(September 24, 2014 at 5:11 am)Harris Wrote:

(September 14, 2014 at 12:21 am)Surgenator Wrote: First, your asserting there is an absolute moral law(s).

Is not incest or to torcher a baby reckon as absolute immoral? If so then from where that sense of absoluteness comes from?

In the absence of God there are no objective moral values and duties. Ethics is basically a subjective illusion of human beings.

Abosolute moral laws and objective moral laws are not the same thing. Absolute means that they apply in all circumstances without exception. Objective means they are independent of subjective opinion. If God thought up these laws then your religious laws are not objective either, as they depend on the subjective opinion of God. Being a god doesn't make your pronouncements objective.

Are there absolute moral laws? It's an interesting question, but since the subject is whether God's law provides a foundation for morals that secular views cannot, it is irrelevant. Since your religious laws are dependent on the being called God they are thoroughly subjective, whether they are absolute or not. Since your religion doesn't provide an objective foundation for morals, only a secular morality or that of a different religion than yours can provide an objective moral code.

(September 24, 2014 at 8:29 pm)rasetsu Wrote: If God thought up these laws then your religious laws are not objective either, as they depend on the subjective opinion of God. Being a god doesn't make your pronouncements objective.

Are there absolute moral laws? It's an interesting question, but since the subject is whether God's law provides a foundation for morals that secular views cannot, it is irrelevant. Since your religious laws are dependent on the being called God they are thoroughly subjective, whether they are absolute or not. Since your religion doesn't provide an objective foundation for morals, only a secular morality or that of a different religion than yours can provide an objective moral code.

Wow that's GOOD rasetsu! I have saved that pic for future use. Thanks a bunch!

Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck did you guys read all that bullshit? I can't even begin to muster the patience it takes to read something so long and stupid from the get go, let alone put the work in to counter. You guys are goddamned professionals.

(September 24, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Exian Wrote: Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck did you guys read all that bullshit? I can't even begin to muster the patience it takes to read something so long and stupid from the get go, let alone put the work in to counter. You guys are goddamned professionals.

I read the first paragraph and realized it was going to be a waste of time, so I scrolled down to see the conclusion.

(September 24, 2014 at 9:41 pm)Exian Wrote: Jesus fucking Christ. How the fuck did you guys read all that bullshit? I can't even begin to muster the patience it takes to read something so long and stupid from the get go, let alone put the work in to counter. You guys are goddamned professionals.

Somebody read it?

I just read the beginning and the parts that were direct replies to me.

Cheaters! How do you know the parts you didn't read weren't spot on?

(September 24, 2014 at 10:41 pm)Exian Wrote: Cheaters! How do you know the parts you didn't read weren't spot on?

Does that seem likely to you?

(September 13, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Harris Wrote: Although atheism fails to answer this dilemma, it sternly criticise morals based on religion by undermining the fact that religion is the only institute in the entire human history that successfully delivered and implemented efficient rules for a moral life.

Given the entirety of history, this statement is clearly false and fatally undermines any thesis you might be developing. I can't say what that might be, because I stopped when I read this laughably naive sentence.