"we all get our morality from our lives, what we have seen that is right and wrong.."
So, you decide-"what we have seen that is right or wrong."?
What right do you have to impose your morality on me?
toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
"we all get our morality from our lives, what we have seen that is right and wrong.."
So, you decide-"what we have seen that is right or wrong."?
What right do you have to impose your morality on me?
PyramidHead
Active member
where did i follow up that statement with AND THEN EVERYONE SHOULD FOLLOW MY MORALITY?
don't come at me with made up stuff like this
Nydhogg
New member
I throw the towel. I can't demonstrate it.
I can't prove that something is self-evident. I can't prove the axiom. Axioms have, inevitably, to be taken as true. Any "objective" morality is, at heart, an arbitrary axiom taken either on faith or with the gut.
We have entirely different premises, so it's hard to coherently argue anything.
I can't prove that something is self-evident. I can't prove the axiom. Axioms have, inevitably, to be taken as true. Any "objective" morality is, at heart, an arbitrary axiom taken either on faith or with the gut.
We have entirely different premises, so it's hard to coherently argue anything.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
The Bible is no more a "source" of morality than anyone else's "holy" book as Ny so clearly points out:
. . . should you EVER be able to prove the invisible sky spirit you worship "wrote" it. The Bible is no more an ancient source of morality than the "Code of Hammurabi" and less "objective."
PyramidHead
Active member
ok you are a pretty dense sop so let me explain this to you
do NOT put words into my mouth at ANY time
i told people MY opinion. you then asked my why that gave me the right to push my morality on to others. i asked where i said that, because i didn't. you then quote me and bold some stuff and act like that implies i said that.
i didn't say there was no other options. get off my d.... back. you haven't confirmed a thing.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
The idea the Bible is an objective moral standard is based on a faulty premise. Until you can prove the invisible sky spirit you worship wrote (inspired) it your "morals" are based on what you accuse everyone else . . . your own opinion.
Son of Jack
New member
It's only a faulty premise if it's wrong. Can you prove He didn't write it?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
That's not my burden as you so well know so the premise remains without foundation.
Son of Jack
New member
As long as you assert that God does not exist, you share that burden.
Moreover, what can really be proven in the sense that you use the word?
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Since I didn't make that assertion (within the context of this thread) I have no burden to "share."
I think, "Until you can prove the invisible sky spirit you worship wrote (inspired) it (the Bible) your "morals" are based on what you accuse everyone else . . . your own opinion," is pretty clear. In what "sense" need "prove" be clarified? If the Bible is to be claimed to be an "objective" moral standard then the source of that moral standard needs to be even more objectively proven (if you get my meaning).
Krsto
Well-known member
And since God has not chosen to reveal himself objectively enough by your standards of objectivity because he has chosen that we live by faith and not by sight, God will never be "proven" to you, and you will always be lost. A wise man might lower his standards of objectivity to coincide with God's chosen method of revealing himself just long enough to discover him and his love for you rather than being stubborn and expect God to be the one to change his ways to coincide with your standards. If anyone has a right to be stubborn, it would be God, not you. If anyone has anything to lose for being stubborn, it would be you, not God.
Son of Jack
New member
You and I both know that we "share" a context that supersedes this thread. Thus, you do indeed share the burden.
Do you mean objectively proven in the sense that it cannot be refuted and/or questioned (i.e. in the "scientific" modernist sense)? If that is the case, then only one thing can actually be proven.
Last edited:
Like this: :bang:?
_
You made an assertion, not an argument.
Prove that the person identified as "Silent Hunter" wrote the above post. And send me "the original" post, i.e., the one on the screen you typed, before you pressed the "submit reply" button. Do be a dear, and provide these originals. Until you can prove you are this "Silent Hunter" who wrote this post, by producing "the originals,"then anything you write we may dismiss.
Nydhogg
New member
This is utter nonsense, john w.
That someone uses the handle Silent Hunter AND posted the above message is indisputable, since someone did just that.
Who is that "Silent Hunter"? We don't know. But he (or she, or it if a particularly advanced chatbot) did just post the message.
It's no different from the Bible: The Bible exists. Someone did write it. The writers claimed to receve it from some sort of God. OK, bear with me, this is when it gets tricky:
There is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary claims.
If the Bible affirmed it was written just by some random Middle Eastern dude, it would be an ordinary claim. It would require merely ordinary evidence, or just no evidence to the contrary, to take as true.
If the Bible affirms that it's written on the Diktat of an all-powerful thing, it's an extraordinary claim. It presupposes entities previously unknown and plainly weird. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- and you're not delivering.
That someone uses the handle Silent Hunter AND posted the above message is indisputable, since someone did just that.
Who is that "Silent Hunter"? We don't know. But he (or she, or it if a particularly advanced chatbot) did just post the message.
It's no different from the Bible: The Bible exists. Someone did write it. The writers claimed to receve it from some sort of God. OK, bear with me, this is when it gets tricky:
There is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary claims.
If the Bible affirmed it was written just by some random Middle Eastern dude, it would be an ordinary claim. It would require merely ordinary evidence, or just no evidence to the contrary, to take as true.
If the Bible affirms that it's written on the Diktat of an all-powerful thing, it's an extraordinary claim. It presupposes entities previously unknown and plainly weird. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- and you're not delivering.
_
"This is utter nonsense, john w.
That someone uses the handle Silent Hunter AND posted the above message is indisputable, since someone did just that.
Who is that "Silent Hunter"? We don't know. But he (or she, or it if a particularly advanced chatbot) did just post the message."-Nydhogg
Nope. Read his "argument." He says : "Until you can prove the invisible sky spirit you worship wrote (inspired) it .."
Fine. He must provide the same level of "proof" he demands of me.
"There is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary claims.
If the Bible affirmed it was written just by some random Middle Eastern dude, it would be an ordinary claim. It would require merely ordinary evidence, or just no evidence to the contrary, to take as true.
If the Bible affirms that it's written on the Diktat of an all-powerful thing, it's an extraordinary claim. It presupposes entities previously unknown and plainly weird. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence- and you're not delivering." -Nydhogg
Your "argument": We must "prove" that the LORD God is the author of scriptures, using "science"-that which can be analyzed empirically by one of the 5 senses "science"uses to classify, study, probe, and analyze empirically-touch, sight, smell, taste and sound ,correct?
Fine-Prove love exists, using the same standard.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:blabla:
:blabla:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Only YOU have a burden (of proving the invisible sky spirit you worship exists).
This is meaningless double-speak. One thing that can be "actually proven" is there is no objective evidence for a deity.
- Status