My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Shaker]

Like a great many theists DBH seems to think that 'real' only means 'objective, absolute' - why, I have no idea. Existential discomfort with the ideas of the contingent, the local, the specific and the temporary, i.e. reality, I guess.

I would like to know if he spends any time addressing the rather obvious counter that a great many people throughout history have believed in 'real goodness' - including but not limited to a real goodness stemming from a god - and a lack of a spirit of charity and moral responsibilty to others have been quite notable in their effects upon the human body.

Another superb post by the way, enki.

The geneticist Jerry Coyne did a great series of posts picking apart DBH's tome on his website, incidentally.

[trippymonkey]

It reflects their own nature, Floo. Those who tend to be nice people believe in a nice God.

Yes Again it brings us back to the old thing of 'Making god(s) in our own image'
Makes perfect sense as look at what kind of horrendous bastard the Jews worshipped as they romped around the Middle East doing much the same thing as Muslims did with that awful creature called Al-Lah literally just The God ?!!?!? Still doing it now quite royally even now with those
murderous unbelievable IS !!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, still ignoring the problems with your own position and sticking to the argumentum ad consequentiam...

And...?

Of course there are problems. But since your position has collapsed what are you doing admitting your own position is riddled with logical contradiction, pointing out that moral realism has problems and so we must accept the first untenable position.

Yes we've all noticed that you've done a double argumentum ad consequentium.

Of course one doesn't settle for an argumentum ad consequentium. One seeks candidates and only accepts it one finds one. That successful candidate for moral reality is God and has to be experienced. Not conjured as an intellectual answer or factoid.

You settle for an argumentum ad consequentium not I.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like a great many theists DBH seems to think that 'real' only means 'objective, absolute' - why, I have no idea. Existential discomfort with the ideas of the contingent, the local, the specific and the temporary, i.e. reality, I guess.

I would like to know if he spends any time addressing the rather obvious counter that a great many people throughout history have believed in 'real goodness' - including but not limited to a real goodness stemming from a god - and a lack of a spirit of charity and moral responsibilty to others have been quite notable in their effects upon the human body.

Another superb post by the way, enki.

The geneticist Jerry Coyne did a great series of posts picking apart DBH's tome on his website, incidentally.

Two things
1: You completely ignore the term moral relativity which I think sums up the position of many. That renders your moral position 'unreal'.

2: Read Feser's destruction of Coyne's works or rather his description their own self destruction. It eats Coyne for Breakfast and then excretes him.

[Shaker]

Two things
1: You completely ignore the term moral relativity which I think sums up the position of many. That renders your moral position 'unreal'.

No it doesn't.

You have to demonstrate that relativistic is equal to/a synonym of 'unreal.'

Best of luck with that one, Vladdychops

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't.

You have to demonstrate that relativistic is equal to/a synonym of 'unreal.'

Best of luck with that one, Vladdychops

Red Herring. If you guys are effectively saying that two opposing moral positions can be right or wrong simultaneously then in what sense can their rightness or wrongness be 'real'

[Shaker]

Red Herring. If you guys are effectively saying that two opposing moral positions can be right or wrong simultaneously then in what sense can their rightness or wrongness be 'real'

Gracious. Seems like you don't know what the word means.

Ah well. No surprises there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gracious. Seems like you don't know what the word means.

Ah well. No surprises there.

Seems to me you don't.

[Shaker]

Yup, pretty sure I do.

Merriam-Webster:

: actually existing or happening : not imaginary
: not fake, false, or artificial
: important and deserving to be regarded or treated in a serious way

[Sassy]

Nicely put - the idea of reciprocal kindness as espoused by the Golden Rule is surely the pinnacle of human ethics.

What can possibly be greater?

It has to be mutual to work. It doesn't work as well as the way of Christ, because we are called to love even those who do not return or give us kindness as you put it. Being kind can be feeding the birds. In the greater scheme of things they are not the same thing at all. Not a moral good or even ethical in that it really serves the self not the other person.

[Sassy]

-sigh-

This has been gone through in detail before and you just ran away from all the difficult questions.

Morality is (obviously) more important than Marmite.

Whether or not you think morality is objective, we are stuck with the fact that there is no objective means of discovering what is actually morally right. Hence, all our moral decisions are subjective anyway.

You also seem to be flirting with an appeal to consequences fallacy.

You have to establish a moral code first... Where does the moral code to treat all equally even those with religion.
A can and worms this discussion. No one has really given this much thought.

[Sassy]

Dear Khatru,

I was talking about Christians and the fact that no two could ever agree on all the detail that make up a true Christian.

I don't think I would ever say "the Bible God" that says to me he/she/it is a Jewish or Christian God, God is everyone's God, I don't think God discriminates, in fact I don't think he favours anyone, we are all Gods children.

One day the goats and sheep will be separated.
The bible is clear that true Christians are people born of the Spirit and Truth.
Whilst people may perceive the definition differently God knows those who are alive in him.

The Golden rule runs through nearly all religions, it is not confined to Our Lords teaching, and as I am constantly being told, Jesus was not the first to come up with this Commandment.

Jesus was the first to come up with the truth of what the commandments and the teachings of the Prophets were summing up.
To love God and to love your neighbour as yourself.

To be honest I have never actually thought about it, I am not here to evangelise, not here to convert you to Christianity, if I have a mission, to simply put the thought of God in your mind, I will say if you accept Jesus into your life you better have a damned good think about the Golden Rule, this is how you worship God, so whatever your faith might be, or no faith, if you follow the Golden Rule you are worshipping God.

Gonnagle.

Jesus said: " I am the way, the truth and the life." He is a way not a rule.

[Sassy]

 

Contrast that with believers like Sass and TW who refuse to condemn the slaughter (even of babies) when it's their deity of choice who's responsible.

Ignorance may be bliss and even though it has been shown that the killing of a few babies which would be few at the time of the flooding was simply so that they would not be left to die a horrible death when no adults left to look after them.
The humans killed their own like yourself they brought their own death sentences upon them.
Just as the people who murdered their children sacrificing them to gods were themselves and off-spring killed to put an end to such evil and allow people to learn to live the right way.

What you cannot do is compare it to the same type of people today already named who slaughtered people in the name of power and of greed. Showing mans nature is a cruel and evil one at it's best. You are two-faced...even double standard...
You would think nothing of putting people like Hitler and Idi Amin for their crimes against humanity. But when God takes action to remove them you cry foul.

You haven't a God and you have no love of justice of truth. But the truth is God was just in destroying those who killed their children by sacrificing them to idols in pagan worship. Just because they were committing crimes against God and man.

So really we remove dictators and we remove those who murder who are terrorist. He just did it earlier.
And who knows if you weren't trying to make God a man you would see you too will pay for your crimes against humanity.
It is time for you to be brought to the truth. You just cannot win against God because what he did saved the world and kept man from dying off by killing their own children.

[Sassy]

How those who believe the Bible to be literally true with all the ghastly deeds attributed to god, can still describe it as a 'god of love', goodness only knows.

He stopped mankind destroying themselves by killing off their off-spring. If he allowed those who offered child sacrifices to idols, those pagan religions who had no moral conscience or even feelings for their own children to kill them. Eventually mankind would have died out. Because adults would be next when no children born and even with children dying in infancy as they did a lot then and women in childbirth eventually there would have no children safe. They would have took children from other places and eventually mankind would die out.

You moan like hell but haven't the sense to see that God did what he did to save us. Both mankind from killing themselves off and from sin allowing Christ to be born. You cannot win with stupid people as  those stupid people cannot think for themselves. They cannot see  as to why a pagan belief; (in which a tribe/nation used their children for sacrifice offerings)  that when no children of their own left would eventually kill anyone elses children and cause mankind to die out in that age. An age where few children made it past childhood or died in the first two years anywhere from birth.

It is ridiculous that any person could not fathom it out for themselves.

[Sassy]

Like a great many theists DBH seems to think that 'real' only means 'objective, absolute' - why, I have no idea. Existential discomfort with the ideas of the contingent, the local, the specific and the temporary, i.e. reality, I guess.

I would like to know if he spends any time addressing the rather obvious counter that a great many people throughout history have believed in 'real goodness' - including but not limited to a real goodness stemming from a god - and a lack of a spirit of charity and moral responsibilty to others have been quite notable in their effects upon the human body.

Another superb post by the way, enki.

The geneticist Jerry Coyne did a great series of posts picking apart DBH's tome on his website, incidentally.

Do you know something, Shaker,

Without other people to write and tell you what to think, you like many on other would have nothing to put in your posts.
Good thing us believers only require the truth from God in Christ.
We don't need humans to tell us what to say or what to believe.
Seems you pretty much do what you accuse Christians of doing. Allowing others to tell you what to think and believe.
This post of yours above pretty much proves that.

[Sassy]

No it doesn't.

You have to demonstrate that relativistic is equal to/a synonym of 'unreal.'

Best of luck with that one, Vladdychops

Explain both terms separately and show why anyone would need to show them to be equal.
Then apply it to what Vlad said.  You just repeat what books say. But give us your explanation of the argument you use also.

[Sassy]

Gracious. Seems like you don't know what the word means.

Ah well. No surprises there.

Ahh well here is you chance to prove it... Just answer my last post to you above this one.

ETA.....waiting.....waiting...LOL/

[trippymonkey]

Isn't it 'funny'?!?!?

One can SOOO easily justify the most horrendous acts of mankind & god as per Sass's posts ?!??!

[floo]

He stopped mankind destroying themselves by killing off their off-spring. If he allowed those who offered child sacrifices to idols, those pagan religions who had no moral conscience or even feelings for their own children to kill them. Eventually mankind would have died out. Because adults would be next when no children born and even with children dying in infancy as they did a lot then and women in childbirth eventually there would have no children safe. They would have took children from other places and eventually mankind would die out.

You moan like hell but haven't the sense to see that God did what he did to save us. Both mankind from killing themselves off and from sin allowing Christ to be born. You cannot win with stupid people as  those stupid people cannot think for themselves. They cannot see  as to why a pagan belief; (in which a tribe/nation used their children for sacrifice offerings)  that when no children of their own left would eventually kill anyone elses children and cause mankind to die out in that age. An age where few children made it past childhood or died in the first two years anywhere from birth.

It is ridiculous that any person could not fathom it out for themselves.

That is total nonsense. If god is omnipotent why would it have to jump through so many crazy hoops to 'save' humanity? All it has to do is wave its magic wand and hey presto! 

[Stranger]

Of course there are problems. But since your position has collapsed what are you doing admitting your own position is riddled with logical contradiction, pointing out that moral realism has problems and so we must accept the first untenable position.

The only contradictions occur when you try to treat the subjective as if it was objective. Many of the most important things we humans do are subjective. Morality is (as I pointed out before) a complicated and messy process involving individuals in societies.

Yes we've all noticed that you've done a double argumentum ad consequentium.

Of course one doesn't settle for an argumentum ad consequentium. One seeks candidates and only accepts it one finds one. That successful candidate for moral reality is God and has to be experienced. Not conjured as an intellectual answer or factoid.

You settle for an argumentum ad consequentium not I.

I see "argumentum ad consequentiam" is yet another term you don't understand.

As for the "successful candidate" being a god that is experienced, that is about as subjective as it gets. Just look at how many different gods and moral codes there are in the world, based on that notion.

There simply isn't an objective moral code available to us. That is an observed fact that we have to live with. Believing that there is objective morality is of no practical use if there is no objective means of accessing it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only contradictions occur when you try to treat the subjective as if it was objective. Many of the most important things we humans do are subjective. Morality is (as I pointed out before) a complicated and messy process involving individuals in societies.

I see "argumentum ad consequentiam" is yet another term you don't understand.

As for the "successful candidate" being a god that is experienced, that is about as subjective as it gets. Just look at how many different gods and moral codes there are in the world, based on that notion.

There simply isn't an objective moral code available to us. That is an observed fact that we have to live with. Believing that there is objective morality is of no practical use if there is no objective means of accessing it.

The trouble is that moral subjectivists act like moral objectivists.
The contradictions of logic make thinking morality subjective and acting as if it is objective unjustified particularly when you wouldn't countenance such dissonance in other contexts......call this the marmite dilemma for moral relativists.

How we act when we act morally is that we are striving for the truth, for goodness, for being better, for progress and that is suggestive of belief in moral objectivity.

Of course there has to be a candidate to remove an argumentum ad consequentium. You are choosing your view as the default position which you have no warrant for. God is one but atheistic moral objectivists might point to altruism or love.

In yours and Hillside's hands you make any objection to your position as an argumentum ad consequentium.

Read the entry on moral relativism in Wikipedia and remind yourselves of the criticism of it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Funny innit how those who would assert objective morality seem to have carved out just that one area of human experience for this special claim, but not others. They don't for example also claim that a sunset is objectively beautiful rather than something we intuit and, if pressed, could speak to as its beauty being our subjective response.

Just pretending that people behave as if their morality was objectively true - surely no-one sane would do that would they, as only a cursory look at the remarkable changing attitudes to gay rights in the last few decades would tell you - is the least of their problems. Even if you could eventually find someone who behaved as if his morality was objectively true, you'd still have all your work ahead of you to build a bridge from that behaviour to his morality actually being true.

Mind you, if ever someone could manage an argument for that it'd be fun watching him build a moraloscope or some such so he could go looking for where this morality might exist outside of human experience. Tinfoil hats on boys!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just pretending that people behave as if their morality was objectively true - surely no-one sane would do that would they

We all do it. Every time you mention the superiority of your own morality and the inferiority of others you do it and by doing it contradict your base assertion that morality is whatever you like or, as you have said, suits you.

[BeRational]

We all do it. Every time you mention the superiority of your own morality and the inferiority of others you contradict your base assertion that morality is whatever you like or, as you have said, suits you.

We all do it, and we all have slightly difference views. So where is objective?

[Stranger]

The trouble is that moral subjectivists act like moral objectivists.
The contradictions of logic make thinking morality subjective and acting as if it is objective unjustified particularly when you wouldn't countenance such dissonance in other contexts......call this the marmite dilemma for moral relativists.

How we act when we act morally is that we are striving for the truth, for goodness, for being better, for progress and that is suggestive of belief in moral objectivity.

You are still blatantly using an appeal to consequences. If there is no objective morality, there is no objective morality; it doesn't matter how difficult that makes it to deal with.

We have to deal with reality as it is, not how we might like it to be.

Of course there has to be a candidate to remove an argumentum ad consequentium. You are choosing your view as the default position which you have no warrant for. God is one but atheistic moral objectivists might point to altruism or love.

You really do need to look up what "argumentum ad consequentiam" means. It's what you did above, in pointing out the problems associated with subjective morality. That is not an argument for objective morality.

Morality as subjective is what we observe. People (individuals and groups) have moral codes. There is no absolute, objective test for morality.