-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Atheism one year with no reason to believe
- Thread starter Morrowind360
- Start date
Im makeing another thread in the non christin forum about the stuff in the bible.I will still awnser in this thread too though.
Upvote
0
Morrowind360 said:
You've refuted yourself again. You first reject the notion that, without God, there's no good or evil, and then you go on to admit that your own notions of good and evil are entirely subjective. To you, rape is bad, killing can be bad or good, etc. But if there's no standard beyond your own mind, then the standard is meaningless. It has no more binding force than your preferences in regard to ice cream flavors.
That's a given.
You made no reference to adopting any other worldview, and you argue from materialistic premises.
And you're now imitating Bertrand Russell's philosophical blunders.
Despite that this is your thread, I don't believe that's your decision to make. The reason I made a succession of posts was because I was responding to a succession of posters, and I'm about to make another post on this thread in response to another poster right now.
Upvote
0
I said,
We don't just observe reality, we experience it. And we must interpret reality not only in accordance with our observations but with our experience in order for our interpretation to render all of reality intelligible.
And you responded,
If we were merely neutral "observers of reality"--some kind of amoral automatons viewing a whole range of human behavior through some omnipresent camera lens, rather than human beings, created in the image of the triune God with the moral law reflecting the very attributes of God "written on our hearts," then we could, perhaps, see human behavior as merely functional and the rules that govern us as purely utilitarian. But as things are, we don't view morality that way. Rather, we make judgments about things. Rape is wrong. Killing can be justifiable (i.e., defending innocent human life) or unjustifiable (murder), depending on the circumstances. These kinds of judgments necessarily imply a transcendent standard, and they inherently recognize culpability in transgressing this standard.
As I said, as long as people make judgments about right and wrong, they're implicitly recognizing a transcendent standard.
By the standard revealed in Scripture and by a standard that has been fairly uniformly recognized throughout societies throughout history, and, in many cases, by a standard that is recognized even by so-called moral relativists. For example, even the most liberal among us decry the increasingly widespread practice of corporate greed and shady business practices that the power-mongers of large corporations so frequently employ.
We don't just observe reality, we experience it. And we must interpret reality not only in accordance with our observations but with our experience in order for our interpretation to render all of reality intelligible.
And you responded,
MartinM said:
If we were merely neutral "observers of reality"--some kind of amoral automatons viewing a whole range of human behavior through some omnipresent camera lens, rather than human beings, created in the image of the triune God with the moral law reflecting the very attributes of God "written on our hearts," then we could, perhaps, see human behavior as merely functional and the rules that govern us as purely utilitarian. But as things are, we don't view morality that way. Rather, we make judgments about things. Rape is wrong. Killing can be justifiable (i.e., defending innocent human life) or unjustifiable (murder), depending on the circumstances. These kinds of judgments necessarily imply a transcendent standard, and they inherently recognize culpability in transgressing this standard.
As I said, as long as people make judgments about right and wrong, they're implicitly recognizing a transcendent standard.
By the standard revealed in Scripture and by a standard that has been fairly uniformly recognized throughout societies throughout history, and, in many cases, by a standard that is recognized even by so-called moral relativists. For example, even the most liberal among us decry the increasingly widespread practice of corporate greed and shady business practices that the power-mongers of large corporations so frequently employ.
Upvote
0
We all have our own personal idea of what is good and evil.But most of us can have a basic beliefe in some of the things.
Upvote
0
Morrowind360 said:
You still don't get it. Let's rephrase your assertion this way. We all have our own personal idea of what is tasty and what tastes foul, but most of us can have a basic belief that some foods taste good.
Do you not see what happens when we relegate the idea of good and evil to the level of personal opinion? It renders the idea of making moral judgments on others incoherent.
Upvote
0
I stand by what i have said because good and evils are different to every person no one has the exact view of anothers.
Upvote
0
Mailman Dan
Well-Known Member
I would suspect that is not entirely correct. There are some obvious good and evil things that are written on the conscience. Things like lying, stealing, murder, adultry are not bound by a religious preference. Scripture says God gave light to every man, so on the day of judgement they would have no excuse. There's not a single person on the planet that can say "I didn't know it was wrong to steal, rape, lie, and murder." There isn't an excuse that can be used before God as far as moral ignorance goes...
Dan~~~>believes some things are obvious
Upvote
0
There are circumstances in which stealing and killing arent wrong.I thing rapeing is wrong though.
Upvote
0
Morrowind360 said:
This may or may not be so--that no two people would make absolutely identical moral judgments in every single situation. Certainly it's so, though, that there would be a wide range of agreement and disagreement among various people to various situations as to what is moral and what isn't. But my point is that this fact doesn't prove what you think it does; it doesn't prove that morality is a matter of personal opinion. Now the Christian answer for this reality is human sin--that people's disagreement is based upon their failure to always rightly recognize the standard due to the varied effects of the fall. This answer accounts for both realities a) that people universally make moral judgments and hold not only themselves, but others as well, morally culpable for transgressing them and b) that there is a range of disagreement over what constitutes the moral course of action in any given situation. Your answer may account for b, but it doesn't account for a.
If you really believed that morality was merely a matter of personal opinion and preference and not a transcendent standard that all are bound to, then you would not make moral judgments about others. Just as you don't consider people culpable for choosing vanilla over chocolate, you would not consider it morally inferior to participate in a rape rather than rescuing someone from a rapist.
Upvote
0
MartinM
GondolierAce
A. believer said:
I'm afraid I don't see much evidence of any consistent transcendent standard of morality. Under what circumstances is the taking of human life acceptable? At what point, if any, should an embryo be accorded human rights? What degree of suffering may we inflict on animals for our own benefit? Just for fun? Which sexual practices are acceptable? At what age?
There are countless questions one could add to the list, and the answers show such a range of diversity from society to society, or even from individual to individual. If there's a transcendent standard, why such diversity? Why don't we mostly agree on the answers to these questions?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
