The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

If you knew that your hypothetical was faulty, you should have pointed that out at the time.

Assuming that the misrepresentation was intentional:

From what I understand, this is called "lying for Jesus". Intellectual integrity gets kicked to the curb, as Bob uses fraudulent means to promote his beliefs, where I can only assume that he feels that the ends justify the means.

If one holds the presupposition that Bob's "God" exists, his beliefs are true, and that virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge is somehow - inexplicably - wrong, then one could say that Bob's actions are "good".

How does this get us to "objective moral values"?

Still driving that dodge I see.

Since you do not presuppose Bob's God exists, and since I did not ask you what you though his feelings were, let's set aside all of that.

Care to answer the question?

 

[Davian]

I see this forum as having both atheists and theists posting in its threads, but I do not see it as having both atheists and theists posting in its threads....

Sounds quite silly does it not?

That is analogous to what you just wrote.

Not at all. In the context of morality, opinion is what you say you will do, and morality is what you actually do.

How is that list coming along?

 

[anonymous person]

Or better yet...

I see the book on my book shelf as a collection of my family photos, but I do not see the book on my book shelf as a photo album.....

 

[Davian]

Still driving that dodge I see.

Not at all. You should be able to infer my position from "Intellectual integrity gets kicked to the curb", "Bob uses fraudulent means to promote his beliefs", and "the ends justify the means"

Since you do not presuppose Bob's God exists, and since I did not ask you what you though his feelings were, let's set aside all of that.

Care to answer the question?

I did. "Bad" depends on one's perspective.

Speaking of dodges, how does this get us to "objective moral values"?

 

[anonymous person]

Not at all. You should be able to infer my position from "Intellectual integrity gets kicked to the curb", "Bob uses fraudulent means to promote his beliefs", and "the ends justify the means"

I did. "Bad" depends on one's perspective.

Speaking of dodges, how does this get us to "objective moral values"?

Since what is bad or good, right or wrong is simply a matter of perspective, how is it that you see these things as independent of human perspective?

You've just contradicted yourself.

And from now on, when you express moral outrage and denounce certain acts, we can expect you to qualify it by saying, "this is all just my perspective on it, and any perspective that differs from mine is equally legitimate."

We can expect that from you right, seeing as how you are a man so concerned about intellectual integrity....right?

 

[quatona]

Objective means independent of human opinion.


That's how the word is used in the argument and that is how I have always used it.

So e.g. a dog´s perspective is objective, for purposes of this argument?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time?

 

[Davian]

Since what is bad or good, right or wrong is simply a matter of perspective, how is it that you see these things as independent of human perspective?

As you have rephrased it? No.

You've just contradicted yourself.

Or, I haven't.

And from now on, when you express moral outrage and denounce certain acts, we can expect you to qualify it by saying, "this is all just my perspective on it, and any perspective that differs from mine is equally legitimate."

That would be misrepresenting what I said.

We can expect that from you right, seeing as how you are a man so concerned about intellectual integrity....right?

And we can expect more of this from you, as you are not so concerned about intellectual integrity? Right?

And, how is that list of yours coming along? Nothing yet?

 

[Davian]

Does anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time?

Are you abandoning "objective", and trying for "universal"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you abandoning "objective", and trying for "universal"?

No.

 

[Davian]

Still driving that dodge I see.

Since you do not presuppose Bob's God exists, and since I did not ask you what you though his feelings were, let's set aside all of that.

Going back to your hypothetical, do you think lying for Jesus is "good" or "bad"?

Does lying for Jesus describe any of your actions in these forums?

 

[anonymous person]

Going back to your hypothetical, do you think lying for Jesus is "good" or "bad"?

Does lying for Jesus describe any of your actions in these forums?

According to you, it is a matter of perspective, right?

 

[quatona]

Objective means independent of human opinion.

Actually, the standard meaning of "objective" is indepent of any beings perspective or opinion.
Water freezes at 0°C, no matter whether a human or any other conscious entity (be it a dog, an alien, Satan, a fairy or God) exists or is around to observe it or determines it to be so.
That´s the standard meaning of "objective".
The conclusion (or was it a premise, or both? - circular reasoning sometimes makes it hard to follow) "there can´t be objective morality without a God" reveals that you are not using this standard definition: Objective facts would be objective independent of divine opinion/existence/perspective.

That's how the word is used in the argument and that is how I have always used it.

Ok, then let´s work from this definition (which emphasizes independent of human opinion, but does not exclude other opinions) - even though it´s not the standard way the word is used.
Using this definition consistently will never get you to a necessary tie between "objective morality" and "God".
There are plenty of options for factual or hypothetical non-human perspectives, particularly when we are allowed to include supposedly "supernatural" entities, as your introduction of God into the argument indicates.

So, no. It may be the definition you claim to be using at the beginning of the argument, but the further course of the argument demonstrates that you aren´t using it consistently (if needed, you simply add new criteria - you customize it to the desired conclusion).

So you may want to rephrase your definition in a way that
a. is complete right from the start,
b. you will use consistently throughout the argument, yet
c. allows for the conclusions you are intending to draw.

 

[quatona]

According to you, it is a matter of perspective, right?

Sure (at least the first part of the question): He asked you for your perspective.
Alternatively you could answer in regards to this "objective morality" you believe exists.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Objective means independent of human opinion.

That's how the word is used in the argument and that is how I have always used it.

The posts you linked support this.

LOL. Oh Jeremy... How are you going to get out of this one? We have your definitions already. You're changing the definition for the third time now, all while pretending that you've never changed it at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you began with the question that was asked of another member that you claimed wouldn't answer. I answered...remember #566. Then you asked me about the genocide, which I responded to and you wouldn't answer my question.

But I did answer your question. It's right there, in black and white.

Then you didn't have a question at all but called me immoral. You have an agenda and you get somewhat irritated when you can't get to it, at least that is how it seems to me. You want to label me and God as immoral and no matter what I might say you are going to believe that.

I don't need to label you immoral; your words speak for themselves. Remember, I didn't ask you whether you would defend yourself. I asked whether, in your view, such actions are "morally commendable" when commanded by your God. Are they?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Going back to your hypothetical, do you think lying for Jesus is "good" or "bad"?

Does lying for Jesus describe any of your actions in these forums?

Excellent question.

 

[anonymous person]

In order for a man to seek after God, God must have first sought the man.

I am persuaded that no apologetic methodology can do what only the Holy Spirit can do.

I am now persuaded of this fundamental teaching of scripture, that it is true. I thank God for showing me this through Davian, Archaeopteryx, quatona, and others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In order for a man to seek after God, God must have first sought the man.

I am persuaded that no apologetic methodology can do what only the Holy Spirit can do.

I am now persuaded of this fundamental teaching of scripture, that it is true. I thank God for showing me this through Davian, Archaeopteryx, quatona, and others.

Maybe you're just a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] apologist?

 

[anonymous person]

Maybe you're just a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] apologist?

I am assuming you said something to the effect that I was a lousy apologist.

And I was, up until now. For up until now I was ministering in unbelief, attempting to do a work that God has said I cannot do unless I abide in Him. Apart from Him, I can do nothing.