How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[2PhiloVoid]

No. You’ve left out the neutral option. My beliefs does not have to be either ally or enemy of yours.

Okay; but when you intercede, don’t assume because I am a skeptic, I must be attacking or somehow being hostile towards him or his beliefs. He asked questions concerning why and how I believe the way I do, and I was only explaining to him why my views make sense to me. As I said before, ally or foe are not the only options, we can remain peaceful and respectful even though we don’t agree.

Ok. That's fair.

 

[Hammster]

Are those consequences you spell out for your children for this lifetime? Or some other lifetime.

Irrelevant. The point being is that their obedience or disobedience doesn’t change the rules. The rules are fixed.

 

[NxNW]

No I haven’t.

This reminds me of the Argument Sketch.

 

[NxNW]

What is relevant, NxNW? All of the books, sources, videos and lectureres that Dame Vaako might read and watch if she were a real person?

Y'know. I kind'o wonder exactly what those would be. Do you have any idea about that?

Even as a fictional character, least her argument was logical, rather than God Said So Because I Believe It.

 

[NxNW]

What is relevant, NxNW? All of the books, sources, videos and lectureres that Dame Vaako might read and watch if she were a real person?

Y'know. I kind'o wonder exactly what those would be. Do you have any idea about that?

I should also point out that the blind men and the elephant are not real. And I question the existence of God, Jesus, Heaven, and Hell as well, so any arguments should really reference logic and/or the real world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even as a fictional character, least her argument was logical, rather than God Said So Because I Believe It.

And what was her specific argument? That not "all" mysteries are miracles. ...

It sounds to me like that leaves some opening for further consideration. Logic [rather simple deductive logic, at that] insists that it would.

Also, just so you know, I'm not one of those folks who thinks something is simply so "because God said so." I didn't waste time on getting an education so that I could become more myopic in my understanding of the World around me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I should also point out that the blind men and the elephant are not real. And I question the existence of God, Jesus, Heaven, and Hell as well, so any arguments should really reference logic and/or the real world.

All of this is a whole other conversation, NxNW, and it's a bit bigger than what can be contained within a forum that is singularly designated only for Ethics and Morality discussions.

So, which book (books or other sources) on Logic are you using? I'm asking because when I see atheists make sporadic nods to the 'logic,' I like to see exactly where they stand in relation to all of the various types of Logic that are actually out there.

 

[Ken-1122]

Irrelevant. The point being is that their obedience or disobedience doesn’t change the rules. The rules are fixed.

My point is; an unenforced rule is equal to no rule at all. IOW your (so called) “fixed point of reference” is useless because it accomplishes nothing.

 

[Ken-1122]

So, which book (books or other sources) on Logic are you using? I'm asking because when I see atheists make sporadic nods to the 'logic,' I like to see exactly where they stand in relation to all of the various types of Logic that are actually out there.

Not everybody comes to logic by reading books; for some it's just a matter of common sense.

 

[Hammster]

This reminds me of the Argument Sketch.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Hammster]

My point is; an unenforced rule is equal to no rule at all. IOW your (so called) “fixed point of reference” is useless because it accomplishes nothing.

That’s not the case, though.

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
— Isaiah 55:11

 

[Ken-1122]

That’s not the case, though.

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
— Isaiah 55:11

What is quoting Bible verses supposed to accomplish? Or have you forgotten who you are talking to here,

 

[Hammster]

What is quoting Bible verses supposed to accomplish? Or have you forgotten who you are talking to here,

It proves my point.

 

[Ken-1122]

It proves my point.

Just because your point might align with certain bible verses does not mean it aligns with the truth. Again; an unenforced law is equal to no law at all thus worthless. Now if you wanna refute my claim, you might wanna bring a little more to the table than bible verses.

 

[Hammster]

Just because your point might align with certain bible verses does not mean it aligns with the truth. Again; an unenforced law is equal to no law at all thus worthless. Now if you wanna refute my claim, you might wanna bring a little more to the table than bible verses.

The Bible is true. So it aligns with the truth.

 

[Ken-1122]

The Bible is true. So it aligns with the truth.

Tell you what; you go ahead and believe that, and I will continue to believe I align with the truth.

 

[Bradskii]

This reminds me of the Argument Sketch.

No it doesn't.

 

[Bradskii]

Irrelevant. The point being is that their obedience or disobedience doesn’t change the rules. The rules are fixed.

Did you reach a point where you realised that they had to make their own decisions?

 

[Hammster]

Did you reach a point where you realised that they had to make their own decisions?

Not relevant.

 

[Hammster]

Tell you what; you go ahead and believe that, and I will continue to believe I align with the truth.

You’ll believe what lines up with your feelings at any given time. You still have no basis for right or wrong.