quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
Unfortunately the problem atheists and reductive materialists have when we begin talking about morality is that without any objective morality then it is by definition subjective and as such any 'look at that isn't that terrible' statements are pointless. As an atheist you are simply not in a position to question anyone's morality.

You pompous ass.

seconded.

smug, self righteous, completely lacking in insight or humility.

jezuz is welcome to him.

A little harsh?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by miz'd:

*puts on white coat and specs....*



I'm liking this, Miz......

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine: You pompous ass.

Feel free to complain about this post. You might think it's worse than the one where you claim I not only have no morals but I am incapable of having any morals because of my belief system.

I don't often get angry, but this post has made me a bit cross.

I've no intention of complaining as it seems I just haven't explained myself very well and have ended up hacking you off.

It was not my intention to try and say that you, as in Heselbine, have no morals or that atheists have no morals. That would be nonsense obviously. The point I was trying to make was that it is illogical to enter a debate about morality if your baseline is that all morality is subjective. If there is no objective fundamental moral framework to compare to then who is to say what is moral and what is not and who gets to decide which person's sense of morality is 'right' and which is 'wrong'?

'If there is no God, everything is permitted.'
Fyodor Dostoevsky

That, I'm afraid, is the awful logical cul-de-sac of an atheist worldview.

Sorry for upsetting you BTW

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I think that perhaps you haven't read the story, or don't understand the point of it?
No surprises there, huh?

Wrong again, of course I read it.
2 Kings 2:23-24
God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head.
For me the point is to show how arbitrary, nasty, petty and just downright cruel your sky fairy is.
So what exactly do you think the point is?

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
The point I was trying to make was that it is illogical to enter a debate about morality if your baseline is that all morality is subjective.

If your entire moral framework is a book written by bronze age goat herds then the is nothing to debate as the 'rules' are all written.

quote:

If there is no objective fundamental moral framework to compare to then who is to say what is moral and what is not and who gets to decide which person's sense of morality is 'right' and which is 'wrong'?

And if everything in the book must be right because it is on the book, then genocide, murder, slavery and theft are morally OK.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

I've no intention of complaining as it seems I just haven't explained myself very well and have ended up hacking you off.

It was not my intention to try and say that you, as in Heselbine, have no morals or that atheists have no morals. That would be nonsense obviously. The point I was trying to make was that it is illogical to enter a debate about morality if your baseline is that all morality is subjective. If there is no objective fundamental moral framework to compare to then who is to say what is moral and what is not and who gets to decide which person's sense of morality is 'right' and which is 'wrong'?

'If there is no God, everything is permitted.'
Fyodor Dostoevsky

That, I'm afraid, is the awful logical cul-de-sac of an atheist worldview.

Sorry for upsetting you BTW

Ok, you flushed me back out. Both this and your original post that so annoyed Hes are utterly offensive, nonsensical tripe. The motion is thirded.

There is nothing in the least logical about your claim, you are about to run into the brick wall that eurythro built, if your baseline is that morality is objective then there is no debate to be had, ....

I've got used to a forum where I can be a bit more explicit in what I write, so I'm going to stop here. If you want to have this debate properly, let me know.

At least you apologised for causing offence.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by miz'd:

*puts on white coat and specs....*



I'm liking this, Miz......

yeah - sorry about the rest of it. bit intrusive. i've asked the mods to remove it.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

Sorry for upsetting you BTW

Cool, apology accepted, you will find I'm not one to bear grudges so I'll follow up with additions to the debate.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

It was not my intention to try and say that you, as in Heselbine, have no morals or that atheists have no morals. That would be nonsense obviously. The point I was trying to make was that it is illogical to enter a debate about morality if your baseline is that all morality is subjective. If there is no objective fundamental moral framework to compare to then who is to say what is moral and what is not and who gets to decide which person's sense of morality is 'right' and which is 'wrong'?

'If there is no God, everything is permitted.'
Fyodor Dostoevsky

That, I'm afraid, is the awful logical cul-de-sac of an atheist worldview.

OK, here's why you're wrong

I believe you're saying that I've got nothing objective to judge morals against. That's true. My way of judging whether or not something is moral or not is purely subjective.

However, you don't have anything objective either, and I mean this on two levels.

Firstly, even if I accept the validity of the bible, you don't have an objective yardstick. This is the point I was trying to make to RS but failed. The bible needs so much interpretation and application to specific situations which it doesn't cover that it ends up requiring subjective interpretation anyway. Sure, you don't murder people, but come on, completely non-christian cultures have developed that rule.

Secondly, the bible was created by people and is only therefore a second-hand subjective view anyway. Clearly you disagree with this as you'll say the bible is the word of god, so there's nowhere for this point to go.

Thirdly the existence or not of any given deity is irrelevant to the existence or not of objective morality.

That's what objective means.

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
Thirdly the existence or not of any given deity is irrelevant to the existence or not of objective morality.

That's what objective means.

Yes, good point. Even if there was a god, and he had given us a set of rules, it would be possible to disagree with them.

It is possible that Yahweh does exist, but that he's a long way from omnibenevolent.

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

Sorry for upsetting you BTW

Cool, apology accepted, you will find I'm not one to bear grudges so I'll follow up with additions to the debate.

I appreciate that. Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:
I think that perhaps you haven't read the story, or don't understand the point of it?
No surprises there, huh?

Wrong again, of course I read it.
2 Kings 2:23-24
God sends two bears to rip up 42 little children for making fun of Elisha's bald head.
For me the point is to show how arbitrary, nasty, petty and just downright cruel your sky fairy is.
So what exactly do you think the point is?

So, this guy, who is just in mourning for the recent loss of his father, but trying nonetheless to carry on work for his God is suddenly turned upon by 42 jeering louts.
Have you ever been jeered at by 42 louts?
Might you have wished a couple of bears upon them in that situation?

I think that the point is that you don't mess with God's chosen ones.

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:

Ok, you flushed me back out.

Musst......... resisst........!

quote:

Both this and your original post that so annoyed Hes are utterly offensive,....

I'm sorry I've made you feel that way; it certainly was not my intention.

quote:

There is nothing in the least logical about your claim, you are about to run into the brick wall that eurythro built, if your baseline is that morality is objective then there is no debate to be had, ....

Allow me to attempt to scale that wall. It is undoubtedly true that there is a fundamental moral core accessible by reason which appears universal across all cultures (eg killing another human is wrong; cruelty is bad etc) and is on the face of it independent of religious doctrine. However this is, I believe, a manifestation of the Creator. Morality is God and as such any 'inner voices' or 'revelations' which flatly contradict that which has already been been expressed in the Natural Law and reached through the application of reason should be regarded as highly suspect and be rejected. God cannot contradict Himself. Yes I know the OT is littered with examples of such contradictions which is why I reject them.

I still believe that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God but it also contains the errant nature of man which is the whole point of it.

quote:

I've got used to a forum where I can be a bit more explicit in what I write, so I'm going to stop here. If you want to have this debate properly, let me know.

I find this a little confusing. On the one hand you complain about being offended and then you seem frustrated by not being able to be offensive?

Have I misunderstood you?

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
Musst......... resisst........!

heh heh heh

quote:

I'm sorry I've made you feel that way; it certainly was not my intention.

Ok, apology accepted.

For future reference, the all to common accusation that atheists are immoral really sets me off.

It's possible I reacted a bit too rapidly, for which I also apologise.

quote:

Allow me to attempt to scale that wall. It is undoubtedly true that there is a fundamental moral core accessible by reason which appears universal across all cultures (eg killing another human is wrong; cruelty is bad etc) and is on the face of it independent of religious doctrine. However this is, I believe, a manifestation of the Creator. Morality is God and as such any 'inner voices' or 'revelations' which flatly contradict that which has already been been expressed in the Natural Law and reached through the application of reason should be regarded as highly suspect and be rejected. God cannot contradict Himself. Yes I know the OT is littered with examples of such contradictions which is why I reject them.

On the general level, this fails to climb the wall. The Eurythro dilemma is "Is what god(s) tell us right because god(s) tell us, or do they tell us because it's right?".

The point being, if something is objectively moral, then that is true whether or not any
god(s) exist. If it's only moral because god(s) say so, then it's just the god(s) subjective morality.

If a god is necessary, it ain't objective.

quote:

I find this a little confusing. On the one hand you complain about being offended and then you seem frustrated by not being able to be offensive?

Have I misunderstood you?

Yes. It was more frustration that I couldn't trust myself to find the right words. In a freer environment, there is more ability to speak your mind then explain if it comes over badly without incurring the wrath of editors.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:
killing another human is wrong; cruelty is bad etc)...
and
...the Bible contains the inerrant word of God

and yet your god kills plenty of people on the flimsiest pretext.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Woolf:

I think that the point is that you don't mess with God's chosen ones.

Too right. Just like you don't mess with any other powerful bully armed with extreme weaponry.

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

Allow me to attempt to scale that wall. It is undoubtedly true that there is a fundamental moral core accessible by reason which appears universal across all cultures (eg killing another human is wrong; cruelty is bad etc) and is on the face of it independent of religious doctrine. However this is, I believe, a manifestation of the Creator.

So we're back where we were before. If it's an inherent property of any human culture, how come christians go on about the immorality of atheists? You cannot have it both ways.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ballyboneman:
LOL!!!

It is also illogical to enter a debate about films, paintings, poetry, literature, food, music, theatre, isnt it? For who's to say which is good and which is bad? Who gets to decide?

quote:

Originally posted by Milan K: Who gets to decide?

Please don't let it be god, I'll never be able to watch Life of Brian again.

quote:

Originally posted by Heselbine:

quote:

Originally posted by ballyboneman:

It was not my intention to try and say that you, as in Heselbine, have no morals or that atheists have no morals. That would be nonsense obviously. The point I was trying to make was that it is illogical to enter a debate about morality if your baseline is that all morality is subjective. If there is no objective fundamental moral framework to compare to then who is to say what is moral and what is not and who gets to decide which person's sense of morality is 'right' and which is 'wrong'?

'If there is no God, everything is permitted.'
Fyodor Dostoevsky

That, I'm afraid, is the awful logical cul-de-sac of an atheist worldview.

OK, here's why you're wrong

I believe you're saying that I've got nothing objective to judge morals against. That's true. My way of judging whether or not something is moral or not is purely subjective.

However, you don't have anything objective either, and I mean this on two levels.

Firstly, even if I accept the validity of the bible, you don't have an objective yardstick. This is the point I was trying to make to RS but failed. The bible needs so much interpretation and application to specific situations which it doesn't cover that it ends up requiring subjective interpretation anyway. Sure, you don't murder people, but come on, completely non-christian cultures have developed that rule.

Secondly, the bible was created by people and is only therefore a second-hand subjective view anyway. Clearly you disagree with this as you'll say the bible is the word of god, so there's nowhere for this point to go.

Sorry, I was going to argue any more, but I can't resist:
All of these so called acts of immorality which the Bible supposedly doesn't specifically outlaw are purely second order misdemeanours created by man's inability to follow the top line directives: So, to return to the argument about passive smoking, this only becomes an issue when man continues to disobey God by smoking in the first place.
Perhaps I didn't quite make the point clearly enough before?

There is nothing special about morals, its just a code for survival. All living things have morals, ours are just more developed.

We cant exist without morals but we can exist without religion plagarising common sense.