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

[gaara4158]

Because He’s the authority.

Which you declare based on what

 

[Hammster]

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

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

That’s sufficient.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Opps! I made a huge mistake! I accidentally copied and pasted the wrong response to your answer. On post #670 you asked me

...you like to learn? So, from whom have you learned the most, Ken? Which teachers, mentors, authors have come to mean the most to you?

And I accidentally pasted a response that was not meant for you; a response that had nothing to do with the question you asked; a claim that I believe truth is provisional; which I don’t. the reply I should have given you was

The type of learning I seek is not the type you get from teachers, mentors, or authors; the learning I seek is from every day people like you and others on forms like this who disagree with me. I’m not learning about things I know nothing about, I’m learning about opposing views concerning subjects I already know about. I like to learn their perspective and why they believe as they do.

Two things: Scientists usually handle the concept of truth as one that's "provisional." And learning about opposing views isn't necessarily synonymous with a wider understanding of varying, diverse views. I prefer to engage diverse views rather than simply those that are oppositional to me. More people to learn from often provides more JTB's along the way ...

Oh I’m sure 90% of the stuff you and I will agree on as with anyone. But I get more by discussing topics where we disagree; that’s how I learn.

Well sure. That's how most of us learn best, and one doens't need to master's degree in Education to realize this. So, good for you on appropriating what so many folks have a very difficult time doing.

No; I ain’t thrown any shame at cha; It’s just that I’ve run into those looking to convert and it often ends in them getting mad because I don’t convert. Thus far you don’t appear to be that type (thankfully)

Oh, I have my limits.

So… you’re here to teach? Are you only looking to teach? Or are you also willing to learn.

Well, if my personal philosophy of education involves the idea that learning is a lifetime project, I'll let you reach your own conclusion about the extent to which I'm "willing to learn."

 

[Ken-1122]

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

That’s sufficient.

It's sufficient for you, but not everyone else.

 

[Hammster]

It's sufficient for you, but not everyone else.

Actually it is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Instruct? Instruct is a verb, not a noun.

Again, what reason do I have to believe that Paul is the divine messenger? He says he is? If that's all it takes we can go to many a street corner and find the same. Not convincing in the least.

 

[Hammster]

Instruct? Instruct is a verb, not a noun.

Again, what reason do I have to believe that Paul is the divine messenger? He says he is? If that's all it takes we can go to many a street corner and find the same. Not convincing in the least.

*instrument

Peter attests for him.

 

[Hans Blaster]

*instrument

Well that makes more sense. I thought it might be one of those wierd Christian twistings of the language like "teaching" as a noun.

Peter attests for him.

I have no writings from Peter, and even if we did it'd just be one person backing the claim of another. This is no more supporting evidence than your friend "confirming" that you have a "Canadian girlfriend" to the school bully.

 

[Hammster]

Well that makes more sense. I thought it might be one of those wierd Christian twistings of the language like "teaching" as a noun.

I have no writings from Peter, and even if we did it'd just be one person backing the claim of another. This is no more supporting evidence than your friend "confirming" that you have a "Canadian girlfriend" to the school bully.

Well, Paul was right.

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
— 1 Corinthians 1:18

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, Paul was right.

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
— 1 Corinthians 1:18

Doesn't address my concern about Peter.

 

[Hammster]

Doesn't address my concern about Peter.

What would address it?

 

[Soyeong]

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?

You haven't engaged with what I said in order to explain how what I said is wrong, but are merely expressing incredulity, which is not a counterargument. I didn't claim that if a moral problem has no reference to theism, then it is not a moral problem or that morality ceases to exist prior to knowledge or a rejection of God. Without theism, there is no way to go from speaking about preferences for certain actions to establishing that we have a moral obligation to take those actions regardless of whether anyone agrees.

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.

Likewise, evil is inherently a theistic concepts, so if I were to lost my faith, then I would also consistently deny that it exists, which is why there are people who use the existence of moral evil as a proof for God. Without appealing to theism, I would have no way to go from saying that I don't prefer certain actions to establishing that those actions are evil. I would still have actions that I don't prefer, so not being able to label them as evil or immoral would not mean that there is nothing stopping me from taking those actions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What would address it?

Evidence of his words and existence would be a start, but it would still just be some claim about divine authority.

 

[Hammster]

Evidence of his words and existence would be a start, but it would still just be some claim about divine authority.

Since there’s nothing I can produce that would satisfy you, there’s no point in trying.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since there’s nothing I can produce that would satisfy you, there’s no point in trying.

Fine. This is ended. I think I shall use the ignore as I haven't found anything edifying in your comments on this thread.

 

[Hammster]

Fine. This is ended. I think I shall use the ignore as I haven't found anything edifying in your comments on this thread.

Good luck.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good luck.

It's not a matter of luck when the game is rigged. I guess I have to just "unwatch" this thread. It wasn't going anywhere anyway.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually it is.

What makes it sufficient for everybody else?

 

[Bradskii]

Likewise, evil is inherently a theistic concepts, so if I were to lost my faith, then I would also consistently deny that it exists, which is why there are people who use the existence of moral evil as a proof for God. Without appealing to theism, I would have no way to go from saying that I don't prefer certain actions to establishing that those actions are evil. I would still have actions that I don't prefer, so not being able to label them as evil or immoral would not mean that there is nothing stopping me from taking those actions.

If you are using evil as a theistic concept then I have no problem with you denying it exists if you lose your faith. I don't think it exists in that sense. But if you simply mean doing something immoral, then obviously it always exists. And labelling something as immoral means that you have already decided that it shouldn't be done. People don't stop doing things because they are immoral. They decide what should not be done - based on the facts of the matter, their own intelligence, social expectations, conscience, empathy etc and then call it immoral.

Morality doesn't require theism. It doesn't require religion. It doesn't require a belief in God. It doesn't require one to be Christian. You don't own the concept. You don't steal your neighbours lawnmower because you know it's wrong. Same as me. Same as most everyone else. In fact, anyone who would steal it also knows it's wrong. But if you want to say that you also don't do it because it would offend God, then go for it.

 

[Hammster]

What makes it sufficient for everybody else?

It’s good for all of life.