Morality without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty sure I’ve had Swedish people hold the door for me before. But my anecdotal experience means just as little as yours next to an actual study.
 
Response to post 374
I never said that Pascal was silly and dumb. I said that he was brilliant but his wager was silly and dumb*. Please read my posts before responding.
  • and the opposite of scripture. If one agrees with me and gives a stupid argument, I will still call your argument wrong!
 
Eleve said:
If the Cosmological Argument is sound, then, no, you’re right. But then in that case, it seems like even though it would be true that “There cannot be morality without God,” this would be because God must exist, and not because morality depends on God.

Similarly, it seems that there need to be composers in order for there to be beautiful music, but only because there need to be composers in order for there to be music at all, not because a composer needs to impart beauty into music above and beyond the actual arranging of the notes, dynamics, etc.
Click to expand...
Sure. 🤷
 
wittgenstein
**
The atheist died and went straight to heaven! He asked God,“why am I here? I never believed in you”! God answers,“because not even for a moment did you stop thinking of me.”**

Don’t kid yourself. God is good. If you don’t want anything to do with Him, he will oblige. 😉
 
PRmerger said:
Perhaps if you offered what your definition is of God, that might be helpful.
Click to expand...
Why would that be helpful? Your argument is wrong. It is an assertion. There is a difference between subjective pragmatic value, and objective moral value.
 
Linux, I don’t think PR was arguing anything. I asked her what she thinks makes it virtuous to protect human life and she gave me an answer. Nothing wrong with that.
 
wittgenstein

I said that he was brilliant but his wager was silly and dumb.*

That is the same as saying that he was silly and dumb when he offered the wager.

I said Pascal was sincere. When the atheist is on his deathbed, he will be sincerely contemplating a loophole.:rolleyes:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
wittgenstein
**
The atheist died and went straight to heaven! He asked God,“why am I here? I never believed in you”! God answers,“because not even for a moment did you stop thinking of me.”**

Don’t kid yourself. God is good. If you don’t want anything to do with Him, he will oblige. 😉
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is not God himself that all atheists have a problem with, but rather it is the assertion of christian faith posited as something that ought to override rational scrutiny. People don’t have to have faith in anything and neither should they be held morally accountable for not having faith. If sombody rejects your faith, it is becuase you failed to rationally convince them of why they should believe what you’re telling them. The fret of hell just doesn’t cut it.
 
Linux said:
Why would that be helpful? Your argument is wrong. It is an assertion. There is a difference between subjective pragmatic value, and objective moral value.
Click to expand...
Because I don’t know what you’re thinking, regarding your concept of God.

So, if you could proffer that, it would be helpful. Then we can continue this dialogue.

Not sure why you can’t answer that. :confused:
 
I don’t believe in emotionally blackmailing people into the Christian faith and that is why i reject pascals wager.
 
PRmerger said:
Because I don’t know what you’re thinking, regarding your concept of God.

So, if you could proffer that, it would be helpful. Then we can continue this dialogue.

Not sure why you can’t answer that. :confused:
Click to expand...
Beacuase its irelivant insofar as determining whether or not your argument is correct. Why don’t you adress my rebuttal?
 
Linux said:
Beacuase its irelivant insofar as determining whether or not your argument is correct. Why don’t you adress my rebuttal?
Click to expand...
I can’t until I know what your definition of God is.

Do you, perhaps, not have one? Is it a nebulous concept you haven’t yet worked out?

That’s fine. I would just like to know that. 🤷
 
Response to post 386
I’m a member of mensa. I occasionally say things that are silly and dumb.
For example, when the wife and I had our passport photos taken,the photographer said,“lower your chin”. I did. I looked like Edvard Munch’s “the scream.” My wife was LHAO! She said "she said lower,your whole head,not just your chin!😃
In other words,I am intelligent but can do some really stupid things!😃 I thought the photographer wanted a photo of my bone structure! DUH! Sometimes, I think too much,actually most of the time!
 
Eleve said:
Linux, I don’t think PR was arguing anything. I asked her what she thinks makes it virtuous to protect human life and she gave me an answer. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
The answer is incorrect insofar as it fails to determine what makes a thing trully moral or immoral or what gives a thing true objective moral value.

Yes, it is becuase of God that a thing has moral value, but that does not explain why. By itself its just an assertion.
 
Linux, it’s because I’ve not only read, but participated in, the dialogue - it began when you quoted PR’s response to me - that I think you’re off the mark. I’d like to reiterate what PR just quoted and thumbs-upped (up-thumbed?): PR was explaining her view, not defending it, so there can be no question of an unsound argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top