Needing justification for morality

[quatona]

I mean "just your opinion, and, if it is "jst" your opinion, it is binding on nobody else. A genocidal maniac included.

Yes, sure.

How did genocide transmute itself into "killings"

It didn´t. I just gave you an example for a relative moral view that most Christians ascribe to God.

You are being transparently evasive.

No. You´d have to explain how "rights" entered the discussion, out of the blue.

The creator of all things isn't "just" anything, least of all just another being on the same level as his creatures.

That´s your personal opinion.
Mine is different. I don´t know about you, but if there is a creator-God and if this God declared genocide moral I still wouldn´t find it moral. So intellectual honesty commands that I don´t appeal to a certain authority only as long as it supports my views.

And exactly how do you figure that out?

That´s simple logic: If God being against genocide would prevent genocide from happening, and if God exists, there wouldn´t have been a genocide.

Waffle.

So you don´t understand what´s meant by "absolute" in this statement? Should I explain it in more detail?

 

[bhsmte]

Do they? That would be a funny thing, considering that in the given context relative and absolute are irreconcilable opposites - unless, of course, you guys are inadvertantly using "absolute" in different meanings.
Just like I personally fail to see how God´s opinion would qualify as "absolute".
It never ceases to amaze me when highly abstracts concept are discussed by asking seemingly naive unspecific questions like "Where does...come from?" - when actually the only response you´d find valid is "from God", anyway.
Concepts are brought to you by your mind. If they consider something wrong and can´t think of any exception they´ll call it "absolutely wrong". This "absoluteness" is not an object and needn´t "come from" anything or anywhere.
An absolute moral statement doesn´t require a God to "come from" any more than a relative moral statement does.

Well said.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well said.

Badly said.

 

[lesliedellow]

I mean "just your opinion, and, if it is "just" your opinion, it is binding on nobody else. A genocidal maniac included.

Yes, sure.

I don't think anything more needs to be said.

 

[juvenissun]

Nowhere in scripture does it say the master must have a good reason. You're making stuff up.

The slave is the master's property. The master can deal with the slave however he wishes.

You have a good point. The Bible does not talk about how should a master treat his slaves. But the Bible does talk a lot about how should a slave treat his master.

Do you know the reason? Human with evil thought will never understand it.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think anything more needs to be said.

I didn't post that?

 

[bhsmte]

Badly said.

Well, I disagree.

 

[lesliedellow]

I didn't post that?

Sorry, corrected it.

 

[quatona]

I don't think anything more needs to be said.

Well, you could - for a change - demonstrate how the existence of a God would change anything about this reality.
Next, you could give evidence that a God exists.
Next, you could give evidence that this God authored a moral view.
Finally, you could give evidence what exactly is this God´s moral view.

And then you would a least be closer to driving your point home.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

"More plausible than it's negation" is a deck-stacking standard of measuring the truth of a premise.

why is it deck-stacking?

 

[theophilus777]

ROFL, I quoted the bible!

So according to you what the bible teaches is not what the bible teaches.

Can't you see the ridiculous lengths you must go to to support the morality of your bible?

Sir, clearly you will not take the time to read even what you wrote, let alone what anyone else writes. So instead of pointing out your error to you I will conclude that attempting to communicate with you via written word is a lost cause.

 

[Davian]

No apologist I know of does this. They give reasons why the premise is more plausibly true than its negation.

"More plausible than it's negation" is a deck-stacking standard of measuring the truth of a premise. No surprise here.

why is it deck-stacking?

It is an informal fallacy known as a 'false dilemma' or 'false dichotomy'.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Lane Craig has been known to stack them high.

 

[theophilus777]

"More plausible than it's negation" is a deck-stacking standard of measuring the truth of a premise. No surprise here.

I love your username, it gives me the most comical mental picture! (Can't follow the discussion in this thread though)

 

[bhsmte]

It is an informal fallacy known as a 'false dilemma' or 'false dichotomy'.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Lane Craig has been known to stack them high.

Good ole Willy.

He is the poster child for how much garbage a human being can hurl from their mouth and still keep a straight face.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It's called "moving the goalposts".

why is it moving the goalposts?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

It is an informal fallacy known as a 'false dilemma' or 'false dichotomy'.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Lane Craig has been known to stack them high.

why is it a false-dilemma?

I have one saying it is a false-dilemma, and another saying it is moving goal-posts.

Why?

 

[Davian]

why is it a false-dilemma?

Did you not read that wiki page?

It is a false dilemma, in that there are other positions to take other than "plausibly true" or "its negation". Depending on the subject, one make take a neutral position, or say "I don't know".

It can also be seen as an attempt to shift the burden of evidence. "You don't think I'm right? Then you better prove its negation". This is also fallacious, as your arguments can be shown to be faulty without having to provide an alternative argument.

 

[theophilus777]

Hey Davian, how many snowmannen does it take to improvise a genetic tree?

 

[Davian]

Hey Davian, how many snowmannen does it take to improvise a genetic tree?

I don't know, but I have started in on my Christmas classification system:

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You have a good point. The Bible does not talk about how should a master treat his slaves. But the Bible does talk a lot about how should a slave treat his master.

Do you know the reason? Human with evil thought will never understand it.

Are you serious?

You are completely cornered, forced to justify your bible by claiming slavery is moral, and now you are going to accuse someone else of being evil?

Again juvenissun, you really need to have a long hard think about what you are saying.