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.
Please just stop it. Seriously. I'm almost ready to hit the ignore button on you because of you non-stop misrepresenting me. It's almost laughable. I've never said we have to follow the Law of Moses to be declared moral. Or that we even have to have the Bible to know morality.
So you're saying you apply your own subjective judgement to the absolute rules laid out from your god in the Bible? What gives you the right to say your opinion of subjective morality is above anyone else's. Can you do explain that?
You're trying to make the claim that you know what is moral because your God told you what is moral. Are you going to claim that your morality came from elsewhere aside from God? Hmm?
You're trying to dispute my morality because it doesn't have an absolutist law-giver to grant it legitimacy. That is your ENTIRE argument - which means God has to exist for that perceived legitimacy to exist.
Ergo, unless you can prove (not just "believe in") that your God exists, you're just throwing around opinions just like I am. YOUR morality has no more legitimacy than mine.
Bottom line here is pretty simple: If I were you, I would stop questioning MY morality because you can't even legtimize your OWN morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
But I'm not suggesting anyone is to be forced to obey a set of rules such as the Bible. I'm merely arguing for the absurdity of trying to claim your specific set of subjective morality is the "right one".
Did I ever claim that my morality is the "right" one? Yes, I think it's the right one for ME, but I have never asserted that my morality is objective and good for everyone. I have given you examples before of how sometimes my own morality has to take a back seat to societal morality. If I wish to continue living among other people, I can't always just "do my thing."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Rape is prohibited.
Having sex with a minor is only considered rape because of our age of consent laws which, by the way, do not exist anywhere in the Bible. This means, of course, that age of consent laws designed to protect children are purely subjective - society's opinion, as it were - and thus cannot be justified or legitimized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
As is premarital sex.
First of all, the prohibition against premarital sex is strictly a religious edict. In order for any religious edict to be worth anything at all, God must first be proven to exist. Without that proof, who really cares what your holy book says? It's just a big collection of opinions, none of which can be legitimized without knowledge that God actually exists.
Secondly, premarital sex is not illegal. No one has ever been arrested, charged, and sentenced for having premarital sex or committing fornication.
What all of this means, according to your own logic, is that there can be no moral system that protects children from sexual predators. Your God and your Bible seem to have omitted that part. This leaves us with nothing but the opinion that children ought to be protected, but since opinions on morality are worthless, so too would be a morality that prohibited sex with children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Having said that, what is your basis to suggest that it is wrong? I know it is.
No, actually, you DON'T know - at least, you don't know any better than I do. Sure, you can attempt to slip something like that beneath my radar, but as you can see ... it ain't happenin'. Unless you can prove that your God exists, you're just trying to pass off your opinion as fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that ANYTHING is immoral, and that you can know it is.
I'm still waiting for you to prove your God exists. That's the only way you can demonstrate that your morality is any less of an opinion than mine.
Your serve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Still waiting. Let me know when you come up with a real answer.
Ditto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yet...you've not given me a reasonable way to judge Adolph, Uncle Joe, or Mao as "immoral" that is not based simply on your personal opinion.
And what reasonable way would YOU judge those men to be immoral?
The video has a few things confused. "No free will" is not the same as saying no freedom of choice. Also, no free will is not the same as no personal responsibility. Theists can't see that personal responsibility exists if you aren't responsible TO god. We are, of course, responsible to each other, regardless of what we imagine our responsibility to god is. If you don't believe me, just go out and drive past the speed limit, set some fires, shoot a few people. You'll find out that you're responsible to your fellow man in a big hurry.
His argument is curious that our ultimate end is to uphold god, to uphold one another is a "subordinate end". So God, despite being entirely self existent, all powerful and all knowing, and lacking nothing in himself, is more concerned with puny humans "upholding" and "glorifying" and "worshipping" him than in being good to one another.
He touches briefly on the law of god being written on our hearts / known to all, which of course he must do in order to establish that we are all guilty, guilty, guilty. But he also creates a problem for himself, which is that even by his own unsubstantiated claims, believers and unbelievers alike have the same knowledge of right and wrong, which begs the question of what the advantage of being a believer even is, in terms of morality.
Bottom line, he's arguing that all good works and love are meaningless unless god gets his lovin' first. Anyone who has actually loved, been loved, and done good works knows otherwise. God is truly an unnecessary entity inserted into this picture.
So you're saying you apply your own subjective judgement to the absolute rules laid out from your god in the Bible? What gives you the right to say your opinion of subjective morality is above anyone else's. Can you do explain that?
I have no reason to suggest my subjective opinion of morality is above anyone else's. Nor am I making such a claim.
You're trying to make the claim that you know what is moral because your God told you what is moral. Are you going to claim that your morality came from elsewhere aside from God? Hmm?
You're trying to dispute my morality because it doesn't have an absolutist law-giver to grant it legitimacy. That is your ENTIRE argument - which means God has to exist for that perceived legitimacy to exist.
Ergo, unless you can prove (not just "believe in") that your God exists, you're just throwing around opinions just like I am. YOUR morality has no more legitimacy than mine.
Bottom line here is pretty simple: If I were you, I would stop questioning MY morality because you can't even legtimize your OWN morality.
I'll say it again. This thread is about the OP trying to suggest God is immoral. Neither you, nor anyone else can or has shown a way to judge morality that is anything more than a personal opinion, or a consensus of personal opinions.
If you can provide an argument to support the OP's claim, bring it on. Until then, I'm not going to be part of taking it further off course than it is.
Quote:
Did I ever claim that my morality is the "right" one? Yes, I think it's the right one for ME, but I have never asserted that my morality is objective and good for everyone. I have given you examples before of how sometimes my own morality has to take a back seat to societal morality. If I wish to continue living among other people, I can't always just "do my thing."
But with that idea it's not the right one for anyone else. Therefore you have no basis for declaring ANYONE to be moral or immoral. Including the writings that one may find in the Bible.
Quote:
Having sex with a minor is only considered rape because of our age of consent laws which, by the way, do not exist anywhere in the Bible. This means, of course, that age of consent laws designed to protect children are purely subjective - society's opinion, as it were - and thus cannot be justified or legitimized.
What difference does it make? You can't say it's wrong.
Quote:
First of all, the prohibition against premarital sex is strictly a religious edict. In order for any religious edict to be worth anything at all, God must first be proven to exist. Without that proof, who really cares what your holy book says? It's just a big collection of opinions, none of which can be legitimized without knowledge that God actually exists.
What difference does it make? You can't say it's right or wrong.
Quote:
Secondly, premarital sex is not illegal. No one has ever been arrested, charged, and sentenced for having premarital sex or committing fornication.
What difference does it make? You can't say it's right or wrong. Your worldview is incapable of making that judgment.
Quote:
What all of this means, according to your own logic, is that there can be no moral system that protects children from sexual predators. Your God and your Bible seem to have omitted that part. This leaves us with nothing but the opinion that children ought to be protected, but since opinions on morality are worthless, so too would be a morality that prohibited sex with children.
At least in YOUR worldview there isn't.
Quote:
No, actually, you DON'T know - at least, you don't know any better than I do. Sure, you can attempt to slip something like that beneath my radar, but as you can see ... it ain't happenin'. Unless you can prove that your God exists, you're just trying to pass off your opinion as fact.
It must be miserable to not be able to say anything is right or wrong. I feel sorry for you.
Quote:
I'm still waiting for you to prove your God exists. That's the only way you can demonstrate that your morality is any less of an opinion than mine.
Your serve.
I'm still waiting for you to give me an answer of why you believe you can judge ANYTHING right or wrong.
Quote:
Ditto.
And what reasonable way would YOU judge those men to be immoral?
<---- I can keep this up all day.
Murder is wrong. That's a basic moral truth that is stamped on my heart, in addition to being written in the Bible.
You seem to be confusing the EXISTENCE of morality with whether or not individuals follow morality. They are completely separate issues and one has nothing to do with the other. We CAN KNOW what is moral without following it. God has "written in our hearts" and with the guidance of the Comforter using agape love . . . we CAN KNOW in our heart of hearts what IS and what IS NOT moral! If it is against agape love it is NOT moral. IF it is consistent with agape love it IS moral. You call that subjective . . . when it is the opposite. If we do NOT internally have a morality to follow . . .it does not exist. It is just human vanity and hubris in words "written in ink." You seem to believe we do NOT have an internal morality to rely on based on agape love. Besides being of academic interest . . . what does the Bible have to do with the morality God has "written in our hearts"??? Again you seem to confuse following our internal morality . . . with having it . . . they are NOT the same thing.Since you believe the Bible is God's Word instead of Christ and since you believe the Bible is the authority on morality . . . you automatically are endorsing the law and the many words "written in ink" as your God. You cannot believe the Bible is inerrant and infallible without believing it is therefore God. That makes your God a quartet . . . the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Bible. I think you simply do NOT believe Christ abides with us as the LIVING Word of God. IF you did there would be no need to revere the Bible as your God and authority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I will let others decide whether or not I have made any attempt to understand your arguments (non-existent as they have been). You have mainly asked the same boring question for which you have been given myriad answers. You pretend that you are somehow NOT in the same subjective boat as everyone else . . . but you ARE! Your subjective morality is even MORE subjective because it is entirely based on the whim and caprice of your God . . . instead of what God has taught us and IS . . . agape love. THAT is a standard that is both objective and absolute . . . not subject to the caprice of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
I hope you realize that this is your opinion which makes it subjective, not objective and absolute
Yes I do. It is Vizio who doesn't realize it about his version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I have no reason to suggest my subjective opinion of morality is above anyone else's. Nor am I making such a claim.
You say this and then say things like this . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
<snip>
I'm still waiting for you to give me an answer of why you believe you can judge ANYTHING right or wrong.
Murder is wrong. That's a basic moral truth that is stamped on my heart, in addition to being written in the Bible.
Are you even aware of the double-speak that you promote, Vizio????? Your posts are an intellectual embarrassment about which you seem to be completely oblivious.
Well, I don't usually like responding to someone who has but one post and has a name like UEnjoyChrist because this is often a sign of a proselytizing spammer. They simply come into a forum, drop a lot of manure all over the place and then are never seen again (at least not in this particular incarnation - whether they multi-nick is another story).
BUT ... instead of talking to UEnjoyChrist (who didn't even bother to comment on his own video), I'll just debunk the video.
Manure Pile #1: (1:10 in the video). This guy says atheists believe that if we're a product of our DNA and our environment, we somehow lose our free will. Wha? Whoever said such an inane thing? No, free will is essentially non-existent if Christianity is true. Because we do not have the free will to NOT be sinners. No matter what, according to the Bible, we are scudsy little sinners and we just can't help but sin. Where is our free will? Sure, sometimes we can refrain from sin, but is there ever a time when we can consider ourselves 100% righteous and free of sin? Nope ... so considering God designed us as who we are, is that REALLY any different than being a slave to DNA and the environment?
I can see we're already on the fast track to the Inanityville Horror.
Manure Pile #2: (1:50). "No free will, no choice, no right or wrong. We're just walking reflexes." This is the kind of thing that really vexes me about apologists. They can't argue with the facts at hand without taking everything to the extreme. I can only assume that without hyperbole their arguments would be even dumber than they are in this video.
Sure, scientists are going to say that many of the choices we make stem from our genetic make-up and the environment in which we live. Well ... no crap, Sherlock. Why else do you wear a suit to work instead of a sari? Why do you eat meat and potatoes instead of noodles and rice? Why else do you believe in Jehovah instead of Allah? Yeah ... because of your environment, you ninny. This applies even to Christians; it isn't God telling you to watch the football game instead of the soccer game. It's your environment, your culture, your inculcation into the society in which you were born and raised in. To deny this fact is merely being contrary for the sake of defending an indefensible argument. But to suggest that we're simply biologically incapable of turning on the World Cup instead of the Super Bowl is just plain idiotic - yet this is the hyperbole this videographer is basing his argument upon.
Manure Pile #3 (3:15). "Morality presupposes freedom of choice." Yes, we cannot honor water for being so precious to life nor can we blame hydrochloric acid for doing what it does. According to him, this is because there is no "free agency" taking place. Water and hydrochloric acid can't help but be what they are.
Which means, I'm sure (I haven't gotten to this yet) that atheists can't really be good people because any kindness we display is nothing but a reflex. We can't choose to be good. Of course there is, no doubt, several atheists already seeing the easy and obvious counter-argument to this ridiculous premise, but I'll let the video play a bit more (even though the outcome is as predictable as last night's re-runs.)
Manure Pile #4 (4:17). "Any moral judgments an atheist makes are hollow, inconsistent, and unjustifiable." And there it is, ladies and gentlemen, the disgusting back-patting sanctimony of the Christian apologist. They are absolutely desperate to prove themselves to be "better than" atheists yet atheists doing good things completely blows that premise out of the water. In order to get around that annoyance, apologists have invented this STUPID accusation that atheists aren't really choosing to be good. Somehow, we're on auto-pilot.
Ahh, but wait ... if that is really true, then only Christians are capable of committing evil acts, no? So much for the "they weren't real Christians" argument.
One of my favorites here is the accusation that moral judgments by atheists are inconsistent. Uh huh. Is that why there are more than 33,000 recognized denominations of atheism each with a slightly different moral code? Yeah - inconsistent. Like cherry picking certain "no no's" from the Bible and enforcing them (i.e. homosexuality) while ignoring other verses (i.e. adultery and usury). Inconsistent ... LOL and stuff.
Manure Pile #5 (5:08). Atheists cannot be good. And neither can anyone else because Romans 3 says that no one is good. Uh huh ... well, if that's the case, then your entire video is utterly pointless. It's too bad this character didn't know to pack up his camera right then and there and go find something else to do. Perhaps a nice game of tiddly-winks. Unfortunately, he had to talk for another five minutes.
I'm not really into destroying my own self-esteem and dignity by engaging in a lot of feigned self-deprication. If this guy wants to act like a battered wife praising and worshiping the very thing that has him under its thumb, be my guest. Go sit in a dark room, play some sad music, and beg for your next breath if that floats your proverbial boat ... but leave atheists out of it. None of us, I'm certain, have any desire to be caught up in your world of self-hatred and deity praising.
Manure Pile #6 (5:15). "God holds the measuring stick to what's good and evil. Not us." Oh really? Then you're not really making a moral judgment, either. You're just following orders.
Of course, just like with Vizio, Christians have to prove that their God exists. Otherwise, it can be easily shown that their decision to accept the morality of God is merely a product of their environment, too. Being born into a Christian nation with an anomalous amount of religiosity had nothing whatsoever to do with it ... right?
Manure Pile #7 (6:00). He talks about an atheist doing good things and how that is loving your neighbor as you would love yourself. "However, that is only a subordinate end for which he was created. The ultimate end for which he, and all of us, were created were to love God, enjoy God, to uphold him as supreme. To glorify God."
And THAT is moral? In fact, what he just said has been the root of thousands of years of moral depravity. By putting your fellow humans a distant second, it kicks open the door to violence, bloodshed, and oppression. How easy it has been throughout the centuries to try and love and glorify God by committing unspeakable acts of cruelty against those you feel aren't loving and glorifying God quite enough to satisfy your own personal tastes.
This is one of the major reasons why secular humanism is far and away superior to a morality based on a deity. Secular humanism actually puts humanity FIRST; humanity doesn't have to compete with God's immature, dysfunctional need for worship, attention, and the demand to be first and foremost in all thoughts and deeds. In any human context, God would have been labeled a drama queen - and other things, too, if the forum auto-censor would allow me to type them.
Manure Pile #8 (6:00-7:15 or so). This tirade reinforces what I said in Manure Pile #7, but it is rather chilling to hear it said out loud. I don't think Christians really GET how perverted a God-centric moral system actually is. Here's why:
He talks about an atheist going to Africa to help build homes for the less fortunate. That's a good and noble thing to do, he says. But because he's an atheist, building those homes is only fulfilling his subordinate role. Because he isn't accomplishing his primary role of glorifying God, building those houses is all in vain.
What the hell? I thought the reason for building houses in Africa was to help the poor have a place to live. Who gives a crap about some ancient tribal deity? THIS is why secular humanism is so superior. It really IS about helping your fellow man, not creating another feather for God's cap. Seriously, talk about a twisted moral system. It almost freezes my blood to hear this kind of nonsense.
Manure pile #9 (8:00 or thereabouts). Because this atheist chooses to go to Africa to build houses for the poor, it proves that he has a spirit - a body/soul composite. That, apparently proves God. It shows that the law of God is written on the hearts of men.
NO, it isn't ... otherwise, he wouldn't be an atheist, now, would he. That man is going to Africa because the poor need homes and he's willing to help accomplish that. Guess what ... no God is needed. No spirits. No souls. No laws written on hearts. No glorifying tribal deities. No.
You just have to be a good person. I feel sorry, truly sorry, for those who think that God is necessary for a person to do good. I actually feel a twinge of anger toward whomever it was that made this videographer feel this way about morality. Did his parents make him go to Jesus Camp when he was a little tike ... or what?
Manure Pile #10 (8:20). "Unconditional love is beautiful ... and good ... and just ... and what we ought to do." And just WHAT would a God who tortures people for eternity for failing to worship him know about unconditional love? The cognitive dissonance needed to believe in this stuff is so astounding that I sometimes have to 'rewind" several times just to make sure my ears were not deceiving me.
Manure Pile #11 (8:37). "And that hatred and selfishness and jealousy and envy and all of these things are ugly, what we ought not to do, bad, wrong."
ROFL! “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5).
It's all so mind-boggling ... just mind-boggling.
Last edited by Shirina; 10-01-2014 at 01:41 PM..
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.
I'm still waiting for you to prove your God exists. That's the only way you can demonstrate that your morality is any less of an opinion than mine. 
<---- I can keep this up all day.
