Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Weezer]

No, it's a trick everyone knows that Muzzies only drive camels.

You obviously don't use taxis in large cities.

 

[Septic]

You obviously don't use taxis in large cities.

Lyft or Uber. I used it all over Nashville last weekend and from Franklin to BNA. I had a Haitian and a Cuban, but yeah in NYC last year they were all muzzy.

 

[Roustabout]

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.

Sounds like to find your moral compass requires you shoving your head up your ass.

 

[rjd970]

Sounds like to find your moral compass requires you shoving your head up your ass.

At least I don’t condone slavery, but I appreciate your insight.

 

[Roustabout]

It’s a sad state that instead of admitting maybe, just maybe, the Bible isn’t the best arbitrator of the morality if slavery, you are saying that under certain conditions slavery is morally acceptable. I find that reprehensible and disgusting and even more the reason to disregard religion as dangerous, antiquated, and morally corrupt.

I have provided my foundation, a ridiculous amount of times. The foundation is my own. I’m going to keep saying that until it sinks in.

It’s not my fault you don’t understand the physics if how space, time, and matter works. I’m not going through it again.

That’s because you are equivocating. You are taking one view of slavery (antebellum chattel slavery) paired with your modern world setting (technology) and broadly applying that to all places and times. Well, that’s just ****ing stupid.
It’s never that slavery is morally acceptable. It is what systems serve the time and place the BEST given the actual realities available.
Sure, you have your own, Stalin had his own, Hitler, etc.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You haven't answered that. You've just made some strange allusion to a problem of deduction, which seemingly has no place in this conversation. Hume said morality was a slave to the passions--there's nothing deductive about that. Pretty much the opposite of what you've said here is true.

And by the way...
Hume's argument in question:

“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason.”

(And you have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing the argument in question...)

Hume's misguided point was that people try to set out moral prescriptions based on deductions from non-moral facts (that "which are entirely different from" the moral reasoning). In other words, people shouldn't try to make moral generalities from non-moral specifics. What's interesting is that Hume seems to have been trying to make deduce "ought" prescriptions (that we ought not try to make ought prescriptions) from non-ought specifics.

As mentioned in my last post, it was misguided by bringing Christians into the mix, for the reasons listed in my previous post. Christians are not trying to formulate "oughts" from "is-es". Christians are communicating oughts from oughts. God communicates the oughts from is, which is not susceptible to Hume or his critique.

 

[Roustabout]

At least I don’t condone slavery, but I appreciate your insight.

I don’t condone slavery. Im open to voluntary servitude as opposed to social welfare. I accept the cultural realities of other societies that did not have the technology or advancements we enjoy today.

 

[Roustabout]

At least I don’t condone slavery, but I appreciate your insight.

BTW, are you saying there is some universal stanamdard which you are judging your morality to be superior to mine? Do tell?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I've never seen you fall into fits of textual maniacal laughter, that's usually reserved for those with a little less emotional self control. Just calling it how I see it.

Call whatever you see however you see. It has as much affect on me as rj's personal moral opinions.

The laughter was well earned, as the repeated quoting showed the guffawing contradictions in his reasoning.

His basis for human worth and dignity resides in his imagination. His moral statements are no more true or false than his taste in ice cream. Yet he also uses those two internal opinions as an external standard to brow beat and try to embarrass me for not allowing his imagination as my standard. It's hilarious.

It's as stupid and blind as luther's moral arguments that all morality is relative and socially defined. There is no external standard. Yet society is constantly evolving and becoming more moral based on some external source that doesn't exist.

The only mistake I made was not laughing enough at it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

BTW, are you saying there is some universal stanamdard which you are judging your morality to be superior to mine? Do tell?

And isn't that the point (his equivocation of slavery aside)? I'm literally amazed at how blind the moral relativists are as to just how at odds their worldview is to what they actually believe.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I understand Hume's argument as well as Christian morality, and the latter is not affected by the former.

That's quite an indictment on your understanding of Christian morality.

IHume wrote that a person can't form generalized moral prescription based on non-moral specifics (facts). i.e. You can't deduce morals from non-morals. i.e. A person can't get an "ought" from an "is".

No, what he wrote was that (and I've already posted this) you can't move from premises linked only by "is" to conclusions linked only by "ought."

IAs mentioned, Christians do not get "oughts" for "is". We get ought from ought. God created oughts from is.

Yes, this is why I've said your morality has no normative force. Because "oughts" can't, or you've not provided a plausible way for them to, be derived from just "is"--i.e., no ethical or evaluative conclusion whatsoever can be inferred from any set of purely factual premises.

So, God created "ought" from His divine "is", much as you would create an "ought" by designing an building an automobile. If it won't start up and drive, it fails the "ought" from its "is" state of broken down.

Why should the car GAF what you want it to do because you designed it a certain way?

God, having defined the "ought", which is based on His creation, which is based in His design, which is based in His character, has communicated the "is" as a written law on our hearts, as well as a specific revelation through scripture. We interpret that, getting "oughts" from 'oughts".

This is nonsense. Every one of those represents a factual statement. His creation is a fact, not an ought. His design is a fact, not an ought. His character is a fact, not an ought.

You say that, since Christian morals are based in God's attributes, they're not moral. I say you're full of ****.

You say that, since Christian morals are based in God's command/revelation, they're not morals. I say you're full of ****.

You say that Christianity is bound by Hume's dilemma that people (humans) can't formulate "ought" from "is". I say you're full of ****, as Christians get "ought" from "ought" and God is no human.

I've not really said any of that...? You've just tried to carve out a special exemption for God to bridge the is-ought gap without actually explaining how it's possible in a coherent manner.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That's quite an indictment on your understanding of Christian morality.



No, what he wrote was that (and I've already posted this) you can't move from premises linked only by "is" to conclusions linked only by "ought."



Yes, this is why I've said your morality has no normative force. Because "oughts" can't, or you've not provided a plausible way for them to, be derived from just "is"--i.e., no ethical or evaluative conclusion whatsoever can be inferred from any set of purely factual premises.



Why should the car GAF what you want it to do because you designed it a certain way?



This is nonsense. Every one of those represents a factual statement. His creation is a fact, not an ought. His design is a fact, not an ought. His character is a fact, not an ought.



I've not really said any of that...? You've just tried to carve out a special exemption for God to bridge the is-ought gap without actually explaining how it's possible in a coherent manner.

Hm... Big surprise. A humanist philosopher denies the veracity and normative value of God's sovereignty. I think I'll cry.

His revealed law is "ought" statement, not "is" statement. You agreed to that when you asked why the car should GAF about its builder's "ought" statement. You failed.

And yes. God is a special exemption. You always come back to that and cry about it. The fact of the matter is that God is not us and a theistic worldview isn't constrained as a materialist one is. Continue to keep crying that your naturalistic worldview doesn't have access to the same arguments a theistic one does. I'm impervious ton the tears.

And please stop misrepresenting Hume's argument and then claiming I don't know it. If you're reading this, the you've made it to the point where I quoted him. (And for the record, if Hume had said that God can't formulate/communicate oughts from is, I would have called him as full as **** as you are.)

 

[Wafflestomper]

And by the way...
Hume's argument in question:


(And you have the audacity to accuse me of not knowing the argument in question...)

Hume's misguided point was that people try to set out moral prescriptions based on deductions from non-moral facts (that "which are entirely different from" the moral reasoning). In other words, people shouldn't try to make moral generalities from non-moral specifics. What's interesting is that Hume seems to have been trying to make deduce "ought" prescriptions (that we ought not try to make ought prescriptions) from non-ought specifics.

As mentioned in my last post, it was misguided by bringing Christians into the mix, for the reasons listed in my previous post. Christians are not trying to formulate "oughts" from "is-es". Christians are communicating oughts from oughts. God communicates the oughts from is, which is not susceptible to Hume or his critique.

Wow, you found the word "deduction" in Hume's work! I don't know what you think this proves.

Hume isn't saying you "ought not" make moral prescriptions from factual statements; he's saying the reasoning necessary to move from one to the other isn't there. Thus, there is no way for it to be deduced.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Hm... Big surprise. A humanist philosopher denies the veracity and normative value of God's sovereignty. I think I'll cry.

His revealed law is "ought" statement, not "is" statement. You agreed to that when you asked why the car should GAF about its builder's "ought" statement. You failed.

Not really. As I've said before (many times now actually), one can conclude with an "ought" if the premises contain "oughts" as well. In this case, the designer thinks the car "ought" to do something. I'm questioning why the car should agree with its designer.

And yes. God is a special exemption.

That's what I thought.

 

[MercyPercy]

Not sure which text that would be. The Bible is much older than a thousand years and so is the Quran .

*thousands of years old text

I hope you will forgive my error and address the part where I said it views pre-marital sex as the same level of offense (sin) as murder.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wow, you found the work "deduction" in Hume's work! I don't know what you think this proves.

Hume isn't saying you "ought not" make moral prescriptions from factual statements; he's saying the reasoning necessary to move from one to the other isn't there. Thus, there is no way for it to be deduced.

I did find the word and concept of deduction in there. To you, it "seemed" misplaced for me to point out he was making statements about...drum-roll please..."deduction".

Imagine that.

And you read his argument that he's noticed people doing this, and they ought to keep doing it? You've been misapplying the argument to Christian morals in an effort to encourage and applaud my moral argument? I completely misinterpreted you. I apologize for my responses. Let's just be friends and make smores...

 

[Orange_Crush]

Not really. As I've said before (many times now actually), one can conclude with an "ought" if the premises contain "oughts" as well. In this case, the designer thinks the car "ought" to do something. I'm questioning why the car should agree with its designer.




That's what I thought.

I'm telling you I don't care if you agree or not. God does, but he's not a slave to your acceptance of the divine "ought". Deny it. He predicted you would. He knows you will. It still doesn't change His sovereignty, his right/ability to make the statement, His right to create you for purpose, or His right to demand you respond as fit for purpose. But your lack of care in no way changes whether He made an "ought" statement from His divine plan, creation and design. When He spoke the world into existance, He made the "ought". Anything more than that is between you and He.


I've never claimed God isn't a special exemption. I've said it repeatedly and told you to get over it. What you seem to have trouble with is the fact that the materialist/naturalist shrinks reality and their access to sufficiency. Don't blame me.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I did find the word and concept of deduction in there. To you, it "seemed" misplaced for me to point out he was making statements about...drum-roll please..."deduction".

Hume is not talking about deduction as in argument structure, i.e., like deduction vs. induction; he's using deduction in the common sense, i.e., arriving at a conclusion by reasoning. I'm still puzzled as to why you think it matters one way or the other.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I've never claimed God isn't a special exemption. I've said it repeatedly and told you to get over it.

I'll take note of this for the next time you accuse someone else of a logical fallacy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Hume is not talking about deduction as in argument structure, i.e., like deduction vs. induction; he's using deduction in the common sense, i.e., arriving at a conclusion by reasoning. I'm still puzzled as to why you think it matters one way or the other.

It doesn't in the greater sense of things, but I thought it the best vocabulary to explain what he was getting at--i.e. moving to general from specifics of a different type (i.e. moral prescriptions from non-moral facts), which is exactly what he was talking about.

 

[MercyPercy]

Is this for real?

Funny, this is my response to nearly every one of AV's posts, lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'll take note of this for the next time you accuse someone else of a logical fallacy.

You'll need to show it as a fallacy, then. I've shown that God is not a human, thus is not constrained as humans are. Special pleading is:

a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.

You seem to have shown that you either don't know what the fallacy is, or you've purposefully tried to misuse it. For instance, you claimed special pleading when I said that a spiritual, immaterial, personal, all-powerful consciousness would be sufficient to create immaterial personal consciousness. You cried special pleading because you can't make the same argument that a materialist, non-personal universe is inherently sufficient to create non-material personal consciousness.

That wasn't special pleading. I justified the exception.

I stated the justification for God as an exception to humans. If you are as well read as you seem, I shouldn't have had to explicitly justify those attributes that make Him God and not human, but I did so anyway.

But again... Accuse me all you want of supposed fallacies. Just look up the definition first and save us both some trouble, eh?

 

[AirVol]

Is this for real?

The video is...yes.

 

[rjd970]

I don’t condone slavery. Im open to voluntary servitude as opposed to social welfare. I accept the cultural realities of other societies that did not have the technology or advancements we enjoy today.

EXidus 21 20-21

20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.”

And that is just one example, if you want me to continue in the more disgusting verses I can.

I’m sure it was just lovely for the slaves. It’s dusgusting and repulsive this is justified in any way, time, or place.

The fact you are calling this kind of barbarism voluntary servitude or indentured servitude it whatever other whitewash terms makes it even worse. And yes, I’m making that moral judgement. This is no God or entity I would worship and the fact you can’t call this out and instead argue semantics and moral objectiveness and immutability and varying/unvarying incoherencies is past sad. Just call it what it is.

 

[Roustabout]

Hume is not talking about deduction as in argument structure, i.e., like deduction vs. induction; he's using deduction in the common sense, i.e., arriving at a conclusion by reasoning. I'm still puzzled as to why you think it matters one way or the other.

You mean the same guy who said we can’t reason to our morality?