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

[Statler Waldorf]

All three apply.

How? Be more specific.

Thank you, precisely.

What? So the laws of logic are not relative because they are demonstrable (which is what you asserted) and they are also not demonstrable? So are they relative?

They are both. Perhaps you should have spent more time googling?

No, they are not descriptive, they are normative laws. Perhaps you should spend more time studying the fact you cannot reason from the descriptive to the normative, that’s invalid.

There have been societies where that sort of thing was kosher, sure, that's moral relativism for ya.

Raping a woman can be a morally good act simply because a society says so? Sickening. Atheism really does erode morality.

You just can't demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Why not?

Why not human happiness?

Well if it’s all arbitrary, which it obviously is since you cannot tell me why you chose happiness over any other chemical reaction in the brain then morality can just as validly be defined as whatever maximizes sadness, agony, suffering, pain, remorse, regret, disease, and whatever other arbitrary standard we would like to choose. You have not demonstrated how you know any of this to be true. You simply assert it, which doesn’t prove relativism is even a viable viewpoint.

Why do you demand so much more than you give back when anyone asks you anything? If you feel above having to explain any of your assertions, then I'll just say "I'm right" and ask you to prove otherwise.

Because I have a standard of morality that is not arbitrary and is therefore meaningful, you have one that is arbitrary and therefore meaningless; which proves my initial statement, atheism undermines morality.

Oh Sweet Reason, not this shit again. I've already corrected you in the past on this, Stat. Now pay attention this time.

You’ve been schooled on this in the past before; I guess class is in session yet again.

1. Subjective morality =/= anything goes and all opinions are equally valid.

I’ll hold you to this definition.

I've used in the past with you my analogy of a salesman that I've hired who says "I've done a good job (subjective opinion)". I look at his numbers and say, "You haven't gotten any new customers (objective data). I think you've done a crappy job (subjective opinion)." He says, "well, 'good' is a relative term so our opinions are equally valid." And I say, "no, because I have objective data to back up my opinions on what constitutes 'good' and so my opinion is still on stronger ground than yours."

Some opinions can be better supported than others. So even though opinions are subjective or relative to our interpretations of the data, we can still have a rational discussion as to who's opinion is better supported by the facts.

This is not consistent with your definition of subjectivism. You are using the premise that “Salesman should gain new customers.” Of course given your definition of subjectivism the statement, “Salesman should not gain new customers” is equally valid since you have already admitted that anything goes and all opinions are equal. If the salesman rejects your premise that he should be gaining new customers and asserts that good salesman do not gain customers then he is actually a good salesman and proves your opinion was not based upon anything objective at all. You now have no basis to argue with him.

The very fact that you are asking us to justify our moral evaluation of Russia's laws is a demonstration of some acknowledgement on your part that some opinions are better supported than others.

I was not asking you to do anything, I was pointing out the fact that you do not accept the logical conclusion of your stated position on morality. If morals are really subjective, and therefore anything goes and all opinions are equal then you have no logical basis to object to what Russia is doing at all because you have already admitted that anything goes (which includes making blasphemy and homosexuality crimes) and that all opinions are equal (which includes thinking blasphemy and homosexuality are morally wrong and should be illegal).

2. Morality is a measure of how we treat our fellow sentient beings.

According to whom? Why is this the definition of morality? Is this definition objectively true?

Nonetheless, we can still use various tools to understand morality such as The Social Contract, Rawl's Veil of Ignorance or Bentham's Utility Principles. Bottom line is we evaluate the cruelty of actions, how they are dishonest in their dealings with others or how they infringe on the rights of others.

The rights of others? What are those rights, how are they knowable, and where do they come from?

For example, using The Social Contract, I can ask how you might feel if speaking out publicly in ways that offended atheists is punishable by law. If you would not live in such a society, how can you justify such treatment of atheists?

What if I hold the opinion that I am justified in treating atheists differently than I would like to be treated? According to your definition of moral subjectivism that opinion is just as valid as your opinion that I should treat others how I would like to be treated. Looks like you’re sawing the branch you’re sitting on.

These are all questions designed to help Christians understand how laws like these in Russia and attempted church-state infringements by Christians in America are morally offensive. They invoke The Social Contract. Your adherence to The Social Contract is essential if you wish to avoid the label of "hypocrite".

What if I do not care if you call me a hypocrite? Is it morally wrong to be a hypocrite? Always? Where is this social contract? How do I learn what is in it? How do I opt out of it? I thought anything goes and all opinions are valid, what happened to that?

3. "GodWillsIt" does not make morality either objective or absolute.

According to whom? You?

If a being, however wise or powerful, decides what is moral, then by definition the opinions are subjective and they are subject to change, since a being might change his/her/its mind.

Nope, morality in that instance would still be objective from man’s perspective because his will, opinions and thoughts could not change those laws.

1. Bare assertion (God is good because we say so)

No, we know that God is good because He says so and He cannot lie. An assertion from an infallible being can be treated as true.

2. Begging the Question (God's actions are good because we define God as good. And we know that God's actions are good because we define good actions as what God wills. And we know that God is good because his actions are good).

No, it’s a valid appeal to an ultimate authority. God’s actions are good because God is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question, it’s an axiomatic position.

3. Special Pleading (By "God" we of course mean "Jesus". Allah bad. Krishna bad...)

Appealing to the only God that exists is not special pleading, it’s making an appeal to reality.

Are we learning?

Yes, I learned that you do not have a clue about what you’re talking about. Thanks.