So David thinks morality must be objective- absolutely true in some kind of cosmic sense. Does he think that about anything else? He speaks English when he could just as well use some other language. There is no objective proof that English is the One True Language. He wears normal clothes even though there is no proof that there is such a thing as the One True Clothing. He uses dollars even though there is no proof that it is the One True Money. He uses regular numbers even though he could just as well use Roman or Indic numerals. Well, David, I tell you what. Until you can prove that English, dollars, your clothes, and Arabic numerals are objectively better, you should stop using them.
Reply
·
Hide replies
Wow. Funny that you think you're refuting my point, when you're actually proving it. My claim in the video is NOT that "morality must be objective." It's that, in order to be objective, there must be a moral standard. You compare moral values to languages, clothing styles, etc. If atheism is true, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Choosing to murder rather than to help the poor is like choosing to wear odd clothing rather than the usual garb. Is English better than Japanese? Not in any objective sense. Are dollars better than yen? Not in any objective sense. Is helping people better than torturing them? According to your analogy, not in any objective sense. But that's precisely why I said in the video that, given atheism, "You might as well do whatever you feel like doing." Thanks for proving my point with your excellent comparisons!
Read more
Reply
·
+Acts17Apologetics On this we agree. If there is no objective morality, then you cannot say that murder is wrong in the sense that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong. I have never claimed that objective morality exists. I am pointing out that you are being inconsistent. You say morality must be objective to be worth following, but you accept all kinds of arbitrary things like language, clothes, and money without a second thought.
Just because morality is arbitrary does not mean it is useless. When drive, you follow traffic rules, right? Are US traffic rules true in some cosmic sense? No, they just make driving safer and more convenient. Same goes for morality.
Man is the measure of all things. There are commands in the Bible that Christians largely ignore. Why? Isn't that their moral standard? Here's a contradiction for you: Paul said divorce is forbidden. Jesus says it is allowed in some cases.
Who's telling the truth here? How can you use a contradictory set of teachings as a moral standard?
Just because morality is arbitrary does not mean it is useless. When drive, you follow traffic rules, right? Are US traffic rules true in some cosmic sense? No, they just make driving safer and more convenient. Same goes for morality.
Man is the measure of all things. There are commands in the Bible that Christians largely ignore. Why? Isn't that their moral standard? Here's a contradiction for you: Paul said divorce is forbidden. Jesus says it is allowed in some cases.
Who's telling the truth here? How can you use a contradictory set of teachings as a moral standard?
Read more
Reply
·
+Thomas Harty Thomas Harty said: "Man is the measure of all things." LOL! I really can't imagine how anyone can be this illogical and inconsistent. Which man is the measure of all things? Because men disagree on all kinds of things. And you're here arguing with people, as if there's some truth about these issues. Are you the measure? Why not Stalin? Why not me? And if I'm the measure of all things, why are you arguing with me? You're arguing with the measure!
Reply
·
No comments:
Post a Comment