- 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
re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:41 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:41 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
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.
After 13 pages you still don't even understand the argument. It's completely independent of Christianity and it's a premise that many atheists accept.
1
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:41 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:You do not even grasp that these are different concepts.
argued that there are no absolutes, and thus no right or wrong
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:45 pm to Flats
quote:
After 13 pages you still don't even understand the argument. It's completely independent of Christianity and it's a premise that many atheists accept.
oh, I’m sure they do. It’s laughable to me that you continue to pretend that the theological and philosophical ideas that are prevalent in this thread are not tied directly to judeo-Christianity. “The argument” is inextricably linked to Christian theology and western (Christian) philosophy.
Pretty much every single philosophical/theological principle in this thread descends from the work of European Christians attempting to proselytize and/or explain their god and his teachings to an increasingly literate population.
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:49 pm to omarlittle
quote:Egg-farking-zactly
It’s all personal opinion, even for believers. It’s their opinion that God exists, because they can’t present that argument as fact. So really, we’re all in the same boat.
But these self-absorbed zealots are so convinced of the righteousness of their beliefs that they cannot even admit that they are simply ... “beliefs.”
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:51 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:YES!
your definition of right and wrong is socially constructed.
You see a problem with that. You think it is an insult. It is not. It is simply rational.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:But this concept is more complex than a deity scribbling on some rocks.
we learned morality via trial and error to advance society, and it's specifically to mute some of our innate desires. "conscience" was created through society, not God, and if our innate nature was "conscience", then that poses a lot of problems with man's historical development on earth (gods or no gods)
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:55 pm to Jrv2damac
quote:
Nihilism is a miserable and pathetic existence.
Believing in an invisible man who is so sadistic as to send people he “loves,” people who had no choice in their existence, to “hell” for not believing in said invisible man because he never makes his presence known, is a miserable existence.
Think Jigsaw from the Saw movies.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:56 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:The same society which constructed the morality and mores under which you are expected to live.
Then who holds you accountable to what is right?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:56 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
What is right and what is wrong and how do you know the difference?
Morality is based on human empathy
Not some specific false deity
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:56 pm to Indefatigable
The thing is that while highly degreed people or savants as they refer to themselves in the end weep like babies at the end and beg for Gods forgiveness.
Time and time again.
I have witness to an example but it's not for here.
Man is not God, and neither are it's savants.
Time and time again.
I have witness to an example but it's not for here.
Man is not God, and neither are it's savants.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:58 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
prevalent in this thread
There's tons of stuff prevalent in this thread; my first response about the OP was that it was a poor post. That has nothing to do with the premise. You could replace "God" with "supernatural intelligence" and it doesn't change anything. An objective moral standard must have a source and the source can't be man by definition.
It's a standalone argument, and if you can't refute it without invoking Christianity (or any other religion), that just tells me that you don't have a response to the premise itself. Which isn't a reflection on you; I've never heard anybody defeat it.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:58 pm to BarberitosDawg
quote:
The thing is that while highly degreed people or savants as they refer to themselves in the end weep like babies at the end and beg for Gods forgiveness.
Even if true, what does this prove?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:59 pm to Flats
quote:
An objective moral standard must have a source and the source can't be man by definition.
Why not?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 5:59 pm to auburn32
quote:I tend to agree. My wife insists upon religion for the kids. They are bright girls. I am sure they will outgrow the superstitious foolishness and retain the underlying lessons.
growing up Catholic (I don't really believe anymore), I always said that even if religion was made up nonsense, it sets up a good moral framework for kids to learn from.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:00 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
oh, I’m sure they do.
And along comes Hank just two posts later confirming exactly what I said.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:01 pm to Flats
For starters, I don’t think I ever replied to one of your posts until the last one, so I am not sure why you keep responding as if I have.
An “objective” moral standard does not exist.
I just did, but I was never responding to that particular premise.
until now i was simply rejecting the theme that ANYONE’s explanation ITT is the “objective truth”. People in here can believe what they want, but believing that one has THE answer to the origins of an intangible and subjectively defined concept is hysterical to me
quote:
An objective moral standard must have a source and the source can't be man by definition.
An “objective” moral standard does not exist.
quote:
It's a standalone argument, and if you can't refute it without invoking Christianity (or any other religion), that just tells me that you don't have a response to the premise itself. Which isn't a reflection on you; I've never heard anybody defeat it.
I just did, but I was never responding to that particular premise.
until now i was simply rejecting the theme that ANYONE’s explanation ITT is the “objective truth”. People in here can believe what they want, but believing that one has THE answer to the origins of an intangible and subjectively defined concept is hysterical to me
This post was edited on 10/5/20 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:02 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
An objective moral standard must have a source and the source can't be man by definition.
quote:
Why not?
Because "objective" has a meaning. This is like you asking why bachelor can't have a wife.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:03 pm to Mo Jeaux
"Prove."
That's a little arrogant in my view.
Maybe if King David was alive he could help out...
That's a little arrogant in my view.
Maybe if King David was alive he could help out...
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:05 pm to Flats
quote:
Because "objective" has a meaning.
I realize that.
quote:
This is like you asking why bachelor can't have a wife.
No it's not.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 6:05 pm to BarberitosDawg
quote:
That's a little arrogant in my view.
Why?
quote:
Maybe if King David was alive he could help out...
Page 14 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News