Moral Argument; The Answer in a Nutshell

You want to see this absolutely brilliant crop dusting of the Christian argument for morality see this post and read the comments. They spent the next several hours trying to address only selected verbiage and imho without question lost, and resorted to cherry picking points with Branyanistic name calling and Mel moving the topic goal posts. It was masterful ! Here’s the first comment-

“I’ve always found the morality argument for a god to be the absolute weakest for the simple reason that we have hard evidence that this thing we call “morality,” which is really nothing but a formative sense of good (positive) and bad (negative) behaviour, is a product of neurological processing power. The more neurons, the more accute an organisms understanding of it. Countless studies, across numerous species, prove this beyond any rational doubt. It is not a human phenomena, and its anything but complicated- John Zande

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

114 thoughts on “Moral Argument; The Answer in a Nutshell”

  1. Hi Jim … thought this might be a better place for some discussion. 🙂

    Suggest you visit this page as it discusses morality from a more sensible perspective. Might give you some pointers to present to you-kn0w-who.

    Like

    1. That happened a few days ago. I guess when things are working good, just leave them alone. I lost everything I exported the site and tried to move and when I imported it the next day, the zip was empty. I still might be able to recover. The data is not too important it was all of you that make it so cool anyway.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. One final point. Sorry;-) ♡ ♡ If you can tell, as you non-believers state, a lot about the creator by observing creation. Why would you exclude these traits you are mentioning? At the same time, include everything that fits so nicely. When it does so. Sound like adapting to me that again reminds me of evolution itself. Hugs, Isabella

    Like

  3. Dear Jim

    Evolution is all about traits beneficial for survival. If you sell and give away everything that you own … Give everything that you have to the poor … Is that beneficial for survival? Like, if somebody takes your tunic do not withhold your cloak ever. Even if it is too cold to survive without it. Like a self-sacrificing lifestyle all the way through. Continuing … How about turning the other cheek? Is that commonly linked to survival? A typical human trait? I would define it as moral above evolution and man itself. Giving up your life (not in war, and without harming anyone else) so that others may live, is probably the most non-evolution thing one can do. After all everything is about survival and passing on our genes. Bad talking people who struggle with confirmation bias is perhaps not the nicest thing to do either. I mean would not the most perfect moral be to help them in a loving manner? How about being an extrovert? Preferred by the world. Most leaders are, yet they are mostly interested in putting their stamp on things. Rather than listen to the ideas of others.

    How about autistic traits that are more common in non-believers (according to research). Are they linked to generosity and moral? Who is winning the tug of war in general?

    Evolution says adapt or die.

    “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

    Jesus Christ

    Love, Isabella

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But even a pronghorn will separate from the heard to bait the lions away and altruistic behavior like that is also found in the animal kingdom. Sometimes sacrifice for the greater good is survival of the species. Great comment! ❤

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Hallelujah!

      Amazing Fates, It’s still around
      Your blog’s back on my screen
      It once was lost, but now it’s found
      Was gone, but now it’s seen.

      Liked by 1 person

            1. The idea that objective moral standards may not exist is a hard concept to embrace — even for non-theists.

              I won’t jump into your convo, but the video contains at least two faulty premises:

              1. It claims that subjectivism — the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth — means there is “no right or wrong”; and

              2. It presumes that traditional moral values have an objective grounding.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. Go back over to Mel’s and let me know how I’m doing. I am making a lot of connections here on my own observations. Feel fee to confirm or add or correct.

            Like

            1. Sigh. It was going well until the ‘evil’ clown entered the fray. Now I expect it will all go downhill.

              Like

  4. I popped over there from some other link and left a comment. JZ was right that the post was simply an argument from morality (if I’m not mistaken, William Lane Craig did one a while back). I tried putting it differently, but I’m not sure if it’ll get the point across.

    Really it’s just trying to associate pattern with deliberation. Not every pattern requires sentient action, otherwise water pouring out from a tap into a glass could be considered a divine act. Maybe a human from 10,000 years ago might consider it to be the case, but it wouldn’t make the divinity claim any more true.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It was almost better sitting back and reading it a few days later. As a more objective viewer it was obvious. Really obvious. Nice work. Hey we’ve decided to adopt a pup. Been dog free since getting her from Panama. We are ready!

      Liked by 2 people

  5. The discussion (if it can be called that) does quickly become unproductive once you challenge Mel’s many presuppositions most all of his posts do not handle first! Almost all of the time I can’t even get past his opening paragraph or sentences!!! LOL 😲 Yikes!!!! 😵

    Liked by 4 people

      1. Agreed! John Z is a MASTER at logic and philosophical/ontological debate. When he has the opponent Checked or Check-mated, they TRY to run off and create another diversion or worse… take it down to personal jabs or insults. But still, in the end THAT is defeated manuevering and conceding. 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

      1. In all honesty LG, in the beginning when Ark lured me over to his blog — because I’m a pretty well educated Deconvert from a very respectable accredited seminary — He was pleasant and respectful. However, as I began to question/challenge several of his very basic precepts… he got very impatient and increasingly unpleasant in his dialogue and verbiage with me. Still… he does have more general politeness than most who frequent his blog. I’ll happily give him that.

        Liked by 3 people

    1. If you prep by listening to Sye Ten Bruggencate for two minutes beforehand (or just chant “How do you know that?” 50 times in a row), Mel’s presuppositions will seem less vexing.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. They don’t really phase me I guess. I just tried to Zande it and not get off to far. He never did address anything really did he? He has to first prove there is a god. He’s got the cart in front of the horse! Or elephant!

        Like

          1. The Perezzites of the OT was misspelled. But from the original text and according to the finest interpretation in was coded as BrainYawn

            Like

          2. Somehow there is something inherently wrong with someone that goes to the ends of the earth to try and incorporate god into a fairly straightforward concept that really needs no more explanation. First they have to prove god exists. They can’t so they baby step and try the backdoor. This is maybe even harder to prove that the concept of god since there is so much good evidence to oppose them

            Like

            1. Well. here’s “Mel’s closing reply when KIA asked, “Wouldn’t going with your heart as the final arbiter be one of the most dangerous and subjective things a person can do?” on his Believing is a Heart Issue post (2017-11-06):

              Let me say this about it. I’m quite happy with my decision. Even it [sic] is a delusion, it’s been the most fruitful, effective, transformational, and satisfying delusion I’ve ever experienced in my life! 🙂 And it’s also more real to me than anything else. While I can make an intellectual argument for why I believe, you wouldn’t win me with an intellectual argument because my relationship to Jesus not based on an intellectual argument. It’s much, much more.

              He’s admitted that his position is based on an emotional high that’s impervious to logic or conflicting evidence, so the only way he’ll be persuaded to abandon it if that feeling disappears.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I remember him saying too, that he doesn’t care if they proved the Bible was written totally by forgers, that those forgers were inspired by god. Lol

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Yep, here’s a discussion that supposedly took place with William Lane Craig during a book signing:

              In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:

              Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

              I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.

              He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the “holy spirit” within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus’ tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.

              Dr. William Lane Craig, double PhD protector and promoter of Christianity- he’d rather discount his own objective experience as an eyewitness, and instead go with his inner feelings — yet he wants everyone else to go with what he claims are eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection. Given the chance via a time machine, he would discount the objective reality of the real world, in favor of warm subjective inner voices and fuzzy feelings. In short, in order to close his rational mind off entirely from the objective outside world, he would rather practice self-inflicted insanity- i.e. deliberately putting himself out of touch with reality.

              http://www.jcnot4me.com/page83.html

              That, is what you are up against — even from one of the world’s most foremost Christian philosophers.

              Liked by 4 people

            4. I would say this is a good script for Insanity IV. Eric Hoffer said about 35% of the people are followers that need to attach to something outside or bigger than themselves. He calls them “true believers”. 35% I could live with, but they spend the rest of their lives convincing others that it is the only way.

              Liked by 1 person

            1. That depends. Do you own multi-round assault rifles and harbor an extreme animosity towards any particular social demographic? If so, there’s a pastor in Wisconsin who offers cures of other-centered, self-giving love. YMMV

              * Disclaimer — Comments are for informational purposes only and not intended to diagnose, prescribe, treat, or cure any medical condition. Statements should not be taken as a substitute for proper medical advice from a licensed physician.

              Liked by 1 person

  6. Yep. That dude, JB, always winds up name calling and acting like a 6 year old who can’t get his way. he’s supposed to be a “comedian” too, but there isn’t even anything accidentally funny about him. Bitterness and anger are all that come across.

    Liked by 5 people

      1. Oh, he always kicks these clowns butts. They’d never admit it, but he walks all over them. Of course, this leads to squawking and name calling by said clowns. Zande has great patience, great knowledge, and a calm way of presenting his argument in the face of some REALLY big idjits. He reminds me of the way Sam Harris presents his arguments. I’ve watched Harris stay quite calm with people literally yelling in his face. You’d think, if you have to resort to yelling, squawking and name calling, you’d know you’ve lost your argument. These guys never learn. They’re right. You’re wrong, and if you disagree, they squawk at ya’.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Welp, now I’ve got a headache and my blood pressure is up. Arguing with those folks is like watching hamsters run in a wheel. After a bit, you figure out they’re not going anywhere even though they haven’t yet. Can’t do it myself. For me, such arguments are set ups for a punchline. they are fun to read, too.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s