UnDisfellowshipped

Joined

• started 235 topics
• posted 2,749 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by UnDisfellowshipped

• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Satanus said:

  "Doesn't the sociopath disprove your hardwire statement?"

  Quote:

  "Is there in fact a universal moral law, one that everyone agrees with? Is there a moral law such that when one disagrees with that law they are just as wrong as when saying two plus two equals five? It should be noted that determining that there are absolute moral laws and determining what they are are two different tasks. All that is need to show that premise number two is true is to find one example. I give as an example the following: torturing babies for fun is an absolute moral wrong. Now, one might object that if you search hard enough you could find someone who disagrees about that being a moral wrong. First of all, anyone who thinks that torturing babies is morally alright under any circumstance is a sociopath. Second, in all cases with no exceptions, such persons had some traumatic experience, something out of the normal that changed them. So, all people at least started out knowing that torturing babies for fun is morally wrong."

  http://www.formeratheist.org/MoralArgument.html
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  drwtsn32,

  Homer said that the reason why beliefs in God or gods exist is because people have ignorance. He then said that as knowledge increases, belief in God or gods is going away more and more.

  So, I was asking if he was implying that the billions of Theists only believe in God or gods because they are ignorant.
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Parakeet said:

  "I'm an atheist. What god do I serve?"

  According to the Bible, your god would be yourself and your desires (a form of idolatry).
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  As C.S. Lewis said:

  "If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something -- some real Morality -- for them to be true about."

  It all boils down to this:

  If you want to accept the idea that there is no objective moral values or laws, then that's up to you. Then no one has any right to say that anyone else is morally wrong, and no one has any right to say that something is unjust, and anyone can live any way they desire, based on his own moral opinions, and treat anyone else anyway he wants, and no one has any right to say that he is wrong morally.

  No one could objectively say that torturing children is wrong, or racism is wrong. No one could say that it would be objectively wrong for the United States to enforce a State Religion and force everyone to become JW's or Muslims or Fundamentalist Christians, and no one could claim that it is objectively wrong for a country to outlaw Atheism.

  In my opinion, this is a very slippery slope....
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Satanus said:

  "Is that the point of this thread? Can you prove it, directly?"

  I think I made my case in my first post above.

  Everyone demonstrates the "Objective Moral Standard" when they react to injustice, or when they condemn another person's morals. Those actions would be absurd and make so sense and have no meaning without an objective moral standard that we use to determine what is just and unjust, what is right and wrong.

  We even recognize that people who do not have this "Moral Standard" have a mental problem, and we label them Sociopaths.
• 
  125

  The Case for God

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the case for god:.

  the "big bang" argument for god:.

  the argument for god from evil:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Homerovah,

  Are you aware that there are billions of Theists in the world? How many Atheists are there? Are you saying all of the Theists are ignorant?
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Elsewhere said:

  "The same thing that has allowed chimps to develop moral codes amongst their groups: The instincts of social animals. Without such instincts of "good and evil" social animal groups could not exist."

  So, then, you are really saying that it's all based on society's or social groups' standards of how to get along, correct?

  So, then, you really have no objective basis for saying that an entire society or social group (the Nazis under Adolf Hitler, for example) were wrong or evil when they decided to commit genocide or murder or rape people, or to destroy the "weaker" races, or weaker countries?

  And, about the animals:

  What about the animals who kill their weaker offspring?

  Let's say, if a human being were to kill their 6 month old baby daughter, because they believed that this was the "moral" thing to do, or even if their "social group" commanded it, or their society demanded it, would this act then be acceptable to you? If not, WHY NOT? They're just following their "social group"?

  Or, what if YOUR country, determined that it was in the best interests of society or the social group, to rape all females, would this be right or wrong? Or, is there no objective right or wrong?
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Satanus said:

  "Anyways, moral law, ie the bible is just a book written by men, not god. Why bother w the captals?"

  To clarify, when I referred to the "Moral Law" or the "Ultimate Objective Standard," I was NOT referring to the Bible, I was referring to the Objective Moral Law built in to each one of us, our intuitive sense of "oughtness" (how things OUGHT to be), some people call this our "conscience."

  Our Founding Fathers referred to it as "Nature's Law," and at the Nuremburg Trials, the Nazis were found guilty for violating this "Moral Law."

  Now, I'm not an expert about whether or not, monkeys or apes are capable of showing some level of empathy. But, I'm not sure how that detracts from my argument anyway.

  Francis Collins and many others believe in Theistic Evolution. If our Moral Law-Giver, the First Cause of the Big Bang, did use and guide evolution, then surely He could have endowed other creatures with some fraction of a "Moral Law" or empathy as well.
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Sinis,

  I want to thank you for illustrating very clearly for all of us where Naturalism/Materialism actually takes us all if you follow it to its logical conclusion.

  Thanks!
• 
  151

  God, Morals, and Atheists

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my version of the "moral argument for god": .

  (i have derived the following arguments after studying c.s.

  lewis', norman geisler's, and victor reppert's arguments, and i want to give credit where credit is due).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Satanus,

  Thank you for your reply!

  But, what objective basis do you have for claiming that suffering is wrong or immoral or bad?

  Isn't it just your own subjective opinion (or the subjective opinions of others) that suffering is wrong? Why should anyone else accept your own subjective opinion about suffering?

  It's not a "strawman I created". If you read several Atheist books, they will use the "Argument from EVIL" against God. I have seen Atheists on this very website claim that the fact that there is "evil" in the world is a reason why there cannot be a just God.

  When I asked why anyone should be moral, and not go out and do whatever they wanted to do, you said:

  "Because they generally have empathy. They generally don't want to cause suffering, anymore than do theists."

  But why does anyone have "empathy" at all? Why should we care? And if Naturalism is true, then it would just be your own subjective opinion (or the subjective opinions of others) that they should show empathy.

  What basis would anyone have to follow your subjective opinion that they should show empathy? What objective basis would you have to say that those people who DON'T show empathy to others are wrong or immoral?