This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

"You can't criticize God" Continued

#301ThuggernautzPosted 1/24/2013 8:49:28 AM
Suibom posted...
Just curious, what happens to those laws in a state of emergency, or in war time?

Do they stay the same? Unchanging? Unable to be overiden?

Or do the powers that be adjust them, suspend them, or replace them as needed?

Can those laws and those morals be superseded for the greater good by our authorities?

Yes, but rapid and vast changes such as those described are more often abused by dictators. Vastly changing the laws does not change the popular consensus, and can (and has) lead to riots and revolution. Such is the power and value of social consensus.

Because if your laws and morals can change that quickly, and easily, then no, you don't have an infinitely stronger position. You just have one that is currently stable.

Currently.

As opposed to a system that you can't even begin to show exists at all. The weight of evidence still strongly favours my position.
#302JonWood007Posted 1/24/2013 8:59:22 AM
So if you wait long enough, maybe a thousand years or so, and the then current societal moral standards say He's not immoral, then what?! Can we get you on record now for saying God's a bad guy when in a Millenium, He'll be considered a-ok?!


I seriously doubt it will be a ok in 1000 years unless something happens to turn BACK our progress, like a disaster that sends us into a second dark ages. I'd argue the Biblical morality is a primitive morality. It's very ethnocentric and cares little for the lives of everyone else. Modern liberal moralities recognize everyone, including outsiders, as equal, and deserving of life. I'd argue morality now comes from a more evolved conscience than that written by those who wrote the Bible. It's more logical, takes more things into consideration, and is superior.

Just because I believe morality is subjective doesnt mean all moralities are equal. Some do a better job caring for the well being of its subjects/citizens/others than others. I don't believe there's a single best morality, but I believe there are better and worse moralities. Biblical morality seems weak on certain "social justice" issues at times.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#303LunarAmbiencePosted 1/24/2013 11:21:24 AM
This is a duh argument in my opinion. You want to argue for moral absolutism? Is killing against that moral absolutism? Then why is your God killing. Oh, it's different because he's God? So morality is relative after all.
---
The above is both true and false.
#304OrangeWizardPosted 1/24/2013 5:36:49 PM
From: LunarAmbience | #303
Is killing against that moral absolutism?


No.

Murder is, which is unjust killing.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#305OrangeWizardPosted 1/24/2013 5:57:54 PM
From: JonWood007 | #286
You know, I'm really getting sick of your attitude OW, your arrogance.


Get in line.

Yes, my opinions are subjective, yes, my opinions are imperfect, yes, my opinions are open to change


Then as long as you recognize that, we have nothing to discuss.

From: Thuggernautz | #295
Sure I can. By our current societal moral standards, and my own, I absolutely can and do say he is immoral


And that's perfectly fine. However, your societal moral standards and your own standards don't matter.

I don't accept that there is an absolute good because you can't demonstrate such a thing at all.


You don't have to.
Unless, of course, you happen to assume the God of the Bible, because that comes with it.

Nope. Like you are doing, if the Ghost that Never Lies says something that we think is false, then clearly we think wrong because the Ghost never lies.


I agree.
HOWEVER, I never said "what we think is false", I said something demonstrably false, and by that I mean, objectively false.

So , you know, take that

---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#306OrangeWizardPosted 1/24/2013 5:57:57 PM
Well that's interesting, did you not earlier argue for an 'absolute good'? Would that not include morality?


I meant that you don't have an objective moral standard. Without God, there is none.

Further, there is a cultural standard that we use, there is a legal standard, both of which God's alleged actions fail upon.


And both of which count for ****
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#307almasbabyPosted 1/24/2013 10:52:12 PM
Suibom posted...
You can't.

</topic>


You can, but what good would it do you?
#308fudrickPosted 1/25/2013 2:45:48 AM
almasbaby posted...
You can, but what good would it do you?


Kinda like criticizing the concept of gravity, I guess.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#309JonWood007Posted 1/25/2013 9:44:18 AM
I meant that you don't have an objective moral standard. Without God, there is none.


Unless you can demonstrate God's reasoning as perfect, without relying on blind assumptions and fallacies, you're in the same boat.

And both of which count for ****


But are all we have to go by until God demonstrates superior moral reasoning skills.

Why does morality HAVE to be totally objective? MOral subjectivity does not necessarily mean that we'd all rape and kill each other. I will admit that subjective moral systems are never perfect, but at best, they strive to be. I'd rather live in a society that encourages rational discussion and open debate over our morals than one that tells you, this is the way it is, and if you don't like it I'm gonna kill and torture you. Christian theism seems to be a relic from the age of kings to me.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#310ThuggernautzPosted 1/25/2013 10:16:55 AM
OrangeWizard posted...

And that's perfectly fine. However, your societal moral standards and your own standards don't matter.


You are the second Christian on this board to promote the sentiment that social moral standards don't matter. That's quite worrying.


You don't have to.
Unless, of course, you happen to assume the God of the Bible, because that comes with it.


No, your tautological definition does not stand.


I agree.
HOWEVER, I never said "what we think is false", I said something demonstrably false, and by that I mean, objectively false.

So , you know, take that


It doesn't matter. The ghost never lies, that is absolute. If we think something is demonstrably false and the Ghost that never lies says it is true, it must be true. There must be some other phenomena which makes the event appear demonstrably false.