Man's morality

[houseofcantor]

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

You know the answer to that.

[Drich]

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.)

Oh, but it is..

you state Kan't clearly says: "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."

Again A judgement day defense strageity starts by somehow invalidating God's Righteousness, and substitute your own self righteousness/morality for it. Then issue the challenge to convict the 'moral being' based on the defining qualities of your own personal version of righteousness/morality.

Kan't does this in your opening line. "A duty incapable of being fulfilled is not a duty at all." Clearly for you, This invalidates God's Righteousness. Then he substitutes his own morality for God's or rather you do by proxy with the lion analogy. Then you issue a challenge to convict with the rest of your post.

Again this is a perfect example of a judgement day defense strageity. No amount of wishing want or calling me 4th grader will ever change that.

Just an observation: For taking the name 'apophenia' one would assume you would at least be able to identify basic patterns or connections as they presented themselves.. Or does you inablity to make these simple connections mean this gift not apply when the 'data' is not meaningless?

---

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

You know the answer to that.

actually I don't. That is why I asked.

---

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.

How do you know I was not an Atheist if your not appealing to this fallacy?

[houseofcantor]

You know the answer to that.

actually I don't. That is why I asked.

So you admit you do not know what you are doing?

[Godlesspanther]

There is no doubt that there are people who were atheists (did not believe in any sort of gods) and had a religious conversion and are now believers. People can and do have profound changes in their thinking. I do, however, think that ex-atheists are rare. Usually I suspect that this declaration is a lie. Here are the reasons:

1. Most (but not all) of the "ex-atheists" can't provide a description of their lack of faith that seems sincere and is consistent with descriptions from current atheists.

2. The numbers don't work. Atheists are a growing population in most countries. If all these "former atheists" were genuine, we would see the opposite trend.

3. Religion follows fads. I remember back in the 70s-90s there were all these "ex-satanists" -- after the satanic panic bullshit ran its course and the new atheist movement took hold all these "ex-satanists" vanished and "ex-atheists." started appearing.

4. It's a cheap ploy "I used to be an atheist just like you so i understand where you are coming from." Bullshit.

I did not say that there are no ex-atheists. But that they are extremely rare.

Ex-christians, however, are becoming more and more common as the days go by thanks to people like Drich who make xtianity so repulsive that normal people will have nothing to do with that shit.

[Angrboda]

It invalidates the duty, not God's righteousness. Can you tell the difference between large objects?

[Chas]

It invalidates the duty, not God's righteousness. Can you tell the difference between large objects?

Out of curiosity, what is this a response to?

[Angrboda]

It invalidates the duty, not God's righteousness. Can you tell the difference between large objects?

Out of curiosity, what is this a response to?

---

Again A judgement day defense strageity starts by somehow invalidating God's Righteousness, and substitute your own self righteousness/morality for it. Then issue the challenge to convict the 'moral being' based on the defining qualities of your own personal version of righteousness/morality.

Kan't does this in your opening line. "A duty incapable of being fulfilled is not a duty at all." Clearly for you, This invalidates God's Righteousness. ... Again this is a perfect example of a judgement day defense strageity. No amount of wishing want or calling me 4th grader will ever change that.

(emphasis added)

[Neo-Scholastic]

I used to be an atheist so I know exactly fro where you are coming. :-P

[Whateverist]

I used to be an atheist so I know exactly fro where you are coming. :-P

Did you lapse or were you kicked out on account of the pompous ass thing?

[MindForgedManacle]

Well to be fair, being an atheist doesn't keep you from pompous assholism, i.e the late Christopher Hitchens. :p

---

I admit, I'm not particularly liking the idea of reading through this thread since my initial response. Can anyone condense the convo. for me?