The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Rekeisha]

We have a standard for morality, it's very easy. We all agree that human life is important. So things that help humans are good, things that hurt them are bad. Other things are indifferent.

This is plenty enough to build a moral framework, at least a basic one. Of course, if you don't agree human life is important, then we won't agree on morality.

So there is a moral absolute?

[robvalue]

We can agree on what is important as a standard, yes. But what is and isn't valuable isn't some magical thing floating around. We have to agree between us.

I would hope we could agree on human life being important. Then it's easy to see punching someone in the face is harmful, helping them when they are lost is helpful, and masturbation is neutral. This is just the very basics, morality isn't just black and white. We can agree on the goal, but may not agree on the methods.

But nonsense like "being gay is immoral" makes no sense, because it doesn't harm anyone. It upsets God, apparently, which is a ridiculous notion and should be ignored.

[Rekeisha]

It has everything to do with God because without Him you can't make sense of anything,

This is a demonstrable un-truth. I have no concept of a 'god' other than what other people have said their god is/does. I have lived my entire life without a 'god' (defined?), and yet I can make sense of things perfectly well.

which you are displaying with your comment above.

No it wasn't.

You are your own plumb line and you measure everything against your own understanding.  Therefore your thinking lead you to statements of nonsense.  Proverbs 1:7;3:5

No it doesn't. This is another un-truth.

If you can't be sure your comments make sense, or that you are even real then how are you sure that your thinking about God is correct either?

I/we can't. And do you want to know the real bat which hits your argument for six? Neither can you, sugar, neither can you.

The difference is that one of us in this debate is talking about universal truths, whilst the other is saying 'I don't believe you'. Which do you think is the more logical, bearing in mind the former has provided nothing but their beliefs to back up their 'truths'?

So you, who have admitted you can't even be sure that you are real or that your statments are coherent, are now going to start making truth claims? Why am I going to trust you? You can't account for reason or logic because you can even be sure that you are real. I know that I am real because of direct revelation from God, but since you deny Him your thinking is absurd. It is absurd that I have to agrue with you about the fact that you actually exist.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

^^Crock of shit contradictory and fallacy ridden reasoning that is a strawman of my actual response.

Is there anyone else we can talk to that doesn't fundamentally misunderstand the basics of resonable and 'coherent' dialogue? If you could forward them here that'd be great, thanks.

[Rekeisha]

We can agree on what is important as a standard, yes. But what is and isn't valuable isn't some magical thing floating around. We have to agree between us.

I would hope we could agree on human life being important. Then it's easy to see punching someone in the face is harmful, helping them when they are lost is helpful, and masturbation is neutral. This is just the very basics, morality isn't just black and white. We can agree on the goal, but may not agree on the methods.

But nonsense like "being gay is immoral" makes no sense, because it doesn't harm anyone. It upsets God, apparently, which is a ridiculous notion and should be ignored.

So if someone disagrees with the fact that human life is important like say abortion then what? We just agree to disagree?

Also if you can't even be sure of your existances or that others are not just figments of you imagination then how can you even begin to call for any human rights?

[Rekeisha]

^^Crock of shit contradictory and fallacy ridden reasoning that is a strawman of my actual response.

Is there anyone else we can talk to that doesn't fundamentally misunderstand the basics of resonable and 'coherent' dialogue? If you could forward them here that'd be great, thanks.

Why are you conserned about a coherent dialogue you can't be sure wither your own statments are coherent?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

LOL. Are you really making up the idea that nobody here is admitting what is and isn't 'real' based on an understanding of reality derived from a non-descript, un-evidenced sky being and then jumping to the conclusion based on this faulty and entirely bizarre logic that people who don't believe in this being...can't stand up for human rights?

Pass the blunt man. I want what you're on.

[robvalue]

Hum... We have to all agree to assume we are real. That's all we can do. There's no point questioning that assumption with regard to every argument, since it undermines everyone at once, not just me. Shall we agree to assume we are real, or not?

If someone says human life is not valuable then yes, we agree to disagree. What else can we do? As a society, they disagree with us, so we have to protect society from them by locking them up if they start killing people. We can try and reason with them of course. That is the constructive action. But some people just don't care. Shouting "you're wrong" at them isn't going to make any difference.

What alternative is there? If "God" wanted us to all have the same morality, then he could have made us that way. Clearly he didn't, nor does he come down to settle disputes. We are on our own.

[Redbeard The Pink]

So you are right in thinking that there is no right or wrong?

Also if I get your understanding of morality correct then morality is might over right? If the majority of people say that a certain thing is correct the minority is of no consiquence? It sure did suit Hitler's needs to blame the jews and then remove them from socitey to keep his hold on power. He and others agreed that it was correct. So according to your view this is the way it should be done and the only reason it is wrong is because other have collected together to say so.

At no point have I ever said there were no right and wrong. I keep saying that there IS right and wrong, and I define those terms as I understand them. Every time I do, you simply wave it all away and say "So you just don't believe in right and wrong."

That is a fucking Straw Man argument, and I am getting tired of reading it. If you're sticking to it that insistently, it means you're either willfully ignoring/misrepresenting my words as a deliberate Straw Man, or you are so stupid that you will not understand what I write regardless of how I word it.

Right and wrong exist. They are abstract human concepts for "good" and "bad" behavior, respectively.

And no, you obviously do not understand my view on morality...either that, or you are (again) deliberately twisting it to suit your need for an easily attacked opponent. Instead of addressing what I actually said, you're "understanding" my argument as a bunch of shit I didn't say, then attacking those made up points because you apparently can't address the real ones.

Your stupid little Nazi argument is an appeal to emotion and not worth addressing (like most of the shit you spout), but I'll go ahead and address it just to be thorough. First of all, "Might Over Right" is not the majority accepted moral system in pluralistic, secular societies. As I have said MULTIPLE TIMES now, human morality is generally sourced by a combination of personal empathy and social conditioning. In your case, most of the social conditioning seems to come from Sunday School Class, hence your willful ignorance, air-tight confirmation bias, and general lack of critical thinking skills.

Hitler failed because his actions were grossly immoral. I believe this personally, and it just so happens that much of the global community agrees with me, just as they did in the 1940s. That's why he wound up killing himself in a bunker somewhere. He fucked up, and he knew it. He did not get away with anything. He lost everything and died alone and in shame, and rightly so.

By the way, it just so happens that the very Gaud you defend was the mechanism by which Hitler foisted a genocidal morality on the German populace. The Nazi party and Hitler himself widely advertised the movement's basis on Christianity and association with the Christian Gaud. Before you go speaking to emotion by throwing Nazi arguments around, you might want to check your history.

Fuck, why do I even bother?

[robvalue]

I don't understand how anyone can think there is "objective morality" when even two Christians of the same denomination can hold contradictory beliefs about what that morality is.

Gonna do a video soon... keep saying it...

Having some bad days, lacking in energy. I'll get on it soon.