Atheist Vs Christian Morality TJump vs C Jay Cox

[@niblick616]

It's fascinating watching theists denying reality to avoid having their feelings hurt by the truth!

[@charliehands5266]

C.jay got absolutely smoked. Well done exposing his broken epistemology Tom

[@dangitbobby001]

CJ's immediacy & astronomical sense of confidence in answering is so comically typical of young men. I was once just as certain about things and ready to bless everyone with my solid grasp of reality. Its just his turn to have the Dunning Kruger talking stick. Once he's ready to hand it down, (or once some new young buck wrests it from him) the AA meeting we call debate will continue. 😂

[@mikeshivak]

What's 5 - 2 then? You can say the words: you can imagine something.

[@mccaf3182]

Okay so if there is no God in the universe that we live in. And if there’s a God in the universe if we do live in. I believe we would have the same morals as in it’s wrong to murder someone. It’s just logical thinking. We wouldn’t have humans if it’s okay to kill who or who ever with or without a God. We’re value ether without or with God with reasonable and logical thinking.

[@ZenWithKen]

Your appeal to objective morality is pointless unless we agree upon it and we don't. If I don't agree to your objective moral standard, what good is it? It's still your standard against mine. We are still forced to work out our differences. Insisting we use it, is pointless.

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

Thiests - Morality is objective because - reasons. Hmmm, that's not good enough - must be a God. TJump - Morality is objective because reasons. That assunmption is good enough to decide there's an undiscivered law of physics to define the made up thing. Sorry, neither side has anyhting that suggests morlaity is objecitve. I'm actually a little disserpointed at how lazy/hypocritical TJump's line of reasining is. I guess it gets paid debates though...

[@PhysiKarlz]

Its purely to show an equally likely alternative hypothesis.

[@Nelsonstephenson7654]

@@xxnoxx-xp5bl he mentions most philosophers believe in objective morality. I won’t say that’s wrong. At one time most philosophers probably believed in god I would guess. I think like a god belief the belief in objective morality is just something our nature leans toward or is intuitive. I’ve never heard an argument that ties morality to objectivity that seemed like it works, I think it’s completely subjective. I do like his defining morality as involuntary imposition of will, subjectively I think it’s probably the best way to determine whether something is moral or immoral that I’ve heard.

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

@@PhysiKarlz I don't think it is equally likely. It's utterly unfounded. You could argue that theists provide an unfounded God claim, but at least there's something to explore/debunk there.

[@xxnoxx-xp5bl]

@@Nelsonstephenson7654 I totally disagree with the 'involuntary imposition of will' as a standard or morality. Even TJ's opponent in this debate highlights that imposing on someone's will can be considered 'moral'. It's still utterly subjective. I think the biggest issue here is that theists argue for a true 'objective' morality, while most modern philosophers argue for an objective standard based on some kind of agreed premise. I'd accept that the latter is a more functional or practical way to arrive at an 'objective' moral standard, but often the theist and non- theist sides are arguing at crossed purposes. Like this debate. The theist doesn't want to discuss the existence of God when his entire moral argument depends on it. He can't claim that his God defines objective morality when his God isn't even demonstrated to exist.

[@Nelsonstephenson7654]

@ the opponent view of imposition that are “moral” is from his definition of morality not Tjumps. He would classify anything like that as a justified immoral action. I agree with you on everything else, just personally like his definition of morality.

[@yadurajdas532]

If anyone is willing to have a discussion on this topic, I will be happy to have engaged you

[@KinKnives]

You debate both sides at once?

[@KinKnives]

You debate both sides at once or what?

[@yadurajdas532]

@ ???? How so

[@KinKnives]

@@yadurajdas532 what side of the topic are you for?

[@yadurajdas532]

@@KinKnives I think this guy makes the same mistake he criticises the theist of, however with great amount of incoherence and wishful thinking

[@yadurajdas532]

Tom Jump jut does not understand theology and builds his criticism on that lack of understanding. His objective morality requires some sort of God like particle to ground his morality which its existence is impossible to predict from a Physicalist perspective His arguments are based on a lack theological knowledge and a good dose of wishful thinking

[@niblick616]

Why do you need to tell unsupported lies to support something that supposedly commands you not to lie? Why would any rational people take your particular god thing seriously, when you obviously don't? Why can theists not address the enormous pachyderm in the room and demonstrate that any god thing ever existed, in the way all living dogs demonstrably exist? Why are all living dogs much more demonstrably real than your god thing?

[@Porkproducts]

The entire set up of "PERSON I DISAGREE WITH doesn't understand ENTIRE CATEGORY OF SCHOLARSHIP" implies you believe YOU DO. To believe that one even could "understand" an entire philosophical category reveals such deep ignorance that you reveal yourself to not worth engaging with. You need to humble yourself before you can honestly engage with complex ideas. Otherwise I'd just be helping you masturbate.

[@scottwills8539]

All religions are based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias and bad epistemology. You do not understand Tom's moral system which observes a pattern of "moral progress" and postulates an undiscovered law of physics to explain it. He gives some evidence to support his hypothesis along with predictions that have yet to be confirmed (or disconfirmed). He's argued the idea with many philosophers (amateur and professional) over the years.

[@TheKingofgames86]

Simply from your responses it’s fairly clear you haven’t listened to much of his position to even criticize it…

[@skagenpige88]

You sound like your trying to make a story not say facts Yadurajdas.....