Thanks for the offer but no. The consequences are severe because it’s against the human made laws. By that token is not wearing your seat belt inherently evil?
What if I shoot a guy who is currently killing other people?
And what if dog really meant cat?
So you don’t have an answer to whether or not that’s evil?
I mean you could just not reply instead of what you came with.
Would you do it if their no consequences? Like nothing would change for you, no trial no jail. And you get to drive 911 Carrera RS any color you want and just go anywhere you want.
So say you can kill the one person. Restrictions are they can’t be famous or celebrity, no person of the cloth…
You can otherswise take someone out and not only you don’t get caught, you get a fly car too.
So would you do it?
Would you feel bad about tracking down and killing the man who raped your wife? Or molested your kid? It would be murder.
I wouldn’t and I wouldn’t need a Porsche in return. Being able to piss on his grave everyday would be enough.
And what if the moon were made of cheese?
Moral relativism is too contradictory to be a workable paradigm.
Prove that it isn’t.
Honestly almost spilled my drink at this. You get your viewpoint from a book that is almost nothing but contradictions. Which is fine but it just seems weird to call something else out as contradictory.
We’ve done the moral relativism thing before though.
Actions matter beliefs don’t. I don’t care what someone believes as much as what they do. Again what good is the Catholic priests basis for being moral if he rapes kids? The why doesn’t matter as much as the what. Give me a non child raping atheist who apparently doesn’t have a framework for behavior over the child raper who does anyday.
Although again we’d have to realize the insane amount of contradictions in the Bible for that framework. Maybe God’s a moral relativist? Murder bad on some days and good on others. Be a good person one day and kill first born children another day. Or send locusts.
No consequences? I’d kill everyone on Earth. Prison food is the only thing keeping me from mass murder. They clean that stuff up and look out everyone.
2 Likes
I expected as much. Without faith, you were unable to discern morality.
1 Like
You smarting off at me? You’ll be the first to go once they get that food figured out. I’m just a really picky eater. More picky about what I eat than satisfying my insane thirst to kill.
1 Like
This is a few words that a college freshman just learned and tried using in a sentence. A sentence which makes no sense.
Just say no, you’re too scared of being murdered back, remember? Only your own life, but you know that isn’t even true. But no, you have to admit it isn’t inherently wrong to murder you no matter how peaceful you may have been. It’s all up to risk vs reward. If human life has no inherent value, and there are zero moral obligations…Why is it like pulling teeth? Yes? No? It’s all this hem-hawing and criticizing religions with a moral system that you don’t even believe exists as an independent reality from which you can even practice moral outrage. You acknowlege your own moral condemnation is baseless! It’s akin to having a favorite color. It’s subjective, but it’s the right subjective! The best favorite color.
You folks support the LEGALITY of killing 600K innocent individual lives annually so there’s fewer poor kids to ruin the view and MAYBE fill a prison bunk, and you’re going to morally condemn a creator that holds not just our lives but the entirety of the universe in existence?
Molested by Catholic Priests? There isn’t an ounce of moral obligation. Their very lives, the one and only one they have, could have been taken in the womb according to you folks.
Ok, back to what I was doing. You kids have a good time. Turn the lights off when you’re done.
Lots of feelings, but no facts.
You ever share your actual position?
My position is that trying to make it a scientific argument or a true/false argument or objective argument, etc., is disingenuous. Whether or not abortion is right or wrong is subjective and ultimately comes down to feelings. There is no inherently evil aspect to it. Nature does not care if the entire human race goes extinct. The God of the Bible is inconsistent, at best, when it comes to the immorality of killing.
1 Like
There is no scientific argument concerning the existence of an already existing individual humam life in the womb. That’s basic established biology.
Of course, because nothing is inherently evil. Nothing. Not even the pro-life conservative world view made reality with outlawing abortion. To suggest otherwise would be a faith-based position.
There is no inconsistency, he determines morality we live by. An absolute authority. Not the other way around. As you say, there is no inherent good and evil to judge a God with. Or, judge the abolishment of abortion with.
Been saying it the whole time.
God’s sense of morality is as mutable as man’s. Hmmmmm…
1 Like
I don’t get this observation as some attack on theism if it’s meant to be. That God, the creator, reserves authority, actions, and judgement not permitted to the creatures isn’t some gotcha or clever discovery, it’s a blatant advertised feature. I have literally said that God could end the universe tomorrow and that would be morally good. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God is the inescapable judge of good and evil. Morality doesn’t exist independently to measure him by. That’s in a universe where he exists. In one in which doesn’t no evil action exists anyways.
But, yes, as I’ve bee saying there is no actual good or evil without faith.
1 Like