Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm not convinced. To use Nietzsche's example, to eagles, the truth is to be an eagle is strong and good whereas to be a lamb is to be weak and uneaglic, i.e. bad. To the lamb, the truth is to be a lamb is good and to be a lamb-killing eagle is evil.

The assumption here is that harm or death = evil. Within your naturalistic/materialistic premise you need to establish why that's true (you can't due to the epistemological foundation of morality within naturalism is your biology), otherwise it's just an arbitrary assumption.

Meh, semantics.

No, it's logic regarding the nature of truth. Please refute it instead of dismissing it.

"Truth" is a word; we do get to define the words we use, particular in an argument where there might be disagreement or ambiguity. One example that is often used - although why, I don't know - is "the sky is blue" is true; but while it might be often true, it is often not true, for example, at night or at dusk.

Is that rock true? Is the moon true? You are very imprecise with your words and imagery. Your particular rock may or may not exist. I do agree, however, that my believe doesn't affect its existence or its non-existence. Do you mean to say that truth is limited to fact?

Okay, truth is universal and applicable at all times. It exists irregardless of you which you agreed to "I do agree that my believe doesn't affect its existence or non-existence". If it's true that something either exists or does not exist, irregardless of you, then you have accepted that truth exists independent of you. As the truth would be that a thing either exists, or does not exist.

Eh, what? If your conclusion is based on that there is a foundation, then that is exactly begging the question.

The word "concluded" implies investigation, not an assumption of a foundation. I should have been more clear though. Without a source (or foundation) of truth or reason as to why x is true then you have literally no reason to hold x as a position or belief.

You can say that logic can prove that something is consistent within logic, that if fits its own definition, but, no, logic does not prove truth. Logic is a method. Reason is also a method and is often faulty.

I usually say reason & by extension logic but I thought that was a given. Both are still inherently circular under naturalism/materialism though.

That's a pretty big "if" because logic and reason are not necessarily true/correct; go your statement is pointless.

I said under naturalism, rationalism & materialism they are circular. Christians don’t suffer from the hindrance of circular reasoning as we acknowledge that our statements about reality are axiomatically based in faith, not rationalism. [Edit: Statements about reality in regards to the source of truth* So that when we discuss why reason can be authoritative, we relinquish the authority to The One who gave us reason, who is The Authority over all and thus an end. As apposed to being forced to assume it as in order to provide a reason for reason it would be relying upon itself to prove itself and thus assume itself to be true.]

which God?

All other religions begin from within "creation" as a starting point. Apposed to this Christianity and by extension Judaism begin with the chapters of Genesis which themselves begin from outside of creation and present God as creating all of existence, all of the knowable universe and all that we could possibly know. He Himself is self existent, The Creator without a beginning or end, eternal. This being the case means that everything material traces back to Him as the source of all existence, as witnessed and evidenced by the laws of cause and effect. Which without our self existent God, the laws of cause & effect results in an infinite regression of causes & effects. You would then in order to solve this discrepancy need to posit that the universe itself exists without a cause. Which if it is the case means that there is in fact no beginning to all existence and goes against all theories of the nature of time, cause & effect (which science is contingent upon), some modern astrophysics theorems & models such as The Big Bang, the effectiveness of mathematics and etc. To add to this, The Bible testifies to The Truth of God through fulfilled prophecy such as: Psalm 22 which was written circa 1000BC, Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 (circa 700BC), Jeremiah 31:31-34 (circa 600BC), Zechariah 3:1-4, 8-10 (circa 500BC) and many, many, many more. These are merely 4 of my favourites that pertain to Christ Jesus and there are so many more that pertain to Him. The latter verses of Zechariah literally call Christ out by name, that name being Joshua. Both Joshua and its Latinised version Jesus are translations of the Hebrew name Yeshua.

So, you are equating truth with morality somehow?

I'm saying that morals can be true/correct.

 

[DaisyDay]

The assumption here is that harm or death = evil. Within your naturalistic/materialistic premise you need to establish why that's true (you can't due to the epistemological foundation of morality within naturalism is your biology), otherwise it's just an arbitrary assumption.

No, that is not the assumption. To the eagle, being an eagle is good and eating lambs is good. To the lamb, being a lamb is good and eating lambs is evil. The assumption is dependent on the pov. If is is arbitrary, so be it.

No, it's logic regarding the nature of truth. Please refute it instead of dismissing it.

No, it's semantics. There is no point to arguing it.

Okay, truth is universal and applicable at all times. It exists irregardless of you which you agreed to "I do agree that my believe doesn't affect its existence or non-existence". If it's true that something either exists or does not exist, irregardless of you, then you have accepted that truth exists independent of you. As the truth would be that a thing either exists, or does not exist.

Schrodinger's cat. And I have no idea what you mean by "applicable" let alone "applicable at all times". That the moon exists is true now, but it wasn't always true and it won't be true again in the distant future; so while "the moon exists" is true, is it truth?

The word "concluded" implies investigation, not an assumption of a foundation. I should have been more clear though. Without a source (or foundation) of truth or reason as to why x is true then you have literally no reason to hold x as a position or belief.

I think disagree, but this is so vague yet pointy, it is hard to be sure. My own experiences and perceptions form the foundation of why I believe what I believe to be true, but I somehow doubt that this is what you mean. It is unclear to me what you actually mean by "foundation" and "source".

I usually say reason & by extension logic but I thought that was a given. Both are still inherently circular under naturalism/materialism though.

Not if you use them correctly. Again, logic and reason are methods. You don't prove a method. You use a method reach a determination. A lot depends on your assumptions, but something being validated by logic, does not mean it is true.

I said under naturalism, rationalism & materialism they are circular.

Yes, you said that, but you don't seem to understand that logic and reason are a method, not an assumption.

Christians don’t suffer from the hindrance of circular reasoning as we acknowledge that our statements about reality are axiomatically based in faith, not rationalism.

Assuming the conclusion is inherently circular, but you don't see that as a hindrance.

All other religions begin from within "creation" as a starting point.

Do they? Or is that how you were taught about the ones you are aware of?

Apposed to this Christianity and by extension Judaism begin with the chapters of Genesis which themselves begin from outside of creation and present God as creating all of existence, all of the knowable universe and all that we could possibly know.

Apposed or opposed? How is starting with God creating everything different from "creation" as a starting point. Six of one....

He Himself is self existent, The Creator without a beginning or end, eternal. This being the case means that everything material traces back to Him as the source of all existence, as witnessed and evidenced by the laws of cause and effect. Which without our self existent God, the laws of cause & effect results in an infinite regression of causes & effects. You would then in order to solve this discrepancy need to posit that the universe itself exists without a cause.

If God, why not the universe?

Which if it is the case means that there is in fact no beginning to all existence and goes against all theories of the nature of time, cause & effect (which science is contingent upon), some modern astrophysics theorems & models such as The Big Bang, the effectiveness of mathematics and etc.

Time is a quality of the universe; without a universe, there is no time. Without a universe, there is no space. We really don't know if there was a beginning to the universe, but that does not affect the how science works.

To add to this, The Bible testifies to The Truth of God through fulfilled prophecy such as: Psalm 22 which was written circa 1000BC, Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 (circa 700BC), Jeremiah 31:31-34 (circa 600BC), Zechariah 3:1-4, 8-10 (circa 500BC) and many, many, many more. These are merely 4 of my favourites that pertain to Christ Jesus and there are so many more that pertain to Him. The latter verses of Zechariah literally call Christ out by name, that name being Joshua. Both Joshua and its Latinised version Jesus are translations of the Hebrew name Yeshua.

So you believe that Christ and the Holy Ghost are equally eternal with God? That Christ always existed, eternally unchanging, even before the universe?

I'm saying that morals can be true/correct.

If they can be, does that not also imply that they can be NOT true/correct? That does not seem to say that morality equates to truth.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

No, that is not the assumption. To the eagle, being an eagle is good and eating lambs is good. To the lamb, being a lamb is good and eating lambs is evil. The assumption is dependent on the pov. If is is arbitrary, so be it.

No, it's semantics. There is no point to arguing it.

Schrodinger's cat. And I have no idea what you mean by "applicable" let alone "applicable at all times". That the moon exists is true now, but it wasn't always true and it won't be true again in the distant future; so while "the moon exists" is true, is it truth?

I think disagree, but this is so vague yet pointy, it is hard to be sure. My own experiences and perceptions form the foundation of why I believe what I believe to be true, but I somehow doubt that this is what you mean. It is unclear to me what you actually mean by "foundation" and "source".

Not if you use them correctly. Again, logic and reason are methods. You don't prove a method. You use a method reach a determination. A lot depends on your assumptions, but something being validated by logic, does not mean it is true.

Yes, you said that, but you don't seem to understand that logic and reason are a method, not an assumption.

Assuming the conclusion is inherently circular, but you don't see that as a hindrance.

Do they? Or is that how you were taught about the ones you are aware of?

Apposed or opposed? How is starting with God creating everything different from "creation" as a starting point. Six of one....

If God, why not the universe?

Time is a quality of the universe; without a universe, there is no time. Without a universe, there is no space. We really don't know if there was a beginning to the universe, but that does not affect the how science works.

So you believe that Christ and the Holy Ghost are equally eternal with God? That Christ always existed, eternally unchanging, even before the universe?

If they can be, does that not also imply that they can be NOT true/correct? That does not seem to say that morality equates to truth.

Meh, semantics. Honestly if you're going to dismiss my arguments when it comes to the nature of truth but establish yours how could this conversation move forward? "There's no point in arguing it"

 

[DaisyDay]

Meh, semantics. Honestly if you're going to dismiss my arguments when it comes to the nature of truth but establish yours how could this conversation move forward? "There's no point in arguing it"

Sure, whatevs.

 

[Gregory95]

I'm not convinced. To use Nietzsche's example, to eagles, the truth is to be an eagle is strong and good whereas to be a lamb is to be weak and uneaglic, i.e. bad. To the lamb, the truth is to be a lamb is good and to be a lamb-killing eagle is evil.

Meh, semantics.

"Truth" is a word; we do get to define the words we use, particular in an argument where there might be disagreement or ambiguity. One example that is often used - although why, I don't know - is "the sky is blue" is true; but while it might be often true, it is often not true, for example, at night or at dusk.

Is that rock true? Is the moon true? You are very imprecise with your words and imagery. Your particular rock may or may not exist. I do agree, however, that my believe doesn't affect its existence or its non-existence. Do you mean to say that truth is limited to fact?

Eh, what? If your conclusion is based on that there is a foundation, then that is exactly begging the question.

You can say that logic can prove that something is consistent within logic, that if fits its own definition, but, no, logic does not prove truth. Logic is a method. Reason is also a method and is often faulty.

That's a pretty big "if" because logic and reason are not necessarily true/correct; go your statement is pointless. And then you have the question, which God?


So, you are equating truth with morality somehow?

much speak for someone who dont even know what they are saying...semantics noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
se·man·tics | \ si-ˈman-tiks \
plural in form but singular or plural in construction
Definition of semantics
1: the study of meanings:
a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
b(1): SEMIOTICS
(2): a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

 

[Gregory95]

Sure, whatevs.

semantics
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

se·man·tics | \ si-ˈman-tiks \
plural in form but singular or plural in construction
Definition of semantics


1: the study of meanings:
a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
b(1): SEMIOTICS
(2): a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

 

[Gregory95]

so you have no idea what I actually argued?

my question to you makes senses...you dont understand because you dont study thus i asked if you even study...when it was well apparent you dont did i not ask if you would like me to explain in more secular way...however at the end of day are you not on CHRISTIAN forms? so my apolagizes for a non secular first approch ....

 

[Gregory95]

Meh, semantics. Honestly if you're going to dismiss my arguments when it comes to the nature of truth but establish yours how could this conversation move forward? "There's no point in arguing it"

(not coming at you) just so everyone is aware
semantics
noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

se·man·tics | \ si-ˈman-tiks \
plural in form but singular or plural in construction
Definition of semantics


1: the study of meanings:
a: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
b(1): SEMIOTICS
(2): a branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth

 

[Gregory95]

Yeah, it might help if you spoke to me in a secular way rather than preach at me. Your preaching is more irritating than explicative.

i dont understand being so hostile you get irritated by these things....i dont get irritated at followers of quran or Jews or any other preaching to me...i just try to understand one another and find the truth ... so
semiotics

 

[Kylie]

Found a video that proves the existence of God that even my non-Christian friends were willing to watch all the way through.

This is probably the most approachable and amicable version of the Moral Argument I've seen:

This fails at the 2 minute 33 mark, the bit where he says that there is a universal objective morality. It doesn't exist. If there was a universal objective morality, there wouldn't be some places that say it's okay to execute murderers and other places that say it's never okay to execute anyone, no matter what crimes they have committed.

There is no objective morality. Morality is only ever SUBJECTIVE.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

This fails at the 2 minute 33 mark, the bit where he says that there is a universal objective morality. It doesn't exist. If there was a universal objective morality, there wouldn't be some places that say it's okay to execute murderers and other places that say it's never okay to execute anyone, no matter what crimes they have committed.

There is no objective morality. Morality is only ever SUBJECTIVE.

If morality is subjective, how could you make the case that it it's universally wrong to commit genocide?

 

[Kylie]

If morality is subjective, how could you make the case that it it's universally wrong to commit genocide?

Think about what you are asking me here.

I say that I do not believe that morality is objective, and you come and ask that I provide an example of objective morality - despite the fact that I've literally just said that such morality doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying I think that it is morally acceptable to commit genocide, because I don't. But when you look at those people who did commit genocide, they believed they were doing the morally right thing. That does not mean I agree with them, because I don't. I, like most people, hold that genocide is a reprehensible act. But a moral viewpoint being widespread does not make it OBJECTIVELY true, and that's the issue here.

The best I can do to answer your question is show that genocide causes far more harm than benefit (and I would argue that it produces no benefit at all, just harm).

But then again, if you consider genocide to extend to other species, then you could argue that the fact that we have virtually wiped out smallpox is in the same area of morality. Is it morally right to wipe out a species altogether? How can we justify exterminating an entire species? You will no doubt say that smallpox causes harm and that justifies our extermination of it. But what if there was a group of people that caused harm? You surely wouldn't say, "This group of people causes harm, so we are justified in exterminating them." And neither would I. But where do we draw the line?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Think about what you are asking me here.

I say that I do not believe that morality is objective, and you come and ask that I provide an example of objective morality - despite the fact that I've literally just said that such morality doesn't exist.

Now, I'm not saying I think that it is morally acceptable to commit genocide, because I don't. But when you look at those people who did commit genocide, they believed they were doing the morally right thing. That does not mean I agree with them, because I don't. I, like most people, hold that genocide is a reprehensible act. But a moral viewpoint being widespread does not make it OBJECTIVELY true, and that's the issue here.

The best I can do to answer your question is show that genocide causes far more harm than benefit (and I would argue that it produces no benefit at all, just harm).

But then again, if you consider genocide to extend to other species, then you could argue that the fact that we have virtually wiped out smallpox is in the same area of morality. Is it morally right to wipe out a species altogether? How can we justify exterminating an entire species? You will no doubt say that smallpox causes harm and that justifies our extermination of it. But what if there was a group of people that caused harm? You surely wouldn't say, "This group of people causes harm, so we are justified in exterminating them." And neither would I. But where do we draw the line?

I was sort of teasing but it's a serious question so I shouldn't have. You should read through some of the discussion I had above, it touches on a lot of the questions you had. When you answered my question all you did was assume that causing harm is wrong which kicks the can down the road, when under a rationalistic/naturalistic framework wouldn't you need to have a reason as to why that's the case (that that harm= wrong) without assuming the truth of the thing? Also under the naturalistic framework you're forced into per Atheism, that would make your source of morality individualistic as the epistemological source of your morality would be based upon biology, what right then would a state have to legally punish wrongdoing when an individual who thinks murder is fine is just as right in their belief as the society-wide morality (since it's subjective)?

Also to answer your first objection to the video I'd like to say that just because societies have different morals, it doesn't mean that universal/objective morality doesn't exist. It's a non sequitur as it could just as easily mean that people disagree on what morals a true/correct.

 

[Kylie]

I was sort of teasing but it's a serious question so I shouldn't have. You should read through some of the discussion I had above, it touches on a lot of the questions you had. When you answered my question all you did was assume that causing harm is wrong which kicks the can down the road, when under a rationalistic/naturalistic framework wouldn't you need to have a reason as to why that's the case (that that harm= wrong) without assuming the truth of the thing? Also under the naturalistic framework you're forced into per Atheism, that would make your source of morality individualistic as the epistemological source of your morality would be based upon biology, what right then would a state have to legally punish wrongdoing when an individual who thinks murder is fine is just as right in their belief as the society-wide morality (since it's subjective)?

I'm not going to read through every post so far, I simply don't have the time. If there are specific posts that you'd like me to read, please feel free to link them and I will read them.

Also to answer your first objection to the video I'd like to say that just because societies have different morals, it doesn't mean that universal/objective morality doesn't exist. It's a non sequitur as it could just as easily mean that people disagree on what morals a true/correct.

But objectively true things don't work like that. If there was a society that had a different way of doing maths that lead them to 1+1=5, then they are just wrong. If something is objectively true, then it can be demonstrated to be objectively true and it can also be demonstrated that any differing viewpoint is objectively wrong. Thus, if morality is objective, then there must be some moral viewpoint which we can show is objectively true and we must also be able to demonstrate that any differing viewpoint is objectively wrong. Can you do this?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'm not going to read through every post so far, I simply don't have the time. If there are specific posts that you'd like me to read, please feel free to link them and I will read them.



But objectively true things don't work like that. If there was a society that had a different way of doing maths that lead them to 1+1=5, then they are just wrong. If something is objectively true, then it can be demonstrated to be objectively true and it can also be demonstrated that any differing viewpoint is objectively wrong. Thus, if morality is objective, then there must be some moral viewpoint which we can show is objectively true and we must also be able to demonstrate that any differing viewpoint is objectively wrong. Can you do this?

First mathematics isn't universal/objective, you can't prove that 1+1=2. That's because it's a logical system. If society had a different way of doing maths in which within the system 1+1=5 instead of 1+1=2 then it would be just as true as 1+1=2 also. Regardless, I don't think you would want to go down the route of the intangible (maths) being a reality as that line of reasoning argues against the very thing you're trying to use it for. Also the objectivity of morals depend upon the existence of something transcendent which allows you to say x action is wrong or y action is right, which would be God as He is the source of all truth. But if within naturalism you already dismiss any possibility for God to exist (I mean what would he have to do to prove it to you? Appear and die or something?), then you're only left with morals that can be subjective as the reason for their existence comes about solely through evolution.

I won't ask any new questions but I'm interested how you would answer a couple of the one's I asked before:

Under the naturalistic framework you're forced into per Atheism, that would make your source of morality individualistic as the epistemological source of your morality would be based upon biology, what right then would a state have to legally punish wrongdoing when an individual who thinks murder is fine is just as right in their belief as the society-wide morality (since it's subjective)?

When you answered my question all you did was assume that causing harm is wrong which kicks the can down the road, when under a rationalistic/naturalistic framework wouldn't you need to have a reason as to why that's the case (that that harm= wrong) without assuming the truth of the thing?

 

[Kylie]

First mathematics isn't universal/objective, you can't prove that 1+1=2. That's because it's a logical system. If society had a different way of doing maths in which within the system 1+1=5 instead of 1+1=2 then it would be just as true as 1+1=2 also. Regardless, I don't think you would want to go down the route of the intangible (maths) being a reality as that line of reasoning argues against the very thing you're trying to use it for.

I don't see how it is possible for a person to have one thing, add one more thing, and end up with five things. If you could explain to me how this could be possible, I'd be happy to accept it, but until then, I'll need more than just your say-so.

Also the objectivity of morals depend upon the existence of something transcendent which allows you to say x action is wrong or y action is right, which would be God as He is the source of all truth.

I don't see how. God propounding X to be truth seems no different to me than if a person propounds X to be truth. It's still some kind of entity starting some claim. If it's a subjective statement when I do it, why wouldn't it be similarly subjective when God does it.

For it to be objective, then surely it would require that we could discover it through an investigation of the universe. We investigated the universe and were able to figure out the distance between the earth and the sun - this is objective. But nothing objective has ever been determined just because we were told it.

But if within naturalism you already dismiss any possibility for God to exist (I mean what would he have to do to prove it to you? Appear and die or something?), then you're only left with morals that can be subjective as the reason for their existence comes about solely through evolution.

That is indeed my position. Our morals came about through evolution. We have the morals that we have because we live in social groups and certain behaviours were needed for those social groups to work. In other species that have different social structures, we see different ideas of morality. If someone killed my child, I would never consider having another child with them, yet that's exactly what happens with lions.

I won't ask any new questions but I'm interested how you would answer a couple of the one's I asked before:

Okay.

Under the naturalistic framework you're forced into per Atheism, that would make your source of morality individualistic as the epistemological source of your morality would be based upon biology, what right then would a state have to legally punish wrongdoing when an individual who thinks murder is fine is just as right in their belief as the society-wide morality (since it's subjective)?

As I said, we live in social groups, and we have evolved to have certain behaviours (behaviours are just as evolvable as physical characteristics, even top the point they become instincts - the beaver's instinct for building dams, for example). We evolved to have the moral viewpoints we have because any social group that did not have such behaviours would find it hard to survive. Those groups would be damaged by infighting, for example, and thus would be less likelyr to survive.

When you answered my question all you did was assume that causing harm is wrong which kicks the can down the road, when under a rationalistic/naturalistic framework wouldn't you need to have a reason as to why that's the case (that that harm= wrong) without assuming the truth of the thing?

I have empathy. If I see a person being mugged, I am able to imagine how I would feel if I was in their position, and since I conclude I would find it an unpleasant experience, I reach the rational conclusion that the person being mugged also finds it unpleasant. Since I also imagine that I would want assistance if I was being mugged, I reach the conclusion that the person being mugged would also want help, so I do what I can to offer that help.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I don't see how it is possible for a person to have one thing, add one more thing, and end up with five things. If you could explain to me how this could be possible, I'd be happy to accept it, but until then, I'll need more than just your say-so.

You didn't quite get what I was meaning, I'll try and explain it with a question. Could you please prove that 1+1=2?
The reason that 1+1=2 is because of the logical system of mathematics, which you can't prove is true due to it being intangible. It exists only within the mind, similar to how you would view morality (which is why I said your line of reasoning works against itself).

If it's a subjective statement when I do it, why wouldn't it be similarly subjective when God does it.

Yes it would be subjective for God but God created all of existence, all of the knowable universe and all that we could possibly know. He Himself is self existent, The Creator without a beginning or end, eternal. This being the case means that everything material traces back to Him as the source of all existence, including morality. If God created everything so that murder is wrong, then it's wrong because He determines what is and why it is. So it would still be authoritative for us as we are His creation.

I have empathy. If I see a person being mugged, I am able to imagine how I would feel if I was in their position, and since I conclude I would find it an unpleasant experience, I reach the rational conclusion that the person being mugged also finds it unpleasant. Since I also imagine that I would want assistance if I was being mugged, I reach the conclusion that the person being mugged would also want help, so I do what I can to offer that help.

But if someone who didn't have empathy for the same things you did murdered and stole they would still be as correct morally as you are due to you both sharing the exact same reason for your morals being 'right', that being evolution. For example you cannot say that Rome as a nation which had a policy of crucifying people were wrong, only different. Only that you disagree (due to arbitrary preference). If that is your position then that's ok and I suppose I'd commend you on your consistency. If it's not then anything else would be to assume a moral truth (which would make it universal).

I'll link a couple of posts that explain where I'm coming from a bit better. Don't feel like you have to read it or continue responding if you don't feel like it. I like discussing this stuff so I could go for hours but I know it can get tedious for most people and I don't want you to feel obliged or like you've "lost" if you don't answer. There's nothing to lose as I view it as a discussion rather than a debate. We're going to disagree fundamentally on morality because I believe morals can be true due to the nature of truth, whereas your worldview doesn't allow for moral truth (which allows atrocities to perpetuate because you cannot say they are wrong, only that you disagree based upon personal preference). But one thing I've found is that Atheists rarely have to defend the coherence and implications of their moral stances because most people aren't equipped to go on the attack. Epistemology related things can be hard and super convoluted.

I'm not quite sure the hyperlink format on this forum yet as I'm still new and working stuff out so they will be long links but they are to a single post:
Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality
Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality
Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality
Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

The last three are more pertinent to the discussion than the first as I've already established it. God bless .

 

[Astrid]

my question to you makes senses...you dont understand because you dont study thus i asked if you even study...when it was well apparent you dont did i not ask if you would like me to explain in more secular way...however at the end of day are you not on CHRISTIAN forms? so my apolagizes for a non secular first approch ....

You would be easier to understand if you used standard
syntax, grammar, spelling, and etc.

 

[Gregory95]

This fails at the 2 minute 33 mark, the bit where he says that there is a universal objective morality. It doesn't exist. If there was a universal objective morality, there wouldn't be some places that say it's okay to execute murderers and other places that say it's never okay to execute anyone, no matter what crimes they have committed.

There is no objective morality. Morality is only ever SUBJECTIVE.

so because people deny whats been in place from creation that means morality isnt real wow...morality
mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-
noun
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Virtuous conduct.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

[Gregory95]

You would be easier to understand if you used standard
syntax, grammar, spelling, and etc.

weird others can understand