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.
On what grounds do you condemn him? You have no moral code that is above both you and him. There is no great standard of morality that we are all subject to, in your mind.
Am I wrong? Please tell me how I misunderstand you.
What is your great source of morality? On what grounds do you dare to condemn someone of a different time, in a different culture? What tells you that the things the man did are wrong?
See the bolded? Those are exceptions. An absolute has no exceptions. so, absolute morality can have no exceptions.
Absolute does not mean "always except in these circumstances"
good try, acting within reason is the absolute, not the always changing circumstance's we are subjected to every day . its a good pointer because it unveils many things in many ways. Timely as well as I see these essays below have arrived which look interesting for later this evening.
Last edited by alexcanter; 12-04-2013 at 02:20 PM..
12-04-2013, 02:07 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Let's see, as a Part 2 of my post #169, I will give the theist one way in which we could say that Hitler was wrong even though I have done this before I will be a little more specific - yet I have a feeling I will just be wasting my time again.
Logic! Under the guide of the Golden Rule.
Using a quote from Steven Pinker I will make the point that Hitler's moral actions were illogical and as such wrong because of: "The inherent untenability in any system in which you would try to get other people to treat you in a manner different from the one you are committed to treat others."
Now this is based upon the principle of non-contradiction which no theists can deny (well they can but they will be shown to be illogical themselves). Is the theist going to deny the law of non-contradiction? Good luck with that. Is he going to deny that it is an insufficient reason to discern whether something is a wrong action?
It was contradictory for Hitler to hold two opposing moral codes - his actions were not only wrong they were wrong on a fundamental level of moral reasoning. Of course Hitler subconsciously knows this and is why dehumanization always follows such contradictions - it is a tactic in trying to justify ones actions as morally permissible.
So there I gave the theist one way in which I can say Hitler was wrong without the appeal to a metaphysical God source - will that satisfy them - I doubt it!
In fact I will anticipate what they will say: "But what if they don't care about logic what is to stop them from just ignoring logic and doing whatever they want?"
Unfortunately this will not get the theist very far because:
1) It does nothing to negate the principle as a legitimate answer for how we can say something is wrong - it is a rabbit trail of obfuscation and irrelevancy.
2) The theist is no better off in invoking God as the reason why we can say something is wrong - "God says it wrong" - simply because the question is then thrown at the theist - "But what if they don't care about God what is to stop them from just ignoring God and doing whatever they want?" The existence of God (or should I say the idea/reason of God) does nothing to keep people, heck even theists, from doing such acts.
The fact that the theist's authority - God - has people under a duty to obey the moral law at this present moment yet does nothing when it is violated is a violation of the duty of the authority to render justice when that law is broken. To say that God will render justice in the future when all actors are dead and all their actions have run there course is frankly a cop-out for the problem that the Authority does nothing at the present moment to adjudicate the wrongs that he and his followers are constantly using to threaten people with eternal torment.
So even the existence of this God nor the theist's invoking him does nothing to keep people from doing wrong nor keep them accountable when the wrong occurs.
As noted in post #169 - if the theist wants to appeal to reasons why something is wrong instead of God then those are the things we appeal to and we don't need God.
Funny....I thought you were done with this thread because you didn't have a clue how to answer it.
Let me refresh your memory about WHO doesn't have a clue how to answer the posts directed to him . . . even by those who accept God as the source of morality. I am one as the bold in one of my posts pointed out: " I acknowledge God as the source of morality . . . but I also accept Christ's version of God and follow His Holy Spirit (Comforter) . . . what you should call your conscience . . . to what is moral and what is not." What you refuse to do is USE the God-given conscience known as the Holy Spirit (Comforter) who resides within our consciousness to judge morality for yourself . . . as we are supposed to do. Even the younger children among us have sufficient conscience and moral judgment to reject the savagery and barbarity of our ignorant ancient ancestors. . . but apparently as Eusebius suggests . . . your adult conscience has been seared by the "doctrine of demons" in your dogma . . . so it withdraws from judgment under the lame excuse that "God's ways are not our ways." Since God made us in His image . . . how does that work? Why would He teach us morality He Himself does not believe in or follow??? Instead of dodging and ignoring my posts . . . why don't you try to actually answer the following re-posts, Vizio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No they aren't judging God, Vizio. They are judging your savage and barbaric beliefs ABOUT God from our ignorant ancestors' writings under the veil of ignorance Christ came to lift. You refuse to accept Christ's revelations and retain the ancient ignorance of our ancestors as if it was from God. I acknowledge God as the source of morality . . . but I also accept Christ's version of God and follow His Holy Spirit (Comforter) . . . what you should call your conscience . . . to what is moral and what is not.Your conscience has been seared by the "doctrine of demons" and you substitute the ignorance of our savage ancestors for the guidance of God's Holy Spirit within. You may feel you are defending God but you are defending a satanic corruption of Christ's revelation appealing to the worst in human nature . . . not the best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
It is very telling that you do not consider the human psychological weaknesses of YHWH to be of concern. There is no way God would have those weaknesses. Men assigned them and responsibility for their own savagery and barbarity creating a fearful and evil God. That you don't see the relevance of that says volumes about the corrupt dogma you follow. Any pretense that there could be anything MORAL about such beliefs is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This issue always comes aground on the specification of the moral values, Vizio. Using some ancient book written by savage barbarians from the bronze age as the source of moral rules is just not going to fly in this modern world. We know too much to accede to such a simplistic belief. But your philosophical point is still valid. If morality is to have any meaning in the traditional sense . . . it can't emanate from creatures who are cosmic accidents. Accidents have no purpose for existing and therefore nothing they do can be moral or immoral. So for morality to have any legitimacy at all . . . we must have a purpose in existing. That requires that God exist to establish our purpose. We are still left with the task of determining WHAT is moral and what is not . . . based on whether or not it contributes to or detracts from our purpose. An ancient book will not suffice . . . so Sam Harris has a legitimate approach.
Funny....I thought you were done with this thread because you didn't have a clue how to answer it.
Is Hitler in Heaven? I hope so. It displays that a loving and a merciful God is willing even to forgive someone as evil as him.
Fact is, Sam Harris has no grounds to judge God, just like every other atheist here that thinks morality is subjective. If morality is just up to the individual, then you have no ability to tell anyone else that anything is immoral. Sam Harris is an ear-tickler, telling folks like you what you want to hear. He's no different than Joel Osteen...except the audience they speak to.
Tell me why Sam Harris has no right to judge god and you do...You do it all the time...No matter what atrocious acts your god commits, you judge him as good...Tell me who gave you license to do that, but withheld that license from anyone who does not judge god as good?
What is your great source of morality? On what grounds do you dare to condemn someone of a different time, in a different culture? What tells you that the things the man did are wrong?
I'm not going to bother responding because I get more, and better feedback, when I talk to rocks.
Tell me why Sam Harris has no right to judge god and you do...You do it all the time...No matter what atrocious acts your god commits, you judge him as good...Tell me who gave you license to do that, but withheld that license from anyone who does not judge god as good?
Tell me why Sam Harris has no right to judge god and you do...You do it all the time...No matter what atrocious acts your god commits, you judge him as good...Tell me who gave you license to do that, but withheld that license from anyone who does not judge god as good?
I'm not condemning God based on a system of morality that is a human invention.
The best Sam Harris (or you) can do is say that based on your system of morality, you don't like what God does, or has done. You can't claim to be authoritative over anyone else--since you made up your system of morality based on your own feelings.
I'm not condemning God based on a system of morality that is a human invention.
The best Sam Harris (or you) can do is say that based on your system of morality, you don't like what God does, or has done. You can't claim to be authoritative over anyone else--since you made up your system of morality based on your own feelings.
Yep.
Yet another in the seemingly-endless line of Vizio non-answers.
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.
