(June 6, 2014 at 6:39 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: We aren't supposed to say anything, because we don't owe Christians an explanation of our morals. They can't justify theirs, so why should we?
I am not so sure that allowing an argument to stand un-refuted is the best strategy to follow; especially when your opponent believes you are incapable of refuting their challenge.
(June 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: And you need to get your prescription checked if you can't see the sources at the footer of a Wikipedia article.
If the writer of the article is incapable of following the websites article policy then I have no confidence in their ability to properly cite the primary research. Surely you can do better.
Quote: and it is well supported morality is evolved social contract and evolved instinct.
Well supported how? You’ve given no example of a normative system of behavior in this thread so you have yet to even touch on the subject of morality.
Quote: Notice the videos posted showing 3 month old babies can determine right from wrong. Evolution is demonstrable. God is not demonstrable.
You posted nothing of the sort. The video you posted showed that babies will prefer one puppet over another and that’s all. Infants will deceive their parents by pretending to be hungry when they really only want attention, is lying to your parents morally good behavior then? Secondly, you’ve done nothing to explain how you know that feeling empathy is in fact morally good and not morally evil. Lastly, we live in a world created by a morally good God who owns everyone so I would not be at all surprised if infants did have a moral conscious so you’ll have to do better. Is an act morally good or morally evil in a Universe where God does not exist?
Quote: That's not conflating ontology with belief.
Saying that atheists do not believe in God and they behave morally is certainly conflating the two. “You do not need air in order to breathe, babies do not even believe in the existence of air and they breathe just fine!”
Quote: That's pointing out your belief in something because it is written in a book.[/b] The only experience you have of your God, other than hallucinations you pretend are God, is from a book. If you explained Gravity as produced by a psychokenetic purple turtle floating in the Kupiter belt, your explanation of gravity would be wrong. Similar to your unsupported claims to morality. Your God didn't exist before 2000 years ago. Your belief does not conform to, nor does it dictate reality.
Rhetorical fluff. According to your reasoning gravity does not need to exist in order for us to walk around on Earth because many people do not believe in gravity and they walk around just fine!

Belief in YHWH is a lot older than 2,000 years by the way, I wish you had a better grasp of the basic facts because I hate wasting my time correcting you.
Quote: IF YOU CANNOT DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD EXISTS, you can not [sic] begin to advance nor support the claim "Morality is from God."
The existence of morality demonstrates that God exists silly boy.
Quote: You have written page after page of Argument from Ignorance, ignoring any counter-argument as "unsupported."
No, trying to argue that atheists can define morality in a logically defensible manner that is consistent with their atheism even though none has done so to date is actually an argument from ignorance. I am simply making the negative claim here.
Quote: <God Exists>Where did I assert that?
Quote: <Objective Morality Exists>
Where did I assert that?
Quote: <Evolutionary Psychology does not explain morality>
That’s a negative claim, so you actually have the burden of proof on that one. So get to it toots.
Quote: <Psychology does not explain morality>
It doesn’t. Another negative claim by the way; you’ve got your work cut out for you.
Quote: <God is the only possible source of morality>
Yup, a claim that is supported by you and still standing un-refuted.
Quote: <God is the source of morality>
He is the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong yes.
Quote: <Gods morality can contradict human morality yet still be the source of human morality>
Where did I assert that?
Quote: <An omniscient being who commands rape, infanticide, and slavery can be a source of morality>
God never commands rape or infanticide and antebellum slavery would not have been morally permitted in Biblical times.
Quote: <The Bible is inspired by God>
I never actually asserted this but yes that’s a true statement.
Quote: You have utterly failed to support even one of these claims, and yet you feign concern about MY citations?
I failed to support them according to whom? You? That’s ironic considering the fact that you’ve been my best support for those claims in this thread.
Quote: I already have, repeatedly. Yet you're too willfully ignorant to consider the fact that morality is an evolved social mechanism.
I have pointed out numerous times that you’re irrational by trying to do so because you are committing the naturalistic fallacy and that makes me the ignorant one how?

Quote: God commands murder, rape and infanticide.
Nope. It’d be impossible for God to command murder because murder by moral definition is a violation of God’s decreed will; so that is a nonsensical statement.
Quote: They are morally wrong because we have evolved to view them as morally wrong, because it is beneficial as a tribal animal to do so.
What about those people who do not view them as morally wrong? Did they evolve this view as well? Whose evolved view of morality is right and whose is wrong then?
Quote: If God were the only source of morality, we would not be able to see God's behavior in the Bible as immoral.
Yes! That is why none of God’s actions are immoral.
Quote: Because I don't need a cheat sheet for morality. You do.
That’s ironic considering you posted that in a thread where an atheist essentially was asking for a cheat sheet. You do require a cheat sheet since you claim Darwinism explains morality and you had to be taught Darwinism.
Quote: You can't grasp morality without a book explaining right from wrong in big, block letters.
No I can because we live in a Universe created by a morally good God who owns everyone. That is precisely why you know right from wrong in your heart as well.
Quote: "Social Darwinism" has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Google it. Educate yourself.
Nice to see you trying to defend your faith. Spencer was a very good little Darwinist though. Darwinism does not cease to be Darwinism simply because it is applied to people. Unless of course you want to argue that Darwinian mechanics do not actually apply to people.
Quote: Because society agrees it is morally wrong, and our evolved conscience determines it is wrong.
Did those people who do not view child rape as morally wrong evolve that view as well? Why is one evolved view of rape morally good and the other morally wrong?
Quote: You keep repeating the same questions that have already been answered. Do you have some sort of learning disorder that prevents you from absorbing new information?
No, I have a rational mind. If you give me an irrational answer I will simply ask the question again. A normative system of behavior cannot be logically derived from purely descriptive statements, which is precisely what you keep trying to do. In logic you are not allowed to introduce anything in your conclusion that is not contained in any of your premises. This lesson in logical reasoning was free.
Quote: Prove it. You keep asserting this, but have yet to offer a single shred of evidence.
I am making the negative statement, stop trying to shift the burden of proof off of yourself. If you think that an atheistic definition of morality can exist then by all means prove it. Until you do I am completely justified in believing that morality cannot exist in a purely atheistic universe.
Quote: *All of us are well aware this is your ultimate goal. You make fallacious claims you can't support, and you continue to make them until people get tired of replying to them, and then you dance around in your underpants thinking you've won a debate.
All of us? Please tell me it does not take more than one of you to type these responses.
Quote: You haven't. You're simply delusional, and ranting at us to reinforce deep seated delusions.
Us? Calling me delusional does not make your position any less irrational I am afraid.
Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
This only applies to scientific arguments; I am making a logical argument. Fail again.
Quote: How do you know God's Decreed Will? Because it's written in The Bible.
Yes, that’s why it is called His decreed will.
Quote: Thank you for proving my point: You get your morality from The Bible.
Nope, we get our morality from God who made special revelation to us in scripture.
Quote: The bible. The bible is a claim, not evidence.
“The Bible is a claim, not evidence” is a claim and not evidence.
(June 6, 2014 at 8:44 pm)Irrational Wrote: And do you know what God's will is exactly?
We know His decreed will because He explicitly decreed it; hence the name.
Quote: Nowhere in the Bible is it made clear what is the boundary between accepted killing and murder.
I just gave it to you. If a killing violates God’s decreed will then it is murder. We find that is consistently the case in scripture.
Quote: God in the Bible decreed more than once that babies be slaughtered by the sword. Is killing babies not objectively wrong?I need to know what verse(s) you are referring to. All killings that violate God’s decreed will are objectively wrong.
Rampant.A.I.So is theft wrong because you had it reinforced to you as a child or is there some higher reason that theft is wrong? I am just trying to get a handle on what your ultimate standard is here.
And his opinions regarding what the Bible says.
[/quote' Wrote: That’s a rather meaningless objection, that’s like trying to say that 4 is not objectively an even integer because some students are of the opinion that odd numbers are exactly divisible by 2.
[quote='Tonus' pid='683220' dateline='1402135689']
As an infant, I probably picked some trinket or other item off of a table out of curiosity, only to be immediately and sharply admonished "not to take anything that isn't yours." This may have been reinforced by a slap on the hand. This is the earliest form of moral training, akin to god giving a commandment. For the infant and young child, the questions I mentioned earlier are at the heart of any consideration of theft. What did I stand to gain, and at what cost?
As I got older, I probably had the notion that theft is bad reinforced in any number of ways aside from the gain/cost calculation. People will discuss theft disdainfully, and few people ever speak of it in a positive manner (the few positive examples of theft would likely be in stories like Robin Hood, where the theft is driven by the desire to right another wrong, and not for selfish reasons). It's likely that I had things stolen from me as well, and the feelings involved reinforced the negative feelings regarding theft.
At some point along the way I was able to consider the reasons why I felt that theft is wrong and establish concepts like ownership and respect for the property of another and use these to develop a conscience that helps me to resist stealing even when the potential gain seems to outweigh the possible costs.
Quote: I think that the people who committed those acts justified them as moral and may have even believed that they were moral. I do not consider them moral acts, regardless of when they were committed, and I believe that most people today would feel the same.
So were they immoral acts? How do we know whose opinion is right?