The Problem of Evil and how it provides evidence for the existence of God.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Who said anything about truth? I was talking about morals. Morals do not equal truth.

A moral claim is a truth claim.....

1, Man steal money. Man is wrong and morally wrong. 2, Man steals food to feed his children. Man is wrong, but morally right.

I was using the terms right and wrong synonymous with morally wrong and morally right..... Now your situation here is extremely flawed. Man steals food man and the man has does something wrong. Man feeds his children and the man has done something right. They are separate actions. Yes he did a wrong action in order to preform a right one but that doesn't mean stealing wasn't wrong?? This does nothing to show the subjectivity of morals...

That's EXACTLY why they're subjective LOL.

No it doesn't...I don't think you know what objective and subjective mean. Subjective means it is a matter of opinion such as your favorite flavor of ice cream. Its truly just your preference that determines what your favorite flavor of ice cream is. Its a position on your preference. Moral reality is not experienced in the same way a discussion about our preference of food. You see I could ask is it true that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream? And the correct answer would be there are no best flavors of ice cream but it is true that someone may evaluate chocolate as the best flavor of ice cream. Now you could if I asked is it true that torturing sentient beings for fun is evil? You might be tempted to say the correct answer is there are no evil actions but someone may evaluate torturing sentient beings for fun as evil. But this would illustrate what my next point perfectly. Moral Relativism leads us to the conclusion of moral nihilism as there would be no truly good and bad actions. Yet this to me seems to contradict my experience in reality and so without some reason to doubt that which I clearly perceive I simply cannot agree with moral relativism.

Maths isn't meant to be subjective, so that there, is a fallacy.

Moral claims aren't subjective either....

In the same way what we believe is moral in a particular situation doesn't take away the fact that one action is objectively good and the opposite of the action is objectively bad.

That example does nothing as I explained above..

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What? Hahahahahhahahahaahahhahahahahahaahhahahahahaahahhahaahahhaahahahahaaa!

I am truly holier than thee, for I cannot hold a deity responsible for my lack of morals.

You are insecure. Please read "god is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TerryDon79

Who said anything about truth? I was talking about morals. Morals do not equal truth.

A moral claim is a truth claim.....

No, it's not.

1, Man steal money. Man is wrong and morally wrong. 2, Man steals food to feed his children. Man is wrong, but morally right.

I was using the terms right and wrong synonymous with morally wrong and morally right..... Now your situation here is extremely flawed. Man steals food man and the man has does something wrong. Man feeds his children and the man has done something right. They are separate actions. Yes he did a wrong action in order to preform a right one but that doesn't mean stealing wasn't wrong?? This does nothing to show the subjectivity of morals...

It only does nothing to show subjective morality to you, because it blows your argument out of the water.

That's EXACTLY why they're subjective LOL.

No it doesn't...I don't think you know what objective and subjective mean. Subjective means it is a matter of opinion such as your favorite flavor of ice cream. Its truly just your preference that determines what your favorite flavor of ice cream is. Its a position on your preference. Moral reality is not experienced in the same way a discussion about our preference of food. You see I could ask is it true that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream? And the correct answer would be there are no best flavors of ice cream but it is true that someone may evaluate chocolate as the best flavor of ice cream. Now you could if I asked is it true that torturing sentient beings for fun is evil? You might be tempted to say the correct answer is there are no evil actions but someone may evaluate torturing sentient beings for fun as evil. But this would illustrate what my next point perfectly. Moral Relativism leads us to the conclusion of moral nihilism as there would be no truly good and bad actions. Yet this to me seems to contradict my experience in reality and so without some reason to doubt that which I clearly perceive I simply cannot agree with moral relativism.

So you counter my argument with another fallacy? Morals are determined by the mass, but there are also personal morals which are determined by the individual. Morals also change over time. Therefore, morals are subjective.

Maths isn't meant to be subjective, so that there, is a fallacy.

Moral claims aren't subjective either....

Says the person who NEEDS them to be objective to prove a point.

In the same way what we believe is moral in a particular situation doesn't take away the fact that one action is objectively good and the opposite of the action is objectively bad.

That example does nothing as I explained above..

Meat eaters and non meat eaters both believe they're morally right. If your argument about morals being objective is true, then one must be wrong. If my argument, that morals are subjective, is true, they can both be right or wrong depending on the individual.

a reply to: Noinden

So you use a non-sequitur to argue this do you? Ok then .... My belief AND historical evidence support the fact that moral judgments have changed through out human history. Slave ownign was OK in the western world until quite recently. Yet it is not ok now. That may well change again. Thus morality is sbjective.

Again I didn't deny that what people believe is moral changes? People can disagree about objective facts? just like we could disagree about the sum of 2+2. Our disagreement doesn't make the sum of 2+2 subjective....I think you are the one using a non-sequitur...

have no care for what you reject or what you accept. I am however not going to let you make sweeping statements, and not challenge them. As always Y Gwir yn erbyn byd/ An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil

I mean your basically wanting me to reject something I believe in a properly basic way. Without some form of defeater for a properly basic belief I have no good reason to reject it. If your not here to discuss truth then what is your purpose?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Atheists don't have a moral ground? Really? Of course they do. They don't believe in a supreme being.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Atheists don't have a moral ground? Really? Of course they do. They don't believe in a supreme being.

Can you explain the atheist standard moral guide you claim, please.
I am interested in how it reflects on people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot

a reply to: Raggedyman
Love the people you've chosen. Really. I don't believe in a supreme being, and yet I do value morals and goodness.

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Raggedyman
Love the people you've chosen. Really. I don't believe in a supreme being, and yet I do value morals and goodness.

I chose those few and the millions that were guided by their beliefs

So whats the standard, I guess not like there standards?

Morality is subjective, thats true, there is no standard

Is killing a cow with a sledge hammer goodness, some would think its fine

a reply to: Ericthedoubter

Im insecure because I've taken time to actually think about my beliefs?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Individuals that also happened to be atheist? I've been an atheist for years but have failed to kill millions of people.

Those people are not our representatives. We are not responsible for their actions.

The atheists moral sense stems from moral superiority.

"I am and always shall be holier than thou...because I wish to be and not because I am obliged to be."

a reply to: ksiezyc

Atheists don't have a moral ground? Really? Of course they do. They don't believe in a supreme being.

No atheism has no foundation for belief in the existence of moral values and duties. If you think it does please tell me what external reference outside of yourself that you are referring to when you say something is Good or something is Evil?

a reply to: ksiezyc

Atheists don't have a moral ground? Really? Of course they do. They don't believe in a supreme being.

No atheism has no foundation for belief in the existence of moral values and duties. If you think it does please tell me what external reference outside of yourself that you are referring to when you say something is Good or something is Evil?

a reply to: ksiezyc

Atheists don't have a moral ground? Really? Of course they do. They don't believe in a supreme being.

No atheism has no foundation for belief in the existence of moral values and duties. If you think it does please tell me what external reference outside of yourself that you are referring to when you say something is Good or something is Evil?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Simple morals.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I've not told you to reject something. I've disagreed with your premis. The existence of evil does not prove the existence of deities. Q E D

a reply to: Raggedyman

Picking out individuals who express a spiritual view, or lack there of, to represent the whole, is a sign that that is an attack not based on proof.

I could quiet easily pick the following Christians, to say all Christians are morally reprehensible.

Sun Myung Moon
David Koresh
Pat Robertson
Matthew Hale
Michael Bray
Paul Jennings Hill
Marshall Herff Applewhite, Jr.
Jim Jones
Charles Coughlin
and
Fred Phelps, Sr.

Yet I do not. Thus there are indeed moral athiests just as there are amoral "good Christians".

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Wrong, and this clearly illustrates more logical holes in your thinking.

Athiests get their morals from the constant development of culture, and through the idea of humanism. In that a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You do understand the Pee Wee Herman approach of "I know what you are but what am I?" to these discussions does not put you in a position of authority right?

You use a non-sequitur argument, and by this you try to imply that my ideas on morals are like not knowing the difference between chocolate icecream and torture. Then accuse me of using a non-sequitur?

You can not use 2 + 2 = whatever as an illustrative incidence of morals, as it is pure mathmatics. Morals are based on, time, culture, and religion in the very least. As I said, the death penalty, slavery, and I will add, the rights of women, are moral issues that have changed over time. What was morally acceptable say in Victorian England, does not apply here and now. Many of their ideas are not even vaguely acceptable now (people Zoos were seen as ok for example, eugenics was ok etc etc etc).

So pull the other one, it has bells on, though I dislike Morris Dancing.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Thinking about one's beliefs is laudable. I hope it brings you comfort.

Your insecurity shows itself in your derision. You find it necessary to scorn atheists in many of your OP's.

I'm sure I don't need to inform you that practically EVERY atheist is also an apostate.

Please also give that some thought.

(Please do try to read that book, it's exquisite.)

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evil exists whether God exists or not. Evil is avoidable misery and suffering.