Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

So it doesn't bother you that you "perfect god" screwed up with his first set of rules and then had to sacrifice his son and change all the rules to fix it?

Logic. You don't use it.

If I tell my son while he's driving-- don't turn left here (because there is a ditch on the left), then later on tell him turn left here (because the driveway is there), I did not screw up either direction.

Again. I'm sorry. But... Logic. You don't use it.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Then they are basically opinions.

Of course; all morality/ethics are.

Perhaps my own. Perhaps not. Why should anyone share an opinion that other life is inherently worth anything?

Self-interest, love, etc.

My point is that if right/wrong is relative, it is not right/wrong.

How do you get that? All one can say is that they (themselves) believe an act is right or wrong, due to X, Y, or Z.

 

[SergeantVol]

I am saying that atheists smuggle objective morality in from religion. Either that or they live like sociopaths.

I'll leave you guys alone.

:hi:

So to my point, Orange Crush is not saying just "non-believers" of Christianity but rather people who do not believe in a higher moral authority (I.e. A deity of some sorts).

 

[Orange_Crush]

He uses the same tired CS Lewis 'mere Christianity' arguments that have been rehashed, whittling away and arguing over semantics.

Then refute.

 

[Septic]

What you should be worried about is the fact that the only thing between you and a bullet from many of the posters here is getting caught by johnny law. Many profess not to believe in God, therefore there is no everlasting retribution, therefore no sanctity of life, therefore nothing to keep them from putting a cap in your ass but the fear of Bubba and a dropped bar of soap.

The most 'godless' nations on the planet also have the lowest crime rates. Conversely, most of the religious States in America are also the most dangerous.

Your assertion holds no water.

 

[MercyPercy]

So to my point, Orange Crush is not saying just "non-believers" of Christianity but rather people who do not believe in a higher moral authority (I.e. A deity of some sorts).

No, he's only interested in the christian god's morality. Ask him yourself.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Of course; all morality/ethics are.



Self-interest, love, etc.



How do you get that? All one can say is that they (themselves) believe an act is right or wrong, due to X, Y, or Z.

So, you can't say Hitler was wrong, or the child rapist. You can just say that he/they have a differing opinion than you. There is nothing "definitively" wrong with their actions. It's just a disagreement.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am saying that atheists smuggle objective morality in from religion. Either that or they live like sociopaths.

I'll leave you guys alone.

:hi:

WTF?

1) Objective morality exists outside of religion (to some people). I don't believe in it, but the argument/belief is there.

2) So people who don't believe in objective morality live like sociopaths?

 

[Orange_Crush]

WTF?

1) Objective morality exists outside of religion (to some people). I don't believe in it, but the argument/belief is there.

Tell me how.

2) So people who don't believe in objective morality live like sociopaths?

You either live as though you have a conscience or you don't.

Tell me. Is child rape objectively wrong?

 

[PKT_VOL]

So, you can't say Hitler was wrong, or the child rapist. You can just say that he/they have a differing opinion than you. There is nothing "definitively" wrong with their actions. It's just a disagreement.

What? No.

I can say that he was wrong. However, that is an opinion that comes from me. I can't say it for you, the next guy, humanity, etc. In other words, I can say that the act is wrong from my perspective but cannot say/judge anything from outside myself.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It's like PKT and TRUT had a baby in an alternate universe...

 

[Orange_Crush]

What? No.

I can say that he was wrong. However, that is an opinion that comes from me. I can't say it for you, the next guy, humanity, etc. In other words, I can say that the act is wrong from my perspective but cannot say/judge anything from outside myself.

Then you can't say he was wrong. You can say that he had a different opinion than you.

 

[Septic]

What? No.

I can say that he was wrong. However, that is an opinion that comes from me. I can't say it for you, the next guy, humanity, etc. In other words, I can say that the act is wrong from my perspective but cannot say/judge anything from outside myself.

No, no. You're not allowed to have a personal opinion on your own sense of morality. Either you're a sociopath or your sense of right and wrong was because of the sky god.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What? No.

I can say that he was wrong. However, that is an opinion that comes from me. I can't say it for you, the next guy, humanity, etc. In other words, I can say that the act is wrong from my perspective but cannot say/judge anything from outside myself.

I can say that he was wrong but can't judge that he was wrong.

Contradictions confound me.

 

[rjd970]

Then by all means, please clarify. Don't allow me to put words in your mouth. Please answer the following questions:

1. Were the Nazis wrong to do what they did?
2. Is child rape wrong?
3. What, in your mechanized Universe that can only describe what "is", is there that prescribes to us what "ought" to be?
4. Even if right and wrong are self-evident, what in this mechanized universe prescribes that this "self-evidence" "ought" to be true?

I'll hang up and listen. This is your chance to clear the air.

Just for fun, I'm going to play your silly game....but I can guarantee it is going to head right back to the circular debate of the existence of God in the first place.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. As it pertains to morality, questions of right and wrong can be explained with happiness and suffering of living beings. This is what makes it self-evident as it pertains to how we treat other humans. If we are in a position to affect happiness or suffering of others, we have the moral obligation to do so. Consequently, these obligations have found there way into civil and criminal law. Applying the golden rule doesn't necessitate that it came from a omnipotent being, or that one is needed. Empathy works just fine, and anybody that does not have some basic sense that cruelty is wrong to begin with, certainly won't learn it by reading it.

Take the Nazi or child rapist example. How could one do such a thing to other humans, while maybe being a decent human being in every other facet of their life cannot be explained as wrong just because god said so or because it was (or in this case we have to assume wasn't) imparted on us by him. The simple explanation is the people that were the targets for the abuse simply weren't objects of their morality. In the case of the Nazi, they weren't even viewed as humans. Anybody that understands these actions as morally wrong obviously have a basic sense of empathy.

4. See #3 about happiness and suffering and empathy. If morality or ethics represents a set of knowledge, then it should represent the potential for progress and regress as well. From a biblical worldview with stoning and genocide and slavery, even you should appreciate this.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Tell me how.

TRUT is a big believer of it. Kant, John Stuart Mill, etc. have all articulated objective moral theories.

You either live as though you have a conscience or you don't.

That has nothing to do with anything. People who view morality objectively and people who view morality subjectively (me) have a conscience.

Tell me. Is child rape objectively wrong?

I can't say judge it objectively. I can only state my opinion which is that it is wrong. You can only do the same.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Then you can't say he was wrong. You can say that he had a different opinion than you.

I can certainly say he is wrong from my point of view.

I can't speak to anything outside of myself. What is so hard to understand about that?

And yes, he obviously did not share my opinion on the matter.

 

[Orange_Crush]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. As it pertains to morality, questions of right and wrong can be explained with happiness and suffering of living beings. This is what makes it self-evident as it pertains to how we treat other humans. If we are in a position to affect happiness or suffering of others, we have the moral obligation to do so. Consequently, these obligations have found there way into civil and criminal law. Applying the golden rule doesn't necessitate that it came from a omnipotent being, or that one is needed. Empathy works just fine, and anybody that does not have some basic sense that cruelty is wrong to begin with, certainly won't learn it by reading it.

Take the Nazi or child rapist example. How could one do such a thing to other humans, while maybe being a decent human being in every other facet of their life cannot be explained as wrong just because god said so or because it was (or in this case we have to assume wasn't) imparted on us by him. The simple explanation is the people that were the targets for the abuse simply weren't objects of their morality. In the case of the Nazi, they weren't even viewed as humans. Anybody that understands these actions as morally wrong obviously have a basic sense of empathy.

4. See #3 about happiness and suffering and empathy. If morality or ethics represents a set of knowledge, then it should represent the potential for progress and regress as well. From a biblical worldview with stoning and genocide and slavery, even you should appreciate this.

Your mechanistic, descriptive universe prescribed all of this for you, huh?

You just smuggled in objective right/wrong while denying objective right/wrong. You gave moral obligation after saying there was no moral standard.

The amazing thing ids all that you have smuggled in while being absolutely blind to smuggling it in.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I can say that he was wrong but can't judge that he was wrong.

Contradictions confound me.

My goodness. Subjectively vs objectively.

I cannot get outside of my own mind. Maybe you can. Therefore, I cannot give anything other than my own, subjective opinion. Thus, I cannot judge anything objectively (outside of myself/my mind).

I am saying that it is subjectively wrong (by me). You are claiming it is objectively wrong. I think saying such a thing is impossible unless you can get outside of yourself, your mind, and your experiences.

 

[Vol8188]

Logic. You don't use it.

If I tell my son while he's driving-- don't turn left here (because there is a ditch on the left), then later on tell him turn left here (because the driveway is there), I did not screw up either direction.

Again. I'm sorry. But... Logic. You don't use it.

Then why do we no longer stone people for adultery? It seems to me like your "perfect god" may not have made such a great set of rules the first time.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can certainly say he is wrong from my point of view.

I can't speak to anything outside of myself. What is so hard to understand about that?

And yes, he obviously did not share my opinion on the matter.

What informs your POV that he is wrong?

 

[PKT_VOL]

What informs your POV that he is wrong?

My experiences and rational faculty.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My experiences and rational faculty.

Such as... Please explain. I am asking what, from this mechanized descriptive universe prescribed this opinion in you. Please be specific.

 

[rjd970]

Your mechanistic, descriptive universe prescribed all of this for you, huh?

You just smuggled in objective right/wrong while denying objective right/wrong. You gave moral obligation after saying there was no moral standard.

The amazing thing ids all that you have smuggled in while being absolutely blind to smuggling it in.

No, I'm using the way I would want to be morally treated as my basis. An omnipotent being isn't needed. If I were a child rapist, then obviously I am not viewing the child as a facet of my moral concern.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Then why do we no longer stone people for adultery? It seems to me like your "perfect god" may not have made such a great set of rules the first time.

I would think your studies in Marriville would have helped you understand that, having studied the specific cultural aspects of them, and the specific statements that God made to Israel before, during, and after giving the law to them.