Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk To me it also seems like you have forfeited the capacity to listen to or even acknowledge Christians ideas, which coincidentally happen to fall outside the remit of of the ideas that you have internalized.
I was a Christian for nearly 30 years. I listened to and acknowledged and listened to Christians ideas throughout that time and have continued to do so ever since.
Originally posted by FMF I was a Christian for nearly 30 years. I listened to and acknowledged and listened to Christians ideas throughout that time and have continued to do so ever since.
So it is possible to acknowledge and reject an idea?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So it is possible to acknowledge and reject an idea?
You have insisted that I am open to the idea that rape is morally justifiable. And you've insisted that getting angry with a sibling is equally as "evil" as murdering 6,000,000 people. I certainly rejected these ideas.
Originally posted by FMF You have insisted that I am open to the idea that rape is morally justifiable. And you've insisted that getting angry with a sibling is equally as "evil" as murdering 6,000,000 people. I certainly rejected these ideas.
If you believe there are no moral absolutes it means the idea that rape is morally justifiable is equally valid to the idea that it isn't. I believe getting angry with your brother is wrong, as is murdering 6,000,000 people. How can you reject any idea if they are equally valid to your own by implication?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk If you believe there are no moral absolutes it means the idea that rape is morally justifiable is equally valid to the idea that it isn't. I believe getting angry with your brother is wrong, as is murdering 6,000,000 people. How can you reject any idea if they are equally valid to your own by implication?
You already know my views on these issues. Thread 171350
Originally posted by FMF You already know my views on these issues. Thread 171350
Yes I do, you claim that there are no moral absolutes (which means by implication that all views on morality are equally valid) but then still claim that your view IS more valid that someone else's. Your claims on morality do not logically follow your premises on morality.
So technically if it were in fact my view that rape is ok and that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable my views would be equally valid to yours if there are no moral absolutes. Why can't you agree to this?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk So technically if it were in fact my view that rape is ok and that torturing babies for fun was morally acceptable my views would be equally valid to yours if there are no moral absolutes. Why can't you agree to this?
Because I don't agree with you. It's really as simple as that. I don't agree with what you claim about so called "moral absolutes". I don't agree that your personal opinions on morality are "universal truths". I don't believe I have to "admit" that "rape is OK" is "equally valid" as "rape is not OK", regardless of how many times you insist that I do. I don't think your moral standpoints are rendered "logical" and mine are rendered "illogical" simply because you believe in angels and demons and other supernatural beings (while I don't).
Originally posted by FMF Because I don't agree with you. It's really as simple as that. I don't agree with what you claim about so called "moral absolutes". I don't agree that your personal opinions on morality are "universal truths". I don't believe I have to "admit" that "rape is OK" is "equally valid" as "rape is not OK", regardless of how many times you insist that I do. I don't thi ...[text shortened]... " simply because you believe in angels and demons and other supernatural beings (while I don't).
If you presuppose that that there are no moral absolutes, how is it logically possible for one subjective opinion to be more valid than another?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk If you presuppose that that there are no moral absolutes, how is it logically possible for one subjective opinion to be more valid than another?
Originally posted by FMF I have already addressed this issue repeatedly.
Yes and from your discussion I have concluded that your subjective opinions on morality cannot logically be any more or less valid than the morality of Nazi Germany if there are no moral absolutes and by implication an objective standard by which to differentiate between right and wrong. If you want to deny the obvious feel free to continue to be in denial. That is your prerogative.
Originally posted by FMF But you and I don't agree about what "the obvious" is regarding this issue.
We both agree on 'the obvious' that it is always wrong to commit the act of rape, which logically follows my presupposition that moral absolutes do in fact exist and not yours, which is that there are no moral absolutes. That much is obvious is it not?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk We both agree on 'the obvious' that it is always wrong to commit the act of rape, which logically follows my presupposition that moral absolutes do in fact exist and not yours, which is that there are no moral absolutes. That much is obvious is it not?
I don't agree with your assertions about "moral absolutes", no. That much is obvious, I'd say.
Originally posted by apathist The laughing fat man. An elite who surrendered his estate to chase nirvana.
Or something.
You have made the common mistake of thinking the 'laughing fat man' is the Buddha. It isn't. It is like seeing a statue of a 'fat friar monk' and thinking it is Jesus.
Would recommend reading up on the life of the Buddha. Will save you future embarrassment.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Yes I do, you claim that there are no moral absolutes (which means by implication that all views on morality are equally valid) ...
No. That morality depends on opinion does not imply that all opinions are equally valid. It means that of the uncounted ways of seeing our world, like minds will get together.
22 Jan '17 05:37
why i'm not a christian
Back to Top