Total Posts:187|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Absolute vs relative morality - take 4317

Skeptical1
Posts: 696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I'm no philosophy major, but this subject intrigues me whenever it is raised. Since I don't wish to butt in (on this occasion) to someone else's discussion, and probably would be ignored if I did, I thought I'd raise it here.

I'm assuming objective morality = absolute morality, and subjective morality = relative morality; feel free to correct me if you see a need.

I don't believe there is, or can be, such a things as objective (or absolute) morality.

Think about almost any moral assertion (e.g. it is wrong to steal), and you are likely to be able to come up with some circumstance under which it breaks down. So how is any valid assertion about morality absolute? And how can it be objective when it is formed (or at least accepted) within my cognitive framework, which can only deal in subjectives?

For the sake of argument (and because many people accept it as truth), let's assume that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being, greater than which it is impossible to imagine. How does this change our position? Is "good" simply whatever this being wishes it to be? If so, is this the case simply because no one could possibly oppose it? And why must whatever this being wishes be "good"? Can it not wish for "bad"? If whatever it wishes for is good because the being itself is somehow intrinsic "goodness", is this not circular reasoning?

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?

It seems to me that not only is "absolute morality" unattainable, it represents a childlike view of the world, and it's self defeating. The only possible interpretation of morality according to the ideas suggested above is that good equals obedience. If I do what I'm told, I'm good, if I don't, I'm bad. There is no morality here, no judgement on my part about whether a thing is right or not, no nuances. It becomes not a matter of being able to choose right from wrong, but being able to correctly interpret a rule book. If that is morality, what is the point?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:


And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 5:10:20 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Morality is neither absolute nor relative. The morality of an action is determined by who did what to whom, when and where they did it, how they did it, why they did it, what the impact was, and what other options they had. All of these factors vary by circumstance, which means morality must vary by circumstance; they are also a question of fact, not opinion, which means morality is not opinion. Some people disagree with karma's verdict; these people are wrong.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:20:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 5:10:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Morality is neither absolute nor relative. The morality of an action is determined by who did what to whom, when and where they did it, how they did it, why they did it, what the impact was, and what other options they had. All of these factors vary by circumstance, which means morality must vary by circumstance; they are also a question of fact, not opinion, which means morality is not opinion. Some people disagree with karma's verdict; these people are wrong.

and this is your opinion that these people r wrong lol
Never fart near dog
mrsatan
Posts: 429
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 4:12:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
I'm no philosophy major, but this subject intrigues me whenever it is raised. Since I don't wish to butt in (on this occasion) to someone else's discussion, and probably would be ignored if I did, I thought I'd raise it here.

I'm assuming objective morality = absolute morality, and subjective morality = relative morality; feel free to correct me if you see a need.

I don't believe there is, or can be, such a things as objective (or absolute) morality.

Think about almost any moral assertion (e.g. it is wrong to steal), and you are likely to be able to come up with some circumstance under which it breaks down. So how is any valid assertion about morality absolute? And how can it be objective when it is formed (or at least accepted) within my cognitive framework, which can only deal in subjectives?


I would agree that morality is not absolute, especially considering the differences from one person to the next. The effect an action has on one person could be negative, and yet that same action could have a positive effect on some one else. However, in respect to one individual, the effects an action has are concrete. That's how it affects them, regardless of how you think it should affect them, or how you want it to affect them. In that sense, morality is entirely objective, because those effects are the primary concern of morality.

Those effects are the primary concern of moral judgement, as well. If they are positive effects, then the actor is judged to be moral; if negative, then immoral. If there are no effects upon others, moral judgement is withheld. This is where morality becomes subjective. Determining the effects an action has upon someone else can be anywhere from obvious to a shot in the dark... Except that it's always a shot in the dark, and only ever seems obvious.

Determining those effects requires one to put themselves in someone else's shoes. Speculation about what they feel and think, based on what we would feel and think in that situation. A process to which every last bit is subjective. And even if the determination seems obvious to you, the person whose shoes you're wearing could be your opposite in every relevant way, in which case your determination is obviously wrong.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 10:20:47 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 10:20:06 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 5:10:20 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Morality is neither absolute nor relative. The morality of an action is determined by who did what to whom, when and where they did it, how they did it, why they did it, what the impact was, and what other options they had. All of these factors vary by circumstance, which means morality must vary by circumstance; they are also a question of fact, not opinion, which means morality is not opinion. Some people disagree with karma's verdict; these people are wrong.

and this is your opinion that these people r wrong lol

It's not my opinion, it's just karma.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.

Every time a Christian tries to, you run away with your fingers in your ears, only to pop up on some other thread claiming that a Christian should "enlighten" you. Are you a troll? Cause you are behaving like one.

Luckily for us, your name and skepticalone's are different enough for us to remember which of you is the troll. The real guy is the one who makes us wonder whether he is skeptic-alone or skeptical-one. (did he ever answer that question about it?) The other is a troll.

Now you can hit yet another thread unenlightened and claim your ignorance is the fault of Christians.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:38:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:33:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.

Every time a Christian tries to, you run away with your fingers in your ears, only to pop up on some other thread claiming that a Christian should "enlighten" you. Are you a troll? Cause you are behaving like one.

Luckily for us, your name and skepticalone's are different enough for us to remember which of you is the troll. The real guy is the one who makes us wonder whether he is skeptic-alone or skeptical-one. (did he ever answer that question about it?) The other is a troll.

Now you can hit yet another thread unenlightened and claim your ignorance is the fault of Christians.

True morality can only be determined by the psychopathic god of the bible. If you believe that infanticide is wrong then you will be sent to the torture of hell for eternity.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:38:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:33:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.

Every time a Christian tries to, you run away with your fingers in your ears, only to pop up on some other thread claiming that a Christian should "enlighten" you. Are you a troll? Cause you are behaving like one.

Luckily for us, your name and skepticalone's are different enough for us to remember which of you is the troll. The real guy is the one who makes us wonder whether he is skeptic-alone or skeptical-one. (did he ever answer that question about it?)

Yes, he did answer that one, a couple of times.

The other is a troll.

We're all trolls, anyone who has had the privilege of disagreeing with you has been deemed a troll, by you. It is a badge of honor we now all wear.

Now you can hit yet another thread unenlightened and claim your ignorance is the fault of Christians.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:48:54 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
I'm no philosophy major, but this subject intrigues me whenever it is raised. Since I don't wish to butt in (on this occasion) to someone else's discussion, and probably would be ignored if I did, I thought I'd raise it here.

I'm assuming objective morality = absolute morality, and subjective morality = relative morality; feel free to correct me if you see a need.

I don't believe there is, or can be, such a things as objective (or absolute) morality.

Think about almost any moral assertion (e.g. it is wrong to steal), and you are likely to be able to come up with some circumstance under which it breaks down. So how is any valid assertion about morality absolute? And how can it be objective when it is formed (or at least accepted) within my cognitive framework, which can only deal in subjectives?

For the sake of argument (and because many people accept it as truth), let's assume that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being, greater than which it is impossible to imagine. How does this change our position? Is "good" simply whatever this being wishes it to be? If so, is this the case simply because no one could possibly oppose it? And why must whatever this being wishes be "good"? Can it not wish for "bad"? If whatever it wishes for is good because the being itself is somehow intrinsic "goodness", is this not circular reasoning?

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?

It seems to me that not only is "absolute morality" unattainable, it represents a childlike view of the world, and it's self defeating. The only possible interpretation of morality according to the ideas suggested above is that good equals obedience. If I do what I'm told, I'm good, if I don't, I'm bad. There is no morality here, no judgement on my part about whether a thing is right or not, no nuances. It becomes not a matter of being able to choose right from wrong, but being able to correctly interpret a rule book. If that is morality, what is the point?

The correct position is the one which can address questions to its worldview without contradiction. Observe this.....

Atheist1 - There is no such thing as objective/absolute moral values.
Theist1 - Is child rape ever moral for anyone?
Atheist1 - Child rape is ALWAYS immoral for anyone.
Theist1 - Is that an objective/absolute moral value?
Atheist1- Errrr......PROVE THERE IS A GOD!! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!

Or this,
Atheist1 - Morality is simply human societal opinion. Right and wrong is subjective.
Theist1 - So would child rape be moral if society thought it was?
Atheist1 - Child rape is ALWAYS immoral for anyone.
Theist1 - Regardless of what society thinks?
Atheist1- Errrr......PROVE THERE IS A GOD!! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!

See? Every morality debate on this board has been some variation of the above. Atheist makes claim, atheist contradicts claim, and when questioned, atheist knee-jerks into an irrational "You can't prove God exists!" rant.

Want to go for 4,318?
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:53:49 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:48:54 PM, ethang5 wrote

I am my god's psychopath and that will get me to heaven. Slaughter, rape and pillage as per the word of my god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:48:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
I'm no philosophy major, but this subject intrigues me whenever it is raised. Since I don't wish to butt in (on this occasion) to someone else's discussion, and probably would be ignored if I did, I thought I'd raise it here.

I'm assuming objective morality = absolute morality, and subjective morality = relative morality; feel free to correct me if you see a need.

I don't believe there is, or can be, such a things as objective (or absolute) morality.

Think about almost any moral assertion (e.g. it is wrong to steal), and you are likely to be able to come up with some circumstance under which it breaks down. So how is any valid assertion about morality absolute? And how can it be objective when it is formed (or at least accepted) within my cognitive framework, which can only deal in subjectives?

For the sake of argument (and because many people accept it as truth), let's assume that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being, greater than which it is impossible to imagine. How does this change our position? Is "good" simply whatever this being wishes it to be? If so, is this the case simply because no one could possibly oppose it? And why must whatever this being wishes be "good"? Can it not wish for "bad"? If whatever it wishes for is good because the being itself is somehow intrinsic "goodness", is this not circular reasoning?

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?

It seems to me that not only is "absolute morality" unattainable, it represents a childlike view of the world, and it's self defeating. The only possible interpretation of morality according to the ideas suggested above is that good equals obedience. If I do what I'm told, I'm good, if I don't, I'm bad. There is no morality here, no judgement on my part about whether a thing is right or not, no nuances. It becomes not a matter of being able to choose right from wrong, but being able to correctly interpret a rule book. If that is morality, what is the point?

The correct position is the one which can address questions to its worldview without contradiction. Observe this.....

Atheist1 - There is no such thing as objective/absolute moral values.
Theist1 - Is child rape ever moral for anyone?
Atheist1 - Child rape is ALWAYS immoral for anyone.
Theist1 - Is that an objective/absolute moral value?
Atheist1- Errrr......PROVE THERE IS A GOD!! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!

Or this,
Atheist1 - Morality is simply human societal opinion. Right and wrong is subjective.
Theist1 - So would child rape be moral if society thought it was?
Atheist1 - Child rape is ALWAYS immoral for anyone.
Theist1 - Regardless of what society thinks?
Atheist1- Errrr......PROVE THERE IS A GOD!! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!

See? Every morality debate on this board has been some variation of the above.

Really? It looks more like you've rationalized morality arguments here the same way you've rationalized the Bible to be a book of advanced scientific models.

Atheist makes claim, atheist contradicts claim, and when questioned, atheist knee-jerks into an irrational "You can't prove God exists!" rant.

Want to go for 4,318?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 1:57:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:38:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 1:33:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.

Every time a Christian tries to, you run away with your fingers in your ears, only to pop up on some other thread claiming that a Christian should "enlighten" you. Are you a troll? Cause you are behaving like one.

Luckily for us, your name and skepticalone's are different enough for us to remember which of you is the troll. The real guy is the one who makes us wonder whether he is skeptic-alone or skeptical-one. (did he ever answer that question about it?)

Yes, he did answer that one, a couple of times.

So tell me, is he the skeptical one or is he a skeptic alone? Did he know of the ambiguity when he took the name?

The other is a troll.

We're all trolls, anyone who has had the privilege of disagreeing with you has been deemed a troll, by you.

Actually that is a lie. I have never called you a troll. You just have such poor reading comprehension that you probably mistakenly thought I was referring to you when I call Bully or Krishna a troll.

It is a badge of honor we now all wear.

Good trolls are funny. Humor requires smarts. You cannot possibly be a troll. And trolls may wear it like a badge, but there is no honor in it.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:00:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:48:54 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
I'm no philosophy major, but this subject intrigues me whenever it is raised. Since I don't wish to butt in (on this occasion) to someone else's discussion, and probably would be ignored if I did, I thought I'd raise it here.

I'm assuming objective morality = absolute morality, and subjective morality = relative morality; feel free to correct me if you see a need.

I don't believe there is, or can be, such a things as objective (or absolute) morality.

Think about almost any moral assertion (e.g. it is wrong to steal), and you are likely to be able to come up with some circumstance under which it breaks down. So how is any valid assertion about morality absolute? And how can it be objective when it is formed (or at least accepted) within my cognitive framework, which can only deal in subjectives?

For the sake of argument (and because many people accept it as truth), let's assume that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being, greater than which it is impossible to imagine. How does this change our position? Is "good" simply whatever this being wishes it to be? If so, is this the case simply because no one could possibly oppose it? And why must whatever this being wishes be "good"? Can it not wish for "bad"? If whatever it wishes for is good because the being itself is somehow intrinsic "goodness", is this not circular reasoning?

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?

It seems to me that not only is "absolute morality" unattainable, it represents a childlike view of the world, and it's self defeating. The only possible interpretation of morality according to the ideas suggested above is that good equals obedience. If I do what I'm told, I'm good, if I don't, I'm bad. There is no morality here, no judgement on my part about whether a thing is right or not, no nuances. It becomes not a matter of being able to choose right from wrong, but being able to correctly interpret a rule book. If that is morality, what is the point?

The correct position is the one which can address questions to its worldview without contradiction. Observe this.....

Atheist1 - There is no such thing as objective/absolute moral values.
Theist1 - Is child rape ever moral for anyone?
Atheist1 - Child rape is ALWAYS immoral for anyone.
Theist1 - Is that an objective/absolute moral value?
Atheist1- Errrr......PROVE THERE IS A GOD!! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!

Or this,
Atheist1 - Morality is simply human societal opinion. Right and wrong is subjective.
Theist1 - So would child rape be moral if society thought it was?
Atheist1 - Child rape is ALWAYS immoral for anyone.
Theist1 - Regardless of what society thinks?
Atheist1- Errrr......PROVE THERE IS A GOD!! YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE!!

See? Every morality debate on this board has been some variation of the above. Atheist makes claim, atheist contradicts claim, and when questioned, atheist knee-jerks into an irrational "You can't prove God exists!" rant.

Want to go for 4,318?

Extricate "religion" from "society" and you have a case.

Thus far, it has been society (not religion) that has trended in the direction of realization of incurring less harm through moral preference. While its easy to say a deity is the arbiter of such, its really difficult to say such a deity's arbitration is "objective" in as much as the norms society (and there by what the assumed deity's desire) have changed.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:01:09 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 1:57:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/14/2016 1:38:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 1:33:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.

Every time a Christian tries to, you run away with your fingers in your ears, only to pop up on some other thread claiming that a Christian should "enlighten" you. Are you a troll? Cause you are behaving like one.

Luckily for us, your name and skepticalone's are different enough for us to remember which of you is the troll. The real guy is the one who makes us wonder whether he is skeptic-alone or skeptical-one. (did he ever answer that question about it?)

Yes, he did answer that one, a couple of times.

So tell me, is he the skeptical one or is he a skeptic alone? Did he know of the ambiguity when he took the name?


The other is a troll.

We're all trolls, anyone who has had the privilege of disagreeing with you has been deemed a troll, by you.

Actually that is a lie. I have never called you a troll. You just have such poor reading comprehension that you probably mistakenly thought I was referring to you when I call Bully or Krishna a troll.

It is a badge of honor we now all wear.

Good trolls are funny. Humor requires smarts. You cannot possibly be a troll. And trolls may wear it like a badge, but there is no honor in it.

Are you sure that you are careful what you poke up your arse over there in monkeyland?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:07:21 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

The Gentle Reader has yet to see you make a valid point.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:07:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
If you believe that infanticide is wrong, you will go to everlasting torture in hell.
Oh the poor godbotherer is a proven liar again.
"gentle reader" bwuahahahahahahaha.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:11:34 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:01:09 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 1:57:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/14/2016 1:38:50 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 1:33:33 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 4:13:51 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 9/13/2016 3:44:44 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

And what happens if this being changes its mind? In one century, "good" is stoning people to death for answering back to their parents, in the next, this same action is "bad". Do "good" and "bad" change in accordance with the whims of this super being?


I have debated that with Christians endlessly. Essentially, they think it was a moral imperative then to stone children for being disobedient or working on the Sabbath but somehow it became immoral. They can never explain at which point killing someone for such crimes went from moral to immoral.

If any Christians read this, please feel free to enlighten us.

Every time a Christian tries to, you run away with your fingers in your ears, only to pop up on some other thread claiming that a Christian should "enlighten" you. Are you a troll? Cause you are behaving like one.

Luckily for us, your name and skepticalone's are different enough for us to remember which of you is the troll. The real guy is the one who makes us wonder whether he is skeptic-alone or skeptical-one. (did he ever answer that question about it?)

Yes, he did answer that one, a couple of times.

So tell me, is he the skeptical one or is he a skeptic alone? Did he know of the ambiguity when he took the name?


The other is a troll.

We're all trolls, anyone who has had the privilege of disagreeing with you has been deemed a troll, by you.

Actually that is a lie. I have never called you a troll. You just have such poor reading comprehension that you probably mistakenly thought I was referring to you when I call Bully or Krishna a troll.

It is a badge of honor we now all wear.

Good trolls are funny. Humor requires smarts. You cannot possibly be a troll. And trolls may wear it like a badge, but there is no honor in it.

Are you sure that you are careful what you poke up your arse over there in monkeyland?

We already know you are stupid bully. No need to confirm that you're a racist too. That's being redundant.

(notice bully dodged the point but he's a troll and troll NEVER address the point, so he's excused)
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:12:38 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:07:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

The Gentle Reader has yet to see you make a valid point.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.

(2nd post even further away from the point!)
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:13:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:07:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
If you believe that infanticide is wrong, you will go to everlasting torture in hell.
Oh the poor godbotherer is a proven liar again.
"gentle reader" bwuahahahahahahaha.

troll excuse #2
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:16:55 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:13:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:07:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
If you believe that infanticide is wrong, you will go to everlasting torture in hell.
Oh the poor godbotherer is a proven liar again.
"gentle reader" bwuahahahahahahaha.

troll excuse #2
The great fear of hell that unites the poor deluded.
We must believe in the righteousness of infanticide as practiced by our all loving god or we will be tortured for eternity.
Oh we bow to the infanticider.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:20:10 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The truth is that there is neither unanimity nor a modest consensus among atheists as to whether or not morality is objective. Furthermore, even among those atheists whose views on the nature of morality happen to coincide, in all probability they wouldn't be able reach a meaningful agreement on which actions are moral and which are not.

Anyone remotely interested in the topic would have researched it and the name Sam Harris, one of the Horsemen, would have popped up, along with his attempt at erecting an edifice of secular objective morality.

Of course, some people around here refuse to educate themselves and would rather pontificate.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:26:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:20:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
The truth is that there is neither unanimity nor a modest consensus among atheists as to whether or not morality is objective. Furthermore, even among those atheists whose views on the nature of morality happen to coincide, in all probability they wouldn't be able reach a meaningful agreement on which actions are moral and which are not.

Anyone remotely interested in the topic would have researched it and the name Sam Harris, one of the Horsemen, would have popped up, along with his attempt at erecting an edifice of secular objective morality.

Of course, some people around here refuse to educate themselves and would rather pontificate.
I really should read the book on what someone else says in order that I can understand what I consider true. WOO HOO.
fukoff.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 2:49:50 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:26:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:20:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
The truth is that there is neither unanimity nor a modest consensus among atheists as to whether or not morality is objective. Furthermore, even among those atheists whose views on the nature of morality happen to coincide, in all probability they wouldn't be able reach a meaningful agreement on which actions are moral and which are not.

Anyone remotely interested in the topic would have researched it and the name Sam Harris, one of the Horsemen, would have popped up, along with his attempt at erecting an edifice of secular objective morality.

Of course, some people around here refuse to educate themselves and would rather pontificate.
I really should read the book on what someone else says in order that I can understand what I consider true. WOO HOO.
fukoff.

Eh?

That was not aimed at you, obviously.

Besides that, my point was that some fellow posters often try to pigeonhole the whole spectrum of positions atheists hold on morality. Sam Harris was offered as an example of a prominent atheist who sees morality as objective, thus crippling the clich" that all atheists take morality to be subjective. I wasn't even taking sides on the topic, but merely illustrating that there is no such thing as an atheist position on morality, despite what some theists would have you believe.

Hope this clarifies my point.
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 3:06:43 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:49:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:26:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:20:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
The truth is that there is neither unanimity nor a modest consensus among atheists as to whether or not morality is objective. Furthermore, even among those atheists whose views on the nature of morality happen to coincide, in all probability they wouldn't be able reach a meaningful agreement on which actions are moral and which are not.

Anyone remotely interested in the topic would have researched it and the name Sam Harris, one of the Horsemen, would have popped up, along with his attempt at erecting an edifice of secular objective morality.

Of course, some people around here refuse to educate themselves and would rather pontificate.
I really should read the book on what someone else says in order that I can understand what I consider true. WOO HOO.
fukoff.

Eh?

That was not aimed at you, obviously.

Besides that, my point was that some fellow posters often try to pigeonhole the whole spectrum of positions atheists hold on morality. Sam Harris was offered as an example of a prominent atheist who sees morality as objective, thus crippling the clich" that all atheists take morality to be subjective. I wasn't even taking sides on the topic, but merely illustrating that there is no such thing as an atheist position on morality, despite what some theists would have you believe.

Hope this clarifies my point.
You have my most abject apologies, I misunderstood your post and as a result was well out of line. As it would appear, I tend to agree with your clarification.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 3:10:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 3:06:43 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:49:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:26:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:20:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
The truth is that there is neither unanimity nor a modest consensus among atheists as to whether or not morality is objective. Furthermore, even among those atheists whose views on the nature of morality happen to coincide, in all probability they wouldn't be able reach a meaningful agreement on which actions are moral and which are not.

Anyone remotely interested in the topic would have researched it and the name Sam Harris, one of the Horsemen, would have popped up, along with his attempt at erecting an edifice of secular objective morality.

Of course, some people around here refuse to educate themselves and would rather pontificate.
I really should read the book on what someone else says in order that I can understand what I consider true. WOO HOO.
fukoff.

Eh?

That was not aimed at you, obviously.

Besides that, my point was that some fellow posters often try to pigeonhole the whole spectrum of positions atheists hold on morality. Sam Harris was offered as an example of a prominent atheist who sees morality as objective, thus crippling the clich" that all atheists take morality to be subjective. I wasn't even taking sides on the topic, but merely illustrating that there is no such thing as an atheist position on morality, despite what some theists would have you believe.

Hope this clarifies my point.
You have my most abject apologies, I misunderstood your post and as a result was well out of line. As it would appear, I tend to agree with your clarification.

No biggie.
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 3:30:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 2:16:55 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:13:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:07:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
If you believe that infanticide is wrong, you will go to everlasting torture in hell.
Oh the poor godbotherer is a proven liar again.
"gentle reader" bwuahahahahahahaha.

troll excuse #2
The great fear of hell that unites the poor deluded.
We must believe in the righteousness of infanticide as practiced by our all loving god or we will be tortured for eternity.
Oh we bow to the infanticider.

troll excuse #3
bulproof
Posts: 25,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 3:32:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 3:30:17 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:16:55 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:13:37 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:07:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:04:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Note Gentle Reader, how each atheist will come on and make some tangential comment, but will never address the point in my post.

Atheists make contradictory statements about morality that they cannot resolve.

Just ask them, they all will agree with both comments of Atheist1, but will vamp if asked to resolve the contradiction. You need not take my word for it, ask any of them.
If you believe that infanticide is wrong, you will go to everlasting torture in hell.
Oh the poor godbotherer is a proven liar again.
"gentle reader" bwuahahahahahahaha.

troll excuse #2
The great fear of hell that unites the poor deluded.
We must believe in the righteousness of infanticide as practiced by our all loving god or we will be tortured for eternity.
Oh we bow to the infanticider.

troll excuse #3
The laughs never stop with the thang.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 3:33:15 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 3:10:22 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 3:06:43 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:49:50 PM, Omniverse wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:26:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/14/2016 2:20:10 PM, Omniverse wrote:
The truth is that there is neither unanimity nor a modest consensus among atheists as to whether or not morality is objective. Furthermore, even among those atheists whose views on the nature of morality happen to coincide, in all probability they wouldn't be able reach a meaningful agreement on which actions are moral and which are not.

Anyone remotely interested in the topic would have researched it and the name Sam Harris, one of the Horsemen, would have popped up, along with his attempt at erecting an edifice of secular objective morality.

Of course, some people around here refuse to educate themselves and would rather pontificate.
I really should read the book on what someone else says in order that I can understand what I consider true. WOO HOO.
fukoff.

Eh?

That was not aimed at you, obviously.

Besides that, my point was that some fellow posters often try to pigeonhole the whole spectrum of positions atheists hold on morality. Sam Harris was offered as an example of a prominent atheist who sees morality as objective, thus crippling the clich" that all atheists take morality to be subjective. I wasn't even taking sides on the topic, but merely illustrating that there is no such thing as an atheist position on morality, despite what some theists would have you believe.

Hope this clarifies my point.
You have my most abject apologies, I misunderstood your post and as a result was well out of line. As it would appear, I tend to agree with your clarification.

No biggie.

lol. Atheists tripping all over each others stupidity. Free lolz.