He loves everyone so much that he sent this son that nobody asked for, and if we dont love him back, or are born in another part of the world, we go to hell.
Thats makes god a sick asshole.
Vaznack THE MORAL NIHILIST AND MORAL RELATIVIST TALKING ABOUT THE MORAL BEHAVIOUR OF GOD is wrong......
Once again, get together with the other nutjobs talking to imaginary friends and get it straight. I get confused. You say this, but the others say somehting different.
It would seem that a god so apparant would be plainly identifiable.
Let me know when you all get together with a unified fairy tale. It would be much easier to discuss.
I find it mildy entertaining that we are "nutjobs" but your immune to labeling. It's always easy to take the side of not believing w/out seeing. A mantra for the weak-willed to abide by.
Vaznack THE MORAL NIHILIST AND MORAL RELATIVIST TALKING ABOUT THE MORAL BEHAVIOUR OF GOD is wrong......
Because morals are subjective, I judge by my morals that your god is a sick fuck.
Thats what subjective morals allows. Thats the definition of subjective morals.
I would think you agree - somehow slavery was allowed in the bible 5k years ago, but now it is reprehensible. How does that fit in with your absolute morality?
Vaznack saying morals are subjective, then going in and saying what Casey DID WAS WRONG........
Subjective morality allows me to judge aything I choose.
Im amazed - not at your disagreement of subjective vs absolute morality - but at your inablity to grasp the concept. You dont have to agree - but it is incredibly difficult to discuss with you because of your inability to understand the concept.
Agreed. Subjective means that it is not always right. No argument.
THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG WITH SUBJECTIVE MORALS.......DONT YOU DAMN UNDERSTAND THAT?
The reason I can say you are wrong if you think Hitler was just - is because society judges you to be incorrect. Simple. There is no absolute right or wrong. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend, and what about that makes my view of subjective morals wrong?
So it is now a popularity contest? Most people think Sarah Jessica Parker isnt good looking, does that mean she isnt good looking? What about people that find her attractive? are they wrong? I am not interested in popularity contests, i am just interested in right or wrong
Once again - because
there is no absolute wrongs or rights doesnt mean society cant use its collective subjective morality to judge you.
ARE YOU THAT DUMB? NO REALLY ARE YOU THAT STUPID....YOUR STATEMENT IS A CONTRADICTION.....
DOESNT DAMN MATTER WHAT PEOPLE THINK OR WHAT IS POPULAR........YOU IN YOUR WORLD CANNOT SAY I AM WRONG IN THINKING WHAT HITLER DID WAS WRONG, ALL WHAT YOU CAN SAY IS, THAT IS YOUR CHOICE, YOU ARE NOT RIGHT AND NOT WRONG.......
Seriously man, you are making a fool of yourself...
Read that again. No strawmans please.
I find it mildy entertaining that we are "nutjobs" but your immune to labeling. It's always easy to take the side of not believing w/out seeing. A mantra for the weak-willed to abide by.
I am not immune to labeling. Have at it.
BTW - kinda funny how you say I label you, and in the next sentence you label me as weak willed.
I find it mildy entertaining that we are "nutjobs" but your immune to labeling. It's always easy to take the side of not believing w/out seeing. A mantra for the weak-willed to abide by.
Bro
Dont you see how stupid he and his atheism is?
On one hand he is a moral relativist, then in the same sentence he is bagging out the moral behaviour of God in the OT? Then he goes off and says that he is not wrong?
So contradictory, that is what atheism...
he then goes on about what society thinks and what is popular, and what is popular means that it is right.......
AND ON TOP OF IT< he thinks he is right........Such stupidity
Rostos -
I think we agree. Subjective morality means there is no true wrong or right, just judgements by the individual and society. I subscribe to this. Do you understand this concept? Not do you agree - but can we just get past the definition part?
Because morals are subjective, I judge by my morals that your god is a sick fuck.
Thats what subjective morals allows. Thats the definition of subjective morals.
I would think you agree - somehow slavery was allowed in the bible 5k years ago, but now it is reprehensible. How does that fit in with your absolute morality?
BUT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, YOU NOT WRONG, YOUR STATEMENT MEANS NOTHING IN A WORLD OF MORAL RELATIVISM....DONT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD?
IT MEANS NOTHING.........BUT YOU ACT AS IF IT DOES........
IF I SAID WHAT CASEY ANTHONY DID WAS GOOD, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN SAY IS , I DONT AGREE, BUT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT OR NOT WRONG.....THATS IT....THAT IS ATHEISM, THAT IS THE REAL SICKNESS.
Because morals are subjective, I judge by my morals that your god is a sick fuck.
Thats what subjective morals allows. Thats the definition of subjective morals.
I would think you agree - somehow slavery was allowed in the bible 5k years ago, but now it is reprehensible. How does that fit in with your absolute morality?
BUT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, YOU NOT WRONG, YOUR STATEMENT MEANS NOTHING IN A WORLD OF MORAL RELATIVISM....DONT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD?
IT MEANS NOTHING.........BUT YOU ACT AS IF IT DOES........
IF I SAID WHAT CASEY ANTHONY DID WAS GOOD, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN SAY IS , I DONT AGREE, BUT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT OR NOT WRONG.....THATS IT....THAT IS ATHEISM, THAT IS THE REAL SICKNESS.
Bro
Dont you see how stupid he and his atheism is?
On one hand he is a moral relativist, then in the same sentence he is bagging out the moral behaviour of God in the OT? Then he goes off and says that he is not wrong?
So contradictory, that is what atheism...
he then goes on about what society thinks and what is popular, and what is popular means that it is right.......
AND ON TOP OF IT< he thinks he is right........Such stupidity
I find the moral behavior of your god reprehensible. That is according to my subjective morality.
I can judge anything because of moral subjectivity.
How is that contradictory?
BUT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT, YOU NOT WRONG, YOUR STATEMENT MEANS NOTHING IN A WORLD OF MORAL RELATIVISM....DONT YOU GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD?
IT MEANS NOTHING.........BUT YOU ACT AS IF IT DOES........
IF I SAID WHAT CASEY ANTHONY DID WAS GOOD, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN SAY IS , I DONT AGREE, BUT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT OR NOT WRONG.....THATS IT....THAT IS ATHEISM, THAT IS THE REAL SICKNESS.
I am not right, and I am not wrong. That is correct. It means nothing but my opinion. Are you trying to make a point, or are you just repeating my point?
This is what happened here in Australia a few years ago.......
"The jury found Bunting, a stocky former abattoir worker and probable psychopath, killed 11 people while his accomplice, Robert Wagner, 31, a bisexual muscleman whose height and strength lent itself to cutting and killing, murdered seven. Wagner had already pleaded guilty to three murders."
This is a possible conversation below from the implications of atheism...
Rostos - "What these guys did, good on them, i think what they did was right, well done to them.....I hope they make money out of it..."
Vaznack - "Rostos, i think what they did was wrong, you think what they did was right, neither of us are right or wrong......."
I am sorry, but this is what Atheism is subjected to.....
Do you agree?
If you said what Hitler did was good, I would tell that by my subjective morality you are wrong.
And then, I would also tell you that by the worlds populations subjective morality you are wrong.
And then, if you decided to kill someone - the worlds subjective morality would punish you.
Answer this Rostos - how do you reconcile that slavery was totally sanctioned in the bible 5k years ago, but reprehensible now? How does that fit in with absolute morality? I will wait for your direct response.
This is what happened here in Australia a few years ago.......
"The jury found Bunting, a stocky former abattoir worker and probable psychopath, killed 11 people while his accomplice, Robert Wagner, 31, a bisexual muscleman whose height and strength lent itself to cutting and killing, murdered seven. Wagner had already pleaded guilty to three murders."
This is a possible conversation below from the implications of atheism...
Rostos - "What these guys did, good on them, i think what they did was right, well done to them.....I hope they make money out of it..."
Vaznack - "Rostos, i think what they did was wrong, you think what they did was right, neither of us are right or wrong......."
I am sorry, but this is what Atheism is subjected to.....
Do you agree?
I agree that we could have that conversation. It is entirely possible.
But I also have to tell you that your view would be opposed to societies views of subjective morality.
I think you are hung up on the need for "right" and "wrong". Right and wrong are only decided by the subjective morality of society at that given moment in time.
Do you understand the concept? If so - we can at least move on to a discussion of the validity rather than the concept itself.
If you said what Hitler did was good, I would tell that by my subjective morality you are wrong.
DONT YOU GET IT? UNDER MORAL SUBJECTIVISM, YOU CANNOT TELLME I AM WRONG, YOU CAN ONLY SAY THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH ME, BUT I AM NOT WRONG.
And then, I would also tell you that by the worlds populations subjective morality you are wrong.
CMON man, are you that dumb? Popularity does NOT DICTATE IF I AM RIGHT OR WRONG.......Most people do not find SJP attractive, does that mean the people that do find her attractive are WRONG? Answer that? Just asnwer that? Are they WRONG for finding her attractive when the majority of the population dont find her attractive?
And then, if you decided to kill someone - the worlds subjective morality would punish you.
BUT I AM NOT WRONG...WHY IS IT ABOUT POPULARITY? Most of the worlds population dont like to drink raw eggs, does that mean the people who do like it are wrong? I really cannot believe you dont get subjectivism.....
Answer this Rostos - how do you reconcile that slavery was totally sanctioned in the bible 5k years ago, but reprehensible now? How does that fit in with absolute morality? I will wait for your direct response.
For starters, slavery was NOT slavery we think of today....Secondly, the world was operating under a theocracy 5000 years ago, do you know what that means? Thirdly, who are you say what is right or wrong about the moral behaviour of someone?
Who makes these rules? I can tell you that you are wrong under my subjective morality. Why cant I do that? I can also judge you to be wrong under societies subjective morality.
SJP beauty is not morality. Please give a relevant example.
How do you reconcile that slavery was totally sanctioned in the bible 5k years ago, but reprehensible now? How does that fit in with absolute morality?
If there is absolute morality, slavery was wrong then AND now, or it was right then AND now.
For starters, slavery was NOT slavery we think of today....Secondly, the world was operating under a theocracy 5000 years ago, do you know what that means? Thirdly, who are you say what is right or wrong about the moral behaviour of someone?
Sorry, missed your response.
Please explain what slavery was in the Bible, as opposed to today.
Even easier - tell me if the slavery in the Bible would be morally just today. Very simple question.
I agree that we could have that conversation. It is entirely possible. Now, isnt this conversation absurd?
But I also have to tell you that your view would be opposed to societies views of subjective morality.
It doesnt matter what society think. Popularity does not dictate what is right or wrong? Are people that like drinking raw eggs wrong? yes or no? The majority of the population dont like it, but are they wrong?
I think you are hung up on the need for "right" and "wrong". Right and wrong are only decided by the subjective morality of society at that given moment in time.
Oh dear oh dear....you keep refering to society and popularity, dont you get it? Look at the example of raw eggs....
Do you understand the concept? If so - we can at least move on to a discussion of the validity rather than the concept itself.
Look at my answers above...Popularity dont deem something right or wrong
Who makes these rules? I can tell you that you are wrong under my subjective morality. Why cant I do that? I can also judge you to be wrong under societies subjective morality.
Yes, you have YORU VIEWS, BUT UNDER ATHEISM, THEY ARE NOT RIGHT OR WRONG. The murder case above proves the example.....
SJP beauty is not morality. Please give a relevant example.
Of course it is.... Subjectivism means PERSONAL PREFERENCE, TASTE...SOme people like SJP but it seems the majority dont.....DOES THAT MEAN the people that do are WRONG?
What about raw eggs? The majority dont like to drink them, but some do, are the minority wrong? You cant judge what is right or wrong by popularity contests.....
You invent the conversation, and then call it absurd. Strange.
There is no absolute right or wrong Rostos. Read that again. So it does matter what society thinks. Society has more power than the individual, so it matters what society thinks about subjective morality.
Your raw eggs example once again is not morality. Please give a relevant example of morality. SJP beauty, and eating raw eggs are not moral issues.
But lets just say that society has made a law that you cant eat raw eggs, because of the subjective morality of that society. You would and could be judged to be in violation of that morality - and punished for it.
For the 10th time, you are hung up on right or wrong. In my position - there is no absolute right or wrong - subjective morality determines right or wrong.
Subjective morality judges what is right and wrong all the time.
Is pot absolutely morally wrong? Society has determined by their subjective morality that it is, and punishes those that dont follow that morality.
So it doesnt matter whether you think society can call a pot user right or wrong - that user can still be punished.
That is subjective morality.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
