@AngelThMan

Give your obsession with the possibility of objective morality, would you consider yourself Team Butters or Team Cartman?

Boru

(October 16, 2026 at 6:22 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 16, 2026 at 5:40 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: So you're not going to answer ANY of the questions posed to you before demanding we answer another one of yours?

Saying "yes" there is evil in a world without a deity, though not providing the standard is not answering. Can you provide a standard?

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

(October 18, 2026 at 4:22 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(October 18, 2026 at 4:05 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Then I was right from the start. There is no such thing as right or wrong or evil. You sure took a long route to come around to what I was saying

Quit reading your interpretation into my words. Of course there is right and wrong. It's built into the moral framework. Even an uneducated ignoramus like yourself should be able to figure that out from the number of times it's been shouted out to you. But, there is no action that you can point to that will always, without fail, be absolutely morally right or absolutely morally wrong. It's all dependent on the circumstances.

Aren't the circumstances always relevant? I think I can go out on a limb and say that using a live human baby as a hockey puck for fun is always wrong. I can imagine other circumstances that might be used to justify it, but 'for fun' being the motivation is part of the scenario. I don't think objective morality exists for every situation, but I think there are situations where we can categorically state that something is always wrong.

(8 hours ago)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(October 16, 2026 at 6:22 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Saying "yes" there is evil in a world without a deity, though not providing the standard is not answering. Can you provide a standard?

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

(October 18, 2026 at 8:20 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: You can't get away from subjective morality.

I'm a moral realist but I agree with this. We can't escape using our own subjective perception and reasoning to determine what is right and wrong. If god A has the one true objective morality, we still have to use our own subjective perception and reasoning to arrive at adopting god A's morality. And then we have to use our subjective perception and reasoning to execute that morality.

I think some things are objectively right or wrong, but our means of understanding and determining right and wrong are inescapably subjective. The best we can hope for is a subjective morality with some correct objective elements.

(Yesterday at 5:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 18, 2026 at 11:54 pm)Kitan Etos Wrote: 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.

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

We DO have to abide by their law, or face the consequences, same as any other law.

There’s a difference between not being able to show a path to moral values and not being able to show a path to whatever you accept as moral values. Angel. I’ve seen paths to subjective, relative, and objective morals in this thread. You have something else in mind.

At the end of the day, though, perhaps there really is no path to whatever you have in mind for moral values, atheism is irrelevant to that. An -actual- red herring, if you wanted an example of what that term accurately refers to.

(6 hours ago)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:41 am)AngelThMan Wrote: So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

We DO have to abide by their law, or face the consequences, same as any other law.

You didn't follow or read the whole debate. He was saying that we have to respect subjective laws. Except people have different subjective laws. What if one subjective law conflicts with another subjective law? Who's right morally? That was my point that you haven't addressed.

There has to be an arbiter. You can offer as many opinions, evidence or arguments that you think makes your opinion about morality right. But if no one is the arbiter, then it remains opinion and not moral values. You might invoke the law of the land. But people like Jimmy Saville raped 100 children and never faced any legal consequences. He lived a full life believing his reputation remained intact (he was beloved) and got away with it. Why should he care about "subjective" laws??

Let's see if you can stick to a topic intelligently. I predict bs derailing rather than taking on the dilemma.

(7 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(8 hours ago)Mister Agenda Wrote: You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

Questions not being answers doesn't make them red herrings, or intended to derail. If you won't clarify any of your positions when asked, you're not holding up your end and I don't see any point in trying to have a discussion with you. Apparently very few other people do either. You seem uninterested in getting anywhere but where you started.

(6 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(6 hours ago)Mister Agenda Wrote: We DO have to abide by their law, or face the consequences, same as any other law.

You didn't follow or read the whole debate. He was saying that we have to respect subjective laws. Except people have different subjective laws. What if one subjective law conflicts with another subjective law? Who's right morally? That was my point that you haven't addressed.

There has to be an arbiter. You can offer as many opinions, evidence or arguments that you think makes your opinion about morality right. But if no one is the arbiter, then it remains opinion and not moral values. You might invoke the law of the land. But people like Jimmy Saville raped 100 children and never faced any legal consequences. He lived a full life believing his reputation remained intact (he was beloved) and got away with it. Why should he care about "subjective" laws??

Let's see if you can stick to a topic intelligently. I predict bs derailing rather than taking on the dilemma.

It's kind of redundant to call civil and criminal laws subjective. It's not like they're determined with an objective moral calculator instead of by people doing (hopefully) their best within their limitations and the complexity of balancing conflicting interests.

When two laws are in conflict, the one that causes the least harm and the most benefits fairly is the better one morally. In the American system, the judicial branch is the arbiter. I may disagree with judicial decisions, but there are usually consequences for ignoring them, and I would have to weigh whether doing so would be worth it.

Not sure what Jimmy Sevile has to do with conflicting laws, except that he was concerned about criminal laws enough to put a good deal of effort into evading them. The laws we enact are not supernatural, they can't catch everyone.

At the risk of getting your usual response to a question, do you think there must be an afterlife consequence for Jimmy Savile?