toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, he said he didn't like it...lain:

Yikes, I hope he and I share the same taste in ice cream if we ever happen to meet at the parlor. :chuckle:

 

[zoo22]

So, there isn't a single issue that you could point to as something which should be universally accepted as wrong?

(I had a much longer post, but need to try to keep it simple...)

Obviously this comment is a crux of my confusion...

There are, yes. Yet I am also aware that I'm not infallible. I am aware that I don't know or understand everything and that I can be wrong.

Please stay aware that I'm not trying to convince you of something... I'm just trying to explain where some of my own difficulty lies towards "absolute right/wrong."

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I want to kill the guy in your hypothetical because what he does violates the sovreignty of some one close to me (and by extention me) - the "right-ness" or "wrong-ness" of his actions are totally irrelevant to me.

Is violating the "sovreignty" of you, or someone close to you, wrong?

A yes or no would be great.

 

[DocJohnson]

Yes.... this thread is a shining example of how bankrupt atheism is. An atheist cannot even complete a sentence on this topic without making himself look unreasonable. Even a sharp person such as Rusha stumbles, mumbles, and fumbles, in a sad display of foolishness.

...

I distrust "law" enforcement because there is no "universal standard" for anything - all standards are just artificial constructs and I trust my own standards (that I constructed myself) over those of some power outside of me.

Knight is right as usual. :thumb:

 

[DocJohnson]

Is violating the "sovreignty" of you, or someone close to you, wrong?

And what about the sovereignty of the guy doing the raping? Does he automatically forfeit that just because he's engaging in rape?

 

[DocJohnson]

Please stay aware that I'm not trying to convince you of something... I'm just trying to explain where some of my own difficulty lies towards "absolute right/wrong."

Trying to convince everyone to adhere to universal standards of morality isn't easy... but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

 

[Town Heretic]

Is violating the "sovreignty" of you, or someone close to you, wrong?

A yes or no would be great.

Yes or no? :shocked: What are you, some sort of absolutist?! :chuckle:

 

[Son of Jack]

Yes or no? :shocked: What are you, some sort of absolutist?! :chuckle:

Maybe...lain:

 

[chrysostom]

Yes or no? :shocked: What are you, some sort of absolutist?! :chuckle:

just keep dancing

 

[Punisher1984]

Yes.... this thread is a shining example of how bankrupt atheism is.

It's impossible for Atheism to be bankrupt as a belief system - as it's not a belief system at all, just the lack of a belief.

An atheist cannot even complete a sentence on this topic without making himself look unreasonable.

Only if one defines "reasonable" in terms of simple yes vs. no answers - face it, our reasoning behind our positions developed in this thread are far deeper than anything you have put forth so far...

 

[Punisher1984]

Is violating the "sovreignty" of you, or someone close to you, wrong?

A yes or no would be great.

It's not "wrong" (nor "right") - but it is an afront to me and the values I have established for myself (hence I must enforce them when one trespasses against them in order for them to remain relevant).

 

[zoo22]

Trying to convince everyone to adhere to universal standards of morality isn't easy... but that shouldn't stop us from trying.

Oh no.

This can't be happening...

No, no, no... !!

Count to 10, zoo... Deep breath...

Sigh...

Okay:

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DocJohnson again."

lain:

 

[Punisher1984]

And what about the sovereignty of the guy doing the raping?

When he engages me or my own in violence, he puts his own sovreignty at risk - at that point only one man's sovreignty will prevail and I will do all in my power to ensure that the victorious will is my own.

 

[DocJohnson]

It's impossible for Atheism to be bankrupt as a belief system - as it's not a belief system at all, just the lack of a belief.

No, that's not true at all. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no external deity... so you worship yourselves instead.

Only if one defines "reasonable" in terms of simple yes vs. no answers - face it, our reasoning behind our positions developed in this thread are far deeper than anything you have put forth so far...

Um, there is no reasoning behind believing in absolutely nothing.

 

[Son of Jack]

It's not "wrong" (nor "right") - but it is an afront to me and the values I have established for myself (hence I must enforce them when one trespasses against them in order for them to remain relevant).

It is impossible for society to live consistently within the (non)construct of such a system...

Each man for himself = hell on earth...

 

[Son of Jack]

Only if one defines "reasonable" in terms of simple yes vs. no answers

Within your (non)system, isn't he allowed to do that and still be "right?"

 

[DocJohnson]

When he engages me or my own in violence, he puts his own sovreignty at risk - at that point only one man's sovreignty will prevail and I will do all in my power to ensure that the victorious will is my own.

That's an interesting, albeit extremely primitive and barbaric, belief system.

 

[Punisher1984]

No, that's not true at all. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no external deity... so you worship yourselves instead.

You have to really stretch the definition of the word "worship" in order to make such a claim.

Um, there is no reasoning behind believing in absolutely nothing.

I don't "believe in nothing" - that's a metaphysical impossibility. It's more accurate to say that I don't really adhere strongly to anything other than the values I create of, by and for myself.

Is such a philosophy egocentric? Yes. Do I care? Not really.

That's an interesting, albeit extremely primitive and barbaric, belief system.

It's not really a belief system at all - it's the simple principle of every individual minding his own business. And ideas of any kind are only as "barbaric" as a given society perceives them as being.

 

[Punisher1984]

Within your (non)system, isn't he allowed to do that and still be "right?"

As far as I'm concerned such things as "right" and "wrong" don't exist as anything more than ideas - so to ascribe a value of "right" or "wrong" to his actions would be entirely pointless.

It is impossible for society to live consistently within the (non)construct of such a system...

Since when do I care about society?

Each man for himself = hell on earth...

Hell for the weak and stupid, heaven for the strong and capable - it's all just a point of view...

 

[fool]

Yes.... this thread is a shining example of how bankrupt atheism is.

We never claimed to be rich.

An atheist cannot even complete a sentence on this topic without making himself look unreasonable.

I did, a couple of times.

Even a sharp person such as Rusha stumbles, mumbles, and fumbles, in a sad display of foolishness.

Did she use the mumble font? :shocked: