LONGECITY

SHADOWHAWK:
Where do we get our ethics?

eternaltraveler:
This, among many things, is something you like to keep repeating.

Religious people get their ethics from a fixed false belief system shared as popular opinion among their group (or at least they like to give the impression of this).

Rational people muddle along as best we can in an uncertain and changing world.

SHADOWHAWK
Muddle along in your uncertain and changing world. I guess this is what "rational people," do when it comes to ethics. You won't get a disagreement from me! Sense I asked KOLOS this question I hope you are not saying he is not rational.

In your muddling would you show me where in this discussion I talked about "this" before? What else have I repeated?

When you say "Religious People," is that kind of like saying "those people?" Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Theists in general, the vast majority of the worlds population are "those people."

SHADOWHAWK
How about abortion?

eternaltraveler
]for an example of an effort in muddling along you can see the recent thread I started on abortion.

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=41993

SHADOWHAWK:
I read the post above and I agree with you, it was "muddling along." After criticizing me, why are you "repeating," yourself here?

"Rational?" If you say so.

Again the question was not addressed to you but I can see how you would be uncertain and confused in a changing world..
Edited by shadowhawk, 09 July 2010 - 11:29 PM.

I asked KOLOS this question

Again the question was not addressed to you

you are making statements on an open forum; as you know anyone who registers with the forum is free to comment as they see fit (so long as they don't violate the user agreement). You know this already. Stop playing this victim facade.

If you desire to have a private conversation I suggest taking it to pm. If you desire a formal moderated debate between yourself and another party I'm sure that can that also be arranged provided the party you wish to debate wishes the same (this can easily be accomplished with a CIRA thread).

would you show me where in this discussion I talked about "this" before?

I'm afraid you don't get to start over with a clean slate in every time you come to a new thread.

why are you "repeating," yourself here?

By “repeating”, I assume you mean “referencing”. I was referencing another discussion so I would not have to repeat any of it here, and I really only cited it as an example. I do my best to avoid repeating myself, though I do fail on occasion. “I know you are and what am I?” is not a very good debating tactic.

If you're asking why am I spending my time responding here? Good question. I needed a break from reading and this was at the top of the active topics list.

Muddle along in your uncertain and changing world. I guess this is what "rational people," do when it comes to ethics.

Ethics in general is mired in thousands of years of baggage, of good reasoning now obsolete, and of poor reasoning from the start, and some continuing good rules of thumb. As a believer in absolute morality I cannot expect you to agree that ethics just might have no absolute basis or at least there is no data available to suggest an absolute basis. Ethics must therefore must be founded on one or more a priori assumptions (ie maximum utility is “good”, continued human evolution/existance is “good” etc.). You have cited sources that use the aforementioned example as “proof” that non religious ethics is false in comparison to religious morality, presumably because the idea of non absolute truth is supposed to be really distasteful, and things that we find distasteful must therefore be false.

This is known as an appeal to emotion.

The ideal a priori assumptions are open for debate, and there is no absolutely right answer. However ethical systems that have resulted in significant negative utility for other humans have tended to go extinct. If you piss people off too much they will do something about it. This is also true of other animals besides homo sapiens. Moby dick was based on the true story of the Essex.

More modern ethics has started to include being nice to beings who can't possibly fight back

When you say "Religious People," ....

I was referring to those who get their ethics from religion. You are correct to call me out on it. Most religious people living in developed nations do not get their ethics from religion. I apologize for overly generalizing.

the vast majority of the worlds population are "those people."

I fail to see how this is relevant. Surely you aren't committing an argumentum ad populum fallacy?

The vast majority of the world's population are not a member of any one religion. No matter how you spin it; it follows that the vast majority of the world's population is wrong (in the religious sense we are presently discussing).
Edited by eternaltraveler, 10 July 2010 - 03:30 AM.

My question related to the basis of ethical judgments of any kind. Suppose you were among a group of rapists and popular opinion in this case was rape was not wrong. Would it be right since it was the popular option?

Well it would be wrong by our standards but right in this alternative version of reality you proposed, so probably I wouldn't feel guilty and society wouldn't judge me. Rape is quite a interesting example since it's largelely related to perception of sexuality in our society. If touching other people wherever we want was something normal would we even know the concepts like "sexual harrasment"?

Remember in the second world war, the Russian army raped most of the women when they took Germany. The Nazis did the same kind of things to the Jews.
http://en.wikipedia....in_World_War_II

War is another interesting example, crimes comitted by Soviet army seem to be relatively easy to judge: it was wrong because rape wasn't normal in Russian culture (although from what I remember many of this soldiers were from Siberia and Caucasus so their mentality was probably different) and it wasn't something legal in Russian army, just like loothing that also took place on the large scale. But it's interesting why they did things that they probably wouldn't do in their own country, in normal circumstances and they mostly havent raped anyone when they came back after the war was over.

How about abortion or mercy killings.

What about them?

Where do we get our ethics?

From society and I didn't say it's something good or bad it's just how it is no matter what you believe. I see you try to attack my atheism suggesting that without (belife in) God morality is something subjective but morality (much like e.g. art) is something subjective and you just believe that your subjective version of morality is the right one because it comes from the objective good that is God but I don't share your belief, not to mention that christian morality changed too.

Well it would be wrong by our standards but right in this alternative version of reality you proposed, so probably I wouldn't feel guilty and society wouldn't judge me.

You might want to rethink the wording of what you just said...

It comes out as "rape is ok if you hang out with a bunch of rapists a lot" This is just about as far from any ethical system as I can imagine (rape being defined as forced sexual intercourse without consent). I suspect this is not what you were attempting to say (hope?).
Edited by eternaltraveler, 10 July 2010 - 05:21 PM.

Goes back to my point. How can you deny the existence of something that is undefined?

You can't deny the existance of god. You can't because it doesn't exist so there is nothing to deny about.

because god can't be properly defined it makes a good case for the arguments against god because the people who beleive in god cannot describe god to define it, and if you can't describe it at all it is not there, and if you can describe it but many different people describe it in totally different ways then they are just making stuff up.

You might want to rethink the wording of what you just said...

It comes out as "rape is ok if you hang out with a bunch of rapists a lot" This is just about as far from any ethical system as I can imagine (rape being defined as forced sexual intercourse without consent). I suspect this is not what you were attempting to say (hope?).

I was thinking more about something like: if I lived in society that accepts rape as something normal or perhaps even good raping someone would be perfectly fine by the standards of this society. Since we are shaped by our environment how could I even know that I did something wrong? You can't do something morally evil without knowing that it's evil.

You might want to rethink the wording of what you just said...

It comes out as "rape is ok if you hang out with a bunch of rapists a lot" This is just about as far from any ethical system as I can imagine (rape being defined as forced sexual intercourse without consent). I suspect this is not what you were attempting to say (hope?).

I was thinking more about something like: if I lived in society that accepts rape as something normal or perhaps even good raping someone would be perfectly fine by the standards of this society. Since we are shaped by our environment how could I even know that I did something wrong? You can't do something morally evil without knowing that it's evil.

Well both sexes would have to accept rape as normal and acceptable for it to be a good or normal thing but in that scenario it wouldn't be rape because the female accepts it. That reminds me of the book "the clan of the cave bear" where men could have sex with any women they wanted to if they gave the signal, the women accepted it as normal or even good and not as a bad thing.
Edited by The MILE/The Immortalist, 10 July 2010 - 11:00 PM.

Well both sexes would have to accept rape as normal and acceptable for it to be a good or normal thing but in that scenario it wouldn't be rape because the female accepts it. That reminds me of the book "the clan of the cave bear" where men could have sex with any women they wanted to if they gave the signal, the women accepted it as normal or even good and not as a bad thing.

That would be interesting although in many societies women don't really have equal rights and even marital sex in parts of the world where arranged marriage is still practiced might be hard to distinguished from rape by our standards and to be clear I do believe that our standards are better but it's hard to judge people from other cultures.

Kolos
From society and I didn't say it's something good or bad it's just how it is no matter what you believe. I see you try to attack my atheism suggesting that without (belife in) God morality is something subjective but morality (much like e.g. art) is something subjective and you just believe that your subjective version of morality is the right one because it comes from the objective good that is God but I don't share your belief, not to mention that christian morality changed too.

SHADOWHALK
You answered my question and my purpose was not to attack your atheism but to see how you would answer it. Your answer along with others is “subjectivism,” is the basis of your morality. You can see this by others attempts to answer the questions. Some even chided you as in some way wrong when you gave your subjective answer as if they were right in their ‘Subjectivism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Theists argue:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Your point of subjectivity.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

The two premises imply God’s existence but do not entail a theory of how moral values and duties relate to God. So the theist who defends this argument has a range of options open to him. I won’t give them here.

Theists argue:

Well mostly some monotheists to be exact.
This way of thinking is based on hierarhy: God-absolute is the highest authority in everything so we should follow his version of whats right and wrong. It was good in the hierarhical middle ages but I'm not so sure that this explanation is sufficient today. It might be the best to follow this values but does it make them objective?

Anyway even without God I can argue that one set of values is better than the other because it's better for society and for you.

Theists argue:

Well mostly some monotheists to be exact.
This way of thinking is based on hierarhy: God-absolute is the highest authority in everything so we should follow his version of whats right and wrong. It was good in the hierarhical middle ages but I'm not so sure that this explanation is sufficient today. It might be the best to follow this values but does it make them objective?

Anyway even without God I can argue that one set of values is better than the other because it's better for society and for you.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Your point of subjectivity?

Do you now disagree with this and me? I thought, and it still seems to be, that your point was God does not exist and moral values are subjective. It seems you did agree with this, but I may be confused..

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

You disagree with this and each person creates subjective moral values based upon what they think is better for society and themselves? Sense this is subjective, what happens when any two individuals subjectively disagree?

Most of the people in the world would disagree with you because most of them are monotheists. It has nothing to do with the middle ages because this is the situation today.

Do you now disagree with this and me? I thought, and it still seems to be, that your point was God does not exist and moral values are subjective. It seems you did agree with this, but I may be confused..

I'm just not so sure that moral values would be objective even f God did exist because values don't exist as physical objects so what does it even mean that values are "objective"?

You disagree with this and each person creates subjective moral values based upon what they think is better for society and themselves? Sense this is subjective, what happens when any two individuals subjectively disagree?

That's why we created laws and rules that every indviduals in some area must or at least should obey ranging from eating etiquette to concepts like human rights.

Most of the people in the world would disagree with you because most of them are monotheists.

They would also disagree with each other Protestants, Roman Catholics, Muslms etc. they all believe that ther values are objective but the problem is their values are different.

It has nothing to do with the middle ages because this is the situation today.

This way of thinking does have a lot to do with the middle ages, even if it's still practiced today it was invented back then.

Quote ShadowHawk
Do you now disagree with this and me? I thought, and it still seems to be, that your point was God does not exist and moral values are subjective. It seems you did agree with this, but I may be confused..
Kolos
I'm just not so sure that moral values would be objective even f God did exist because values don't exist as physical objects so what does it even mean that values are "objective"?

SHADOWHAWK
So in answer to your question, the best way to convince anyone of the objective reality of moral values is to appeal to moral experience. I could give some illustrations of moral outrages and ask you if you think such things are really evil or wrong. I think you'll find 98% of people will agree on the basis of their experience that we do apprehend at least some objective moral values and duties.” See The “Abolition of Man,” the Tao, for an example
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_8

Quote
You disagree with this and each person creates subjective moral values based upon what they think is better for society and themselves? Sense this is subjective, what happens when any two individuals subjectively disagree?
Kolos
That's why we created laws and rules that every indviduals in some area must or at least should obey ranging from eating etiquette to concepts like human rights.

SHADOWHAWK
There are different kinds of laws. Natural laws, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics exist and are objective. Here are other examples of both physical and non physical things that exist objectively.

THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

THE WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules or Laws (and the possibility of breaking them)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

Rules or laws exist. For examples of the Moral Law see the following video.
http://www.crossexam....org/blog/?p=96
http://www.leaderu.c...s/meta-eth.html

Here is another version of the Moral argument.
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

Quote
Most of the people in the world would disagree with you because most of them are monotheists.
Kolos
They would also disagree with each other Protestants, Roman Catholics, Muslms etc. they all believe that ther values are objective but the problem is their values are different.

SHADOWHAWK
Not that different. It is amazing how similar they are. Again see CS Lewis Tao, in The Abolition of Man,. Lewis also wrote:
“All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations. Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized? An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver.”

Quote
It has nothing to do with the middle ages because this is the situation today.
Kolos
This way of thinking does have a lot to do with the middle ages, even if it's still practiced today it was invented back then.

SHADOWHAWK
Hardly like most things, the Moral law has existed in all ages of humans. That something existed in the middle ages is immaterial.

[/b]So in answer to your question, the best way to convince anyone of the objective reality of moral values is to appeal to moral experience. I could give some illustrations of moral outrages and ask you if you think such things are really evil or wrong. I think you'll find 98% of people will agree on the basis of their experience that we do apprehend at least some objective moral values and duties.” See The “Abolition of Man,” the Tao, for an example
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_8

Just because because most of us agree on something it doesn't make it objectve e.g. 1000 years ago most people would agree that earth is flat and since you might find this example rather biased I can give you a moral one: slavery
it was accepted not so long ago even in America and complitelly normal in the ancient world. When talking about antiquity you might be surprised how normal it was to left your newborn child to death (contrary to popular belief not only in Sparta) or watch people eaten by wild animals on the arena.

SHADOWHAWK
There are different kinds of laws. Natural laws, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics exist and are objective. Here are other examples of both physical and non physical things that exist objectively.

THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

I think it was quite obvious from the context which kind of laws I was talking about.

Rules or laws exist.

Well that's what I said...

Here is another version of the Moral argument.
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

There are/were many moral law givers much like traditions there are whole generations of people behind them.

SHADOWHAWK
Not that different. It is amazing how similar they are.

Well t's convinient to see similarities when you want to but didn't prophet Muhammad kill many people? Not to menton how many wifes he had, oh yes muslims are alowed to have many wifes, It's also interesting what they think about things like masturbation or aborton.

Lewis also wrote:
“All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations. Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized? An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver.”

Well I don't believe in "absolute" moral values so I don't really see any need for absolute moral law giver.

SHADOWHAWK
Hardly like most things, the Moral law has existed in all ages of humans. That something existed in the middle ages is immaterial.

I wasn't talking about moral laws but taking someones authority as the basis of argument and hierarhism typical for feudal system- God is the highest authority so whatever God wants is objective.
Edited by Kolos, 16 July 2010 - 11:47 PM.

View Postshadowhawk, on 16 July 2010 - 10:19 PM, said:
So in answer to your question, the best way to convince anyone of the objective reality of moral values is to appeal to moral experience. I could give some illustrations of moral outrages and ask you if you think such things are really evil or wrong. I think you'll find 98% of people will agree on the basis of their experience that we do apprehend at least some objective moral values and duties." See The "Abolition of Man," the Tao, for an example
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_8
Kolos:
Just because because most of us agree on something it doesn't make it objectve e.g. 1000 years ago most people would agree that earth is flat and since you might find this example rather biased I can give you a moral one: slavery
it was accepted not so long ago even in America and complitelly normal in the ancient world. When talking about antiquity you might be surprised how normal it was to left your newborn child to death (contrary to popular belief not only in Sparta) or watch people eaten by wild animals on the arena.

Most people believe the earth is round today. The numbers of believers do not make a thing right or wrong. If it was subjective than they were right when they said the world was flat. Some believed the earth was round even though in the minority. The objective truth I argue is the decider of truth.

Quote
SHADOWHAWK
There are different kinds of laws. Natural laws, such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics exist and are objective. Here are other examples of both physical and non physical things that exist objectively.

THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

I think it was quite obvious from the context which kind of laws I was talking about.

Quote
Rules or laws exist.

Well that's what I said...

Quote
Here is another version of the Moral argument.
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is a Moral Law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

There are/were many moral law givers much like traditions there are whole generations of people behind them.

My point with CS Lewis is they are remarkedly alike. See below.

Quote
SHADOWHAWK
Not that different. It is amazing how similar they are.

Well t's convinient to see similarities when you want to but didn't prophet Muhammad kill many people? Not to menton how many wifes he had, oh yes muslims are alowed to have many wifes, It's also interesting what they think about things like masturbation or aborton.

Based upon your position it is all good being "subjective." Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

Quote
Lewis also wrote:
"All of us know that there are absolute moral obligations. Who in their right mind would suggest that rape should be legalized? An absolute moral obligation is something that is binding on all people, at all times, in all places. And an absolute Moral Law points to an absolute Moral Law Giver."
Kolos:
Well I don't believe in "absolute" moral values so I don't really see any need for absolute moral law giver.

OK. I do. Who is right? Everyone? No one? Who decides?

Quote
SHADOWHAWK
Hardly like most things, the Moral law has existed in all ages of humans. That something existed in the middle ages is immaterial.
Kolos
I wasn't talking about moral laws but taking someones authority as the basis of argument and hierarhism typical for feudal system- God is the highest authority so whatever God wants is objective.

I also was talking about authority.

My point again, is that subjectivism is inadequate as the basis of morality.
Edited by shadowhawk, 21 July 2010 - 07:25 PM.

Most people believe the earth is round today. The numbers of believers do not make a thing right or wrong.

That was my point.

If it was subjective than they were right when they said the world was flat. Some believed the earth was round even though in the minority. The objective truth I argue is the decider of truth.

Well with earth it was quite simple, we could just check it (after thousands of years of speculations)but how can we study morality? Sure we can study what some groups of people or individuals consider moral or not but how can we determine what is objectively moral?

Based upon your position it is all good being "subjective." Everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

Actually it's quite true even from christian position. How can God condemn non-christians for doing what they think is completelly fine or even good like e.g. eating other people? It doesn't fit the definition of sin.

My point again, is that subjectivism is inadequate as the basis of morality.

I don't threat subjectivism as some sort of ideology, I didn't say I want morality to be subjective but that it de facto is subjective.

Apart from God, there is no absolute foundation for moral values as you repeatedly acknowledge is rooted in subjectivism. Therefore, if you're going to affirm the value of things like tolerance, love, fair play, the rights of women, and so forth, you need to have a transcendent anchor point. Apart from God there are no moral absolutes. Either each person does what is right in their own eyes or you need to have God.

The world would be horrible without moral absolutes, and you have as much affirmed this despite the lip service that you give to relativism. subjectivism fails as a basis for morality.

Here is an exert from a debate which sums this up I think.

Is the Basis of Morality Natural or Supernatural?
Union College
Schenectady, New York

A Debate Between Atheist Richard Taylor and Theist William Lane Craig

"(1) If God exists, then objective right and wrong do exist. God's own holy and perfectly good nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. His commands flow necessarily from His own moral nature and constitute for us our moral duties. In the JudeoChristian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: first, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your strength, with all your soul, with all your heart, and with all your mind," and second, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On this foundation, we can affirm the objective goodness of love, generosity, selfsacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

(2) Because, according to supernaturalism, man's life does not end at the grave, all persons are held morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be banished, righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall see that we do live in a moral universe after all. In the end, the scales of God's justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices that we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can, with consistency, make moral choices which run contrary to our selfinterest and even undertake acts of extreme selfsacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not just empty and meaningless gestures. Rather, our moral lives have a paramount significance."
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5305

Another debate which summarizes arguments for and against existence of God
http://www.rfmedia.o.../CT-Expo-Panel/

Does God send people to hell? Debate
http://rfmedia.org/a...aig-vs-bradley/
Edited by shadowhawk, 24 July 2010 - 01:35 AM.

You don't need to have God to have morals, this is ridiculous, I am sorry.

You choose your morals, you chose the religion's morals because you were told they are God's morals, in the same way you could choose your own or anyone else's morals and say you can't even morals without them. God is just an excuse for you to stop thinking. Besides, these are not God's morals (exists or doesn't exists), it's some religious fanatics morals which, oh btw, keeps changing all the time.

You don't need God to have morals, you need the ability to choose, you need to ability to think in order to have SUBJECTIVELY good morals, as morals are just as anything else in this universe - relative.

Apart from God, there is no absolute foundation for moral values as you repeatedly acknowledge is rooted in subjectivism. Therefore, if you're going to affirm the value of things like tolerance, love, fair play, the rights of women, and so forth, you need to have a transcendent anchor point. Apart from God there are no moral absolutes. Either each person does what is right in their own eyes or you need to have God.

Not really I can just give rational arguments why we should respect other people etc. Anyway in reality we are not so individualistic and our morality is shaped by society in which we live.
BTW Christianity doesn't really respect women rights that much, not to mention rights for sexual minorities and not so long ago any non believers... I would say that it's quite dangerous to believe that you objectively know whats right and wrong, just look at extremists all of them believe that God is on their side.

The world would be horrible without moral absolutes, and you have as much affirmed this despite the lip service that you give to relativism. subjectivism fails as a basis for morality.

But there are already many places where majority of people don't believe in any God or other "transcendent anchor point" and this places happen to be some of the safest on this planet like sweden or Japan so it seems you are wrong here.

Would any atheist deny this claim? When atheists argue with believers, atheists tend to try to disprove the existence of God. My argument is that is impossible to deny the existence of something unless there is some clear definition of the thing that is being denied. I ask atheists and believers alike. What is God?

Atheists are belivers
Atheists are not agnostics

You don't need to have God to have morals, this is ridiculous, I am sorry.

You choose your morals, you chose the religion's morals because you were told they are God's morals, in the same way you could choose your own or anyone else's morals and say you can't even morals without them. God is just an excuse for you to stop thinking. Besides, these are not God's morals (exists or doesn't exists), it's some religious fanatics morals which, oh btw, keeps changing all the time.

You don't need God to have morals, you need the ability to choose, you need to ability to think in order to have SUBJECTIVELY good morals, as morals are just as anything else in this universe - relative.

i totally agree.
Edited by .fonclea., 24 July 2010 - 06:11 PM.

You don't need to have God to have morals, this is ridiculous, I am sorry.

You choose your morals, you chose the religion's morals because you were told they are God's morals, in the same way you could choose your own or anyone else's morals and say you can't even morals without them. God is just an excuse for you to stop thinking. Besides, these are not God's morals (exists or doesn't exists), it's some religious fanatics morals which, oh btw, keeps changing all the time.

You don't need God to have morals, you need the ability to choose, you need to ability to think in order to have SUBJECTIVELY good morals, as morals are just as anything else in this universe - relative.

I agree with you. I know many non-theists who have fine morals. I never said what you are claiming I said, and I deny I am not thinking about it. This is as foreign to me as you.

I also agree you chose your morals as did I. I agree everyone chooses their morals. The issue is about where the morals you chose, came from. Subjective self or objective, outside yourself? That is what this discussion has been and is about.

There is a problem with relativity being the basis of morals. To use an obvious example of Hitler who was very relative. Still is in certain places.. Wasn’t his morality relative? One persons morality is anothers hell! I could think of hundreds of other examples. I suspect you didn’t check out the debates I posted or you wouldn’t have the view you have expressed..

I agree with you. I know many non-theists who have fine morals. I never said what you are claiming I said, and I deny I am not thinking about it. This is as foreign to me as you.

I also agree you chose your morals as did I. I agree everyone chooses their morals. The issue is about where the morals you chose, came from. Subjective self or objective, outside yourself? That is what this discussion has been and is about.

Interesting... So does your non-theist friends believe in objective morals/God? That doesn't make much sense doesn't it?

There is a problem with relativity being the basis of morals. To use an obvious example of Hitler who was very relative. Still is in certain places.. Wasn’t his morality relative? One persons morality is anothers hell! I could think of hundreds of other examples. I suspect you didn’t check out the debates I posted or you wouldn’t have the view you have expressed..

Godwins law... and Hitler is really a bad example, sure we all know he was evil but he was far from relativism in fact he clearly believed that his version of real or made up Germanic values is the only one that should exist. In fact it's similar with all totalitarian regimes, they don't accept any other values. It was also similar with both christians and muslims killing people and forcefully converting them to their religions, pagans never really done things like that. In fact this concept is rather new in human history. I think we can be perfectly fine without it.

Apart from God, there is no absolute foundation for moral values as you repeatedly acknowledge is rooted in subjectivism. Therefore, if you're going to affirm the value of things like tolerance, love, fair play, the rights of women, and so forth, you need to have a transcendent anchor point. Apart from God there are no moral absolutes. Either each person does what is right in their own eyes or you need to have God.

Not really I can just give rational arguments why we should respect other people etc. Anyway in reality we are not so individualistic and our morality is shaped by society in which we live.
BTW Christianity doesn't really respect women rights that much, not to mention rights for sexual minorities and not so long ago any non believers... I would say that it's quite dangerous to believe that you objectively know whats right and wrong, just look at extremists all of them believe that God is on their side.

The world would be horrible without moral absolutes, and you have as much affirmed this despite the lip service that you give to relativism. subjectivism fails as a basis for morality.

But there are already many places where majority of people don't believe in any God or other "transcendent anchor point" and this places happen to be some of the safest on this planet like sweden or Japan so it seems you are wrong here.

Religion in Japan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia....ligion_in_Japan
Crime rate
http://en.wikipedia..../Crime_in_Japan

Sweden
http://en.wikipedia....igion_in_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia....icism_in_Sweden
Crime rate
http://en.wikipedia....Crime_in_Sweden

These Societies still have large religious populations but also as religious influence has gone down crime has gone up. Religion plays a critical part even in its twilight.

Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of “morality”, since they seem to be rejecting a basic assumption in discussions that there are some kinds of right and wrong answers.

Critics argue that, in discussion, moral relativists reduce the extent of their input to repeated objections to the very having of the discussion. Indeed, as long as one is arguing from a moral relativistic standpoint, they have no grounds even to reject the practice of murder or torture by individuals for amusement. This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction

As I have argued moral subjectivism and relativism is an inadequate basis of ethics.
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5305 Again:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Premises 1 and 2

What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning. This is your argument.

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well. If it is subjective why discuss it at all as if it is objective? Do you want anyone to believe you?

I am sorry shadowhawk, it is what you said, you said you can't have morals without God because God's morals are the absolute morals.

You said it again when you told me "You chose your morals, the problem is where they came from" (Not an exact quote.. just woke up., but it's in first post of this page..)..

So I say that your religious morals suck just as bad as any human's morals, I would argue that my own personal morals which are definitely not Hitler's morals, are way better than the morals spread in religious belief. I will also argue that you can use any of your arguments to prove my morals are bad because you don't know what my morals are for starters, second - the examples you are giving are to the extreme of atheists who were evil and hated by people anyways, which don't share my morals anyways. Therefore you will just be saying "You are an atheist! (which is wrong, I am more agnostic but very leaning toward atheist) your morals are bad! Atheists kill people!".

So after we concluded that you can't attack my morals and you shouldn't bother attacking me as an atheist/agnostic/non-religious because that is just ridiculous, you are left with two options: Attack my morals (again..) saying "They are not God's morals!!! Therefore they are not the right ones and no absolute and whatever blablabla" as you don't need to know my morals to do that, just know that I am not following "religious morals", and your other option is to start defending yours.

Somehow I have doubts that your morals are identical to the morals spread in Christian's churches, which therefore mean that your morals are not God's morals, unless you like everyone else seems to know God's wishes and what really happened back then way better than everyone else, and only you know the true divine morals of God.. Then there is no reason to bother arguing with you because you know everything and blablabla...

Or you do hold for the morals spread in the bible and Christianity and then people already did the job for me, you are supporting: killing and stealing from people who don't share your belief, anti-women behavior, burning of gays/lesbians/whatever-else-in-there... and so much more I am sure someone else would enjoy to finish my short list into a huge one, I know I won't.

So I am sorry, there are NO divine morals of God, or to put it in a more precise sense due to my agnostic nature: if there were, probably no humans on this planet knows them, as the morals Christians follow at the CHURCH's morals, morals that are made by people, to benefit people. Morals which are a LIE considering they sometimes say one thing, about human rights etc.. and then go and burn someone for being gay or say to discriminate women.. don't forget they also want to block free will and knowledge, as they announced to believers that the internet is dangerous.. Oh hi Shadowhawk! you're using the internet!!! I think you can't hold to religious moral then.. Ok, preemptive defense: there are churches online! OMG! They don't really have a set of rules, morals and believes to go by, do they? It keeps changing!!! by humans!!!

So my second conclusion is: You don't believe in divine morals of God or whatever, you delude yourself into believing that you do, you are so sure of it, well, I am happy for you. Back to my point... humans believe in morals made by humans, they are far from perfect for now, but they are improving thanks to people who THINKS and don't follow already existing rules blindly. Religious usually fail with both the "think" and the "not follow blindly" part.

An added conclusion to simplify some things I said: Religious people might have some good morals, but going all the way back to the time of the bible and the time of now, they say one thing and do the other. Or they justify their doing because "they are don't believe in our god, their work is evil / they are.. gay / they started! (they didn't)" In truth it is that the morals spread by religions are simply not perfect even if you follow them to the letter. In truth they are also not divine and most probably not from God.

Last point to be made: Morals as being absolute is a BAD thing because of the shades of grey in our world. This prevents a single, simple, belief of how to act to be the correct one for all cases. All judgment should be done case by case and in CONSIDERATION of the morals, but be relative due to the case. Morals are just a general guideline which would work perfectly only in a white and black world, in here though - it is how it should be, but not how it always is. As you know, if someone had killed a person and you put him into prison, you are violating your code saying you won't steal from a person - you still all of his possessions and years from his life. I doubt anyone will argue against putting him in prison though (or some new options which might arise).

I also hope I will never be as mean and ridiculous to someone as I was in this post again, but I am sorry, this debate like almost any other religious debate is useless..

Religion in Japan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia....ligion_in_Japan
Crime rate
http://en.wikipedia..../Crime_in_Japan

Both shinto and buddhizm never really claimed to be obkective, especially shinto that is pagan/traditional religion and this type of religion tend to be very open to different practices, beliefs and even Gods for example ancient Greeks could believe in Osiris and Zeus in the same time.

But this quote is quite interesting:

Before 1868, there were three main forms of Shinto: Shrine Shinto, the most popular type; Folk (or Popular) Shinto, practiced by the peasants; and Imperial Household Shinto, practiced by the imperial family of Japan. In the 18th and 19th centuries, independent Shinto sects – Sect Shinto – formed, some of which were very radical, such as the monotheistic Tenrikyo. These became known as the Shinto Sects or the New Religions. Following the Meiji Restoration in 1868, Shinto and Buddhism were forcefully separated. The Emperor Meiji made Shinto the official religion, creating a form of Shinto known as State Shinto by merging Shrine, Folk, and Imperial Household Shinto. The radical Sect Shinto was separated from State Shinto. Under Meiji, Japan became a moderate theocracy, with shrines under government control. Shinto soon became a reason for Japanese nationalism. After Japan took over Korea and Taiwan, State Shinto became the official religion of those countries as well.

During World War II, the government forced every subject to practice State Shinto and admit that the Emperor was divine. Those who opposed the Imperial cult, including Oomoto and Soka Gakkai, were persecuted. When the United States occupied Japan in 1945, the shrines were taken out of government control, and State Shinto was abolished. Shrine, Folk, and Imperial Shinto again became separate, and Sect Shinto further distanced itself from mainstream Shinto.

Sweden
http://en.wikipedia....igion_in_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia....icism_in_Sweden
Crime rate
http://en.wikipedia....Crime_in_Sweden

These Societies still have large religious populations but also as religious influence has gone down crime has gone up. Religion plays a critical part even in its twilight.

So rise in crime is connected with secularization? But for some reason some of the most religious countries are also the most dangerous Africa, South America...

Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of “morality”, since they seem to be rejecting a basic assumption in discussions that there are some kinds of right and wrong answers.

Critics argue that, in discussion, moral relativists reduce the extent of their input to repeated objections to the very having of the discussion. Indeed, as long as one is arguing from a moral relativistic standpoint, they have no grounds even to reject the practice of murder or torture by individuals for amusement. This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction

But I would rather discuss with you rather than Ibn Warraq.

As I have argued moral subjectivism and relativism is an inadequate basis of ethics.
http://www.reasonabl...Article&id=5305 Again:

Cool but I don't really treat relativism as a basis of ethics.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Premises 1 and 2

What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning. This is your argument.

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well. If it is subjective why discuss it at all as if it is objective? Do you want anyone to believe you?

So perhaps it's possible to believe in objective moral values without believing in God, I don't see a problem here.

Luna:
I am sorry shadowhawk, it is what you said, you said you can't have morals without God because God's morals are the absolute morals.

Luna, I did not say anything like this. I said many people I know, who are not religious are very moral. As far as I am concerned they often practice a moral life that puts many believers to shame. We are talking about objective as opposed to subjective morals and I do not see how you are not an example of this. I think you completely missed my point.

You said it again when you told me "You chose your morals, the problem is where they came from" (Not an exact quote.. just woke up., but it's in first post of this page..).

Exactly, the problem is where they came from. If each and every person makes there own, than we have no objective basis for criticizing any behavior. This is my issue.

So I say that your religious morals suck just as bad as any human's morals, I would argue that my own personal morals which are definitely not Hitler's morals, are way better than the morals spread in religious belief.

You may be right because I have broken my own religious values at times. As far as your values being superior to religious values what are you speaking of? Example?

I will also argue that you can use any of your arguments to prove my morals are bad because you don't know what my morals are for starters, second - the examples you are giving are to the extreme of atheists who were evil and hated by people anyways, which don't share my morals anyways. Therefore you will just be saying "You are an atheit! (which is wrong, I am more agnostic but very leaning toward atheist) your morals are bad! Atheists kill people!".

But I said none of these things Luna and wouldn’t. I am not your judge. It seems you are being very critical of religious people. I never called you an “atheist” and don’t know you well enough to say anything like this. You are very leaning toward an Atheist? OK.

So after we concluded that you can't attack my morals and you shouldn't bother attacking me as an atheist/agnostic/non-religious because that is just ridiculous, you are left with two options: Attack my morals (again..) saying "They are not God's morals!!! Therefore they are not the right ones and no absolute and whatever blablabla" as you don't need to know my morals to do that, just know that I am not following "religious morals", and your other option is to start defending yours.

? What ! public/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif I don't know what your morals are!

Somehow I have doubts that your morals are identical to the morals spread in Christian's churches, which therefore mean that your morals are not God's morals, unless you like everyone else seems to know God's wishes and what really happened back then way better than everyone else, and only you know the true divine morals of God.. Then there is no reason to bother arguing with you because you know everything and blablabla...

What morals are you speaking of? My morals follow the traditional Jewish /Christian values. I never said only I know all about the morals of God. We were talking about the moral argument for the existence of God not all this other stuff. I have always enjoyed your posts and don’t know what I did to offend you.

Or you do hold for the morals spread in the bible and Christianity and then people already did the job for me, you are supporting: killing and stealing from people who don't share your belief, anti-women behavior, burning of gays/lesbians/whatever-else-in-there... and so much more I am sure someone else would enjoy to finish my short list into a huge one, I know I won't.

Wow, if you think Jewish / Christian people support this characterization of ethics you are so wrong. Please make your big long list I would like to see it.

So I am sorry, there are NO divine morals of God, or to put it in a more precise sense due to my agnostic nature: if there were, probably no humans on this planet knows them, as the morals Christians follow at the CHURCH's morals, morals that are made by people, to benefit people. Morals which are a LIE considering they sometimes say one thing, about human rights etc.. and then go and burn someone for being gay or say to discriminate women.. don't forget they also want to block free will and knowledge, as they announced to believers that the internet is dangerous.. Oh hi Shadowhawk! you're using the internet!!! I think you can't hold to religious moral then.. Ok, preemptive defense: there are churches online! OMG! They don't really have a set of rules, morals and believes to go by, do they? It keeps changing!!! by humans!!!

I have never seen Gays burnt and I have four daughters who I would put up against anyone. They are all black belts and powerful in body, intellect and spirit. They are all Christians in universities and their mother is Jewish with a doctorate. Her parents are both Jewish Doctors who are devout. As for Christianity, please learn what you are talking about. I have two Nephews who are gay and I love them both. Here is a Gay Christian website. http://ldolphin.org/

http://en.wikipedia....d_homosexuality

Yes I do use the internet and have for years. OMG My son is a Christian, in Harvard and a software engineer. Your view is bigotry.

So my second conclusion is: You don't believe in divine morals of God or whatever, you delude yourself into believing that you do, you are so sure of it, well, I am happy for you. Back to my point... humans believe in morals made by humans, they are far from perfect for now, but they are improving thanks to people who THINKS and don't follow already existing rules blindly. Religious usually fail with both the "think" and the "not follow blindly" part.

I am a human and don't believe in morals made by humans. Give me a brake.

An added conclusion to simplify some things I said: Religious people might have some good morals, but going all the way back to the time of the bible and the time of now, they say one thing and do the other. Or they justify their doing because "they are don't believe in our god, their work is evil / they are.. gay / they started! (they didn't)" In truth it is that the morals spread by religions are simply not perfect even if you follow them to the letter. In truth they are also not divine and most probably not from God.

Last point to be made: Morals as being absolute is a BAD thing because of the shades of grey in our world. This prevents a single, simple, belief of how to act to be the correct one for all cases. All judgment should be done case by case and in CONSIDERATION of the morals, but be relative due to the case. Morals are just a general guideline which would work perfectly only in a white and black world, in here though - it is how it should be, but not how it always is. As you know, if someone had killed a person and you put him into prison, you are violating your code saying you won't steal from a person - you still all of his possessions and years from his life. I doubt anyone will argue against putting him in prison though (or some new options which might arise).

I will remember this when four hundred million Islamic nuts decide six million Jews do not have a right to exist. It will all be relative as they follow their human guidelines. Christians should not say a thing? It is all shades of gray. Next time I argue with Islamic nuts around here I will tell them how can 6 million be right when they have 400 million. Case by case. Lets all talk about many Jewish sins when we talk of their right to exist.

I also hope I will never be as mean and ridiculous to someone as I was in this post again, but I am sorry, this debate like almost any other religious debate is useless..

What religious debate? Are you going to blame this on theists too?

Apart from God, there is no absolute foundation for moral values as you repeatedly acknowledge is rooted in subjectivism. Therefore, if you're going to affirm the value of things like tolerance, love, fair play, the rights of women, and so forth, you need to have a transcendent anchor point. Apart from God there are no moral absolutes. Either each person does what is right in their own eyes or you need to have God.

The world would be horrible without moral absolutes, and you have as much affirmed this despite the lip service that you give to relativism. subjectivism fails as a basis for morality

This is the quote I focused on and I am sorry I might have mis-interpreted it.

But it seems like you are saying that God's morals are the only morals to follow and that you can't really have good/right morals without having God.

My point is: There are no "God's Morals" as I put it in the above and the morals which seems to be told to be God's morals and the officials who lead the church, over thousands of years, don't really follow them and just do what they want anyways. Also the morals keeps changing, therefore they can't be God's, therefore you don't have your "absolute divine morals".

Another point is: People can have really good morals (definitely better then the religious ones) without God. You saying "the problem is where they came from", well, it's wrong - because you aren't really saying that, you are saying "the problem is that they are not God's absolute morals", aren't you? Well, as I said, there is no God's morals and the top people of the church as you know - are no less than cheats and thieves. If you are following the morals spread by Christianity then open your books and read how very well each and every one of them is violated in those books. Follow up history up to today and see how the trend continues. Also see how the morals keeps changing.

So those blind morals are bad.

My other point was: "Don't attack anyone's morals because they aren't 'God's morals' or because they are atheists". Like with you seeming to say all atheists follow something that Hitler does.. Thing is, like you said yourself, people's morals are different. This CAN be a probably because some have good morals, some have terrible morals but you can't attack a whole group like that.

In truth, humanity need new morals set and that will keep changing and improving. Not the religious morals definitely - they are just a lie and I am sorry, there are no God's morals.

You said you need God to have morals, I am saying You don't and I am saying you can't have "morals from God" anyways because they don't exist, at least - we don't know them.

Morals are a complicated thing, in truth what our own personal morals are is how we act in those shades of grey of reality. It is rules which are black and white.
Edited by Luna, 28 July 2010 - 03:22 AM.

Luna:
This is the quote I focused on and I am sorry I might have mis-interpreted it.

But it seems like you are saying that God's morals are the only morals to follow and that you can't really have good/right morals without having God.

I have repeatedly said there are subjective morals and objective morals. Subjective morals are based upon each persons subjective choice while objective morals are based upon the person or nature of God. You can change subjective morals to what ever you wish sense each person has the right to do that based upon their individuality. That includes all humans. Sometimes these individuals have a high moral system as judged by objective morals.. Sometimes they are not high, as judged by objective morals. If there is no God, there are no objective morals. My argument is:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

My point is: There are no "God's Morals" as I put it in the above and the morals which seems to be told to be God's morals and the officials who lead the church, over thousands of years, don't really follow them and just do what they want anyways. Also the morals keeps changing, therefore they can't be God's, therefore you don't have your "absolute divine morals".

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

You are right, morals keep changing if they are subjective and based upon each persons subjective mood. That the Church has broken morals based upon the person and nature of God. As I admitted, I myself have violated the moral laws of God. That does not make the objective morals wrong, I am wrong which would not be the case if morals were subjective and relative. I am wrong because of premise 2.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. See Lewis below:

Another point is: People can have really good morals (definitely better then the religious ones) without God. You saying "the problem is where they came from", well, it's wrong - because you aren't really saying that, you are saying "the problem is that they are not God's absolute morals", aren't you? Well, as I said, there is no God's morals and the top people of the church as you know - are no less than cheats and thieves. If you are following the morals spread by Christianity then open your books and read how very well each and every one of them is violated in those books. Follow up history up to today and see how the trend continues. Also see how the morals keeps changing.

I don't know how to evaluate your statement that subjective values are better than objective ones. Which subjective values? There are as many as there are individual humans. Some are very good as judged by objective values while others are horrible. Each does what is right in their own eyes. They change all the time as you have stated.

So those blind morals are bad.

Define what you mean by blind. Why are subjective morals not blind? How do you judge anyones values as bad when you believe they are subjective to each person?

My other point was: "Don't attack anyone's morals because they aren't 'God's morals' or because they are atheists". Like with you seeming to say all atheists follow something that Hitler does.. Thing is, like you said yourself, people's morals are different. This CAN be a probably because some have good morals, some have terrible morals but you can't attack a whole group like that.

I do not think it is attacking anyone to acknowledge Atheists do not have God's morals. Don't you acknowledge the same? Are you attacking Atheists?

In truth, humanity need new morals set and that will keep changing and improving. Not the religious morals definitely - they are just a lie and I am sorry, there are no God's morals.

I don't have enough faith to say this.

You said you need God to have morals, I am saying You don't and I am saying you can't have "morals from God" anyways because they don't exist, at least - we don't know them.

I disagree. See C.S. Lewis the Abolition of Man, on the Tou.
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_at_ep_dpi_8

Here is the Tou Objective morals
http://www.columbia..../abolition4.htm

http://en.wikipedia....bolition_of_Man
"Lewis criticizes modern attempts to debunk natural values (such as those that would deny objective value to the waterfall) on rational grounds. He says that there is a set of objective values that have been shared, with minor differences, by every culture "... the traditional moralities of East and West, the Christian, the Pagan, and the Jew...". Lewis calls this the Tao (which closely resembles Confucian and Taoist usage).[2] Without the Tao, no value judgments can be made at all, and modern attempts to do away with some parts of traditional morality for some "rational" reason always proceed by arbitrarily selecting one part of the Tao and using it as grounds to debunk the others."

The Ten Commandments are the Jewish / Christian version of this

Morals are a complicated thing, in truth what our own personal morals are is how we act in those shades of grey of reality. It is rules which are black and white.

I agree such morals are personal and subjective. That has been my point all along. Is nothing black and white?

Thanks for the change in tone of this post.
Edited by shadowhawk, 28 July 2010 - 08:27 PM.

In truth, the world is chaotic. There is no true order, there are no absolute morals. Nothing really matters, just what we decide that matters.

As usual, you can't prove that your morals or the religion's morals are really God's and I think even you can agree, discarding blind faith for a moment, that there is actually a lot of evidence that it is indeed people's morals and not God's.

Like everyone, you are stuck in this world with no true rules beyond the laws of physics, no true point and no true morals that is for sure. Like everyone else you are defining your own point, morals and meanings by choice, which is subjective. You are also stuck with people who believe they know better and for some reason - also get to "lead" and control others. It is their rules people have to follow - at least to some extent, true or false.

Good luck, not that you need it believing in God.

ILuna
In truth, the world is chaotic. There is no true order, there are no absolute morals. Nothing really matters, just what we decide that matters.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
You agree with my first point at least. Is it true?

As usual, you can't prove that your morals or the religion's morals are really God's and I think even you can agree, discarding blind faith for a moment, that there is actually a lot of evidence that it is indeed people's morals and not God's.

And you wouldn’t even attempt to prove you are right, right? There is no right. What kind of proof would you accept or demand? What did you think of the tou by CS Lewis in my last post? Here is a debate on these issues between Christians and Atheists.

Does the God of Christianity exist, and what difference does it make? A panel debate.

William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, Jim Dennison
March, 2009

http://www.rfmedia.o.../CT-Expo-Panel/
http://www.tangle.co...a2dab2e1e83d93

Like everyone, you are stuck in this world with no true rules beyond the laws of physics, no true point and no true morals that is for sure. Like everyone else you are defining your own point, morals and meanings by choice, which is subjective. You are also stuck with people who believe they know better and for some reason - also get to "lead" and control others. It is their rules people have to follow - at least to some extent, true or false

.

Where did the laws of physics come from?

Do non physical things exist?
http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5213

Both physical and non physical things exist but they are different in nature.
Once you see it, you can't "un-see" it. It is so obvious.
On side 1 of the chasm is: THE MATERIAL/PHYSICAL WORLD. In it you find:

Matter
Energy
Physical Laws
Light
Gravity
Forces
Rocks
Water
Snowflakes
Weather
Chaos & fractals

On side 2 of the chasm is: THE WORLD OF INFORMATION. In it you find:

Symbols
Copies
Replication
Purpose
Competition
Evolution
Intent
Truth
Falsehood
Judgment
Codes
Messages
Rules such as morality, (and the possibility of breaking them)
Expectations
Language
Instructions
Meaning

You are confusing the two. See my last post in “Faith.”

Good luck, not that you need it believing in God.

Thanks friend, you too.