If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[Nay_Sayer]

Do you not have a general consideration for fellow humans?,or do you walk around with your fists clenched because you want to go on a rape spree oh so badly, but that meddling Christian God and his holy book are thwarting you?

stupid answer. It's evades the question. Next one and I'm dismissing you for future replies

Heads up. You cannot place any staff on ignore.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, it's certainly not the case that everyone agrees. If our idea of a universal truth is one where everyone agrees, then nothing is a universal truth..regardless of whether we live in a world with or without gods.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@AngelThMan

Of course I believe murder is wrong, but we're having a philosophical discussion where you have to prove why murder is wrong because you're claiming that's truth. Now you need to demonstrate how that is a universal truth.

Murder is only always wrong definitionally. Nothing to do with objective morality.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

stupid answer. It's evades the question. Next one and I'm dismissing you for future replies

Heads up. You cannot place any staff on ignore.

LOL< the reason I realized I couldn't be staff anymore in good conscience.  People shouldn't have to see the shit I write.

[Paleophyte]

It has to be true that the moral value exists.

No, it doesn't.

Again, you're conflating truth with morality, which are two different. For a law of the land to exist, it must be "true" that the law exists.

And you're conflating law with morality. Or were you conflating it with truth? It's neither.

That says nothing about the nature of the law itself. It's illegal to double-park your car. That law exists. That law itself denotes nothing about truth, other than the law existing. By law we are required to follow it. That's it.

Blah, blah, blah. Yapping on about law as if it were morality. It's like playing chess with a demented chihuahua.

[Nay_Sayer]

Heads up. You cannot place any staff on ignore.

LOL< the reason I realized I couldn't be staff anymore in good conscience.  People shouldn't have to see the shit I write.

He doesn't have to reply or ready anything I write. I am fine with that, only that he can if it is required to do so.

[The Grand Nudger]

Blah, blah, blah. Yapping on about law as if it were morality. It's like playing chess with a demented chihuahua.

Meh, it's a position - namely the strict legalist position.  A relativist understanding of morality, where the fact that they are the laws is the only fact that matters, the set of moral facts.  As opposed to the reality of their intentions, implementation, or outcomes.  It's also a traditional christian position. Lawgiver this, lawgiver that. King of the world..and whatnot....



Thing is, I'm pretty sure our new friend is a moral realist, like me, at least in principle. Might be stumbling on the execution.

[AngelThMan]

Okay, but I didn't ask you whether or not you agreed murder was wrong.  I asked you why...whether or not you believed murder was wrong in fact, and from a specific set of facts.  You might believe that murder is wrong for you, you might believe that murder is wrong for society.  The whys matter to understanding where each of us is coming from.  To understanding each others position and what (if any) disagreement we are in.

I think that there are facts -about murder-...not about me, not about society, not about the laws of the land....that identify murder as immoral.  Would you agree that this is the case and that this particular category of facts is what were trying to talk about when we talk about things being (or not being) objectively immoral?

From a personal perspective, I believe murder is wrong because it robs someone of their chance to experience life, plus hurts those close to the victim. Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions. I wouldn't be able to hold anyone to that opinion, especially the murderer. To him, my opinion doesn't apply since there's no universal law against murder. Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, wait a minute? Do you think that's not the truth? Do you think it doesn't actually matter whether it's the truth or not? Do you think that...if there are no gods.....murder doesn't rob someone of their chance to experience life? Do you think that....if there are no gods.....murder doesn't hurt victims? You say these things, and I can only take you at your word...but I don't see anything about gods in those words? It seems to me that...Under Atheism™ people can be robbed of their chance to experience life and victims can be hurt.

Do you disagree?

Maybe robbing people of their chance to experience life and hurting victims can serve someone's self interest - but they're still wrong, no? Isn't this why I reject forced birtherism? Because it robs people of that chance and hurts victims...even if it does serve the self interest of evil politicians (which I actually object to, btw, lol..I think they're fucking themselves too)?

What do lions killing cubs have to do with morality? Are lions competent moral agents?

[Ravenshire]

Okay, but I didn't ask you whether or not you agreed murder was wrong.  I asked you why...whether or not you believed murder was wrong in fact, and from a specific set of facts.  You might believe that murder is wrong for you, you might believe that murder is wrong for society.  The whys matter to understanding where each of us is coming from.  To understanding each others position and what (if any) disagreement we are in.

I think that there are facts -about murder-...not about me, not about society, not about the laws of the land....that identify murder as immoral.  Would you agree that this is the case and that this particular category of facts is what were trying to talk about when we talk about things being (or not being) objectively immoral?

From a personal perspective, I believe murder is wrong because it robs someone of their chance to experience life, plus hurts those close to the victim. Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions. I wouldn't be able to hold anyone to that opinion, especially the murderer. To him, my opinion doesn't apply since there's no universal law against murder. Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

Two key points you continue to miss:

1. Morality is not binding on anyone, no matter the source.

2. All of morality is opinion. Personal morality is your opinion. Cultural morality is the majority opinion of the culture. Religious morality is the opinion of the gawd(s) of that faith.

You can't get away from subjective morality.