Origin of morality

[gomtuu77]

From where do moral absolutes originate?

I'll try and summarize what I heard in a debate..

No god means no sin, no good, and no evil

For there to be evil, one must assume there is good.  If there is good, one must assume there is moral law. If there is moral law, then there must be a moral law giver...

So, where does morality originate?

Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.

Nope.

Yup.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Nope

[gomtuu77]

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Nope

You shouldn't link to things that don't make your point. I answered a question.  I didn't offer an argument, and my answer wasn't intended as an argument.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Nope

You shouldn't link to things that don't make your point. I answered a question.  I didn't offer an argument, and my answer wasn't intended as an argument.

Do you realise that, in trying to disprove my point, you're actually proving my point?

This debating malarkey is easy! I should take it up as a hobby!

EDIT: Nope.

[gomtuu77]

No, but I realize you think so.  I realized that as soon as you posted the links.  But what's your point?  It's not meant as an argument, and shouldn't be taken as such.  If it were, then you would certainly have a point, as mere assertions aren't arguments.  If you asked me my name and I stated it, I wouldn't be anymore guilty of the fallacy you indicated than I am now with regard to the answer I gave.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No, but I realize you think so.  I realized that as soon as you posted the links.  But what's your point?  It's not meant as an argument, and shouldn't be taken as such.  If it were, then you would certainly have a point, as mere assertions aren't arguments.  If you asked me my name and I stated it, I wouldn't be anymore guilty of the fallacy you indicated than I am now with regard to the answer I gave.

You're posting an assertion. Lets see, shall we?

Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.

Assertion, also an argument. Just becuase you're not calling it an argument [assertion] doesn't mean it isn't, it just means you're obfuscating, which also means you're being dishonest. But that's a common trait from most theists who visit here so its nothing to worry about. I feel stupider for having to explain this to you because I know you're being intentionally misleading in your replies to me.

The fact that you're equating giving your name to giving your view on the origin of morality [god, in our case] only further makes my point for me. I can't believe you would post that unless you're either misleading folk on your intentions or you are educationally sub-normal. It's hard to tell the difference.

So, in response to your assertion and your argument, nope.

[gomtuu77]

Well, I won't return the insults, but if we can't get past the nonsense, then so be it.  Better luck next time I guess.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Well, I won't return the insults, but if we can't get past the nonsense, then so be it.  Better luck next time I guess.

Take your tail between your legs and go home, son.

It's ok, most people take learning as a virtue and a positive trait in which to embody. But you're free to do whatever you want.

Thanks for not replying to my points which we both know are correct BTW. Really reveals your character  8-)

[gomtuu77]

What for?  You're not interested in having a discussion.  You can hide that behind the ad hominems and the over extrapolation of logical fallacies, but it doesn't change anything at all.  In any case, enjoy insulting me.  If you want to have a discussion, you know where to find me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What for?  You're not interested in having a discussion.  You can hide that behind the ad hominems and the over extrapolation of logical fallacies, but it doesn't change anything at all.  In any case, enjoy insulting me.  If you want to have a discussion, you know where to find me.

Still not replying.

Now you want a discussion whereas previously you indicated you weren't making an 'argument' [assertion]?

I get the feeling you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Also, read up on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Not guilty of committing an ad hom. I'm insulting you because you're trying to insult us/me. There's no arguments to discredit aside your assertion, which discredited itself by committing the two fallacies i pointed out above (for posterity:

Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Nope

On snap. I don't care for discussions with intellectually dishonest folk if I'm honest. But I'll carry on insulting you, if that's ok boss?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Oh, by the way, how much did it cost over in the US to get your victim complex diagnosed?

[gomtuu77]

It's perfectly fine with me.  That's the behavior I've grown to expect.

Regarding the other question, I'm honestly not familiar with what you're talking about.  Why is it that I'm a victim?  Because you've attempted to insult me?

Being truly offended by you would be something like getting upset with a blind person for stepping on my toe.  So honestly, I couldn't care less.  I'd prefer a different sort of interaction, but it's clear that won't happen.

Also, I would point out that the word discussion also isn't identical to the word argument either.

I will say though, you've chosen a tactic I haven't run into for a couple of years, and you're better at it than the last guy.  He never really wanted to interact either.  It was all just rhetorical nonsense masquerading as something else.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's perfectly fine with me.  That's the behavior I've grown to expect.

Regarding the other question, I'm honestly not familiar with what you're talking about.  Why is it that I'm a victim?  Because you've attempted to insult me?

Being truly offended by you would be something like getting upset with a blind person for stepping on my toe.  So honestly, I couldn't care less.  I'd prefer a different sort of interaction, but it's clear that won't happen.

Also, I would point out that the word discussion also isn't identical to the word argument either.

I will say though, you've chosen a tactic I haven't run into for a couple of years, and you're better at it than the last guy.  He never really wanted to interact either.  It was all just rhetorical nonsense masquerading as something else.

Ironic really that you don't see the issue with your own behavior/position on this thread and yet have the temerity to ask regarding your own victim complex.

As you haven't made a single point worthy of detailed or informed discussion [scratch that, you indicated that that wasn't your intention and now you say that it is. You can't blame a brother for being confused]  I really don't know what you expect of me/us. The only 'tactic' I've engaged in is answering your assertion and your argument, even if you're not willing to accept that they were.

If you want a discussion, make a goddamn point instead of bleating nonsense about how your assertion wasn't an assertion, even though it was.

I hope lurkers get as much enjoyment reading this short exchange as I had writing in it.  

[Shiranu]

Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.

Irrelevant.

Even if this is the case, and morality has an objective standard, it is irrelevant due to the fact that no one knows this objective standard and lives by a set of subjective rules. We should base our knowledge on what can be observed and interacted with rather than an idea that is proposed to beyond the realm of human understanding and will never be able to be understood.

No, all your statement does is say that we should not strive to understand morality scientifically because it transcends the realm of science (and therefor reality insofar as we know it). Just like the Earth and the Sun, the fact that the world is round orthe evolution of man your statement says that we should not question, only obey. And just like the theories before, piece by piece we are discovering that god is an irrelevant character in the equation. Your book has a poor track record of explaining how reality works and I see little reason to believe it got this one right either.

[FrankDK]

> Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.

Do you have any evidence for that?

I didn't think so.

In fact, according to your own myths, your god tried to keep people from learning morality.  As he created them, they didn't know right from wrong, the essence of morality.  Only by disobeying that god did they learn morality.

The truth is quite the opposite.  The people who invented your god ascribed to him the morality (or lack thereof) they saw in humans.

Frank