Your Favorite God Argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-03-2013, 03:43 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument



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
30-03-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 03:13 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  If you are in a foxhole durring a hot encounter and see a large shape running towards you from the enemy position is it alright to shoot to kill? Also your opening line kind of proves what I was saying to their culture a slave owner could be a moral person in his culture it doesn't change the fact that slavery is a violation of the golden rule. If you base your morality off of empathy rather than a deity you can have some definate rules however for most of recorded history that has not been the case.


If I am in a fox hole, I am not a moral actor. Now, we could examine how and why I wound up in the fox hole and could then make a moral determination about that but in the specific instance you described, there is no moral accountability.

Also, correct me if I am wrong but, isn't your position that morality is subjective? If that's the case, then how does my slavery comment affirm your claim? Slavery is wrong, everywhere, for everyone and at all times. That means that if slavery is considered moral in a given culture, that culture has conflated morality and opinion. That someone calls rape love making does not change the nature of the act.

Lastly, I'm not concerned with what people have historically done. I was examining your proposition that morality is subjective. Cops are considered moral when they kidnap a peaceful man and put him in a cage for carrying the wrong type of vegetation in his pocket. Calling it "the law", "arrest", and "jail" does not change the nature of the act.

Kidnapping is immoral, no matter the costume you wear or the opinion you hold.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 03:50 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Kidnapping is immoral, no matter the costume you wear or the opinion you hold.

Ok lets use this example then. Detention is always immoral. So then Charles Manson should be let out of jail? What about The leaders of the Nazi's from WW2 was it immoral to lock them up after the end of the war?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 04:24 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 03:50 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Kidnapping is immoral, no matter the costume you wear or the opinion you hold.

Ok lets use this example then. Detention is always immoral. So then Charles Manson should be let out of jail? What about The leaders of the Nazi's from WW2 was it immoral to lock them up after the end of the war?

Were Manson and the Nazi's who committed crimes against others peaceful?

Also, who said detention is always immoral?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 05:09 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 04:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 04:24 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Ok lets use this example then. Detention is always immoral. So then Charles Manson should be let out of jail? What about The leaders of the Nazi's from WW2 was it immoral to lock them up after the end of the war?

Were Manson and the Nazi's who committed crimes against others peaceful?

Also, who said detention is always immoral?

Well you said semantics such as law and officer and a uniform were not important Kidnapping was always imorral.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 05:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 04:58 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Were Manson and the Nazi's who committed crimes against others peaceful?

Also, who said detention is always immoral?

Well you said semantics such as law and officer and a uniform were not important Kidnapping was always imorral.

I didn't offer semantics into the conversation. But to clarify, I was speaking of euphemisms. Murder is distinctly different than killing. There's no semantic correlation between those two words but, killing is often used as a euphemism for murder. Likewise, there is a remarkable difference between detaining a man who has murdered someone and kidnapping a man who is walking around with a plant in his pocket that you don't like. You used the phrase "golden rule" and that's an acceptable term but to be more accurate, I use the phrase "non aggression principle". Under your term, you would be justified in caging me if I used drugs, simply because you might want someone to cage you if you used drugs. Under the non aggression principle, you can do whatever fool thing you want to do with your own body, so long as you don't initiate aggression against another person in the process.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 09:40 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 12:30 AM)Egor Wrote:  In your opinion, what is the strongest argument for the existence of God--for you personally. I'm not saying you're convinced by it, I'm just asking out of all of them, which is your favorite?

Mine is an argument put forth by George Berkeley suggesting that conscious observation is required for things to exist.

What's yours? Shocking

Hold the phone.

There are strong arguments for gods?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
30-03-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 09:30 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(30-03-2013 05:09 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Well you said semantics such as law and officer and a uniform were not important Kidnapping was always imorral.

I didn't offer semantics into the conversation. But to clarify, I was speaking of euphemisms. Murder is distinctly different than killing. There's no semantic correlation between those two words but, killing is often used as a euphemism for murder. Likewise, there is a remarkable difference between detaining a man who has murdered someone and kidnapping a man who is walking around with a plant in his pocket that you don't like. You used the phrase "golden rule" and that's an acceptable term but to be more accurate, I use the phrase "non aggression principle". Under your term, you would be justified in caging me if I used drugs, simply because you might want someone to cage you if you used drugs. Under the non aggression principle, you can do whatever fool thing you want to do with your own body, so long as you don't initiate aggression against another person in the process.

No I wouldn't but you just put a qualifacation on your absolute moral rule. Therefor it is not an absolute.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2013, 10:25 PM
 
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 11:55 AM)cufflink Wrote:  My favorite is the so-called Ontological Argument, which goes back to Anselm in the 11th century. It's bullshit, of course, but at least it makes you stop and think, "Where exactly does this go wrong?" And it's apparently taken in some pretty heavy philosophical hitters, including for a short time the young Bertrand Russell.

The OA claims to prove the existence of God a priori--that is, purely through logical reasoning, without in any way having to take a look at what the world is really like. One version goes like this:

Whether or not God exists, we can certainly have the idea of God. And a key part of that idea is that God is perfect. In fact, he (she, it) is the most perfect being we can conceive of. There is no being more perfect than God. Call that conceived being G.

So the question is, does G exist or not?

Well, suppose not. In that case, we can conceive of another being, G', who has all the attributes of G but also exists! But surely a perfect being that exists is more perfect than such a being that does not exist. So G' is more perfect than G.

But now we've run into a contradiction. We started by saying that G was the most perfect being that could be conceived of, but now we're saying there's something else, G', that's more perfect than G. So we have to toss out what led us to this contradiction, namely that G does not exist.

Therefore G exists. QED. Big Grin

For anyone who's interested, much more info here.

You explained that one well. Simple enough that even I could understand it. Yes
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
30-03-2013, 10:29 PM
 
RE: Your Favorite God Argument
(30-03-2013 02:15 PM)Techgorilla Wrote:  Yoga pants definetly, only god could create such a perfect piece of clothes. Tongue

In all honesty i don't know if there is one. But the arguments about morality are the hardest to refute for me. It usually means a bunch of guilt trips about how i can't say hitler was wrong and how subjective morality means everyone is right. Is truly frustrating.

That's the one that gets me on an emotional level. If there is no ultimate authority for right and wrong, then truly killing 6 million people becomes as meaningless as helping the poor get something to eat. Both are just inconsequential movements of matter.
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Egor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: