Ihedinobi:

Oh, I don't know about that. I mean it's you guys that complain that we employ mental gymnastics to defend our Faith when we give you answers you can't rebut or something like that.

I think y'all need to make up your mind whether Christianity is too shallow or too deep. You keep accusing it of being both.

Like the Trinity?

Like foundational issues of Christianity?

Like interpretation problems and subjectivity?

Like the Perfect Creator redeeming his broken Creation?

Kay 17:

Like the Trinity?

Like foundational issues of Christianity?

Like interpretation problems and subjectivity?

Like the Perfect Creator redeeming his broken Creation?

Are you saying that those make Christianity shallow? Or that they make it deep?

Ihedinobi:


Well, shall we analyse the bolded?

In the book of Sir Logicboy, knight of atheism, the following terms are defined rather interestingly

- straw men
- vague questions
- to escape the focus of the argument
- being debunked

I shall here provide said definitions according to said book and provide the implication of them in the above quote. Ahem.

1. Straw men = other forms of logicboy's arguments that expose the flaws in his arguments.

Given Sir Logicboy's extremely poor cognitive ability, it is not very surprising, is it, that he calls very relevant parallels of his argument straw men.

2. Vague questions = questions that Sir Logicboy either cannot comprehend (almost always that, in fact) or which he recognizes as capable of destroying his arguments (hardly ever this, actually).

Again, considering Sir Logicboy's contracting intellect, it is hardly surprising that he finds pretty lucid questions vague. He could ask for clarification but doing so might jeopardise his arguments. It's not very likely that he has enough intelligence to see that answering those questions would destroy his arguments though, so it's highly unlikely that he deliberately refuses to request clarification.

3. To escape the focus of the argument = to pick out flaws in logicboy's arguments especially by addressing the implications of those arguments which implications logicboy calls "straw men" (see #1 above).

Given Sir Logicboy's very narrow intellect, he does not recognize that arguments are like armies with flanks, arrow heads, rear guard and whatnots. As such an opening in the flanks, or anywhere else for that matter, is enough to bring the whole thing down upon itself. All he's able to see is that an argument has gone awry and always right at the beginning.

4. Being debunked = an exclamation of frustration.

Given Sir Logicboy's narrowing intellect and poor learning ability, he repeats his mistakes pretty often. As a result he suffers pretty much the same consequences. And given that the cycle has perpetuated itself, Sir Logicboy is stuck in a loop of frustration. So everytime he gets stuck in an argument, he uses recycled exclamations like "epic fail!" and "debunked!"

Ad hominems?

Logicboy03:


1) The bible tells you to spread the faith not the holy ghost

2) If you describe atheism as foolishness, you were never an atheist.


You know the difference between me and you?

People can say that I'm abusive (and I agree at times) but you will hardly find someone that will claim that I am dishonest.

All atheists here have unanimously granted you a certificate of dishonesty in your arguments. There is no chance in hell that you can ever convince any thinking atheist to christianity with your behaviour

Lol, Considering that for most of you, morality is all subjective, I really wouldn't bother about your opinions or what you call "dishonest" because honesty really doesn't have any value in your worldview anyway.

cyrexx: ^^

so the holy spirit, who is actually god almighty, is the one tasked with responsibility of making people become true christians. In that case, looking at christian to non-christian ratio, he is sure doing a lousy job, cos satan evidently knows better than him how to win more souls.

Lol, would you rather He forced you into His kingdom?

mazaje:

The heart only pumps blood to all parts of the body it has nothing to do with thoughts. . .The writers of the bible falsely thought the heart is what is responsible for thought and reasoning. When a person is anxious his heart beats faster as such they falsely thought reasoning comes from the heart. They didn't know anything about the brain. The bible is the word of ancient men that do not have as much knowledge as we now do. . .

Yeah........and I love you from the bottom of my brain.

Mr_Anony:
Yeah........and I love you from the bottom of my brain.

That is actaully a more factual statement than loving someone with the heart.


Try again

Ihedinobi:


Well, shall we analyse the bolded?

In the book of Sir Logicboy, knight of atheism, the following terms are defined rather interestingly

- straw men
- vague questions
- to escape the focus of the argument
- being debunked

I shall here provide said definitions according to said book and provide the implication of them in the above quote. Ahem.

1. Straw men = other forms of logicboy's arguments that expose the flaws in his arguments.

Given Sir Logicboy's extremely poor cognitive ability, it is not very surprising, is it, that he calls very relevant parallels of his argument straw men.

2. Vague questions = questions that Sir Logicboy either cannot comprehend (almost always that, in fact) or which he recognizes as capable of destroying his arguments (hardly ever this, actually).

Again, considering Sir Logicboy's contracting intellect, it is hardly surprising that he finds pretty lucid questions vague. He could ask for clarification but doing so might jeopardise his arguments. It's not very likely that he has enough intelligence to see that answering those questions would destroy his arguments though, so it's highly unlikely that he deliberately refuses to request clarification.

3. To escape the focus of the argument = to pick out flaws in logicboy's arguments especially by addressing the implications of those arguments which implications logicboy calls "straw men" (see #1 above).

Given Sir Logicboy's very narrow intellect, he does not recognize that arguments are like armies with flanks, arrow heads, rear guard and whatnots. As such an opening in the flanks, or anywhere else for that matter, is enough to bring the whole thing down upon itself. All he's able to see is that an argument has gone awry and always right at the beginning.

4. Being debunked = an exclamation of frustration.

Given Sir Logicboy's narrowing intellect and poor learning ability, he repeats his mistakes pretty often. As a result he suffers pretty much the same consequences. And given that the cycle has perpetuated itself, Sir Logicboy is stuck in a loop of frustration. So everytime he gets stuck in an argument, he uses recycled exclamations like "epic fail!" and "debunked!"

Lovely, lovely. Perfect answer my twin bro. I couldn't have put it better myself

Logicboy03:


That is actaully a more factual statement than loving someone with the heart.


Try again

Oh yeah, I love you too from the bottom of my brain

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Considering that for most of you, morality is all subjective, I really wouldn't bother about your opinions or what you call "dishonest" because honesty really doesn't have any value in your worldview anyway.

lol.....see another version of Anonyism? Shifting the topic to where you can play endless ad hominems (atheists have no morals). All morality isnt subjective. I have told you about moral universalism. Dont be ignorant.

Stay on topic. Why should I answer the nonsense question of exact human value when that has nothing to do with the topic which is "evolutionary basis for morality".

Mr_Anony:
Oh yeah, I love you too from the bottom of my brain

Trolololol

Logicboy03:


lol.....see another version of Anonyism? Shifting the topic to where you can play endless ad hominems (atheists have no morals). All morality isnt subjective. I have told you about moral universalism. Dont be ignorant.

Stay on topic. Why should I answer the nonsense question of exact human value when that has nothing to do with the topic which is "evolutionary basis for morality".

what topic? we left the topic a long time ago. You are the ones calling me dishonest. Why should I care seeing that honesty really holds no value with you lot.

Mr_Anony:
what topic? we left the topic a long time ago. You are the ones calling me dishonest. Why should I care seeing that honesty really holds no value with you lot.

Do you know how insulting you are? Atheists have no morality. Atheist have no real value for honesty.

Not only is that insulting but it is also not based on any empirical or factual basis.

Logicboy03:

Do you know how insulting you are? Atheists have no morality. Atheist have no real value for honesty.

Not only is that insulting but it is also not based on any empirical or factual basis.

It is not insulting in anyway. It is simply the logical outcome of denying the existence of objective moral values.

Mr_Anony:
It is not insulting in anyway. It is simply the logical outcome of denying the existence of objective moral values, according t you

Generally, 64% of Japanese who do not believe in god do not have any value of honesty or morality.


Objective moral values exist but so subjective ones. I dont dent objective morality, I deny god. Get that through your thick skull.



Read about moral universalism

Mr_Anony:
Lol, would you rather He forced you into His kingdom?

LOL,

with the way i've trampled Jesus' salvation underfoot and blasphemed the holy ghost's sorry a$$, i dont think they will want me in their kingdom anymore. Im no longer their type.

Logicboy03:


Generally, 64% of Japanese who do not believe in god do not have any value of honesty or morality.


Objective moral values exist but so subjective ones. I dont dent objective morality, I deny god. Get that through your thick skull.



Read about moral universalism

but then, you cannot accept an objective morality without providing a basis for it. Upon what is your morality based?

cyrexx:

LOL,

with the way i've trampled Jesus' salvation underfoot and blasphemed the holy ghost's sorry a$$, i dont think they will want me in their kingdom anymore. Im no longer their type.

I truly weep for you. A point comes when a man goes too far that he condemns himself to hell.

Mr_Anony:
I truly weep for you. A point comes when a man goes too far that he condemns himself to hell.

weep for yourself, man. You are the one who needs to be pitied, not me.

If you cant see my sarcasm, then i must have over-estimated your intelligence.

cyrexx:

weep for yourself, man. You are the one who needs to be pitied, not me.

If you cant see my sarcasm, then i must have over-estimated your intelligence.

SMH

^^

SMH for you too.

Lol

Mr_Anony:
It is not insulting in anyway. It is simply the logical outcome of denying the existence of objective moral values.

How is morality objective when it varies from place to place and time in history?. . .You have been saying it but have failed to show us how. . .If morality is objective as you claim then the god of the bible and your so called men of god have no moral values. . . .because you can not try what they did and not be seen as a barbaric monster by today's already evolved moral standard. If Moses were alive today he will be considered a war criminal and not a prophet of any god. . .If you try to discriminate against gays in the place where I live you can end up in prison for that since it is considered an offence but in a place like nigeria being gay will land you in prison so how is morality objective when it varies from place to place?

mazaje:

How is morality objective when it varies from place to place and time in history?. . .You have been saying it but have failed to show us how. . .If morality is objective as you claim then the god of the bible and your so called men of god have no moral values. . . .because you can not try what they did and not be seen as a barbaric monster by today's already evolved moral standard. If Moses were alive today he will be considered a war criminal and not a prophet of any god. . .If you try to discriminate against gays in the place where I live you can end up in prison for that since it is considered an offence but in a place like nigeria being gay will land you in prison so how is morality objective when it varies from place to place?

classic.

i loove this.

but i'm sure the skillful dodger will wriggle his way out of this like a snake and "prove" you wrong again by dodging your points and changing the direction of the debate to somewhere else.

mazaje:

How is morality objective when it varies from place to place and time in history?. . .You have been saying it but have failed to show us how. . .If morality is objective as you claim then the god of the bible and your so called men of god have no moral values. . . .because you can not try what they did and not be seen as a barbaric monster by today's already evolved moral standard. If Moses were alive today he will be considered a war criminal and not a prophet of any god. . .If you try to discriminate against gays in the place where I live you can end up in prison for that since it is considered an offence but in a place like nigeria being gay will land you in prison so how is morality objective when it varies from place to place?

homosexuality cannot both be right and wrong at the same time now or can it?

Mr_Anony:
homosexuality cannot both be right and wrong at the same time now or can it?

You are here again with your ridiculous tactics. . .You keep claiming that morality comes from god and it is objective, i said that is false since that is NOT the case. If morality is objective then there is no way gay relationship will be acceptable in Denmark and be a crime in Nigeria. . .There is no way polygamy will be acceptable in Nigeria and be a crime in Sweden. . .The fact that slavery and genocide was championed by your god in the bible and remains a very big crime today says that morality is not god centred. . Humans learn to accept what is moral and what is not through consensus. . Morality evolves over time and varies from place to place. . .You are yet to tell us how morality is objective. . .How is morality objective when gays are protected and seen as doing the right thing in some societies while they are discriminated upon and seen as doing the wrong thing in other societies?. . .Tell me how morality is objective. . .

mazaje:

You are here again with your ridiculous tactics. . .You keep claiming that morality comes from god and it is objective, i said that is false since that is NOT the case. If morality is objective then there is no way gay relationship will be acceptable in Denmark and be a crime in Nigeria. . .There is no way polygamy will be acceptable in Nigeria and be a crime in Sweden. . .The fact that slavery and genocide was championed by your god in the bible and remains a very big crime today says that morality is not god centred. . Humans learn to accept what is moral and what is not through consensus. . Morality evolves over time and varies from place to place. . .You are yet to tell us how morality is objective. . .How is morality objective when gays are protected and seen as doing the right thing in some societies while they are discriminated upon and seen as doing the wrong thing in other societies?. . .Tell me how morality is objective. . .

And I am saying it is either one country is right and another is wrong. Both cannot be right on the same issue. . . . . .or are you saying that countries can never be wrong?

For those who really want to know, this OMV argument/defense is the moral argument given by WL Craig which states that:

1) If there are objective moral values, then God exists
2) There are objective moral values
3) Therefore, God exists.

“Objective moral values” here means that moral values are true regardless of what anyone thinks. For example, “murder is wrong” would be wrong even if every single human being thought murder was the way to achieve greatest happiness and encouraged it as an extracurricular activity for teenagers. But the only way to hold that objective moral values exist is to grant God’s existence, because objective laws require an objective lawgiver.

This argument commits the fallacy of necessity as it assumes that objective moral values are contingent on a god existing, when this is not necessarily so. No gods or goddesses for that matter are required for morality to exist, as ethics and morals in reality come from Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitiarianism--which means doing what is right for the overall good.

One can make any wild claim as Dr. Craig does in his argument. Let me make a substitution in Dr. Craig's argument to illustrate:

P1. If humans do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C. Therefore, humans exist.

Just like William Craig's argument, there is no proof for P1. The argument is valid, but whether it is sound or not is questionable. In the case of Craig's argument, as I have already shown, we have another viable option for objective moral values, and that is the use of Normative Ethical Theories.

On another note, my argument is valid, but is contingent on humans existing, so it too commits the fallacy of necessity, as we have no way of knowing whether or not morality and duty is dependent on the existence of humans. Many animals have exhibited moral behaviors, so it is not necessarily so that morality only exists in the realm of humanity.

For the sake of argument, let's assume his argument works. Dr. Craig himself admits that this argument alone does not prove the Christian god. The reason for this is that every non-Christian culture, has/had their own standards and moral guidelines that they follow, and therefore their morals and duties are not contingent on the christian god Yahweh existing. Hindu's have a moral code. African Traditional religionists had a moral code. The Native Americans had moral codes long before the White Christians came along, and many Christian missionaries made note of the fact the Indians had "no sin. " Orthodox Buddhists do not even posit a god, but they too have a moral code/standard etc.

Let's assume however, that Yahweh exists and that we received moral values from this particular god. Let's say for example that a father murders his children because he claims god told him to in order to save them from Satan. Most christians would claim that Yahweh would never tell anyone to do such a heinous thing, and the man who killed his children is just crazy. The reasoning that concludes that it was not Yahweh who told the man to kill his children allows another conclusion to be drawn. This would be a moral test in which the conclusion that was drawn came from our own moral knowledge, and not from what a god said. Yahweh has, after all, according to the bible, spoken through others, ordering them to slaughter the innocents, so it would be inductively valid to assume that Yahweh ordered the man to murder his children. (Hosea 13:16)

Are actions in any case right or wrong then because god says they are; or are they right or wrong because they are right or wrong? The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right. If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good." Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.


Source

Mr_Anony:
And I am saying it is either one country is right and another is wrong. Both cannot be right on the same issue. . . . . .or are you saying that countries can never be wrong?

Its not about being right and wrong. . .People chose what is right and what is wrong. . .As such morality can not be objective based on that fact. . .When people thought slavery was right your god was telling people to enslave their daughters. . .

mazaje:

Its not about being right and wrong. . .People chose what is right and what is wrong. . .As such morality can not be objective based on that fact. . .When people thought slavery was right your god was telling people to enslave their daughters. . .

If it is not about being right or wrong, what then is morality all about? the fact that two people disagree over what is morally right or what is morally wrong, does not suddenly mean that there is no objective right and wrong.
For instance i could ask you, what is wrong with slavery? I assure you that there are people who would argue that slavery is morally right while others would argue that slavery is morally wrong.

Mr_Anony:
If it is not about being right or wrong, what then is morality all about? the fact that two people disagree over what is morally right or what is morally wrong, does not suddenly mean that there is no objective right and wrong.
For instance i could ask you, what is wrong with slavery? I assure you that there are people who would argue that slavery is morally right.

I have seen 3 people here make arguments for slavery. All christians!!!


Uyi Iredia- Slavery was a necessity in the old testament and the slavery of Africans started out good....

Ubenedictus- It is okay that the catholic church engaged in slavery but they didnt do chattel slavery.............

Mr_Anony:
If it is not about being right or wrong, what then is morality all about? the fact that two people disagree over what is morally right or what is morally wrong, does not suddenly mean that there is no objective right and wrong.
For instance i could ask you, what is wrong with slavery? I assure you that there are people who would argue that slavery is morally right while others would argue that slavery is morally wrong.

What am saying is that morality can not be objective when some people see nothing wrong with being gay others see it as a bad thing. Right or wrong depends on the society you live in and period in time. I said polygamy is right in some society and wrong in others. . .When slavery was good, your god was advocating the sale of people daughters into slavery. . .Right and wrong are not objective. . .If they were people you honour and revere as good men, people like Moses will not honoured and revered. . .If Moses was alive today and did what was written about him in the bible he will be executed or be sentenced to life in prison as a war criminal and an advocate of slavery. . .