The Moral Argument

[quatona]

Is it objectively wrong to rape someone for the fun of it? If you say yes sir, I believe it is, then we can move along. If not then you think that rape is not objectively wrong. And if that is what you think then I would politely say, "sir I thank you for sharing your view with me." I would then know that the moral argument is not something that is going to be persuasive to you and move along.

I´m wondering:
How could anyone possibly think that X is "objectively wrong" before the existence of an objective (=non-human) morality has even been established? Until then we are left to our human devices. All assumptions about the existence of an "objective morality" would be human speculation. (And we aren´t even at the questions a. what exactly this objective morality might say, nor b. how and why this "objective morality" would be of any relevance for anything concerning humanity).

 

[quatona]

More of the same it is.

There seems to be a dramatic increase in speed in switching between his different postures. To and fro within less than 24h - that´s got to be an alarming record.

 

[anonymous person]

I think all in all the thread was good. There was much of the same and that is to be expected, but all in all I am actually encouraged. I hope everyone received some benefit from it.

I do think the thread has kind of run its course though.

Thanks Sapiens!

 

[bhsmte]

Notice, my theology is not on trial here. Nor my character.

Rather, the two premises of the moral argument are the subject of discussion.

A man of intellectual integrity and honesty would no doubt stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to fallaciously divert attention away from the topic by attacking people's beliefs and or character.

This is an open forum Jeremy, everything you post is a part of your own thoughts and If you think, people do not draw conclusions from the evidence you provide them, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[bhsmte]

Society is morality he says....

Ok....

I think we're done here.

LOL!

Are there behaviors that were morally acceptable 100 years ago that are not acceptable by society today?

 

[anonymous person]

I'm done posting here. If you want to ask me anything just PM me.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm done posting here. If you want to ask me anything just PM me.

I can only speak for myself.

For you specifically, if you can't discuss these topics in open threads, I have no desire to take the discussion, offline.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A no to what? I asked, what is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?

I asked if anyone felt there was a universal moral standard. You didn't ask what a testable criteria for a universal moral standard would be.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is a difference, but not in the evidence.

I disagree.

 

[Davian]

Answer mine first. You have been given many opportunities to denounce the practice of "lying for Jesus", and you have not done so.

Do you condone the practice of "lying for Jesus"? Yes or no?

I'm done posting here. If you want to ask me anything just PM me.

I'll take that as a "yes".

 

[bhsmte]

I'll take that as a "yes".

His plane was going down and he hit the eject button.

 

[Davian]

His plane was going down and he hit the eject button.

But only in the land of apologetics can one crash, burn, eject, and then declare that it was a good flight.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ad hominems are fallacies and have no place in substantive irenic discussion. Please be an example of a man of intellectual integrity and honesty and do not contribute to the derailing of this thread, which is about the moral argument for the existence of God.

This thread is a wreck.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The discussion is about the existence of objective moral values and duties. Objective meaning simply independent of human opinion, that is, values and duties whose goodness or badness, rightness or wrongness is not derived from human beings and what they think, but something external and transcendent to them.

For convenience, shall we refer to this as your 3rd definition?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Is "I will not bother you any longer" Christianspeak for "I am unwilling/unable to address your points", by any chance?

That seems to be it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm done posting here. If you want to ask me anything just PM me.

Bye Felicia.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Well...this thread is adequately derailed. My work here is done.

 

[Davian]

I asked if anyone felt there was a universal moral standard. You didn't ask what a testable criteria for a universal moral standard would be.

#725, Once: ""I will ask again, does anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time?"

#765, Davian "What is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?"

#775, Once: "Is that a no then?"

#840, Davian: "A no to what? I asked, what is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?"

#1028, Once: "I asked if anyone felt there was a universal moral standard. You didn't ask what a testable criteria for a universal moral standard would be."

 

[Davian]

Well...this thread is adequately derailed. My work here is done.

'Well That About Wraps it Up for God' - Oolon Colluphid

 

[Oncedeceived]

#725, Once: ""I will ask again, does anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time?"

#765, Davian "What is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?"

#775, Once: "Is that a no then?"

#840, Davian: "A no to what? I asked, what is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?"

#1028, Once: "I asked if anyone felt there was a universal moral standard. You didn't ask what a testable criteria for a universal moral standard would be."

It didn't matter, I simply asked if anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time. I am not asking for a definition of what that means or by what means we might test them.