Deep Sight: ^^^^ Delude yourself. I have seen the end from the beginning as you have shown a determination to fail to address the core issues here. Wiegraf's turn out on this thread has been scandalously low minded and abysmal. He hops on your nonsense about cultural values after advocating force as the proper tool for the determination of morality. Bunkum. Trash.

What do you want me to do, give you some cabin? It's not my fault you're spouting nonsense, you don't even seem to understand your own position. Why take it out on me? You just realized I'm childish? And do you really not have any mirrors around? After all the antics, the whinning, appeals to emotion, contorting left right centre everything said in your attempts to demonize my position, petulance for pages after you've been shown to be vomiting dross etc etc, you now play the victim? Oh the indginity, lol

For instance, have I not been speaking about values from page 1?! And where do I state that violence is the only way to impose a will? When I claimed you were trying to impose your will on us, were you perhaps using a cutlass to get your point across? Or Mandela that just died, he was at one point a terrorist (to some, subjectivity, see?), but I do believe he eventually imposed his (legendarily stubborn) will without any bloodshed, no? In fact, it seems he averted a bloody civil war, no? Mostly by being the bigger man, and listening to every side. In other words, acknowledging other wills as equally important, that there is more than one standpoint to every issue, and bringing these wills to the negotiating table. Ditto Gandhi and the rest...

Ditto everyone with regards to navigating through life. Actually, every single living thing, in a sense, possesses a will. You, in the meantime, my 'natural' proponent, can please proceed to show how lions eat without using force. I'm sure those zebras etc willingly comply.....

On a semi related random note, have you seen cloud atlas?

http://www.tangdou.com/v38/dAMcMgOjwzzDwA2.html

It says a lot about 'natural' orders. Eg, the natural order slavers followed.

There is an absolute. Our consciences bear witness.

Values can influence our consciences, but it does not destroy the fact of the absolutes. Values can infringe or shrink away from absolute laws, written in our consciousness.

They do not change them. Or the consequence of breaking them.

A former cultural value was that twins were to murdered and considered evil. It was abolished. It did not change the fact that murder is evil.

Anytime we try to shift the basis of the absolutes, we end up hurting ourselves

Mr Troll:

i'm done playing silly here....

You can't be done with what you are.

Joshthefirst: There is an absolute. Our consciences bear witness.

An absolute what?

Joshthefirst:
Values can influence our consciences, but it does not destroy the fact of the absolutes. Values can infringe or shrink away from absolute laws, written in our consciousness.

What on earth are you on about?

Joshthefirst:
They do not change them. Or the consequence of breaking them.

A former cultural value was that twins were to murdered and considered evil. It was abolished. It did not change the fact that murder is evil.

Anytime we try to shift the basis of the absolutes, we end up hurting ourselves

You do realize that the twins thing is something different. If killing twins was considered evil by those doing the killing, why was it done? I hope that when you answer that question for yourself, you'll understand why I said cultural values were the basis for criminal laws.

In repeating that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws, you forget the topic .- the morality of the laws.

So when you say that morality is based on values, you thereby say that anything that is endorsed by the values of a culture is thereby morally apt.

Such as slavery, or killing twins.

I could not possibly make it simpler.

Catching a flight now. Talk again later.

Deep Sight:
In repeating that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws, you forget the topic .- the morality of the laws.

So when you say that morality is based on values, you thereby say that anything that is endorsed by the values of a culture is thereby morally apt.

Such as slavery, or killing twins.

I could not possibly make it simpler.

Catching a flight now. Talk again later.

Boss

Deep Sight:
In repeating that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws, you forget the topic .- the morality of the laws.

No it isn't forgotten.

Deep Sight:
So when you say that morality is based on values, you thereby say that anything that is endorsed by the values of a culture is thereby morally apt.

Such as slavery, or killing twins.

Wrong and wrong. I said my morality is based on my values. I also said criminal laws are based on cultural values. None of these mean that slavery or killing twins is morally right. As usual, you avoid stating what your morality is based on and fail to better explain what you meant with your talk about "evil in itself".

Deep Sight:
I could not possibly make it simpler.

Catching a flight now. Talk again later.

Maybe you couldn't but you would do well to first understand what is being said.

Whenever you're ready.

Deep Sight:

You can't be done with what you are.

Lol, sorry man you've been owned in this thread.

Deep Sight:
In repeating that cultural values are the basis of criminal laws, you forget the topic .- the morality of the laws.

So when you say that morality is based on values, you thereby say that anything that is endorsed by the values of a culture is thereby morally apt.

Such as slavery, or killing twins.

I could not possibly make it simpler.

Catching a flight now. Talk again later.

I knew you Couldn't stay away. smh

Deep Sight:

You really have to be truly more circumspect about some of the truly shocking and deeply unfortunate positions which you (and some other atheists about here) take, simply in a bid to avoid simple age-old truths firmly embedded within the collective psyche of humanity.

If you say mala in se do not exist, I hope you recognize that you thereby irredeemably relinquish your right to ever be outraged by any atrocity in history or in the current: no matter how gravely inhuman the atrocity is, and regardless of the scale on which it is perpetrated.

Indeed, the word 'atrocity' should similarly disappear from your dictionary - since, as you say, "it is all subjective."

Also if you insist that "it is all subjective," people of criminal inclination who, in their own subjective moral worldview, see nothing wrong with murder, theft, rape, torture, pedophilia, and the like, are perfectly entitled to their "subjective" take, and indeed, denying them the rights to live and act as they please may amount to participating in a system which contradicts your own belief in the strict subjectivity of morality.

Indeed, you will have no basis for ever supporting any international action that seeks to intervene in given nations where governments are perpetrating mass atrocities, such as occurred in [font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Sudan, and else where. This would be particularly so because "it is all subjective" and as such the peoples of such countries may choose to allow those actions within their realms, in exercise of their "sovereign moral subjectivity". . . . .

Finally, you must also agree that if you hold that "it is all subjective" then by establishing criminal laws, you thereby trample on the rights of those within the society who are in a minority and who wholly disagree with the moral paradigm used in establishing such laws. What this translates to is that it will be wrong to establish any criminal laws at all, because "it is all subjective."

You will thus be left with a lawless, anarchic and meaningless society and world, akin to the worst conceivable jungle - - - > All because of your sad desperation to deny the well embedded basic objective morals of human societies in generality and through the ages. Of course, this desperation, it is obvious, springs from your desperation to deny the existence of that creator that embedded humanity with common conscience - God.

Keep it up. It will take you to the stars and beyond.

Arrant nonsense.

imagine this dude did not mention ISREAL as one of those country I guess there actions are subjective to him

Ah, age old thread. If Morality is dependent entirely on human opinion, then the strongest of us decides what is right or wrong. The one with the most powerful weapon becomes god

thehomer:


An absolute what?



What on earth are you on about?



You do realize that the twins thing is something different. If killing twins was considered evil by those doing the killing, why was it done? I hope that when you answer that question for yourself, you'll understand why I said cultural values were the basis for criminal laws.

homer, looks like I lost track of this.


What about the Nazis and their rule? Killing and imprisoning news was not considered evil or unreasonable by them.

Joshthefirst:
homer, looks like I lost track of this.


Of course you did.


What about the Nazis and their rule? Killing and imprisoning news was not considered evil or unreasonable by them.

What about them? You should have answered the preceding questions. Why don't you answer them so I can get a sense of what point you're trying to make.