If Christ died on the cross for all of humanity

We arent arguing WHAT MORALS should be, that is not in our discussion. This discussion is about CLASSIFYING morals....

Furthermore, Dawkins is contradicting himself...He wants to say absolutes dont exist, but he wants to create them...

Cmon man, i thought you have learnt something by now

Rostos -

POST 4826.

Rostos -

IS MURDER MORALLY WORSE THAN A LIE?

The ONLY ANSWER you have is "Rostos, I DONT AGREE WITH YOU, YOU ARE NEITHER RIGHT OR WRONG, AND I AM NEITHER RIGHT OR WRONG"

You are even disagreeing with the definition provided?

I am going to say this for the last time.  You keep making these strawman statements, and that makes things very tedious.

You are wrong based on my subjective morality.

That is my answer.  Dont tell me my answer is different, stop misquoting me.

Oh dear, really?

Of course you are going to say Objective morality doesnt exist if you presuppose naturlalism...

Objective morals are provided from an objective law giver - GOD

If you presuppose naturalism , then there is no objective law giver. The main proofs arrive from God, but if you dont believe God then you believe morals are subjective....

What a flawed video, because itr is full of pressupositions

Every Christian on earth:

"The bible is up for interpretation, and I know the correct interpretation."

So Vaznack says what is popular opinion determines what is right or wrong....

THE MAJORITY OF THE WORLD BELIEVE IN A HIGHER / SUPREME Being...

Does that mean they are right?

I was pointing out the futility of linking opinion pieces as factual.

You did it, and my response was to prove a point.  I will take it as a point proven.

Rostos -

I have answered and responded to every one of your posts this evening.

I will answer this one when you answer posts 4826 and 4836.

once you answer this, i will answer the others....

Cmon Vaz, the majority or popular belief determines what is right or wrong...The majority of the world believe in a higher being or supreme being, surely they are right?

I cant resist.

You have a real problem with the difference between concepts of facts and concepts of morality.

This is not a morality issue.  Just because you use the word "right or wrong" doesnt make it an issue of morality.  The words right or wrong can be used also to determine factuality such as "water is made up of H2O" is right not wrong.  The statement that water is H2O is not a moral issue.

If the prevailing morality of society deemed that belief in god was mandatory, then I would be seen as wrong by that subjective morality to not believe in god.  Can we get passed these repetitive questions about the concept and move on to validity?  Jeesh.

I will wait.

4826 and 4836

MORALS ARE NOT TANGIBLE , MORALS ARE A SET OF BELIEFS....

BELIEFS ARE BELIEFS........

Man, i give up, i really do.......

You agree that subjectivism is based on personal taste and preference, then i tell you my opinion on Anthony and you say i am wrong......Somehow, you seem to think that the definition of subjectivism CHANGES when it comes to morality, Then i ask you to what standard you have, you then say what is popular......

Seriously mate, everytime i talk to you guys, it just further strengthens my faith in God. Knowing that the other side is just absurd, irrational and full of contradictions....

Even your mate KK ADMITTED that i was right in regards to morality , have a look yourself, i gave him a similar scenario to the one above and he said i was right...At least he is consistent with his answer, you on the other hand, give me a statement, then when we apply it to a real life example you contradict it...

Sorry bud....But honestly i dont think you know what you are talking about, i really dont...

Thats all what you are good at, isnt it? Massive insecurities against Christians and Catholics...

If only Stalina and Pot werent atheists, maybe there would 100 million more people living......

PLEASE ANSWER POSTS 4826 and 4836.

Do you think the question of whether god exists or not is a question of morality?