Search results

You can make more arguments for atheism than you can for theism. Theism's all about believing. And you can't objectively conclude an opinion is right.

That's not correct.

Wait a minute.. do you understand the exact difference between objective and subjective?

I think they are morally wrong. Millions of Chinese beg to differ.

Because it isn't. If it had been objectively moral people would always have said democracy was the only moral option. And they haven't. So it's not objectively moral.

IMHO no. Just so we're clear on this one: you're picking a very poor example and you're about to be badly burnt if you think this is leading to your precious moral standard.

I think it is a good thing, yes. I don't think there's an objective moral standard that says democracy is a good thing though. In fact there are some other political forms that might prove useful as well.

What? They told me there wasn't an objective moral standard and said I had to make my own moral choices? Yeah, they would really benefit from that. This is the last time I'm explaining this to you. It is by no means a logical flaw. The FACT that there is no objective moral standard does not...

No, that's not a logical flaw. I said that democracy was the way to go. If you don't live in a democracy, ethics don't necessarily have anything to do with the law ;). You keep missing the point, it's quite astonishing.

:) Which is where the arrogance lies. It's incredible how easy it is for you guys to determine right and wrong. That's what years of manipulative behaviour do to you I suppose.

They are violating my moral law. They are violating the moral law of the majority. Hence the punishment. Seriously, Juve Revolution, this stuff is pretty easy, why can't you get it?

Like I said before, it is not because of the fact that there is no objective moral standard that we can't condemn them. We are arrogant enough to believe that our moral standard is better than theirs and we condemn them because of that. You believe that your moral standard is better than mine as...

Of course not. They had one moral choice. But as soon as you say your moral standard is in a book, all you can do is follow the book. Which means you don't have to make moral choices day in day out. In fact, if you do, you're not even being a good muslim.

The question you just asked makes it clear that it is new to you. You don't seem to understand the concept. It's not even about time and evolving, it's about choices. But you, being a muslim, don't have choices. You have chosen to accept a certain moral standard and you live by it. The problem...

The fact that this sort of thinking is new to you all is pretty scary to say the least. It does explain why you're so touchy when it comes to blasphemy.

Yes, we could. But it's still not an objective moral standard. They are wrong according to your moral standard. The people. Who also determine the laws. In a way democracy shows you the moral values of the majority of the people. That doesn't mean they're the right ones though.

No, we need laws. Which we have.

Genocide is one of the things that has not always been considered immoral, but it has been frowned upon in almost any culture. You remember the Romans burning down Carthage? It was seen as a brutal move even back then. As for rape and child abuse.. I would consider it immoral, but there are...

No, there is no objective morality, it's always a struggle between values. It has been for thousands of years.

I have already answered your questions in posts a lot shorter than this one. I suggest you read them first.