The top 10 benefits of atheism

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
No, I don't think what I posted begs that question at all. Did you not even read what I wrote?

If society is what determines moral truth, then how is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that a society determines what is right and wrong because a society determines what is right and wrong?

Originally posted by FMF
It's as if you have not read or understood anything I've ever posted.

If you think the morals derived from a certain society are obligatory for all member of that society, then from where do they derive the right to impose them on people?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you think the morals derived from a certain society are obligatory for all member of that society, then from where do they derive the right to impose them on people?

We discussed this before at length. You are just repeating yourself. I don't feel I need to.

Originally posted by FMF
We discussed this before at length. You are just repeating yourself. I don't feel I need to.

Obviously you don't want to explain again why Nazi Germany had the right to impose its morals on its people.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Obviously you don't want to explain again why Nazi Germany had the right to impose its morals on its people.

"Explain again"? What are you on about? When did I "explain" any such thing before?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If society is what determines moral truth, then how is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that a society determines what is right and wrong because a society determines what is right and wrong?

Didn't I explain that people make society? Society doesn't make people. You keep talking as if society is something completely separate from people and imposes morality on them against their will. - It is people themselves who contribute to a shared morality that binds society together. People decide what is right and wrong, and yes, some people (from a different society) may decide something is right that we decide is wrong. That is the world we are living in. (A world 'without' moral absolutes from a divine law giver).

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I believe true morality is encapsulated in the behavior and character of Christ and we are to follow his teachings and example obviously within the bounds of reason that he has given us.

Does that mean that as far as you are concerned all of the moral rules that are absolute are encapsulated in, or can be derived by reasoning upon, the behavior and character of Christ? Can a person or society that has no exposure to this source, come to have these moral rules any other way?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Didn't I explain that people make society? Society doesn't make people. You keep talking as if society is something completely separate from people and imposes morality on them against their will. - It is people themselves who contribute to a shared morality that binds society together. People decide what is right and wrong, and yes, some people (fro ...[text shortened]... That is the world we are living in. (A world 'without' moral absolutes from a divine law giver).

So if a few people within a society do not abide by the morals made by the majority do the majority have the right to impose their morals upon a minority within the same society?

Originally posted by JS357
Does that mean that as far as you are concerned all of the moral rules that are absolute are encapsulated in, or can be derived by reasoning upon, the behavior and character of Christ? Can a person or society that has no exposure to this source, come to have these moral rules any other way?

I believe God has given everyone a conscience.

Originally posted by FMF
"Explain again"? What are you on about? When did I "explain" any such thing before?

I guess the sarcasm went right over your head. 😉

Most of the things you claim to have explained you haven't. 😛

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I guess the sarcasm went right over your head.

Your sarcasm seems to stem from your peculiar sense of entitlement and your lack of common decency and therefore comes across as deceitful and boring, if you'll forgive my candour.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Most of the things you claim to have explained you haven't.

This isn't true. I think you deliberately try to grind people down and then seize upon it when they express frustration or refuse to repeat themselves.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if a few people within a society do not abide by the morals made by the majority do the majority have the right to impose their morals upon a minority within the same society?

Yes. (If we are discussing the cornerstones of morality).

If, for example, the majority within a society judge murder to be immoral, then the few who view murder as morally acceptable will have to abide by the law put in place by the majority and face imprisonment if they break this law.

The better societies however allow for diversity of morality (on things like lifestyle choices etc), as long as the cornerstones of morality are not infringed (people not harmed or killed etc).

Edit: Where do you live, Pluto?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes. (If we are discussing the cornerstones of morality).

If, for example, the majority within a society judge murder to be immoral, then the few who view murder as morally acceptable will have to abide by the law put in place by the majority and face imprisonment if they break this law.

The better societies however allow for diversity of moral ...[text shortened]... morality are not infringed (people not harmed or killed etc).

Edit: Where do you live, Pluto?

And if the majority within a society like Nazi Germany believe that Jews need to be exterminated they have the right to do so?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
And if the majority within a society like Nazi Germany believe that Jews need to be exterminated they have the right to do so?

Not by the moral standards of my own society. You get that right?

(You don't get that).