Originally posted by knightmeisterAre you deliberately missing the point?
"A square has four sides of equal length"
For this to be objectively true you need a mathematical law that governs the properties of four sided 2 dimensional shapes.
"London has [insert correct number] bus stops"
For this to be objectively true you need an objective law governing counting methods and you need London to actually exist
" ...[text shortened]... ight about squares and London) then you are in the realms of religion my friend.
To put the question in your terms: given that we are able to make true statements about mathematical and factual states of affairs, why should the same not apply to ethics merely as a consequence of how the universe actually is? Why would we need a god as some kind of guarantee of moral truth?
Or are you saying that the fact there is [insert correct number] of bus stops in London is also somehow lacking in "objective" truth unless it is guaranteed by god? That otherwise it is simply a statement which is neither true nor false, and given only "subjective" meaning by human-made laws of counting? How very odd if so!
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI backed it up with quotes for Hitler himself, and from Mein Kampf. What more do you require?
I am not saying that Hitler thought he was sinning, I am merely demonstrating that being Christian does not mean doing God's works.
And hyphens do not function to separate pieces of information. They normally indicate a parenthesis, which implied that you were making an inference from the initial statement. If not, then support your statement with evide e, it wouldn't have survived. So morality is obviously something approachable through reason.
[edit; and as Agerg rightly points out the word "and" is sufficient to show that I was adding, not deriving, information. Had I been deriving or inferring info, I'd have used "therefore".]
Originally posted by scottishinnzYes, you backed it up with quotes later. But before then, when I compare the statement of Ian with yours, it seems like you are paraphrasing the comment "Hitler was a Christian" to 'he thought he was doing God's works", as if they are equivalent, or that one is the predicate of the other. Clearly you were adding information. That was the problem. It implied that it logically followed or was equivalent to.
I backed it up with quotes for Hitler himself, and from Mein Kampf. What more do you require?
[edit; and as Agerg rightly points out the word "and" is sufficient to show that I was adding, not deriving, information. Had I been deriving or inferring info, I'd have used "therefore".]
Originally posted by Conrau KAbsolutely. That's why I did not say "Hitler was a Christian, therefore he thought he was doing God's work".
Yes, but I dispute that it necassarily follows.
Of course, if, for a Christian, morals are absolute, and Hitler thought he was doing God's work, then he must, by implication, be acting morally.
Originally posted by scottishinnzPerhaps not "Hitler was a Christian, therefore he thought he was doing God's work" but "Hitler was a Christian which really means he thought he was doing God's work".
Absolutely. That's why I did not say "Hitler was a Christian, therefore he thought he was doing God's work".
Of course, if, for a Christian, morals [b]are absolute, and Hitler thought he was doing God's work, then he must, by implication, be acting morally.[/b]
Of course, if, for a Christian, morals [b]are absolute, and Hitler thought he was doing God's work, then he must, by implication, be acting morally.[/b]
Perhaps he thought wrongly.
Originally posted by Conrau KI never stated that you called him evil. But would you? What about Saddam? Neither of those two seem tremendously sane to me.
I never called him evil. I would certainly call his actions evil though.
But to answer you question, no, a person suffering from mental derangement is not evil.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf Hitler was under some sort of insanity, then I would not call him evil. I thought that had been clearly implied. If Saddam is not sane then I would not call him evil either. That would at least, be the logical consequence of my position.
I never stated that you called him evil. But would you? What about Saddam? Neither of those two seem tremendously sane to me.
Originally posted by knightmeisterOkay, getting back to the point. As ConrauK and I have been debating for the last two pages, absolute morals are not a position that the theist can defend with any sort of credibility. Morals are always subjective.
So if you say that Hitler was a bad man based on your subjective moral opinion is that not different from saying that Hitler was just plain bad?
If you are saying that there is no difference between subjective opinion and objective fact you would not make much of a scientist.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, no. Morality is absolute. It can be derived through reason.
Okay, getting back to the point. As ConrauK and I have been debating for the last two pages, absolute morals are not a position that the theist can defend with any sort of credibility. Morals are always subjective.