Thursday, August 21, 2008

More on moralism-2

tracieh,

Your assertions have died the death of a thousand qualifications.
That's ultimately where any even close to moral statement has to fall in an atheist worldview.

-And do I assert somewhere that this is not stated as _my_ view?

-But you said I said it was “immoral” when I clearly did not?

-I made no attempt to confuse anyone into thinking I am not sharing my own thoughts.

-I promise you that when I give my views, I understand they are _my_ views.

-I don’t get how you perceive I’m asking someone else to adopt my view.

-I think it’s just common sense that if an opinion comes out of my mouth or out of my computer, there is not a need to dumb it down to the level of starting every such statement I ever make in life with, “It’s just my opinion, but …”

-There is no need for me to say “It is my opinion chocolate cake tastes good,” when I understand that people are not so stupid as to think that if I express opinions, I am expressing them on someone else’s behalf or asserting them as universal truths.

-Morality is a personal judgment about what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior.


So, to summarise - such is your view, no one else's. It's not even meant to be subscribed-to by anyone else. You are making no attempt to convince anyone. You do not believe these statements are applicable beyond your own thoughts. It would be incorrect to say that your statements which sound like moral judgments are meant to label Action X "Moral" on an objective, meant-for-everyone basis, and Action Y "Immoral" on an objective, meant-for-everyone basis.
In conjunction with this, if someone asked you if it is OK to torture a little child for fun and no other reason, you would no doubt say it is not OK. But when pressed, you'd have to retreat to these disclaimers. The inquirer would reasonably conclude that you were expressing a private opinion and have no opinion that would be binding on him nor any opinion on how your opinion might apply to him on this question.

That's what I was after, actually. I got what I came here for.


Interestingly, you later go back on your statements with this:
However, the inappropriate behavior must be strongly inappropriate to be labeled “immoral.”

Hopefully you realise that this morality-defining statement carries no more weight than your other statements, which (by your own admission) are meant to convince no one else of your position. It is thus safely and reasonably ignored.

I can assert it’s not good, without raising it to the level of “not good” that constitutes an immorality. Again, the idea that “sin is sin” is a Christian value. Not my value.

You seem to be terribly confused about what "immorality" really is. To you, it's not bad. It's not applicable to anyone else. It's the same quality as eating jambalaya with one's hands, rather than with a spoon, just done many times in a row.
Exactly the same sentiment as this statement:

There is no need for me to say “It is my opinion chocolate cake tastes good,” when I understand that people are not so stupid as to think that if I express opinions, I am expressing them on someone else’s behalf or asserting them as universal truths.

Then apparently, there is no need for you to say “It is my opinion torturing little children for fun is wrong” when you understand that people are not so stupid as to think that if you express opinions, you are expressing them on someone else’s behalf or asserting them as universal truths.
Let's see how consistent you're willing to be.

You said:
the problem of evil—which to this day has no valid response.

Since you have conclusively demonstrated and conceded that you have no way to judge what is evil at all, the alternative alone, which you express, is enough to answer it. To say nothing of the lack of evidence that God DOES NOT have a good reason for the evil that He allows to exist in the world. In short, someone with such an addled moral sense as you is not in a position to lecture others on whether moral questions have solutions or not.
Besides, I quote you: I made no attempt to confuse anyone into thinking I am not sharing my own thoughts.
Fair enough - you weren't stating fact here, you were just stating your opinion. I'm a bit more interested in truth, however, than your statements would lead anyone to believe you are.

You said:
The church, house of doctrine, consists of members, whose beliefs produce the doctrine that promotes the beliefs that promote the doctrine...
Before the Bible there were Christians—according to the Bible.


You might have heard of the Old Testament. It precedes the lifetime of any Christian by several hundred years.

There may be some passage that you believe asserts that.

There are some passage***S***, yes. And I was referring to Jesus. You think I think Paul was divine?

You claim that where Jesus says a faithful person can tell a mountain to move, and it will obey, I am misreading it when I assert it sounds like he’s saying that if you have faith, you can do things that go beyond the mundane accomplishment

Yes, for a few reasons.
You forgot the context.
You apparently are unfamiliar with what the word "harmonisation" signifies, or its place in reading a document.
You also show amazing ignorance of Christian doctrine and beliefs in other areas, so your credibility is strongly tainted.