[quote]kamui wrote:
Cabu, one of the victim, was a regular member of the biggest TV show for children in the 1980s.
They killed my childhood.
And since they were about my age, and born in Paris, maybe they have killed their own childhood too.
[/quote]
How are you holding up Kamui? I know things have got to be weird there right now.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Rinse and repeat may not be good enough for god, but it seems to be good enough for the Pope.
[/quote]
Ultimately, at least from my perspective, only ones take on the situation actually matters.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Yes, that is an important clarification as well. I was absolutely over-simplifying the concept, but the point still stands that even the most heinous of actions don’t necessarily keep you out of heaven.
[/quote]
My understanding from the church I grew up attending is that no earthly actions will keep you out of heaven as long as you accept Christ as your savior. That is the one and only prerequisite.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
…God isn’t required for morality.
[/quote]
Sure He is. That has been argued successfully on this forum for years so I’m not going to do it again. SM, DD and others have effectively destroyed the arguments that feebly attempt to explain it any other way.
[/quote]
Glad I missed those arguments. I’m sure the flip side of those discussions doesn’t agree with you about the outcome of those arguments.
Bottom line, I’m going right back where I went before. You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. So far nobody’s successfully done that.
You’re not going to say morality proves god or something like that are you?[/quote]
All the while assuming morality exists. You also would have to prove morality exists and define what it is correctly in order to prove it does not require a source.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, no. Since I’m not a Christian, and I don’t believe in any god in particular, I’m essentially saying that objective morality doesn’t exist. I think people could certainly have certain standards that they want to live by, but I disagree with any claim that there are universal concepts that we all should abide by, etc.[/quote]
So what the terrorists did in France is cool then? If no objective morality, the standards they want to live by are violence and hence the attacks they carried out have no wrong in them since it seemed good to them.
That’s the rabbit hole jumping down. There’s nothing inherently wrong with terrorism, since that is the standard they choose to live by.
You cannot decry anything as bad or good, evil or good, it’s all just stuff neither bad nor good since those words then have no meaning.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, no. Since I’m not a Christian, and I don’t believe in any god in particular, I’m essentially saying that objective morality doesn’t exist. I think people could certainly have certain standards that they want to live by, but I disagree with any claim that there are universal concepts that we all should abide by, etc.[/quote]
So what the terrorists did in France is cool then? If no objective morality, the standards they want to live by are violence and hence the attacks they carried out have no wrong in them since it seemed good to them.
That’s the rabbit hole jumping down. There’s nothing inherently wrong with terrorism, since that is the standard they choose to live by.
You cannot decry anything as bad or good, evil or good, it’s all just stuff neither bad nor good since those words then have no meaning.[/quote]
In fact, “objective morality” teaches that terrorism is inherently good when done to defend the profit because God deemed it to be moral and good in the teachings of the Qur’an. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with “objective morality.” Just because you subjectively don’t like what God said, Pat, doesn’t make their actions immoral.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
For you to claim universal right and wrong wouldn’t everyone have to agree with it? I think you’re going to have to start over on that one.
[/quote]
Not if God, as in the Judeo-Christian God, supposedly creates said rule.
Objective morality requires someone besides humans to establish it. There is absolutely no way to actually determine whether murdering someone is right or wrong, and certainly people with different backgrounds and life experiences will view it differently.
That’s why you need someone OTHER than human, a higher being of some sort, to establish morality for it to be objective.
Obviously this comes with a caveat- we must assume that the higher being is actually capable of establishing something as the baseline; the absolute truth. If it can’t, then bleh.
The greater point I want to make though is- Humans cannot establish objective morality. It is one thing to claim that murdering people is bad because X, and another to say that murdering people is morally wrong.[/quote]
Yes, that.[/quote]’
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, the counter argument surely can’t be.[/quote]
I’d certainly concede that there are reasons one would want to convince people there’s an objective morality; that there are reasons one would want to conduct his or her life life as if morality were objective; and that there are reasons one would to want to believe in an objective morality. But the fact remains: it is or it isn’t and there’s no way to prove it one way or the other.
[/quote]
Well, if that’s the case why don’t we just go with the one that’s more useful?
Wouldn’t that be prudent?
[/quote]
Ok, let’s assume morality is objective and the moral rules are handed down by god. I’m assuming you will agree that in any objective moral system the rules permit and, in fact, command me to kill infidels.
If you disagree, where do I find the “objective” moral rules? Or am I supposed use my judgment to pick and choose the rules that I think are the correct “objective” moral rules?[/quote]
Which is a misunderstanding of what morality is.
Religion doesn’t create morality. It may tell you what is, or is not moral, but it does not make it up. Without morality, ,‘killing infidels’ is neither bad or good. Under objective morality, these actions would be evil regardless of who or what suggested it.
But understand then, by your definition, these actions, say killing infidels, have no moral consequence whatsoever. It’s just an action, neither bad or good.
Without objective morality you’re hard pressed to say killing of any kind is bad or good, since bad or good does not exist. So them killing us is not wrong, us killing them is not wrong. What they do to women is not wrong. Rape, murder, torture, etc. is neither good or evil. It’s just stuff people do and if that’s the case, there’s no reason to get mad about it.
^ it’s scary that moral relativism can justify any behavior.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, no. Since I’m not a Christian, and I don’t believe in any god in particular, I’m essentially saying that objective morality doesn’t exist. I think people could certainly have certain standards that they want to live by, but I disagree with any claim that there are universal concepts that we all should abide by, etc.[/quote]
So what the terrorists did in France is cool then? If no objective morality, the standards they want to live by are violence and hence the attacks they carried out have no wrong in them since it seemed good to them.
That’s the rabbit hole jumping down. There’s nothing inherently wrong with terrorism, since that is the standard they choose to live by.
You cannot decry anything as bad or good, evil or good, it’s all just stuff neither bad nor good since those words then have no meaning.[/quote]
In fact, “objective morality” teaches that terrorism is inherently good when done to defend the profit because God deemed it to be moral and good in the teachings of the Qur’an. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with “objective morality.” Just because you subjectively don’t like what God said, Pat, doesn’t make their actions immoral.
[/quote]
No, what I think doesn’t make an action moral or immoral. The actions are immoral because they are objectively evil. They certainly thought their actions were moral, but that does not make it so either. And you thinking that their actions are neither evil or good, does not make it so. The point is, is it’s not subjective if it were none of this would matter.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
^ it’s scary that moral relativism can justify any behavior. [/quote]
It can, which is a proof of why it’s not true. Behavior does matter, if it doesn’t what are we even bothering to talk about? Some dudes walked around a killed a few people, so what? If it’s not even evil, then we’re bothered about nothing.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, no. Since I’m not a Christian, and I don’t believe in any god in particular, I’m essentially saying that objective morality doesn’t exist. I think people could certainly have certain standards that they want to live by, but I disagree with any claim that there are universal concepts that we all should abide by, etc.[/quote]
So what the terrorists did in France is cool then? If no objective morality, the standards they want to live by are violence and hence the attacks they carried out have no wrong in them since it seemed good to them.
That’s the rabbit hole jumping down. There’s nothing inherently wrong with terrorism, since that is the standard they choose to live by.
You cannot decry anything as bad or good, evil or good, it’s all just stuff neither bad nor good since those words then have no meaning.[/quote]
In fact, “objective morality” teaches that terrorism is inherently good when done to defend the profit because God deemed it to be moral and good in the teachings of the Qur’an. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with “objective morality.” Just because you subjectively don’t like what God said, Pat, doesn’t make their actions immoral.
[/quote]
No, what I think doesn’t make an action moral or immoral. The actions are immoral because they are objectively evil. They certainly thought their actions were moral, but that does not make it so either. And you thinking that their actions are neither evil or good, does not make it so. The point is, is it’s not subjective if it were none of this would matter.[/quote]
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]
Bingo.
If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.
Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Thus, “objective morality” exists or it doesn’t. And there is no way to prove or know that it does or doesn’t. So explain how the concept is useful.
[/quote]
Well, no. Since I’m not a Christian, and I don’t believe in any god in particular, I’m essentially saying that objective morality doesn’t exist. I think people could certainly have certain standards that they want to live by, but I disagree with any claim that there are universal concepts that we all should abide by, etc.[/quote]
So what the terrorists did in France is cool then? If no objective morality, the standards they want to live by are violence and hence the attacks they carried out have no wrong in them since it seemed good to them.
That’s the rabbit hole jumping down. There’s nothing inherently wrong with terrorism, since that is the standard they choose to live by.
You cannot decry anything as bad or good, evil or good, it’s all just stuff neither bad nor good since those words then have no meaning.[/quote]
In fact, “objective morality” teaches that terrorism is inherently good when done to defend the profit because God deemed it to be moral and good in the teachings of the Qur’an. Claiming otherwise is inconsistent with “objective morality.” Just because you subjectively don’t like what God said, Pat, doesn’t make their actions immoral.
[/quote]
No, what I think doesn’t make an action moral or immoral. The actions are immoral because they are objectively evil. They certainly thought their actions were moral, but that does not make it so either. And you thinking that their actions are neither evil or good, does not make it so. The point is, is it’s not subjective if it were none of this would matter.[/quote]
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]
People don’t agree, that’s clear. And evil people certainly won’t agree that their actions are immoral.
The real question isn’t whether we think their actions are immoral. The real question is are their actions immoral or not? Not what we think.
If their actions are relative, then there actions are justifiable, but not based on what’s right or wrong, because then such a thing does not exist.
Agreement or knowledge or awareness is not required for morality to exist. It’s not required for anything to exist. There may be lot’s, and likely are a lot of things we aren’t aware of that do exist. However, they are apparently little consequence if we don’t even have a clue as to their existence. When it comes to morality, we have skin in the game. It’s something we have to deal with, no matter how difficult or elusive it may seem.
What do you believe makes an action or behavior immoral? And by what do you justify in believing such a thing.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]
Bingo.
If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.
Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?[/quote]
Wouldn’t it make sense that humans might not be the best at interpreting the messages, intentions and creations of an omnipotent being? Therefore making it very reasonable, that no, we aren’t all going to see everything the same way as moral or immoral.
Wouldn’t this also explain shit like the fact slavery was totally cool with every major civilization up until a couple hundred years ago, and other such abhorrent things we shun today (and others we embrace, like vacuuming out innocent babies)?
It just seems to me you guys are giving humans way too much credit. Who really knows if we understand God’s morality at all yet?
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
You can’t prove that something does not exist.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
No, I think their actions are immoral. So do you. They think their actions are objectively moral and commanded by the will of god. Which of us is right? How do we prove which is right? Claiming morality is “objective” means that it exists independently of any of us, but how is this concept useful when people can’t even agree on the rules?
[/quote]
Bingo.
If the CH attackers are right about who their god is and what he wants, what they did was moral.
Can a Christian show that the CH attackers are not right about who there god is/what he wants? Can he (the Christian) do it without also showing that he himself is not right about who his god is/what his god wants?[/quote]
Wouldn’t it make sense that humans might not be the best at interpreting the messages, intentions and creations of an omnipotent being? Therefore making it very reasonable, that no, we aren’t all going to see everything the same way as moral or immoral.
Wouldn’t this also explain shit like the fact slavery was totally cool with every major civilization up until a couple hundred years ago, and other such abhorrent things we shun today (and others we embrace, like vacuuming out innocent babies)?
It just seems to me you guys are giving humans way too much credit. Who really knows if we understand God’s morality at all yet?[/quote]
I don’t think you’re taking my meaning.
I’m not arguing that the plurality of religious interpretation is evidence of the nonexistence of the divine.
I’m simply making the point that if the true god is the god of Mohamed Atta, then 9/11 was objectively good.
Which gets at my penultimate post about objective morality being but god’s subjective morality as considered from a human perspective, and the possibly greater attractiveness of a morality that is simply invented/enforced by humans.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
You have to prove the existence of god before you can even begin to argue morality comes from god. [/quote]
But you don’t need to prove the absence of God in order to say there doesn’t need to be a divine creator for morality to exist?
You can will facts from thin air based on your faith, but thumb your nose at those whose faith leads to a differing conclusion?[/quote]
Does one need to prove the absence of sorcerers to say that magic doesn’t exist, or does a simple lack of evidence give us enough to form an opinion on the matter?
[/quote]
Okay… So you’re saying a lack of evidence is sufficient for one to base an opinion on?