You are not worth speaking to again. To stand up and wall away and not listen to what's being said. Thanks for wasting my time.
@orv_claus I was still listening.My position is that morality (the phenomena) is subjective and all the points I raised (and I raised several) pointed to the fact that it makes no sense for it to be objective and that your view presupposes that it is subjective and that it makes no sense for morality to be a product of the will of God. The topic was: "what worldview makes sense of the phenomena of morality?" I apologize only for not making this clear to you prior to discussing it, but I did clarify that in my opening. I also regret doing the three minute turn-based discussion as you were unable to ask me clarifying questions as I went.If you watch the video you can clearly see that I said at the beginning that I was going to spend more time clarifying my position than defending it. These were my actual words. You heard that as "I am going to spend more time defending my position than criticizing my opponents" which I didn't say.You were the first one of us you acted rude. So I apologize for the confusing matter of the discussion, but my rudeness followed yours.
And I did answer your "definition of morality" immediately in that I spoke of the fact that our language miswords value judgments and treats them as truth assertions. This was an exact criticism of your definition, which treated moral judgments as truth assertions.
@orv_claus The problem is that you somehow need morality to be objective. But secular humanist morality is subjective, so it is pointless to keep coming back with this demand for objectivity. And the reason why humanist morality is better, is because it is more accurate, since objective morality doesn't exist.
I'm not claiming it is "better." Pretty sure I said this at the beginning. To say a standard of value is "better" than another, you have to appeal to a standard of value. If I appealed to mine I would be saying "according to my standard, my standard is better." Of course, you could say the same. This is why all value judgments are subjective.I am claiming that the secular humanist theory of mind makes sense of the phenomena that people judge each other's behavior as "right" or "wrong" than the Christian worldview. It makes no sense to say that morality is objective.^I would be glad to argue this point like I did during the debate, if you will acknowledge that this is the subject in question.
@duncan_king Just in case: I'm not orv_claus. I think you're probably right that the word 'better' doesn't really apply here. I whole heartily agree with you that morality is and can only be subjective. You've made that very clear in the debate. Cheers!
@johnc71 Yea, I thought you were orv_Clause when I posted that. I understood it right after, which is why I liked your comment.
@orv_claus Also, to be totally fair to myself, he walked away from his camera while I was speaking several times. And it is not true that I selected the topic. What happened was I posted a thread in the quallout facebook group listing about thirty or so stances that I was passionate about. He picked this one and challenged me. I merely authored the debate in the website and linked him to it after that.
Hey gents welcome to Qallout!Pro opens with a pretty clear claim. The resolution is unusual on this topic, but it makes sense to me.Con establishes his worldview with a strong implicit scope that morality is only objective. Claims the moral foundation is "image of God" and what god would do.Pro returns with a claim that Morality is unreasoned? Morality is a value judgment. Con isn't feeling it. Asks questions, he doesn't understand. Pro argues our natural state leads to our moral character as it is part of our nature, just as Christians would say gods morality is part of his nature.--- So far, I'm just seeing a big disconnect between what Pro is saying and what Con is saying. Neither side is really wrestling with the other, I think because Con doesn't understand Pro, and Pro is focused on defense rather than attack so he just keeps explaining his position in different ways. At this point, you both need a sort of dialog to sort out the confusion and the timer is getting in the way of that.Pro asks if not being a celestial being is immoral because its different from what god is. Also Who deems gods standard as superior? Isn't that also a value judgement?Con points to gods awesomeness. Repeats the stardust argument but without emotion. Pro cites fallacy of composition. Stardust has feelings and emotions.. (this isnt responsive to the argument). Again notes that his definition of morality is not objective. Pro tries to illustrate how preference works and how it is personal and not backed up by some external justification.Con repeats - Pro identifies that Con doesn't understand the subjective concept.Pro argues that objective morality is logically impossible (I think that calling god's thoughts subjective is somewhat reductivist. God's a special case as the definer of universal standards and truths.)I'm kind of board at this point... Con just isn't trying to understand pro... and Pro can't get through to him.
I think @duncan_king wins this. Largely because I already agree with him so I understand what he is arguing. @orv_claus would find that preposterous because he never understood Pro's arguments, and not understanding them, he could never find them winnable. That said, Pro, while he is good at making his argument in his own words, has a hard time connecting with his opponent to create understanding. I think some of the arguments are poor, such as god's subjectivity. Not illogical, but kind of pointless. Both of you get testy after 30 minutes of this, frustration on both sides, and both of you chiding each other for it even though both of you engage in it.I agree with Pro that Pro's argument is above Con's head, that's pretty clear. But I feel like it would be better if you try to work at helping him understand, perhaps he can't or won't. Granted, it isn't easy.
@sigfried Thank you. Not for saying "Duncan wins" but because I think your analysis of the confused state of affairs and the nature of that confusion was spot on. I could elaborate here how my statement criticizing the idea that "it is good that gods character is contingent on the character of god" is a very good point, but obviously it would change nothing about me failing to make the point clear to an audience during the debate and since we are commenting on the debate, not the position here (which I had 30 minutes to explain), it would be unfair.This was my first quallout debate. Obviously, some subjects should not be discussed using this 3 minute allotment system and this is one of them. As it was pointed out to me by several others, I also think the topic as stated would have been misleading to a moral absolutist. Anyway, I learned some things about what not to do to through the experience and hopefully in future debates I will avoid them.I'm not here to "win," but to help educate audiences about certain issues. Clearly I failed to encourage understanding about a subject here, so I would say I lost.
@sigfried notice @orv_claus isn’t challenging you on this!
Ive watched this a couple of times. I voted Pro because it seemed like once his point became clear it was unanswered. I admit my bias.Pro. You did great for your first debate! It’s common to list reasons and talk at your opponent when first debating, rather then stick to a few points. Don’t be discouraged, just recognize this. I’ve debated many controversial things on here and Christian Apology is the most difficult in my opinion, Con. You had some convincing moments. I think to win you could have simply argued belief in a higher power adds moral value itself. Instead you took a step further, by claiming morality is in Gods image. The problem is that this claim lacks the merit of an authority to begin with. Pro tries and tries to explain this in his own way and you fail to answer.
@julian I'm curious. What made you want to see this more than once? Did you find some aspect of it entertaining or especially informative?
@duncan_king I was honestly too out of it the first time to really hear it out.
@julian Okay. That makes sense to me. If the video were edited to only show my statements I think it would have been very informative, but with his included its just a clusterfuck of confusion and butthurt.