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

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#161countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 1:51:12 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Count, I've been reading your posts, and you were the one arguing from ignorance by saying that because we're not omniscient, we cant make evaluations about God. The other guy was just asking you to demonstrate your point. You're shifting the burden of proof here.

As for proving objective morality exists to a degree without God. Here's what I want Christians like Count who argue this to do. Hold out one of your hands straight out, palm down. Use your other hand to slap the back of the hand you held out. What do you feel? Pain, right? It stings. Is that a good feeling? Probably not. Is it a feeling most people like to feel? No. Okay. So to avoid making people feel pain, shouldn't we make rules to stop people from causing harm to others? I suggest anyone who buys into this "morality is totally opinion without God" nonsense to read some political theory. A few philosophers that may be particularly helpful on this subject are Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes discusses why government, even tyrannical government, can be superior to pure chaos, and Locke discusses the concept of the social contract, which IMO is an important part of grasping morality without God.

[Too much to quote.]


You can make evaluations about God, but not sound conclusions. God would know more about a situation than we do. To use the analogy again, a man's saying that God is definitely evil is like a child's saying his parents are definitely mean.

I disagree that relative morality is an adequate substitute for an objective one. If I were an atheist, I could justify any of my actions. Other people are not me. So why should I care if they're unhappy? Say I wanted to rape a woman. If I knew for a fact I wouldn't get caught, what incentive do I have to leave her alone?
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#162fudrickPosted 2/17/2013 1:56:35 PM
countzander posted...
I disagree that relative morality is an adequate substitute for an objective one. If I were an atheist, I could justify any of my actions. Other people are not me. So why should I care if they're unhappy? Say I wanted to rape a woman. If I knew for a fact I wouldn't get caught, what incentive do I have to leave her alone?


I'm not quite sure you understand the concept of relative morality. It doesn't necessarily mean, "as long as nothing negative happens to me, I might as well do whatever I want"
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#163countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:04:16 PM(edited)
Actually in God's case that's arbitrary and circular, although I've beaten that to death before. I'm sorry, but going back to my "the universe has objective consequences" line, God does great harm in the Bible without adequately demonstrating it.


Things aren't sequential. Good doesn't always lead to good, nor bad to bad.

Morality is not based on the whims of some being arbitrarily. There is intelligence behind good morality, which means that it is based on something else, like consequences. If God exists, and committed the crap he did in the Bible, I welcome him to explain the logic in his actions. Until then, you're just arguing from ignorance.


How do you know that intelligence must be behind good morality? Why can it NOT be arbitrary? It's wrong to smoke your dad. But if a homicidal maniac holds a gun to your head and orders you to smoke your dad, I think smoking your dad has become good. You're preserving two lives...

Saying that something is moral means nothing unless you have the ability to punish those you consider wrong. In that sense, I think God has a monopoly on morality.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#164countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:03:53 PM
fudrick posted...
countzander posted...
I disagree that relative morality is an adequate substitute for an objective one. If I were an atheist, I could justify any of my actions. Other people are not me. So why should I care if they're unhappy? Say I wanted to rape a woman. If I knew for a fact I wouldn't get caught, what incentive do I have to leave her alone?


I'm not quite sure you understand the concept of relative morality. It doesn't necessarily mean, "as long as nothing negative happens to me, I might as well do whatever I want"


Relative morality means that whether or not an action is good depends upon the standard by which the action is measured. In the United States, one of our standards is equality. So racism is immoral. In Nazi Germany, the standard was a form of social Darwinism, so racism was moral. If my standard were "whatever makes countzander happy," something would be morally good if it made me happy. This is in contrast to objective morality by which something is moral regardless of what countzander, the United States, or Nazi Germany think.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#165JonWood007Posted 2/17/2013 2:04:31 PM
You can make evaluations about God, but not sound conclusions. God would know more about a situation than we do. To use the analogy again, a man's saying that God is definitely evil is like a child's saying his parents are definitely mean.

I disagree that relative morality is an adequate substitute for an objective one. If I were an atheist, I could justify any of my actions. Other people are not me. So why should I care if they're unhappy? Say I wanted to rape a woman. If I knew for a fact I wouldn't get caught, what incentive do I have to leave her alone?


1) Once again, argument from ignorance.

2) You have a really warped view of morality. It's called empathy.


Things are sequential. Good doesn't always lead to good, nor bad to bad.


You don't say. People normally justify their actions though somehow.


Things are sequential. Good doesn't always lead to good, nor bad to bad.



How do you know that intelligence must be behind good morality? Why can it NOT be arbitrary? It's wrong to smoke your dad. But if a homicidal maniac holds a gun to your head and orders you to smoke your dad, I think smoking your dad has become good. You're preserving two lives...

Saying that something is moral means nothing unless you have the ability to punish those you consider wrong. In that sense, I think God has a monopoly on morality.


Arbitrary morality means that one morality is no better than the other. You're not arguing based on its merits, but its source. And you define that source as arbitrarily good.

You also are pointing out there are exceptions to rules. No freaking crap. That is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Also, your last paragraph is might makes right, which is a primitive and brutish concept. Seriously, read into the social contract. Morality is best when people give their consent to be governed. Governance without consent is tyranny.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#166fudrickPosted 2/17/2013 2:15:05 PM
countzander posted...
Relative morality means that whether or not an action is good depends upon the standard by which the action is measured. In the United States, one of our standards is equality. So racism is immoral. In Nazi Germany, the standard was a form of social Darwinism, so racism was moral. If my standard were "whatever makes countzander happy," something would be morally good if it made me happy. This is in contrast to objective morality by which something is moral regardless of what countzander, the United States, or Nazi Germany think.


You'd still have to accept that so called "objective" moral standard in order to follow it, so it's not much different, honestly. Not to mention the fact that "objective morality" is generally just a subjective morality allegedly born of a mind more powerful than ours.
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#167countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:23:05 PM
1) Once again, argument from ignorance.

2) You have a really warped view of morality. It's called empathy.


One, it's not an argument from ignorance, and, two, it's called enjoying what limited amount of time you have. I don't see why atheists go to these great length to demonstrate they can be good people when they don't have to be good people. I would revel in the freedom. >:)

... Also, your last paragraph is might makes right, which is a primitive and brutish concept. Seriously, read into the social contract. Morality is best when people give their consent to be governed. Governance without consent is tyranny.


When it comes to God, people are unable to give their consent. Unlike a human government which can be overthrown for violating the social contract [Free Syria.], there's nothing anyone can do to overthrow God. Like having a gun to your head, it's best to just do what God says. You've nothing to gain by doing what you think is right.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#168countzanderPosted 2/17/2013 2:29:14 PM
fudrick posted...
countzander posted...
Relative morality means that whether or not an action is good depends upon the standard by which the action is measured. In the United States, one of our standards is equality. So racism is immoral. In Nazi Germany, the standard was a form of social Darwinism, so racism was moral. If my standard were "whatever makes countzander happy," something would be morally good if it made me happy. This is in contrast to objective morality by which something is moral regardless of what countzander, the United States, or Nazi Germany think.


You'd still have to accept that so called "objective" moral standard in order to follow it, so it's not much different, honestly. Not to mention the fact that "objective morality" is generally just a subjective morality allegedly born of a mind more powerful than ours.


Fine... But if I can add to my previous definition, I think an objective morality should have some means of independently enforcing itself, rather than relying upon humans to carry it out.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#169DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/19/2013 7:05:18 AM(edited)
Feel free to take this as a cop-out/win/whatever, but I'm ready to move onto my next topic and you've pretty you're a fundamentalist Christian that will only be a negative influence on the world. Having to show objective proof of morality to contradict God's morality is silly. We'll take away the word morality if you're going to grasp at straws so desperately. God's judgment of humans is a threat to humans and application of his morality is a threat to the freedoms of many humans. In that case, I will stand and defend my freedoms, even if it makes me the moral equivalent of Stalin. If God would just hurry up with that 2000 yr long due explanation (or just proof), my trust issues would start to disintegrate.

I have empathy, gets me a lot farther than God's morals ever did. My freedoms end where another's begin. If ruling over someone's life, with the threat of punishment glooming over me if I **** up, is moral I'm not sure how moral I wanna be. I definitely want a reason to trust the person more so than I would trust a person holding a gun to my head demanding I give him money.

in general, it seems Christians are mainly arguing about faulty senses and lack of proof of morality nowadays. when I have to throw away all morality, and assume the statistical anomaly of the faulty senses is impacting all the knowledge I have, then wake up. Just wake up. Why still believe? It's about the thinnest straw anyone's ever come up with.

And I end with, you are not omniscient, so do not judge how the different death quotes of Jesus impact anything.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#170OrangeWizardPosted 2/19/2013 8:39:18 AM
From: DarkContractor | #169
Having to show objective proof of morality to contradict God's morality is sill


No, that's actually quite logical, but you wouldn't know anything about logic, now would you?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.