Obedience vs Disobedience

Originally posted by @fmf
If your "logic" and assertions are only for the consumption of people with exactly the same set of convoluted superstitions that you just so happen to have, how on earth can you claim that you are coming up with a "universal" morality for all humans?

What I am saying is that it would make more sense to me if a universal moral standard existed rather than not. There would then be a clear distinction between good and evil. If there is no universal moral standard it means good and evil is merely a subjective human fabrication that cannot be clearly defined.

Originally posted by @fmf
I believe I have demonstrated that moral sensibilities can and do develop without any need for ancient Hebrew mythology and stories about demons and angels and a central god figure who is himself morally incoherent.

But what you call good may be what someone else calls evil, and there is no way for you to know who is right. In reality we all have a sense of what is evil, if 'evil' really is just a human fabrication then what would explain that we are hard wired to recognize it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Let's test your assertions.

My post was about morality... 'moral laws'... not gravity.

Did my A B C have moral content?

Originally posted by @fmf
My post was about morality... 'moral laws'... not gravity.

Did my A B C have moral content?

You said laws, not moral laws. Hence the confusion.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
But what you call good may be what someone else calls evil, and there is no way for you to know who is right.

I talked in some detail about my views on when moral codes differ but you blanked it out. Go take a look at those threads

Originally posted by @fmf
I talked in some detail about my views on when moral codes differ but you blanked it out. Go take a look at those threads

I know what your views are but that is not what I am talking about. I am saying how do you know that what you believe is right and wrong really is right and wrong when there are people that contradict you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You said laws, not moral laws. Hence the confusion.

What a strange thing for you to say. Look at the words in the post you were replying to. Don't be in such a rush.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I know what your views are but that is not what I am talking about. I am saying how do you know that what you believe is right and wrong really is right and wrong when there are people that contradict you.

I've already explained all this. You chose to ignore it at the time. Why are you asking me again?

Originally posted by @fmf
I've already explained all this. You chose to ignore it at the time. Why are you asking me again?

No you ignored the question just like you are ignoring it now. You and I both know that if there is no objective moral standard that exists and has been revealed to us then it is impossible for you to know whether what you believe to be right and wrong really is right and wrong.

Originally posted by @fmf
What a strange thing for you to say. Look at the words in the post you were replying to. Don't be in such a rush.

I was talking about your initial post.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What I am saying is that it would make more sense to me if a universal moral standard existed rather than not. There would then be a clear distinction between good and evil. If there is no universal moral standard it means good and evil is merely a subjective human fabrication that cannot be clearly defined.

If you need to believe in supernatural beings in order to act in a morally sound way, then I welcome that. If you want to big yourself up by slapping on the word "universal" onto whatever you extrapolate from folklore that appeals to your imagination, I suppose it's pretty harmless. Good for you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I was talking about your initial post.

So you are just going to ignore my A B C question about assertions having moral content?

Originally posted by @fmf
If you need to believe in supernatural beings in order to act in a morally sound way, then I welcome that. If you want to big yourself up by slapping on the word "universal" onto whatever you extrapolate from folklore that appeals to your imagination, I suppose it's pretty harmless. Good for you.

When you say 'moral' and you are referring to your subjective opinions of what is 'moral' and there is no real objective morality that exists, how is your opinion of what is 'moral' any more accurate than mine in the first place?

Originally posted by @fmf
So you are just going to ignore my A B C question about assertions having moral content?

If all the physical laws that of the universe that God put into place don't apply to God what good reason do we have to assume that the moral laws that He put in place would apply to Him?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No you ignored the question just like you are ignoring it now.

No I didn't. I tackled it head on. You just breezed past it asking the same little set of questions over and over and over again and ignoring the responses you were getting.