Biblical Inerrancy - mandatory to be Christian?

[jstrodel]

The argument obviously hinges on moral relativism entailing nihilism. There is no way that someone can compare what you wrote, which is joining all males and females and then seperating them to joining moral relativism and nihilism. They are clearly and obviously connected. Look at this:


1. Moral relativism is the state in which there is no absolute moral authority. (MR -> No MA)
2. If there is no absolute moral authority, there is no way to resolve competing moral claims (No MA -> No mc)
3. If there is no way to resolve moral claims, all morals are equally truth from an objective standpoint (No MC -> ET)
4. If all morals are equally true from an objective standpoint, all morals are equally false (ET -> EF)
5. If all morals are equally false, a state of nihilism is reached where people have no obligation to obey any morals. (EF = nihilism)

[Darkstar]

1. Moral relativism is the state in which there is no absolute moral authority. (MR -> No MA)

False.

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

2. If there is no absolute moral authority, there is no way to resolve competing moral claims (No MA -> No mc)

False.

Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought," but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.

I hold the same view.

3. If there is no way to resolve moral claims, all morals are equally truth from an objective standpoint (No MC -> ET)
4. If all morals are equally true from an objective standpoint, all morals are equally false (ET -> EF)
5. If all morals are equally false, a state of nihilism is reached where people have no obligation to obey any morals. (EF = nihilism)

That would be normative moral relativism, which would be true if all moral claims were equal, and it was impossible to tell if one claim was better than another.

[Silver]

5. If all morals are equally false, a state of nihilism is reached where people have no obligation to obey any morals. (EF = nihilism)

I feel like focusing on this particular section, both because of how false it is and because it unnerves me that Christians believe they would do evil things if their god was proven to not exist. How ever would they know right from wrong without a god to guide them? If one cannot use common sense to know right from wrong without a deity to hold his hand, then that individual is a sociopath who obviously lacks the moral compass inherently built into all of us. One should know that he should do good for the sake of doing good, not because a higher authority states it must be so.

[jstrodel]

You are just saying false, but you are not arguing why the statement is false. Posting a description of what someone else writes to describe their position does not refute the claim I made, you are making an argument from authority, but you are not demonstrating why moral relativism does not entail nihilism, you are just citing an authority whom claims that they are separate.

[Minimalist]

If all morals are equally false, a state of nihilism is reached where people have no obligation to obey any morals.

People have a duty to obey the LAW. If you think that law is based on morality you are fucking crazier than I thought. If you break the law you risk punishment IN THIS WORLD...not the next.

[jstrodel]

Do people have a duty to obey all laws in all countries? What gives law moral legitimacy?

[Whateverist]

1. Moral relativism is the state in which there is no absolute moral authority. (MR -> No MA)
2. If there is no absolute moral authority, there is no way to resolve competing moral claims (No MA -> No mc)
3. If there is no way to resolve moral claims, all morals are equally truth from an objective standpoint (No MC -> ET)
4. If all morals are equally true from an objective standpoint, all morals are equally false (ET -> EF)
5. If all morals are equally false, a state of nihilism is reached where people have no obligation to obey any morals. (EF = nihilism)

It looks superficially impressive when you line it up like this but the fact of the matter is society manages to reach certain agreements as to what transgressions will and won't be accepted. We codify this into law. Its being enforced as the law depends not at all on its correspondence to any objective morals. We can still make sense of all the feelings we have when we are badly treated by others without thinking - huh, that was objectively bad to do. Give it up. Morals do not depend on any platonic ideals.

[Tonus]

Do people have a duty to obey all laws in all countries? What gives law moral legitimacy?

Force.

[jstrodel]

How do you know which societies laws have legitimacy and which do not? How do you know when you should submit to the horrible leaders of the world and when you should not?

---

Do people have a duty to obey all laws in all countries? What gives law moral legitimacy?

Force.

So the most evil governments in history had moral legitimacy, so long as they had military power? That is nihilism.

You have just accepted the obvious fact that atheism entails nihilism.

[Tonus]

Force gives them legitimacy. Every lawmaker from god on down relies on force to legitimize his laws.