Dalam0n:

Why then do you complain when Muslims go about killing people in the name of Allah? After all Allah has the right to kill unbelievers like you as punishment for your sins ofunbelief. I hope this shows you that you are completely unreasonable and talking complete nonsense.

Islam a false religion. Why you condemning their actions in the first place when you don't believe there is any objective truth in the matter? You believe morality is an human invention which is determined by society.

rekinomtla:


Islam a false religion. Why you condemning their actions in the first place when you don't believe there is any objective truth in the matter? You believe morality is an human invention which is determined by society.

Christianity is also a false religion. Am condemning their action because it is against my right to survive as a human being. You are yet to show that morality isn't a human invention. Show me one moral principle that wasn't invented by human beings. Show me one that was invented by the creator of the universe and not human beings. Am waiting.

Dalam0n:

Christianity is also a false religion. Am condemning their action because it is against my right to survive as a human being. You are yet to show that morality isn't a human invention. Show me one moral principle that wasn't invented by human beings. Show me one that was invented by the creator of the universe and not human beings. Am waiting.

Then you shouldn't label anyone action as being morally wrong. It's just wrong for you, your opinion.

rekinomtla:


Then you shouldn't label anyone action as being morally wrong. It's just wrong for you, your opinion.

You keep making EMPTY claims when asked to defend them you start crying baa baa baa. Morality is a human creation that come about mostly through consensus. Today our law makers make laws for us to abide by. Back in the days religious leaders do it and ascribe it to what ever concept of God the society invents and worships. Again show me one moral principle that isn't a human invention. Show me! Am tired of your empty talk and false claims.

Dalam0n:

You keep making EMPTY claims we asked to defend them you start crying baa baa baa. Morality is a human creation that come about mostly through consensus. Today our law makers make laws for us to abide by. Back in the days religious leaders do it and ascribe it to what ever concept of God the society imvents and worships. Again show me one moral principle that isn't a human invention. Show me! Am tired of your empty talk and false claims.

rekinomtla:


No it is not. Relative means it only a matter of opinion.

No it doesn't! Relative means "in relation to", and not, rekinomtla can make it up in the head!

rekinomtla:

That's perfectly consistent with objective morality. I can believe something is objectively wrong in one situation but right in another depending on the circumstances.

Vaxx, do you see a blindness here?

rekinomtla:


Then you shouldn't label anyone action as being morally wrong. It's just wrong for you, your opinion.

No! That's your opinion! Or are we not telling you how wrong you are?

rekinomtla:


Then you shouldn't label anyone action as being morally wrong. It's just wrong for you, your opinion.

Huh Its his opinion so he shouldn't say it? What's this guy saying?

budaatum:

No it doesn't! Relative means "in relation to", and not, rekinomtla can make it up in the head!

Suppose the following situation then:

One person says It is morally wrong to kill someone for personal pleasure.

Another person says it is morally right.

Question: Who is correct according to moral relativism, is it morally right to kill for personal pleasure or is it not?

frank317:

Huh Its his opinion so he shouldn't say it? What's this guy saying?

Should i say your belief that chocolate tastes better than vanilla is wrong?

rekinomtla:


Should i say your belief that chocolate tastes better than vanilla is wrong?

U don't need to...since it affects no one

frank317:

U don't need to...since it affects no one

So if you opinion affects me i should say your opinion is wrong. How does that make any sense?

rekinomtla:


So if you opinion affects me i should say your opinion is wrong. How does that make any sense?

U argue like the world is black and white. Of what importance is telling and arguing with u that ur taste in chocolate is wrong? How many people go around bothering themselves with irrelevant issues.

Now we are talking about morality which affects us as humans, u are bringing in taste.

If I slap u because I feel I am right, the slap is gonna hurt u and u will react. This action and reaction forms our general ideology on what is wrong or right. No one goes to ask ur God(creator of morality) if he should feel bad because someone slapped him.

Further, because of your reaction to the slap, I will be careful not to slap another person even if I feel I am morally right to slap. Likewise my reaction when I am slapped too.

Humans are not robots waiting for one nonsense creator to tell them what is right or wrong. We interact with each other and decide what should be right or wrong.

Let me ask u...since its obvious to u that something morally right in Nigeria could be morally wrong in India,why do u insist a creator decides what is moral? Are u not seeing he is useless in terms of how humans decides what is right for them? Can't u see?

frank317:

U argue like the world is black and white. Of what importance is telling and arguing with u that ur taste in chocolate is wrong? How many people go around bothering themselves with irrelevant issues.

Now we are talking about morality which affects us as humans, u are bringing in taste.

If I slap u because I feel I am right, the slap is gonna hurt u and u will react. This action and reaction forms our general ideology on what is wrong or right. No one goes to ask ur God(creator of morality) if he should feel bad because someone slapped him.

Further, because of your reaction to the slap, I will be careful not to slap another person even if I feel I am morally right to slap. Likewise my reaction when I am slapped too.

Humans are not robots waiting for one nonsense creator to tell them what is right or wrong. We interact with each other and decide what should be right or wrong.

OK, so if I slapped you and I believe there's nothing morally wrong about it.

While on the other hand, you believe i'm morally wrong.

Who is correct, is my action morally wrong or not?

Let me ask u...since its obvious to u that something morally right in Nigeria could be morally wrong in India,

That's not obvious to me. (Eg. I consider homosexuality to be wrong anywhere). What you said is obvious to cultural moral relativism.

why do u insist a creator decides what is moral? Are u not seeing he is useless in terms of how humans decides what is right for them? Can't u see?

I insist that a creator is needed to make sense of objective morality, otherwise I don't see how moral realism can make any sense. Most of you atheists here even seem to be arguing for objective morals even tho you claim you moral relativists.

rekinomtla:


Suppose the following situation then:

One person says It is morally wrong to kill someone for personal pleasure.

Another person says it is morally right.

Question: Who is correct according to moral relativism, is it morally right to kill for personal pleasure or is it not?

It is morally wrong to kill someone for pleasure and anyone who says it isn't is just mad! If that person goes to kill someone for pleasure we, the rest of us, will throw their ass in jail and there'd be no relativism about it!

I don't get this "moral relativism" at all!

rekinomtla:


OK, so if I slapped you and I believe there's nothing morally wrong about it.

While on the other hand, you believe i'm morally wrong.

Who is correct, is my action morally wrong or not? .

So you slap me and you believe there's nothing morally wrong about it. Can I ask you, does my face not hurt? Don't worry, when I slap you back and kick your head in in return, you can thank me, and say I did no wrong.

rekinomtla:
I insist that a creator is needed to make sense of objective morality, otherwise I don't see how moral realism can make any sense. [s]Most of you atheists here even seem to be arguing for objective morals even tho you claim you moral relativists[/s].

What you are saying is that you need a higher force to tell you the right and proper thing to do or you might just go ahead and do whatever you like whether its right or not. I get you, some people are like that. You can't reason and decide what is moral or immoral for your self.

Other people, tend to reason and think for themselves. They assign high power to their mind and brain and reason so no one gets to be lord over them, they reason by themselves. They do not just go about slapping people and justifying it. Like I said, they reason with their minds and brains.

rekinomtla:


OK, so if I slapped you and I believe there's nothing morally wrong about it.

While on the other hand, you believe i'm morally wrong.

Who is correct, is my action morally wrong or not?

Its simple... Why don't you go outside and slap any man walking on the street.
If I say u are morally right to slap anyone.... We will see if u will slap another again after slapping the stranger.


Sometimes u guys ask questions like say una no go school.

That's not obvious to me. (Eg. I consider homosexuality to be wrong anywhere). What you said is obvious to cultural moral relativism.

I never said u didn't consider homosexuality to be wrong everywhere... Does it stop an american from considering it right everywhere?
Are you the only one on earth? If u consider homosexuality wrong does it mean everyone considers it wrong?
Why are u answering a different thing when I asked u another thing.
How can u say its not obvious to u, don't u know that certain people in other countries consider it right?

I insist that a creator is needed to make sense of objective morality, otherwise I don't see how moral realism can make any sense. Most of you atheists here even seem to be arguing for objective morals even tho you claim you moral relativists.

Unfortunately this is not the case... Or is it? If yes show us facta that made u think morality is objective.

rekinomtla:


That's perfectly consistent with objective morality. I can believe something is objectively wrong in one situation but right in another depending on the circumstances.

No that is not consistent with objective morality. You cannot say something is true in one situation and not true in another and call it objective.

Moral relativists certainly believed that but the difference is they believe truth is a matter of opinion. If I said it is wrong to kill someone for personal pleasure and someone else said it is right, a natural question that would follow is who is correct, is it right or wrong to kill for personal pleasure.

The correct answer is, who is rational. Who's position brings the best good to society and the individuals that make it up.

According to moral objectivism there is a answer to that question and one of us is incorrect. According to moral relativism no one is incorrect, because there's no objective truth in the matter. My opinion is true for me and his for him. No one is right or wrong, it's just a difference of opinion.

If you can rationally show me that your opinion is better than mine then yes you are right. If you can rationally show me how murdering a person is good then you are right.

Thou shalt not kill refers specifically to the unlawful killing of another human being. Most modern translations today use the word "murder" in place of "kill".

LoL, changing the semantics doesn't change the action, you are still killing.

According to moral relativism it is a matter of opinion. If you don't believe that then you not a moral relativist. If for instance you believe that some action is always wrong in certain circumstances.



Not to unlawfully kill.

Killing is killing, whether lawfully or unlawfully so yes there is no objective morality as evidenced even by your god. Allow his people to kill in one situation and prohibit them from killing in another.

LordReed:


No that is not consistent with objective morality. You cannot say something is true in one situation and not true in another and call it objective.



The correct answer is, who is rational. Who's position brings the best good to society and the individuals that make it up.



If you can rationally show me that your opinion is better than mine then yes you are right. If you can rationally show me how murdering a person is good then you are right.



LoL, changing the semantics doesn't change the action, you are still killing.




Killing is killing, whether lawfully or unlawfully so yes there is no objective morality as evidenced even by your god. Allow his people to kill in one situation and prohibit them from killing in another.

I have a feeling the guys has seen how foolish he sounds

frank317:


I have a feeling the guys has seen how foolish he sounds

Let's hope so.

.

frank317:

I have a feeling the guys has seen how foolish he sounds

Actually I just got bored. Im not going to repeat myself over and over again.

rekinomtla:


Actually I just got bored. Im not going to repeat myself over and over again.

have a great day

rekinomtla:


Actually I just got bored. Im not going to repeat myself over and over again.

I can show you other examples of moral subjectivity by your god if the talk of killing has soured you.

LordReed:

I can show you other examples of moral subjectivity by your god if the talk of killing has soured you.

I don't think you showed any examples of the "moral subjectivity" of my God. I think you've misunderstood what is moral objectivism and moral relativism is, you likewise most probably think I've misunderstood those terms. That's why I'll rather just agree to disagree then have both of us repeat ourselves.

rekinomtla:


I don't think you showed any examples of the "moral subjectivity" of my God. I think you've misunderstood what is moral objectivism and moral relativism is, you likewise most probably think I've misunderstood those terms. That's why I'll rather just agree to disagree then have both of us repeat ourselves.

OK define moral objectivity then we'll go from there.

LordReed:


OK define moral objectivity then we'll go from there.

He will not.


His inability to cope is boring him. He is afraid of delving into a doubt zone therefore further engagement is not needed.

frank317:


He will not.


His inability to cope is boring him. He is afraid of delving into a doubt zone therefore further engagement is not needed.

Hopefully he'll engage, this stuff is fascinating when you look into it.

frank317:

Its simple... Why don't you go outside and slap any man walking on the street.
If I say u are morally right to slap anyone.... We will see if u will slap another again after slapping the stranger.

Sometimes u guys ask questions like say una no go school.

You not answering the question, you dodging it. So I’ll ask you again:

rekinomtla:

OK, so if I slapped you and I believe there's nothing morally wrong about it.

While on the other hand, you believe i'm morally wrong.

Who is correct, is my action morally wrong or not?

This time please answer the question. I don't wana call you out for dodging again

I never said u didn't consider homosexuality to be wrong everywhere... Does it stop an american from considering it right everywhere?
Are you the only one on earth? If u consider homosexuality wrong does it mean everyone considers it wrong?
Why are u answering a different thing when I asked u another thing.
How can u say its not obvious to u, don't u know that certain people in other countries consider it right?

Not sure if you being deliberately dishonest here. But before you asked me isn’t it obvious to me that something could be right in one society and wrong in another. To that I said NO. I’m a moral realist therefore I believe that certain actions under certain circumstances are wrong in all and every society. That is I believe our moral judgments can be true or false, and what makes true or false is independent of our beliefs (hence, the term moral objectivism).

But now you changed the question. Now you asking me if it isn’t obvious to me that certain people have different moral beliefs. That certain people in one society for example consider/believe homosexuality to be wrong but in another society some people consider/believe it to be right.

But that’s not what you ask me the first time. Originally you asked me what is the case, now you asking what people believe to be the case. The question I asked you above, the one you dodged shows the difference, that’s why I asked it.

Unfortunately this is not the case...

How about you define and provide evidence for moral relativism instead of just asserting or assuming it’s true until someone proves to you that morality is objective. Why are atheists always like this, assume their position until someone provides absolute proof that another view is true.

Or is it? If yes show us facta that made u think morality is objective.

We know that morality is objective by intuition. Intuition is right until we have good reason to doubt it. We know for instance that some of our moral judgments are true regardless if people believe them or not. (Eg we know killing for personal pleasure is morally wrong evens if the person who does so believes it is morally right.) But go ahead explain how moral relativism reaches its conclusion that nothing is objectively wrong but it's only differences in opinion. I'm sure psychopaths will agree

frank317:

He will not.