Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

Where does this come from?

That's where the debate needs to be held-- not "if" the law exists. By making judgment statements, you are inherently recognizing and making reference to the law.

If that was true, every person would think very similarly in terms of right and wrong. Societies would develop similarly in ethics, culture, tradition, etc. We would not have Kantian, Utilitarianism, Pragmatism, etc. schools of ethics.

Not at all. I've dealt with this already. First of all, most societies are foundationally similar-- indicating that the law is objective. You (I believe) and rjd have already referenced this-- the similarity of people's core moral beliefs. Most cultures deem murder wrong. Most cultures deem rape wrong. Etc...

Secondly, different views on a law do not disprove the law. Gravity did not suddenly begin to exist when Newton noticed the apple fall and started studying gravity. It did not change when he developed his theories in physics. It did not change again when Einstein refined Newton's work.

No. They recognized universal forces at work and began to study them to understand them. Similarly, we can recognize the universal truths of the moral law and begin to study them to refine our understanding of them.

Again, all from my perspective. How could I possible say anything otherwise? What is so hard about that concept?

So, you impose your perspective opinion on someone else, simply because they have a different opinion... You monkey with their brain chemistry, lock them up for life, and potentially monkey with their junk-- all because they simply disagree with you on a very relative subject.

You're a scary dude. I must say.

 

[Septic]

I am sure that there are many more variables than that. I can manipulate data sets about gun control laws to show you the same thing.

No you can't.

 

[Orange_Crush]

And the implications of that are horrific. If you believe that right or wrong is only determined by your god, then you have no problem slaughtering people in his name.

The hypocrisy is noted.

If you have no objective morality, you have no platform to say what is "horrific", and you have no platform to say that slaughtering people in his name is wrong. You gave away the right to make any objective statements on the subject. You are just one opinion among many, and none are any better than the rest, so you have no moral high horse to ride on.

(Seriously... You don't see how self-contradicting you are? You say that a group's claim to objective morality is wrong-- in a morally objective way. lulz You should work on that plan and get back to us.)

 

[FLVOL_79]

Atheists, agnostics and 'secular people' are all defined in detail for the purposes of the study and referred t as such throughout individually.

At any rate, semantics aside - my point stands, the more secular a country, the lower the murder rates. The more religious the country, the higher the murder rate. The States that tend to be most religious have the highest violent crime rates and the least religious, the lowest crime rates.

Urban America disagrees with this

 

[FLVOL_79]

You better watch out,
You better not cry,
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Jesus Christ is coming to town.
He's making a list,
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out
Who's naughty and nice.
Jesus Christ is coming to town.

He sees you when you're sleeping.
He knows when you're awake.
He knows if you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!
Oh, you better watch out!
You better not cry.
Better not pout,
I'm telling you why:
Jesus Christ is coming to town.
Jesus Christ is coming to town!


A simple christmas song that explains why christians decide to act morally.

Hand of the Almighty( god will **** you up) by John Butler - YouTube

 

[Orange_Crush]

Richard Dawkins on absolute morality - YouTube

Go watch this short video of Richard Dawkins and note the internal inconsistencies to his argument. It is a condensed form of the subjective morality arguments made in this thread. I say again... Listen and note that he denies an objective morality by misrepresenting the Bible and then claiming its morality is objectively inferior to his own.

Now again... He is completely misrepresenting the Bible, but even allowing that, he says, "Our current, subjective morality is better than that in the Bible." It's complete philosophical nonsense. It is one more example of a moral relativist who is blind to what he has had to smuggle into his worldview.

He also says elsewhere:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully

How can he say that there is no objective morality, then claim God is objectively wrong for being what Dawkins claims that He is? How can you say that there is no objective morality, and then claim that justice even exists? How can you claim a subjective morality and then claim that your morality is better?

This whole "no morality", "subjective morality" argument is an untenable position. Dawkins may be a brilliant man, but he is a piss-poor philosopher.

Vol8188, since you seem to be parroting your mentor on this, I'll ask you to speak in Dawkins' defense. How can you claim a relative morality and then claim that your moral judgments are superior to that which you misunderstand from the Bible?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Roustabout]

Here is my understanding of why Christians live the way they do.

You work for X company. X company makes parts for airplane engines that are extremely critical. You know you are subject to only a random check for drugs or alcohol, but you don't go to work under the influence because you know that it could wind up killing people if what you make fails in flight.

Now, do you not go to work under the influence because you are scared of losing your job or do you not go to work under the influence because it is the right thing to do?

Not sure what your point is here. I assume you are trying to say that Christians live a certain way because they are afraid of the consequences.
Of course, if this is true, then this is just self preservation, and wouldn't the easiest thing be to adopt some form of universalism?
As intelligent, moral beings, we OUGHT to be concerned with getting it right. We also OUGHT to be concerned with getting it wrong. If not, who cares. Drive on the wrong side of the road at 90mph.
Who cares what you think, since after all, it's just your genetic programming?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Again, all from my perspective. How could I possible say anything otherwise? What is so hard about that concept?

Here's what I find hard to accept about that...

Being born a certain way doesn't mean that such impulses can't be meditated with treatment. I know there have been attempts to cure homosexuality. I don't believe there were very successful.

The pedophilia treatment basically destroyed the sexual urge of the pedophile. It is not surprising that such treatment tends to have to be forced (court order) to work.

You are in favor of forced chemical castration, based merely on your relative perspective on a subject. You are living in a very self-contradictory way. And to be quite frank, depending on the subject you decide to enforce, without an objective moral standard to constrain your relatively enforced amoral opinions, there is a great chance that you become a monster.

 

[Roustabout]

How does that have anything to do with "objective truth"? I will have a discussion ("argue") with anyone willing to talk about a wide range of subjects including morality. They attempt to persuade me; I do the same. Two people expressing their views, pointing out each other fallacies, mistakes, or presenting food for thought is not objective truth or lessen the subjectiveness of the other's opinion.

What someone "should" do or "ought" to do is still relative to my viewpoint via my experiences (including conversing with others) and rational faculty.

Can you give me an example where someone should torture children for their own pleasure? If it's all relative then you can either cite an example or at least allow that even though you haven't thought of an example, one must surely exist. Well, if you're willing to follow your reasoning through to its ultimate end.

The error you make is in assuming that one's subjective opinion negates objective morality. You are speaking of preference. Such as vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. Yes, that is subjective. Better, in this case is one's subjective opinion. It would be ludicrous to say vanilla is actuall BETTER than chocolate. Even if 99% of people preferred vanilla, it still wouldn't actually be obejctively true.

It's quite a bit different to say that subjective preference negates objective moral standards. If someone says they prefer torturing children for fun, are you arguing that ultimately this is no different than someone's flavor preference for ice-cream??

If you apply this to Chattel slavery then you have a very interesting conundrum, which would be that it really wasn't wrong to kidnap, torture, and sell humans for financial gain. Instead, it was simply the preference of that culture. And so, you also cannot say that abolishing this system is BETTER than allowing it to continue. Why? Because we've already established that if morality is subjective then BETTER only speaks to personal or societal preference and not that there is actually some objectively right way to treat humans.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Can you give me an example where someone should torture children for their own pleasure? If it's all relative then you can either cite an example or at least allow that even though you haven't thought of an example, one must surely exist. Well, if you're willing to follow your reasoning through to its ultimate end.

The error you make is in assuming that one's subjective opinion negates objective morality. You are speaking of preference. Such as vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. Yes, that is subjective. Better, in this case is one's subjective opinion. It would be ludicrous to say vanilla is actuall BETTER than chocolate. Even if 99% of people preferred vanilla, it still wouldn't actually be obejctively true.

It's quite a bit different to say that subjective preference negates objective moral standards. If someone says they prefer torturing children for fun, are you arguing that ultimately this is no different than someone's flavor preference for ice-cream.

If you apply this to Chattel slavery then you have a very interesting conundrum, which would be that it really wasn't wrong to kidnap, torture, and sell humans for financial gain. Instead, it was simply the preference of that culture. And so, you also cannot say that abolishing this system is BETTER than allowing it to continue. Why? Because we've already established that if morality is subjective then BETTER only speaks to personal or societal preference and not that there is actually some objectively right way to treat humans.

In my example above-- in the video, this is exactly what Dawkins did. He proclaimed a subjective morality, then in the same breath listed the moral progress we've made since the use of objective morality that created slavery, gender inequality, animal mistreatment... He mistakenly said that the OT morality didn't allow progress here, and we have seen moral progress.

We have done away with objective morality, and morality has progressed to become better.

Quite the snazzy philosopher, that Dawkins...

 

[Roustabout]

What someone "should" do or "ought" to do is still relative to my viewpoint via my experiences (including conversing with others) and rational faculty.

So, are you saying that this statement is true in all places and all times?

 

[SergeantVol]

Acceptance or rejection of your particular moral quandary is genetic. Science has shown it to be that way. It's not morals, it's how we are made.

Morals are unique to intelligence life and part of one's conscience. So you are telling me my views on right and wrong are part of my genetics? Is this like alcoholism and suicidal tendancies are genetic too? I am supposed to be predisposed to both but find both to be revolting.

 

[FLVOL_79]

I'm still waiting for someone to disprove Santa Claus.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So, are you saying that this statement is true in all places and all times?

That's a hard question for him to answer. He seems conflicted about it. He claims, as absolute truth, that no one can know absolute truth. Then he corrects someone that their statement may be more true than they expected.

First, knowledge of absolute truth by humans is impossible.

Second, everyone else, all pursuits of "truth", are just mere fallible human theories (given time and space) to get closer to absolute truth.

Third, all theories are not equal. All theories are incomplete. Incomplete theories that do not explain absolute truth (which is impossible) do not necessarily invalid the theory.

All I know is the information which comes through my senses. My senses are fallible, therefore, I cannot possibly ever hope to have knowledge of absolute truth outside of myself.

Very simple.

It really is a mishmash of contradiction. Even if he answers your question, you can't trust that it's the truth.

There could be more truth there than you intended.

But he'll let you know what's true.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I'm still waiting for someone to disprove Santa Claus.

So far, the 4 non-believers in this thread have shown a total of Zero evidence in anything they are trying to refute. All they have is disrespect mockery & name calling.....no substance to hold water for their side. Pitiful to be a non-believer for only what they see & smell.

 

[Obsessed]

So far, the 4 non-believers in this thread have shown a total of Zero evidence in anything they are trying to refute. All they have is disrespect mockery & name calling.....no substance to hold water for their side. Pitiful to be a non-believer for only what they see & smell.

What I want to know is what do they think happens to their soul when their body dies?

 

[Vol8188]

After reading what's been stated since I was on here last I have determined the following:

All morality comes from the one true god, the great I am

Therefore if he were to tell you to rape kids, fly planes through buildings, or blow up abortion clinics....

All of those actions would be morally correct by the standards laid out by our Christian counterparts, because only god can determine morality.

 

[Vol8188]

What I want to know is what do they think happens to their soul when their body dies?

Nothing. Similiar to what your god taught during the Old Testament. But he didn't get that right the first time either.

 

[FLVOL_79]

So far, the 4 non-believers in this thread have shown a total of Zero evidence in anything they are trying to refute. All they have is disrespect mockery & name calling.....no substance to hold water for their side. Pitiful to be a non-believer for only what they see & smell.

But there is no evidence to support what believers say outside of hearsay and unquestioning obedience.

 

[Orange_Crush]

After reading what's been stated since I was on here last I have determined the following:

All morality comes from the one true god, the great I am

Therefore if he were to tell you to rape kids, fly planes through buildings, or blow up abortion clinics....

All of those actions would be morally correct by the standards laid out by our Christian counterparts, because only god can determine morality.

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer questions and instead use illogical diversionary tactics. It's nothing new.

 

[Obsessed]

Nothing. Similiar to what your god taught during the Old Testament. But he didn't get that right the first time either.

Energy doesn't just disappear

Try again

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

What I want to know is what do they think happens to their soul when their body dies?

All you can do is ask someone like 8188 and even he doesn't give any real answers on any questions that's asked of him. All he & mercy do is mock & name call believers. No real solid answers to give because they have no solid answers in that atheistic book of Satan's bible.

 

[FLVOL_79]

What I want to know is what do they think happens to their soul when their body dies?

I tend to think nothing happens. A soul is, in my "guesstimation" just electrical impulses that cease to exist when the body dies. It would be cool to be wrong, I'd love to haunt some people or spy on chicks in the shower as a ghost.

 

[Orange_Crush]

All you can do is ask someone like 8188 and even he doesn't give any real answers on any questions that's asked of him. All he & mercy do is mock & name call believers. No real solid answers to give because they have no solid answers in that atheistic book of Satan's bible.

It's actually a replay of the illogical spasms they read in 'The God Delusion".

 

[Vol8188]

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer questions and instead use illogical diversionary tactics. It's nothing new.

Didn't our debate start with you avoiding my question?