(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:

(September 5, 2012 at 11:07 am)discordianpope Wrote: I don't buy this. But even if true, is a theist really in any better a position. I mean, if morality is based on God's will and God can will that genocide is moral, then well I guess a theist would just have to accept that. It's just the euthyphro dilemma. Either there are true moral propositions which exist independantly from God or God can make rape moral. This kind of theistic morality is as shifting and unsure as any secular morality.

I wouldn't say a theist is in a necessarily better position simply by virtue of being a theist.

But having some external, objective source of morality, and having it being all-good gives one a transcendent source for morality. Now granted, the existence of such a being is questionable, and your objection per the euthyphro dilemma is a relevant one.

But hypothetically, all other things being equal, if the only difference was that the morality was dependent on an all-good God rather than human culture, it seems the theists are better off.

I say this in light of Aushcwitz, Rwanda, Dachau, Nanking, Khmer Rouge. As wonderful as it would be to deny that humanity is eminently capable of horrors given subjectivist views of the world, we can't deny this.

Looking at the local news near my own home town enough to remind us that moral subjectivism/relativism based on how we construct our own experience of reality is not as universally beneficial as we deem it to be.

I wish I could just go into his brain and find out how exactly he constructed his moral worldview.

Again, the LIAR Vinny spouts garbage, lies and nonsense from his facial orifice.

As a devout Christian, I always feel obliged to apologise to atheists whenever I talk of morality. Being fully aware of the gross immorality of the Holy Bible and the incredibly hawkish and militant stand taken by the body of believers and I say this in the light of Ai, Jericho, the Crusades, Salem, Ireland, Vatican City, Jonestown, Waco, Afghanistan, Saudi, Iran, Iraq and virtually every square inch on the surface of our world blighted by the evils of religion, I think it is but fitting that all of us religious folks hang our heads in utter shame and degradation every time the mere mention of "morality" reaches our ears.

Vinny continues to tell lies and dissemble but that is nothing new for a person who is inspired by that Holy Spirit of Lies that dwells in each and every one of us born-again Christians. Rahab told a dastardly lie that resulted in the death of every man, woman, child and baby in the city of Jericho, killed no doubt most mercifully by the people of our merciful and compassionate God and the Holy Epistle to the Hebrews hails her as a woman of faith for telling lies, possessed as she no doubt was by God's Holy Spirit of Lies. Vinny, being similarly possessed by that blasted Spirit, is seen telling lies quite shamelessly.

The Holy Spirit is referred to most piously in the Holy Bible as the Holy Fart. The New Testament calls the Holy Spirit "pneuma" which is interpreted "wind" and the Creed tells us that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Now, let's solve this holy riddle. What is wind and proceeds from the father and the son? Ho Ho Ho! Am I not witty?

Now, if you wonder why Vinny reeks of flatulence every time he opens his mouth, you will forgive him more readily when you realize what it is he is full of.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:56 am)greneknight Wrote: Again, the LIAR Vinny spouts garbage, lies and nonsense from his facial orifice.

Ah, as in "thick lips, bad breath" you mean? Or am I being too anal? (I was going to say "arsey"; wasn't sure which fitted better. And yes, "that's what she said", I know all about it...)

Now that being said, I'd like to add that just appealing to God or objectivity doesn't automatically make you better. That's when we actually examine the concept of God being used, and whether it actually is moral.

That's where the theist is going to struggle. If you've been to philosophy of religion conferences, you know how atheists and anti-theists are often welcome to present papers, as are theists. And they bring formidable objections to the idea of a moral God. But on the other side, there are some sophisticated and ingenious defenses of "divine morality" as well (I'm looking at you, Eleonore Stump. You and your cutesy voice), and these defenses stand to serious rational, intellectual, philosophical scrutiny.

The only thing it can't stand up to is personal insults and ad hominem attacks.

By absence of any replies to my posts, I'd assume that you are once again practicing the art of sticking your head in the sand.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But having some external, objective source of morality, and having it being all-good gives one a transcendent source for morality. Now granted, the existence of such a being is questionable, and your objection per the euthyphro dilemma is a relevant one.

Except, it doesn't become objective simply by being external to you and it doesn't become transcendent by being all-good. For example, I'm external to you, therefore, my moral code is objective. Also, since I get to define it, I can define it so that by that moral code, I'm also all-good. So, I'm giving you an external, "objective" source of morality that is all-good and thus transcendent. Call me when you're reasy to worship me.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But hypothetically, all other things being equal, if the only difference was that the morality was dependent on an all-good God rather than human culture, it seems the theists are better off.

Except, whether or not that god is "all-good" is determined by the vey moral code that he specifies. That's circular reasoning.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I say this in light of Aushcwitz, Rwanda, Dachau, Nanking, Khmer Rouge. As wonderful as it would be to deny that humanity is eminently capable of horrors given subjectivist views of the world, we can't deny this.

Interesting how all the examples you picked were committed by people not believing in subjectivist views, but those believing that they'd discovered the objective, transcendental truth.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Looking at the local news near my own home town enough to remind us that moral subjectivism/relativism based on how we construct our own experience of reality is not as universally beneficial as we deem it to be.

I wish I could just go into his brain and find out how exactly he constructed his moral worldview.

Really? Because it doesn't seem like it was his moral worldview that was a problem at all. In fact, his statement upon arrest seems to suggest that his moral worldview was fine, it was his application of it that was screwed up on account of him being high.

(September 6, 2012 at 12:44 pm)genkaus Wrote: By absence of any replies to my posts, I'd assume that you are once again practicing the art of sticking your head in the sand.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But having some external, objective source of morality, and having it being all-good gives one a transcendent source for morality. Now granted, the existence of such a being is questionable, and your objection per the euthyphro dilemma is a relevant one.

Except, it doesn't become objective simply by being external to you and it doesn't become transcendent by being all-good. For example, I'm external to you, therefore, my moral code is objective. Also, since I get to define it, I can define it so that by that moral code, I'm also all-good. So, I'm giving you an external, "objective" source of morality that is all-good and thus transcendent. Call me when you're reasy to worship me.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But hypothetically, all other things being equal, if the only difference was that the morality was dependent on an all-good God rather than human culture, it seems the theists are better off.

Except, whether or not that god is "all-good" is determined by the vey moral code that he specifies. That's circular reasoning.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I say this in light of Aushcwitz, Rwanda, Dachau, Nanking, Khmer Rouge. As wonderful as it would be to deny that humanity is eminently capable of horrors given subjectivist views of the world, we can't deny this.

Interesting how all the examples you picked were committed by people not believing in subjectivist views, but those believing that they'd discovered the objective, transcendental truth.

(September 6, 2012 at 11:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Looking at the local news near my own home town enough to remind us that moral subjectivism/relativism based on how we construct our own experience of reality is not as universally beneficial as we deem it to be.

I wish I could just go into his brain and find out how exactly he constructed his moral worldview.

Really? Because it doesn't seem like it was his moral worldview that was a problem at all. In fact, his statement upon arrest seems to suggest that his moral worldview was fine, it was his application of it that was screwed up on account of him being high.

Please do some more reading. You don't appear to understand what and how "objective" is defined, when theists use it in context of objective moral values. You don't show any knowledge of responses and objections to the Euthyphro dilemma either.

Looking at the somewhat personal, vindictive attitude you are showing towards me, I'd suggest you combine it with a good knowledge of the topic of discussion in order to maximize the force of your arguments.

Thank you for participating though.

(September 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Please do some more reading. You don't appear to understand what and how "objective" is defined, when theists use it in context of objective moral values.

I do know how the word "objective" is defined - which is why I know that theists use it incorrectly in the context of objective moral values. That error has been pointed out to you before, but then, as I said, head in the sand.

(September 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: You don't show any knowledge of responses and objections to the Euthyphro dilemma either.

I know of many responses and objection - none that are valid though.

(September 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Looking at the somewhat personal, vindictive attitude you are showing towards me, I'd suggest you combine it with a good knowledge of the topic of discussion in order to maximize the force of your arguments.

Thank you for participating though.

Looking at your evasions, I can only assume that you have no rational response and this is your way of turning tail while simultaneously declaring victory.

I don't see any substance to your claims. If you want me to take your answers seriously, answer the following:

1) What do you think is the strongest response to the Euthyphro dilemma and how do you defeat it?

2) How do atheists define objective within the context of objective moral values?

(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't see any substance to your claims. If you want me to take your answers seriously, answer the following:

1) What do you think is the strongest response to the Euthyphro dilemma and how do you defeat it?

I usually stick my fingers in my ears and say "lalalalalalalala"

Quote:2) How do atheists define objective within the context of objective moral values?

I can't speak for the unsaved trash but for myself, I'd define the Lord's objective morality as whatever the Lord objectively said at that moment and this code of morality is absolute. For example, if the Lord tells us,

Quote:1Sam 15:2-3
"So go now and attack the Amalekites. Put them under the curse of destruction. Kill the men, women, children, and babies, cattle, sheep, camels, and donkeys. Spare no one."

Then you better kill every man, woman and child in that tribe. Genocide is what is morally correct in this case.

Looking forward to our debate where I will instruct you further on our Lord's moral absolutes.

(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't see any substance to your claims. If you want me to take your answers seriously, answer the following:

1) What do you think is the strongest response to the Euthyphro dilemma and how do you defeat it?

2) How do atheists define objective within the context of objective moral values?

1)cast it off by saying it is of similar relevance as the chicken or the egg conumdrum

2) the same as every other meaning of objective

(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't see any substance to your claims.

You wouldn't see substance if it bit you in the ass.

(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 1) What do you think is the strongest response to the Euthyphro dilemma and how do you defeat it?

I guess that would be "god's inherent nature is good", but that falls squarely on the first horn - that the good is not determined by god. Like I said, there are no good responses.

(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 2) How do atheists define objective within the context of objective moral values?

Like I said, I don't speak for other atheists. If you were an atheist, you'd know the stupidity of doing that. How I define it is "independent of the mind" - any mind, even god's.

I see by your non-response to my other post that you still haven't extracted your head from your ass - I mean, sand.