Christians must be SA's moral conscience

[DJ...]

What exactly has proven itself to a worthy moral compass? Is there any particular system you actually support that is worthy of being recognized as a "moral compass"? it's quite easy to take pot-shots and make caricatures of various systems, it is not so easy being constructive... Try constructively defend a moral compass .

In terms of organised moral systems? No...

 

[Space_Chief]

They are doing it subjectively, which is what you were arguing against. Nobody does sht "randomly".

Not all are doing it subjectively. Others use philosophy and logic as well as history. Personal interpretation by a layman = subjective, organised interpretation by 100s of philosophers aided by independent metaphysical arguments is not.

Either you have a solid unwavering foundation upon which to base moral objectivity or you don't. There is no in between.

I agree that subjective lay exegesis is not that.

 

[DJ...]

But since we are chemical reactions, that's just your neuronal arrangement talking there. There is NO good or bad, or worthy or unworthy. Don't exempt your own judgements. To you they may be evil, but that's not an objective statement.



That's absurd. He is speaking to a group of people. He is allowed to say they, can be a force against rape. Freedom of association or favouring of religions is not affected here. Your point is irrelevant. He is not favouring them. And a politician should meet his constituents, by all means organise a Humanist society meeting and meet with the guy.

Disagreeing is not trolling.

As has already been pointed out, I am not going to be drawn into a debate about the merits of atheist morality. You are simply disagreeing for the sake of it, as usual, in order to deflect from the topic.

Maybe someone else will take your bait. Have fun with them. I'm not interested in it...

 

[OMB]

But since we are chemical reactions, that's just your neuronal arrangement talking there. There is NO good or bad, or worthy or unworthy. Don't exempt your own judgements. To you they may be evil, but that's not an objective statement.

so by your argument, rape, murder, theft etc. are nothing other than the respective chemical make up of the individual and therefore we should just accept it?

I can see that holding up as a solid defence in court "sorry your honour, it's my chemical make up that caused me to commit the crimes I did"

 

[Eskimos]

I get Cyril was 'sucking up' to his audience but he should have used something more generic like 'good people like you'. Its not a big deal but obviously any objective person would laugh at that statement of his.

Oh yes, the church has always been on the forefront of not abusing women and children. FFS

Just goes to show insane the world is. The same is happening with the new pope being chosen and millions of people hailing the old pope and his church despite them allowing (and covering up) thousands, if not millions, of allegations against the church ranging from corruption to child abuse.

 

[Space_Chief]

As has already been pointed out, I am not going to be drawn into a debate about the merits of atheist morality. You are simply disagreeing for the sake of it, as usual, in order to deflect from the topic.

What gives you the right to disagree, and me not the right to disagree?

Maybe someone else will take your bait. Have fun with them. I'm not interested in it...

I have no intention of arguing with you or anyone else. Have a good day.

 

[Techne]

In terms of organised moral systems? No...

Any moral or ethical system that you would constructively defend?

 

[Space_Chief]

I get Cyril was 'sucking up' to his audience but he should have used something more generic like 'good people like you'. Its not a big deal but obviously any objective person would laugh at that statement of his.

Oh yes, the church has always been on the forefront of not abusing women and children. FFS

Just goes to show insane the world is. The same is happening with the new pope being chosen and millions of people hailing the old pope and his church despite them allowing (and covering up) thousands, if not millions, of allegations against the church ranging from corruption to child abuse.

True, the cover ups are bad.

But in other news, Wikileaks released lots of information about abuses caused by Western governments. Yet people excitedly vote, deliberate and discuss newly elected government officials.

 

[Techne]

As has already been pointed out, I am not going to be drawn into a debate about the merits of atheist morality. You are simply disagreeing for the sake of it, as usual, in order to deflect from the topic.

Maybe someone else will take your bait. Have fun with them. I'm not interested in it...

Atheist morality? There is no such thing. Atheism does not have a particular stand towards moral matters. It is simply a position of non-belief in the existence of God. It is useless when it comes to moral matters.

 

[DJ...]

so by your argument, rape, murder, theft etc. are nothing other than the respective chemical make up of the individual and therefore we should just accept it?

I can see that holding up as a solid defence in court "sorry your honour, it's my chemical make up that caused me to commit the crimes I did"

No, he doesn't believe that. He's pretending to in order to drag you in to a debate about atheism and why a god is necessary for morality. He is being intentionally disingenuous and it is partly why he was banned the last time around...

 

[Space_Chief]

so by your argument, rape, murder, theft etc. are nothing other than the respective chemical make up of the individual and therefore we should just accept it?

Not at all. I'm asking why you think we should not accept it, other than popular opinion or force of law. I never said I support rape.

I can see that holding up as a solid defence in court "sorry your honour, it's my chemical make up that caused me to commit the crimes I did"

That's because the court follows law. Laws are not necessarily moral. We're talking about morals and not laws.

 

[DJ...]

Atheist morality? There is no such thing. Atheism does not have a particular stand towards moral matters. It is simply a position of non-belief in the existence of God. It is useless when it comes to moral matters.

And so the bullschit derail continues.

Well done, Peter...

 

[Space_Chief]

No, he doesn't believe that. He's pretending to in order to drag you in to a debate about atheism and why a god is necessary for morality. He is being intentionally disingenuous and it is partly why he was banned the last time around...

Why can't we just get along DJ? Do you think we can get along despite differing views?

 

[Space_Chief]

And so the bullschit derail continues.

Well done, Peter...

Why does it bother you. Chill. Life's too short to get upset. Apologies if I upset u.

OK, I won't comment on this matter any more guys and girls, I sometimes ramble on too much. Ta.

 

[OMB]

Not at all. I'm asking why you think we should not accept it, other than popular opinion or force of law. I never said I support rape.

That's because the court follows law. Laws are not necessarily moral. We're talking about morals and not laws.

you're trying to turn a CA thread into a PD thread, take it to PD

 

[RanzB]

Oh is this PeterCH?

 

[DJ...]

Why can't we just get along DJ?

Because you post nonsense, derail threads, and are incredibly disingenuous when you attempt to debate. I don't like that. I didn't like your previous guises, and I don't like this one either. Life isn't a picket-fence, labrador-filled hop and skip through magical forests...

Why does it bother you. Chill. Life's too short to get upset. Apologies if I upset u.

It bothers me that you use people to derail threads into oblivion. This thread has nothing to do with the morals of atheists, yet practically from the outset, you began the disingenuous path to that goal...

 

[Space_Chief]

you're trying to turn a CA thread into a PD thread, take it to PD

OK, just that I wasn't the first one. Instead of talking of whether Christianity is worthy or not, or whether atheism is worthy or not, or whatever system we should just comment directly about the topic. Otherwise it becomes philosophical. Thanks.

 

[DJ...]

Oh is this PeterCH?

Yip. He'll be banned soon enough. He's following the same path he did the last time when he was banned. Derail, derail, derail, disingenuous arguments, and playing the victim...

 

[Techne]

Morals and Christians do not necessarily go hand in hand.

You are right, having a theoretical framework of what is wrong and what is right does not necessarily imply you will stick to it. Of course, thinking that there are no actions that are objectively morally wrong or right removes one automatically from using logic to the question of morals.