Total Posts:926|Showing Posts:181-210|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality argument

bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 6:34:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 6:30:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:23:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:10:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I see where I've confused you. I'm arguing that raping an infant regardless of context is always immoral so I'm supporting moral absolutism rather than objective morality with my infant rape argument.

However both moral absolutism and objective morality would require God's existence.

I see you've changed your argument benny.

Stay tuned Bulproof. Eventually I'll teach you that raping an infant is always wrong.

That's what I said, you have changed your tune, sounds subjective to me but you wouldn't understand.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 6:45:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 6:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:30:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:23:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:10:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I see where I've confused you. I'm arguing that raping an infant regardless of context is always immoral so I'm supporting moral absolutism rather than objective morality with my infant rape argument.

However both moral absolutism and objective morality would require God's existence.

I see you've changed your argument benny.

Stay tuned Bulproof. Eventually I'll teach you that raping an infant is always wrong.

That's what I said, you have changed your tune, sounds subjective to me but you wouldn't understand.

Nope, don't understand how infant rape is subjectively wrong.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 6:52:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 6:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:30:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:23:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:10:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I see where I've confused you. I'm arguing that raping an infant regardless of context is always immoral so I'm supporting moral absolutism rather than objective morality with my infant rape argument.

However both moral absolutism and objective morality would require God's existence.

I see you've changed your argument benny.

Stay tuned Bulproof. Eventually I'll teach you that raping an infant is always wrong.

That's what I said, you have changed your tune, sounds subjective to me but you wouldn't understand.

Nope, don't understand how infant rape is subjectively wrong.

Thank you for proving me right.
You don't understand what I said and you never have since you got here, frightens you doesn't it?
The fear behind the pogrom.
Benshapiro
Posts: 4,116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 7:04:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 6:52:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:30:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:23:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:10:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I see where I've confused you. I'm arguing that raping an infant regardless of context is always immoral so I'm supporting moral absolutism rather than objective morality with my infant rape argument.

However both moral absolutism and objective morality would require God's existence.

I see you've changed your argument benny.

Stay tuned Bulproof. Eventually I'll teach you that raping an infant is always wrong.

That's what I said, you have changed your tune, sounds subjective to me but you wouldn't understand.

Nope, don't understand how infant rape is subjectively wrong.

Thank you for proving me right.
You don't understand what I said and you never have since you got here, frightens you doesn't it?
The fear behind the pogrom.

I'm all ears. Why is raping an infant not always wrong?
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 9:15:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/28/2014 8:11:23 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/28/2014 12:39:25 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:32:05 AM, MEK wrote:
At 12/27/2014 11:27:54 AM, PGA wrote:

You say your position is NOT one of blind faith ( pretending to know something you cannot possibly know).... prove it. Show me the evidence.

My contention is the evidence and logic support the Preterist view of Scripture and that all the prophesies of the OT were fulfilled by AD 70. Every prophecy of Matthew 24 was fulfilled by AD 70 also. Once you start to realize this the Bible comes together like no other book. It becomes so consistent that such reasoning is hard to dispute without revealing the internal inconsistency of all such refutation.

Show me I am wrong about AD 70. The internal evidence from the Bible plus the external evidence of history is hard to refute successfully without running into logical inconsistencies and will handcuff you if I am correct in what I say. :

It is easy to feign a prophesy - just predate an event after it occurred. There have been so many writers and re-writers of the bible with Christian agendas and political influences that it is impossible to state that anything in there written was prophetical.

We are not in the right thread for me to present my evidence but I will proceed anyway after I establish the dates you give for each book of the NT, as per well known scholars who have studied the matter for years. I have already started two threads on the evidence yet no one was able or willing to dispute what I wrote from the internal consistency of Scripture or from the earliest records. They rely on a biased approach 17-20 centuries removed from the documents themselves. And we are discussing the documents themselves least I remind you.

Hence, I asked for the earliest written accounts by scholars in dating the gospels and epistles. No one was willing to provide one scrap, not even an iota. I wanted anyone who wanted to argue their point against the early writing to provide a scholarly reason for why they accept a late date by providing what they believe is the earliest possible writing of the gospels and epistles. Again all I got was opinion without a scrap of evidence. Do you think this makes for a good case? Provide the dates and scholars who advocate these dates and show this corresponds to the internal and external witness or show by your silence you don't know.

It is easy to feign a prophesy - just predate an event after it occurred. There have been so many writers and re-writers of the bible with Christian agendas and political influences that it is impossible to state that anything in there written was prophetical.

And it is easy to state they were written after the fact. All you have done so far is make an assertion.

Therefore, a book in the Old Testament states something will occur and is captured by the New testament is not only highly suspicious but more importantly NOT credible.

Then we need to look at the evidence from these OT books and we need for you to provide the earliest time in which you believe they were written. Are you able to do that???

Yes, of course I am and will do here.

First, the bible is filled with so much contradiction that some have speculated that it is the most contradicted text ever produced.

Rubbish.

This is just a point made in response to your statement about the book coming together with consistency. Regardless, you have not proved that the old testament is prophetic.

Are you claiming there is no prophecy in the OT?

Daniel 9:24-27 (NASB)
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."


For example, Abraham lived apprx 1800 BCE and yet the earliest verification of him is 400 BCE. That is a 1400 year gap! How can you claim anyone writing these early Hebrew texts have any idea what happened a thousand years before with any accuracy?? Would be very easy to insert a prophecy here and there. Second, take Luke 21;5-30 where it says Jesus predicts the fall of the Jewish temple. Well, that's easy to feign especially if Luke was written after 70ad which is exactly when most scholars place Luke.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of how accurately preserved the OT texts have been copied. These scrolls are dated to between 250-100 BC. Regardless of anything else any prophecy found in the OT would have to predate these dates.

We also know of the painstaking trouble these scribes took in copying an OT manuscript. We have internal evidence that confirms other histories of the period and some external evidence found from archaeology.

One of the earliest documents associated with the NT is known as P 52 (some papyrus from John, I believe). It's origin, by carbon dating, is about 125 CE (which makes sense as it is believed John was the last gospel written).

Still does not tell me when your experts claim it was written.

That is about a century after Christ would have lived. It is widely known that Mark's gospel is the first with Matthew, Luke and John to follow. Dating for these has to do with the language structure used. It is also well known that none of the authors of the gospels were eye-witnesses.

It is not well known, it is well speculated. The early evidence is convincing that these were eyewitnesses and Matthew was one of the 12 disciples.

Now I would be surprised no one has offered you this very well known collection of data found just about everywhere (books, internet, etc) and I have to wonder from what source are you deriving your information because it seems to be not in the mainstream school of thought.

It has been offered yet I want to see where you place the dates that these books were written. Are you saying they were all written in the 2nd century onwards? If you are saying that no NT book was written before AD 70 you go against the scholarly consensus. I want to see which ones you place before AD 70 and how long before. Then I can begin to refute your position with the evidence.

Peter
Bennett91
Posts: 8,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 9:19:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 5:55:24 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/28/2014 6:56:54 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2014 2:38:13 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 5:10:46 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:52:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

Again you dodge directly answering my question. And again you point out the contradiction: We ought to do what we ought not to do.

It isn't a contradiction because it's still true that raping the baby is something that ought not to be done.

Again you dodge my question. Seriously if you don't answer it I'm done talking to you. And OUGHT NOT BE DONE IN WHAT CONTEXT???

In any context. I've already said, raping an infant is always something that ought not to be done. If raping an infant is a necessary evil for the greater good, doing the necessary evil is still evil - evil is a departure from the way things ought to be.

So then the man tasked with saving the world is evil. That's all I wanted you to say.

Raping a baby is never justified, desired, or to be approved of. The thing that is justified, desired, or to be approved of is saving humanity. This still doesn't make raping the baby anything that is justified, desired, or to be approved of anymore than a woman who is 'justifiably' raped by her attacker because she didn't want to die.

Ah so then we should let humanity die? I mean there's no justification for doing what needs to be done .

You're conflating the rape with the saving of humanity. There's no justification for raping the infant, specifically.

Are actions not inextricably linked to their consequences?

You didn't even read your own definition: "a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance." i.e does not depend on CONTEXT.

I've been saying that objective morality varies with context whereas absolutism doesn't.

If it varies from context to context it's not objective.

It's always wrong to kill (absolutism)

Context: always wrong

"Always wrong" by it self is not a context.

It means that in any context it is always wrong.

It's always wrong to kill without necessary justification (objective)

"It's always wrong" this is an absolute statement proving my point objective and absolute are are the same thing. Necessary justification is part of the context of the act

It's not a context - it's a stipulation. You can't separate the sentence without losing the original meaning.

I didn't separate the sentence, I just pointed out the "It's always wrong" is an absolute, it's always wrong to kill the innocent is an absolute statement that regardless of context it's always wrong to kill the innocent. See?

Context: killing in self-defense (acceptable) vs murder (wrong)

This is contextual morality, you're showing the morality of homicide depends on context. Thanks for helping my case for contextual morality and going against objective/absolute morality.

Objective morality *varies* with context. Absolutism *doesn't* vary with context.

Again, no.

Killing is not truly wrong in any circumstance (relativism)

No this is Nihilism.

Relativism is a nihilist philosophy.

Eh kinda. Relativism says that an act can be good or bad so long as there is cultural consensus. Nihilism says there is no good or bad.

It's your opinion that killing without justification isn't justifiable.

This is a truism so I'm not going to answer this

Then you've just blown your whole argument with that concession.

hhahahahahahahaha I point out contradictions and call out your dodges this whole time and because I point out a truism it's a concession? Hahahaha! Furthermore it's a straw man! You might have well just said "It's your opinion that all bachelors are single?" lol you slay me. I mean you're asking me if it's possible to justify killing w/o justification! lol how does that make sense? Everyone justifies or has reason for what they do, even if for dumb reason like fun. haha ha
The Prophet Sanders preaching the Word [][]
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 9:23:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/28/2014 4:25:59 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/28/2014 12:14:48 PM, PGA wrote:

Sorry, I missed this post of yours. I will reply to it immediately.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 10:19:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/28/2014 4:25:59 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/28/2014 12:14:48 PM, PGA wrote:

That is a theory developed in large by the Germany higher critics centuries removed.


This is simply not true. Show me the evidence to support this.

In 18th century Biblical criticism, the term "higher criticism" was commonly used in mainstream scholarship [3] in contrast with "lower criticism". In the 21st century, historical criticism is the more commonly used term for higher criticism, while textual criticism is more common than the loose expression "lower criticism".[4]

Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The perspective of the early historical critic was rooted in Protestant reformation ideology, inasmuch as their approach to biblical studies were free from the influence of traditional interpretation.[5] Where historical investigation was unavailable, historical criticism rested on philosophical and theological interpretation. With each passing century, historical criticism became refined into various methodologies used today: source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism, and related methodologies.[2]


http://en.wikipedia.org...

Higher criticism, arising from 19th century European rationalism, generally takes a secular approach asking questions regarding the origin and composition of the text, including when and where it originated, how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced, what influences were at work in its production, and what original oral or written sources may have been used in its composition; and the message of the text as expressed in its language, including the meaning of the words as well as the way in which they are arranged in meaningful forms of expression. The principles of higher criticism are based on reason rather than revelation and are also speculative by nature....The higher critical methods described below grew out of a German school of Biblical studies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Important names in the development of higher criticism include Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768"1834), Ludwig Feuerbach (1804"1872) and David Friedrich Strauss (1808"1874); the origins of higher criticism are deeply intertwined with rationalism and naturalism. The concepts and methods behind higher criticism were carried from Germany across Europe, finding homes in the United Kingdom and France, among liberal Anglicans and Catholics respectively. In later times, higher critical methods were deployed in conjunction with the contemporary philosophical trends to de-historicize Scripture.

This history of applying critical methods in an attempt to pull down Scripture has meant that the value of higher criticial methods has been, and still is, a matter of controversy among evangelicals. There are some who argue that entire field is irretrievably liberal and secular. For instance, when challenged that he was "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" in rejecting higher critical methods, James Montgomery replied "The difference is, you think there's a baby there, and I don't." ^[1]^ Geisler argues that evangelicals have been bedeviled by the offspring of methodological naturalism in biblical criticism largely through redaction criticism. ^[2]^

http://www.theopedia.com...

In the second place, some of the most powerful exponents of the modern Higher Critical theories have been Germans, and it is notorious to what length the German fancy can go in the direction of the subjective and of the conjectural. For hypothesis-weaving and speculation, the German theological professor is unsurpassed. One of the foremost thinkers used to lay it down as a fundamental truth in philosophical and scientific enquiries that no regard whatever should be paid to the conjectures or hypotheses of thinkers, and quoted as an axiom the great Newton himself and his famous words, "Non fingo hypotheses": I do not frame hypotheses. It is notorious that some of the most learned German thinkers are men who lack in a singular degree the faculty of common sense and knowledge of human nature. Like many physical scientists, they are so preoccupied with a theory that their conclusions seem to the average mind curiously warped. In fact, a learned man in a letter to Descartes once made an observation which, with slight verbal alteration, might be applied to some of the German critics: "When men sitting in their closet and consulting only their books attempt disquisitions into the Bible, they may indeed tell how they would have made the Book if God had given them that commission. That is, they may describe chimeras which correspond to the fatuity of their own minds, but without an understanding truly Divine they can never form such an idea to themselves as the Deity had in creating it." "If," says Matthew Arnold, "you shut a number of men up to make study and learning the business of their lives, how many of them, from want of some discipline or other, seem to lose all balance of judgment, all common sense."


http://www.eaec.org...

Something I learned a long time ago was if you want to find out something about a man then find out what and who influences them. This is very true. Jesus put it another way,

Matthew 12:30
[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.


Luke 11:23
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me, scatters.


These people have their own agenda, just like you and I do. You have made it abundantly clear you are not neutral in this. You are going to look at the evidence through the eyes of your experts, who you will heap up without careful consideration of where the evidence actually points. You have to much resting on what you believe.

So I will continue to tear down your arguments and show that you have nothing conclusive, in fact you go against the logical in believing what you do as I build the case from prophecy and the biblical evidence that will make your arguments silly.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 11:23:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/28/2014 4:25:59 PM, MEK wrote:
At 12/28/2014 12:14:48 PM, PGA wrote:

Peter, while I appreciate the time you put into attempting to prove Matthew's historicity within the bible - your information is not accurate. I have to ask you - have you cross checked your references with non-religious historical research (i.e. outside the Jewish/Hebrew bible)?

Some, just like you have checked it out with some religious sources, right? That does not determine the truth of the matter.

Please feel free to challenge me on this but this is what mainstream, NON- RELIGIOUS historians say about the bible in a nut shell.

Again, your bias is coming through. Most of the criticism you use come from the ideas of the German Higher critics who I gave you a brief account of. That is what forms the consensus of most biblical critics today.

They look at every historical source except for the very book they criticize to see how sensible their ideas really are. For instance, do you understand the scope of the covenant God made with this Old Covenant people, the covenant of blessing and curses? How well do you understand this? After you answer this question I will continue with my rebuttal of your argument.

1. Paul, who existed approx. 35ad - 60ad wrote the first known accounts of what we now call Christianity. He would have been the closest living person to Christ and yet he only refers to Christ in the celestial sense and not here on earth. Never mentions Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, miracles, the human Jesus or Pontius Pilot . He only mentions Christ' death, resurrection and ascension but places these events in some mythical realm and NOT on earth ( Heb 8:4).

Good, so are you giving all the epistles attributed to him in the NT a date before AD 70?
This is the next thing I need to know.

The book of Mark is, by almost ALL historians to be the first book of the NT and dated around 70ad. Matthew, Luke and John are copies. The early church fathers also recognized that there was a problem with selling Jesus as the one true son of god because before Jesus there were several other dying and rising gods (Mythra, Osiris, Dionysos, Hercules...) and they new the pagans would just say, "Why choose this one over the ones we have already discounted?) So in order fix this they came up with the notion that Satin invented these other gods to try and fool us. This crazy attempted ploys tells us something important - the early church fathers KNEW of these past similar gods.

First, the early church fathers have used almost every Scripture contained in the NT in their writings, so these Scriptures must have been available before they wrote. Second, many of them were influenced by Greek thought. This seeps into their teachings at times.

If you want references to my claims I can give them to you but to just name a few:
Hector Avalos, author and Professor of religious studies University of Iowa and attended the Harvard Divinity school. John Loftus MA of Theology and author. Richard Carrier , PhD in ancient history from Columbia.

Hector Avalos - Avalos is an atheist activist and advocate of secular humanist ethics...Avalos outlined the thesis that Christianity began, in part, as a health care reform movement that sought to address the problems voiced by patients in the Greco-Roman world. [What a laugh. No bias here!]...In 2007 Avalos published The End of Biblical Studies (2007) where he argued that academic biblical scholarship was primarily an apologetic religionist enterprise meant to provide the illusion that the Bible was still a culturally and morally superior authority. He critiqued numerous fields (translation, archaeology, history, textual criticism, literary aesthetics) arguing the discipline was permeated with pro-religionist biases. John Merrill of the Biblical Archaeology Review writes that "instead of being constructive, Avalos"s arguments come off in the end as an exercise in emotional nihilism whose conclusions seem ultimately self-defeating."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

John Loftus - John Loftus discusses his background as an Evangelical Christian preacher and apologist and what led to his rejection of the faith, including both emotional loss and "lovelessness in the church," and also philosophical arguments and historical evidence that caused him to doubt. He critiques the Christian illusion of moral superiority. He challenges religion with what he calls the "outsider test." He explores whether logic and reason led to his atheism, or followed only after he adopted an atheistic point of view for emotional reasons. And he explains what he does believe in now that he no longer believes in Christianity or God, and the benefits he thinks this new worldview brings him.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org...

No bias here! Another atheist scholar with a bone to pick against Christianity.

Richard Carrier - Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an atheist activist,...He has a doctorate in history from Columbia University...He is a leading proponent of the Christ myth theory...He is a leading proponent of the Christ myth theory...Richard Carrier originally gained prominence as an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, authoring many articles on the Secular Web
Unfortunately, everything you have stated about Matthew and the bible is not on par with those individuals who have spent their academic life studying this stuff...These books explain and utilize a historical methodology that employs Bayes's Theorem [What a joke] for the purpose of historical inquiry; specifically within the context of Jesus studies...Carrier received a PhD in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008: his thesis was entitled 'Attitudes towards the natural philosopher in the Early Roman Empire'....He also argues it is less likely, but also possible, that the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen. This work was criticized by philosophy professor Stephen T. Davis in Philosophia Christi[9] and Christian apologist Norman Geisler....

Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person",[12] yet he also said "though I foresee a rising challenge among qualified experts against the assumption of historicity [of Jesus]... that remains only a hypothesis that has yet to survive proper peer review".[13] In June 2014 Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt was published by Sheffield Phoenix Press. Carrier has claimed that it is "the first comprehensive pro-Jesus myth book ever published by a respected academic press and under formal peer review...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I see no bias here, Mek! Great scholar he is! I see where his influence may possibly have washed off onto you in the making of the Jesus myth. You flock to atheist scholars who tickle your ears!

So, in the three authors and "Bible scholars" you gave me they are all atheists and come to the table, so to speak, from a particular bias fueled by their rejection of God. How biblical is debatable. No where does it say they have spent their whole life researching the authenticity of the Bible. If I was to investigate further I'm sure I would find their ties to German Higher criticism.

Do you agree that your three amigos have a very particular bias and that you have been influenced by it if these are the scholars you prescribe?

So I think we should move on to the evidence from the Bible itself and the early witnesses. You can't discuss the Bible without referring to it although I'm sure you would like to.

I still want you to confirm which books you place before AD 70 and roughly where, if any.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 11:28:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 2:06:47 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:00:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:27:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
Already made. Your worldview can't explain why something should be moral, just that it is because you and they like it that way.

.

If most people agree and approve of rape or torturing babies then to that social convention it is right! Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking??? A tribe in the South Pacific agree and approve of eating those of different tribes. Therefore to this tribe it is right! No, some things are just plain wrong no matter whether 99% agree with it or not.

Someone who does not follow the 99% that the rest of us agree on is acting in opposition to what we strive to accomplish, and we will simply decide not to allow these individuals to succeed in doing so. That's all there is to it....

So you say, "This is good because I say it is good and if you don't like it I will bash you over the head." Very moral of you, and the 99% in your social group who say the same thing!

So if I live and was born on a boundary line between two countries and each has granted me citizenship from birth and in one country 99% oppose abortion and consider it murder and in the other 99% consent to a woman's right to choose and I run an abortion clinic on this boarder and I'm found out for doing this who has the moral claim over my actions? Who is actually right in their assessment of abortion?

And again, how are you to determine a society for in each one there are sub-cultures and people who think about morality differently from the majority. What happens whe

Christians believe that morals are more important than the message Jesus came to share with God's chosen believers. It is the concentration on morality that has deceived every Christian from knowing our Creator and HIs eternal plan for us.

His message was a moral message. You are dead in sin and unbelief and have need of a Savior and forgiveness for your hatred and wrong of your Creator. Repent and believe is the message. Repentance is a moral issue. Repentance is at the heart of the issue.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 11:39:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 4:55:55 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

Context and language determine whether something should or should not be taken literally. Does the language convey historical narrative or figurative speech? Who is it addressing and what, if any, are the time frames involved? What is the cultural significance of what was said to the people of address? These are things you have to take into consideration if you want to find the Author's meaning. These are the things so many people ignore as they try to project the prophesies into the distant future from when they were made.

so with regard to the bible how do you determine what is and what isn't to be taken literally?

You find the Author's meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you. If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said. The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying. Why would you treat God's word differently? As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things, yet basically you understand through God's word. The Bible interprets itself. God confirms what He says and this confirmation is brought out more fully when you compare Scripture with Scripture to get His meaning. When you rightly understand Scripture the confusion is cleared up. I have found this with the case of prophecy.

The way you hear evangelicals explain it is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

Peter
PLEASESTOPLYING
Posts: 196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2014 11:53:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 11:39:13 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 4:55:55 PM, PLEASESTOPLYING wrote:

Context and language determine whether something should or should not be taken literally. Does the language convey historical narrative or figurative speech? Who is it addressing and what, if any, are the time frames involved? What is the cultural significance of what was said to the people of address? These are things you have to take into consideration if you want to find the Author's meaning. These are the things so many people ignore as they try to project the prophesies into the distant future from when they were made.

so with regard to the bible how do you determine what is and what isn't to be taken literally?

You find the Author's meaning just like you do when you read what I am writing to you. If you don't find my meaning then you have not understood what I have said. The context gives you an understanding of the meaning I am conveying. Why would you treat God's word differently? As I said above, you have to understand the time frame, who is addressed, the cultural idioms and a host of other things, yet basically you understand through God's word. The Bible interprets itself. God confirms what He says and this confirmation is brought out more fully when you compare Scripture with Scripture to get His meaning. When you rightly understand Scripture the confusion is cleared up. I have found this with the case of prophecy.

The way you hear evangelicals explain it is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

uh that in no way answered my question.
If it is that simple, how is it that so many interpretations of the bible exist? some take genesis literally. some claim the 7 days is not 24 hour periods some claim it isn't some claim adam and eve to be metaphors and some claim them to be real people
some take the story of a man living inside a whale as a literal story some don't - some even go as far as having a museum that includes little human beings and dinosaurs living together, and say that the dinosaurs were on the ark- no use in even going there

again how can you claim it to be easy to distinguish the historical from the metaphorical in the bible, when anyone can see it is not

Peter
Did anyone ever disprove the existence of ZEUS?
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:14:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 9:15:49 PM, PGA wrote:

First, the bible is filled with so much contradiction that some have speculated that it is the most contradicted text ever produced.

Rubbish.

Okay, wait just a minute. "Rubbish"??? Do you really want to go down this road because if you do not concede that the bible is riddled with several contradictions I will provide so much evidence that you will be left spinning and grasping at figurative straws.

This is just a point made in response to your statement about the book coming together with consistency. Regardless, you have not proved that the old testament is prophetic.

Are you claiming there is no prophecy in the OT?

No. I am stating that the evidence insuring accurate documentation of when said "prophesies" were pronounced is based upon the cultural perception. For example, although it is possible to identify parallels between Bible verses and subsequently occurring events, alleged prophecy fulfillment is not sufficient to compel belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. For every example of some prophecy being fulfilled, I can give you examples of several prophecies that were not fulfilled.


For example, Abraham lived apprx 1800 BCE and yet the earliest verification of him is 400 BCE. That is a 1400 year gap! How can you claim anyone writing these early Hebrew texts have any idea what happened a thousand years before with any accuracy?? Would be very easy to insert a prophecy here and there. Second, take Luke 21;5-30 where it says Jesus predicts the fall of the Jewish temple. Well, that's easy to feign especially if Luke was written after 70ad which is exactly when most scholars place Luke.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of how accurately preserved the OT texts have been copied. These scrolls are dated to between 250-100 BC. Regardless of anything else any prophecy found in the OT would have to predate these dates. :

I fail to see your point here.

We also know of the painstaking trouble these scribes took in copying an OT manuscript. We have internal evidence that confirms other histories of the period and some external evidence found from archaeology. :

"Internal evidence"?? What about objective outside evidence that there IS NO evidence found in archaeology to support your claims. Who cares about biased inside evidence?, It simply is not credible.

One of the earliest documents associated with the NT is known as P 52 (some papyrus from John, I believe). It's origin, by carbon dating, is about 125 CE (which makes sense as it is believed John was the last gospel written).

Still does not tell me when your experts claim it was written.:

Yes it does - about 125 CE. What more do you want??

That is about a century after Christ would have lived. It is widely known that Mark's gospel is the first with Matthew, Luke and John to follow. Dating for these has to do with the language structure used. It is also well known that none of the authors of the gospels were eye-witnesses.

It is not well known, it is well speculated. The early evidence is convincing that these were eyewitnesses and Matthew was one of the 12 disciples.:

What are you talking about??? You are simply confused - there is NO evidence to support YOUR speculation that Matthew was the first book written. There were no eye witnesses - period. Provide the evidence that states otherwise. Provide competing evidence that Mark was not written first.

Now I would be surprised no one has offered you this very well known collection of data found just about everywhere (books, internet, etc) and I have to wonder from what source are you deriving your information because it seems to be not in the mainstream school of thought.

It has been offered yet I want to see where you place the dates that these books were written. Are you saying they were all written in the 2nd century onwards? If you are saying that no NT book was written before AD 70 you go against the scholarly consensus.:

No I am not. The non-religious, historical "scholarly consensus" states this and is generally accepted. You truly need to do more research in this area.
MEK
Posts: 259
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 12:50:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 11:23:15 PM, PGA wrote:

Some, just like you have checked it out with some religious sources, right? That does not determine the truth of the matter.:

Yes, I have. In fact I used to be a Christian and studied it quite earnestly. And yes, comparing alternate view does help illuminate the truth.

For instance, do you understand the scope of the covenant God made with this Old Covenant people, the covenant of blessing and curses? How well do you understand this? After you answer this question I will continue with my rebuttal of your argument. :

Yes I do and it does not make sense with the world I know - so what?

1. Paul, who existed approx. 35ad - 60ad wrote the first known accounts of what we now call Christianity. He would have been the closest living person to Christ and yet he only refers to Christ in the celestial sense and not here on earth. Never mentions Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, miracles, the human Jesus or Pontius Pilot . He only mentions Christ' death, resurrection and ascension but places these events in some mythical realm and NOT on earth ( Heb 8:4).

Good, so are you giving all the epistles attributed to him in the NT a date before AD 70?
This is the next thing I need to know.:

You have not addressed my point and are being obviously evasive. Nice try but this subterfuge does not escape my awareness that you have no answer to this contextual dilemma.

The book of Mark is, by almost ALL historians to be the first book of the NT and dated around 70ad. Matthew, Luke and John are copies. The early church fathers also recognized that there was a problem with selling Jesus as the one true son of god because before Jesus there were several other dying and rising gods (Mythra, Osiris, Dionysos, Hercules...) and they new the pagans would just say, "Why choose this one over the ones we have already discounted?) So in order fix this they came up with the notion that Satin invented these other gods to try and fool us. This crazy attempted ploys tells us something important - the early church fathers KNEW of these past similar gods.

First, the early church fathers have used almost every Scripture contained in the NT in their writings, so these Scriptures must have been available before they wrote.:

How could the early church fathers use NT writings if they weren't written yet? Moreover what does this have to do with my point about embellishing the "Jesus" story to support their new found political, christian purpose?

If you want references to my claims I can give them to you but to just name a few:
Hector Avalos, author and Professor of religious studies University of Iowa and attended the Harvard Divinity school. John Loftus MA of Theology and author. Richard Carrier , PhD in ancient history from Columbia.:

I see no bias here, Mek! Great scholar he is! I see where his influence may possibly have washed off onto you in the making of the Jesus myth. You flock to atheist scholars who tickle your ears! :

You miss the point completely. Both Avalos and Loftus were Christians before they began their educated journeys. I do not "flock to atheists who tickle my ears" but toward those who have educated themselves away from the restricted, insular perceptions of religious dogma.

If an academic in religious history is atheist - do you automatically discount his/her view? I take people like William L. Craig and Denesh d'souza very seriously and listen to their arguments. These are not atheists. I would expect you to do the same....unless you are afraid of what you might discover....
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:15:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 7:04:47 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:52:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:45:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:34:24 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:30:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:23:10 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/29/2014 6:10:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I see where I've confused you. I'm arguing that raping an infant regardless of context is always immoral so I'm supporting moral absolutism rather than objective morality with my infant rape argument.

However both moral absolutism and objective morality would require God's existence.

I see you've changed your argument benny.

Stay tuned Bulproof. Eventually I'll teach you that raping an infant is always wrong.

That's what I said, you have changed your tune, sounds subjective to me but you wouldn't understand.

Nope, don't understand how infant rape is subjectively wrong.

Thank you for proving me right.
You don't understand what I said and you never have since you got here, frightens you doesn't it?
The fear behind the pogrom.

I'm all ears. Why is raping an infant not always wrong?

Interesting.
You are told that you didn't understand what was written and you just ignore that information and continue on in your erroneous vein.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Amoranemix
Posts: 562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 8:11:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Benshapiro 79
Well you yourself said "tired baby rape scenario" then went on to say that it wasn't a scenario. Objective morality is an argument that doesn't concern itself with context. "Killing without necessary justification is immoral" would be an example of objective morality. Moral absolutism is where something is immoral regardless of context like "it's always wrong to kill."
Your moral evaluation 'Killing without necessary justification is immoral' contains a context, namely the absence of necessary justification. Anything can become morally right with justification.

- Double_R 85
Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.
- PGA 88
There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.
Which of those claims can you prove ?

Benshapiro 89
God is the source but morality isn't God's opinion. Morality derives from God's absolute nature. Anything absolute can never be anything other that what it is.
What is God's absolute nature and how does morality derive from it ?

Benshapiro 96
I'm a non-denominational theist. I believe that God is the source and standard from where we derive our sense of objective morality.
So you don't know why raping children for fun is wrong and in stead of investigating, you use God to fill that gap in your knowledge. You don't know, therefore God must have done it.

Benshapiro 106
Is raping an infant subjectively immoral? If so, why? On what grounds is this evidently a subjective rather than objective moral standard?
Yes, raping an infant is subjectively immoral because I find it immoral. Of course that doesn't prevent it from being objectively immoral as well.

PGA 122
If you [MEK] are willing to go there then would you agree that if the Bible is what it claims to be, the revelation of God, and this God who He has revealed Himself to be, good, holy and true, then the evidence would be objective, we could know for certain because an all knowing being who has said He is good, pure, holy, and true, incapable of lying, has told us what is through this written revelation?
I don't agree with that. Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?

- PLEASESTOPLYING 120
Societies good" may not mean much to you, but if you act rationally and morally and don't go around raping and killing just because you think some sky god doesn't want you to then you are certainly not a good person by nature.
- PGA 124
That is the whole point isn't it. Who determines "good?" You? Based on your subjective feelings? Why are they "right?" What unchanging standard do you base your sense of "right" upon?
People determine what 'good' and other terms mean and they write their conventions in dictionaries. They are right because these terms are agreed upon.

PGA 125 to Double_R
God is necessary to justify a belief system, otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also necessary to justify a belief system. Otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.

PGA 130
we're not talking about 'more value' but whether babies have any intrinsic worth at all. In order for objective morality to be true we can't be intrinsically worthless. It can't be true that we definitely ought to value a valueless thing. There are many good reasons to believe that babies and human life has intrinsic worth. Do you need any extrinsic value criteria in order to rescue a baby on the side of the road? Doesn't the controversy over abortion rest on the fact of whether or not a fetus is considered a human being? What criteria do we need to value a baby? None. Yet babies are still valued. Therefore the value is intrinsic.
What are the good reasons to believe that human life has intrinsic worth ?
Objective morality does not require intrinsic value, but such an objective morality is not one I adhere to.

Bennet91 138 to Benshapiro
lol again, you're projecting your values as universal. You may be confusing potential for value (which everything has) for something being actually valued (which requires a 2nd party to place value upon). This is all contextual, sometimes baby are not given value because they can be seen as detrimental to the survival of the whole.
I think babies have intrinsic value regardless of opinion. Opinions would only vary on how much that value is. Some may think it positive, others negative and yet others zero.

Double_R 150 to Benshapiro
You claim that God cannot change morality because it's his nature. You claim that his nature has no source. This leaves you with one of two options:
A) Morality does not come from God
B) God and Gods nature are the same thing.
I admit I don't understand how you get A. It seems to me that morality could come from God if his nature determines morality in some way. He could for example determine morality by example. If it is in God's nature to rape children for fun then that would make raping children for fun benevolent. If it is against his nature to help the poor, then helping the poor would be malevolent.
God could be the moral force SNP1 mentioned and his nature whatever that moral force strives for, which would by definition be benevolent.

PGA 152
Already made. Your worldview can't explain why something should be moral, just that it is because you and they like it that way. On that basis what grounds do you have to condemn Hitler's Germany for murdering 6 million Jews? They just did what they liked. What is wrong with that? If you can do it why can't they?
Because doing what one likes is at best morally neutral, according to most people. Also benevolence implies favouring the interests of others, according to most people. Is your god an exception ?
Also consider that there is a difference between what one likes and and what one does and the morality one believes in. One may believe stealing is immoral and steal anyway out of selfishness.

Double_R 155
There is quite a bit to how we go about determining what is moral. The basis of everyone's morality is our own desires. No way around that. From there it is a rational process. Do you want to be killed? No? So don't kill others. Do you want to have your things stolen? No? So don't steal other peoples things. It gets more complicated but you can start there.
One can in principle construct a morality or adhere to a morality without relying on one's own desires. For example, if God were to exist, one could try adhering to his morality.

@PGA :
Would you be willing to debate the moral argument (presented approximatively in post 197) with me in a formal debate ?
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
SNP1
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 10:56:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.

Almost every argument for god is philosophical.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2014 8:31:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 11:28:03 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:06:47 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:00:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:27:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
Already made. Your worldview can't explain why something should be moral, just that it is because you and they like it that way.

.

If most people agree and approve of rape or torturing babies then to that social convention it is right! Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking??? A tribe in the South Pacific agree and approve of eating those of different tribes. Therefore to this tribe it is right! No, some things are just plain wrong no matter whether 99% agree with it or not.

Someone who does not follow the 99% that the rest of us agree on is acting in opposition to what we strive to accomplish, and we will simply decide not to allow these individuals to succeed in doing so. That's all there is to it....

So you say, "This is good because I say it is good and if you don't like it I will bash you over the head." Very moral of you, and the 99% in your social group who say the same thing!

So if I live and was born on a boundary line between two countries and each has granted me citizenship from birth and in one country 99% oppose abortion and consider it murder and in the other 99% consent to a woman's right to choose and I run an abortion clinic on this boarder and I'm found out for doing this who has the moral claim over my actions? Who is actually right in their assessment of abortion?

And again, how are you to determine a society for in each one there are sub-cultures and people who think about morality differently from the majority. What happens whe

Christians believe that morals are more important than the message Jesus came to share with God's chosen believers. It is the concentration on morality that has deceived every Christian from knowing our Creator and HIs eternal plan for us.

His message was a moral message. You are dead in sin and unbelief and have need of a Savior and forgiveness for your hatred and wrong of your Creator. Repent and believe is the message. Repentance is a moral issue. Repentance is at the heart of the issue.

Peter

Jesus never talked about the sins of men. He talked about the future when ALL God's people will be saved from this world. The new testament was written by antichrists who stole the words that us saints wrote and spoke mixed with their religious beliefs. Water baptism has nothing to do with getting to know God and neither does the Eucharist. There ideas came from God's plan called the beast where all religions, religious ideas, science, mathematics, building of false gods and the languages that are used to support these false gods came from.

Jesus knew that the flesh of God's people deceived them from their true created invisible existence in God. He told them that the flesh would perish but that their created spirit would remain in God until the New Heaven and Earth appeared. He told them they would get new flesh to live forever in Paradise.

Antichrists ( false prophets ) totally trashed the knowledge that God's saints wrote and spoke and used this knowledge with their religious beliefs to enslave all their Christians. They enjoyed their lives in this world with all the money they collected with their religious bribery ( tithes ) aimed at their poor ( spiritually poor ) Christians.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 6:13:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/28/2014 4:47:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/28/2014 3:07:57 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are going to continue to make the two claims above then you need a 3rd option in order to reconcile them, otherwise you have no justification for your claims. Your attempts to present one are completely incoherent, which you just demonstrated again.

Yes, there is nothing incoherent about an eternal mind that has always embodied absolute characteristics. Embodying these characteristics is not the same thing as being the source for them. If you don't agree then please make use of a dictionary.

If a mind is the source for morality then morality is by definition subject to that mind (aka subjective). You however claim that Gods mind does not determine morality but rather his nature does, therefore his mind cannot possibly be the source. There is no way around this.

It wouldn't be subjective. Think of any objective thing or feature. Whatever this thing is, is definitely true. So objective basically just means to be definitely true. God's mind is only the definitive truth. God's mind is objective.

More incoherence. Allow me to start all the way from the beginning...

There is reality. Just reality. Nothing else, if there were anything else then it would necessarily be part of reality. In this reality there exists intelligent beings who are capable of forming concepts. The word true is a description of those concepts. When the concept conceived of by an intelligent being matches reality, we describe that concept as "true". When the concept does not match reality, we describe that concept as "false". True and false are nothing more then that, descriptions of concepts. There are not different levels of truth. There is no "truth" and "definitive truth". There is simply true, and not true. That's it.

Saying that God's mind is only the definitive truth is completely incoherent. A mind is not truth by definition, a mind is an existent thing in reality (or at least a the brain is). Once again, you need to compare two things; a concept, and reality. I still can't figure out which one you are asserting God's mind is supposed to be when you say it is truth.

God's mind entails all of his characteristics so God's mind and his nature are inseparable. I wouldn't say that God 'determines' morality. God's mind is only definitive truth - he can't act in any non-true way. To change an objective value would be impossible for God to do.

Your assertions are baseless and useless. You cannot separate me from my nature either, that doesn't make me a God. The simple fact that I have a nature means that there are characteristics about me which cannot be changed. If they cannot change then they were not decided by me. If they weren't decided by me then they came into existence by some means other than me. This isn't complicated.

You can claim all you want that God and his nature are inseparable all you want, that doesn't demonstrate an ounce of intellectual value for your proposition. Either God is responsible for his nature or he is not. This is logic 101, based in English 101. If God is not responsible for his nature and yet his nature exists, then something else is responsible. Deal with this fact if you are going to keep responding.
Double_R
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2014 7:22:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
In order to make a moral judgment you need to use your own moral standard.

That has been my point all along - based on what/who? Why is your moral standard good and where does it come from? Who gets to decide?

Asking why my moral standards are good is a completely incoherent question. That's like asking why are the rules of basketball are basketball.

The framework for morality is no different then the framework for any other sport, game, etc... You must necessarily begin with a set of rules. Those rules are and will always be necessarily subjective. Once the rules are chosen, then you can evaluate whether something is objectively in accordance with them.

Morality begins with a standard. The standard is the set of rules from which all actions are judged. Killing is judged as bad because it goes against the rules established by the chosen standard. You can't evaluate the standard unless you are already using a standard to judge it by. So it is logically impossible to determine that a standard is objectively good, because goodness itself can never be established without a subject choosing the standard which determines it.

All knowing is a useless characteristic for morality. Satan could be all knowing and still be evil.

Satan was not all knowing. How can a created being be all knowing when God alone has this attribute? Where are you getting your information from - just making it up?

OMG are you even trying to understand what I am saying? I really don't think so.

I made a logical statement, "Satan could be all knowing and still be evil". In other words the concept is consistent with logic. I was demonstrating why God being all knowing is a useless argument for morality. The idea that one is all knowing says nothing about whether one is good. That's all. Please pay attention.

Because he tells you he is good... are you kidding?

Yes, because He tells me and I trust His word. You do not believe because you do not trust His authority, His word. You think your finite understanding and wisdom is wiser than God's.

With all due respect, this statement makes me wonder if you are worth any attempt at intelligent discussion. I am an atheist. I do not believe God is real. I cannot believe I am wiser then a being that I don't believe exists. Do you understand why that is an incoherent allegation? As is the statement that I don't believe because I don't trust his word. I don't trust his word because I don't believe it is his word. Again. I don't believe he is real. I see that this is a difficult concept to wrap your head around, but if you have any interest in intelligent discussion... try.

If all you're going to do is sit here and tell me that God is good because he told you so, or give me the usual Christian BS that you can't judge God then you are not capable of having a moral discussion because all you are doing is regurgitating what you are told.

I have already given you sound reasons. Why would I trust your relative, subjective, changing mind(s)? Who are you to know?

When I say that you are incapable of thinking for yourself this is exactly why. It's not a matter of trusting what I or anyone else says. It is a matter of understanding things for yourself. If you agree with me then great. If not that is fine too. I really don't care. But what irritates me is when trying to have a discussion with you about why you accept your own understanding of morality and all you can do is come up with sophisticated excuses for doing and believing whatever you are told. And the demonstration of that is for you to take a comment of mine aimed at pointing out this fact, and turn it into me demanding that you accept what I say because I said it, which seems like a manifestation of the fact that you are so unaware of the idea of coming to your own conclusions that you can't even understand what someone means when they tell you that you should be.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:54:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/31/2014 7:22:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
In order to make a moral judgment you need to use your own moral standard.

That has been my point all along - based on what/who? Why is your moral standard good and where does it come from? Who gets to decide?

Asking why my moral standards are good is a completely incoherent question. That's like asking why are the rules of basketball are basketball.

Not at all. Asking why your moral standard is good is asking you to give justifiable reasoning that what you say is actually good. Why is your subjective mind, or that of other subjective, relative minds, or the majority, actually good? If it is based on likes then what makes your likes any more good than my likes, especially when we disagree over those likes? All I ever see you atheists and agnostics doing is avoiding admitting that your standard is not good because you have nothing but shifting opinion on to base goodness on. The ones with the power dictate to the rest and the sheep just follow ignorantly along.

The framework for morality is no different then the framework for any other sport, game, etc... You must necessarily begin with a set of rules. Those rules are and will always be necessarily subjective. Once the rules are chosen, then you can evaluate whether something is objectively in accordance with them.

The question is who determines those rules and why is their determination "good?" Good has to have a reference point. You admit they will always be necessarily subjective so how do you know this being a subjective being? And if rules are chosen, they are based on nothing more than how you evaluate what you like. Some people like to torture children and some people like to love them. Which do you like? How can you dare to say that something is wrong based on such stupid thinking? With man making the rules anything can be said to be good if enough people like the rule.

Morality begins with a standard. The standard is the set of rules from which all actions are judged. Killing is judged as bad because it goes against the rules established by the chosen standard. You can't evaluate the standard unless you are already using a standard to judge it by. So it is logically impossible to determine that a standard is objectively good, because goodness itself can never be established without a subject choosing the standard which determines it.

That is just my point. You say it is logically impossible to determine that a standard is objectively good. That is not true if that standard is God. Yet this is an idea that you do your utmost to eliminate from your thinking. This just goes to prove how biased and prejudiced you are. You cannot even entertain the possibility without rejecting it.

All knowing is a useless characteristic for morality. Satan could be all knowing and still be evil.

Satan was not all knowing. How can a created being be all knowing when God alone has this attribute? Where are you getting your information from - just making it up?

OMG are you even trying to understand what I am saying? I really don't think so.

I made a logical statement, "Satan could be all knowing and still be evil". In other words the concept is consistent with logic. I was demonstrating why God being all knowing is a useless argument for morality. The idea that one is all knowing says nothing about whether one is good. That's all. Please pay attention.

No he could not. Evil does not contain goodness in it. It is the exact opposite of good. Satan is a created being. He had a beginning and is limited in his power and attributes. Show me where you get your information from to claim otherwise. Do you just make it up? I don't accept what you have to say as true knowledge. Who are you to determine truth about such matters?

Because he tells you he is good... are you kidding?

Yes, because He tells me and I trust His word. You do not believe because you do not trust His authority, His word. You think your finite understanding and wisdom is wiser than God's.

With all due respect, this statement makes me wonder if you are worth any attempt at intelligent discussion. I am an atheist. I do not believe God is real. I cannot believe I am wiser then a being that I don't believe exists. Do you understand why that is an incoherent allegation? As is the statement that I don't believe because I don't trust his word. I don't trust his word because I don't believe it is his word. Again. I don't believe he is real. I see that this is a difficult concept to wrap your head around, but if you have any interest in intelligent discussion... try.

I don't care if you want to take the fast train out of here or not. You have the gall to suggest that your position is the intelligent one. The reason you can't believe is that you will not concede that you are not wiser and smarter than God. When it comes to matters of authority your subjective, relative mind always sees itself triumphing over God because you want to deny Him His sovereignty. How can you believe when you will not trust? When you reject Him all that is left is your subjective, limited, self-sufficient, autonomous mind and those other such minds you rally around.

If all you're going to do is sit here and tell me that God is good because he told you so, or give me the usual Christian BS that you can't judge God then you are not capable of having a moral discussion....

I have already given you sound reasons. Why would I trust your relative, subjective, changing mind(s)? Who are you to know?

When I say that you are incapable of thinking for yourself this is exactly why.

When I see where thinking for yourself has gotten you in your self revelation of what is true and good I don't think you should be bragging about your understanding and confused, inconsistent, illogical worldview.

It's not a matter of trusting what I or anyone else says. It is a matter of understanding things for yourself.

What a bunch of utter bunk. You mean to tell me that you trust no one else, that your opinions and values are formed in the vacuum of your own mind and are ultimate to all others?

If you agree with me then great. If not that is fine too. I really don't care.

I don't agree with you and I don't care to either. I think you thinking is foolish.

But what irritates me is when trying to have a discussion with you about why you accept your own understanding of morality and all you can do is come up with sophisticated excuses for doing and believing whatever you are told.

You do not come to your own opinions on your own unless you are your ultimate authority in all things. Is that the case? Is there no greater authority than you? What kind of "sophisticated" excuses do you have for believing what you believe and are told?

And the demonstration of that is for you to take a comment of mine aimed at pointing out this fact, and turn it into me demanding that you accept what I say because I said it, which seems like a manifestation of the fact that you are so unaware of the idea of coming to your own conclusions that you can't even understand what someone means when they tell you that you should be.

Sure I do. I want to know why your opinion is the be all and end all of any discussion. You come to your own conclusions based on your starting presuppositions, just like I do. Yet those starting presuppositions cannot make sense of themselves from your worldview starting point. Your worldview starting point is unintelligible, unintentional, chaotic, random illogical matter plus energy, then you heap everything else on top of this and as a result of this. Speak about stupidity at its best!

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 12:59:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 8:31:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:28:03 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:06:47 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:00:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:27:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
Already made. Your worldview can't explain why something should be moral, just that it is because you and they like it that way.

.

If most people agree and approve of rape or torturing babies then to that social convention it is right! Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking??? A tribe in the South Pacific agree and approve of eating those of different tribes. Therefore to this tribe it is right! No, some things are just plain wrong no matter whether 99% agree with it or not.

Someone who does not follow the 99% that the rest of us agree on is acting in opposition to what we strive to accomplish, and we will simply decide not to allow these individuals to succeed in doing so. That's all there is to it....

So you say, "This is good because I say it is good and if you don't like it I will bash you over the head." Very moral of you, and the 99% in your social group who say the same thing!

So if I live and was born on a boundary line between two countries and each has granted me citizenship from birth and in one country 99% oppose abortion and consider it murder and in the other 99% consent to a woman's right to choose and I run an abortion clinic on this boarder and I'm found out for doing this who has the moral claim over my actions? Who is actually right in their assessment of abortion?

And again, how are you to determine a society for in each one there are sub-cultures and people who think about morality differently from the majority. What happens whe

Christians believe that morals are more important than the message Jesus came to share with God's chosen believers. It is the concentration on morality that has deceived every Christian from knowing our Creator and HIs eternal plan for us.

His message was a moral message. You are dead in sin and unbelief and have need of a Savior and forgiveness for your hatred and wrong of your Creator. Repent and believe is the message. Repentance is a moral issue. Repentance is at the heart of the issue.

Peter

Jesus never talked about the sins of men. He talked about the future when ALL God's people will be saved from this world. The new testament was written by antichrists who stole the words that us saints wrote and spoke mixed with their religious beliefs. Water baptism has nothing to do with getting to know God and neither does the Eucharist. There ideas came from God's plan called the beast where all religions, religious ideas, science, mathematics, building of false gods and the languages that are used to support these false gods came from.

Jesus knew that the flesh of God's people deceived them from their true created invisible existence in God. He told them that the flesh would perish but that their created spirit would remain in God until the New Heaven and Earth appeared. He told them they would get new flesh to live forever in Paradise.

Antichrists ( false prophets ) totally trashed the knowledge that God's saints wrote and spoke and used this knowledge with their religious beliefs to enslave all their Christians. They enjoyed their lives in this world with all the money they collected with their religious bribery ( tithes ) aimed at their poor ( spiritually poor ) Christians.

Sorry Bog, I do not take anything you say seriously in matters pertaining to God. You go against the very words of Scripture and base yourself as the ultimate authority of appeal. That is self deception at its best and I think you need to seek help. On other matters perhaps we could find some mutual ground and friendship, and you need friends, but not on this matter.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.

Why would I take your word for it? What makes your word genuine, true knowledge of the subject?

Peter
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:05:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 12:59:12 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 8:31:31 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/29/2014 11:28:03 PM, PGA wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:06:47 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/29/2014 2:01:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/28/2014 10:37:34 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 12/28/2014 1:00:52 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/27/2014 2:27:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
Already made. Your worldview can't explain why something should be moral, just that it is because you and they like it that way.

.

If most people agree and approve of rape or torturing babies then to that social convention it is right! Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking??? A tribe in the South Pacific agree and approve of eating those of different tribes. Therefore to this tribe it is right! No, some things are just plain wrong no matter whether 99% agree with it or not.

Someone who does not follow the 99% that the rest of us agree on is acting in opposition to what we strive to accomplish, and we will simply decide not to allow these individuals to succeed in doing so. That's all there is to it....

So you say, "This is good because I say it is good and if you don't like it I will bash you over the head." Very moral of you, and the 99% in your social group who say the same thing!

So if I live and was born on a boundary line between two countries and each has granted me citizenship from birth and in one country 99% oppose abortion and consider it murder and in the other 99% consent to a woman's right to choose and I run an abortion clinic on this boarder and I'm found out for doing this who has the moral claim over my actions? Who is actually right in their assessment of abortion?

And again, how are you to determine a society for in each one there are sub-cultures and people who think about morality differently from the majority. What happens whe

Christians believe that morals are more important than the message Jesus came to share with God's chosen believers. It is the concentration on morality that has deceived every Christian from knowing our Creator and HIs eternal plan for us.

His message was a moral message. You are dead in sin and unbelief and have need of a Savior and forgiveness for your hatred and wrong of your Creator. Repent and believe is the message. Repentance is a moral issue. Repentance is at the heart of the issue.

Peter

Jesus never talked about the sins of men. He talked about the future when ALL God's people will be saved from this world. The new testament was written by antichrists who stole the words that us saints wrote and spoke mixed with their religious beliefs. Water baptism has nothing to do with getting to know God and neither does the Eucharist. There ideas came from God's plan called the beast where all religions, religious ideas, science, mathematics, building of false gods and the languages that are used to support these false gods came from.

Jesus knew that the flesh of God's people deceived them from their true created invisible existence in God. He told them that the flesh would perish but that their created spirit would remain in God until the New Heaven and Earth appeared. He told them they would get new flesh to live forever in Paradise.

Antichrists ( false prophets ) totally trashed the knowledge that God's saints wrote and spoke and used this knowledge with their religious beliefs to enslave all their Christians. They enjoyed their lives in this world with all the money they collected with their religious bribery ( tithes ) aimed at their poor ( spiritually poor ) Christians.

Sorry Bog, I do not take anything you say seriously in matters pertaining to God. You go against the very words of Scripture and base yourself as the ultimate authority of appeal. That is self deception at its best and I think you need to seek help. On other matters perhaps we could find some mutual ground and friendship, and you need friends, but not on this matter.

Peter

I accept everyone as a friend who comes to listen to the voice of the Lord without rejecting it. I have many friends who don't believe in the knowledge of God that I testify to but we remain friends because they don't reject my body that's kind to them.
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:16:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 8:11:48 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
Benshapiro 79

@PGA :
Would you be willing to debate the moral argument (presented approximatively in post 197) with me in a formal debate ?

I'll think about it. The thing I have noticed about debates is that the vote does not necessarily reflect who had the better argument or the truths and falsities behind the arguments but how many friends and people of the same opinion you can get to side with you based on the same kind of preferences. I don't think this is fair.

It is the same old case as in every moral argument that proponents against God side with - majority rules, or those who hold the power determine the outcome, not what is necessary and needed for morality in the first place.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 5,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:45:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/30/2014 8:11:48 AM, Amoranemix wrote:
Benshapiro 79
Well you yourself said "tired baby rape scenario" then went on to say that it wasn't a scenario. Objective morality is an argument that doesn't concern itself with context. "Killing without necessary justification is immoral" would be an example of objective morality. Moral absolutism is where something is immoral regardless of context like "it's always wrong to kill."
Your moral evaluation 'Killing without necessary justification is immoral' contains a context, namely the absence of necessary justification. Anything can become morally right with justification.

Who determines what is justifiable? To justify something is to say that it is good, right. How does a subjective, relative human being come up with this? Is it based on preference or is there a standard/measure of rightness that is true regardless of what one believes it to be that can be appealed to? If not then how do you think it is right/justified?

- Double_R 85
Show me that morality derived from a personal creator is anything more than his own personal likes and dislikes.
- PGA 88
There is one gigantic gap between you and God. His nature is pure, holy, good, wise; yours is not. It is flawed and lacks wisdom. If He likes something then it is good. You are not fully self aware of, nor do you know, all things. He is fully self aware and knows all things. Your subjective values are of a subjective nature and change because you are not the source of all things created and you do not know them fully. His values are objective/true to His nature since He is the source of creation and understand everything He has made perfectly and His nature does not change for it is what makes Him God. Thus in Him is truth and light and love and righteousness and wisdom and knowledge. To know Him is to know goodness. To reject Him is to open oneself to the possibility of every kind of evil.
Which of those claims can you prove ?

My starting presupposition is God, a being who no greater can be thought of or known, or appealed to. What is yours? If you do not believe in God then it would have to be a natural presuppositional starting point, would it not? Either way, I appeal to my highest reference of appeal. If I appealed to another then the biblical God would no longer be that ultimate reference point. What is your highest and ultimate authority of appeal to? It is to your own limited, finite mind or that of another such being and what makes their view true?

PGA 122
If you [MEK] are willing to go there then would you agree that if the Bible is what it claims to be, the revelation of God, and this God who He has revealed Himself to be, good, holy and true, then the evidence would be objective, we could know for certain because an all knowing being who has said He is good, pure, holy, and true, incapable of lying, has told us what is through this written revelation?
I don't agree with that. Why would God revealing himself (i.e. claiming) to be good, holy and true make the evidence objective and why would that imply an all-knowing being did anything ?

The very fact that you don't agree with the biblical revelation is because you place something, some authority above that revelation. What is this ultimate authority? What makes it [your authority] imply that He did not? Again it boils down to how you can justify what you believe and what is necessary for justification in the first place. So can you do that?

- PLEASESTOPLYING 120
Societies good" may not mean much to you, but if you act rationally and morally and don't go around raping and killing just because you think some sky god doesn't want you to then you are certainly not a good person by nature.
- PGA 124
That is the whole point isn't it. Who determines "good?" You? Based on your subjective feelings? Why are they "right?" What unchanging standard do you base your sense of "right" upon?
People determine what 'good' and other terms mean and they write their conventions in dictionaries. They are right because these terms are agreed upon.

So if I can get enough people to agree that your race is inferior to mine [Nazi Germany] and that your extermination is necessary [Islamic terrorists] then that is right!

PGA 125 to Double_R
God is necessary to justify a belief system, otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also necessary to justify a belief system. Otherwise all you have is your tastes opposed to mine.

If all I have is my taste opposed to yours and nothing ultimately matters then what do I care what you think? I'll just do what I like as long as I can get away with it.

How has this Flying Spaghetti Monster revealed himself? Do you have any documentation to support him that is credible as to being the necessary being? I have the biblical accounts that make the best case for God's existence, and yes I'm biased and not neutral, but neither are you.

Peter
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2015 1:54:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 1/2/2015 1:02:43 AM, PGA wrote:
At 12/30/2014 10:31:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/30/2014 7:04:47 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/30/2014 1:37:55 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/25/2014 12:35:10 AM, SNP1 wrote:
I do not personally subscribe to an objective moral philosophy, but there is one thing that annoys me. A lot of people assert that an objective morality cannot exist without a god. I have never seen this assertion supported. So, can someone point out why an objective morality would require a god?

Wouldn't you first have to support the assertion that God exists? I think that they say it requires God because they want it to. True story.

The objective morality argument is supposed to show that god exists.

P1) Objective morality can only exist if god exists
P2) Objective morality exists
C) God exists

If both premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. The problem, I do not accept either premise (most atheists I know only argue about the 2nd premise).

And it doesn't show anything about God existing. Unbiased morality doesn't exist. It isn't a sensible argument. Never has been and it never will be. It's a philosophical argument if anything.

Why would I take your word for it? What makes your word genuine, true knowledge of the subject?

Peter

Hey Peter!

What makes my word genuine? Because I have no agenda. I have no reason to lie about it. Everyone has a biased interpretation of what is moral. It's based on life experience. Those experiences are acquired throughout our lives, but the most impressionable years are when we are children. People who grow up in a religious home tend to use the morals taught to them through their religious affiliation. It's often misunderstood that the religious moral ideal is an objective moral standard. However, the truth is that even with an objective moral taught to us either from various religious doctrines or cultural norms, we are subjective in our interpretation of it.

What makes my knowledge on the subject true? I can't say that my knowledge is complete truth, no one can say that. It is my experience and education that gives me the information from which I have come to my conclusions regarding whether or not there is a true "objective" morality.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.