Cornelius

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cornelius


  1. 7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    I think objective moral standards are generally based on societal norms of common decency. Whereas people who believe in a higher power tend to have subjective moral standards, which are influenced by a deity. The difference may only be determined by what's culturally acceptable verses what's divinely inspired. Subjective morality is dependent on what a group thinks or believes, and those who do not hold to those standards are wrong. Objective morals are more independently arrived at, and are subject to change depending on time, culture, situations, environment, or conditions. Perhaps the rest is semantics, there is a cross-over where objective and subjective morality meet, ie; we all agree that murder is evil and the golden rule is good... The two can be united by instituting some common sense. "Genocide is not good" is really dependent on why and what group of people are being wiped-out. If their only intent is harm, evil, and destruction, then genocide could be interpreted as a positive moral standard, or at least a necessary one.. jmo

     

     

    I would argue the opposite. 


  2. 7 hours ago, Key said:

    Are you saying because someone doesn't believe in God, they shouldn't know right from wrong, or good from bad? That seems to be what your implying with your repetitious query.

    It can certainly appear that way so I should probably write some sort of disclaimer. I forget how sensitive people are nowadays. I am not in any way saying an atheist can't be moral or have a good moral code. I am not saying they cannot conduct themselves in a moral fashion. Personally I believe we all have a basic morality written on our hearts. But I also believe in the existence of an objective moral standard. Atheists are usually good people with good intentions. You won't hear me say otherwise.


  3. 12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    Well?  Despite what you seem to think, I have done my best to answer your questions.  I don't know what you want.

     

     

    Have you stated what objective moral standard you abide by as an atheist and use to make your moral statements?

    I've simply restated questions you have failed to directly address. I didn't mean to upset you. If I did I apologize. I am just wondering from an atheistic viewpoint how do they justify morality being anything but subjective.


  4. 30 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

    By what moral standard is God good?  Aside from the fact that Scripture says that God is good.  As to the objective part -- all Scripture was created by people.  Like it or not -- objectivity has cultural deficits.  The people who created these Scriptures, projected their moral deficits onto their God.

     

    My morals are better than God's.  I at least know that slavery is wrong -- and that women and gay people are fully Human.  I also know that rape is not a property crime, against a woman's father.

     

     

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
     
     

     

     

    By what objective moral standard as an atheist do you call those things wrong or judge yourself to hold “better morals?”


  5. 17 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

     

     

    I read the Book.  Let us count the ways.  Genocide  is not good.  Neither is slavery.  Or Homophobia.  Or Women as property.  Or Sadism.  Or blood lust.

     

    :whist:

    As an atheist by what objective moral standard do you determine those to be “bad” things?

     

    So I’m assuming you are unwilling to engage in the thought experiment. 

     

    By what objective moral standard do you as an Atheist obtain and maintain the characterization of monster?


  6. 7 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    What would you like me to say?  If we are speaking in the abstract, of a god, we might have something to discuss.  You're not.  You mean the Bible God.  If this entity were real -- it would be a monster in any context.

     

    :whist:

    Are you willing to entertain the thought experiment?

     

    As an Atheist by what objective moral standard do you obtain and maintain the characterization of Monster?


  7. 17 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

    If you reject God in this life wouldn't God be tyrannical if he didn't respect your wishes in the afterlife and forced you to be with him?

     

    We have no objective, verifiable facts about God.  None at all.  What then, are we even discussing?  It is sad enough when adults have invisible friends.  Invisible enemies is pathetic.  

     

    :rolleyes:

     

    So you are unwilling to answer the question and resort to mockery?

     

    Certainly you are able to entertain a mere thought experiment?


  8. On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 2:22 PM, cuchulain said:

    That you believe God spoke through a burning bush does not make such a statement plausible.  That is the only point I have found where you might have made a point about a burning bush speaking, or God speaking through said bush anyway...it is a statement.  It is not evidence.

     

    Do you really have evidence that God spoke through a burning bush?  If so...please share.  For clarification, I will define evidence.  The available body of facts indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.  Now I will define fact.  A thing that is proven to be true.

     

    So...I would appreciate seeing evidence that God spoke through a burning bush.  First, you will have to prove that the event actually happened.  Second you will have to prove that it was God and not some other entity.  Good luck!

    1. You have not defined "true"

     

    2. You actually made the initial claim that God did not speak through a burning bush. Therefore the onus is upon you to provide evidence of your claims. If you cannot that is fine but  nobody is under any obligation to disprove your claims.


  9. Over the many years in which I have participated and moderated this forum I have seen many people evolve and change their beliefs considerably, myself included. Which I believe is natural and even expected. So I decided to open a topic to discuss this and feel free to answer all or none of these questions. They are more a guideline to illustrate what the topic is about rather than a questionnaire. 

    What do you do when your beliefs seem to change over time?

    Do you cling to your previous beliefs?

    What if your current worldview or belief system no longer reflects your current beliefs?

    Do you update or change the system at all?

    How do you feel about those who have previously held strong beliefs but have changed over time (not talking in a flaky manner such as overnight multiple times a month or so)?

    If you have or had a strong belief system but you find it no longer suits you do you rough it out and for how long?

    Do you feel that others who return to previously held worldviews or systems are insincere? 

    Basically I'm wondering how you personally evaluate these things and your views on yourself and/or others. Some people for instance may see returning to a system as going backwards while others may acknowledge that it isn't exactly a linear progression and it is perfectly fine to revisit previous beliefs.

     

     


  10. In norse mythology Hel is the land of the dead and in literary form a goddess/giantess who is the personification of the underworld. In the Eddas it talks about Nastrond "Corpse shore" where those such as oathbreakers and murderers die a second death and enter Nifhel into Nastrond, that is place of pure torture. It is a hall made of Serpents that drip venom down that forms streams. Where those who have died the second death wade in agony and get torn apart by wolves as their corpses are eaten by a dragon/wyrm that is probably Nidhogg.

     

    A hall she saw standing
    remote from the sun
    on Dead Body Shore.
    Its door looks north.
    There fell drops of venom
    in through the roof vent.
    That hall is woven
    of serpents’ spines.
    She saw there wading
    onerous streams
    men perjured
    and wolfish murderers
    and the one who seduces
    another’s close-trusted wife.
    There Malice Striker sucked
    corpses of the dead,
    the wolf tore men.
    Do you still seek to know? And what?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Náströnd
     
    Wicked people getting there due in the afterlife is not just a Christian concept.

     

     


  11. On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 6:23 AM, VonNoble said:

    Then you agree our actions now carry forward after us?     What we do now then therefore matters in the future?

     

    von

    I'm saying we can't know how those actions will carry forward and instead of focusing on a future we will not be a part of we should focus on the here and now.


  12. Atheists and Agnostics: All Agnostics are Atheists. Agnosticism is about what can be known. Atheism is about belief. Agnostics do not actively believe in nor worship any deities, therefore they are Atheists. Neither are mutually exclusive.

     

    Brights: I actually have no knowledge of this label.

     

    Free Thinkers: I've never understood how people can honestly state that a religious person can't be a "free thinker." It's a rather insulting premise imo.

     

    Pantheists: Interesting concept and position but I don't see much activity from them.

     

    Secularists: Another term that isn't mutually exclusive in regards to the religious. Although I often see it used that way. I think for pluralistic societies secularism is necessary.

     

    Humanists, Secular Humanists, Spiritual Humanists: Humanists are humanists I guess. For every label more labels will arise.

     

    Objectivists, , Apatheists,  Nones, No Preference, Etc: Do all these different labels have much in common besides what they are not, in contrast to what they are? 


  13. 11 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

    It is difficult to know someone without face to face interaction. Without those visual clues to see what reaction one's words are having on another, it is easy to misunderstand the intent of those words and easy to be misunderstood.

    If you were to poll people who know me in person outside of this forum you would get varied responses along the line of the nicest.., the kindest..., most caring, just a big teddy bear, charitable, reliable, giving, etc.. At least that is what I have been told and witnessed.

    I've often had the feeling that if you asked people who only know me from online posts those would not be the reviews I would be getting. I often find people attributing emotions and motivations to my words that don't exist. Interpersonal communication in this format is severely limited and we are discussing what can be sensitive topics for some people. They are also discussions you generally wouldn't have in mixed company. I try to keep that in mind but I often feel I fail. I come off much better in person and am known to be quite charming I swear! We must also take into account that a message board is designed for the purpose of having certain discussions that we normally wouldn't pursue so vigorously in person in order to keep the peace. It is called a forum after all. So it would stand to reason that you know what you are signing up for and what level of discourse is going to be present beforehand and prepare yourself for cognitive dissonance and disagreement.  

    As for off the forum if I'm taking the time to discuss or argue a point with you it means I respect your intelligence and think you can handle simple disagreement. If I'm teasing you and picking on you I probably like you and consider you a friend of some sort.