- 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 10/6/20 at 6:24 am to bfniii
Posted on 10/6/20 at 6:24 am to bfniii
quote:
how do some of you people make it through the day?
Damn bro noted philosopher bfniii cares about me making it. What a guy.
quote:
how is god "incoherent?" regale us
I don't know if I have the time for that. I'm going to have to explain concepts to you then show you when and where those concepts apply. Not sure you're ready tiger.
quote:
actually that's not true and the "legwork" has been done repeatedly itt. and then you come along late to the party and act like it hasn't been done.
No you dumb frick in the context of any one debate you can't just fricking assume the premise in your argument. If the "Christian God" is the source of an objective morality ( ) then it would be a pretty silly argument if your God only exists in your head.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 7:52 am to bfniii
quote:
this changes nothing conceptually
quote:
james 1:13.
Yet you were temped to post this and did.
quote:
job 1:12
So are you driven by fear of god or satin?
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:00 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:If you have an objective standard to justify your condemnation of something as morally wrong, then the statement isn't subjective.
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.
The objective morality that comes from God's perfect and holy character has a inherent goodness to it. Subjective morality that is but an extension of preferential behaviors has no inherent goodness or evil to it (if God's standard doesn't, in fact, exist) and therefore is nothing more than a "might makes right" view of it. What is right are those behaviors that are popular at that moment based on those with the power to have the say in a society and culture.
The problem here, as I've said multiple times so far, is that there is no objective basis to condemn another society for their own moral paradigm just because it conflicts with the preferences of those who wish to provide the condemnation. It's results in an incoherence as the people who have accepted their own society's or culture's moral standard as the moral standard that all people and groups should adhere to try to impose that view on others who have a contradictory view. There is simply no basis to condemn a society like China's, Nazi Germany's, or the most extreme Islamic country's in the Middle East. All you can logically do is say "I don't like that" and leave them alone.
Once you accept that morality is defined by culture, then you cannot rationally condemn a morality defined by a different culture just because you don't like it for your own.
quote:I see the opposite of what you've said. I've seen great advances in technology, medicine, law, etc. come from western societies that have adhered to a Christian worldview. No society is perfect because all societies are made of sinful individuals, yet the Christian worldview provides a rational basis for respecting the rights and value of people who are made in God's image.
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:What do you do when two populations have conflicting views of what is morally acceptable? You have war. But why? If we were consistent with our views of morality as subjective then we should be leaving others alone. If people are just more evolved animals, why should we care if a society across the world treats their people like the animals that they are? This is why such a view of morality is irrational: it makes morality an arbitrary distinction between behaviors that we like vs. don't like, yet individuals (and even societies) like and don't like different things. There is no "right" way in that worldview, so it boils down to who has the biggest stick to enforce their own subjective preferences.
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.
What this doesn't say, though, is that rape and murder are objectively evil. It just says that those societies that don't tolerate such things will be looking for a bigger stick to beat up societies that do tolerate them if the outrage grows large enough. There is no objective basis for it. It's just preference.
quote:If people were consistent with this worldview, they would mind their own business and let others do what they want to do because there isn't an actual right or wrong, just personal preference. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that something is immoral. People act because they don't like things and they want to stop the things they don't like. It doesn't make them right. If people realized that this worldview actually delegitimizes their own feelings of what they view is "bad" then they might give it a second thought. People feel strongly about morality yet such a worldview doesn't give them justification for their feelings or their actions.
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:I didn't equate cancer to an immoral action. I equated feelings about cancer to feelings about an immoral action. The key point of continuity is our (emotional) preferences: not liking something that is happening to us. Whether that be due to the actions of other humans, to animal attacks, to viruses/pathogens, or to natural disasters like hurricanes, the outcome is the same. There are externalities that negatively impact our lives and we have no objective basis to condemn any of it as objectively immoral simply because we don't like what they do to us. A human behavior is just an animal taking some sort of action (from an evolutionary perspective). Why should we logically differentiate what one animal does vs. what another organism does for the sake of morality when morality in this paradigm is nothing more than personal preference?
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:Who are you to judge? What is society to judge? See, the point here is that there is no objective judge and there is no objective standard in this worldview. It's simply "might makes right".
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.
Also, who cares if you can make statistic-based arguments regarding efficacy of certain moral frameworks? Who said that efficacy (of utility?) determines the right way to judge a moral framework? It's an arbitrary standard because you can pick any methodology you want to determine what makes a good framework to you any anyone else can pick any other standard to determine what makes a good framework for them, and there would be no objective way to say which one is better. You seem to be approaching morality from a utilitarian perspective. Who said that utility is the "right" way to approach it?
quote:If you believe that utility is the most desired outcome for people you will organize your moral values to align with that outcome. In that sense, the moral values aren't arbitrary as they are purposefully chosen to achieve a desired outcome. The arbitrary aspect comes from the notion that utility (or whatever the chosen end goal) is what is to be most desired.
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.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:03 pm to LSUFanHouston
You didn't answer the question.
quote:My point is that a non-biblical worldview cannot provide a rational or coherent basis for morality and ethics. It boils down to arbitrary, subjective opinion or preference otherwise, to which I would respond, "so what?"
Many people are guided by morals and ethics.
Although religion can certainly impact those, you can still have them without believing in God.
quote:Why? I have a reason why we should in my worldview, but what's the basis for this standard in yours?
Just do best by your fellow man.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:07 pm to Mister Falcon
quote:God created us to worship Him. Since He's God, I think He's justified in that. It's not sadistic to create something for a purpose and then destroy it if it doesn't serve its purpose. This complaint of yours is common in people who don't understand the holiness of God or the sinfulness of man.
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 10/6/20 at 1:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
This complaint of yours is common in people who don't understand the holiness of God or the sinfulness of man.
You mean the sinfulness of man that was purposefully created by god so that he could punish man for breaking the rules he created man to break?
Its not a misunderstanding, its a rejection.
This post was edited on 10/6/20 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:11 pm to Powerman
quote:It most certainly isn't.
Morality is based on human empathy
Empathy doesn't account for everything we consider moral or immoral, nor does empathy even exist in some. Many people act rightly out of obligation sans empathy and act wrongly out of empathetic desires. Using empathy as your basis for morality is as bad as basing morality on social utility. Not only is an arbitrary standard and justification, you wouldn't want people to act consistently with it if it were true.
quote:I agree here. Objective morality is based in the only true God.
Not some specific false deity
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Hopefully the "religion" is the one, true faith in Jesus Christ, and for their sakes, I hope it sticks and they are saved by His blood and receive eternal life.
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.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:14 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Not in a godless universe, no.
An “objective” moral standard does not exist.
The God of the Bible provides such a possibility and its certainty.
Everyone acts like morality is objective and would hate a world that acted consistently with the belief that it wasn't objective. The biblical worldview provides a justification for the reality people believe exists yet deny with their lips.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:22 pm to Indefatigable
quote:False. A religious doctrine is simply a way of expressing a believed reality. There are several epistemological systems people used to gain knowledge and a religious or revelational one is one of those. If the Bible is true, for instance, it would be objectively true. Just because you reject it due to an anti-religion bias doesn't mean it wouldn't be an objective reality.
Would massively depend on the context but objective may be appropriate. However, something that depends ENTIRELY on religious doctrine and on pre-assumed notions of theology cannot be objective.
quote:Verifiable by who? How? When?
For something to be objective, it’s truth must be tangibly verifiable.
If the Bible is true about God, our sin, and our need for salvation in Jesus Christ, it will be "tangibly verifiable" when we die. If it is an objective reality, it will be an objective reality for all people. Just because we lack the means to test the claims of the supernatural using natural sciences doesn't mean the reality is any less, well, real.
quote:You're right that my "philosophical word salad" doesn't make what I'm saying objective truth. I'm merely trying to rationally explain the existence of the objective truth as I believe it to be and to provide a rational basis for the objective morality we all act like exists while not having a justification for our actions in a godless worldview.
FooManChoo telling me over and over again that a a higher power MUST be the root of human morality does not rise to that level. No amount of philosophical word salad can make something an objective truth.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 1:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:God didn't "create" sin. Sin is the absence of obedience to God's perfect law. Put another way, it's rebellion against God. God didn't force Adam to sin any more than He forces you or me to sin. We do so because we desire to do so.
You mean the sinfulness of man that was purposefully created by god so that he could punish man for breaking the rules he created man to break?
quote:It's both. You are rejecting a misunderstanding, but unless the Spirit works in you, you would just as easily reject the truth of it.
Its not a misunderstanding, its a rejection.
Bottom line is that God owes us nothing (good) and you think He does. When He doesn't give us what you think he owes us, you consider Him evil and tyrannical.
On the contrary: God owes us nothing except punishment for our rebellion. Most people get what we all deserve. What we don't deserve is forgiveness, yet God has offered that to us through His son, Jesus Christ.
I urge you to repent of your rebellion against God and seek the son who died to pardon sins. You will be reconciled to our loving God through Jesus if you trust in His sacrifice on the cross. He died in our place so we don't have to. That's the most loving thing anyone could do for someone else.
This post was edited on 10/6/20 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 10/6/20 at 4:31 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:sure, but that's not any sort of moral truth. it's just relativist preference, one that can't really be substantiated.
Can someone not have a rational subjective basis for not wanting to be killed, raped, or stolen from?
quote:ok but why should anyone listen to you? there is no reason. and if there is no reason, then there is no point to you having that opinion/preference. also, you have no basis to defend yourself against said hitlers.
I can judge them on my SUBJECTIVE BASIS, which is likely shared/enforced by my community at large
quote:they most certainly are if they aren't grounded in a transcendent moral anchor and this is EASILY demonstrated
Our moral beliefs are not arbitrary and not necessarily irrational
quote:said no intelligent, clued up person ever.
The concepts we assign to Gods plurally or the Christian God specifically are contradictory and nonsensical. Some are at best conceivable but if time has taught us anything it's that reality acts far differently than we conceive it to
Posted on 10/6/20 at 4:37 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
Athiests are cringe.
Posted on 10/6/20 at 4:44 pm to LSU2a
quote:no person is capable of doing such a thing. it's nonsense
I provided examples where moral decision based on personal belief is superior to appealing to an authority
quote:demonstrably false
there are objective realities that determine why it is morally wrong for someone to kill and steal property that has evolved overtime through the progression of societies
quote:"survival" of any such society is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the discussion at hand. absolutely tangential and obtuse. i'm willing to bet you can't explain why
A society that allows unjustified murder and theft doesn't survive.
quote:the truth of morality has absolutely nothing to do with a popular vote. you are sorely mistaken on this topic. i'm not sure you're even capable of being rescued. you would have to divest yourself of basically everything you know on the topic
Did you not choose which religion and thus which set of morals to follow?
quote:first, foo's statement was correct. the basis for biblical morality has not changed one iota at any time. of course you will probably respond referring to the basis for ethics, not morality. second, the scotsman fallacy does not apply to this discussion. third, the scotsman fallacy is not always a fallacy. it can be used by lesser thinkers when they are unable to deal with a rebuttal. in this particular case, you seem to be in that category
the No True Scotsman fallacy
and foo's point was a fortiori. it can be demonstrated that even the catholic conception of the basis for morality is the same as protestant, although they have an additional source for institutional religious heirarchy, which is not directly related to morality
Posted on 10/6/20 at 4:47 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:you absolutely do and it's rather easy to demonstrate
But you don't have to be religious / believe in God, in order to know right from wrong
Posted on 10/6/20 at 4:49 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:how do you not know?
How do you know?
any person knows because it's truth, it's foundational. it's demonstrable, as is being shown itt by foo, et al
Posted on 10/6/20 at 4:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:no, truth.
Because its his belief system
quote:now you're getting it!
morality cannot be established any other way!
Posted on 10/6/20 at 5:51 pm to LSUSaintsHornets
quote:totally false. that's ethics
morality is an extension of what preferential behaviors we want in a given culture or society
quote:this has nothing to do with the truth of or basis for morality. nothing whatsoever
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
quote:totally false. people being less than perfect has nothing to do with the basis for morality
If it was our true objective moral compass Christian Nations should have been clearly superior to nations using different moral frameworks
Posted on 10/6/20 at 5:52 pm to Mister Falcon
quote:
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.
Case rests
Posted on 10/6/20 at 5:53 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:this is still false no matter how many times it gets repeated. apart from a moral law giver, no person has any right or authority to say a particular act/choice is moral or immoral. without god, everything is relative to the individual
you can still have them without believing in God
it's a facile concept that has totally escaped people, probably because they have been miseducated on the subject.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News