Atheism

You continue to be wrong, and your inability to comprehend the difference between evidence and proof is perplexing at best. Accounts of that nature, whether regarding resurrection, ghosts, or the ability to levitate, are all forms of evidence just as other accounts of more mundane events are evidence of that. The distinction between natural and supernatural is only relevant in terms of proof.

 

If you, or anyone else, were to come to my home as a guest and give my son a WWJD bracelet, I would thank you. If someone on the street did it, I might say thanks and pull my son a bit closer. It's the context of the public school giving it out that sets my teeth on edge.

 

You win. Insult me at your pleasure.

 

I still disagree with your basic premise that the reason we do or not not do something is because of the consequences. Further, I still think your confusing the argument of if morals are objective or subjective with how we may come to learn of them.

Under your scenario if there were no negative consequences for a "bad" action then it would cease to be bad. I do not agree with that. I do think that there is a huge amount of things we learn in conjunction with consequences but that is not the only way we learn. We many learn that touching a hot stove is bad because it burns us when we touch it but I do not think larger concepts like morality, justice, religions, etc. fit as easily.

But in saying "consequence is the universal force that dictates morality" then you've saying that morals are subjective. In my example of the Nazi's had they won the war, their actions would not have suddenly become moral because of no negative consequences to their slaughter of thousands of innocent people.

Godwin's law is irrelevant. I could have used rape, slavery or any other universally known example of objective moral good.

We could easily be having the same discussion about where humans come from. You would probably say evolution and I would say God through evolution. I say morals are objective set forth by God. You say morals are subjective set forth through tested distillation of consequences of actions. I don't agree with that. I can't see any world where rape or murder of innocents would be considered moral if consequences did prove them to work in a society. Your essential "truth" can't be because it based on a subjective foundation. The biological evolution of a species is based on an adaptation to environment, society and culture so different environments, societies, and cultures will evolve differently and thus you'll have different "truths" or "morals." With God as the foundation of morals none of that matters and there are objective moral truths.

 

You don't know the difference between IMAGE and SON?

My niece looks like me, that would be image, but she's NOT my son.

 

Exactly. And as you alluded later, just like in any trial the spoken (and written) testimonies of witnesses are accepted as evidence.

 

how about a society that takes newborns and mutilates their genitals? is that something you could see gaining acceptance even tho it seems to be such a cruel thing to do?

 

Are you asking me if infant genital mutilation is ok or are you asking me if a common surgical procedure to remove part of the foreskin of a male infant under local anesthesia is ok? Or are they the same thing? These is just as much medical information out there for it as against it as a medical benefit. I actually went through this question not too long ago with the birth of my son. I'm of the opinion that done in a proper medical setting with the proper medical equipment that it is not amoral.

But there is a further question on if these morals that are innate in all humans are as clear as the nose on our face. In many cases they are not. There are some things that take some study, experience, and reflection to determine and figure out or acknowledge even though God has given man internal insight to them. Slavery or the equality of men and woman are good examples.

 

In all seriousness, don't ever do this again. Not only is it insulting, it's pure failure as an argument tactic. I'd have to write a book to address all of your inaccurate quotes, attributations, assumptions, and conclusions of my arguments.

I don't have the desire to do so. So, I will state, quite simply, that you completely misconstrued everything I said (and I mean completely). A perfect example is this:

I can't see "any world" where rape & murder would not have consequences which would make them immoral. Society cannot function when these things are condoned. It becomes anarchy, or chaos dominance, or fast entropy. Take your pick of terminology. I like how the natural order has already decided the rules and we're just discovering them.

 

Epidemic wipes out all but a small segment of the population which needs to repopulate the world.

Girls still want to be choosy.

Guys rape.

Moral?