Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.

[Statler Waldorf]

"Definition of a Good Work:
Good works are “good” things (according to the Bible definition of good) which are
done heartily in obedience and love to God, for his glory, in an attitude of faith and thanksgiving
(Col 3:23, John 15:14 & Mat 28:20, John 14:15, 1 Cor 10:31, Rom 14:23 & 3 John
1:5, Col 3:17)."

Well, I guess every mass genocide that has ever occurred for the purpose of obedience and love to him was a "good" action. That clears it all up. Pretty screwed up god IMO.

Ok, at least now you are giving me something to work with…

Why did you completely ignore what the word obedience means? If someone committed genocide and was not told to do so by God Himself then of course this would not be good because it would be a complete disobedience to God’s commandments not to murder and to love one’s enemies.

Oh now I really get it. Thanks for the clarification! As long as god wills it, it is automatically considered a "good" deed. How long has it been since god willed a genocide? He's been kinda hands off lately, huh?

I hope you enjoyed your shower!

Given your atheistic view of morality why would genocide always be wrong? Good luck with that one!

You also never answered my questions about how you even define what good is.

[DeistPaladin]

Given your atheistic view of morality why would genocide always be wrong? Good luck with that one!

You also never answered my questions about how you even define what good is.

Heather, don't try to explain to Waldork about how morality is likely an evolutionary adaptation that has enabled us to build communities, work together peacefully and honestly and consequently survive given our physical limitations in comparison to other animals. Neither should you patiently try to explain how our concepts of morality are matters of empathy where we feel compassion for the suffering of others and seek to minimize it. Finally, don't attempt to help him comprehend the social contract, how we treat others as we would like to be treated less we be guilty of hypocrisy.

While you're at it, don't trouble yourself to explain to him how "GodWillsIt" does nothing to elucidate our understanding of morality as it's nothing more than a "cause I said so" answer and relies on the bare assertion fallacy that Yahweh is the measure of good purely because the Christians say so.

I've tried to explain to him all of these secular concepts used to understand and explain moral behavior but they're all lost on him. He only understands "Nahy nahy, I've got a god and you don't, so there".

[Statler Waldorf]

Heather, don't try to explain to Waldork about how morality is likely an evolutionary adaptation that has enabled us to build communities, work together peacefully and honestly and consequently survive given our physical limitations in comparison to other animals.

Yeah because Statler will just point out that that would relegate morality something more along the lines of rules of etiquette and grammar. Not to mention since they apparently are only rules to help us live in communities you couldn’t say that any intentions are wrong (attempted murder), cruelty towards animals, or even one community decimating another one to optimize their survival. Deist knows about all of these shortcomings, but he would rather talk about how a God he doesn’t even think exists is a big meanie-face.

Neither should you patiently try to explain how our concepts of morality are matters of empathy where we feel compassion for the suffering of others and seek to minimize it.

Yeah because Statler will just point out how that is committing the is/ought fallacy.

Finally, don't attempt to help him comprehend the social contract, how we treat others as we would like to be treated less we be guilty of hypocrisy.

Yeah because Statler will just ask where this contract came from, how a person opts out of it, and how a person is even supposed to know what it says; which apparently are really tough questions to answer because they have yet to be answered.

While you're at it, don't trouble yourself to explain to him how "GodWillsIt" does nothing to elucidate our understanding of morality as it's nothing more than a "cause I said so" answer and relies on the bare assertion fallacy that Yahweh is the measure of good purely because the Christians say so.

Yeah because Statler will just point out your complete ignorance when it comes to how ultimate standards, presuppositions, and axioms work.

So rather than listening to Deist, why don’t you try to field my questions yourself and not let him speak for you? I believe you can do it, I have faith in you!

[Epimethean]

Um, because Deist is not insane. That is a good starting point for listening to him, closely followed by the fact that he uses real logic and reasoning rather than the kind that comes in a holey container.


But, since it is fun to feed the animals, regarding your statement here:

"If someone committed genocide and was not told to do so by God Himself then of course this would not be good because it would be a complete disobedience to God’s commandments not to murder and to love one’s enemies."

Do all xtians get a tweet every time a real god edict comes out to inspire someone? If not, how do you know whether the person who causes a genocide has heard from your supreme commander?

[Anymouse]

Intermission - with fifty-two pages of name-calling I thought there ought be a break.

Now back to your regularly scheduled fisticuffs. - James

[Epimethean]

Cut it out, jerkface.








J/K