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

[Nay_Sayer]

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

Conversation and discussion aren't one-way streets. Thoughts and prayers, RAmen

[Fake Messiah]

But people like Jimmy Saville raped 100 children and never faced any legal consequences. He lived a full life believing his reputation remained intact (he was beloved) and got away with it. Why should he care about "subjective" laws??

You are obsessed with Jimmy Savile (whose name you haven't learned to spell even after 50 pages), which is strange because there are many living pedophiles that are raping kids right now that need to be stopped (from child marriages in Muslim countries to legal child brothels in countries like Cambodia), but you don't care about them. That's why your outrage seems fake because you don't care about victims and how to protect them.

Morality has a practical role in society, which is to isolate and distance people who cause trouble. But what you are asking for is something you yourself are not sure what.

Savile somewhat got away since his name and legacy are tarnished, and it is highly unlikely that he lived a full life as you suggest because he was probably constantly nervous and afraid his crimes would come to surface, and he probably knew that if it didn't catch up with him while he was still alive, it would be found out when he died because he lived in a society where this kind of behavior is considered monstrous. Which can't be said about grown men who marry 9-year-old girls in theocratic Afghanistan.

[AngelThMan]

You didn't follow or read the whole debate. He was saying that we have to respect subjective laws. Except people have different subjective laws. What if one subjective law conflicts with another subjective law? Who's right morally? That was my point that you haven't addressed.

There has to be an arbiter. You can offer as many opinions, evidence or arguments that you think makes your opinion about morality right. But if no one is the arbiter, then it remains opinion and not moral values. You might invoke the law of the land. But people like Jimmy Saville raped 100 children and never faced any legal consequences. He lived a full life believing his reputation remained intact (he was beloved) and got away with it. Why should he care about "subjective" laws??

Let's see if you can stick to a topic intelligently. I predict bs derailing rather than taking on the dilemma.

It's kind of redundant to call civil and criminal laws subjective. It's not like they're determined with an objective moral calculator instead of by people doing (hopefully) their best within their limitations and the complexity of balancing conflicting interests.

When two laws are in conflict, the one that causes the least harm and the most benefits fairly is the better one morally. In the American system, the judicial branch is the arbiter. I may disagree with judicial decisions, but there are usually consequences for ignoring them, and I would have to weigh whether doing so would be worth it.

Not sure what Jimmy Sevile has to do with conflicting laws, except that he was concerned about criminal laws enough to put a good deal of effort into evading them. The laws we enact are not supernatural, they can't catch everyone.

At the risk of getting your usual response to a question, do you think there must be an afterlife consequence for Jimmy Savile?

You tried to engage, so I'll give you credit for that. Laws of the land are not subjective. They are objectively laws that the government put in place. However they are not universal moral laws. So if someone commits a crime and evades the law, they have broken no law of the universe. All you can invoke is human subjective opinions on morality, which will differ

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

That’s funny. You started this thread with a question.

Boru

[AngelThMan]

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

Conversation and discussion aren't one-way streets. Thoughts and prayers, RAmen

Retarded response. You're ignored

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's kind of redundant to call civil and criminal laws subjective. It's not like they're determined with an objective moral calculator instead of by people doing (hopefully) their best within their limitations and the complexity of balancing conflicting interests.

When two laws are in conflict, the one that causes the least harm and the most benefits fairly is the better one morally. In the American system, the judicial branch is the arbiter. I may disagree with judicial decisions, but there are usually consequences for ignoring them, and I would have to weigh whether doing so would be worth it.

Not sure what Jimmy Sevile has to do with conflicting laws, except that he was concerned about criminal laws enough to put a good deal of effort into evading them. The laws we enact are not supernatural, they can't catch everyone.

At the risk of getting your usual response to a question, do you think there must be an afterlife consequence for Jimmy Savile?

You tried to engage, so I'll give you credit for that. Laws of the land are not subjective. They are objectively laws that the government put in place. However they are not universal moral laws. So if someone commits a crime and evades the law, they have broken no law of the universe. All you can invoke is human subjective opinions on morality, which will differ

But what about the potatoes? WHAT ABOUT THE POTATOES?!

Boru

[AngelThMan]

But people like Jimmy Saville raped 100 children and never faced any legal consequences. He lived a full life believing his reputation remained intact (he was beloved) and got away with it. Why should he care about "subjective" laws??

You are obsessed with Jimmy Savile (whose name you haven't learned to spell even after 50 pages), which is strange because there are many living pedophiles that are raping kids right now that need to be stopped (from child marriages in Muslim countries to legal child brothels in countries like Cambodia), but you don't care about them. That's why your outrage seems fake because you don't care about victims and how to protect them.

Morality has a practical role in society, which is to isolate and distance people who cause trouble. But what you are asking for is something you yourself are not sure what.

Savile somewhat got away since his name and legacy are tarnished, and it is highly unlikely that he lived a full life as you suggest because he was probably constantly nervous and afraid his crimes would come to surface, and he probably knew that if it didn't catch up with him while he was still alive, it would be found out when he died because he lived in a society where this kind of behavior is considered monstrous. Which can't be said about grown men who marry 9-year-old girls in theocratic Afghanistan.

You're fucking stupid, man. You think derailing the argument rather than addressing it is valid logically. What the fuck does pedophiles in Cambodia have to do with this argument, retard?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You are obsessed with Jimmy Savile (whose name you haven't learned to spell even after 50 pages), which is strange because there are many living pedophiles that are raping kids right now that need to be stopped (from child marriages in Muslim countries to legal child brothels in countries like Cambodia), but you don't care about them. That's why your outrage seems fake because you don't care about victims and how to protect them.

Morality has a practical role in society, which is to isolate and distance people who cause trouble. But what you are asking for is something you yourself are not sure what.

Savile somewhat got away since his name and legacy are tarnished, and it is highly unlikely that he lived a full life as you suggest because he was probably constantly nervous and afraid his crimes would come to surface, and he probably knew that if it didn't catch up with him while he was still alive, it would be found out when he died because he lived in a society where this kind of behavior is considered monstrous. Which can't be said about grown men who marry 9-year-old girls in theocratic Afghanistan.

You're fucking stupid, man. You think derailing the argument rather than addressing it is valid logically. What the fuck does pedophiles in Cambodia have to do with this argument, retard?

Child brothels in Cambodia are germane to the topic because pretzels are an over-rated snack food, moron.

Boru

[AngelThMan]

You're fucking stupid, man. You think derailing the argument rather than addressing it is valid logically. What the fuck does pedophiles in Cambodia have to do with this argument, retard?

Child brothels in Cambodia are germane to the topic because pretzels are an over-rated snack food, moron.

Boru

Exactly

[Ravenshire]

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

You got expelled from home school, didn't you?

Pathetic.