earth, all you have is physics.
Some would argue, even with life, all you have is physics.

It's almost like asking, what are the moral truths of the billiard balls as they get bumped around the table ?
What are the moral truths of a boiling pot of water ?

You have to have a conscious creature to have morals.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
15-07-2012, 07:27 AM
RE: Rebuttal to "The Moral Argument"
(14-07-2012 08:35 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Your first argument: No.
Despite this powerful rebuttal, I remain unconvinced.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: