Keith

So what if his actions were wrong under your moral standards, or most of the world's standards? What does that have to do with the moral rightness/wrongness of what Pol Pot was doing as he commited rape, murder, and genocide?

Who's goal? How do you know what is good or bad? If God doesn't exist, how can you know that "civilization" or any feature of it, can possibly be either "good" or "bad"? Maybe civilization just is.

Pain Paien

Originally posted by Keith:
While I realize this isn't directed at me, I feel the need to comment nonetheless. Are you saying that, when reading the bible (if one is looking for "objective morals") the default assumption for any biblical passage is that it doesn't apply to one's self? Or is it just the passages that you (subjectively) decide you don't like?

It's hypocrisy like this that makes Christianity seem more ridiculous every day.

Keith

You logic has some flaws. God didn't, and can't tell anyone to commit murder. God can't command evil (such as murder), because even God can't act contrary to his own nature. God is Holy.

It is not valid for humans to evaluate the morality of the taking of a human life without reference to God. To do so makes one's "morality" arbitrary and subjective, as I've already shown.

Keith

I'm not going to give you a lecture on how to properly interpret a document. The fact that you realize that there probably IS a correct way to interpret a document is superb evidence that an objective standard of some sort (God) exists. If not, why would anyone plead their own case? Now, if no god exists, then we shouldn't be surprised if everyone's interpretation is equally valid. Where no objective standard exists, no one's view is any more "right" than anyone else's.

Pain Paien

Originally posted by Keith:
So now you've decided the bible doesn't exist? God clearly demands murder (or, more accurately, perhaps "killing") in Leviticus 20:9. Either address this issue or concede you've lost the argument.

Keith

If we humans have objective knowledge of what sorts of things are morally good/evil, then we can have an excellent empirical basis for saying that the bible has empirically proven itself to be true in the area of morality. All of our human experience, laws, and our inherent sense of justice makes it absurd for you to claim that human beings have no knowledge of any objective moral law. Case closed, I win.

Keith

What? Of course it exists. And I have addressed this issue. As you already know, the taking of a human life isn't always murder.

Pain Paien

Originally posted by Keith:
Nor do I wish for one. I was simply asking for an explanation for the egregious leap of reasoning you've committed on the topic of Leviticus 20:9. Which you of course dodged completely. Address it, or you are conceding defeat.

Are you intentionally dodging issues and building straw-men? I never said anything of the sort. I don't think there's a "correct" way to interpret the bible, as I think it's just a nonsensical amalgamation of writings by religious lunatics (and various other misguided folk) so twisted through circulation and [mis]translation that it doesn't contain even the writer's original words. If I believed the bible to contain the actual sentiments of its original writers, I would believe there to be a "correct" interpretation. That's because I believe that the only "correct" interpretation of anything is what the person who created it intended it to mean (or, in the case of writings on morality/philosophy, what one subjectively wishes to gain from it).

Your conclusion that an objective reality equates the existence of a god is another ludicrous leap of logic. Besides that, the only thing that anyone has denied in this thread is objective MORALITY, not reality. At this point I feel the need to remind you that morality is not a tangible thing (and is not by definition a characteristic of the non-human universe).

I can hardly believe someone could ask this seriously. Obviously the reason is because people wish beneficial things for themselves, and (as has been mentioned many times in previous posts on this thread) because humans have empathy and wish the capacity to interact with other humans. If everyone descended into an existentialist abyss, no one would communicate with anyone else.

As for the rest of what you said, in reading it I can only conclude that you've either failed to read Mageth's posts (as well as the posts of many others), or completely failed to comprehend them. The issue of objective standards has been addressed exhaustively. Mageth's solution (repeated in numerous posts) is for societies to reach their own consensus, as this is most beneficial for the members of a society. You have utterly failed to provide any need for an "objective standard" and now act as if you have.

You really, really ought to reread this entire thread, or at least ask questions about the other posters' positions, rather then spending all your time spinning straw-men and dodging issues.

Pain Paien

I've heard this sort of foolishness referred to as "argumentum ad Saddam' (he claims to have one the first gulf war). You've established nothing you claim to, making your "victory" laughable.

Humans DON'T have objective knowledge of moral good and evil. I'll stress this now, and hope it sinks in:
>>THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY DOES NOT EXIST IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS ARGUMENT.<<
That renders the entirity of your post (and, considering the reasons you posted it for, probably your entire argument as well) absurd.

Oh, and since you've failed to address the issue of Leviticus 20:9, you've not only failed to win, you've conceded defeat.

Pain Paien

What a shock, another issue dodge. You have not addressed the issue. The question remains: do you advocate killing rebellious children, or is the bible not the source of objective morality?

I bother asking again because I'd like to give you a chance to redeem your defeat, and actually argue the issues.