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

[Tranquil Bondservant]

As a moral agent, I am qualified to do this. I am qualified to say X behavior is wrong, and Y behavior is right.

Hence why I asked for the basis or standard on which you judge different moral actions by. What is it? Why are actions wrong or right in your paradigm?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hence why I asked for the basis or standard on which you judge different moral actions by. What is it? Why are actions wrong or right in your paradigm?

Don't ask. These guys seem to think they they're the ones who're going show up on CF and ply us with "questions," unilaterally. They have no inclination to either listen to us or delve into our perspectives. They're here to express their anger with Christianity and to subvert the faith....

It's an interrogation, not an interlocution. You can tell by all of the face-palming and stonewalling they do ...

 

[gaara4158]

YES, YOU DO HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT !!!!!!!!!!! You, like everyone else, don't get a free pass in this regard. You don't have some 'magic' moral position that alleviates you from having to explain and offer firm justification for your perspective.

This is one reason I don't go in for whole-hog atheism; it's not so much the self-effacing arguments as it is the blithe and assuming and arbitrary assertions you guys all too easily make.


Cladistics anyone? (I referring to little 'doggy' comment and how you're relating it by analogy....)


No legitimacy whatsoever? Well...............now we know we're all just making up our own forms of legitimacy. Now what?

Indeed, now what? Now we actually have to engage with real-life decisions and their consequences. Isn’t that scary?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed, now what? Now we actually have to engage with real-life decisions and their consequences. Isn’t that scary?

Why are you asking me if "it's scary"? It ain't! You're language is revealing, gaara. Maybe pull your skirt up since your slip is showing.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm not borrowing empiricism, empiricism is included in Christian Theism lol [Edit: in fact it's the only way you can justify the use empiricism as your senses are fallible]. All worldviews are circular and I'm perfectly comfortable with that, I rely on reason to comprehend God. I just have a reason as to why reason & logic are authoritative:

What's your reason that reason and logic are correct or authoritative? and can you establish it without the authoritative use of reason (i.e use authoritative reasoning to determine your reasoning is authoritative) independent of a transcendent Creator? If so, how?

Logics are not “correct” or “authoritative.” They are sets of rules that allow for comprehensible expressions of thought. They emerge from the way our brains work. Logical expressions are either consistent or inconsistent with the rules of their frameworks, and synthetic propositions are either consistent or inconsistent with empirical data, which we use to evaluate how useful it is to consider something provisionally “true.” You prefer to invoke things like authority and Truth because you’ve incorporated a convenient Answer To Everything into your worldview, but you’re still doing what the rest of us are doing. You’ve just found a way to stop thinking about it.

 

[gaara4158]

Why are you asking me if "it's scary"? It ain't! You're language is revealing, gaara. Maybe pull your skirt up since your slip is showing.

What is it you think you’ve seen?

 

[Hammster]

Hence why I asked for the basis or standard on which you judge different moral actions by. What is it? Why are actions wrong or right in your paradigm?

I’ve been asking that since page 1.

 

[Hammster]

Just because you say it; does not make it so.

True.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Logics are not “correct” or “authoritative.” They are sets of rules that allow for comprehensible expressions of thought. They emerge from the way our brains work. Logical expressions are either consistent or inconsistent with the rules of their frameworks, and synthetic propositions are either consistent or inconsistent with empirical data, which we use to evaluate how useful it is to consider something provisionally “true.” You prefer to invoke things like authority and Truth because you’ve incorporated a convenient Answer To Everything into your worldview, but you’re still doing what the rest of us are doing. You’ve just found a way to stop thinking about it.

And people wonder why I assert Pascal's A.A.S.S. as axiomatic ...

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Logics are not “correct” or “authoritative.”

There are no uninterpreted facts, you rely on logical laws in order to make evidence, evidence. In fact if there is no authoritative use of reason then why did you even bother typing out the rest of your argument?

They emerge from the way our brains work. Logical expressions are either consistent or inconsistent with the rules of their frameworks, and synthetic propositions are either consistent or inconsistent with empirical data, which we use to evaluate how useful it is to consider something provisionally “true.

Data within empiricism is interpreted according to the logical framework of empiricism. You exclude things as 'evidence' according to logical laws. Ergo you need a justification for said logical laws as to why they are authoritative.

You prefer to invoke things like authority and Truth because you’ve incorporated a convenient Answer To Everything into your worldview, but you’re still doing what the rest of us are doing. You’ve just found a way to stop thinking about it.

It's literally just epistemology bro

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is it you think you’ve seen?

When I said "It ain't," I wasn't making an empirical claim, gaara. It was a rational one.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Don't ask. These guys seem to think they they're the ones who're going show up on CF and ply us with "questions," unilaterally. They have no inclination to either listen to us or delve into our perspectives. They're here to express their anger with Christianity and to subvert the faith....

It's an interrogation, not an interlocution. You can tell by all of the face-palming and stonewalling they do ...

I think a lot of it is the inability to take a step back and compare paradigms. To the people here Naturalism is inseparable from reality and they lack the ability to examine frameworks. It reminds of a quote someone said on a thread I made a while ago:

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you have is inductive redaction, everything looks like an iterative process.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hence why I asked for the basis or standard on which you judge different moral actions by. What is it? Why are actions wrong or right in your paradigm?

I don't have a single moral standard of which I judge the countless moral actions I deal with; I have countless standards. Provide me a moral situation, and I will explain the standard I use for that particular moral situation.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I don't have a single moral standard of which I judge the countless moral actions I deal with; I have countless standards. Provide me a moral situation, and I will explain the standard I use for that particular moral situation.

Why is murdering innocent people wrong according to you

 

[Ken-1122]

Why is murdering innocent people wrong according to you

Golden Rule: I would hate for something like that to happen to me, so I consider it wrong to happen to someone else.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Golden Rule: I would hate for something like that to happen to me, so I consider it wrong to happen to someone else.

Why is it the golden rule is correct in this case as apposed to another moral stance? On what basis did you choose between this moral stance and others and why?

 

[Ken-1122]

Why is it the golden rule is correct in this case as apposed to another moral stance? On what basis did you choose between this moral stance and others and why?

There are several I could have used; I could have used empathy, fairness, or others. The reason I used Golden Rule is because I believe this rule is good in most cases; though there are some cases where it does not work; but this instance is not one of those cases.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

There are several I could have used; I could have used empathy, fairness, or others. The reason I used Golden Rule is because I believe this rule is good in most cases; though there are some cases where it does not work; but this instance is not one of those cases.

I understand that you could have used others but why did you use this one as apposed to the others? And on what basis or according to what standard is the Golden Rule given authority in this particular case over other moral actions, including evil ones?

 

[Lost Witness]

Proverbs 4:27

 

[Ken-1122]

I understand that you could have used others but why did you use this one as apposed to the others? And on what basis or according to what standard is the Golden Rule given authority in this particular case over other moral actions, including evil ones?

Perhaps I’ve given you a false impression. You see; when approached with a moral dilemma, I don’t look over a list of moral guides for an answer, I think to myself if I feel this is wrong or not and in this case I determined I wouldn’t wanna be treated that way so It’s wrong. It usually ends there, but because you asked for specifics, I thought of a moral guide that is closest to what I was thinking at the moment and in this case, that thought was closer to the Golden Rule. But I could have just as easily thought; “that sounds terrible!” Now that thought is closer to empathy so had that been my first thought, I perhaps would have mentioned empathy for the sake of conversation. So it’s not like the Golden Rule was given authority over anything else, it’s just the particular though that first came to mind when you asked the question was closer to that rule than the others.