What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[Oompa Loompa]

I feel pretty confident in saying that a serial pedophile murderer is an act that would not fit into #Bradskii's moral standards. There's nothing subjective about it. That's why society has developed laws to address that sort of thing. There's even no need for a Divine inspired commandments on that one.

I would hope the serial killers acts would not fit into @Bradskii 's moral standards. But it is difficult to justify it in a atheistic worldview where there is not existence in the afterlife.

 

[Zceptre]

I typically ignore most atheists. Now agnostics on the other hand at least have a chance of hearing and understanding, but not atheists.

I don't necessarily ignore atheists for being atheists. Rather depending on if they are atheists with a good attitude and reasonable character who can hold a civil conversation determines whether I'll engage in dialogue.

Some of my best friends and even people I consider great brothers today used to be atheists.

People are complex. Being an intelligent and civilized person is not.

 

[dlamberth]

In my experience people are generally decent to each other. They need to be pushed to overcome empathy to bring harm to others. The level of push required might be zero but that’s not the norm. In my experience.

That's been my experience as well.

 

[dlamberth]

I would hope the serial killers acts would not fit into @Bradskii 's moral standards. But it is difficult to justify it in a atheistic worldview where there is not existence in the afterlife.

I have no idea how afterlife has anything to do with moral standards. It's right now in this life that we live moral ideals.

 

[dlamberth]

You must live a charmed life.

That statement makes me wonder about your life;

 

[Fervent]

That statement makes me wonder about your life;

Let's just say that in my experience, people are far more mixed and mercenary than decent. A polite veneer in public, but much darker when given the opportunity.

 

[Bradskii]

Meanwhile, a little later...

You were arguing with me about moral relivatism, then you openly admit that what I said was true. Yes, you are correct. Your subjective "commandments" are not better than anyone else.

But as I expressly said:

My commandments aren't necessarily better than anyone else's...

So if you don't want to take the Lord's name in vain, then you be you. You'd have an argument as to why you shouldn't do it and I've got an argument that says that it's not a problem. They are our personal views. Mine isn't necessarily better than yours because you obeying the commandment doesn't affect me in any way. I've no problem in you obeying it as you see fit. But we do obviously disagree on the matter. As I said:

In some cases I will have personally decided that you are right. And in some cases I will personally decide that you aren't.

In the above case, even though I have personally decided that you are wrong, it doesn't matter at all. Now we have this:

To include the serial pedophile murderer who finds fulfillment and enjoyment in raping and murdering young children. If that statement is uncomfortable to you, I completely understand. But just know, as you have said, your commandments are not any better than anyone else's.

In this case, as above, I think the guy who enjoys sexually assaulting children is wrong. But in this case, it obviously does matter. You harm no-one by not taking the Lord's name in vain but it is obviously not the case with the paedophile murderer. Blazingly obvious. So this comment is so off the mark it's not even wrong:

Hence, moral relivatism.

Moral relativism simply means that moral decisions are individually made by each of us. Very obviously, if two people take different positions on any one matter, they will both think the other is wrong. They will adjudge the other person to be holding to something which is not right. So this comment is likewise nonsense.

Atheists cannot judge others for having a different set of "commandments" than their own.

I have judged you to be incorrect on one matter. Am I going to force my position onto you? Am I going to try to stop you acting on your belief? No, of course not. What you decide on the matter is your own personal decision and there's no harm to anyone. But the paedophile? I think he's wrong as well. I judge him as well. And am I going to try to stop him acting on his belief? Well, what do you think..?

It's absolutely crazy to think that anyone who points out that we all make our own decisions on moral matters must therefore allow everyone to act on what they decide is right. Either allowing someone to act on their moral beliefs (because there's no harm) or preventing someone from acting on them (because there is so obviously harm) doesn't change the fact that we all decide on those matters ourselves.

You'd be better off addressing that rather straightforward position rather than following this nonsensical 'So I guess you think that everyone can do just what they want' nonsense.

 

[Bradskii]

The issue isn't whether @Bradskii would approve or disapprove, but that his basis for approval or disapproval carries no inherent weight. If tomorrow society decided that pedophilic rapist murderers were ok, there'd be no grounds for disagreeing.

So you're on an island 'Lord of The Flies' style, the rest of the world gone to hell in a handbasket. Everyone is bored so there's a vote to torture one of the little-uns for some entertainment. Everyone votes that it's a great idea. They've made their personal decision on the matter. Are you saying that you have to go along with it because 'there'd be no grounds for disagreeing'? Or would you make a personal decision that it would be wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

I would hope the serial killers acts would not fit into @Bradskii 's moral standards. But it is difficult to justify it in a atheistic worldview where there is not existence in the afterlife.

Are you really saying that you couldn't put forward an argument against sexually assaulting and killing a child without there being a heaven or hell? Needless to say...I don't believe you.

 

[Fervent]

So you're on an island 'Lord of The Flies' style, the rest of the world gone to hell in a handbasket. Everyone is bored so there's a vote to torture one of the little-uns for some entertainment. Everyone votes that it's a great idea. They've made their personal decision on the matter. Are you saying that you have to go along with it because 'there'd be no grounds for disagreeing'? Or would you make a personal decision that it would be wrong?

The personal decision still isn't right or wrong, anymore than making a personal decision for vanilla ice cream when everyone else votes for chocolate. If there's nothing intrinsically wrong about an action, then it's not truly a moral decision. It's all just personal preference.

 

[Bradskii]

The personal decision still isn't right or wrong, anymore than making a personal decision for vanilla ice cream when everyone else votes for chocolate. If there's nothing intrinsically wrong about an action, then it's not truly a moral decision. It's all just personal preference.

Indeed. But we're not talking ice cream flavours. You stated that if everyone else voted for something that you thought was immoral then there's be no argument available against it. It seems that you think that's a result of relativism. So...would you vote to torture the kid? Or would you go against everyone else's belief that it's acceptable and personally decide to vote no?

 

[Fervent]

Indeed. But we're not talking ice cream flavours. You stated that if everyone else voted for something that you thought was immoral then there's be no argument available against it. It seems that you think that's a result of relativism. So...would you vote to torture the kid? Or would you go against everyone else's belief that it's acceptable and personally decide to vote no?

That's rather irrelevant, because regardless of how I vote I wouldn't be expressing something moral under relativism only a personal preference. There would be no reason I could express to those voting in favor because the action isn't inherently wrong, it's just distasteful to me.

 

[dlamberth]

Let's just say that in my experience, people are far more mixed and mercenary than decent. A polite veneer in public, but much darker when given the opportunity.

That's not been my experience at all.

I think I'm seeing a clearer picture with your atheist trajectory towards moral standards. It begins on the dark side.

 

[Bradskii]

That's rather irrelevant, because regardless of how I vote I wouldn't be expressing something moral under relativism only a personal preference. There would be no reason I could express to those voting in favor because the action isn't inherently wrong, it's just distasteful to me.

I'm not asking you to vote as a relativist. Just tell me if you would personally vote yes or no. You can give your reason as well if you like.

 

[Fervent]

That's not been my experience at all.

I think I'm seeing a clearer picture with your atheist trajectory towards moral standards. It begins on the dark side.

Not quite, my statement about atheism being a moral issue is purely because of what is written in Romans 1. Since I am thoroughly convinced God is Truth, and God's word is found through the Bible, I have no choice than to accept that it is a moral issue even when at times it isn't all that clear. The root of all evil is rejection of God and placing lesser things where He properly belongs.

 

[Fervent]

I'm not asking you to vote as a relativist. Just tell me if you would personally vote yes or no. You can give your reason as well if you like.

You're using it in defense of relativism, but it doesn't matter how I'd vote because that is irrelevant to whether relativism can support anything approaching moral values or not. If I believed relativism were true, I couldn't say it was wrong even if I personally found it distasteful.

 

[Bradskii]

You're using it in defense of relativism, but it doesn't matter how I'd vote because that is irrelevant to whether relativism can support anything approaching moral values or not. If I believed relativism were true, I couldn't say it was wrong even if I personally found it distasteful.

Forget relativism. You can assume that the concept doesn't exist. You're not a relativist. We get that. So just tell me how you'd personally vote. And if you like you can give your reasons.

 

[Fervent]

Forget relativism. You can assume that the concept doesn't exist. Just tell me how you'd personally vote. And if you like you can give your reasons.

Why would it matter how I would vote? It wouldn't make it any different than a preference for ice cream flavors or aversion to fruity smells. Maybe if you give some way that how I would vote makes any difference to the question of relativism I'd entertain your question but as it stands it just appears to be a nonsequitor.

 

[Bradskii]

Why would it matter how I would vote? It wouldn't make it any different than a preference for ice cream flavors or aversion to fruity smells. Maybe if you give some way that how I would vote makes any difference to the question of relativism I'd entertain your question but as it stands it just appears to be a nonsequitor.

I keep having to say that this isn't asking how you'd vote as if relativism was true. For the purpose of the question let's assume it is false. Based on that, what would your personal decision be regarding the vote? I'm asking you if you think that torturing children for fun is wrong even if everyone else thought it was OK.

 

[Fervent]

I keep having to say that this isn't asking how you'd vote as if relativism was true. For the purpose of the question let's assume it is false. Based on that, what would your personal decision be regarding the vote? I'm asking you if you think that torturing children for fun is wrong even if everyone else thought it was OK.

You repeat it, but my answer is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I think it is wrong even if everyone else doesn't, it's that under relativism there is nothing intrinsically wrong about it. You're trying to trade on the wrongness of it, but the only way it genuinely is wrong is if there is some objective standard. The fact that you are trading on its apparent wrongness just shows that you recognize that there genuinely is a right and wrong, yet you fail to consider how that might be.