Do You Believe In God?

[grossaffe]

What you did was agree with another posters assertion that attacking the morality of the God of the Bible somehow disproves theism, which it does not. Every religion in the world could be proven false, and God would still exist.

No I did not. I had a separate argument that even the existence of a god does not prove moral objectivity because there would then have to be proof that this deity is objectively moral. I would argue that this deity would merely provide a different moral reference point. Again, I am not attempting to prove there is no deity because it is a fruitless endeavor.

If molesting children is always wrong, by definition it's objective. You can either A: Accept that, or B: Demonstrate a situation where molesting children is virtuous.

It sounds like you are asking for a context in which it would be morale within your own system of morals, which is not what subjective morality is about. Subjective morality is about how there are different moral systems for different people or cultures. A psychopath, being unable to put themself in someone else's shoes, could potentially have no moral qualms with molestation. To them, people are just objects to be used for their gains. They don't act that way thinking "I'm so evil", other than perhaps being taught by their society that such actions are considered to be evil, not because they recognize it as such themselves.

Subjective morality doesn't disprove objective morality. The fact that individuals have different opinions on what is moral does not mean there is not an objective, universal standard.

If you want to claim an objective morality, then prove the objective morality.

 

[Haloman800]

any.. no... it's all the same..

Does objective morality really exist? Is it a construct we've invented?

Is stealing a loaf of bread always wrong?

Yup. The ends never justify the means.

What about killing someone? What if they've asked to die?

Generic "killing" isn't sinful. Only killing innocents (ie murder). If they ask to die, it's not murder, and therefore not immoral.

What about robbery? Does it matter if they're a rich king or dictator starving their people?

Nope. Theft is immoral. As a side note, I'll also add, if a "king" or "dictator" is siphoning money from the populous using taxation, that is also theft, and is also immoral.

Would it be OK for a woman to have sex with her husband before he is taken off life support? That would be rape, since the husband couldn't consent.

Yes, it would be rape, and rape is immoral.

What if you've auctioned off your virginity, does the winner have the right to take it regardless? If not, why not? If I buy a car, I have all rights to the car, as long as I've paid for it. Are you guaranteed the right to take the car back after you've sold it?

If the person voluntarily agreed, it's not rape.

If it's universal, shouldn't it apply in all cases?

Yes, and it does apply in all cases, regardless of human opinion.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If you want to claim an objective morality, then prove the objective morality.

I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

"IS" isn't "WAS".

I have proven that it wasn't always wrong. If it was not always wrong, then the concepts of good and evil are not universal. I feel like there's an echo in here.

 

[Haloman800]

Molestering children has not always been wrong.

When has it been "OK" to molest children? You seem to confuse human opinion from universal fact. If the Nazi's had won WW2 and convinced everyone what they did was just, that still wouldn't make it good. The fact that pre-Christian Romans molested children doesn't make it OK, even though they thought it was.

So, once again, tell me when it's morally acceptable in your opinion to molest a child.

I recommend you watch the following video to get an understanding of what objective morality is:

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

"IS" isn't "WAS".

I have proven that it wasn't always wrong. If it was not always wrong, then the concepts of good and evil are not universal. I feel like there's an echo in here.

Your argument: "At one point in time, it was acceptable to believe the earth was flat, therefore the earth being round isn't objectively true!!!"

 

[CraddaPoosta]

When has it been "OK" to molest children? You seem to confuse human opinion from universal fact. If the Nazi's had won WW2 and convinced everyone what they did was just, that still wouldn't make it good. The fact that pre-Christian Romans molested children doesn't make it OK, even though they thought it was.

So, once again, tell me when it's morally acceptable in your opinion to molest a child.

I recommend you watch the following video to get an understanding of what objective morality is:

You are still desperate to slap someone with the label of supporting child molestation, because you know your argument is too weak to stand. Who has this argument actually worked on, kiddo? Serious question. When has this particular line of illogic ever actually won you an argument?

We are not discussing whether or not it is currently acceptable to molest kids. We are discussing the fact that since moral values and virtues HAVE evolved over time, there cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT be a universal standard.

Do you really need me to define the word 'universal' for you?

 

[Haloman800]

You are still desperate to slap someone with the label of supporting child molestation, because you know your argument is too weak to stand. Who has this argument actually worked on, kiddo? Serious question. When has this particular line of illogic ever actually won you an argument?

We are not discussing whether or not it is currently acceptable to molest kids. We are discussing the fact that since moral values and virtues HAVE evolved over time, there cannot, and I repeat, CANNOT be a universal standard.

Do you really need me to define the word 'universal' for you?

So, since the science of the earth being round has evolved from the idea of it being flat, then the earth really isn't round?

 

[CraddaPoosta]

So, since the science of the earth being round has evolved from the idea of it being flat, then the earth really isn't round?

Belief has no direct correlation in reality or science. Please, try harder.

 

[Haloman800]

Belief has no direct correlation in reality or science. Please, try harder.

I'm glad you agree the Romans belief in molesting children has no direct correlation in the objective reality that molesting children is wrong.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

I'm glad you agree the Romans belief in molesting children has no direct correlation in the objective reality that molesting children is wrong.

You have proven no objective morality whatsoever. That's what we've been trying to tell you. That's what you are refusing to accept because you know that offered a flawed argument and don't have the integrity to admit it or take the L.

Since you still don't understand what 'universal' means, do you know what the universe is?

Now, do you know what the suffix '-al' means? When added to 'universe', it means EVERYTHING. Universal includes EVERYTHING. One specific moral code for the entire universe and all it contains. Throughout all of time and space, one set standard of right and wrong, good and evil.

I have proven that morality is not universal. You can stop trying to accuse people who see your failed attempt at logic for what it is as being supportive of abusing children. You are a sociopathic individual if you really want to "win" a debate that way. You're preying on people. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Haloman800]

I have proven that morality is not universal.

I must have missed it, when is it acceptable to molest children?

Here's a Dawkins quote for you: The topic is "In a world without God there is...;"

Spoiler

 

[Bat420maN]

I believe that the story of god is based off a story about the sun. I believe the bible was written as a guide to raise your children, wrote by some ass clown. I was forced into church until my teen years, once I was able to see things for myself I knew the church was a joke. It's all a scam to make money. I believe there is something out there that created us all but, I don't believe for one second that it was this so called "GOD". I simply believe that being a good person will bring you good in return. I mostly see religion as the biggest thing working against the human race right now. It's nothing but segregation all over again. If you are gay get to the back of the bus, you eat pork? get to the back. It goes on and on with these religions. In order for us to become what we should be I believe all religion needs to be removed from society. I think once we get the rest of the world to look past catholic, christian, mormon, whatever the hell you are, we will find the world is a much better place when all of us unite instead of small groups focused on themselves. I play for team people, I left team fairy tale about 22 years ago.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

It was acceptable to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you.

I fully agree; good and evil do not exist. That's what an imaginary construct is. Careful; you're getting dangerously close to actually learning something today.

 

[cdoty]

Yup. The ends never justify the means.

What if you paid for all of the ingredients and the time? But, they refused to give it to you? Then you should be allowed to take what is yours, right?

Generic "killing" isn't sinful. Only killing innocents (ie murder). If they ask to die, it's not murder, and therefore not immoral.

Innocents has a pretty broad meaning. If I kill one of your family, am I an innocent? Can you morally kill me?

Nope. Theft is immoral. As a side note, I'll also add, if a "king" or "dictator" is siphoning money from the populous using taxation, that is also theft, and is also immoral.

Does his/her immoral action change anything?

If the person voluntarily agreed, it's not rape.

They could agree to the auction and refuse to have sex.

I already have. Molesting children is always, objectively, absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

The only problem is the definition of child changes. Wouldn't Mary be considered a child in today's courts? If it's universal, why does age matter? And, wasn't Mary told she was pregnant? Wouldn't that imply she didn't consent?

 

[FAST6191]

"When has it been "OK" to molest children?"
There could be an awful lot of context and invite discussions of how different areas set about things, or if you prefer have a search for age of consent around the world. Various countries seem quite OK with things that would get you locked up elsewhere, or if viewed from the second country's perspective another place would condone sexual activity with underage people. Also such things are hardly limited to "pre-Christian Romans", have a read of some of the youngest and oldest birth lists.

Anyway this objective morality stuff is hilarious. I had heard the underlying quasi logic before but somehow had missed seeing it be given a name. I guess I will point to co-operation and senses of fairness being present in all sorts of creatures, obviously monkeys/primates have fairly well developed senses of all this but fish, birds, insects (see drunk bees), even some kinds of snakes (see snake mating ball) and more have this. If it is a survival trait in animals then some kind of similar thing encoded in humans is hardly out there as a logical leap, or to put it another way there is a morality of sorted shared by most humans (those that may lack this tending to have such a trait noted if discovered) at a biological level or a level beyond that of a subjective construct, if I may borrow a term.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

It is obvious you do not understand what Dawkins was saying.

If there is no good or evil as the personification of right and wrong, then the universe doesn't care about you. Which is true. The clouds in the sky float over you in a state of utter indifference. No rock on this planet gives a damn about anything. Don't seek sympathy from a lump of coal, for you will find none. No pity from a pitiless moon.

What do all of these things have in common? They are all non-sentient, inanimate objects. Hence, good and evil do not apply to them.

Hence, good and evil are not universal.

 

[Haloman800]

It was acceptable to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you.

And it was acceptable to believe the earth is flat, doesn't make it any less round

I fully agree; good and evil do not exist.

Still waiting for your explanation of when molesting children is OK.

What if you paid for all of the ingredients and the time? But, they refused to give it to you? Then you should be allowed to take what is yours, right?

Yup. If you had an agreement, and you paid them, it absolutely belongs to you.

Innocents has a pretty broad meaning. If I kill one of your family, am I an innocent?

If you initiated force, no, you're in the wrong.

Can you morally kill me?

In self defense, if my life was threatened, yes.

Does his/her immoral action change anything?

Yes. Resisting robbery and self defense is justified.

They could agree to the auction and refuse to have sex.

Then they would be constituting fraud, and would have to repay the person.

The only problem is the definition of child changes.

A child is typically defined as someone pre pubescant

Wouldn't Mary be considered a child in today's courts? If it's universal, why does age matter?

Nope, or else she couldn't have conceived.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

It was okay to molest children in Ancient Rome, as has been presented to you. You can keep ignoring the facts, or you can have some integrity and admit you are wrong. You're starting to bore me.

Once again, BELIEF and SCIENCE are not necessarily in harmony with each other.

 

[VinsCool]

The Yes and No are very tight lol.

 

[Haloman800]

"When has it been "OK" to molest children?"
Various countries seem quite OK with things that would get you locked up elsewhere, or if viewed from the second country's perspective another place would condone sexual activity with underage people

And some people still believe the earth is flat, so that proves the earth really isn't round, right? Because denial of a fact somehow invalidates it.. how?

Molesting children is objectively wrong, regardless of whether you think it is or not.

 

[CraddaPoosta]

A child is typically defined as someone pre pubescant


Nope, or else she couldn't have conceived.

LMFAO. Yeah, you're done, here. You basically are saying a girl is a woman once she starts menstruating. So, knocking up a nine-year-old is okay as long as she is post-pubescent?

You're getting truly desperate, and it shows.