Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSince there is no god watching over Earth, which is not to say there may be some kind of god, but this alleged god of yours does nothing good for humans or anything else on Earth. see the world wide flood myth, apparently your god decided it was morally ok to kill every land animal on Earth and then put a pair in the Ark which totally screws up the genetic diversity they previously enjoyed, not a great god men have created is it? Especially instead of a world wide flood (which never happened) this allegedly omniscient god could have just gone poof and the bad guys in that story would have been toast, literally, but NO, it has to make every land animal on Earth suffer a horrible death just to make a statement to humans. Not a god I would ever EVER worship. But then, it is just a man made god in the first place so who are we kidding here?
If God etched your moral sensibilities onto your conscience, then you would have every reason to trust them. But if they are only the product of your environment and life experience, what makes them any more trustworthy than someone else's sensibilities that are contradictory to yours but derived by the same means as yours?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe problem with your moral absolutes is that you have to reject hypothetical but possible situations in order to defend them.
If there was an option between harming the child and saving lives or not harming the child and saving lives I would choose the 2nd option. I think disarming a child who is waving a gun is possible without causing harm to the child. How about you?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFIf your moral sensibilities were derived from your environment and life experience what makes them more trustworthy than someone else's contradictory morals that was also derived from their environment and life experience?
As I said, I don't care if you don't trust my moral sensibilities; I don't trust yours either.
Originally posted by sonhouseHere's the problem with that objection. When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.- Ravi Zacharias
Since there is no god watching over Earth, which is not to say there may be some kind of god, but this alleged god of yours does nothing good for humans or anything else on Earth. see the world wide flood myth, apparently your god decided it was morally ok to kill every land animal on Earth and then put a pair in the Ark which totally screws up the genetic ...[text shortened]... EVER worship. But then, it is just a man made god in the first place so who are we kidding here?
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThe hypotheticals some of us have presented really have to do with presenting cases where two supposed absolute moral truths call for contradictory actions, Presumably you believe that no 2 moral absolutes can contradict one another. Correct? Further, could you give us few more examples of moral absolutes?
And the problem with having no absolutes is that everything becomes permissible.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI note that you dodged my question on the previous page.
And the problem with having no absolutes is that everything becomes permissible.
In my case, I do believe that morality is absolute, but I do not take your naive approach of declaring particular statements such as 'its wrong to kill children' to be absolute. Thus I avoid the problems you are having. I also probably mean something different from you when I talk of morality.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou asked about this before. And I answered.
If your moral sensibilities were derived from your environment and life experience what makes them more trustworthy than someone else's contradictory morals that was also derived from their environment and life experience?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkSo you still haven't got the difference between 'imply' and 'infer' eh?
By implication you did:
According to you your moral sensibilities lead you believe that it is always wrong for everyone to commit the act of rape.
If this were true in reality it would be a moral absolute.
Yet you are saying that you don't believe it to be a moral absolute in reality.
Which means you either don't trust your moral sensibilities to give you an accurate reflection of reality or you won't admit that you do.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo it doesn't, and this has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
And the problem with having no absolutes is that everything becomes permissible.
Originally posted by JS357Would you agree that harming/killing/raping a child for the sole purpose of 'having fun' is always wrong?
The hypotheticals some of us have presented really have to do with presenting cases where two supposed absolute moral truths call for contradictory actions, Presumably you believe that no 2 moral absolutes can contradict one another. Correct? Further, could you give us few more examples of moral absolutes?