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

[Hammster]

Actually the fear that everybody will attempt to do what is right in their own eyes is why we need laws!

And how do we determine what is wrong in order to make these laws?

 

[Hammster]

I've given you the answers. I keep giving them to you. I explain them in detail. I repeat them time after time. This is not a conversation in good faith. You are not the SLIGHTEST bit interested in listening to anything you are being told.

I don't know why I made the attempt in the first place as it's par for this course. But I thought I'd actually try to put things as simply as possible so that even if you didn't agree then you'd at least understand. But it's plainly obvious that you have no interest in even doing that.

One can only agree that your signature is about as as apt as any I've seen in this forum.

You’ve made long posts avoiding answering the question.

 

[NxNW]

“Actually, I know that atheists can and do believe murder is wrong. They just don’t have an objective reason for believing it.”

If you extend Hammster's argument to its logical conclusion, it implies that all Christians have an overwhelming desire to murder everybody in sight, including men, women, children, and puppy dogs. The only thing stopping them from acting out this reign of terror is that God told them it's against the rules. Atheists lack such a desire, because they have observed history and used reasoning to deduce that such actions are unethical, and therefore they don't wish to cause unnecessary suffering.

If Hammster replies by saying, "Wait a minute! I have no such desire!", the obvious question is, Why Not?

Either you have the desire and are merely restraining it because God told you to, or you lack the desire for the same reasons atheists cite.

Personally, I think the atheists' reasoning is a better description of reality for the vast majority of humans regardless of religious beliefs, but whatever saves the puppy dogs I guess.

 

[Bradskii]

You’ve made long posts avoiding answering the question.

Please don't waste any more of my time. The conversation is ended.

 

[Hammster]

If you extend Hammster's argument to its logical conclusion, it implies that all Christians have an overwhelming desire to murder everybody in sight, including men, women, children, and puppy dogs. The only thing stopping them from acting out this reign of terror is that God told them it's against the rules. Atheists lack such a desire, because they have observed history and used reasoning to deduce that such actions are unethical, and therefore they don't wish to cause unnecessary suffering.

If Hammster replies by saying, "Wait a minute! I have no such desire!", the obvious question is, Why Not?

Either you have the desire and are merely restraining it because God told you to, or you lack the desire for the same reasons atheists cite.

Personally, I think the atheists' reasoning is a better description of reality for the vast majority of humans regardless of religious beliefs, but whatever saves the puppy dogs I guess.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I’ll have to assume that you just misread it.

 

[Hammster]

Please don't waste any more of my time. The conversation is ended.

 

[gaara4158]

Because there’s no real right or wrong. They’d be right in what they did.

But there are laws, courts, and judges, right?

 

[Hammster]

But there are laws, courts, and judges, right?

Yes, there are. How can we judge whether the laws are right?

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, there are. How can we judge whether the laws are right?

The aim of having laws isn’t to reflect a moral standard, per se. It’s to keep society functioning. Often times people will disagree with the moral correctness of the law. That isn’t treated as a valid excuse in court.

 

[Ken-1122]

What makes you think He should rule like you think He should?

No, it's my view that he can't rule no more than I can because he has no more power than I have; regardless of what you think.

 

[Ken-1122]

And how do we determine what is wrong in order to make these laws?

Laws are negotiated and agreed upon via subjective opinion of fairness and justice.

 

[Hammster]

The aim of having laws isn’t to reflect a moral standard, per se. It’s to keep society functioning. Often times people will disagree with the moral correctness of the law. That isn’t treated as a valid excuse in court.

That doesn’t answer how we know if laws are right. Or, how do we know that the laws we have are the right ones to keep society functioning?

 

[Hammster]

No, it's my view that he can't rule no more than I can because he has no more power than I have; regardless of what you think.

Well again, why do you think He should be doing it your way?

 

[Hammster]

Laws are negotiated and agreed upon via subjective opinion of fairness and justice.

How do you know if they are right? That’s the question.

 

[Ken-1122]

That doesn’t answer how we know if laws are right. Or, how do we know that the laws we have are the right ones to keep society functioning?

Laws don't need to be "right" to keep society functioning, they just need to be consistent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're amazed that an atheist doesn't use God as the first consideration in answering a moral problem?

Not literally amazed. no. Now, let me alone so I can chomp on my bubblegum.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It depends? The Bible is very clear insomuch as there is absolutely nothing about killing your neighbor because of dog poop in your yard, yet quite a bit about shedding blood.

The Bible even tells how the killer can avoid death by fleeing to a city of refuge until the high priest dies.

Yet our civil law prevents the survivor's from fulfilling God's own commandment to shed the blood of the guilty.

Somehow the followers of a Jewish Bronze Age based belief system are superior to those without religion because they possess a guide book of so called morality written thousands of years ago. And apparently we (non believers) don't have a good reason to be able to distinguish good from bad or have objective morality because our concept of good and bad isn't based on a book that tells how to bash children's heads against a wall.

And of course I am ready for the "that's old Testament", "nailed to the cross", "dosen't apply anymore", and all the other dance moves that come with that. (unless homosexuality is the issue, then its okay to use the old testament).

Anyway, I regret throwing 49 years of my life away with religion but am thankful that Christianity was able to help remove that burden.

I'm sorry to hear that you've had to go through so much, Aryeh. I know you have your reasons for letting it all go and I can understand that.

 

[Hammster]

Laws don't need to be "right" to keep society functioning, they just need to be consistent.

The abolitionists would disagree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. At my subjective level, Justice is what I consider to be fair. At the legal level, the Department of Justice decides. If you disagree, what do you believe it is?

So according to you, knowledge is not information, and truth is not information that aligns with reality; right? So what is your answer to those questions?

So according to you, what is the nature of human reality?

As I said before; for the most part I am not attempting to make up reality, I more so just react to it.

The nature of reality? ... like Pascal and Kant, I wish I fully knew what it is so I could tell you. That's why the bottom level of my epistemic framework is filled with Existential Angst, like it is for most other people.

 

[NxNW]

That has nothing to do with what I said. I’ll have to assume that you just misread it.

I can't help it if you don't fully understand the nature of your argument.