[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
I really don't understand why it matters whether or not morality is objective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2014 11:13 AM by Leo.)
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 10:39 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  1. Does your god exist ..... independently from anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its existent dependent upon anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

The word "anyone" includes God and so your answer is no. God cannot exist independently of Himself. He is self-existent and exists independently of anything outside of Himself but not independently of Himself. Thus He is not contingent or dependent upon anyone or anything outside of Himself for His existence. God exists in and of Himself and is the only Being in existence which can rightly be said to be self-existent or aseitic. (What a bunch of crap)( That's crappy word salad).

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  2. Is the Bible true regardless of anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its truth dependent on anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

The Bible is true because it was inspired by God. God inspiring the authors to write what they did means that every word is true for God cannot lie. The Bible is not true independently of God but true because it is of God. (What's the evidence for your bullshit assertions ? ) .( The claim the bible is the word of god is joke by the way).

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Did your god create everything distinct from itself by an act of conscious will?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. What a bunch of horse shit ! ( Your shitty beliefs aren't facts , you know) .


(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Does your god maintain everything in existence by an act of conscious will?

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power. ( What a bunch of crap ! And the evidence for this Assertion is ?)

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. (Again that's a crappy word salad) .


(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Can your god change anything that exists by an act of conscious will?

Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases. (Do you know your god in person ? You talk to him and you know his thoughts ? If you do , you are high).






(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And here is the summary of the argument from the primacy of existence. I'd like you to refute it if you can.

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness then the Christian God can not exist since it is a direct contradiction of the primacy of existence.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

3. Therefor the Christian God does not exist.

You have the responsibility of giving reasons to think one and two are true. What are they?
(Who cares ? This don't change the fact about your horseshit).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 11:33 AM
[split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 11:00 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  I really don't understand why it matters whether or not morality is objective.

It doesn't. It's a false dilemma for folks who need a lifelong parental figure to tell them murder is wrong, or in Jeremy's case, why it's not OK to rape.

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
[+] 5 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
15-06-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 11:33 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 11:00 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  I really don't understand why it matters whether or not morality is objective.

It doesn't. It's a false dilemma for folks who need a lifelong parental figure to tell them murder is wrong, or in Jeremy's case, why it's not OK to rape.

Good, I was hoping I wasn't missing something. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
15-06-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
Yeah . Jeremy Walker is a clown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 10:39 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  1. Does your god exist ..... independently from anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its existent dependent upon anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

The word "anyone" includes God and so your answer is no. God cannot exist independently of Himself. He is self-existent and exists independently of anything outside of Himself but not independently of Himself. Thus He is not contingent or dependent upon anyone or anything outside of Himself for His existence. God exists in and of Himself and is the only Being in existence which can rightly be said to be self-existent or aseitic.

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  2. Is the Bible true regardless of anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums or is its truth dependent on anyone's desires, likes, dislikes, hopes, fears, wishes, preferences, faith or tantrums?

The Bible is true because it was inspired by God. God inspiring the authors to write what they did means that every word is true for God cannot lie. The Bible is not true independently of God but true because it is of God.

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Did your god create everything distinct from itself by an act of conscious will?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.


(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Does your god maintain everything in existence by an act of conscious will?

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature, and He upholds the universe by the word of His power.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Can your god change anything that exists by an act of conscious will?

Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases.


(15-06-2014 09:08 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  And here is the summary of the argument from the primacy of existence. I'd like you to refute it if you can.

1. If existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness then the Christian God can not exist since it is a direct contradiction of the primacy of existence.

2. Existence holds metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

3. Therefor the Christian God does not exist.

You have the responsibility of giving reasons to think one and two are true. What are they?

Thank you for answering Jeremy. I'm off to celebrate Father's Day with my family. When I get back I'll respond.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 10:52 AM)Bible Belt Brawler Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  what you say is true. no apologist would argue against this. this is termed "descriptive moral relativism".

it essentially states that there are in fact moral disagreements. westerns believe it is immoral to fly planes into buildings to kill people who do not believe what they believe. Some Islamists believe it moral to do so. so there is a disagreement here.

but does the mere fact that there are disagreements about what is moral mean that there is no true/right answer to the question?

well I say no. just because people disagree on the above, it does not follow that there is no true and right answer anymore than the fact that people disagree on whether men ever actually landed on the moon means that there is no true/right answer to the question: did men land on the moon?

so saying that descriptive moral relativism is true does not necessarily mean that meta-ethical moral relativism is true.

How might morality be measured and tested? Feeding the poor and healing the sick is right because it is something everybody wants done to them and their loved ones. I just treat others in a way I would like to be treated, and that simple approach appears to generate positive results. I cannot say WHY it works, but that appears a fairly reliable way of finding morality that has been embraced by many self-improvement groups for thousands of years.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you say.

Every human being that does not ignore or suppress their conscience or "moral compass", can and should have basic moral insight and thus know moral truths that are generally available to any morally sensitive person. We instinctively recognize the wrongness of torturing or murdering people just for fun. We instinctively recognize the rightness of virtues like being honest and empathetic and compassionate and unselfish.

A person's inability or unwillingness to recognize these insights reveals something defective about that person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
15-06-2014, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2014 12:16 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 11:33 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 11:00 AM)pablo628 Wrote:  I really don't understand why it matters whether or not morality is objective.

It doesn't. It's a false dilemma for folks who need a lifelong parental figure to tell them murder is wrong, or in Jeremy's case, why it's not OK to rape.

how is it a false dilemma?

Moral values and duties are either grounded in the shifting sands of human opinion or they are grounded in something that makes them true for all people at all places at all times.

They are either objective or subjective. There is no third option, thus it is not a false dilemma.

The statement: "It is wrong for Catholic priests to molest people." is either referring to nothing more than the opinions of some people, or it is referring to a law that transcends the opinions of people that says men who are responsible for caring for people under their charge have the obligation to care for them and make sure they are safe and not to molest them.




Now by all means, if you want to say that there is no objective moral law that these priests are guilty of breaking, then by all means have at it.


It seems to me that when atheists denounce such acts they are doing so because they think the priests have actually done something really wrong, even though the priests might think it is just fine and dandy. But if this is indeed their argument, then they are affirming that the priests have broken an objective moral law which obligates the priest to love and care for those under their charge instead of abusing them and molesting them.

But whence comes this law? and what makes it independent of the varying opinions and whims of man?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 12:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 11:33 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It doesn't. It's a false dilemma for folks who need a lifelong parental figure to tell them murder is wrong, or in Jeremy's case, why it's not OK to rape.

how is it a false dilemma?

Moral values and duties are either grounded in the shifting sands of human opinion or they are grounded in something that makes them true for all people at all places at all times.

They are either objective or subjective. There is no third option, thus it is not a false dilemma.

The statement: "It is wrong for Catholic priests to molest people." is either referring to nothing more than the opinions of some people, or it is referring to a law that transcends the opinions of people that says men who are responsible for caring for people under their charge have the obligation to care for them and make sure they are safe and not to molest them.




Now by all means, if you want to say that there is no objective moral law that these priests are guilty of breaking, then by all means have at it.


It seems to me that when atheists denounce such acts they are doing so because they think the priests have actually done something really wrong, even though the priests might think it is just fine and dandy. But if this is indeed their argument, then they are affirming that the priests have broken an objective moral law which obligates the priest to love and care for those under their charge instead of abusing them and molesting them.

But whence comes this law? and what makes it independent of the varying opinions and whims of man?

You're just wording the subjective to make it appear objective. Nothing more. I have moral values, they are mine, I decide how and when they will be applied. Big Spooky (if there was one) has nothing to do with it.
I'm fairly sure the child being molested by a priest doesn't like it. Therefore I decide that this act is morally/ethically wrong and act accordingly, why does this confuse you so?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 12:44 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2014 12:50 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: [split] I need to rant to other atheists.
(15-06-2014 12:30 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I have moral values, they are mine, I decide how and when they will be applied. Big Spooky (if there was one) has nothing to do with it.

theists and non-theists alike conduct their lives however consistently or inconsistently according to their own particular set of values. this is not in dispute.



(15-06-2014 12:30 PM)pablo628 Wrote:  I'm fairly sure the child being molested by a priest doesn't like it. Therefore I decide that this act is morally/ethically wrong and act accordingly, why does this confuse you so?

Trust me, I am not confused at all. I agree with you. I think I have made it very clear that molesting children is wrong.

I disagree with you however, when you say that the priest has done nothing objectively wrong.

You see, in your world where moral statements are just referring to the opinions of people, there is no standard to compare your morality and the morality of the rapist to to say that yours more closely adheres to the standard.

It is like artists simultaneously claiming that there never existed a Leonardo da Vinci or an original Mona Lisa, and claiming at the same time that each one of their works is more like the Mona Lisa than everyone else's.

That is absurd. You cannot say that there is no original Mona Lisa (the standard) to which your work aims to conform to and then at the same time say that your painting is a "better" painting than everyone else's because it more closely conforms to the Mona Lisa!

The Mona Lisa does not exist!


You are the same way if you ever try to argue that your view is to be preferred over the view of the rapist. You deny the existence of the standard by which your set of moral values and the set of moral values of the rapist is compared to.

People do not say that a portrait is a "better" or "worse" likeness of someone unless they know what the person actually looks like (the standard).

Take the standard away, and all you are left with is people painting what they think is worth painting. The paintings can neither be said to better or worse than any other for there is nothing that the painters were aiming to paint that existed outside of their own imagination (the standard).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: