Let's Talk About Sin

#952
#952
PKT_VOL said:
Honestly, I was flabbergasted when I read it; that was my facial expression. Had to reread it a couple times to make sure I was reading it correctly.



Watched the video and read the link you posted to another poster. Both were disappointing.
Click to expand...
Milk toast.
Pretty much what I expected.
 
#954
#954
Roustabout said:
Why would you say that. It was a sincere question.
Click to expand...

I've said all along, numerous times, repeatedly, and made myself very clear.

I'm open to the possibility of there being an objective transcendent morality. I fundamentally disagree with calling any worldview interpretation of it "objective". And if you have a problem with the word "written" change it in all my other posts to "reference". It makes little difference to me. My position doesn't change either way.
 
#955
#955
rjd970 said:
That makes zero sense. And I am honestly trying to understand this. Simply referencing what you believe to be an moral truth, doesn't mean that reference itself is objective.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be snarky here, but your statement does illustrate the frustration of seperating ontolgical and epistemological questions when dealing with a postmodern way of thinking.

Basically you are saying that everything morally is opinion. But in doing so, you are implying that this (that everything is just opinon) is objectively true (true in all times and places regardless of......., opinion). And of course to state such is internally inconsistent and self-defeating. So, why should we expect you to understand the position on OM, when you refuse to abandon an untenable starting point?

Look at the two bolded sections. How are you not using a different standard arguing each case? You have a preference that Christianity represents an objective truth. That is separate from what the actual objective truth is. If Christianity is objective truth, it would be universal. 1+1=2 is universally objective truth. It's true no matter what. Are you saying your position of the objective truth of Christianity is the same?
Click to expand...

The claims of Christianity (not Christians) are objective truth claims.


Unless you agree with my edit (which you don't), we are at an impasse of opinions. Simply calling a reference an "objective fact" doesn't mean that reference is indeed a fact.
Click to expand...
Really, is that an objective fact?
 
#956
#956
PKT_VOL said:
Amazing stuff given the sword of skepticism you raise with other arguments that are not your own.
Click to expand...

I've explained this every time you've brought it up. You apparently can't recognize when someone is judging for internal consistency. Can I just cut and paste this every time you miss that point in the future?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#957
#957
Roustabout said:
Milk toast.
Pretty much what I expected.
Click to expand...

I can't type everything out at the moment. If you have a specific (narrow) question, I'll reply.

Roustabout said:
Not trying to be snarky here, but your statement does illustrate the frustration of seperating ontolgical and epistemological questions when dealing with a postmodern way of thinking.

Basically you are saying that everything morally is opinion. But in doing so, you are implying that this (that everything is just opinon) is objectively true (true in all times and places regardless of......., opinion). And of course to state such is internally inconsistent and self-defeating. So, why should we expect you to understand the position on OM, when you refuse to abandon an untenable starting point?
Click to expand...

No, it would still be from his subjective point of view. He is working off the assumption that you, like him, cannot transcend yourself. He cannot speak objectively, because he has no way of transcending himself to test whether the assumption is true or not. However, if the assumption is true, then his assertion would hold true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#959
#959
PKT_VOL said:
Amazing stuff given the sword of skepticism you raise with other arguments that are not your own.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
A-f'n-men.

The dual standard exhibited here, and not realizing it, is crazy. Charging everyone else will smuggling ideas from believers is irony to the nth degree.
Click to expand...

It is illustrative that neither of you understood my distinctions in the use of the term 'opinion'. One is a preference that does not make a truth claim-- the other makes a truth claim. That's why I said 'opinion (as you have used it)'.

But alas, I am dealing with one poster that expressed the objective truth that objective truth can't be expressed or known, and another that can't conceive of the fact that there is a difference between truth claims and ice cream preferences.

Dialog becomes a tedious thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#964
#964
MercyPercy said:
Taking credit for all the good stuff but none of the bad?


Gawdammit I figured it out. God is Obama.
Click to expand...

Atheists blame God for all bad things and give him no credit for all the great things. You cannot blame God for anything without believing he exists. Atheism=logical failure.
 
#965
#965
IBlvNTmWrk said:
The fact thaget peer ou would consider this a valid study and quote it as reference is ludicrous.



First off, lets take all "religions" and throw them into the same basket. You may want to do some research on the most dangerous countries in the world and check what "religion" is being practiced. I'll give you a hint... it is not part of Christianity.



And as to the above, I can't imagine there might be any other (i.e. more relevant) factors as to the difference in murder rates other than religion. (yes... sarcasm). This would almost be the same as suggesting that the "least religious" states receive more snowfall than the "highly religious" states, therefore religion must have an impact on the weather.
Click to expand...

You should do some research, refute the findings, get peer reviewed and then come on back.. Until then your whimsical analysis of the study is nothing more than that of what some may call a 'hater'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#966
#966
Orange_Crush said:
It is illustrative that neither of you understood my distinctions in the use of the term 'opinion'. One is a preference that does not make a truth claim-- the other makes a truth claim. That's why I said 'opinion (as you have used it)'.

But alas, I am dealing with one poster that expressed the objective truth that objective truth can't be expressed or known, and another that can't conceive of the fact that there is a difference between truth claims and ice cream preferences.

Dialog becomes a tedious thing.
Click to expand...

Wow. That is beyond disingenuous. Kudos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#967
#967
BigOrangeTrain said:
Atheists blame God for all bad things and give him no credit for all the great things. You cannot blame God for anything without believing he exists. Atheism=logical failure.
Click to expand...
Your understanding of what an atheist is and what they "believe" is so profoundly wrong there are not adequate words to describe it.

Atheists don't blame gods for anything. We reject the very premis that there are gods. How can you argue a position against atheists when you haven't grasped the most fundamental understanding of our position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#970
#970
BigOrangeTrain said:
Atheists blame God for all bad things and give him no credit for all the great things. You cannot blame God for anything without believing he exists. Atheism=logical failure.
Click to expand...

What in the **** crawled up your butt? Did you get swirlied by a gang of atheists when you were a child?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#972
#972
Orange_Crush said:
You still haven't figured out he was equivocating the definition of 'opinion'?

Kudos to you, I guess. :hi:
Click to expand...

I seriously don't think you understand the difference between opinion (subjective) vs truely objective and the limits of humans with respect to that difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#973
#973
Orange_Crush said:
It is illustrative that neither of you understood my distinctions in the use of the term 'opinion'. One is a preference that does not make a truth claim-- the other makes a truth claim. That's why I said 'opinion (as you have used it)'.

But alas, I am dealing with one poster that expressed the objective truth that objective truth can't be expressed or known, and another that can't conceive of the fact that there is a difference between truth claims and ice cream preferences.

Dialog becomes a tedious thing.
Click to expand...

A truth claim based on what?! Seriously.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#974
#974
PKT_VOL said:
I seriously don't think you understand the difference between opinion (subjective) vs truely objective and the limits of humans with respect to that difference.
Click to expand...

I have facepalmed so many times in this thread. It's almost useless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#975
#975
BigOrangeTrain said:
Atheists blame God for all bad things and give him no credit for all the great things. You cannot blame God for anything without believing he exists. Atheism=logical failure.
Click to expand...

This has got to be a joke.

I feel like everybody is just trolling at this point....lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top