Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God morality debate

illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.
uncung
Posts: 3,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 9:41:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

atheists always judge God according to their moral standard, yet God Himself also has His own standard on morality.
in our daily life we also have different moral code depend on the culture background, example, in the west it is acceptable to kiss friend's wife, while in other countries/Asia, it is impolite.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 5:17:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Go ahead, Ben, define God for us so we know who is supposed to be the source of all morality, according you.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 5:29:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 5:17:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Go ahead, Ben, define God for us so we know who is supposed to be the source of all morality, according you.

A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 5:46:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 5:29:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 5:17:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Go ahead, Ben, define God for us so we know who is supposed to be the source of all morality, according you.

A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose.

Hmm, it seems to me that could possibly describe a human. Is this "God" not supernatural in some way?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 5:53:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 5:46:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/16/2016 5:29:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 5:17:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Go ahead, Ben, define God for us so we know who is supposed to be the source of all morality, according you.

A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose.

Hmm, it seems to me that could possibly describe a human. Is this "God" not supernatural in some way?

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of humanity" would clarify a bit better.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 6:02:28 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 5:53:36 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 5:46:53 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/16/2016 5:29:19 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 5:17:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Go ahead, Ben, define God for us so we know who is supposed to be the source of all morality, according you.

A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose.

Hmm, it seems to me that could possibly describe a human. Is this "God" not supernatural in some way?

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of humanity" would clarify a bit better.

I'm intrigued by your definition, but I will keep my comments to myself until I see what direction IC intends to go.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2016 11:58:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Well Ben I was going to accept your debate until a purple circle came along and took it before i could clarify a few things before we started.

I assume you have no problem with God as part of it's definition being..."an uncased, invisible, immaterial person:

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose". Why mix in purpose and morality ? is that necessary for your argument ? if not, get rid of the purpose bit, stay on topic.

"A being of supreme moral authority" what does that even mean ? I say it is right, therefore it is right ?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 12:51:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 11:58:20 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Well Ben I was going to accept your debate until a purple circle came along and took it before i could clarify a few things before we started.

I assume you have no problem with God as part of it's definition being..."an uncased, invisible, immaterial person:

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose". Why mix in purpose and morality ? is that necessary for your argument ? if not, get rid of the purpose bit, stay on topic.

"A being of supreme moral authority" what does that even mean ? I say it is right, therefore it is right ?

Clearly you don't know how things were run back in the day
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Skeptical1
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:51:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 11:58:20 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Well Ben I was going to accept your debate until a purple circle came along and took it before i could clarify a few things before we started.

I assume you have no problem with God as part of it's definition being..."an uncased, invisible, immaterial person:

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose". Why mix in purpose and morality ? is that necessary for your argument ? if not, get rid of the purpose bit, stay on topic.

"A being of supreme moral authority" what does that even mean ? I say it is right, therefore it is right ?

I believe it's an attempt at the kind of circular reasoning used to "prove" God's existence, but in reverse. You're being defined out of the debate.

God is the supreme moral authority or arbiter of human purpose.
There is no God.
Therefore there is no supreme moral authority.
Therefore morality doesn't exist outside of one's personal beliefs.
Therefore morality isn't objective.

Or something along those lines.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2016 6:55:08 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:51:25 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 9/16/2016 11:58:20 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Well Ben I was going to accept your debate until a purple circle came along and took it before i could clarify a few things before we started.

I assume you have no problem with God as part of it's definition being..."an uncased, invisible, immaterial person:

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose". Why mix in purpose and morality ? is that necessary for your argument ? if not, get rid of the purpose bit, stay on topic.

"A being of supreme moral authority" what does that even mean ? I say it is right, therefore it is right ?

I believe it's an attempt at the kind of circular reasoning used to "prove" God's existence, but in reverse. You're being defined out of the debate.

God is the supreme moral authority or arbiter of human purpose.
There is no God.
Therefore there is no supreme moral authority.
Therefore morality doesn't exist outside of one's personal beliefs.
Therefore morality isn't objective.

Or something along those lines.

It would go something like

1) You can't have OM without a "supreme moral authority".
2) Define "God" as the only possible "supreme moral authority"
C) You can't have OM without God.

So come on Ben, i have asked you twice now what does ""supreme moral authority" mean ?
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 5:13:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/17/2016 6:55:08 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/17/2016 6:51:25 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 9/16/2016 11:58:20 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/16/2016 4:43:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.

Definitions

God, an invisible, immaterial, intelligent, self aware supernatural person, who is all powerful and all knowing.

Objective morality: Moral values exist independently, regardless of ones personal beliefs or lack of concerning what is right and wrong in the moral sense.

Your pro, I'm con send me the debate challenge.

Let's debate it here right now.

I don't agree with your definition of God, since it ascribes attributes that aren't necessary to prove that the resolution is true.

Well Ben I was going to accept your debate until a purple circle came along and took it before i could clarify a few things before we started.

I assume you have no problem with God as part of it's definition being..."an uncased, invisible, immaterial person:

"A being of supreme moral authority and arbiter of human purpose". Why mix in purpose and morality ? is that necessary for your argument ? if not, get rid of the purpose bit, stay on topic.

"A being of supreme moral authority" what does that even mean ? I say it is right, therefore it is right ?

I believe it's an attempt at the kind of circular reasoning used to "prove" God's existence, but in reverse. You're being defined out of the debate.

God is the supreme moral authority or arbiter of human purpose.
There is no God.
Therefore there is no supreme moral authority.
Therefore morality doesn't exist outside of one's personal beliefs.
Therefore morality isn't objective.

Or something along those lines.

It would go something like

1) You can't have OM without a "supreme moral authority".
2) Define "God" as the only possible "supreme moral authority"
C) You can't have OM without God.

So come on Ben, i have asked you twice now what does ""supreme moral authority" mean ?

Atheist knee-jerking again. The OP already accepted the existence of God. Why would Ben need to argue for what is accepted? The argument is about whether God is necessary for the existence of objective morality. If IC can show that God isn't, then it doesn't matter whether God exists or not. He wins.

Once again, everything isn't about the existence of God. We know you claim not to believe He exist, but if you don't why are you so obsessed with whether He exists or not? Why do you slide every debate, regardless of its original topic, down to the existence of God, and assume that is the Christians hidden goal?

Why?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2016 1:37:01 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/20/2016 5:13:40 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Once again, everything isn't about the existence of God. We know you claim not to believe He exist, but if you don't why are you so obsessed with whether He exists or not? Why do you slide every debate, regardless of its original topic, down to the existence of God, and assume that is the Christians hidden goal?

Why?

Seriously? it's only THE most important point of all religion; the existence of God. Without that, you've got nothing but empty promises and false hopes.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2016 4:33:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/21/2016 1:37:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/20/2016 5:13:40 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Once again, everything isn't about the existence of God. We know you claim not to believe He exist, but if you don't why are you so obsessed with whether He exists or not? Why do you slide every debate, regardless of its original topic, down to the existence of God, and assume that is the Christians hidden goal?

Why?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

..it's only THE most important point of all religion; the existence of God.

But it isn't the only point. Are you saying that theists can't debate any other topic? Or that no other topic makes sense for a theist? Or that all theistic topics depend on this one? None of these things are true.

Without that, you've got nothing but empty promises and false hopes. proselytize

But we aren't trying to proselytize you. We are simply debating topics. Why can't we debate whether religion makes for happier people, for example? God need not be real for this to be a worthy debate topic. Why can't we have theoretical debates? Not every topic is dependent on the existence of God.

You are right that without God we have nothing, but then it is curious that we are the ones who are able to debate topics other than the existence of God.

Why aren't you able?

I smell fear.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:58:25 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 12:47:35 AM, Geogeer wrote:
This debate has been declined by illegalcombat.

After my debate on Kalam I take it you will be interested in debating this ?
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 2:09:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:58:25 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:47:35 AM, Geogeer wrote:
This debate has been declined by illegalcombat.

After my debate on Kalam I take it you will be interested in debating this ?

In case you were unware of it, the first post here looking for that debate was a week ago, I didn't have any takers so I threw up some other topics I wanted to debate and some one wanted to do Kalam.

But I still want to debate this after the Kalam debate is done.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:34:37 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:58:25 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/29/2016 12:47:35 AM, Geogeer wrote:
This debate has been declined by illegalcombat.

After my debate on Kalam I take it you will be interested in debating this ?

At your disposal.
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 4:56:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/27/2016 4:33:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Why can't we debate whether religion makes for happier people, for example? God need not be real for this to be a worthy debate topic.
Perhaps because with or without a god claim religion is delusion and your debate becomes do delusions make for happier people?
A valid question imo.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:12:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:56:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:33:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Why can't we debate whether religion makes for happier people, for example? God need not be real for this to be a worthy debate topic.

Perhaps because with or without a god claim religion is delusion and your debate becomes do delusions make for happier people?

A valid question imo.

And yet you can't debate it without knee-jerking to the stale old, "God doesn't exist" clunker. Why?
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:12:10 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/29/2016 4:56:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:33:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Why can't we debate whether religion makes for happier people, for example? God need not be real for this to be a worthy debate topic.

Perhaps because with or without a god claim religion is delusion and your debate becomes do delusions make for happier people?

A valid question imo.

And yet you can't debate it without knee-jerking to the stale old, "God doesn't exist" clunker. Why?
So you can't respond to a my questions concerning your claim that being delusional makes you happier.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:46:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.


Well, my claim would be subtly different: I would claim that we could not have a moral compass unless we were intelligently designed beings with a mind.

So I don't directly address the causation of morality. My theory is that it is part of the uncreated reality of God, but I obviously can't prove that. I just can't see how the idea of God creating morality makes any sense. Morality itself must be eternal, I think.

It makes no sense for an evolved lifeform to have morality, but experience tells me that those who accept evolution are unable and/or unwilling to follow that argument, so I'll just leave it as a naked claim.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:50:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:46:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.


Well, my claim would be subtly different: I would claim that we could not have a moral compass unless we were intelligently designed beings with a mind.

So I don't directly address the causation of morality. My theory is that it is part of the uncreated reality of God, but I obviously can't prove that. I just can't see how the idea of God creating morality makes any sense. Morality itself must be eternal, I think.

It makes no sense for an evolved lifeform to have morality, but experience tells me that those who accept evolution are unable and/or unwilling to follow that argument, so I'll just leave it as a naked claim.

Your claims here are as always arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, they never change.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:50:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 4:56:01 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/27/2016 4:33:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Why can't we debate whether religion makes for happier people, for example? God need not be real for this to be a worthy debate topic.
Perhaps because with or without a god claim religion is delusion and your debate becomes do delusions make for happier people?
A valid question imo.

It's an especially valid question for the evolutionist. The evolved lifeform will believe what makes it survive and reproduce, not what is objectively true.

So there I've made the argument after all.

(But of course the evolved lifeform therefore has no basis for "delusional", so the question is in fact only valid in the context of a calibrated brain that hosts a mind.)
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:55:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:50:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:46:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.


Well, my claim would be subtly different: I would claim that we could not have a moral compass unless we were intelligently designed beings with a mind.

So I don't directly address the causation of morality. My theory is that it is part of the uncreated reality of God, but I obviously can't prove that. I just can't see how the idea of God creating morality makes any sense. Morality itself must be eternal, I think.

It makes no sense for an evolved lifeform to have morality, but experience tells me that those who accept evolution are unable and/or unwilling to follow that argument, so I'll just leave it as a naked claim.

Your claims here are as always arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, they never change.

Um, I think you should find out what the argument from personal incredulity means: http://www.trulyfallacious.com...

And it's totally the wrong talking point to roll out here. I'm making a logic argument. But hey, I guess it makes sense that a mutant amoeba like you wouldn't get it, because logic is the realm of the mind.
This space for rent.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2016 3:59:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/30/2016 3:55:03 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:50:09 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2016 3:46:34 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 9/16/2016 8:12:33 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Are you the kind of person who says or agree's with such things as without God there is no objective morality ? Do you enjoy taunting atheists with such things well under your world view you have no basis to say that is morally wrong ?

Well why don't you step up to the plate and defend that position.

Debate resolution: God is necessary for objective morality to exist.


Well, my claim would be subtly different: I would claim that we could not have a moral compass unless we were intelligently designed beings with a mind.

So I don't directly address the causation of morality. My theory is that it is part of the uncreated reality of God, but I obviously can't prove that. I just can't see how the idea of God creating morality makes any sense. Morality itself must be eternal, I think.

It makes no sense for an evolved lifeform to have morality, but experience tells me that those who accept evolution are unable and/or unwilling to follow that argument, so I'll just leave it as a naked claim.

Your claims here are as always arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity, they never change.

Um, I think you should find out what the argument from personal incredulity means: http://www.trulyfallacious.com...

I understand the fallacy perfectly considering it is one of the most used fallacies on these forums, especially by you.

And it's totally the wrong talking point to roll out here. I'm making a logic argument.

No, you're not, by any stretch of the imagination.

But hey, I guess it makes sense that a mutant amoeba like you wouldn't get it, because logic is the realm of the mind.

I get that you use fallacies all the time, that is obvious.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth