- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Correlation: Prayer out of schools to increase in mass shootings
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:29 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I understand the principle very well but I will not apply it to someone like Hitchens when Christianity and the Bible are in question. He had a history of being a fervent enemy of God and Christianity and did his very best to refute the entire belief system while he lived. It's impossible for me to be charitable (according to that principle) to his comments about God, the Bible, or Christianity as a whole within that context.
So you will always take the least charitable interpretation of arguments who are critical of Christianity?
There's no point with having a conversation with you if that's the case.
My 2 cents is that you're hard headed and are looking for any answer that doesn't involve you admitting to being wrong. It's outlandish to admit to avoiding this principle as an intellectual.
1
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:33 pm to Azkiger
quote:If you want to apply the scientific method to a supernatural entity, you might as well use a fork to eat soup. The scientific method is limited to the natural realm and material universe. When we entered the realm of God, we entered the realm of philosophy as well as theology.
How convienet as tautologies are neither verifiable or disprovable. I'd be upset if this wasn't par for the course with religious apologists.
quote:Natural theology can only speak to the existence of God but understanding the character of God requires revelation. I believe the Bible to be the truthful representation of that revelation by God and therefore base my understanding of His character on it. If you want to talk about the reliability of the Bible then we can do that, but I assume it's reliable in order to speak about what I believe regarding God's character. Otherwise we simply don't know much about God and conjecture would be futile.
The Bible states that God is good, so if that weren't the case then your qualifier "as the Bible states" can be thrown out because you'd be admitting Bible error
quote:I don't believe the Bible asserts anything about the nature of God that isn't true. If you have examples, I'd love to discuss them.
(what other characteristic that the Bible asserts God has is incorrect)?
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:38 pm to DelU249
quote:
not at all the case
Totally the case. When we reject a higher authority and substitute own judgement, then men can justify anything.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:38 pm to Azkiger
quote:Being critical is one thing. Being a staunch enemy of it is another. Hitchens wasn't "open" to Christianity because he thought it was an irrational fairy tale with absolutely no basis in reality. He didn't care about having a discussion about the truth; he just wanted to rip apart any argument made in support of the faith. Sorry but that isn't a basis for being charitable with his statements.
So you will always take the least charitable interpretation of arguments who are critical of Christianity?
There's no point with having a conversation with you if that's the case.
quote:There is a time and a place for everything. If I didn't know about Hitchens and his worldview and the abundant evidence of his animosity towards Christianity I would certainly be inclined to take the charitable approach to his statements. I do that with others all the time with others even if I suspect them to be critical of what I believe. I don't have a problem with the concept but I apply it judiciously.
My 2 cents is that you're hard headed and are looking for any answer that doesn't involve you admitting to being wrong. It's outlandish to admit to avoiding this principle as an intellectual.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
When we entered the realm of God, we entered the realm of philosophy as well as theology.
And into the realm of assertions and tautology - apparently.
I'll continue this later. I'm at work now and typing on a phone isn't very fun.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:48 pm to Strophie
quote:
Kim Jong Un is, in the eyes and judgement of humanity, evil.
Do you think Kim Jung Un thinks he is evil? If there isn't a standard, he can determine what he thinks is good for himself first and then his people after the fact. When someone doesn't have any constraints, other than the opinions of others, what does it matter?
quote:
my rebuttal that the moral laws you claim as being objective and universal and enacted by God
This is where belief (faith) comes into play. If a person doesn't believe in the One who created the moral law how are they bound by them? Societal morals change all of the time. God's morals do not.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:51 pm to Lg
quote:
How do you know that? Because momma and daddy told you that was bad? Or did you just come up with on your own? So in essence, your mom and dad are your moral lawgivers. Their influence guided you to who you are today. Same with me until I realized the man is fallible.
If I was born into Western Society with the same parents who taught me everything except Jesus is our Lord and Savior, I know I wouldn't do that because it's never crossed my mind save for the time I stole bubblegum when I was 3. But it's objective from all major successful societies in history that the morally superior tend to win out in the long run.
Let's say I was born in the Middle East to Muslim parents. They teach me about Allah's laws and that no matter what I do, so long as it's in the name of Allah, I am right. This allows you to commit untold amount of ridiculous atrocities and have no guilt whatsoever. I could rape my way across the entire Middle East, bomb a few girl's schools, throw gays from rooftops, behead anyone who disagrees with me, and turn the world into a far worse place than I came into it. And guess what, some sons or brothers of these victims are going to get the same idea as I did and go on to repeat the cycle of violence and misery. Their civilization will never rise, and everyone is objectively worse off.
But hey, according to your ilks logic, you got God on your side, so it makes you right. The worst person I know personally is like this and a hardcore Baptist preacher who preaches nothing but hell fire and damnation, he beats his kids horribly, and treats anyone who thinks remotely different from him as if they're the problem. I find him particularly dangerous because as far as he's concerned he's always right because he has God's will behind him, while I think almost all of society find him morally detestable. I can't think of one person that grew up with him that isn't disgusted in who he is.
There are objective good morals that enable humans to survive, live long, and prosper as a whole. You don't need God on your side to say this, because the ones who claim this have been some of the biggest monsters in the history of the world and unleashed more suffering that no one could match until the 20th Century.
This post was edited on 2/27/18 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:51 pm to Lg
quote:
I knew you wouldn't have the guts to answer it?
Answer what?
This is what you posted:
quote:
Go ahead and explain your vast knowledge of the Christian faith.
I'm not explaining that.
Ask specific questions if you have them.
quote:
You spout off generalities but care not to answer when someone ask for specifics. I knew exactly where this was going with you. You are more than predictable. It's really amusing.
You don't know what any of these words mean.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:52 pm to AUveritas
quote:
We'll address this first: why should I care about what's best for my species when it may not be best for me as an individual?
Because that's selfishness and it destroys the species. Your primary desire shouldn't be for your own survival, but to leave the world a better place than you left it. Yet again, this is an objectively positive moral.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:53 pm to Lg
I've said it many times here, but it's the logical conclusion to moral relativism. If there isn't a single, objective standard by which morality is judged, all moral standards are inherently subjective and amount to nothing more than preference, like a favorite flavor of ice cream.
Imagine societies banding together to enforce that all people only eat vanilla ice cream and that rocky road is not allowed. That's essentially what we do with morality in a worldview of moral relativism.
Imagine societies banding together to enforce that all people only eat vanilla ice cream and that rocky road is not allowed. That's essentially what we do with morality in a worldview of moral relativism.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:56 pm to skrayper
quote:
There's no such thing, even in religion.
I think there is, even in most animal species you'll find it. If you really study animal psychology, you'll see that most have found an objective order in the sea of chaos that is nature, and that we too are subject to these orders that have been continually reinforced to our evolution. The elephant is a particularly majestic animal that I don't know how you couldn't say that that animal has some sets of morals.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:57 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I've said it many times here
And you've been wrong every single time. That has been pointed out for you before...
Posted on 2/27/18 at 1:58 pm to AUveritas
quote:
That is most certainly objective.
No, it isn't.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 2:06 pm to Lg
quote:
You mean like the Kim Jung Un's of the world. When you are your own god, this is what happens to society. What retrains him?
And when Kim Jong Un's come into the world and run it, what happens? It can't sustain itself. It's doomed to collapse and to be forgotten. Communism and Fascism for all intents and purposes don't really exist in our world anymore because they are morally inferior. The people have an innate sense of right and wrong that they won't tolerate for too long. If China becomes Maoist again, expect a very violent uprising from the populace.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 2:13 pm to Lg
quote:
Do you think Kim Jung Un thinks he is evil? If there isn't a standard, he can determine what he thinks is good for himself first and then his people after the fact. When someone doesn't have any constraints, other than the opinions of others, what does it matter?
It doesn't matter if he subjectively thinks he's evil or not. Look around him and what do you see? Every bit of human misery possible. If you asked Xi Jinping behind closed doors and he told you what he really thinks (not that he'd ever tell an American that), he'd probably tell you that Kim Jong Un is evil.
quote:
This is where belief (faith) comes into play. If a person doesn't believe in the One who created the moral law how are they bound by them? Societal morals change all of the time. God's morals do not.
You know who agrees with this: Osama Bin Laden. He doesn't think Allah's mind has been changed, so he practices Islam as Muhammad did: violently.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 2:16 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I've said it many times here, but it's the logical conclusion to moral relativism. If there isn't a single, objective standard by which morality is judged, all moral standards are inherently subjective and amount to nothing more than preference, like a favorite flavor of ice cream.
I find it very scary that so many people think the only reason not to do something evil is because some sky daddy might be watching them. Combine that with the notion that that sky daddy will forgive anything, anyway, and we've got serious behavioral deficits on our hands.
And SO frickING WHAT if morality is "subjective", even though you're wrong about that? The objective aspect of a humanist morality system is that the species survives and works better under a spirit of cooperation wherein each member strives to do no harm. It's OBJECTIVELY responsible.
But even if you want to erroneously call that "subjective", SO frickING WHAT? Conclusions reached subjectively can also be logically valid and behaviorly beneficial.
But here's the REAL kicker, though: as an atheist, my system of morality can best be described as objective (and I don't give a shite if you call it "subjective" because it doesn't change a goddamned thing about the way I treat other people), but the best way to describe YOUR morality system is fear-based speculation.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 2:21 pm to ljhog
quote:
Totally the case. When we reject a higher authority and substitute own judgement, then men can justify anything.
Have you seen "the Hunchback of Notre Dame"? Frollo uses God to justify the rape and murder of a teenager. Not to mention he thinks God has given him the duty to commit total genocide.
Some of the biggest monsters in history have justified their worst atrocities in the name of God or through divine right. I'd say someone who thinks God is on their side almost no matter what they do are far more dangerous than someone who will come to the table not assuming he's always right or has all the facts.
This post was edited on 2/27/18 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 2/27/18 at 3:07 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Kim Jong Un is evil.
Do you think it matters to him what anybody thinks? He is the ultimate determinant of his morality.
Posted on 2/27/18 at 3:09 pm to AUveritas
quote:
Divine Command Theory
Adorable.
So...other than your own faith based claim that radical Muslims are currently praying to the wrong god, what can you say against their behavior on moral terms given their actions adhere to what their god seems to order them to do? If they were praying to the right god what they are doing would be "good", right?
Posted on 2/27/18 at 3:11 pm to Lg
quote:
Do you think it matters to him what anybody thinks? He is the ultimate determinant of his morality.
Which is ironic, considering he and his family think they are gods. So, based on divine command theory, maybe he IS moral...
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News