Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Argument for the Existence of God

SS-Maynes
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 7:22:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

Not bad . . .
RandomTruth
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 10:48:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

This is a circular argument! It already discounts itself as a proof for God because it already takes his existence as an pre-requisite!

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

This is confusing the actual existence of God, which is unproven, with the belief of in the existence of God, which is all there is, of course.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

God is merely another moral agent so religious morality is just as ethically relative as any other.

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice.

We already take God's moral claims with a pinch of salt and pick and choose anyway so there already is no foundation for world-wide law and justice with God's own moral system. It has already failed.

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

No we must conclude:

1. That God's moral system is a failure.
2. That God can't even keep to a single set of laws anyway and is just as morally relative and random as the human morality (coincidentally, ... not!)
3. His failure is more likely explainable by his non-existence.
PureX
Posts: 3,536
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 1:17:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At best, all this argument is doing is renaming the phenomena of human morality, "God".

Human morality is the result of humans evolving to survive and thrive cooperatively, and via intelligence (vs., say, speed, or size, or power). Morality is how we establish a balance between the well-being of the collective, and the well-being of the individual. (Actually, that's ethics; morality is just the application of our ethical imperatives).

Theists can and often do claim that morality is a manifestation of the divine nature (God's will, etc.), and it's a reasonable proposition, but we have no way of verifying this.
SS-Maynes
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2014 10:14:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2014 10:48:38 PM, RandomTruth wrote:
God can't even keep to a single set of laws anyway and is just as morally relative and random as the human morality.

The one categorical imperative " Act as you would have everybody act " is an "objective" (even absolute) moral law which we give to ourselves based on pure reason. This law is objective in the same sense that mathematics (e.g. 2+2=4) is a synthetic a priori object of reason, and can be relied upon.

As the great idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant put it, practical reason requires us to "act as if God exists." For it is not God (whose will it may however be), but reason that gives us the universal moral law.

Not God, but pure reason dictates, and practical reason authorizes us to assume the prime moral directive expressed personally in the Golden Rule, which is universal among all major religions; and more generally in the One Categorical Imperative, enunciated by the great philosopher. Meditating on the existence and nature of God, human reason naturally and inevitably rises to a divine concept of universal pure practical moral duty, which requires freewill, and can only be perfected in a sequence of lives, with the help of God.

More than just a rational construct, the systematic unity of this comprehensive worldview authorizes us to stake our lives on the principle of universal morality " the one categorical imperative or Golden Rule " and the three postulates of practical reason: freewill, God, and immortality.

As Kant says, I would find myself abhorrent in my own eyes if I did not obey the one moral law; and the existence of God is "necessary to give this law adequate efficiency, and for us, obligatory force." Because after all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.

It is for the highest theoretical and practical reasons of systematic unity that we will that the maxim of our actions should conform to a universal law. This objective moral law " the categorical imperative " is expressed personally in the Golden Rule; Do as you would be done by others. In regard to any action of moral significance, this rule prompts the personal question: "How would you like it if somebody did that to you?" In more general terms, the universal categorical imperative boils down to; Act as you would have everyone act, which suggests the universal question regarding the morality of any contemplated action: "What if everybody did that?"

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
SS-Maynes
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 5:51:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/4/2014 1:17:39 PM, PureX wrote:
Human morality is the result of humans evolving to survive and thrive cooperatively...
As I recall, in his book "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins made the argument that reciprocal morality (I"ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine... Be nice to others, if they are nice to you) is an "evolutionally successful strategy."

However, reciprocal or conditional morality turns Jesus" Golden Rule upside-down to make it read: "Do not as you would be done by others, but as you are done by them." This is just Old Testament retributive justice disguised as mutual benevolence. Better than no morals at all, the old scriptures are certainly not the last word in morality, because when push comes to shove they authorize returning evil for evil.

In fact, Jesus taught just the opposite, i.e. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you" Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you..." etc., etc. (Mat. 6:38-44). But make no mistake, doing your duty and trying to "overcome evil with good" can get you killed, and often it is the moral cowards who survive.

In my draft book currently previewing on the web at www.religiouspluralism.ca, I make the point that God must remain hidden in his creation (maintaining what theologians call "epistemic distance") because absolute certainty about his existence would infringe upon our free choice in matters of morality. Being ever-conscious of his ubiquitous presence, our actions would not be from moral duty, but from prudence and desire for reward. Similarly, if we knew for certain that there is an afterlife, it would remove the perceived necessity to "overcome evil with good" in this life, because there will be another life.

Whatever your moral maxims are, it is only rational that they apply to you and not just to others. The "universality" of any maxim worthy of the name moral is widely recognized, and the differences in different cultures do not amount to anything like a fundamental disagreement with the universal moral law " "Act as you would have everybody act."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca
PureX
Posts: 3,536
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 7:08:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2014 5:51:31 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
At 5/4/2014 1:17:39 PM, PureX wrote:
Human morality is the result of humans evolving to survive and thrive cooperatively...

In fact, Jesus taught just the opposite, i.e. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you" Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you..." etc., etc. (Mat. 6:38-44). But make no mistake, doing your duty and trying to "overcome evil with good" can get you killed, and often it is the moral cowards who survive.

I do not believe one can reasonably assimilate the ideal of Christ without understanding the concept and reality of transcendence. What Jesus is preaching and exemplifying is transcendent of natural law. Just as life is transcendent of natural law. And so is consciousness.

Jesus is introducing us to the next transcendent level of being: a new form of consciousness that transcends individual well-being (i.e., our own needs and desires) in favor of a collective, holistic, and intrinsic awareness of value.

In my draft book currently previewing on the web at www.religiouspluralism.ca, I make the point that God must remain hidden in his creation (maintaining what theologians call "epistemic distance") because absolute certainty about his existence would infringe upon our free choice in matters of morality. Being ever-conscious of his ubiquitous presence, our actions would not be from moral duty, but from prudence and desire for reward. Similarly, if we knew for certain that there is an afterlife, it would remove the perceived necessity to "overcome evil with good" in this life, because there will be another life.

That seems a rather anthropomorphic way of conceiving of "God". I would say that God is not "hiding" from us at all. It's just that our level of intellectual understanding and awareness is so limited that we can't see and understand the 'divine reality' that's all around us. Sort of the way a fish has little or no conception of the 'water' that envelopes and sustains it.

Whatever your moral maxims are, it is only rational that they apply to you and not just to others. The "universality" of any maxim worthy of the name moral is widely recognized, and the differences in different cultures do not amount to anything like a fundamental disagreement with the universal moral law " "Act as you would have everybody act."

I think Jesus was teaching something greater then that. I think he was teaching us to act for the greater good, because it IS the greater good. Not because it's good for us.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2014 8:49:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste...

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness....

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour;

So in other words...

P1: If God doesn't exist then morality is subjective
P2: I do not like the idea of morality being subjective
C: Therefore God must exist.

Please enlighten me as to what I missed.
Amoranemix
Posts: 564
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 2:54:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
SS-Maynes 1
Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.
Why must we assume the rational disbeliever acts as if some sort of divinity exists ?
What evidence can you present that without God nothing is Absolute, but all is relative ?

SS-Maynes 1
You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view.[1] Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).[2]
[1] Can you prove that ?
[2] Sorry, but you are making little sense to me.

SS-Maynes 1
Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness.
What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

SS-Maynes 5
The one categorical imperative " Act as you would have everybody act " is an "objective" (even absolute) moral law which we give to ourselves based on pure reason. This law is objective in the same sense that mathematics (e.g. 2+2=4) is a synthetic a priori object of reason, and can be relied upon.
Your moral imperative is actually subjective as it depends on someone referred to as 'you'. Peculiarly as well your moral imperative is independent from God. Similarly though, an objective moral imperative that also independent from God can be devised.

SS-Maynes 5
More than just a rational construct, the systematic unity of this comprehensive worldview authorizes us to stake our lives on the principle of universal morality " the one categorical imperative or Golden Rule " and the three postulates of practical reason: freewill, God, and immortality.
Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?

SS-Maynes 6
However, reciprocal or conditional morality turns Jesus" Golden Rule upside-down to make it read: "Do not as you would be done by others, but as you are done by them."[3] This is just Old Testament retributive justice disguised as mutual benevolence. Better than no morals at all, the old scriptures are certainly not the last word in morality, because when push comes to shove they authorize returning evil for evil.
[3] That is incorrect. Evolution by natural selection does not forbid doing as you would be done by others.

SS-Maynes 6
In my draft book currently previewing on the web at www.religiouspluralism.ca, I make the point that God must remain hidden in his creation (maintaining what theologians call "epistemic distance") because absolute certainty about his existence would infringe upon our free choice in matters of morality. Being ever-conscious of his ubiquitous presence, our actions would not be from moral duty, but from prudence and desire for reward. Similarly, if we knew for certain that there is an afterlife, it would remove the perceived necessity to "overcome evil with good" in this life, because there will be another life.
How would infringing upon our free choices in matters of morality constitute sufficient reason for God to hide ?
Which of the following is preferable ?
- I rape a child because I enjoy raping children.
- I don't rape a child because I am afraid of God.
In addition, belief in God varies from certainty that he doesn't exist to certainty that he does exist. What is the optimal degree of belief and why doesn't God ensure that everyone has that optimal degree of belief ?
Christians often argue that there is no need to overcome evil in this life precisely because there is an afterlife. Are those Christians wrong ?

Your post seems to be mostly philosophical banter surrounding bald assertions that God exists.
Also, as double_R pointed out, you seem to be relying on the nirvana fallacy : you like a world with God better than one without and therefore the former must be the true world.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Ajab
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 3:23:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The reason you are all misunderstanding it is because you do not understand the conceptualization of necessity Kant attributes to certain elements, and how he draws these conclusion. They are found in his Kritik der reinen Vernunft, of Pure Reason.
#StandWithBossy
#Addison/Blade-of-Truth: I slapped a girl on the arse once with a piece of uncooked chicken, things got weird.
You threw it away, right? -Ajab
...
Oh lord did you eat it?
...maybe!
kenballer
Posts: 485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 12:27:35 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 5/3/2014 10:48:38 PM, RandomTruth wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

This is a circular argument! It already discounts itself as a proof for God because it already takes his existence as an pre-requisite!


Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

This is confusing the actual existence of God, which is unproven, with the belief of in the existence of God, which is all there is, of course.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

God is merely another moral agent so religious morality is just as ethically relative as any other.

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice.

We already take God's moral claims with a pinch of salt and pick and choose anyway so there already is no foundation for world-wide law and justice with God's own moral system. It has already failed.

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

No we must conclude:

1. That God's moral system is a failure.
2. That God can't even keep to a single set of laws anyway and is just as morally relative and random as the human morality (coincidentally, ... not!)
3. His failure is more likely explainable by his non-existence.

If reason and"the scientific evidence showed that the Judeo-Christian God existed and was morally perfect, would you pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?
FollowerofChrist1955
Posts: 652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 2:52:03 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
SS-Maynes

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt.

If you ARE to experience God in truth and n Reality, it is imperative that you cease, sabotaging yourself before you even begin? In truth a "closed mind" has little if any hope of obtaining or encountering truth in its various forms. The statement above is proof of this. The quote above is a fabrication, a lie as it were. To FIND TRUTH ... it must be searched For? I assure you, anyone who professes that there IS no proof of God .. is a liar and a proveable liar.

For example ... upon discussions, and under direct questioning, you will note that ALL people who profess this belief are 90% Biblically illiterate, if not 100% illiterate. This is a fact of omission by all who claim Gods lack of proof, in reality.

The plain unadulterated truth, is that there is so much corroborating evidence of God, that in a court of Law you would be found a liar to suggest otherwise. Guilty of perjury as it were. It is most astounding that in today's world where evidence is literally at your finger tips ... virtually ALL of the unbelieving and believing World deliberately FAILS to investigate THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION of existence? IS There a God?

Yes! Is there a Heaven? Yes, Is there a Hell? Yes, will the whole of Humanity who do not KNOW God ... Go to Hell? Absolutely!

I know what your thinking, indeed there was a time I thought the same! But here's the point everyone fails to consider. Because YOU have not corroborated the evidence, does NOT mean there IS no evidence to corroborate, does it?

The fact is the whole of mankind basis the totality of its conclusions based upon assumptions, hypothesis, conjectures, with the absence of fact absent in the totality of their beliefs. Would it surprise you to know that God, in His magnificence, placed the proof before your very eyes ... you need only LOOK. the entire World is asking questions .... unfortunately the ENTIRE World ... refuses to LOOK! They just sit on boards, offering opinions upon opinions with total lack of either understanding by reason of ignorance of subject matter, passing themselves off as people who KNOW something about the subject, when in fact, if questioned one at a time, it would be quite Clear ... that they are Biblically illiterate and have no business discussing the subject at all.

It would be far better for them to LISTEN, rather than speak. The problem is one of either extreme laziness, or outright refusal to SEEK the truth of God at all. They DONT WANT TO KNOW. They say they do but are completely unwilling to research it at all. Check it out yourself? The whole of Humanity wants YOU to do all the research, all the looking , All the study, and just BRING IT TOO THEM, in a nice neat little bundle!

Well, what's wrong with that, goes the saying! I mean think about it ... what's so wrong with that? IF a person, who has studied the scriptures, read the Bible, cover to Cover, been lead BY the Spirit which is not only essential in the study of Gods word, but is a REQUIREMENT necessary to UNDERSTAND, the Holy Word. Without it ... you will never understand it. Because God Himself MAKES SURE you can't ( For a Reason).

Well if that's the truth and an unbeliever can NEVER understand it .... Why can't a SAVED person ... who fully understands the Gospel .... simply SHOW the person the evidence, the rationale behind the scriptures, the secrets plainly visible ONLY to the believer, everything. Why not just Give it to everyone!

Uh-uhh, it is expressly directed that we are NOT to do this. It is an insult to Gods Holiness. It is in direct contravention to His righteousness. GASP! How so?

HAVE YOU READ ..... the filth, insults directed towards God Himself, by the Atheists ON THIS BOARD? You see my friend you MUST think not what YOU THINK ... but what GOD THINKS! By completing the FIRST STEP of Discipleship, the patterns, rationales, and requirements of the Word of God becomes clear.

The purpose of the Bible is to give Man the remedy to His consignment to Hell. The antidote so to speak. In it is explained the reasons why Man was doomed, and by whom, and Gods remedy, that restores Man to Himself. It is a FREE GIFT ... eternal Life with God is provided at no expense to you, absolutely Free. By following its instruction you are lead to this remedy, and provided a free pass into Heaven, fully paid for by Christ Jesus. Because it is unearned it is never lost, because you did not earn it!

Requirements for this gift is simple ... YOU MUST CLAIM IT IN PERSON! That means no one can get it FOR YOU.

The scriptures that defend these statements I will post after this. Compare them with this post and each and you will KNOW where they belong.

Suffice it to say that God to prove Himself to any who desired to know Him, has left proof in plain view! His word that He would put the whole of Human History in the Word itself, that men may seek it, among the scholars of the known world, including those who are NOT believers. Earths beginning, unto the very ending. As proof! The next prophecy to be fulfilled is Revelation 12' it WILL BE FULFILLED and pass into Human History on the 23rd of September 2017 ..... will you be ready?
FollowerofChrist1955
Posts: 652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 2:52:20 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
SS-Maynes;
Promised scriptures hopefully in order of statements.

Makes sure the unbeliever cannot understand the Bible!
Matthew 13:13
13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." 14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people"s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.""

Isaiah 6
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" 9 He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' 10 "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.""

Are NOT to provide proofs to the unbelievers or atheists and the REASON why not!
Matthew 7:6
Do not give that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before the pigs, lest they shall trample upon them with their feet, and having turned, tear you to pieces.

Proverbs 9:8
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you.

Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.

Matthew 15:26
But Jesus replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs."

Revelation 22:15
But outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Why you are Consigned to HELL, and the REMEDY.
Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 10
9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Acts 4:2
Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."

Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" Let the one who hears say, "Come!" And let the one who is thirsty come, and the one who desires the water of life drink freely.

Next fulfillment of prophecy.
Revelation 12
12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

https://eschatologytoday.blogspot.com......

https://remnantnewspaper.com......

https://www.bostonglobe.com......

http://earthsky.org......

http://www.thejesusalien.com......

http://hercolubusplanet.com......

http://www.astronomy.com......

http://www.nytimes.com......

http://originalscientist.blogspot.com......

http://yowusa.com......

.
Yongy
Posts: 1,496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 8:28:07 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/24/2017 2:52:20 AM, FollowerofChrist1955 wrote:
SS-Maynes;
Promised scriptures hopefully in order of statements.


Makes sure the unbeliever cannot understand the Bible!
Matthew 13:13
13 This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand." 14 In them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled: "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people"s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I would heal them.""

Isaiah 6
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" 9 He said, "Go, and tell this people: 'Keep on listening, but do not perceive; Keep on looking, but do not understand.' 10 "Render the hearts of this people insensitive, Their ears dull, And their eyes dim, Otherwise they might see with their eyes, Hear with their ears, Understand with their hearts, And return and be healed.""

Are NOT to provide proofs to the unbelievers or atheists and the REASON why not!
Matthew 7:6
Do not give that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before the pigs, lest they shall trample upon them with their feet, and having turned, tear you to pieces.

Proverbs 9:8
Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you, Reprove a wise man and he will love you.

Proverbs 23:9
Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.

Matthew 15:26
But Jesus replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs."

Revelation 22:15
But outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Why you are Consigned to HELL, and the REMEDY.
Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 10
9 If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Acts 4:2
Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved."


Revelation 22:17
The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" Let the one who hears say, "Come!" And let the one who is thirsty come, and the one who desires the water of life drink freely.


Next fulfillment of prophecy.
Revelation 12
12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who "will rule all the nations with an iron scepter."[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.

https://eschatologytoday.blogspot.com......

https://remnantnewspaper.com......

https://www.bostonglobe.com......

http://earthsky.org......

http://www.thejesusalien.com......

http://hercolubusplanet.com......

http://www.astronomy.com......

http://www.nytimes.com......

http://originalscientist.blogspot.com......

http://yowusa.com......


.

You obviously get off on threatening people with your stupid garbage, I wonder if your pants get tight whilst you are posting it, LOL?
dsjpk5
Posts: 4,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1
Willows
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.
dsjpk5
Posts: 4,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.
Willows
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?
dsjpk5
Posts: 4,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 2:08:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?

I didn't dug up anything. It was at the top of the religion forum. May I suggest you stop making wild assumptions.
Willows
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 4:09:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 2:08:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?

I didn't dug up anything. It was at the top of the religion forum. May I suggest you stop making wild assumptions.

Yep, my mistake and my apologies.

You did endorse the post with a +1 however and I wondered why.
dsjpk5
Posts: 4,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 11:43:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 4:09:50 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/25/2017 2:08:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?

I didn't dug up anything. It was at the top of the religion forum. May I suggest you stop making wild assumptions.

Yep, my mistake and my apologies.

You did endorse the post with a +1 however and I wondered why.

Because it makes excellent points.
Willows
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 6:35:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 11:43:54 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 4:09:50 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/25/2017 2:08:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?

I didn't dug up anything. It was at the top of the religion forum. May I suggest you stop making wild assumptions.

Yep, my mistake and my apologies.

You did endorse the post with a +1 however and I wondered why.

Because it makes excellent points.

Let me see....1,2,3,4,5....yes, you have elaborated on your post ("+1") by 250% which, on the face of it, is quite phenomenal really.
And your point about making excellent points is really getting to the point although I would point out that your point is exaggerated in that +1 is only one point.

But that is still a vast improvement on the point that one of the points of theism is to make points on points that don't exist.

So really, there is no point in it at all is there?
Just making a point.
v3nesl
Posts: 6,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 7:07:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 5/4/2014 1:17:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At best, all this argument is doing is renaming the phenomena of human morality, "God".

Human morality is the result of humans evolving to survive and thrive cooperatively,

Which really is to say - there's no such thing as morality. Humans can, and regularly do, choose to do what is immoral, so morality can't be defined in terms of human behavior. It's just not what the concept refers to. We have this inescapable instinct which we regularly go against. It's quite unlike any other instinct.

So the evolutionist must say that yet another human concept is actually an illusion. We have this idea that certain things can be "just wrong" but things actually just-are. Things just-are, but humans that feel like certain things are just-wrong have been selected, by some process that is not clear (since we don't actually obey the feeling very well, and those who ignore it most, often seem to thrive and reproduce better than the good guys)


Theists can and often do claim that morality is a manifestation of the divine nature (God's will, etc.), and it's a reasonable proposition, but we have no way of verifying this.

Well, you can note the remarkable fact that humans have this profound sense that the world is not as it should be, when they have never known anything other than the world the way it is.

I think amateur philosophers should spend a lot more time just looking at what morality IS, and isn't, and a lot less time trying to explain it.
This space for rent.
dsjpk5
Posts: 4,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 8:25:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 6:35:21 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/25/2017 11:43:54 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 4:09:50 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/25/2017 2:08:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?

I didn't dug up anything. It was at the top of the religion forum. May I suggest you stop making wild assumptions.

Yep, my mistake and my apologies.

You did endorse the post with a +1 however and I wondered why.

Because it makes excellent points.

Let me see....1,2,3,4,5....yes, you have elaborated on your post ("+1") by 250% which, on the face of it, is quite phenomenal really.
And your point about making excellent points is really getting to the point although I would point out that your point is exaggerated in that +1 is only one point.

But that is still a vast improvement on the point that one of the points of theism is to make points on points that don't exist.

So really, there is no point in it at all is there?
Just making a point.

As always, you have proven just how clever you are.
Willows
Posts: 6,498
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2017 11:49:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 8:25:19 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 6:35:21 PM, Willows wrote:
At 8/25/2017 11:43:54 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 4:09:50 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/25/2017 2:08:50 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/25/2017 12:14:21 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 8:32:53 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/24/2017 10:25:01 AM, Willows wrote:
At 8/24/2017 9:22:00 AM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 5/3/2014 7:08:04 PM, SS-Maynes wrote:
The following moral argument is a brief excerpt from pages 2/3 of the Preview on my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, i.e.

"Kant"s moral argument may be stated quite simply: God is not directly apparent in the phenomenal material world, but may exist in a noumenal spiritual realm. Since humans can "know" nothing directly about the noumenal realm, the existence of God cannot be "proven" beyond a doubt. However, to account for moral feelings of conscience, the existence of objective moral values, and the rationality of pursuing the highest good (universal virtue as a means to greatest happiness) we must assume the existence of God.

Without prejudice, we must assume that the rational disbeliever, as well as the doubting believer, will act as if some sort of divinity exists, recognizing (if only obscurely or unconsciously) that the moral law (the universal categorical imperative of pure reason) is the absolute upon which the whole of law and justice are grounded, and that without God, nothing is Absolute, but all is relative.

You don"t have to believe in God in order to be moral, but it helps. After all, it is only from the rational unity of One God (creating all humankind equal), that we know unequivocally that morality must take a universal view. Unfortunately, atheism is sometimes an invitation to, as well as a licence for, ethical relativism; and a self-centred materialistic morality, which is only universal when convenient, or a matter of personal taste (character virtues, values, and goodwill).

Part of the argument is that if there is no ultimately objective standard of morality (no God), then our constructs of moral reason have no basis, other than our feelings about their goodness. Then, moral maxims must be a matter of taste and muddled reason; and then there is no sound foundation for world-wide law and justice. But if there is no absolutely universal basis for moral fairness (that most people can at least dimly sense and recognize), then mediocre maxims become acceptable (e.g. When in Rome do as the Romans do... Look out for number one, and devil take the hindmost... etc.). Then ultimately, even anti-social maxims bespeaking elitist attitudes are no longer not questioned, but are respected, and even celebrated by some (e.g., David Hume"s famous moral question: "Why should I not prefer the destruction of worlds, to the scratching of my little finger?" " What"s it to me?).

Thus, we conclude that there must be One God upholding the absolute universal law of justice, mercy, and ethical behaviour; which is expressed in the personal Golden Rule (taught by Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and many others), as well as in the universal moral law of the One Categorical Imperative enunciated by Kant. This is the common denominator of the highest expression of objective morality, and we take it from Hegel that the highest idea is the absolute of its kind, and the Absolute of all kinds is God."

Samuel Stuart Maynes
www.religiouspluralism.ca

+1

Is it really necessary to dig up such disgustingly pompous, arrogant and vulgar nonsense?

It is the mind of a sick and twisted individual who tries to put across the warped notion that society is somehow devoid of morals without religion.

It is religion that has left those who are foolish enough to follow it, completely abhorrent and anti-social morals.

It is decent, civilised societies that are free from the influences of archaic, draconian and corrupt religious doctrines that have advanced morals way past the bigoted, racist, sexist views that some stand behind in the name of their stinking religion.

You may wish to ask the OP these questions.

You are so accommodating in allowing me permission to address the originator of the thread.

I did, however, ask you since you revived the thread and endorsed it.
Or have you now backed away from it, having realised the extremely inflammatory nature?

I didn't dug up anything. It was at the top of the religion forum. May I suggest you stop making wild assumptions.

Yep, my mistake and my apologies.

You did endorse the post with a +1 however and I wondered why.

Because it makes excellent points.

Let me see....1,2,3,4,5....yes, you have elaborated on your post ("+1") by 250% which, on the face of it, is quite phenomenal really.
And your point about making excellent points is really getting to the point although I would point out that your point is exaggerated in that +1 is only one point.

But that is still a vast improvement on the point that one of the points of theism is to make points on points that don't exist.

So really, there is no point in it at all is there?
Just making a point.


As always, you have proven just how clever you are.

+1
PureX
Posts: 3,536
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2017 1:37:07 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/25/2017 7:07:00 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/4/2014 1:17:39 PM, PureX wrote:
At best, all this argument is doing is renaming the phenomena of human morality, "God".

Human morality is the result of humans evolving to survive and thrive cooperatively,

Which really is to say - there's no such thing as morality. Humans can, and regularly do, choose to do what is immoral, so morality can't be defined in terms of human behavior.

You just did define it in terms of human behavior. In fact, that's all the term "morality" does define, is human behavior.

It's just not what the concept refers to. We have this inescapable instinct which we regularly go against. It's quite unlike any other instinct.

Oh, it's not nearly that "magical". Morality is just human behavior being defined relative to an ethical imperative. One ethical imperative being to serve the well being of our human collective. Another being to serve our own well-being. When these imperatives conflict, we inevitably behave "immorally" relative to one or the other.

Theists can and often do claim that morality is a manifestation of the divine nature (God's will, etc.), and it's a reasonable proposition, but we have no way of verifying this.

Well, you can note the remarkable fact that humans have this profound sense that the world is not as it should be, when they have never known anything other than the world the way it is.

Yeah, that's the result of selfishness, and imagination. We selfishly imagine that 'the world' ought to be serving our own desires, always and exclusively, and when it doesn't, we think it's "wrong".

I think amateur philosophers should spend a lot more time just looking at what morality IS, and isn't, and a lot less time trying to explain it.

Well, they're going to have to address it philosophically, then, and that's called the study of 'ethics'. Morality is just human behavior being defined via an ethical imperative.
Harikrish
Posts: 14,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2017 6:26:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Ralph Waldo Emerson " 'All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.'
dsjpk5
Posts: 4,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2017 9:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/27/2017 4:49:49 PM, PGA wrote:
At 8/25/2017 8:25:19 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Hi there!

Can we use you as a judge for our debate?

http://www.debate.org...

Peter

Yes.
PGA
Posts: 4,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2017 12:13:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/27/2017 9:04:08 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/27/2017 4:49:49 PM, PGA wrote:
At 8/25/2017 8:25:19 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:

Hi there!

Can we use you as a judge for our debate?

http://www.debate.org...

Peter

Yes.

Thank you! It should betaking place sometime within the week.