Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo I don't struggle with that I actually appreciate your honesty. Logically an atheist cannot believe in moral absolutes and you are not denying this.
I do not believe in a divine moral law giver. I know you struggle with that.
Moral laws therefore can only come from man, and as a result, are not perfect or absolute.
Originally posted by FMFI'm highly suspicious of the moral character of a person if their moral values are externally derived rather than personally generated. (Or more correctly, socially generated).
But I have "categorically stated" that I find people murdering others in order to eat them wrong and that I won't do it or condone it. If that's not good enough for you, why should I care? Has a supernatural being told you cannibalism is wrong? Is that why you feel able to "categorically state" that it is wrong?
Originally posted by FMFYou categorically stating that something is always wrong still doesn't explain why your 'nature and nurture' gives you the correct moral standards and someone else's 'nature and nurture' gives them incorrect moral standards. And you say all of this without even positing a moral law. Without the existence of a unifying moral law and hence moral absolutes, there are no correct answers to questions of morality.
But I have "categorically stated" that I find people murdering others in order to eat them wrong and that I won't do it or condone it. If that's not good enough for you, why should I care? Has a supernatural being told you cannibalism is wrong? Is that why you feel able to "categorically state" that it is wrong?
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you say you got your standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?
I'm highly suspicious of the moral character of a person if their moral values are externally derived rather than personally generated. (Or more correctly, socially generated).
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThere is no "unifying moral law". That is simply a figment of your superstition.
You categorically stating that something is always wrong still doesn't explain why your 'nature and nurture' gives you the correct moral standards and someone else's 'nature and nurture' gives them incorrect moral standards. And you say all of this without even positing a moral law. Without the existence of a unifying moral law and hence moral absolutes, there are no correct answers to questions of morality.
Why does Fetchmyjunk need me to persuade him "categorically" that murdering people and eating them is morally unsound, and why does he feel that if he tells me that murdering people and eating them is morally unsound that he does so more "categorically" than people who don't believe in his god figure?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIf you mean, why should you agree with my analysis? Then I can say that I do not give two hoots. If you want me to believe you when you claim there has been some supernatural intervention in matters of morality, then you need to make your case.
And you know this how?
1 edit
[i]Without a moral law that is universally binding you cannot claim that moral absolutes exist that apply to everyone as you have done.[/b]Copy paste one of the posts of mine where I claimed that "moral absolutes exist that apply to everyone". You're just making stuff up.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkPeople can disagree with me if they want to but I will judge their actions by the same moral principles as I hold myself responsible to. That is not claiming that "moral absolutes exist that apply to everyone" nor is it claiming that there is a "unifying moral law".
You said rape is always wrong and anyone who believes otherwise is wrong.
Originally posted by FMFWould you agree that truth is what corresponds to reality and or logic? In other words, truth corresponds to something else because truth is a statement that properly relates to something else?
If you mean, why should you agree with my analysis? Then I can say that I do not give two hoots. If you want me to believe you when you claim there has been some supernatural intervention in matters of morality, then you need to make your case.
Originally posted by FMFBut then aren't you saying that the moral principles you hold yourself responsible to are always right and are therefore absolute in that sense?
People can disagree with me if they want to but I will judge their actions by the same moral principles as I hold myself responsible to. That is not claiming that "moral absolutes exist that apply to everyone" nor is it claiming that there is a "unifying moral law".
1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkMore go-to off-the-shelf ripcord blather from you. Look, you can go on and on and on and on about how your god figure and your afterlife and your supernatural phenomena are all "the truth" and insist that your mythology and superstitions "correspond to reality and logic" till you are blue in the face, I have no reason to believe you.
Would you agree that truth is what corresponds to reality and or logic? In other words, truth corresponds to something else because truth is a statement that properly relates to something else?