hopefulLandlord:


The bolded, you know this, how?
.
Have you lived in a society without one?

I have evaluated the human nature to came to that conclusion. clearly you understand less of the human nature.

if your logic holds I can equally say there's no Mercury since I haven't been there.

johnydon22:


I am familiar with ontological argument, St Augustine posed one too and Anselm.

It is almost like a logical sphere, going around it's self...

That's the definition I'm talking about, the one in the ontological argument.

4evergod2:


Wrong! Why do we even have the ability of choice in the first place? Who determines individual moral boundaries?

We have the ability of choice because there is no innate choice precoded for us to thread. a given society determines the moral boundaries aimed at the collective continuation.

There is something in us right from birth that gives us varied identities and mold us.

This is untrue. what molds and shapes a mind are usually societal factors. Religion, organisations, social circles, social ties.

A child born in the bush men society of the Kalahari differs in moral ideas from one born in the U.S.

Question: How is it that a new born baby laughs when tickled and cries when in discomfort? Why do they not laugh when in discomfort and cey when tickled? Who taught them about choices at 1 week old? Do they even know what choices are?

Laughing is not a moral choice just like blinking these are impulses and involuntary response to stimuli just like the knee jerk reaction.

Neurological impulses are different from moral or behavioural choices which is in direct coincide with societal interactions.

Like i said above; You do not choose to blink or sneeze these are innate human characteristic, involuntary and automatic. But you choose to kill a chicken.

If by some chance their reactions are emotionally triggered, where did these emotiona emanate from when they are not DNA encoded?

We are talking about human morality [actions based on choices towards others] not neurological impulses, emotions are neurological impulses.

You do not always control your neurological impulses but you can control how they affect you.

Our emotions are rather accumulated in the neurological evolution not necessarily DNA. . This is a brain thing not the Deoxyribonucleic, that more so determines physical traits not neurological.

4evergod2:



I beg to disagree. Morality is beyond right or wrong or the ability to teach or learn. Morality cannot be separated from your identity which is why one is born an introvert and another an extrovert.

Morality is like a spiritual DNA much like our physical DNA . It helps shape who we become at the end of the day yet its not found in our genetic code. Its why we all differ in opinion and yet have the ability to choose. Its why we even bother to care about ourselves.

So even if we are alone in this world we would still care for ourselves and be able to make moral choicss for our personal wellbeing.

morality is not in our DNA. morality is relative. subject to environment and knowledge.

if you were born as a cave man you'd have the cave man morality. if you were born in Isis territory you'd have the morality of a killer being. knowledge(environment, circumstances, education, religion etc) makes a man.

learn that.

Richirich713:


That's the definition I'm talking about, the one in the ontological argument.

It's basically a logical circle, like that of Anselm states "God is a concept of the mind, we imagine God as the greatest of all beings, since we cannot imagine something greater than God [since it contradicts the supposition of god being the greatest being possible] therefore God exists.

It is just a logical circle, more so even severe theism from such concepts and it takes an almost unknown impersonal tilt which then is variance with the ideas of theism.

johnydon22:


We have the ability of choice because there is no innate choice precoded for us to thread. a given society determines the moral boundaries aimed at the collective continuation.



This is untrue. what molds and shapes a mind are usually societal factors. Religion, organisations, social circles, social ties.

A child born in the bush men society of the Kalahari differs in moral ideas from one born in the U.S.

Laughing is not a moral choice just like blinking these are impulses and involuntary response to stimuli just like the knee jerk reaction.

Neurological impulses are different from moral or behavioural choices which is in direct coincide with societal interactions.

Like i said above; You do not choose to blink or sneeze these are innate human characteristic, involuntary and automatic. But you choose to kill a chicken.



We are talking about human morality [actions based on choices towards others] not neurological impulses, emotions are neurological impulses.

You do not always control your neurological impulses but you can control how they affect you.

Our emotions are rather accumulated in the neurological evolution not necessarily DNA. . This is a brain thing not the Deoxyribonucleic, that more so determines physical traits not neurological.

You just posted assumptions and speculations and you know.

So a boy born in the bush would poop on himself continually and see nothing wrong with it? My question is a simple one.

Why are we even teachable? Be it by society or whatever?

From the time of the Greeks, there have been many philosophers who have sought to prove that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. There have been many arguments presented to support this position, and in theory they may be right, depending on what one means by the word universal. They would say, all you have to have is a consensus on what is considered right and wrong behavior. Their position, with which I disagree, goes something like this:
First: If God is necessary for morality, then whatever God deems moral is moral. Therefore, why praise God for what He has done if He could have just as likely done the opposite, and it would have been equally moral. If whatever God says goes, then if God decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. If things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if He does choose one over another, His choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not worthy of worship.

Second: If goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness. If we do so, we are guilty of circular reasoning. That is, if we use goodness to define God, we can't also use God to define goodness.

Third: If one doesn't believe in God, being told that one must do as God commands will not help one solve any moral dilemmas.

Some philosophers, therefore, come to the following conclusion: the idea that a moral law requires a divine lawgiver is untenable.

What should be our response as Christians? We should point out to people who side with the preceding position their lack of understanding concerning both God and the nature of man.

God is the creator and sustainer of all things. We would not even be self aware, let alone aware of right and wrong, if God had not created within us His image, and therefore the ability to make moral distinctions. The truth is we have no reference point for all this discussion about morality except as God reveals it. For us to argue with the source of morality is for the clay to argue with the potter.

Some philosophers say that for God to define what is right or wrong is arbitrary. God is not arbitrary; He is the source of all life and therefore the source of all truth. We have no basis to even understand the concept of being arbitrary except in reference to an unchanging God. That which would be circular reasoning or arbitrary in discussions about ourselves comes into perfect focus as we bring the dilemma close to the universal, absolute focal point for all creation, God Himself.

The second problem with these arguments is that they fail to recognize the nature of man. If man were not fallen, i.e., not corrupted by sin, we would have limitless potential to create from within ourselves a universal moral code. But, we are a fallen lot, every last one of us, and therefore incapable of fully knowing what is good (Rom. 3:23). We are even incapable of carrying out what we do know to be good (Rom. 7:18-21).

So the question of right or wrong has everything to do with the origin of our belief, not just the substance of it. No matter how sincerely I believe I am right about some moral decision, the true test is in the origin of that belief. And God is the only universal and absolute origin to all morality

Is morality located only in the actions we see? If so, it will be very difficult to recognise the distinctive features of the moral vision of a Christian or the moral vision of a Hindu, Buddhist, Jew or Muslim. If we view morality in relation to the person as a whole, rather than just as the actions we see, however, then moral vision becomes more significant. What a person does will no longer be separated from why (s)he does it. Just like when you said you will not stop your kid from performing acts of Beastiality if the state permits it as law.....this is your moral identity based on who you are and explains why you said that.

But all we do just simply still asks the questions...Why do we even care? Why do we hate? Why do we love? Why do we have emotional reactions when we do not have a clue where emotions emanate from?

This shows that there is some form of encrypted design in us that nobody can explain but how? This can only be explained by how we think we emerged.

Evolution? If its evolution then science would have located the machinery for emotions by now or why we do what we do in the first place and not just move around without a care in the world

God? Its more plausible that someone yet unknown to us made us in such a perfect manner and we cannot understand or explain it same way its only the baker or cook that know his or her secret ingredient and you will keep playing the guessing game because you are not in on the secret

KingAdegoke:
morality is not in our DNA. morality is relative. subject to environment and knowledge.

if you were born as a cave man you'd have the cave man morality. if you were born in Isis territory you'd have the morality of a killer being. knowledge(environment, circumstances, education, religion etc) makes a man.

learn that.

Each has their own idea of morality agreed but why do we even care to have one? Cave man or intellectual whh do we even care?

Learn that.

johnydon22:
Nope, nothing stops them from being a collective billion, 1 doesn't make any less an assumption than many.which still doesn't take a conventional image here.

Not in the definition given, only this being can be the ultimate, their cannot be others. To be honest I don't think it's necessary to be even arguing about this, since we drifting into the onto... argument instead of the moral argument. And the first question is whether or not objective morality exists.
If yes then only then question of God comes in.

4evergod2:



You just posted assumptions and speculations and you know.

Lol.. how so?

So a boy born in the bush would poop on himself continually and see nothing wrong with it? My question is a simple one.

Actually a boy from the kalahari has been molded by his society to see pooping as something to be done away from the house.

Leave a baby by itself to grow [assuming it will survive] it will live it's whole life living like a baby, pooping and urinating without restriction.

A society molds the mind.. "You should have asked why a child of the bush men find it okay to walk around naked while ones born here don't"

still falls back to societal moral effects.

Why are we even teachable? Be it by society or whatever?

Because the human brain is expandable, able to capture information... Let me give you one example: the only reason why you know of such a word or concept as "God" is because you are of a human society that has such ideas.

if there were no idea of God or God(s) in this human society there is no way for you to ever know of such concept.

Your thoughts are always a reflection of very many societal factors.

I can't just start replying the long reply brother.

johnydon22:


It's basically a logical circle, like that of Anselm states "God is a concept of the mind, we imagine God as the greatest of all beings, since we cannot imagine something greater than God [since it contradicts the supposition of god being the greatest being possible] therefore God exists.

It is just a logical circle, more so even severe theism from such concepts and it takes an almost unknown impersonal tilt which then is variance with the ideas of theism.

I'm not claiming Anslem argument is sound, I'm just using his definition of God "God as the greatest of all beings", if I were to use the ontological argument, I would use Alvin Plantinga version of it not Anslem. And I'm also not using or agreeing with Anslem reasons for why this God must exist, I would again use Plantinga reasons.

Richirich713:


Not in the definition given, only this being can be the ultimate, their cannot be others. To be honest I don't think it's necessary to be even arguing about this, since we drifting into the onto... argument instead of the moral argument. And the first question is whether or not objective morality exists.
If yes then only then question of God comes in.

Here there have to be an assumption that all is subjected to human hierarchal order, how would one supreme entity make less of an assumption than a billion of like beings?

First there still isn't no iota of objective moral idea you can think of, your ideas of morality remains subjective since it will ultimately differ from others.

and if per say scientifically every human share common ancestry and neurological relationship, it's still won't come as a surprise to find a collective method of thought or ideas championed by a shared history and origin like every other human traits.

but yet it is still subjective.

4evergod2:


Each has their own idea of morality agreed but why do we even care to have one? Cave man or intellectual whh do we even care?

Learn that.

Lolz nothing to learn from a question.

society!!! humans are naturally meant to live like in the jungle, but we got so smart we decided to form alliance. the human race. for that alliance to work some will have to be ahead of some, rich and poor, good and bad etc.

that defies the order of jungle. this time we do it with deception. you go for an interview you pretend, you want to fvck a girl you pretend you love, you want to steal money you give loan and call the addition bill interest" you need something which someone has in abundance you can't get it except the jungle way(force), it's not yours lol. we have given fancy names to things that are clearly unnatural. morality is there to ensure these things are kept in check.

morality is bad and at same time good. hey, who wants to go back to jungle period not me. I like the deception type.

KingAdegoke:
Lolz nothing to learn from a question.

society!!! humans are naturally meant to live like in the jungle, but we got so smart we decided to form alliance. the human race. for that alliance to work some will have to be ahead of some, rich and poor, good and bad etc.

that defies the order of jungle. this time we do it with deception. you go for an interview you pretend, you want to fvck a girl you pretend you love, you want to steal money you give loan and call the addition bill interest" you need something which someone has in abundance you can't get it except the jungle way(force), it's not yours lol. we have given fancy names to things that are clearly unnatural. morality is there to ensure these things are kept in check.

morality is bad and at same time good. hey, who wants to go back to jungle period not me. I like the deception type.

So what made you feel todays life is better than the jungle ways? Why do we even Care? Why why why? Why not remain in our original state and see nothing wrong with it but are able to tell right from wrong and with what standard?

4evergod2:


So what made you feel todays life is better than the jungle ways? Why do we even Care? Why why why? Why not remain in our original state and see nothing wrong with it but are able to tell right from wrong and with what standard?

knowledge bruh. we became too knowledgeable. Bible says we ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge.
too wise. too enthusiastic. when you ask questions you find answers. our fore fathers asked questions. knowledge had given us dominion over other species.

4evergod2:


So what made you feel todays life is better than the jungle ways? Why do we even Care? Why why why? Why not remain in our original state and see nothing wrong with it but are able to tell right from wrong and with what standard?

Distinct societal effects.. he thinks today's life better because he lives in today's world, bring someone from the jungle world such a person would still maintain the jungle ways are better.

Isn't it obvious that these are just societal effects on an individuals mind?

If you are left in your original state of stupendous simplicity and later put into a society like Nigeria, you'd end up in jail.

Cus you'd think apples on the streets are just meant to be picked and consumed.

johnydon22:
Here there have to be an assumption that all is subjected to human hierarchal order, how would one supreme entity make less of an assumption than a billion of like beings?

It's a definition not an assumption.

johnydon22:

First there still isn't no iota of objective moral idea you can think of, your ideas of morality remains subjective since it will ultimately differ from others.

Torturing babies for fun is wrong, that's objectively wrong wouldn't u agree?

johnydon22:

and if per say scientifically every human share common ancestry and neurological relationship, it's still won't come as a surprise to find a collective method of thought or ideas championed by a shared history and origin like every other human traits.

but yet it is still subjective.

Doesn't that imply that nothing is truly wrong or right, since morality is subjective.

johnydon22:


Distinct societal effects.. he thinks today's life better because he lives in today's world, bring someone from the jungle world such a person would still maintain the jungle ways are better.

Isn't it obvious that these are just societal effects on an individuals mind?

If you are left in your original state of stupendous simplicity and later put into a society like Nigeria, you'd end up in jail.

Cus you'd think apples on the streets are just meant to be picked and consumed.

You dont understand. Jungle days or today WHY DO WE EVEN CARE? WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER?

KingAdegoke:
morality is not in our DNA. morality is relative. subject to environment and knowledge.

if you were born as a cave man you'd have the cave man morality. if you were born in Isis territory you'd have the morality of a killer being. knowledge(environment, circumstances, education, religion etc) makes a man.

learn that.

I really do not know why he keeps shooting blanks and asking irrelevant questions that have nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Richirich713:


It's a definition not an assumption.

A definition that puts a lid or boundary therefore limits it's reach which can be variance with reality.

The definition here is being questioned because that definition is still based on the assumptions of such traits that constitutes it.

Torturing babies for fun is wrong, that's objectively wrong wouldn't u agree?

I noticed you say for fun and did not add for correction. . . Why then would you omit for corrections?

How does torturing a baby for correction make it any less wrong than torturing one for fun?

Think about this and it still falls back to subjectivity, the main subject is "Torturing babies" now you'd have to device a reason to do that and justify that action.

how would there be instances when such an action [torturing babies] is right if the action is objectively wrong?

So torturing a baby whether for fun or correction is wrong to me not only physical torture but also mental abuse and torture..

Doesn't that imply that nothing is truly wrong or right, since morality is subjective.

Right and Wrong are human ideas in coincide with how things affect them, we are caught in a natural cruel web of severe competition for survival.

Why do you think you don't find it wrong to murder a chicken? or a mosquito must host on you?

To us a mosquito is bad but to a mosquito it is only trying to survive, doesnt this make human existence a bad one for chickens?

why do you think now it's wrong to kill tigers punishable by jail term but it's ok to kill millions of chicken in one day?

Naturally we are caught in a competition, good and bad is a human idea moulded by a human society...

So when you say Right and wrong there isn't naturally any such thing, humans coined out these concepts in their political organisations of a society to derive order and continuity.

4evergod2:

You dont understand. Jungle days or today WHY DO WE EVEN CARE? WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER?

Because there is a thin line between these societal orders, there are parallel so their differences are shouty.. difference is one of those things a human mind can't ignore..

4evergod2:



You dont understand. Jungle days or today WHY DO WE EVEN CARE? WHY DO WE EVEN BOTHER?

Stop asking irrelevant questions. Please read their line of argument and read yours. You are just talking off point.

And to the OP yes there is morality without religion, the constitution also is one example of such values, politics is still another side of societal moral imposer like religion.

Religion is actually a politics with a supernatural authority...

But all in all human morality still precedes both politics and religions and humans are still moral outside political or religious coercions.

But there are humans who are unable to restrain their impulses on their own in these cases both political and religious means becomes necessary but when both political and religious ideas also becomes detrimental to societal well being - they should also be treated as a sinister idea

dalaman:


Stop asking irrelevant questions. Please read their line of argument and read yours. You are just talking off point.

What made you feel my argument is off point? I see theirs as irrelevant and off point.

Still boils down to individual morality.

Why do I do what I do and you do what you do. I may be a caveman and you an intellectual but one thing binds us and its individual morals. But why and how do we even have the bedrock of morality?

I say potato and you say its a round legume does it change the nature and taste of the item?

johnydon22:
A definition that puts a lid or boundary therefore limits it's reach which can be variance with reality.

The definition here is being questioned because that definition is still based on the assumptions of such traits that constitutes it.



I noticed you say for fun and did not add for correction. . . Why then would you omit for corrections?

How does torturing a baby for correction make it any less wrong than torturing one for fun?

Think about this and it still falls back to subjectivity, the main subject is "Torturing babies" now you'd have to device a reason to do that and justify that action.

So torturing a baby whether for fun or correct is wrong to me..

Right and Wrong are human ideas in coincide with how things affect them, we are caught in a natural cruel web of severe competition for survival.

Why do you think you don't find it wrong to murder a chicken? or a mosquito must host on you?

To us a mosquito is bad but to a mosquito it is only trying to survive, doesnt this make human existence a bad one for chickens?

why do you think now it's wrong to kill tigers punishable by jail term but it's ok to kill millions of chicken in one day?

Naturally we are caught in a competition, good and bad is a human idea moulded by a human society...

So when you say Right and wrong there isn't naturally any such thing, humans coined out these concepts in their political organisations of a society to derive order and continuity.

If what u say is true, then doesn't that mean u can't condemn racism, genocide, etc since no society is more right than another.

Richirich713:


If what u say is true, then doesn't that mean u can't condemn racism, genocide, etc since no society is more right than another.

It falls back down to subjectivity, while people would see race i don't i only see: Humans.

Now as regards genocide i'd hewn a basis from my post i said Right and Wrong are human ideas in coincide with how things affect them,

So genocides are detrimental to human survival and as such since i recognize right and wrong simply a child of the mind, as a human i will recognize such actions as wrong because of the reasons above [how it affects humans, human judgment at play here]

Every society will forever believe it is more right than the other which reveals the vagueness of the human concept of right and wrong it is severely subjective that when a christian would celebrate death of every egyptian firs born son as a divine act of israeli redemption [in the bible] some other will find it totally disturbing and cruel.

Now let me pull out some few questions, i'm about to go to work so i'm in a hurry.

you are a christian right?

johnydon22:


It falls back down to subjectivity, while people would see race i don't i only see: Humans.

Now as regards genocide i'd hewn a basis from my post i said Right and Wrong are human ideas in coincide with how things affect them,

So genocides are detrimental to human survival and as such since i recognize right and wrong simply a child of the mind, as a human i will recognize such actions as wrong because of the reasons above [how it affects humans, human judgment at play here]

Every society will forever believe it is more right than the other which reveals the vagueness of the human concept of right and wrong it is severely subjective that when a christian would celebrate death of every egyptian firs born son as a divine act of israeli redemption [in the bible] some other will find it totally disturbing and cruel.

Now let me pull out some few questions, i'm about to go to work so i'm in a hurry.

you are a christian right?

I honesty don't believe u really think that, but since thats ur view I will move on.

Yes I'm a Christian, but I don't subscribe myself to any denomination.

Richirich713:


I honesty don't believe u really think that, but since thats ur view I will move on.

You need not believe what i think for them to be what i think, it was a very good discussion and surely you couldn't really project an objective moral value because you and i know there is none.

You can only judge other moral values based on your own moral stand point which still is subjective.

Yes I'm a Christian, but I don't subscribe myself to any denomination.

Good, now do you by any means have a moral opinion on the genocidal spree of the Israeli tribe as portrayed in the bible?

Do you think it was right or wrong?

johnydon22:
You need not believe what i think for them to be what i think, it was a very good discussion and surely you couldn't really project an objective moral value because you and i know there is none.

You can only judge other moral values based on your own moral stand point which still is subjective.

On the contrary I think we both know it does exist, I just don't feel like going back and forth.

johnydon22:


Good, now do you by any means have a moral opinion on the genocidal spree of the Israeli tribe as portrayed in the bible?

Do you think it was right or wrong?

I don't consider it genocide, and I think when israel followed God commands it was the right thing to do since God is the standard of goodness.

Richirich713:


On the contrary I think we both know it does exist, I just don't feel like going back and forth.

This is the juncture i leave it for people reading to decide the case based on the discussion above.

I don't consider it genocide, and I think when israel followed God commands it was the right thing to do since God is the standard of goodness.

A genocide has one definition, so if a God commands it, it doesn't make it any less genocide.

You see you are even the one championing subjective morality. To you genocide is wrong but when it is being carried out as an express command of God it somehow ceases to be a genocide and becomes right?

And this sounds right to you ?

How is a genocide wrong in one instance and then at the other instance it becomes right if there is an objective moral value?

this is the same question i asked you concerning torturing children: how is torturing children right for correction and wrong for fun? is both not still same disturbing act of torture?

If genocide is objectively wrong then in what ever instances or excuses it may come with - it remains wrong.

Coining out excuses to redefine what you would agree is wrong to make it right goes further not only to reveal moral subjectivity but also dishonesty in it's application for religious ideas.

If per say the Israeli's where not allegedly under a direct command of God [the one you believe in] their actions would be very wrong and disturbing to you but here since it is directly an action based on the charges of your own concept of God [who as you recognize the compass for your morality] there was need for you to justify the action and recognize it to be right - something you obviously wouldn't normally do.

But here you actually believe some genocides are right while some are wrong...

That goes a very good way to paint out Religious morality to the readers here... because you have just shown Genocide is not wrong to you, the only difference is you need God's approval to do it..

you are arguing for is not Objective morality but only a morality that excludes every other human idea but relies only on the subjctive idea of your own god concept whose moral ideas are still in fact that of humans.

Surely enough Islamic militants and Boko haram are very right since their actions are in direct submission to the supposed will of God.

Isn't the israeli tribal deity Yahweh till one of the thousands of God concepts on earth with varying subjective moral ideas?

here effects of an action on the society, human well being or others does not matter, what matters is just do what ever god wants.

This surely should make sense to you.

that is not morality that is just sheepish conformity, and blind conformity to an authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

You have totally shown subjectivity of morality by agreeing that a genocide championed by god ceases to be a genocide and therefore not wrong

this is one of the instances when i recognize religious ideas as detrimental to human well being and survival therefore a sinister idea that deserves to be abhorred.

you've totally justified an absurd act here with God and reveres a gross abhorrence cus of religious inclination and subjectivity

My work here is done, i rest my case... Have a good one

dalaman:


Stop asking irrelevant questions. Please read their line of argument and read yours. You are just talking off point.

I have been enjoying the arguments of these theists in this thread, until I reached to your.

But, I decided to comment because I couldn't withstand the foolishness of the comment.

Find a better way to think wisely!!!

johnydon22:


This is the juncture i leave it for people reading to decide the case based on the discussion above.

Sure

johnydon22:

A genocide has one definition, so if a God commands it, it doesn't make it any less genocide.

God is not human, he is the judge of the universe, the one who decides who is guilty and who is not, humans are not God and they didn't create human life nor are they the source of goodness, so comparing God taking of life to humans isn't in any way the same.

johnydon22:

You see you are even the one championing subjective morality. To you genocide is wrong but when it is being carried out as an express command of God it somehow ceases to be a genocide and becomes right?

And this sounds right to you ?

How is a genocide wrong in one instance and then at the other instance it becomes right if there is an objective moral value?

If genocide is objectively wrong then in what ever instances or excuses it may come with - it remains wrong.

There was no genocide here, it's was a judgment given by God becuz of the crimes committed by those people. And it's not subjective morality since God is the source or the standard of goodness, his commands are always good and just.

johnydon22:

But here you actually believe some genocides are right while some are wrong...

No I don't, u believe that, u think that society determines what is right.

johnydon22:

That goes a very good way to paint out Religious morality to the readers here... because you have just shown Genocide is not wrong to you, the only difference is you need God's approval to do it..

No I didn't , U shown that Genocide is right if society says so, u the one claiming subjective morality not me.

johnydon22:

Surely enough Islamic militants and Boko haram are very right since their actions are in direct submission to the supposed will of God.

here effects of an action on the society, human well being or others does not matter, what matters is just do what ever god wants.

This surely should make sense to you.

that is not morality that is just sheepish conformity, and blind conformity to an authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

You have totally shown subjectivity of morality by agreeing that a genocide championed by god ceases to be a genocide and therefore not wrong.

this is one of the instances when i recognize religious ideas as detrimental to human well being and survival therefore a sinister idea that deserves to be abhorred.

you've totally justified an absurd act here with God and reveres a gross abhorrence cus of religious inclination and subjectivity

My work here is done, i rest my case... Have a good one

Maybe when u were a christian u thought God committed genocide, I and every christian I know don't think that.

johnydon22:


This is the juncture i leave it for people reading to decide the case based on the discussion above.




A genocide has one definition, so if a God commands it, it doesn't make it any less genocide.

You see you are even the one championing subjective morality. To you genocide is wrong but when it is being carried out as an express command of God it somehow ceases to be a genocide and becomes right?

And this sounds right to you ?

How is a genocide wrong in one instance and then at the other instance it becomes right if there is an objective moral value?

this is the same question i asked you concerning torturing children: how is torturing children right for correction and wrong for fun? is both not still same disturbing act of torture?

If genocide is objectively wrong then in what ever instances or excuses it may come with - it remains wrong.

Coining out excuses to redefine what you would agree is wrong to make it right goes further not only to reveal moral subjectivity but also dishonesty in it's application for religious ideas.

If per say the Israeli's where not allegedly under a direct command of God [the one you believe in] their actions would be very wrong and disturbing to you but here since it is directly an action based on the charges of your own concept of God [who as you recognize the compass for your morality] there was need for you to justify the action and recognize it to be right - something you obviously wouldn't normally do.

But here you actually believe some genocides are right while some are wrong...

That goes a very good way to paint out Religious morality to the readers here... because you have just shown Genocide is not wrong to you, the only difference is you need God's approval to do it..

you are arguing for is not Objective morality but only a morality that excludes every other human idea but relies only on the subjctive idea of your own god concept whose moral ideas are still in fact that of humans.

Surely enough Islamic militants and Boko haram are very right since their actions are in direct submission to the supposed will of God.

Isn't the israeli tribal deity Yahweh till one of the thousands of God concepts on earth with varying subjective moral ideas?

here effects of an action on the society, human well being or others does not matter, what matters is just do what ever god wants.

This surely should make sense to you.

that is not morality that is just sheepish conformity, and blind conformity to an authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

You have totally shown subjectivity of morality by agreeing that a genocide championed by god ceases to be a genocide and therefore not wrong

this is one of the instances when i recognize religious ideas as detrimental to human well being and survival therefore a sinister idea that deserves to be abhorred.

you've totally justified an absurd act here with God and reveres a gross abhorrence cus of religious inclination and subjectivity

My work here is done, i rest my case... Have a good one

All you just said is just a dance in a hoola hoop. If you say morality is subjective what happens when you take God out of the equation same way you Atheists are doing and you have absolutely free anything goes morals and you remove laws. Will you say that homosexuality or beastiality is right? And that we would still be better than animals?

I ask this because the last time I checked you Atheists claimed we evolved from Apes but how come even apes do not practice homosexuality but humans do?