• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

1robin v. AmbigGuy: Basis of Morality

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
This is a debate about morality -- especially about its underpinnings. My friend 1robin has insisted that there can be no proper morality unless we are willing to assert that God originates all moral truth.

I disagree. It's not only a poor way to go about moral thought, but it certainly isn't -- as 1robin claims -- the only way to found a system of morality.

But I don't want to misrepresent him, so I'll stop here to allow 1robin to present his thesis himself.

Here's mine again:

God-as-morality-giver is not only unnecessary for proper morality but is a poor and even a dangerous way to think about morality. It allows for chaos in moral behavior. All a person has to do is think: "God wants me to attack the Twin Towers!"... and suddenly it is moral to attack the Twin Towers.

Morality has other underpinnings. Ones which work much better than God.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
This is a debate about morality -- especially about its underpinnings. My friend 1robin has insisted that there can be no proper morality unless we are willing to assert that God originates all moral truth.

I disagree. It's not only a poor way to go about moral thought, but it certainly isn't -- as 1robin claims -- the only way to found a system of morality.

But I don't want to misrepresent him, so I'll stop here to allow 1robin to present his thesis himself.

Here's mine again:

God-as-morality-giver is not only unnecessary for proper morality but is a poor and even a dangerous way to think about morality. It allows for chaos in moral behavior. All a person has to do is think: "God wants me to attack the Twin Towers!"... and suddenly it is moral to attack the Twin Towers.

Morality has other underpinnings. Ones which work much better than God.
Who are you? This is a civil and relevant post. Where is ambiguous guy?


It is true and only true that God is a bad foundation if he is evil or does not exist. If he is evil we have no way to determine that. If he does not exist then there is no argument at all.


Morality derives it's nature from two things. Supposed objective moral truth and subjective moral intuitions. This has been known for a long time. The Romans separated morality or (law) into two classes. Actions against objective moral facts and actions against societal norms. We are discussing only the former.

God's nature dictates or supplies perfect foundations for moral truth. This is called moral ontology. I am not discussing apprehension or quality as they are epistemological claims. Every one can apprehend and act on moral truths but only with God are they true.

God's moral nature makes murder wrong so lets take that one as a representative example. If he exists and his nature dictates it is wrong then at no time, in no place, for no mortal can that actions be correct. That is a sufficient foundation for laws about murder.

Without Him there is no transcendent source, no transcendent standard, and no transcendent moral truth. If I claim it is wrong I need all three.

Without him the best possible scenario is that all morals and laws are based on opinion. Who's opinion is right Hitler's or Billy Graham's?

I can't prove the Biblical God exists but if he does then his moral nature objectively determines moral truth.

If I have no God then at the very best I have preference and opinion. For instance is the common idea that least harm or human flourishing moral truth. Nope, it is speciesm. It grants our own flourishing even it that comes at the expense of all other biological life's flourishing. If I claim depriving life is wrong I need an a=objective value for that life for that to be true.

I can go on indefinitely but there is not much need.

Your up. You must show moral truth exists without God. Good luck.

Bonus:

Nietzsche predicted that the twentieth century man would come of age. By this he meant that the atheist of the twentieth century would realize the consequences of living in a world without God, for without God there are no absolute moral values. Man is free to play God and create his own morality. Because of this, prophesied Nietzsche, the twentieth century would be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 8]. Still, Nietzsche was optimistic, for man could create his own meaning, truth, and morality. Set free from belief in a non-existent God, man could excel like never before. Nietzsche viewed the changes that would occur as man becoming more than man (the superman or overman), rather than man becoming less than man.
Nietzsche was the forerunner of postmodernism. A key aspect of modernism was its confidence that, through reason, man could find absolute truth and morality. Postmodernism rejects this confidence in human reason. All claims to having found absolute truth and morality are viewed by postmodernists as mere creations of the human mind. [Reference 9]. The history of the twentieth century has proven Nietzsche's basic thesis correct. Western culture's abandonment of the Christian world view has led to a denial of both universal truth and absolute moral values. The twentieth century has proven to be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 10]. Hence, the Christian thinker must object to the optimism of Nietzsche. The death of God is not a step forward for man; it is a step backward—a dangerous step backward. If God is dead, then man is dead as well.
The comments of Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft are worth noting:
One need not share Nietzsche's atheism to agree with his historical, not theological, dictum that "God is dead"—i.e., that faith in God is dead as a functional center for Western civilization, that we are now a planet detached from its sun. One need not share Nietzsche's refusal of morality and natural law to agree with his observation that Western man is increasingly denying morality and natural law; that we are well on our way to the Brave New World. {Reference 11]. http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/thedeathoftruth.htm
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Who are you? This is a civil and relevant post. Where is ambiguous guy?

Just so you know, I'll be ignoring most of your insults. No time for it. Sorry.

It is true and only true that God is a bad foundation if he is evil or does not exist.

Nonsense. God is a bad foundation no matter if He is the holiest and most perfect Being ever to exist.

Unless....

Unless God directly injected moral truth into each and every human, and every human agreed about the moral truth which God had given him.

As it is, I say God loves homosexuality and abortion. You say that God hates homosexuality and abortion. So where is the objective morality?

Morality derives it's nature from two things. Supposed objective moral truth and subjective moral intuitions. This has been known for a long time.

Has been known. How I love the passive voice in debate.

It has been judged that I am way superior at debate than you are, you know. It has been determined that AmbigGuy is smarter and prettier than you.

Anway... sorry... just a little grammar fun there.

The Romans separated morality or (law) into two classes. Actions against objective moral facts and actions against societal norms. We are discussing only the former.

The Romans were primitive moral thinkers. We've come a long way since then.

Since there is no such thing, by definition, as 'objective moral facts,' we can't really discuss them, can we? An objective moral fact would have to be a moral fact agreed upon by all humans, plus God. But there are no such objective moral facts.

But maybe I'm wrong. Can you name three objective moral facts for me?

God's nature dictates or supplies perfect foundations for moral truth.

If only. Alas, not so.

This is called moral ontology. I am not discussing apprehension or quality as they are epistemological claims. Every one can apprehend and act on moral truths but only with God are they true.

Oh, my. Have you been peeking into those philosophy books again? I warned you about that.

Anyway, only with AmbigGuy are they true. If I say it is a moral truth, then it is a moral truth. But if you say that your God says that it's a moral truth, then you and your God are both mistaken.

I'm pretty sure about this. I've been thinking about it a long time now.

God's moral nature makes murder wrong so lets take that one as a representative example.

I seriously doubt that you know what 'murder' means. I'm sorry to say that, but it's what I believe.

Can you define 'murder' for me, in your own words?

Murder is often very much right and moral and even God-approved. It really depends on the facts of the case. And it's not always a Yes or No. Sometimes murder is morally murky. I could easily concoct a case which even you could not wholly condemn or wholly approve.

If he exists and his nature dictates it is wrong then at no time, in no place, for no mortal can that actions be correct. That is a sufficient foundation for laws about murder.

'Murder' is a word. That's all it is. But I look forward to your close definition of it. Please put your definition in quotations. 'Murder' = '.......'

Without Him there is no transcendent source, no transcendent standard, and no transcendent moral truth. If I claim it is wrong I need all three.

OK. I don't.

Without him the best possible scenario is that all morals and laws are based on opinion.

It's even worse with Him. With Him, all morals and laws are based on the opinions of men who think they are acting for God.

Who's opinion is right Hitler's or Billy Graham's?

Depends. What's the issue?

I can't prove the Biblical God exists but if he does then his moral nature objectively determines moral truth.

That's a fine assertion. I don't see how it's the least bit useful, but as you please.

If I have no God then at the very best I have preference and opinion.

Every Ayatollah has God, and every Ayatollah claims that his opinion is actually God's Own Opinion. Scary business, that God-backed morality.

For instance is the common idea that least harm or human flourishing moral truth.

Sorry, but I can't make sense of that. Can you rephrase?

I can go on indefinitely but there is not much need.

But I thought you wanted to prove that moral truth can't exist without God. When are you going to try that?

Your up. You must show moral truth exists without God. Good luck.

What is 'moral truth'? I really have no idea. Can you define it for me?

Nietzsche predicted that the twentieth century man would...

Sorry but I have no interest in off-camera minds and what they think.

The comments of Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft are worth noting:

Nah. I'm here to see if you can prove the necessity of God-backed morals. Kreeft will have to wait for the next debate round if he wants to join in.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Just so you know, I'll be ignoring most of your insults. No time for it. Sorry.
That was a joke.



Nonsense. God is a bad foundation no matter if He is the holiest and most perfect Being ever to exist.

Unless....

Unless God directly injected moral truth into each and every human, and every human agreed about the moral truth which God had given him.

As it is, I say God loves homosexuality and abortion. You say that God hates homosexuality and abortion. So where is the objective morality?
I knew you were going to do this. I tried to stop it up front but apparently there is no stopping it. Our perception of moral quality is NOT the issue. The issue is foundations. We may not agree but if God exists one of us is objectively wrong. I may claim Pluto is a hot desert and you may claim it is a cold glacier. One of us is wrong. What grounds morality has not one single thing to do with our all perceiving it the same. This was not a point at all. It was 100% assumption and no evidence and is wrong anyway.


Has been known. How I love the passive voice in debate.

It has been judged that I am way superior at debate than you are, you know. It has been determined that AmbigGuy is smarter and prettier than you.

Anway... sorry... just a little grammar fun there.
I don't get it. Is a passive recognition of things that can be read in texts from centuries gone by invalid because it does not agree with you? What exactly are you objecting to.


The Romans were primitive moral thinkers. We've come a long way since then.
No they were not and morality does not change if God exists. It can only evolve (or in our case) devolve once it has been torn from its tether and is now floating around tied to nothing. Rome has more impact on modern law that any other empire in history and what I stated is true even if Rome nor anyone else had ever said it. I see preference based objections but no evidence, no philosophy, no rationality. My claims have not even been touched.

Since there is no such thing, by definition, as 'objective moral facts,' we can't really discuss them, can we? An objective moral fact would have to be a moral fact agreed upon by all humans, plus God. But there are no such objective moral facts.
Well we got the inevitable simply defining things out of reality even quicker than normal. If God exists objective moral facts exist. Of he does not morality is an illusion.

But maybe I'm wrong. Can you name three objective moral facts for me?
I can't name three facts about what exists inside a black hole, under the polar ice caps of mars, or three liberals who are rational. Does that mean they do not exist. I can name three moral facts that are true if God exists. Absolute wrong exists, absolute right exists, and we are all accountable.


If only. Alas, not so.
I thought you were going to debate. I thought I made it clear I did not want to get stuck in your usual assertions, assumptions, and logic defying declarations. This worse that the black knight in the Holy grail who's arm got chopped off but when told it was kept saying "no it isn't". Declarations (especially ones this bad) are not arguments.


Oh, my. Have you been peeking into those philosophy books again? I warned you about that.
This is not productive.

Anyway, only with AmbigGuy are they true. If I say it is a moral truth, then it is a moral truth. But if you say that your God says that it's a moral truth, then you and your God are both mistaken.
I asked you to only post this thread if you were going to make meaningful claims. You have apparently given up already and are just talking smack.

I'm pretty sure about this. I've been thinking about it a long time now.
I will delete these meaningless claims in this thread for the foreseeable future.


I seriously doubt that you know what 'murder' means. I'm sorry to say that, but it's what I believe.

Can you define 'murder' for me, in your own words?

Murder is often very much right and moral and even God-approved. It really depends on the facts of the case. And it's not always a Yes or No. Sometimes murder is morally murky. I could easily concoct a case which even you could not wholly condemn or wholly approve.
I have defined murder but there is no need in this case. I am not talking about perception just foundation. If any act of killing is actually wrong then God must exist. Unless you think all killings are justified then you are up the creek. Lets say only God knows whether any act was murder or killing. What difference would that make to foundations.


It's even worse with Him. With Him, all morals and laws are based on the opinions of men who think they are acting for God.
let's pretend that that is the case (It certainly is for your side). That still would not change the fact God is the ACTUAL standard for moral truth. Even if no one knew what that truth was. This is very disappointing.



Depends. What's the issue?
Morality.


That's a fine assertion. I don't see how it's the least bit useful, but as you please.
Because it is absolutely unavoidable.


Every Ayatollah has God, and every Ayatollah claims that his opinion is actually God's Own Opinion. Scary business, that God-backed morality.
Exactly how many times must I say that I am not discussing perception before you will quit commenting on perception?


But I thought you wanted to prove that moral truth can't exist without God. When are you going to try that?
Already have. This is not going to be meaningful. I am debating with a person who does not acknowledge logic. There is no common ground.

Well this has gone about the way I thought. I do not see how this can be productive. I have no idea what your even doing or why you think it worth it. I will give you one last post to be effective and make scholarly arguments. If not I am done. One last time.

To claim moral truth exists I must have three things.

1. I must have a foundation greater than human opinion.
2. I must have a transcendent standard.
3. I must have a source for that standard.

With the Biblical God I have all three FOUNDATIONS even if every PERCEPTION ever held about them, by men was wrong.

Last chance
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I knew you were going to do this. I tried to stop it up front but apparently there is no stopping it. Our perception of moral quality is NOT the issue. The issue is foundations. We may not agree but if God exists one of us is objectively wrong. I may claim Pluto is a hot desert and you may claim it is a cold glacier. One of us is wrong. What grounds morality has not one single thing to do with our all perceiving it the same. This was not a point at all. It was 100% assumption and no evidence and is wrong anyway.
Uh huh. So you're admitting that God is useless so far as conveying moral truth to humanity. There's no way for us to reliably know God's Moral Opinions, but you are just more comfortable believing that a moral-possessing God actually exists out there. You feel better theoretically.

OK. That's a good start.

So here's my counter: AmbigGuy is the Final Judge of all morality. It is a power which was given to me at birth, in the same way as the Dalai Lama gets his authority. When I die, the Knowledge Of Moral Truth will leave my body and settle into a child somewhere in the western hemisphere. This child will make himself known, as I have made myself known.

So with all of this in mind, it seems that your God is unnecessary for moral grounding. Yes?

Of course, the added benefit of AmbigGuy-as-Moral-Authority is that I am here, in person, and ready to answer any moral question quite directly. I am not an absentee moral agent, like your God. With me, it is actually possible for humans to get answers to their specific moral questions.

By the way, if we can't get moral truth from God, how do you know that homosexuality is immoral?

I don't get it. Is a passive recognition of things that can be read in texts from centuries gone by invalid because it does not agree with you? What exactly are you objecting to.
Oh boy. Can be read. So you commit the same crime even as you ask, "What crime!"

You know I love you, 1robin, but I fear that an in-depth explanation of the passive voice... well, I'm pretty sure it will pass well over your head. But what the heck. Maybe we have readers who would be interested in it.

The passive voice is a grammatical construction which is often used in debate to hide the actor -- to make it seem that one's position is shared by all and every person on the planet. Here's an example:

Active Voice: A handful of dumb*** Christians worship C.S.Lewis as a great thinker.

Passive Voice: C.S.Lewis is worshipped as a great thinker (by a handful of dumb*** Christians).

See how the actor is removed? The parenthetical stuff is usually omitted altogether. Hear how the passive voice comes across as a grand, arm's-length observation of Lewis' greatness?

(If anyone would like me to post the transformation equation for converting active to passive, let me know. It's a little tedious.)

So I think we can see why a Christian debater might prefer the passive voice over the active voice when discussing attitudes toward C.S. Lewis. Usually the debater doesn't even realize he's doing it.

In this immediate instance, you have asserted: "Morality derives it's nature from two things. Supposed objective moral truth and subjective moral intuitions. This has been known for a long time."

It has been known. That certainly sounds better than saying, "Two retarded monks and an elderly baboon have known for a long time that...."

Anyway, I could do this all day, but we should probably move on.

....and morality does not change if God exists.
Who told you that? Who told you that God never changes His moral laws for mankind?

Any God worth His salt would be at least as smart as I am, and I am smart enough to change the moral law to suit the culture. Otherwise the cultures would likely go extinct. In a hard society where the average female died at 26, for example, I'd decree it a moral truth that sex could begin at age 14 rather than at age 22. In a softer culture, where female independence is important, I might announce that females must wait until 25 years old.

See? If I'm smart enough to change the moral law, why do you think that God doesn't change the moral law? Who taught you that assumption?

If God exists objective moral facts exist. Of he does not morality is an illusion.
I already disproved this one, above. Objective moral facts can exist in my head as easily as in God's.

I can name three moral facts that are true if God exists. Absolute wrong exists, absolute right exists, and we are all accountable.
That's a fine opinion, I guess. But I was thinking you could give me an actual moral fact, like "Murder is wrong" or somesuch.

Nevermind, I guess.

I thought you were going to debate. I thought I made it clear I did not want to get stuck in your usual assertions, assumptions, and logic defying declarations. This worse that the black knight in the Holy grail who's arm got chopped off but when told it was kept saying "no it isn't". Declarations (especially ones this bad) are not arguments.
Oh, mercy. The mouse rears on his hind legs and squeaks fiercely at the lion. Mercy!

I asked you to only post this thread if you were going to make meaningful claims. You have apparently given up already and are just talking smack.
Sure, man. All my claims are smack. But all your claims are gospel truth. I think everyone knows your standard position on your debate prowess.

I have defined murder but there is no need in this case.
So I was right. You have no idea how to define 'murder' in your own words.

I knew that. I just wanted the lurkers see your refusal. You claim that God disapproves of murder but you have no idea what 'murder' means. And so it goes with your moral thought. As groundless as any I've ever encountered. You don't even know how to show that the most egregious sin (murder) is wrong.

I am debating with a person who does not acknowledge logic. There is no common ground.
Did you ever take those standardized tests when you were young? I did. For the army, or because someone wanted me to teach, or for other reasons. It turns out I'm a genius. Yeah, no kidding. On the 'logical reasoning' parts of the tests and the language parts, I'd finish up quicker than a cheap floosie and go for a half-dozen smokes while the rest of the test-takers were still slogging through the midsection. And I always got the highest score. It was really too easy for me.

Don't hate me. I was mostly just born this way.

Anyway, how about you? Have you ever been tested for your logical reasoning ability? We could settle this whole who's-got-the-logic question simply by comparing test scores!

Well this has gone about the way I thought. I do not see how this can be productive. I have no idea what your even doing or why you think it worth it. I will give you one last post to be effective and make scholarly arguments. If not I am done. One last time.
You really are a hoot. And I mean that sincerely. It would be a duller world without you.

To claim moral truth exists I must have three things.
1. I must have a foundation greater than human opinion.
2. I must have a transcendent standard.
3. I must have a source for that standard.
Sure. No wonder the concept of moral truth confuses so many people. To believe in it, a person has to convolute his thought by making up stuff like your three items. Better to maintain one's rationality and see morality as just based in human empathy.

But let's cut to the chase. I have one important question for you:

If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Uh huh. So you're admitting that God is useless so far as conveying moral truth to humanity. There's no way for us to reliably know God's Moral Opinions, but you are just more comfortable believing that a moral-possessing God actually exists out there. You feel better theoretically.
I never hinted at a single thing you said I claimed. I do think there is a way to access God's morality. I do not think we all will but almost everyone could but that is not the issue anyway as much as hate what the issue actually is.

OK. That's a good start.
Only if dishonesty is good. In fact I just can't justify this any longer. I have given you every chance even God would demand of me and probably much more. I do not think you even take your self seriously and am certain the argumentation is not.

So here's my counter: AmbigGuy is the Final Judge of all morality. It is a power which was given to me at birth, in the same way as the Dalai Lama gets his authority. When I die, the Knowledge Of Moral Truth will leave my body and settle into a child somewhere in the western hemisphere. This child will make himself known, as I have made myself known.

So with all of this in mind, it seems that your God is unnecessary for moral grounding. Yes?

Of course, the added benefit of AmbigGuy-as-Moral-Authority is that I am here, in person, and ready to answer any moral question quite directly. I am not an absentee moral agent, like your God. With me, it is actually possible for humans to get answers to their specific moral questions.

By the way, if we can't get moral truth from God, how do you know that homosexuality is immoral?

Oh boy. Can be read. So you commit the same crime even as you ask, "What crime!"

You know I love you, 1robin, but I fear that an in-depth explanation of the passive voice... well, I'm pretty sure it will pass well over your head. But what the heck. Maybe we have readers who would be interested in it.

The passive voice is a grammatical construction which is often used in debate to hide the actor -- to make it seem that one's position is shared by all and every person on the planet. Here's an example:

Active Voice: A handful of dumb*** Christians worship C.S.Lewis as a great thinker.

Passive Voice: C.S.Lewis is worshipped as a great thinker (by a handful of dumb*** Christians).

See how the actor is removed? The parenthetical stuff is usually omitted altogether. Hear how the passive voice comes across as a grand, arm's-length observation of Lewis' greatness?

(If anyone would like me to post the transformation equation for converting active to passive, let me know. It's a little tedious.)

So I think we can see why a Christian debater might prefer the passive voice over the active voice when discussing attitudes toward C.S. Lewis. Usually the debater doesn't even realize he's doing it.

In this immediate instance, you have asserted: "Morality derives it's nature from two things. Supposed objective moral truth and subjective moral intuitions. This has been known for a long time."

It has been known. That certainly sounds better than saying, "Two retarded monks and an elderly baboon have known for a long time that...."

Anyway, I could do this all day, but we should probably move on.

Who told you that? Who told you that God never changes His moral laws for mankind?

Any God worth His salt would be at least as smart as I am, and I am smart enough to change the moral law to suit the culture. Otherwise the cultures would likely go extinct. In a hard society where the average female died at 26, for example, I'd decree it a moral truth that sex could begin at age 14 rather than at age 22. In a softer culture, where female independence is important, I might announce that females must wait until 25 years old.

See? If I'm smart enough to change the moral law, why do you think that God doesn't change the moral law? Who taught you that assumption?

I already disproved this one, above. Objective moral facts can exist in my head as easily as in God's.

That's a fine opinion, I guess. But I was thinking you could give me an actual moral fact, like "Murder is wrong" or somesuch.

Nevermind, I guess.

Oh, mercy. The mouse rears on his hind legs and squeaks fiercely at the lion. Mercy!

Sure, man. All my claims are smack. But all your claims are gospel truth. I think everyone knows your standard position on your debate prowess.

So I was right. You have no idea how to define 'murder' in your own words.

I knew that. I just wanted the lurkers see your refusal. You claim that God disapproves of murder but you have no idea what 'murder' means. And so it goes with your moral thought. As groundless as any I've ever encountered. You don't even know how to show that the most egregious sin (murder) is wrong.

Did you ever take those standardized tests when you were young? I did. For the army, or because someone wanted me to teach, or for other reasons. It turns out I'm a genius. Yeah, no kidding. On the 'logical reasoning' parts of the tests and the language parts, I'd finish up quicker than a cheap floosie and go for a half-dozen smokes while the rest of the test-takers were still slogging through the midsection. And I always got the highest score. It was really too easy for me.

Don't hate me. I was mostly just born this way.

Anyway, how about you? Have you ever been tested for your logical reasoning ability? We could settle this whole who's-got-the-logic question simply by comparing test scores!

You really are a hoot. And I mean that sincerely. It would be a duller world without you.

Sure. No wonder the concept of moral truth confuses so many people. To believe in it, a person has to convolute his thought by making up stuff like your three items. Better to maintain one's rationality and see morality as just based in human empathy.

But let's cut to the chase. I have one important question for you:

If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?
There is not even an honest attempt at debate here. Do you think these issues are some big joke or something? What the heck do you value in doing want you do? I find no argument among your posts, but I knew that going in. I am done. That was your last chance with me, no appeals to sincerity of yours will be given credibility in the future.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
There is not even an honest attempt at debate here. Do you think these issues are some big joke or something? What the heck do you value in doing want you do? I find no argument among your posts, but I knew that going in. I am done. That was your last chance with me, no appeals to sincerity of yours will be given credibility in the future.

Sorry to run you off so quickly. Sometimes I just don't know how to pace myself for the capabilities of my debate partner.

But please don't give up. If you stay here long enough, I really believe that you'll be ready one day. Over time, debate has an effect on even the hardest-headed among us.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Sorry to run you off so quickly. Sometimes I just don't know how to pace myself for the capabilities of my debate partner.

But please don't give up. If you stay here long enough, I really believe that you'll be ready one day. Over time, debate has an effect on even the hardest-headed among us.
You can keep up this delusion as you wish. I am no longer interested.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I say God is unnecessary to found morality, as I've demonstrated.

What do you say?
You have demonstrated nothing not have you even began a refutation of what I have stated. It is not that you are almost always wrong IMO or that you make the most ridiculous claims I have seen. It is that you display no aspects of sincerity or honest attempts to provide meaningful input. I have no idea what you get out of what you do but there exists no evidence you intend to honestly examine facts and conclude things rationally. It resembles trolling more than anything.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
You have demonstrated nothing not have you even began a refutation of what I have stated. It is not that you are almost always wrong IMO or that you make the most ridiculous claims I have seen. It is that you display no aspects of sincerity or honest attempts to provide meaningful input. I have no idea what you get out of what you do but there exists no evidence you intend to honestly examine facts and conclude things rationally. It resembles trolling more than anything.

It's interesting how so many of my debates descend into personal attacks by my opponents. I can only assume that they are feeling challenged by the subject matter.

Anyway, can we just assume that I am an ignorant cur and move on with our debate? Here are three major questions from my last message which you've ignored:

1) How do you know that God never changes the moral law? Why have you made that assumption?

2) You say that murder is against God's moral law. Can you define murder for me, in your own words?

3) If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?

I look forward to your thoughtful answers.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
It's interesting how so many of my debates descend into personal attacks by my opponents. I can only assume that they are feeling challenged by the subject matter.

Anyway, can we just assume that I am an ignorant cur and move on with our debate? Here are three major questions from my last message which you've ignored:

1) How do you know that God never changes the moral law? Why have you made that assumption?

2) You say that murder is against God's moral law. Can you define murder for me, in your own words?

3) If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?

I look forward to your thoughtful answers.
You have lost all credibility concerning thoughtfulness, sincerity, or rationality. It is too late.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
You have lost all credibility concerning thoughtfulness, sincerity, or rationality. It is too late.

OK, but you forgot to answer my questions. Here they are again:

1) How do you know that God never changes the moral law? Why have you made that assumption?

2) You say that murder is against God's moral law. Can you define murder for me, in your own words?

3) If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
OK, but you forgot to answer my questions. Here they are again:

1) How do you know that God never changes the moral law? Why have you made that assumption?

2) You say that murder is against God's moral law. Can you define murder for me, in your own words?

3) If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?
There is no point. I would have better luck trying to drown a fish. You are immune to evidence and reason.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
There is no point. I would have better luck trying to drown a fish. You are immune to evidence and reason.

Yeah yeah yeah. I think we all know that you are capable of personal insult. What many of us are wondering is whether you can actually engage in rational argumentation.

Give it a try. Here are my three questions again:

1) How do you know that God never changes the moral law? Why have you made that assumption?

2) You say that murder is against God's moral law. Can you define murder for me, in your own words?

3) If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Yeah yeah yeah. I think we all know that you are capable of personal insult. What many of us are wondering is whether you can actually engage in rational argumentation.

Give it a try. Here are my three questions again:

1) How do you know that God never changes the moral law? Why have you made that assumption?

2) You say that murder is against God's moral law. Can you define murder for me, in your own words?

3) If you believed there were no God to found moral truth, would you then go out and kill, rape, steal and plunder?
Who is we all? You got some people in your pockets or are you a triune being. I have told you that you have lost all credibility with me for sincerity or the desire to actually resolve issues rationally. I will only respond how and when I feel like it.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Who is we all?

Everyone with an IQ above 90 and a high school or GED diploma.

I have told you that you have lost all credibility with me for sincerity or the desire to actually resolve issues rationally. I will only respond how and when I feel like it.

Nah. You will have to respond as I guide you to respond. For example, I require you to respond to this message. You are not free to walk away now without responding.

Watch and see. You will respond.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Everyone with an IQ above 90 and a high school or GED diploma.
Post their agreement with you? Post how you know what all these people think? My IQ is far above 90 and I have HS diploma, a degree in math and almost have another in education. I do not agree with you. Fail.



Nah. You will have to respond as I guide you to respond. For example, I require you to respond to this message. You are not free to walk away now without responding.

Watch and see. You will respond.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Post their agreement with you? Post how you know what all these people think? My IQ is far above 90 and I have HS diploma, a degree in math and almost have another in education. I do not agree with you. Fail.

See what I mean? Free will is an illusion. You had no choice but to respond to my message. You'll do it again now.

Watch and see.
 
Top