The Moral Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

It's a waste of time because that is not what you need from me. You're smart. You don't need me to tell you about my views. I've been doing that here for several years now.

But I am not asking you to "tell me about your views." I am asking you to support your claims.

You need for me to love you and to show you that you are special and that I care for your well being. You don't need arguments. You need the presence of God.

How typical of you Jeremy. When you can't (or won't) engage in discussion about your claims, in desperation, you resort to preaching.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I posed the question to Sapiens as well, but I'll ask you too. If you built and programmed a robot full of emotions, and physical feelings, and aspirations, and dreams, and desires, you really feel that you have the moral authority to cause that robot pain and suffering simply because you created it?

I think you are failing to understand the underlying connection between morality and purpose. Hypothetically, if you were to have created that certain robot for the sole purpose of causing it pain and suffering and there was no other person who was your equal to say otherwise, yes....it's pain and suffering would be good and you would have the authority to do so. Even if the robot didn't like it and thought it was cruel... in the end, that pain and suffering is good because it was the intended purpose. In this specific example, pleasure and joy would be objectively bad and pain and suffering would be objectively good.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It always annoyed me a little bit that 1) non-planetfall spaceships in science fiction typically followed planet-bound designs (only one "up", as in the Enterprise NCC-1701) and that 2) after travelling thousands of light-years, they run into a previously unknown alien species that is also using the exact same direction for "up".

If only once they can encountered an alien spaceship where the alien's map of the galaxy was 180º or so off from the Federation's...

I know right![emoji12] Don't get me started on StarTrek. It will inevitably turn into a debate on who was the better Captain....obviously Kirk.

 

[Moral Orel]

I think you are failing to understand the underlying connection between morality and purpose. Hypothetically, if you were to have created that certain robot for the sole purpose of causing it pain and suffering and there was no other person who was your equal to say otherwise, yes....it's pain and suffering would be good and you would have the authority to do so. Even if the robot didn't like it and thought it was cruel... in the end, that pain and suffering is good because it was the intended purpose. In this specific example, pleasure and joy would be objectively bad and pain and suffering would be objectively good.

No, I understand the connection you are making, I just strongly, strongly disagree with it, especially after reading that. You just stated it would be moral to create a robot for the sake of basically torturing it, and that the torturing of it would be morally good. That's terrible. And if I have to believe that in order to believe that purpose and morals are connected, then I absolutely do not believe they are connected in any way. It isn't that I don't understand, it's that I am saying you are wrong.

It doesn't even make sense to think that they are connected. If I build a car, and it's purpose it to get me from point A to point B, and then it does, you're saying my car is morally good. Or that I did a morally good thing by driving it.

 

[Davian]

...
Care to venture outside of your presuppositions?

You are so insulated and committed to your godless views that you are bold enough to speak about dead bodies being frozen and later thawed out and resuscitated when the point is put to you that you and the people you rail against will suffer the same fate.

I fear for you. I fear that your mind is so depraved and so far gone that you don't even comprehend how hopelessly deceived and deluded you are.

I pray God is merciful to you. I pray you come to the place where you can in sincerity deal with the thing that has sent you down this long road of denial and self delusion and which has left you little better than Nietzsche was when he was lying in an insane asylum, raging and railing like a madman.

I will take that as a "no".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, I'm sure you're enjoying yourself quite a lot right now.

Yes, it is very entertaining.

I meant that without Jesus, they would go to hell. Yeah, then they get a "free-pass". In fact, it's the only pass.

Right, so it matters not how you actually behave and treat people (or other sentient beings). What matters is what you believe (on faith, of all things).

Wich means that there is no real moral accountability in your theology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Both matter.

Clearly that is not the case, since a moral unbeliever can't receive eternal bliss, while an immoral believer can.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What happens to the rapist when he dies if Christianity is false?

He'll be dead.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's the rub.

The atheist philanthropist suffers the same fate as the serial rapist.

Gender is irrelevant. How they lived is irrelevant. What they said is irrelevant. What they believed is irrelevant. How much they gave or how much they took is irrelevant to the fact that they both die and cease to be.

And you really want to talk about justice?

I don't think you really want to go there.

There is no "there" to go to.

Nobody on this side of the fence is claiming that there is some cosmic justice system after death.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I pray you become so broken and hopeless and helpless and so wretched in your own sight that you may realize how dreadful your state truly is. This is my prayer.

I'ld like to respond to that, but I'ld probably be banned if I were to write what I truly think about that.

What an awfull thing to say. So much hate...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hypothetically, if you were to have created that certain robot for the sole purpose of causing it pain and suffering and there was no other person who was your equal to say otherwise, yes....it's pain and suffering would be good and you would have the authority to do so. Even if the robot didn't like it and thought it was cruel... in the end, that pain and suffering is good because it was the intended purpose.

Great example of the moral bankrupcy of "divine command theory".

In this specific example, pleasure and joy would be objectively bad and pain and suffering would be objectively good.

And if a chair was a table, then a chair would be a table.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm not answering any of your questions. Your time and mine is too valuable for me to waste on doing so.

Yes sir I am. Always ready.

...be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.....

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, I understand the connection you are making, I just strongly, strongly disagree with it, especially after reading that. You just stated it would be moral to create a robot for the sake of basically torturing it, and that the torturing of it would be morally good. That's terrible. And if I have to believe that in order to believe that purpose and morals are connected, then I absolutely do not believe they are connected in any way. It isn't that I don't understand, it's that I am saying you are wrong.

It doesn't even make sense to think that they are connected. If I build a car, and it's purpose it to get me from point A to point B, and then it does, you're saying my car is morally good. Or that I did a morally good thing by driving it.

Please highlight where I used the word "morally good". Anyway....that is not the point. I agree that if someone created a "painbot" I would find that to be repulsive....but that is still not the point. The point to emphasize is where I said "there was nobody who was your equal to oppose you" . That alone makes the difference. Therefore in your senario, whatever twisted purpose that drove the creation of this "painbot" is OBJECTIVE (meaning it is factually true regardless of personal opinion). It would be an objective fact that the created purpose for this "painbot" is to cause it's suffering. It would be as if I invented a can opener and this new can opener did an amazing job opening cans. Who are you to tell me that I created a terrible can opener because it cannot drive nails? It is an objective fact that the created purpose of my invention is to open cans not driving nails. So by you saying that it is a terrible nail driver would technically be true, saying that it is a terrible product would still be wrong because it's created purpose was not to drive nails.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, it is very entertaining.



Right, so it matters not how you actually behave and treat people (or other sentient beings). What matters is what you believe (on faith, of all things).

Wich means that there is no real moral accountability in your theology.

James 2:14-26New International Version (NIV)

Faith and Deeds
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

People can be easily mislead, especially Christians, to believe is "easy believeism". That as long as you believe, you are saved. Thus eliminating any accountability to your actions. If someone claimed to believe in Jesus yet lived their lives as if He never existed would be a recipe for destruction. Yes, even a murder can convert and repent of his wrong doings and be saved. But if this murderer simply confessed that Jesus is God and continued to murder, he would be living in unrepentant sin so his faith means nothing.

 

[anonymous person]

The exhortation to "be ready" is not synonymous with "answer every question put to you".

Do you understand?

 

[DogmaHunter]

James 2:14-26New International Version (NIV)

Faith and Deeds
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[a]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

People can be easily mislead, especially Christians, to believe is "easy believeism". That as long as you believe, you are saved. Thus eliminating any accountability to your actions. If someone claimed to believe in Jesus yet lived their lives as if He never existed would be a recipe for destruction. Yes, even a murder can convert and repent of his wrong doings and be saved. But if this murderer simply confessed that Jesus is God and continued to murder, he would be living in unrepentant sin so his faith means nothing.

I have 2 question for you....

1. Can a serial killing rapist get to heaven? If yes, how?

2. Can someone who dies as an atheist, no matter how he behaved during his life, get to heaven? If not, why not?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The exhortation to "be ready" is not synonymous with "answer every question put to you".

Do you understand?

Either put up or shut up.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

1. Can a serial killing rapist get to heaven? If yes, how?

Yes, if that person:

1. Confessed that Jesus is God.

2. Confessed their sins (accepted the fact that it was wrong to rape and murder)

3. Repented of their sin. (Had sincere regret in doing those things).

4. Asked God to forgive the sin of rape and murder.

5. Submitted them self to the will of God and allowed the Holy Spirit to dwell within them. (Basically doing away with their personal will and desires to obey and follow the will and desires of God by not wilfully raping and murdering again).

At that point, in the eyes of God, the serial killer will have a clean slate and would go to heaven.

2. Can someone who dies as an atheist, no matter how he behaved during his life, get to heaven? If not, why not?

This is a more difficult question to answer. The bottom line up font is I do not know for sure. Some may say absolutely not but I am not so sure it is a cut and dry. In order to understand this we need to look at Romans 3. It has a lot of meat in the chapter so I recommend reading it slow to fully understand every piece of it before moving on.

Romans 3 New International Version (NIV)

God’s Faithfulness
What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:

“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just!

No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”[c]
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[d]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[e]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[f]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”[g]
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Let me know when you are finished reading this scripture and I will provide you my answer to question 2.