I hate when someone hits me with a stick.
I love when someone gives me a hug.
Hurting someone is morally incorrect.
Making someone feel good is morally correct.

Didn't need a god for that!

Did he just say, "...on the atheistic view, there's nothing wrong with raping someone?"
WTF, what hat is he pulling that out of?

"Without God there is no right and wrong imposing itself on our conscience"
You don't need a God to tell you it hurts when someone rapes you, so of course, his claim is absolutely false.

The suggestion that rape is an advantageous act in that, it propagates reproduction in a world without law is an absolute fallacy. The fact is, it is morally wrong because it hurts a person in the process. That's why it's morally wrong

Socially Unacceptable Behavior = Moral Abominations (they are not opposites - One is just a extreme of the other)

And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.

Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.

Suppose that god existed, and that his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

I feel like he's continually hitting me with a stupid stick as his entire argument is incoherent as he forms conjectures based on nothing.

• Everyone agrees the sky is blue, therefor God exists.
• Atheists themselves agree that we breath air, so that proves there is a God

See, I can talk like him to.

When he pronounced "Friedrich Nietzsche" correctly, I immediately thought of the scene in the Simpsons when Sideshow Bob reveals his "Die Bart, die" - tattoo.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

When he pronounced "Friedrich Nietzsche" correctly, I immediately thought of the scene in the Simpsons when Sideshow Bob reveals his "Die Bart, die" - tattoo.


No one who speaks German could be evil!

And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.

It provides an absolute standard of conduct, one that is missing from atheism. How does it follow that since men have absolutely failed to live up to that standard that its irrelevnt? That indicates the depravity of man, not the absence of God.

Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.

This is why an absolute standard is necessary, because man is capable of rationalizing any type of behavior. The nazis rationalized that the holocaust was okay. It was subjectively good to them. Do you feel what they did objectively evil, and why?

Suppose that god existed, and this his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

Though your question is entirely a strawman argument, ill answer you anyway. First of all, there is no biblical command to stone divorced women. That's just patently false. Second, there was no biblical institution of slavery. Jesus said everyone was equal in the eyes of God. There were laws on the treatment of slaves, that's true, but slavery back then had different connotations. Often times, people who couldn't otherwise take care of themselves would become slaves in exchange for room and board. People would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts. This is in contrast to the involuntary slavery that was predominant in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_slavery

Now it's interesting that you've brought up slavery because there has never been an abolition movement outside of the Christian west. That doesn't really speak too well for atheist values does it.

Now on your example of rape victims, there are different translations for the particular hebrew word. It's not clear that is what it is talking about. However, I'll address it in the literal sense, though I won't commit myself to this definition. Sex is considered the spiritual act of marriage. When people have relations they are cleaved together in the spirit. That's why fornication is forbidden. So, whether it was unfortunate or not, the couple were married spiritually at that point and thus they would only compound the sin by being seperated. If you want to talk about further misconceptions you have about the bible, I'll be happy to do so in private..but I am not going to muddy the debate about absolute values vs relative values any further.

>> ^KnivesOut:
And what has this (supposed) objective morality provided the world? Haven't men and woman, supposedly living under the objective law of the one god, committed horrible atrocities on each other? It's a pointless debate, that William Lame Craig apparently loves to harp on. To say that there is one objective good, outside and above the thoughts and beliefs of man, is irrelevant.
Actual humans live in a real world composed of subjective moral decisions. Man's greatest natural ability, perhaps even greater than his ability to adapt, is his ability to rationalize.
Suppose that god existed, and that his objective truth was and will be concrete and always perfect. Why then have we decided that it's not OK to own slaves, stone divorced women, or marry rape victims to their rapists? Have we lost our way from the holy truth of the bible, or have we evolved as a society beyond those primitive ideas?

You've just failed to understand the argument. For there to be absolute values, something must always be right or wrong regardless of what people think about it. The holocaust must always be wrong, even though the Nazis thought they were right in doing it. You can't get there with morality only being a feature of evolution.

What's always right in evolution is the survival of the species. What's always wrong in evolution is the extinction of a species. It doesn't matter how you get to point a to point b, as long as you get there. So if the nazis had wiped out everyone that disagreed with them, the species would be perpetuated with the knowledge that the holocaust was right. It would be right because the ones who believed it to be wrong were "naturally selected" not to survive. Unless you have an absolute morality, you must accept that to be true.


>> ^Sagemind:
I feel like he's continually hitting me with a stupid stick as his entire argument is incoherent as he forms conjectures based on nothing.
• Everyone agrees the sky is blue, therefor God exists.
• Atheists themselves agree that we breath air, so that proves there is a God
See, I can talk like him to. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">

Nice dodge. You avoided pretty much my entire point.

If man can't be trusted to obey or conform to the objectivist ideal of morality, then what purpose does it serve? Every judgement of man is subjective, by definition.

There is no objective evil. The evil of the nazi holocaust was subjectively evil. By definition, because the people perpetrating the crime thought they were doing what was right.

Nice attempt at parsing the objective truth of the bible into subjective conclusions. Are you saying that the bible's stance on slavery was OK, because there were/are some good kinds of slavery? That's what it sounded like. This is the inherent flaw in your bible, in that it has to be interpreted by imperfect and flawed beings.

You just don't understand the nature of good and evil according to scripture. Man, when he sinned, decided to go with his own interpertation of what good and evil is instead of trusting God. That is the subjective part. This led to his fallen nature. Because of this, Man is naturally inclined to do evil. God however knows absolutely what is good and what is evil. His law is there to provide the standard of conduct that man in his fallen state is naturally disinclined to do. This was the reason that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, because every man has sinned and fallen short and earned punishment for himself.

Thank you for admitting there is not nor could there be an objective standard of behavior under atheism. So in your world, if the Nazis won, the holocaust is moral. Right?

I didn't dodge anything. What I explained was that there was no institution of slavery in the bible. I also explained that people in those times were frequently slaves voluntarily. I don't see rules governing the treatment of slaves as condoning slavery in that light.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Nice dodge. You avoided pretty much my entire point.
If man can't be trusted to obey or conform some the objectivist ideal of morality, then what purpose does it server? Every judgement of man is subjective, by definition.
There is not objective evil. The evil of the nazi holocaust was subjectively evil. By definition, because the people perpetrating the crime thought they were doing what was right.
Nice attempt at parsing the objective truth of the bible into subjective conclusions. Are you saying that the bible's stance on slavery was OK, because there were/are some good kinds of slavery? That's what it sounded like. This is the inherent flaw in your bible, in that it has to be interpreted by imperfect and flawed beings.

Winning has nothing to do with being right. Appealing to the masses is another logical fallacy. Every individual has their own subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of a situation.

The point that you avoided was that even those that live under the supposed objective rightness of the lord are themselves confined within a subjective reality of their own making. No one can escape the confines of their own mind to know the true will of whatever imaginary friend they subscribe to.

All they can do is interpret what they think their lord would want them to do, from one moment to the next. What you call "following the will of god" is actually just guessing at what you think he wants you to think/do/say.

Millions have "followed the will of god" to do horrible things in his name. THAT was my point. Your fantasies about objective morality are irrelevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:

You just don't understand the nature of good and evil according to scripture. Man, when he sinned, decided to go with his own interpertation of what good and evil is instead of trusting God. That is the subjective part. This led to his fallen nature. Because of this, Man is naturally inclined to do evil. God however knows absolutely what is good and what is evil. His law is there to provide the standard of conduct that man in his fallen state is naturally disinclined to do. This was the reason that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, because every man has sinned and fallen short and earned punishment for himself.
Thank you for admitting there is not nor could there be an objective standard of behavior under atheism. So in your world, if the Nazis won, the holocaust is moral. Right?
I didn't dodge anything. What I explained was that there was no institution of slavery in the bible. I also explained that people in those times were frequently slaves voluntarily. I don't see rules governing the treatment of slaves as condoning slavery in that light.

Winning has nothing to do with being right. Appealing to the masses is another logical fallacy. Every individual has their own subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of a situation.

The point that you avoided was that even those that live under the supposed objective rightness of the lord are themselves confined within a subjective reality of their own making. No one can escape the confines of their own mind to know the true will of whatever imaginary friend they subscribe to.

Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

All they can do is interpret what they think their lord would want them to do, from one moment to the next. What you call "following the will of god" is actually just guessing at what you think he wants you to think/do/say.

Millions have "followed the will of god" to do horrible things in his name. THAT was my point. Your fantasies about objective morality are irrelevant.

Again, that man does evil says nothing about the existence of an absolute standard of morality. It was *because* man does evil that a law was given in the first place. There is no gray area in an absolute standard. Millions of hypocrites exist, that's true..it doesn't prove anything except that a law is neccesary.


>> ^KnivesOut:
Winning has nothing to do with being right. Appealing to the masses is another logical fallacy. Every individual has their own subjective view of the rightness or wrongness of a situation.
The point that you avoided was that even those that live under the supposed objective rightness of the lord are themselves confined within a subjective reality of their own making. No one can escape the confines of their own mind to know the true will of whatever imaginary friend they subscribe to.
All they can do is interpret what they think their lord would want them to do, from one moment to the next. What you call "following the will of god" is actually just guessing at what you think he wants you to think/do/say.
Millions have "followed the will of god" to do horrible things in his name. THAT was my point. Your fantasies about objective morality are irrelevant.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You just don't understand the nature of good and evil according to scripture. Man, when he sinned, decided to go with his own interpertation of what good and evil is instead of trusting God. That is the subjective part. This led to his fallen nature. Because of this, Man is naturally inclined to do evil. God however knows absolutely what is good and what is evil. His law is there to provide the standard of conduct that man in his fallen state is naturally disinclined to do. This was the reason that Jesus came to earth to die for our sins, because every man has sinned and fallen short and earned punishment for himself.
Thank you for admitting there is not nor could there be an objective standard of behavior under atheism. So in your world, if the Nazis won, the holocaust is moral. Right?
I didn't dodge anything. What I explained was that there was no institution of slavery in the bible. I also explained that people in those times were frequently slaves voluntarily. I don't see rules governing the treatment of slaves as condoning slavery in that light.

No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.

>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.

Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.

Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:

It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

Well I'd bet the Jewish people would be slightly miffed about the holocaust, even if everyone else was ok with it.


>> ^shinyblurry:

It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.

You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh *your* memory.

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.




>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

I'm not forced to do anything. There is no mention of outside influence in the definition of subjectivity. Did you read it?

I don't even know why I bother engaging you.>> ^shinyblurry:

You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh your memory.
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.
I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.


>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not forced to do anything. There is no mention of outside influence in the definition of subjectivity. Did you read it?
I don't even know why I bother engaging you.>> ^shinyblurry:
You're not getting off that easily. I know very well what it means so lets refresh your memory.
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
IE, human opinion. So therefore, if everyone thought the holocaust was right, it would be. Unless it is objectively wrong, if everyone agreed about it the holocaust would be subjectively right. Which means you are forced to admit the holocaust could be right under your system of morality.
I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.
>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.

Well of course..but my point is really that if your moral system can accomodate the holocaust, its time to throw it away

>> ^DerHasisttot:Well I'd bet the Jewish people would be slightly miffed about the holocaust, even if everyone else was ok with it.>> ^shinyblurry:It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.

I never said anything about laws, and objective morality has nothing to do with law either, by the way.

I could just as easily ask you: if god, by way of the bible, says its ok for a man to kill his own son in god's name, then who are we to judge that man's faith?

Your contrived arguments are stale and boring.>> ^shinyblurry:

You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

You can do everything except answer the direct question and reveal what you actually believe about how morality is determined..We're talking about relative vs absolute morality if you remember. You say morality is subjective, and you have narrowed this down to the individual. So lets start simple..as an individual, how do you determine what is good and bad?

>> ^KnivesOut:
I never said anything about laws, and objective morality has nothing to do with law either, by the way.
I could just as easily ask you: if god, by way of the bible, says its ok for a man to kill his own son in god's name, then who are we to judge that man's faith?
Your contrived arguments are stale and boring.>> ^shinyblurry:
You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

This is you trying to re-frame the debate to suit your position.

Fine, so be it. My position is simply that because the absolute is a superstitious myth, there is only relative. Because what is measurable is only so in context to the measure-er, there is only relative.

You believe that there is something outside of your mind telling it what to do, and yet your mind still has to decide what to do. Therefore you are operating in a subjective moral reality.

We all are.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You can do everything except answer the direct question and reveal what you actually believe about how morality is determined..We're talking about relative vs absolute morality if you remember. You say morality is subjective, and you have narrowed this down to the individual. So lets start simple..as an individual, how do you determine what is good and bad?
>> ^KnivesOut:
I never said anything about laws, and objective morality has nothing to do with law either, by the way.
I could just as easily ask you: if god, by way of the bible, says its ok for a man to kill his own son in god's name, then who are we to judge that man's faith?
Your contrived arguments are stale and boring.>> ^shinyblurry:
You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

Yes, I understand that. You think truth is relative. In the context of morality, you have stated that it comes down to the individual. That morality isn't even what people agree on, but rather what an individual believes, as in your example of one person seeing the state to be evil. So, how does an individual tell good from evil? If another individual has the opposite view, ie..he thinks your good is evil and your evil is good, how do you tell who is right?

>> ^KnivesOut:
This is you trying to re-frame the debate to suit your position.
Fine, so be it. My position is simply that because the absolute is a superstitious myth, there is only relative. Because what is measurable is only so in context to the measure-er, there is only relative.
You believe that there is something outside of your mind telling it what to do, and yet your mind still has to decide what to do. Therefore you are operating in a subjective moral reality.
We all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You can do everything except answer the direct question and reveal what you actually believe about how morality is determined..We're talking about relative vs absolute morality if you remember. You say morality is subjective, and you have narrowed this down to the individual. So lets start simple..as an individual, how do you determine what is good and bad?
>> ^KnivesOut:
I never said anything about laws, and objective morality has nothing to do with law either, by the way.
I could just as easily ask you: if god, by way of the bible, says its ok for a man to kill his own son in god's name, then who are we to judge that man's faith?
Your contrived arguments are stale and boring.>> ^shinyblurry:
You're a law onto yourself, huh.. So, how do you tell right from wrong? If everyone is their own law, then isn't a murderer jusified in his murdering if he thinks he is right? If not, why not?

Irrelevant.

Should we refer to the magic book of proverbs and let it tell us how to live, and maybe we listen to it and maybe we don't? Either way its the same thing.

Your entire premise is flawed. There are no absolutes because man is not.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, I understand that. You think truth is relative. In the context of morality, you have stated that it comes down to the individual. That morality isn't even what people agree on, but rather what an individual believes, as in your example of one person seeing the state to be evil. So, how does an individual tell good from evil? If another individual has the opposite view, ie..he thinks your good is evil and your evil is good, how do you tell who is right?

Hello? I'm asking you how you derive morality. You are claiming that there are no absolutes, that morality could only be subjective, and that it comes down to the individual belief. So, how do you determine good from evil? If another individual comes up with a morality opposite of yours, how do you determine who is right?

>> ^KnivesOut:
Irrelevant.
Should we refer to the magic book of proverbs and let it tell us how to live, and maybe we listen to it and maybe we don't? Either way its the same thing.
Your entire premise is flawed. There are no absolutes because man is not.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, I understand that. You think truth is relative. In the context of morality, you have stated that it comes down to the individual. That morality isn't even what people agree on, but rather what an individual believes, as in your example of one person seeing the state to be evil. So, how does an individual tell good from evil? If another individual has the opposite view, ie..he thinks your good is evil and your evil is good, how do you tell who is right?

The same way you do. I decide. You sure are thick.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Hello? I'm asking you how you derive morality. You are claiming that there are no absolutes, that morality could only be subjective, and that it comes down to the individual belief. So, how do you determine good from evil? If another individual comes up with a morality opposite of yours, how do you determine who is right?

No kidding? We've already established that you believe morality comes down to the individual. The question is, how do you decide? How do you tell what is good and what is evil?

>> ^KnivesOut:
The same way you do. I decide. You sure are thick.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Hello? I'm asking you how you derive morality. You are claiming that there are no absolutes, that morality could only be subjective, and that it comes down to the individual belief. So, how do you determine good from evil? If another individual comes up with a morality opposite of yours, how do you determine who is right?

http://videosift.com/video/What-If-God-Disappeared

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm commanded by God to preach the gospel and it's a joy for me to do so. I also enjoy a lively debate. That's why I am here.


>> ^KnivesOut:
You clearly don't understand what the word "subjective" means.
Let me ask you this: Why are you (and WLC for that matter) so keen on "proving" the existence of god? Isn't that a sin? The entire point of faith is to believe without proof.
Maybe you're trying to prove it to yourself, as much as to the rest of us.>> ^shinyblurry:
It is necessarily so. If everyone agreed the holocaust was right, then under a subjective morality it would be. The only way it could be wrong if everyone thought it was right is if it were objectively wrong..IE, it was wrong regardless of human opinion.
>> ^KnivesOut:
No, that isn't necessarily so. A society could be evil, in the eyes of the individual. That is subjectivity.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Try following your own conclusions. If morality is subjective, then if everyone agrees that something is right or wrong, it is. Therefore, if the nazis had won and everyone agreed that the holocaust was right, it would be. The only way it would be wrong even if everyone agreed it wasnt is if it were objectively wrong.





Actually, no you're not commanded by God. Quite the opposite in fact.

And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Matt 6:5-6

>> ^shinyblurry:

No kidding? We've already established that you believe morality comes down to the individual. The question is, how do you decide? How do you tell what is good and what is evil?
>> ^KnivesOut:
The same way you do. I decide. You sure are thick.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Hello? I'm asking you how you derive morality. You are claiming that there are no absolutes, that morality could only be subjective, and that it comes down to the individual belief. So, how do you determine good from evil? If another individual comes up with a morality opposite of yours, how do you determine who is right?



Seriously? How do we know what's good and what's evil?

I know raping a woman is evil because my own brain tells me so.

I know, unlike several Catholic priests evidently that molesting a child is evil. Again, because my brain tells me so.

I know that murder is evil. Again, because my brain tells me so.

Simple really.

Moving this video to shinyblurry's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

but why does your brain tell you that murder/rape is bad?

maybe because there have been plenty of death BECAUSE of religion. we've witnessed first hand the horrors of murder and rape. Eventually you develop this thing called empathy. You cease to think about only yourself and start thinking about how your actions affects others and empathize.

Basic survival also tells us not to hurt others. Sure when we were barely above the thinking capacity of animals we saw other humans as competition. Hell, part of our psyche still does. But as we, gasp, evolved, we learned that working with other people instead of competing yields better results and thus, increases odds of survival.

morality without a god. pretty simple when you start asking questions instead of blindly submitting to outdated beliefs.