re: A fact worth remembering: Those who don't believe in God argue against absolutes

quote:

---

Again, reality isn't defined by subjective views of it. There is one God, one truth, and one moral law.

---

Again, who is this God? This is my problem with the argument. You are declaring your God to be the cornerstone of moral law, but others avow their God (with separate definitions of moral law) is the light of truth. Why does belief in a certain deity predicate morality? And how do you unequivocally convince others that don’t believe the same way that you do that they’re framework is not fit to abide by?

quote:

---

Again, who is this God? This is my problem with the argument.

---

You're mixing arguments.

1. Without (a) God, objective morality does not exist.
2. The Christian concept of God is true.

Those are two different claims. You're claiming the first one has problems because you don't agree with the second one.

This is how you attempt to categorize people without using objective thinking or usual individualized analysis. It's also how you pit people against each other, which unfortunately seems to be successful time after time.

quote:

---

I'm not speaking for you specifically, but for anyone that argues that point. See Foo's diatribe earlier in regards to sinful babies.

---

And you're still wrong. By using "excuse" you're implying that someone knows there are problems with their beliefs; you're essentially accusing them of being disingenuous. You can disagree respectfully, you cannot accuse me of making excuses respectfully.

quote:

---

The irony is that you don't see the evil in these statements.

---

The irony is that you are saying that killing children is evil without providing a rational basis for doing so.

I believe that humans murdering children is evil because I have an objective moral standard to say as much and have it be more than mere opinion. I believe my worldview is preferable to yours because I can provide a rational basis for saying that murdering children is wrong and immoral. You can't. All you can do is emote and provide your opinion, to which I say, "so what?"

You also didn't answer my question. You posted a picture of a child.

Equating a moral framework with a religious requirement seems murky. Absolutes are not always applicable.

quote:

---

What’s up with the retcon where Christians believe they own rationalism when it didn’t exist the first 1,500 years of the religion?

---

the principle of theistic morality has not changed. maybe you're referring to epistemological rationalism. while it's true it wasn't formally articulated until cartesian rationalism, the principles were always there

quote:

---

Christians and, really most religions, believe in objective truths, which should run contrary to the current left’s obsession with subjectivity

---

side note - this was the argument used initially that kept ellie from being selected for the mission in contact. they didn't want an atheist representing humanity since almost all humans who have ever existed are theist in one form or another

quote:

---

I would also say being Christian isn’t the only means for an individual to conclude they believe in objective truths

---

while this is true, it doesn't make all paths right

quote:

---

But there is no "it" and there is no "progress" for the nonbeliever; those imply an objective standard that exists. There's only change

---

this is an intuitive statement that shouldn't be glossed over and it's based on the tyranny of the present. if a current western political liberal, maybe a humanities professor, were faced with a counterpart from a previous era, perhaps the enlightenment or even the middle ages, the contemporary liberal would be called a fool for their views and the enlightenment thinker would present reasons for their view. people have just forgotten that.

quote:

---

Kind of a like an Abosulute and just God should give a shite?

---

so god allowing people to experience difficulty means he doesn't care? perhaps you could explain

quote:

---

Again, who is this God?

---

"There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty."

WCF

quote:

---

This is my problem with the argument. You are declaring your God to be the cornerstone of moral law, but others avow their God (with separate definitions of moral law) is the light of truth.

---

I believe the Biblical God provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility of moral reasoning that is lacking from all other supposed deities. The attributes of God are essential to the justification of objective moral reasoning and the Biblical God is unique and stands alone in terms of the attributes that provide such a basis for objective morality.

quote:

---

Why does belief in a certain deity predicate morality?

---

I've been very clear that I believe that morality (a system or framework used to determine moral right and wrong) can exist in the minds of everyone and that no one has to believe in the Biblical God to have some sense of right and wrong. I believe that the Bible is true when it says that the (moral) law of God is written on the hearts of all men and that this is why all people understand some sense of morality.

What I've been arguing is that without God, there cannot be an objective standard for moral reasoning. Without God, all moral standards or framework amount to nothing more than arbitrary personal opinion. How, then, would you know that Hitler's moral framework was objectively worse than Ghandi's? Neither would be objectively better or worse than the other's because they couldn't be: there would be no single moral reference point to compare them to in order to judge them. Without God's perfect moral character and law, we wouldn't be able to rationally condemn any behavior as "immoral", only provide our opinions about what we like and what we don't like, which don't mean much in the final analysis.

quote:

---

And how do you unequivocally convince others that don’t believe the same way that you do that they’re framework is not fit to abide by?

---

The gospel alone is the power of God to salvation and His scriptures are the only source of divine truth for understanding moral rightness. For those who call themselves Christians, their consciences should be held captive by the word of God alone.