a reprobate mind

Originally posted by dj2becker
But how do you account for them being morally unsound? Are these actions morally unsound based solely on the fact that it is a widely popular thought that these actions are morally unsound? Sounds like argumentum ad populum....

The question I asked KellyJay was "what extra purchase do you think your religiosity gives you when considering these behaviours and demeanours (when lot of the stuff in the OP doesn't need any of your god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound actions)?

Neither you nor he has addressed this. Meanwhile, my moral compas - it's nature, it's origin, it's purpose and it's application - I have already addressed at length and in detail.

Originally posted by FMF
The question I asked KellyJay was "what extra purchase do you think your religiosity gives you when considering these behaviours and demeanours (when lot of the stuff in the OP doesn't need any of your god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound actions)?

Neither you nor he has addressed this. Meanwhile, my moral compas - it's nature, i ...[text shortened]... 's origin, it's purpose and it's application - I have already addressed at length and in detail.

You said that the stuff in the OP doesn't require god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound. Do you anything other than an 'argumentum ad populum' to support this statement?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You said that the stuff in the OP doesn't require god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound. Do you anything other than an 'argumentum ad populum' to support this statement?

I appreciate you have just discovered the expression 'argumentum ad populum,' but please use it sparingly.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You said that the stuff in the OP doesn't require god figure notions in order for them to be cast as morally unsound. Do you anything other than an 'argumentum ad populum' to support this statement?

We've discussed morality before ~ or at least, I tried to discuss it with you. I have no intention of repeating myself to you.

Originally posted by FMF
We've discussed morality before ~ or at least, I tried to discuss it with you. I have no intention of repeating myself to you.

Well we can agree that without God morality boils down to personal preference.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well we can agree that without God morality boils down to personal preference.

To reduce morality to personal 'preference' leaves me questioning the integrity of your own morality. Google 'conscience' and come back to us.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
To reduce morality to personal 'preference' leaves me questioning the integrity of your own morality. Google 'conscience' and come back to us.

It is your choice whether or not you wish to obey your conscience, no? And if God does not exist you could easily get away with it if you don't. So the interesting question is why pretend that your morality is not a matter of personal preference?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Well we can agree that without God morality boils down to personal preference.

You can claim what you want about what you have said and what I have said ~ and the extent to which you now claim we "agree". However, I suggest you sift through the previous discussions we've had on this topic and refer specifically to my characterization of my stance instead of offering your own characterization of it.

Originally posted by FMF
You can claim what you want about what you have said and what I have said ~ and the extent to which you now claim we "agree". However, I suggest you sift through the previous discussions we've had on this topic and refer specifically to my characterization of my stance instead of offering your own characterization of it.

You decide whether or not an action is moral. If you disagree feel free to say so. Why are you so apposed to the notion that your morality is dependent on your own personal preferences when it clearly is?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You decide whether or not an action is moral. If you disagree feel free to say so.

If you are genuinely interested in my views on morality and the extent to which we agree and disagree about it, please just refer to previous threads where we discussed it.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why are you so apposed to the notion that your morality is dependent on your own personal preferences when it clearly is?

What notions I am "opposed to" and not "opposed to" is quite clear from what I have said to you about it in the past. I don't need to repeat myself to you, and won't.

Originally posted by FMF
If you are genuinely interested in my views on morality and the extent to which we agree and disagree about it, please just refer to previous threads where we discussed it.

It is clear to me from the previous threads that you decide whether or not an action is moral. And that the basis of your decisions rest primarily upon your own personal preferences. And I find it interesting that you are so apposed to the notion that your morality is guided primarily by your own personal preferences. Why is that?

Originally posted by dj2becker
It is clear to me from the previous threads that you decide whether or not an action is moral. And that the basis of your decisions rest primarily upon your own personal preferences.

It's clear you either didn't read or didn't understand - or have forgotten - what I wrote.

Originally posted by FMF
What notions I am "opposed to" and not "opposed to" is quite clear from what I have said to you about it in the past. I don't need to repeat myself to you, and won't.

If God exists he decides what is right and wrong, if he doesn't exist, you decide.

Originally posted by dj2becker
And I find it interesting that you are so apposed to the notion that your morality is guided primarily by your own personal preferences. Why is that?

Why have you repeated this question two posts in a row a few minutes apart?