Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#902
#902
MercyPercy said:
What year of high-school did you drop out in? I'm curious.
Click to expand...

What was flawed about that statement? Does he not believe that all morality comes from god?

And if so, we've already established that he sees no issue with god killing babies. So if his god were to say that "raping babies is you get to heaven", since in his view only god can determine morality. Therefore whatever god decides is alright by him.
 
#903
#903
Orange_Crush said:
None of that logically comes from my worldview or beliefs, so it's a whimpering red herring since I am not the one claiming God is immoral. Inventing more supposed crimes without a code of laws to judge against would only compound your problem.

We need to know what sets of laws you are using to judge Him by, and the sovereignty of that code. So far you have made the case for a relativistic group of opinions that have evolved through blind chance. Doesn't sound like much to present in our little court. You need to keep working. Got anything else?
Click to expand...

I'm using my views to judge him by. That is my "objectivity". It's no more relative than Christian Morals are relative to Islamic Morals.
 
#904
#904
Vol8188 said:
What was flawed about that statement? Does he not believe that all morality comes from god?

And if so, we've already established that he sees no issue with god killing babies. So if his god were to say that "raping babies is you get to heaven", since in his view only god can determine morality. Therefore whatever god decides is alright by him.
Click to expand...

again I say......:loco: loco as a lizard.
 
#905
#905
rjd970 said:
I can say my opinion is baby killing is wrong, I'm just using myself as the "objective" authority, no?
Click to expand...

You could sure say that, but you'd be playing fast and loose with the contextual use of "objective".

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Click to expand...

You'd be saying: "My personal feeling and opinion is not based on personal feeling or opinion. Oh, and my opinion is a transcendent fact."

Or more literal to the context:

being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject
Click to expand...

You would be saying that you exist as the object of morality and are not the thinking subject. In other words, you would be the transcendent source of morality. You are the goal. You are the source that the thinkers are trying to describe. You would be saying that you are not the thinking subject, but the goal of thinkers.

All based on your opinion, of course.

existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Click to expand...

You would be saying, "I am using myself as the authority that "exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

In other words, you would be putting yourself as the transcendent goal and idea. You would not just be accepting the existence of God, you would be claiming to be Him.

(Note: The last definition helps distinguish between your appeal to opinion. I am appealing to a transcendent, not the opinion.)
 
Last edited:
#906
#906
rjd970 said:
I'm using my views to judge him by. That is my "objectivity". It's no more relative than Christian Morals are relative to Islamic Morals.
Click to expand...

You listed three interpretations while ignoring the transcendent.


Again.
 
#908
#908
Orange_Crush said:
You listed three interpretations while ignoring the transcendent.


Again.
Click to expand...

Then what is the point of needing your definition of "objective" in order to make moral decisions on right and wrong? All are relative interpretations trying to describe the same thing. Throw Civil/Criminal law in there as well.
 
#909
#909
rjd970 said:
Then what is the point of needing your definition of "objective" in order to make moral decisions on right and wrong? All are relative interpretations trying to describe the same thing. Throw Civil/Criminal law in there as well.
Click to expand...

His morality is backed by God!
 
#910
#910
Orange_Crush said:
You could sure say that, but you'd be playing fast and loose with the contextual use of "objective".



You'd be saying: "My personal feeling and opinion is not based on personal feeling or opinion. Oh, and my opinion is a transcendent fact."

Or more literal to the context:



You would be saying that you exist as the object of morality and are not the thinking subject. In other words, you would be the transcendent source of morality. You are the goal. You are the source that the thinkers are trying to describe. You would be saying that you are not the thinking subject, but the goal of thinkers.

All based on your opinion, of course.



You would be saying, "I am using myself as the authority that "exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

In other words, you would be putting yourself as the transcendent goal and idea. You would not just be accepting the existence of God, you would be claiming to be Him.

(Note: The last definition helps distinguish between your appeal to opinion. I am appealing to a transcendent, not the opinion.)
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here and not intermingle "transcendent" with "objective". I'm not claiming to be the transcendent, I'm saying I'm acting as one of many of your "objective" interpretations of such. Unless I believe in an omnipotent being then my interpretation is just as reasonable.

This is why I think your requirement of an "objective" moral code to argue from is wrong. If there is a transcendent morality that exists, then any interpretation of such will have opinion built into it and a lot of other baggage needs to be addressed beforehand.

But simply saying one cannot say murder is wrong without an "objective" moral code to point to is silly. That "objective" is going to be opinion based to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#911
#911
rjd970 said:
Then what is the point of needing your definition of "objective" in order to make moral decisions on right and wrong? All are relative interpretations trying to describe the same thing. Throw Civil/Criminal law in there as well.
Click to expand...

What was the use of having gravity before Newton? Newton observed the existence of gravity and studied it, coming to a greater understanding. Einstein continued that. Many others have continued since.



But it all started with an apple falling (supposedly); very little was known about it, but it was a starting point. It was the spark of knowledge that began the quest-- that pointed to something beautiful and wonderful.

It is the same with the moral law. We can see an aspect of it. The very spark of it, the apple falling, is just the fact that we even have a sense of right and wrong! A mechanized, descriptive universe contains even the concept of "ought"! Think of that!

Then consider that morality across the world is, at its core, very similar! We have a conscience, and under inspection its is generally similar.

What does this point to? If you allow yourself to objectively look at it, what has this pointed to for great thinkers throughout the millennia? A law denotes a lawgiver. Something beyond the mechanize universe that planted something within humanity that the Universe is ill-prepared to create.

This, we study and find what we can of Him. We develop our descriptions of the law just as Newton and Einstein used intellect, observation and mathematics to study gravity.

None of us will ever have a perfect view of it, until eternity perhaps. But we have a transcendent to appeal to and a Transcendent to pursue.

(Well, I guess it actually all started with generations of men whose feet remained on the ground before they ever thought much of "why". For the moral law, it all began with an objective law, written in general on hearts as a conscience to keep our feet on the ground. But it's only a start. We watch for the apple to fall. We think. We study. We pursue the transcendent.)

:hi:
 
#912
#912
rjd970 said:
Let's be clear here and not intermingle "transcendent" with "objective". I'm not claiming to be the transcendent, I'm saying I'm acting as one of many of your "objective" interpretations of such. Unless I believe in an omnipotent being then my interpretation is just as reasonable.

This is why I think your requirement of an "objective" moral code to argue from is wrong. If there is a transcendent morality that exists, then any interpretation of such will have opinion built into it and a lot of other baggage needs to be addressed beforehand.

But simply saying one cannot say murder is wrong without an "objective" moral code to point to is silly. That "objective" is going to be opinion based to begin with.
Click to expand...

It is in no way silly. You are trying to say that opinion is objective. That is what is silly. My point has actually been how silly that is. You admitted that it is silly several times over. You began by saying there is no standard. Then that any standard is an opinion. Now, appearing to be uncomfortable with that, you have made your opinion and objective standard.

Let's not play word games. You can not say that baby-rape is wrong. You can just say that, in your opinion which is no better than anyone else's, you don't like it.
 
#913
#913
How would OC explain someone who has never experienced the teachings of the bible yet still displays good morality? Where does he smuggle it from, his ass? :eek:lol:
 
#915
#915
Orange_Crush said:
It is in no way silly. You are trying to say that opinion is objective. That is what is silly. My point has actually been how silly that is. You admitted that it is silly several times over. You began by saying there is no standard. Then that any standard is an opinion. Now, appearing to be uncomfortable with that, you have made your opinion and objective standard.

Let's not play word games. You can not say that baby-rape is wrong. You can just say that, in your opinion which is no better than anyone else's, you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%! That is what I am trying to drive home.

I'm saying Christianity, Islam, Criminal Law, and personal opinion all fall from the same tree. They are simply interpretations of the transcendent. Its the whole reason I keep quoting your use of the word "objective".

I can say baby rape is wrong in my opinion. I can say baby rape is wrong in the opinion of Criminal Law. I can say it is wrong in Christianity's opinion. I don't see one claim as any more "objective" than the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#916
#916
BigOrangeTrain said:
Dude seriously make up your mind. Is there a God who killed David's unborn child or is there no God?
Click to expand...

I just now saw your question. I've never claimed to believe in your God. My question was simply if OCs god is real and morally perfect, then why did he order Joshua to slaughter children, and why did he kill David's unborn son as a punishment for David's sins.

Even if your god were real, his poor decision making is not anything I could see myself being on board with. How do you rationalize following such a monster?
 
#917
#917
Orange_Crush said:
What was the use of having gravity before Newton? Newton observed the existence of gravity and studied it, coming to a greater understanding. Einstein continued that. Many others have continued since.
Click to expand...

If we must use this analogy, then we can say Newton/Einstein offered interpretations of it. Arguing the merits of their interpretations is one thing. It is a whole other to say one cannot make any claims about it simply because they don't subscribe to any one of those interpretations, which is what you seem to be doing.
 
#918
#918
MercyPercy said:
How would OC explain someone who has never experienced the teachings of the bible yet still displays good morality? Where does he smuggle it from, his ass? :eek:lol:
Click to expand...

I asked the same question how the Israelites made it all the way to Mt. Sinai without knowing murder was wrong. OCs answer is certain morals are imparted to us by God. He can probably explain it better.
 
#919
#919
MercyPercy said:
How would OC explain someone who has never experienced the teachings of the bible yet still displays good morality? Where does he smuggle it from, his ass? :eek:lol:
Click to expand...

I quoted Romans 2, which speaks to this. I've stated several times that part of the moral law is imprinted on every heart as a conscience. As a matter of fact, I stated that on this very page. I invite you to read the threads you actually post in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#920
#920
rjd970 said:
I asked the same question how the Israelites made it all the way to Mt. Sinai without knowing murder was wrong. OCs answer is certain morals are imparted to us by God. He can probably explain it better.
Click to expand...

Thank you sir. That was very gracious of you :hi:

Romans 2 speaks to this in more detail.
 
#921
#921
rjd970 said:
If we must use this analogy, then we can say Newton/Einstein offered interpretations of it. Arguing the merits of their interpretations is one thing. It is a whole other to say one cannot make any claims about it simply because they don't subscribe to any one of those interpretations, which is what you seem to be doing.
Click to expand...

No sir. In my analogy, it would be people who deny the fact of gravity, which Newton and Einstein were seeking to describe. Gravity is transcendent. It is a force. There are many descriptions of it, but it is not dependent on the descriptions.

I admit I am not always the best person to describe the concepts and fail in my endeavors. Others are far better than I, so I beg your grace and patience.

:good!:
 
#922
#922
rjd970 said:
If we must use this analogy, then we can say Newton/Einstein offered interpretations of it. Arguing the merits of their interpretations is one thing. It is a whole other to say one cannot make any claims about it simply because they don't subscribe to any one of those interpretations, which is what you seem to be doing.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I guess this is an important clarification in case it has not come through clear enough.

I am not saying that you are an immoral person because of your atheism. Far from it! Romans 2 says that everyone has a copy of the objective standard. I am just saying that it is inconsistent to be an atheist and then claim an objective morality, or deny an objective morality while living as though there is one. That's been my point. The self-contradiction. It's like a person that wants to keep their feet on the ground while denying gravity. Or whatever... I'm not sure if my analogy is breaking down. It's late. It's been a hard day. Give me a break :)
 
#923
#923
Orange_Crush said:
No sir. In my analogy, it would be people who deny the fact of gravity, which Newton and Einstein were seeking to describe. Gravity is transcendent. It is a force. There are many descriptions of it, but it is not dependent on the descriptions.

I admit I am not always the best person to describe the concepts and fail in my endeavors. Others are far better than I, so I beg your grace and patience.

:good!:
Click to expand...

I'm saying nobody is denying that morality exists. The separate interpretations of such are all opinion to begin with is my point.

Morality exists like gravity does. What gravity or morality actually is can be described by any number of opinions using numerous methods to reach those conclusions. Labeling certain opinions "objective", and the others not so they cannot make statements about it is disingenuous. Argue the merits of the opinions, not state some are not opinions to begin with.

(and I still don't like the analogy...Newton established Laws of gravity that can be observed, calculated, and predicted. That would fit the Objective descriptor. Einstein's theory of gravitation is different.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#924
#924
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, and I guess this is an important clarification in case it has not come through clear enough.

I am not saying that you are an immoral person because of your atheism. Far from it! Romans 2 says that everyone has a copy of the objective standard. I am just saying that it is inconsistent to be an atheist and then claim an objective morality, or deny an objective morality while living as though there is one. That's been my point. The self-contradiction. It's like a person that wants to keep their feet on the ground while denying gravity. Or whatever... I'm not sure if my analogy is breaking down. It's late. It's been a hard day. Give me a break :)
Click to expand...

I'm saying there very well could be a transcendent morality. Any "objective morality" you claim as a necessity to explain it is just an interpretation of it, same as personal experience or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top