(November 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote: Here is a sonigram video of a baby screaming as he is being ripped from his mother.

I'm sold. Where do I sign up to be the type of loving Christian who would
use shock, hurt, and death to sell his self-righteous point of view?

What are you looking at?

(November 29, 2013 at 1:34 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote: Playing the Nazi card. How fucking original [/sarcasm]

There was one (count 'em) one Adolf Hitler and he has been dead for almost seventy years. I did a video on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnHfMkBbmEE

I mentioned the nazis but I spent quite a bit of time talking about the modern 'moral' wholesale slaughter of unwanted babies.

What's the matter YouTube did not have a video for you to use to dismiss the core of my point? Or were you hoping that quoting that you tube video somehow covered everything that I said?

---

(November 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote:

(November 29, 2013 at 11:50 am)Drich Wrote: Here is a sonigram video of a baby screaming as he is being ripped from his mother.

I'm sold. Where do I sign up to be the type of loving Christian who would
use shock, hurt, and death to sell his self-righteous point of view?

So TRUTH, in the face of a lie is considered shock and hurt? So what your saying is you want the delusion and the propaganda that allows you to 'morally' support a woman's right to choose over a baby's right to live?

---

(November 29, 2013 at 9:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Sorry to disappoint you Drich, but isn't Christian morality based on our Lord's Justice and Mercy more than an idealized moral standard?

It is, but isn't it still BASED, on God's standard? Meaning it still is not God's standard.

Here is an example: God says that gossip is one of THE Worst sins one can be apart of. Now how does the church view gossip? I've been to many churches, and Gossip is a mainstay. I will concede that in some churches it is publicly denounced, but it is still apart of how members socially interact.

---

I plan on getting to the longer post when I can get to a computer.

(November 27, 2013 at 12:17 am)Drich Wrote: The fact there is so much distance between what you think is right and what God has declared as righteous only points to how far you and your 'morality' has fallen beyond true righteousness.

24 A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, 25 for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? 26 To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Which by itself may be considered proselytization, thus I shall elucidate. My moral philosophy is the toil of hands and heart and thus I am satisfied, yours, however, is the the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. To me, to ridicule. Which provides a modicum of amusement.

Oh, and by the way...

(November 28, 2013 at 4:12 am)genkaus Wrote: Morality is man's attempt to establish a code of conduct to live his life by. It is a set of principles to be used to evaluate and guide his actions and those of other humans.

Which is why It varies from soceity to soceity from generation to generation and from even person to person.

Quote:It is not based on a preconceived notion of righteousness or sin - quite the reverse, in fact, what one regards as righteous is determined by the moral system.

With in the micro construct of morality itself (if there is no God) I agree. However Because God exists, God determines what true righteousness is.

Quote:You claim that at some point, your god came up with a set of principles that could be used to guide and judge human actions (after making similarly unsubstantiated claims about there being a god and him giving two shits about human existence). Even if that was the case - and it is a BIG IF - then those principles would form god's morality.

The word/defination of the word would apply as stated in your arguement. I have simply seperated Righteousness and morality as a way to reduce confusion. To show there there is indeed two standards of right and wrong. God's version/Righteousness and man's version 'Morality.' I only assigned 'morality' to Man simply because of how this word is used on this site to defend the actions of Man and to judge God. If it makes you feel any better I am not opposed to switching the words when talking to you.

Quote: Whatever is righteous according to that morality would be god's righteousness. And since sin is defined as something that goes against god's morality, anything that goes against that morality would be sinful by definition.

How so? What do you believe the defination of sin is?

Quote:Saying that man's morality - something that is not dictated by your god - does not match up to your god's morality is trivial and pointless.

Indeed, Man's morality is very pointless.

Quote:Your god's morality does not match up to man's morality either.

agreed.

Quote: And why would man's morality even need to achieve your god's standard of righteousness?

When I was an Atheist, I used my 'morality' as a judgement day defense strageity. In that if their was a God, and if I were a moral person (If my right doings out weighed my wrongs.) to condemn me to Hell would therefore make God immoral. I hid behind my 'works' as if they actually meant something.

Quote:Because your god's morality said so?

Nuupe. I like the rest sought 'morality' because I needed a righteousness apart from God. a righteousness I could control so I could justify whatever I wanted to do. A righteousness centered on Self, or rather a Self righteousness. Fore you see, a Self righteousness mixed in with some pride not only allows you to live apart from how God has called for you to live, but it allows demands that you speak against the way God has commanded we live. to the point the we Judge God Himself, against our own self righteousness daring Him to throw a righteous/moral person such as yourself into Hell.

Which is why I keep saying God's Righteousness is not based on the acts man's morality is founded on.

Quote:Thus showing that your god's morality is an inadequate standard to live by. Using s rigid and unchanging set of principles that shows no consideration to the context actions take place in is not a standard people can use to guide their whole lives. It would be irrational to do so. Which is why they shouldn't. Which is why they don't.

Which is why He also provided attonement, or do you (and the people you mentined) not know of the New Testament and Christianity?

Quote:A much smarter principle than a code blind to context.

Indeed it is, but only if you wish to live in your own version of righteousness/morality. Because if morality is an ever sliding scale then nothing one can ever do is truly wrong. Death camps, Genocide, Abortion, Manifest Destiny, small pox blankets, etc..

Quote:But then, your god's morality is not a universal standard of good either. How could it be, if it is not universally accepted.

Your arguement fails here. A standard does not have to be accepted in order for it to be viable. Here we use inches feet yards and miles to measure distance. It is the standard measure of the united states whether you personally accept it or not. Like wise if you put yourself under God's standard or not It is the standard God will use to judge everyone in this realm.

Quote:As it happens, a constantly changing and reasonable moral system is much better than one that is unchanging and unreasonable - which is what your so-called god's morality is.

again only in a perpetual state of self righteousness. As the indivisual 'selves' change, so too does the righteousness.

Again, to point back at hitler. Popular 'morality' Changed to include genocide, which was appearently fine if you were of anglo decent, but what of everyone else? This is the ultimate end of all popular morality. The destruction of all who do not conform to the popular social model currently accepted.

(November 27, 2013 at 12:17 am)Drich Wrote: I say that to help those looking to frame questions based on "morality." Most of the time it is used an absolute standard when in fact it is not. To say "God is not moral" is not the insult you think it is. That is like a death camp nazi saying a German citizen is not 'moral, because he is hiding Jews from the Gestapo. Why? Because your morality like the death camp nazi's morality is based on ever declining scale. The fact there is so much distance between what you think is right and what God has declared as righteous only points to how far you and your 'morality' has fallen beyond true righteousness.

genkaus Wrote:I say this to help those momentarily confused by your ramblings. Only within a theistic context are the questions regarding morality assume it to be an absolute standard. That's because, within that context, the morality refers to your god's morality, which, according to you, is an absolute standard.

When atheists say "god is not moral", what they are actually saying is that your god fails to follow his own morality.

Uh, no. What you are saying is God does not measure up to 'my/your' own personal version of Rightouesness/self righteousness.

Quote:That he fails to live up to his own standard of righteousness. Though, I have to agree, such an argument is pointless, because the first principle of your god's morality seems to be that whatever he does is moral by definition. Apparently, your god is a

Oh, good so you do have book Chapter and verse that sets a standard of Righteousness that dictates How God is suppoed to act? If not what do you mean "By his own standard?"

Are you so naive to believe that God has to play by our rules? I am giving you the benfit of the doubt here, but just incase you do believe this, allow me to ask, does everyone in our soceity 'play' by the same rules as everyone else? Or are there people in authority that are not governed by the same laws as the rest of us? Are there people who can open carry firearms? who can run red lights, who can kick down your front door, who can detain you, imprision you, who can force their will on you, who have been given permission to hunt people down? These activities are bann by our laws for the average citizen, and yet there are those who get paid to do these very things to other people.

At some point there is a division of power. God is the ultimate point of this division of power. His creation, His direction, His Authority, puts Him in a place over us. Just like our goverments and those who police us.

(November 30, 2013 at 11:01 am)Drich Wrote: I mentioned the nazis but I spent quite a bit of time talking about the modern 'moral' wholesale slaughter of unwanted babies.

What's the matter YouTube did not have a video for you to use to dismiss the core of my point? Or were you hoping that quoting that you tube video somehow covered everything that I said?

That is my video. I'm quoting myself. And yes, if you did actually watch the video, you would see just how stupid playing the Nazi card in response to reproductive freedom is.

Abortion is an artificial issue that has been orchestrated by the xtian right to rile up idiots. A woman has an abortion -- that does not affect you at all. Leave other people alone -- it's not about your arrogant ass.

(November 28, 2013 at 9:38 am)apophenia Wrote:

(November 28, 2013 at 5:17 am)genkaus Wrote: Thus further demonstrating the irrational and self-contradictory nature of your so-called god's morality. If the list of ought-nots is not going to be sufficient in the first place, then what's the point in making such a list? That's like giving the students a test and then declaring that they won't pass no matter what their score is.

Kant makes some good points about the relationship between pragmatism of moral duties and the morality of those duties. In particular, he argues that a duty which is incapable of being fulfilled is not a duty at all, moral or otherwise, that a duty must be capable of being realized to invoke an ought. God's morality, according to that specific phase of Kant's ethics, then doesn't qualify as moral at all. And I think he's right. We don't fault a lioness for eating a human being, for she cannot possibly be conscious of any imperative not to do so, or at least would not, in her natural state, be cognizant of such. She has no duty to be more "moral" and not eat a human, and to claim that she has "sinned" by not living up to our standards of goodness is not only wrong, it is evil itself. To punish the lioness for not being more ethical is as absurd as to claim that we "fall short" of god's standard; the standard does not apply unless you first equivocate on multiple things, including its relevance as a duty. We have no prima facie duty to god on account of him having such standards, such standards aren't moral, nor do we have any justification of any duty toward god based on his standards alone. This simply doesn't work; his standards, and our duty to them, can only be justified elsewhere and elsewise, thus the story of Job, which, for all its appeal, portrays a fascist and ethically bankrupt monster of a god.

This is a perfect example of the Judgement day defense strageity i was speaking of in the above post!

---

(November 28, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Everytime I read Drich's use of the word "morality," I am left with less brain cells than with which I started. The ignorance and stupidity produced is so potent that it oozes from my screen, saturating me in a fog of idiocy that deprives my brain of oxygen.

I'd be better off huffing paint.

You don't need me as the reason to huff paint. If that is what you do, then do it because you enjoy it, not for some other reason. I heard that for some reason gold paint gives the best high/kills the most brain cells.

(November 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 28, 2013 at 9:38 am)apophenia Wrote: Kant makes some good points about the relationship between pragmatism of moral duties and the morality of those duties. In particular, he argues that a duty which is incapable of being fulfilled is not a duty at all, moral or otherwise, that a duty must be capable of being realized to invoke an ought. God's morality, according to that specific phase of Kant's ethics, then doesn't qualify as moral at all. And I think he's right. We don't fault a lioness for eating a human being, for she cannot possibly be conscious of any imperative not to do so, or at least would not, in her natural state, be cognizant of such. She has no duty to be more "moral" and not eat a human, and to claim that she has "sinned" by not living up to our standards of goodness is not only wrong, it is evil itself. To punish the lioness for not being more ethical is as absurd as to claim that we "fall short" of god's standard; the standard does not apply unless you first equivocate on multiple things, including its relevance as a duty. We have no prima facie duty to god on account of him having such standards, such standards aren't moral, nor do we have any justification of any duty toward god based on his standards alone. This simply doesn't work; his standards, and our duty to them, can only be justified elsewhere and elsewise, thus the story of Job, which, for all its appeal, portrays a fascist and ethically bankrupt monster of a god.

This is a perfect example of the Judgement day defense strageity i was speaking of in the above post!

No, it is not. It has nothing to do with whether or not God is or isn't moral, and everything to do with the concept of duty. Kant applied the same framework without alteration to societies and governments later on in his career. Claiming that something is a perfect example of something else, when you obviously don't even understand it as an example to begin with, just makes you look like an idiot. (And this aspect of Kant's ethics has been extensively written about in the literature; if you think you are right, prove it with a citation. I have Oppy and Trakakis' 1300 page history of western philosophy of religion waiting to show otherwise.)

(November 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm)Drich Wrote: I heard that for some reason gold paint gives the best high/kills the most brain cells.

I heard it was theism.

Quote:When I was an Atheist, I used my 'morality' as a judgement day defense strageity. In that if their was a God, and if I were a moral person (If my right doings out weighed my wrongs.) to condemn me to Hell would therefore make God immoral.

Not to pull a no true Scotsman but if that was your thinking then you really weren't ever an atheist.

An Atheist doesn't work out a defence strategy to deal with a non-existent God.

(November 29, 2013 at 10:45 pm)Darkstar Wrote: So the rules are essentially pointless?

Paul tells us if not for the 'rules' we would not know sin. If we did not know of sin then we could not see a need for attonement/redemption thereby sealing our fate. In short the Crazy high standard of God is to point out the need for salvation.

Quote:Only if you redefine 'right' as 'what god wants'.

In the scope of eternity, that is the only 'right' that matters.

Quote:In a sense, I suppose. But it gets trickier when figuring out how to treat wrongdoers. For example, someone might want to get away with doing something bad, so they should let others also get away with it?

Hence Honor amongest theives. which is a principle in concept only. Because ultimatly a theif will sell out a brother if in the end it belfits himself. If you think about it this honor' is akin to man's morality. fore it too is a practice that only truly works in concept only.

Quote:I should clarify: I did not think that a baby could be aborted at birth legally. And they can't.

not since 2005, but before then back to 1973 it was perfectly legal, and morally acceptiable, It was GW Bush who made it illegal, but give it time. articals like this on:http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/11/27/the-gop-s-late-term-abortion-strategy-is-backfiring.html are building a 'moral arguement that says killing babies is not only justifiable but a moral mandate for low income women who need this option. Based off of the studies of "Diana Greene Foster and Katrina Kimport who are professors in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences in the School of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco. "

Whether late term abortions are currently being performed or not, for the sake of this arguement is not the issue. It's the fact that we did justify this act for more than 30 years, which made it moral, then the scales of morality were pushed back in 2005, which are being challenged again, which only proves my point further. That 'morality' is not a standard that means anything. It is just the current popular system of belief. It is self righteousness inacted or played out by the people. This self righteousness whether it leans to the right or left is still self righteousness, and it means little to God, because no matter what we still have fail to meet the standard we have been told to submit to.

Quote:What if that baby were patient zero for the next zombie apocalypse?

and what if he were the next Hitler? Or what if as Hitler said babies who do not meet certain physical standards or cultrual back grounds are not really human but human roaches who are a plague of the country, and if we do not kill them we will all die -or- what if a baby that get's it brain sucked out would have provided the zombie vaccine, and God used the Zombie apocalypse to punish a race of baby killing people?

Or one even better What if God knew that one such Child would exist, or better yet a whole race of them would be spawn from a particular tribe or people, wouldn't He then be 'morally obligated' (Per your standard) To kill that baby or whole race of people to save 5000 years of people yet to come?

I like what if's, I can play this game all day. But in the end it is just a game. At some point you have to put games down and look at reality. In the Real world God tasks us to be responsiable to what we have been given. If that means we are given a child then we must be responsiable for it, come Hell or High water.

Quote: I don't actually mean to suggest that any such thing is likely, but rather that even this judgment is technically not absolute. I would not argue that "killing babies is generally not immoral" but rather that a partially developed fetus isn't what one might consider a baby.

EXACTLY, That Is Why The Babies Are Dehumanized In This Proceedure.

Another Example If A Man assaults a pregnet woman and the baby dies it is then refered to as a baby and the man is charged with Murder (It happened near where I live a few years ago) A baby's status/humanity has nothing to with gestation, but whether or not it is wanted by the mother. So tell me some more about this self righteous 'morality' you all use to judge God.


(A fetus that, if born naturally at that moment, could survive outside the womb, is a different story.)Actually it is not. There are many who lived, and they have heroundous stories where after the proceedure they were discarded in the trash bin, and then left to die, only to be rescued by a janitor or nurse. Google saline abortion survivors. I heard one guy speak, he has chemical burn scars over the majority of his body. I don't remember his name but He should be hard to find. He has reaserched this and has terriable numbers for the survival rates a few years ago.

Quote:If I took this at face value, does that mean that a fetus that does not yet have a heartbeat can be aborted?

It completely depends on your morality.. I am not trying to have an abortion discussion here. I am using abortion to illustrate the potential evil of morality.

Quote:Also, does this mean that organisms without a circulatory system (or more specifically, a heart within said system) are not really alive?

They can't be aborted, so how does that even tie into any part of this conversation or are you just reaching?

Quote:Under the right circumstances, yes. And no, I don't mean WWII concentration camps.

Those camps are examples of how a soceity will decline morally if left unchecked. Meaning if there are not any absolutes.

Quote:I'm pretty sure it existed before Christianity. It also basically seems like common sense.

It is still an absolute, no matter who you wish to credit with the orgins. In a soceity with declining morals 'common sense' becomes less and less common. At some point, the 'golden rule' will also become obsolete.

Quote:I am pondering whether you actually meant 'apart', or have again made 'a part' into one word. Opposite meanings, really. I would agree that if you merely think the golden rule is inconvenient, then it would be apart of morality.

No, the other one; "a part."

Quote:On the other hand, I wouldn't say that the existence of abortion shows how all of society is immoral (though the illegal partial birth method is rather sickening, and I personally would not encourage late term abortions unless absolutely necessary).

That's just it. I am saying the self righteousness that spawns morality, means that 'soceity' is NEVER Immoral unless judged so by a higher power or in the case of WWII Germany a Stronger league of nations.

If Abortion was immoral, then it would not be legal. Such is the case of partial birth abortions now. But again according to the links I posted there are studies underway to justify the 'morality' of partial birth abortions.. If we have another term or two with an obama like president partial birth abortions will be one's 'moral obligation' in a woman's right to choose as it has been for more than 30 years.

Again I say all of this to say that there is a very distince difference between Man's morality and God's righteousness. God's Righteousness is based in attonement and Grace, while our moralities are based in action. In God's ecconomy there is attonement for a woman to have an abortion, where as in man's morality depending on when you have an abortion, what week of gestation the BABY is in, What part of the world your located in and ultimatly your personal reasoning an abortion may be legal or illegal. Again I am not here to judge the act one way or another. I am just pointing out that man's morality is based on acts he wants to justify for himself, while God's Righteousness says Killing babies is always wrong, and yet with God even though it is wrong there is still forgiveness, where as the man I spoke of earilier Got life for killing a 'wanted fetus.'

---

(November 30, 2013 at 11:58 am)houseofcantor Wrote:

24 A person can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in their own toil. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, 25 for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? 26 To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Which by itself may be considered proselytization, thus I shall elucidate. My moral philosophy is the toil of hands and heart and thus I am satisfied, yours, however, is the the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. To me, to ridicule. Which provides a modicum of amusement.

Oh, and by the way...

and if the toils of your hands and heart are found to be morally objectionable by other people?