Why does it seem like every book I've picked up recently is basically Christian propaganda? If I read another word of "muh God" or "muh objective morality" I'm gonna freak. Right-wing intellectuals don't argue their points, they just throw a bunch of opinions at you.
>inb4 I'm a fedora
No, I just don't think "because God said so!" is a good ethical argument.
Other urls found in this thread:
Read the guy in your pic and get back to me on religion
You have to keep in mind, OP, that if you're a serious Christian you take the existence of God as a given. You don't need to argue it as though you're trying to prove it; it's axiomatic.
And as regards objective morality, the reason it's so connected with God is that God is the only entity in existence capable of laying out objective moral standards. Because he is omnipotent and omniscient, he is the ultimate authority, unsurpassed and unequaled. The buck stops with him, as it were. No other entity or concept has authority at this level, so no other entity or concept can lay down objective moral standards. Everyone and everything else that has authority has it merely in relation to some things, but not to all things. Read your Nietzsche, he talks about this.
>I will not be judged for my sins and I have no need to repent of them
Wow cool wishful thinking. Being an atheist must be very comforting. That is a really effective way to deal with your fear of death and going to Hell.
>I will not accumulate positive karma and I have no need to pursue moksha
Wow cool wishful thinking. Being a christian must be very comforting. That is a really effective way to deal with your fear of rebirth and cycles of suffering.
reading Aquinas is excruciatingly difficult
>I just don't think "because God said so!" is a good ethical argument.
so you havent groked anything you read
it's not simply good because God says so, it's good because it is in accord with natural law, a law that is imprinted and expressed by our nature and raises man to the dignity he is meant to embody because he is an imago dei (icon of God).
if you see a man put his finger in dog shit and eat it, he is defiling his image, similar to a man who engorges himself and gets to 400lbs or decides to put his penis in assholes.
tl;dr repent and improve reading comprehension, either you believe in objective morality and a definite human nature, or you're a relativistic shill and understanding human nature or morality or the purpose of life becomes impossible
>Tu quoque (, also ; Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).
Atheists, ladies and gentlemen, masters of logic with a monopoly on reason.
>It's not just that God said so, it's [meaningless made-up bullshit mumbo jumbo about "natural law" or whatever]!
Notice how nothing you said is based on observation of objective reality? Someone literally just invented that shit in his mind and claimed it's how reality truly is.
>hurr you used le logical fallacy right here that means ur wrong lol
back to r/atheism with you
Yes, using a fallacious argument means that your argument is wrong. But being an atheist means that you're wrong.
oh shit i thought you were the atheist guy
but unless you know how logic works you really should not be going around screaming the names of logical fallacies
>being an atheist means that you're wrong
Gonna need a citation, brother.
>Notice how nothing you said is based on observation of objective reality?
perceptible observations are unintelligeble without appealing to the imperceptible realm which is intelligible. That's why math is so powerful and predicting phenomena, yet math is not observable itself or empirically derived, but without access to its immaterial and perfect forms we wouldn't be able to describe things so accurately.
>objective reality
objective reality is not observable with our senses, what we see is a flux of becoming, maya, transience, not something concrete and truthful, it has to be filtered by concepts, concepts that are essentialy immaterial and embedded in the platonic realm
Hume was right about causality, simply looking at objects doesn't tell us how causality works or if its true, causality is a platonic idea and extremely useful, but it can't be derived from seeing A preceding B coincidences in the material realm
>"objective reality"
>has only ever perceived reality as a subject through flawed sense impressions
>can't even be sure that other subjects even exist
>rejects the notion of an objective subject (God)
>appeals to "objectiveness" to do so
wew lad
I do know how logic works. Replying to an argument by screaming "YOU TOO!" is a fallacy.
Psalm 14:1
yea but this isnt a 100% perfect deductive debate
also most of the so-called logical fallacies are just some random philosopher reeeing about an argument he doesnt like
I think the more interesting issue is whether anything can be objective without God. Not a believer by the way.
>>No, I just don't think "because God said so!" is a good ethical argument.
Literally the best ethical argument I've ever heard.
>Being so much of a positivist you think morality can be empirically measured.
>atheist gets called out on resorting to a fallacy
>man like this isn't even a debate like fuck logic and shit
Every time.
Never stayed that, bro.
>mentions God or objective morality
>right-wing
what did he mean by this?
anyway what are you reading. what kind of shitty thread is this?
What I don't get is why Christians assume their doctrine is correct. What about all the other countless religions that have been invented over human history?
>Le talking snake
Christians rely on the historical fact of the Resurrection. This is why, for example, the Gospel of John makes so much reference to "eyewitness" accounts. Christians say that Jesus literally did rise from the dead, and that therefore their religion is more true than any other. It's a matter of historical record and the reality of the miraculous. Make of that what you will.
>tl;dr repent and improve reading comprehension, either you believe in objective morality and a definite human nature, or you're a relativistic shill and understanding human nature or morality or the purpose of life becomes impossible
wish Aquinas would descend from heaven and curbstomp all the /pol/ posters whose Christian worldview is 40% composed of thinking about shock gay poo poo AIDS webms they saw on /b/
you skim a wikipedia page, read an infograph, and think you know jack shit about any of the philosophers or the doctrine you try to defend and shill on Veeky Forums, and then insult people when they shit on your shitty arguments and antagonise others to your own religion.
>or you're a relativistic still and understanding human nature or morality or the purpose of life becomes impossible
And this is a bad thing because....? None of the things you listed exist, by the way. You can pretend they exist if you want, I guess. They are convenient abstractions - invented by humans - of the complex realities of the objective world.
>[meaningless made-up bullshit mumbo jumbo about "natural law" or whatever
Imagine being such a brainlet that you disregard anything you will yourself against understanding as simple "mumbo jumbo"
I'll pray for you, user.
>I wish Aquinas would descend from heaven
I wish Latins would read theology from someone other than Aquinas and Augustine. If wishes were horses...
Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great are quite nice too, of course.
>why is it bad
because relativism is a self-contradiction, and self-contradictions lead to delusions and immorality.
they are bad because they ignore the truth, and the consequences that follow are destructive to man and his soul.
Only if you depend on the axiom that the truth is, in fact, cohesive with the Christian worldview. You are telling people that they should adhere to an objective morality because, by the standards of the objective morality you already adhere to, to fail to do so would be a harmful error. But you are talking as if they acknowledge the legitimacy and the relevance of your own perspective - when in fact you are trying to convince them to take it up. You are the one in self-contradiction.
It's a lot closer to the truth than making shit up in your head and deceiving yourself into believing it's true.
You can only say that relativism leads to immorality if you suppose that morality exists in the first place. But of course that's a contradiction if you start with the assumption of relativism.
Start with my good friend, Mr. Plato.
OP, did you really expect intelligent replies from the very people you correctly ridiculed? You're not going to get intellectual replies from Christians, all their statements will just be opinions they throw at the wall and hope they stick.
You should have started with the Greeks.
Then stop reading authors from Christian societies, what the fuck did you honestly expect? In order to operate in mutually beneficial interest in a society, we have to occupy some form of social order that we all commonly adhere to to expedite our interactions and social objectives in a peaceable manner, so what alternate framework (that everyone is unaware of) do you propose people manifest under the guise of to understand and cooperate with each other that doesn't involve wasting time reestablishing the ground rules for every new subject encountered? It's a much bigger proposition than you task it with being because it involves untraining unconscious embedded behavior from an entire population, the importance of that being the ranges of age. It's easy to convince a child of certain behaviors because those are literally the formative years where you're assimilating all the more-or-less unwritten rules of social interaction; but what about everybody else? Which literally constitutes the majority of a society's operatives. What's with your minority privilege entitlement?
I believe it's true because I have faith that it's true.
Because of the fact that Christian ideals in various interpretations have been the ideological cornerstones for the societies in which many of these authors originated, it should come as no surprise that they seek to justify their beliefs (or lack there of) in their literary works.
I would not be surprised to find that classic Chinese literature brings up and bolsters the ideas of Confucianism- oh wait, it does... Weird how people tend to expand upon the things they already know
It honestly isn't. All you really need is a solid to of Aristotle.
Once you're familiar with the concepts he uses, his writing becomes extremely clear.
How you just build upon nothing
Aquinas btfo
>it's not simply good because God says so, it's good because it is in accord with natural law [which god wrote and is presumebaly speaking through]
holy shit you're retarded