Famous People Who You've Changed Your Opinion On

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

I can’t help it if you choose to consistently misinterpret a point. I have tried many times to address this with you but you seem determined to think I’m saying something I’m not. I have never and would never say you can’t be moral without God. I have said multiple times that you can’t explain why objective morals exist without the need for an objective standard. There is a difference. 

But people have explained it numerous times, but you chose to ignore them because it didn't fit your narrative.

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

But people have explained it numerous times, but you chose to ignore them because it didn't fit your narrative.

Not one person has explained it. People have admitted that they don’t think objective morality doesn’t exists, if that’s what you mean? 

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Not one person has explained it. People have admitted that they don’t think objective morality doesn’t exists, if that’s what you mean? 

No, plenty did, like I said, you ignored it, because it didn't suit you. I was one, many others did too. Its all there, go find it.

 

I'm contious of derailing this thread anyway.

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

No, plenty did, like I said, you ignored it, because it didn't suit you. I was one, many others did too. Its all there, go find it.

 

I'm contious of derailing this thread anyway.

Just to get this straight, you believe objective moral values and duties do exist? 

[Parafox]

I'm outta here...

 

[Jimothy]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Just to get this straight, you believe objective moral values and duties do exist? 

I just said I'm conscious of derailing the thread and would be harsh to lock it.

 

But yes I do. Some people think those values come from God, others don't. You won't budge on the fact they come from God. I'll happily let you think yours are from your religion, but you are not happy to let others believe that society without religion can have object moral values. That is the difference between me and you. I don't like religion but I respect you right to follow it and to think it guides you in some, you don't offer the same respect to those who don't think they need it to guide them.

[Leicester_Loyal]

I hate it when Mummy and Daddy argue

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

I just said I'm conscious of derailing the thread and would be harsh to lock it.

 

But yes I do. Some people think those values come from God, others don't. You won't budge on the fact they come from God. I'll happily let you think yours are from your religion, but you are not happy to let others believe that society without religion can have object moral values. That is the difference between me and you. I don't like religion but I respect you right to follow it and to think it guides you in some, you don't offer the same respect to those who don't think they need it to guide them.

It’s a bit unfair to say you want to stop derailing the thread but then go in to make a point. I am really interested to hear of an explanation for objective morals without God, because the only ones I’ve heard on here pertain to subjective morals developed over time. No one has posited an absolute standard of morality that is natural. Would love to hear this so please PM me if you want. 

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I hate it when Mummy and Daddy argue

@Facecloth reminds me of my wife. Always has to have the last word 

[Jimothy]

7 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It’s a bit unfair to say you want to stop derailing the thread but then go in to make a point. I am really interested to hear of an explanation for objective morals without God, because the only ones I’ve heard on here pertain to subjective morals developed over time. No one has posited an absolute standard of morality that is natural. Would love to hear this so please PM me if you want. 

I didn't make a point, I said I'd made that point previously, and you could find it again, and you chose to ignore it first time. You then asked me a question, so you carried it on.

 

Well surely looking after you family is a objective moral and billions of people do that without religious guidance. Not abusing children too, but even some of your boys with gods guidance ignore that one.

 

Tell you what you list all the things you consider objective morals and as an ahtiest ill tell you if I follow them without God guiding me.

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I didn't make a point, I said I'd made that point previously, and you could find it again, and you chose to ignore it first time. You then asked me a question, so you carried it on.

 

Well surely looking after you family is a objective moral and billions of people do that without religious guidance. Not abusing children too, but even some of your boys with gods guidance ignore that one.

 

Tell you what you list all the things you consider objective morals and as an ahtiest ill tell you if I follow them without God guiding me.

You’ve just demonstrated you have not understood the argument. It is not about needing to follow God to follow rules, what part of this doesn’t make sense to you? The argument is that you can’t explain why things are objectively (that is to say always) wrong without there being an absolute law. I am not saying you can’t be moral without God but rather you can’t explain where an absolute law comes from without an absolute law giver. 

 

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

You’ve just demonstrated you have not understood the argument. It is not about needing to follow God to follow rules, what part of this doesn’t make sense to you? The argument is that you can’t explain why things are objectively (that is to say always) wrong without there being an absolute law. I am not saying you can’t be moral without God but rather you can’t explain where an absolute law comes from without an absolute law giver. 

 

They come from society and collective values. We don't and never have needed religion to give this guidance.

[Benguin]

9 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

They come from society and collective values. We don't and never have needed religion to give this guidance.

So just to be clear, you’re now saying they are not objective? 

[Jimothy]

13 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So just to be clear, you’re now saying they are not objective? 

No, I'm saying religion isn't needed for them the to objective. You're argument, as has been pointed out before, is circular. We have objective morals, you can't have them without God, so there's a god. I say you can have them without God, without religion.

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

No, I'm saying religion isn't needed for them the to objective. You're argument, as has been pointed out before, is circular. We have objective morals, you can't have them without God, so there's a god. I say you can have them without God, without religion.

To say somethings are absolutely always wrong, you’d need to show there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. You’ve said we get morals from society/culture and collective values. Given that people have differently opinions and societies cultures vary on what is right and wrong, this doesn’t show in the slightest that objective morality has a foundation in what you posit. I think the problem we’ve got is that either you are mistaking objective with subjective or you don’t think objective moral values exist but are unwilling to say that. 

[Jimothy]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

To say somethings are absolutely always wrong, you’d need to show there is an absolute standard of right and wrong. You’ve said we get morals from society/culture and collective values. Given that people have differently opinions and societies cultures vary on what is right and wrong, this doesn’t show in the slightest that objective morality has a foundation in what you posit. I think the problem we’ve got is that either you are mistaking objective with subjective or you don’t think objective moral values exist but are unwilling to say that. 

No, what I'm saying is that even though we have all these different cultures and different religions and people with no religion there are morals all societies follow. So religion is irrelevant in all this, because most people are good, and with or without religion we'd have got to this place anyway.

 

If you're point is that religion was the birth of all these moral, thats where they grew from  maybe your are right, what I'm saying is if it hadn't the human race would have found the way anyway.

[Lionator]

Sir Paul McCartney. I was in the washed up poor mans John Lennon camp until the last couple of weeks. I heard him on the Adam Buxton podcast, listened to his new album and the 16 minute medley on Abbey Road. He comes across as a proper sound bloke, never preaches but has good morals and perspectives of the world. He's probably one notch below Attenborough on the national treasure spectrum.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

No, what I'm saying is that even though we have all these different cultures and different religions and people with no religion there are morals all societies follow. So religion is irrelevant in all this, because most people are good, and with or without religion we'd have got to this place anyway.

 

If you're point is that religion was the birth of all these moral, thats where they grew from  maybe your are right, what I'm saying is if it hadn't the human race would have found the way anyway.

Okay, do you have any evidence that transcendent things exist without something transcendent? If something is universally wrong, which atoms in the universe governs this? 

[Jimothy]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Okay, do you have any evidence that transcendent things exist without something transcendent? If something is universally wrong, which atoms in the universe governs this? 

None, but neither do you, just your opinion which as I said is a circular argument which you think proves God exists.

[Carl the Llama]

Omg can we just open the religion thread back up please mods?

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

None, but neither do you, just your opinion which as I said is a circular argument which you think proves God exists.

What evidence do I need? You’re the one making a positive statement. You are saying there are absolute morale standards but there isn’t an absolute standard. That’s a pretty extraordinary claim. 

[Jimothy]

Just now, Benguin said:

What evidence do I need? You’re the one making a positive statement. You are saying there are absolute morale standards but there isn’t an absolute standard. That’s a pretty extraordinary claim. 

I need evidence that isn't a circular argument that tries to prove itself. I can't prove mine because as I said earlier religion did get in first and laid down these morals, but can you prove we wouldn't have got them without it, without using your circular argument. I believe we would, you don't. Neither of us can prove it either way.

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I need evidence that isn't a circular argument that tries to prove itself. I can't prove mine because as I said earlier religion did get in first and laid down these morals, but can you prove we wouldn't have got them without it, without using your circular argument. I believe we would, you don't. Neither of us can prove it either way.

It’s not about what would or wouldn’t have happened without religion. It’s a logical conclusion that if there are absolute standards there is an absolute standard. You agree with the first part but not the second so it’s for you to show why there are absolute standards but no absolute standard since your worldview diverts logic here. 

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Neither of us can prove it either way.

Well I’m glad that’s all resolved then!

[Jimothy]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

It’s not about what would or wouldn’t have happened without religion. It’s a logical conclusion that if there are absolute standards there is an absolute standard. You agree with the first part but not the second so it’s for you to show why there are absolute standards but no absolute standard since your worldview diverts logic here. 

And we go back to my point about having no respect for others. Neither of us can prove it, I even gave a little ground to you  but you still can't even meet in the middle. I could carry this on, but we're already about 20 post past the point I was worried this thread might get locked, so I'm not carry on because you refuse to move even slightly and accept we both having different beliefs.