Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhen you asked Ghost of a Duke how is it even possible to condemn Nazi Germany without moral absolutes it was as if you were deliberately ignoring what he has been saying to you. You may think that ignoring people's answers and opinions and then asking them the same things over and over and over again is an amusing way to behave on the internet, but I would say that your antics are like a parody of genuine discourse.
It's as if FMF is deliberately pretending not to have read anything that FMJ has said to Ghost of a Duke, or he has read it - but is studiously ignoring it - or he did read it but just doesn't understand what their conversation is about. It's as if he has run off and now plans to jump back in to derail the conversation.
Originally posted by josephwI don't need to 'imagine there is no moral law giver, no creator of life.' I already believe that. I'm also not adverse to saying that i don't really know how life began on this planet. That doesn't mean however that i have to accept your notion of a creator God as the only alternative. There are many things I don't know, but this lack of knowledge doesn't mean I have to accept knowledge put forward by others.
[b]"...if God is taken out of the equation."
Ok then, let's do that. Imagine there is no moral law giver. No creator of life.
Who here has the arrogant audacity to explain how life began, and how morality developed? Big Bang? Random chance? Who here was there at the beginning, or even before that, that can testify of a personal experience of the o ...[text shortened]... ing in a scenario that excludes an omniscient creator.
It's all chasing shadows in the dark.[/b]
For example, I don't really know how the tv works. If someone tells me that magic pixies make it work, am I obliged to accept that answer simply because i don't have one of my own? Of course not. I don't have an answer as to how life began, but I also don't like the answer put forward by theists. I just don't buy that. God is already out of the equation.
I do agree though that 'It's pure speculation to assert that man can know the origin of anything.' But i'm afraid to say Joe, that includes God.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs mentioned previously, I will ignore questions from you that demonstrate you haven't been listening.
If the morals derived in society are obligatory, then from where do you derive the right to impose them on people?
Surely if you condemn Nazi Germany based on your own morality you think that your morality is right and theirs is wrong. So how is that even possible without moral absolutes?
Parrots enjoy repetition, I don't.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeExactly so what it comes down to my illustrious friend is what seems more plausible to us, life from a muddy puddle, oops I mean a prebiotic soup or as a direct act of intelligent design. The problem with atheism is, is that it limits ones possibilities for we have already limited our search to unintelligent agencies, is it not so? Me thinks you should ditch the ragged vestiges of atheism and put on the mantle of agnosticism, its more balanced and less extreme.
I don't need to 'imagine there is no moral law giver, no creator of life.' I already believe that. I'm also not adverse to saying that i don't really know how life began on this planet. That doesn't mean however that i have to accept your notion of a creator God as the only alternative. There are many things I don't know, but this lack of knowledge d ...[text shortened]... assert that man can know the origin of anything.' But i'm afraid to say Joe, that includes God.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMmm, soup.
Exactly so what it comes down to my illustrious friend is what seems more plausible to us, life from a muddy puddle, oops I mean a prebiotic soup or as a direct act of intelligent design. The problem with atheism is, is that it limits ones possibilities for we have already limited our search to unintelligent agencies, is it not so? Me thinks you sh ...[text shortened]... ed vestiges of atheism and put on the mantle of agnosticism, its more balanced and less extreme.
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you can only speak for your own morality, derived from your own society it means you cannot condemn Nazi Germany's morality derived from Nazi Germany's society unless you believe your societies morality is correct and Nazi Germany's is incorrect.
I can only speak for my own morality, derived from my own society. The fact Nazi Germany thought it was morally right only goes to demonstrate that there are no moral absolutes. How could there be when there is no moral law giver, divine or otherwise.
I'm logging out now. Don't bump.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot this old canard being trotted out agin. An atheist has limited themselves to the evidence. If the evidence directs us to intelligent design, then intelligent design it is.
Exactly so what it comes down to my illustrious friend is what seems more plausible to us, life from a muddy puddle, oops I mean a prebiotic soup or as a direct act of intelligent design. The problem with atheism is, is that it limits ones possibilities for we have already limited our search to unintelligent agencies, is it not so? Me thinks you sh ...[text shortened]... ed vestiges of atheism and put on the mantle of agnosticism, its more balanced and less extreme.
Originally posted by Proper KnobWhat does the evidence say about where everything came from, then how it is knitted
Not this old canard being trotted out agin. An atheist has limited themselves to the evidence. If the evidence directs us to intelligent design, then intelligent design it is.
together to support life in your opinion?
Originally posted by FMF"Who else's opinions am I to put forward if not my own?"
I'm not sure you actually understand what is being suggested about your behaviour when you are compared to Dasa. You characterize me talking about my moral beliefs as me "filling the pages of these forums" with my "tripe about [my] opinions derailing anything said that contradicts them".
"Derailing"? You mean 'disagreeing', surely? This is a debate and discu ...[text shortened]... nt "josephw is channelling Dasa again" is actually getting at with regard to your own behaviour.
Opinions are entirely subjective. Whether or not you believe that morality is God given is something else altogether. If you believe your moral code is derived through human experience, then that's just your opinion, but if you believe morality comes from a creator, then the code is derived objectively.
You refuse to stay on topic because your moral code is subjectively ascertained and subject to change based on a flimsy foundation of human origin. A thing you are afraid to address apparently. So you derail an objective discussion by making subjective analyses concerning a posters "behavior".
Objectively speaking, human originated moral codes are just that. They're human, and subjective, and contingent on personal whim, as flimsy as dust in the wind. Untrustworthy. Finite. Without validity. Based on man's authority, and a means by which to control others.
The only viable alternative is an objective moral code from the creator of life with universal application. It's a no-brainer.
Originally posted by chaney3Joop den Uyl, Dutch Prime Minister in the 1970s, said the primary reason for being an atheist were his experience with the war, which he was unable to match with the existence of a benevolent God. Perhaps one of the reasons why atheism is less prevalent in the U.S. is the relatively minor impact the war had on U.S. society.
I have recently viewed photos of Jewish men, women and children killed in concentration camps.
Exterminated and starved.
Where was God?
Originally posted by josephwBut you concede that your opinion ~ that morality comes from a creator ~ is "entirely subjective" too, right?
Opinions are entirely subjective. Whether or not you believe that morality is God given is something else altogether. If you believe your moral code is derived through human experience, then that's just your opinion, but if you believe morality comes from a creator, then the code is derived objectively.
Originally posted by KellyJayTo use Donald Rumsfeld spiel, where everything came from is a 'known unknown'.
What does the evidence say about where everything came from, then how it is knitted
together to support life in your opinion?
As for your 2nd bit, how is what 'knitted together' exactly? Could you be a bit more specific Kelly?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a good point robbie.
Exactly so what it comes down to my illustrious friend is what seems more plausible to us, life from a muddy puddle, oops I mean a prebiotic soup or as a direct act of intelligent design. The problem with atheism is, is that it limits ones possibilities for we have already limited our search to unintelligent agencies, is it not so? Me thinks you sh ...[text shortened]... ed vestiges of atheism and put on the mantle of agnosticism, its more balanced and less extreme.
I googled some definitions of atheist and agnostic, and it seems an atheist doesn't believe in God, whereas an agnostic doesn't know if God exists.
Does an open mind fit in here somewhere?
I believe Ghost has said a few times in this forum that he is open to the possibility of a God.