Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#627
#627
Vol8188 said:
I'm pretty sure we started with me talking about how illogical or morally wrong one of your gods stances were. Which you then redirected with a question of your own about what determines morality. Although I could be thinking of someone else.
Click to expand...

And for the record, when someone espouses a relative morality, asking how you can consider him "morally wrong" is the obvious answer to that question. It's not only a valid answer-- it's the obvious one. We could cut through a lot of the semantics just by asking you to support your belief statement that the question is founded on.

This thread would have been a lot shorter if you had been able to do that, and not retreated to diversionary tactics.
 
#633
#633
Vol8188 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Uh wrong. And not only wrong, but ridiculous. You realize you are making a LOGICAL argument?
Premise: All morality comes from God.
Conclusiong: Therefore.........
It's a fallacious argument, (non sequitur) because the conclusion does not follow. I thought you said you didn't want a philospohical discussion?
What you are addressing (poorly mind you) is divine command theory, which I don't subscribe to. So, again, you are attacking a strawman, and not doing a very good job of it, BTW.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#635
#635
Lol @ the philosophiles not proving their argument by attempting to attack someone elses argument as not conforming to the laws the blindly accept. Good ol' philosophy, accomplishing nothing tangible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#636
#636
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Why can't you give rock solid answers in a discussion or a debate that are asked of you? All you come up w/is asking the same old questions you've already asked or make a mockery of what the believers believe. Gets old, man.
Click to expand...

I said, what evidence would you like?
 
#637
#637
FLVOL_79 said:
Yes. They mow my yard.


Oh from Space? Like sodomizing country folk and stuff? Nope. Possibility of life in space though? Sure.
Click to expand...

Empirical evidence??
Or is this just your baseless philosophical reasoning with nothing tangible?
 
#641
#641
With how massive the universe is, you would have to expect there is more life out there than just us.


That is, unless you believe a cool magic dude only made us because we are super special and his favorite pets ever.
 
#642
#642
MercyPercy said:
With how massive the universe is, you would have to expect there is more life out there than just us.


That is, unless you believe a cool magic dude only made us because we are super special and his favorite pets ever.
Click to expand...

That cool magic dude is responsible for all life here there and everywhere.

Rest of your statement is condescending. If we were pets we wouldn't have free will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#647
#647
Orange_Crush said:
That is just a few of my posts on the subject. I also used logical analogs, such as the laws given in the US and UK, etc... I answered your objections and was very patient in dialog with you.

Now, please stop your evasion and diversionary tactics. Please answer my questions and objections.
Click to expand...

Lmfao so you asking why is it "bad" to kill someone was not a diversionary or evasive tactic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#648
#648
Vol8188 said:
Lmfao so you asking why is it "bad" to kill someone was not a diversionary or evasive tactic?
Click to expand...

Not at all. It is an important philosophical question that you need to reconcile. If morality is relative, how can you accuse God of being objectively wrong? You need to deal with the apparent contradiction before we can really continue in the conversation.

If I said, "You are so stupid, you can't even draw a square circle", then we would need to deal with the logical inconsistency of a square circle before the conversation continued. That's pretty much what you did.

If there is no objective morality, then you cannot claim that God is objectively immoral. If you are not claiming that God is objectively immoral, then there is nothing for me to speak to. You just have a different preference than He does.

But, as I showed, I did indeed graciously bypass your "square circle" dilemma momentarily and I actually spoke to specifics about God's laws. But now, having graciously done so, I must ask that you return to the "square circle" dilemma and resolve it.
 
#649
#649
Orange_Crush said:
Not at all. It is an important philosophical question that you need to reconcile. If morality is relative, how can you accuse God of being objectively wrong? You need to deal with the apparent contradiction before we can really continue in the conversation.

If I said, "You are so stupid, you can't even draw a square circle", then we would need to deal with the logical inconsistency of a square circle before the conversation continued. That's pretty much what you did.

If there is no objective morality, then you cannot claim that God is objectively immoral. If you are not claiming that God is objectively immoral, then there is nothing for me to speak to. You just have a different preference than He does.

But, as I showed, I did indeed graciously bypass your "square circle" dilemma momentarily and I actually spoke to specifics about God's laws. But now, having graciously done so, I must ask that you return to the "square circle" dilemma and resolve it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you can't agree on the ontogical question, then why try and tackle the epistemology?

Also, 8188, can you clarify the specific question that you say is being avoided? Thanks.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top