- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,858
- Reactions
- 13,906
I don't think we slang each other off, in fact I enjoy the discussions we have had over a number of topics. It's never got personal as far as I can remember.
I loosely follow this thread, it is good to see Value Collector and SirRumple have a pretty in-depth discussion with strongly opposing views and keep it relatively civil. (Not sure if there was previously a slanging match haha)
Actually, the more I read what you write, the more obvious it is that you are stuck in a fallacious paradox of your own creation.
You rightly are aware that evolution as espoused by secularists does not have a purpose and you are even right to suggest that without purpose we cannot have morality and cannot judge right from wrong. But your argument is fallacious because even though there may be no purpose to our evolutionary existence in a cosmological time frame, that doesn't mean there can be no purpose in our daily existence and struggle for survival.
I expressed how we can have purpose before when I gave one simple example of "wanting to live life without fear" and the morality of the golden rule (a secular construct) would be the best way of achieving that goal, and determining whether actions were right or wrong would be based on whether they complied with the golden rule or not. The Scientific American article gave another example, which you simply laughed off. In reference to William Lane Craig's assertion that non-believers living in a universe without purpose and which will eventually end should not care that there is torture in this world, the response from his debating opponent was: “This strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest. It doesn't really matter? Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured. It doesn't require that this make some cosmic difference to the eternal significance of the universe for it to matter whether a human being is tortured. It matters to them, it matters to their family, and it matters to us.”
You are trapped in a fallacious paradox, just like Zeno and his Dichotomy Paradox (infinite number of halved distances). You are like Zeno arguing with his fellow philosophers that it is impossible for them to walk from their homes to the temple because of the Dichotomy Paradox. His fellow philosophers laugh in bemused amusement, because they have just done that this morning and have done it every morning for the past several years.
You see secularists do have morality and do know how to differentiate right from wrong. It is a fact. The morality of secularism is there in the writings of the great philosophers and humanists. Your claims of the impossibility of that is absurd, just like Zeno's claim.
But what we haven't seen is any example of non secular morality. Grah suggested that it is revealed to us through prayer (or words to that effect). Yet we have not seen any example of this morality that differs from the secular morality of the time. The morality of those who pray is no different to those who do not pray as far as I can see. The popes and church leaders involved in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the torture and burning of so-called witches no doubt prayed, but still managed to commit vile acts. They reason they could do such acts is not because they had some special morality revealed to them, but because they used examples from the OT Scriptures as a guide rather than their own secular morality and humanity. We see the same within Islam. The justification for atrocities is based on the writings of Mohammed.
You see there is only secular morality. That which we as humans have developed over our evolutionary existence. Imperfect, but we are always striving to perfect it. We have purpose in our own lives and so do not need to invent some designing agent to imbue us with purpose. We have seen no new morality emanating from those who claim there is a designing agent. All they have ever given us is a regurgitation of what we already know to be morally correct.
I am really done arguing this issue. You can act like Zeno and insist that what we actually have and demonstrate on a daily basis is impossible for us to have. Until you free yourself from that fallacious paradox argument is pointless.
There you go again. Yes God said some good things , we know that, but also did and ordered others to do some vile things.
You continue to be apologetic to these vile actions. Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies.
Humanity is now a rodent infestation.
All commentators agree that this doesn't apply to God, and for good reasons.
Yes, we know the good reason. They only way they can reconcile God committing or ordering others to commit vile acts with their own morality is to say their morality doesn't apply to God. It's the house of cards fear I dealt with before.
God was bringing justice, not acting wicked as you say. If they continued to live, they would torture themselves. If you can understand the idea behind population culling then this shouldn't be a problem for you. We do not agree here. I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.
And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.
I will go with the Judaic/Christian belief here , that God is good.
.
Is thinking oneself as 'superior' man optimal for natural balance? A better explanation for you killing rodents is they present a risk to your health. We have enough people believing they are 'superior' in the world and to its detriment already.And I do kill rodents for various reasons. They're of a lower life form than me, so no qualms doing what I have to do.
Is thinking oneself as 'superior' man optimal for natural balance? A better explanation for you killing rodents is they present a risk to your health. We have enough people believing they are 'superior' in the world and to its detriment already.
Let's make sure I get this correctly. You are justifying God killing innocent infants based on some supposition, with no evidence to support it, that if they continued to live they would torture themselves.
So based on the Christian teachings we are told that God created man in his own image. That God shows unconditional infinite love and forgiveness for his creation. But then decides to cull them for population control, killing many innocents and for those who may have sinned, showing no forgiveness. Slaughter and torture is what he has in store for them.
Unconditional infinite love, unconditional infinite forgiveness, torture, murder, slaughter of innocents. Seems your Church may be a bit like Humpty Dumpty. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
It seems to me that religious people just assume anything their god character does must be good, he can do the most vile things and it is good by definition because he did it.
Seems silly to me.
My point is that if God creates life, He can take it, .
is that one or 2 people now? Haven't read all your posts but you seem respectful enough. No one is perfect of course. does the ignore button apply to all threads and forums? Hopefully they can deactivate it. I might be careful not to prolong my discussions with people. In case it gets people frustrated or something like that. or they feel addicted to posting at the expense of other commitments in their life.Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.
Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.
Why not VC? Take an abortion. You think that is morally okay (including late term abortions).He can take it, but would that be moral?
I mean simply creating life wouldn't give you the right to kill or torture that life just because you created it.
Why not VC? Take an abortion. You think that is morally okay (including late term abortions).
If a girl decides she doesn't want an embryo growing inside her, then technically that embryo has no right to be there.
Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk.
This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.
In the case of rape, whilst do I recognise that the woman isn't to blame for the pregnancy, the foetus is also an innocent party to the situation!Except in cases of rape a woman and man accept the risks of pregnancy. Contraceptions aren't 100% reliable so there is always a risk. This is really self inflicted injury like a sporting injury and should be insured against.
Whilst observing this somewhat involved debate on morality, I was wondering if any of those with a preference for secularism, could tell me which, of the multitudes of known (by humans that is) species has the most right to life, and how this was determined.
Edit: It just occurred to me that those preferring the secularist view, may have succumbed to the temptation to make use of the ignore feature of this forum.
One has openly declared it,but, I would be very surprised if others haven't decided that they'd prefer to exclude my posts from view. For example, devotees of Deacon Dick Dawkins have been known to react strongly to anyone expressing their contempt for him and his antitheist sermons.is that one or 2 people now? Haven't read all your posts but you seem respectful enough. No one is perfect of course. does the ignore button apply to all threads and forums? Hopefully they can deactivate it. I might be careful not to prolong my discussions with people. In case it gets people frustrated or something like that. or they feel addicted to posting at the expense of other commitments in their life.
I didn't say God was doing population control. My point is that if secular moralists understand population control and abortion and the death penalty (the purpose of each), then you shouldn't have any problem with these stories.
Jesus mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood, and yet the love of God. St Paul mentioned some of those harsh stories too, but also the love of Christ. So we would go on forever disagreeing with each other.
You skepticism leads you to this conclusion. While my faith leads me to my views.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?