the right religion

[Enai de a lukal]

The fact you will take whatever side is left explains a lot. The man without conviction is truly ambiguous.

Right- its not a matter of any disagreement over any issue, but rather him being on an ego-trip and needing to prove himself by one-upping me.

***

Ambiguous Guy- I have no interest in debate for the sake of debate, but am more than willing to participate in a one-on-one debate format on a subject I am interested in discussing. You've seen my threads and my posts, so you should have a rough idea about what positions I hold- so find one you disagree with and let me know, and we can have the mods set something up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Right- its not a matter of any disagreement over any issue, but rather him being on an ego-trip and needing to prove himself by one-upping me.

It's a matter of getting you focused on some issue. Any issue. As it is, you jump in and confuse the discussion by trying to tear apart the words and meaning which I'm using with someone else. You duck direct questions, you sneer and crow and cackle. You toss insults out to the crowd from back in the weeds somewhere.

Yes, I'm afraid that hyenas come into my mind when I encounter you sometimes, and so I'm curious to see how you'll do all alone in a room with the lion.

But mostly I just want you to take debate seriously. To see that it's best when it's about God and not about us.

I have no interest in debate for the sake of debate, but am more than willing to participate in a one-on-one debate format on a subject I am interested in discussing. You've seen my threads and my posts, so you should have a rough idea about what positions I hold- so find one you disagree with and let me know, and we can have the mods set something up.

I'm afraid I don't yet love you enough for that. But the next time we meet, I'll spot something, some bit of rancid meat dangling there from between your teeth, and I'll name that as our issue. How about that?

 

[1robin]

I have plenty of convictions. I just don't worship language.

It's my tool; not my master.

The common ground of normal language use and standards is the basis by which communication is effective. The dismissal of that common ground results in effectiveness becoming a casualty of arrogance.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I guess you're practicing for a career as a comedian... This is a good one-

It's a matter of getting you focused on some issue.

Hah!

And this one was also good-

You duck direct questions

But this one takes the cake-

Yes, I'm afraid that hyenas come into my mind when I encounter you sometimes, and so I'm curious to see how you'll do all alone in a room with the lion.

"The lion" being you lol...
But on a more serious (well, relative to the above anyways) note-

I'm afraid I don't yet love you enough for that. But the next time we meet, I'll spot something, some bit of rancid meat dangling there from between your teeth, and I'll name that as our issue. How about that?

Sounds good Hot-Shot, you do that.

 

[1robin]

If you are not pointing out that Christianity is popular and long-enduring, even improbably so, I really have no idea what you're trying to say. And if this is NOT what you're saying, then maybe you should just spit it out already- I don't have ESP after all.

I think the original issue was the lack of success of the Bible's critiques and the success of God's people over the world's opposition. Take that as you wish.

Ah, so that proves that moral realism is impossible without belief in God. Riiiiiight.

I made no point about "realism", and I am not sure what the term even means here. I think you are confusing a comprehension issue with a foundational one. Atheists may apprehend moral absolutes the same as Christians but they have no foundation for it within atheism.

Lol... Honestly, think about that one for a second... You should be able to see how ludicrous that is.

In any case, if you're still laboring under the delusion that it is "an absolute fact" that no one holds that morals are objective AND does not posit the existence of God, you should probably Google "ethical rationalism", a view that holds PRECISELY that- a view held by notable secular philosophers including (but not limited to) Plato, Kant, Derek Parfit, GE Moore, and the British utilitarians.

You should have done your homework, I guess.

I made no claim concerning all of any group. I said the current atheist debaters on the "circuit" almost all concede the point. It requires very little homework to understand that without God natural law is all that is left and can't possibly produce foundations concerning the way things should be. There exists no basis for claiming moral absolutes without a transcendent standard. Every single person or world view is inherently subjective and is not in possession of the slightest ability to generate objective moral claims.

Since you're not really in any position to evaluate it, your judgment here isn't worth much. And it was and is taken seriously not only by professionals in ethics and the history of philosophy, but was and is tremendously influential on the arts and academic theology.

Instead of throwing out names and labels simply state what objective moral truths are founded on in the absence of God.

I have a degree in philosophy, and so seeing people repeat oft-refuted canards they heard somewhere gets a little annoying after a while.

Unfortunately in the moral chaos and lack of evolution (or the progress or moral degradation) simple truths about foundations must be repeated and your labeling them as canards has no power to make them so. Unless you can actually present even a theoretical basis or foundation for moral absolutes then discussion is academic. Let me illustrate what I am asking for. Even without God or a transcendent standard dependent on God, murdering all life known is an absolute wrong based on fill in the blank. I do not think I have even heard an attempt to fill in that blank effectively stated.

 

[1robin]

Right- its not a matter of any disagreement over any issue, but rather him being on an ego-trip and needing to prove himself by one-upping me.

***

Ambiguous Guy- I have no interest in debate for the sake of debate, but am more than willing to participate in a one-on-one debate format on a subject I am interested in discussing. You've seen my threads and my posts, so you should have a rough idea about what positions I hold- so find one you disagree with and let me know, and we can have the mods set something up.

I have debated Ambiguous guy for a while now and have no idea what his goal is. I can usually figure out what kind of thought process or world view is driving a person's discussion fairly quickly but have never been able to detect a coherent view point or motivation for his claims. Our discussions usually only have an entertainment value to them. Kind of reminds me of that old saying: What are you rebelling against? What do you got?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think the original issue was the lack of success of the Bible's critiques and the success of God's people over the world's opposition. Take that as you wish.

Ok, which is nowhere because if you won't tell me what the import of a claim YOU are making is, I'm not going to try guessing.

I made no point about "realism"

Moral realism is the position that good/bad, right/wrong are objective and universal features of the world.

Atheists may apprehend moral absolutes the same as Christians but they have no foundation for it within atheism.

Again, you're making a claim that is patently false. Divine-command-theory is one type of moral realism. There are others, in which objective/absolute moral judgments are founded upon reason (deontology), consequence (utilitarianism), or something else again.

I said the current atheist debaters on the "circuit" almost all concede the point.

Which tells you precisely nothing. You should perhaps stop watching these WLC debates and actually start reading some respectable theology/philosophy- you'll benefit from it.

It requires very little homework to understand that without God natural law is all that is left and can't possibly produce foundations concerning the way things should be. There exists no basis for claiming moral absolutes without a transcendent standard. Every single person or world view is inherently subjective and is not in possession of the slightest ability to generate objective moral claims.

Tell that to the plethora of secular philosophers who've held the position that there are moral absolutes, then.

Instead of throwing out names and labels simply state what objective moral truths are founded on in the absence of God.

I don't subscribe to moral realism myself, so the best I could do would be summarize the positions of those who do. Or, better yet, you could just do some reading yourself- the names I mentioned are a good place to start, or you could simply google "moral realism".

 

[1robin]

Ok, which is nowhere because if you won't tell me what the import of a claim YOU are making is, I'm not going to try guessing.

I do not get this. If you track back the chain of claim and counter claim you wind up back at the original context. I do not see the practicality or precedent for restating the context each line of discussion began from in each additional input. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

Moral realism is the position that good/bad, right/wrong are objective and universal features of the world.

Ok then it (realism as you have defined its use here) does not exist without God. Your replies seem to be that they claim otherwise. I do not doubt someone claims it. I instead claim they are wrong.

Again, you're making a claim that is patently false. Divine-command-theory is one type of moral realism. There are others, in which objective/absolute moral judgments are founded upon reason (deontology), consequence (utilitarianism), or something else again.

Which tells you precisely nothing. You should perhaps stop watching these WLC debates and actually start reading some respectable theology/philosophy- you'll benefit from it.

Since I can't get a single example of what besides God objective values are based on I maintain that all the study possible will never turn up one.

Tell that to the plethora of secular philosophers who've held the position that there are moral absolutes, then.

Claiming someone claims something is not an argument in this context. On what basis is it claimed?

I don't subscribe to moral realism myself, so the best I could do would be summarize the positions of those who do. Or, better yet, you could just do some reading yourself- the names I mentioned are a good place to start, or you could simply google "moral realism".

I have asked for something far simpler than all this and something you should know very well given your claims. On what foundation besides God can moral absolutes be justified? I am not going to spend days or weeks looking for something than is a theoretical impossibility especially since you claim to know it. I have already spent hundreds of hours in research (regardless of your opinion of that research) and never even heard an attempt beyond one's atheists admission of assuming the foundation within atheism for moral absolutes.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have debated Ambiguous guy for a while now and have no idea what his goal is. I can usually figure out what kind of thought process or world view is driving a person's discussion fairly quickly but have never been able to detect a coherent view point or motivation for his claims.

In your world of Us vs. Them (or 'my side' vs. 'your side', as you like to phrase it), I must seem like a most perplexing man.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The common ground of normal language use and standards is the basis by which communication is effective. The dismissal of that common ground results in effectiveness becoming a casualty of arrogance.

You really do say the strangest things. Bizarre, really.

 

[1robin]

In your world of Us vs. Them (or 'my side' vs. 'your side', as you like to phrase it), I must seem like a most perplexing man.

My position is truth verses falsehood to the best of my ability to determine it. Your the one who indicated you would assume the opposite side of any issue than the one taken by the other. I do not debate personal sides. You are perplexing for many reasons that do not flatter you in the context of debate but I intend nothing personally offensive in my comments. I am not judging you simply your argumentation. I have not the slightest idea what criteria you have for your arguments or position. They just seem ambiguous and arbitrary.

 

[1robin]

You really do say the strangest things. Bizarre, really.

Maybe if I type slower. 1. To discuss truth we need a common definition of it. 2. Your dismissal of that concept strips the possibility of resolution from the discussion. 3. The claim to be above common standards or have no need for them has no other motivation beyond arrogance that I am aware of, even possible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Maybe if I type slower.

Oh, I understood your post perfectly well. It was just so bizarre. I got a vision of 1robin sitting down and laboriously constructing a couple of long, convoluted sentences, word by word, and then standing back and admiring his construction before posting it for all to see.

Of course, the sentences had no apparent connection to our dialogue, but at least you were having fun, I guess.

1. To discuss truth we need a common definition of it.

Yet every time I ask you to define your terms, you run away.

Last time -- just a few days ago -- it was 'murder' which you pretended to forget to define for me. We were discussing objective moral truth; you pointed to Thou-Shalt-Not-Murder; I asked you to define murder in your own words; you suddenly 'forgot' to answer.

Don't worry. Most everyone fears that, to define the words which they so casuaily toss around in debate. They assume the words mean what they think they mean but couldn't define them in their own words for all the riches of the East.

2. Your dismissal of that concept strips the possibility of resolution from the discussion.

What the heck could you possible be talking about? My dismissal of what concept exactly? The concept of 'truth'... which you refuse to define?

There is no concept unless a word is defined, 1robin. A concept is a definition.

3. The claim to be above common standards or have no need for them has no other motivation beyond arrogance that I am aware of, even possible.

I have no idea to whom your're speaking, but it seems a bit impolite to turn and speak to others while we are in the middle of a conversation.

But whatever. I've seen you do much worse.

 

[1robin]

Oh, I understood your post perfectly well. It was just so bizarre. I got a vision of 1robin sitting down and laboriously constructing a couple of long, convoluted sentences, word by word, and then standing back and admiring his construction before posting it for all to see.

Of course, the sentences had no apparent connection to our dialogue, but at least you were having fun, I guess.

Your confusion concerning my claim is confusing.

Yet every time I ask you to define your terms, you run away.

That is strange thing for a person who dismisses definitions to demand nor is it something I remember. I do hate getting involved in semantic arguments that die the death of a thousand qualifications.

Last time -- just a few days ago -- it was 'murder' which you pretended to forget to define for me. We were discussing objective moral truth; you pointed to Thou-Shalt-Not-Murder; I asked you to define murder in your own words; you suddenly 'forgot' to answer.

I forgot that I had forgot. I will readily concede that I forget things. Murder is the taking of life (human) without moral justification for doing so. I actually am pretty sure I said this same thing to you before.

Don't worry. Most everyone fears that, to define the words which they so casuaily toss around in debate. They assume the words mean what they think they mean but couldn't define them in their own words for all the riches of the East.

I may forget I do not fear. Have you forgotten that your the one that dismissed the entire concept of defining words? Not me.

What the heck could you possible be talking about? My dismissal of what concept exactly? The concept of 'truth'... which you refuse to define?

No, the concept of the common ground of accepted definitions for words.

There is no concept unless a word is defined, 1robin. A concept is a definition.

Nor is there even the possibility of a definition with a person who dismisses the texts that state the definitions.

I have no idea to whom your're speaking, but it seems a bit impolite to turn and speak to others while we are in the middle of a conversation.

Oh come off it. It is very common for a person to comment on a statement not directly made to him. The only offense is if it is taken in context it did not originally appear within.

But whatever. I've seen you do much worse.

Ok

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Murder is the taking of life (human) without moral justification for doing so

Thank you for the direct answer. I was sure that our new friend was mistaken in his insistence that 'murder' must always tie back to legal statutes, but I'm glad to hear you confirm that legality had nothing to do with your definition.

By 'moral justification' you mean 'approved by God.' Yes?

A killing is morally justified if God agrees that it is justified?

So the commandment, the moral absolute, is saying, "Thou shalt not take another human life in a way which displeases Me."

Before we go on, can you agree or disagree with my analysis so far?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Thank you for the direct answer. I was sure that our new friend was mistaken in his insistence that 'murder' must always tie back to legal statutes, but I'm glad to hear you confirm that legality had nothing to do with your definition.

By 'moral justification' you mean 'approved by God.' Yes?

A killing is morally justified if God agrees that it is justified?

So the commandment, the moral absolute, is saying, "Thou shalt not take another human life in a way which displeases Me."

Before we go on, can you agree or disagree with my analysis so far?

Keep on posting I am just gonna stand by and wait for things to get good opcorn:

 

[Sha'irullah]

What I find funny is this needlessness to justify a religion's existence. So many religions have created great harm to humanity and the very toleration of the religion and the religious adherents must be justified.
Christianity was stamped out of Russia for this very reason. The benefit of the religion claiming to be solely correct is essentially none as no religion making such a claim has been validated and in fact invalidated. Only ignorance of reality makes one cling to it still. The negativities to social output are what make it highly destructive and giving the inner desire for the adherent of the faith to prove its validity and claims.

 

[1robin]

Thank you for the direct answer. I was sure that our new friend was mistaken in his insistence that 'murder' must always tie back to legal statutes, but I'm glad to hear you confirm that legality had nothing to do with your definition.

I am lost. Who is our friend? and are you talking to me?

By 'moral justification' you mean 'approved by God.' Yes?

I am not sure how to define this just yet. In the meantime let me state it this way. There exists some justification that would allow the taking of life I hope we can agree. By that standard whether I can articulate it (I have no burden to do so for the point to be true BTW) the correctness of the action is determined. Let's just call it X until I can examine how to state it that is satisfactory to myself but I do think that God would be the ultimate source for it, which was pretty much the issue at hand.

A killing is morally justified if God agrees that it is justified?

The justification whether the act was just or not is determined by the one being that even has the theoretical knowledge base to determine this yes. You seem to be playing word games. If God exists as the Bible characterizes him then yes his verdict is absolute fact and no basis exists to claim otherwise though it is not true because he declares it. He declares it because it is true. Your looking for your precious tautology hail Mary as hard as possible are you not? God demands what is moral. It is not moral simply because he demands it. I thought we had already done this.

So the commandment, the moral absolute, is saying, "Thou shalt not take another human life in a way which displeases Me."

There is no problem unless you can show that what pleases him is not in fact moral nor reflective of absolute fact.

Before we go on, can you agree or disagree with my analysis so far?

I thought me and the other poster had dismissed this tautology issue previously.

 

[1robin]

What I find funny is this needlessness to justify a religion's existence. So many religions have created great harm to humanity and the very toleration of the religion and the religious adherents must be justified.
Christianity was stamped out of Russia for this very reason.

You surely are not referring to the great triumph of the well known communist utopia of the nightmarish soviet union are you? I would think the 20 million deaths at the hands of it's omniscient leader would have indicated the massive mistake that turned out to be. Religion was driven out of Russia because Lenin, Marx, and Stalin hated the concept of it in general not because of any particular violent episode of Christianity as it existed there.

The benefit of the religion claiming to be solely correct is essentially none as no religion making such a claim has been validated and in fact invalidated.

The claim to the exclusivity of theology is consistent with the exclusive nature of truth its self and is far more consist with logic by far. Plurality is one of the most self refuting concepts possible in theology.

Only ignorance of reality makes one cling to it still. The negativities to social output are what make it highly destructive and giving the inner desire for the adherent of the faith to prove its validity and claims.

As this concerns Christianity I can see how anyone who agrees with the USSR could hate the hundreds of hospitals, entire public school systems, and the most generous demographic on Earth (Western Christian conservatives). By all means bring back the politburo and the Czars and stop this madness.

 

[Sha'irullah]

You surely are not referring to the great triumph of the well known communist utopia of the nightmarish soviet union are you? I would think the 20 million deaths at the hands of it's omniscient leader would have indicated the massive mistake that turned out to be. Religion was driven out of Russia because Lenin, Marx, and Stalin hated the concept of it in general not because of any particular violent episode of Christianity as it existed there.

We have resorted to lying it appears.

I never said Christianity was violent in Russia I clearly said it brought about harm (not i the physical sense) to the new government. It brought about ignorance and social division.

The claim to the exclusivity of theology is consistent with the exclusive nature of truth its self and is far more consist with logic by far. Plurality is one of the most self refuting concepts possible in theology.

But the religion has been disproven or invalidated (depending on Christian interpretations). In your case it is disproved.

As this concerns Christianity I can see how anyone who agrees with the USSR could hate the hundreds of hospitals, entire public school systems, and the most generous demographic on Earth (Western Christian conservatives). By all means bring back the politburo and the Czars and stop this madness.

Again with the lying it seems. I never claimed to agree with anyone yet alone the USSR which butchered Communism.

Also you fail to mention the fact that so many Christian charitable establishments exist because there are more Christians :biglaugh:. You left that part out as well with the fact there are atheist hospitals as well but we just call them "Government run clinics" and that most medical care centers are founded for reasons.