The Moral Argument

[quatona]

Your opinions don't count for much.

Opinions don´t count for more just because they are claimed to be "objective".
Now, in your book, not even logic and intellectual honesty count for much, too. You already have demonstrated here how and why such "subjective" (i.e. human) values count for nothing when you feel that abandoning them helps a "greater good" or is commanded by God - so I conclude you and I have no common ground for a productive discussion.

 

[anonymous person]

"Just", as in unethical and morally bankrupt.

Are there gods that are not godly?

Might makes right.

On what basis would they be judged, other than disbelief?

You will have answers to all of your questions very soon.

 

[anonymous person]

Opinions don´t count for more just because they are claimed to be "objective".
Now, in your book, not even logic and intellectual honesty count for much, too. You already have demonstrated here how and why such "subjective" (i.e. human) values count for nothing when you feel that abandoning them helps a "greater good" or is commanded by God - so I conclude you and I have no common ground for a productive discussion.

You have no basis for making moral judgments. And as I stated, your opinions don't count for much.

I just encourage you that if you are going to be wrong as you are, be consistently wrong. Don't flip flop.

 

[quatona]

You don't appear to have any moral convictions period.

if you had payed attention, you´d know that I have strong moral convictions. I just don´t mistake them for "non-human" convictions.

You're right I'm not interested in your views.

Then don´t pretend you are by asking me questions about my views.

 

[quatona]

You have no basis for making moral judgments.

Well, I do have - but it just doesn´t happen to be the basis you would like there to be but which you can´t demonstrate.
That´s why I didn´t judge you morally. I just said you were being intellectually dishonest - a demonstrable fact. Whether that´s a good thing or a bad thing is, obviously, something we have different opinions about.

 

[Davian]

What you have said helps reinforce my advice to Nicholas. You are right. We don't know what will ultimately happen as a result of our actions if all we have is our finite abilities to rely on.

But if we rely on God who sees and knows all to guide us through life, we can be sure that He, like the air traffic controller who sits high and looks low, knows what is best for all of us.

Without this guidance, we are left pretty much like you called it, hoping, guessing, wondering whether or not what we choose is the best choice. We have to walk through life never really knowing if we have made the right choices. We hope we have of course, but there is always that lingering thought, that shadow that follows us that reminds us that we are just doing what we can.

Not so for the one who follows God and is led by the Spirit of God.

Or one that is only under the illusion of such guidance.

Such a man can be bold as a lion and know that what he is doing is serving ends that he can only fathom and that will one day be woven into a most beautiful tapestry, the handiwork of a Holy, Almighty, and all knowing God.

Such a man can arrogantly crash through these forums with no idea of the image he is creating of his theology and his religion in general.

 

[anonymous person]

if you had payed attention, you´d know that I have strong moral convictions. I just don´t mistake them for "non-human" convictions.

Then don´t pretend you are by asking me questions about my views.

Oh no doubt you do have moral convictions. No doubt. You just don't have any basis for them. That's all, and that is very interesting to say the least. They amount to nothing more than opinions which are fine, just not appropriate in an apologetics forum.

 

[anonymous person]

Or one that is only under the illusion of such guidance.

Such a man can arrogantly crash through these forums with no idea of the image he is creating of his theology and his religion in general.

I have no care for what you think or anyone else thinks. So far all I have been given are opinions. Which is fine.

But this is an apologetics forum where arguments, evidence, and reason are the required currency, not opinions.

 

[Davian]

Yahweh is omniscient and omnipotent. He could destroy cancer in its totality without sacrificing a single cell of healthy tissue. In fact, God does heal miraculously as He sees fit.

When did that happened, as a "fact"?

 

[Ed1wolf]

In the computer software industry, there's a saying "Garbage in, Garbage out".
It means if you put in faulty data, you're going to get faulty results.

Moral values are based on your circumstances and circumstances are based on evolution and science.

You have 4 people on a spaceship but only enough oxygen for 3 people to reach your destination where your job is to save the lives of millions with a cure for a disease you're bringing.

The 4th person is terminally ill and will certainly die within a week after reaching the destination even if there was enough oxygen for all four to get there, but there's only enough oxygen for three.

Do you toss the fourth person out the air lock? Or do you allow them to live knowing you won't make it to the destination and others will also die?

The green line in my signature is always true and always has been. A persons beliefs would not change it.

You are making some assumptions that if you are an atheist, are not true. The biggest one is that you seem to care about 4 million humans. According to evolution there is nothing special about humans. Why should the four risk anything for those other humans in an objectively rational sense? Humans are just another animal no more, no less. Now it sounds like your view is just based on sentimentality for your own species, not on anything rationally objective. Only Christianity has a rational objective basis for morality and for infinite human worth to the point where the sick person would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the four million. Your green line signature has no rationally objective basis.

 

[Davian]

Raping children is wrong.

1. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to an objective feature of reality independent of human opinion and preference.

2. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to a subjective opinion or preference of human beings.

3. That proposition is neither true nor false.

4. That proposition is meaningless.

Is it wrong to stand idly by, observing children being raped, and do nothing?

 

[anonymous person]

When did that happened, as a "fact"?

The miraculous is privy to them whom God sees fit to show it.

 

[bhsmte]

I don´t answer loaded questions nor questions that are comprised of false dichotomies "yes" or "no".
You aren´t interested in my actual meta-ethical stance (which I have exhaustively and patiently explained to you countless times), you are merely interested in pushing through your script, with all the errors in it. You aren´t listening, you aren´t paying attention. In essence, you are talking to yourself.

It may be, his strongest motivation, is to convince himself.

 

[anonymous person]

Is it wrong to stand idly by, observing children being raped, and do nothing?

You are being ignored from here on out. Your questions need to be addressed to someone else.

 

[Davian]

I have no care for what you think or anyone else thinks.

Why then are you in this forum?

So far all I have been given are opinions. Which is fine.

I'm not the one making truth claims.

But this is an apologetics forum where arguments, evidence, and reason are the required currency, not opinions.

And you seem to be bankrupt in all those accounts.

 

[quatona]

Oh no doubt you do have moral convictions. No doubt.

Well, you just said I don´t have them.

You just don't have any basis for them.

Why sure I do have a basis. I am just not claiming that I have a basis "independent of humans".
You don´t acknowledge my basis as valid, I don´t acknowledge your basis ("moral values independent of human opinion") valid.
On top of that, the fact that you can´t even demonstrate the existence of this alleged basis, is just another problem you need to solve.

That's all, and that is very interesting to say the least. They amount to nothing more than opinions which are fine, just not appropriate in an apologetics forum.

Well, as soon as you can demonstrate that
a. there are moral facts "independent of human opinion", and
b. that your opinions happen to be congruent with them,
you don´t have anything ahead of me in such a discussion, by your own standards.
Just like me, you give your opinions, and the only difference is that you have the guts to claim them to be somewhat "objective = facts, independent of human opinion".

 

[Davian]

The miraculous is privy to them whom God sees fit to show it.

No God-curing-cancer cures as 'fact' then.

 

[anonymous person]

It may be, his strongest motivation, is to convince himself.

And you tool will be ignored. Not that I will be missing much.

 

[bhsmte]

if you had payed attention, you´d know that I have strong moral convictions. I just don´t mistake them for "non-human" convictions.

Then don´t pretend you are by asking me questions about my views.

His attention span, appears quite limited.

 

[Davian]

Saying God stayed His judgment of a people for 500 years is not analogous with saying God did nothing to or for them for 500 years. You know that.

Did he provide them with compelling evidence for his existence?