The true believe of atheists: Everlasting death and no punishment for sins!

[Taz]

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

 

[Vandalshandle]

So what exactly do you consider a sin?

Sin is violation of God's Law written in the Holy Bible

Those are somebody else's definition of sins. Do you just accept them without question?

Sin is sin!
The Holy Bible does not know hippie-dippie faggot commies and their misinterpretations of the God's Law

"...hippie-dippie faggot commie...". I kind of like that! It's catchy! I can see it as a song title or bumper sticker.....

 

[ding]

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

[Taz]

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

 

[ding]

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

 

[Taz]

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

 

[ding]

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

 

[Taz]

So what are these absolute standards? Where did you find them?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

 

[ding]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

 

[Taz]

TOTALLY subjective. Everyone would want to be treated differently. You fail.

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

 

[ding]

Not surprisingly, no.

People are quite good at recognizing wrong when it is done to them. They are not so good at recognizing wrong when they do it to others.

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

 

[Taz]

So then it's subjective. Maybe you need to buy a dictionary.

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

 

[ding]

No. Man’s perception of the standard is subjective. The standard just is.

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

 

[Taz]

A bullet blowing half your head off is a standard that's not subjective. Is that what you're getting at?

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

For a lot of people, there are no consequences to cheating. Even you should know that.

 

[ding]

Not really that’s a physical law of nature.

More like you make a vow of fidelity and break it and then rationalize that it wasn’t wrong. The standard would be keeping the vow. The subjectivity would be rationalizing it wasn’t wrong to break it. The standard is objective. The rationalization is subjective.

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

For a lot of people, there are no consequences to cheating. Even you should know that.

I already addressed that. Do you want me to repeat it again for you.

 

[Taz]

That standard doesn't apply to everyone, some people think it's ok to cheat.

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

For a lot of people, there are no consequences to cheating. Even you should know that.

I already addressed that. Do you want me to repeat it again for you.

There isn’t a consequence to cheat for everyone. So not a standard.

 

[ding]

And they will suffer the consequences from violating the standard. Which is how the reason the standard exists makes itself known.

But you are proving my point, it’s not the standard that is subjective it is the human perception of the standard which is subjective. The standard just is.

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

For a lot of people, there are no consequences to cheating. Even you should know that.

I already addressed that. Do you want me to repeat it again for you.

There isn’t a consequence to cheat for everyone. So not a standard.

Let me highlight the relevant parts so you can see the big picture.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

This is nuts. There is ZERO proof of God. Faith is not based on Fact. Enough!

 

[Taz]

Some people thinks it's ok to cheat, that you don't doesn't make it a universal standard.

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

For a lot of people, there are no consequences to cheating. Even you should know that.

I already addressed that. Do you want me to repeat it again for you.

There isn’t a consequence to cheat for everyone. So not a standard.

Let me highlight the relevant parts so you can see the big picture.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Cheating isn’t seen as wrong by everyone, so no moral standard there.

 

[ding]

Again, that is the subjectivity of humans. Consequences aren’t subjective. Consequences, like standards, just are.

For a lot of people, there are no consequences to cheating. Even you should know that.

I already addressed that. Do you want me to repeat it again for you.

There isn’t a consequence to cheat for everyone. So not a standard.

Let me highlight the relevant parts so you can see the big picture.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.


So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.


Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.


If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Cheating isn’t seen as wrong by everyone, so no moral standard there.

Again, that is due to man’s subjectivity. Not the standard itself.