tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post117019670430563122..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The moral schizophrenia of a militant atheistRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16880686420669607642007-02-03T16:25:00.000-05:002007-02-03T16:25:00.000-05:00way to ignore Anonymous's point about the total in...way to ignore Anonymous's point about the total insanity of LeviticusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22690929267233702122007-02-01T20:28:00.000-05:002007-02-01T20:28:00.000-05:00Morality isn't fixed; it's not intrinsic, that's t...<i>Morality isn't fixed; it's not intrinsic, that's the whole point. We as human beings have to evaluate a given moral position based on real outcomes and evidence as much as it is possible. How do we evaluate this evidence? Simple. Based upon the "state of being human" -- a just law is created at an attempt to alleviate human suffering.</i><br /><br />Does Anonymous support abortion, for example? Is abortion meant to alleviate the suffering of the mother or of the child? Both? On what grounds?<br /><br />Or if Anonymous is in the middle of the desert with his best friend, and there's only enough water for one of them to survive, whose suffering will Anonymous choose to alleviate, and why?<br /><br />Does Anonymous subscribe to naturalistic evolution? If so, then is there any substantial difference between human suffering and animal suffering? If a house is on fire and Anonymous' infant is trapped inside along with his favorite pet dog Fido, and he only has time to rescue one or the other, will Anonymous rescue his baby or Fido? Would he rather anger PETA or the ACLU? Or can't his professed morality overcome his evolutionary desire to preserve his genetic lineage?<br /><br />In short, on what grounds does Anonymous define what it means to be human as well as what it means to suffer?<br /><br /><i>We have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why certain laws in the Bible are silly. They were written a long time ago and humanity has moved on...</i><br /><br />What makes Anonymous think that the ancient Biblical writers had an inferior moral system to ours? Who's to say that the ancients didn't have a moral framework superior to our modern one? On what basis does Anonymous adjudicate between the two?<br /><br /><i>please join us.</i><br /><br />Join the Dark Side? Tempting. What will I get out of it? Will Anonmymous give me hope in suffering? Or as C3PO might say, is it our lot in life to suffer? And in the end to die, meaninglessly? But if what Anonymous says is true, then what difference does it make if I believe in a lie that makes me happy for the few decades of my life versus knowing the so-called "truth" of atheism? If a lie makes me happy, then so what? Why argue with any of us here? In the end, we'll both end up six feet under, according to Anonymous.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41498264125213686852007-02-01T16:02:00.000-05:002007-02-01T16:02:00.000-05:00You Christian theists are in such a funny position...You Christian theists are in such a funny position. You claim moral superiority, but when we look at your book, we atheists see a morality typical of the time that spawned it, steeped in superstition. Would you really defend Leviticus when God (supposedly) says: "[Ye shall keep my statutes] neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee."<br /><br />It doesn't matter who God supposedly told this to, it's just plain nuts! NUTS! ... the law would never make any sense under any circumstances-- let alone your claim that from God comes "intrinsic morality". "Thou shalt not eat green jelly beans." is just as morally applicable in the REAL WORLD.<br /><br />Morality isn't fixed; it's not intrinsic, that's the whole point. We as human beings have to evaluate a given moral position based on real outcomes and evidence as much as it is possible. How do we evaluate this evidence? Simple. Based upon the "state of being human" -- a just law is created at an attempt to alleviate human suffering.<br /><br />In point of fact, it is you theists who claim there are moral absolutes, so YOU must defend the moral edicts of the Bible which now seem horribly out of date and cruel. We atheists don't need to explain why we don't believe in fixed morality. You do. We have a perfectly reasonable explanation for why certain laws in the Bible are silly. They were written a long time ago and humanity has moved on... please join us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1170337388159398382007-02-01T08:43:00.000-05:002007-02-01T08:43:00.000-05:00This is amazing. This post can't have been a repe...This is amazing. This post can't have been a repeat of any less than 5 other posts in response to Mr. Loftus, and he keeps on keeping on. He is either not getting it (which is hard to believe), he is ignoring it, or he is so blinded by zeal to bring down Christ or Steve Hays or both (the former being a more difficult task) that he just keeps banging the same drum. It's a shame and reminds me of his 2nd interview w/ Gene Cook.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1170259066044143322007-01-31T10:57:00.000-05:002007-01-31T10:57:00.000-05:00It's disheartening to think that Loftus is actuall...It's disheartening to think that Loftus is actually a teacher when he cannot follow an argument.<BR/><BR/>How he cannot see the problem in claiming God is unjust for <I>NOT</I> killing one child, but God is unjust <I>FOR</I> killing another when the only difference is...the <I>HYPOTHETICAL</I> dream-world Loftus resides in!<BR/><BR/>Loftus's arguments are solely speculative. They don't address the real world, because it is impossible for Loftus to <I>know</I> what <I>would have happened</I> if a hypothetical event had occured. The chaos theory alone rules out his ability to make any definitive arguments here.<BR/><BR/>So, Loftus is arguing from the land of make-believe here. There is no substance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1170216652058310242007-01-30T23:10:00.000-05:002007-01-30T23:10:00.000-05:00Steve quote of one of the things Loftus said struc...Steve quote of one of the things Loftus said struck me. Since Loftus is repetative (and also hard of hearing) I'll only stick with this one:<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>Here are some more things God could’ve done: One childhood fatal disease like the Spanish Flu of 1918 could have killed Hitler and prevented WWII.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>In other words, when God <I>KILLS</I> an "innocent" baby, this counts as God being evil; but because God did <I>NOT</I> kill Hitler in his youth, that <I>ALSO</I> counts as God being evil.<BR/><BR/>How does Loftus know that the four-year-old who's death is in the newspaper would not have been the next Hitler? By what value judgment can Loftus claim that <I>that specific death</I> is a bad thing, whereas Hitler's death would have been okay.<BR/><BR/>The double standard is obvious to all but Loftus. Loftus is arguing that since Loftus "knows what's best" some deaths that didn't occur would have been permissible--indeed, even necessary. Yet when Christians argue that God knows what's best, Loftus dismisses this argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com