(7 hours ago)Fake Messiah Wrote:

AngelThMan Wrote:Without God, there are no moral obligations. There is no standard anyone is required to follow. So as long as a serial rapist gets away with it, like Jimmy Seville, there's no obligation unless there's an objective standard, which there is with God. That's my argument.

Without God, there are moral obligations. There is a standard, and it's called ethics, and it's called the law of the land.

If people don't follow ethics, they get chastised by people around them, and if they break the law, they get punished by the state.

Jimmy Savile got away not because there were no moral standards to punish him but because he managed to hide his crimes.

Why is this so hard to grasp for a Christian? Is it the same reason why Christians can't grasp science because it makes their god obsolete?

I'm not talking about law of the land. If someone evades it, which often happens, then they have no other moral obligation. The word "ethics" is just another word for morality. So it's circular to say: Objective morality is ethics. It doesn't answer anything. Under atheism, there's no morality or ethics anyone is obligated to follow

(7 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote:

(10 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: First, tell me why you think moral values are objective. If you like, you can answer by example - what acts are ALWAYS moral or immoral, that kind of thing.
Boru

If he is gonna give one, which he never will, we will immediately show his god violating it, quoting from his holy book

(9 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: Without God, there are no moral obligations. There is no standard anyone is required to follow. So as long as a serial rapist gets away with it....

If the rapist was an atheist and converts to christianty on his deathbed, will be be possibly forgiven?
Your gods standards arent objective, your god does not comply to his own standards, and those "standards" rather are suggestions, than anything thats going to be enforced or its violation be punished (= justice).
Your god is an immoral hypocrite and unjust, per definitionem.

(11 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:  If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong. Do you agree? If not, what objective morality exists?

With your god there is nothing right or wrong. There is no commandmend or moral obligation given by him he hasnt violated himself or ordered humans to violate them.
Have you educated yourself on objective morals yet?

(9 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: If rape being wrong is just how you feel, then it follows that it is not objectively evil. It's just your opinion, which no one is required to abide by

Just to be clear: Are you one of those....people, who need a god to prevent them from raping? In this case, please keep going to church and reading his commandments. Please do not read stuff like Exodus 25, or lots of other stuff in the OT, where your god orders rape, pillage and genocide, please.
This brings me back to my original question, which exposes your moral bancruptcy: If your god would order you to kill a baby, would that be the right thing to do? If he would not keep you from killing babies....what would you possibly do?

Would it be right to kill a baby if God told you so?
Is it ever right to disobey his commands?
Did your god have the capacity to order baby killing in the past?
Does he ever change?
Does he currently still posess this capacity?

All questions, unloaded, with no presuppositions, and easy to answer with a simple yes or no.

That's another question. You are not engaging. I will stop replying if you don't answer my ORIGINAL quesion

Just cut out the middle god already.

(6 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: That's another question. You are not engaging. I will stop replying if you don't answer my ORIGINAL quesion

You havent engaged since your post #1.

What is this exercise about anyway? Your account was created in 2010, thats 16y ago. Since then, not even 200 posts were made. The last one one in 2011, next one yesterday. Is this an account for your entire congregation to try out apologetics?...to trigger atheists? Are you doing this to shore up your own waning faith? ...trying to collect brownie points for church or heaven?... to feel good about yourself?

I am asking because you utterly fail. Your argument (and you really only gave one) is utter crap and you completely refuse to engage. You make christianity and every christian look foolish, ignorant and unwilling to learn. Triggering? Do i sound like i am angry or something? I am just calmly dissecting you and the bullshit you are trying to peddle here, and i am doing it with one hand on my back, while drinking coffee. 

You will stop replying....oooooh, is that the "la la LA, i cant hear you" exercise?
Read more of your holy book, like this here:

1 Peter 3:15 Wrote:But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect

Do you think you are giving the impression that you are prepared in any way, that you are gentle and respectful?


I will answer any question, after you properly re-phrase your nonsensical and fallacious question. Its fallacious since it presupposes that objective morals do exist and your god has any. Prove it or re-phrase, and remember: Be gentle and respectful!


In the meantime:
Have you educated yourself about objective/subjective morals?
Have you decided if you want to rape and pillage without your god stopping you from doing so?
What about the baby killing part: Have you yet decided if its a good thing to do if your god is ordering it, or are you still struggling?

(7 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(7 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote: That depends on the law of the land, though of course your religious preferences aren't any more binding than mine.

You're not understanding the argument. We have to obey the law of the land, of course. That's not the point. Jimmy Saville raped children and got away with it, and died a happy man. Was he obligated to go by your preference that children not be raped? Why should he care what you or the rest of society thinks?

 Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You seem to have picked a mass rapist who was a lifelong theist, which rather unpicks your argument theistic morality is binding or objective.

(6 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote:

(7 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: You're not understanding the argument. We have to obey the law of the land, of course. That's not the point. Jimmy Saville raped children and got away with it, and died a happy man. Was he obligated to go by your preference that children not be raped? Why should he care what you or the rest of society thinks?

 Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You really don't understand logic or the argument. This is just foolish. I will give you one last chance to answer the first question. If you can't respond properly, we're done:
Under atheism, is anything right or wrong or evil? If Yes, what standard are you appealing to? After you answer that, I can engage with other topics if you're interested

(6 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote:

(7 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: You're not understanding the argument. We have to obey the law of the land, of course. That's not the point. Jimmy Saville raped children and got away with it, and died a happy man. Was he obligated to go by your preference that children not be raped? Why should he care what you or the rest of society thinks?

 Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You seem to have picked a mass rapist who was a lifelong theist, which rather unpicks your argument theistic morality is binding or objective.

Atheists are so dumb. No one is saying theists can't be rapists. I'm saying if there is no God, Jimmy Saville did nothing wrong objectively. Let's hear another silly response.

(6 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(6 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote:  Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You really don't understand logic or the argument. This is just foolish. I will give you one last chance to answer the first question. If you can't respond properly, we're done:
Under atheism, is anything right or wrong or evil? If Yes, what standard are you appealing to? After you answer that, I can engage with other topics if you're interested

As anyone can see if they read this thread I have answered your original question several times, so what you hope to gain from lying is unclear? You also have ignored every single question I have asked you, again anyone who cares to can verify that by reading the thread. I am also more than happy for others to read the thread and decide if my posts suggest I don't understand your tired old apologetics in the argument from morality. 

This is a public forum, and I will respond as and when I am minded to, so your ultimatum is as meaningless as your question. 

I have already answered these latest questions, several times, again anyone can read the thread and see that. Frankly I could care less what you do, but you are not and have not been engaging in debate, not in good faith anyway. 

Now one last time, yes atheists can and do have morals, and they are no more objective or binding than theistic morals, without laws enacted to enforce them. 

I don't believe morals are objective, as they all rest ultimately on subjective claims and preferences, and this includes religious and theistic morals as well of course. 

Here is a question you have ignored:

Perhaps you can explain why rape is objectively wrong?

Now here is where I answered the question you have just re-asked me here:

Quote:It follows from my answer that I believe rape to be evil, it does not follow that this is objectively true. Your original premise is meaningless, so though true, it is trivially so, as I have now explained half a dozen times or more, - without mermaids objective morality would not exist is also true, though equally trivial. Unless you can evidence what theology has failed to thus far, that a deity has offered objective moral diktat? So firstly you'd have to objectively evidence the existence of a deity, then objectively evidence it has offered moral proclamations, then finally that these moral claims are objectively true. 

 As anyone can see your response completely ignored my post, I think it is pretty obvious at this point why.

(6 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(6 hours ago)Sheldon Wrote:  Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You seem to have picked a mass rapist who was a lifelong theist, which rather unpicks your argument theistic morality is binding or objective.

Atheists are so dumb. No one is saying theists can't be rapists. I'm saying if there is no God, Jimmy Saville did nothing wrong objectively. Let's hear another silly response.

 Ad hominem, and a straw man, since I never said you'd made that claim, if anyone is interested in the proper context they can read your post claiming atheistic morals are not binding. the example you picked simply shows that this is equally true for theists, and not just this example, there is plenty of longstanding research that shows atheists are at least as moral as theists when measured on any level playing field. 

Please explain why what Jimmy Saville did is "objectively" wrong then, I keep asking you for an example, and you keep ignoring the requests, quelle surprise.

Have you considered turning away from your demonic life and embracing FSM's love op?