More sociopathic believers.

[I am lizard]

Don't worry bout it.  I Am Lizard seems to think he's a troll or something.

Ironbite-just throw fire at him till he goes away and you'll be good.

That was meant to be a series of question marks, I'm very easily confused by text longer than a paragraph.

In retrospect I could have just asked what you meant.

[Sigmaleph]

Only belief in God—who gives an objective reason why anything is right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral, as provided through his inspired revelation, the Bible—can provide a reason why financial, moral, ethical, spiritual, emotional, tangible, scientific, logical support is the right thing to do for anything.

Euthyphro, motherfucker.

Is it good because God wills it? Then you must also give a reason why we should follow God's will rather than anybody else's. To invoke a somewhat more modern philosopher, you have an "is" but not an "ought".

Does God will it because it is good? Then God is looking at something other than his own will to decide what is good, and whatever that is, that's the true objective source of morality.

Either way, "God's will" is not a complete, objective answer to "where does morality come from?".

It turns out philosophy is occasionally good for something

Linked and quoted you over on that site in a reply to Dustin.  Hope you don't mind, but I figure:  Give credit where credit is due.

Sure, no problem.

[the_ignored]

As you might imagine, he replied, basically saying that the Dilemma was solved by theologians a long time ago.

I'll let you all be the judge:

Dustin said, quoting me:
//"Does God will it because it is good? Then God is looking at something other than his own will to decide what is good, and whatever that is, that's the true objective source of morality."//
Theologians have refuted the ole' Euthyphro's Dilemma long ago.

//Or is something good simply because god wills it?  In which case, anything that god commands would be "good" no matter what.//
God's willing is not an arbitrary willing, which is what is required for the dilemma."
Why do you say that?  Look at the first half of the dilemma, please.  Are you admitting that the first option is correct then?

Dustin said:
"With all due respect, like most internet atheists, you aren't paying attention sir. God's will isn't arbitrary, but based upon his nature and telic decree."
That "telic decree" sounds like the second option of the dilemma.

I assure you, sir.  I AM paying attention.  Thing is:  All you've done is try to wiggle around the dilema by appealing to god's "nature", but that doesn't get you off the hook of the dilemma as is shown above.

So again:
"Does God will it because it is good? Then God is looking at something other than his own will to decide what is good, and whatever that is, that's the true objective source of morality.
Or is something good simply because god wills it?  In which case, anything that god commands would be "good" no matter what."

And as with every apologist I've ever met when confronted with Euthyphro's Dilemma you dodge that problem, or pretend that you've solved it.

Besides:  How do you know that god's will is not arbitrary?  Again, do you know the mind of your god?  If you don't, you can't say either way.

Even worse for you:
--Based on god's actions within the entirety of the bible:  WHAT is his nature?  In the OT he's genocidal.  He orders the killing of babies and pregnant women.  He tells the "prophet" Samuel to tell a lie of omission to Saul about why he was going to Jesse's place (he was going to anoint David as the next king.  God told him to say that he was merely going to sacrifice a heifer.)

The bible says that god hates lies, but there you go!



Dustin said, quoting me:
//An example of that second one would be your admission Dustin, that you'd kill babies if your god ordered it.//
If it was arbitrary yes (i.e., arbitrary defined as = for no purpose, reason, or rationale). But it's not arbitrary per that definition, thus your attempted retort fails.

The rest of your retort is invalid since the premise (i.e., God arbitrarily wills things) isn't Biblically true."
Read over your reply to Alex, Dustin.  You did not say anything about whether you felt the command was "arbitrary" or not; you said that you'd do it, period.
Here:
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1970984_10151962580656526_969614149_n.jpg

Dustin said:
"Correct, I hold to God's declaration of how things are (his sovereign "opinion"), and hold to the laws he commands his people under the particular era of history that he has decreed that I live in (i.e., the New Covenant era)."
Uh, what about the "ten commandments"?  Aren't they in the "Old Covenant era"?  So why do many of you people cherry-pick the commands in the bible to obey?

When it's pointed out how xian throughout the ages obeyed commands like "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" ex) Cotton Mather, apologists brush it off by saying basically, that it's in the "old covenant" and those commands shouldn't be followed.

All xians say we should obey the 10 Commandments which are also  in the "old covenant era".   What's more, they were given TO THE JEWS, not to us.  Mind you, at least some of those commandments make sense, but other cultures have been able to figure that out on there own.

So:  How does one tell that a witch-killer like Mather was biblically wrong when he killed "witches", or when the church killed "heretics" in the past?*


*Hey:  You used Jeffrey Dahmer as an example of the supposed logical consequence of atheism, so I'll just call on several centuries of xian killings to show the logical consequences of your worldview's "morality".  At least in that case:  There IS a book that actually has commands to do that stuff, unlike in atheism.