This is the thing Ive always thought. Its not that I have a problem believing in a god or gods, but rather I have a problem swallowing what christians call "his will". As it stands I cant believe in this for the same reason that a christian cant believe in anything else. Its because you dont want to be wrong or else you might face gods wrath.
Out of curiosity, what non-normative definition would you give to the word "moral"?
I usually define being moral as "doing what ought to be done (given a particular situation)." If so, the question "why ought I be moral" IS a meaningless question.
Rationality may have a purely descriptive definition, but I'm not sure about morality here. Same goes for "goodness" "better" and other terms you use in your refutation.
@derfos666 He actually has a half hour video about how he defines morality, how it can be objectively measured, and how it works completely better than a christian idea of what is wrong, it's called "Treatise on Morality"
This is really good. I've been trying to word it better, but I've argued similarly by saying "to say you cannot derive an ought from an is is false in both worldviews. In the religious worldview you are deriving all your oughts(morals) from the IS of god's existence."
Sometimes I really think people come up with all kinds of reasons and debates 'why' they don't want to acknowledge God. Analyzing every single thing, breaking it apart. Simply put, it's rebellion against authority using your own reasons why you don't have to, why should you, I don't want to, acknowledge God that He is right & not wrong.
@donnajfrnb "it's rebellion against authority using your own reasons" The same can be said for your position. Your superstition is nothing more than an act of rebellion against reality. God must be true, because if it´s not, you are not special and will not live forever. And because you don´t want to face the reality that there´s no rational reason to believe in a god, you just rape your own brain with belief in myths, thinking that, if you have faith enough, it will became true.
Bypassing all the fancy articulated reasoning, philosophy etc of your intelligent mind, is this about denying Gods existence & authority? It looks like it is. Its also coming across as 'I am so intelligent, me, 'I am'. Where could you possibly go & lead people to with this message? What's your cause, purpose & outcome for this message?
@donnajfrnb " Where could you possibly go & lead people to with this message?" To truth. If you don´t care about what is true, just keep believing in anything you without evidence, like Unicorns, Santa Claus, Big Foot, God or anything else. If you do care about what is true, faith and scriptures are not a path to it.
If anyone wouldn't mind catching my fall on this is-ought topic: what ought to be and what should be must go hand in hand with a conditional? Let me use a real life example of the sort of things my cousin says to me. "Jordan, you should do X, because of (fact) Q", Jordan you should go for your life guarding certificate, because there is a test coming up soon. Could this be translated to the following: Jordan, if there is Q, then you should X?
We have morality (is), and therefore there ought to have an all powerful super deity that created everything. That's what I'm getting out of the theists argument.
I'm starting to think the people aren't going to make any sort of coherent sense of the world until they get over this compulsive need for consistency, and aristotelian logicality. Logicalness. Logictitude?
I think the reason you "ought" to obey god is so that you don't recieve the punishment for disobeying at a minimum. Why would a christian even try to argue with you? God can speak for himself.
you babble, and your arguments are repetitive and boring....you thing you're clever by asking rhetorical questions and making odd circular connections using math equations......are you going insane? take your meds,get a job,and keep your bullshit to yourself...
The funniest thing about most humans? They can have faith in anything and everything...except for the fact that their lives are ends in themselves and have value.
If God does not exist, as you claim, how can the statement "God says we should love our neighbor" possibly a statement of what is??
Also, assuming God does exist, then "God says we should love our neighbors" would indeed be an ought. Why? Because we OUGHT to do what God commands us. It is (would be) His world and He would have proprietary rights over it.
@Blogrich55 If your goal is to please god, then yes, you ought to do what he commands you to do (assuming he exists). If that is not your goal, there is no normative impulse to do what he commands. What you have said does not refute the statement that any normative fact is contingent on some purpose or goal.
@Blogrich55 No pun intended but perhaps you should practice the: "Love thy neighbor..." bit. You don't seeing as you treat those that don't follow your religious beliefs like shit.
@Blogrich55 so you believe that if someone creates something....they automatically have rights over it? ie if god creates us...he has rights over us? Well if thats the case, then why doesnt a parent "own" their child as property and have "proprietary rights" over them? Your assumption is kinda gross. It implies that you want to be a slave, and believe in "owning" individuals. Thats kinda pretty immoral. Its the perfect example of how religion corrupts people. Making them want to be serfs
@boorens18 Yes, I do believe God, as the Creator, has exclusive rights over His creation. Also, parents don't actually "create" anything. They are NOT like Dr Frankenstein assembling a child out of parts. If parents could just "create" children there wouldn't be so many childless couples, would there? Parents procreate. Only God creates ANYTHING.
Jesus said those who sin are slaves of sin. So that would put us ALL into the same leaky boat now wouldn't it? Parents don't own their children BTW.
Thats exactly my point! Parents DONT own their children. Arguing that parents only "procreate." suggests you just arent getting the point. The point is that NO ONE under NO circumstances (even god), can justify "owning" another individual. To argue otherwise, suggests you have a rooted desire to be a slave, which is horrifying. The essence of Sadomasicism. I urge you to learn the meaning of the latin phrase "Quo Warranto?" When you figure out how it applies, then considering replying.
@boorens18 So WHO died and made YOU God to decide for all of the world that "NO ONE under NO circumstances (even god) can justify "owning" another individual"? Forget your irrational non sequitur about having a "deep rooted desire to be a slave" and all the rest of your nonsense. YOU are the one who doesn't get it.
Who would God be answerable to? God does NOT do something because it is right. It is right because God does it. See my video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT.
You poor fool, your mind has been twisted by your religion. I knew you wouldn't understand why "Quo Warranto" is such a famous quote. I didnt "decide" that owning people is wrong, the argument is that no one can JUSTIFY it in the first place. BY WHAT RIGHT? Your pitiful attempt at such was to say basically "might=right" If thats how you think then your sense of morality truly is as bronze aged as your beliefs. Why then can America not slaughter anyone who opposes them if might=right
@boorens18 Do you even know what a mind is? Is it merely chemical electrical activity in the brain? If so, how can you determine a true proposition from a false one? You canNOT! You don't understand basic philosophy, especially epistemology. You LOVE to read things into people. THAT is what your ilk do. It is basically called resorting to straw man arguments.
WHY? You can't disprove my arguments and so drum up stupid accusations like me advocating slavery then attack that. Way to go! WRONG!
Minds= "chem. elec. activity in the brain"...therefore you cant determine true prop. from false one. Biggest non sequitor...ever.
Did you, or did you not advocate that might=right? You said it yourself, god gets to make us slaves cuz he created us. That means, you are for slavery. You believe in "owning" individuals. Again I ask the question. "QUO WARRANTO?"
You dont have an argument, I reject your premise. That, even if you could "create" someone, you STILL can't justify owning them.
@boorens18 You prove my suspicions in spades. YOU don't even understand the epistemological dilemma you are in. You accuse me of a non sequitur and I have to doubt you even understand the argument I refer to. Did I advocate might makes right? I dunno, did you SEE me write anything to that effect? I know the atheist usually TRIES to apply this to God. Yet YOU have NOT answered even one of my questions. I never said IF YOU could create someone you would own them. You can't YOU are NOT God!
@Blogrich55 and ps yes you did say that might=right. Quote:
"who would god be answerable to?...it is right because god does it" ie Might=right
What is your question? Another implication of that comment is that not only do you desire to be a slave, (shiver) but you also are supporting a giant totalitarian and oppressive rule. If you think this is a just and good system....well....all the worse for you.
PS please keep it to 2 comment responses maximum. Condense your ideas.
@boorens18 To say God is sovereign and has a PROPRIETARY RIGHT to rule and use His creation as He sees fit is NOT advocating might makes right. He has this right NOT because He is some sort of all powerful cosmic bully but is the Creator. Rights are NOT to be thought of merely as a result of power. The STATE abuses its power on a daily basis and has NO legitimate right to do so.
Please stop your asinine flights of fancy a accusing me of advocating slavery. Please do not tell me what to do LOL
@Blogrich55 boorens18 probably performs a kind of slavery of his own at home using leather swings, whips and chains for all the leather daddies he brings over to cum play lol....
Again you claim I'm making false ad hominems, yet you are continuously demonstrating that they are right. A fact, is not an ad hominem. You have the root of sadomachocism in you. You believe that creating life grants you ownership of it.
Perhaps an analogy would expose your disguisting idea. Say humans eventually develop the technology to "create matter" and then create new humans. By your line of reasoning, we could enslave them.
What separates us is I claim slavery is ALWAYS wrong.
@boorens18 I think if you will review my responses you will find I charged you with resorting to straw man arguments. I do NOT believe the word ad hominems was brought up. You are a nut! You like to play Sickmind Fraud? LOL Accusing people of having "the root of sadomachocism [sic]" in them. LOL Get real or quit wasting my time! Perhaps if pigs fly we can demand they have a pilot's license too! LOL
@Blogrich55 I ain't doing any psychoanalysis on you. What you have said BY DIRECT CONSEQUENCE advocates slavery. You claim god gets to enslave us. ie You think that owning people is justifiable. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position if you don't like the consequences of it. I don't see your reasoning behind "if someone creates an individual, they get to own it" That is a non sequitor. The premise doesnt follow. Where do you get that idea?
@boorens18 The fact that God has prerogatives which are His alone due to His being Creator of the universe does NOT imply we as humans share these prerogatives or that I advocate slavery. Quit grasping for straws. We are NOT God (unless maybe you're a Mormon LOL.) I NEVER said if SOMEONE.... God is in a class all by Himself. You cannot arrogate His rights to man.
Yes, you DID try to play psychoanalysis when you accuse me of believing in slavery and being a sadist, etc.. Grow up and THINK! LOL
You know what, I can refute both those comments in one question. You claim god has proprietary rights over his creation. That because he made it, he can do with it as he wishes. The fact that people are individuals makes no difference to you. For you, slavery is fine as long as you create the individuals. I challenge that claim. Quo Warranto? By what right? I deny the right of ownership. I claim that sentience neccesitates independence. I am against slavery. You make exceptions it.
@boorens18 Here you go with more of your rational and reasonable discussion. Really, is this the BEST you modern atheists are capable of? Red herrings and straw man arguments. Saying I am in favor of slavery does not impress a rational person. You can claim sentience necessitates independence until you are blue in the face. I have a news flash for you:
NOTHING is independent of God or outside of His sovereign control. He created the universe and runs it. Deal with it and get on with it!
@boorens18 So I'm just trolling, ehhh? LOL How's that for the Hershey Bar calling the Tootsie Roll chocolate. YOU are the troll who has been wasting my time. I say this because your ilk NEVER seriously debates or discusses. They flame and bully and flood. You impress NO ONE. If your trash is the best the atheist has to offer....but no, I do know intelligent atheists that at least can carry on a half way decent discourse unlike you. Troll on dude!
The problem isn't separating God from reality and existence, it's the point that the Christian God and it's qualities that have been presented in the Bible conflict with itself, and therefore makes no sense when scrutinized.
@LastDayInSin The God of the Bible only shows self contradiction to those who do not understand apocalyptic language, Jewish hyperbole, anthropomorphism, and why not everything can be or was meant to be taken literally in the Bible. I don't believe, for example, in a big red dragon as found in the book of Revelation, for example.
@Blogrich55 "I don't believe, for example, in a big red dragon as found in the book of Revelation, for example."
So the ever present (and never answered) question is: How do you distinguish between the stuff in the bible that's metaphorical from the stuff that should be taken literally? You can't just use "if it's magical, it's metaphorical" because there are magical things that are supposedly literal, like water to wine.
Why is water to wine real for you, but the dragon isn't?
@OccamKant "Why is water to wine real for you, but the dragon isn't?"
I almost feel that having to explain something so simple constitutes insulting you. But if you insist; A miracle (which you pejoratively refer to as "magic") is NOT apocalyptic or symbolic.You do know the difference between, metaphors, similes, and miracles don't you? To say love is like a rose is a simile.It involves no "magic" but symbolism. To heal a broken leg would be a miracle. Disbelieve all you want don't be obtuse.
@Blogrich55 I'm not being obtuse. I'm frustrated because you guys squirm out of every obvious contradiction by claiming "Oh, you're not supposed to take that LITERALLY", when in fact there is no clue in the writing as to what is literal and what is metaphorical.
How about Jesus telling you to sell all your stuff and give the money away? Is that metaphorical or literal, and if you say metaphorical, explain why.
@Blogrich55 Also - EVERYTHING in "Revelations" is apocalyptic - so does that mean you aren't supposed to take ANYTHING literally there? ie - no hell, no resurrection, no day of judgement, no angels, etc?
@OccamKant "EVERYTHING in "Revelations" is apocalyptic..."
Typical. Were you ever a Mormon or JW?I point out the distinction between similes,metaphors and apocalyptic language and answer your question and you just ignore it without a rational response.SI could recommend you read BIBLICAL APOCALYPTICS by Dr Milton Terry but it is hundreds of pages in length and you wouldn't pay any attention.The point of apocalyptic symbols, now get this is: THEY STAND FOR SOMETHING? miracles are literal!SHEESH!
@OccamKant "And you ignored what I said - if apocalyptic language is to STAND FOR SOMETHING than it doesn't MEAN ANYTHING LITERALLY, right?"
Do you know what a non sequitur is? WHAT do you think stand for something mean? The Apocalypse is a very complicated book. It's events pertained to the 1st century and has long been fulfilled.This is NOT the time or place to go into an exegesis of it.For example, a metaphor represents something. You can literally understand it in its given context.
@Blogrich55 Yes, I know perfectly well what a non sequitur is.
Something is either literal or figurative. Those are your only two choices. If you are saying that the book of revelations is apocalyptic and therefore metaphorical, then it means nothing in there is literal, including the things I've already mentioned. How exactly is this a non sequitur?
My original question to you was: How do you tell the literal from the figurative in the bible. You said that Revelations is figurative. The end.
@OccamKant "Yes, I know perfectly well what a non sequitur is."
You are just arguing to hear yourself argue. If I said "I caught Fred smoking grass," grass is being used in a figurative way to mean marijuana. That does NOT mean you cannot take what I said about Fred's use of Marijuana literally. Grow up or get lost! The end!
@OccamKant "Yes - the term smoking grass doesn't mean literal grass, grass is slang for pot. I know."
Of course you know grass is slang for marijuana or pot. The POINT was even though it is slang, the sentence "I caught Fred smoking grass" is to be taken literally. We KNOW (hopefully) it refers to canibis and NOT the lawn. Now YOU have to prove that hell, angels, God, etc... are slang. Good luck.
@Blogrich55 "Now YOU have to prove that hell, angels, God, etc... are slang."
What? It's YOU who said the entire BOOK (of revelations) was "apocalyptic" and therefore metaphorical. I'm perfectly fine with interpreting them all to be literal - I can easily attack biblical nonsense in literal form.
So is revelations a literal book or an apocalyptic/metaphorical book? If it's literal, great. If it's metaphorical, or if parts are, you have to explain how you know, not just assert it.
@Blogrich55 "The POINT was even though it is slang, the sentence "I caught Fred smoking grass" is to be taken literally. "
No, it's not. Taken literally means NO INTERPRETATION WHATSOEVER. Which means, if you said "Fred was literally smoking grass", it would mean he was smoking lawn.
Literally = no slang, no interpretation, no figures of speech. That's the point of saying "literally" - to emphasize that you actually mean what you say.
@OccamKant Symbols represent things. Either you are to stupid to carry on an intelligent discussion or you are just being obnoxious. YOU make up rules of grammar now do you? Get a life and get a grip. Don't even bother bugging me with your childish rants any further.
@Blogrich55 You act like a complete ass and call ME obnoxious? I'm trying to carry on an actual discussion and you're just being a jerk.
If you can't answer my questions, just say so. I know that my questions are tough -- if you're too ignorant or uncreative to deal with them, then I guess that's too bad.
I'm not making up any rules of grammar, and what we're talking about here isn't grammar but word definitions. Try to stop being such an asshole and answer the question.
@OccamKant "Try to stop being such an asshole and answer the question."
THIS is why you atheists are a joke! You do NOT understand logic. Does the fallacy of the complex question ring any bells? You have ASSUMED angels, hell, etc... are symbols or slang for something. The red dragon, for example, IS a symbol for Satan. So now you think we have a symbol for a symbol?? Fess up! You hate the Bible and are just trying to argue against it. Your problem. I have NO more to say to you.
@OccamKant "Which means, if you said "Fred was literally smoking grass", it would mean he was smoking lawn."
Yes IF I had said THAT it would LITERALLY mean toking the lawn wouldn't it? BUT I did NOT say LITERALLY. You added THAT qualifier and CHANGED the meaning of the sentence. By adding LITERALLY you decidedly showed grass was NOT being used as a metaphor for marijuana.
You don't prove anything by switching the sentences. "I caught Fred smoking grass." Normal people would understand.
So let me get this straight Ace; anytime ANYONE uses slang to communicate with you YOU do not understand or do NOT take them literally. Gee, I hope no one ever informs you someone is "jacking your wheels," or "raping your kid."Tragic as those things are or eve "Hey your crib's on fire dude." You would just sit there and NOT take them literally (the meaning NOT the exact word used for it is a metaphor).WOW.You really are that stupid ehhh? So how is your lobotomy working out for you?
@Blogrich55 No, I understand slang. When did I say I don't get slang?
Why are you so pissed off? I can practically hear you frothing at the mouth. Take a deep breath and relax.
The whole point of understanding literal vs figurative is when NOT to take them literally. If someone said my wheels were jacked, I know they mean that my car was stolen. Wheels = car, jacked = stolen.
Let's go back to my question of revelations: Hell = ? Angels = ? Devil = ?
@OccamKant "Let's go back to my question of revelations: Hell = ? Angels = ? Devil = ? What are these slang for?"
You assume they are slang or symbolic of something else. Now some people would say the lake of fire was slang for Hell. But the devil and angels are no more slang then dog, cat, etc... IMHO
@Blogrich55 Ok - then if these terms are not slang, are meant to be taken literally, then why do you not take the "Dragon" term literally, which is in the same book?
Is Revelations a literal book, or a metaphorical one? And if you're going to say it's some kind of mix, how do you know "Angel" is not metaphorical, but "Dragon" is?
@OccamKant "Ok - then if these terms are not slang, are meant to be taken literally, then why do you not take the "Dragon" term literally, which is in the same book?"
That's a very good question. For one thing, the red dragon IS a symbol for the devil (a fallen angel).
@Blogrich55 "That's a very good question. For one thing, the red dragon IS a symbol for the devil (a fallen angel)."
Ok - first, where do you get that idea (where in the bible does it say that Satan is the Dragon), and second, that still doesn't explain why you should think that this dragon is a symbolic dragon and not a real dragon.
Why interpret an "angel" as literal, and a "dragon" as figurative? There is nothing that I've seen in the text that would allow you to make that distinction.
@Blogrich55 I'll clarify I guess incase you dont understand my argument. Simmer down, no need to get angry or hostile. Lets have a rationale and reasonable discussion. What right does god have to justify slavery? You claim that creating individuals gives him that right? I respond with, why? Why does creating someone grant the rights to be immoral to them? Why? Quo Warranto?
@boorens18 Typical atheist tactics. First you put words in a person's mouth and hurl accusations designed to try to anger them. Then, when they answer firmly or with conviction you tell them to simmer down. You talk of slavery? Check YOUR comments out dude. YOU are a control freak. Surprise surprise!
There is NO rational or reasonable discussion with person such as yourself who drum up straw man arguments and red herrings. Quo Warranto? The fact that God has created EVERYTHING grants Him that
@Blogrich55 You literally are advocating for slavery....you are saying its ok as long as you have more power. (PS the bible does advocate slavery of other people. Jesus on many occasions instructs on the matter) Do you not realize what you are saying? Is your moral compass that horribly disfigured? Might=Right? Seriously? I haven't heard of someone trying to justify that since the civil war.
@boorens18 Are you REALLY as obtuse as you are coming across or just being a troll and yanking my chain for the fun of it? OR, is it possible you are so uninformed in the areas of philosophy, theology, and logic that you just don't realize your blunders?
Either God is in control and the Moral governor of the universe or man is. NOW, IF man is in control and NOT operating under God, how does he maintain control? By the power of the State. THEY are the ones with the guns and coerce the people...
#2 Now when the STATE forces people to, for example, pay income tax, (even though it is unconstitutional) or enforce prohibition or a plethora of other things, how do they do it? Through MIGHT. Do you want to know who really advocates might makes right? It is called democracy: The voice of the PEOPLE is the voice of God. Well NO ONE is above the law.
God is in a separate category from man. Man has the ability to create NOTHING. He can merely reorganize things into different forms and invent.
God is not moral.God is superior to morality.God is absolute Virtue.God is not equal to his laws,even moral.Man is not powerless to morality he believes controlling in subjective ways, better than an objective morality.The only rationale relationship to morality is powerlessness.its not ought or not ought,its are you powerless to absolute Virtue?If there is an absolute Virtue even as a possibility it dictates I ought not trust my morality. Which is from a brain of DNA that is a dying brain
Point 2: 'As long as we have a coherent understanding of what we mean by 'moral' and 'rational'. Cool, go ahead, so what do you mean by 'moral' ? Can you give a definition ? What is morality ? What is it for ? What is it based on ? Could man do without ? What is it measured by or against ? What is the relation between morality and man's life ? Do you think there could be a 'moral ought' which is directed against man's life, i.g a moral 'commandment' which is detrimental to man's life ?
You said that 'facts of outhness' do not exist independently from a desired outcome or condition. What is such a desired outcome or condition ? Can you make a GENERALIZED statement, what you measure against ? Is there a standard by which you measure or do you need to judge case by case ? If you judge case by case, again, what do you judge against ? What is the standard by which you judge ? Is ANY desired outcome legitimate just because the outcome is wished for ? What is a LEGITIMATE outcome ?
@TOMsReason You judge it against your desire. If you desire not to go to prison you ought not to murder someone. Asking whether 'not going to prison' is a legitimate outcome seems like a nonsense question to me. To get people to follow rules, the people must not desire the outcome of breaking those rules more than they desire to break them. Most of us have built into us desires or fears that cause us to not hurt each other (for the most part) for the same reason.
@TOMsReason The main point here is that before one can effectively answer the question "what ought I do?", one must first answer the question "what is my desired outcome?"
Most of the time, when the first question is asked, the answer to the second is assumed. The assumption of the answer makes the question practically unnecessary, but not technically so.
How about this, ignore the criteria of Biblegod, as a believe in God does not necessitate a belief in the any of the incarnations of the Abrahamic God concepts. While I disagree of where his beliefs lead to, it could be that there ARE moral absolutes just like there are logical absolutes, but those absolutes are ultimately as ineffable as the Creator from which they derive. Therfore, as we learn more we come closer in our apporoximation of those objective morals as we evolve as a species.
That's my response as well. Moore's Open Question Argument works just as well to reductions to theological facts. That's why he thought the moral realm was sui generis and completely irreducible.
Well without right thinking 1 could assume that God does wrong. Such thinking is likely to align them with a Muslim per being merely for themselves.
Islam rises with the sword in Revelations 13:10 & concludes with controlling buying / selling, ignoring the desire of women, & requiring false worship.
Revelations 13:18 "Here is wisdom: Let him that hath understanding calculate the multitude of the 2nd beast for it comes from 1 man (Muhammed) & the multitude comes in the name of Allah."
The argument assumes that you understand what the existence of right and wrong entails i.e. an ultimate, objective, absolute mind. "Ought" (being that which is morally commendable) does not exist if it has no concrete definition. Therefore, to say that "ought" exists is to say that absolute definitions exist, which is to say that an absolute "definer" exists. And actually, "better" does imply an absolute standard which runs through both the concept of morality AND the concept of rationality.
Might I suggest that you explore other moral theories. I am not saying yours is incorrect but subjective right and wrong had been argued for in terms of happiness and suffering (utilitarianism) and non contradiction (Kantian theory) very effectively. The idea that right and wrong cannot exist in any form without an objective mind is outdated and flawed.
Sorry chaps,I'm being a tad facetious but I really like TB's take on philosophy,meaning his 'moral' stance on things,not his reasons for being an athiest as opposed to theist.
But TB mate your logic and reason when applied to philosophical questions,your language,it conveys loads of content fast and clear,you're a sharp fucker man and it's a pleasure to watch your debating skills
You (Theoretical Bullshit) should take them on, because you can probably posit better arguments than I. I'm going to go study, so I can in the future debate them without any accusations of illiteracy.
I never understood the "ought/is" problem, because it has always been obvious to me that everything "ought" is goal oriented; "ought" simply means something which brings you closer to a particular goal and "ought not" is something which moves you away. It's as clear as day to me, and I could never understand why so many people have such problems with it.
The word "ought" is ambiguous, so while your use of the word does not engender a philosophical problem, it's not the only use of the word. "Ought" is often used unconditionally, which is why the sentence, "Harry ought to emulate Hitler," seems wrong to many people, even once informed that Harry's goal is to commit genocide.
I don't think it is ambiguous at all, nor do I think it is ever used unconditionally. Too often the goals are merely assumed, and that brings all the problems associated with assumption. Remember, "ought" is used in more than just a moral sense, when people say that you ought to change your oil every 3000 miles, again it is with an assumed goal in mind.
As for Harry, saying he ought to emulate Hitler does seem weird, but not once the goal is stated. Not to me anyway.
You don't believe the word "ought" is ever used unconditionally? Well we're too far apart then to talk much about that, but suffice it to say Hume and others disagree with you; if "ought" were really just an instrumental word, surely it wouldn't have been an issue over as many years as it has. Compared to the option that countless people, many of them very smart, have overlooked your simple solution, it seems more parsimonious to say that there's actually something more going on.
Additionally, I find it odd that on the one hand you say the word 'ought' is not ambiguous at all, then on the other you say the word is used in more than just a moral sense. So, you've gestured in two directions.
"if "ought" were really just an instrumental word, surely it wouldn't have been an issue over as many years as it has."
Indeed; I have no problem with the idea that I'm apparently missing something. I think it would have been more helpful, however, if you pointed out what it was or perhaps explained.
"So, you've gestured in two directions."
Not at all. Like any word that is used in multiple ways, context is key. The context of the oil change above lets you know that it isn't about morality.
Something meaning different things in different (and obvious) contexts is not ambiguous at all. "Ought" is *always" movement toward a goal, that is not ambiguous. What *may be* ambiguous is the unstated goal.
We should all examine what the unstated goals of our various moral systems are, don't you agree?
I only think we *should* examine the unstated goals of our various moral systems if we care to. Even assuming we do care to, we have no resources to judge one goal against another, except by comparison with yet another goal, yes?
Pointing out what it is you're missing just is pointing out that the word "ought" sometimes is used to communicate a moral obligation. I agree that the example about the oil change isn't about morality.. But what you're saying is more ambitious, because while I acknowledge the non-moral use you cite, you deny the use of the word "ought" that deals with moral obligation. I find this puzzling, and if we don't already agree, I don't see how there's room here to deal with it effectively.
"you deny the use of the word "ought" that deals with moral obligation."
The fact that you wrote this means that I have either completely failed to explain my position, or you have completely failed to understand it. The above is not my position at all.
I hate trying to write about stuff in these damned claustrophobic comment boxes. Perhaps I'll try again in private messenging later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for the exchange so far.
Thank you too Theophage. You're right, there's not enough room here. It's also hard to tell in this short a space if an interlocutor is being snarky or not, and I'm sure that's a two way street. I trust by now that we're both shooting each other straight. Talk soon..
It still amazes me how even intelligent theists dont see these obviouse thing and make other (both intelligent and less intelligent) theists scream nonsens like: "good without god is not good!", "you have no morals since you dont believe in a higher authority!"
this is an actor i can really respect. i'm not saying he's acting in the video, but since the fact he's a TV celebrity in general. he actually takes seriously videos from random joes out there, on religion. that's saying something. more actors should follow the model this guy puts out both in dealing with regular people and being a bit more intelligent in general when it comes to philosophy and religion and whatnot.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
Converting commands into hypothetical conditional remarks is no demonstration of how an "ought" is deduced from an "is."
First, it begs the question, for anyone with an empirical epistemology must first be able to verify or falsify moral principles, yet principles themselves cannot be sensed--only understood. Thus, every "ought" claim must be necessarily rejected according to the Verification and / or Falsification principles. Empirical thought eliminates any hope of ethics and morality.
Second, since any ethical theory necessarily depends upon its epistemology, Scott must first demonstrate his empirical epistemological position is sound, and he has conveniently skipped any discussion concerning the theory of knowledge. For example, if knowledge is impossible, then ethics and morality is equally impossible--for one must KNOW what one desires before any discussion on what should be done about that desire begins. Epistemology logically precedes ethics in the ordo cognoscendi.
Third, this foolish scheme presupposes that anything one desires ought to be carried out. However, this is simply a disguised way of saying there is no such thing as "ought." For any word to be intelligible, then it must not only constantly mean something, but it must also not mean something. If "ought" could mean anything, then it would necessarily mean nothing, for no one could possibly know what the term implied from one moment to the next. So, if Scott is right, he is wrong.
Finally, Biblical Christianity escapes the impossible quagmire of deducing an "ought" from an "is," for its "ought" statements are contained within its Axiom. Since the Bible alone is the Axiom of Christianity, then one need only convert the Ten Commands into standard categorical form for further deductive work.
This is the superior intellectual nature of Biblical Chrisitanity, that is, Calvinism.
Last comment for me here for a while: know for certain that Jesus is the King of all things, and the Savior of men -- that is, Lord and Christ. The problem of evil is real, and you are part of it. If you can obey God's law, then do it: if not, repent for your sin, and have faith that Christ is the payment for your sin which turns God's wrath toward you into acceptance and forgiveness.
God bless you -- God keep you. May he enlighten you.
That's your "proof", God "just is" real? Like so many others you boast about evidence when you have none. But it's uderstandbale, because "if God's existence was somehow proven it would negate the meaning of fauth, the core tennet of your beliefs, and make religion worthless: "God" would just become a part of the natural world.
And you're wrong about christianity being the first written religion: the Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Samhitas date to roughly 15001000 BCE
I think he does give a reason as to why god is an explanation of these facts. It's nutty as almond butter, but it's there. I think he's saying that because we have the ability to rationalize what 'ought' to be, that we have an ingrained moral compass, there is therefore a god! I love that, actually, because it means that if i can REALLY REALLY imagine what driving a ferarri is like, there MUST be one in my driveway! I can't wait to go outside! (wait! i don't even have a parking spot!)
I actually like this video as, I think, you are right about the video you are critiquing. However, it actually points out the weakness of the argument you are providing overall.
There was a man named Victor Hugo born on 26 Feb 1802, and he died on 22 May 1885. Prove that Hugo actually existed -- or deny that he did, and line out the reasons why. Either way, we're going to come in short order to the real bounced philosophical check in the way you're pursuing your arguments about God.
We gather evidence for the existence of Hugo (birth certificate, tax information, photographs) and if there is sufficient evidence to back up the claim "Victor Hugo existed" we can say that he did.
If however we're unable to fiund any evidence from that time period about the said man then we assume he didn't exist. Is it proof? No, but proving negatives is often impossible.
Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God.
It's simply lack of belief (due to lack of evidence) for any God.
I'd like to see Victor Hugo's birth certificate. I have seen refences to it in biographies of him, so I'd like to see it.
BTW, your definition of atheism is over-stated. Because you argue against God's existence, you have a belief in his non-existence. Whatever atheism might be in theory, it is what it is for you.
No. You people twist the definition of atheism to make it a belief system in order to evade the burden of proof.
Atheism does not argue that God necessarily doesn't exist. The reason atheist don't believe in any Gods is because theists consistently fail to provide any evidence to support their claim of a supernatural being existing.
I'm not claming that God doesn't exist, but as a rational person it's ill-advised to believe in something without proof, which is what theists don't understand.
So far you have argued against the existence of God. What you have not done is said, "eh: I've never heard of God. I don;t know what that means."
If you were doing the latter, you could say you just have lack of belief. When you start with the "I reject your evidences," you have done something else.
For the record: the resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God.
There is no evidence of Jesus even existing outside of religious texts. The bibble was written over a thousand years before the discovery of science, and as such the book has no scientific value and copying has degraded what little historical value it had.
And even if it was discovered somehow that a man named Jesus actually lived two thousand years ago we have no proof whatsoever that there was any ressurection took place.
I don't reject your evidence, because you have none to present.
re: "no evidence" is simply false. There are at least a half-dozen Roman historians who placed Jesus in Palestine in the first half of the 1st century.
re: "copying has degraded what little historical value it had" -- Can you name any passage of the NT which does not represent the oirignal in a reliable way? I think you can't.
First of all, I agree it's completely possiblr that a man named Jesus existed. But there are no plausible evidence for any miracles he supposedly performed. Hence, there is no evidence that Jesus existed in the sense that Bibble refers to him (son of god). Whether or not a man by that name was alive then or not is besides the point. Granted my original wording was misleading.
Moreover, we don't have the original version of the NT. That's my point: It's a copy, of a copy, of a copy.
I want to appreciate your honesty as we chat here -- thanks for allowing the correction.
Do you know how old the oldest surviving copies of the texts of the NT books and letters are? I'm asking because I think you don't have any archeological facts for your claim here.
Ind to continue a bit: Even if the new testament was word for word 100% the same book than the original, it's historical auhtority is still weak. The so called "eye-witness" accounts are written decades after the actual events. Secondly, although many of the places and persons in the bibble are historically correct, it still has no reliability as a historical source when it comes to Jesus: It's the holy book of a religion that is based around the man, of course it's not in any way objective.
The dating of the NT books relative to the events is an anomaly in the ancient world -- for the timeliness of their appearance after the events.
For example, the Jewish Wars were begun around 165 BC, and the only thorough account of the we have is from Josephus, who was writing in 75 AD -- so more than 200 years separate the eariest enevts from the writer. Excluding biographical writings, this time lapse was common in the ancient world -- and we don't think history is a black hole.
The fact that its "dating", as you word it, is common for its era does not make it any more accurate or reliable source. Additionally historians use different kinds of data (like archeology) in addition to texts to make picture more complete. History isn't based on books alone.
Before this discussion get's completely derailed why don't you show me your supposed evidence for Jesus' ressurection that "proves God's existence". And by evidence I really mean something other than a religious text.
I have a suspicion that any text which affirms the resurrection is by definition a religious text to you.
How about the polemic of the Jews for then next 200 years that Jesus' body was stolen by his disciples? That would be an argument that confirms that his body was missing, his disciples were teaching this early in the history of the church, and their opponents had no other way to deny he was not there.
That evidence, btw, also confirms Jesus as a real person; it confirms that his opponents had to deal with the evidence of the empty tomb.
If Jesus rose from the dead, there is no scientific or naturalistic explanation for what he represents -- you have to at least admit that. You don't have to believe it, but you should admit that if it's true it's pretty significant evidence for what Jesus said it was about.
on dating: if it was common for history to be written down decades/centuries after the fact in the ancient world, then your objection that the Gospels were written down a couple of decades after the fact is moot.
Admit that they're not disqualified by their date of origin. The only question is why they were written down at all. Think of it: if this was merely religious lit, it sprang up from almost nothing. No religion in history until Christianity started as a set of written stories.
For the record: having knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus is proof only of someone having written those words down. There's no "proof" of the resurrection. I don't think any rational (high functioning) theist would ever even imply that there's any "proof" of the resurrection of christ.
We should be careful of the words we use -- because you cannot offer "proof" of Victor Hugo: only evidence. The question is whether the evidence is compelling or not.
My suggestion is that the evidence of Jesus, and his resurrection, are compelling. However, this isn't geometry: "proof" os a different thing when speaking of past historical events.
Well, again, besides stories in a book, I don't see any compelling evidence of Christ's resurrection. People have Victor Hugo's writings, his drawings, they know where he was born, and we have people's anger with him about his trivializations of the catholic church... There is, perhaps compelling evidence for Christ's life, but there is as much evidence for his resurrection as there is for Victor Hugo's resurrection. Now THAT was a neat trick. He makes the best coffee. Victor! SKIM milk!
You should look at Theowarner's response to veritas. It takes all the philosophical oughts into consideration instead of just propagating one worldview as an ought.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Theoretical...you state that your beliefs are better but then you don't state (and defend )what your beliefs are.(??). I really don't mean to offend, but , and does anybod else see it, you have sort of a William Shatner quality in your presentation. Stay well.
I think that we live in a partially free country and everyone has the right to believe what they want. I am a borderline christian I guess because i question my beliefs. However I quite enjoy Scott's theoritical bullshit. And a lot of what he says I completely agree with. Keep it up scott! And to all you christians out there if there is a god isn't he the only one allowed to judge yet you judge daily and also don't follow all of your Gods rules
I agree for the most part, We do live in a "free" Country but the problem is that most "christians/Religious people" believe their jewish zombie story, therefore so must I. They consistently pick and choose which rules of their faith they will follow. On top of being morally bankrupt I.E. Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort. There are many more reasons I can't stand but for the most part these are my main ones.
That was good spanish man! I would like to see you trying portuguese.
DaluZwasUnavailable 3 months ago
Did you do this video after having a few drinks? lol..
imafoolhahaha 5 months ago
This is the thing Ive always thought. Its not that I have a problem believing in a god or gods, but rather I have a problem swallowing what christians call "his will". As it stands I cant believe in this for the same reason that a christian cant believe in anything else. Its because you dont want to be wrong or else you might face gods wrath.
vidfreak56 5 months ago
Out of curiosity, what non-normative definition would you give to the word "moral"?
I usually define being moral as "doing what ought to be done (given a particular situation)." If so, the question "why ought I be moral" IS a meaningless question.
Rationality may have a purely descriptive definition, but I'm not sure about morality here. Same goes for "goodness" "better" and other terms you use in your refutation.
derfos666 5 months ago
@derfos666 He actually has a half hour video about how he defines morality, how it can be objectively measured, and how it works completely better than a christian idea of what is wrong, it's called "Treatise on Morality"
BigLundi 2 months ago
Haha Veritas is a moron.
Ekenedil 5 months ago
This is really good. I've been trying to word it better, but I've argued similarly by saying "to say you cannot derive an ought from an is is false in both worldviews. In the religious worldview you are deriving all your oughts(morals) from the IS of god's existence."
qtzlctl2012 7 months ago
Sometimes I really think people come up with all kinds of reasons and debates 'why' they don't want to acknowledge God. Analyzing every single thing, breaking it apart. Simply put, it's rebellion against authority using your own reasons why you don't have to, why should you, I don't want to, acknowledge God that He is right & not wrong.
donnajfrnb 9 months ago
@donnajfrnb
It's not about not wanting to believe, it's that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
sdrawkcabgnipytmi 9 months ago 8
@donnajfrnb "it's rebellion against authority using your own reasons" The same can be said for your position. Your superstition is nothing more than an act of rebellion against reality. God must be true, because if it´s not, you are not special and will not live forever. And because you don´t want to face the reality that there´s no rational reason to believe in a god, you just rape your own brain with belief in myths, thinking that, if you have faith enough, it will became true.
lfzadra 8 months ago
@donnajfrnb I'm sure it would seem like that to a believer, but of course, everyone with different religious beliefs thinks similar things about you.
eggertstwart 4 months ago
Bypassing all the fancy articulated reasoning, philosophy etc of your intelligent mind, is this about denying Gods existence & authority? It looks like it is. Its also coming across as 'I am so intelligent, me, 'I am'. Where could you possibly go & lead people to with this message? What's your cause, purpose & outcome for this message?
donnajfrnb 9 months ago
@donnajfrnb " Where could you possibly go & lead people to with this message?" To truth. If you don´t care about what is true, just keep believing in anything you without evidence, like Unicorns, Santa Claus, Big Foot, God or anything else. If you do care about what is true, faith and scriptures are not a path to it.
lfzadra 8 months ago
Wow que bien hablas español. jajaja
menonfire12 1 year ago
If anyone wouldn't mind catching my fall on this is-ought topic: what ought to be and what should be must go hand in hand with a conditional? Let me use a real life example of the sort of things my cousin says to me. "Jordan, you should do X, because of (fact) Q", Jordan you should go for your life guarding certificate, because there is a test coming up soon. Could this be translated to the following: Jordan, if there is Q, then you should X?
ijanx 1 year ago
@ijanx TBS's point, which I agree with completely, is that "should/oughts" only exist in conjunction with a "if you want..." statement.
You should get a lifeguarding certificate if you want to be a lifeguard. You ought to buy groceries if you want to make dinner.
There is always an 'if', perhaps unspoken, following an 'ought' statement.
OccamKant 10 months ago
We have morality (is), and therefore there ought to have an all powerful super deity that created everything. That's what I'm getting out of the theists argument.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
I'm starting to think the people aren't going to make any sort of coherent sense of the world until they get over this compulsive need for consistency, and aristotelian logicality. Logicalness. Logictitude?
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
I think the reason you "ought" to obey god is so that you don't recieve the punishment for disobeying at a minimum. Why would a christian even try to argue with you? God can speak for himself.
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hot sexy ladies from Thailand for marry gettop5.info
yvette5f 1 year ago
Are you going to be published, theo?
steinarrexfaroensis 1 year ago
you babble, and your arguments are repetitive and boring....you thing you're clever by asking rhetorical questions and making odd circular connections using math equations......are you going insane? take your meds,get a job,and keep your bullshit to yourself...
modestoca25 1 year ago
I didn't understand half the beginning, and i'm a native spanish speaker. Hilarious. Also, you have an extremely sexy spanish voice.
kmuse1713 1 year ago
@kmuse1713 you have to be bi-polar to understand him
modestoca25 1 year ago
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis
dakuwon86 1 year ago
I wonder how many times he read that spanish script before he could say it that fast.
lilmunch64 1 year ago
The funniest thing about most humans? They can have faith in anything and everything...except for the fact that their lives are ends in themselves and have value.
NatsGhost 1 year ago
very hot spanish im just saying
devchelle2 1 year ago
If God does not exist, as you claim, how can the statement "God says we should love our neighbor" possibly a statement of what is??
Also, assuming God does exist, then "God says we should love our neighbors" would indeed be an ought. Why? Because we OUGHT to do what God commands us. It is (would be) His world and He would have proprietary rights over it.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 If your goal is to please god, then yes, you ought to do what he commands you to do (assuming he exists). If that is not your goal, there is no normative impulse to do what he commands. What you have said does not refute the statement that any normative fact is contingent on some purpose or goal.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 No pun intended but perhaps you should practice the: "Love thy neighbor..." bit. You don't seeing as you treat those that don't follow your religious beliefs like shit.
Sectumsempra9833175 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 so you believe that if someone creates something....they automatically have rights over it? ie if god creates us...he has rights over us? Well if thats the case, then why doesnt a parent "own" their child as property and have "proprietary rights" over them? Your assumption is kinda gross. It implies that you want to be a slave, and believe in "owning" individuals. Thats kinda pretty immoral. Its the perfect example of how religion corrupts people. Making them want to be serfs
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Yes, I do believe God, as the Creator, has exclusive rights over His creation. Also, parents don't actually "create" anything. They are NOT like Dr Frankenstein assembling a child out of parts. If parents could just "create" children there wouldn't be so many childless couples, would there? Parents procreate. Only God creates ANYTHING.
Jesus said those who sin are slaves of sin. So that would put us ALL into the same leaky boat now wouldn't it? Parents don't own their children BTW.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
Thats exactly my point! Parents DONT own their children. Arguing that parents only "procreate." suggests you just arent getting the point. The point is that NO ONE under NO circumstances (even god), can justify "owning" another individual. To argue otherwise, suggests you have a rooted desire to be a slave, which is horrifying. The essence of Sadomasicism. I urge you to learn the meaning of the latin phrase "Quo Warranto?" When you figure out how it applies, then considering replying.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 So WHO died and made YOU God to decide for all of the world that "NO ONE under NO circumstances (even god) can justify "owning" another individual"? Forget your irrational non sequitur about having a "deep rooted desire to be a slave" and all the rest of your nonsense. YOU are the one who doesn't get it.
Who would God be answerable to? God does NOT do something because it is right. It is right because God does it. See my video GOD RULES AS HE SEES FIT.
Who will God show the QW to?
Blogrich55 1 year ago
You poor fool, your mind has been twisted by your religion. I knew you wouldn't understand why "Quo Warranto" is such a famous quote. I didnt "decide" that owning people is wrong, the argument is that no one can JUSTIFY it in the first place. BY WHAT RIGHT? Your pitiful attempt at such was to say basically "might=right" If thats how you think then your sense of morality truly is as bronze aged as your beliefs. Why then can America not slaughter anyone who opposes them if might=right
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Do you even know what a mind is? Is it merely chemical electrical activity in the brain? If so, how can you determine a true proposition from a false one? You canNOT! You don't understand basic philosophy, especially epistemology. You LOVE to read things into people. THAT is what your ilk do. It is basically called resorting to straw man arguments.
WHY? You can't disprove my arguments and so drum up stupid accusations like me advocating slavery then attack that. Way to go! WRONG!
Blogrich55 1 year ago
Minds= "chem. elec. activity in the brain"...therefore you cant determine true prop. from false one. Biggest non sequitor...ever.
Did you, or did you not advocate that might=right? You said it yourself, god gets to make us slaves cuz he created us. That means, you are for slavery. You believe in "owning" individuals. Again I ask the question. "QUO WARRANTO?"
You dont have an argument, I reject your premise. That, even if you could "create" someone, you STILL can't justify owning them.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 You prove my suspicions in spades. YOU don't even understand the epistemological dilemma you are in. You accuse me of a non sequitur and I have to doubt you even understand the argument I refer to. Did I advocate might makes right? I dunno, did you SEE me write anything to that effect? I know the atheist usually TRIES to apply this to God. Yet YOU have NOT answered even one of my questions. I never said IF YOU could create someone you would own them. You can't YOU are NOT God!
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 and ps yes you did say that might=right. Quote:
"who would god be answerable to?...it is right because god does it" ie Might=right
What is your question? Another implication of that comment is that not only do you desire to be a slave, (shiver) but you also are supporting a giant totalitarian and oppressive rule. If you think this is a just and good system....well....all the worse for you.
PS please keep it to 2 comment responses maximum. Condense your ideas.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 To say God is sovereign and has a PROPRIETARY RIGHT to rule and use His creation as He sees fit is NOT advocating might makes right. He has this right NOT because He is some sort of all powerful cosmic bully but is the Creator. Rights are NOT to be thought of merely as a result of power. The STATE abuses its power on a daily basis and has NO legitimate right to do so.
Please stop your asinine flights of fancy a accusing me of advocating slavery. Please do not tell me what to do LOL
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 boorens18 probably performs a kind of slavery of his own at home using leather swings, whips and chains for all the leather daddies he brings over to cum play lol....
modestoca25 1 year ago
Again you claim I'm making false ad hominems, yet you are continuously demonstrating that they are right. A fact, is not an ad hominem. You have the root of sadomachocism in you. You believe that creating life grants you ownership of it.
Perhaps an analogy would expose your disguisting idea. Say humans eventually develop the technology to "create matter" and then create new humans. By your line of reasoning, we could enslave them.
What separates us is I claim slavery is ALWAYS wrong.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 I think if you will review my responses you will find I charged you with resorting to straw man arguments. I do NOT believe the word ad hominems was brought up. You are a nut! You like to play Sickmind Fraud? LOL Accusing people of having "the root of sadomachocism [sic]" in them. LOL Get real or quit wasting my time! Perhaps if pigs fly we can demand they have a pilot's license too! LOL
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 I ain't doing any psychoanalysis on you. What you have said BY DIRECT CONSEQUENCE advocates slavery. You claim god gets to enslave us. ie You think that owning people is justifiable. Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your position if you don't like the consequences of it. I don't see your reasoning behind "if someone creates an individual, they get to own it" That is a non sequitor. The premise doesnt follow. Where do you get that idea?
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 The fact that God has prerogatives which are His alone due to His being Creator of the universe does NOT imply we as humans share these prerogatives or that I advocate slavery. Quit grasping for straws. We are NOT God (unless maybe you're a Mormon LOL.) I NEVER said if SOMEONE.... God is in a class all by Himself. You cannot arrogate His rights to man.
Yes, you DID try to play psychoanalysis when you accuse me of believing in slavery and being a sadist, etc.. Grow up and THINK! LOL
Blogrich55 1 year ago
You know what, I can refute both those comments in one question. You claim god has proprietary rights over his creation. That because he made it, he can do with it as he wishes. The fact that people are individuals makes no difference to you. For you, slavery is fine as long as you create the individuals. I challenge that claim. Quo Warranto? By what right? I deny the right of ownership. I claim that sentience neccesitates independence. I am against slavery. You make exceptions it.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Here you go with more of your rational and reasonable discussion. Really, is this the BEST you modern atheists are capable of? Red herrings and straw man arguments. Saying I am in favor of slavery does not impress a rational person. You can claim sentience necessitates independence until you are blue in the face. I have a news flash for you:
NOTHING is independent of God or outside of His sovereign control. He created the universe and runs it. Deal with it and get on with it!
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55..... Oh...nvm you are just trolling....K well you've wasted enough of my time :P cheers.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 So I'm just trolling, ehhh? LOL How's that for the Hershey Bar calling the Tootsie Roll chocolate. YOU are the troll who has been wasting my time. I say this because your ilk NEVER seriously debates or discusses. They flame and bully and flood. You impress NO ONE. If your trash is the best the atheist has to offer....but no, I do know intelligent atheists that at least can carry on a half way decent discourse unlike you. Troll on dude!
Blogrich55 1 year ago
The problem isn't separating God from reality and existence, it's the point that the Christian God and it's qualities that have been presented in the Bible conflict with itself, and therefore makes no sense when scrutinized.
LastDayInSin 1 year ago
@LastDayInSin The God of the Bible only shows self contradiction to those who do not understand apocalyptic language, Jewish hyperbole, anthropomorphism, and why not everything can be or was meant to be taken literally in the Bible. I don't believe, for example, in a big red dragon as found in the book of Revelation, for example.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 "I don't believe, for example, in a big red dragon as found in the book of Revelation, for example."
So the ever present (and never answered) question is: How do you distinguish between the stuff in the bible that's metaphorical from the stuff that should be taken literally? You can't just use "if it's magical, it's metaphorical" because there are magical things that are supposedly literal, like water to wine.
Why is water to wine real for you, but the dragon isn't?
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "Why is water to wine real for you, but the dragon isn't?"
I almost feel that having to explain something so simple constitutes insulting you. But if you insist; A miracle (which you pejoratively refer to as "magic") is NOT apocalyptic or symbolic.You do know the difference between, metaphors, similes, and miracles don't you? To say love is like a rose is a simile.It involves no "magic" but symbolism. To heal a broken leg would be a miracle. Disbelieve all you want don't be obtuse.
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 I'm not being obtuse. I'm frustrated because you guys squirm out of every obvious contradiction by claiming "Oh, you're not supposed to take that LITERALLY", when in fact there is no clue in the writing as to what is literal and what is metaphorical.
How about Jesus telling you to sell all your stuff and give the money away? Is that metaphorical or literal, and if you say metaphorical, explain why.
OccamKant 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 Also - EVERYTHING in "Revelations" is apocalyptic - so does that mean you aren't supposed to take ANYTHING literally there? ie - no hell, no resurrection, no day of judgement, no angels, etc?
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "EVERYTHING in "Revelations" is apocalyptic..."
Typical. Were you ever a Mormon or JW?I point out the distinction between similes,metaphors and apocalyptic language and answer your question and you just ignore it without a rational response.SI could recommend you read BIBLICAL APOCALYPTICS by Dr Milton Terry but it is hundreds of pages in length and you wouldn't pay any attention.The point of apocalyptic symbols, now get this is: THEY STAND FOR SOMETHING? miracles are literal!SHEESH!
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 And you ignored what I said - if apocalyptic language is to STAND FOR SOMETHING than it doesn't MEAN ANYTHING LITERALLY, right?
Which means, no heaven, no hell, no lake of fire, no angels, RIGHT?
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "And you ignored what I said - if apocalyptic language is to STAND FOR SOMETHING than it doesn't MEAN ANYTHING LITERALLY, right?"
Do you know what a non sequitur is? WHAT do you think stand for something mean? The Apocalypse is a very complicated book. It's events pertained to the 1st century and has long been fulfilled.This is NOT the time or place to go into an exegesis of it.For example, a metaphor represents something. You can literally understand it in its given context.
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 Yes, I know perfectly well what a non sequitur is.
Something is either literal or figurative. Those are your only two choices. If you are saying that the book of revelations is apocalyptic and therefore metaphorical, then it means nothing in there is literal, including the things I've already mentioned. How exactly is this a non sequitur?
My original question to you was: How do you tell the literal from the figurative in the bible. You said that Revelations is figurative. The end.
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "Yes, I know perfectly well what a non sequitur is."
You are just arguing to hear yourself argue. If I said "I caught Fred smoking grass," grass is being used in a figurative way to mean marijuana. That does NOT mean you cannot take what I said about Fred's use of Marijuana literally. Grow up or get lost! The end!
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 Yes - the term smoking grass doesn't mean literal grass, grass is slang for pot. I know.
So what is "hell" slang for? What are "angels" slang for?
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "Yes - the term smoking grass doesn't mean literal grass, grass is slang for pot. I know."
Of course you know grass is slang for marijuana or pot. The POINT was even though it is slang, the sentence "I caught Fred smoking grass" is to be taken literally. We KNOW (hopefully) it refers to canibis and NOT the lawn. Now YOU have to prove that hell, angels, God, etc... are slang. Good luck.
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 "Now YOU have to prove that hell, angels, God, etc... are slang."
What? It's YOU who said the entire BOOK (of revelations) was "apocalyptic" and therefore metaphorical. I'm perfectly fine with interpreting them all to be literal - I can easily attack biblical nonsense in literal form.
So is revelations a literal book or an apocalyptic/metaphorical book? If it's literal, great. If it's metaphorical, or if parts are, you have to explain how you know, not just assert it.
OccamKant 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 "The POINT was even though it is slang, the sentence "I caught Fred smoking grass" is to be taken literally. "
No, it's not. Taken literally means NO INTERPRETATION WHATSOEVER. Which means, if you said "Fred was literally smoking grass", it would mean he was smoking lawn.
Literally = no slang, no interpretation, no figures of speech. That's the point of saying "literally" - to emphasize that you actually mean what you say.
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant Symbols represent things. Either you are to stupid to carry on an intelligent discussion or you are just being obnoxious. YOU make up rules of grammar now do you? Get a life and get a grip. Don't even bother bugging me with your childish rants any further.
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 You act like a complete ass and call ME obnoxious? I'm trying to carry on an actual discussion and you're just being a jerk.
If you can't answer my questions, just say so. I know that my questions are tough -- if you're too ignorant or uncreative to deal with them, then I guess that's too bad.
I'm not making up any rules of grammar, and what we're talking about here isn't grammar but word definitions. Try to stop being such an asshole and answer the question.
OccamKant 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OccamKant "Try to stop being such an asshole and answer the question."
THIS is why you atheists are a joke! You do NOT understand logic. Does the fallacy of the complex question ring any bells? You have ASSUMED angels, hell, etc... are symbols or slang for something. The red dragon, for example, IS a symbol for Satan. So now you think we have a symbol for a symbol?? Fess up! You hate the Bible and are just trying to argue against it. Your problem. I have NO more to say to you.
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@OccamKant "Which means, if you said "Fred was literally smoking grass", it would mean he was smoking lawn."
Yes IF I had said THAT it would LITERALLY mean toking the lawn wouldn't it? BUT I did NOT say LITERALLY. You added THAT qualifier and CHANGED the meaning of the sentence. By adding LITERALLY you decidedly showed grass was NOT being used as a metaphor for marijuana.
You don't prove anything by switching the sentences. "I caught Fred smoking grass." Normal people would understand.
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 Yes, normal people would understand. But you said, and I quote:
"the sentence "I caught Fred smoking grass" is to be taken literally. "
And it is NOT to be taken literally.
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant
So let me get this straight Ace; anytime ANYONE uses slang to communicate with you YOU do not understand or do NOT take them literally. Gee, I hope no one ever informs you someone is "jacking your wheels," or "raping your kid."Tragic as those things are or eve "Hey your crib's on fire dude." You would just sit there and NOT take them literally (the meaning NOT the exact word used for it is a metaphor).WOW.You really are that stupid ehhh? So how is your lobotomy working out for you?
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 No, I understand slang. When did I say I don't get slang?
Why are you so pissed off? I can practically hear you frothing at the mouth. Take a deep breath and relax.
The whole point of understanding literal vs figurative is when NOT to take them literally. If someone said my wheels were jacked, I know they mean that my car was stolen. Wheels = car, jacked = stolen.
Let's go back to my question of revelations: Hell = ? Angels = ? Devil = ?
What are these slang for?
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "Let's go back to my question of revelations: Hell = ? Angels = ? Devil = ? What are these slang for?"
You assume they are slang or symbolic of something else. Now some people would say the lake of fire was slang for Hell. But the devil and angels are no more slang then dog, cat, etc... IMHO
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 Ok - then if these terms are not slang, are meant to be taken literally, then why do you not take the "Dragon" term literally, which is in the same book?
Is Revelations a literal book, or a metaphorical one? And if you're going to say it's some kind of mix, how do you know "Angel" is not metaphorical, but "Dragon" is?
OccamKant 10 months ago
@OccamKant "Ok - then if these terms are not slang, are meant to be taken literally, then why do you not take the "Dragon" term literally, which is in the same book?"
That's a very good question. For one thing, the red dragon IS a symbol for the devil (a fallen angel).
Blogrich55 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 "That's a very good question. For one thing, the red dragon IS a symbol for the devil (a fallen angel)."
Ok - first, where do you get that idea (where in the bible does it say that Satan is the Dragon), and second, that still doesn't explain why you should think that this dragon is a symbolic dragon and not a real dragon.
Why interpret an "angel" as literal, and a "dragon" as figurative? There is nothing that I've seen in the text that would allow you to make that distinction.
OccamKant 10 months ago
@Blogrich55 I'll clarify I guess incase you dont understand my argument. Simmer down, no need to get angry or hostile. Lets have a rationale and reasonable discussion. What right does god have to justify slavery? You claim that creating individuals gives him that right? I respond with, why? Why does creating someone grant the rights to be immoral to them? Why? Quo Warranto?
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Typical atheist tactics. First you put words in a person's mouth and hurl accusations designed to try to anger them. Then, when they answer firmly or with conviction you tell them to simmer down. You talk of slavery? Check YOUR comments out dude. YOU are a control freak. Surprise surprise!
There is NO rational or reasonable discussion with person such as yourself who drum up straw man arguments and red herrings. Quo Warranto? The fact that God has created EVERYTHING grants Him that
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 this is a Liberal tactic as well....although atheism and Democrats go hand-in-hand...
modestoca25 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 "Grow up and THINK! LOL"
best line ever from the guy who constantly inserts baseless and absurd claims.
holdenbane 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 You literally are advocating for slavery....you are saying its ok as long as you have more power. (PS the bible does advocate slavery of other people. Jesus on many occasions instructs on the matter) Do you not realize what you are saying? Is your moral compass that horribly disfigured? Might=Right? Seriously? I haven't heard of someone trying to justify that since the civil war.
boorens18 1 year ago
@boorens18 Are you REALLY as obtuse as you are coming across or just being a troll and yanking my chain for the fun of it? OR, is it possible you are so uninformed in the areas of philosophy, theology, and logic that you just don't realize your blunders?
Either God is in control and the Moral governor of the universe or man is. NOW, IF man is in control and NOT operating under God, how does he maintain control? By the power of the State. THEY are the ones with the guns and coerce the people...
Blogrich55 1 year ago
#2 Now when the STATE forces people to, for example, pay income tax, (even though it is unconstitutional) or enforce prohibition or a plethora of other things, how do they do it? Through MIGHT. Do you want to know who really advocates might makes right? It is called democracy: The voice of the PEOPLE is the voice of God. Well NO ONE is above the law.
God is in a separate category from man. Man has the ability to create NOTHING. He can merely reorganize things into different forms and invent.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
God is not moral.God is superior to morality.God is absolute Virtue.God is not equal to his laws,even moral.Man is not powerless to morality he believes controlling in subjective ways, better than an objective morality.The only rationale relationship to morality is powerlessness.its not ought or not ought,its are you powerless to absolute Virtue?If there is an absolute Virtue even as a possibility it dictates I ought not trust my morality. Which is from a brain of DNA that is a dying brain
polopowers1 1 year ago
Point 2: 'As long as we have a coherent understanding of what we mean by 'moral' and 'rational'. Cool, go ahead, so what do you mean by 'moral' ? Can you give a definition ? What is morality ? What is it for ? What is it based on ? Could man do without ? What is it measured by or against ? What is the relation between morality and man's life ? Do you think there could be a 'moral ought' which is directed against man's life, i.g a moral 'commandment' which is detrimental to man's life ?
TOMsReason 1 year ago
You said that 'facts of outhness' do not exist independently from a desired outcome or condition. What is such a desired outcome or condition ? Can you make a GENERALIZED statement, what you measure against ? Is there a standard by which you measure or do you need to judge case by case ? If you judge case by case, again, what do you judge against ? What is the standard by which you judge ? Is ANY desired outcome legitimate just because the outcome is wished for ? What is a LEGITIMATE outcome ?
TOMsReason 1 year ago
@TOMsReason You judge it against your desire. If you desire not to go to prison you ought not to murder someone. Asking whether 'not going to prison' is a legitimate outcome seems like a nonsense question to me. To get people to follow rules, the people must not desire the outcome of breaking those rules more than they desire to break them. Most of us have built into us desires or fears that cause us to not hurt each other (for the most part) for the same reason.
kevinscales 1 year ago
@TOMsReason The main point here is that before one can effectively answer the question "what ought I do?", one must first answer the question "what is my desired outcome?"
Most of the time, when the first question is asked, the answer to the second is assumed. The assumption of the answer makes the question practically unnecessary, but not technically so.
Arkalius80 1 year ago
How about this, ignore the criteria of Biblegod, as a believe in God does not necessitate a belief in the any of the incarnations of the Abrahamic God concepts. While I disagree of where his beliefs lead to, it could be that there ARE moral absolutes just like there are logical absolutes, but those absolutes are ultimately as ineffable as the Creator from which they derive. Therfore, as we learn more we come closer in our apporoximation of those objective morals as we evolve as a species.
Freethinker7718 2 years ago
That's my response as well. Moore's Open Question Argument works just as well to reductions to theological facts. That's why he thought the moral realm was sui generis and completely irreducible.
GodlessPhilosopher 2 years ago
Lol. You win.
Faergen 2 years ago
Well without right thinking 1 could assume that God does wrong. Such thinking is likely to align them with a Muslim per being merely for themselves.
Islam rises with the sword in Revelations 13:10 & concludes with controlling buying / selling, ignoring the desire of women, & requiring false worship.
Revelations 13:18 "Here is wisdom: Let him that hath understanding calculate the multitude of the 2nd beast for it comes from 1 man (Muhammed) & the multitude comes in the name of Allah."
ReligionOfSacrifice 2 years ago
"I ought to run over Christians with my car for fun". LOL.
SeaPrince10 2 years ago 15
@SeaPrince10 You forgot the conditional, in this case something like "....If fun is a state of mind that I wish to attain" should/ought suffice
Artifactorfiction 7 months ago
The argument assumes that you understand what the existence of right and wrong entails i.e. an ultimate, objective, absolute mind. "Ought" (being that which is morally commendable) does not exist if it has no concrete definition. Therefore, to say that "ought" exists is to say that absolute definitions exist, which is to say that an absolute "definer" exists. And actually, "better" does imply an absolute standard which runs through both the concept of morality AND the concept of rationality.
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Might I suggest that you explore other moral theories. I am not saying yours is incorrect but subjective right and wrong had been argued for in terms of happiness and suffering (utilitarianism) and non contradiction (Kantian theory) very effectively. The idea that right and wrong cannot exist in any form without an objective mind is outdated and flawed.
kyledavidbyron 2 years ago
Interesting. My moral system is flawed/wrong by whose standard? Yours?
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
I never said your moral system was wrong, only that the idea that morality requires a objective mind is flawed.
kyledavidbyron 2 years ago
Which would be my moral system. How can you tell me my idea is flawed?
shotinthedark90 2 years ago
Do you want a napkin,your drooling?
Sorry chaps,I'm being a tad facetious but I really like TB's take on philosophy,meaning his 'moral' stance on things,not his reasons for being an athiest as opposed to theist.
But TB mate your logic and reason when applied to philosophical questions,your language,it conveys loads of content fast and clear,you're a sharp fucker man and it's a pleasure to watch your debating skills
Wouldn't want you as my court prosecutor ha ha!
Happy Saturnalia!
Rockster969 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
You (Theoretical Bullshit) should take them on, because you can probably posit better arguments than I. I'm going to go study, so I can in the future debate them without any accusations of illiteracy.
masterofham 2 years ago
Damn that's some good shit.
I never understood the "ought/is" problem, because it has always been obvious to me that everything "ought" is goal oriented; "ought" simply means something which brings you closer to a particular goal and "ought not" is something which moves you away. It's as clear as day to me, and I could never understand why so many people have such problems with it.
Theophage 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Theophage,
The word "ought" is ambiguous, so while your use of the word does not engender a philosophical problem, it's not the only use of the word. "Ought" is often used unconditionally, which is why the sentence, "Harry ought to emulate Hitler," seems wrong to many people, even once informed that Harry's goal is to commit genocide.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
I don't think it is ambiguous at all, nor do I think it is ever used unconditionally. Too often the goals are merely assumed, and that brings all the problems associated with assumption. Remember, "ought" is used in more than just a moral sense, when people say that you ought to change your oil every 3000 miles, again it is with an assumed goal in mind.
As for Harry, saying he ought to emulate Hitler does seem weird, but not once the goal is stated. Not to me anyway.
Theophage 2 years ago
Theophage,
You don't believe the word "ought" is ever used unconditionally? Well we're too far apart then to talk much about that, but suffice it to say Hume and others disagree with you; if "ought" were really just an instrumental word, surely it wouldn't have been an issue over as many years as it has. Compared to the option that countless people, many of them very smart, have overlooked your simple solution, it seems more parsimonious to say that there's actually something more going on.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Additionally, I find it odd that on the one hand you say the word 'ought' is not ambiguous at all, then on the other you say the word is used in more than just a moral sense. So, you've gestured in two directions.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
"if "ought" were really just an instrumental word, surely it wouldn't have been an issue over as many years as it has."
Indeed; I have no problem with the idea that I'm apparently missing something. I think it would have been more helpful, however, if you pointed out what it was or perhaps explained.
"So, you've gestured in two directions."
Not at all. Like any word that is used in multiple ways, context is key. The context of the oil change above lets you know that it isn't about morality.
Theophage 2 years ago
Something meaning different things in different (and obvious) contexts is not ambiguous at all. "Ought" is *always" movement toward a goal, that is not ambiguous. What *may be* ambiguous is the unstated goal.
We should all examine what the unstated goals of our various moral systems are, don't you agree?
Theophage 2 years ago
I only think we *should* examine the unstated goals of our various moral systems if we care to. Even assuming we do care to, we have no resources to judge one goal against another, except by comparison with yet another goal, yes?
wilthiswork 2 years ago
Pointing out what it is you're missing just is pointing out that the word "ought" sometimes is used to communicate a moral obligation. I agree that the example about the oil change isn't about morality.. But what you're saying is more ambitious, because while I acknowledge the non-moral use you cite, you deny the use of the word "ought" that deals with moral obligation. I find this puzzling, and if we don't already agree, I don't see how there's room here to deal with it effectively.
wilthiswork 2 years ago
"you deny the use of the word "ought" that deals with moral obligation."
The fact that you wrote this means that I have either completely failed to explain my position, or you have completely failed to understand it. The above is not my position at all.
I hate trying to write about stuff in these damned claustrophobic comment boxes. Perhaps I'll try again in private messenging later tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for the exchange so far.
Theophage 2 years ago
Thank you too Theophage. You're right, there's not enough room here. It's also hard to tell in this short a space if an interlocutor is being snarky or not, and I'm sure that's a two way street. I trust by now that we're both shooting each other straight. Talk soon..
wilthiswork 2 years ago
@Theophage
It still amazes me how even intelligent theists dont see these obviouse thing and make other (both intelligent and less intelligent) theists scream nonsens like: "good without god is not good!", "you have no morals since you dont believe in a higher authority!"
ReligionInTheBin 1 year ago
"obviouse thing" = obvious things
:)
ReligionInTheBin 1 year ago
come to think of it, he would make a MUCH better Neo!!!
Thrashaero 2 years ago
this is an actor i can really respect. i'm not saying he's acting in the video, but since the fact he's a TV celebrity in general. he actually takes seriously videos from random joes out there, on religion. that's saying something. more actors should follow the model this guy puts out both in dealing with regular people and being a bit more intelligent in general when it comes to philosophy and religion and whatnot.
Thrashaero 2 years ago
2:17 Because we are created in his image. Genesis 1:27
We have the moral(laws) written on heart hearts.
Romans 2:14-15
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
xchampx 2 years ago
Converting commands into hypothetical conditional remarks is no demonstration of how an "ought" is deduced from an "is."
First, it begs the question, for anyone with an empirical epistemology must first be able to verify or falsify moral principles, yet principles themselves cannot be sensed--only understood. Thus, every "ought" claim must be necessarily rejected according to the Verification and / or Falsification principles. Empirical thought eliminates any hope of ethics and morality.
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
Second, since any ethical theory necessarily depends upon its epistemology, Scott must first demonstrate his empirical epistemological position is sound, and he has conveniently skipped any discussion concerning the theory of knowledge. For example, if knowledge is impossible, then ethics and morality is equally impossible--for one must KNOW what one desires before any discussion on what should be done about that desire begins. Epistemology logically precedes ethics in the ordo cognoscendi.
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
Third, this foolish scheme presupposes that anything one desires ought to be carried out. However, this is simply a disguised way of saying there is no such thing as "ought." For any word to be intelligible, then it must not only constantly mean something, but it must also not mean something. If "ought" could mean anything, then it would necessarily mean nothing, for no one could possibly know what the term implied from one moment to the next. So, if Scott is right, he is wrong.
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
Finally, Biblical Christianity escapes the impossible quagmire of deducing an "ought" from an "is," for its "ought" statements are contained within its Axiom. Since the Bible alone is the Axiom of Christianity, then one need only convert the Ten Commands into standard categorical form for further deductive work.
This is the superior intellectual nature of Biblical Chrisitanity, that is, Calvinism.
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus Cristus
Soli Deo Gloria!
CalvinistChurch 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
Comment removed
masterofham 2 years ago
I may be wrong but I think this argument has alot to do with "Deontic logic"
bananabread119 2 years ago
Last comment for me here for a while: know for certain that Jesus is the King of all things, and the Savior of men -- that is, Lord and Christ. The problem of evil is real, and you are part of it. If you can obey God's law, then do it: if not, repent for your sin, and have faith that Christ is the payment for your sin which turns God's wrath toward you into acceptance and forgiveness.
God bless you -- God keep you. May he enlighten you.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
That's your "proof", God "just is" real? Like so many others you boast about evidence when you have none. But it's uderstandbale, because "if God's existence was somehow proven it would negate the meaning of fauth, the core tennet of your beliefs, and make religion worthless: "God" would just become a part of the natural world.
And you're wrong about christianity being the first written religion: the Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts. The Samhitas date to roughly 15001000 BCE
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure I didn't say Christianity was the "first written religion". Can you point out what you're responding to?
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
None of those statements are true. They are all non-true.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
The problem of evil is not real, then? There's no suffering in the world?
Or is the concern that Jesus is the solution to the problem?
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
Define real.
JmkLcAeJsm 2 years ago
FlameOfFire! If you would like I would love to as TBS did. Have general productive discourse about your beliefs?
Thank you! Bbread..
bananabread119 2 years ago
I think he does give a reason as to why god is an explanation of these facts. It's nutty as almond butter, but it's there. I think he's saying that because we have the ability to rationalize what 'ought' to be, that we have an ingrained moral compass, there is therefore a god! I love that, actually, because it means that if i can REALLY REALLY imagine what driving a ferarri is like, there MUST be one in my driveway! I can't wait to go outside! (wait! i don't even have a parking spot!)
raegpot 2 years ago
It makes me feel uncomfortable when you say 'fallacious,' but in a Bill Clinton kind of way...
raegpot 2 years ago
I actually like this video as, I think, you are right about the video you are critiquing. However, it actually points out the weakness of the argument you are providing overall.
There was a man named Victor Hugo born on 26 Feb 1802, and he died on 22 May 1885. Prove that Hugo actually existed -- or deny that he did, and line out the reasons why. Either way, we're going to come in short order to the real bounced philosophical check in the way you're pursuing your arguments about God.
Thanks.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
We gather evidence for the existence of Hugo (birth certificate, tax information, photographs) and if there is sufficient evidence to back up the claim "Victor Hugo existed" we can say that he did.
If however we're unable to fiund any evidence from that time period about the said man then we assume he didn't exist. Is it proof? No, but proving negatives is often impossible.
Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God.
It's simply lack of belief (due to lack of evidence) for any God.
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
I'd like to see Victor Hugo's birth certificate. I have seen refences to it in biographies of him, so I'd like to see it.
BTW, your definition of atheism is over-stated. Because you argue against God's existence, you have a belief in his non-existence. Whatever atheism might be in theory, it is what it is for you.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
No. You people twist the definition of atheism to make it a belief system in order to evade the burden of proof.
Atheism does not argue that God necessarily doesn't exist. The reason atheist don't believe in any Gods is because theists consistently fail to provide any evidence to support their claim of a supernatural being existing.
I'm not claming that God doesn't exist, but as a rational person it's ill-advised to believe in something without proof, which is what theists don't understand.
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
"You people"? That's compelling.
So far you have argued against the existence of God. What you have not done is said, "eh: I've never heard of God. I don;t know what that means."
If you were doing the latter, you could say you just have lack of belief. When you start with the "I reject your evidences," you have done something else.
For the record: the resurrection of Jesus proves the existence of God.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
No.
There is no evidence of Jesus even existing outside of religious texts. The bibble was written over a thousand years before the discovery of science, and as such the book has no scientific value and copying has degraded what little historical value it had.
And even if it was discovered somehow that a man named Jesus actually lived two thousand years ago we have no proof whatsoever that there was any ressurection took place.
I don't reject your evidence, because you have none to present.
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
re: "no evidence" is simply false. There are at least a half-dozen Roman historians who placed Jesus in Palestine in the first half of the 1st century.
re: "copying has degraded what little historical value it had" -- Can you name any passage of the NT which does not represent the oirignal in a reliable way? I think you can't.
I'd be interested to see your evidence.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
First of all, I agree it's completely possiblr that a man named Jesus existed. But there are no plausible evidence for any miracles he supposedly performed. Hence, there is no evidence that Jesus existed in the sense that Bibble refers to him (son of god). Whether or not a man by that name was alive then or not is besides the point. Granted my original wording was misleading.
Moreover, we don't have the original version of the NT. That's my point: It's a copy, of a copy, of a copy.
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
I want to appreciate your honesty as we chat here -- thanks for allowing the correction.
Do you know how old the oldest surviving copies of the texts of the NT books and letters are? I'm asking because I think you don't have any archeological facts for your claim here.
How would you find the answer to this question?
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
Ind to continue a bit: Even if the new testament was word for word 100% the same book than the original, it's historical auhtority is still weak. The so called "eye-witness" accounts are written decades after the actual events. Secondly, although many of the places and persons in the bibble are historically correct, it still has no reliability as a historical source when it comes to Jesus: It's the holy book of a religion that is based around the man, of course it's not in any way objective.
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
The dating of the NT books relative to the events is an anomaly in the ancient world -- for the timeliness of their appearance after the events.
For example, the Jewish Wars were begun around 165 BC, and the only thorough account of the we have is from Josephus, who was writing in 75 AD -- so more than 200 years separate the eariest enevts from the writer. Excluding biographical writings, this time lapse was common in the ancient world -- and we don't think history is a black hole.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
The fact that its "dating", as you word it, is common for its era does not make it any more accurate or reliable source. Additionally historians use different kinds of data (like archeology) in addition to texts to make picture more complete. History isn't based on books alone.
Before this discussion get's completely derailed why don't you show me your supposed evidence for Jesus' ressurection that "proves God's existence". And by evidence I really mean something other than a religious text.
PuoskarinRuoska 2 years ago
I have a suspicion that any text which affirms the resurrection is by definition a religious text to you.
How about the polemic of the Jews for then next 200 years that Jesus' body was stolen by his disciples? That would be an argument that confirms that his body was missing, his disciples were teaching this early in the history of the church, and their opponents had no other way to deny he was not there.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
That evidence, btw, also confirms Jesus as a real person; it confirms that his opponents had to deal with the evidence of the empty tomb.
If Jesus rose from the dead, there is no scientific or naturalistic explanation for what he represents -- you have to at least admit that. You don't have to believe it, but you should admit that if it's true it's pretty significant evidence for what Jesus said it was about.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
on dating: if it was common for history to be written down decades/centuries after the fact in the ancient world, then your objection that the Gospels were written down a couple of decades after the fact is moot.
Admit that they're not disqualified by their date of origin. The only question is why they were written down at all. Think of it: if this was merely religious lit, it sprang up from almost nothing. No religion in history until Christianity started as a set of written stories.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
For the record: having knowledge of the resurrection of Jesus is proof only of someone having written those words down. There's no "proof" of the resurrection. I don't think any rational (high functioning) theist would ever even imply that there's any "proof" of the resurrection of christ.
raegpot 2 years ago
We should be careful of the words we use -- because you cannot offer "proof" of Victor Hugo: only evidence. The question is whether the evidence is compelling or not.
My suggestion is that the evidence of Jesus, and his resurrection, are compelling. However, this isn't geometry: "proof" os a different thing when speaking of past historical events.
FlameOfFire 2 years ago
Well, again, besides stories in a book, I don't see any compelling evidence of Christ's resurrection. People have Victor Hugo's writings, his drawings, they know where he was born, and we have people's anger with him about his trivializations of the catholic church... There is, perhaps compelling evidence for Christ's life, but there is as much evidence for his resurrection as there is for Victor Hugo's resurrection. Now THAT was a neat trick. He makes the best coffee. Victor! SKIM milk!
raegpot 2 years ago
Damn you have a sexy voice.
hamflakes 2 years ago 8
lol. Fellatious. Yes I know you meant a different thing.
AntiChristAntiFail 2 years ago
your newer videos are leagues ahead of older ones
evTom14 2 years ago 2
this guy is better than that ugly pig TJ.
sharinganclan213 2 years ago
Being ugly and being a pic is no crime. TJ might have some unncessary pounds but that does not have any bearings on the points he makes.
wOoL87 2 years ago 4
I think that what sharing was trying to imply that TJ has deficient points regardless of his ugly piggedness.
I think this guy's a lot better, as well.
incangold 2 years ago
You should look at Theowarner's response to veritas. It takes all the philosophical oughts into consideration instead of just propagating one worldview as an ought.
FreePrometheus 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Theoretical...you state that your beliefs are better but then you don't state (and defend )what your beliefs are.(??). I really don't mean to offend, but , and does anybod else see it, you have sort of a William Shatner quality in your presentation. Stay well.
peppilepiu 2 years ago
I think that we live in a partially free country and everyone has the right to believe what they want. I am a borderline christian I guess because i question my beliefs. However I quite enjoy Scott's theoritical bullshit. And a lot of what he says I completely agree with. Keep it up scott! And to all you christians out there if there is a god isn't he the only one allowed to judge yet you judge daily and also don't follow all of your Gods rules
whitesd83 2 years ago 2
hey man, i gotta give you credit for being positive and thinking for yourself to come to conclusions, i respect that, keep it up man.
dont stray away from the path or reason, truth, logic and thought.
and good luck with your religious mobility, i hope it works for you... (it would be a plus if you moved to the side of TBS and I =) haha )
peace man
BreathingTheDark 2 years ago 2
I agree for the most part, We do live in a "free" Country but the problem is that most "christians/Religious people" believe their jewish zombie story, therefore so must I. They consistently pick and choose which rules of their faith they will follow. On top of being morally bankrupt I.E. Kirk Cameron/Ray Comfort. There are many more reasons I can't stand but for the most part these are my main ones.
Sharpie600rr 2 years ago