Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    18 Oct '17 23:10
    If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
    and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
    as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
    the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

    We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
    personal set of morals.
  2. Standard member karoly aczel
    Console Peasant
    19 Oct '17 01:29
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
    and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
    as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
    the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

    We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
    personal set of morals.
    This seems right.

    I couldn't for the life of me come up with a good answer for either question in the other thread.
  3. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    19 Oct '17 07:39
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
    and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
    as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
    the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

    We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
    personal set of morals.
    Sure thing
  4. Subscriber apathist
    looking for loot
    21 Oct '17 17:03
    Objectively, do what you think is right. This has been the case since, I dunno, the beginning?
  5. Standard member dj2becker
    Hoarse whisperer
    21 Oct '17 17:10
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    If this is the case then a universal good and bad do not exist
    and any gods which may or may not exist cannot be viewed
    as "good" in any universal way. (Individuals may agree with
    the god's morals but it would not necessarily be universal agreement)

    We would also like to know where and how this "god" obtained his
    personal set of morals.
    If that is the case torturing a baby for fun cannot always be wrong, but we all know it is.
  6. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    21 Oct '17 21:32
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    If that is the case torturing a baby for fun cannot always be wrong, but we all know it is.
    What? Can you explain.
  7. Standard member dj2becker
    Hoarse whisperer
    22 Oct '17 03:56
    Originally posted by @wolfgang59
    What? Can you explain.
    If objective morals don't exist, how is the opinion that it is wrong to torture babies for fun any more valid that the opinion that it isn't?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '17 04:12
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    If objective morals don't exist, how is the opinion that it is wrong to torture babies for fun any more valid that the opinion that it isn't?
    Are you of the opinion that torturing babies is wrong? Presumably, your answer is yes. What do you base your moral stance vis a vis the torturing of babies on? Is there a line of ancient Hebrew text or something?
  9. Standard member dj2becker
    Hoarse whisperer
    22 Oct '17 05:54
    Originally posted by @fmf
    Are you of the opinion that torturing babies is wrong? Presumably, your answer is yes. What do you base your moral stance vis a vis the torturing of babies on? Is there a line of ancient Hebrew text or something?
    Because I believe in God I subscribe to moral absolutism. The Bible says you should love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '17 06:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Because I believe in God I subscribe to moral absolutism. The Bible says you should love your neighbor as you love yourself.

    Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism
    If it is your opinion that 'torturing babies for fun' is wrong because there's a book you happen to like that says you should love your neighbour as you love yourself, then that's good news for any babies you come into contact with. I don't need the book that you like in order to find 'torturing babies for fun' to be wrong. Having said that, I welcome the effect that book has on your behaviour in so far as it results in morally sound acts.
  11. Standard member dj2becker
    Hoarse whisperer
    22 Oct '17 07:03
    Originally posted by @fmf
    If it is your opinion that 'torturing babies for fun' is wrong because there's a book you happen to like that says you should love your neighbour as you love yourself, then that's good news for any babies you come into contact with. I don't need the book that you like in order to find 'torturing babies for fun' to be wrong. Having said that, I welcome the effect that book has on your behaviour in so far as it results in morally sound acts.
    But you still don't believe that there is a universally 'correct' answer to the question, "Is it wrong to torture babies for fun?". If morality is subjective as you say it is it then it is simply your opinion vs someone else's and someone with a different opinion to you is just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '17 07:29
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    But you still don't believe that there is a universally 'correct' answer to the question, "Is it wrong to torture babies for fun?". If morality is subjective as you say it is it then it is simply your opinion vs someone else's and someone with a different opinion to you is just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours.
    You are entitled to have whatever opinions you want about the morality of torturing babies, or about homosexual sex, or about 'getting angry with your brother ', or about exterminating 6 million people in death camps. You are entitled to your opinions on these things although, to varying degrees, the law may restrict your ability to translate your opinions on these matters into actions.
  13. Standard member dj2becker
    Hoarse whisperer
    22 Oct '17 07:47
    Originally posted by @fmf
    You are entitled to have whatever opinions you want about the morality of torturing babies, or about homosexual sex, or about 'getting angry with your brother ', or about exterminating 6 million people in death camps. You are entitled to your opinions on these things although, to varying degrees, the law may restrict your ability to translate your opinions on these matters into actions.
    So Hitler was entitled to his opinions? If there is no objective standard by which to differentiate between good and evil, how do you know that Hitler's opinions were wrong?
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '17 07:50
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    So Hitler was entitled to his opinions?
    Of course he was entitled to his opinions. You are entitled to yours. I am entitled to mine.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Oct '17 07:50
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    If there is no objective standard by which to differentiate between good and evil, how do you know that Hitler's opinions were wrong?
    You've asked me about this before. My answer hasn't changed.