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

[gaara4158]

It’s good for all of life.

Good by what standard?

 

[Hammster]

Good by what standard?

God’s standard.

 

[gaara4158]

God’s standard.

Why?

 

[Hammster]

Why?

Why what?

 

[Neutral Observer]

God’s standard.

Pardon my french, but what the heck is 'God's standard'? That phraseology is meaningless to me, and therefore useless.

 

[gaara4158]

Why what?

Why use God’s standard?

 

[Hammster]

Pardon my french, but what the heck is 'God's standard'? That phraseology is meaningless to me, and therefore useless.

The standard that God wants us to live by.

 

[Hammster]

Why use God’s standard?

There’s none greater. His world, His rules.

 

[gaara4158]

There’s none greater. His world, His rules.

Says who? Him? I’ve got an expired jar of mustard that says the same about itself.

 

[Hammster]

Says who? Him? I’ve got an expired jar of mustard that says the same about itself.

I doubt that.

 

[gaara4158]

I doubt that.

It’s the Truth. Ignore it at your moral peril.

 

[Ken-1122]

It’s good for all of life.

Assuming that to be true, to be good for all of life does not make you a moral authority. I could make the same claim for myself as being the moral authority for all of mankind; anybody can make such a claim.

 

[Hammster]

It’s the Truth. Ignore it at your moral peril.

I will.

 

[Hammster]

Assuming that to be true, to be good for all of life does not make you a moral authority. I could make the same claim for myself as being the moral authority for all of mankind; anybody can make such a claim.

I never claimed to be a moral authority.

 

[gaara4158]

I will.

Then you are amoral, by your own standard. If anyone rejects your arbitrary and indemonstrable standard of morality, you declare their standard invalid. I do the same to you.

 

[Hammster]

Then you are amoral, by your own standard. If anyone rejects your arbitrary and indemonstrable standard of morality, you declare their standard invalid. I do the same to you.

Okay.

 

[Ken-1122]

I never claimed to be a moral authority.

I never said you did; I said you claim your God to be the moral authority.

 

[Soyeong]

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.

It is strange that you have no problem with me denying that evil exists if I lost my faith, however, denying that evil exists is synonymous with denying that immorality exists, yet you don't want to say the same for immorality. It is one thing for you to assert that it obvious that immorality has always existed or that a particular act like stealing is immoral, but it is quite another for you to demonstrate that is the case without being able to appeal to theism. You have no source for having moral obligations and there is nothing else that happens regardless of whether someone meets or doesn't meet it. You can assert that morality doesn't require theism, doesn't require religion, and doesn't require a believe in God, but your claims remain unsubstantiated without anything to support them.

 

[Neutral Observer]

The standard that God wants us to live by.

And what standard is that?

You might as well call it 'Bob's Standard' for all the good that does me.

Like I said, calling it 'God's Standard' is meaningless to me, and therefore useless. I want to know what the standard is, not what it's called.

 

[Bradskii]

It is strange that you have no problem with me denying that evil exists if I lost my faith, however, denying that evil exists is synonymous with denying that immorality exists, yet you don't want to say the same for immorality. It is one thing for you to assert that it obvious that immorality has always existed or that a particular act like stealing is immoral, but it is quite another for you to demonstrate that is the case without being able to appeal to theism. You have no source for having moral obligations and there is nothing else that happens regardless of whether someone meets or doesn't meet it. You can assert that morality doesn't require theism, doesn't require religion, and doesn't require a believe in God, but your claims remain unsubstantiated without anything to support them.

What sort of argument is that? Morality is quite simply the concept of what we, individually and as a society, consider to be right and wrong. Religion will govern what a lot of people decide on that matter but to suggest that the concept itself and the decisions we make don't or can't exist outside of religion is the weirdest statement I've heard for quite some time.

But maybe you can find a definition that says that morality requires religion. But I won't be holding my breath because I know one doesn't exist.