The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

Because this is not an abortion thread.
Because I won´t support your persisting attempts to distract and derail.
Because, as I said several times now, you and I have no common ground for discussing morality.

Right, this is a thread on objective morality vs. non-objective morality and you are dodging.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you can't remember the point you were trying to get at, I am not going to lead you back to it.

I'm clear on my points, so no need.

 

[Davian]

I'm clear on my points, so no need.

Then why were you asking me what you were trying to address in my post?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then why were you asking me what you were trying to address in my post?

You claimed somehow I was being contradictory and you have as of yet not shown that to be the case. Did you forget what you were trying to show?

 

[quatona]

Right, this is a thread on objective morality vs. non-objective morality and you are dodging.

Yeah, I´m dodging your attempts at derailment.
And this is not a thread about objective vs. non-objective morality. It´s a thread about the moral argument for God´s existence.
Anyway, should I eventually be in need of a theological justification for abortion - you surely have provided some great Christian arguments for it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, I´m dodging your attempts at derailment.
Anyway, should I eventually be in need of a theological justification for abortion - you surely have provided some great Christian arguments for it.

It isn't a derailment. It is part of the question. Well considering you have such a strong objective standard I will go that you have self defeated your own argument.

 

[Davian]

You claimed somehow I was being contradictory and you have as of yet not shown that to be the case. Did you forget what you were trying to show?

I have already shown the contradiction, which you acknowledged with your response in #1121. Now, you can try to explain your way out of it, if you like. If you ask me another question about it, I will conclude that you cannot. I am not going you drive around in your dodge with you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have already shown the contradiction, which you acknowledged with your response in #1121. Now, you can try to explain your way out of it, if you like. If you ask me another question about it, I will conclude that you cannot. I am not going you drive around in your dodge with you.

You haven't shown any contradiction whatsoever. I didn't acknowledge one either.

 

[Davian]

You haven't shown any contradiction whatsoever. I didn't acknowledge one either.

Then my post goes unchallenged.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then my post goes unchallenged.

That is typical. You make an outrageous claim, don't back it up and then claim I am not addressing your claim when your claim is false. If you get your jollies off this type of activity go for it. Think what you will.

 

[quatona]

It isn't a derailment. It is part of the question.

No, it isn´t.

Well considering you have such a strong objective standard

Did God command you to tell lies about me?

I will go that you have self defeated your own argument.

Logic isn´t your forte, is it?
Which argument would that be, anyway?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it isn´t.

We are discussing whether morals are objective or not are we not?

Did God command you to tell lies about me?

You have refused to answer my question, I've said you are dodging answering the question, you still will not answer....how is that a lie?

Logic isn´t your forte, is it?
Which argument would that be, anyway?

You claim that morality is not objective is that not correct?

 

[quatona]

We are discussing whether morals are objective or not are we not?

I am not.

You have refused to answer my question, I've said you are dodging answering the question, you still will not answer....how is that a lie?

The quote directly above my remark was a lie.

You claim that morality is not objective is that not correct?

Yes, that´s not correct. But that´s irrelevant at the moment.
You talked about an argument I had made (and that you consider self-refuting because I don´t answer a question of yours). Which argument would that be?

 

[bhsmte]

Some things never change folks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not.

Oh, perhaps that is the problem.

The quote directly above my remark was a lie.

Your statements are more in line with objective morality than subjective morality. You seem to think there is something objectively immoral about my position. Is that not true?

Yes, that´s not correct. But that´s irrelevant at the moment.
You talked about an argument I had made (and that you consider self-refuting because I don´t answer a question of yours). Which argument would that be?

This is how it appears to me, it appears that you have a strong moral stance against the actions presented in the Bible. You believe that the position you hold is the right one. Now that says to me that if there is a right and wrong in morality there must be a standard that determines that. You don't hold that you are the arbitrator of morality, I most certainly am not so who decides who is right and wrong? We know that some things are wrong and objectively wrong which appears to be where you are coming from. It would seem to me if you really believed that morality is subjective you would not really have anything to say about my position being wrong. You could say, well I disagree but you have the right to your opinion. You don't do that. You have judged me immoral.

 

[anonymous person]

Sin affects people's hearts and minds.

 

[Davian]

Sin affects people's hearts and minds.

Or, "sin" is a wholly fabricated concept, for which particular religions were constructed as a "cure".

 

[bhsmte]

Or, "sin" is a wholly fabricated concept, for which particular religions were constructed as a "cure".

Yep, the old; get out of jail free card.

 

[Davian]

Some things never change folks.

Some folks never change.

 

[bhsmte]

Some folks never change.

When you are in hole, some crawl out and some keep digging deeper.