And Statler continues to have problems understanding basic philosophical issues...

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well you can’t use intent because that would be nothing more than “thought crime”, and we all know how unbelievers hate the Bible because it punishes people for “thought crime”.

Intent does properly have a place in discussions of morality. This doesn't constitute "thought crime" since thoughts were accompanied by corresponding action.

Quote:So now it is not only morally wrong to cause harm to others, but it is morally wrong to risk causing harm to others? So would it be morally wrong to drive a car because you then run the risk of running someone over?

It would be morally wrong to drive a car recklessly, in ways that wantonly disregard safety.

Quote:So the act of having sex with someone behind the spouse’s back is not what is morally wrong, it’s the act of lying about it that is actually wrong? So if the guy never actually has to lie about what he did because he was never asked then he is innocent?

Ever heard of lie by omission? And if he pledged to be faithful or fidelity was an understood agreement between the two, then breaking that contract is deceptive.

Quote:You are contradicting every definition you have given of morality thus far, if nothing bad happened then no harm was done to an individual or society, which are the two definitions of morality I have seen you give thus far. Are you willing to give a third definition that would include thought crimes such as intent?

You struggle with problems that only exist in your head. Attempted crimes are still crimes, even if they weren't successfully carried out, and can easily be prosecuted as such.

Quote:You can’t call yourself a free-thinker and then display a complete disregard for laws of reasoning such as the principle of sufficient reason.

Nice. Another non sequitur. You really do run through the list of fallacies quickly. A free thinker is one who thinks freely, as opposed to getting your answers from scriptures or institutions. It does not follow that a free thinker is necessarily rational.

In any event, we've rode this merry-go-round as many times as I care to. The "problem" that you see is an artificial one, just as artificial as your "GodWillsIt" solution. The problem and the validity of the solution only exist in your head. No matter how many times you bring up this issue, this will continue to be my answer. Let's just agree to disagree and let the reader decide which one of us is making a better case.

Quote:Actually there are extensive writings by proponents of TAG laying out exactly why all other gods also fail to account for the preconditions of knowledge. However, since that is not the topic of our discussion, and you do not believe in these other gods it is nothing more than a red herring; a way of trying to divert the attention off of your own worldview’s shortcomings.

Oh, I have no doubt Christian apologists have written extensively on why the other gods can be dismissed. Christians are every bit as sharp as atheists when it comes to debunking Islam or other religions. Muslim apologists show themselves to be quite adept, as much as atheists, when it comes to tearing apart Christianity.

Every theist always thinks that the god they just so happen to have believed in all along is the only one out there. Every theist can pick apart someone else's religion. That's why we say that we are all atheists. It's just that some suspend their atheism and fail to apply that critical thinking to their own religion.

Quote:the only reason the unbeliever is able to function at all is because he is doing so in a universe created by the God of scripture.

Prove it.

(November 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm)Godschild Wrote: I refer to the bold above [snip]... homosexuality is not natural it goes against nature, it is completely nonproductive and many atheist on this forum have stated that they support homosexuality. Do not misunderstand, I believe that they have the rights of all in this country, except for those things that are against scripture.

Condemned by your own words. Here for all to see is xtian morality. The greatest moral issue you see of your day is homosexuality (which isn't a moral issue). And you have no repsonse to the moral questions I have posed, which are of far greater importance. Of course homosexuality is part of nature, it may be abhorrent to you and that is your own subjective view, but that does not make it objecvtively wrong. The individual has the right to pursue their own life and maximise their own self worth, desires, aspirations as long as they do not adveresly impact other. They should be free to pursue this without being vilified and persecuted by narrow minded views that gave birth to the Inquistionan and Witch Trials. Or are you advocating the return to these xtian practices as well? Pathetic.

(November 3, 2011 at 4:13 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(November 3, 2011 at 3:47 pm)Godschild Wrote: Thanks, what a good argument for the soul.

Are you saying this is evidence that these animals have souls, because they have an instinctive reaction to theft, murder, and assault?

No, I'm not and that's the point, they have an instinctual reaction to theft, murder and assault, man has a moral reaction to the same.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So is it morally wrong because ethicists tell you so or do ethicists tell you it is wrong because it is morally wrong? The dilemma applies to you too.

Go ahead attack a strawman I didn't say. I said objective moral systems can be produced by natural systems; ergo they are also free of the subjective will of ethicists minds as well. If you are going to respond deal with the actual issue and not a "you too nah nah ne nah nah strawman".

But I'll grasp the nettle because I think what you were trying to say is if naturalism is true, then we have two options…
1. Are things good because we say they are good, or
2. Do we say things are good because they are good ?

And then naturalism ends up with the same horns: ie either morality is subjective, or it is intrinsic and humans have nothing to do with it. In both cases it can be argued that naturalism is ultimately defeated. But in naturalism, we do have a third option. We do have facts to rely on, facts that are beyond our choice and that are objectively true about reality. This is not a subjective proposition, or an intrinsic one, but rather knowledge gained by observation and reasoning based on them. The theist has no viable third option and lives in a cartoon universe that cannot be relied upon given gods arbitrary whims. Only a self contained block universe can account for induction, despite the protests of the xtian presuppositionalists.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: - to commit genocide

In the new convenient yes.

Firstly thank you for grasping the nettle from the xtian standpoint and not avoiding the issue. However, I refer you to Jesus (assuming he existed). He was a Jew: who came to fulfill the law, fully condoned the teachings of the OT, did not expunge any of it and where Genocide is explicitly ordered by 'the father' part of the same trinity.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: - to hold someone guilty for the crimes of our ancestors

For people to hold other people guilty of crimes they themselves did not commit, yes.

Is the bible wrong or can these crimes be visited on the descendents of these ancestors according to xtianity because god wills it arbitrarily and you therefore must submit to that will and bypass your own moral judgement?

I refer you to xtian concepts of original sin (well documented). According to your theology we are descendents of sinners and we are guilty because of their ‘crimes’.

Matthew 27:24-25, "When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. 'I am innocent of this man’s blood,' he said. 'It is your responsibility!' All the people answered, 'His blood is on us and on our children!' " This instantiated the Russian Orthodox pogroms fuelled by belief in Jewish deicide

In 2 Samuel 12:11-14, Jesus punishes David by telling him his wives will be raped in public for his sins. When he repents, God says he will spare his life, but his child must die.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: - to claim that babies are born evil

Nothing wrong with that.

Well that speaks for itself.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: - to hold that the worth of a man is not based on his actions but his beliefs

Who even says this?

Apparently Jesus. It is the xtian proposition. As long as I come to believe in salvation through Jesus at any time in my mortal life, as long as it is sincere, I can receive my reward in heaven. Now this apprantly applies to all, I could have rendered total carnage to all of humanity through my whole life even up to 1 minute before I died, but still repent. Becuase of my sudden conversion to a beleif all actions are wiped clear. There is plenty of precendent for this including your own bible. Matthew 20:1-16 The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard makes it very clear (even though it is an economically bankrupt idea).

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: - that you should receive infinite punishment for finite 'crimes'

Any crime against a being of infinite authority justly deserves infinite punishment.

Again xtian morality laid bare for all to see. For the thought crime of non-belief it is just that an all powerful being orders my infinite punishment. Asymmetric morality if ever there was one, no wonder that fundmentalists are even seeking to re-write what hell really is and make it sound not so nasty. Although one should expect religions to evolve like everything else.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote: - to rape victims of war crimes

That’d be wrong yes.

Same question then. Is the bible wrong or are these permissible because god wills it, and therefore bypass your own moral judgement?

Isaiah 13:15-18 15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 explains how female captives are to be raped. It's not that we can just go up and rape them, there are rules to raping them.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 In a particularly sick verse, God tells us that if a betrothed girl gets raped in a city, and does not cry out loud enough to be heard (as far as I know, it's customary to cover or tie the mouth during rape to prevent this) they must both be killed. Kill the rape victim? Deuteronomy 22:28-29 In this one, God allows us men to marry any girl we want, even against her will, (and we must have money) simply by raping her. The downside is that we must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 Gives the outline for making war, or "loving your enemies" in modern Christianese. If they do not submit to becoming slaves, then you kill all the men and take the rest for 'plunder.' (See rules on raping a captive.)
Numbers 31 tells us the happy story of Moses being angry at his men for sparing the women of the Mideonites after slaughtering all the men. He orders them to go back and kill all non-virgin women and keep the virgins for themselves.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I think secularists have more difficulty answering those questions than you imply. After all, if morals are based on our ability to live as a society, then it would not be morally wrong to commit genocide against the members of another society since it benefits your own society.

I dont and above I have demonstrated why. Until you can demonstrate why natural ethical systems cannot be objective, are flawed, or why xtianity is superior then I'm afraid its just bluster and can be dismissed.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There is no moral decision to become a Christian, so what on God’s green earth are you talking about?

Again you are attacking a strawman of your own creation. I said the would-be xtian decides to use his/her judgement to become an xtian. Part of that decision will be based on whether they are attracted to the moral codes of the xtian faith. But they must invoke morality as a standard to decide whether they can conform, are attracted to etc.

(November 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The Christian never decides to surrender anything, so again what are you talking about?

That’s clearly false. You must surrender your will to that of a believed super being outside of spacetime. His will overrides your own moral autonomy, such that his commands even if judged by yourself as dubious must be followed. You have made that clear in some of your responses. The argument from moral autonomy is quite involved but if you wish I can express it in a more structured way, but the above gives you a flavour.

(November 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm)frankiej Wrote: It occurs in nature across the board... It has been observed in almost every species of mammal.

Just because it may happen with animals doesn't mean it's a natural act. Actually it says that something in nature is messed up, for instance there is nothing productive about it in animals, it produces no offspring thus not moving the genes of a species on down the line, this is against evolution, if this behavior became the norm then the species would die off. Hey maybe this is what happened to the dinos, just kidding but you can see what I mean. I do not know what homosexuals find pleasing in such a relationship, what ever it is it would not be the same for animals they live by instincts and have no moral code.

---

(November 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Homosexuality is natural to homosexuals, they don't choose to be that way, it's unfortunate for them in many ways. Yes it isn't productive, but why does it have to be?

Killing is natural to a psychotic killer, they don't choose to be that way, it is unfortunate for them, it is counter productive and their act is not socially acceptable and quit illegal and nothing makes it OK.

(November 3, 2011 at 10:07 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote:

(November 3, 2011 at 3:43 pm)Godschild Wrote:

---

I refer to the bold above [snip]... homosexuality is not natural it goes against nature, it is completely nonproductive and many atheist on this forum have stated that they support homosexuality. Do not misunderstand, I believe that they have the rights of all in this country, except for those things that are against scripture.

---

Condemned by your own words. Here for all to see is xtian morality. The greatest moral issue you see of your day is homosexuality (which isn't a moral issue). And you have no repsonse to the moral questions I have posed, which are of far greater importance. Of course homosexuality is part of nature, it may be abhorrent to you and that is your own subjective view, but that does not make it objecvtively wrong. The individual has the right to pursue their own life and maximise their own self worth, desires, aspirations as long as they do not adveresly impact other. They should be free to pursue this without being vilified and persecuted by narrow minded views that gave birth to the Inquistionan and Witch Trials. Or are you advocating the return to these xtian practices as well? Pathetic.

Yes it is a moral issue, and no it's not the greatest moral issue with me or most christians I know. The greatest moral issue for christians is absolute morality.

(November 4, 2011 at 1:10 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes it is a moral issue, and no it's not the greatest moral issue with me or most christians I know. The greatest moral issue for christians is absolute morality.

Despite the fact I have no idea what you mean by saying "The greatest moral issue for christians is absolute morality". Why dont you answer the points I rasied in a response representing the positive case for Theism. Instead you ignore them and create a red herring on homosexuality. You have merely represented your subjective view on that issue and it probably says more about you than any homosexual.

(November 4, 2011 at 12:10 am)Godschild Wrote:

(November 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm)frankiej Wrote: It occurs in nature across the board... It has been observed in almost every species of mammal.

Just because it may happen with animals doesn't mean it's a natural act. Actually it says that something in nature is messed up, for instance there is nothing productive about it in animals, it produces no offspring thus not moving the genes of a species on down the line, this is against evolution, if this behavior became the norm then the species would die off. Hey maybe this is what happened to the dinos, just kidding but you can see what I mean. I do not know what homosexuals find pleasing in such a relationship, what ever it is it would not be the same for animals they live by instincts and have no moral code.

---

(November 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm)5thHorseman Wrote: Homosexuality is natural to homosexuals, they don't choose to be that way, it's unfortunate for them in many ways. Yes it isn't productive, but why does it have to be?

Killing is natural to a psychotic killer, they don't choose to be that way, it is unfortunate for them, it is counter productive and their act is not socially acceptable and quit illegal and nothing makes it OK.

After reading all that, I assume you obviously don't understand the word "natural"...

The way that GC (and others) describe things as "natural" or "unnatural", or "against evolution" perfectly sums up why they have a huge disconnect with reality. They are either purposely or obliviously attempting to assign these things a proscriptive nature, rather than descriptive (as is actually the case). They see these things as alternatives to god, and so they invest the concepts with meaning and purpose which are more accurately their own. They expect evolution or nature to somehow be a lawgiver as their god is supposed to be. So, when this "evolutionary lawgiver" is predictably inconsistent in it's application, they feel that they have found some room to criticize the notion and it's related concepts.

Perhaps you shouldn't expect evolution or the natural world to be some transcendent arbitrator of what is right and wrong, as these two discussions are not exactly equivalent.

I liked the part when he mentioned "against evolution"... I like it when people know little of natural selection. I find great amusement in it, but also great frustration.