Formal Debate Peanut Gallery - Atheistic Secular Humanism...

[Freodin]

Ugh, that is pretty terrible actually

Yep, and it didn't work. Turned into a personallity cult based on the leader pretty soon.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yep, and it didn't work. Turned into a personallity cult based on the leader pretty soon.

 

[stevevw]

So can secular humanism.

There are some obvious basic human rights that everyone should know and have no matter what such as under the united nations conventions. Things like the right to a fair trial, to not be tortured, the right to food and shelter and the right to be treated humanly. Then there are standards we have in our societies such as anti discrimination, equal rights and equal access to health, education and to have a just and fair legal system. But when it comes to how society lives apart from those especially in a social sense there are no real common values and morals. What one person believes the next will disagree and thats what secular society bases itself on.

They take human rights to the extreme and then it is used to allow all sorts of behaviors and values. Political correctness causes society to go over board with the rights thing and before you know it its almost a right to act like an idiot or unruly. These rights and attitudes that go with them are partly to blame for why kids are getting out of hand at school and how they are wanting to act like an adult and disturb the peace of others yet dont want to own up to the responsibility that goes with it.

Every generation has claimed this since time immortal. Even Socrates was convicted of "corrupting the youth".

Yes but thats a generational thing. Adults have always said kids misbehave as they do and its a part of growing up to a point. And kids say adults are party poopers and are always stopping them doing what they want which is part of disciplining to learn to grow up.

But what seems to be happening now is from years ago when a kid played up such as breaking a curfew and they were grounded. There was an occasional getting in trouble with the law and that was something that maybe one or two kids had happen and everyone talked about the bad boy at the end of the street. Now there are whole neighborhoods of these kids and their families. Now there are thousands getting into trouble and in jail. The type of crimes seem to be more heavier. Now there's more drug related problems and the drugs are much harder and dangerous. Now there's a heap more mental illness and depression. A person commits suicide every 40 seconds and the highest rate is among the young between 18 and 25.

Years ago a kid would get into a fight and get a black eye. He would get in trouble with the school and his parents. Now its young gangs and individuals kicking and stomping to the point of brain damage and murder. There's fighting in the streets and it's mixed with drugs and alcohol. Society has gradually developed a mental illness and brain damage just like a person does as an individual. It has taken its toll and the damage has been done. Now we are seeing the after marks of what has been happening for years. It will continue to have an effect in one way or another and the future generations will bear the brunt for what is happening now. We are a damaged society.

If you look at real statistics, you will see that crime has gone down quite a bit over the last 30 years.

Its not just about crime. Stats can go up and down. While violent crime may go down its still high overall for a society. Our jails are over flowing. One aspect may gone down like crime but then another aspect like domestic violence or teen suicide goes up. Drugs is becoming more of an issue. The point is put them all together and we have a pretty sick society. Sometimes it takes generation for something to come out. What was done one or two generations ago may come out in some way in the future. The thing I worry about now is mental illness. We are seeing this grow more and more. There are many depressed and there are many who are losing the plot. Families are breaking down, the pressure is on people to maintain a living standard which is failing and as a nation the governments are failing to provide a good environment because they keep mismanaging things.

It is all going to take its toll and we are seeing this with things like the GFC a few years ago. Its only a matter of time before it happens again but next time much worse. We tend to go in circles and the s--- hits the fan then we do the same old things to get ourselves out of the mess and tell ourselves it will be OK. But then we make the same old mistakes and it eventually all goes wrong again. But each time the damage done becomes deeper and longer and takes more of a toll. In between this we are seeing all the other crap with terrorism and global warming, displaced people, famine and poverty. There will be more disasters that will have devastating effects. Its like being punched around the ring and now where waiting for the knockout punches to come one by one. The next major attack or disaster could push things into crisis zone. There has to be a breaking point.

Secular humanism does have a strong and defined foundation for morals and values. Again, why do we need to reference a deity?

I though secular society believed in subjective morals. That there are many versions of each person and groups ideas of morals and values. All have to be allowed so each undermines the other. If one person believes that abortion is wrong then anothers view of it being OK has to be allowed because individual rights dictate this. If another person thinks porn on the internet and high street is OK because its an expression of their freedom to be who we want to be then that negates anyone who believes it is damaging to society. So this secular humanistic world view that states everyone has the right to do what ever and believe and practice whatever all negates everything form being united. There can be no objective morals and this is what's dividing and undermining any chance of having a common and strong united foundation to build our societies and nations on.

 

[stevevw]

See, this is why my system works and yours doesn't. We live in a pluralistic society where you can live your life according to what you believe and set any examples you want.

The only trouble is that system also always for all the bad examples and negative influences. And more often than not its these negative ones that become the standards and have negative effects. But there will come a time when Gods Kingdom will be established and Christ will rein as the King of Kings. He will bring peace as He is known as the Prince of peace.

And I will get ridiculed and rejected against as being a promoter of the destruction of society.
So we both have our freedom to live our life's according to what we believe... and all we have to endure for that is a little ridicule and rejection.

I dont think people who allow secular humanistic living get ridiculed I just think its not seen as anything. The only people that would normally be blamed in that society are the ones breaking the laws which is obvious. But they dont really see that its the things that they allow and make acceptable as the things that lead to those people ending up getting into trouble. You have to remember most just plod along thinking they are not doing anything wrong. They dont see it as being destructive, they just see it as part and parcel of life and they live in denial. Even with things like pollution many people tell themselves that it isn't their fault. Its a denial thing so that society can have its own way with things and live a comfortable life. But Christian belief will be phased out as being intrusive and out of step with what society wants. The other thing that you dont consider is what you actually implied. That if what secular society is doing is destructive in the long run then its not as harmless as you make out. There are consequences and its not one big happy place where everyone gets to live their life according to how they want. There will be consequences for the decisions and things that society allows. So if you say they are destructive then there will be destructive consequences as a result of those things.

[quoteIsn't that better than fearing the thought police banging at your door at four in the morning?[/quote]
Well its funny because one of the consequences of having a pluralistic society that is allowing almost anything goes is that it creates a situation where you have to have a lot of rules and regulations anyway to keep it all in check. Its a high price to pay for the so called freedoms of modern secular society. It ends up having 100s of restrictions and even more than any religion would put on someone. But that all acceptable so long as it hasn't got God attached to it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I though secular society believed in subjective morals. That there are many versions of each person and groups ideas of morals and values. All have to be allowed so each undermines the other.

That is not required by subjective morality. Part of modern secular morality is that it is not okay to beat your wife (or anyone, really). Some people believe they have the moral right to beat their wives. Nevertheless, they are punished by the laws of secular states.

 

[Freodin]

That is not required by subjective morality. Part of modern secular morality is that it is not okay to beat your wife (or anyone, really). Some people believe they have the moral right to beat their wives. Nevertheless, they are punished by the laws of secular states.

This is something that the absolutist / objectivist side does not seem to understand. In their view, the only alternative to a 100% certain distinction between "right" and "wrong" is "anything goes".

They simply cannot fathom how a subjective moral society is supposed to function.


But that isn't my point at all. Neither system will lead to a perfect utopian paradise. But while a realistic view of pluralism does at least lead to an acceptable society, the theocratic version does not have idea of how to make their system work.

"God's kingdom will be established and Christ will rein as the King of Kings."
That is a nice catchphrase... but how is this supposed to work? They don't have the slightest idea! It just will!

Any existing society has problems. Open or dictatorial. Atheistic, secular or theocratic.
A realistic view has consist of trying to find ways to solve these problems. (Note that this does say nothing about how good these solutions are. )

But to lean back and just say "there won't be any problems" is... well, anything but realistic.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The first and second part of David's final post begins here: #7

 

[stevevw]

That is not required by subjective morality. Part of modern secular morality is that it is not okay to beat your wife (or anyone, really). Some people believe they have the moral right to beat their wives. Nevertheless, they are punished by the laws of secular states.

Yes but those are laws like assault. They are obvious. But some of the beliefs that secular society may have towrds say having extra marital affairs or even sex before marriage for example may lead to situations where a different form of abuse is made. Society seems to think its OK to divorce now at the drop of a hat. People will have affairs when the going gets a bit tough as a way of dealing with their difficulties. You see affairs promoted and even talked about like its good in the magazines with the Hollywood stars. Its like whos doing who and whose the latest to split as big news items that sell papers. So this makes it acceptable and not seen as to bad. So the divorce rate is high, family break downs are high, kids suffer and society suffers and breaks down.

This to me is an abuse of the family and marriage vows. But all this happens because the basis is that a person should be able to do what they want and with who they want and when they want. Its all about the desires of the individual and how they can justify that its OK to do what they do in a modern society. The truth is muddied and the morality is pushed aside to allow people to act this way. So after a while affairs are not seen as immoral anymore but a product of modern society and their physical needs. Monogamous relationships are rationalized as not being necessary as we are basically animals and have needs ect ect.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes but those are laws like assault. They are obvious.

[bad things]

But all this happens because the basis is that a person should be able to do what they want and with who they want and when they want.

That is not the basis of secular subjective morality. Someone may think they should be able to beat their wife when they want, but this is not part of modern secular subjective morality. Saying that it's 'obvious' that that would be wrong does not change the fact that subjective morality does have standards and does hold people to them. It is not 'anything goes'.

 

[stevevw]

That is not the basis of secular subjective morality. Someone may think they should be able to beat their wife when they want, but this is not part of modern secular subjective morality. Saying that it's 'obvious' that that would be wrong does not change the fact that subjective morality does have standards and does hold people to them. It is not 'anything goes'.

Bashing your wife is an obvious wrong that goes without saying. Whether you say its morals or a law it is established in society and the line is drawn no matter what you believe. But other things like sexual immorality with porn for example isnt so obvious. We have porn on the internet and young people have smart phones to access this. We have porn shops on the high streets because people argue that there is nothing wrong with this. Those who believe in sexual freedom to express themselves however they want have been allowed as much right as someone who believe s its wrong. In fact those who are in favor of porn get more of a say because they win out in the end and those who disagree have to allow them to setup these places.

The same with prostitution, the ratings system with magazines, music clips and movies. There is a lot of content with sex and violence that a fair amount of people disagree with and believe that it causes harm. But other groups who disagree get their way under the freedom of press and their rights. They can rationalize that its ok but often it is associated with making money and the truth is compromised. This is the same for many difference areas of life such as marriage, teen sex, sexuality, gun laws, drug laws, relationships. But there is also a more subtle conflict of beliefs going on with the little things of everyday life like when a kid gets to have his first drink and how males should act with fighting, how young women are brought up, role models, the social graces, attitudes towards a number of issues socially that people have that can lead to cultivating things that can cause society to lose their moral compasses. Its come down to a selfish society about the rights of individuals and being able to have a right to do what they want.

All this fosters a society that just has no defined set of common values as far as social attitudes towards a range of things. The bigger issues like assault, rape, murder, theft ect are obvious and we have some legislation's around anti discrimination and equal rights. But theses are in place as a way of ensuring people are treated well in those basic areas. They are not really a product of moral but they are protections. It just seems the free choices we make lead us down a road where we are buying ourselves even more problems and we dont realize that. It seems secular society doesn't have any restrictions on how a person can live and practice things with their life style. People will say this is fair as everyone has the right to express themselves. But I believe we also let our guards down with this attitude and its a back door to allow many things.So its a high price we pay for our freedoms.

 

[stevevw]

That is not the basis of secular subjective morality. Someone may think they should be able to beat their wife when they want, but this is not part of modern secular subjective morality. Saying that it's 'obvious' that that would be wrong does not change the fact that subjective morality does have standards and does hold people to them. It is not 'anything goes'.

Like I said beating your wife is against the law and we have laws not just because we are being moral. They are also to protect people and try to keep society in control. Its the smaller things that dont come under laws. The ethical and moral values society has that allow and disallow certain behaviors and attitudes. These are often the things that can be subjective as different people will have different values and beliefs about things. They can also justify and rationalize something into being OK because they have other motives to do with not want to be told what to do or to practice something they think is Ok without being told its wrong. Porn is a good example and the pot issue is another that is coming up more.

People will make all sorts of arguments that can sound convincing and turn something that is not really good into looking and sounding Ok. Its normally motivated by money or a personal selfish reason. But it can be made acceptable under the guise of peoples rights or freedoms of societies and this is what I mean by its subjective. It comes down to people making a case for what they want and how good they cam manipulate the system. But because people will have different beliefs and values its hard for a subjective society to start saying no this can be allowed and your view cant if there is no solid guideline for what is right and what is wrong to go by.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How do you know. I know we have had some bad examples in the past but that has been mankind still trying to do it his way by adding in his versions of things. We need to follow Jesus like the early church. Whenever Israel followed God they had peace and prosperity. Whenever a society moves away form their morals like it collapses. Families breakdown then communities and then nations.

Steve, it's almost as if you've never heard of this little subject called history. Wanna talk about it? It's really funny you'd say things like "we need to follow Jesus like the early church" and "families break down then communities then nations.". The irony couldn't get much thicker....

I recommend you look up a guy called Theodosius. He was the last Roman emperor to effectively rule over all of Rome before it split into east and west. Do you know what he did? He institutionalized christianity. He practically birthed the Nicene church. So when you say "we need to follow the early church" take a look at how it worked out for Romans and Rome itself. They were a religiously tolerant pluralistic society...and then all non christian religions were wiped out. People were executed and persecuted by the "early church". Afterwards, Rome split in half and went from a slow decline in power to practically sprinting towards their destruction.

At least he created that solid foundation of christianity for future nations, right? If you consider the dark ages a solid foundation for societies.... then yes. Theodosius almost singlehandedly set mankind back a thousand years by propping up a relatively obscure jewish cult.

Frankly, I'm glad you can't get what you want Steve. In the words of your savior "You know not what you're talking about." (Paraphrasing)

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

Steve, it's almost as if you've never heard of this little subject called history. Wanna talk about it? It's really funny you'd say things like "we need to follow Jesus like the early church" and "families break down then communities then nations.". The irony couldn't get much thicker....

I recommend you look up a guy called Theodosius. He was the last Roman emperor to effectively rule over all of Rome before it split into east and west. Do you know what he did? He institutionalized christianity. He practically birthed the Nicene church. So when you say "we need to follow the early church" take a look at how it worked out for Romans and Rome itself. They were a religiously tolerant pluralistic society...and then all non christian religions were wiped out. People were executed and persecuted by the "early church". Afterwards, Rome split in half and went from a slow decline in power to practically sprinting towards their destruction.

I have some historical knowledge of the early church and it seems you may not know all there is to know yourself. I am talking about the early church after Christ. This period was a period of great growth and many good examples of Christians living lives that were reflecting the life of Jesus. There were many martyred and persecuted. After Christs death Paul had spread the Gospel to the Gentiles and the far reaches of the empire. The church grew fairly fast and there were cases of thousands being converted at one time in places. The Romans believd in their pagan Gods and made people pay homage to them. Paul was showing how these gods were just idols of metal and wood and that God was the living God through Jesus.

The Christians had a fairly low key beginning as they were singled out for not following the Roman idols. But there are many examples through the first couple of centuries which showed that the Christian led good lives and showed that they lived in peace towards others. They were often mentioned for their good example of the way they lived and this also brought attention on them because many were suspicious as to what they were up to.

But even during the time of Nero Christians were being blamed for everything and the persecutions started right through to the 3rd century when Constantine order Christianity to be accepted that the persecutions continued. This is where the Christians were fed to the lions. But there were many Christian martyrs apart from the disciples. Many Christians like
Polycarp (AD 69– 155-160's), Ptolemaeus and Lucius (died ca. 165 AD), Fabian (200 – 20 January 250) was the Bishop of Rome from 10 January 236 to his death in 250, Saint Sebastian (died c. 288). The Scillitan Martyrs were a company of twelve North African Christians who were executed for their beliefs on 17 July 180 and Saints Perpetua and Felicity (believed to have died 203) are just a few of the more famous ones. But thousands of Christians were persecuted and killed during the rise of the early church. Perpetua Is interesting as she had left a diary in her prison. She was 22 and with a baby. She was executed in the arena charged by a bull, attacked by a lion and then when she was still alive slaughtered by the sword. As she died she still got up to help the others.

There are some interesting writings describing the Christians of the early church which gives us an insight into how they lived. Pliny the Younger in a letter to the then emperor describes the Christians after interrogating them when they were being persecuted. He states they pledge to do no wrong and come together to sing hums to Christ as a God. But a couple of early letter describe in detail how the early Christians lived.

The Epistle to Diognetes, c. AD 130

They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all others; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death and restored to life. They are poor yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things and yet abound in all; they are dishonored and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of and yet are justified; they are reviled and bless; they are insulted and repay the insult with honor; they do good yet are punished as evildoers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred. To sum it all up in one word -- what the soul is to the body, that are Christians in the world.

At least he created that solid foundation of Christianity for future nations, right? If you consider the dark ages a solid foundation for societies.... then yes. Theodosius almost single handedly set mankind back a thousand years by propping up a relatively obscure Jewish cult.

From the Apology of Tertullian, AD 197

The "apology" was not saying "sorry" but was a defense of a viewpoint. One of the most colorful early church scholars was the North African Tertullian, who lived from around AD 160-225. He commended the Christian faith to the pagan world. In this excerpt we get priceless insight into the practices of early Christian worship, discipline, leadership selection and financial giving. But most significantly, Tertullian preserves the amazing pagan observation of the Christians: "See how they love one another."
What Were Early Christians Like? - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline

Frankly, I'm glad you can't get what you want Steve. In the words of your savior "You know not what you're talking about." (Paraphrasing)

And, finally, the observations of a prominent present day researcher.
Sociologist Rodney Stark analyzed the survival and growth of the early church in the first few centuries. Here is his fascinating summary of the Early Church.

". . . Christianity served as a revitalization movement that arose in response to the misery, chaos, fear, and brutality of life in the urban Greco-Roman world. . . . Christianity revitalized life in Greco-Roman cities by providing new norms and new kinds of social relationships able to cope with many urgent problems. To cities filled with the homeless and impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachment. To cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of family. To cities torn by violent ethnic strife, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity. And to cities faced with epidemics, fire, and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services. . . . For what they brought was not simply an urban movement, but a new culture capable of making life in Greco-Roman cities more tolerable." Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press, 1996, page 161.​

What Were Early Christians Like? - AD 1-300 Church History Timeline

The early church grew fast and spread throughout the Roman Empire. The early Christians set an example of peace and Love and were persecuted for what they believe because they didn't follow the Roman pagan gods. It wasn't until Constantine who was converted himself and allowed Christianity to be practiced without any persecution around 313 AD. Then Christianity becomes the dominate religion of the very empire that tried to snuff it out. So fro a cross on Calvary the birth of the Christian church grew and took over the greatest empire. After that man started to destroy things by changing and adding all these rules and regulations. The church should get involved in politics and try to run things. They should be just setting the example like Jesus did. Let the governments run the country and let Christians follow Jesus and set the example that Jesus said to help others.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Bashing your wife is an obvious wrong that goes without saying. Whether you say its morals or a law it is established in society and the line is drawn no matter what you believe.

You keep saying this, but are blind to the fact that it disproves your argument.

Later you say, "All this fosters a society that just has no defined set of common values as far as social attitudes towards a range of things."

But we do have a set of common values. You and I both agree that wifebeating is wrong.

But other things like sexual immorality with porn for example isnt so obvious.

You keep saying this, but are blind to the fact that it disproves your argument. My concern for free speech outweighs my concerns about porn. Your concern about porn apparently outweighs your concern about free speech.

We both have moral standards, but they differ. What do you call things that differ from person to person?

That's right, subjective. Morality is subjective.

Every time you complain about how this or that is going on in modern society, and you don't like it, it is further evidence that morality is subjective.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Like I said beating your wife is against the law and we have laws not just because we are being moral.

It's true that not all laws have to do with morality. It is illegal (in the US) to drive on the left side of the street, but it is not inherently immoral.

However I strongly disagree with you on wife-beating. Wife-beating, theft and murder are all immoral. We also have laws against them, so that they are illegal. Illegal and immoral are not the same thing, but you can't honestly pretend that these issues do not have a moral dimension, and are merely rules of society's organization.

The ethical and moral values society has that allow and disallow certain behaviors and attitudes. These are often the things that can be subjective as different people will have different values and beliefs about things.

Yay, I'm glad you agree morality is subjective.

But because people will have different beliefs and values its hard for a subjective society to start saying no this can be allowed and your view cant if there is no solid guideline for what is right and what is wrong to go by.

We have no problem declaring wifebeating wrong. As you say yourself, it's obvious.

 

[stevevw]

It's true that not all laws have to do with morality. It is illegal (in the US) to drive on the left side of the street, but it is not inherently immoral.

However I strongly disagree with you on wife-beating. Wife-beating, theft and murder are all immoral. We also have laws against them, so that they are illegal. Illegal and immoral are not the same thing, but you can't honestly pretend that these issues do not have a moral dimension, and are merely rules of society's organization.

But turn it the other way around and take the morality out of wife bashing, theft and murder. You have to make it against the law whether they are moral acts or not. They are not just made against the law because they maybe immoral. They are made against the law because if they dont we would have a crazy society. Things would get out of control and it would lead to more chaos. There are many laws like you say that dont have anything to do with morals. So the laws are not brought in just because of morals. A society doesn't sit down and say lets make a list of immoral things and make them against the law. Its immoral to prostitute yourself. Its immoral to have an affair with a married person. But they are not against the law.

Yay, I'm glad you agree morality is subjective.

Well I was saying that secular society believes that morals can be subjective but I disagree. I will tell you why it doesn't work that way. Because you can have two or more people having different views on something. But how can they all be right. If someone believes that rape is OK and thats their subjective moral view you cant judge them and say they are wrong. Because there is no objective right and wrong according to subjective morality. So this allows all sorts of views and all have an equal right to be held. You cant say they are wrong because thats not your moral view, its theirs the same as they cant say yours is wrong.

We have no problem declaring wife beating wrong. As you say yourself, it's obvious.

Thats right but then using a women as a prostitute is not seen as morally wrong by many and thats a form of use and abuse.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But turn it the other way around and take the morality out of wife bashing, theft and murder. You have to make it against the law whether they are moral acts or not. They are not just made against the law because they maybe immoral. They are made against the law because if they dont we would have a crazy society.

Was English and American society crazy in the early 19th century?

Wife Beating as Prerogative

"The Anglo-American common law originally provided that a husband, as master of his household, could subject his wife to corporal punishment or "chastisement" so long as he did not inflict permanent injury upon her. During the nineteenth century, an era of feminist agitation for reform of marriage law, authorities in England and the United States declared that a husband no longer had the right to chastise his wife."

Well I was saying that secular society believes that morals can be subjective but I disagree. I will tell you why it doesn't work that way. Because you can have two or more people having different views on something. But how can they all be right.

They can't all be right.

If someone believes that rape is OK and thats their subjective moral view you cant judge them and say they are wrong.

Certainly, we can (and do) judge them by our own subjective moral view. If you're suggesting this as a defense in a rape trial, we can and do judge and imprison people like this.

Because there is no objective right and wrong according to subjective morality. So this allows all sorts of views and all have an equal right to be held.

Certainly. I allow you to have your views about pornography, and you allow me to have mine. How could it be otherwise?

 

[stevevw]

You keep saying this, but are blind to the fact that it disproves your argument.

Later you say, "All this fosters a society that just has no defined set of common values as far as social attitudes towards a range of things."

But we do have a set of common values. You and I both agree that wifebeating is wrong.

But are all those things that are against the law seen as morals by everyone. Just because its against the law doesn't mean its a moral to someone. A person may believe in fighting everyone as a way of proving their manhood. So they get into a lot of fights. But they may not regard what they have dome as assault. The person who bashes his wife may not regard it as that and may think she deserved it. A person who steals may think the establishment deserves being stolen from and its not immoral to steal from the rich and the government. So all these people dont regard those laws as moral. Like I said the laws dont necessarily represent a common moral outlook. They are there for protection and to keep society in order more than anything moral.

But even if I went along with you that they were morals this would only support Gods laws as most of them like killing, stealing and honoring your wife are Gods laws which are written on mans hearts anyway. But its not that as so many disagree with those sets of laws. Plus morals extend beyond the laws to social values such as sex before marriage, abortion, underage sex, homosexuality, porn, assisted suicide, sexual promiscuity, drugs, gambling at the expense of family ect which are not always against the laws. Society accepts many of these so they are saying they are either not moral or they are allowing those morals to be breached.

You keep saying this, but are blind to the fact that it disproves your argument. My concern for free speech outweighs my concerns about porn. Your concern about porn apparently outweighs your concern about free speech.

But yet you will give up your concern for free speech on so many other issues like say when the government says you cant drink at a certain age or smoke cigarettes in certain places, or smoke pot socially, or be allowed to gamble beyond a certain amount of money, or have sex with a minor. You are concerned for your rights to free speech over porn which seems to be about you. What about what the damage some of these things may do to others or society. It seems like many are concerned about their rights and their lives. Its all about me and my rights and no body can tell me what to do and will do whatever I want to do. We have become very selfish and its all about the ME generation. What about the damage to others and what this may lead to. What about putting others on the same level as yourself or even before yourself sometimes.

We both have moral standards, but they differ. What do you call things that differ from person to person?

Yes they differ. Secular society will have many different versions and those who believe in a Christian God will have the one versions. As Christ said He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Every time you complain about how this or that is going on in modern society, and you don't like it, it is further evidence that morality is subjective.

No morality cant be objective otherwise we would have to allow all sorts of things. You would have to allow your neighbors beliefs in morals which says he can have several wives. Or the man across the road who says he can marry a goat. Or those who think stealing is OK. They can come and take your car becuase to them their morals are that no one deserves a car and everyone's possessions should be shared. The moment you start to say no you cant do that you are then enforcing your morals onto them and not allowing their right to practice what they believe.