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

[gaara4158]

They can say whatever they want. I can’t stop them.

Nor should you.

 

[Hammster]

Nor should you.

Okay. That still doesn’t prove your point. Just a reminder.

 

[gaara4158]

Okay. That still doesn’t prove your point. Just a reminder.

Doesn’t it, though? You just admitted anyone can undermine the authority behind your moral declarations by merely disagreeing.

 

[Ken-1122]

No.

Soooo.... why did you bring it up?

It’s self-authenticating. And you’ve admitted that you could be wrong.

So you take somebody else's word for it? Anybody could self-authenticate but that doesn't mean they are right; why are you so quick to believe without authenticating for it yourself?

 

[Hammster]

Doesn’t it, though? You just admitted anyone can undermine the authority behind your moral declarations by merely disagreeing.

Nope. Not what I said.

 

[Hammster]

Soooo.... why did you bring it up?

So you take somebody else's word for it? Anybody could self-authenticate but that doesn't mean they are right; why are you so quick to believe without authenticating for it yourself?

Since God is the ultimate authority, it would be presumptuous to assume I could personally authenticate it.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I am not being cute, I honestly don't get it.
I get attacked for saying I think murder is wrong but I don't think murder is objectively wrong.
I am told I cannot really think murder is wrong if I don't think there is a God that objects to murder.
After attacking me the same person will make complaints about the people that "Hate America" and it is clear that someone that
thinks "Atheists cannot really believe murder is wrong because they cannot believe anything" do actually think "Atheists believe America is wrong"

Honestly, the problem comes in the person saying it not because of the dichotomy, but both statements are judgment statements and not fact statements. The only way they work is to either make a judgment based on the understanding of another’s beliefs, or they project onto another person what they assume their feelings to be.

In short, both statements are the adult version of playground name calling. They don’t have to make sense, but they also don’t have to be acknowledged.

 

[Ken-1122]

Since God is the ultimate authority, it would be presumptuous to assume I could personally authenticate it.

Okay; God is your ultimate authority, I am my ultimate authority. You can't authenticate God, but I can authenticate myself.

 

[Hammster]

Okay; God is your ultimate authority, I am my ultimate authority. You can't authenticate God, but I can authenticate myself.

God doesn’t need authentication.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
— Romans 1:18-19

And you’ve admitted that you are unreliable as an authority.

 

[Soyeong]

I am not being cute, I honestly don't get it.
I get attacked for saying I think murder is wrong but I don't think murder is objectively wrong.
I am told I cannot really think murder is wrong if I don't think there is a God that objects to murder.
After attacking me the same person will make complaints about the people that "Hate America" and it is clear that someone that
thinks "Atheists cannot really believe murder is wrong because they cannot believe anything" do actually think "Atheists believe America is wrong"

There is a concept that it is objectively true of reality that something ought not to be done regardless of whether anyone agrees, which is referred to as morality, so in order to say that something is morally wrong, we need to appeal to a standard that outside of human opinion, such as appealing to the nature of God. So if for example someone thinks that murder ought to be done, then they are incorrect. However, if someone thinks that murder ought to be done and there is no standard outside of human opinion that we can appeal to, then there is no way to establish whether or not they are correct. If someone is not making a statement about objective reality and is just saying that murder is not something that they prefer to be done, then they are not speaking about morality. If someone is trying to go beyond speaking about their preferences and is saying that murder ought not to be done even if everyone else prefers it to be done, then they are saying that murder is objectively wrong, which is speaking about morality.

The problem is that without someone being able to appeal to a standard that exists outside of human opinion, there is no way for them to go from speak about what they prefer to establishing what ought to be done regardless of whether anyone else agrees, or in other words, there is no way for an atheist to establish that something is morally wrong. People who espouse atheism can believe that things are morally wrong by borrowing from theism, but not in a way that is consistent with their espoused atheism.

 

[gaara4158]

Nope. Not what I said.

So what power does a moral judgment you make have on someone who does not believe in God as the basis of morality?

 

[Ken-1122]

God doesn’t need authentication.

He doesn't need authentication from YOU. From me he does.

And you’ve admitted that you are unreliable as an authority.

I've also admitted your God is unreliable as an authority; what's your point?

 

[Bradskii]

If someone is trying to go beyond speaking about their preferences and is saying that murder ought not to be done even if everyone else prefers it to be done, then they are saying that murder is objectively wrong, which is speaking about morality.

Will you guys please stop talking about preferences? This isn't a debate on film genres or whether scotch is preferable to bourbon. It's morality. I have never said, don't say and will never say 'I kinda prefer Not Murder myself. But hey, that's just me. You be you!' That's nonsensical. But the fact that I know that murder is wrong does not make it an absolute aspect of morality. It's the FACT that I know it's wrong is absolute. Not the act itself. Facts are absolute. Morality is not. Even if we all agree. Even if we have all agreed. Even if we will always agree.

Let me ask you this. Let's say you were brought up in a situation where there was no concept of God. You have no idea about Christianity or Jesus or the bible. There is no scripture to guide you. No dogma to instruct you. No authority to whom you can turn. But you still have to make moral decisions. Would you say that your conscience would instruct you? That the little voice inside that says 'no, this wrong' would guide your moral decisions?

 

[Hammster]

So what power does a moral judgment you make have on someone who does not believe in God as the basis of morality?

I don’t know what you mean by power.

 

[Hammster]

He doesn't need authentication from YOU. From me he does.

No, He doesn’t.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:20

I've also admitted your God is unreliable as an authority; what's your point?

At least you admit He exists. That’s a start.

 

[Bradskii]

So what power does a moral judgment you make have on someone who does not believe in God as the basis of morality?

I suggested this hypothetical a couple of years back. Same type of thread. Same ol' same ol' arguments.

A guy is holding a detonator for a bomb. He's going to blow up a school because he's mad at the world. You have to talk him out of it. He's up to the back teeth with religion and says that at the first mention of God he's going to push the button. Is it possible to develop some arguments as to the immorality of the act?

Of course there is. And the same holds for any moral argument.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, He doesn’t.

If he is not authenticated, he will be dismissed like all the other empty claims.

At least you admit He exists. That’s a start.

You never told me which God you worship; lots of people worship things that are real; perhaps you do as well. If we assume you do, recognize whatever it is, I don't call it God, and I don't consider it a moral authority. However if you want to call it God and your moral authority, that's your choice.

 

[Hammster]

I suggested this hypothetical a couple of years back. Same type of thread. Same ol' same ol' arguments.

A guy is holding a detonator for a bomb. He's going to blow up a school because he's mad at the world. You have to talk him out of it. He's up to the back teeth with religion and says that at the first mention of God he's going to push the button. Is it possible to develop some arguments as to the immorality of the act?

Of course there is. And the same holds for any moral argument.

I agree. Read my first post.

 

[Hammster]

If he is not authenticated, he will be dismissed like all the other empty claims.

He doesn’t need to be authenticated.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:20

You never told me which God you worship;

Lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
— Romans 1:20

Why should we trust Paul? I can't think of any good reasons.

If we read the rest of that chapter and see what Paul thinks of those that "don't see" like me, they clearly don't apply to me. None of those things he claims will happen to someone like me that rejects Paul's vision of god happened to me. I suspect it is similar for other non-believers and I have heard many say so. So much for Paul and the opening of "Romans".

(A friendly notice to anyone that would respond. Argument by "Romans 1" is perhaps the *least* convincing argument you can make to a non-believer, especially if we have even the slightest amount of self-awareness. Let me repeat: least convincing argument.)