The Moral Argument

[Davian]

Yes, I used to believe christianity is a fairy tale for the feeble-minded.

That is not my position.

I now believe it holds real truth, beauty and power.

Of course you do.

I meant that you can change when you learn other beliefs exist.

The question at hand is, can you consciously make that decision, or do you need compelling evidence and arguments?

I implied better beliefs but people can change for studpider than what they have too.

Given that there are thousands of religions, and millions of interpretations, they cannot all be right.

I don't have any good reasons to change my beliefs for that.

I am not asking if you can choose your beliefs based on good reasons, or compelling evidence. That I do not dispute. I am sure that I could believe that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, if one were to land it's spaceship in my front yard. That is not what I am trying to get across here.

If one cannot consciously choose what one believes to be true, then it would be morally bankrupt to hold one accountable for what one believes. Do you concur?

 

[Sapiens]

That is not my position.

Of course you do.

The question at hand is, can you consciously make that decision, or do you need compelling evidence and arguments?

Given that there are thousands of religions, and millions of interpretations, they cannot all be right.

I am not asking if you can choose your beliefs based on good reasons, or compelling evidence. That I do not dispute. I am sure that I could believe that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial aliens, if one were to land it's spaceship in my front yard. That is not what I am trying to get across here.

If one cannot consciously choose what one believes to be true, then it would be morally bankrupt to hold one accountable for what one believes. Do you concur?

I agree. Except, that belief could still put you in a state of jeopardy that you need to be saved from. In the case of sin, God can't just say, "oh well, you filthy and evil thing, come here in my holy presence", like if no problem existed.

 

[Sapiens]

Nope, sorry, can't agree with that. I believe that there are things that no one should do, and that everyone should do, based on the basic definition of morality (as much things as people want as possible versus as few things as people don't want as possible). If God is more qualified to determine this than us, it is only because he knows more. We continue to know more, so we constantly become more and more moral, therefore, God is unnecessary for objective morals, unless we insist on having them right away.

This is really disappointing though, after all we've said on the matter.

They would not exist at all without God. Where do you find any basis for their existence without God? What's your objective reference? If there is no objective way a human ought to be, how can you say he is or isn't it?

It's also because He is God and our creator that He is more qualified.

 

[Davian]

No, serial killers don't get freepasses, unless they repent, asks God for forgiveness and trust in the name of Jesus.

I didn't say 'free-pass'; but still, a pass is a pass.

What do you want me to say man?

I just want to know how you feel that you can use the words 'morality' and 'justice', when it appears that your theology is morally bankrupt.

You are the one that started this "moral argument" thread, as if it were in favour of your theology.

That's the reality in which we live,

That has yet to be established.

I did not decide it.

But you believe it, and I have to presume you think you can make sense of it.

We do wrong and we're separated from God because of that.

Who is this "we", Kemosabe? I'm no serial killer. I am simply not convinced of the existence of gods.

 

[Davian]

I agree.

You concede that belief is not a conscious choice?

Except, that belief could still put you in a state of jeopardy that you need to be saved from. In the case of sin, God can't just say, "oh well, you filthy and evil thing, come here in my holy presence", like if no problem existed.

Assuming this god exists, and is going to remain - by every objective measure to date - indistinguishable from fiction, why should I be held accountable for thinking just that?

Or does justice and morality go out the window at this point?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I didn't say 'free-pass'; but still, a pass is a pass.

I just want to know how you feel that you can use the words 'morality' and 'justice', when it appears that your theology is morally bankrupt.

You are the one that started this "moral argument" thread, as if it were in favour of your theology.

That has yet to be established.

But you believe it, and I have to presume you think you can make sense of it.

Who is this "we", Kemosabe? I'm no serial killer. I am simply not convinced of the existence of gods.

Question: have you ever at any point in your life consider or thought of yourself as a Christian?

 

[Davian]

Question: have you ever at any point in your life consider or thought of yourself as a Christian?

Not in the slightest, ever. I would have considered myself an apatheist until 40, before transitioning to ignosticism for the last 10 years.

Why do you ask?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Not in the slightest, ever. I would have considered myself an apatheist until 40, before transitioning to ignosticism for the last 10 years.

Why do you ask?

Because some of your statements make it obvious. I just wanted to be sure.

 

[Moral Orel]

Where do you find any basis for their existence without God?

Psychology, philosophy, logic, neuroscience, history, sociology, biology....

What's your objective reference?

What does this mean? Why is God objective and not subjective? Why is what He wants us to do more than an opinion and somehow a fact of what we ought to do? It sounds like your definition of morality itself requires a God, and that makes this whole argument null and void and circular logic. I've stated a few times in a few posts how we came up with morality to begin with and what we base it on in the most simplistic terms, it's a lot more complicated than I am really qualified to explain in great detail.

It's also because He is God and our creator that He is more qualified.

If you created a robot, full of emotions, and physical feelings, and desires, and aspirations, does the simple fact that you created that robot give you license to tell it objectively what it ought to do and what it ought to feel? I could understand an argument that you might know better because you have more information, but just based on being the creator?

 

[Moral Orel]

God can't

I love it when Christians say this!

 

[Moral Orel]

If you paid a slave/indentured servant they would no longer be such. They would simply become a servant. It still blows my mind that you think paying indentured servants is a good idea. If I owed you money that I could not pay, you honestly would pay me to work just so I would turn around and pay it back to you?

It blows my mind that if I say the word "incentivize" the only thing you can think of is money...

 

[anonymous person]

I love it when Christians say this!

Then you would love talking to me because I am all too willing to tell you about what God can't do.

 

[anonymous person]

Not in the slightest, ever. I would have considered myself an apatheist until 40, before transitioning to ignosticism for the last 10 years.

Why do you ask?

You're guilty of being very inconsistent. Does that not bother you?

 

[Davian]

You're guilty of being very inconsistent. Does that not bother you?

Where have you judged me to be inconsistent?

 

[Davian]

Because some of your statements make it obvious. I just wanted to be sure.

What was it in particular?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But man, Jason is right, what is your objective meaning without God?

This is a loaded question, with two unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, that 'objective meaning' is a thing. It isn't. Meaning derives from minds and their relation to concepts and language. It is necessarily subjective.

Secondly, that Yahweh is somehow relevant to meaning. As I have said numerous times before, and will continue to point out, your assertions about Yahweh exist in an epistemological deadzone. You have no means and no methodology of deriving any information either from or about Yahweh. All you have are vacuous naked assertions as to his purported nature, character, actions, desires etc. - predicated on thin air. That is ultimately why your argument, and all theological arguments, fail.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No, serial killers don't get freepasses, unless they repent, asks God for forgiveness and trust in the name of Jesus.

Meanwhile, the lifelong atheist philanthropist goes to hell.

Thanks for illustrating yet another immense flaw in your convoluted mess of a moral philosophy - it's not actually pertinent to moral behavior at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good heavenly grace, I did just that!

No, you just repeated the premise using different words...
Let's take your quote again to show this...

If objective moral values do not exist, then God doesn't exist. This is another way of putting it.

Indeed, it is just another way of putting it. It is not explaining or demonstrating it.
It's just claiming the same thing using different words.

Basically, God is the best and the only viable explanation for their existence.

Yes, that is what you are claiming, but I'm asking to demonstrate the claim.

He is a person with an unfailing judgment (the only one in fact). Objective moral values cannot exist without an objective judge.

Again just repeating the claims with different words.

See?

One thing that would really help around here, and I am speaking about everyone, is listening and trying to understand what other people here are saying

I'm trying to get you to explain and demonstrate what you are saying / claiming.

What more do you want me to say?

I want you to try and meet your burden of proof.

Can you disprove what I said or propose an alternative?

Don't try to shift that burden to me.
I don't have to try and disprove bare assertions. I just need to point them out.

I've added the main points of my arguments in the OP in light of the debate.

Yes and I asked you to demonstrate the premises of those arguments.

 

[anonymous person]

Where have you judged me to be inconsistent?

Here.

 

[anonymous person]

This is a loaded question, with two unwarranted assumptions.

Firstly, that 'objective meaning' is a thing. It isn't. Meaning derives from minds and their relation to concepts and language. It is necessarily subjective.

Secondly, that Yahweh is somehow relevant to meaning. As I have said numerous times before, and will continue to point out, your assertions about Yahweh exist in an epistemological deadzone. You have no means and no methodology of deriving any information either from or about Yahweh. All you have are vacuous naked assertions as to his purported nature, character, actions, desires etc. - predicated on thin air. That is ultimately why your argument, and all theological arguments, fail.

If the bible contains God's self disclosure of Himself to us, then we have God Himself telling us about Himself using language we can understand.

Do you agree?