Or their alleged stenographers. I'm pretty sure that religious morality is the morality of some unknown and long dead copyist. I just don't know why we'd take those weirdos word for anything. It would be funny if it werent so tragic. People today believing that they're defending their gods untenable moral positions when, in mere reality, they're defending the moral positions of Steve who never got over the neighbor killing his dad and fucking his mom (with her enthusiastic consent)...and from that very frustrated pov lex talionis just seems right, you know?

(Yesterday at 8:11 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions.

Yes, they're just opinions. This is what people keep telling you.

Quote:I wouldn't be able to hold anyone to that opinion, especially the murderer.

This is why we have law enforcement. They're literally the muscle that backs up the moral code. When people decide that they no longer want to follow any sort of social contract, it comes down to might makes right.

Quote:To him, my opinion doesn't apply since there's no universal law against murder.

Yes...? What part of serial killers not giving a sailing damn about morality or the law do you not understand?

Quote:Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

And how would that be any different than the war that the USA is currently engaged in with Iran? Aside from the obvious differences in armament? Murder for self-interest with no regard for the law is a pretty good description of that.

(Yesterday at 8:59 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:11 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions.

Yes, they're just opinions. This is what people keep telling you.

-and People™ may be wrong.  Maybe they aren't just opinions.  Maybe some of them are true opinions. It really doesn't matter whether or not there are gods. If there are gods...then maybe they're just opinions. If there are no gods, maybe some of them are true opinions. This isn't really a meta ethical dispute as far as I can tell.

All this talk of universal laws.....and if we mean by that..like..is there some law like gravity, which makes it impossible for me to jump to the moon....that prevents people from murdering. Well, no..no matter what else may be true or false, no. I cant jump to the moon but nothing about the universe prevents someone from murdering someone else. Weird oversight for a morally created universe, but there it is. It's a fact, maybe a bad fact - again, created universe. But if we mean by a universal law that no matter how you contextualize it, murdering a bunch of people always entails some specific set of harms in fact...well...that just seems true. I could be wrong, but I'd love to hear how...again, in fact. How could it possibly be true that serial killing is not bad? Is that not exactly the sort of shit we're talking about when we talk about bad? When we talk about evil?

(Yesterday at 9:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:59 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Yes, they're just opinions. This is what people keep telling you.

-and People™ may be wrong.  Maybe they aren't just opinions.  Maybe some of them are true opinions.  It really doesn't matter whether or not there are gods.  If there are gods...then maybe they're just opinions.  If there are no gods, maybe some of them are true opinions.  This isn't really a meta ethical dispute as far as I can tell.

All this talk of universal laws.....and if we mean by that..like..is there some law like gravity, which makes it impossible for me to jump to the moon....that prevents people from murdering.  Well, no..no matter what else may be true or false, no.  I cant jump to the moon but nothing about the universe prevents someone from murdering someone else.  Weird oversight for a morally created universe, but there it is.  It's a fact, maybe a bad fact - again, created universe.  But if we mean by a universal law that no matter how you contextualize it, murdering a bunch of people always entails some specific set of harms in fact...well...that just seems true.  I could be wrong, but I'd love to hear how...again, in fact.  How could it possibly be true that serial killing is not bad?  Is that not exactly the sort of shit we're talking about when we talk about bad?  When we talk about evil?

We already have an example of killing that is morally acceptable in honor killing within the Muslim faith. It's not a huge stretch to go from one honor killing to a series of them. While most of human society finds this practice abhorrent and immoral, calling it murder, it remains moral within a certain narrow world view.

I think they're wrong about that.  I don't think that honor killing actually repairs honor.   I think that even if you believe in that sort of shit honor killings don't make sense.  But i do recognize that as a behavior, as a phenomena, it's aiming at the same thing I am. So there's no dispute over principle, there's a dispute over particular and specific facts. I think I have a better command of those specific facts...and so, a better command of the moral nature of that behavior. Is that weird?

I know that honor killers are trying to do a good thing...I just don't think that they are. Am I wrong?

(Yesterday at 10:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I think they're wrong about that.  I don't think that honor killing actually repairs honor.   I think that even if you believe in that sort of shit honor killings don't make sense.  But i do recognize that as a behavior, as a phenomena, it's aiming at the same thing I am.  So there's no dispute over principle, there's a dispute over particular and specific facts.  I think I have a better command of those specific facts...and so, a better command of the moral nature of that behavior.  Is that weird?

I know that honor killers are trying to do a good thing...I just don't think that they are.  Am I wrong?

I agree in thinking they're wrong, but it's not about what you or I (or the rest of human society) thinks. It's what their morality does and doesn't condone. In keeping with the theme of the thread, honor killing, within that narrow worldview, are seen as a good, right and moral.

I do not think your wrong in thinking that honor killings are trying to do a good thing and failing.  Hell, I agree. What you and I are both missing is immersion in a culture where such a practice is not only accepted, but viewed as moral.

-and still within that narrow scope may or may not be moral. I'm not missing being immersed in a culture that calls evil good. I was raised in one and have done many bad things, lol. From that experience, I don't believe that the (purported) illusion is entirely complete. I believe, from experience, that even if you're raised in a culture that calls evil good you can still doubt that claim. That you can still observe contrapositive facts to your relativistic indoctrination.

Can you remember ever believing something, and having doubts about something.... that was not true? I can.

(Yesterday at 11:20 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: -and still within that narrow scope may or may not be moral.  I'm not missing being immersed in a culture that calls evil good.  I was raised in one and have done many bad things, lol.  From that experience, I don't believe that the (purported) illusion is entirely complete.  I believe, from experience, that even if you're raised in a culture that calls evil good you can still doubt that claim.  That you can still observe contrapositive facts to your relativistic indoctrination.

Can you remember ever believing something, and having doubts about something.... that was not true?  I can.

There will always be individuals within the group that doubt and/or disagree with the morality. Just like there are Christians who think capital punishment is wrong despite the command from on high that a murder be killed. There will always be outliers in any moral code. It's what, in my view, keeps them from being objective.

I used to support capital punishment, believing it fair and just, so yes I have held beliefs that I now consider to be untrue. My subjective morality changed with time and better understanding.

(Yesterday at 4:56 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: So then nothing can be wrong

Something can be wrong for you. Even with you and a group with which you might affiliate. Just be respectful in understanding that not everyone will share your perspective and please be mindful of not forcing that belief on others.

(Yesterday at 5:03 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:00 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: The moment I see "god" or "gods" I will stop reading. It's a red herring since I haven't mentioned God. I'm doing an internal critique of atheism.

Moral realism? What's that? Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too

***Looks at the title of the post where OP clearly wrote the word G. O. D. and wonders how stupid he thinks we are.***

Red herring = I don't like your answer

Before I went to bed last night I decided to bow out of this. Op is just too ignorant and too dishonest to deal with. Not gonna waste more time on this overconfident fool

All this long wind up.... I started thinking this is gonna end with a big fizzle, a big disappointment. Seems I was correct

First off, op didn't even even know what atheism is. He said it's the claim that no gods exist. Look it up yourself, I can't be arsed anymore to quote the troll, since he is gonna deny even if you quote him verbatim ( see: using the word god in his thread title and op).

The biggest disappointment however seems to be that this entire thread seems to be about ops position:
I don't like reality without objective or absolute morals, therefore they exist (therefore my god as giver of morality exists).. He is unable to understand that reality gives no fuck about his preferences.

He is probably too ignorant to know that his argument is, in fact, the old trotted out moral argument.

His red herring tourette also probably only documents his inability of viewing a bigger picture, of having more complex that just the most simple thoughts.

What an utter disappointment.