Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I've answered this many times, although you keep dodging your question. My morals are superior in my mind. Yes, it is relative. But, we all experience pain and suffering, and most of us have empathy and emotions, so this is why it's easy for most people to agree that those things are wrong."
No, you have not answered the question once - let alone "many" times. Please feel free to list your past quotations in this thread that would establish your assertion. After all, there should be "many" of them.
You again appear to conclude here that killing you would become moral as long as I can get "most people to agree."
Wrong Again. Don't you read my posts? If you say it's moral, then it's moral to you. If most people agree, then to them it's moral as well. I will never say it's moral, no matter how many people agree. If it does "become moral" it will only be to some people. Remember, there is a lot of "moral" killing in the bible, that we both agree is wrong.
My morals are only superior in my opinion and in the opinion of anyone who agrees with me. This is because morals are relative to the individual.
I can't believe I'm saying that AGAIN.
Quote:
"But there are infinite variations on morality. Is eating meat moral? Abortion? Prosecuting marijuana users? Worshiping a piece of wood? Eating MSG? Drinking coffee? Most people can agree on the big stuff, like murder, rape, genocide, incest, slavery, cruel and unusual punishments, vicarious guilt and redemption, and infanticide, but all those tough moral questions on the little details that good-natured people disagree on prove that morality is relative."
Of course there are "infinite variations on morality" for those who subscribe to the idea that there is no transcendent morality. (*and for anyone who perceives the world and the people who live in it) Welcome to the conversation. If man is the final arbiter of morality, all morality must be relative.
I agree, and it is relative. Otherwise, a large number of people would have the exact same morals. But they don't; not even among Christians in the same church. We all value different things, and we weigh the justice of each moral decision based on our own values. It sounds like you're telling me you skip this process and immediately have an answer spoonfed to you by the "true morality".
So if you have tapped into this god-code, then you automatically have an answer to every moral question you will ever be faced with, correct? So I could ask you any question about what's right or wrong, and you could tell me? What is your process for learning what's right and wrong, and why do you get different answers than other good people sometimes?
Quote:
"Your claim is that the biblical god gives us all the same morality, but yet your bible's moral teachings contradict your own moral views. This is perfectly relevant to the topic. I can't take your claim seriously until you address this problem."
I subscribe to transcendent (true) morality. Therefore, it isn't "my own" morality.
So you don't think anyone in the bible subscribed to the transcendent morality? Because you agreed with me that murder, rape, genocide, incest, slavery, cruel and unusual punishments, vicarious guilt and redemption, and infanticide were wrong. So how do you know they are wrong, when your bible tells you the source of your morality commanded that stuff to happen?
Quote:
I really don't care whether or not you "take my claim" seriously. Whatever your perceived erroneous and misguided notion of my "claim" may be.
Your point is to convince us that there is a transcendent morality given to us from the biblical god. Now you say you don't care if you get your point across?
Last edited by LogicIsYourFriend; 05-10-2009 at 03:47 PM..
(1) Was it wrong for God to kill all the first born children of Egypt a few thousand years ago?
(2) Would it be wrong for me to kill all the first born children of Egypt today?
If your answer to one of those questions is different than your answer to the other,than you're a relativist.
You don't seem to realize that we are all on death row - one out of every one dies. Why do we all die? Could it be that God has predetermined both our beginning and our end? Does God have the right to dispense justice to God's own created beings? Might it be that every human ever born was/is deserving of death and eternal torment?
You don't seem to realize that we are all on death row - one out of every one dies. Why do we all die? Could it be that God has predetermined both our beginning and our end? Does God have the right to dispense justice to God's own created beings? Might it be that every human ever born was/is deserving of death and eternal torment?
"Because you agreed with me that murder, rape, genocide, incest, slavery, cruel and unusual punishments, vicarious guilt and redemption, and infanticide were wrong."
Reread my original answer. I never asserted anything about "vicarious guilt and redemption."
"Your point is to convince us that there is a transcendent morality given to us from the biblical god. Now you say you don't care if you get your point across?"
Reread the OP. Does morality make sense if there is no God?
What in the world does that have to do with trying to convince anyone of anything?
Being that you are so dogmatically certain of God's nonexistence, I find it somewhat perplexing as to why you are unable to simply agree with the conclusion of Nietzsche, Sartre and Russell.
If you believe anything written in a little book is right, and things that go against what is written in that little book are wrong, then you are a dangerous man. It doesn't matter who's book it is either, you're dangerous.
You're dangerous because you've abandoned your own moral compass and common sense - and that makes you capable of anything. If you think the little book says to kill or torture, then you would kill and torture. Who are you to argue with the writter of the little book? Dangerous.
Let me ask you tigermax, if you thought God was giving you Abraham's challange today, would you pass his test tigermax? Would you kill your child if you honestly and sincerely believed God ordered you too?
If you have to think about your answer even for a second, YOU ARE A DANGEROUS MAN.
Naturally Tiget ignores all the good stuff in my posts and responds only to what doesn't destroy his argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
LogicIsYourFriend,
"Because you agreed with me that murder, rape, genocide, incest, slavery, cruel and unusual punishments, vicarious guilt and redemption, and infanticide were wrong."
Reread my original answer. I never asserted anything about "vicarious guilt and redemption."
Straw man. You agree with everything else on the list. So again, for all the rest of the items on that list, how do you know they are wrong, when your bible tells you the source of your morality commanded that stuff to happen?
Quote:
"Your point is to convince us that there is a transcendent morality given to us from the biblical god. Now you say you don't care if you get your point across?"
Reread the OP. Does morality make sense if there is no God?
Yes it does. However, a Yahweh-given morality does not make sense, because Yahweh is immoral by even your standards.
Quote:
What in the world does that have to do with trying to convince anyone of anything?
You obviously want to convince us of something or else you wouldn't argue with us over our answers to your questions.
Quote:
Being that you are so dogmatically certain of God's nonexistence, I find it somewhat perplexing as to why you are unable to simply agree with the conclusion of Nietzsche, Sartre and Russell.
Good for you. Now please go back and respond properly to my previous posts that you ignored.
You don't seem to realize that we are all on death row - one out of every one dies. Why do we all die? Could it be that God has predetermined both our beginning and our end? Does God have the right to dispense justice to God's own created beings? Might it be that every human ever born was/is deserving of death and eternal torment?
We all die because our parts wear out and our immune systems weaken. All of your questions about God presuppose that there is a God. It's all smoke and mirrors. We aren't "deserving" of death. It isn't a punishment. It's a part of the natural world.
Lets take the case of a baby who died at birth. Why would he deserve "death and eternal torment?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
