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

[Psykhronic]

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.

I have reasons to think relativism is accurate - societies have different morals, people have different morals, morals change (in society and individuals), etc

The justification is, with criminals running around willy nilly society tends to be chaotic. Of course, who you are classifying as criminals is another story, but let's say people who go around killing random people are not kept from killing again - there's going to be an awful lot of chaos.

[Statler Waldorf]

I have reasons to think relativism is accurate - societies have different morals, people have different morals, morals change (in society and individuals), etc

I am not so sure that’s a reason to believe in relativism, if societies had different laws of logic, or mathematics I wouldn’t believe that logic and mathematics are actually relative I would just believe that those societies were wrong.

The justification is, with criminals running around willy nilly society tends to be chaotic. Of course, who you are classifying as criminals is another story, but let's say people who go around killing random people are not kept from killing again - there's going to be an awful lot of chaos.

Sure, but is it morally wrong to behave in a chaotic manner?

[The Grand Nudger]

I am not so sure that’s a reason to believe in relativism, if societies had different laws of logic, or mathematics I wouldn’t believe that logic and mathematics are actually relative I would just believe that those societies were wrong.

Belief is inapplicable, relativism is a fact. Mathematics is quantifiable, the closest correlary to "relative" mathematics would be the different ways in which an identical solution is reached (and or the different names of measure). Logic is demonstrable. Morality is relative if only because it is tied to goals and preconception - neither of which are uniform between groups of people. If you agree to a and b then x is moral/immoral. If there is no agreement, no decision as to z's morality can be made that extends beyond the conception of those who agreed in a and b.

Sure, but is it morally wrong to behave in a chaotic manner?

I don't care, so long as it's illegal when that chaotic manner negatively impacts another.

[Ryantology]

I am not so sure that’s a reason to believe in relativism, if societies had different laws of logic, or mathematics I wouldn’t believe that logic and mathematics are actually relative I would just believe that those societies were wrong.

Relativism does not make it invalid to have an opinion. It only means that you can't ultimately justify asserting that your opinion is objectively more valid than another's.

My moral code centers on human happiness. Yours centers around what you are convinced are a God's proclamations. I dispute the basis of your morality, but if you were honest and just called it yours, I couldn't say it was objectively wrong compared to mine, but I would certainly not agree with it or wish to live where it is in effect. You can disagree with mine, and not want to live where mine would be in effect, but you have no honest basis to say that mine is objectively wrong.

[Mystical]

Atheism renders morality meaningless? Rrrreeeaaallllyyy, Waldorf I expected more than that as your argument. Let me spell it out very simply for you.
《《 E X I S T E N C I A L R I G H T S 》》

Write that down.
I don't give a flying fuck if you can enslave me, or kill me, or steal from me. Its not your right. No one gave you that right, you and I are equals. There is nothing that makes your existence more or less important than mine and for you to interfere in mine, its wrong. FIVE year olds get this concept, why can't you?
Atheism does not negate the value of life, fucktard. It just explains it without a bunch of cockameme bullshit.

If you love them russians so much go live there. Then I can laugh at you as you lose your freedom to believe as you wish.

[Statler Waldorf]

Belief is inapplicable, relativism is a fact. Mathematics is quantifiable, the closest correlary to "relative" mathematics would be the different ways in which an identical solution is reached (and or the different names of measure). Logic is demonstrable. Morality is relative if only because it is tied to goals and preconception - neither of which are uniform between groups of people. If you agree to a and b then x is moral/immoral. If there is no agreement, no decision as to z's morality can be made that extends beyond the conception of those who agreed in a and b.

How is mathematics quantifiable, logic demonstrable, and how do you know relativism is a fact?

I don't care, so long as it's illegal when that chaotic manner negatively impacts another.

Why should it be illegal?

Relativism does not make it invalid to have an opinion. It only means that you can't ultimately justify asserting that your opinion is objectively more valid than another's.

Why can’t someone assert their opinion is objectively more valid than someone else’s?

My moral code centers on human happiness.

Why Human happiness? How do you measure happiness? What is happiness?

Atheism renders morality meaningless? Rrrreeeaaallllyyy, Waldorf I expected more than that as your argument. Let me spell it out very simply for you.
《《 E X I S T E N C I A L R I G H T S 》》

Write that down.

Ok, I did, now what?

I don't give a flying fuck if you can enslave me, or kill me, or steal from me. Its not your right.

It’s not my right according to whom? What if I believe I have an existential right to enslave or kill you? Can you prove I am wrong?

you and I are equals.

How do you know that? Where’s your proof that all Humans are equals? I agree with that, but for Christian reasons, where are your reasons?

There is nothing that makes your existence more or less important than mine and for you to interfere in mine, its wrong.

It’s wrong according to whom? You merely asserting it is wrong does not make it so. Why is Human life more important than that of bacteria, a tree, a whale, a dog, a fly? Is it all just matter? How are you measuring importance?

FIVE year olds get this concept, why can't you?

Five year olds believe in the concept of Santa Claus; that does not prove that I should too. Prove I should also believe in this concept.

Atheism does not negate the value of life, fucktard. It just explains it without a bunch of cockameme bullshit.

I must have really touched a nerve, that usually indicates you’re position is weak. You have explained nothing so far, so asserting that atheism can explain any of this is something yet to be seen; so far my initial statement that atheism undermines morality seems to be accurate. Where do existential rights come from? How do you know they exist? Does everything that exists have them? Why or why not?

If you love them russians so much go live there. Then I can laugh at you as you lose your freedom to believe as you wish.

Nope, I like living in a nation where people like you are a tiny minority.

[The Grand Nudger]

How is mathematics quantifiable,

quan·ti·fy [kwon-tuh-fahy] Show IPA
verb (used with object), quan·ti·fied, quan·ti·fy·ing.
1.
to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of.
2.
Logic. to make explicit the quantity of (a proposition).
3.
to give quantity to (something regarded as having only quality).

logic demonstrable,

"All swans are white"

and how do you know relativism is a fact?

Because different people and cultures offer different descriptions of what is -or is not- moral......

Why should it be illegal?

Depends on your goals, but for us, to promote a more peaceful, safe, and stable society. Chaos doesn't fit with any of those.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

quan•ti•fy [kwon-tuh-fahy] Show IPA
verb (used with object), quan•ti•fied, quan•ti•fy•ing.
1.
to determine, indicate, or express the quantity of.
2.
Logic. to make explicit the quantity of (a proposition).
3.
to give quantity to (something regarded as having only quality).

---

How are you applying that to mathematics?

"All swans are white"

So it’s not demonstrable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan

Because different people and cultures offer different descriptions of what is -or is not- moral......

Yes, but morals are normative not descriptive, so you cannot arrive at moral standards based upon what societies do.

Depends on your goals, but for us, to promote a more peaceful, safe, and stable society. Chaos doesn't fit with any of those.

So if our goal was not that then things like rape and murder would be moral?

[The Grand Nudger]

How are you applying that to mathematics?

All three apply.

So it’s not demonstrable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Swan

Thank you, precisely.

Yes, but morals are normative not descriptive, so you cannot arrive at moral standards based upon what societies do.

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

So if our goal was not that then things like rape and murder would be moral?

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

[Ryantology]

Why can’t someone assert their opinion is objectively more valid than someone else’s?

You can all you like. You just can't demonstrate the truth of the claim.

Why Human happiness? How do you measure happiness? What is happiness?

Why not human happiness?

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.