Martian:
In my opinion, they are worthless scum who deserve all the tomahawk missiles uncle sam can muster.

In their opinion, they are doing their duty because of the "absolute morality" inspired by their god and their sacred book.

They are a lot of people that would agree with me and there are people who would agree with them, which makes morality relative. Morality depends on the proclivity of a person and the zeitgeist of the person's geographical location.

We don't have to look too far into the past to see that your cherished faith once wrecked the same type of havoc that ISIS is causing based on absolutism. Sunnis say they are right, and Shias say the same thing. Which is exactly the same as the catholics and the protestants.

A simple example is homosexuality and the christians' insistence on calling it a "sin" while other people see it as normal.

Martian:

lol, read the above and tell me how I think my position is absolute as this excerpt wasn't part of your initial post

Martian: In my opinion, they are worthless scum who deserve all the tomahawk missiles uncle sam can muster.

MrAnony1:
Knowledge does not propel our actions rather it may influence them. There is a difference between knowing right/wrong actions and choosing right/wrong actions.

For instance, there is a difference between knowing that it is against the law to steal and actually choosing to steal.

This is just so simple and clear that I wonder why you miss it.

Kay17:
There is an assumption which most people share, that as conscious beings, our knowledge propells our actions. I think there are complications in placing a moral responsibility on individuals without the ability to act out their knowledge. There is a futility in that. The punishment has no beneficial end of deterrence.
Also, even if one is a Christian and loves Jesus, the inability to execute still remains despite the constant repentance.

Kay17:

I didn't say there was no difference between the two, and that wasn't the focus of my post.

MrAnony1:
What then was the focus of your post? Please do tell.

I think there are complications in placing a moral responsibility on individuals without the ability to act out their knowledge. There is a futility in that. The punishment has no beneficial end of deterrence.
Also, even if one is a Christian and loves Jesus, the inability to execute still remains despite the constant repentance.

Kay17:

Mr Anony1:

What then was the focus of your post? Please do tell.

I think there are complications in placing a moral responsibility on individuals without the ability to act out their knowledge. There is a futility in that. The punishment has no beneficial end of deterrence.
Also, even if one is a Christian and loves Jesus, the inability to execute still remains despite the constant repentance.

MrAnony1:
Unless you think that your position is false, then you must think that your position is absolute because truth by it's very nature is absolute and excludes any other possibilities.
It is either true or false that it is morally wrong for ISIS to go about beheading people.
If you think that it is true that ISIS actions are wrong then you are expressing an absolute because you deny the possibility of their actions being right.
....Unless of course you don't think ISIS are wrong in which case you will be directly contradicting yourself when you said the following about ISIS:

MrAnony1:
But you can't say that your opinion is right can you? Hence your opinion is meaningless

Again based on your worldview, you cannot say that their opinion is right or wrong. All you can say is that it is their opinion. Hence you have effectively said nothing.

No it doesn't make morality relative. The fact that people disagree over what is the right doesn't in any way render the right relative.

MrAnony1:
To illustrate this to you;
Consider that some people think that morality is relative and others don't. Does this make morality relatively relative or relatively absolute or relatively absolutely relative etc? To deny the possibility of truth just because people disagree leads us to illogical absurdities.

MrAnony1:
Erhm no...you cannot say that ISIS or anyone is wreaking havoc because your opinion about what ISIS is doing cannot be said to be true by your own admission (based on the fact that you think morality is relative). For all you know, ISIS may just be doing the best thing ever for humanity.

MrAnony1:
low, ISIS is wreaking havoc is not an opinion, it's a fact and my moral view has nothing to do with it. The U.S. military is also currently wreaking havoc and it's a fact. The underlying disagreement about which of the parties are "right" is the because morality is relative.

[quote author=MrAnony1]So what? You must agree though that one case must be true. Homosexuality cannot be both normal and abnormal.

MrAnony1:
Whatever helps you sleep well at night mate.

I see, so morality is a human construct and therefore right and wrong depend on the personal opinions of men. Ok

Good so you have changed your stance....but the statement above still contradicts you. Morality cannot be objective and at the same time not be independent of personal opinion i.e. if Morality is objective, then it cannot be a human construct.

Sorry, I still don't get it. Perhaps you could help me understand by naming any two moral values and the different ways that they come about.

I'm afraid I really can't meaningfully respond to you if you can't make up you mind whether morality is independent of man's opinions (objective) or dependent on man's opinions (subjective).

So please which is it? Is morality a human construct or is it objective? (i.e independent of human opinions)

MrAnony1:
In that case, I think my answer was sufficient. You are welcome to explain to me is very specific terms how my answer isn't sufficient if you like.

MrAnony1:
But you can't say that your opinion is right can you? Hence your opinion is meaningless


Again based on your worldview, you cannot say that their opinion is right or wrong. All you can say is that it is their opinion. Hence you have effectively said nothing.


No it doesn't make morality relative. The fact that people disagree over what is the right doesn't in any way render the right relative.

To illustrate this to you;
Consider that some people think that morality is relative and others don't. Does this make morality relatively relative or relatively absolute or relatively absolutely relative etc? To deny the possibility of truth just because people disagree leads us to illogical absurdities.

Moral relativism is self-refuting and hence cannot possibly be true.


Erhm no...you cannot say that ISIS or anyone is wreaking havoc because your opinion about what ISIS is doing cannot be said to be true by your own admission (based on the fact that you think morality is relative). For all you know, ISIS may just be doing the best thing ever for humanity.


So what? You must agree though that one case must be true. Homosexuality cannot be both normal and abnormal.

Kay17:

I acknowledge there is a difference between knowledge of moral norms and choosing/actions. But I said there was a futility in punishing people that are unable to choose or act out their desires (to be good).

MrAnony1:

Please explain to me exactly how someone who knows that it is wrong to steal yet chooses to steal but did not desire to steal or was unable to act upon his desire not to steal.

I think you have made a false assumption here which is that sinners don't desire to sin . . . . . or you believe that the bible teaches this and God punishes them for being forced to sin against their desires? Please cite bible references that convinced you of this.

mazaje post=/post/26581937:

Morality is a human construct that has gone through thousands of years of evolution by humans. . . .

Why not?. . .Take the multiplication table for example, it is a human construct but also objective. . .We can invent a set of moral values in common with other human beings like us, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings simple.

. . .No need invoking a supernatural entity. . .If what you are saying is true then atheist or societies that do not believe in deities like the Buddhist and other religions that have no central diety will lack this objective moral value but the reality says otherwise. . .

Sharia law, the muslims see it as the best objective moral system that was given to humanity by the creator of the universe itself. . .How did it come about compared to a very different moral system like the buddisht moral philosophy of selflessness till Nirvana is achieved?

I believe I have already answered your question. . .If morality is independent of man's opinion then on whose opinion does it depend?. . .

Kay17:
Assuming men through their sinful desires are driven to sins which they consciously resist and are aware of. Wouldn't it be unjust to punish them for actions they hardly have conscious control over?

Martian post=/post/26572429:

People will disagree about was it right because there is no universally acceptable standard of morality. It depends on the people and what they find conducive.

Unless you can produce a universal standard of morality that is independent of man and culture, then your objective morality is self refuting.

Morality is relative. The illogical absurdity is claiming that your unsubstantiated claims and animist beliefs are objective and universal.

MrAnony1:

So in these men there are two contending desires one to sin and the other to be righteous but the desire to sin is greater hence they sin. Did I get you right?

MrAnony1:

So you say.

You are absolutely wrong on that. Multiplication equations like 5x8=40 and 6x6=36 e.t.c. were true long before any human being existed and will still be true long after all humans are gone. It is logically incoherent to say that something is both a human construct an objective.

Do atheists and buddhists believe in the existence of objective moral values and if so what are these values based upon?

I see. Now I get your question. You are asking that if morality is based on one God, why do we have different moral systems such as are Sharia and Buddhist systems? Before I answer this question, I must ask whether you are willing to grant that it is possible for some moral systems to be wrong?

Morality depends on God's nature. (Please note that I didn't say God's opinion)

MrAnony1:

So you say.


You are absolutely wrong on that. Multiplication equations like 5x8=40 and 6x6=36 e.t.c. were true long before any human being existed and will still be true long after all humans are gone. It is logically incoherent to say that something is both a human construct an objective.


Do atheists and buddhists believe in the existence of objective moral values and if so what are these values based upon?




I see. Now I get your question. You are asking that if morality is based on one God, why do we have different moral systems such as are Sharia and Buddhist systems? Before I answer this question, I must ask whether you are willing to grant that it is possible for some moral systems to be wrong?

Morality depends on God's nature. (Please note that I didn't say God's opinion)

benodic:

the mystery of death lies in proper understanding of what happens when the physical body is asleep and the person is dreaming.
in dreams you still retain your consciousness. sleep is afterall a temporal death and death is a permanent sleep.

Joshthefirst:
The mystery of death can only be understood by grasping the foundation of Life.

Once a man denies the source of his life, he lapses into confusion on the subject of his death.

Weah96:


Great, we're getting somewhere. What is this source of life that you speak of?

Joshthefirst:
The source of life is the source of all things, logically defined as God.


Logically.

Joshthefirst:
The source of life is the source of all things, logically defined as God.


Logically.

Kay17:


Is the source of life equally life or some substance other than life?

logicboy01:



false

Joshthefirst:
The source of life is the source of life. I have no time for your gameplay.

Kay17:


Yet the key factor is whether or not both desires are in their conscious control. If a conscious latch is lacked over sinful desires, man becomes an automaton in respect to those impulses.

Kay17:


Do you know what Categorical Imperative is?

mazaje:


So is the reality. . .A lot of the moral principles in your bible can not apply in some parts of the world today. . .You can not tell a gay that something is wrong with him in the society where I live, if you do you will be breaking the law of the land. . .Try half of the OT morality and ou will end up in prison today. . .We came from people who sacrifice their children and children of others to appease the gods for rain o r to cure outbreak of disease epidemic. . .




True to whom?. . .The multiplication table is a human construct and makes sense only to humans. . who else uses the multiplication table apart from humans?. . .Of what use is the multiplication table to a goat or a mountain lion?. . .What about the trees, dust, mountains and other things that exist in nature?. . .Of what use is the multiplication table to them?. . .The multiplication table is true and makes sense only to humans and it remains a human construct. .5x5=25 makes sense only to humans. . .It is objective and remains a human construct which humans use understand and make sense of things. . .




They are based on humans. . . As I aforementioned we can invent a set of moral values in common with other human beings like us, with the objective perspective being derived from human beings simple.




Yeah, like the moral system of your god advocating slavery and encouraging people to sell their daughters into slavery. . Such an example is an example of how wrong this objective source of morality you are advocating is. . .You can not claim that your god is the source of objective human morality when he have him violating it. . .If slavery is objectively wrong then your god can not be said to be its source simply because we have him advocating and encouraging slavery. . .What ever form of objective moral principle you think of we have your god violating it. . .So he can not be the source of such moral principle. . . I repeat the fact that all moral principles come about differently is evidence that they are man made. . .Who created the sharia?. . .The buddisht moral philosophy of nirvana?. . .You want to discard other moral philosophies as wrong and accept that only the one you have been indoctrinated with as the right one, but i will always be there to show you that yours is also wrong just as you believe theirs to be wrong. . .Bottom line is you can not point to any god creating any moral system, you can only point to men who use their various gods as an enforcing mechanism. For moral systems they created. .



Which god?. . .There are so many gods which are all man made inventions, conceptions and ideas. . .