Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

A clear and well thought out argument would contain all of the "if" modifiers inherent in his statements. I must have missed them. When he (and you, and others like you) stop throwing around your opinions and fantasies and present some evidence then you'll deserve a decent conversation. Until then you get nothing.

That’s ironic coming from the guy who relies upon others' mere opinions as to what is wrong and right.

[DeistPaladin]

It is wrong for several reasons. First, because fornication, which is sex outside of marriage, is a sin. Second, because marriage is only between a man and a women. Therefore, there is no situation in which homosexual sex is acceptable. Just as it is unacceptable to have sex with animals. Third, because it is an aberration for Gods plan for the family. Lastly, because it is simply an abomination in Gods sight. It is also socially destructive..history has shown when you approve of homosexualiy, paedophilia is not far behind. It is deviant behavior which corrupts the cultures that tolerate it.

You know, I said we were done talking after you cited a carefully staged, edited and produced propaganda piece by Pat Robertson as some sort of irrefutable testimony but you attempted to answer my question so I suppose I should explain to you why your arguments were fallacious.

First, because fornication, which is sex outside of marriage, is a sin.

I don't think so. I define wrongdoing as that which betrays someone's trust, infringes on their rights or is reckless with their well being. I therefore don't see anything wrong with sex outside of marriage. In fact, I think it's healthy for couples to find out if their sexually compatible before they tie the knot. Even casual sex isn't morally wrong so long as no deception is used, both partners are quite willing and proper protection is used.

The logical fallacy you used here is appeal to authority. God says so and so that's why. Even those in authority need to explain their arguments. "Because so-and-so said so" isn't an adequate reason to believe something.

Second, because marriage is only between a man and a women.

You've created an arbitrary definition and then used it as "proof" for another belief. I used to think this was called "begging the question" but there may be another name for this fallacy. First, you need to explain why I should accept your "proof", in this case your definition of marriage.

At one time in our country, the law said the definition was one man and one woman of the same race. In the OT, the definition of marriage was one man and all his property, however many wives and concubines he could afford. There is no universal definition that has stood for all time and even if there was, you'd still not have the right to force it on someone else.

Therefore, there is no situation in which homosexual sex is acceptable.

Your conclusion is based on your arbitrary definition of sin combined with your arbitrary definition of marriage.

Just as it is unacceptable to have sex with animals.

The logical fallacy here is a red herring. You've introduced an irrelevant topic as a distraction, possibly as an attempt to change the subject and possibly as an attempt at implied false equivocation. Let's stay on topic here.

Third, because it is an aberration for Gods plan for the family.

Once again, you've presented an unproven assertion as "proof" for another belief. Even if it is true, we have an appeal to authority. CauseGodSaysSoThat'sWhy is not a logical reason to believe something.

Lastly, because it is simply an abomination in Gods sight

You seem to be repeating the same argument and putting different bullet points on it. First, you say it's a "sin" (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's not legitimate form of marriage (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's unacceptable (GodSaysSo). Then you say it goes against God's plan for the family (GodSaysSo). Now you say it's an abomination in God's sight (GodSaysSo).

I don't think this is so much fallacious reasoning as it is "padding the list".

It is also socially destructive

I thought you just said "lastly" in your previous bullet point?

Kindly show me peer reviewed case studies either in history or in psychology that back your assertion. The real field of psychology does not regard homosexuality as socially destructive.

paedophilia is not far behind

Logical fallacy: slippery slope.

It is deviant behavior which corrupts the cultures that tolerate it.

See above. Asserting something isn't sufficient. You have to offer proof that your assertion is true.

Next?

---

I'm sorry but he linked homosexuality with pedophilia which, in my book, is a huge NO, NO!

Hmmm

That's the most thoughtful, well supported argument you've come up with yet. I can't refute that statement.

---

Oh! So if you commit adultery and don’t get caught then it’s no longer wrong because you didn’t actually do any harm to anyone?

Logical fallacy: Strawman.

Homosexuality is wrong because it is contrary to God’s decreed will. (EDITED for clarification).

Logical fallacy: Unsubstantiated assertion and appeal to authority.

How many times must you be told GodWillsIt does nothing to contribute to our understanding of morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

The logical fallacy you used here is appeal to authority.

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if: A) The authority is fallible and B) The authority is not qualified as an expert in the area being discussed. Neither of these applies to God so it is not a fallacy to appeal to God’s authority.

You've created an arbitrary definition and then used it as "proof" for another belief. I used to think this was called "begging the question" but there may be another name for this fallacy. First, you need to explain why I should accept your "proof", in this case your definition of marriage.

A) Scripture defines marriage this way
B) The dictionary also defines marriage this way (the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. ).

So your un-acceptance of that definition is what is actually arbitrary and fallacious.

you'd still not have the right to force it on someone else.

So if I don’t agree with the definition of “murder” the government has no right to punish me for committing murder? This is a silly argument you have used here. Christ was very clear that scripture has always defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Your conclusion is based on your arbitrary definition of sin combined with your arbitrary definition of marriage.

If he is using the definition of sin that scripture uses (something contrary to God’s decreed will), and the definition of marriage that both scripture and the dictionary use then he is not being arbitrary at all.

The logical fallacy here is a red herring. You've introduced an irrelevant topic as a distraction, possibly as an attempt to change the subject and possibly as an attempt at implied false equivocation. Let's stay on topic here.

Not really, he was trying to reduce the opposing arguments to absurdity by showing that something that most everyone believes is wrong (bestiality) is wrong for the exact same reasons as homosexuality is.

Once again, you've presented an unproven assertion as "proof" for another belief. Even if it is true, we have an appeal to authority. CauseGodSaysSoThat'sWhy is not a logical reason to believe something.

This was not a fallacious appeal to authority for the same reasons as I stated above.

You seem to be repeating the same argument and putting different bullet points on it. First, you say it's a "sin" (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's not legitimate form of marriage (GodSaysSo). Then you say it's unacceptable (GodSaysSo). Then you say it goes against God's plan for the family (GodSaysSo). Now you say it's an abomination in God's sight (GodSaysSo).

Yes, homosexuality violates God’s law in a number of ways.

Kindly show me peer reviewed case studies either in history or in psychology that back your assertion. The real field of psychology does not regard homosexuality as socially destructive.

The “real” field of psychology? No true Scotsman fallacy. There are plenty of Christian psychologists who do view homosexuality as destructive; I could just as easily arbitrarily define them as the “real” psychologists like you have done here with secular ones.

Logical fallacy: slippery slope.

Ehhh, kind of, although since there are numerous movements to justify pedophilia in countries that are more progressive on the issue of homosexuality than the U.S. his argument does appear to hold some water. His entire argument did not hinge on this point so it is not a real big problem that he used it.

[DeistPaladin]

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if: A) The authority is fallible and B) The authority is not qualified as an expert in the area being discussed. Neither of these applies to God so it is not a fallacy to appeal to God’s authority.

My understanding of an appeal to authority is where the need for proof is replaced by someone else's say-so. Even experts in their field need to be able to show their work. Science places no weight on authority, only evidence.

If I'm listening to Richard Dawkins discussing evolution or Carl Sagan discussing the cosmos and all they had to say was "shut up, believe what I tell you, I'm the expert and I say so" this would not be a valid reason to believe their claims. Because these individuals can/could bring the weight of their research and evidence to the table, we believe what they say.

A) Scripture defines marriage this way

1. No it doesn't.
2. Who the fuck cares?

B) The dictionary also defines marriage this way (the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. ).

The dictionary changes with the times. Future dictionaries will probably define the term with gender neutral terms. This is not an absolute timeless authority.

So if I don’t agree with the definition of “murder” the government has no right to punish me for committing murder? This is a silly argument you have used here. Christ was very clear that scripture has always defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

1. Strawman
2. Red Herring
3. False equivocation
4. Who the fuck cares what your godboy said?

If he is using the definition of sin that scripture uses (something contrary to God’s decreed will), and the definition of marriage that both scripture and the dictionary use then he is not being arbitrary at all.

Your god is imaginary so it is arbitrary.

Not really, he was trying to reduce the opposing arguments to absurdity by showing that something that most everyone believes is wrong (bestiality) is wrong for the exact same reasons as homosexuality is.

It's a completely different topic and so is a red herring.

Yes, homosexuality violates God’s law in a number of ways.

Who the fuck cares what your imaginary god says?

The “real” field of psychology? No true Scotsman fallacy.

Nope. There really are credentials and a process of peer review. Christians can whine all they like but your quack psychologists are laughed at just as much as your quack creation "scientists".

[lucent]

You know, I said we were done talking after you cited a carefully staged, edited and produced propaganda piece by Pat Robertson as some sort of irrefutable testimony but you attempted to answer my question so I suppose I should explain to you why your arguments were fallacious.

You said we were done talking because you ran away from our debate in a cowardly fashion. Your claim was that the testimony of billions of people could be dismissed, so I produced that particular video because I feel the testimony in it is powerful and difficult to dismiss. I asked you to attempt to dismiss it, I never said it was irrefutable. You, performing rather poorly in the debate, decided to end it and use the excuse that my use of a video from the 700 club somehow proved I wasn't worthy of any further reply. What it really proved was that you were grasping at straws, especially as it pertained to the hypocripsy of your beliefs about God, and cut and ran to escape further questioning.

Most of the rest of this post is entirely fallacious. You asked why homosexual love is evil. I gave you an explanation and some reasoning as to why God considers it a sin. Your reply is to say that it is fallacious to appeal to God as an authority. Could you be any more obtuse? Your question doesn't address the question of whether He is an authority on human relations; it is clearly presumed by the line of argumentation. If you want to address the reply under the terms you laid out, instead of shifting them mid argument, then we can proceed further.

[of morality?

[Minimalist]

Statler Waldorf Wrote: An appeal to authority is only fallacious if: A) The authority is fallible and B) The authority is not qualified as an expert in the area being discussed. Neither of these applies to God so it is not a fallacy to appeal to God’s authority.

Poor Waldork...still trying to convince the court that his invisible sky-daddy is an expert witness.

OVERRULED!

[DeistPaladin]

You said we were done talking because you ran away from our debate in a cowardly fashion. Your claim was that the testimony of billions of people could be dismissed, so I produced that particular video because I feel the testimony in it is powerful and difficult to dismiss. I asked you to attempt to dismiss it, I never said it was irrefutable. You, performing rather poorly in the debate, decided to end it and use the excuse that my use of a video from the 700 club somehow proved I wasn't worthy of any further reply.

OK, your thinking skills may be deficient but you have a colorful memory. You just keep on believing that. Keep watching Pat Robertson's 700 Club thinking you're getting news and information.

What it really proved was that you were grasping at straws, especially as it pertained to the hypocripsy of your beliefs about God, and cut and ran to escape further questioning.

You bringing up my beliefs to justify yours (beyond the fact that there's a chasm of difference between a belief in a First Cause and a belief in the Bible, with all the baggage that comes with it but that's a lengthy discussion point I've explored in my Deism vs. Christianity thread) was a red herring and ad hominem tu quoque.

Most of the rest of this post is entirely fallacious. You asked why homosexual love is evil. I gave you an explanation and some reasoning as to why God considers it a sin.

Exactly. I asked YOU why love is evil when the body parts are similar and you pulled out your Bible and hid behind your god.

Let me be blunt, so even a brainwashed moron like you might understand, I don't give a shit what your imaginary, spoiled, tantrum throwing, blood thirsty, egomaniacal god says. I'm asking you to THINK and EXPLAIN to me why same gender love is evil.

Try it. Explain something without hiding behind the Bible. It's called using your brain. Give it a shot.

[Minimalist]

I'm asking you to THINK and EXPLAIN to me

You're asking much of one of the sheep, D-P.

I doubt he's up to it.

[lucent]

OK, your thinking skills may be deficient but you have a colorful memory. You just keep on believing that. Keep watching Pat Robertson's 700 Club thinking you're getting news and information.

Actually, I don't watch the 700 club. I found the video on youtube, and it doesn't matter one iota who produced it. It must be accepted or rejected on the grounds of the mans testimony. What is deficient is your reasoning; this is just your excuse for intellectual cowardice.

You bringing up my beliefs to justify yours (beyond the fact that there's a chasm of difference between a belief in a First Cause and a belief in the Bible, with all the baggage that comes with it but that's a lengthy discussion point I've explored in my Deism vs. Christianity thread) was a red herring and ad hominem tu quoque.

I don't need your beliefs to justify mine, and whatever the chasm of difference is, you believe God is real and has a mind. I pointed out the hypocripsy of thinking an impersonal God is really quite wonderful..but if He turns out to be personal, you hate His guts. Same Universe, same circumstances, but two very schitzophrenic views on reality. You can marvel at a dead beat dad who leaves you to rot, but you hate one that is personally interested in you, and wants to give you eternal life.

Exactly. I asked YOU why love is evil when the body parts are similar and you pulled out your Bible and hid behind your god.

Let me be blunt, so even a brainwashed moron like you might understand, I don't give a shit what your imaginary, spoiled, tantrum throwing, blood thirsty, egomaniacal god says. I'm asking you to THINK and EXPLAIN to me why same gender love is evil.

Try it. Explain something without hiding behind the Bible. It's called using your brain. Give it a shot.

Again, you're being incredibly obtuse, and you have already proven your intellectual dishonesty by running from our other debate and blaming it on my selection of videos. The way your question is framed, asking why something from a Christian standpoint is *evil*, implicates God as a moral authority and requires a biblical explanation. Asking why I think it is wrong, personally, is a entirely different question. If you can construct a coherent question without the use of Ad Homs, I'll be inclined to answer you.

Give it a shot.

[The Grand Nudger]

The grounds of his testimony alone...lol, no, no. Let's see some evidence.

Any god lacking the claimed attributes of your own, and actively not engaging in the same sorts of activities is a wonderful god indeed. See, amusingly a dead beat dad is exactly how I would describe the god of the babble. The deists obviously makes no claim to fatherhood, nor does it command the respect and love of a father. You entered your own god into that arena. No sense projecting your beliefs into areas where they don't belong.