MacDaddy01:


You are indeed a foolish person.


Yo asked for an example and I gave a clear example. Since the example clearly answers your topic question in a way that you do not like, you are now saying htat I am arguing off topic. Please, don piss me off



Atheists base their "morality" generally on 4 prinicples;

-practicality
-effectiveness
-logic
-balance of the greater good (pros and cons)



The abortion debate is a clear example of this in reality.

Dude you do not need to insult me as I did not insult you.

I opened this thread to pick the brains of atheists, I do not want any arguments on religion is that too hard for your mind to comprehend?

I asked a question and asked you for example and you started comparing religious stuff. Stay with the topic is a simple enough request.

If you want to be pissed off do so and stay off.

Lord_Reed:

Dude you do not need to insult me as I did not insult you.

I opened this thread to pick the brains of atheists, I do not want any arguments on religion is that too hard for your mind to comprehend?

I asked a question and asked you for example and you started comparing religious stuff. Stay with the topic is a simple enough request.

If you want to be pissed off do so and stay off.

Did I not give you a clear example? Yes or no?

MacDaddy01:


Did I not give you a clear example? Yes or no?

No you did not. You spoke about Sweden and I asked for an example from there, you did not do this.

Lord_Reed:

No you did not. You spoke about Sweden and I asked for an example from there, you did not do this.

How is abortion treated in Sweden, Mr Denial? Hmm?


Furthermore, this is why I answered you question with "Sweden"-- You were asking for a justice system and I cam of with the Swedish Justice system which is quite secular.

Lord_Reed:

My thoughts at the time I thought up this thread was to see the possibility of creating a justice system that would be based on moral subjectivity. My fear is that it would collapse on itself without an acceptable frame of reference and thus introducing a dilemma in that how do you maintain subjectivity when you create a frame of reference.

I understand that atheist may not have a universal code so I felt the differing opinions here may provide a better insight.

MacDaddy01:

Ignorance.


Does a country like Sweden have a justice system based on absolute morality? No.


They are very secular and morality is subjective and so their laws are based on effectiveness, common sense, and practicality.

With due respect to Lord Reed, the op, I do not want to derail your thread into religious arguments. But MacDaddy is like a dog in heat when anyone questions atheism, so I beg to be excused if he decides to start a firestorm over the comments I make. Also, permit me to advise you, @Lord Reed, to excuse or ignore discussions that you feel derail your thread and go on picking the information you seek out of the cacophony of opinions. It will help your peace of mind, I guarantee.

MacDaddy01:

Ignorance.


Does a country like Sweden have a justice system based on absolute morality? No.


They are very secular and morality is subjective and so their laws are based on effectiveness, common sense, and practicality.

MacDaddy, to avoid difficulty in understanding, I will ask you a few questions. I also offer to explain my questions as far as reasonable wherever you have problems understanding them. Here they are:

1. Does the green statement follow from the blue? If yes, how? Please pay particular attention to the underlined word in the green.

2. Can you reconcile the green statement with the red?

3. What do you think the bolded words in the green statement mean?

MacDaddy01:


How is abortion treated in Sweden, Mr Denial? Hmm?


Furthermore, this is why I answered you question with "Sweden"-- You were asking for a justice system and I cam of with the Swedish Justice system which is quite secular.

Dude do you have OCD? Stop with the insults please.

I asked how it works in real life. Just saying abortion is not an answer. No one is forcing to answer if you don't want to so stop feeling persecuted.

Ihedinobi: With due respect to Lord Reed, the op, I do not want to derail your thread into religious arguments. But MacDaddy is like a dog in heat when anyone questions atheism, so I beg to be excused if he decides to start a firestorm over the comments I make. Also, permit me to advise you, @Lord Reed, to excuse or ignore discussions that you feel derail your thread and go on picking the information you seek out of the cacophony of opinions. It will help your peace of mind, I guarantee.

Lol....a dog on heat you say? When you and your ilk have classified atheists as immoral, fools and devil-worshippers? Anyway, lets move on.

Ihedinobi:
MacDaddy, to avoid difficulty in understanding, I will ask you a few questions. I also offer to explain my questions as far as reasonable wherever you have problems understanding them. Here they are:

1. Does the green statement follow from the blue? If yes, how? Please pay particular attention to the underlined word in the green.

2. Can you reconcile the green statement with the red?

3. What do you think the bolded words in the green statement mean?

I am partially colour blind. Thanks for using green.


Nice try to Anonyize my comments but lets keep it simple


1) Morality (especially absolute morality)and common sense are not the same thing. It was moral to keep slaves over 80% of christianity's history (1700 out of 2012 years)

2) Secular countries have only practicality, effectiveness and commonsense to guide their laws.

3) We both speak English. Homie please!

Lord_Reed:

Dude do you have OCD? Stop with the insults please.

I asked how it works in real life. Just saying abortion is not an answer. No one is forcing to answer if you don't want to so stop feeling persecuted.

You must be 2 chromosomes away from being retar.ded.


I gave you how abortion is treated in both a secular and a religious country in the eyes of their justice system. The point of abortion was to show you how "morality" is seen in a secular country. Abortion is a huge topic when it comes to morality. People claim it is injustice to kill a baby, others say it can be justified. I showed you the stereotypical atheist solution on such a subjective area on morality


Or is Sweden or secular countries not real enough for you, Mr Real life?


#Lord Reed debunked

Ihedinobi: With due respect to Lord Reed, the op, I do not want to derail your thread into religious arguments. But MacDaddy is like a dog in heat when anyone questions atheism, so I beg to be excused if he decides to start a firestorm over the comments I make. Also, permit me to advise you, @Lord Reed, to excuse or ignore discussions that you feel derail your thread and go on picking the information you seek out of the cacophony of opinions. It will help your peace of mind, I guarantee.

Thanks for the heads up.

MacDaddy01:

You must be 2 chromosomes away from being retar.ded.


I gave you how abortion is treated in both a secular and a religious country in the eyes of their justice system. The point of abortion was to show you how "morality" is seen in a secular country. Abortion is a huge topic when it comes to morality. People claim it is injustice to kill a baby, others say it can be justified. I showed you the stereotypical atheist solution on such a subjective area on morality


Or is Sweden or secular countries not real enough for you, Mr Real life?


#Lord Reed debunked

I see now that your reputation proceeds you and no amount of reasoning with you will make you give up on insults however just to keep the discussion flowing I will reiterate my request for clarification vis-a-vis your mentioning of Sweden. Is your post on abortion the way Sweden operates it's abortion policy in vivo?

MacDaddy01:


Lol....a dog on heat you say? When you and your ilk have classified atheists as immoral, fools and devil-worshippers? Anyway, lets move on.

I am partially colour blind. Thanks for using green.

I'm sorry. I'll change the color right away. Will purple do?

Nice try to Anonyize my comments but lets keep it simple

Ok

1) Morality (especially absolute morality)and common sense are not the same thing. It was moral to keep slaves over 80% of christianity's history (1700 out of 2012 years)

When you confirm that purple is ok or suggest some other color, I'll mark out the statement again. I don't think you understood me well.

2) Secular countries have only practicality, effectiveness and commonsense to guide their laws.

In other words, common law is based on a moral standard that may be considered absolute. Not so?

3) We both speak English. Homie please!

You are right. We both do. I just wondered if the words mean the same thing to you that they mean to me, what with subjective standards and all.

Anyway, breakdown as follows

effectiveness = productivity, how well a thing works

common sense = cognizance of rudimentary rules of behavior

practicability = doability, that is, whether or not a thing can be done.


Now, my question. What is it about these three words that suggests subjectivity in any way?

Yawn.....Ihedinobi, I tire for you.


I did not say subjectivity = common sense and practicality.


The point is that since we realise that morality is subjective, we have to use common sense and logic to make laws. simple


End of story

MacDaddy01: Yawn.....Ihedinobi, I tire for you.


I did not say subjectivity = common sense and practicality.


The point is that since we realise that morality is subjective, we have to use common sense and logic to make laws. simple


End of story

I guess that means that you agree then that morality cannot be subjective. The very existence of a necessity for laws means that morality is absolute. The qualities of absolute morality include the three characteristics that you named. So, when people "make" laws using them, they're essentially making statements that appeal to a universal morality, whether they are aware of doing so or not.

Ihedinobi:

I guess that means that you agree then that morality cannot be subjective. The very existence of a necessity for laws means that morality is absolute. The qualities of absolute morality include the three characteristics that you named. So, when people "make" laws using them, they're essentially making statements that appeal to a universal morality, whether they are aware of doing so or not.

The bolded is a fallacious argument. It is quite the opposite of what you say

Lord_Reed:

No but laws are fixed and do not discriminate or discern the emotional states or any other subjective characteristics which a reasoning being maybe able to apply.

Yeah, but a xtian would base this code on the bible, yes? Many atheists would of course consider that man made as well
For me it's all about natural good/evil.
Relevant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

Not fully relevant. It's more about the science behind naturally evil deeds, not on how moral codes are formed. But they sort of insinuate a universal moral code based on natural evil/good


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc6kk3cT8kM

MacDaddy01:


The bolded is a fallacious argument. It is quite the opposite of what you say

Explain.