The Moral Argument

[Oncedeceived]

or, what the society as a whole projects onto those actions.

And the Nazis?

What else might it be?

If we can't do anything but that which is hard wired into our brain, nothing...nothing at all.

In general, it is about the continuation of the species.

Really?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Doesn't matter. It's objectively quantifiable and demonstrable, regardless of 'who'. The person who believes genocide is not harmful is as wrong as the person who thinks one is more than two, for the exact same reasons. This necessitates no appeal to 'consensus', unless you want to resort to the same brand of total subjectivity you like to accuse others of.

To the point - which you continue to dodge - nowhere in this process is it necessary or even remotely helpful to appeal to Yahweh and his purported moral commands, which again, you have no access to even if there is such thing.

So you believe there are objective and quantifiable?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What is that?

This question:

Alright, you want to go down this road. Fine...

Suppose that you were among the Israelites when Yahweh commanded them to slaughter every man, woman, and child, as is recounted in the Bible. Would genocide still be a bad thing to engage in, or would it be "morally commendable" as you have stated in the past?

Looking forward to your evasions, which we all know are coming...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How does that comport to the naturalistic view that we only think and act as we are hard wired to do? We can't have free will if naturalism is true. At least that is what the majority of scientists claim.

That's "the naturalistic view"? Quick... someone tell the naturalists that that's what they think.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If we can't do anything but that which is hard wired into our brain, nothing...nothing at all.

Ummm... reading this very sentence has just changed your brain's wiring.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This question:

So we are talking about the Amorites? IF so, yes. If a group of people came up from behind me and my people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled and after seeing all the power of God during the plagues, I would most likely feel it was my moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill me and my children.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So we are talking about the Amorites? IF so, yes. If a group of people came up from behind me and my people while peacefully passing by and started killing the young, the old and the disabled and after seeing all the power of God during the plagues, I would most likely feel it was my moral duty to kill those that were trying to kill me and my children.

So you would take part in a genocide?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ummm... reading this very sentence has just changed your brain's wiring.

Ok, how? According to the naturalistic view, my brain predestines me to think what I think about the sentence I just read. Correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you would take part in a genocide?

Do you feel it was genocide when the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's "the naturalistic view"? Quick... someone tell the naturalists that that's what they think.

IF you would like another label I would be cooperative and use it. Materialistic? Physicalistic?

 

[bhsmte]

So you would take part in a genocide?

Good luck getting an answer to your question.

 

[anonymous person]

Oncedecieved was asked a question that was totally irrelevant to the moral argument.

If he answers it he is doing something a defense of the moral argument does not require.

So if he does not answer, his reluctance to answer in no way reflects negatively on the moral argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's "the naturalistic view"? Quick... someone tell the naturalists that that's what they think.

Is that not what the majority of scientists believe?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedecieved was asked a question that was totally irrelevant to the moral argument.

If he answers it he is doing something a defense of the moral argument does not require.

So if he does not answer, his reluctance to answer in no way reflects negatively on the moral argument.

Oncedeceived is a she.

He is just referring to me asking a question prior to answering the one given to me. That seems to bother people. Yet as you will notice, I asked a question and Arch didn't answer and just commented negatively to my term naturalistic.

 

[anonymous person]

Oncedeceived is a she.

He is just referring to me asking a question prior to answering the one given to me. That seems to bother people. Yet as you will notice, I asked a question and Arch didn't answer and just commented negatively to my term naturalistic.

It is quite awesome to have a sister in Christ arm in arm with me in the apologetics arena. Very refreshing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is quite awesome to have a sister in Christ arm in arm with me in the apologetics arena. Very refreshing.

I assume then that you have been at this for quite a long time like I have?

 

[anonymous person]

I assume then that you have been at this for quite a long time like I have?

Since 2006. The year I was born again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since 2006. The year I was born again.

And the angels rejoiced. I am closing in on twenty years of this. Wow. I just didn't even realize that until just now.

 

[Moral Orel]

Do you feel it was genocide when the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Butting in where I wasn't invited!

I consider it terrorism. We weren't trying to wipe out all Japanese people, we were attacking civilians to scare them out of the war.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Butting in where I wasn't invited!

I consider it terrorism. We weren't trying to wipe out all Japanese people, we were attacking civilians to scare them out of the war.

How is it terrorism exactly?