you [deleted]Light Travelling said:
what would be the point of repeating almost word for word, what misty had written. where'as I felt what she had said, said it all.
anyway, [deleted]
Last edited by a moderator:
False Morality, Why?
- Thread starter Light Travelling
- Start date
what would be the point of repeating almost word for word, what misty had written. where'as I felt what she had said, said it all.
anyway, [deleted]
A deist asks me to believe in something (GOD) that is not physically tangible and can never be proved. He asks me to accept that this thing should govern my life and define what is right and wrong for me. His reason is that he 'feels' it is right within himself.
An atheist asks me to believe in something (MORALS) that is not physically tangible and can never be proved. He asks me to accept that this thing should govern my life and define what is right and wrong for me. His reason is that he 'feels' it is right within himself.
If you look at this objectively, you will see that both oppossing points of view actually use the same argument and the same logic.
This is the point I am trying to get at.
An atheist asks me to believe in something (MORALS) that is not physically tangible and can never be proved. He asks me to accept that this thing should govern my life and define what is right and wrong for me. His reason is that he 'feels' it is right within himself.
If you look at this objectively, you will see that both oppossing points of view actually use the same argument and the same logic.
This is the point I am trying to get at.
Straw men, both of them. I feel that both a deist and an atheist would have more considered arguments for behaving in what each considers a moral way. I'm not going to be glib and say that the deist will talk about "salvation" and avoiding hellfire. I actually think most people's sense of right and wrong has more or less the same basis - that of not causing harm or hurt to one's fellow beings, whether they came to that realisation through the religious teaching they underwent or figured it out for themselves. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "feelings" inside, the position can be justified by logic, in terms of "the greatest good for the greatest number."Light Travelling said:
Light Travelling,
In my opinion you are falling victim to what is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. That is the assumption that because something is "natural", or exists in nature, it is good.
Human beings have a moral sense, as is obvious from the amount of time and effort people spend debating moral questions. There is no good reason that I can see to throw our moral sense out the window.
An animal may have no sense of right or wrong when it kills. The same cannot be said for human beings.
In my opinion you are falling victim to what is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. That is the assumption that because something is "natural", or exists in nature, it is good.
Human beings have a moral sense, as is obvious from the amount of time and effort people spend debating moral questions. There is no good reason that I can see to throw our moral sense out the window.
An animal may have no sense of right or wrong when it kills. The same cannot be said for human beings.
Just for the record.
What I actually believe on this subject (and always have) is that we are all from god and all have a divine spark of god within. It is god within us that determines our sense of right and wrong and our sense of inherent morality, which does exist.
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to choose a radically different view from my own and try to earnestly argue its case.
Whilst this has been a personally very interesting exercise, it pains me too much to keep the pretence going any longer.
In conclusion I have to say that the vast majority of what I have said on this particular thread is a complete and absolute load of bollocks.
What I actually believe on this subject (and always have) is that we are all from god and all have a divine spark of god within. It is god within us that determines our sense of right and wrong and our sense of inherent morality, which does exist.
I thought it would be an interesting exercise to choose a radically different view from my own and try to earnestly argue its case.
Whilst this has been a personally very interesting exercise, it pains me too much to keep the pretence going any longer.
In conclusion I have to say that the vast majority of what I have said on this particular thread is a complete and absolute load of bollocks.
1 If God exists, then he is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.
2 If God exists, it would be in God's interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3 All human beings do not know God's ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
4 God does not exist.
1. If God exists, it is probably the case that all sentient beings whose behavior God considers morally significant have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
2. If God exists, he considers humans' behavior morally significant.
3. Humans are sentient beings.
4. If God exists, it is probably the case that humans have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
5. Humans do not have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
6. God does not exist.
1. If God exists, rational theists are probably noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
2. Rational theists are not noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
3. God does not exist.
with thanks to the infidel guy.
2 If God exists, it would be in God's interest and within his capacity for all human beings to know his ethics perfectly.
3 All human beings do not know God's ethics perfectly, which is shown by their disagreeing about many moral values.
4 God does not exist.
1. If God exists, it is probably the case that all sentient beings whose behavior God considers morally significant have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
2. If God exists, he considers humans' behavior morally significant.
3. Humans are sentient beings.
4. If God exists, it is probably the case that humans have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
5. Humans do not have extremely good knowledge of correct moral judgments.
6. God does not exist.
1. If God exists, rational theists are probably noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
2. Rational theists are not noticeably morally superior to rational atheists, on average.
3. God does not exist.
with thanks to the infidel guy.
OOOOOOooooooh! I see. Of course, it was evident that you were playing Devil's Advocate, but if your adversary is perhaps an atheist like me, you took a too extreme position.Light Travelling said:
audible, very pretty arguments, but they rely on unverifiable premises which somewhat ascribe human motivations to God.