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

[Bradskii]

I agree. Read my first post.

And you would be absolutely certain that it was wrong. Without reference to God. And so would I. Is that what you think absolute morality entails? When you are absolutely certain about something? When you know it's wrong?

 

[Soyeong]

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.

I agree that murder is more than a preference for scotch or bourbon, but that is only because it has objective grounding, whereas a preference for scotch or bourbon does not. A cannibal has a preference for murder and they might have a preference for human flesh that is not unlike a preference for beef or chicken. Without objective grounding, an atheist would have no way to establish that cannibal are morally wrong to do what they prefer.

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.

Sorry, I am missing the nuance between your first and second sentence because it sounds like you denied that the fact that murder is wrong means that it is absolute and then you said it is absolute. What grounds do you have for asserting that facts are absolute while morally is not? Do you affirm or deny the existence of moral facts?

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?

Morality in inherently a theistic concept because it an appeals to a standard above human opinion, so if I were an atheist with no concept of theism, then I would consistently deny existence of morality. My conscience my cause me to feel guilty for doing certain things, but I would not consider myself to have a moral obligation to do the things that my conscience is not bothered by or avoid doing the things that cause me to feel guilty.

 

[Ken-1122]

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


Lol.

If you wish to be taken seriously by someone who does not share your religious beliefs, you need to do better than quoting scriptures as a means of supporting (otherwise) empty claims.

 

[Bradskii]

Morality in inherently a theistic concept because it an appeals to a standard above human opinion, so if I were an atheist with no concept of theism, then I would consistently deny existence of morality.

So if there is a moral problem that has no reference to theism then it doesn't exist as a moral problem? That's obviously nonsense. Morality doesn't cease to exist prior to knowledge of, or a rejection of God. So how would you determine the correct moral answer if there is no scriptural guidance?

My conscience my cause me to feel guilty for doing certain things, but I would not consider myself to have a moral obligation to do the things that my conscience is not bothered by or avoid doing the things that cause me to feel guilty.

This is a serious concern. If you somehow lost your faith then you have effectively said that there'd be nothing to stop you committing evil. The other side of that coin is that your faith is the only thing stopping you.

 

[Hammster]

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.)

I’m not called to convince you. I’m called to present the truth.

 

[Hammster]

And you would be absolutely certain that it was wrong. Without reference to God. And so would I. Is that what you think absolute morality entails? When you are absolutely certain about something? When you know it's wrong?

My post was clear as to the point I was making.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I’m not called to convince you. I’m called to present the truth.

Truth is what is verifiable fact. "Paul" is not verification.

 

[Bradskii]

My post was clear as to the point I was making.

It only referred to atheists:

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

I want to know if you'd be certain if you had no knowledge of God.

 

[gaara4158]

I don’t know what you mean by power.

What is the point of appealing to an authority that isn’t mutually recognized?

 

[Hammster]

Truth is what is verifiable fact. "Paul" is not verification.

God’s word is, though. Paul was just one instrument used to give it to us.

 

[Hammster]

It only referred to atheists:

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

I want to know if you'd be certain if you had no knowledge of God.

Certain of what?

 

[Hammster]

What is the point of appealing to an authority that isn’t mutually recognized?

Because He’s the authority.

 

[Bradskii]

Certain of what?

Please don't be trite. I quoted what you said and asked you about it.

 

[Hammster]

Please don't be trite. I quoted what you said and asked you about it.

Since my first post was unambiguous, I’m not sure where your confusion is coming from. Knowledge of, or belief in, God doesn’t dictate morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Since my first post was unambiguous, I’m not sure where your confusion is coming from. Knowledge of, or belief in, God doesn’t dictate morality.

So you make the decision yourself. It would have been good to have that cleared up earlier...

 

[Hammster]

So you make the decision yourself. It would have been good to have that cleared up earlier...

Again, my fist post was unambiguous.

 

[Bradskii]

Again, my fist post was unambiguous.

So was your last.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because He’s the authority.

What makes him the authority?

 

[Hammster]

What makes him the authority?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
— Genesis 1:1

 

[Ken-1122]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
— Genesis 1:1

Moses claiming God created the heavens and earth does not make him the authority. Again; what makes God the authority?