Sin, I don't believe in Sin.

[ScienceLovesGod]

You're missing my point. If a trees falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes. Just because there is no-one to hear the sound, does not mean it doesn't occur.

That is an example of objective perspective. Now apply that to morality, and you'll see where I am coming from.

[elunico13]

There is no atheistic "worldview", moron.

Everyone has a worldview. Even atheists have a worldview.
1) God only exists 2) God and nature exist 3) Only nature exists
Atheism can only derive worldviews coming from the 3rd category.

A network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which all observations are interpreted.

You may be one of the many that have never analyzed their own.

[Minimalist]

Atheists agree on only one thing. That your version of god...and all the others... are plain silly creations of primitive men who are scared shitless of the idea that they don't have a celestial big brother.

On everything else, we are like herding cats.

[genkaus]

Yes. Just because there is no-one to hear the sound, does not mean it doesn't occur.

That is an example of objective perspective. Now apply that to morality, and you'll see where I am coming from.

What you apparently fail to realize is that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Sound is a physical phenomenon that does not require conscious evaluation or perspective. Morality, on the other hand, depends exclusively on conscious evaluation. To compare, ask yourself, "If a tree falls in the forest, is it right or wrong?".

[Paul the Human]

Civilized society can say that it's wrong. That's the rule of law. Laws exist for reasons (most of them). "Objectively wrong" has nothing to do with it.

Societies laws are based on the 10 commandments

Haha! No.

[genkaus]

Everyone has a worldview. Even atheists have a worldview.
1) God only exists 2) God and nature exist 3) Only nature exists
Atheism can only derive worldviews coming from the 3rd category.

A network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which all observations are interpreted.

You may be one of the many that have never analyzed their own.

Wrong. What you are trying to do here is shoehorn god as an axiomatic concept whereas it is a completely derivative concept. The most basic belief about reality can only be 1) Reality exists and 2) Reality does not exist.

Upon accepting the first, we can go ahead and ask other questions which are based on that answer, such as "whether what we perceive is reality" or "does something other than reality (god) also exists".

While using god as an axiomatic and self-evident concept, while simultaneously failing to justify its inclusion in such, clearly puts you in the wrong here.

[ScienceLovesGod]

That is an example of objective perspective. Now apply that to morality, and you'll see where I am coming from.

What you apparently fail to realize is that there is a fundamental difference between the two. Sound is a physical phenomenon that does not require conscious evaluation or perspective. Morality, on the other hand, depends exclusively on conscious evaluation. To compare, ask yourself, "If a tree falls in the forest, is it right or wrong?".

Yet again, failing to realize what I am talking about. There is such a thing as objective morality, in which no one can impose their subjective view upon. I was simply using the tree falling as a metaphor for wrong-doing, and if anyone thinks it isn't wrong, is it still wrong? Yes, it is still wrong whether a society or an individual thinks it isn't.

[Jackalope]

There is such a thing as objective morality, in which no one can impose their subjective view upon.

Prove it.

I was simply using the tree falling as a metaphor for wrong-doing, and if anyone thinks it isn't wrong, is it still wrong? Yes, it is still wrong whether a society or an individual thinks it isn't.

Prove it.

[genkaus]

Yet again, failing to realize what I am talking about. There is such a thing as objective morality, in which no one can impose their subjective view upon. I was simply using the tree falling as a metaphor for wrong-doing, and if anyone thinks it isn't wrong, is it still wrong? Yes, it is still wrong whether a society or an individual thinks it isn't.

I realize what you are talking about, I'm simply pointing out that your position is baseless. You haven't given any arguments as to why we should believe that "there is such a thing as objective morality". You haven't justified you position. Further, morality is a mental phenomenon, not a physical one, thereby making it more likely to be subjective. As for your metaphor, its an invalid demonstration for the existence of objective morality. The question presumes the existence of such a thing as "sound", the same way your argument assumes such a thing as "objective morality".

[ScienceLovesGod]

Yet again, failing to realize what I am talking about. There is such a thing as objective morality, in which no one can impose their subjective view upon. I was simply using the tree falling as a metaphor for wrong-doing, and if anyone thinks it isn't wrong, is it still wrong? Yes, it is still wrong whether a society or an individual thinks it isn't.

I realize what you are talking about, I'm simply pointing out that your position is baseless. You haven't given any arguments as to why we should believe that "there is such a thing as objective morality". You haven't justified you position. Further, morality is a mental phenomenon, not a physical one, thereby making it more likely to be subjective. As for your metaphor, its an invalid demonstration for the existence of objective morality. The question presumes the existence of such a thing as "sound", the same way your argument assumes such a thing as "objective morality".

I am assuming you don't believe in objective morality, correct?