All Activity

I don't mean to be snide, but it's not universal until everyone agrees, and I don't think we can get EVERYONE to agree on ANYTHING. So we can get widespread agreement on, say, "murder is wrong." But rape? No, humanity grew into that one. For a long time, women were considered property, and so the rules against rape reflected the belief it was a crime against the property owner: her husband or father. I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Jennifer Love Hewitt is less attractive than Sandra Bernhard. But that doesn't make her OBJECTIVELY more beautiful because no matter how you slice it, beauty is a matter of taste, opinion. I'm saying morality is like that: even if one were to find a universally accepted moral tenet, that would not make it objective.

Objective

Define universal

Oh! Well, shoot! Saw an ad last night during the CWS. It used the same language as WW's description. Apologies. Carry on.

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that there's no such thing as universal moral values?

According to Wikipedia, ESPN launched in 1979. George

Great, NOW he asks the morality questions. I can't win. If there's no eternal soul, there's no afterlife consequence to those actions for the person who commits them.

If we as humans have no eternal soul like the animals, assuming you agree with this, how about the following beliefs? What about Euthanasia? If we with all love and kindness end our pets lives so they no longer suffer, what about letting mom or dad end their lives so they no longer suffer? How about if grandma has been living with a terminal disease that has wracked her body so badly that she no longer has a peaceful moment? Should she be required to suffer for an extended period of time even though she will not get better, only worse? And concerning abortion should a family be required to to bring a human bring into the world that they do not want, for whatever reason? The root of why Euthanasia and abortion not allowed is because of religious beliefs. And as Raf pointed out, now that we have granted our pets eternal life, should we not outlaw Euthanasia and abortion of them on religious grounds also? So if there is no after life no has to be concerned about god punishing us for making dying a bit easier.

ESPN Elvis Presley made his performance debut October 16th, 1954 on a weekly talent showcase. He was signed to a contract to perform on the program every Saturday for $18 a show. Colonel Tom Parker “discovered” Elvis after 18 months of performing and bought his contract for $10,000. What was the name of the radio program or venue?

How much time should we give him? 22 minutes?

But Raf does. Why?

Started a new thread. This chat has nothing to do with morality.

It doesn't. I mean, really, that's the thread. Hitler and Mother Theresa and VPW share the same fate as good people. (That was mean, I know, but the point is the same). One of the criticisms of atheism that resonates is its lack of cosmic justice in the afterlife. People who get away with things in life never have to answer for them. People who did good are not rewarded. Life just ENDS. Most of us have no trouble conceptualizing this for any other animal. Ever step on a bug, accidentally or on purpose, and wonder what happened to its eternal soul? Of course not. It's a bug. Whatever it was that kept it alive is no longer operational. It has ceased to be. It's a stiff. But somehow we think differently of humans and the animals humans love. Pets don't die anymore. Have you noticed that? They "cross the rainbow bridge" now. And people? Well, forget about that. Your soul will not only survive your body's death, but it will be judged and you're getting paid! Well, no. I understand the Bible teaches body, soul and spirit. And I understand TWI worked its tail off distinguishing between soul and spirit to make them mean different things. But here's the thing: Soul is an imaginary concept. It's the name we give to our consciousness to allow us to perceive our bodies dispassionately, but in strictly real terms, there's no such thing as a soul. You have a brain. It works. When it stops working, it stops. All your senses will cease. Whatever "you" are, as a conscious personality, simply ceases to be. You will not be aware of the passage of time because there will BE no YOU to be aware of the passage of time. It's almost impossible to fathom, but there is no evidence to the contrary except that which falls in the category of wishful thinking. I know, it sucks. "You have no hope!" I was told, as if imaginary hope were ANY DIFFERENT from recognizing we get one life each, and there's no epilogue or sequel when it's over. On the bright side, I won't have to listen to hymns on an endless loop for literally ever.

When I get to heaven, gonna have me a cocktail, vodka and ginger ale. Gonna smoke a cigarette that's 9 miles long. Gonna kiss that pretty girl, on the Tilt-A-Whirl, 'cuz this old man is goin' to town..

Well, it's not MTV (that was 1981). It's not football instant replay (1986, though instigated by a blown call against the Oilers in 1979). It's not the Heidi Rule (1968). Reagan was elected, but debates and elections had been televised for decades. jeezIdon't knowthisone. George

This is how I look at nothingness. Prior to being born I was absolutely nothing. And after I die I go back to that state of nothingness. I didn’t suffer prior to being born and will not suffer after my last breath. There is nothing brave about accepting reality. If I truly believed in an after life you can bet I would being doing all the arrive there. Actually I did chase that belief for most of my life. I went down so many rabbit holes trying to be godly it wore me out. Please answer me this. How do you know for a certainty your biblical belief is the correct one getting you into heaven? If your are a RC you get to heaven by being water baptized, attending mass on Sunday and holy days of obligation, confessing your sins to a priest, doing good works, and make certain you do not die with a mortal sin on your soul, because if you do you are assured of going to hell. A Baptist believes you are not saved by works, but by the grace of god. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs? Let’s assume you are a RC and die with no mortal sin on your soul. And when you stand before the judgement seat of god he says, “why haven’t you realized works will not get you into heaven?” Or what happens if god actually believes being a Muslim is the only way to heaven. Or what if god believes you must be a Buddhist to enter the pearly gates? How about you must be a Hutterite or Menonite? It defies logic that of the thousand of religions in the world, you somehow, have come upon the correct one! Let’s say one representative of each of the religions of the world stood side by side and formed a line for miles. And when god appears, he would tap you on the shoulder and say “you have got it right. Welcome to your group. All the rest have got it wrong.” Pretty crazy odds, no?

Theists on social media (and this is not directed at anyone on this page UNLESS the shoe fits) tend to think that the atheist failure to account for "objective moral values" constitutes some kind of gotcha. As if rape and murder and genocide are not really wrong unless they are objectively wrong. That's why you may get tired of me pointing out that there is no such thing as objectively wrong. "Aha! Gotcha! So anything goes, because nothing is wrong, nothing is evil!" That is NOT the point. The point is that subjective moral values form an adequate basis to justify labeling intentional actions as good or evil. In fact, subjective moral values form our ONLY basis for condemning evil! But subjective values are just a matter of opinion. What happens when someone disagrees with you? Good question. When someone disagrees with you, the first thing you do is discuss the foundation of your opinion. Values are subjective (is he tall or short?), but the basis for those values are objective (he's 6 feet tall and wants to be a basketball player or a horse jockey). In most cases (not all) an objective analysis will give you what you need to reach your conclusion, IF you can agree on the standard. In a good v. evil analysis, we can check with our harm-suffering/benefit standard. Is someone hurt by this action? Is there a benefit that outweighs the hurt, making it a mere inconvenience rather than actual damage? But if I am using harm/benefit while you are using God's Word, we're going to have lots more disagreement. Example: I believe it is always wrong and has always been wrong to execute someone for crimes other than murder. That is a subjective value. You can't argue with it. It's my opinion. God's Word teaches that at one time it was right to execute someone for gathering wood on the sabbath. I don't think you can make a moral case for the death penalty in that case no matter how hard you try. "It was another time" implies there was a time when this was okay. And here's the crux of my position: If you hold that God is THE OBJECTIVE source of objective morality, you have NO BASIS to question it. None. At all. Zip. You are forced by necessity to accept ALL his actions as inherently moral, all his commands as inherently "holy, just and good." Even when he's ordering genocides, which (according to the Bible) he does multiple times. Go in and kill them all, including the women and babies! Why, that's outra... no, it's holy, just and good. You have NO BASIS to question it. I do. It is unprovoked. It causes avoidable harm and suffering. Now you have to posit things to make it more palatable: Those babies go straight to heaven, so... Stop right there. If a murdered baby goes straight to heaven, give me a good reason not to murder a baby right now. God says not to? Why not? I'm sending the baby straight to heaven! His parents should THANK me! At some point you are forced to concede that it's wrong for a reason other than "God says it's wrong." God didn't say it was wrong for Israelite soldiers to slaughter babies, so objectively speaking, slaughtering babies cannot be deemed to be an objectively immoral, unjust or evil act. It can only be evil under certain circumstances. But God can command the act into moral acceptability and goodness. It may sound like I'm straw-manning the opposing point of view, but I assure you I am not. WLC writes: Let's be clear: According to WLC, the people most wronged by God's command of a genocide were the soldiers who had to carry it out. Did that make you throw up in your mouth a little? I totally understand why WLC had to resort to such a monstrous statement. By declaring God to be the arbiter of right and wrong, and declaring His actions to be holy, just and good by definition, WLC left himself powerless to exercise his judgment to find these commands morally repugnant. He goes further: But THAT is strawmanning the opposing point of view. On naturalism, there IS A basis for making moral value judgments. The fact that there's no such thing as "objective moral values" does not imply in any way that subjective moral values form an inadequate basis on which to condemn evil. The fact is, I can say it's wrong for Yahweh or ANY OTHER GOD to order a genocide, and a theist cannot. That is a fundamental flaw with the notion of objective moral values. Once you recognize that objective moral values do not and cannot exist (they are an oxymoron), only then can you realize that our moral value systems rest on societal consensus, that reaching that consensus requires reason and argument, and that disagreement will form everything from different friend groups to different nations.

jeezdoiknowTHISone

Are you questioning my right to add (or try to) perspective? This question is rhetorical. Does not need to be answered.

No. I corrected your mistake. You referred to Wierwille's Birth Certificate. That's incorrect. The post in question actually referred to his DEATH certificate. It matters to me when materially incorrect posts need to be corrected in order to avoid significant misunderstandings.

Thank you. If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

Possessed... that's what we all thought. (I was 17 years old.) It was a horrible experience for all of us to watch... so glad you are well now!

I don't get that it's comforting but I think you are brave. I can't imagine an eternity of nothingness, or even worse an eternity of torture. Both scare the hell out of me.

Got it, thanks. I hope the logistics of this discussion works to help improve mental clarity.

OK, this is probably too easy, but I'll give it a shot. In 1980, something happened in US television. It made world history one way, and it made US history in that way (obviously) and in another. In its own way, it changed television around the world, and that way still applies to this very day. What happened? By they way, cable TV had already existed, so it's not "cable TV was founded."