Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere are lots and lots of gods. We get to pick and choose. Good and evil don't change; they are what we make of them.
Without God, 'good' and 'evil' are a matter of personal preference. So what makes ones opinion right and another's opinion wrong without an objective standard?
The standard is subjective. This is good; it allows birds to flock together.
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistFetchmyjunk has been insisting that it's not up to him, but instead it's up to a set of rules external to him [which he insists was communicated to him by a supernatural being and] which he has chosen to call "universal truth" which, oh yes, just happens to coincide with his own personal opinions on moral matters. So, while "who decides?" is a you-know-the-answer type question to the likes of you and me, Fetchmyjunk - who characterizes himself as a moral agent working for a divine being who is, apparently, not a mortal agent, needs to answer.
You know the answer.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFKilling not premeditated murder and rape and quite a few other things. You also claimed to agree certain absolutes do exist for example that it is always wrong to rape someone. So why are you still arguing about absolute truth when you have in fact conceded that it is always wrong to rape someone? The discussion now should be how do you explain the existence of these absolutes if you think God has no say over morality.
It "depends on the situation"? Is that what your "absolute truth" says?
Originally posted by FMFIn my opinion even if certain people may feel that they have to lie, that doesn't suddenly make lying right. It doesn't make sense to say something is wrong in essence but sometimes it's ok.
Lying "should be avoided if possible"? Who decides if it is possible to avoid it or not?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeWhen you say 'divine responsibility' to whom should God be accountable and why?
Let's call it 'divine responsibility.'
Think of it this way, if you created life in your bedroom (let's say in your sock drawer) and said life developed into small intelligent beings that had dreams and aspirations, would you. as their creator be perfectly entitled to take away their life whenever you saw fit and for whatever reason? Would you be ...[text shortened]... ility, accountable to no one, simply because you gave them life and are more powerful than them?
-Removed-Either life has intrinsic value or it doesn't. If it does, only God has the right to take it. Naturally we value our own lives more than others and in cases where we feel our own lives are threatened we may to forced to take another life, but I feel that should be the last resort because life if precious. Do you think life has intrinsic value?
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistPolytheism makes no logical sense.
There are lots and lots of gods. We get to pick and choose. Good and evil don't change; they are what we make of them.
The standard is subjective. This is good; it allows birds to flock together.
Good and evil don't change; they are what we make of them.
If good and evil is subjective, then it changes according to personal preference.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkNo I didn't. It's you who keeps peddling your opinions as "universal" or "absolute" truths, not me. If I have, as you've stated, "claimed to agree certain absolutes do exist", copy paste the post where I made the claim here in your your reply to this.
You also claimed to agree certain absolutes do exist for example that it is always wrong to rape someone.