General Music Chat

All this discussion about morality...

1) This Breaks it down in simplified terms to get you ready for the next link:
http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2010/1 ... thics.html

2) You cannot discuss Morality From a religious stand point without first examining it from a secular/scientific model. Kant is the granddaddy explanator of all things 'Ethics'. Our entire legal structure was said to be drafted from the core logic of Kantian Ethics
http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/kant-v-mill.html

3) Finally , the religious philosophy
a- An Athiet's Argument
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... m-god.html


b- My Argument:
You could not argue GOD's discretionary Practice of Morality ,unless of course, you 'knew' the difference between right and wrong. So, I would ask... who taught you the difference of right and wrong? How does your definition of right and wrong fit so cleanly with that of God's? And where did you decide that God's discretion had negative distinctions?

Since you (The atheists) recognize, and even protest such distinctions, your very challenge suggests that you "dis-approve" of God's discretionary actions, as opposed to' approve'. (This implies that you acknowledge God). Your capability to 'approve' that, which is 'good', does not necessarily 'make' it Good. (An Atheist might take Plato' stance and argue that God's approval does not make it 'good', either...) , Nor would your disapproval necessarily make it 'bad'.

Regardless, your system of approval, hence morality, parallels that of GOD's, but with one difference... Your narrow definition of morality prevents you from grasping the scope of rationale behind God's actions of distinction. (Who, here, is qualified to say what is good or bad, without stepping out of the vacuum? ) If You read up on Kantian's ethics, you would understand that morality is not black or white...It is a full palette of gradient, with context. Would God kill 10,000 people to ensure the survival of the next 8 billion?. I believe he would...and he would be right (regardless of whether we approve or disapprove). Would you spare the 10 thousand people if you knew it meant the demise of future generations? Would your Your morality NOT dictate the same action that God's morality dictates? (Sure, God could wave a magic wand and make it all turn into la la land...but what would be the point then, of having 'us' around?)

While morality rests on the individual, it necessarily comes equipped with apriori (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/) and is connected to universal- categorical imperatives (Kant)
Morality could not have originated within man, or any creature of the earth.
Morality is the ethereal property of GOD, which we inherit in order to perpetuate ourselves gracefully through an unforgiving (albeit temporary) environment.

Your arguement leans on one basic fallacy - that atheist's morality follows God's. ?

God created all people....even atheists.

Evidently you don't have the mental capacity to understand what Dawg just explained so well for you, so there's not much reason to point out that you don't get the context of the verses you posted either. You create a straw man and think you've made a point?

Right vs wrong is entirely a judgment that comes from God.

That is irrefutable fact, like it or not.

Btw, contradiction is all you guys have....and it's not the same as refutation which requires reason and fact.








.

All in the Family - GOD IS BLACK
http://youtu.be/gQuPf-TMOCY

Morality is an inherent property of man that is flexible and evolves over time. At one time it was not only moral but necessary to throw a virgin into the volcano once a year. And the Bible describes many of these things that were once moral but we now find repugnant. No book that man can write - and make no mistake man wrote the Bible as well as all other religious texts - can manifest the laws and morals that any society could use forever. Morals must be flexible over long durations of time because that is the nature of life, constant change.

Yod, I have an elephant in my garage. You can't see it, you can't hear it, if you reach out, you wouldn't feel anything. But it's there, and you will know it's there if you believe in it.

Refute me. Show me that facts that can refute that.

There are none. Because it's so over-the-top insane, no amount of logic can crack that nut. That's why contradiction is all atheists have - because christianity is wrapped up in so many "rules" about God that there is literally no way to prove he doesn't exist. So it's left to the claimant to prove he does.

and hard as i try... i can't DISprove there ISN'T an all knowing, all powerful Spaghetti Monster living at the edge of our solar system.

despite the fact i can't refute it's existence, i will view anyone who believes there is one, as misguided, confused, and naive.

Now, someone who claims to KNOW for a FACT the Spaghetti Monster exists.... imo you're a few slices short of a full loaf.

sorry...the burden of proof is not on ME to disprove it's existence.

what bugs me most in the argument between believers and non-believers is the fact many believers only believe to make sure they do not burn in hell at their time of dying.. to them as long as you believe you have your bases covered and can still go out and cheat people, make derogatory comments to people that do not believe, and other immoral acts many non-believers would not commit.. being a believer does not give you a license to be an asshole to other people with different views about the miracle of life and why we were born on earth, why is there a universe with galaxies etc.

All this discussion about morality...

1) This Breaks it down in simplified terms to get you ready for the next link:
http://www.philosophersbeard.org/2010/1 ... thics.html

2) You cannot discuss Morality From a religious stand point without first examining it from a secular/scientific model. Kant is the granddaddy explanator of all things 'Ethics'. Our entire legal structure was said to be drafted from the core logic of Kantian Ethics
http://www.mesacc.edu/~davpy35701/text/kant-v-mill.html

3) Finally , the religious philosophy
a- An Athiet's Argument
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... m-god.html


b- My Argument:
You could not argue GOD's discretionary Practice of Morality ,unless of course, you 'knew' the difference between right and wrong. So, I would ask... who taught you the difference of right and wrong? How does your definition of right and wrong fit so cleanly with that of God's? And where did you decide that God's discretion had negative distinctions?

Since you (The atheists) recognize, and even protest such distinctions, your very challenge suggests that you "dis-approve" of God's discretionary actions, as opposed to' approve'. (This implies that you acknowledge God). Your capability to 'approve' that, which is 'good', does not necessarily 'make' it Good. (An Atheist might take Plato' stance and argue that God's approval does not make it 'good', either...) , Nor would your disapproval necessarily make it 'bad'.

Regardless, your system of approval, hence morality, parallels that of GOD's, but with one difference... Your narrow definition of morality prevents you from grasping the scope of rationale behind God's actions of distinction. (Who, here, is qualified to say what is good or bad, without stepping out of the vacuum? ) If You read up on Kantian's ethics, you would understand that morality is not black or white...It is a full palette of gradient, with context. Would God kill 10,000 people to ensure the survival of the next 8 billion?. I believe he would...and he would be right (regardless of whether we approve or disapprove). Would you spare the 10 thousand people if you knew it meant the demise of future generations? Would your Your morality NOT dictate the same action that God's morality dictates? (Sure, God could wave a magic wand and make it all turn into la la land...but what would be the point then, of having 'us' around?)

While morality rests on the individual, it necessarily comes equipped with apriori (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/) and is connected to universal- categorical imperatives (Kant)
Morality could not have originated within man, or any creature of the earth.
Morality is the ethereal property of GOD, which we inherit in order to perpetuate ourselves gracefully through an unforgiving (albeit temporary) environment.

None of this was about "proving God" to anyone. But Dawg has eloquently shown you why morality could not originate with any man or animal. He states fact, evidence, and even secular sources which don't depend on anything religious. He makes a cogent arguement for his position, rather than simply contradicting (though the truth does contradict your position)

This completely and utterly refutes Jimmy's supposition that morality comes from human inspiration, and Dawg's point stands because none of you can refute it.






.

Yod, I have an elephant in my garage. You can't see it, you can't hear it, if you reach out, you wouldn't feel anything. But it's there, and you will know it's there if you believe in it.

Refute me. Show me that facts that can refute that.

There are none. Because it's so over-the-top insane, no amount of logic can crack that nut. That's why contradiction is all atheists have - because christianity is wrapped up in so many "rules" about God that there is literally no way to prove he doesn't exist. So it's left to the claimant to prove he does.

That's just stupid. The only hint of proof you have is the elephant crap you just posted. If it were true you could point to something more.

Explain how trees exist. Explain DNA. Explain countless stars in the universe. Explain the resurrection. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You'll all find out soon enough.





.

by that brilliant "can't be refuted argument".....i guess you'll be falling on knees and bowing to the All Great Spaghetti Monster living just beyond our solar system. or at the least you'll have to acknowledge his existence.

.....i mean, you can't REFUTE his existence, right? so in your warped logic then he must exist.

by that brilliant "can't be refuted argument".....i guess you'll be falling on knees and bowing to the All Great Spaghetti Monster living just beyond our solar system. or at the least you'll have to acknowledge his existence.

.....i mean, you can't REFUTE his existence, right? so in your warped logic then he must exist.

Again you prove to have no substantive debate whatsoever.

You can't refute the logic of Dawg's thoughtful post. You won't even try. It's probably not fair to challenge you since you don't seem to know what logic or fact is.






.

Explain how trees exist. Explain DNA. Explain countless stars in the universe. Explain the resurrection. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You'll all find out soon enough.

trees, dna, stars.....these things are real and can be proven and explained thru physical and scientific evidence.

the "resurrection" on the other hand is a fiction.

none as blind...? i'd say there are none as goofy as those believing in fairy tales and trying to represent them as "facts". and using the lame argument..."well ya can't REFUTE it".

all fall to your knees and bow to The Great Spaghetti Monster!

yod, please don't take this the wrong way but i must say....you've gotta be the most short sighted, hypocritical, and myopic chimp to ever sit down in front of a computer screen.

you challenging ANYONE's debating skills is a hoot coming from you when your sole argument is "you can't prove god doesn't exist...therefore he does".

please we're waiting.....dazzle us w YOUR impressive debating skills and explain why that logic of your's pertains to what you want to believe in....god's existence....but the very same argument doesn't apply to the existence of The Great Spaghetti Montster.

you can't prove GSM doesn't exist, so then he must. (cue the fat lady to start singing)