(June 12, 2013 at 7:31 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait, I thought atheists believe morals are socially relative, so how is anything that Russia is doing here wrong? I am sorry, but you can’t have it both ways guys.

Oh Sweet Reason, not this shit again. I've already corrected you in the past on this, Stat. Now pay attention this time.

1. Subjective morality =/= anything goes and all opinions are equally valid.

I've used in the past with you my analogy of a salesman that I've hired who says "I've done a good job (subjective opinion)". I look at his numbers and say, "You haven't gotten any new customers (objective data). I think you've done a crappy job (subjective opinion)." He says, "well, 'good' is a relative term so our opinions are equally valid." And I say, "no, because I have objective data to back up my opinions on what constitutes 'good' and so my opinion is still on stronger ground than yours."

Some opinions can be better supported than others. So even though opinions are subjective or relative to our interpretations of the data, we can still have a rational discussion as to who's opinion is better supported by the facts.

The very fact that you are asking us to justify our moral evaluation of Russia's laws is a demonstration of some acknowledgement on your part that some opinions are better supported than others.

2. Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

We can't plug numbers into a spreadsheet and measure morality the same way we might measure temperature or distance with objective units like degrees or meters. Nonetheless, we can still use various tools to understand morality such as The Social Contract, Rawl's Veil of Ignorance or Bentham's Utility Principles. Bottom line is we evaluate the cruelty of actions, how they are dishonest in their dealings with others or how they infringe on the rights of others.

For example, using The Social Contract, I can ask how you might feel if speaking out publicly in ways that offended atheists is punishable by law. If you would not live in such a society, how can you justify such treatment of atheists?

Other examples I often like to ask of Christians:

• How would you feel if Muslims imposed Sharia law on you?
  
• How would you feel if a Wiccan school teacher led your children in a prayer to the Goddess?
  
• How would you feel if Hindus used your tax dollars to build a monument to Shiva?
  

These are all questions designed to help Christians understand how laws like these in Russia and attempted church-state infringements by Christians in America are morally offensive. They invoke The Social Contract. Your adherence to The Social Contract is essential if you wish to avoid the label of "hypocrite".

3. "GodWillsIt" does not make morality either objective or absolute.

If a being, however wise or powerful, decides what is moral, then by definition the opinions are subjective and they are subject to change, since a being might change his/her/its mind.

On the other hand, if God is evaluating what is moral instead of deciding, then morality exists outside of and independent to God and God is not required to determine what morality is and what is moral.

Babbling about God being the essence of goodness and the nature of God precludes God from being immoral does not escape the problem. It commits the following logical fallacies:

1. Bare assertion (God is good because we say so)
2. Begging the Question (God's actions are good because we define God as good. And we know that God's actions are good because we define good actions as what God wills. And we know that God is good because his actions are good).
3. Special Pleading (By "God" we of course mean "Jesus". Allah bad. Krishna bad...)

Are we learning?

(June 24, 2013 at 7:34 pm)Rhythm Wrote: All three apply.

How? Be more specific.

Quote:Thank you, precisely.

What? So the laws of logic are not relative because they are demonstrable (which is what you asserted) and they are also not demonstrable? So are they relative?

Quote:They are both. Perhaps you should have spent more time googling?

No, they are not descriptive, they are normative laws. Perhaps you should spend more time studying the fact you cannot reason from the descriptive to the normative, that’s invalid.

Quote:
There have been societies where that sort of thing was kosher, sure, that's moral relativism for ya.

Raping a woman can be a morally good act simply because a society says so? Sickening. Atheism really does erode morality.

(June 24, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You just can't demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Why not?

Quote:Why not human happiness?

Well if it’s all arbitrary, which it obviously is since you cannot tell me why you chose happiness over any other chemical reaction in the brain then morality can just as validly be defined as whatever maximizes sadness, agony, suffering, pain, remorse, regret, disease, and whatever other arbitrary standard we would like to choose. You have not demonstrated how you know any of this to be true. You simply assert it, which doesn’t prove relativism is even a viable viewpoint.

Quote: Why do you demand so much more than you give back when anyone asks you anything? If you feel above having to explain any of your assertions, then I'll just say "I'm right" and ask you to prove otherwise.

Because I have a standard of morality that is not arbitrary and is therefore meaningful, you have one that is arbitrary and therefore meaningless; which proves my initial statement, atheism undermines morality.

(June 24, 2013 at 8:47 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Oh Sweet Reason, not this shit again. I've already corrected you in the past on this, Stat. Now pay attention this time.

You’ve been schooled on this in the past before; I guess class is in session yet again.

Quote: 1. Subjective morality =/= anything goes and all opinions are equally valid.

I’ll hold you to this definition.

Quote: I've used in the past with you my analogy of a salesman that I've hired who says "I've done a good job (subjective opinion)". I look at his numbers and say, "You haven't gotten any new customers (objective data). I think you've done a crappy job (subjective opinion)." He says, "well, 'good' is a relative term so our opinions are equally valid." And I say, "no, because I have objective data to back up my opinions on what constitutes 'good' and so my opinion is still on stronger ground than yours."

Some opinions can be better supported than others. So even though opinions are subjective or relative to our interpretations of the data, we can still have a rational discussion as to who's opinion is better supported by the facts.

This is not consistent with your definition of subjectivism. You are using the premise that “Salesman should gain new customers.” Of course given your definition of subjectivism the statement, “Salesman should not gain new customers” is equally valid since you have already admitted that anything goes and all opinions are equal. If the salesman rejects your premise that he should be gaining new customers and asserts that good salesman do not gain customers then he is actually a good salesman and proves your opinion was not based upon anything objective at all. You now have no basis to argue with him.

Quote: The very fact that you are asking us to justify our moral evaluation of Russia's laws is a demonstration of some acknowledgement on your part that some opinions are better supported than others.

I was not asking you to do anything, I was pointing out the fact that you do not accept the logical conclusion of your stated position on morality. If morals are really subjective, and therefore anything goes and all opinions are equal then you have no logical basis to object to what Russia is doing at all because you have already admitted that anything goes (which includes making blasphemy and homosexuality crimes) and that all opinions are equal (which includes thinking blasphemy and homosexuality are morally wrong and should be illegal).

Quote: 2. Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

According to whom? Why is this the definition of morality? Is this definition objectively true?

Quote: Nonetheless, we can still use various tools to understand morality such as The Social Contract, Rawl's Veil of Ignorance or Bentham's Utility Principles. Bottom line is we evaluate the cruelty of actions, how they are dishonest in their dealings with others or how they infringe on the rights of others.

The rights of others? What are those rights, how are they knowable, and where do they come from?

Quote: For example, using The Social Contract, I can ask how you might feel if speaking out publicly in ways that offended atheists is punishable by law. If you would not live in such a society, how can you justify such treatment of atheists?

What if I hold the opinion that I am justified in treating atheists differently than I would like to be treated? According to your definition of moral subjectivism that opinion is just as valid as your opinion that I should treat others how I would like to be treated. Looks like you’re sawing the branch you’re sitting on.

Quote: These are all questions designed to help Christians understand how laws like these in Russia and attempted church-state infringements by Christians in America are morally offensive. They invoke The Social Contract. Your adherence to The Social Contract is essential if you wish to avoid the label of "hypocrite".

What if I do not care if you call me a hypocrite? Is it morally wrong to be a hypocrite? Always? Where is this social contract? How do I learn what is in it? How do I opt out of it? I thought anything goes and all opinions are valid, what happened to that?

Quote: 3. "GodWillsIt" does not make morality either objective or absolute.

According to whom? You?

Quote: If a being, however wise or powerful, decides what is moral, then by definition the opinions are subjective and they are subject to change, since a being might change his/her/its mind.

Nope, morality in that instance would still be objective from man’s perspective because his will, opinions and thoughts could not change those laws.

Quote: 1. Bare assertion (God is good because we say so)

No, we know that God is good because He says so and He cannot lie. An assertion from an infallible being can be treated as true.

Quote: 2. Begging the Question (God's actions are good because we define God as good. And we know that God's actions are good because we define good actions as what God wills. And we know that God is good because his actions are good).

No, it’s a valid appeal to an ultimate authority. God’s actions are good because God is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question, it’s an axiomatic position.

Quote: 3. Special Pleading (By "God" we of course mean "Jesus". Allah bad. Krishna bad...)

Appealing to the only God that exists is not special pleading, it’s making an appeal to reality.

Quote: Are we learning?

Yes, I learned that you do not have a clue about what you’re talking about. Thanks.

Ow! The stupid! It burns!

OK, Stat, class is in session. Today's lesson is how the symbol "=/=" means "does not equal".

It's the equal sign but with a slash through it. Most of us learned that in grade school math class. Perhaps you just didn't get that far.

In any event, the statement:

Quote: 1. Subjective morality =/= anything goes and all opinions are equally valid.

translates to "subjective morality" does not equal "anything goes and all opinions are equally valid".

The "not" is a very important part of that sentence. It's a key word.

It's a denial of your assertion of what "subjective morality" means.

Clear?

OK, so, assuming I have cleared up your confusion, you're going to have to re-write the first 1/2 (that symbol means "half", not 1, 2) of your response to me. You're embarrassing failure to understand a basic math symbol is self-pwnage.

But I'll let you take a mulligan. Try again.

Quote:

Quote: 2. Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

According to whom? Why is this the definition of morality? Is this definition objectively true?

That's how atheists, humanists and other secularist define morality. You asked how we can evaluate Russia's new laws as morally wrong. I'm providing a generally-accepted definition among secularists to start with. You must understand what my words mean if you are to understand my argument.

...or so you should have learned from your self-pwnage earlier.

Quote:The rights of others? What are those rights, how are they knowable, and where do they come from?

I've already told you. I've listed certain academic philosophies including Rawls, Bentham, J.S. Mill for starters. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Do you have any idea who these people are? Would you understand "Utilitarian principles" or "Veil of Ignorance" if I mentioned them?

Quote:What if I hold the opinion that I am justified in treating atheists differently than I would like to be treated?

Then you're a hypocrite.

Quote:What if I do not care if you call me a hypocrite?

Well, don't let me stop you if you wish to wear the label with pride.

Quote:Where is this social contract? How do I learn what is in it?

Ask yourself how you would wish to be treated.

Quote:How do I opt out of it?

Go live by yourself in the wild.

Quote:I thought anything goes and all opinions are valid, what happened to that?

That was your self-pwnage.

Quote:

Quote: 3. "GodWillsIt" does not make morality either objective or absolute.

According to whom? You?

By definition. Again, it's important to define our terms.

"Objective" must be, by definition, free of any being's opinions or values. That's what the word means. The will of a god, by definition, represents that god's opinions and values.

"Absolute" must be, by definition, universal and not subject to change. A value system that is dependent on a single being's say-so is not, by definition, absolute since that being could change his/her/its mind. Whether or not that being ever exercises that option, the option is still there and so it negates the quality of "absolute". Additionally, since you think your god is above moral judgement, the rules don't apply to him and so it is not universal and therefore not absolute.

Quote:Nope, morality in that instance would still be objective from man’s perspective because his will, opinions and thoughts could not change those laws.

"external perspective" doth not "objective" make.

*Tsk tsk* that was your lesson from your previous schooling. You've obviously not done your homework.

Quote:No, we know that God is good because He says so and He cannot lie. An assertion from an infallible being can be treated as true.

Quote:No, it’s a valid appeal to an ultimate authority. God’s actions are good because God is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question, it’s an axiomatic position.

Oh, so it's not circular. It's just that we know Yahweh is good because Yahweh is the standard of what is good.

We know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we know that Yahweh is good because we...

Quote:Appealing to the only God that exists is not special pleading, it’s making an appeal to reality.

Do I need to even be here for this exchange? It seems like I should just let you post and pwn yourself.

(June 25, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Ryantology Wrote: You just can't demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Why not?

As you're the one who seems to think it is possible, yet somehow manages to never once do it, perhaps you should tell me.

Quote:Well if it’s all arbitrary, which it obviously is since you cannot tell me why you chose happiness over any other chemical reaction in the brain then morality can just as validly be defined as whatever maximizes sadness, agony, suffering, pain, remorse, regret, disease, and whatever other arbitrary standard we would like to choose. You have not demonstrated how you know any of this to be true. You simply assert it, which doesn’t prove relativism is even a viable viewpoint.

I choose happiness because (with a few special exceptions) people seek happiness in their lives. It is what drives us to improve things.

Am I wrong? Do you pursue only things that make you feel unhappy or experience pain?

Quote:Because I have a standard of morality that is not arbitrary and is therefore meaningful, you have one that is arbitrary and therefore meaningless; which proves my initial statement, atheism undermines morality.

Let's try to play this game again. Prove that your standard of morality is not arbitrary. Put some clothes on those assertions. So far, all you've proven is that you're one of the more persistently hypocritical frauds on this forum.

(June 25, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, we know that God is good because He says so and He cannot lie. An assertion from an infallible being can be treated as true.

Quote:No, it’s a valid appeal to an ultimate authority. God’s actions are good because God is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question, it’s an axiomatic position.

Quote:Appealing to the only God that exists is not special pleading, it’s making an appeal to reality.

I couldn't have said it all better. Amen brother!

(June 25, 2013 at 5:29 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Ow! The stupid! It burns!

I am trying to cure yours for you, you’re welcome.

Quote: OK, Stat, class is in session. Today's lesson is how the symbol "=/=" means "does not equal".

I’ll admit, I have never seen that symbol typed out before, you want to know why? Because it’s wrong. That’s not the proper symbol for typing, you should have used “<>” or “!=”, since you’re using a keyboard. It’s not my fault you did not know that was the wrong symbol. It’s regretful that your ignorance wasted both of our time.

Quote: It's the equal sign but with a slash through it. Most of us learned that in grade school math class. Perhaps you just didn't get that far.

No, I think my problem is that I got far beyond that; I know that the typographical symbol is “<>” or “!=”, not whatever garbage you tried using. You should try using whatever you used in an SQL statement sometime and see what you get, that’d be funny.

Quote: translates to "subjective morality" does not equal "anything goes and all opinions are equally valid".

Why doesn’t it equal that? According to whom? You?

Quote: The "not" is a very important part of that sentence. It's a key word.

A key unsupported assertion maybe.

Quote: It's a denial of your assertion of what "subjective morality" means.

An unsupported denial.

Quote: OK, so, assuming I have cleared up your confusion, you're going to have to re-write the first 1/2 (that symbol means "half", not 1, 2) of your response to me. You're embarrassing failure to understand a basic math symbol is self-pwnage.

I need to do no such thing, because you have not demonstrated that is not the actual definition of moral subjectivism (assertion is not demonstration), until you do so I am not obligated to do anything.

Quote:That's how atheists, humanists and other secularist define morality.

So?

Quote: You asked how we can evaluate Russia's new laws as morally wrong. I'm providing a generally-accepted definition among secularists to start with. You must understand what my words mean if you are to understand my argument.

No, I need to only understand what your argument reduces to, absurdity. Why is that the definition? Why can’t Russia adopt their own definition of morality? Why must they follow your poorly stated definition of moral subjectivism?

Quote: ...or so you should have learned from your self-pwnage earlier.

Yes, I assumed you knew what the “not equal to” symbol was, I should never assume you know anything from here on out or I am in for a waste of my time apparently.

Quote:I've already told you. I've listed certain academic philosophies including Rawls, Bentham, J.S. Mill for starters. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Do you have any idea who these people are? Would you understand "Utilitarian principles" or "Veil of Ignorance" if I mentioned them?

You are saying we have rights because philosophers say we have rights? That’s funny. You’re going to have to do better, how are these rights knowable? Where do they come from? And what are they explicitly? You’re going to have to do your own heavy lifting for once.

Quote:Then you're a hypocrite.

So? Is it morally wrong to be hypocritical? Why?

Quote:Well, don't let me stop you if you wish to wear the label with pride.

So that’s it? I can treat atheists differently than I want to be treated and all I get for it is a silly label? Humanism really does reduce to absurdity.

Quote:Ask yourself how you would wish to be treated.

No, you must first demonstrate that I have a moral obligation to treat others how I want to be treated, start there.

Quote:Go live by yourself in the wild.

Why am I not allowed to opt out of it and still live where I want? Are you trying to force your morals upon me? I thought that was not allowed?

Quote:That was your self-pwnage.

Because you used the wrong symbol genius-boy.

Quote:By definition. Again, it's important to define our terms.

By whose definition? Why is that the correct definition?

Quote: "Objective" must be, by definition, free of any being's opinions or values. That's what the word means. The will of a god, by definition, represents that god's opinions and values.

No, it’s not free of any being’s opinions, only the being or beings the law is applied to. God’s laws are objective towards mankind.

Quote: "Absolute" must be, by definition, universal and not subject to change. A value system that is dependent on a single being's say-so is not, by definition, absolute since that being could change his/her/its mind. Whether or not that being ever exercises that option, the option is still there and so it negates the quality of "absolute". Additionally, since you think your god is above moral judgement, the rules don't apply to him and so it is not universal and therefore not absolute.

Yikes, I thought you were better than this. God’s sense of morality does not change because it derives from His immutable character, so it is absolute. Secondly, you’re conflating moral judgment with moral standards, God is the ultimate standard of morality, so it’s an absurdity to suggest He can be judged, that does not mean that His moral commandments are not objective though.

Quote:"external perspective" doth not "objective" make.

According to whom? You?

Quote: *Tsk tsk* that was your lesson from your previous schooling. You've obviously not done your homework.

I did learn that apparently there are people who use keyboards to type but do not know how to type all of the correct mathematical symbols on those keyboards, interesting bit of information.

Quote:

Appealing to an infallible source is a form of deduction, it’s not fallacious; you can laugh all you want but it doesn’t make you any less wrong.

Quote:Oh, so it's not circular. It's just that we know Yahweh is good because Yahweh is the standard of what is good.

Yup, that’s how ultimate standards work, for some reason I had in my mind that you were better at all of this than you really are. I guess time has a way of softening such realities. I do remember that you never seemed to properly understand what begging the question was though.

Are there any other mathematical symbols you’d like to know how to correctly type on a keyboard? Free of charge? I am feeling charitable.

(June 25, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Ryantology Wrote: As you're the one who seems to think it is possible, yet somehow manages to never once do it, perhaps you should tell me.

But I can and have (with your help of course).

Quote:I choose happiness because (with a few special exceptions) people seek happiness in their lives. It is what drives us to improve things.

Why should we choose what people seek in their lives? I am beginning to suspect you’re just making all of this up.

Quote: Am I wrong? Do you pursue only things that make you feel unhappy or experience pain?

To suggest that simply because I do something means that’s what I ought to be doing is fallacious.

Quote:Let's try to play this game again. Prove that your standard of morality is not arbitrary. Put some clothes on those assertions. So far, all you've proven is that you're one of the more persistently hypocritical frauds on this forum.

Oh no! There’s that label again! Apparently that’s the worst an atheist can call someone. I already have demonstrated it, with your help you helped me demonstrate that Yahweh exists, and if Yahweh exists then morality is objective and independent of man’s will. Thanks by the way.

(June 26, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I’ll admit, I have never seen that symbol typed out before, you want to know why? Because it’s wrong. That’s not the proper symbol for typing, you should have used “<>” or “!=”, since you’re using a keyboard. It’s not my fault you did not know that was the wrong symbol. It’s regretful that your ignorance wasted both of our time.

Interesting. I looked it up just to be sure I hadn't erred and I found we're both right. The symbol that I used does mean "does not equal" since the slash cancels the equal sign.

As a aside, you apparenly can also use != as well. Why that tradition would be adopted makes no sense to me since "!" is used for factorials, as in 4!=4x3x2x1. The symbol "<>" can apparently also be used for "does not equal" and yet these symbols individually mean "less than" and "greater than". Seems to me these text expressions would be confusing but I didn't make these rules.

Personally, I prefer "=/=" since that's how it's written on paper.

In any event, you didn't bother to ask what I meant. You just filled in the meaning you wanted to believe and thought "herp derp, he admits it". The paragraph that I wrote which followed my use of that symbol in which explained that I was arguing that these two things are not equal and why they are not equal should have been a big clue but apparently I need to go slower with you.

Quote:Why doesn’t it equal that? According to whom? You?

I already explained how. Re-read my post that you misunderstood so badly.

Quote:

Quote:That's how atheists, humanists and other secularist define morality.

So?

So you asked and I answered.

Quote:No, I need to only understand what your argument reduces to, absurdity. Why is that the definition? Why can’t Russia adopt their own definition of morality? Why must they follow your poorly stated definition of moral subjectivism?

I've already answered you.

Quote:You are saying we have rights because philosophers say we have rights?

No, I'm saying philosophers have explained why we have rights.

Amazing as it may be to you, using the argument of "duh cuz big invisible sky daddy sez so" is neither necessary nor helpful. Academic philosophers have more sophisticated ways of discussing morality, ones that better elucidate what is moral and what morality is.

Quote:That’s funny. You’re going to have to do better, how are these rights knowable? Where do they come from? And what are they explicitly? You’re going to have to do your own heavy lifting for once.

To try to sum it all up in a forum post, they come from the fact that we exist, that we are community animals who depend on one another for our own survival, that morality is a strength for our species and that we are empathetic beings that relate to one another's pain. They are explicitly part of The Social Contract, based largely on our sense both of fair play and how we would wish to be treated by others.

Quote:So? Is it morally wrong to be hypocritical? Why?

The self-pwnage continues.

If you admit that your argument is hypocritical, it's kind of an admission of defeat in a logical discussion, isn't it?

Quote:By whose definition? Why is that the correct definition?

By the definitions of every dictionary I'm aware of. If you wish to invent your own language that sounds like English but the words have completely different meanings, it's going to make for a confusing exchange.

"Objective"

Quote:No, it’s not free of any being’s opinions, only the being or beings the law is applied to. God’s laws are objective towards mankind.

Sorry Stat. The dictionary disagrees with you.

Definition of "Objective"

Quote:adjective
4. being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Or do you prefer Merriam Webster?

Quote:1
a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2
: relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Bottom line: objective IS something independent of thoughts, feelings or values of any being. Sorry but we're using the English language that currently exists, not your alternate language with words that mean whatever you want them to mean.

However, even if I allow you to redefine words on the fly, by your twisted definition of "objective", Kim Jung Un's laws imposed on North Korea are "objective morals", since arbitrary laws made by a dictator don't apply to the dictator who made them. A dictator is above his own laws so he has just as much right to claim your definition of "objective morals" as your god.

Quote:Yikes, I thought you were better than this. God’s sense of morality does not change because it derives from His immutable character, so it is absolute.

I'll glide right past the bare assertion fallacy and the circular reasoning that "Yahweh is good because he is good" and just address your claim at face value. Does Yahweh decide that his nature is immutable? If not, he is not omnipotent. If so, then he can change and so his nature is not absolute.

Quote:Secondly, you’re conflating moral judgment with moral standards, God is the ultimate standard of morality, so it’s an absurdity to suggest He can be judged,

And once again, your logic is completely circular as well as being a bare assertion. You've defined "good" as being "what Yahweh wills". So when you say "Yahweh is good", you are saying "Yahweh wills what he wills". Even C.S. Lewis was uneasy with such reasoning. You've created a contrived definition that Yahweh is good in order to "prove" that he is good. This is classic begging the question.

North Koreans could use the same "logic" to prove that Kim Jung Un is good. After all, he is the ultimate standard for morality in North Korean society. And since he is the ultimate standard for morality, that's how North Koreans know he is good.

Other religions could also use the same "logic" for their respective gods. They can have you killed as a heretic and justify it with the same standard of morals that you use for your god. All that distinguishes your god from theirs is special pleading.

You see, what's really funny in exchanges like this is that it is Christians, not atheists, who swing the door open for morality to be arbitrarily defined to suit the needs of those in power. After all, if "morality" is to you nothing more than the arbitrary edicts of a powerful being, why can't worldly dictators and thugs use the same reasoning to set their own rules? Right is just a matter of might to you. Your Yahweh is your standard only because he's big and powerful.

The reason I replied with laughter to your three self-pwning gems is because they needed no response. In fact, you may notice I have a new quote in my signature.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to freshen things up a bit. The same quote for too long gets kind of stale.

(June 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm)Just Chilling Wrote: Actually russia was much better under the Bolshevists than it is now

Quote:"Insulting religious feelings in public can be punished with up to three years in prison"

http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/06/12/russ...-gay-laws/

Funny, I was not aware of any recent mass graves.

Three years of prison is not the same as mass murder, but still it could be a lot better.

(June 26, 2013 at 8:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: But I can and have (with your help of course).

Let's see it, then.

Quote:Why should we choose what people seek in their lives? I am beginning to suspect you’re just making all of this up.

Who said anything about choosing what people seek in their lives? I'm identifying it.

Quote:To suggest that simply because I do something means that’s what I ought to be doing is fallacious.

I'm not suggesting it's what you ought to do.

Quote:Oh no! There’s that label again! Apparently that’s the worst an atheist can call someone. I already have demonstrated it, with your help you helped me demonstrate that Yahweh exists

You keep saying you have, but where? I saw no evidence. I just keep seeing you say you proved it. You know, like a fraud does. People keep saying they want to see you and Muslim Scholar face off. I don't, because it's just going to be both of you doing that to each other over and over.

Quote:and if Yahweh exists then morality is objective and independent of man’s will. Thanks by the way.

The Amazing Waldorf and his endless supply of assertions he can't prove.

(June 25, 2013 at 4:47 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, we know that God is good because He says so and He cannot lie. An assertion from an infallible being can be treated as true.

Not sure if trolling or stupid...
FYI, the Bible says that God can, does, and will continue to lie to people, or make others lie for him - even when doing so condemns them.

Jeremiah 20:7 Wrote:You deceived me, Lord, and I was deceived;
you overpowered me and prevailed.
I am ridiculed all day long;
everyone mocks me.

1 Kings 22:23 Wrote:“So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

Ezekiel 14:9 Wrote:And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 Wrote:For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

So......... by your own source material, you're wrong, and you cannot trust your ultimate authority.