who created god

I believe in a subjective moral standard, we determin what is right or wrong , no god no source for objective moral, no heaven and hell to seperate the morals from the imoral. Moral is subjective

If its subjective, than it is simply relative to any particular individual. Murdering ten people wouldnt be bad if it was morally justified to a person. If Morals are simply subjective, thats what you are saying. For some reason you dont want to come out and say that you believe in objective moral standards even though not too long ago you were talking about what was "just" and so on.

Oh, for Pete’s sake… Make up your mind on what it IS that is the question. It seems that everytime I prove your statements wrong, you claim that wasn’t the issue in the FIRST place. Lousy argumentation technique-alarms are going off here…

I think the question was glaringly obvious. What I have been bringing up for some time now is nothingness and how something emerges from that. So tell me how the singularity came to be. How it existed outside of space and time. The cause for it to be. The cause for the creation of the universe. Why there is something now instead of nothing at all.

"Lousy argument technique alarms". How clever 🙄

Yes I know what a singularity is, I know what singularities are.

Well, you attacked me personally for what you judged to be bad use of English. This is your language. It’s not my first. My first language is Danish, so we can conduct our debate in that language and see how well you will fare. Tell me what French has to do with this?

I dont speak your language so suggesting we switch over to that is as at best, as reasonable as my offer to switch over to French..

No, it’s merely mathematics. 1=1, right? Then 1-1=0, and 1- (+1) =0. Simple addition-laws of math. It is assuming nothing save one equals one.
Can you understand this?
Can you also understand this: If you wait long enough the improbable will happen. If you wait forever the impossible will happen?
Let me know, and we take it from there.

Im well aware what it is. Im well aware how it works, I didnt question that. But it seems like you were suggesting something, though I suppose you werent? Please.

If you wait forever the impossible will happen? Doesnt make much sense. The impossible stays impossible, forever doesnt change that.

Nice explanation though... Nice. Laughable, extremely laughable, but nice.

*Please note my sarcasm in all the instances where nice was used*

.If its subjective, than it is simply relative to any particular individual

Murdering ten people wouldnt be bad if it was morally justified to a person

And just doesnt equal objective moral standard, if you believe it does you have greatly missunderstood the entire matter.

The impossible stays impossible, forever doesnt change that

People do have different moral beliefs but that doesnt make them all correct. Some of them are objectively wrong.

more or less, just look at how they blew people away during the bosnian conflict, they justified their sniper action. So yes if everybody view morals diffrently even if you have a set of basic " moral rules" set, given the right circumstances those "moral rules" suddenly doesnt count.
The best example is the death penalty, for some it is morally justified and for others it isnt. Even if their basic set of moral values are more or less identical.

People dont always follow their concsious. Secondly they probably tried to justify that act. Thirdly, just because they did it doesnt make it good. What you are saying is murdering those people is good because it was morally justified. As to the death penalty, some would try to justify that.

And just doesnt equal objective moral standard, if you believe it does you have greatly missunderstood the entire matter.

Well you also talked about honoring an agreement as if it was expected when if you truly have relativistic beliefs there wouldnt be a absolute right or wrong.

Here is a definition for

just

acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good

impossible can be possible, it is we who set the rules for what impossible are so given time impossible can be possible.
It was taken for granted for the people of the 13th century that to fly to the moon was impossible, yet man achieved that impossible task.

The impossible can NOT be possible. If somebody claimed it was impossible and it was later done, it was incorrectly labelled.

acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good

The impossible can NOT be possible. If somebody claimed it was impossible and it was later done, it was incorrectly labelled.

What you are saying is murdering those people is good because it was morally justified

As to the death penalty, some would try to justify that

People do have different moral beliefs but that doesnt make them all correct Some of them are objectively wrong.

Like ive been saying for some time now, yes people do have opposing beliefs but that doesnt mean they are all correct. If you believe its simply a subjective matter and there is no absolute standard, then they are justified in their actions. Relativistic beliefs is something that can not be held without contradiction sometime in your life. Even the whole bet thing, contradicted relativistic beliefs.

which is subjective even though there is a basic that most agree uppon

Disagreement over morals does not mean that objective moral standards do not exist, just as disagreement over facts does not mean that relativism exists for factual beliefs.

yeah well that was what I said

So you are talking about their interpretation of the situation, not the fact itself. If somebody believed that killing was simply alright, would they need to justify it? Even if they did believe it was alright, it still wouldnt mean it was subjective.

who deceides whats correct or not.

That is why there is an existence of an objective moral standard. Look at stealing for example. If you do not believe in an objective moral standard than there nothing to say its wrong. Its simply subjective, no person being more right than another. A person would be justified in stealing if they did not hold those moral standards. Something however tells me that you would not feel that way if somebody stole from you. You would likely be upset and feel what they did was wrong. So without an absolute standard, why is it that this action should be illegal? You cant say because its wrong, there would be no absolute standard dictating so. Even 10 million people believing wouldnt be enough as it wouldnt make an absolute standard (you are now saying you dont believe they exist) so they cant say he is wrong either. Its merely subjective right?

Ok I will say this again since you chose to ignore my posts before.
I think (I don't claim this is true but I want to show you my views) that every person of has a different set of rules based on a selfish thnking as in I like what does me good. ´Now what you call objective moral belives, I would say that are groups of people that have the same or similar believes of what is moral or good to them and as they are have greater power as a group they can force their belives on others, so I say there is nothing wrong with killing someone (if you think it is good for you or you want to) but you will suffer from the consequences since people that don't think murder is good will punish you for it. So there is no objective but only subjective moral believe and what we belive in now ()at least most of us) is a set of belives that many of us acceopt (either through thinking or just through the upbringing).

then impossible doesnt exist.

Even though I disagree, then how do you explain your being an atheist?

Ok I will say this again since you chose to ignore my posts before.
I think (I don't claim this is true but I want to show you my views) that every person of has a different set of rules based on a selfish thnking as in I like what does me good. ´Now what you call objective moral belives, I would say that are groups of people that have the same or similar believes of what is moral or good to them and as they are have greater power as a group they can force their belives on others, so I say there is nothing wrong with killing someone (if you think it is good for you or you want to) but you will suffer from the consequences since people that don't think murder is good will punish you for it. So there is no objective but only subjective moral believe and what we belive in now ()at least most of us) is a set of belives that many of us acceopt (either through thinking or just through the upbringing).

I dont believe I made a conscious effort to ignore your post. Perhaps I found it incoherent, cant recall. Anyway yes I can see that you are saying that it is simply subjective. I know the theory but its not possible for somebody to live their life without contradicting it. If somebody killed somebody close to another person, they wouldnt get angry but rather believe the actions could/would be justified? If you truly believed in subjectivism, you couldnt get angry. Or if someobdy stole money from a person. Or if somebody killed a bunch of kids and so on.

So while somebody can say they believe in moral subjectivism, their actions would contradict such a thing.

No of course I could get angry cause if somebody killed someone close to me that wouldnY't be wrong to his moral beliefs b ut it would be to mine and mine are the moral beliefs I listen too first, so the same thing is it with the bet, you might never had have the intention to give me what we agreed on earlier and for you that would be morally right, but it wouldn't be for me, and I would try to beat the shit out of you to get what I think I deserve,and since we live in this society I would have people that agree with me and we together would get it , of course only if you weren't stronger.

No of course I could get angry cause if somebody killed someone close to me that wouldnY't be wrong to his moral beliefs b ut it would be to mine and mine are the moral beliefs I listen too first, so the same thing is it with the bet, you might never had have the intention to give me what we agreed on earlier and for you that would be morally right, but it wouldn't be for me, and I would try to beat the shit out of you to get what I think I deserve,and since we live in this society I would have people that agree with me and we together would get it , of course only if you weren't stronger.

If you believe that nobody is right, how do you have a cause?

How do you believe that your moral beliefs are correct when you dont believe that anybodies are correct?

Its like this.

You believe you are correct even though you dont believe you can be correct.

Thats a contradiction.

No no I belief that I do what is best for me or what I want the most, you may call that correct if you please, now what I do I do according to this belief that I should do anything that is I want to.

No no I belief that I do what is best for me or what I want the most, you may call that correct if you please, now what I do I do according to this belief that I should do anything that is I want to.

What you believe is best for you is presumably what you think is right.

IF you think something is best for you but you dont think it is really right, then you would be believing in objective moral standards. Ill get back to this but first I would like to know what you meant here.

Yes I do (well to 25%)
It is a selfish deed no one does anything without a reason that justifies it. Just my popinion though.

What do you mean by 25%?

That I am not sure, like its a theory that I am not sure if its right, I tried to say thatin a strange way I am sorry ,anyway,
Now I said it is for me right not for the next person that is in that way subjective.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No no I belief that I do what is best for me or what I want the most, you may call that correct if you please, now what I do I do according to this belief that I should do anything that is I want to.

whats with love??? 😮 you fall in love with a person... and though that maybe aint the best for you... you still love that person... if your love is unreturned you dont get anything back... you and your body get nothing but you still love the person and would do anything for that person... and you KNOW that it probably aint the best for you and you cant change anything about your feelings... (the "what i want the most" is controlled by that).... what if you dont really want to.... but you have to because you cant control your thoughts...?
then it aint something you want to.... 😕

But it is isn't it you want a person. It doesn't matter that you can't change it you still want something.. I don't see the problem in that.

I wouldnt say that every act is selfish, I cant agree with that. However, perhaps no act is truly selfless.

Now I said it is for me right not for the next person that is in that way subjective.

But we are looking for an absolute, not a subjective belief. If everything is subjective, nobody is ever truly right with their morals. So do I take it you believe lawlessness is more appropriate?

Certainly some people believe in objective moral standards and that is the reason things are the way they are.

A person who truly has relativistic beliefs could not go that long without contradicting themselves.

If its between you and another person with opposing moral beliefs, you couldnt believe that you are right when there is no right. So somebody does harm to someone close to you, you cant get angry because he wasnt wrong in doing so. You arent right if you believe hes wrong so...... You would have to be unaffected if you truly had relativistic beliefs .

One of the points you might not have read that I have made is that yes people have different beliefs but that doesnt mean there are not moral truths. Lets say I believe you are 6'0" and you believe you are not, one of us must be wrong.

Moral standards are the same in that respect. There is a truth there even though some have opposing beliefs. Even then though there are still some other factors that I have mentioned. Like people interpreting a situation different ways, trying to justify their actions, feelings of guilty, anger at ones actions and so on.

We arent talking about whether you think water or beer is best for you.

Well of course I can't ever say if there is a real right since I don't belive in a objective moral, but I of course in the first place would think that I am right cause thats what I as a human want, now I know teh other person thinks he is right to and now it depends on who is more powerful because the one who has more piower can force his will on the other.
And for the society we live in, I guess you can say the people who founded it believed in a objective moral but that doesn't mean that has to be right, ther is also another way to explain why that happens, as IO stated earlier people with similar subjective truths group together and force their belive in others.
Let me give you an example: If someone kills another for him that was right morally as well as it was necessary for him. Because our society is a group in which people came together because they didn't want to be killed and they needed more people to help them cause alone they weren't strong enough. ANd these people , our society, punishes people now for so that first this person won't do it again and second other people won't do it either, its all subjective not natural or objective moral.

Im not talking about power here.

Let me give you an example: If someone kills another for him that was right morally as well as it was necessary for him. Because our society is a group in which people came together because they didn't want to be killed and they needed more people to help them cause alone they weren't strong enough. ANd these people , our society, punishes people now for so that first this person won't do it again and second other people won't do it either, its all subjective not natural or objective moral.

You are talking about beliefs, fair enough ive already accounted for those. However ive also spoken on truths.

Given what you have stated though I suppose you would be a proponent for lawlessness, is that correct?

I still maintain that regardless of whether or not a person has relativistic beliefs, they will contradict themselves. Its unavoidable because nobody truly believes that morals are simply subjective. Nobody short of a psychopath perhaps and even then I dont know that thats accurate. Even then, it doesnt make them correct.

Im pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death so I will try not to go much further with it but I will reiterate my point that a person can not hold relativistic beliefs without contradiction.

Lastly, Im curious as to whether or not you support lawlessness.