Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

#726
#726
rjd970 said:
Here's the issue. Are you asking how, or why and what do you mean? I can answer how I know my worldview is right, then you will start claiming you have no issue with my epistemology, the issue is my moral north. This is a tired game. You ask how, then I answer, then you rant about ontology. I've answered, and I've said it's no better than yours. I'm almost convinced at this point your meaning of "objective" is changing based on the question and this whole ruse is just to wrap somebody around the axle until they have no idea what you are talking about anymore then claim they are inconsistent.



Here we go again, you asked this:



I gave a fixed point from which we can find relative morality. You saying we are human and don't want to suffer is subjective is like saying 2+2=4 is subjective because it relies on the assumption of the concept of mathematical equality. That is absurd. Suffering is objectively worse than not suffering...medically, biologically, ethically, socially.

The whole idea of God's nature is good and he can't be any other thing is question begging too. We are going around in circles and it is becoming abundantly clear there is no difference distinguishing which one of us has the better argument. They are both consistent in their own right.



But that is consistent with evolution is my point. The simple fact remains that species place more value on their own species. There is nothing supernatural or special about that with regards to us. Otherwise we wouldn't see it anywhere else in the animal kingdom.



You won't answer the question but demand I do then rail that mine is opinion? I understand now why you want to harp on ontology and not tip your hand. You said this:



That isn't an answer. At best, they are on equal footing. I"m not playing this game. I answer these questions then you say you have no problem with my epistemology and rail on ontology. Take human suffering, that is an objective, real, standard I can judge by. Slavery would be wrong, in any form, and beating them to death certainly would be by that standard. There is nothing subjective about that at all. I'm pointing to a fixed point that suffering is bad and claming that is subjective and question begging is absurd. It can be medically proven that suffering is worse than not suffering.

Your continual reference to ANE culture is proving my point that yes, time and place impact our reference of objective moral truth. If we say slavery is objectively wrong no matter what, then time and place will impact how well we can determine that. Same as today on any host of issues. I'll say it again, objective moral truths is not what I have issue with, it's your inability to show why your interpretation is better than mine while demanding that I do that very thing.

I'll ask again:

Is beating slaves to the point of death morally right or wrong, and based on what moral ontology, or standard, or truth, that I have to smuggle?




I've already stated I will agree there is an objective morality. I don't know why are you arguing this. Your issue seems to be that unless I agree the source of that objective north is supernaturally transcendent then I'm being inconsistent. Are you referencing William Craig in your arguments? Because his entire premise has been picked apart on this. Much like what I'm understanding here, his arguments play fast and loose with the definition of "objective". He then claims victory because the moving target he is creating can't be hit. I get now why you don't even want to touch the epistemology part of this.



I don't disagree. And I will agree there are objective moral truths. I'm glad you have no issue with my epistemology. However, I feel like there will be a moving target of what objective is or a railing on ontology while asking me to explain my epistemology, then saying you have no issue with my epistemology. I'm past going around in circles here and not falling for this game.



Negative. What evidence, piece of information, or proof would it take for you to discount your belief in God, and specifically Christianity, and more specifically your flavor of Christianity? Until you can answer that, then yes, there is a difference between my belief in evolution and your faith in God.

Given what we know about God and his ability to interject, be all powerful, speak to me in prayer, etc...I can name any number of things that would constitute sufficient evidence that he does in fact exist and it would be in my best interest to start believing. Can you do that for not believing? What exactly would that be? The answer that faith does not work that way is invalid, because that is exactly the way my "belief" works.



Again, so what? Without comparing how we are getting to KNOW it is the case (which you don't have an issue with) then this entire point is hollow. It's about reasons for the belief, not the belief itself.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you think this is a game and that I don’t have any basis to ask these questions. That’s a really interesting take on this discussion.
 
#727
#727
rjd970 said:
Here's the issue. Are you asking how, or why and what do you mean? I can answer how I know my worldview is right, then you will start claiming you have no issue with my epistemology, the issue is my moral north. This is a tired game. You ask how, then I answer, then you rant about ontology. I've answered, and I've said it's no better than yours. I'm almost convinced at this point your meaning of "objective" is changing based on the question and this whole ruse is just to wrap somebody around the axle until they have no idea what you are talking about anymore then claim they are inconsistent.
Click to expand...
Moral ontology is certainly the issue. Sorry you don't like it. We've both asked you how you know it's right. This led to several replies about, "you have your opinion..., you don't have any better reasons than mine." Despite the fact that we've shown you we do have reasons you have blanketly dismissed them.

Here we go again, you asked this:

I gave a fixed point from which we can find relative morality. You saying we are human and don't want to suffer is subjective is like saying 2+2=4 is subjective because it relies on the assumption of the concept of mathematical equality. That is absurd. Suffering is objectively worse than not suffering...medically, biologically, ethically, socially.
Click to expand...
That is a horrible and incorrect example. You haven't provided a fixed point and I've illustrated with the compass how this is the case. I can assure you the scientist that coordinated the moon landing did not view that as subjective.

The whole idea of God's nature is good and he can't be any other thing is question begging too. We are going around in circles and it is becoming abundantly clear there is no difference distinguishing which one of us has the better argument. They are both consistent in their own right.
Click to expand...
You pretty well dismissed the natural theology arguments without consideration. Convenient. You are a subject and you say suffering is worse than not suffering. The Nazis didn't agree with you as they placed no value on Jews and had no problem with their suffering. Chattel slavery placed no value on African Americans. I think those groups have objective value, and not simply my opinion, as my individual opinion has no more value than a Nazi's. I think my opinion should submit to this truth regardless of what I feel. A group of subjects in agreement is still a group of subjects. I provided a definition of how I'm using the term objective.

But that is consistent with evolution is my point. The simple fact remains that species place more value on their own species. There is nothing supernatural or special about that with regards to us. Otherwise we wouldn't see it anywhere else in the animal kingdom.
Click to expand...
I wasn't making a supernatural claim. We have no way to measure how non human species place value other than our own. And, i'd dare say the majority of humans place much more value in their own lives than those of others.

You won't answer the question but demand I do then rail that mine is opinion? I understand now why you want to harp on ontology and not tip your hand. You said this:
Click to expand...
I haven't avoided or refused to answer any damn question you've presented. Please don't make up ****. I said that to illustrate a point. One you obviously don't get.

That isn't an answer. At best, they are on equal footing. I"m not playing this game. I answer these questions then you say you have no problem with my epistemology and rail on ontology. Take human suffering, that is an objective, real, standard I can judge by. Slavery would be wrong, in any form, and beating them to death certainly would be by that standard. There is nothing subjective about that at all. I'm pointing to a fixed point that suffering is bad and claming that is subjective and question begging is absurd. It can be medically proven that suffering is worse than not suffering.
Click to expand...
This isn't a game. It's a discussion on world views. Human suffering isn't an objective standard. It's something we agree on. I believe human life has genuine objective value, therefore suffering....... You seem to believe it too, but you have not grounded that in anything other than your opinion.

Your continual reference to ANE culture is proving my point that yes, time and place impact our reference of objective moral truth. If we say slavery is objectively wrong no matter what, then time and place will impact how well we can determine that. Same as today on any host of issues. I'll say it again, objective moral truths is not what I have issue with, it's your inability to show why your interpretation is better than mine while demanding that I do that very thing.
Click to expand...
You just don't get it. It has NO, NO, NO impact on moral truth. I don't say slavery is objectively wrong. Slavery is a term that can include a number of institutions of servitude. The slave trading of the antebellum era was wrong. Period. I say human life having value is the objective truth. Slavery in the ancient near east was a way to 1) pay of debt (yes, people placed themselves into slavery). 2) deal with prisoners of war. Slavery is a construct of man, so there isn't an objective rule floating around that says, "slavery is wrong." That isn't what I mean by objective truth or values. Either human life has objective value or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then slavery wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. It is either favored or unfavored (opinion/preference). If there is objective moral truth, then we can develop rules about how humans ought to be treated, slaves or otherwise. Just like we have rules on how to deal with children, employees, soldiers and even prisoners. Do you think all of those should be treated the same? It allows us to use our subjective moral reasoning to do so.

I'll ask again:

Is beating slaves to the point of death morally right or wrong, and based on what moral ontology, or standard, or truth, that I have to smuggle?
Click to expand...
It's wrong, and that is likely why the bible assigned punishment for those who did it.

I've already stated I will agree there is an objective morality. I don't know why are you arguing this. Your issue seems to be that unless I agree the source of that objective north is supernaturally transcendent then I'm being inconsistent. Are you referencing William Craig in your arguments? Because his entire premise has been picked apart on this. Much like what I'm understanding here, his arguments play fast and loose with the definition of "objective". He then claims victory because the moving target he is creating can't be hit. I get now why you don't even want to touch the epistemology part of this.
Click to expand...
What grounds objective morality? To this point it seems to be your opinion on suffering. Objective doesn't mean everyone agrees.

I don't disagree. And I will agree there are objective moral truths. I'm glad you have no issue with my epistemology. However, I feel like there will be a moving target of what objective is or a railing on ontology while asking me to explain my epistemology, then saying you have no issue with my epistemology. I'm past going around in circles here and not falling for this game.
Click to expand...
Of course I am. It's where I find your argument is lacking. If you really believe in objective moral truth, then you believe in an objective moral source. We call that God. Sure, we can debate whether the God of the bible is the correct candidate.

Negative. What evidence, piece of information, or proof would it take for you to discount your belief in God, and specifically Christianity, and more specifically your flavor of Christianity? Until you can answer that, then yes, there is a difference between my belief in evolution and your faith in God.
Click to expand...
I didn't come to faith in Christ by a piece of information. I'm sure if my worldview could be shown to be demonstrably false I could be persuaded.

Given what we know about God and his ability to interject, be all powerful, speak to me in prayer, etc...I can name any number of things that would constitute sufficient evidence that he does in fact exist and it would be in my best interest to start believing. Can you do that for not believing? What exactly would that be? The answer that faith does not work that way is invalid, because that is exactly the way my "belief" works.
Click to expand...
You have sufficient evidence. The conscience which helps you see objective moral reality. The testimony of Christ's death and resurrection. Your intrinsic need to see your life as having real value and meaning. Love, Aesthetics, abstract thought, self-awareness. Hell, even math.

Again, so what? Without comparing how we are getting to KNOW it is the case (which you don't have an issue with) then this entire point is hollow. It's about reasons for the belief, not the belief itself.
Click to expand...
It's unfortunate that you don't seem willing or able to grasp this. It isn't a game.[/QUOTE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc
#747
#747
Freaking degenerates..."I tell you what..If the revolution ever comes, I'll kill her first...JUST to show these crackas I mean business."

Sad that there are inbred degenerates in this world that ARE actually as stupid as the stereotypes in Chappelles' skits. Wish they would all take ride on a barge out to the center of the pacific and cash their supposed "martyr" check. Stupid, ignorant, mentally Ill freaks.

Yes, that was me telling yall how i really feel. Tired of the murder of innocents. It is 2019...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top