Search results

Yup. As expected. T.O.T. will viciously hold on to subjective relative morals. Because he doesn't want to endanger his agnosticism. As for what's in bold above : Which "human" point of view ? Yours ? Mine ? Hitlers ? Mother Teresa ? Pol Pot ? Stalin ?

Then why have varying cultures, societies, continents, and eras disagreed on things that you would say are right and wrong ? Ie.: if what you are saying is true (that "we all agree"), then why is history filled with endless examples of disagreements on what is morally good and morally bad ...

Really ? Do you mean that standard of scoring/deciding as : Objective ? Or subjective ? Go ahead and shout it from the mountain tops : That (drumroll) you meant that objectively !! Go ahead and say it T.O.T. You are converted ! Yay ! Sure, but the trouble for your side is that...

Trying to understand what you are saying here. You say "Morality is when we decide what is right and good". So is that to say that morals are relative and subjective ? Are you taking T.O.T.'s position then ? And if so, then you are citing the "tree of good and evil " story as an evidence...

Trying to dissect your words slowly and carefully. Forgive me if I've mis-understood, but .... seems to me that you're *trying* to concede to objective moral absolutes , in the above quote. You actually cede to the word "objective", if I've understood this quote correctly. HOWEVER, your...

Whose human nature ? What country ? What continent ? What state ? What people group ? What era ? Why one and not the other ? Remember : Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot had "human nature" too. Why your notions and not theirs ? And the answer to that can NOT be "because of human nature"...

Well on the one hand, I can tell you are really reading what I write. Thank you. On the other hand, you still aren't grasping the glaring contradiction in-your-words. Because notice in the above quote from you, that you are STILL "smuggling in objective moral absolutes" through the back...

HHHmmmm , good point. I see where you are going with this : If it's all "evolution", that's "hard-wired into our DNA", then ... presto, why is there any need to TRAIN our toddlers not-to-be-selfish ? We have to TRAIN them to "share" and be nice and not to throw tantrums, etc..... But if...

When we look at the president's faces carved in Mount Rushmore, we infer "design". Right ? We do not think "Gee, I guess the wind and rain and erosion produced those uncanny looking face things ". But yes, when we see spectacular erosion designs in the Grand Canyon (even though each of the...

Right. Presto. Then you will now therefore not be looking back at history and wagging your finger at them bad guys/societies. Ok, got it. They were only subjectively "bad", not objectively "bad". Ok . Wait, are you saying that "hurting people & making them bleed is objectively bad" ...

Really ? You're "similar" to Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin ? Ok, sure. Remind me to remove you from my super bowl party invitation list. ;)o_Oo_O Me thinks you will say "T.O.T. is right in his moral view, and Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin were wrong in their moral views. Thus no, you can...

Correct. And Hitler was "human-defined", and "humanity-domonstrably". I'll bet if you had done an atopsy at his death, you'd have (gasp) determined that he was (gasp) "HUMAN" (say it isn't so). Same for Stalin, Pol Pot, and all those evil people (like my dad) who grew up in the deep south...

Correction : On your view they are "subjectively" good or bad. And the "circumstances" that can or can't "justify" the acts, are totally subjective to the individual, and/or their collective "we" that they are living among, at whatever time it is. Ok ? Looking forward to your...

Yet in their very next breaths, those persons who denied funding will pronounce themselves the open minded tolerant ones. Can you spell "c-o-n-t-r-a-d-i-c-t-i-o-n " ? :(

If I'm not mistaken, I heard of a Catholic charity (that provided food to poor people, or had a skid row soup kitchen or orphanage, etc....). They were told that they had to provide for abortions in their health insurance to their staff. And, naturally, since Catholics take a dim view on...

T.O.T., it's a fair question to pose to the theist side, to try to say "you have an internal contradiction on your end". So in that way, you're not having to admit there's a God. You're merely posing the supposed internal contradiction on the OTHER PEOPLE'S side . But to me, this is a rabbit...

Another option that will allow you to stall for time (or is it a trap ? ) : Take the choice of agreeing that there are objective moral absolutes. And simply tell us that the way we deduce what those are (if it were theoretically possible) is to A) poll the entire earth (such that we're not...

I sympathize with you on this one . If ever a Christian starts bringing up in-house morals (like harping about various sexual issues ) it doesn't do ANY GOOD TO the conversation of "Does God exist". In fact, it only turns off agnostics and atheists even more. So if Christians themselves...

This seems to be more semantics. To just "drag this thing out" ? As if the longer you can "drag it out", the longer you don't have to admit the inevitable. For example, here, what the h*ck difference is "decide" vs "recognize" ? We both know we're talking about the same thing. I can...

Where's T.O.T. ? We're anxiously awaiting his replies to my posts #52 to #55 :)