(January 18, 2011 at 1:40 am)Godschild Wrote: In the other post you set out three positions and said thats it, you turned a blind eye to other possiblities just so you could say your right and christians are wrong and what you did is just WRONG.
You're discussing the "God and Morality: Separate Issues" post. The "three possibilities" are, assuming both God and objective morality exist, that morality exists outside of God, morality exists because of God, and God is morality (whatever that means). The first suggests that right and wrong would continue to be so if God ceased to exist. The second suggests that morality is a creation of the subjective judgments of another being, which isn't objective. The third is based on circular reasoning. If there are any other possibilities, I don't see them. Ryft rejected #3 and then presented what seemed to be a flowery version of it.
If you wish to discuss this post further, here's the link: http://atheistforums.org/thread-5746.html
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
