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

[max-greece]

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.

Actually you are wrong. Relative morality provides a history of moral values which we can easily use a measure of any given moral dilemma.
There is nothing arbitrary about it if it is an evolved tool.

If I can say one toaster oven is better than another without requiring a toaster oven that transcends both I can do the same with morality, art, architecture, music and all the other things we judge on a daily basis.

This does not mean that you will always be able to make a judgement as to which of 2 choices is the morally superior. Sometimes its just not that clear.

[Mystical]

Oh and you can't just make an accusation about me not understanding the OT without, you know, backing that shit up.

Also, you say we aren't talking about your morals here? Stalin definitely ain't an atheist, friend. So we are talking about your morals and you are making a diversionary tactic about ours. Is it because you are ashamed of the news the OP brought to light? I understand, I would be too if I were you.

[Statler Waldorf]

Societies determine this all the time, as do the courts, etc. Oh, and myself. And everyone. Some places/people will buy that sort of thing, others will not. We all make a judgement upon these things.

So then whose judgment is right? The person who thinks rape is justified or the person who thinks it is not?

And I don't understand what you mean about these rules I am appealing to. That last bit is my approach to these sort of issues of morality.

Well in order for you to make decisions regarding that morality you need a set of rules that apply to everyone right? If we’re going to be justified in preventing countries from committing genocide, or in taking a murderer’s freedom away do we not need a set of rules that transcend individuals and societies?

I know that because I have a moral code and you do not follow it.

That doesn’t prove that morals are subjective it only proves people are, your moral code could just be wrong.

What difference does it make why I decide what I do? I'm not asking you to follow my moral code.

Because if those grounds are arbitrary, then your moral system is meaningless and useless; so I want to know what grounds you’re using in order to determine if they are arbitrary or not. And yes you are trying to force me to follow your moral system because I am sure you object to religious teachings being taught in the public sector.

jOn what grounds does God judge, and why did he choose the rules he chose?

He didn’t choose them; God’s judgments derive consistently from his holy nature.

Depends on who you ask, obviously.

I asked you, obviously.

1. That's not a contradictory argument. Recognizing the non-existence of objective morality doesn't make it contradictory that I have personal preferences about moral codes. Subjectively, my moral code is better than yours. I have no doubt that, subjectively, you think the same of mine.

No, you cannot say something is better than something else without a standard that applies to both objects in order to measure them by, that’s where your contradiction lies because you assert no such standard exists.

2. God's moral code is just as arbitrary and meaningless as mine. Even moreso, as God never justifies or explains the majority of the morals he tells everybody to follow.

Even if God’s standard were subjective (which it is not), it would still be objective from man’s perspective so that does not prove anything. Why is someone obligated to justify or explain their morals? Where does that rule come from?

I can't convince you that my moral code is better than yours, nor would I bother trying.

And yet you believe we ought to send people to prison for violating a moral code they did not adopt.

What I will say is that our moral codes reflect our worldviews, and my worldview does not find genocide, rape, slavery, or murdering children acceptable or justified under any circumstance.

Why? I thought you said we are supposed to justify our moral beliefs. What if the rapist’s moral code disagrees with yours, now what are you going to do?

Yours does, whether or not you know your own scripture well enough to understand that. It says a lot about who we both are, as human beings.

Of the two of us, it’s obvious you’re the one who does not understand scripture. You’ve essentially reduced morality down to a person’s favorite colors or flavors of ice cream, “I personally do not think rape is acceptable, but if you think it is then by all means rape away!” Is it morally wrong to force another person to conform to your definition of morality?

Ohhhhhh Waldorf. Now whose the idiot? Not only did you just make up the reasoning behind Stalin's moral fiber or lack thereof, you wrongly assume mine. Where in the definition of atheism does it say 'no morality'? It doesn't. Your creed does not own morality and I made a case that being of such a creed makes you less moral than me. To which you had no rebuttal.

I did no such thing; Stalin did what he did because he believed he could define his own mroalitiy, which apparently is something atheists believe (for claiming to be non-conformists they sure do all conform to such doctrines).

Human rights have been and always will be, default.

According to whom? How do you know this?

With or without afterlife repurcussions, they're there. Problem is in your world you can violate them then go confess to your god and feel absolved without actually having to pay for your actions in any real way, or when violated you just hug yourself and pretend the violaters are gonna pay. Childish poppycock.

Even if that gross misrepresentation of my position were true; so what? Is it wrong to believe such things and why? Why should people pay for their crimes? Where does that rule come from? This ought to be entertaining.

If I can say one toaster oven is better than another without requiring a toaster oven that transcends both I can do the same with morality, art, architecture, music and all the other things we judge on a daily basis.

I am not talking about having a toaster oven that transcends both toaster ovens; I am talking about a standard that transcends both. How do you know if one toaster oven is “better” than the other? It’s an interesting analogy, but I’ll play along my friend.

This does not mean that you will always be able to make a judgement as to which of 2 choices is the morally superior. Sometimes its just not that clear.

Well just give me a very clear cut example of two moral choices and explain how you know one is better than the other. Thanks!

Oh and you can't just make an accusation about me not understanding the OT without, you know, backing that shit up.

Why can’t I? I thought morality was relative, so why am I not allowed to make accusations without backing them up?

Also, you say we aren't talking about your morals here?

That’s correct, we’re not.

Stalin definitely ain't an atheist, friend.

Well no, now he’s a theist, but when he was alive and ruler of the Soviet Union he was a professing atheist (admits to abandoning his faith after learning about Darwinism as a young man).

So we are talking about your morals and you are making a diversionary tactic about ours. Is it because you are ashamed of the news the OP brought to light? I understand, I would be too if I were you.

Ashamed of what? The fact Russia views blasphemy as a crime? Nope, I am fond of Russians, my wife happens to be one.

[Psykhronic]

Societies determine this all the time, as do the courts, etc. Oh, and myself. And everyone. Some places/people will buy that sort of thing, others will not. We all make a judgement upon these things.

So then whose judgment is right? The person who thinks rape is justified or the person who thinks it is not?

And I don't understand what you mean about these rules I am appealing to. That last bit is my approach to these sort of issues of morality.

Well in order for you to make decisions regarding that morality you need a set of rules that apply to everyone right? If we’re going to be justified in preventing countries from committing genocide, or in taking a murderer’s freedom away do we not need a set of rules that transcend individuals and societies?

There is no knowing with absolution who is right or wrong.

Actually, the society itself makes the rules. Some societies even impose their rules on others.

[Statler Waldorf]

There is no knowing with absolution who is right or wrong.

How do you know this?

Actually, the society itself makes the rules. Some societies even impose their rules on others.

How do you know societies make the rules? Why not individuals? Families? Is it wrong for societies to impose their morals on others?

[Psykhronic]

There is no knowing with absolution who is right or wrong.

How do you know this?

Actually, the society itself makes the rules. Some societies even impose their rules on others.

How do you know societies make the rules? Why not individuals? Families? Is it wrong for societies to impose their morals on others?

I do not know. That statement is included. But that is what I think. I never said I knew anything for sure. That is a current, possibly temporary, observation, if you will.

Well, individuals and families create a society. Society as a whole enforces certain rules that have, more than likely, arisen from the collection of these individuals and families. And as for that last part of your post, it depends on the situation and all sorts of factors. Also, I personally do not take the option that it's right/wrong but that it's stupid to be imperialistic, but not stupid to stop a genocide (both just examples).

[Statler Waldorf]

I do not know. That statement is included. But that is what I think. I never said I knew anything for sure. That is a current, possibly temporary, observation, if you will.

So the Biblical definition of morality could be correct after all and all of this moral relativism could be completely false?

Well, individuals and families create a society. Society as a whole enforces certain rules that have, more than likely, arisen from the collection of these individuals and families. And as for that last part of your post, it depends on the situation and all sorts of factors. Also, I personally do not take the option that it's right/wrong but that it's stupid to be imperialistic, but not stupid to stop a genocide (both just examples).

You’re really tough to pin down on this sort of thing, not unlike trying to hit a mouse with a hammer (which in case you were wondering is very difficult) It still seems to me that you’re using a standard of morality that is independent of societies. I’ll give you an illustration…

Society A: It is right for us to invade other countries for our own gain (imperialism).
Society B: It is wrong for us to invade other countries for our own gain.

How are you determining which society is right and which one is wrong? What’s the standard you’re using?

[Psykhronic]

I do not know. That statement is included. But that is what I think. I never said I knew anything for sure. That is a current, possibly temporary, observation, if you will.

So the Biblical definition of morality could be correct after all and all of this moral relativism could be completely false?

Well, individuals and families create a society. Society as a whole enforces certain rules that have, more than likely, arisen from the collection of these individuals and families. And as for that last part of your post, it depends on the situation and all sorts of factors. Also, I personally do not take the option that it's right/wrong but that it's stupid to be imperialistic, but not stupid to stop a genocide (both just examples).

You’re really tough to pin down on this sort of thing, not unlike trying to hit a mouse with a hammer (which in case you were wondering is very difficult) It still seems to me that you’re using a standard of morality that is independent of societies. I’ll give you an illustration…

Society A: It is right for us to invade other countries for our own gain (imperialism).
Society B: It is wrong for us to invade other countries for our own gain.

How are you determining which society is right and which one is wrong? What’s the standard you’re using?

For all I know the bible is right about this, I just have no reason to think so.

Bahaha, are you speaking from experience regarding a mouse and a hammer?
Ultimately it comes down to our own standards is what I think. I could not tell you which is right or wrong by my own standards, but I can analyse why society A and B differ on their approach and the results of such. So the standard I think we SHOULD use is whether or not morals hold up to analysation.

[Mystical]

Statler, I have yet to see any proof for your baseless assertion of Stalin's reasoning. Are there any speeches or first hand accounts that back up your claim?

You have also failed a second time to demonstrate how I misconstrued the OT.

Existential rights do exist by default of existing. You exist, I exist. We are both equals within our realm of existence. If you and I were the only two beings, and you killed me: you would be invading upon my right to live with no right to do so because we are equal right. If you use your brute strength to enslave me, also wrong. If you stole my food or belongings: wrong. Who gives your existence precidence over mine? Nobody. If you want food ask for it if you want help ask for it. Don't claim there's some big punisher in the sky who will torment me forever if I don't do what you say; I might believe you and thus create religion.

[Statler Waldorf]

For all I know the bible is right about this, I just have no reason to think so.

It doesn’t seem you have any reason to think relativism is right either, so why did you choose it over the Biblical view?

Bahaha, are you speaking from experience regarding a mouse and a hammer?

Yup, he got away

Ultimately it comes down to our own standards is what I think. I could not tell you which is right or wrong by my own standards, but I can analyse why society A and B differ on their approach and the results of such. So the standard I think we SHOULD use is whether or not morals hold up to analysation.

So do we have justification in putting a criminal in prison? Are we really justified in punishing someone for violating a standard that you admit is self-determined? That does not seem to add up to me.

Statler, I have yet to see any proof for your baseless assertion of Stalin's reasoning. Are there any speeches or first hand accounts that back up your claim?

Sure, we know why he became an atheist, and once he became an atheist it makes sense that he’d act in a manner consistent with atheism, namely that there’s no afterlife so a person can do whatever they want because as long as they do not get caught they’ll get away with it. If Stalin believed he’d receive eternal torment and punishment for what he did in this life do you really think he’d still do it? He was ruthless, but not insane.

You have also failed a second time to demonstrate how I misconstrued the OT.

Everything you claimed it condoned was totally false, you misrepresented a prophetic passage to be a moral commandment, you misidentified laws preventing bearing false witness with condoning rape, and you confounded antebellum slavery with having bond servants in the Old Testament which is absurd (fallacious equivocation). It was all very typical of the atheist playbook unfortunately. The truth is that you do not want to take the time to do the necessary research to properly understand those passages, you simply want them to mean what you incorrectly assert they mean.

Existential rights do exist by default of existing. You exist, I exist. We are both equals within our realm of existence.

Again, according to whom? You? What rights are existential rights?

If you and I were the only two beings, and you killed me: you would be invading upon my right to live with no right to do so because we are equal right.

According to whom? And if there is no god, then so what? You’d be dead and I’d never receive justice for what I did.

If you use your brute strength to enslave me, also wrong. If you stole my food or belongings: wrong. Who gives your existence precidence over mine? Nobody. If you want food ask for it if you want help ask for it. Don't claim there's some big punisher in the sky who will torment me forever if I don't do what you say; I might believe you and thus create religion.

Again, how do you know any of this? What if I can better my own life by enslaving you or stealing from you? Why should I harm myself in order to help you out? You seem to be forgetting that under your view of reality, we’re nothing more than matter, so what if one organized system of matter steals from another organized system of matter? They’ll both be gone soon enough anyways, so who cares? The Christian has reasons for believing all of this is wrong, but atheism renders morality meaningless.