Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[Statler Waldorf]

But I do not think what society deems right and wrong makes something absolutely right and wrong - i merely believe that people create morality. Hence, morals are relative. But we can still analyze those morals and the justification for the morals. For example - Where do they come from? What purpose do they serve? Do people within society actually benefit from a particular moral stance?

Well I think we’re running into a difference of terminology then here, what do you call actual right and wrong if you do not call it morality?

Rape leads to all sorts of problems - what purpose does rape have in any universe, atheistic or otherwise?

Are you saying that something that leads to problems and serves no purpose is absolutely wrong?

1. I don't claim that morals are relative; this is simple fact.

How do you know that?

2. Just because I acknowledge the above fact does not mean I am not allowed to consider any moral system better than any other, on any grounds I wish. What I do not do evaluate moral standards based upon what a fictional character is said to think of the specific practices, because that is the point of the entire debate: your moral system is no more objective or superior to anyone else's.

We’re not talking about my moral system; we’re talking about atheistic moral systems. What grounds are you using to judge each system by and why did you choose those grounds?

Obviously, I will find nothing in a moral code I like when that moral code does not place the highest priority on human happiness and progress. That doesn't mean my specifics are objectively superior, but I know under which system I'd prefer to live.

So what happens if someone’s moral system dictates that it is morally right to kill you, then is it morally right to kill you?

Sorry I doused your strawman.

No straw-man here, I accurately pointed out your contradictory behavior. “Everyone is free to choose their favorite color, but those who choose blue are totally wrong because red is a better color!” Quite the arbitrary and therefore meaningless system you have created there.

No theocracy had them yet (which is a good thing), as far as I know ...

If no theocracy has possessed them, then how do you know they’d actually use them on other countries? I would personally prefer Vatican City having nuclear weapons over North Korea even though the former is a theocracy and the latter is not.

---

Putting it very simply:

Rape is wrong, morally or otherwise. Why? It hurts people.

Blasphemy is not wrong. Why? It doesn't hurt anyone.

Homosexuality is not wrong. Why? It doesn't hurt anyone.

---

How do you know the standard of morality is whether it hurts someone or not? Why not what maximizes happiness? So someone who commits adultery but never gets caught didn’t do anything morally wrong because they didn’t hurt anyone?

Statler,

You might want to look at the thread http://atheistforums.org/thread-19363.html where the idea that relativistic morality allows judgement of other's moral systems is heavily covered. No absolute required.

But it doesn’t allow for judgments of other moral systems because it is all purely arbitrary (which is a cardinal sin in logical reasoning). If two people are allowed to adopt contradictory moral systems you cannot say one is superior to the other or else you’re appealing to a system that transcends both people.

Let me see if I get this. You're bitching to your argumentative opponent, set up a dichotomy, but agree with your opponent regarding the choice.

You then clamour on about how your argumentative opponent chooses the option you want to rail against, ignoring the fact that you have already agreed with your opponent, as a demonstration of your superior reasoning capacity.

What the fuck am I missing here?

You’re missing a lot apparently.
Opponent makes “Argument A”, and a logical conclusion of “Argument A” is that “rape is only morally wrong if people deem it to be wrong.” Opponent then begins making claims that contradict this position, for example he/she starts hinting at the fact that he/she believes rape is always wrong. So I point out that I agree that rape is always wrong (but because I believe in “Argument B”), but if “Argument A” were true (which they also claim to believe is true) then rape would not always be wrong. So they are essentially claiming they believe in “Argument A” but reject the logical conclusion of that argument. Atheism leads to these sorts of logical inconsistencies.

Seriously Waldorf? I would like to know what your fears are about an "atheistic universe".

I have no fears of any such Universe because I know I do not live in one.

For one thing, if you do something underhanded, unfair, or mean: even a three year old will call you on it. Its not hard to recognize ones own basic rights in relation to another's unless you have an overbearing duty to a god who makes his own morality and administers eternal judgement for digressions.

Honestly, I do not care what a three year old thinks. If God didn’t exist, there’d be no afterlife, and there’d be no punishment for the people who get away with such “underhand” behavior, so then why should they not behave in such manners? If Joseph Stalin believes that there’s no afterlife, and he’s the most powerful man in his country, then why shouldn’t he kill 50 million of his fellow Russians in order to improve his own situation? He was acting in a manner that was completely consistent with his atheistic views of reality.

According to Drich, if your god told you to rape or bash a babies' head on a rock you better do it. Don't worry though, its a moral act because god told you to do it. Its even a lament praise in your Bible about how wonderful it was to crush those infants heads on a rock. Nevermind that it was in the old testament; jesus didnt come to abolish those rules, and if god tells you to do something you still have to do it. Morality coming from you is rich, to say the least. Not to mention the ripping out of those that god considers innocent, from their mothers wombs thus taking their oh so important choice of eternal destination away from them.. And I definitely wont mention the enslavement and RAPE of women and girls being the primary reason for a war. Apparently, they didn't get enough slave women for everyone in the first run so they pounced on an un suspecting people by decree of your moral god.
Yeah you have no leg to stand on.

Well ignoring your rather embarrassing ignorance of the Old Testament, you just beautifully proved my point! If any of that was actually condoned in the Bible (which it’s not) then who cares? Given your definition of morality absolutely none of it was morally wrong because the Israelites were free to determine their own morality, if they wanted to own slaves, rape women, and kill infants then more power to them in an atheistic Universe right? You look rather silly objecting to something that your definition of morality does not merely allow for but actually deems morally good. Oops.