Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you an atheist? You're quoting the golden rule in Matthew 7:12 proving you base your morality on scripture.Of course I have a justification for what I do and don't consider to be moral, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you"
You will notice this happening a lot on this site as you engage in conversations with the atheists. They like to argue on their terms and will try circular logic to "win", rather than just have a discussion based on the OP.Re-iterating the point of disagreement
Restating the premise you refuse to engage
answering your question for the first time while disputing your ability to make moral claims
Answering your question a second time while you again refuse to engage
pointing out your refusal to engage
Disputing your moral basis to claim that bodily autonomy should be respected, you again refuse to engage apart from your own line of questioning
Responding to you saying me responding to you is a waste of time even though I've answered your question twice
Pointing out again the fact you haven't actually engaged a single thing but have only asked questions over and over
Showing you I've answered your questions with quotations and you still say I didn't
Me responding to your question for a THIRD time
Me quoting my response to your question and giving you an additional FOURTH answer
Me explaining that my response was genuine and you refusing to engage
Mate you're responsible for not accepting the multiple answers I gave you. All you did was ask the same question over and over even though I answered, objected and tried to move the conversation forward. You can't fish for a specific answer in order to counter it, discussions don't work on rails.
You're quoting the golden rule in Matthew 7:12 proving you base your morality on scripture.
Confucius's principles have commonality with Chinese tradition and belief. With filial piety, he championed strong family loyalty, ancestor veneration, and respect of elders by their children and of husbands by their wives, recommending family as a basis for ideal government. He espoused the Golden Rule, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself".
Do you think that the golden rule was first suggested by Jesus? That it's the only reference to it anywhere? It's universal. I don't think that there's a religion or a philosophically moral position that doesn't include it.Are you an atheist? You're quoting the golden rule in Matthew 7:12 proving you base your morality on scripture.
Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct. Not once. They don't defend their presuppositions, they ignore them. When I ask how can you determine which person is right when someone within the same worldview conflicts with your morality, they ignore it. This whole entire thing feels utterly pointless, not a single person has engaged with the positions posed in the OP. Makes me feel like a moron for even trying.You will notice this happening a lot on this site as you engage in conversations with the atheists. They like to argue on their terms and will try circular logic to "win", rather than just have a discussion based on the OP.
No, I was paraphrasing Confucius... who preceded Christ by some 600 years.
Which means that using your logic Christ was basing His morality on Confucianism. But then again the bible does tend to plagiarize a lot, so perhaps you should practice a little more discretion before using that line of reasoning.
Post #146Do you think that the golden rule was first suggested by Jesus? That it's the only reference to it anywhere? It's universal. I don't think that there's a religion or a philosophically moral position that doesn't include it.
Confucius said "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself" 500 years before Christ. There was the Egyptian story of the Eloquent Peasant in 2000 BCE: “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” Socrates in 400 BCE: “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”
Jesus wasn't saying 'Hey, this is a new rule for you to follow'. He was saying 'Remember this rule? Try to live by it'. Your statement is like saying 'Do not steal' wasn't a concept until Moses produced his tablets. You might just as well have said that Jesus based His morality on Confucianism.
Edit: @Walking Contradiction beat me to it...but I'll let mine stand so that you know it's relatively common knowledge. Or at least I thought it was.
Unfortunately, I think that's the intention of some. When that circular argument gets to a point where they repeat the same arguments I've already refuted with evidence, I opt out with a big wave. (Makes me feel like a moron for even trying.
Your continued failure to engage the basis of disagreement either A) shows you don't understand it or B) understand it but refuse to engage it.We all have empathy. And we don't choose to use it. No more than we'd choose to be use colour vision. So I know, actually know that because I don't like being beaten, then you don't either (under normal circumstances - you might be a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] for example). And how can I confirm this? Well, I see examples of it everywhere. I see no examples of people who enjoy it. So everyone else gives every indication that they are exactly like me in that regard.
Does that in itself make me a moral person? No, because it's not a moral position. It simply informs me.
Following on from that, I consider bodily autonomy to be vitally important as far as I am concerned. So everyone else must be the same. It's universal. So does that make me a moral person? No again.
But what if I choose to respect autonomy in someone else. Simply because I personally can see value in my own life And value in the lives of others. This isn't decreed somewhere. This isn't because 'it is written'. These are no divinely imposed laws as far as I am concerned. This is MY decision. Are you personally making the same decision? Are you personally determining that what God wants is therefore what you must do? Or are you simply following the rules.
Consider two people. One doesn't drink and drive because she knows it's dangerous to other road users. The other doesn't do it simply because it's illegal. He's been told not to. Are their positions equitable? Not in my world.
You're in error to say that empathy is axiomatic, the thing that is axiomatic are the assumed truths which establishes empathy as something that exists (as apposed to being merely stimulus or matter). Your naturalistic or materialistic worldview is the axiom on which the whole thing turns. If somebody wanted to invalidate empathy and cause suffering by sacking a city for loot, why would they be wrong within this worldview? Regarding this situation of the invalidation of empathy, which competing person's/society's empathy or dispensing of it is authoritative, or if possible, correct? And why?
[Edit: With the above explanation I hope it explains why I kept quoting from the OP "in ANY *secular* worldview agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them" before.]
The answer will assume more morals to be true in order to establish any conclusion whatsoever and you're faced with a perpetual circle of assuming the truth of moral stances to justify the previous moral stance.
Seems like the only way honestly. Everybody slings arbitrary feelings towards stimulus at me as if they're moral arguments but in order to do so they agree with the OP which presents arguments as to why doing so is arbitrary. I think I've about had enough.Unfortunately, I think that's the intention of some. When that circular argument gets to a point where they repeat the same arguments I've already refuted with evidence, I opt out with a big wave. ()
Trust me, we feel the same way.This whole entire thing feels utterly pointless,
The only position you put forward that was likely to be accepted by the 'secularists' was this: ' The only consistent stance within the *secular* worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference.' All else was your take on what morality should be, what it is according to you and how everyone else would be wrong not to accept your view. What were you expecting to get from that?Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct. Not once. They don't defend their presuppositions, they ignore them. When I ask how can you determine which person is right when someone within the same worldview conflicts with your morality, they ignore it. This whole entire thing feels utterly pointless, not a single person has engaged with the positions posed in the OP. Makes me feel like a moron for even trying.
You will notice this happening a lot on this site as you engage in conversations with the atheists. They like to argue on their terms and will try circular logic to "win", rather than just have a discussion based on the OP.
My 2000 BC Egyptian beats your Leviticus. In any case, to suggest that all religions defered to Christianity in formulating their own version of the golden rule is nonsensical.Post #146
Do you think that empathy is somehow something we choose to use? Can you confirm that and perhaps try to explain that if it's actually what you mean?Your continued failure to engage the basis of disagreement either A) shows you don't understand it or B) understand it but refuse to engage it.
And in passing, if you mean by that that no-one has shown how their morality can be objectively true, then at least three of us have been telling you that morality itself is not objective. So...why would you think we'd say any different? We're arguing against your position...Out of all the comments I've made regarding morality, which is a lot, I've never been presented with a case as to why their morality is true/correct.
Believe me, I try but I end up clicking posts from the main screen without checking where it's located. The OP I'm in agreement with, otherwise I wouldn't be hereIf you don't like 'conversations with the atheists' then feel free to wander the majority of the forum where we are asked not to participate. I'm sure you'll find some people with whom you can agree.
Then while you are here, feel free to argue with any other points of view. Have a shot with any 'circular arguments' you come across. I'm sure we'll all benefit from an honest discussion.The OP I'm in agreement with...
So the "golden rule" is universal in the same way Jesus intended it to be? (Love)?My 2000 BC Egyptian beats your Leviticus. In any case, to suggest that all religions defered to Christianity in formulating their own version of the golden rule is nonsensical.
Jesus is talking about loving one another, even down to "loving thy enemies". Is that kind of self-sacrificing love "universal" naturally? I don’t think so.Of course I have a justification for what I do and don't consider to be moral, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you"
There was the Egyptian story of the Eloquent Peasant in 2000 BCE: “Do for one who may do for you, That you may cause him thus to do.” Socrates in 400 BCE: “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”
Confucius wrote the rule which says " DO NOT do unto others, which you DO NOT want others to do unto you."
The exact wording?My initial comment quoted the exact wording as found in the bible:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?