Arrest the Pope!

[Makavali]

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Veg, you fucked up this page. Go edit your post with the zeros.[/quote]

I agree. Maybe we should report V to the Mods?[/quote]

On what grounds?

I doubt he did anything with malicious intent. Get off the high horse and try not to pretend it’s for any other reason than him disagreeing with you.[/quote]

I think he was just playin with me Mak.

V[/quote]

Ah, I had not seen a certain other thread recently.

I recant my post in that case.

[anonfactor]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
I’d argue that morality is inherently subjective, whether there is a creator or not.

Edit: Actually that last sentence was worded poorly. What I meant to say was I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, whether from atheistic or theistic perspectives, but I haven’t collected my thoughts and formed a cogent argument against them yet. [/quote]

Would you say that what the Aztecs were doing until around 1521 was just an expression of their own particular brand of morality?[/quote]

Yep, that would be consistent. I don’t find the arguments for moral absolutes convincing, so I really can’t see it any other way. Moral absolutes are not like logical absolutes, which are objective. That is not to say that morality cannot be explained or that systems of morality cannot be judged as superior or inferior by some rubric, however, this does nothing to change how morality is still inherently subjective.[/quote]

Indeed. And the argument you would like to advance crumbles in light of what you posted above.[/quote]

And what argument is that, that morality is inherently subjective and moral absolutes do not exist? How does it crumble?[/quote]

You want it both ways. Can’t have it both ways.

Can’t have “inherently subjective” AND “moral absolutes.”

The Aztec dilemma continues to plague you guys and you simple can’t see it. You’re so blind, it’s unbelievable.[/quote]

I was referring to moral absolutes as the basis of a system of morality, not as objective moral facts. Moral absolutes are only absolute to the group that believes they are, they are not literally absolute. Moral absolutes, as in objective moral facts, do not exist thus systems of morality, which are based on moral “absolutes”, are inherently subjective.

[anonfactor]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Subjective for sure but I think it’s safe to assume he is more qualified to comment on Genesis than say…you.[/quote]

So what. Even if he is more qualified than I to comment on Genesis, this does not mean he is right just that, all things being equal, he is more likely than I to have a correct claim. You, however, have failed to provide evidence that his claim is true or even attempted to argue this point logically.

[quote] For all of $14 including shipping you can arm yourself with the original source so as to defeat your “unqualified” opponent.

The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of...

[/quote]

Ha. I’m curious, why do you think I find this person “unqualified”? Is it for ethical or academic reasons?

[quote]Edit: One more thing before I leave, don’t you think that a deity using a book to spread its message is a crudely inefficient and suspiciously human mode of communication?

No.[/quote]

Which is a more efficient way to get a message across, publishing an article in a newspaper that is rarely read or beaming it directly into everyone’s heads? Which way do people normally do it?

[quote]Why didn’t it just reveal these moral laws and itself to everyone with the choice to obey him or not?

Maybe he did.[/quote]

No, he hasn’t. If he did, then the debate would be whether a god exists but whether to worship and obey such a god.

What is the difficulty for an omnipotent being of having an unambiguous message projected to everyone at the same time that says “Hello my son/daughter, I am God. I exist. Here are my laws. Obey me if you wish”?

[anonfactor]

I hate to quote myself but theist has even attempted to answer the problems of moral absolutes (I guess it is more specifically moral ontology) for the theist, specifically Judeo-christian.

Regarding moral absolutes, this is as much a problem for the theist as the atheist. I’m sure you’re familiar with Eurythropo’s Dilemma as applied to monotheism and the problems it raises. Also, with regards to Judeo-christian religion, the case for moral absolutes becomes significantly weaker. It is hard to claim your deity as the author of morality when he commands human sacrifice, genocide, condones of slavery, and makes trivial offenses like adultery punishable by stoning; all things considered morally repugnant today. These problems are further exacerbated in Christianity by the conflicts between a New Covenant, an expanded Old Covenant or a Dual Covenant

Also, interesting to note that you completely ignore the problem of moral absolutes for the theist, especially the Judeo-christian ie. how the existence of moral absolutes given by a moral lawgiver results in laws and practices that are morally repugnant today. Will you address that along with Euthyphros (massacred the spelling last time) dilemma with regard to monotheism?

Wild card

do you concede that the difference between humans’ and other animals’ capacity to make moral judgments is a biological rather than spiritual difference?

Specifically for YECs

[quote]It is your position that humans were created as they are now 6,000 years ago by a Semetic Deity and that we did not evolve from nor share a common ancestor with any other animal, right?

If the above is correct, then do you consider humans animals? Do you think we are mammals (bodyhair, mammary glands, etc.)? Do you consider us primate or apes considering all the traits we share with them? If you negate the above, then are you not saying that the traits we share with other animals are just coincidence, the result of an uncreative creator using similar body plans? That it is a coincidence that the animal we share 98% of our DNA with, the chimpanzee, is a social animal and has relatively high intellectual functioning when compared to other animals?

I’m not the one saying the traits and behaviors we have are the result of chance or coincidence.[/quote]

[anonfactor]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anon, your one earlier post was all jumbled up with the quote/quote deal incorrectly fashioned. I didn’t go through it for that reason.

I have trouble sometimes with it too and it is frustrating. It’s one of the reasons I split up my responses to posts.

I meant to go back and sort through it but just haven’t got around to it. Not avoiding you on purpose.[/quote]

Oh, my apologies then. I thought I had fixed it but apparently it is still jumbled.

[anonfactor]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonfactor wrote:

No, he hasn’t. If he did, then the debate would be whether a god exists but whether to worship and obey such a god.

What is the difficulty for an omnipotent being of having an unambiguous message projected to everyone at the same time that says “Hello my son/daughter, I am God. I exist. Here are my laws. Obey me if you wish”?[/quote]

You’re insinuating you think you have the God employment qualifications all figured out. Maybe you should apply for the position? Oh, that’s right - in essence you have.[/quote]

So you think I’m being unreasonable in expecting that the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe would deliver his message clearly?

[ephrem]

…i’ll just leave this here, shall i?

John Cleese vs Extremism

[Makavali]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Your definition of “clearly” is clearly subjective.[/quote]

Not really. Feel free to correct me anon, but I’d assume “clearly” means EVERYONE can understand it without having to undergo the mental gymnastics most religious people have to in order to justify their lifestyle.

[DCubed]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You and Eph and a few others are as dogmatic in your faith as any “churchman” anywhere.[/quote]

In what sense?

[DCubed]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DCubed wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You and Eph and a few others are as dogmatic in your faith as any “churchman” anywhere.[/quote]

In what sense?[/quote]

Give it some thought.

Read some of what Alpha F had to say on the Missing Link thread.[/quote]

I’m going to have to say that if you’re going to make a claim like that you better back it up with substantial arguments or at least quote someone else’s. I have given it some thought, by the way. I just want to hear why you think that non-faith is faith and using evidence as a guide for what’s real is faith.

[Makavali]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Clearly” can never mean EVERYONE.[/quote]

Guess old God ain’t so omnipotent then.

[Cortes]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

…God doesn’t need to enter into the picture to tell humans that harming another human is not good for the society. We can also know that society is good for humans because those humans who developed societies flourished. These basic steps in logic are subliminal at this point due to the fact that we are oh say 100,000 + years out from when people had to make an active decision, be a part of society or go it alone…

V[/quote]

Then you need to deal with the Aztec question I posed above.[/quote]

You are assuming too much.

For consistencies sake Ephrem would only have to argue that the Azteks behavior was indeed moral because it evolved in their society and that way it was moral for them but would be immoral for others.

That would be a perfectly defendable position and I would even agree in some cases.

However, he will not do that because he secretly wants to believe in an absolute morality, namely his version of morality.

[/quote]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Heheh. orion, you’re stealing all my thunder

[Cortes]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
The 15th and 16th century Aztecs were inflicting “wrong” stuff on folks that would cause a priest’s actions in the 20th and 21st century to pale in comparison.[/quote]

They sure were.

Wasn’t that also in the name of their brand of religion?

Hm.[/quote]

Heh. Mak, you are as morally absolute as they come.