20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI guess I would ascribe morality as codes of conduct. What is acceptable and what is not. For example, slavery at one time was legal and was viewed by society at large to be "moral" or acceptable. Then when it later became illegal the consensus shifted the other way and society saw it by in large to be "immoral". Abortion is another example. At one time it was illegal and it was then deemed by society at large to be "immoral". However, today it is legal and, therefore, it has been adopted by society as "moraly justifiable". The pendulum seems to swing in the favor of those in authority. Likewise, God who is in authority over all has opinions on these matters as well and will judge us all accordingly as well.
I do not think that there is any supernatural divine being: could you describe to me how I live according to “might makes right”—today for example?
[b]If there be a God then his morality is absolute morality.
If there be a God, then his will may be absolute will. To assert that his “morality” is “absolute morality” is to do nothing more than to d ...[text shortened]... nts, it is difficult to know exactly what it is you are ascribing to God by the word “morality”.[/b]
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerI said you not for you in specific, but you Christians (plural). English language fault, who makes a grammar with two equal pronouns.
Thank you for the psycho-analysis. Would you like to advance an intelligent argument, or would you like to continue to psycho-analyze someone (me) whom you've never met?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerBut We are animals, rational e conscious animal that live in society and imposed rules on ourselves, made by ourselves.
If there is no God, then we are basically just animals and the "law of the jungle" rules. We are special because we were "designed" to be in communion with God.
You want to live in a country where the law IS the law of god, or in a country whose law is made by humans? You are not special, nor me. We are equal, fragile, small. Again the need to be something more... it is recurrent in christians.
20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayer
Anything remotely resembling an argument is more thought-out than simply saying, "What a crock." (which was your response to my post).
Your response is what one would expect from a ten-year-old. Have you graduated from fourth-grade yet?
Anything remotely resembling an argument is more thought-out than simply saying, "What a crock."
No, it isn't.
Your response is what one would expect from a ten-year-old. Have you graduated from fourth-grade yet?
I see you preaching at others to keep things civil, then I read this. What a hypocrite.
20 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerSo here we have the circularity of your argument succinctly demonstrated. Morals exist to bring us closer to God, God exists to provide us with these morals. Beyond that I see no other purpose for God other than to explain the as of yet unexplained.
The idea that "pagan morality can do the same job" would only be true if the "main job" was to instill civil order. But the "job" of moral laws is to draw us closer to God, and obeying His laws draws God closer to us.
As for the subjectivity of morality, religiosity seems to be no help in stabilising our morality towards some objective frame of reference. the example of slavery being morally acceptable and then the pendulum swinging for example, took place from beginning to end in a religious world, arguably. If, as you claim, religion provides us with the ability to posess an objective morality, that ability seems not to have been taken advantage of over recorded history given the myriad swings of the moral compass that have taken place. The subjectivity of morality seems, therefore, to be an inescapable fact regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.
The likely counterpoint you are thinking of at this point is that it was all due to differing interpretations of Gods law, but if we are, as has been the case for so many a century, so prone to reinterpreting Gods morality to suit our own on the day, then what is the fundamental difference between an atheist like myself making balanced judgements on what my morality should be compared to a religious person reiniterpreting a religious book to do the same job?
Ultimately, your arguments thus far have rested on the inability of an atheist to posess an objective morality, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that a religious person can't either, as history has shown.
Other than teaching us how to live a good life (which as I've tried to show is just as hard for the religious as it is for atheists), what good is a God?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by vistesdThe only reason thugs haven't already robbed you and raped your female relatives is because mightier people - the police - protect you. There is also the possibility that you have might of your own in the form of personal weapons which would help protect you and yours.
I do not think that there is any supernatural divine being: could you describe to me how I live according to “might makes right”—today for example?
[b]If there be a God then his morality is absolute morality.
If there be a God, then his will may be absolute will. To assert that his “morality” is “absolute morality” is to do nothing more than to d ...[text shortened]... he word “morality”.
EDIT: I got to pack it in for tonight, whode--see ya later, and be well.[/b]
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitInstead of giving an intelligent argument against what I said, you said "What a crock." 10-year-olds aren't very good at giving intelligent arguments, so I pointed out that you were acting like a child. Does anybody disagree with me? In a pointed, yet civil, way, I'm trying to get you to argue like an adult (Intelligent) adults don't say things like "that's a crock" and then run away.[b]Anything remotely resembling an argument is more thought-out than simply saying, "What a crock."
No, it isn't.
Your response is what one would expect from a ten-year-old. Have you graduated from fourth-grade yet?
I see you preaching at others to keep things civil, then I read this. What a hypocrite.[/b]
21 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIf you were debating a 10-year-old, I'd put money on the 10-year old.
Instead of giving an intelligent argument against what I said, you said "What a crock." 10-year-olds aren't very good at giving intelligent arguments, so I pointed out that you were acting like a child. Does anybody disagree with me? In a pointed, yet civil, way, I'm trying to get you to argue like an adult (Intelligent) adults don't say things like "that's a crock" and then run away.
22 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerHmmm...is our country really religiously tolerant? What happens if one refuses to swear on the Bible in a court proceeding?
The best anidote to religious intolerance is to adopt a Christian morality. Our founding fathers based their religious tolerance on the view that "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..."