Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[AV1611VET]

Sure, why not? It's all good! I guess that's why it's called a "dilemma".

It's called a dilemma because people think it's a dilemma; and as long as people think it's a dilemma, it'll stay a dilemma; and as long as it stays a dilemma, people with think it's a dilemma.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, there's the "Religious" definition in which the religious claim all good only to themselves.

And I suppose you think atheists can also be righteous, justified, sanctified, and consecrated as well --- is that correct?

 

[Chalnoth]

The logic conclusion of good or bad is based on the assumption. For example, without God's word, anything could be argued as good.

And with your Bible as "God's word", I could quite easily argue that genocide, rape, and slavery are good (or at least acceptable). I don't quite see how you've got the advantage there.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It's called a dilemma because people think it's a dilemma; and as long as people think it's a dilemma, it'll stay a dilemma; and as long as it stays a dilemma, people with think it's a dilemma.

Well, done and done! Just ignore the dilemma aspect and it all goes away! Yay!

(Did you ever even meander by a philosophy class when you were in college?)

 

[thaumaturgy]

And I suppose you think atheists can also be righteous, justified, sanctified, and consecrated as well --- is that correct?

Well, lets see: since I don't want to go down what I assume will be your next "word" game path I'll tell you that I don't see those words as being requisite in the definition of "morality" so I don't see why you are asking.

You have made a claim around what morality is "technically". Now all you need to do is back it up. Instead you try to introduce new terms to the discussion.

Why not clean up one mess before you present another?

Just follow your own points with support. Is that so hard?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, done and done! Just ignore the dilemma aspect and it all goes away! Yay!

(Did you ever even meander by a philosophy class when you were in college?)

I heard about Bentham, and Maslow, and a couple of others.

The one I can't for the life of me remember, is what they called that study in [I believe it was] Waltham, Mass. where they studied factory workers on their job [or something], and noticed that the factory workers were more productive when watched, than when they weren't --- or something like that.

So, of course, like good little philosophers, they put a name to it.

There's also a term for someone who catches a fish, and over time, one goes from saying he caught a small fish, to he having caught a very large one.

Retroactive Falsification --- I think it's called.

Help me out here, please.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I heard about Bentham, and Maslow, and a couple of others.

The one I can't for the life of me remember, is what they called that study in [I believe it was] Waltham, Mass. where they studied factory workers on their job [or something], and noticed that the factory workers were more productive when watched, than when they weren't --- or something like that.

So, of course, like good little philosophers, they put a name to it.

There's also a term for catch a fish, and over time, one goes from saying he caught a small fish, to he having caught a very large one.

Retroactive Falsification --- I think it's called.

Help me out here, please.

I wish I could. I honestly don't follow you. You bulldoze over the details of the philosophical stuff and then you meander off into other areas.

You wandered off on the Euthyphro dilemma and wiped it away (unilaterally, without so much as an actual explanation of how you did it), now you meander off into something I don't even begin to see the link to.

Maybe you should help me out here a bit.

Right now you need to:

1. Explain how the Euthyphro Dilemma is not a dilemma
2. Support your claims around morality as somehow requiring God.

I'm going to have to hold you to this for right now. I'm not interested in you going off into the weeds. Please address your own points in detail.

thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Right now you need to:

1. Explain how the Euthyphro Dilemma is not a dilemma
2. Support your claims around morality as somehow requiring God.

Are you kidding me?

Let's go over this again:

1. Both --- meaning God ordained it because it is good, and it is good because God ordained it.
2. I did already --- by showing [true] morality as coming from a vertical direction --- up.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Are you kidding me?

Let's go over this again:

1. Both --- meaning God ordained it because it is good, and it is good because God ordained it.
2. I did already --- by showing [true] morality as coming from a vertical direction --- up.

I think you missed something here:

1. What you have done here is come down on one side of the dilemma.

You have stated, in effect, that God ordains that which is Good. which means morality really isn't absolute; it is whatever God decrees it to be.

That's fine. It is a way to deal with the dilemma by coming down firmly on one side.

However, you trip up in that you seem to also want God to do whatever is moral. Which means God adheres to some pre-set rules of morality. God then is subservient to some externally defined "morality". (I'll leave it to your imagination as to who established that), or for that matter why your God is now little more than a "conduit" of this superior morality.

Again, this is fine if you come down on this side, but you can't really come down on both sides. That's why it's a "dilemma".

It sounds to me like you haven't really "solved" the dilemma, but rather you have decreed that you think whatever God says is Right. That's fine, but it does make morality "arbitrary".

2. You have shown no such definition that morality by necessity includes reference to God. Just saying it is a "vertical" relationship has as much meaning as if I were to say "morality tastes like caramel."

 

[BananaSlug]

There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".

Theoretically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.

Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.

Do you have anything to say about the rest of my post? Here it is again for your consideration:

Are all athiests immoral? Can we have morality without the "Word of God"? Sure we can. Look at all the pre-Christian cultures that actually seemed to be more moral than Christians. According to God's word, killing disobedient children is "good". According to God's word, kidnapping young unbetrothed virgins is "good". Under God's word we had things like the Spanish Inquisition, Witch trials (Salem and elsewhere), the slaughter of Native Americans and other tribes, justification of slavery, oppression of women, etc.

One could also say that with the "Word of God", anything could be argued as "good".

 

[juvenissun]

Are all athiests immoral? Can we have morality without the "Word of God"?

Of course not. There are many many many moral abiding atheists (it does not mean they are not sinners).

They are so, because they are offsprings of Adam, who is made by God.

 

[Chalnoth]

Of course not. There are many many many moral abiding atheists (it does not mean they are not sinners).

They are so, because they are offsprings of Adam, who is made by God.

I don't see how. We seem to be one heck of a lot more moral, on average, than the god of the Old Testament.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you missed something here:

...

2. You have shown no such definition that morality by necessity includes reference to God. Just saying it is a "vertical" relationship has as much meaning as if I were to say "morality tastes like caramel."

You're right --- my apologies --- I used the wrong word here:

There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".

Theoretically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.

Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.

Let me fix it --- and again --- this was my fault ---

There is a loose definition of "moral", and there is a tight definition of "moral".

Theologically speaking, morals deals with mans' relationship to God, and is vertical; while ethics deals with mans' relationship to man, and is horizontal.

Thus it is not possible, theoretically speaking, to be an atheist and a moral person at the same time.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You're right --- my apologies --- I used the wrong word here:Let me fix it --- and again --- this was my fault ---

Ummm, it really would help me if you would support with some reference or evidence that morality has to include God. "Theologically"? I assume by that you mean "that since you used the word theologically it has to deal with God".

But that only changes the debate to "why does morality have to have anything to do with theological issues"?

(I'm really hoping you are capable of understanding the issue here. Let me clarify it: you made a necessary link between morality and God. Support that link with evidence.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me clarify it: you made a necessary link between morality and God. Support that link with evidence.

Sure --- I'll get right on it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do you fancy yourself somehow better than everyone else? Why would you tell atheists they can't be moral and then proclaim it is because "morality" is a "theological" issue, and then not back it up.

So you don't actually care why you say things, you just say them, right?

Does it matter to you that others might take umbrage at your "unilateral decrees"? Do you think so little of other people that you don't feel the need to justify your comments about what they can or can't do?

Just curious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you fancy yourself somehow better than everyone else? Why would you tell atheists they can't be moral and then proclaim it is because "morality" is a "theological" issue, and then not back it up.

So you don't actually care why you say things, you just say them, right?

Does it matter to you that others might take umbrage at your "unilateral decrees"? Do you think so little of other people that you don't feel the need to justify your comments about what they can or can't do?

Just curious.

You know better than that, Thaumaturgy --- (I hope, anyway).

I'm just putting MORAL and ETHICAL in perspective from a theological standpoint.

Jesus called us to be both ---

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

--- and it would help to know the difference.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You know better than that, Thaumaturgy --- (I hope, anyway).

No, AV, I know you by your actions.

That's all I know.

I'm just putting MORAL and ETHICAL in perspective from a theological standpoint.

No, again, you are merely proclaiming a point as if you are some sort of authority or god. But yet you never back it up.

Jesus called us to be both ------ and it would help to know the difference.

Wow, I read that verse and I didn't get the point that Jesus wants you to pontificate about things and then never back them up.

Huh.

Again, if you'd bother to even make a case for your stance you would be in great danger of earning respect. But no, you pontificate.

Are you familiar with the phrase ex cathedra? You like ex nihilo so much, I suspect you'd like ex cathedra.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hey AV,

Try this one on for size:

"Christians can't play chess." That's because I decree that chess can't be understood or played by people who believe Jesus is their savior. Ergo Christians can't play chess.

If you play a game that looks like chess (same pieces, same rules, same strategy, same moves, etc.) you'll have to call it by another name. How 'bout "Christian Pinklewit" or some such.

You ok with that?