- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:48 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
How do you know?
Because its his belief system and morality cannot be established any other way! Don't you read?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:48 pm to Indefatigable
quote:he says while typing a "universal truth." let me dumb it down for you. you're saying "it's universally true that morality is not a universal truth." see how stupid that is?
That would be because it’s not some universal truth
quote:show me how that's wrong
It’s what you believe because it’s what your religion has taught you
quote:actually there is and it's quite simple. multiple people are explaining it itt
There is no “proving” that people cannot have a moral anchor outside of believing in a higher power or creator
quote:which is right
That’s simply what YOU believe
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:50 pm to BoarEd
quote:
you either believe in God, or believe in chemistry
Posted on 10/5/20 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:again, you're describing ethics, not morality
we have been doing a trial and error for 12000 years and using the disruptions in society as a basis for developing morality
quote:i already addressed this statement and you're not right for the reasons you think you are. also, tell me about these "many" transcendent moral anchors.
that is why morality was magically so similar across the world with many different "transcendent moral anchors"
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:04 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:there is no "problem" with how he's expressed it. i get that there are some misled people who disagree but, they fail to grasp what he's saying, whether intentionally or because of ignorance
This is the problem with divine command theory in the way William Lane Craig has espoused it
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:08 pm to omarlittle
quote:the fact that you think this describes god illustrates why you are probably lost when it comes to morals
I have to be on board with a magic man in the sky before I can have morals
this thread is awesome. people who are ignorant about morals and don't really care about them anyway are lecturing people who have studied it extensively. that's where we are now in the west. next thing you know people will be burning cities like minneapolis and portland and fighting with law enforcement because we're having a crisis of authority.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's the difference between "that behavior is wrong and should be condemned" and "I personally don't like that behavior but you do what feels right to you". Have you ever gotten into an argument about what the best color is? It essentially turns morality into such a debate over personal preference.
These are both subjective statements. Yes, morality is an extension of what preferential behaviors we want in a given culture or society. Each society gets to decide what they are and hold its own members or others accountable if they want.
quote:
Yes, it has mattered historically. Truth used to matter.
I don't look back historically and see Christianity faring any better at deterring the kind of human suffering occurring than some of its contemporaries. If it was our true objective moral compass Christian Nations should have been clearly superior to nations using different moral frameworks, not to say Christianity isn't superior to some.
quote:
How does one rationally condemn genocide or rape of children if there is no objective morality to call such things objectively evil?
Subjectively, as a population. You could look at the Allies response to the Holocaust as exactly that. What Germany thought about the Jews was irrelevant to what the Allies thought, they invaded Germany and prosecuted those responsible under their own morality.
quote:
If all you've got is consensus then that won't bode well if there is a society that supports things that we consider evil.
You are describing reality. Look at China. They are doing gross things to people over there, and Americans by and large find it immoral. Sometimes it will be within your power to influence better moral outcomes (Obv subjective
) and sometimes you can't. quote:
Reasons and causes are not the same thing. Not enjoying pain and suffering that is brought about from being killed, raped, or being stolen from doesn't mean I have a rational basis for saying those things are morally wrong. I might not like the results of cancer attacking my body but I wouldn't be able to rationally say that cancer is immoral simply because I don't like what it's doing to me.
This is a false equivalence. We are obviously operating under different definitions of the word morality.
Morality is an extension of what preferential behaviors a society wants encouraged/discouraged. Cancer isn't a conscious entity whose behavior can be encouraged/discouraged. Those behaviors can be considered immoral in a given society if they are discouraged/punished. It is rational for example for a society to punish thieves if it values trade/economic prosperity.
quote:
So what? So what if you don't like what Hitler did? So what if you don't like what I say? Who is to say that your dislike of something is justified? Is my dislike of something you tolerate justified simply because I dislike it? Who is to judge between competing ideas of moral rightness if it is all subjective preference?
I am. Society is. Again they went and kicked Hitler's arse. You are only looking for a judge on high because that is your preconceived notion. I can make statistic based arguments of the efficacy of certain moral frameworks at best.
quote:
If personal preference (feeling) is your basis for truth (moral or otherwise), it is certainly arbitrary and definitely irrational.
They are arbitrary in that one can hold any moral value, they are not arbitrary in that societies end up with certain moral values consistently for several reasons.
quote:
I'm curious what concepts about the Biblical God are contradictory and nonsensical in your estimation. I'm not here to defend theism generally.
We have enough disagreements here to chew on to go on a tangent.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:postmodern western education for you. you're still describing ethics, not morals.
societal trial and error gives evidence of what behaviors disrupt society. that evidence was codified in state religion
quote:post hoc, ergo propter hoc. that "disruption" you're referring to is more complicated than your oversimplified characterization
the same stuff causes disruption wherever it occurs
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:13 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What is right and what is wrong and how do you know the difference?
Many people are guided by morals and ethics.
Although religion can certainly impact those, you can still have them without believing in God. Just do best by your fellow man.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:19 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's actually a very interesting subject. Those who reject God and take an evolutionary view of our origins and nature have to reject the concept of free will, as well, as they are putting their eggs into the basket of chemical reactions occurring based on genetic makeup. In essence, such a person has to believe that all of our actions are based on our genetic predispositions reacting to stimuli in the natural world. It's hard to justify free will like that and it's also hard to justify moral imperatives when we humans are just more advanced animals.
I basically agree with all this but I was just remarking that the idea that if you replay a moment in your life 100 times you will get different outcomes is false, and Calvinism is better equipped to deal with that premise.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:20 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:prima facie, this is correct. however, it certainly needs context
I've seen him declare that child murder would be fine if god commanded it
quote:
For some reason, many religious folks seem to think he's a great debater
yeah, wlc is "not so great" at debate. the dude has destroyed every single person he's ever debated. that charlatan dawkins won't get within 10 feet of wlc. for some reason, non religious people seem to think he's smart or something.Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:21 pm to omarlittle
quote:i asked you a question
Can you Prove to me God’s existence?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:23 pm to bfniii
quote:
people who are ignorant about morals and don't really care about them anyway are lecturing people who have studied it extensively.
Studying your preferred religion’s justification for its own existence and repeating it as if that is the only possible way that morality can exist is peak ignorance.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:23 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
Probably one of the most profound threads ever made in here.
Simple but extremely well thought out before exhibition.
Kudo's!
Simple but extremely well thought out before exhibition.
Kudo's!
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:24 pm to GeauxTigerTM
quote:who said they were "innocent."
you're arguing for the literal drowning of innocent children in the flood with this
quote:so you don't understand soteriology. that's all you had to say
babies who were too young to know anything
quote:ok karen. go grab some healing crystals and have a kale salad
Young kids who had not yet reached an age at which they could possibly understand any form of right or wrong. All drowned, clutching onto their parents for safety screaming for help which would obviously not come
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:25 pm to bfniii
quote:
the dude has destroyed every single person he's ever debated.
Maybe some confirmation bias here. I think he did quite well vs Hitchens/Harris and a lot of his other high profile debates. Some of the historicity debates and some physics debates haven't been so clean cut.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:29 pm to omarlittle
quote:so one instantiation of morality is wrong because people worldwide have invented some crazy ideas over the centuries. well that makes sense. that's like saying modern medicine is dangerous because other people support homeopathy.
That would be fine if there was one unifying idea of God, with one set of definitive morals, but the variations of God are potentially as infinite as the number of moral opinions you speak of
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:29 pm to bfniii
quote:
bfniii
You're such an angry individual. Clearly that solid foundation in Christian morality has worked wonders for your soul. 
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:38 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:Painfully stupid
Atheists argue zero basis for morals.
Obviously there is a basis for morals. The tenets on which those bases are selected are simply acknowledged as having been arbitrary.
As contrasted with those who insist that basing a moral system upon the oral traditions of pre-literate, Bronze Age goatherds is somehow “objective.”
Page 13 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News