There Is No Sin!

[Banned]

My life is temporary.  The systems will persists, and people who are still alive will continue to do things, informed by those systems, with consequences.  That this is "moral" is just a matter of definition.  It's what we're talking about.

Now, I want you to take a breath. No, really..stop and take a breath. Can you see how a person..seeing some of these questions..might doubt that you even have a moral sense to begin with, or have any idea what anyone is talking about when they discuss morality? Is that what you want to communicate? Is that really accurate, in regards to yourself?

What makes one moral view any better than another, when in the end, there is nothing but a howling wind in the desert?

I am discussing the evolutionary slant and nothing else.
What is 'moral sense,' when it's temporal, circumstantial, changeable and purely relative?
How can you even start by naming something as if it has an ounce of 'righteousness' ?

[Amarok]

So why is anyone called a criminal when the very lawmakers will be fodder as well?

Because they still are a criminal regardless if both die 

Nothing matters once they're all dead, in the scheme of evolution.

Good thing prescriptive morality has fuck all to do with the scheme of evolution . And meaning does not depend on being a part of the scheme of evolution . 

So you think you matter, but a murderer doesn't.

Never said that 

Can you justify your existence, other than being a well developed worm, a resource consuming putz

Yes i can but why should i do so to you? Humans are not well developed worms your sad attempts at demograting evolution is just sad . And yes i consume resources that has little to do with anything . 

So the moral system is a temporary condition.

The people are temporary the moral facts are not . 

How is that 'moral' as opposed to accidental or convenient?

Because it is moral and is not  accidental or convenient.

---

What makes one moral view any better than another, when in the end, there is nothing but a howling wind in the desert?

The fact that one morality is better then another .Whether their is howling wind in the dessert .

I am discussing the evolutionary slant and nothing else. 

Then your discussing the wrong thing 

What is 'moral sense,' when it's temporal, circumstantial, changeable and purely relative?

Strawman and even in all the above moral sense can still exist . 

How can you even start by naming something as if it has an ounce of 'righteousness' ?

Yup we can . Well you can't your morality is worthless bunkum .

---

Once again banned shows his ignorance .And i already linked to what addresses his nonsense.

[Banned]

Good thing prescriptive morality has fuck all to do with the scheme of evolution . And meaning does not depend on being a part of the scheme of evolution . 

The people are temporary the moral facts are not . 

Because it is moral and is not  accidental or convenient.

The fact that one morality is better then another .Whether their is howling wind in the dessert .

Then your discussing the wrong thing 

...and even in all the above moral sense can still exist . 

Yup we can . Well you can't your morality is worthless bunkum .

So according to what you have written here, morality of some sort is not temporary, has nothing to do with evolution, is not an accident or purely convenient,
and yet is relative - since one is better than another - as if there is an ultimate morality in any given situation - or at least the best one,
which in this case is yours over mine, because according to your standard I am WRONG.

So if I you had the power to start a new society or kingdom, you could wipe out people like me that ask you questions, and teach them that your morality is the true one, and people would then believe in that - because it is the 'best moral' of the day.

If your morals dominate here, then I'd be sinning against you to disregard them.

All I have to do is wait until you pass away, and then the system will change.

But you have hinted that morality is an ongoing thing that isn't temporal, and has nothing to do with evolution, but something else like the fact that you are here.

Does that sound like the begining of a new religous regime?

[The Grand Nudger]

What makes one moral view any better than another, when in the end, there is nothing but a howling wind in the desert?

I am discussing the evolutionary slant and nothing else.
What is 'moral sense,' when it's temporal, circumstantial, changeable and purely relative?
How can you even start by naming something as if it has an ounce of 'righteousness' ?

Take a breath.......take a breath..are you asking these questions because you're drawing a complete blank, personally?

[Amarok]

So according to what you have written here, morality of some sort is not temporary, has nothing to do with evolution, is not an accident or purely convenient,

Yup 

and yet is relative - since one is better than another - as if there is an ultimate morality in any given situation - or at least the best one,

Nope there  one best morality 

which in this case is yours over mine, because according to your standard I am WRONG. 

Yup theistic morality sucks in every incarnation .Define nature ,Divine command etc etc. By the way it's my standard your morality is moronic.

So if I you had the power to start a new society or kingdom, you could wipe out people like me that ask you questions, and teach them that your morality is the true one, and people would then believe in that - because it is the 'best moral' of the day.

Nope wiping them out would be immoral but teaching objective morality would not . And questions are not a reason to wipe people out . And people if they were rational would . An it has nothing to do with that day .  

If your morals dominate here, then I'd be sinning against you to disregard them.

You would be a criminal if you didn't follow the morals rules . But no your not sinning against me you would simply breaking the objective rules . I'm simply following the rules i'm not a god nor trying to be .

All I have to do is wait until you pass away, and then the system will change.

Nope the moral facts will remain after i die . And you'll still be a criminal . 

But you have hinted that morality is an ongoing thing that isn't temporal, and has nothing to do with evolution, but something else like the fact that you are here.

Moral facts are not reliant on evolution and it's related but not reliant on the fact i'm here .

Does that sound like the begining of a new religous regime?

Nope not a religion and nor a regime . It's simply moral reasoning . It's no more either then 2 +2 = 4

---

Seriously read up on this before commenting . You just look absurd .

[The Grand Nudger]

So if I you had the power to start a new society or kingdom, you could wipe out people like me that ask you questions, and teach them that your morality is the true one, and people would then believe in that - because it is the 'best moral' of the day.

-on this......I could probably be tempted to consider it....wiping out some people x to acheive qualitative improvement in society...but that's..objectively, a failure of mine and due to my own private ticks.

Thankfully, might does not make right, and no one in their right mind would ever put me in charge of shit like that if it did.

[Amarok]

What makes one moral view any better than another, when in the end, there is nothing but a howling wind in the desert?

I am discussing the evolutionary slant and nothing else.
What is 'moral sense,' when it's temporal, circumstantial, changeable and purely relative?
How can you even start by naming something as if it has an ounce of 'righteousness' ?

Take a breath.......take a breath..are you asking these questions because you're drawing a complete blank, personally?

No he's just trying a weak apologist gotcha questions will ignore any answers ignore any sources that back up your points . It's not about understanding it's about scoring apologist points .

---

So if I you had the power to start a new society or kingdom, you could wipe out people like me that ask you questions, and teach them that your morality is the true one, and people would then believe in that - because it is the 'best moral' of the day.

-on this......I could probably be tempted to consider it....wiping out some people x...but that's..objectively, a failure of mine and due to my own private ticks.

Thankfully, might does not make right, and no one in their right mind would ever put me in charge of shit like that if it did.

Indeed might is not a source of right .And my personal whim does justify wiping people out for moral ignorance or failings .

[Banned]

Nope there  one best morality 

Yup theistic morality sucks in every incarnation .Define nature ,Divine command etc etc. By the way it's my standard your morality is moronic.

Nope wiping them out would be immoral but teaching objective morality would not . And questions are not a reason to wipe people out . And people if they were rational would . An it has nothing to do with that day .  

You would be a criminal if you didn't follow the morals rules . But no your not sinning against me you would simply breaking the objective rules . I'm simply following the rules i'm not a god nor trying to be .

Nope the moral facts will remain after i die . And you'll still be a criminal . 

Moral facts are not reliant on evolution and it's related but not reliant on the fact i'm here .

Nope not a religion and nor a regime . It's simply moral reasoning . It's no more either then 2 +2 = 4

Seriously read up on this before commenting . You just look absurd .

So your morality is the highest here, and I am a criminal, and you are pretty sure it's not a temporary regime of your superior reasoning either, but that people will remember you?

No, time and death will wear that away very very quickly, and there'll be nothing but the howling wind of the desert.

---

Indeed might is not a source of right .And my personal whim DOES JUSTIFY WIPING PEOPLE OUT...

In your previous post you said that you don't have a mind to make a regime, and that wiping people out wasn't part of the deal. You would KILL them for (get this) failings to gulp down your 'morality.'
But of course under pressure dictators have to do what they do, don't they?

---

So if I you had the power to start a new society or kingdom, you could wipe out people like me that ask you questions, and teach them that your morality is the true one, and people would then believe in that - because it is the 'best moral' of the day.

-on this......I could probably be tempted to consider it....wiping out some people x to acheive qualitative improvement in society...but that's..objectively, a failure of mine and due to my own private ticks.

Thankfully, might does not make right, and no one in their right mind would ever put me in charge of shit like that if it did.

Don't worry Tizheruk is handling it.

[Amarok]

So your morality is the highest here,

The most reasonable yup

and I am a criminal,

Nope  your simply mistaken 

and you are pretty sure it's not a temporary regime of your superior reasoning either,

Nope 

but that people will remember you?

Does not matter the morality facts will outlive me . And whether i'm remembered or not . The best morality will still be the best morality . 

No, time and death will wear that away very very quickly,

Nope time and death cannot make objective facts disappear. Quickly or slowly .

 and there'll be nothing but the howling wind of the desert.

And the moral facts and best morality will still be such .

[Banned]

Take a breath.......take a breath..are you asking these questions because you're drawing a complete blank, personally?

Is there a complete blank of 'righteousness' in evolution or not?

According to you there are social 'sensibilities' grown from circumstance and human interventions - a product of humans and nature, or even an inherent but very subtle and unspoken righteousness in the whole scheme of things.