Keith

Yes, it is morally wrong. We have all been given God's law to which our conscience testifies.

dangin

Keith, just curious, are you going to continue to only answer the challenges that you think you have an argument for, or are you going to find an answer for the dozens of points that totally dismantle you which you have thus far ignored?

brighid

No I do not believe it is acceptable to reject a class of people who are immoral on a specific point.

I do believe the individual should be judged individually, period.

It is unlikely that I would have a close association with someone who has been proven (not merely accussed) of being a child molestor, especially being a mother. To do so would very likely put my child in foreseeable danger.

I would also say that a stated belief in a God, however ignorant that might be, is a far cry from that of a convicted child molestor. I am uncomfortable with the attempt to make parallel comparisons between the two.

Brighid

brighid

Ensign Steve,

I clearly stated in when I said:

If you would like further clarification I would be more then happy to oblige. (just a note: I will be leaving shortly and won't return until Tuesday so I will be unable to answer outside of the next hour.)

Brighid

Pyrrho

Your ignorance of quantum mechanics is probably not analogous to a Christian's belief in their version of Christianity. You probably lack positive beliefs about quantum mechanics, but in order to be a Christian, one must have positive beliefs about Christianity (if they lack belief, they are agnostics, not Christians, regardless of what label they may apply to themselves). Of course, you could have silly beliefs about quantum mechanics, but I suspect that you are really more of an agnostic about such things.

brighid

I think this is a terrible statement. One may be wrong, without being immoral. You can supply the wrong answer to a question, based upon the knowledge one has without being immoral.

I do agree that beliefs affect action and one should be careful about those beliefs, but then one should be judged by action as a result of those beliefs. If those beliefs don't result in immoral action can one be immoral for holding a misinformed, or ignorant belief?

One could believe in God and yet be an honest, forth right, good person in all other respects. Should these things be ignored in deference to his God belief to judge the individual immoral? Or should the individual be judged as mistaken?

As an atheist the same standard can be applied to you. Do you wish to be judged as immoral because you disbelieve in Gods? Are you more then your lack of belief?

What if one has never been provided the opportunity to see other evidence, and all the evidence they have had the privilege of reviewing points to a God existing?

What about those people who have been indoctrinated, or brainwashed into believing something .. are they immoral because of it? Is a cult victim immoral for falling victim to mind control, social coercion, etc.?

Brighid

Mageth

Originally posted by me:

Now, is killing your child who curses you morally wrong, and if so, how do you know it?

Keith's reply:

Yes, it is morally wrong.

Then why was this an OT law? Where's god's "objective moral standard" gotten off to?

We have all been given God's law to which our conscience testifies.

Now fill me in on how one can derive an objective moral standard from that? Do you naively think everyone's conscience "testifies" to the same moral laws? And if so, I'd like to see you list these "objective" moral laws all of our consciences are testifying to.

brighid

I would agree. However, all Christians do not hold the same beliefs and cannot be said to hold anything more then a belief in a specific God. Some people can self-identify themselves as "Christian" without believing in Christianity the religion (or the Bible) and hence the slippery slope in determining ALL Christians are this, that, or the other.

I am completely ignorant of quantum mechanics and therefore I have no opinion. I could however, hold false ideas (based on limited information I might have) about quantum mechanics and make a positive claims about QM and according to your reasoning this would make me immoral.

Brighid

Pyrrho

You previously stated:

That seemed to equate one being "unworthy of friendship" with the idea that that one "lack[s] value as a human being". You are the one who introduced the idea that someone lacks value as a human being, not anyone else in this thread. Since you now say that you did not mean to equate those two, why did you introduce the idea of lacking value as a human being into the discussion?



Although it is "one point", it still tells us something meaningful about them. And what it tells us is not good.



You need not be a hypocrite by saying that one should reject people (for friendship) based upon their beliefs, depending upon how those beliefs are selected.

In my case, I want people to want me to follow Clifford's advice and believe only when there is sufficient evidence (or Burger's refinement of believing in proportion to the evidence). I want them to follow Clifford's advice as well, for otherwise they are a danger to others. See: http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html

So, I am following the "Golden Rule" as well, for I am doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.



It seems odd that you regard Christianity as "silly" and "dangerous", but then say that it is inaccurate to call those with those silly beliefs "stupid". What is it to be stupid, other than having silly beliefs?

Ensign Steve

I'm sorry I missed that the first time! That does explain your position.

Would it be fair then for me to say this?:
* I do not expect people who are against homosexuality to extend their friendship to me. Regardless of how I feel about their opinion of homosexuality, I would not be surprised or hurt if they didn't want to be my friend, given that I am a homosexual.
* If, by that same token, I do not extend my friendship to Christians based solely upon their Christianity, that is not hypocritical.