Questions on morality

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You are the one changing the subject. I asked you how you can account for the immaterial laws of logic since you only believe in material things. I can't see how you can.

No, you made an unexplained and outlandish claim that not believing in god undermines logical principles. And now, having been questioned on this, you're asking me to state why it doesn't. That's not how debate works sunshine. You have a proven track record of making blithe assertions which have no basis other than your own opinion, and I'm not going to argue against a conclusion which you cannot demonstrate any reasonable argument in favour of. State your reasoning. But before that, we should finish the previous discussion; you're going to need to admit that you accept that the rejection of the concept of moral absolutes does not necessitate the acceptance that all moral positions are equally valid.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No, you made an unexplained and outlandish claim that not believing in god undermines logical principles. And now, having been questioned on this, you're asking me to state why it doesn't. That's not how debate works sunshine. You have a proven track record of making blithe assertions which have no basis other than your own opinion, and I'm not goin ...[text shortened]... moral absolutes does not necessitate the acceptance that all moral positions are equally valid.

No I said atheism cannot account for the immaterial laws of logic, since atheism is naturalistic by nature. I'm asking you to state why you think Atheism can account for them.

If no one has an objective standard for right and wrong it follows logically that one view on morality cannot be objectively better than another, because everyone's opinions on morality would be subjective.

If you disagree and believe you do have an objective moral standard state your case.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
No I said atheism cannot account for the immaterial laws of logic, since atheism is naturalistic by nature. I'm asking you to state why you think Atheism can account for them.

If no one has an objective standard for right and wrong it follows logically that one view on morality cannot be objectively better than another, because everyone's opinions on ...[text shortened]... jective.

If you disagree and believe you do have an objective moral standard state your case.

Whatever

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Whatever

You're stealing apathist's thunder there.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
This thread is aimed at those who believe that there are no moral absolutes:

Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

"You are allowed to do anything you like as long as it does not hurt yourself or anyone else."

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I find the Bible to be a compelling revelation of God. Let us test your theory and use you as an example. Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

That you find the Bible to be a compelling revelation of God does not explain why someone who does not find the Bible so should feel themselves obliged by the moral messages contained in it. I would say moral system, but it is not clear to me that the Bible contains one. The rules it contains are specific proscriptions (thou shalt not kill, etc.) rather than general rules to apply in specific cases (as with utilitarianism). So to claim a canonical moral system you need to show that one exists in the first place. If you are basing this claim on the Bible then it isn't trivial, the analogous task in English law would be to try to understand the English legal system based on The Laws of Alfred and Guthrum, Magna Carta and a random selection of court cases.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That you find the Bible to be a compelling revelation of God does not explain why someone who does not find the Bible so should feel themselves obliged by the moral messages contained in it. I would say moral system, but it is not clear to me that the Bible contains one. The rules it contains are specific proscriptions (thou shalt not kill, etc.) rathe ...[text shortened]... stem based on The Laws of Alfred and Guthrum, Magna Carta and a random selection of court cases.

Do you personally have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?

Originally posted by Badwater
"You are allowed to do anything you like as long as it does not hurt yourself or anyone else."

Says who? And to whom does this apply?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Whatever

It's just a debating technique. When you realise you're going to lose a point, you drop it like a hot rock and start somewhere else. - Catboy

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Perhaps.

PersonA: I believe murder is immoral.
PersonB: I believe murder is moral.

PersonA: I consider to be murdered is immoral.
PersonB: I consider to be murdered is moral.

PersonB's morality is not consistent and not equally valid.

You're making my case for me. Thanks.

How does one know whether personA's belief is anymore valid than personB's without an objective absolute moral standard?

Every person that has ever existed has a personal belief about this or that. In the absence of an objective moral standard all individual person's beliefs become equally valid because who then can say which person's belief is the correct one?

To say that personA's belief is correct, but personB's belief is incorrect, there must be a standard that exists by which a particular person's beliefs can be measured.

An objective absolute moral standard has no equal because it exists independently of any and all other person's individual belief.

Whether or not a person's belief is in agreement with an objective absolute moral standard is the real issue. That is, if one exists. If not, then any standard is equally valid.

Originally posted by an extremely boring, self-important and tragically uneducated teenager
It's just a debating technique. When you realise you're going to lose a point, you drop it like a hot rock and start somewhere else. - Avalanchethecat

You don't win a debate by repeating the same turgid crap over and over again and ignoring any question that contradict or weaken your position. Your evident satisfaction at boring your opponents into ignoring you and your persistent failure to answer the obvious weaknesses and glaring inconsistencies in your 'arguments' is rather sad I think.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You don't win a debate by repeating the same turgid crap over and over again and ignoring any question that contradict or weaken your position. Your evident satisfaction at boring your opponents into ignoring you and your persistent failure to answer the obvious weaknesses and glaring inconsistencies in your 'arguments' is rather sad I think.

Which question did I ignore?

Your ad hominems actually make you seem like the teenager in this discussion, catboy.

Originally posted by Badwater
"You are allowed to do anything you like as long as it does not hurt yourself or anyone else."

That is a dictate from on high. Why is it that I can't harm myself?

Am I a robot?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Which question did I ignore?

Your ad hominems actually make you seem like the teenager in this discussion, catboy.

You started 'em kid

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
You started 'em kid

Copy and paste any text of mine that you think is an ad hominem.