Phil Robertsons Eloquent Morality Argument

[alexey]

Yes Peter you can make stronger statements if you claim that God is on your side.

There is a dark side to that.

[PeterMP]

Yes Peter you can make stronger statements if you claim that God is on your side.

There is a dark side to that.

 

I agree, but there is also light.

 

I also don't think it is a very compelling argument for theist (as  I stated in my original post in this thread).

 

But if you are going to have the conversation, then do it in an intellectually honest manner.

 

And in that case, none of that matters.

 

Either we can say things like the Holocaust are wrong or we can't.

 

The consequences (light or dark) and its utility with respect to other arguments is irrelevant.

[alexey]

Peter,

For me, strength is not what you can say but how you back it up.

Both of us are saying that we really really think that Holocaust is very very wrong.

I think adding an argument from authority actually reduces the strength of your point, even though it allows you to use a stronger sounding language.

For other people things may be reversed... This is why we see many people invoking God when they want to convince others of something.

Also note that God does not protect you from being wrong: what if God revealed tomorrow that Holocaust was actually right?

do you distinguish between claiming objective morality (making statements) and actually having it (it exists + it agrees with you)?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

For me, strength is not what you can say but how you back it up.

Both of us are saying that we really really think that Holocaust is very very wrong.

I think adding an argument from authority actually reduces the strength of your point, even though it allows you to use a stronger sounding language.

For other people things may be reversed... This is why we see many people invoking God when they want to convince others of something.

Also note that God does not protect you from being wrong: what if God revealed tomorrow that Holocaust was actually right?

do you distinguish between claiming objective morality (making statements) and actually having it (it exists + it agrees with you)?

 

Again, none of this is really relevant.

 

If objective morality exist, the fact that you don't like it doesn't matter.

 

(and the fact of the matter is that you do seem like making statements that are essentially based on an objective morality and you can go back and read the posts you originally made with respect the Holocaust always being wrong.)

 

I never even said I like the stronger statement.  I'm just making the distinction.  There is a difference.  There is a difference between things like the Holocaust are always wrong, and based on my current sentiments things like the Holocaust are wrong.

 

And your initial responses to Zguy were of the always type.

 

And I said in my first post in this thread that there are issues with theist accessing objective morals (if they exist) (and that's why I don't think it is actually a very good argument for theism).

 

But again, none of that matters.

 

Either things like the Holocaust are always wrong.

 

Or they aren't.

 

If they are, then objective morality exist.

 

And it doesn't matter if we like the consequences or implications of it.

[mistertim]

Still trying to figure out how an objective morality can exist when even in the same era different cultures view things differently. Let alone time differences. There are so many contradictions that it would make any kind of objective morality source pretty much meaningless. Unless someone says "well, that's just god's plan" and at that point it is just deus ex machina. 

[alexey]

Ok sounds good Peter.

I agree that you can define "always wrong" as "objectively wrong", and then restrict the claim "Holocaust is always wrong" to objective morality.