This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
The answer is I don’t know because It has not been revealed. Just as I don’t know the spacial location of the Glorified Christ right now.
Or you for that matter
peace
fifth,
So after all this time and all this dodging — including your lame “he was with God” answer — you’re now admitting that you don’t know where he was?
Will you also admit that you don’t know that he was there? Maybe he deincarnated after mooning Moses and only reincarnated the next time an “intervention” was needed.
You have no idea. You’re just making shit up.
Moving on to question 2:
If your answer is “I don’t know”, then just say so instead of wasting our time with these transparent dodges.
he was with God
where?
needed by who?
From the atemporal perspective of the Father outside the universe there is no time at all.
No before no after only an eternal now.
From our perspective when he is needed by us he is always right there at exactly the right time and place.
peace
Again with the temporal perspective questions. Surely you get how fruitless and silly these sorts of questions are.
Christ is always present from God’s perspective and always around when he is needed from ours.
Christ did not die if that is what you are asking.
Except that one time.
peace
keiths:
fifth:
Too late, fifth. I’ve already accepted your answer:
As I said:
Okay, on to question #2.
You’re making shit up again. Why would a rational person accept your claim?
what claim?
do you mean this one?
https://youtu.be/BVpLCnpuUYA
peace
Holy Christmas.
The Christian god is imaginary.
Prove me wrong.
Thank you.
How do you know this?
I just did 😉
peace
fifth:
keiths:
fifth:
Don’t play dumb, fifth. It isn’t necessary.
You claim that Jesus died exactly once. Why would a rational person accept your claim?
In your framework, that’s only true if God does not exist to provide a foundational basis for knowledge. You seem to be under the impression that case 2 assumes the nonexistence of god, but that’s not so. Case 2 assumes that God exists and, in addition. case 2 assumes that Satan exists.
In a situation where God exists to provide true revelation and Satan exists to provide falsehoods which are (as far as us fallible humans are concerned) utterly convincing semblances of true revelation, how does John Doe distinguish between “I have received a true revelation from God” and “I have received what I believe to be a true revelation from God, but this belief is false because the purported true revelation from God is actually a Satanic lie”?
fifthmonarchyman,
That is not an operational definition. Wikipedia doesn’t do too bad a job explaining what one is: “An operational definition is a result of the process of operationalization and is used to define something (e.g. a variable, term, or object) in terms of a process (or set of validation tests) needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity.”
What you posted is almost the opposite.
Ive already covered this multiple times but I’ll do so again just for you.
One way to know that a particular proposition is revelation is to ask yourself if knowledge would be impossible if you were wrong about it. If it would then you are not mistaken.
Here is a another sentence for you that smells of Godel.
If God is not good knowledge is impossible
I know this therefore God is Good.
and here is another
If God is not omnipotent knowledge is impossible
I know this therefore God is omnipotent.
I could go on but you get the point.
All that is left with these propositions is to demonstrate that attributes like goodness and omnipotence are necessary for revelation and revelation is necessary for knowledge.
I can do this simply by asking how knowledge is possible in the absence of a God with these attributes. As I have been doing here for a while now. Ive yet to be disappointed .
There are also other ways to determine you are not being mislead (1st john 4:6 for instance.)
long story short
Once you understand that all knowledge comes from God all sorts of avenues present themselves for verifying revelation . On the other hand if you continue to deny revelation you are simply out of luck.
peace
The test is simply the possibility of knowledge.
knowledge is possible if the being so defined exists and impossible if he does not exist.
If you disagree simply tell me how you know this.
please be specific
peace
revelation 😉
quote:
For the death he died he died to sin,…….. once for all,………. but the life he lives he lives to God.
(Rom 6:10)
and
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered………. once……… for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
and
Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared……….. once for all …………at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to ……..die once………, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered………. once………. to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
(Heb 9:25-28)
end quote:
peace
fifth,
Yes, if your point is that inane premises lead to inane conclusions.
fifth,
You’ve backed yourself into another corner, though you don’t realize it yet. (Please keep doing so. It’s entertaining.)
You’re adamant that Jesus died only once, on the cross, and you claim that God revealed this to you.
Yet if that were true, it would mean that the body that Jesus inhabited when he mooned Moses in Exodus 33 was the same body that died on the cross. (Either that, or Jesus inhabits two bodies simultaneously — see below.)
In other words, Mary gave birth to the same body that Jesus used to moon Moses. How did Jesus pull that off? Did he shrink himself down and implant himself in her womb?
Question #7 is now relevant:
Now that you’re committed to the idea that Jesus died only once, how do you explain how his body got into Mary’s womb? Did she give birth to a very large baby, or did Jesus shrink himself before the implantation?
Or if you want to go with the “Jesus has two bodies” approach, where is the second body — the one that never died?
What a mess you’ve created for yourself, fifth.
So you subjectively define it.
So you say. Prove it.
It doesn’t matter that all the worlds theists all subjective agree on that definition. That doesn’t make it objectively true.
First you write “If there is no objective morality you have no right to complain about how others behave.”
I ask “Says who? Who are you to tell me what rights I have?” in response to your claim that I don’t have some particular right – and that is how you answer. I’m sorry but that makes no sense because that is not what the definitions of subjective and objective mean. Your answer is straight up nonsensical.
Please explain how the definitions of subjective and objective entails that I do not have a right to complain about how others behave. I’d like to see you try.
I’m denying that you are using the terms subjective and objective correctly because they do not explain why I don’t have the right you claim I don’t have.
You ask me that when I write “Almost all of us want to live in relative peace, security and happiness. I think we should work together to try to achieve that.”
The answer is rather obvious, since that is (if I’m correct in my estimation) what most of us want.
To you, yes. To them, no.
No I don’t think so. I don’t see how our lives are improved by making you king of the world.
All you’re showing is that morality is subjective. But I already agreed with that, I don’t believe an objective morality exists. That doesn’t mean we can’t have morality. And you still haven’t shown that an objective morality exists or what it is.
Not at all. To be self defeating means to entail a contradiction with some founding principle. If you think there is one please point it out.
Actually yes I did. We should work together to achieve what we want. Since it is actually the case that the vast majority of us want to live in realtive peace, security and achieve happiness, then I think we should work together towards that end.
At no point is theist outrage better justified by all the God-malarkey (or Natural Law, an even more bizarre concept). God wired me thus / evolution and upbringing wired me thus. God has standards / I and people I admire have standards. And so on.
Of course, if I don’t even have an objective standard of ‘better’ …
Outrage is necessarily a subjective state. Does anyone feel objective outrage? They are pissed off purely because something else does not like X, when they themselves aren’t bothered either way?
Exactlty.
First of all “same” is a slippery concept when it comes to phyisical bodies.
Is your body now the same one that you had as an infant when all most all the materiel that makes up your body is different now than it was then then?
Second of all if Christ could walk on water and through locked doors I don’t see and problem with what you suppose if such a thing were indeed necessary.
You keep forgetting God is omnipotent he can do anything that is logically possible by definition.
peace
No God is Good therefore God is good.
Nothing subjective in that sentence. God is good by definition if your assumed God is not good then you have assumed a strawman and not God
let’s see if your opinion is only your own you have not right to expect someone who is not you to share that opinion.
What am I missing?
Why “should” we get what we want? Why should we want anything in particular?
If I want to be king should I be king? If I want to be a ham sandwich is that desire proper?
It is the case that the majority of the folks in ISIS what a global caliphate and sharia law.
Is it proper for them to work together to achieve that goal?
peace
It’s only subjective if you are not God
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
You are not God. And therefore it is subjective for all human beings. You still haven’t justified human outrage on behalf of this entity’s non-arbitrary view.
For them, yes, or they’d not be doing it.
They examples you use undermine rather then support your position.
geeze
surely you know an is does not imply an ought
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
peace
Correct I’m not God but I can share his outrage.
Do you think it’s impossible for God to communicate his outrage in such a way so that I may feel it as well?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No. But accounting for the source of a sensation is not justifying it. Do you think it impossible that genetics and environment can result in a given sensation of outrage?
And, as you have agreed, unless you are a perfect conductor, there must be some things on which you feel outrage but God does not, and vice versa. Is God communicating his outrage to ISIS, when they see a cartoon of Mohammed? They probably think so, if they share your peculiarities on the source of their anger. Why to them and not to you? Couldn’t be culture, could it?
So, some portion of your outrage is unjustifiable even by that dubious criterion, if you claim all of an atheist’s is.
You’re right, that one is just question-begging fallacy. You have your conclusion in your premise.
Who makes the definitions? Subjects.
I haven’t made assumptions about whether god is good or bad. I have merely shown that you have yet to demonstrate that god is objectively good. All you have offered is subjective reasons. When you define god as being good, you are merely acting subjectively. Coming up with a definition is a subjective action. God does not become objectively good because you sit there and subjectively define god to be good.
I have the right to expect whatever I want to expect. Whether somebody meets that expectation is another matter entirely. My opinion, in so far as it is mine, is only my own I could have told you that. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other people who don’t share a similar opinion.
But, what do you mean by a right, anyway? You seem to think a right is something that MUST happen, instead of merely a desired outcome of sorts.
“What we want” is a rather broad statement. I don’t think we should all get everything we want. I don’t even think we can.
I can’t tell you why anyone *should* want something. Nobody can. I can tell you about the consequences of certain (in)actions, but if these fail to persuade you, then we have hit philosophical bedrock. Either somebody or something compels you to want something at some point, or you lie inactive in your bed until you die.
Maybe you want a glass of water? Why? Because you’re thirsty! Why should you act on your thirst? Because if you don’t for too long, you’ll start to suffer as the thirst grows more intense and if you still don’t care, you eventually die. Why should you care that you die? Well, if you already don’t have a care in the world, then there is no argument or evidence that can be erected to compel you to care in the first place. Either there is something you want, and or/something you want to avoid, or if there isn’t then we hit bedrock and can go no further.
The same would be true even if you believed in god. We could go on to say that god might throw you in hell if you don’t comply with his nature or intentions. Then you could ask why you should care? Because you’ll be tortured. But if you don’t care about that, how could you be made to care?
I don’t think there are any objectively morally “right” answers to those questions.
No, I don’t think you should, because I wouldn’t want to live under your rule.
Yes, that’s a fine desire. I like ham sandwiches too.
According to them, yes. According to me, no.
I already told you I don’t believe in objective morality. Why do you keep asking questions that are presumably designed to show me that my morality is subjective. I already agreed that it is. But I believe your is too because you have so far only given me subjective reasons for your morality.
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s an unevidenced assertion. You’ve made it a number of times. I’ve noticed that when this claim of yours is challenged you never actually support it but attempt to avoid your burden of proof by asking questions of the people who ask you to do so.
I suggest that you create an OP to hold your entire argument, beginning to end, that justifies this claim. Are you up for that?
Don’t need to know this. Just like I don’t need to know that a turtle orbiting the Earth and controls our weather doesn’t exist. No one needs to know or prove a negative. In fact, all I need to note is that the claim of such entities adds nothing to any sort of understanding of how things in this world and universe actually work.
Those who insist any such extraordinary entities that leave no evidence of their existence are actual, real entities are the ones with any sort of burden if they wish their claims to be considered valid. Now, if you don’t care whether your claims are considered valid, and you don’t care that your beliefs have no business being fostered in public life because their unsupportable, and you don’t care that your religion is losing members and is slowly dying off, then hey…you are under no obligation to do anything. But let’s not pretend I or anyone else have anything to prove concerning any sort of lack of belief or lack of acceptance of the fantastic or delusional.
O ye who wish to gain realization of the Supreme Truth, utter the name of “Vishnu” at least once in the steadfast faith that it will lead you to such realization.
Rig Veda, V.I.15b.3.
Just as the sun’s rays in the sky are extended to the mundane vision, so in the same way the wise and learned devotees always see the abode of Lord Vishnu.
Rig Veda, V.I.22.20.
You study the scriptures, say your prayers and argue; you worship stones and sit like a crane, pretending to meditate. You speak lies and well-ornamented falsehood, and recite your daily prayers three times a day. The mala is around your neck, and the sacred tilak mark is on your forehead. You wear two loin cloths, and keep your head covered. If you know God and the nature of karma, you know that all these rituals and beliefs are useless. Says Nanak, meditate on the Lord with faith. Without the True Guru, no one finds the Way. || 1 || The mortal’s life is fruitless, as long as he does not know God. Only a few, by Guru’s Grace, cross over the world-ocean. The Creator, the Cause of causes, is All-powerful. Thus speaks Nanak, after deep deliberation. The Creation is under the control of the Creator. By His Power, He sustains and supports it. || 2 || The Shabad is Yoga, the Shabad is spiritual wisdom; the Shabad is the Vedas for the Brahmin. The Shabad is heroic bravery for the Khshaatriya; the Shabad is service to others for the Soodra. The Shabad for all is the Shabad, the Word of the One God, for one who knows this secret. Nanak is the slave of the Divine, Immaculate Lord. || 3 || The One Lord is the Divinity of all divinities. He is the Divinity of the soul. Nanak is the slave of that one who knows the Secrets of the soul and the Supreme Lord God. He is the Divine Immaculate Lord Himself. || 4 ||
– SHALOK SEHSKRITEE, FIRST MEHL
Oho! Oho! Rise up, O Teti!
Take your head, collect your bones,
Gather your limbs, shake the earth from your flesh!
Take your bread that rots not, your beer that sours not,
Stand at the gates that bar the common people!
The gatekeeper comes out to you, he grasps your hand,
Takes you into heaven, to your father Geb.
He rejoices at your coming, gives you his hands,
Kisses you, caresses you,
Sets you before the spirits, the imperishable stars…
The hidden ones worship you,
The great ones surround you,
The watchers wait on you,
Barley is threshed for you,
Emmer is reaped for you,
Your monthly feasts are made with it,
Your half-month feasts are made with it,
As ordered done for you by Geb, your father,
Rise up, O Teti, you shall not die!
– The Pyramid Texts
Hail in peace! I repeat to you the good deeds which my own heart did for me from within the serpent-coil, in order to silence strife…
I made the four winds, that every man might breathe in his time…
I made the great inundation, that the humble might benefit by it like the great…
I made every man like his fellow; and I did not command that they do wrong. It is their hearts which disobey what I have said…
I have created the gods from my sweat, and the people from the tears of my eye.
– Coffin text 1130
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunnaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak, so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.
“…When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.”
– The Code of Hammurabi
Then went all the powers to their judgement-seats,
the all-holy gods, and thereon held council,
who should of the dwarfs race create,
from the sea-giant’s blood and livid bones.[3]
– Poetic Edda
I could post thousands of these; there are near as many as there have been civilizations on this planet. And all of them are as valid (if not more so) than what you present.
If what you claim is true, it’s on you to explain why large parts of the world don’t act as you would expect them to.
We do not need oughts.
Oughts are the kind of idea that leads mentally unstable people to commit atrocities.
We have an alternative to ought, evolved over thousands of years. Secular law. Contracts, agreements,and yes, police.
It may not be satisfying to people who crave absolute knowledge, but so what?
Unless your presupposition that the Calvinist God is necessary for knowledge is false
keiths:
fifth:
We’re not talking about a lifetime, fifth. We’re talking about your batshit idea that at one moment Jesus had a full-grown human body and an instant later that body was a zygote in Mary’s uterus.
I’m not forgetting that. I just want to establish that you believe in The Incredible Shrinking Jesus. Have you shared your discovery with your fellow Christians?
Agreed, your point is?
Ok, your point is?
My goal when it come to morality is to try and be outraged at the same things that God is outraged by and to be pleased by the same things he is pleased by.
Just because I have not reached the goal yet does not mean the pursuit is fruitless.
peace
Ultimately God does.
Words have meaning because God exists and communicates with us.
God is objectively good by definition. That is part of what it means to be God
God can
God’s moral opinion on any subject is the objective right one by definition.
Because you act as if objective morality exists while claiming that it does not. I’m only pointing out the inconsistency of such actions especially when they affect others.
It’s objectively wrong to impose your subjective moral views on others
peace
how do you know this?
How do you know this?
How exactly did you make this determination? What criteria did you use? How do you know you are correct?
peace
No they are not.
None of the god’s you posit are capable of infallible revelation.
Only the Christian God can serve as an sure foundation for knowledge.
If you disagree pick one and make your case. Describe your chosen god’s attributes and we can compare it with Yahweh to see it it makes the grade.
one at a time please
peace
All most all of the world acts just as I would expect rebels who reject God’s revelation to act.
It does not surprise me in the slightest that folks don’t agree on moral issues. I see not reason that they would.
peace
So why do you complain when others do things you disagree with?
peace
You are still hung up on the temporal keiths. There is no “moment” or “instant” when we are talking about an atemporal being.
When did I ever say anything about what transpired between the OT Christophanies and the birth of Jesus? I have no Idea how God accomplished what he did but I’m confident that he was capable of doing what ever was necessary
My understanding is the majority position of the orthodox Christians that I know
check it out
http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/johnowen.html
peace
It was revealed to me.
You haven’t proven me wrong with that silly question.
How do you know that?
By who exactly? Be specific
peace
OPs are really not my style but if I was to undertake another one here I don’t think it would be about presuppositionalism or epistemology.
I would prefer it if we could all leave the culture war stuff behind and talk about stuff where there is at least some possibility of agreement between different worldviews.
The only reason I even discuss this stuff is because of the constant drumbeat of atheist propaganda here, I have a hard time letting that stuff go unchallenged.
However if I had my druthers
I’m much more interested in discussing ID here.
That reminds me, how is that simple little one week hack that will falsify my hypothesis coming?
peace
Why does that matter?
We need to establish if your revealer is capable of revealing stuff to you.
If it’s not capable then you are not justified in believing what it reveals.
peace