johnydon22:


Yes, because it is a job for me to handhold everyone and explain every minute detail that i have gone over several times, i should re-explain it because they don't understand it.

Thank you my good man, that's a good employment

All I am saying is that morality is to God as thunder is to Thor.

If you can discard thunder is due to Thor, I can discard morality is due to God.

advocate666:


All I am saying is that morality is to God as thunder is to Thor.

If you can discard thunder is due to Thor, I can discard morality is due to God.

Lol. Now let's see if it is not a false equivalence.

Pray tell my good man, discribe to me the existential quality of thunder and morality

I will wait.

And again, confirming my initial accusation you don't even understand what we are discussing here, in fact most of you here don't.

Johnydon have not made any claim regarding morality as something that comes from God (I myself is an atheist) in fact this is demonstrated in the very comment you asked me a question regarding the moral nature of suicide, there was no God in my answer.

My argument simply is, that morality for a theist (theologically) is a deductive exercise with God as it's utmost assumption.

Duductive arguments simply goes like this: If A is like this then B is a logical conclusion.

Interpreted thus: On the assumption that God (A universal authority) exists then morality must be inherent to the universe therefore is an objective quality.

You can however only argue that God doesn't exist which by the way remains to be seen, but you cannot deny the logically sound deductive approach of this argument which on the other hand secular morality doesn't follow or borrows basis from.

I sincerely hope i do not need to address your inability to understand this argument again

advocate666:
What? You don't like the verse I quoted?

What verse did you quote? Where and when did you quote your imaginary verse huh? You guys are very much still in the lying business I guess and see. Reproduce the verse here, I am quite sure, the verse you hope to quote, is definitely one of those moments of you reading the bible and turning its meaning upside down and out of turns

The real winning side is the side that can prove their claims:

Atheist do not claim there is no God, so the burden of proof lies with the theist, who believe and claim God is real.

So far no theist have proven this.... It was much more common in the bible times, dead people were made alive, fire rained from the sky, armies were smitten with blindness...etc. But it seems as humans became more advanced , these stories seemed to have died down (except in backwards places in the world where you hear frivolous claims of how some "man of god" raised the dead, or made a blind man see)

I think in all these are just stories, and as we've become more critical and scientific minded these stories, have died down. Superstitions and Myths have gradually been replaced with Science and Evidence.

johnydon22:


Annnnnnnnd, we are back again, i need to explain it all again.

I even wonder if some of these replies are addressing my post or some other post.

If u need to explain urself again then didn't do a good job explaining it the first time.
And saying u wonder if my post are addressing ur post is u trying play smart. For the record, ur explanations are clear but are not really making sense for someone who is smart (at least I have always thought u are)
But I am not surprised... This is what happens when anyone tries even slightly to play God's advocate.

I quoted ur posts, outrightly responded to some and rejected some, like when u say morality is based on ancient/theological assumptions... Pls don't insult my intelligence when u say I seem not to be replying to ur post.

Christ - let me simply address the last sentence. You accept morality by;

Learning - Learning implies that it is an already established value that you discover, isn't that bordering towardd objectivity? Lol

How? Learning does not border towards objectivity. Learning in this case is when man redefines what is right for him based on current trend or past experience...pls how has this got to with objectivity?

Experience - Experience do not distinguish between subjects, whatever conclusions you make simply is a logical jump.

In don't know the point u are trying to make here, but experience brings about learning, isnt that so?

Empathy - You are first assuming empathy is good, why?

Empathy is good in the sense that is has help us over the years reduce pain and suffering even slightly.

Feelings - I have already dismified the ascription of moral weight on feelings, you first assume feelings are either right or wrong and if you don't show why each feeling has a moral weight, any moral conclusion based on feelings is as baseless as it gets which entirely is my argument here.

Did u even read where I said feelings and emotions are what makes me hit ur hand when u touch my private part instead of when u touch my hand?... How do i feel about my genitals in relation to my object of sexual attraction?
Feeling is ONE of the factors that will help determine if an act is wrong or right.. Do I feel pity or sad when I see the victims of rape?
Just how are u not seeing my points Mr Johnny?

Secular morality makes moral conclusions without basis.

And this is what make u think saying God is the basis is a superior argument even though is cant be demonstrated, but can be seen as a mere wish? How is wishful thinking a superior argument?
And the basis for secular morality is humans... This makes more sense because it can be demonstrated and shown.

johnydon22:


Lol. Now let's see if it is not a false equivalence.

Pray tell my good man, discribe to me the existential quality of thunder and morality

I will wait.

And again, confirming my initial accusation you don't even understand what we are discussing here, in fact most of you here don't.

Johnydon have not made any claim regarding morality as something that comes from God (I myself is an atheist) in fact this is demonstrated in the very comment you asked me a question regarding the moral nature of suicide, there was no God in my answer.

My argument simply is, that morality for a theist (theologically) is a deductive exercise with God as it's utmost assumption.

Duductive arguments simply goes like this: If A is like this then B is a logical conclusion.

Interpreted thus: On the assumption that God (A universal authority) exists then morality must be inherent to the universe therefore is an objective quality.

You can however only argue that God doesn't exist which by the way remains to be seen, but you cannot deny the logically sound deductive approach of this argument which on the other hand secular morality doesn't follow or borrows basis from.

I sincerely hope i do not need to address your inability to understand this argument again

No it's not false equivalence and I will use your own argument to prove it.

Interpreted thus: On the assumption that Thor (A climate authority) exists then thunder must be inherent to the climate therefore is an objective quality.

You can however only argue that Thor doesn't exist which by the way remains to be seen, but you cannot deny the logically sound deductive approach of this argument which on the other hand weather analysis doesn't follow or borrows basis from.

I sincerely hope i do not need to address your inability to understand this argument again

Heathen777:
The real winning side is the side that can prove their claims:

Atheist do not claim there is no God, so the burden of proof lies with the theist, who believe and claim God is real.

So far no theist have proven this.... It was much more common in the bible times, dead people were made alive, fire rained from the sky, armies were smitten with blindness...etc. But it seems as humans became more advanced , these stories seemed to have died down (except in backwards places in the world where you hear frivolous claims of how some "man of god" raised the dead, or made a blind man see)

I think in all these are just stories, and as we've become more critical and scientific minded these stories, have died down. Superstitions and Myths have gradually been replaced with Science and Evidence.

"Little science takes you away from GOD but more of it takes you to Him." ~

Louis Pasteur

the founder of microbiology and immunology

OpenYourEyes1:


"Little science takes you away from GOD but more of it takes you to Him." ~

Louis Pasteur

the founder of microbiology and immunology

Still doesn't proove god.

advocate666:

Still doesn't proove god.

It sure doesn't prove your god

johnydon22:


Lol. Now let's see if it is not a false equivalence.

Pray tell my good man, discribe to me the existential quality of thunder and morality

I will wait.

And again, confirming my initial accusation you don't even understand what we are discussing here, in fact most of you here don't.

Johnydon have not made any claim regarding morality as something that comes from God (I myself is an atheist) in fact this is demonstrated in the very comment you asked me a question regarding the moral nature of suicide, there was no God in my answer.

My argument simply is, that morality for a theist (theologically) is a deductive exercise with God as it's utmost assumption.

Duductive arguments simply goes like this: If A is like this then B is a logical conclusion.

Interpreted thus: On the assumption that God (A universal authority) exists then morality must be inherent to the universe therefore is an objective quality.

You can however only argue that God doesn't exist which by the way remains to be seen, but you cannot deny the logically sound deductive approach of this argument which on the other hand secular morality doesn't follow or borrows basis from.

I sincerely hope i do not need to address your inability to understand this argument again

Like I pointed out to you in the other thread theist leave out relevant facts when trying to approach a logical conclusion. If a god exists and it has the characteristics it is said to have then it cannot contradict itself. However you find this god's morality contradicting itself at every turn. Thou shalt not lie but goes on to bless notable liars in the very same book they call holy. How can this be a logical conclusion?

frank317:
If u need to explain urself again then didn't do a good job explaining it the first time.
And saying u wonder if my post are addressing ur post is u trying play smart. For the record, ur explanations are clear but are not really making sense for someone who is smart (at least I have always thought u are)
But I am not surprised... This is what happens when anyone tries even slightly to play God's advocate.

I quoted ur posts, outrightly responded to some and rejected some, like when u say morality is based on ancient/theological assumptions... Pls don't insult my intelligence when u say I seem not to be replying to ur post.

How? Learning does not border towards objectivity. Learning in this case is when man redefines what is right for him based on current trend or past experience...pls how has this got to with objectivity?

In don't know the point u are trying to make here, but experience brings about learning, isnt that so?

Empathy is good in the sense that is has help us over the years reduce pain and suffering even slightly.

Did u even read where I said feelings and emotions are what makes me hit ur hand when u touch my private part instead of when u touch my hand?... How do i feel about my genitals in relation to my object of sexual attraction?
Feeling is ONE of the factors that will help determine if an act is wrong or right.. Do I feel pity or sad when I see the victims of rape?
Just how are u not seeing my points Mr Johnny?

And this is what make u think saying God is the basis is a superior argument even though is cant be demonstrated, but can be seen as a mere wish? How is wishful thinking a superior argument?
And the basis for secular morality is humans... This makes more sense because it can be demonstrated and shown.

This is not a first, that I just admire frank317's level of objectivity, fair-mindedness and though not a theist, his detachment sometimes from his bias(es) beliefs or non beliefs, that makes him to be open and able enough to make unapologetically frank, sincere, honest and well thought out things he has to say. I like the way and manner he's being cool, calm and collected, in responding to johnydon22

MuttleyLaff:
This is not a first, that I just admire frank317's level of objectivity, fair-mindedness and though not a theist, his detachment sometimes from his bias(es) beliefs or non beliefs, that makes him to be open and able enough to make unapologetically frank, sincere, honest and well thought out things he has to say. I like the way and manner he's being cool, calm and collected, in responding to johnydon22

Wellsha, Johnny has always been the man. He brings out the calmness in every one

johnydon22:


Secular morality makes moral conclusions without basis.

Really? The bolds sound like quite a lot of basis

Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Additional philosophies with ancient roots include those such as skepticism and virtue ethics. Greg M. Epstein also states that, "much of ancient Far Eastern thought is deeply concerned with human goodness without placing much if any stock in the importance of gods or spirits."[1]:45 An example is the Kural text of Valluvar, an ancient Indian theistic poet-philosopher whose work remains secular and non-denominational.[2][3][4] Other philosophers have proposed various ideas about how to determine right and wrong actions. An example is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative.

Watch the Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson Discussion on youtube on the subject of theism and atheism.
It was a civil and intelligent Discussion.