frank317:

Determining if something is wrong or right depends on a lot of things. But in the case of rape, the fact that the effect makes many people unhappy is one of the determinants that its wrong.

Actually, determining right or wrong involves establishing distinctions on the subject which involves a primary belief regarding the subject.

That anybody is unhappy about anything does not in any way add a moral weight to that action.

No that's not my position.

Actually, it is an implication of your argument. You are leaning towards how people feel about something determines their moral weight, in fact you implied that on your sentence right above this one on the moral weight of rape.

I quote: "But in the case of rape, the fact that the effect makes many people unhappy is one of the determinants that its wrong."

Is this Johnny talking or someone else. Pls check if ur account has been hacked.

LOL

Not rejoicing over and action? U mean u think what i am saying is that not rejoicing over rape is the same as not rejoicing over a man eating chicken? I think u are too smart for this kind of conclusion.

No, what i think you mean is that feelings are determining factors on the moral position of an action.

Which is a logical leap because one must first establish "how" a particular feeling has any moral weight first.

Pls come back home... Don't quote me out of context... We are talking about rape (which he puts forth an argument that it's good) and I asked him a simple question to allow him think of how he would feel if his child is raped. I want to know if his empathic self is still in check. He should have answered the question directly na

I don't know about his answers; the point is; feelings don't determine the moral weight of an action.

if you feeling bad that your child was raped makes it wrong.

what-if the person who perpetuated this rape feels good about it, does it make it right?

See? how you feel about an action doesn't make such action either good or bad.

Moral basis must first establish a distinction between subjects of actions. In the case of rape, the subjects are 1. human 2. Sex.

But let me ask u do u think it makes sense for theists to see rape as wrong because sex is sacred?

That is actually the most reasonable basis.

1. Human life is sacred
2. Sex is sacred.

The action works in violation of these sacred values hence the moral weight.

I think rape is wrong because of how it affects the people involved (the victim and his loved ones, even the who carried out the act

You are failing to see how this position actually takes you back to believing in the sacredness of the subject.

The only reason how it affects these subjects matter is that there is something fundamentally special about them, this is an implicit belief in this case.

This is the problem; theological basis first starts with ascription of value system which leads to a conclusion on moral weight.

Secular morality first makes a conclusion which falls back down to an ascription of an implicit value system.

LOL

I didn't get into any conclusion, how did u see that as conclusion?

That question directly refers to your implied definition of moral weight based on how an action affects the people involved.

Like I said, I will not deny that the fundamental basis for moral conclusion has many implications

Ok

advocate666:


Not if it makes my point.

There is never a time when logical fallacies makes a point in contrast to the other person's argument.

advocate666:


Now, to the second part. I won't insult your intelligence by asking the obvious question which is "right or wrong for whom?"

What I will ask instead is this: Based on your definition, is suicide an immoral act?

Yes.

advocate666:


Let me deal with this one first.

Ok, here is a superior and good philosophical argument. I hope you are intellectually honest to understand it.

Here goes: If Thor does not exist, thunder will not exist. Thunder exists, therefore Thor exists.

Hahahahaha that you believe this in anyway an equivalence of the argument here means you don't even know what we have been talking about here.

Blood of Zachariah

MuttleyLaff:
The issue of morality, as you've succintly put it it to be principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour, wouldnt have been a subject of discourse if not because the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was eaten off. The serpent was quarter right when it said that eating of the tree will open the eyes of the eater, make the eater become god and knowing good and evil.

Uuuuuuuuuuh, okeeeeeeeey i guess

johnydon22:
Hahahahaha that you believe this in anyway an equivalence of the argument here means you don't even know what we have been talking about here.

Blood of Zachariah

Here my people is "intellectual honesty"

pray tell, what is the difference between the two arguments?

johnydon22:
Yes.

why?

frank317:

Yes they do...is this what u want to establish? What's the implication of their justification?

Its impacts or implication are based on perspective... When Hitler conducted blitzkrieg war on Europe.. His troops saw it as a symbol of power.. they were motivated.. elated... however the opponents were crushed without mercy the entire world mourned....

So now how their holy book impact them is simply unquantifiable. Its their book of stories and guidance quotes (objectively speaking) which can give different meanings in different contexts..

For some it guides, for some it entertains, for some it kills, gives hope, helps, harms etc.. for some its even the occupation.

advocate666:


Here my people is "intellectual honesty"

pray tell, what is the difference between the two arguments?

Dude, i am not going to continue explaining things that are simply out of your own inability to grasp intricate philosophical or even logical matters.

This is not an elementary school.

Jesus Effing Christ!

advocate666:


why?

Based on the belief that distinguishes the subject from others, the subject being "Human life"


1. Human life is special
2. Killing human life means violation of this sacredness

johnydon22:
Dude, i am not going to continue explaining things that are simply out of your own inability to grasp intricate philosophical or even logical matters.

This is not an elementary school.

Jesus Effing Christ!

Says one who spends his time here explaining things to others.

Suddenly you are out of your depth and resorting to the ad hominem fallacy of refutation by caricature.

advocate666:
Exodus 11:4-5

⁴So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt.
⁵Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

Slow clapping applause.
I cant believe you've allowed yourself to be tricked into believing something that is not just so untrue but also believing something you didnt really in the first place at all understand. If the devil sure gets the bible upside down and the other way round, then it's junior most commissioned officers can be forgiven when they do same too

This is a self inflicted judgement, brought upon the Egyptians who for 430 years plus have condemned the Israelites to slavery, oppressed, abused and mistreated them when their king, Pharaoh, told Moses to the face:
"Depart from me and make sure you never see my face again, for on the day you see my face, you will die."

Pharaoh, at these menacing words at Moses, virtually signed the death warrant for all the first borns in the land of Egypt, whether humans or animals. The die was cast, Pharaoh sealed the first borns' fate and set things motion in the spiritual realm with those threatening words at Moses.

MuttleyLaff:
Slow clapping applause.
I cant believe you've allowed yourself to be tricked into believing something that is not just so untrue but also believing something you didnt really in the first place at all understand. If the devil sure gets the bible upside down and the other way round, then it's junior most commissioned officers can be forgiven when they do same too

This is a self inflicted judgement, brought upon the Egyptians who for 430 years plus have condemn the Israelites to slavery, oppressed, abused and mistreated them when their king, Pharaoh, told Moses to the face:
"Depart from me and make sure you never see my face again, for on the day you see my face, you will die."

Pharaoh, at these menacing words at Moses, virtually signed the death warrant for all the first borns in the land of Egypt, whether humans or animals. The die was cast, Pharaoh sealed the first borns' fate and set things motion in the spiritual realm with those threatening words at Moses.

Yes I know.

My point is that God killed innocent african babies for whatever reasons.

I fail to see the morality in that.

advocate666:
Yes I know.

My point is that God killed innocent african babies for whatever reasons.

I fail to see the morality in that.

C'mon now, you know and I know, it is God's prerogative to do what He for whatever reason(s) does.

The morality in it, is that watch your words because it might turn round to come bite you in the arse and dont throw stones if you leave in a glasshouse

MuttleyLaff:
C'mon now, you know and I know, it is God's prerogative to do what He for whatever reason(s) do

The morality in it, is that watch your words because it might turn round to come bite you in the arse and dont throw stones if you leave in a glasshouse

Only the theists can justify an evil act like that and still claim moral superiority.

It takes god to turn good people into evil.

johnydon22:
Again, i am not talking about the actions but the basis.

I know this premise is new to this board that is why most people are unable to grasp it.

I will like to know the implications of this basis. Saying God is the basis of morality means nothing to me, because, no God seem to be basis for morality from what i see, humans are.

I wish arguments such as this were live arguments because it is incredibly difficult to break it down to the basics for people who are entirely new to such philosophical depth.

You are not getting the argument; A morality based on the assumption of an ultimate authority who by definition owns the system is by implication non-arbitrary because such moral laws would be as inherent to the universe as the laws of physics.

And this means that it doesn't matter what you feel about such action as long as the ultimate authority rules it wrong then it is wrong, if it rules it right then it is.

Therefore a theological standpoint on morality using God as basis argues for an objective nature of morality.

A secular basis for morality is arbitrary, it means anyone can decide for themselves what is right or wrong which by implication means nothing really is right or wrong.

On such subjective moral ground; You can't really say rape is wrong or Hitler was wrong for killing jews.

Because that is just your opinion.

If you are asked why such thing as rape or murder is wrong and you say "it hurts people"

You are simply doing nothing but also giving an opinion that hurting people is wrong.

To the next person it may not be, therefore in the real sense there is no morality.

I am looking at this from what is actually obtainable in the world we live in and not just saying God is the basis yet what's happening is happening.

Yes in saying morality is subjective one cannot say rape it wrong or right but u fail to realize other conditions also apply. Its not just saying rape is wrong.... There is empathy, there is pain, there is regret, there is how the rapist will react when he himself is being raped.. A whole lot of things comes together to determine that rape is wrong not just the feeling... In all these I fail to see how God being the basis determines that rape is wrong if not just repeating words without making real meaning out of it.

There were valid assumptions or belief for moral basis to be successfully established.

Even our current criminalization of rape is based on this ancient assumption; Sex is something sacred, people's property are sacred to them - therefore stealing any of this is a violation of its sacred values.

if we do not think sex is sacred, then sex organs aren't sacred, therefore aren't any different from our hands or legs - then on what basis do we criminalize grabbing someone's sex organs but not that person's hands?

Our current criminalization of rape is not based on ancient assumptions, it is based on our feelings, empathy and learning. U can repeat that sex is sacred, but I am saying it makes no meaning it being sacred since even those who don't think its scared will react the same way to it as those who think its sacred. Its about what what always thought about sex not because sex is sacred.
And I don't think sex is sacred. That does not mean my private part is not private. My private part is not sacred.

Exactly. demonstrating that even modern moral derivations have basic roots in the fundamental beliefs of ancient theological basis. Savvy?

Give me one reason a secular guy who doesn't believe sex organs as sacred would react different when touched in the sex organ than he would when touched on his hand or head? Why would he regard the former as sexual assault and the other as not?

Because if the emotional attachment we have towards sex. Its not because sex is sacred.
There is a reason why we don't feel sex towards our mother but will have that feeling towards a girl o the next street. There is an emotional feeling involve and it makes our penis stand when we see the person. That feeling has something to do with our sexual organa hence we consider them special in a different way. Besides both have extremely different functions. Their function determines how I will react when u touch then.

You people are not even getting my arguments at all, i fully understand this dilemma. I have not argued that God is the basis for morality, my argument is; that for the theist (theologically) God is the basis therefore an argument on objectivity which derives a superior methodological basis than secular morality that either jumps into a moral conclusion or borrows the necessary theological assumptions.

And I am saying this basis is not a superior argument because it cannot be demonstrated.

As i said - classical moral conclusions without basis.

Sir please what's the basis of ur conclusion that morality was derived from ancient assumptions. Is the acceptance of gays based on ancient assumptions? Why have we done away with some ancient moral assumptions?

let me demonstrate; Killing is wrong?

This is a statement. now here are examples;

Mr A killed a rat
Mr B Killed a woman

Who do we chastise and abhor his action as morally repulsive.

mr B of course.

Why? Aren't both A and B guilty of killing?

Yes. they both are but there is a difference.

There is a fundamental belief in a value system that sets out human life from other life, this is a theological assumption, in theology based on this assumption, it is even wrong to commit suicide.

False, its not based in any theological assumption, except if u, Mr.Johnny needs theological assumption to feel sad or cry when ur loved one dies.u tend to assume that we humans are not capable of feelings. These feelings(among other things) also helps in determining what is morally wrong or right and not theological assumption.

Mr A and B both killed but this action has no moral weight, the moral weight comes with subject which is an implication of the fundamental belief ascribed to this subject.

The weight is not based on our fundamental belief but our feeling towards the subject.

This is exactly the same way rape is wrong. Mr A grabbed a hand Mr B grabbed a dick. Mr B is marked out as an offender.

they are both guilty of grabbing a body part but mr B grabbed a body part with ascribed belief of specialty

See?

We ascribe different feeling towards the body parts as humans.
How can u neglect feelings and emotions in all u are saying.

Why will someone slap my wife and I react differently when someone slaps a lady stranger? FEELING.

Again, this makes morality arbitrary, you on this note therefore cannot conclusively say hitler is wrong or a rapist is wrong because it is simply what you think.

let me categorically make this clear; I am not arguing that morality is objective, this is not my position.

My position simply is that a non-arbitrary moral value makes far more sense because an arbitrary morality is in essence meaningless.

Like I said its not just about saying Hitler was wrong, but its about explaining why I think he was wrong.

And I am telling u that a non arbitrary moral value makes not sense because it just a mere wish which cannot be demonstrated. It comes with its own problem which u seems to over look. Do u realize that theists think God asking Abraham to kill his son was moral? This is one of the problem of God basis.

1. says killing is wrong based on his subjective feeling
2. says killing is right and not killing is wrong based on his subjective feelings.

Which one is correct? neither, both are based on feelings which one must first show to logically establish a moral distinction.

You are not getting it frank, because you feel this way doesn't make your feelings more correct than the other guy's feelings.

You feel rape is wrong
the other guy doesn't feel the same way.

So, who can say that rape is really wrong or right since it is simply down to what individuals feel?

It simply implies that there is no such thing as wrong or right.

Whatever you think is what is.

Saying killing is wrong depends on a lot of things... We are humans who have brain to think and make decisions. Its not just about saying killing is wrong, why do we say killing is wrong? A lot of things are considered before we say killing is wrong... How was he person killed? Why was he killed? Who killed him? Who was affected? Will the killer love to be killed? What of the loved ones of the killed?
Oga there is a reason we have brain.

How exactly does saying God says killing is wrong changes anything?

This is why something is a dilemma; changing the fundamental belief but not the conclusion.

Example; The idea that murder is wrong is from the fundamental belief that human life is sacred.

Falae, the idea that murder is wrong is because of how we feel when someone dies, who gets affected and all that. Its not because any human life is sacred.

When we change this belief on the sacredness of human life, there is entirely no basis whatsoever for we to think that killing a human is anymore wrong than killing a rat.

I don't feel for rats the way I feel for my loved ones... I can't believe this is coming from u.

For you to think this is to implicitly ascribe a form of value to human life - hence; sacredness.

So, the moral dilemma of secularity is making logical conclusions without basis without knowing that these conclusions implicitly leads back to the fundamental basis that are by definition theological.

I really don't accept this and I think enough has been said already.

Therefore, nothing is wrong.

Why did u just use wrong... Complete the statement na. U stop at wrong because u know concluding the statement will leave ur argument hanging.

And yes, nothing is right or wrong... We only look for a balance as humans. That's why what is moral changes over time.

the question is; How did we come to accept this?

How = basis.

See?

How did we come to accept this?
Leaning, experience, empathy, feelings... Etc.

advocate666:
Only the theists can justify an evil act like that and still claim moral superiority.

It takes god to turn good people into evil.

You fail to realise that what you've mistaken to be an evil act actually and in the real sense is judgement. No one is claiming moral superiority and sitting on a moral high horse here better than you and your philosophical others lot, like johnydon22 etcetera

advocate666:
It takes god to turn good people into evil.

As I've earlier on this thread said, it takes becoming a god to knowing good and evil.
Evil, afterall, comes from the abuse and/or misuse of free will.

MuttleyLaff:
You fail to realise that what you've mistaken to be an evil act actually and in the real sense is judgement. No one is claiming moral superiority and sitting on a moral high horse here better than you and your philosophical others lot, like johnydon22 etcetera

As I've earlier on this thread said, it takes becoming a god to knowing good and evil.
Evil, afterall, comes from the abuse and/or misuse of free will.

You are just making my point. No matter what you call it or how you twist it, murdering innocent african babies for whaterver reason is evil.

advocate666:
You are just making my point. No matter what you call it or how you twist it, murdering innocent african babies for whaterver reason is evil.

You are not making any point at all, what you are doing is failing to see the point that Pharaoh knows that that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that is at the receiving end, he ought to have learned not use small hands to get and have bigger hands smack in the face. If Pharaoh had conceded, none of this would have happened. It is because of Pharaoh's hardened heart that judgement visited the first borns of the land who happened to have not had blood displayed on their house's door lintel

I am sure you're familiar and fully understand the meaning and implication of the phrase "guilty by association"?

MuttleyLaff:
You are not making any point at all, what you are doing is failing to see the point that Pharaoh knows that that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that is at the receiving end, he ought to have learned not use small hands to get and have bigger hands smack in the face. If Pharaoh had conceded, none of this would have happened. It is because of Pharaoh's hardened heart that judgement visited the first borns of the land who happened to have not had blood displayed on their house's door lintel

I am sure you're familiar and fully understand the meaning and implication of the phrase "guilty by association"?

A justified evil act is still not a moral act.

And a moral god practicing guilt by association? Nothing you theists wont justify.

advocate666:
A justified evil act is still not a moral act.
And a moral god practicing guilt by association? Nothing you theists wont justify.

When are you going to climb down from your moral high horse huh?
And what else again now are you bleating about?
Do you know what happened to them after the judgement? No, I didnt think so
Was it right for the Egyptians, after 430 years plus, to continue to condemn the Israelites to slavery and perpetually oppress, abuse and mistreat them?
Is that morally right, huh?

MuttleyLaff:
When are you going to climb down from your moral high horse huh?
And what else again now are you bleating about?
Do you know what happened to them after the judgement? No, I didnt think so
Was it right for the Egyptians to continue to condemn the Israelites to slavery and perpetually oppress, abuse and mistreat them?
Is that morally right, huh?

As a Satanist, the last thing I have is a moral high horse.

I understand your point that God's act are justified because in your theist view he is doing that which is just by passing judgement on the wicked even if that judgement is something we abhor.

My point is that evil is still evil even when it is God that does it. Immoral acts don't suddenly become moral because they are justified.

If someone is shooting at me and I shoot back and kill him. I am justified even though my killing him is evil.

The bible makes many references to this by not only calling God evil but also condemning some of God's acts as evil.

Here is an example:

Ecclesiastes 6:2

2 God gives some people wealth, possessions and honor, so that they lack nothing their hearts desire, but God does not grant them the ability to enjoy them, and strangers enjoy them instead. This is meaningless, a grievous evil.

You see, even justified acts of God can still be evil.

advocate666:
As a Satanist, the last thing I have is a moral high horse.

You are what you are and I dont hold what you are against you. I dont take it personal with you what you are, but I wont hesistate to squash and/or crush you under my feet, the moment you trespass on me and all that I hold dearly to.

advocate666:
I understand your point that God's act are justified because in your theist view he is doing that which is just by passing judgement on the wicked even if that judgement is something we abhor.

Respect to you. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

advocate666:
My point is that evil is still evil even when it is God that does it. Immoral acts don't suddenly become moral because they are justified.

God is an exception to this rule of yours.

advocate666:
If someone is shooting at me and I shoot back and kill him. I am justified even though my killing him is evil.

I dont know where you currently live so I am sorry to be the one telling you that in saner societies, your will be deemed brutality, as in, an excessive force and an unjustified use of force for that matter too

PS, you corrected shouting to shooting, but still, if you are not a licensed gun holder, you can still, at the least, be made culpable for your retaliatory though defensive action. Remember you dont necessarily aim to kill, but rather you aim to demobilise or disarm and then get yourself out of harm in to safety

advocate666:
The bible makes many references to this by not only calling God evil but also condemning some of God's acts as evil.

Here is an example:

Ecclesiastes 6:2

2 God gives some people wealth, possessions and honor, so that they lack nothing their hearts desire, but God does not grant them the ability to enjoy them, and strangers enjoy them instead. This is meaningless, a grievous evil.

You and I know that the devil and you, quoting bible understandably well, isnt any of your strong points, so why not leave quoting bible alone and just stick to what you are good and best at doing, huh?

The person you are quoting from in Ecclesiattes 6:2, made that comment coming from a human being's perspective and one who was subjective, so what's new. Besides, the better rendition of that word is, tragedy, disagreeable, displeasure and/or calamity

advocate666:
You see, even justified acts of God can still be evil.

When goodness is withdrawn, evil emanates from there, I am sure you know that much. Satan, your head honcho, itself knows this, first hand.

MuttleyLaff:
You are what you are and I dont hold what you are against you. I dont take it personal with you what you are, but I wont hesistate to squash and/or crush you under my feet, the moment you trespass on me and all that I hold dearly to.

Respect to you. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

God is an exception to this rule of yours.

I dont know where you currently live so I am sorry to be the one telling you that in saner societies, your will be deemed brutality, as in, an excessive force and an unjustified use of force for that matter too

PS, you corrected shouting to shooting, but still, if you are not a licensed gun holder, you can still, at the least, be made culpable for your retaliatory though defensive action. Remember you dont necessarily aim to kill, but rather you aim to demobilise or disarm and then get yourself out of harm in to safety

You and I know that the devil and you, quoting bible understandably well, isnt any of your strong points, so why not leave quoting bible alone and just stick to what you are good and best at doing, huh?

The person you are quoting from in Ecclesiattes 6:2, made that comment coming from a human being's perspective and one who was subjective, so what's new. Besides, the better rendition of that word is, tragedy, disagreeable, displeasure and/or calamity

When goodness is withdrawn, evil emanates from there, I am sure you know that much. Satan, your head honcho, itself knows this, first hand.

Christians sef.

advocate666:
Christians sef.

Yep I know that exasperated expression and that's why I empathise with you.
Surely, if only more christians, properly read their bibles, there'd be less christians, isnt it?

MuttleyLaff:
Yep I know that exasperated expression and that's why I empathise with you.
Surely, if only more christians, properly read their bibles, there'd be less christians, isnt it?

It is hard to argue with you guys.

The bible is the word of God except when it calls God evil, then it becomes the word of the author of that particular verse.

advocate666:
It is hard to argue with you guys

You are free to argue to your heart's delight, no one has yet stopped you on this thread to argue, to argue with your self and continue to show up yourself

advocate666:
The bible is the word of God except when it calls God evil, then it becomes the word of the author of that particular verse.

I very much want and desperately need you, to show where the Bible, calls God evil because unless you are more confused than a chameleon dropped into a bag of skittles, I know you, wouldnt ordinarily make such a flippant comment like that.

johnydon22:


Based on the belief that distinguishes the subject from others, the subject being "Human life"


1. Human life is special
2. Killing human life means violation of this sacredness

Although I have not had enough time to go through all your posts and the thread in general, from what I can gleam, you seem to suggest that theists have an objective basis for morality, which is their God. As a result all morality emanates from the wishes, instructions, commands of their God.
The problem with this argument is that the wishes and commands of these God's are most times discriminatory, contradictory vague and inconsistent in nature.
Take the rape example, according to all religions (including Judaism ), raping an adherent is morally wrong, but raping non believers is not even considered immoral. There are examples in the bible where Jews were instructed to rape virgins in conquered territories.

Same with with killing. Killing members of the same religion or sect is amoral, but killing apostates or unbelievers is even viewed as a moral duty.
This was the attitude the Christians took to the Americas to murder most unbelievers and is the same attitude Muslims have today in Northern Nigeria, Syria, Afghanistan.

advocate666:


Says one who spends his time here explaining things to others.

Suddenly you are out of your depth and resorting to the ad hominem fallacy of refutation by caricature.

Yes, because it is a job for me to handhold everyone and explain every minute detail that i have gone over several times, i should re-explain it because they don't understand it.

Thank you my good man, that's a good employment

MuttleyLaff:
Y
I very much want and desperately need you, to show where the Bible, calls God evil because unless you are more confused than a chameleon dropped into a bag of skittles, I know you, wouldnt ordinarily make such a flippant comment like that

What? You don't like the verse I quoted?

frank317:

I will like to know the implications of this basis. Saying God is the basis of morality means nothing to me, because, no God seem to be basis for morality from what i see, humans are.



I am looking at this from what is actually obtainable in the world we live in and not just saying God is the basis yet what's happening is happening.

Yes in saying morality is subjective one cannot say rape it wrong or right but u fail to realize other conditions also apply. Its not just saying rape is wrong.... There is empathy, there is pain, there is regret, there is how the rapist will react when he himself is being raped.. A whole lot of things comes together to determine that rape is wrong not just the feeling... In all these I fail to see how God being the basis determines that rape is wrong if not just repeating words without making real meaning out of it.


Our current criminalization of rape is not based on ancient assumptions, it is based on our feelings, empathy and learning. U can repeat that sex is sacred, but I am saying it makes no meaning it being sacred since even those who don't think its scared will react the same way to it as those who think its sacred. Its about what what always thought about sex not because sex is sacred.
And I don't think sex is sacred. That does not mean my private part is not private. My private part is not sacred.


Because if the emotional attachment we have towards sex. Its not because sex is sacred.
There is a reason why we don't feel sex towards our mother but will have that feeling towards a girl o the next street. There is an emotional feeling involve and it makes our penis stand when we see the person. That feeling has something to do with our sexual organa hence we consider them special in a different way. Besides both have extremely different functions. Their function determines how I will react when u touch then.


And I am saying this basis is not a superior argument because it cannot be demonstrated.


Sir please what's the basis of ur conclusion that morality was derived from ancient assumptions. Is the acceptance of gays based on ancient assumptions? Why have we done away with some ancient moral assumptions?


False, its not based in any theological assumption, except if u, Mr.Johnny needs theological assumption to feel sad or cry when ur loved one dies.u tend to assume that we humans are not capable of feelings. These feelings(among other things) also helps in determining what is morally wrong or right and not theological assumption.


The weight is not based on our fundamental belief but our feeling towards the subject.


We ascribe different feeling towards the body parts as humans.
How can u neglect feelings and emotions in all u are saying.

Why will someone slap my wife and I react differently when someone slaps a lady stranger? FEELING.


Like I said its not just about saying Hitler was wrong, but its about explaining why I think he was wrong.

And I am telling u that a non arbitrary moral value makes not sense because it just a mere wish which cannot be demonstrated. It comes with its own problem which u seems to over look. Do u realize that theists think God asking Abraham to kill his son was moral? This is one of the problem of God basis.


Saying killing is wrong depends on a lot of things... We are humans who have brain to think and make decisions. Its not just about saying killing is wrong, why do we say killing is wrong? A lot of things are considered before we say killing is wrong... How was he person killed? Why was he killed? Who killed him? Who was affected? Will the killer love to be killed? What of the loved ones of the killed?
Oga there is a reason we have brain.

How exactly does saying God says killing is wrong changes anything?



Falae, the idea that murder is wrong is because of how we feel when someone dies, who gets affected and all that. Its not because any human life is sacred.


I don't feel for rats the way I feel for my loved ones... I can't believe this is coming from u.


I really don't accept this and I think enough has been said already.


Why did u just use wrong... Complete the statement na. U stop at wrong because u know concluding the statement will leave ur argument hanging.

And yes, nothing is right or wrong... We only look for a balance as humans. That's why what is moral changes over time.



How did we come to accept this?
Leaning, experience, empathy, feelings... Etc.

Annnnnnnnd, we are back again, i need to explain it all again.

I even wonder if some of these replies are addressing my post or some other post.

Christ - let me simply address the last sentence. You accept morality by;

Learning - Learning implies that it is an already established value that you discover, isn't that bordering towardd objectivity? Lol

Experience - Experience do not distinguish between subjects, whatever conclusions you make simply is a logical jump.

Empathy - You are first assuming empathy is good, why?

Feelings - I have already dismified the ascription of moral weight on feelings, you first assume feelings are either right or wrong and if you don't show why each feeling has a moral weight, any moral conclusion based on feelings is as baseless as it gets which entirely is my argument here.

Secular morality makes moral conclusions without basis.

wirinet:


Although I have not had enough time to go through all your posts and the thread in general, from what I can gleam, you seem to suggest that theists have an objective basis for morality, which is their God. As a result all morality emanates from the wishes, instructions, commands of their God.
The problem with this argument is that the wishes and commands of these God's are most times discriminatory, contradictory vague and inconsistent in nature.
Take the rape example, according to all religions (including Judaism ), raping an adherent is morally wrong, but raping non believers is not even considered immoral. There are examples in the bible where Jews were instructed to rape virgins in conquered territories.

Same with with killing. Killing members of the same religion or sect is amoral, but killing apostates or unbelievers is even viewed as a moral duty.
This was the attitude the Christians took to the Americas to murder most unbelievers and is the same attitude Muslims have today in Northern Nigeria, Syria, Afghanistan.

Uuuhm ok