(November 2, 2011 at 7:35 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(November 2, 2011 at 7:27 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Ah, but we're relying on our own moral compass instead of saying "GodWillsIt". You see, that apparently makes all the difference.
I was hoping you’d respond in this thread because this question really is your kryptonite. You stated that we determine what is wrong and right by our social contract and by what hampers our ability to live in a society and so on. Yet if someone commits adultery and is never caught, this has no effect on society whatsoever. So at the very most you could say this was a morally neutral action.
Suddenly I remember something I once said in an argument in high school, "Well, yes, you could SAY that ...but you'd be wrong".
The action is the same. The intent is the same. At the time of action, the adulterer was lying and risking the harm to others.
Saying it's OK because nothing bad happened is like pleading "not guilty" to attempted murder on the grounds that you failed and so no harm was done.
No matter how many times we ride this merry-go-round, my position doesn't change:
1. The "problem" you see in my inability to "justify" the use of reason or morality is only a problem in your head. It isn't a problem for me or any other freethinker. It also, I'll venture, wasn't a problem for you prior to your introduction to TAG. The only alternative was that you were unable to function at all until someone told you "JesusWillsIt".
2. The "solution" that you're so proud of boils down to saying "GodWillsIt n' stuff" (and spuriously dismissing all other gods but the one you just so happened to believe in all along). This simple-minded "axiom" actually does nothing to help us understand what morality is or why we use reason.
3. Unless you are prepared to tell us that you were completely unable to function in life until one day you heard "GodWillsIt n' stuff" and then suddenly everything fell into place for you, this whole argument is pure sophistry and an attempt to justify post hoc what you believed all along because you know you've got fuckall for evidence.
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
