Technically speaking, everyone is agnostic

[quatona]

Ok.

However, I must inform you that I will no longer be addressing your posts in this forum unless it is a post in which you make known to me your desire to accept my invitation to debate.

You almost make it sound like that were bad news to me.

I have learned much from you and I am grateful, but time will not permit me to casually post here any longer with you.

Quite apparently, you have plenty of time for not only derailing threads but even use a thread about agnosticism to trick people into a formal debate about God´s existence.
When you say "time will not permit" you actually mean "my preferences will not permit". Not that there´s anything wrong having preferences, though.

One major reason why I predict you will have a hard time finding an opponent for a formal debate is the following:
A formal debate requires both participants to have equally affirmative but contrary positions. Since the vast majority of atheists here are agnostic and/or ignostic and/or apathetic atheists your target group of people who hold (and therefore are willing to defend) an equally affirmative position as yours is miniscule (if existing at all).

 

[Skavau]

And here is the biggest danger of a subjective morality.

What's the danger of personal liberty?

Although I am not at all surprised to hear you rail against.

 

[Skavau]

I agree that we need such social ground-rules, and that a liberal order can allow for some amount of diversity of ethical views. But this is primarily a political position.

Personally, I take an ethically naturalistic perspective on this, not a morally subjective one.

The need for rights is our nature as rational beings. Individual liberty is the manifestation of our need to be free in the exercise of reason for the purpose of personal flourishing, since our flourishing is essentially a rational activity.

The implication of this is that human rights do not have to be seen as a cease-fire between different views of ethics, or as a way of preventing a totalitarian enforcement of morality, but as a necessary part of an ethical social order.

Also, there is far more to ethics than politics. There can be plenty of morality not bound up in concepts of rights, and morality can be just as personal and private as it is interpersonal and social.

Anyway, I'm just piping in so that it is clear that some atheists do think that there are real moral truths, and that it's not all just some subjective "opinion".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Oh yes, I understand this. I'm just replying simply that morality is not wound up in theism and its pseudo-objective morality version peddled by many on here.

 

[crimsonleaf]

What's the danger of personal liberty?

Although I am not at all surprised to hear you rail against.

And I'm not surprised that you misquote my intent. You said, "The morality that best serves personal liberty should be legislated".

You assume I'm "railing" against personal liberty. I'm opposed to morality that best serves personal liberty being legislated. Personal liberty encompasses many sinful desires and actions. Would you legislate for me to be able to kill children post-birth for my own convenience for example? How about late term? Where do you draw the line on my personal liberty? More importantly, how do you decide whether your choice is moral or not?

here's a link to a report on a Planned Parenthood gaff. How do you decide upon the morality of the sentiment at least? http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...e-babies-abortion-survivor-planned-parenthood

 

[Skavau]

And I'm not surprised that you misquote my intent. You said, "The morality that best serves personal liberty should be legislated".

You assume I'm "railing" against personal liberty. I'm opposed to morality that best serves personal liberty being legislated. Personal liberty encompasses many sinful desires and actions. Would you legislate for me to be able to kill children post-birth for my own convenience for example?

Personal liberty as I am referring to does not include the liberty to murder others. You might as well ask me if I think personal liberty includes the right to rape others or some other such nonsense. I am sure you knew I did not mean it to imply that.

How about late term? Where do you draw the line on my personal liberty? More importantly, how do you decide whether your choice is moral or not?

Those are worthy and in-depth discussions, of course. How we preserve people's rights and where they begin and end. Though whether or not it might be construed as "sinful" ought be irrelevant, frankly. That is a loaded religious concept.

here's a link to a report on a Planned Parenthood gaff. How do you decide upon the morality of the sentiment at least? Planned Parenthood’s defense of infanticide - Washington Post

That such a thing should never happen. We should never get to a stage where a woman undergoing an abortion would have the possibility of her infant surviving the procedure and indeed, if the infant survives they should be obliged to provide emergency medical care.

 

[Davian]

Every reason I gave is subject to scrutiny, examination and questioning. The Kalam Cosmological argument outlines why reason one is more than a "because I say so..."

The life, death, and resurrection of Christ are all historical events, subject to scrutiny, investigation, and are falsifiable. For these reasons, this is not a "because I say so..."

So, how is the "life, death, and resurrection of Christ" falsifiable, other than "because you say so"?