The Moral Argument

[Davian]

Testifying to the truth.

By "truth", you mean, what you believe to be true. Just to be clear, correct?

 

[Davian]

I am not glad that the children in question had to die no. I said I was glad that His plan was to eliminate wicked people from the face of the earth. Unrepentant, evil people who had been given several centuries to clean up their act.

Me being glad that God did not let unrepentant evil go unchecked does not mean that I am glad that children had to be killed. I would have preferred that the evil people repented instead of bringing down judgment on their own heads and the heads of their children.

But they were not willing.

"Willing" [falsely] implies that belief is a conscious choice. Perhaps they were not presented with compelling evidence for the existence of your god.

But I rejoice in all God's works for they are righteous and blameless.

Genocide and all.

I pray to always be found by God to be willing to do His will. If I were alive back then, then yes I hope that I would have been willing to carry out His will.

Are there not still homosexuals and adulterers to stone, or have those morals changed over time?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is only begging the question. Allah and the Christian God are not one in the same and are not equal, the fact that you and DogmaHunter feel there is no difference doesn't mean you are right.

There is a difference, but not in the evidence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. -James 1:13

I was lazy earlier. I should have referenced what I posted and did not. So no, I was not doing God's will. It is not God's will for me to be lazy.

Isn't it also to lazy to evade the questions put to you, even though you are ostensibly ready to answer them?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Testifying to the truth.

You don't appear to care about what's true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am not glad that the children in question had to die no. I said I was glad that His plan was to eliminate wicked people from the face of the earth. Unrepentant, evil people who had been given several centuries to clean up their act.

Then why didn't he spare the children? Recall that I already asked you a similar question previously, which you declined to answer:

You still haven't addressed my question regarding the infants and children. You claimed that too deserved death, not because of their wicked conduct, but because of the blood curse they inherited. I pointed out that Noah and his family inherited the same curse, yet they were spared. So why weren't the infants and children spared?

I pray to always be found by God to be willing to do His will. If I were alive back then, then yes I hope that I would have been willing to carry out His will.

There you have it folks. And this guy wants to lecture us on morality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ah, it´s that time of the month again where ap can´t find a way to wiggle himself out of argumentative mess he has tangled himself up in, and instead starts the preaching.

One would expect that he would have learned by now what clearly doesn't work. But he hasn't, as evidenced by his descent into preaching.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ah, yes, now that you mention it!!
Now, the for me inconvenient question is: Why do I time and again fall for your initial lie that you are here as a "Christian philosopher" who wants to have a rational discussion about certain arguments - when I had plenty of opportunity to learn that you eventually will reveal your true intentions (being a preaching apologist) once your arguments have shown to be wanting?
Why do I keep forgetting that lieing for Jesus is morally acceptable in your book?

Maybe that's why he was banned from The Thinking Atheist forums.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And none of this is meant to be a mere academic exercise. It is simply an endeavor at establishing a common ground.

These forums are in small what the world is in large. Everyday we are exposed to stories of moral outrage, moral indignation, bombings, mass killings, rapes, and murders and thefts. And for every act we have hundreds marching around with signs and with banners chanting and yelling and screaming, "Down with injustice!"

Many here protest against injustice. They point the finger at the bible believing Christian and say you ought to feel bad for believing in a God who could order the killing of children and they point the finger and get all riled up, but two minutes later they want to say it's all just a matter of opinion didn't ya know? Didn't ya know that there are no objective moral values and duties. Where are they???? Give me a list!!! Give me a list! As if during those two minutes they by some strange stroke of magic developed full blown amnesia and forgot all of their moral outrage and indignation.

How many times has it been pointed out to you that ethical subjectivism is not equivalent to moral nihilism?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ah, the "willful ignorance" defense, once you are unable to defend your argument.
Why is this entire routine (posturing as "Christian philosopher" -> attempts at intellectual arguments -> preaching -> "willful ignorance" -> "i appreciate your input because it strengthens my faith" -> "i´m just a fallible human" -> "only God can...") so predictable in conversations with you?
Well, in former discussion you used to have a decent meltdown (with personal insults etc.) at some point in that routine. That at least has changed - I´ll give you that.

He only knows one dance routine: pretending to be academic while secretly being anti-intellectual. He cannot conceal his anti-intellectualism for long though. It comes out one way or another.

 

[anonymous person]

Until you give me good reason to think otherwise, atheism is nihilism.

Pretending it isn't does not mean it isn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Until you give me good reason to think otherwise, atheism is nihilism.

Pretending it isn't does not mean it isn't.

Pretending that it is doesn't mean that it is. Sorry ap, you'll have to do better. But you won't.

 

[anonymous person]

I care nothing for your intellectualism.


Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 1 Corinthians 1:20

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I care nothing for your intellectualism.

No, you care nothing for truth.

 

[anonymous person]

Each man must choose his world. I choose another. You choose this one.

 

[anonymous person]

No, you care nothing for truth.

Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Cool story bro.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Each man must choose his world. I choose another. You choose this one.

I choose Middle Earth.

 

[quatona]

No one here will say that it's quite alright to hold down a little girl and rape her just for the fun of it.

That´s because it´s - from the human perspective - an unacceptable act. It´s one of those standards that is shared by almost all humans (except for a handful of Divine Command Theorists who will do it if God commands it).
So this is a particularly bad example when you are arguing for "objective (independent of human perspective) morality".

No one here will venture to say that even if they are so depraved as to really believe that.

Exactly. No need for an external morality.

They won't say it on here even if they believe it is quite alright because they will not that they be seen as the perverse, depraved, wretch that they really are.

Not only that, but no one here will venture to say that it would be quite alright if everyone in the world thought it was quite alright.

Which merely demonstrates that it isn´t alright in the human perspective.

No one here will venture to say that. No one will.

Because they don´t think it is, and because they know and are happy that this is one of the few views they have in common with pretty much every other human.
So why would we even look for an "objective (independent of human perspective)" view on it? It´s irrelevant. If my dog, aliens, Satan, the tooth fairy or your God with their "objective (non-human)" perspective deem it good - who cares?
As I said - except for a handful of genocide apologists such as yourself - humanity would still rely on this very universal human perspective you have been emphasizing so much: It´s not good, by human standards. And since this is a matter of human coexistence, this is all that counts.

But no one here will dare say that the badness and wrongness of raping a child for the fun of it is a matter of "perspective".

Apparently it is - even though not a matter of perspective among humans. We don´t need no "objective" morality to call it wrong (it is the human perspective), however it would take an "objective" morality to call it good.

No one here will say that.

You sound like a broken record, pointing out the obvious without being able to make your point.

Which means that EVERYONE here believes in the existence of at least one moral value and duty that is grounded independently of the opinions of man, namely that genuine and true badness and wrongness of raping a child for the fun of it.

No. It just means that everyone subjectively believes it´s wrong, and it means that in this particular instance no "objective" morality is needed.
Even though picking this absurd example of all appears considered a trump by apologists, it´s the absolutely worst example for making your case.
It just proves that the human perspective is: It isn´t good, because there are, from the human perspective, very good reasons to disapprove of it. We don´t need a non-human perspective for that, and the integer persons among us wouldn´t care one iota if there were a non-human perspective that would disagree.

In the event that there is someone here who thinks it is good and right to rape a child for the fun of it or that such an act has no moral aspect at all, to such a one I have nothing to say.

Says the man who confessed that he would partake in genocide if his God´s "objective morality" would command it as good.
The irony is painful.

 

[quatona]

Reread #671

Yes, that was the very post where you defined it that way.
From post#671:

The moral argument is based on the hypothetical "if objective morality does exist", its standard must come from a being with intelligence to have created humanity with a purpose. Whatever that purpose is, that purpose would be the undeniable fact that would be set as the standard to determine what is good/bad or right/wrong.