- 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 10:16 am to GeauxTigerTM
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:16 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
May I? Are you completely sure?
I'd rally hate it if I stained your side with my evilness...
You're the one who kept crying about me not answering that question, and then when I answered it, you cry like a little banshee because you need today's boogie man to hurt your feelings and give you cause to cuddle up in your blankie
You go looking for enemies. Sad.
1
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:16 am to Flats
quote:
I'm saying that if you believe in a supernatural source for objective morality then it's rational to believe in objective morality. Absent that belief in a source, it's not rational to believe in an objective morality that you can progress towards.
i disagree
quote:
You can progress towards your own ideals, but they're your personal opinion.
again, this applies to both groups in practical reality
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:16 am to GeauxTigerTM
Also, blaming the liberal educational system when (I assume) most of the people arguing against you are republicans, is silly.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:17 am to Esquire
quote:This sounds like a non sequitur to me.
You believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Your opinions are invalid.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:18 am to Flats
quote:
I didn't mention a religious process. I'm saying that if you believe in a supernatural source for objective morality then it's rational to believe in objective morality. Absent that belief in a source, it's not rational to believe in an objective morality that you can progress towards. You can progress towards your own ideals, but they're your personal opinion.
Spot on
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:19 am to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
I'm talking about wealthy white upper middle class leftists who want a place at the kiddy table of the 1% elites after, in their mind, it's all said and done.
Spot on
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:20 am to Flats
quote:
Muslims who throw gays off of buildings believe they're doing good.
Precisely. This is the problem with divine command theory in the way William Lane Craig has espoused it. once you declare that anything stated by god is "good" then all bets are off.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:20 am to Jrv2damac
quote:precisely. hence existential angst. atheist existentialism, however a person chooses to live it out, is meaningless in the end. why should a person strive for the greatest good (however that's defined and i've seen some really really fanciful descriptions) for the greatest amount of people? preservation of the species? why should this species be preserved? in a purely naturalistic worldview, there is no reason why this species should be privileged. i could go on
The common denominator in it for me was nothing matters in the end. It made me depressed and indifferent
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
see even this is debatable, at least for humans living in society
we have been doing a trial and error for 12000 years and using the disruptions in society as a basis for developing morality
again, that is why morality was magically so similar across the world with many different "transcendent moral anchors"
You're talking about pragmatism, not morality. And even then what's pragmatic will depend on your goal for what society should look like, which is most assuredly not objective. Hitler had a view for society and his actions were pragmatic to progress towards that society, same for radical Islam.
Christianity (probably other religions as well) explains why morality, at least in some countries, winds up so magically similar.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:22 am to Harry Rex Vonner
The OP must be read in this voice/attitude:
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:22 am to monsterballads
quote:and this is where we are as a society in regards to morals. nonsensical, baseless characterizations. people talking about something they have no understanding of. i assume you're referring to some sort of evolutionary ethics. if so, do you know what that is?
if your moral compass has to come from a belief in a deity, you had no morals to begin with
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:24 am to FATBOY TIGER
quote:ah yes. the old "blame god for the foibles of people." that's a good one.
Those "Priest's" that are butt whole surfers have a lock down on morals
just because people are not perfect does not mean that the idea of theistic morality is flawed. but you knew that right?
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:24 am to GeauxTigerTM
quote:
Precisely. This is the problem with divine command theory in the way William Lane Craig has espoused it. once you declare that anything stated by god is "good" then all bets are off.
Not if you recognize God as an authority. We do that all the time with children, who can't understand why sometimes things are ok and sometimes they're not. If their brains can't process it we end up with "because I said so". If there's a God, the gap between that God and us is infinite orders of magnitude greater than the gap between us and a child.
FWIW, I don't really care for the way Craig explains that particular point, but it's correct.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:25 am to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
You go looking for enemies. Sad.
Yeah...I'm looking for enemies.
quote:
They don't believe in right and wrong. And thus they don't give a rat's arse about depopulation, brought about in any form.
They are the ones who have rejected absolutes for centuries. We didn't put the words in their mouths.
But they're silent about that fact recently. They don't want to talk about the Georgia Guidestones at the moment for instance. Later. They want to talk about it later.
They don't care about black people and they don't care about gay people. They only pretend. And they certainly despise white working class folks. They want to divide us all, and they want us to declare and wage war on each other.
As Cardinal Vigano wrote, they don't even try to hide it anymore.
I'm talking about wealthy white upper middle class leftists who want a place at the kiddy table of the 1% elites after, in their mind, it's all said and done.
So not only is it an attempted grand bank robbery, they want us dead. They don't believe in absolutes. Remember. They said it themselves. And cowardice is their game. They always deny the truth until it comes around, and then they defend their lies and move forward with the new lies.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:25 am to FieldEngineer
Chiming back in to state that you're not a student of history
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:25 am to omarlittle
quote:in philosophy, this is what's known as a category mistake. what would be a "fact" to you of god's existence? spoiler alert: you will lose this contest.
they can’t present that argument as fact
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:27 am to auburn32
quote:I didn't see your post. It's a very convenient reason not to answer it.
It seems like the people who promote the OP as correct just conveniently didn't answer my earlier post.
quote:There's a difference between doing something objectively morally wrong and not believing that you're doing anything morally wrong. That doesn't mean God's moral standard has changed, just that sinners justify sin all the time. Before the end of slavery in this country, there were many churches and several denominations that were vehemently opposed to the idea of chattel slavery.
250 years ago, many heartfelt God fearing Christians owned slaves. They didn't consider themselves morally wrong owning salves. Now, I'd argue that all Christians probably say owning slaves is morally wrong.
So, if morality isn't a social construct and comes from God, why are these two takes so different? Were God's teachings about morality different back then?
Even in the Old Testament where slavery was tolerated in certain circumstances, the type of slavery we had where people were literally kidnapped and shipped across the sea was outlawed. There is a OT law specifically condemning owning a person who was kidnapped in such a way.
The only legal means to force servitude were acquisition of slaves/servants through the spoils of war, through punishment for crime, or through voluntary service to pay off debts. No one in Israel was allowed to sneak across the border and kidnap someone in the dark of night and then take them back as a slave. The slave trade that existed in the west (and still in some parts throughout the world today) would have been illegal and immoral according to the Bible.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:28 am to bfniii
quote:
it's more accurate to say that there is no basis for any moral decision outside of a transcendent moral anchor. it's crazy to me, absolutely mystifying that people don't know this
So, I have to be on board with a magic man in the sky before I can have morals. Got it.
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:28 am to FooManChoo
it's always used by folks who've never heard of potassium argon, for instance
they learned their cosmology off Youtube comments and Twitter
they learned their cosmology off Youtube comments and Twitter
Posted on 10/5/20 at 10:28 am to Flats
quote:
You're talking about pragmatism, not morality
one in the same, imho
societal trial and error gives evidence of what behaviors disrupt society. that evidence was codified in state religion
the same stuff causes disruption wherever it occurs
quote:
And even then what's pragmatic will depend on your goal for what society should look like, which is most assuredly not objective. Hitler had a view for society and his actions were pragmatic to progress towards that society, same for radical Islam.
there are outliers
the Mongols had no real concept of society and they conquered most of the world (funny enough they were smart enough to do what i'm describing and codify the positive aspects of society they were previously ignorant to. and on a more meta-level, this is a good example for societies moving forward in itself)
Hitler is a bad example, especially since a lot of his support was religious and the poster victim group is a religious group.
quote:
Christianity (probably other religions as well) explains why morality, at least in some countries, winds up so magically similar.
explains how/with what?
Page 6 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News