Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Wafflestomper]

That's an ignorant and misinformed statement. Romans 2 speaks to this and waffle's critique of is/ought in Christian doctrine.

The is-ought problem was explained by Hume in the 1700s. I dont think the Bible addresses it.

The critique is that "because God says so" doesn't provide a normative source of ethics anymore than "because I said so" does.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That wasn’t my response. Take it up with them. It’s pretty ****ing pathetic that when someone ask for examples the best they can come up with is “Westboro!!!” That ought to tell you something there. It’s amusing to watch y’all falling all over yourself to defend a religious ideology that is without question a genuine cancer on our globe, while at the same time tearing down Christ.

"There are no examples of X!"

"What about this?"

"That doesn't count because there aren't more examples!"

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I’ve decided to identify as Muslim.
Allah Akbar.
What questions can I answer?

Can you please hand this vest to luther?

 

[Roustabout]

They need the bible to tell them murder, stealing and rape is wrong. Well, unless god does the murdering. But I digress. Apparently, they would all be out a rapin', murderin' and stealin' without the good book.

What a stupid distortion.

 

[Roustabout]

The is-ought problem was explained by Hume in the 1700s. I dont think the Bible addresses it.

The critique is that "because God says so" doesn't provide a normative source of ethics anymore than "because I said so" does.

There’s a boat load more to DCT (which I don’t follow) and classical theology than this.

 

[Roustabout]

"There are no examples of X!"

"What about this?"

"That doesn't count because there aren't more examples!"

That’s not what I said. I’ve made my position clear. I you want to keep attacking that straw man be my guest. Plus, as bad as the Westboro folks are they haven’t murdered anyone. Keep trying.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The is-ought problem was explained by Hume in the 1700s. I dont think the Bible addresses it.

The critique is that "because God says so" doesn't provide a normative source of ethics anymore than "because I said so" does.

Sure it does. And you're radically glossing the is/ought problem. Hume spoke from a strictly naturalistic perspective. He said that, as a naturalist and without a transcendent source, you can't rationally prescribe an "ought" from an "is". And he is correct. It's exactly what I've pointed out to rjd, and exactly the dilemma he's having. As with other arguments on here, you just want to shrink the sufficiency of a Christian worldview to the same constraining size of your materialistic/naturalistic worldview.'

Romans 2 speaks to Hume's dilemma and explains how the Christian worldview explains the existence of a transcendent moral law, as well as why humanity can generally perceive it.

 

[Persian Vol]

Here you go, @Weezer.
Eta...never mind. This thread has morphed into a discussion of Christian theology.

@Persian Vol, hope you're doing well. Pop in from time to time and update us on your matriculation.

Yes it certainly went in that direction...

And I am doing great. It’s actually been a pretty fun year. I’ve probably gone out more this year than I had in undergrad.

 

[AirVol]

CNN wasn’t expecting this. Whitfield ended the interview.

Muslim Doctor Shocks CNN After Saying Trump, GOP ‘Beloved’ in Much of the Muslim World

 

[MercyPercy]

What a stupid distortion.

Nope, you are literally saying without the divine inspiration of God's morality implanted in us, we would have no morals on our own, because even if we thought we did, they would be grounded in nothing but ourselves and that just doesn't count because our own beliefs are worthless! (According to you)

So I stand by my belief that you must think you would be a rapin' and a murderin' without Jesus.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Sure it does. And you're radically glossing the is/ought problem. Hume spoke from a strictly naturalistic perspective. He said that, as a naturalist and without a transcendent source, you can't rationally prescribe an "ought" from an "is". And he is correct. It's exactly what I've pointed out to rjd, and exactly the dilemma he's having. As with other arguments on here, you just want to shrink the sufficiency of a Christian worldview to the same constraining size of your materialistic/naturalistic worldview.'

Romans 2 speaks to Hume's dilemma and explains how the Christian worldview explains the existence of a transcendent moral law, as well as why humanity can generally perceive it.

That's not what Hume says. That's not what he meant either. Stick to theology.

 

[Wafflestomper]

There’s a boat load more to DCT (which I don’t follow) and classical theology than this.

Yes, but this comment will suffice in this context. Especially since I've provided a more detailed explanation of the problem recently. OC apparently forgot all of it and has added his own narrative to it as well.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's not what Hume says. That's not what he meant either. Stick to theology.

That's exactly what he meant. He stated that no "ought" can be deduced from merely an naturalistic "is". It's simple philosophy and an adherence to the 18th century formality of logic at his time--that any deduction must strictly follow from its propositions. You can't deduce that a cat has 4 legs unless you've given propositions about cats. Thus, you can't deduce anything about morality unless you've given propositions about morality. Thus, you can't can't deduce moral prescriptions from non-moral facts.

Since the natural world doesn't offer moral facts, one can't prescribe moral "oughts".

Yet, Hume believed in transcendent moral "oughts" in his philosophy, so it's clear that he didn't intend his argument to be interpreted that one can't in any way prescribe moral "oughts".

Christian theism and scripture deals with this.

 

[Roustabout]

Nope, you are literally saying without the divine inspiration of God's morality implanted in us, we would have no morals on our own, because even if we thought we did, they would be grounded in nothing but ourselves and that just doesn't count because our own beliefs are worthless! (According to you)

So I stand by my belief that you must think you would be a rapin' and a murderin' without Jesus.

Actually, I’m not saying that at all. In fact I’m a natural law kind of guy. I don’t quibble the epistemology (how we come to our moral reasoning). I’m interested in the ontological aspects.

So, you just swung and missed.

 

[Wafflestomper]

That's exactly what he meant. He stated that no "ought" can be deduced from merely an naturalistic "is". It's simple philosophy and an adherence to the 18th century formality of logic at his time--that any deduction must strictly follow from its propositions. You can't deduce that a cat has 4 legs unless you've given propositions about cats. Thus, you can't deduce anything about morality unless you've given propositions about morality. Thus, you can't can't deduce moral prescriptions from non-moral facts.

Since the natural world doesn't offer moral facts, one can't prescribe moral "oughts".

Yet, Hume believed in transcendent moral "oughts" in his philosophy, so it's clear that he didn't intend his argument to be interpreted that one can't in any way prescribe moral "oughts".

Christian theism and scripture deals with this.

Where are you getting this from? Have you read his Treatise?

The is ought problem has no distinction between a "naturalistic" is and any other kind there might be. Only that there is no basis for a transition from premises whose parts are linked only by “is” to conclusions whose parts are linked by “ought”. There is nothing about naturalism or transcendence in there. You've added that bit.

Hume sides with the moral sense theorists in that it is because we are the kinds of creatures we are, with the dispositions we have for pain and pleasure, the kinds of familial and friendly interdependence that make up our life together, and our approvals and disapprovals of these, that we are bound by moral requirements at all.

Like I've explained to you recently, there is nothing that says oughts can't be derived at all from this problem. One can include oughts in a premise, along with an is, and have an "ought" for a conclusion.

 

[rjd970]

This shouldn't have to be repeated so often... To say that a human shouldn't kill a human, or a human shouldn't be killed for working on a particular day of the week, etc, where do you get their absolute inherent worth? What part of your worldview gives us that? I'll repeat, as an atheist, you have time and chance. You have the survival of the fittest. You have humans as primates. You have humans as nothing more than a collection of material, similar to the ant used as a slave by its parasitic hitchhiker.

So, what "ought" in that "is" gives humans inherent, transcendent value that allows you to be an intellectually honest atheist making those statements?

I'll answer. Nothing. You're an intellectual cheater. You deny the truth of God to crown humanity as the center of your worship, yet the further you get from God, the more you lower humanity and remove our worth. Further, the more you move away from the admission of God's existence, the further you get from reason. You're forced to deny what you claim to believe and believe what you claim to deny. As scripture 2000 years ago predicted...

Yet. Again....

I have my own moral conclusions. Whether or not you agree or what value or importance or reason you place on my views is on you.

I crown humanity as the center of my moral understanding because I am human. A divine, natural, supernatural, or cosmic influence is not needed. Continue to cry all you want, but I, and nobody else, has to play this game you so desperately think (or want) me to play. Just because you are playing by it, doesn't mean anybody else has to. Sorry.

I can unequivocally say slavery is morally wrong, no matter what and under any circumstances and under any time in history. Can your divine creator say the same so you can believe the same?

I can also say that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. My basis is me. Your basis for what ever you believe is whatever you think your holy book and divine creator thinks, which is still, 100% you, and what you believe.

Arrogance? Maybe to you. To me, I'm just being honest about the whole thing.

 

[tumscalcium]

Playing the victim is part of their schtick.

Now this is ironic. Lmao

 

[Orange_Crush]

Where are you getting this from? Have you read his Treatise?

The is ought problem has no distinction between a "naturalistic" is and any other kind there might be. Only that there is no basis for a transition from premises whose parts are linked only by “is” to conclusions whose parts are linked by “ought”. There is nothing about naturalism or transcendence in there. You've added that bit.

Hume sides with the moral sense theorists in that it is because we are the kinds of creatures we are, with the dispositions we have for pain and pleasure, the kinds of familial and friendly interdependence that make up our life together, and our approvals and disapprovals of these, that we are bound by moral requirements at all.

Like I've explained to you recently, there is nothing that says oughts can't be derived at all from this problem. One can include oughts in a premise, along with an is, and have an "ought" for a conclusion.

I've read it, and I've applied it as he wrote within his overall philosophy to know that Christian theism doesn't suffer the limitations of his deductive limitations. And like I've explained to you repeatedly, I understand that you are promoting "oughts" as a conclusion of your naturalistic worldview. I'm just also asking you to explain what part of your naturalistic/materialistic worldview provides for them. Your logic is, "I can believe and act like this if I choose." Of course you can. The argument is that you'r having to borrow from something else to import a philosophical foundation for those beliefs and actions.

That's always been the criticism. You side-step it while having agreed that you have no worldview foundation for your beliefs and actions. At best, your response reads as "I can act like this and you can't tell me not to."

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet. Again....

I have my own moral conclusions. Whether or not you agree or what value or importance or reason you place on my views is on you.

I crown humanity as the center of my moral understanding because I am human. A divine, natural, supernatural, or cosmic influence is not needed. Continue to cry all you want, but I, and nobody else, has to play this game you so desperately think (or want) me to play. Just because you are playing by it, doesn't mean anybody else has to. Sorry.

I can unequivocally say slavery is morally wrong, no matter what and under any circumstances and under any time in history. Can your divine creator say the same so you can believe the same?

I can also say that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. My basis is me. Your basis for what ever you believe is whatever you think your holy book and divine creator thinks, which is still, 100% you, and what you believe.

Arrogance? Maybe to you. To me, I'm just being honest about the whole thing.

lol That's funny.

What part of nature defined the human worth that undergirds your beliefs about this morality. Precisely how is this different than a personal opinion about the taste of ice cream? You moralize about sacks of matter that organized accidentally and evolved based on the survival of the fittest. You moralize about an ant with a parasite on its brain.

And no. You don't have to play this game. You'd better not play this game or you'll get called on it. As soon as you stand up and claim that Biblical morality is evil, you'll get called on the foundation of your morality, natures sufficiency to give human transcendent human value, and parasitic ant brains.

You're just pissed off you can't play the game because your worldview deck is stacked against you. You grandstand about beliefs you deny having and deny the beliefs you claim to think are uber-important.

I can unequivocally say slavery is morally wrong, no matter what and under any circumstances and under any time in history. Can your divine creator say the same so you can believe the same?

lol You ask that last question as though something weighty is riding on the answer while arguing that the question is no different than ice cream tastes. And you wonder why I laugh at your grandstanding.

 

[rjd970]

lol That's funny.

What part of nature defined the human worth that undergirds your beliefs about this morality. Precisely how is this different than a personal opinion about the taste of ice cream? You moralize about sacks of matter that organized accidentally and evolved based on the survival of the fittest. You moralize about an ant with a parasite on its brain.

Why does this have to be answered? For whats its worth, I defined the human worth. I moralize about what I want, based on my experiences, attitudes, and beliefs.

Keep crying.

And no. You don't have to play this game. You'd better not play this game or you'll get called on it. As soon as you stand up and claim that Biblical morality is evil, you'll get called on the foundation of your morality, natures sufficiency to give human transcendent human value, and parasitic ant brains.

The Bible got the questions of blasphemy, homosexuality, and a host of other imaginary crimes wrong. They aren't even crimes. Meanwhile, it got things like slavery epically wrong.

See above for my foundation.

You're just pissed off you can't play the game because your worldview deck is stacked against you. You grandstand about beliefs you deny having and deny the beliefs you claim to think are uber-important.

This is flat out comical at this point. My worldview is not stacked against me. It can't be, by definition, because its mine.

lol You ask that last question as though something weighty is riding on the answer while arguing that the question is no different than ice cream tastes. And you wonder why I laugh at your grandstanding.

Laugh away but you won't answer it.

Right now, can you say the God you believe in says slavery is wrong, in any form, at any time, and anywhere? Because I know I can say that as my moral belief.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why does this have to be answered? For whats its worth, I defined the human worth. I moralize about what I want, based on my experiences, attitudes, and beliefs.

Keep crying.



The Bible got the questions of blasphemy, homosexuality, and a host of other imaginary crimes wrong. They aren't even crimes. Meanwhile, it got things like slavery epically wrong.

See above for my foundation.



This is flat out comical at this point. My worldview is not stacked against me. It can't be, by definition, because its mine.



Laugh away but you won't answer it.

Right now, can you say the God you believe in says slavery is wrong, in any form, at any time, and anywhere? Because I know I can say that as my moral belief.

I've answered that. I believe that slavery, as described in the Bible, was not inherently wrong. I have no qualms answering that. None.

The hilarious part is that you thought it should be a hard question for me. You claimed I wouldn't answer because you feel slavery is so inherently wrong that I would naturally be embarrassed to say that it isn't wrong.

All while claiming that morality doesn't exist and that humanity has no intrinsic value.


lol


Oh... And... You don't understand what makes that internally contradictory.

Of course, you're also the guys that claimed to use cause/effect change over time tests to prove that there are no causes, effects, or change over time.

Right?

 

[rjd970]

I've answered that. I believe that slavery, as described in the Bible, was not inherently wrong. I have no qualms answering that. None.

The hilarious part is that you thought it should be a hard question for me. You claimed I wouldn't answer because you feel slavery is so inherently wrong that I would naturally be embarrassed to say that it isn't wrong.

All while claiming that morality doesn't exist and that humanity has no intrinsic value.


lol


Oh... And... You don't understand what makes that internally contradictory.

Of course, you're also the guys that claimed to use cause/effect change over time tests to prove that there are no causes, effects, or change over time.

Right?

You believe that, or that is what you think the Bible says?

I've claimed that? Really? Lol. I've in fact claimed it does, and its based on what I think. That is probably the 500th time I've stated that. Humanity has instrinsic value, because I think it does. How hard is this, really?

Your last sentence is just plain stupid.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I've read it, and I've applied it as he wrote within his overall philosophy to know that Christian theism doesn't suffer the limitations of his deductive limitations.

I just showed you why it does. Just reasserting the same thing doesn't get you anywhere. From what you "know" about Hume's philosophy, why can you move from a "Christian is" to an ought? In other words, why can facts about God's nature alone be used to derive oughts? What does Hume say about this, and where does he say it?

And like I've explained to you repeatedly, I understand that you are promoting "oughts" as a conclusion of your naturalistic worldview. I'm just also asking you to explain what part of your naturalistic/materialistic worldview provides for them. Your logic is, "I can believe and act like this if I choose." Of course you can. The argument is that you'r having to borrow from something else to import a philosophical foundation for those beliefs and actions.

The difference between us is I'm not a moral realist so that's not what I'm saying at all. However, there's an entire system of ethics derived from reason which doesn't rely on God or anything like what you've said here. I bring it up every time you say this and every time you ignore it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You believe that, or that is what you think the Bible says?

I've claimed that? Really? Lol. I've in fact claimed it does, and its based on what I think. That is probably the 500th time I've stated that. Humanity has instrinsic value, because I think it does. How hard is this, really?

Your last sentence is just plain stupid.

I do believe that.

And yes. It was incredibly stupid for you to claim that scientific empiricism has proven that time, cause and effect are all illusions. About as equally stupid as you claiming moral grandstands about slavery and God's punishment while not being able to provide any foundation for inherent human value outside of your own mind.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I just showed you why it does. Just reasserting the same thing doesn't get you anywhere. From what you "know" about Hume's philosophy, why can you move from a "Christian is" to an ought? In other words, why can facts about God's nature alone be used to derive oughts? What does Hume say about this, and where does he say it?

I've answered that. As a matter of fact, a couple of thousand years of Christian philosophy has answered that. Hume's problem was one of deduction. Christian morality isn't one of deduction. It's one of recognition and perception. Christian morality is based on the attributes of God and the belief that He wrote the moral law on our hearts. So, for us it's a matter of founding what we already know at a basic level in His nature, revelation, creation and command.

We're not deducing anything. Much like Hume founded his morality in the human condition, Christianity founds morality in the Person of God and explains our perception of that morality in our condition.

The difference between us is I'm not a moral realist so that's not what I'm saying at all. However, there's an entire system of ethics derived from reason which doesn't rely on God or anything like what you've said here. I bring it up every time you say this and every time you ignore it.

Funny. You haven't once made the argument. I've read versions of them and remain unconvinced. I suspect I know why you haven't made the arguments as well as why you don't find them convincing enough to believe them. Interestingly, the most convincing critiques of these systems of naturalistic ethics and moral philosophies come from naturalists who end up saying that atheists need to face facts and stop trying to sound like moral realists. (Quite a few of them actually admit to freeloading their daily lives from Christianity, by the way.)