Prolescum
New Member
RedYellow said:Your just doing what every theist apologist does, you project your own idea of what people who don't think like you are. Stop arguing with people in your imagination and talk to us.
This bears repeating.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
RedYellow said:Your just doing what every theist apologist does, you project your own idea of what people who don't think like you are. Stop arguing with people in your imagination and talk to us.
Define "good".Josephhasfun01 said:Moral law is good. Without it would not have any sensible way to distinguish between right and wrong, justice and injustice.
australopithecus said:I was in the process of writing a convoluted reply to your convoluted reply to my convoluted reply and decided it was too convoluted. If you want to assert absolute morality exists then fine, there are worst thing to assert, however it dawns that it's a side issue. The main show is the foundation of morality, now clearly you're asserting God as the foundation, so until you can demonstrate this is accurate we're going to remain at an impasse.
I am unconvinced that absolute morality exists, and this includes some very good arguments for seemingly objective morals based on evolutionary theory, so if you're going to invoke God you'll have to work very hard to make a decent case for it.
Plagiarism? Really? And you purport to be in a position to fucking lecture us on morality?
You're suggesting (or Turek is, fuckwit that he is) that there even is such thing as an 'ought'. Can you actually demonstrate that? By what metric do you determine what 'ought' to be?
Actually, the opinions are irrelevant, and only demonstrate yet another instance of digital thinking. Maturity is correlated with age, but it isn't determined by age, for the simple reason that humans mature at different rates. The reason for defining a particular age is simply that we're talking about legislation, which can only function where things are clearly defined, or there can be no justice.
Legislation is not morality, however, it's rules.
Bollocks. Age has fuck all to do with it, from a moral perspective. In reality, younger people have distinct advantages over older people in some respects.
Certainly not, but anecdotes do not objective principles make. Pointing to how people do behave as an attempt to support the objectivity of something is fallacious. Now who's confusing 'is' and 'ought'?
Utter fucking horseshit. I certainly wouldn't reach for a gun in any circumstances other than immediately life-threatening ones. I most certainly wouldn't reach for a gun when confronted with a child, regardless of his intentions toward my daughter. In any event, this example has nothing to do with morality.
For me, the conversation would be the same in both cases, not least because guns and violence are for fuckwits. I prefer reasoned discussion.
Wrong. Parental responsibilities are not moral responsibilities. Yet another false conflation, coupled with a fatuous bad analogy.
You can question what the fuck you like. I certainly question your ability to be a good parent, if your first instinct is to reach for a gun when confronted with a child. In fact, I venture that you should never be allowed near children, and I certainly question your purported understanding of what constitutes fucking morality in light of the above.
The age of consent isn't a moral determination, it's purpose is to serve as a line in the sand, in an effort to makes rules as objective as possible. This has bugger all to do with morality.
Do you have any new fucked-up analogies? You already used this fuckwittery before, and it was bollocks then as well.
Really? You should talk to Islamic states about this. Indeed, since the prophet of that religion himself engaged in paedophilia, engaging in the practice of 'thighing' when Aisha was only 6 years old, and consummating the marriage when she was 9. Where is your fucking 'ought' now?
Objective rules, yes, although only objective in a very narrow sense, namely the sense that they are the same for all people living under those rules. The problem is, of course, that rules are still not morality. Indeed, the very fact that we have laws at all is an argument against the existence of objective morality, because if there really were such a thing, we wouldn't actually need rules.
Absolute drivel, and yet another topic you clearly know sweet fuck all about. Why do christians perform elaborate rituals before partaking of the sacrament? Is that because they realise that there's something wrong with it?
Using the burden of proof in order to slip away from addressing the argument shows you really have no argument against objective moral law.We don't actually need to disprove the existence of objective morality. There's this concept, perhaps you've heard of it, it's called the burden of proof. In this case, it's entirely yours. You assert fuckwittery, you fucking support it.
Lack of objective meaning =/= lack of meaning. That we actually have a metric to determine these things (due caveats regarding the existence of 'evil' aside) gives those statements meaning. There is no requirement for that meaning to be objective.
And the problem with this is..?
Then they have no objective meaning. Again, this is a problem because..?
It refutes any argument resting upon the value we allegedly place on life.
Valuable to whom?
Because taking a life does not equal valuing it. Precisely the opposite, in fact.
It does if the chosen punishment is one that rails against the alleged value we place on life, especially in circumstances in which there are other options available.
I should point out that not only killers are sentenced to death. Indeed, there is a case of a British woman in Indonesia at the moment who's been sentenced to death by firing squad for smuggling cocaine, another crime that has fuck all to do with morality.
Bollocks, not least because revenge =/= justice. Only in very rare circumstances is execution justified, and serial killers and drug smugglers never meet the criteria. I only know of one case in my lifetime in which I thought the death penalty was justified, and it had zero to do with parochial laws.
Well, as it happens, I don't agree with the above statement. Rape isn't detrimental to society, although it could be argued that allowing it would be. In any event, the statements do not contradict each other. That some cultures do not agree on specifics does demonstrate subjectivity in the definitions of the law, but those are rules, not morality. That some laws are defined with a clear eye to morality while others are not is a beautiful demonstration that morality is not objective, because if it were, then laws would be defined the same in specifics everywhere. That there exist laws that have nothing to do with morality is all the refutation required for any example you bring up that is rooted in legislation.
Imprisonment of criminals is forcing them against their will. Therefore by definition imprisonment is not accepted anywhere by any culture at any time. Oops!
See where really fucking poor reasoning gets you?
Except no, because I just cited an example of something that refutes your position wholesale.
Why should I bother to do that, when I can show that you haven't actually engaged any sort of reasoning to any of this?
Oh really? Yet another statement you can't remotely defend, not least because I've refuted every word of your ignorant bollocks in detail.
Alas it does not matter because people are gonna see your argument failed in a big way.
[/quote]It's almost a shame that we're not in the same room, so that I can see your face when you see how comprehensively your arguments have been eviscerated. Here's a tip: Those aren't purple shoelaces, they're the entrails of your idiotic arguments
australopithecus said:Just a tip, Joe. Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.
Prolescum said:[. . .] Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. Moral Law exists, it is written on our hearts. [. . .]
australopithecus said:We have told you; empathy. All social animals display some form of basic morality based on empathy and continued social cohesion. We extrapolate on this because we are more complex and intelligent animals. You want to posit God as the cause of morality, a self caused God that exists timelessly and eternally ever ever, and then you accuse others of circular logic?
If you had any concept of self awareness it would be satire.
Josephhasfun01 said:So are you positing we get our morals from animals?
God is not self caused. He is self existent. there is a huge difference there Austra.
Josephhasfun01 said:God has written the moral law on our hearts.
That is not circular.
The buck stops at a first cause.
Unless you prefer circular logic?
By all means, if you disagree, tell me where you believe morality originated from?
Joseph, I think this might be of benefit to you:Josephhasfun01 said:So are you positing we get our morals from animals?
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I am positing that morals are derived from empathy, and is shared by other social animals as means to successful social cohesion, and that our morals are more developed because we are more complex and and intelligent animals.
Your argument is still circular, regardless of the semantic games you play.
Josephhasfun01 said:Animals do not have morality Austra. They do however have primal instincts. Only humans have a moral obligations to uphold value to life.
Josephhasfun01 said:My reading comprehension is fine Austra. Maybe your explanations should give a little more detail and we would not have to do all this back and forth?
Animals do not have morality Austra. They do however have primal instincts. Only humans have a moral obligations to uphold value to life.
Well I would like a better explanation other than just an unsupported claim, if you don't mind?