Originally posted by FlyattractorSo if there were no God you would be a dick and rapist. Good to know what kind of person you are.
[b]I would find Lucy. Kick him in the nuts. Steal all his stuff and rape any of his beloved female family members. Then I would look at him and say "There aint no God, so Congrats buddy". Then I would walk away with a smug look on my face. [/B]
Originally posted by FlyattractorSo let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?
[b]Why shouldn't I be? Good and Evil are just matters of Opinion. Why should I place any value on what you think?
[/B]
Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist.
Originally posted by Newjak
So let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist.
Why should I VALUE your OPINION of a Moral Compass?
I say its Law of Nature Only.
Might Makes Right.
You can shove your moral compass up your butt hole.
Society and its rules can go F_U_C_K it Self!
I am gonna do what I want.
Originally posted by FlyattractorI find it funny you talk about the Law of Nature when you most likely would die without societal protection.
[b]Why should I VALUE your OPINION of a Moral Compass?I say its Law of Nature Only.
Might Makes Right.
You can shove your moral compass up your butt hole.
Society and its rules can go F_U_C_K it Self!
I am gonna do what I want.
[/B]
Either once again thanks for confirming you want to be a dick and rapist.
Originally posted by Newjak
I find it funny you talk about the Law of Nature when you most likely would die without societal protection.Either once again thanks for confirming you want to be a dick and rapist.
Never claimed I wasn't . I am Honest that way.
And I don't NEED society to SURVIVE, other than needing a weakness that I can prey upon.
No God so No Afterlife or Eternal Karma to worry about. So if I want to Burn your house down with you in it and then make sammiches with the meat. Why should I care if will upset your weekend plans?
Ohh will somebody make a mean comment about me on Facebook?
Ohh How Cruel Society can be!?
Originally posted by FlyattractorIt sounds like you assume there would be no laws... No police... No jail?
[b]Never claimed I wasn't . I am Honest that way.And I don't NEED society to SURVIVE, other than needing a weakness that I can prey upon.
No God so No Afterlife or Eternal Karma to worry about. So if I want to Burn your house down with you in it and then make sammiches with the meat. Why should I care if will upset your weekend plans?
Ohh will somebody make a mean comment about me on Facebook?
Ohh How Cruel Society can be!?
[/B]
Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by Newjak
It sounds like you assume there would be no laws... No police... No jail?Is that what you're saying?
A lot of those "Laws" are based on Religious Principles. So why should I put any value on them? Why should that give COPS any authority to stop me?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah he's saying if there is no higher purpose or objective morality to the universe, it's nihilistic, in which case morality is empty and pointless.
Seems to get it.
Originally posted by EmperordmbI understand that is what he is trying to go for but it is such a childish argument to make. I just want him to think it out a little bit.
Nah he's saying if there is no higher purpose or objective morality to the universe, it's nihilistic, in which case morality is empty and pointless.
Originally posted by FlyattractorBy your own admission not all of them are based on Religious Principles. So how do those ones work if there is no God?
[b]A lot of those "Laws" are based on Religious Principles. So why should I put any value on them? Why should that give COPS any authority to stop me?Seems to get it. [/B]
Originally posted by Newjak
I understand that is what he is trying to go for but it is such a childish argument to make. I just want him to think it out a little bit.
Originally posted by EmperordmbBecause it starts from the premise that all morals/laws must stem from a higher power.
How exactly is that a childish argument? If everything is ultimately purposeless, why should he have a moral obligation to do anything?
It also assumes that any manner of purpose must stem from a higher power as well.
By using those assumptions he has tried to remove relevance on topic of morals. Essentially he is trying to make the argument without a God there can be no morals therefore there must be a God because we have morals. It's a childish way to argue. At least that is the argument he wants to make because he believes in a God.
Originally posted by Newjak
Because it starts from the premise that all morals/laws must stem from a higher power.It also assumes that any manner of purpose must stem from a higher power as well.
By using those assumptions he has tried to remove relevance on topic of morals. Essentially he is trying to make the argument without a God there can be no morals therefore there must be a God because we have morals. It's a childish way to argue. At least that is the argument he wants to make because he believes in a God.
If morality is purely subjective, then what logical argument is there that anyone should follow any specific judgement of morality and not base every one of their decisions on pure selfishness?
Originally posted by EmperordmbYou assume morality is purely subjective.
Laws are essentially a contract between people and get their weight from being respected and enforced. They can exist without morality.If morality is purely subjective, then what logical argument is there that anyone should follow any specific judgement of morality and not base every one of their decisions on pure selfishness?
There are a number of different topics on this for instance we can talk about common laws that have found their way across the globe in many different and why they are common despite vast borders and differences in religions.
That doesn't change his childish argument on the matter. His argument is a perversion of what you're trying to talk about. If there is no God therefore rape must be okay because only God could decide it is immoral. It's a circular argument and you're not really defending his stance.
Originally posted by Newjak
You assume morality is purely subjective.
Originally posted by Newjak
There are a number of different topics on this for instance we can talk about common laws that have found their way across the globe in many different and why they are common despite vast borders and differences in religions.
If you are suggesting the ubiquity of certain laws implies an objective moral truth, then it could also be argued that laws are basically a contract between every member of a community to provide protection, and people just happen to go with the laws that will protect them most. That doesn't imply an objective morality, just that people find certain ways of establishing law to protect themselves and the things they care about more effective than others.
Originally posted by Newjak
That doesn't change his childish argument on the matter. His argument is a perversion of what you're trying to talk about. If there is no God therefore rape must be okay because only God could decide it is immoral. It's a circular argument and you're not really defending his stance.
Originally posted by EmperordmbBut once again he assumes objective morality can only come from a higher power. In which case he is essentially arguing people can not be objective. Do you believe that?
Then what constitutes objective morality Newjak?If you want to suggest law defines morality, then there are several examples that contradict that notion.
If you are suggesting the ubiquity of certain laws implies an objective moral truth, then it could also be argued that laws are basically a contract between every member of a community to provide protection, and people just happen to go with the laws that will protect them most. That doesn't imply an objective morality, just that people find certain ways of establishing law to protect themselves and the things they care about more effective than others.
It's not that rape would be okay. He's arguing that if there is no higher power than the universe just arbitrarily exists and is thus devoid of any objective meaning, and if this nihilism is the case then there is no "okayness" or "not okayness" to something.
Also I'm not suggesting that laws equate to pure morality but that doesn't mean we haven't seen humans develop collective morals similar to each other despite distance and religious backgrounds. Things like rape being bad, hurting children, outright murder.
And he is trying to argue that without God there can be no morals therefore rape would be okay. The implication he is trying to say is therefore there must be a God because rape is bad. It's a circular argument that tries to force an extreme view to solidify his own belief easily.
Originally posted by FlyattractorBetter page the dermatologist, cuz I'm under your skin.
[b]I would find Lucy. Kick him in the nuts. Steal all his stuff and rape any of his beloved female family members. Then I would look at him and say "There aint no God, so Congrats buddy". Then I would walk away with a smug look on my face. [/B]
Originally posted by NewjakHe's a sociopathic demagogue-admirer. He barely needs an excuse to lower himself to the level of the scum of humanity.
So let me get this straight you're saying without a God there is no moral compass. Therefore if you think rape is good then you should be free to do whatever you want?Which just boils down to basically you're saying without a God to rule over you you're a dick and rapist.
Originally posted by NewjakPeople can not objectively point to a literal, physical source of morality and claim it absolute and universal. They can call it objective, they can imagine in their minds that a source exists, and they can formulate their laws around that, but they can't objectively--empirically--identify morality or moral facts. A god or gods are usually needed to provide a buffer, and even then, their role in that morality will change based on the opinions and beliefs of every single individual (if they believe in that deity in the first place).
But once again he assumes objective morality can only come from a higher power. In which case he is essentially arguing people can not be objective. Do you believe that?
Originally posted by NewjakThat's usually because these things collectively hurt us. We establish our morality around maximizing what we feel and believe to be beneficial to ourselves and our creations. And even then, sometimes we need to kill or rape or hurt children (usually by raping or murdering them). Plenty of cultures, societies, and governments in the past (and present) have modified their laws to fit what they (or the current ruler) feels to be beneficial. And they'll usually concoct a moral or religious (often both) reason to justify it.
Also I'm not suggesting that laws equate to pure morality but that doesn't mean we haven't seen humans develop collective morals similar to each other despite distance and religious backgrounds. Things like rape being bad, hurting children, outright murder.
Nihilism is the way to go. It's simpler. Less messy. Makes more sense.
Originally posted by Lord LucienAbsolute and objective do not equate to each other. There does not have to be absolute moral authority for someone to be objective on a moral level for the given situation and society.
Better page the dermatologist, cuz I'm under your skin.He's a sociopathic demagogue-admirer. He barely needs an excuse to lower himself to the level of the scum of humanity.
People can not objectively point to a literal, physical source of morality and claim it absolute and universal. They can call it objective, they can imagine in their minds that a source exists, and they can formulate their laws around that, but they can't objectively--empirically--identify morality or moral facts. A god or gods are usually needed to provide a buffer, and even then, their role in that morality will change based on the opinions and beliefs of every single individual (if they believe in that deity in the first place).
That's usually because these things collectively hurt us. We establish our morality around maximizing what we feel and believe to be beneficial to ourselves and our creations. And even then, sometimes we need to kill or rape or hurt children (usually by raping or murdering them). Plenty of cultures, societies, and governments in the past (and present) have modified their laws to fit what they (or the current ruler) feels to be beneficial. And they'll usually concoct a moral or religious (often both) reason to justify it.
Nihilism is the way to go. It's simpler. Less messy. Makes more sense.
I don't mean to say that they equate. But if we're to use the word objective:
Of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality.
Not influenced by the emotions or prejudices.
Based on observed facts.
Then we can't point to morality as something that can be objectively studied, measured, or observed in any way. It's an abstract concept created by humans, for humans. Just like the concept of 'law.' Or the 'Force.' It's not a real thing in the universe. It's something that gets created and interpreted by every single individual. His morality is different from that guy's. And that's guy's from that one over there.
It's a belief in the idea that there is a truth in regards to "correct" behaviour or thought. And countless people and ideologies have tried to suss out that truth and codify it (via laws and religious dogma, typically). Morality isn't objective. It's make believe. It will assume whatever truth it needs to. It's completely subjective because it's completely fictional.