08 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterActually I was hoping in mirroring your position with a different unreasonable claim you'd see the futility in your line of reasoning.
nah...I prefer not to dwell on the details. That they're orange is good enough for me. Furthermore, my claim that they always exist in a supernatural realm makes my position immune to your objection about their origins in this physical universe.
----agerg-------------
But would you at least notice one thing - You had to place your oranges into a s ...[text shortened]... a fruit.
It could be a nasty orange god or a nice one , but it couldn't just be a fruit.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
09 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterGiven the evidence of this thread I don't think you are qualified to say whether they've thought it through.
People DO believe this - it's just that they don't realise it. They haven't thought through the implications of what they say they believe.
Rather, I think it more likely that you find it so difficult to step outside your world view that you assume that these are the implications of what some atheists say.
Atheists who believe in OMFs cannot, by definition, believe that the universe is amoral. You might find it hard to comprehend how they can believe in OMFs without god, but that's your problem, not theirs.
10 May 10
Originally posted by AgergBut you have said it yourself in this post. You were hoping to mirror my position in some way but in the end it WAS a different claim. To base your OMFs on a fruit is not the same as basing it on an all powerful entity that is the foundation of all reality.
Actually I was hoping in mirroring your position with a different unreasonable claim you'd see the futility in your line of reasoning.
The difference can hardly be starker. So why do you think that you are mirroring?
10 May 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkAtheists who believe in OMFs cannot, by definition, believe that the universe is amoral.
Given the evidence of this thread I don't think you are qualified to say whether they've thought it through.
Rather, I think it more likely that you find it so difficult to step outside your world view that you [b]assume that these are the implications of what some atheists say.
Atheists who believe in OMFs cannot, by definition, believe that t ...[text shortened]... to comprehend how they can believe in OMFs without god, but that's your problem, not theirs.[/b]
-----shark----------------
I agree , but if you look around it would seem that the likes of Agerg seem have a problem realising this.
The reasons why many atheists cannot see the logic of the above is because it undermines their moral values on things and an amoral universe is an uncomfortable thought.
10 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't know how long I want to continue this silly discussion with you to be honest. Oranges are objective morality; this I claim is true by decree. (mirroring your pathetic claim that God is objective morality-by decree)
But you have said it yourself in this post. You were hoping to mirror my position in some way but in the end it WAS a different claim. To base your OMFs on a fruit is not the same as basing it on an all powerful entity that is the foundation of all reality.
The difference can hardly be starker. So why do you think that you are mirroring?
Think my claim is BS?...ditto with yours
10 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo KM the problems with reasoning are all yours here, you fail to realise that we don't accept the claim that objective morality should be pinned on your god. the only thing you have successfully accomplished in all your endeavours to defend your position is complete failure
Atheists who believe in OMFs cannot, by definition, believe that the universe is amoral.
-----shark----------------
I agree , but if you look around it would seem that the likes of Agerg seem have a problem realising this.
The reasons why many atheists cannot see the logic of the above is because it undermines their moral values on things and an amoral universe is an uncomfortable thought.
Do you understand what I mean when I say
I don't accept your claim that morality should be pinned on God?
Perhaps you'd be so kind to return your analysis of this statement. What do you think I mean??
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI have seen no evidence that Agerg has a problem with this.
Atheists who believe in OMFs cannot, by definition, believe that the universe is amoral.
-----shark----------------
I agree , but if you look around it would seem that the likes of Agerg seem have a problem realising this.
The reasons why many atheists cannot see the logic of the above is because it undermines their moral values on things and an amoral universe is an uncomfortable thought.
Some atheists believe in OMFs. For them, the universe is not amoral.
Other atheists don't believe in OMFs but this does not undermine their moral values on things. Nor is an amoral universe an uncomfortable thought in the least. It is only amoral in the sense of having no OMFs. But people are part of the universe and they are still moral even if they believe that morality is a human construct. I know you find that hard to understand, but like I said, that's your problem, not theirs.
10 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with the idea that morality is related to our experience being similar to other human beings but why? Why should I expect another human being to obey my morality?(Or a common morality) If morality is relative then really who cares I don't have to obey the common morality. I can do as I please. There is always the one who goes against the common morality the serial killer or whatever and causes great harm to their fellow man. If morality is relative then it would not matter what the serial killer did. Reality tells us different however because we would deem that this individual is breaking the common morality. Maybe universal morality might be a better word.
I would say that morality at its root has to to with the recognition that other human being have a similar experience to ours, and it is a feeling of compassion or fairness that causes us to see it as wrong to intentionally cause others harm.
Is this absolute? I suppose so. But nevertheless it is evolved for reasons of the survival of the species (and se ...[text shortened]... ourselves. A judge doesn't care whether you were morally correct, he cares what the law says.
Manny
10 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI don't think your claim is "BS" (as you put it) , what I notice is that you have used a fruit as your centrepiece.
I don't know how long I want to continue this silly discussion with you to be honest. Oranges are objective morality; this I claim is true by decree. (mirroring your pathetic claim that God is objective morality-by decree)
Think my claim is BS?...ditto with yours
Now if you had created an orange God of some sort who could permeate the universe with an objective "orangeness" that would have been different. If you had said that your orange God was able to vindicate and justify all values of orangness at the end of time whereby all that would be left of existence would be oure orangeness , then that would also be fine. But a fruit. I fail to see how such an insignificant piece of organic matter coild actually create the conditions for an OMF.
It's not the value of orange that's the problem with your value system - it's the fact that it's just a fruit. A judicial/legal system that claimed that only those who painted their faces orange were righteous would be interesting . However , without a police force or army to enforce such a thought - it would be irrelevant.
God by definition is not irrelevant. If he doesn't exist then he is , but the idea of God is coherent and consistent with the idea of OMFs , because God can vindicate those values - oranges can't.
10 May 10
5 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterLet me correct you KM, God is, by your definition, not irrelevant; and this is a belief on your part.
I don't think your claim is "BS" (as you put it) , what I notice is that you have used a fruit as your centrepiece.
Now if you had created an orange God of some sort who could permeate the universe with an objective "orangeness" that would have been different. If you had said that your orange God was able to vindicate and justify all values of ora tent with the idea of OMFs , because God can vindicate those values - oranges can't.
I however do not share this belief. The only definition I would (charitably) assign to a god (be it yours or any other) is that it is in some way supernatural (and either it exists or does not exist). I have no reason or arguments presented to me that would force me, logically, to draw any further assumptions from this premise. I have no reason to rule out the possibility that any god is a total b***ard, that it is a liar, that it needs help from another entity creating universes, that it plays no part in creating universes, that it has an aversion to chewing gum, that it is constrained by certain (possibly supernatural) laws, that it is female, that it isn't omnipotent, etc...
Also, if you hold to the position you do that good is what God believes is good then you completely trivialise the notion of goodness (since as (I think) AthousandYoung elegantly stated in the other thread, baby rape is "good" if your god, (unknown to you, and assuming for argument's sake it exists) believes this to be so)
Your claim that uppercase 'G' Christian god is objective morality is an assertion you make as being self evidently true. This line of thought however, applies only to you and other Christians that share your view (ie: not me). You cannot then argue that I must, logically, find discomfort and absurdaties with my position in the conclusions which follow; since from the outset, I didn't accept your premise!
To explain this, if a person (due to a cute division by zero argument) believes it obviously true that 2=1, it is not valid they conclude *I* am forced to accept all maths is trivial given all collections of things, and all numbers/ quantities are equal. (Since I don't accept 2=1)
Only you (and those who share your position) believe "God is coherent and consistent with the idea of OMFs"
I don't.
One more edit:
...But a fruit. I fail to see how such an insignificant piece of organic matter coild actually create the conditions for an OMF.
I fail to see how creators of universes create the conditions for an OMF
10 May 10
4 edits
Oh and one more point, do I really need to spell it out, that my usage of oranges was an argumental tool? that is a parody of your argument???
I'd hate for you to waste any more of your time and my time painstakingly explaining how oranges can't be morality by simply referring back to the fact that God isn't an orange. I don't care what your god is claimed to be (or not be)...your argument doesn't work.
15 May 10
Originally posted by AgergThis thread is about how we define what real morals and real morality is as opposed to morals that are just opinions and totally relative and subjective.
Oh and one more point, do I really need to spell it out, that my usage of oranges was an argumental tool? that is a parody of your argument???
I'd hate for you to waste any more of your time and my time painstakingly explaining how oranges can't be morality by simply referring back to the fact that God isn't an orange. I don't care what your god is claimed to be (or not be)...your argument doesn't work.
You see no reason to say that morals are fixed and seem to be saying that morals can be anything - perverse , compassionate , fruitbased , anything at all.
Fair enough , therefore you should have no problem in me saying that torturing babies for fun is morally Ok. If morals are just things that we make up for ourselves then this should be no problem for you.
The difficulty is that we all have within us a CONVICTION that certain things are just plain wrong and that's that. Intellectually we talk about moral relativism etc but when the ***t hits the fan we resort to a sense of moral certainty and appeal to certain moral facts or "givens" without having any idea why we hold such things to be true.
That's the difference with Christians , we know WHY we hold certain things to be unequivocally morally wrong (like torturing babies) - however do you know WHY you believe torturing babies is morally wrong?
If you really believe morality is open ended and can be potentially orangy or based on some fruit or something then you would not believe that torturing babies was morally wrong - period. Or do you?
15 May 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterDo you think that the moral code that you feel with such conviction would match that of an average citizen of ancient Rome? Or a mediaeval peasant? Or a pre-Colombian Mesoamerican? Look around you - even today people are able to have fundamental differences of opinion regarding moral issues while both being convinced they have the moral high-ground.
This thread is about how we define what real morals and real morality is as opposed to morals that are just opinions and totally relative and subjective.
You see no reason to say that morals are fixed and seem to be saying that morals can be anything - perverse , compassionate , fruitbased , anything at all.
Fair enough , therefore you should h ...[text shortened]... ng then you would not believe that torturing babies was morally wrong - period. Or do you?
16 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterAgain Peter Pan, you're failing to see my point that I do not object to the notion absolute morals (even though they don't fit my own worldview)
This thread is about how we define what real morals and real morality is as opposed to morals that are just opinions and totally relative and subjective.
You see no reason to say that morals are fixed and seem to be saying that morals can be anything - perverse , compassionate , fruitbased , anything at all.
Fair enough , therefore you should h ng then you would not believe that torturing babies was morally wrong - period. Or do you?
* -->>I OBJECT TO YOUR CHOICE OF BASIS FOR OBJECTIVE MORALITY <<-- *
Someone wishes to assert that burning babies alive is objectively wrong as a brute fact?...so be it, one can take it as a self evident truth, an axiom. Your problem with this is that there is no allusion to fairy dust or magic
That's your problem not mine.
Also from the belief system you're championing one could conclude that you were (prior to being a fully fledged Christian), a hideously cruel & sadistic monster. At the very least I should infer your every thought is tainted by an evil desire to cause grievous harm to other humans; and that these thoughts are restrained only by your fear of the great CCTV camera in the sky.
Is this the case??
Do you wish to mutilate babies but restrain yourself only for the purpose of appeasing your god??? 😕
If so you are beneath contempt!!! 😠😠😠😠ðŸ˜