[hrothgar]

gwnn, on 2013-January-13, 05:48, said:

I am curious though mike777 what made you pick me out of all the people here who are just repeating over and over the same points on religion and morality? I am barely in the top 10 in the poster list in this thread. It is an honour.

Do you honestly believe that the mind that produced the following is capable of coherent thought?

Quote

over the years see bbo....

we have discussed your point often over the years....often

see your point

I understand many books, articles, etc have been quoted.


objective morals


--

If you have something to add to the discussion ok,what?

I look forward to you adding knowledge.

[gwnn]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-13, 06:09, said:

Do you honestly believe that the mind that produced the following is capable of coherent thought?

Yes. Although as usual it is a matter of defining your concepts properly.

[y66]

gwnn, on 2013-January-13, 03:27, said:

I do think his arguments are kind of circular once you look for a concrete definition. However, he is not saying anything about moral motivation, just that objective moral values can only be based on God's nature.

Perhaps I mistook Craig's meaning when he said "If there is no moral law giver, then there is no objective moral law which we must obey. It is all a matter of social convention on a par with rules of etiquette." and "if God does not exist, there is no basis for moral accountability".

[Trinidad]

y66, on 2013-January-13, 08:38, said:

Perhaps I mistook Craig's meaning when he said "If there is no moral law giver, then there is no objective moral law which we must obey. It is all a matter of social convention on a par with rules of etiquette." and "if God does not exist, there is no basis for moral accountability".

And why couldn't morality be "a matter of social convention on a par with rules of etiquette"? The main difference is the order of priority: genocide > rape > burglary > not saying 'please' when asking for the salt. Because some violations of morality have bigger consequences to us social beings than others.

Rik

[32519]

Here’s a question for those who say that god’s are created by the imaginations of fallen mankind to fit into their way of thinking: Why would the Jews create a god for themselves and then reject the very God they created as early as 1 Samuel 8:7-9. But this crazy notion of imaginary gods is even crazier regarding the Jews. Their own writings record that they have rejected their own God, yet they kept on recording the doings, actions and sayings of the God they first created and then rejected? How’s that for logic?

So now they appoint a human king who starts taxing them and conscripting them to the army? Sound familiar? How many of you guys were forced to go and fight in Vietnam against your will? Or Iraq? Or Afganistan? Or anywhere else? I invite you to read the full chapter of Samuel 8.

But guess what? This first life of ours is not the one that counts. YOU needed to be born for an invisible God to one day become visible in YOU. What do you think the resurrection is anyway? To give you a second chance to keep on repeating all the same mistakes? You can run but you cannot hide. You can build yourself an underground bunker and stock it with as much tinned food you can buy. You can blow yourself up with a bomb. Ultimately it matters squat to the God of the Jews. He will one day put together again every part blown apart and PURIFY it for HIS purpose for your very existence. It is not a religious fanatic who said this. The God of the Jews said it. It’s going to happen no matter how much you fight it and continue living in denial! You and I and Osama bin Laden will one day all be glorifying the God of the Jews. Some get to do so straight away the easy way. The rest the hard way.

Go read the writings of the Jews. Their God had no problem removing those who fought against him or his plan with creation. As early as Genesis chapter 6 their God destroyed all except 8. The trail of destruction continues wherever you read. We are all going to find out that it is easier to cooperate with God than to fight him.

[hrothgar]

32519, on 2013-January-13, 09:27, said:

Go read the writings of the Jews. Their God had no problem removing those who fought against him or his plan with creation. As early as Genesis chapter 6 their God destroyed all except 8. The trail of destruction continues wherever you read. We are all going to find out that it is easier to cooperate with God than to fight him.

The beatings will continue until morale improves

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-January-13, 09:27, said:

It is not a religious fanatic who said this.

Just thought this was worth repeating.

[gwnn]

y66, on 2013-January-13, 08:38, said:

Perhaps I mistook Craig's meaning when he said "If there is no moral law giver, then there is no objective moral law which we must obey. It is all a matter of social convention on a par with rules of etiquette." and "if God does not exist, there is no basis for moral accountability".

Well that still sounds to me like what I said. He never goes into the question of how you come to know the laws, or how you get yourself to obey them. In fact it's one of his favourite replies in his debates (you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology).

[gwnn]

32519, on 2013-January-13, 09:27, said:

Their own writings record that they have rejected their own God, yet they kept on recording the doings, actions and sayings of the God they first created and then rejected? How’s that for logic?

It was not 'the Jews' who made up God but some Jews and some other Jews disobeyed God. I wouldn't even need to say this, though, since there are people who make up principles for themselves and then break them. This happens all the time.

[y66]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-13, 09:22, said:

And why couldn't morality be "a matter of social convention on a par with rules of etiquette"? The main difference is the order of priority: genocide > rape > burglary > not saying 'please' when asking for the salt. Because some violations of morality have bigger consequences to us social beings than others.

Rik

Kagan proposed a straightforward definition of moral behavior, something like don't harm others and don't withhold help from others when you are able to provide it. He further proposed that humans are capable of articulating the finer points of harm and help in a social contract and of enforcing such a contract.

I suspect Craig's choice of words was rhetorical and his intention was to undermine Kagan's notion of a social contract in the same way that some argue that "mere" human judgement is insufficient because history reveals how imperfect it is, as if the judgement of all the Gods who have ever been alleged to exist was somehow more perfect or that perfection even exists!

[blackshoe]

No, no. The judgement of gods (note the small g) is not perfect, only the judgement of God is perfect. It says so right on the label.

[Vampyr]

I don't want to watch the video to try to find the answer to my question, because I may end up watching the whole thing and see it is not there. But maybe someone who has watched can answer:

If God creates the objective moral law, what reason do I have to obey it? Is it because God will punish or reward me after I am dead? I mean, this is the moral reasoning of a child in kindergarten; so I think there must be something more. What is it?

[y66]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-13, 12:33, said:

I don't want to watch the video to try to find the answer to my question, because I may end up watching the whole thing and see it is not there. But maybe someone who has watched can answer:

If God creates the objective moral law, what reason do I have to obey it? Is it because God will punish or reward me after I am dead? I mean, this is the moral reasoning of a child in kindergarten; so I think there must be something more. What is it?

I thought this was pretty much what Craig was saying when he asked "If God does not exist, what basis remains for moral accountability?" and "If life ends at the grave, then ultimately it makes no difference whether you live life as a Stalin or as a Mother Teresa."

If there was something more, I missed it.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-13, 10:44, said:

No, no. The judgement of gods (note the small g) is not perfect, only the judgement of God is perfect. It says so right on the label.

You are entirely correct. And we now know that He is not a religious fanatic, because 32519 said so:

32519, on 2013-January-13, 09:27, said:

It is not a religious fanatic who said this. The God of the Jews said it.

If God Himself is not a religious fanatic, there is no need for anybody else to behave like one.

Rik

[Trinidad]

y66, on 2013-January-13, 12:55, said:

I thought this was pretty much what Craig was saying when he asked "If God does not exist, what basis remains for moral accountability?" and "If life ends at the grave, then ultimately it makes no difference whether you live life as a Stalin or as a Mother Teresa."

If there was something more, I missed it.

And that is completely correct when viewed from the 'I perspective': Ultimately I will be dead, anything is undefined.

But only selfish %@#$$#&^* look at the world from the 'I perspective' only. And if you look from the perspective of the rest of the world it makes a lot of difference whether you have lived life like Stalin or Mother Theresa. The point in time that for you as an individual is defined as "ultimately" is not that ultimate after all. You leave behind: family, children, friends, colleagues, a couple of billion other people and indeed an entire planet for whom it does make a difference at your "ultimately". You can chose to wish them well and act towards that before your "ultimately" or you can chose to not care.

If (I didn't see the video) Craig indeed argues that without god it ultimately doesn't make a difference then Craig can't decide for himself what kind of a planet he "ultimately" wants to leave behind for his children.

I'm glad he's not my father.

Rik

[ArtK78]

32519, on 2013-January-13, 09:27, said:

Here’s a question for those who say that god’s are created by the imaginations of fallen mankind to fit into their way of thinking: Why would the Jews create a god for themselves and then reject the very God they created as early as 1 Samuel 8:7-9. But this crazy notion of imaginary gods is even crazier regarding the Jews. Their own writings record that they have rejected their own God, yet they kept on recording the doings, actions and sayings of the God they first created and then rejected? How’s that for logic?

So now they appoint a human king who starts taxing them and conscripting them to the army? Sound familiar? How many of you guys were forced to go and fight in Vietnam against your will? Or Iraq? Or Afganistan? Or anywhere else? I invite you to read the full chapter of Samuel 8.

But guess what? This first life of ours is not the one that counts. YOU needed to be born for an invisible God to one day become visible in YOU. What do you think the resurrection is anyway? To give you a second chance to keep on repeating all the same mistakes? You can run but you cannot hide. You can build yourself an underground bunker and stock it with as much tinned food you can buy. You can blow yourself up with a bomb. Ultimately it matters squat to the God of the Jews. He will one day put together again every part blown apart and PURIFY it for HIS purpose for your very existence. It is not a religious fanatic who said this. The God of the Jews said it. It’s going to happen no matter how much you fight it and continue living in denial! You and I and Osama bin Laden will one day all be glorifying the God of the Jews. Some get to do so straight away the easy way. The rest the hard way.

Go read the writings of the Jews. Their God had no problem removing those who fought against him or his plan with creation. As early as Genesis chapter 6 their God destroyed all except 8. The trail of destruction continues wherever you read. We are all going to find out that it is easier to cooperate with God than to fight him.

Why do I, as a Jew, feel insulted by this?

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-13, 14:47, said:

Why do I, as a Jew, feel insulted by this?

Because it's totally nuts?

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-13, 16:28, said:

Because it's totally nuts?

That is certainly true. But I think it is more because every post seems to be characterizing the "God of the Jews" in a very disparaging manner.

Not that I should feel responsible for what happened several thousand years ago. But there are many who think I should.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-13, 16:28, said:

Because it's totally nuts?

Because it's actually closer to the Islamic view ? My heritage is Jewish although I don't consider myself to be and I was never taught any of this. From what I remember the bit about god putting you back together is not the Jewish view as they go to extremes if somebody is blown up to retrieve all the bits, whereas I understood that some fringe Islamic sects (not sure about the mainstream) believed that Allah would put you back together to make use of the 24 virgins awaiting you in heaven if you took some infidels with you.

[lalldonn]

32519, on 2013-January-13, 00:42, said:

So what exactly do scientists says is causing this climate change or global warming?

What about the increase in ethnic violence or wars (versus wars between countries)? What lies behind that?

Maybe what you are getting at is true. It seems god is punishing the world by forcing us to read nonsensical posts.