1712 replies to this topic

[Dakman]

Christians = sinners

 

Why bother 

[shadowhawk]

Actually all have sinned and came short of the glory of God.  As an Atheist, how and by what authority do you judge others?  Do you judge non Christian sinners as well?

[Vardarac]

Actually all have sinned and came short of the glory of God.  As an Atheist, how and by what authority do you judge others?  Do you judge non Christian sinners as well?

 

Judges have to work within their frame of reference. If you are a part of society, you are expected to play by what is allowed within its frame of reference; if you don't fit into that frame, you will be judged accordingly. Is that framework objectively valid? Probably not; it's secured only with force. But what does any of that matter if the whole of society more or less agrees to it, and the moral framework is not self-contradictory? What is the purpose of morality but to strive for the best overall outcome for those involved?

[shadowhawk]

So do you agree with Dakman?  Again given Atheism, I agree with you.  If you were in a society that molested children, given Atheism it would be quite alright.  There have been societies like this.  However given Christianity with its objective moral values they are condemned.

[Vardarac]

So do you agree with Dakman?  Again given Atheism, I agree with you.  If you were in a society that molested children, given Atheism it would be quite alright.  There have been societies like this.  However given Christianity with its objective moral values they are condemned.

 

The society I live in condemns it. I condemn it.

[shadowhawk]

If it didn't you wouldn't!!!  So, given Atheism this is consistent.  You would be a good Nazi.  And if this culture changed you would molest children.  We already abort them, cut them up and sell their body parts.  Dakman would be right over there with three year old kids, still condemning Christians based on the changed culture.  I would be condemning him based on Objective Moral Values.

[The Brain]

Yet you wouldn't deny that you'd rape a baby if your entry to heaven relied upon that......

Time and again you would not commit an answer

[Vardarac]

If it didn't you wouldn't!!!  So, given Atheism this is consistent.  You would be a good Nazi.  And if this culture changed you would molest children.  We already abort them, cut them up and sell their body parts.  Dakman would be right over there with three year old kids, still condemning Christians based on the changed culture.  I would be condemning him based on Objective Moral Values.

 

Would you condemn it? Wouldn't I?

 

Are you sure?

 

Are you not also condemning it based on your empathy, on the ability to understand what it's like to undergo an experience? On a sense of what it means to be human, shaped to beat the odds in a crucible of cruelty, and to treat others like humans with that same experience?

 

If not, I ask you again, are you a sociopath?

If you are, why not come out and say it?

Edited by Vardarac, 13 August 2015 - 05:28 AM.

[sthira]

^^ yes, and with blunted capacities to feel the pain in others must you then say only God feels this pain? Ultimately it's our own human pain and suffering that established "objective morality" -- and if you feel little of that in others, I see the need to pass it up to a higher, mysterious source that maybe can feel it. Like a parent or a God on high and invisible -- left alone in a crib, you stayed crying and hurt until the hurt went numb, abandoned in shock, the brain in your childhood was still growing, decades later you're still working out the basic disability to feel the pain in others because no was there to feel yours ... And so God naturally looms high and good for you. You can't blame God -- so you blame yourself, and then blame everyone else, too -- we're all sinners, all of us are bad, you say, and Christ's reception is the only way up and out of it...

Edited by sthira, 13 August 2015 - 01:10 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Yet you wouldn't deny that you'd rape a baby if your entry to heaven relied upon that......

Time and again you would not commit an answer

I don't like to call people names but you are an idiot with a strange fixation on molestation issues.  HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU REPEATED THE SAME BASELESS CHARGES??? 
 

[shadowhawk]

 

If it didn't you wouldn't!!!  So, given Atheism this is consistent.  You would be a good Nazi.  And if this culture changed you would molest children.  We already abort them, cut them up and sell their body parts.  Dakman would be right over there with three year old kids, still condemning Christians based on the changed culture.  I would be condemning him based on Objective Moral Values.

 

Would you condemn it? Wouldn't I?

 

Are you sure?

 

Are you not also condemning it based on your empathy, on the ability to understand what it's like to undergo an experience? On a sense of what it means to be human, shaped to beat the odds in a crucible of cruelty, and to treat others like humans with that same experience?

 

If not, I ask you again, are you a sociopath?

If you are, why not come out and say it?

 

 

Tell me how one persons empathy differs from another?  I condemn it based upon objective moral values.  It is wrong no matter whether you have empathy or not.  Given Atheism what is cruel?

 

[shadowhawk]

^^ yes, and with blunted capacities to feel the pain in others must you then say only God feels this pain? Ultimately it's our own human pain and suffering that established "objective morality" -- and if you feel little of that in others, I see the need to pass it up to a higher, mysterious source that maybe can feel it. Like a parent or a God on high and invisible -- left alone in a crib, you stayed crying and hurt until the hurt went numb, abandoned in shock, the brain in your childhood was still growing, decades later you're still working out the basic disability to feel the pain in others because no was there to feel yours ... And so God naturally looms high and good for you. You can't blame God -- so you blame yourself, and then blame everyone else, too -- we're all sinners, all of us are bad, you say, and Christ's reception is the only way up and out of it...

I am not against Empathy.  However whether you can feel pain or not does not determine whether something is right or wrong.

[Vardarac]

You condemn it based on objective moral values that you have made the moral decision to accept as valid and authoritative. Why did you make that decision?

[shadowhawk]

If it is based upon each person doing what is right in their own eyes than there is no morality.  Usually people hijack their ethics from religions or some other feel good source without thinking about it. At any rate it is subjective and could be anything.

[The Brain]

Again the question put to you Shadowdork is this, if your god for whatever reason required you to rape a baby to gain salvation and entrance to heaven would you rape the baby ?


It's not a hard question

[Vardarac]

But whether any morality is objectively valid really makes no difference to the present situation. Even in your paradigm, the individual must choose whether or not they accept or reject a given set of values.

 

How do they do that? Now, maybe you're right: I personally would probably be a pretty unempathetic, messed-up (by my current standards) individual if I were taught differently or not at all, but the fact remains that many people do have a sense of empathy they would employ - and would have to, for our societies and laws to even exist. The empathetic, the socialized, the civilized exist within their own frame, and it is within that frame they make moral judgments of actions, themselves, and others. It doesn't mean we have to live in a world of indifferent people in a constant free-for-all.

Edited by Vardarac, 13 August 2015 - 09:32 PM.

[Dakman]

If it is based upon each person doing what is right in their own eyes than there is no morality.  Usually people hijack their ethics from religions or some other feel good source without thinking about it. At any rate it is subjective and could be anything.

 

 

Horseshit…you think morals and ethics weren't around before religion ?

 

It's religion that hijacks and steals from humanity to appear to have some code by which to live and bolster the fairy tale the bible sets out.

[shadowhawk]

Good example for the Atheist He cannot choose anything outside Himself.  There is nothing to choose and hence he does not have free will.  His is a closed system and morality must be subjective only.  for a theist the choice can be outside ones self and objective.  There is more than just the physica but the supernatural as well.  We choose because there is something beside ourselves to choose..

[shadowhawk]

 

If it is based upon each person doing what is right in their own eyes than there is no morality.  Usually people hijack their ethics from religions or some other feel good source without thinking about it. At any rate it is subjective and could be anything.

 

 

Horseshit…you think morals and ethics weren't around before religion ?

 

It's religion that hijacks and steals from humanity to appear to have some code by which to live and bolster the fairy tale the bible sets out.

 

Horseshit, you were not around before religion so how could you know?  It appears from the archeological records that man has had a sense of God as long as there are records.  I know that is news to you but believe it.

 

[Vardarac]

Good example for the Atheist He cannot choose anything outside Himself.  There is nothing to choose and hence he does not have free will.  His is a closed system and morality must be subjective only.  for a theist the choice can be outside ones self and objective.  There is more than just the physica but the supernatural as well.  We choose because there is something beside ourselves to choose..

What makes you think that your choice is not an inborn component of who you are?

 

Are you seriously going to tell me that your choice of Christianity is not actually something you want? If you didn't want it, you wouldn't choose it. You literally cannot do something you do not ultimately want to do.

Edited by Vardarac, 13 August 2015 - 11:25 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

Good example for the Atheist He cannot choose anything outside Himself.  There is nothing to choose and hence he does not have free will.  His is a closed system and morality must be subjective only.  for a theist the choice can be outside ones self and objective.  There is more than just the physica but the supernatural as well.  We choose because there is something beside ourselves to choose..

What makes you think that your choice is not an inborn component of who you are?

 

Are you seriously going to tell me that your choice of Christianity is not actually something you want? If you didn't want it, you wouldn't choose it. You literally cannot do something you do not want to do.

 

Yes, given your world view you have no choice and given mine I do.  I experience Choice and limited determinism,  based on the real world. My view has evidence for it and is probable..

[Vardarac]

And if my worldview is correct, then you don't have a choice either. Christian morality, then, would be an opinion that you chose because of who you are, the same as every other set of ethics ever put. The good (you know what I mean) news is that, like many other well-intentioned sets of ethics, you chose it because on some level you value constructive and empathic behaviors.

[shadowhawk]

And if my worldview is correct, then you don't have a choice either. Christian morality, then, would be an opinion that you chose because of who you are, the same as every other set of ethics ever put. The good (you know what I mean) news is that, like many other well-intentioned sets of ethics, you chose it because on some level you value constructive and empathic behaviors.

 

I can choose to follow God or not.  CS Lewis in Mere Christianity argues that we often Choose the good even when we do not "feel" like it.  For example we see people having no problem dismembering babies or causing them pain in abortions.  As I said Nazis make their choices and the world is full of examples where evil is done and empathic  behavior is the basis for it..  Without God there is no objective morality.
 

[Vardarac]

That doesn't make the Nazis any less easy to condemn from the point of view that making the innocent suffer is a horrible thing to do. Which a lot of us have.

[shadowhawk]

Given Atheism is it just the beans you ate last night?  That is just your opinion.  If you were raised in Germany you might even have run the ovens.  You know how the Jews screwed humanity up.  Perhaps you should read "Death by Government," bu Runnel.

[shadowhawk]

Seven Things You Can’t Do as a Moral Relativist - All Morality is Subjective.
by Greg Koukl

So you’ve decided to become a moral relativist. Good for you! What could be better than doing whatever feels right? What could be worse than letting someone tell you what you should and shouldn’t do? Plus, it’s one of the easiest worldviews to adopt: Just leave everyone else alone and demand that they do the same for you, and you’ll never have to worry again about whether your actions are right or wrong. In fact, there are really only seven things that you can’t do as a moral relativist. Simply follow the rules below, and you’ll be free from absolutes forever!

Rule #1: Relativists Can’t Accuse Others of Wrong-Doing

Relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because relativism ultimately denies that there is such a thing as wrong- doing. In other words, if you believe that morality is a matter of personal definition, then you can’t ever again judge the actions of others. Relativists can’t even object on moral grounds to racism. After all, what sense can be made of the judgment “apartheid is wrong” when spoken by someone who doesn’t believe in right and wrong? What justification is there to intervene? Certainly not human rights, for there are no such things as rights. Relativism is the ultimate pro-choice position because it accepts every personal choice—even the choice to be racist.

Rule #2: Relativists Can’t Complain About the Problem of Evil

The reality of evil in the world is one of the primary objections raised against the existence of God. The argument goes that if God were absolutely powerful and ultimately good, then he would take care of evil. But since evil exists, one of three possible scenarios has to be true: God is too weak to oppose evil, God is too sinister to care about evil, or God simply doesn’t exist. Of course, to advance any one of these arguments means that you also have to believe in evil, which relativists can’t do. In fact, nothing can be called evil—not even the Holocaust—because to do so would be to affirm some sort of moral standard.

Rule #3: Relativists Can’t Place Blame or Accept Praise

The concepts of praise and blame are completely meaningless within relativism because there is no moral standard by which to judge whether something should be applauded or condemned. Without absolutes, nothing is ultimately bad, deplorable, tragic, or worthy of blame. Neither is anything ultimately good, honorable, noble, or worthy of praise. It’s all lost in a twilight zone of moral nothingness. Those claiming to be relativists are almost always inconsistent here (they want to avoid blame but readily accept praise), so be careful!

Rule #4: Relativists Can’t Claim Anything Is Unfair or Unjust

Under relativism, justice and fairness are two concepts that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. First off, the words themselves have no meaning; both suggest that people deserve equal treatment based on an external standard of what is right, and as I have already said several times, relativists can’t believe in right and wrong. Second, there is no such thing as guilt. Justice entails punishing those who are guilty, and guilt depends on blame, which, as I have also already proven, cannot exist.

Rule #5: Relativists Can’t Improve Their Morality

With relativism, moral improvement is impossible. Sure, relativists can change their personal ethics, but they can never become moral people. Moral reform implies some kind of objective rule of conduct as a standard to shoot for. But this rule is exactly what relativists deny. If there is no better way, there can be no improvement. Not only that, but there is no motivation to improve. Relativism destroys the moral impulse that makes people rise above themselves because there is no “above” to rise to. Why change your moral point of view if your current one serves your self-interest and feels good for the time being?

Rule#6: Relativists Can’t Hold Meaningful Moral Discussions

Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. What’s there to talk about? An ethical discussion involves comparing the merits of one view with those of another to find out which is best. But if morals are entirely relative and all views are equally valid, then no way of thinking is better than any other. No moral position can be judged adequate or deficient, unreasonable, unacceptable, or even barbaric. In fact, if ethical disputes only make sense when morals are objective, then relativism can only be consistently lived out in silence. You can’t even say, “It’s wrong to push your morality on others.”

Rule #7: Relativists Can’t Promote the Obligation of Tolerance

Finally, there is no tolerance in relativism, because the moral obligation to be tolerant violates the rules. The principle of tolerance is often considered one of the key virtues of relativism. Morals are individual, and so we should tolerate the viewpoints of others by not judging their behavior and attitudes. But it should be obvious that this principle fails through contradiction. If there are no moral rules, there can be no rule that requires tolerance as a moral principle. In fact, if there are no moral absolutes, why be tolerant at all? Why not force your morality on others if it’s in your self-interest and your personal ethics allow it? Just be sure not to speak when doing so.

[Vardarac]

Christ. You really have no concept of shared subjective values, do you?

 

All the emotions that are tied to some nebulous sense of objective values can be explained by the type of behaviors necessary for basic social cohesion - guilt, avoid behaviors that hurt chance of individual or group survival; fairness, apply consistency to avoid emotional distance in the group, etc.. The evolutionary influences on our behavior also explain a lot of the quirks we retain in the complete absence of a need for them in a modern technological society; see nervousness of men toward women.

 

Nevertheless, it is that ancient and near-universal similarity in feeling about given experiences that a good chunk of humanity shares which is the right and wrong I speak about, kind of like your much-vaunted near-universal want for spirituality it shares. For some reason you can understand that, but you can't seem to understand the validity of speaking within that same frame for the moral decisions we make. Perhaps you are the odd one out of that frame; perhaps the Nazis were also. We never know how fast we're truly going, but we can tell when someone is moving pretty damn fast in the opposite direction.

 

The implicit assumption behind saying "What you're doing is wrong!" is that you're in the "in-camp" of humanity that comes with the basic equipment to understand when an action is something you wouldn't like done to you, to people you like, and when no provocation has been made that would warrant it, and when you have chosen to ignore that equipment as the Nazis did. Again, it's not very different from you claiming that there is an inborn moral compass that Gawd put in us that we can ignore as we choose.

 

You know what, maybe you should start arguing that since there is no God-defined universal language, there can be no meaningful communication between anyone.

Edited by Vardarac, 14 August 2015 - 06:56 AM.

[shadowhawk]

since everything is perceived by each individual subjectively there is no objective truth that is true whether you get it or not?  You stated, "Christ. You really have no concept of shared subjective values, do you?"  Subjectively I get that two people sharing the same values that black people should be slaves share the same values.  Soooo?  make it ten people or ten million.  Soooo   Do I get it?  Shared subjective values.  So lets take a S&M master.  Do unto others as you would have others to do you.  Most of history is full of examples of this and they change all the time.  Abortion is a good current example and that is tied into the value of Human life.  .

[Vardarac]

You're right. If I lived in a society where everyone decided abuse and slavery were okay, it would be useless for me to argue against them. But what if there were suddenly, magically some objective standard that slavery and abuse were not okay?

 

Do you think these millions of slavers and torturers are going to suddenly up and say, "oops, my bad?" No.

 

Objective moral values amount to no more than another opinion in a world where the value of morality has to be borne out by preference and consequence.

 

When a relativist moralizes, he is appealing to what he hopes is a common desire or value other people have, and attempts to explain how this value ultimately better satisfies those others' preferences and/or is more consistent with their stated preferences. If those desires are not common, then whether or not there are objective morals or not would not matter because the other party would in any case find such appeals meaningless or without any value to them.

Edited by Vardarac, 14 August 2015 - 06:36 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Magic, Hope, Subjectivity.  I do get it.  Ethics must be grounded in more than that or there are no ethics.  The existence of morality does not depend on subjectivity of belief.