JGL53

Speaking of god's will:

A fire in a Chicago nightclub kills 21.

A fire at a club in Rhode Island kills 95.

A fire on a Staten Island barge burns 100 k barrels of oil, kills 1.

Damn, Keith, what is god so angry about?

Is it something I said?

Eikonoklast

I say your morals are simply a fabrication of your mind. Even if you attribute your morals to god, you cannot prove that they are anything more than a fabrication of god's mind. You can't even prove that god would have morals in the first place. You can't prove there is a god period, much less start attributing characteristics to said god.

This entire section is patently false.

Yes I have. I have provided man's life as the sole source and objective standard for morals.

You, on the other hand, can't even prove that god would have morals period, much less be the source of objective morality



What have I refused to answer? I simply ask that you answer some questions yourself and support your statements instead of dismissing the answers of others WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING STATEMENTS WHATSOEVER.



Everything? I can't even get you to provide the answer to a single question pertaining to one of your claims -- namely, that god provides an objective moral standard.

Not only have you avoided directly answering my own question, you have repeatedly done the same with others.




Ah jibberish!

Man's life is the sole source and objective standard for morality.

Now, you?

Keith

Prove this, or can you?

Keith

Eikonoklast

Please reread my posts. I've already gone over this.

Values, the source of morals, is inseperable from the valuer, that being man. Man has values because he is a finite, goal-driven being, who has the ability to succeed or fail in obtaining those values based on choice.

With man's life, come values and morals. Thus, man's life is the objective standard for morality.

Now, can you prove anything besides: "God is moral because God is moral"?

Keith

Are you saying that man's values are objective because man has values, or because man's values are all the same?

Keith

Answerer

Hey guys, can't you all see what Keith is trying to say? He had being purged by saints and therefore his interpretation of God's words is sure to be right. While we, as infidels, should listen and bow to his 'wisdom'.


:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Shadowy Man

My point is that I can't conceive of any reason why eating shellfish is immoral. According to you, my moral conscience has been given to me by God, but it clearly states in the Bible, a self-authenticating accurate representation of reality according to you, that eating shellfish is immoral.

So which is correct, my God-given moral conscience or the Bible?

Sue Sponte

What I've gleaned is that Keith believes what he believes, irrespective of reason, and has convinced himself that anyone who doesn't believe as he does has no moral compass or reason for being.

Questions for Keith:

As a non-Christian:

Why do I love my children dearly, sacrificing material gain to be a meaningful part of their lives?

Why have I never cheated on my wife?

Why does my family engage in a number of charitable pursuits?

Why have I never killed?

Why do people like me?

How do you live in a world where so many people, in your view, have no ability to understand reason or morality?

Why do I know that you won't give serious consideration to these questions and instead merely restate your conclusions without meaningfully analyzing the signficance of these issues?

If you are correct that non-Christians have no basis for anything because of the lack of a "worldview" (whatever the heck that is), then none of these things make any sense. But little you've said makes any sense, so I suppose you will simply re-state the gobbly-gook that you've been repeating for more than a week.

What is it that prevents you from meaningful self-analysis, and why are you fearful of considering other viewpoints?

P.S. Your responses on the "do you eat seafish" question have convinced me that you refuse to critically question your views. It's a simple question, yet you refuse to answer. I presume most reading this thread have reached the same conclusion, and also presume that you have no comprehension of how that may be.

James Hamlin

My first post on the board, and I think its useless here, seeing as Keith seems to be fairly arrogant and closed-minded, but I'll continue.

You mention, Keith, that one MUST allude to an authority in the end of an argument, or else the argument does not stand. You continuously allude to god. Now, if you are to do this without commiting the ad verecundiam fallacy, then you must establish, first, that this authority exists, and second, that this authority is in fact an expert on the subject. Unfortunately, you have only done one of these things, the latter.

WHY can it be said that the morality of god is not
subjective? In order for something to be objective, it
must be based on observable phenomena. Morality is not
observable - it is a personal trait that is defined
personally. If my morality differs from god's, then
each depends on each's perspective. Therefore,
morality is universally subjective, completely
dependent upon one's perspective.

Also, you are most certainly begging the question by claiming that the bible is "self-authenticating." This statement alone makes one doubt your grip on reality, logic, and reason. To be honest, I have no idea how one can discuss/debate with someone who could believe such a thing. It makes me... well, it makes me want to do this: :banghead:
Why is the Quran not self-authenticating?

Some questions, questions you may hopefully give explicit answers to instead of just waving off.

1) If my morality is a reflection of God's, why do I find his actions in the Old Testament utterly immoral?
2) How can an eternal, all-encompassing being, which exists apart from space and time, never changing, suddenly decide to create a universe and govern it?
3) Why would a lone god need morals, and what would they mean to him?
4) HOW can any text be self-authenticating?!!
5) Why must reality have an absolute meaning?
6) You say that there is obvious meaning - explain.
7) If our plane of existence requires a meaning, why does God's not?

You describe subjective morality here as true morality.
8a) What is the point of an objective morality if it is not applied and not known?
8b) If you disagree with me, explain how the above quote describes objective morality.

You seem to be full of contradictions, Keith, much like the bible. No offense.

Keith

The bible is correct, and you have a duty to God not to ignore your God-given conscience. If you believe that the bible is telling you not to eat shellfish, it would be wrong for you to eat it. There is at least one NT passage that seems to indicate that the OT dietary law, and certain other OT religious laws such as circumcision are no longer essential. For what it's worth, I don't understand the OT law forbidding the eating of shellfish either.

Keith