Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[Blues Man]

So then you know that the Roman Empire never abolished slavery and that the end of slavery in the Roman Empire was not because the people there had some moral epiphany but rather for more mundane reasons.

The Romans expanded past their limits of effective governance and when the transition was made from expansion to defense of their borders from the growing number of enemies the influx of slaves and thus the slave trade dried up and it became more and more expensive to acquire slaves. That couple with a failing economy made it less expensive to hire cheap labor than to own slaves.

But you knew that right?

And the enslaved thought that involuntary servitude was good?! The enslavers did not use initial, overwhelming force to enslave them? The enslavers yearned to be the enslaved themselves because slavery was good? The enslavers were unaware of the threat, i.e., were not fearful of the consequences should they ever lose the upper hand?

They didn't need any moral epiphany to the know the truth. The enslavers understood the reality of their tyranny alright, and it all came crashing down.

the argument was that people realized slavery was wrong and then abolished it.

That did not happen in Rome there was no abolishment of slavery for moral reasons.

In fact there were 3 major slave rebellions in Rome and even those did not motivate the people of Rome to end slavery.

And just because we as humans have changed our minds regarding slavery that in no way proves that some absolute standard of moral exists apart from the human mind

I see that once again you disregard the moral ramifications of my questions.

Slavery in Rome was not abolished for moral reasons.

And you cannot with any certainty say what anyone felt in Roman times

 

[Blues Man]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight.​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

The standard does change.

It's not wrong to kill if the government tells you to kill

It's not wrong to kill if the state executes a prisoner

etc.

These are not examples of some absolute morality that you say exists but of a moral framework that changes.

You have offered no proof that some outside force created a universal code and that code is what causes humans to make judgement on behaviors.

I have offered a very reasonable map of how morals have developed in human society and how these morals are human concepts formed via human intellect.

 

[Ringtone]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

 

[Blues Man]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

 

[Ringtone]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight.​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

The standard does change.

It's not wrong to kill if the government tells you to kill

It's not wrong to kill if the state executes a prisoner

etc.

These are not examples of some absolute morality that you say exists but of a moral framework that changes.

You have offered no proof that some outside force created a universal code and that code is what causes humans to make judgement on behaviors.

I have offered a very reasonable map of how morals have developed in human society and how these morals are human concepts formed via human intellect.

Please go to this post of yours: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE
Copy and pate it as a reply to this post of mine: Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE
Then delete the duplicate above mine. This is so we don't confuse anyone as my post to which you responded is now above your response. I accidently duplicated mine while editing it and deleted the wrong duplicate.

 

[Ringtone]

The standard does change.

Nonsense. Your latest post underscores the lie that the universally objective standard of morality = the shifting societal norms and mores in history. You know that's not true.

It's not wrong to kill if the government tells you to kill.

Nonsense. No government may legitimately murder anyone, and you know why that's true.

These are not examples of some absolute morality that you say exists but of a moral framework that changes.

Correct. They are examples of your obfuscations relative to the incontrovertible distinction between justice and injustice.

You have offered no proof that some outside force created a universal code and that code is what causes humans to make judgement on behaviors.

Wrong. Neither ding nor I ever claimed any such stupid thing, i.e., "that some outside force created a universal code" of morality, and you keep claiming that no universally objective standard of morality exists without providing any justification for your ontological claim.

I have offered a very reasonable map of how morals have developed in human society and how these morals are human concepts formed via human intellect.

You've done no such thing. All you keep doing is repeating your ontologically unjustified claim, as you conflate the universally objective standard of morality and the shifting societal norms and mores of history, incessantly disregard the attending concepts of the standard, and lie about the actual thrust of the arguments which incontrovertibly demonstrate its existence.

 

[Ringtone]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

 

[Hollie]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of your nonsense claim about some "universally objective standard of morality", I think it's comical that you fail to identify, demonstrate or make any rational case for such a thing.

#Losing... in rather dramatic fashion.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

.
those laws have no bearing on the formation of physiology or in particular its spiritual content.

 

[Ringtone]

.

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

.
those laws have no bearing on the formation of physiology or in particular its spiritual content.

Whatever you say, brahma.

 

[Blues Man]

The standard does change.

Nonsense. Your latest post underscores the lie that the universally objective standard of morality = the shifting societal norms and mores in history. You know that's not true.

It's not wrong to kill if the government tells you to kill.

Nonsense. No government may legitimately murder anyone, and you know why that's true.

These are not examples of some absolute morality that you say exists but of a moral framework that changes.

Correct. They are examples of your obfuscations relative to the incontrovertible distinction between justice and injustice.

You have offered no proof that some outside force created a universal code and that code is what causes humans to make judgement on behaviors.

Wrong. Neither ding nor I ever claimed any such stupid thing, i.e., "that some outside force created a universal code" of morality, and you keep claiming that no universally objective standard of morality exists without providing any justification for your ontological claim.

I have offered a very reasonable map of how morals have developed in human society and how these morals are human concepts formed via human intellect.

You've done no such thing. All you keep doing is repeating your ontologically unjustified claim, as you conflate the universally objective standard of morality and the shifting societal norms and mores of history, incessantly disregard the attending concepts of the standard, and lie about the actual thrust of the arguments which incontrovertibly demonstrate its existence.

I said kill not murder. So at least stop making up quotes

And if you argue there is an absolute moral code based on logic that was discovered and not invented by man then there has to be some absolute authority that established those rules of logic and therefore morals.

There cannot be a universal standard unless there is a universal authority that set that standard. There isn't one.

Logic and morals arose from man's intellect when that intellect was developed enough to anticipate possible outcomes resulting from behaviors, and to make value judgements on the desirability of those outcomes.

 

[Blues Man]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

.
those laws have no bearing on the formation of physiology or in particular its spiritual content.

Whatever you say, brahma.

.

Whatever you say, brahma.

.
you do realize the argument you are making for a moral persuasion is incompatible with your dependency, 4th century messiah religion you expect as the solution for your problems being solved for you through reading a book and worshiping an idol rather than the fulfillment of your own works, moral endeavors to free your spirit.

a book of forgeries and fallacies. good luck.

 

[Ringtone]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

My bad, Gautama.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

My bad, Gautama.

.

.

My bad, Gautama.

.
the winner, morals need not apply to the christian ... being sorry (for whatever) is the extent of their life's pursuit - remaining hopeless sinners till the end.

 

[Ringtone]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

Horse pucky. You know God exists, just like you know that you necessarily and inescapably presuppose an absolute standard of logic and morality every time you open your mouth to assert anything at all.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .​

 

[Blues Man]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

Horse pucky. You know God exists, just like you know that you necessarily and inescapably presuppose an absolute standard of logic and morality every time you open your mouth to assert anything at all.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .​

Don't tell me what I know or don't know.

I have no proof any gods exist and what's more I don't care if any exist.

 

[Ringtone]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

Horse pucky. You know God exists, just like you know that you necessarily and inescapably presuppose an absolute standard of logic and morality every time you open your mouth to assert anything at all.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .​

Don't tell me what I know or don't know.

I have no proof any gods exist and what's more I don't care if any exist.

I see right through you.

 

[Blues Man]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

Horse pucky. You know God exists, just like you know that you necessarily and inescapably presuppose an absolute standard of logic and morality every time you open your mouth to assert anything at all.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .​

Don't tell me what I know or don't know.

I have no proof any gods exist and what's more I don't care if any exist.

I see right through you.

You con't see me at all

 

[BreezeWood]

I never used the terms murder or homicide. I said killing.

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative

We have no absolute moral code regarding killing. It is different in different situations. It is changeable. An absolute code cannot be different in different situations by definition.

And a person can indeed objectively analyze his actions. In fact the only thing people can control is there reactions to external events.

You're lying, and you know you're lying. We're both conscious of the fact that my prior questions go directly to our awareness of the extant, universally objective standard of morality. You consciously pretend not to understand that human beings presuppose that standard as they extrapolate the proper outcome from the circumstances of any given situation.

The standard never changes!

Everyone knows that it's evil to violate the life or liberty or property of another, as everyone knows that they would not wish for another to violate their life or liberty or property. Even the apathetic ghouls of sociopathy know that a desperate state of fight or flee ensues on the heels of an injustice.

The only things that vary are the circumstances of the situation, and the only thing that sustains the precarious state of an injustice is overwhelming force.

We both know there's really no reason to go through your morally obtuse situational propositions as the outcomes relative to the standard are the same, and the only reason you consciously evade the attending concepts of the standard—justice, injustice, right, wrong, good, evil, murder, theft, tyranny and the like—is because you apprehend the futility of your argument and the obfuscations thereof.

Special treatment:

And you just admitted that society is the force behind what does and does not constitute moral behavior which is what I have been saying all along. Morals change as society changes therefore morals are relative.

Another lie. Once again, the distinction I made and you pretend not to understand:

I never said you denied the existence of societal norms and mores (laws), to which you're actually alluding in this instance.​

​

You claimed that moral absolutes do not exist above the shifting norms and mores of human societies in history. That's a moral claim of ontological origin, and you ascribe the origin of morality itself to humans sans any justification anywhere in sight. —Ringtone​

The universally objective standard of morality stands and stays! Chattel slavery, for example, is evil, the shifting norms and mores of any given society in history notwithstanding!

Further, the foundation of morality is logic, which ontologically and historically precedes the existence of mankind. Injustice ≠ justice anymore than a tree = a dinosaur.

There are no moral absolutes as our morals have changed over time. I have given plenty of examples to show that.


And slavery is only evil if the people say it's evil like any other behavior.

In fact the very concept of evil is nothing but a human construct.

The only moral standards that exist are the one we humans have established.

And logic is nothing but another human creation. Logic as we know it is the result of human beings pondering their own reasoning in an attempt to better the quality of their own thinking. Only when a person has developed an intellect capable of such introspection is such a thing possible.

More of the same bullshit sans an ontological justification anywhere in sight, and I suspect, from your slippering disregard for the actual thrust of my argument and the attending concepts thereof, that the reason you will not attempt to justify this bullshit is because you're at least smart enough to recognize the fact that you would necessarily have to assert that God doesn't exist, which of course is an ontologically, scientifically and logically indemonstrable claim fraught with inherent contradictions.

In any event, the universally objective standard of morality, the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic ontologically precede and have primacy over the existence of the physical world and human consciousness. That is self-evident.

#Winning

I don't believe any gods exist.

and here we will always be at an impasse.

You are appealing to the authority of the god you believe in. I do not recognize such an authority.

So at this point we are wasting each other's time.

Horse pucky. You know God exists, just like you know that you necessarily and inescapably presuppose an absolute standard of logic and morality every time you open your mouth to assert anything at all.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. . . .​

Don't tell me what I know or don't know.

I have no proof any gods exist and what's more I don't care if any exist.

I see right through you.

.

I see right through you.

.
is that your christianity that is enabling you ... or your sidekick - bing.