[Nathan B. Forrest]

Re: Lorem!

Do you think you will enjoy hell being anally raped by satan and his eight foot barbed tallywhacker ripping out your intestines?

I kinda think he will.... he just seems that kind of prevert

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Lorem!

Suppose you can view it as that. Although, I consider agnosticism to be the most intellectually honest position.

That's because you don't know what it is.

It is not "uncertainty", as you put it.

Agnosticism isn't the midway point between theism and atheism; it's not even on the same spectrum. Here's a reference. Here are some tidbits:

Theism addresses the issue of belief. For any claim asserting the existence of a god, a theist is an individual who accepts (or positively believes) that the claim is true and an atheist (literally, "one without theism") is someone who does not.

Note that this doesn't mean that theists must accept any existence claim about any god. One can be a theist with respect to some claims and an atheist with respect to others. In particular, followers of one religion are typically atheists with respect to the gods of all other religions.

To be more precise about the issue of belief, consider the two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

...

Gnosticism (in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim.

Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn't claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn't find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.

As for you? I think you're just a wishy-washy, indecisive twit who doesn't know what he believes because he's never examined his own beliefs, and instead uses big words that he doesn't understand to sound more sophisticated than he is. Like "Moral Nihilism" to mean "I'm a relativist".

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Lorem!

Suppose you can view it as that. Although, I consider agnosticism to be the most intellectually honest position.

Intellectually lazy is more like it.

To satisfy my desire for knowledge of Christianity.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Lorem!

Suppose you can view it as that. Although, I consider agnosticism to be the most intellectually honest position.



To satisfy my desire for knowledge of Christianity.

If you'd like to find out more about Landover Baptist Church, please read THIS thread created especially for new posters.

If you have a question, use the "search" function before posting it. Most likely it is being discussed somewhere on this Godly forum. Please don't waste God's precious bandwidth.

You will keep a respectful tongue in your head whenever addressing your betters, which includes all True Christians™. Failure to do so, or any attempt at inciting debate or mockery of God's Divine Plan, can and will result in the suspension of your posting privileges.

Your rights on this forum are listed HERE. If you feel that any of these rights have been violated, please don't hesitate to contact a Pastor at once.

[Moral_Nihilist]

Re: Lorem!

Agnosticists are just cowards. They can't decide whether to poop or get off the toilet.

Suppose you can view it as that. Although, I consider agnosticism to be the most intellectually honest position.

This is a Christian forum. Why are you here?

To satisfy my desire for knowledge of Christianity.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Lorem!

Eh... I'm an agnostic because I haven't seen any actual proof for either positions... Agnosticism is just uncertainty.

Agnosticists are just cowards. They can't decide whether to poop or get off the toilet.

This is a Christian forum. Why are you here?

[Moral_Nihilist]

Re: Lorem!

You've changed your description of your "beliefs" about half a dozen times already. Once a logical hole is shot through the heart of a prior incarnation, you adjust it until that one is destroyed, and etc. etc.

It was simply misunderstanding, and me not stating my position regarding morality clearly.

Why not join us in having a steadfast moral code through God? Then you don't have to try and keep up with all that ever-changing relativistic horseshit. Wouldn't it be a relief to have some continuity in your life, to see things in black and white instead of some greyscale situational shaky ground?

Eh... I'm an agnostic because I haven't seen any actual proof for either positions... Agnosticism is just uncertainty.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Lorem!

You've changed your description of your "beliefs" about half a dozen times already. Once a logical hole is shot through the heart of a prior incarnation, you adjust it until that one is destroyed, and etc. etc.

Why not join us in having a steadfast moral code through God? Then you don't have to try and keep up with all that ever-changing relativistic horseshit. Wouldn't it be a relief to have some continuity in your life, to see things in black and white instead of some greyscale situational shaky ground?

(Hebrews 13:8) "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."



Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth

[Moral_Nihilist]

Re: Lorem!

But since you are a moral relativist, you accept that others consider them to be moral. Therefore, it would be immoral for YOU to interfere, or to judge them for doing something that in their culture is OK.

Like raping children or throwing acid in women's faces.

I am in the descriptive moral relativism position, in that I acknowledge different cultures/people have differing moral standards, however, I do not "necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement."

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Lorem!

Ah... My apologizes for misunderstanding. Philosophy isn't my best area; I'm much more keen in science...

I still don't believe objective morality. Subjective morality simply states people from differing cultures, and different peoples, have varying opinion of what it "means" to be moral. I do not consider those activities to be moral.

But since you are a moral relativist, you accept that others consider them to be moral. Therefore, it would be immoral for YOU to interfere, or to judge them for doing something that in their culture is OK.

Like raping children or throwing acid in women's faces.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Lorem!

First of all, this is NOT a debate forum. We're right and you're wrong, according to Jesus and the Holy Word of God. Please read THIS thread before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Secondly, while the internets might seem to be "free" to you, this particular corner of the internets is a privately owned Christian forum. The rights you have on this forum are listed HERE. Please contact a Pastor immediately if you feel that any of your rights have been violated.

Finally, your unsaved opinions or tantrums are not even slightly of interest to us. We follow the Holy Word of God TO THE LETTER, and make no apologies for that. One of the most important commandments in the Bible tells us to avoid unsaved scum such as yourself. You wandered in here uninvited, and unwelcome .

[Moral_Nihilist]

Re: Lorem!

Actually, objective morality means that there are things which are objectively acceptable or not acceptable.

If humans had "a single sense of morality", then that would be universal morality.

Since you are saying that all morality is subjective, then there must be a circumstance under which you consider it acceptable to throw acid in a woman's face for refusing your romantic advance, or to rape a little boy. After all, there are hundreds of millions of people who think both activities are justified; therefore, they must be morally acceptable to you as well, because moral relativity means that "all morality is equal" and we cannot judge those who do not share our subjective moral standards.

Ah... My apologizes for misunderstanding. Philosophy isn't my best area; I'm much more keen in science...

I still don't believe objective morality. Subjective morality simply states people from differing cultures, and different peoples, have varying opinion of what it "means" to be moral. I do not consider those activities to be moral.

[Brother Jared]

Re: Lorem!

Welcome to God's favorite forum!

Let me ask you, what have sparkled your interest in Christ? Has something of big impact changed in your life, something you can't quite comprehend? Do you feel something is missing, an emptiness you can't explain?

The answer is Christ. There's a reason He brought you to our forum and we will help you understand what is changing in your life, how to fill that emptiness with the love of Christ. Living by the words of Christ will not only make you a better person, but you will also feel better in your everyday life, you will find meaning to all your doings and you will walk with Christ after your time on earth. I suggest you start reading this and if you have any questions feel free to ask any True Christian™

YIC

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Lorem!

It isn't, in my opinion. But there's bound, of the 7 billion people on this planet, to be someone who thinks those activities are acceptable.

And my position is based on the fact no two people will have the same sense of morality. Similar, perhaps, but not the same. Objective morality states humans only have a single sense of morality.

Actually, objective morality means that there are things which are objectively acceptable or not acceptable.

If humans had "a single sense of morality", then that would be universal morality.

Since you are saying that all morality is subjective, then there must be a circumstance under which you consider it acceptable to throw acid in a woman's face for refusing your romantic advance, or to rape a little boy. After all, there are hundreds of millions of people who think both activities are justified; therefore, they must be morally acceptable to you as well, because moral relativity means that "all morality is equal" and we cannot judge those who do not share our subjective moral standards.

[Moral_Nihilist]

Re: Lorem!

Under what circumstances is it acceptable to rape little boys, or to throw acid in the face of a woman who rejected your romantic proposal?

It isn't, in my opinion. But there's bound, of the 7 billion people on this planet, to be someone who thinks those activities are acceptable.

And my position is based on the fact no two people will have the same sense of morality. Similar, perhaps, but not the same. Objective morality states humans only have a single sense of morality.