Atheism's Futility

[ding]

What a child like view of life
You better be good or God is going to send you to eternal suffering

Atheists are good because it is the right thing to do. We don’t need any rewards or punishments

How do you know what is right if there isn’t a moral absolute truth which serves as a standard?

There never was and will never be a moral absolute

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

 

[ding]

Aren't we? The moral lesson is the same whether mature or geared to children

It shows that the same threats and incentives that work on gullible young children work on religious adults

Threats and incentives are common practices in training animals, which you just claimed to be. Ergo ...

Telling isn’t it?
You are nothing but Pavlovs Dog responding to treats

Those without a moral code respond just as Pavlovian to their baser instincts.

Atheists have a moral code
It is based on doing the right thing not doing things because God is watching you

God isn’t watching you per we as much as he is experiencing it with you.

 

[Blues Man]

What a child like view of life
You better be good or God is going to send you to eternal suffering

Atheists are good because it is the right thing to do. We don’t need any rewards or punishments

How do you know what is right if there isn’t a moral absolute truth which serves as a standard?

There never was and will never be a moral absolute

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

What a child like view of life
You better be good or God is going to send you to eternal suffering

Atheists are good because it is the right thing to do. We don’t need any rewards or punishments

How do you know what is right if there isn’t a moral absolute truth which serves as a standard?

There never was and will never be a moral absolute

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

 

[Blues Man]

What a child like view of life
You better be good or God is going to send you to eternal suffering

Atheists are good because it is the right thing to do. We don’t need any rewards or punishments

How do you know what is right if there isn’t a moral absolute truth which serves as a standard?

There never was and will never be a moral absolute

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

How do you know what is right if there isn’t a moral absolute truth which serves as a standard?

There never was and will never be a moral absolute

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you know how standards are discovered?

 

[Blues Man]

There never was and will never be a moral absolute

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you know how standards are discovered?

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

Don’t be silly.

Morals are effectively standards. Standards exist, right? So for any given thing, find the highest possible standard and there’s your moral absolute.

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you know how standards are discovered?

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

 

[Blues Man]

And standards are not now nor have they ever been absolute but rather they change as the people who define them change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you know how standards are discovered?

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[angel1950]

What a child like view of life
You better be good or God is going to send you to eternal suffering

Atheists are good because it is the right thing to do. We don’t need any rewards or punishments

How can a supposed good-compassionate god can condemn anyone to eternal suffering?


Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk Pro

 

[ding]

Standards exist for reasons. Those reason are independent of what we want them to be. In effect they are universal.

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you know how standards are discovered?

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Blues Man]

No they are not because without the people who make the definitions of those standards the standards do not exist

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you know how standards are discovered?

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no absolute morals

Different groups of people different societies different civilizations can and do have different morals and standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[angel1950]

Why does everyone think there has to be a "meaning of life?"

Exactly

You eat, shit, sleep, fuk and eventually die.
Beyond that, you are on your own. You make of it what you choose

Then you rank yourself with the beasts of the planet?

Imo We’re genetically programmed. Freedom is an self deceiving delusion.


Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk Pro

 

[ding]

Do you know how standards are discovered?

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no absolute morals

Different groups of people different societies different civilizations can and do have different morals and standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I explained that already when I wrote...

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

 

[Blues Man]

They are not discovered they are created by people

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no absolute morals

Different groups of people different societies different civilizations can and do have different morals and standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I explained that already when I wrote...

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

If something is absolute there can be no subjectivity by definition



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[edthecynic]

Why not just exploit everything and everyone to our own personal advantage.

Which is exactly what "believers" do while thumping the bible.

 

[ding]

Wrong. They are discovered when they are violated.

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no absolute morals

Different groups of people different societies different civilizations can and do have different morals and standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I explained that already when I wrote...

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

If something is absolute there can be no subjectivity by definition



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong, there is truth and perception of truth.

 

[Blues Man]

If there are no people there are no standards because people create those standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no absolute morals

Different groups of people different societies different civilizations can and do have different morals and standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I explained that already when I wrote...

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

If something is absolute there can be no subjectivity by definition



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong, there is truth and perception of truth.

Perception is reality



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinger]

Why does everyone think there has to be a "meaning of life?"

Exactly

You eat, shit, sleep, fuk and eventually die.
Beyond that, you are on your own. You make of it what you choose

Add: don't be an asshole to others and I think we've got it...

Humans are social creatures. Being an asshole gets you isolated from society

 

[ding]

If there are no people then there is no need for moral standards.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no absolute morals

Different groups of people different societies different civilizations can and do have different morals and standards

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I explained that already when I wrote...

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

If something is absolute there can be no subjectivity by definition



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wrong, there is truth and perception of truth.

Perception is reality



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

100% false.

There is only one reality. There are many perceptions of reality but regardless of what you believe reality is, reality will be what it is.